161

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"

« on: November 04, 2020, 03:45:29 AM »

@fisherman

You don't seem to be following.

Natural law MUST be established by (and IS) rigorous and repeated measurement.  This is a hard requirement in science

There is no way around this point.  The equations were changed without validation - this is unacceptable/unscientific and likely scientific fraud to boot.  Natural law stands until refuted by contrary measurement.  No contrary measurement (measurement of the presumed/calculated curvature unscientifically/illegitimately injected into the equations) exists, has existed in the past, or likely will in the future (as it would be a violation of existing hydrostatic law, unchallenged for centuries).  The equations you are referencing are unscientific and bunk.

162

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Water is always level?

« on: November 04, 2020, 03:35:30 AM »

@fisherman

Iceman said,

In FET, 'level' and 'flat' are presented as synonyms.

but this isn't quite right.

Level and horizontal are the synonyms. Level and horizontal are only ever flat (sort of a square / rectangle relationship).  These are facts, and they have no refutation - regardless of perspective on the shape of the world.  If you disagree, please provide any demonstration of your belief that level and horizontal can differ.  NOT an explanation - a demonstration!

163

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Inquiries about Flat Earth theory of the firmament.

« on: November 04, 2020, 03:12:02 AM »

@GoldCashew

Is the belief of a Firmement a mainstream belief within TFES, a kind of 50/50 split belief within TFES, or a fringe belief within TFES?

Personally, I eschew belief from knowledge/fact, especially scientific.

I don't know the tfes "stats", but it has been my experience that many, possibly even most, believe, speculate, and/or deduce the existence of a dome.  There is also historical, cartographical, and mythological support for its reality.

what are the specifics behind its composition, material properties, and thickness. I have seen one FE'er describe the material as a glass dome, but not sure if that's the generally accepted belief.

No one knows.  A major source for the descriptions you seek is the bible, which describes it as a "dark crystal" of some sort of terrible hue.  It is also described as "tent like".

Some say that disney (their logo/intro silhouette - supposedly depicting the tower of babel peeking through the firmament) and the modern/recent atlantis conceptions are more appropriate/conceivable. 

Others talk about skystone - a mysterious and entrancing blue oxygen laden mineral that is very odd indeed. The locals attributed to the first find of it supposedly claimed the stones were part of a fallen city that floated above which fell due to hubris. All speculation of course.

How thick would such a Firmamemt need to be?

How much wood could a wood chuck chuck? There are too many unknowns and unknowables to justify bothering to calculate it at all.

How is the firmament dome connected to the flat Earth plane?

The bible says it is on pillars, possibly 4 of them - corresponding to the 4 corners.  No one knows for sure - we need more data!

Have Firmaments been observed on other celestial bodies?

Not to my knowledge.  There is a logical error in thinking the lights in the sky have any relevance to the shape or composition of the earth.  If you want to know something about the earth, you have to study IT! Looking the literal opposite direction is unscientific and foolish.

@Longitube & others

The density gradient of air we observe is chiefly due to the weight, an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter, of the gas.  Yes, it occurs in sealed containers AND gas pressure is, fundamentally, always derived from the container walls.  We can easily deduce that, IF there is an infinite sky vacuum above our heads (and even if there is not, just having constant air pressure at all necessarily involves containment), then there must be a barrier for us to have relatively static air pressure for aeons.

Deductions are often wrong, and I personally would like to see expeditions settle the matter.

@Tron1002

Have you heard of/seen skystone? It is bright blue due to its high oxygen content, and wouldn't you know it - ozone (and oxygen) is blue too for the same reason!  They may possibly be related.  Do you know the legends about operation fishbowl, and the first pixar short?

164

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"

« on: November 04, 2020, 02:04:01 AM »

@fisherman

I have seen the rainy lake "experiment"/observation and I find that the methodology is flawed AND that it does not involve measuring water.

Its disingenuous to invoke hydrostatic law in your argument, when hydrostatics specifically account for the influence of gravity.

The equations were surreptitiously changed without validation/measurement.  This is unscientific and most likely scientific fraud as well.  Natural law MUST be established by (and IS) rigorous and repeated measurement.  This is a hard requirement in science - as it always has been - and is non-negotiable.

@ronj

We'll have to go into that further in another thread, I think.  It is intriguing!

@RhesusVX

However, where it all starts to fall down for me is the reference to historical and/or mythological sources.

That stuff is just gravy.  The meat is scientific observation and analysis.  A strictly objective scientific (and/or zetetic, perhaps) approach is the most efficient way to study this subject.  It's that objectivity and the many incorrect definitions taught of science, scientific method, and experiment that make that so challenging.

165

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"

« on: November 04, 2020, 01:24:31 AM »

@james38

I enjoy reading it and find a lot of what you are saying agreeable.

I'm glad you feel that way!

like Wittgenstein said

All I really know about him is he was a beery swine. Did I miss a good one?

We still should attempt to agree on working definitions for words.

I agree that is critical for effective communication (or at least the shot at it).

I say "My beliefs are determined by my knowledge/facts".

And I say as a (scientific?) researcher you should know better than to believe anything (especially that you can't prove/demonstrate)!  I appreciate that your colloquial (mis)use was intentional and is commonplace.  I feel strongly that the word belief not be corrupted/eroded.  It has a distinct meaning and turning it into a synonym for "knowledge"/"perspective"/"view"  is indefensible.  I have found that the verbiage of belief is best left relegated to mythology/religion - in this discussion and outside of it.

but that the conversation becomes convoluted and off-topic if we push our own exact definitions of words.

I find the issue central to the topic, and shared definitions are critical.  The verbiage of belief is often invoked unbeknownst to the speaker, and I find this commonplace, meaningful, and often earnest - even when it is not explicitly/consciously intended that way.  I try to avoid being a pedant whenever possible - I earnestly feel this point is important and noteworthy.

If I understand correctly, you mean the scientific method

I do not! The scientific method has no use in determining the shape of material things. Only rigorous and repeated measurement can determine an objects shape with certainty.

I'll backtrack and just say I don't think he's relevant or plays a role in my belief in the world's shape.

Again I am compelled, for demonstration - ideally, to point out the verbiage of belief where it does not belong.  Although I do know how you meant this, the statement is true, earnest, and valid in more ways than I suspect you realize.  Pythagoras had a LOT to do with your BELIEF in the worlds shape.

but that doesn't mean we don't have evidence today.

Absolutely! However, much of that evidence, today as always - hails from the ancient greeks!

To be honest, on a philosophical level I think we are mostly on the same page.

It does seem that way! This is encouraging.

What do you think about south pole, like the literal one that people can visit as well as the scientific research labs scattered around Antarctica?

I know that the token barbershop pole is only for the tourists.

I am not convinced there is a "south pole" at all.  The earth could be more like a ring magnet, and have a south pole that encircles the north.

I don't have much doubt that there are research and military bases there.  Herzog wouldn't straight up lie to me like that.

But let's focus on the evidence...

And the distinct lack thereof - depending!

Believing in "the conspiracy" (faked space expeditions) seems less absurd to me than it used to!

I have found that an objective evaluation of the evidence leads to one obvious conclusion. It's that objectivity that is the tricky bit. When validating a claim/evidence subjectively with presumptive bias, as a "debunker" does - for instance, you will essentially always be able to "discover" the "explanation". Cognitive dissonance all but assures it.

Do you deny this?

Firstly, radiometric dating methods, essentially, do not work.  You cannot date a rock by itself.  The most reliable dating method in archeology is pottery.

From what little independent testing has been done on "moonrocks" we can and have easily determined they are terrestrial in origin and composition (and in one of the nordic countries, the one given to them by an apollo astronot personally, it turned out to be petrified wood)

There is a real possibility that the moon is not tangible/physical, and almost certainly not made of rock.

1. "space" violates natural laws: please be more specific

Absolutely.  Chief among them are the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the fundamental behavior of gas.  Nature abhors a vacuum, and the notion that there is one of, effectively, infinite size above our heads is both offensively stupid and unscientific.  Nequaquam vacuum.

2. notable whistleblowers/critics wound up murdered: who?

It's in the wiki! Perhaps the best well known is thomas baron, who is in the wiki.

3. faked footage: show me?

Perhaps the most quintessential/obvious is the rat on "mars".  Let me know if you have trouble finding it!

It's interesting hearing your biases.

My biases were what led me to be fooled that the footage on the tv was genuine.  It is through the identification and eradication of biases that we make progress in this subject and in seeing the world as it is!

In my opinion, these views are extreme. I'll leave it at that.

Recognizing that governments and militaries routinely lie to their people (and some of the reasons why) is hardly a radical view.  It is a basic historical and contemporary fact, which most people know and accept. Further recognizing that corporations/industry does the same thing for the same reason does not take a rocket scientist, nor any sort of "extremism".

I'm intrigued by the convex experiments you've been talking about.

I was talking about measurements, not experiments.  Experiment is not an ordinary word, it is technical vernacular with a rigorous and inflexible definition.  An experiment is a test that validates or invalidates (or neither) a hypothesis by establishing, ideally, a causal link between the IV/hypothesized cause and DV/hypothesized effect.  Nothing else is an experiment.  Mere observations are never experiments, and students are mistaught in his regard (the cavendish, eratosthenes, bedford level "experiments" are all just observations)

Why is this?

I suspect because it is a distraction, but this is a question for the wiki authors.  I do not claim that it is perfect, but considering how difficult it is to consolidate all the disparate and often conflicting views of individual (largely) researchers AND keep it intelligible/consumable is no small feat! I am very impressed with it and look forward to its continued refinement - of which your discovery may be a part.

So do you see your frozen lake experiment as being a continuation of these studies?

Absolutely (though it is in no way an experiment, nor is it mine), and the frozen lake is significantly superior to other locales.  Remove the uncertainty of atmospheric/optical effects by changing methods and one might argue they had "proof" that the globe is fantasy.

And do the articles I linked above perhaps miss any other experiments that have been conducted since then?

Of course. Some that spring to mind are the rectilineator (for measuring straight against level) and various contemporary observations by independent researchers.  Measuring the presumed curvature of water has never been done by anyone, ever - and this is significant in empirical science - which requires measurement....

P.S.

I see that I am behind in my responses!  Please have patience, I will respond as I can.

166

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"

« on: October 28, 2020, 05:40:39 PM »

Absolutely!  Please don't be shy about questions!

The MIC is an acronym first coined/popularized by eisenhower in his televised farewell address.

It stands for military industrial complex.  It will take you quite some time to research it thoroughly, but it is very important to understand and well worth the effort required.  Please let me know if you have any specific questions about it!

167

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"

« on: October 25, 2020, 03:14:15 PM »

@james38

A few more thoughts that I realized I didn't express, but feel they are important :

I can simply use the inverse of your convex hypothesis! If the convex were measured as 0, I would reject the globe earth theory.

It has been measured as 0, effectively, every time water at rest has ever been measured in the history of humanity.  Rejoice! You have your data already.  Also, while this is a fine position for the "average joe" you are describing an unacceptable (and unscientific) position for an empirical scientist.  We do not get to believe/declare as true something we have no validation for in science.  It remains in the realm of unvalidated suspicion/speculation (at absolute best) and mythology/religion (toward the other end of the spectrum) until it is established as real by empirical science.  It is all well and good to speculate that the earth is spherical and the oceans curve at rest - however without extraordinary evidence to support the extraordinary claim - this baseless claim is merely that.

I agree we can ignore calculations of convex as evidence for globe earth thoery since that's obviously circular reasoning. We need real measurements. not calculations.

I am so glad you said (and understand) both of these things.  The vast majority involved in this discussion do not.

Now suppose NHWA (National Hydronautics and Water Administration) goes and conducts this test... I think you see where I am going with this. What would stop you from just disbelieving those scientists?

Nothing!  Though because science requires no (and is hindered by) trust, it isn't relevant.  My guideline is, trust - but verify.  If their findings can't, won't and/or have not been repeated independently - they aren't science at all.  In my opinion you are thinking along the right lines here, and measurement of that curve (or distinct lack thereof, which all measurements that exist have well established and galvanized into hydrostatic law - unchallenged for centuries) is the best way forward.  I recommend performing the observations/measurements on a large lake that was, ideally, frozen under mostly still conditions.  You would not be the first to conduct such measurements, nor should you be the last.  There is no substitute for real knowledge that only rigorous and validated experience can provide.

I think your disbelief in NASA is, in fact, the most foundational and unifying proposition in your camp.

It is a common and defensible view, however it is not really required to be wrong about the shape of the world.  I say that for the purposes of scientific discussion, irreproducible "science" with no oversight - like the footage we receive from NASA et al is not admissible in the discussion on those grounds alone.  Speculation (and even evidence) as to hoaxes/fraud and the rest of it are tangential and not central to the topic.

Yes yes yes, we can!

No, we most certainly can not.  Let's say the picture is valid and real.  Perhaps (pictures can never serve as the sole evidence/proof - but hypothetically speaking...), merely with that one picture, we have established that antarctica is not a ring that encircles the world (which was merely a speculation anyway) - but we have a LOT more world to cover in order to establish the shape of the entire thing! Right?

The only possible way that this picture exists at the same time as the earth not being a globe is if the picture is a hoax.

Whenever you catch yourself, or anyone else, talking about how no other interpretation of the data/phenomenon is possible (or anything is impossible, really) - you are most likely suffering from bias and a lack of imagination.  It is all to do with arthur c clarke's first law.  The picture could indeed be quite real, the world could still be flat, and antarctica is just not a ring that encircles the world!  There is almost never only one possible explanation, at least in potentia.

But tell me how this is falsifiable

Trust is a funny thing.  You can spend a lifetime building it, and then in one mistake/f*up/violation of it and "poof" - up it goes.  The entity of NASA had full trust, the way only hubris and nationalistic pride could ever assure and deliver.  They violated it repeatedly. The trust was theirs to lose - and they lost the absolute hell out of it.  This is of course, all a matter of historical record - though there are contemporary examples as well.

I recognize, as you most likely do, that it is a one way ticket - and this isn't really right.  Trust is very hard to build, but once violated it is almost impossible to restore.  Even the mere accusation of violating trust (no smoke without fire, or so the gullible meat puppets believe) is enough to ruin/tarnish most people forever.  This is not a scientific aspect or assessment however, as trust plays no role in science except detriment.  Nasa, largely, doesn't practice science, and it has no science to share.  They are merely a production company that makes propagandist footage and spectacle, but I do not expect and do not want you to take my word, nor any others, on this.  Nothing can be accepted, regardless of source, without adequate validation first!

168

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"

« on: October 25, 2020, 06:57:16 AM »

@james38

Part 2 of 2

NASA hands you the greatest evidence of all time that you could ever dream of in answering the age-old question of the shape of our world

If you accept the presumptive narrative, then yes.  Not only are they the ones to hand it to us, they are the only ones in the history of humanity that have ever done so AND are the only ones today that can do the same (along with their MIC affiliates, of course).  The earth being spherical was disingenuously/erroneously taught to students as validated fact for millennia before they were the first to validate it in the 50's-60's - again, IF you subscribe to the presumptive narrative required in school without dissent.

And given that evidence, you call them liars and choose to believe the opposite of what your eyes see.

Once again, I am rubber and you are glue.  The "evidence" that you are talking about ONLY exists on tv.  What my eyes see, and yours - is the same, and it is not a spherical world.  That's why they have to get us so young you see.  The globe must be "explained" to us early and often, and it isn't organically divined from the senses.  It is not consistent with what we observe, and the things we are taught ARE evidence for it do not bear scrutiny.  They were designed only for fooling/convincing children.

it's unfalsifiable once you choose to selectively disbelieve certain evidence.

Not really, we are really only talking about the 1 evidence.  The footage from nasa et al.  Surely the posit/theory that the globe is real is "concrete" enough to discard that one source and still have plenty of evidence/validation - right?

How exactly do the laws of hydrostatics help in forming hypotheses related to the two theories? Have these hypotheses been tested?

I mentioned that very same concern above!  Without that rock-solid established linkage between them, there is no necessary relevance/pertinence to the results of testing the hypothesis on the greater theory.

First, not to be pedantic - but natural law is established solely by rigorous and repeated measurement in science.  Nothing more.  No hypothesis, no nothing.  We know about this natural law by measuring and observing water's behavior at rest, repeatedly over the past several hundred years.  It is still readily demonstrable today as it always was - use any apparatus you like (just make sure it measures the damn water!) - and because there exists no measurement to refute the law - it stands today as it has for centuries.

In order for the posit of the earth being spherical, waters surface MUST curve in an eternally sustained convex curvature at rest as required by the globe model (and calculated / defined within it).  It is all well and good to say something happens, and you're like - totally sure about it - but in science we require validation and in this case that can only come from direct measurement that does not exist and, if it did, would contradict a known and readily demonstrable scientific law.

I'm afraid our conversation is inflating a lot, so please don't feel pressure to respond to every single one of my points. I hope all the fluff is useful to help us get acquainted at least   I'll give you my top 3 questions/arguments, and then maybe you can do the same for me

.

Cool.  Good things take time.  Yes, I think fluff and acquaintance is valuable in this context.

1) What is your proof that NASA lied?
2) Can you explain in more depth about the hydrostatics?
3) If NASA was able to pull off the greatest scientific hoax of all time with such great success, how can we ever believe what any scientific organization ever tells us again?

1.  I would recommend starting with the wiki, as it provides a good overview.  The evidences that I find most compelling (which we will likely need to discuss further to fully convey) are the fact that "the infinite sky vacuum above our heads"/"space" writ-large is a violation of several obvious and steadfast natural laws, the notable whistleblowers/critics that wound up murdered, and the copious amounts of faked footage.
2.  Yes!  Do I need to?  I am most happy to answer any specific question you may have (if I can) and there is a lot to talk about!  Roughly in order for the world to be potentially spherical, and the shape and composition we believe and have mapped - the surface of oceans and other large bodies of water at rest must curve in a sustained convex shape that has never been measured and doing so would violate a natural law that has stood unchallenged for centuries.  The mere fact that this measurement does not exist should seriously concern/worry any empirical scientist worth their salt.
3.  My suggestion - trust, but verify! Irreproducible "science" is not science at all.  In any case, NASA is not really a scientific organization, they just play one on tv. It is a MIC organization.

I'll have to give more thought to specific questions/comments to respond with, I'm spent for now!

169

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"

« on: October 25, 2020, 06:56:08 AM »

@james38

Part 1 of 2

You are inclined to believe one proposition and I am inclined to believe a contradictory one.

It is true that we are both products of our cultures/raising and both suffering from delusion euphemistically referred to as "bias" (and worse). I must reiterate that I endeavor diligently to eschew belief from all knowledge/fact, most especially scientific.  I do not believe the things I say, I seek to know instead of merely believe.  The claims I make are validated as correct and supported through and by research, and do not rely upon belief.  This stands in stark contrast to the vast majority of "educated" which are required as a dogma of their faith to believe the earth is a particular shape (usually "spherical", but increasingly "flat" and other shapes).  Whenever someone, including yourself, uses the verbiage of belief - your ears ought perk up.  Many, if not most, people are not explicitly aware of the beliefs they have that are masquerading as facts/knowledge/science and this can often be exposed/betrayed to us by their diction.

I would say that we are 2 people with differing views engaged in conversation / rational discourse in the, ideally, mutual and earnest pursuit of truth (and failing that lofty goal, just plain knowledge will suffice). 

And the focus of the conversation is which one is more likely true. That's all I mean by "debate" .. no judges, audience, or egos necessary!

Most excellent. I'm game! However, it is important to remember that no amount of discussion (nor assessment of "likelihood") will (or could) ever determine the shape of the world. There is only one way to do that.

Don't associate the word with political debates

I do recognize that there is no debate more farcical and unstructured than political "debate" - perhaps most especially in the US, however all debate is merely a game in my view.  It has no purpose beyond pageantry/marketing.  It is in no way a part of science or the scientific method, it is a part of marketing it.  Debate serves no role in determining what is or is not in manifest physical reality - that is what science is for! I am aware that the egotists in science enjoy the game, and that bohr absolutely destroyed einstein - but this is as meaningless and stupid as any other pageantry - football or any other sport, for instance.  It has an impact on science, as does "consensus", but these are clear and obvious corruptions.

We still call them "scientific debates".

True.  This distracts from their true purpose - marketing/persuasion/manipulation.  Science is not progressed or practiced with debate.  Debate is not a step in the scientific method.  Rigorous, or perhaps even heated, discussion that leads to meaningful hypothesis that can be experimentally validated on the other hand is not debate.  Debate has formal rules, like all games.  Scientific discourse, contentious/heated or not, should not be referred to as debate.

The only thing I know is that I know nothing" is a great starting point for us.

I'm glad you brought that up! This subject has a lot to do with the greeks.

This is a mistranslation.  I was taught it too (as were many others), and it's wrong.  Socrates never said that!  For a wise philosopher to declare his wisdom and knowledge as worthless/meaningless would be unthinkable.

What he actually said was, "At least I do not claim to know, that which I know I cannot know".  He was speaking to the elites of his day, whom he preferred to commit suicide rather than continue to live in the same world with.

I agree, this is a great place to start.

Faith is belief without evidence.

Faith is also any "fact" supported/underpinned by belief (with or without subjective "evidence").  Most all religious people argue for the evidence of the reality of their stories.  They ALL have evidence...  So did the greeks that believed zeus was responsible for this and that.  Personally I am not so averse to faith as I am to blind faith, however belief has no place in knowledge/fact, least of all scientific.

NASA's pics count as evidence. More on that later.

Possibly, but they come from a demonstrably (and repeatedly) untrustworthy source.  The sad truth is they are the ONLY evidence (supposedly that remains). 

Space doesn't exist except on tv, and I know how wild that sounds. 

Pictures are also a suspect form of evidence, as I have many pictures of the loch ness monster and bigfoot.  For this reason, they can never serve as the sole evidence or "proof", as they essentially MUST in the case of "space" writ-large.

Let's call the burden of proof even for now?

If by that you mean that neither RET nor FET (if such a thing there be) has sufficient proof to satisfy the burden of proof as to the claim of the specific, known, and provable shape of the world; then I more or less agree.  There exists about as much "proof" that the entire world is spherical as it is flat.

flat earth theory doesn't hold up scientifically as well as spherical earth theory does.

It is quite the opposite!  However, I wish you would stop abusing the word "theory".  Can we call them posits?  Neither is a theory - even colloquially, "Hey man, the earth is totally round/flat" hardly qualifies.

I can't let this one slide, or it will topple my whole argument.

Here we go...  So far I don't see any obvious issue with changing "theory" to "posit", but I can tolerate it if you feel it is important.

Let's talk about the scientific method. I'll start a little list here (though it may be incomplete), let me know what you think.

Looks pretty good! Way above average in my experience.  There may be some issues with the verbiage however.  The sticky wicket is, once again, "theory".

I have no issue with having a theory in step 1 which you wish to test, though it is a little odd/non-standard.  Typically the word to use, where you had inserted "theory", is "hypothesis". Experiments only have one function, and they do not test theories, only hypotheses. The rigid linkage between the theory and the hypothesis may be hard if not impossible to guarantee - but so far, mostly so good.

If the null hypothesis is proven true, that means that theory was proven false.

As a stickler, I am compelled to point out that the experiment, in the strictest sense only validates, invalidates (or neither) the hypothesis.  If the hypothesis is not solidly connected / comprised in the theory, this deduction may be unsound.  But, still so far so good - i think.

If the null hypothesis is disproven, this does not prove the theory 100% true. It only makes it stronger. No theory can ever be proven 100%, but a particular theory can be disproven. Although sometimes, a disproven theory only needs a slight modification in order to be revived as a possibility.

Still good!

It's interesting, if I understand you correctly, that you are not subscribing to the disc theory but rather just very skeptical of the globe theory.

Correct.  The posit (theory, if you insist) that the earth is flat, or a flat disc, is merely speculation - however it is supported by historical / mythological sources.

That's great because it's a falsifiable theory that can be tested to confirm or reduce your skepticism!

The posit and conclusion (that the earth most likely cannot be spherical) can be falsified, yes.  It can also be demonstrated, historically, that the presumptive posit of a sphere earth is merely an unvalidated assumption over 2 millennia old (or at least was until the 50's/60's, if you believe what you see on tv)

So your claim that is "against the presumptive model", I'd have to disagree with.

The quoted phrase was referencing the "conclusions, analyses, data/observations, experiments" that support the claim (that the earth, most likely, is not and cannot be - spherical)

In my camp, none of us care whatsoever what Plato said.

Newton was known as agelastic (never laughing / hard-ass), however there is one anecdote on the books of an exception.  Supposedly a classmate came upon him reading euclid, and asked him why in the world he was reading that old junk - to which he burst into uproarious laughter.  In fairness, your answer may have been slightly different had I NOT mistakenly written plato, when I intended to write pythagoras.  Would it have made a difference? Anyway, the history of science is critical to understanding it - and I suspect this is one of the reasons it is, largely, so poorly taught.  All of philosophy is built on premises/posits/tenets/assumptions, and science / natural philosophy is no exception.  Without studying and critically evaluating those foundations, laid in bygone eras, you may be building on sand.

We believe that we have concrete evidence today, and that is all that matters.

There is that verbiage of belief where it does not belong again!  It is true, you do believe that - and are required to as a matter of rote / dogma of the faith.  If the concrete evidence you believe exists actually does, this could be a short conversation!

But in your camp, and correct me if I'm wrong, you might believe that modern science is built upon twisted assumptions about the worlds shape that goes back all the way to the Greeks. I don't want to put up a strawman though, just thinking out loud.

Kind of?  Again, I personally endeavor diligently to leave belief out of it whenever possible!  I am not deluded enough to think I am completely successful, however.

You might be surprised how little the world changes when our mere conceptions of it do.  If the world is flat, then everything we observe happens on a flat earth.  No contradictions, no issues, no stress.

Nothing in science depends on the sphericity of the earth the way it is preached in the mythology.  No technology relies on it, etc.  Yes the greeks are the first on record to make the mistake, and it kind of got "grandfathered" in because it was largely unimportant scientifically - but there need be no grand conspiracy for humans to constantly be stupid and wrong as they always are.  It's a comedy of err's you see.

So in other words, if the sustained convex of the curving of the water's surface was measured physically (I'm curious what tool does this) and was non-zero, this would disprove the flat-earth model.

Not really, however it would suggest against it.  Establishing this measurement would allow for spherical to be a possible shape of the world.  Without that measurement, there is nothing empirical or scientific about the globe posit.

Are we on the same page here? This is exactly what I mean by falsifiable. And I like how straightforward it is as a hypothesis.

More or less, yes - I think so!  I also like how straightforward and innocuous this entire subject appears at first glance - this "hypothesis" included.

I'm definitely following you.

Good! That's more than half the battle.

A global elitist conspiracy is technically possible.

And yet nothing so fantastic or grandiose is in any way necessitated.  The wiki here does a good job describing how the "conspiracy" need not be very large, nor specifically pertaining to the shape of the world.  The MIC is quite real in any case, and is not a trustworthy source.

For example, we'd have to assume that there has been widespread lying and brainwashing, and somehow no leaks!

No, we wouldn't HAVE to assume that.  Humanity requires no help to be constantly stupid and wrong.  In any case, in regards to the fabrication of "space" and the "space age" there have been "leaks" - and some bad things happened to them.  Regardless, you can have leaks all day long, as long as no one does anything substantive about them - remember edward snowden?

I think it's really sad the way flat earth believers are treated sometimes

I agree, though I have seen irrational intolerance, prejudice, and ad hominem on all sides.  Pretty much what you expect from "belief cults" regardless of under the guise of science, known as scientism, or more traditional deities.  The trouble is the belief bit - it has no place in science and is across purposes.  If people actually KNEW what the shape of the world was, and how they knew, and how to convey it effectively to others - we would not be in this mess right now. It is all a mass failure of "education" in my view.  People who believe the world is any shape have faith, not knowledge - and it is a bitter lesson for a lot of them.  It is little wonder they are so easily swayed from believing the world is a sphere, to believing it is some other shape - and never recognizing that BELIEF is the thing leading them astray all along.  When you know, and you know how you know - you are much more difficult to f about.  That is probably a major reason why these skills were not fostered in generations of "students".  Abject appeal to authority is much preferred to a learned and critical populous. It has been discovered that the best time to instate tyranny, is in the nursery.

Just look at religion...

I am! And it is being disingenuously/erroneously presented as fact/knowledge and science when it is mythology/religion and/or unvalidated speculation (at absolute best).  The myth of scientism is grand, and pernicious - just like most religious mythology.  Cognitive dissonance is indeed painless - there is a LOT of confusion on what that is and how it works out there.  Denialism is not involved in earnest flat earth research.  Though MIC sources like nasa et al are denied/discarded outright by some, the vast majority of times the data is simply reinterpreted - not discarded.  It is all too easy to simply deny the reality of some things, and continue in your natural default delusion. We must be ever vigilante not to let that happen, even - and perhaps especially - if it is inevitable.

But when you selectively disbelieve evidence, then that is what makes it unfalsifiable.

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean you/they aren't still objectively wrong while ignoring all the reality and observation that conflicts with your/their worldview (or posit/theory in our diminished context).  Consensus is not a part of science, and we can't (and shouldn't) force people to give up their delusions - they have to want to do it themselves, earnestly.  We should encourage, and educate, and demonstrate - but never force.  Even if you succeeded, from unclean means comes an unclean result.  As I said, most all "concrete" evidence is merely reinterpreted - not discarded or denied.

NASA's images are for sure not the only evidence we have in support of globe earth theory, but it is the most important by far because of the scale of the coordinated conspiracy that would be required in order to create the hoax.

We are dipping into the hypothetical here, however a large coordinated conspiracy is not necessitated.  Thorough compartmentalization can be employed to keep virtually everyone in the dark, and the key players only with limited access/information and unending surveillance - all speculation of course.  No conspiracy is really required at all to take pictures with normal lenses at high altitude and mistake barrel distortion for the "curvature of the earth" you expected to see there due to conditioning through rote from childhood under the guise of education.  As I said, people have no trouble being wrong - and it requires no conspiracy.

Questioning the validity of a single researcher and lab is within reason but if you are opening to question the validity of a coordinated effort of physicists as large as NASA, how can you believe anything at all?

Well, you can't really believe anything the MIC says - ever.  It's something everyone knows, but few people apply it to nasa for nationalistic pride / hubris reasons.  Everyone knows not to trust the government, but nasa is a direct descendant of george washington for some reason.

It is a good and valid question, however.  The wonderful thing about science is it requires no faith.  Hell, it may even require doubt! Trust is not involved.  If it is demonstrable, then there's probably something to it - if not, it is probably fiction.  The longer I live the more I side with planck and newton; The only means of knowledge at our disposal is experiment; all else is poetry and imagination.

You KNOW that NASA lied?

Many times, about many things!

Getting a shred of evidence that NASA lied would be impossible

Your faith compels you, and other good citizens/employees and "students", to believe that it is impossible.  It's impossible because there is no chance that they lied right?  Or is it impossible because they are superhuman gods that can't make mistakes and never lie?  There is lots of evidence, going over it will take time - however I highly recommend the wiki here -  "the conspiracy" page can provide a pretty comprehensive overview!

170

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is there a flat Earth Jean Meeus?

« on: October 20, 2020, 06:56:13 AM »

@geolguy29

It's funny though isn't it. That you can use this book to accurately predict all sorts of astronomical movements.

Astronomical movements are cyclical/periodic.  We can "predict" them, only because they happened before (and are cyclical/periodic)!  There is no magic to it, and it doesn't involve the shape of the earth.  It is all based on simple charts and observations of things that occur like clockwork.  It is roughly as impressive and difficult as "predicting" it will be 12:00 at some point over the next day.

They couldn't even exist on any flat earth model.

Don't delude yourself.  In potentia there is virtually never only one possibility - and if you think there is, it is most likely a failure of imagination.  Most all the high priests of scientism involved in astronomy / astrophysics recognized and admitted that there was no discernible difference between a heliocentric spinning and moving (through "space") world and a geocentric fixed one that has the universe whirling around it.  This was the line of reasoning originally used to convince the pope that the earth was not central and fixed, in contradiction to what the bible clearly teaches.

But millions?

Yes, even millions.  There are not millions, but even if there were it would never establish the hypothesis (or model) as validated or BE science/scientific at all. It would merely validate the usefulness of that model in that million instances (within margins of error, of course).  It establishes the model as (limitedly) USEFUL in those million contexts, not correct and consistent with manifest objective reality which ONLY experiment can provisionally provide in science.  All bayesians fall prey to this logical error.

It must be really unfortunate as a flat earther to have all these formulas that use the Earth's sphericity in calculations that actually provide accurate predictions.

I don't know any flat earthers, but nature cares not for our consistently wrong descriptions and conceptions of it.  Our equations have no bearing on manifest objective reality.  The earth's sphericity exists ONLY in equation.  It can ONLY be calculated, and has never been (and cannot be) measured.  Once again, providing accurate predictions shows that (in that limited context and with accompanying error) it is useful, not correct! All bayesians make this mistake.

Maybe globers invented maths to fool all of us.

You have no idea how close you are to accidentally cracking this subject open.  I have found a lot of support for this view historically. The globe iconography FIRST appears on coinage, and it shouldn't surprise you in whose hand this globe is depicted...

I mean, is 2+2 even 4?

Only by convention! Math worship is a real problem.  Blame those ancient pedophiles and their super gay clubs!

I recommend goedel's proof.  Math is a symbolic language for efficient description and conveyance/communication.  It is not magic - it's just another language.

I apologise for being patronising, but I came here to have a sensible debate.

I don't think you were at all! Your questions are rudimentary/fundamental and very much valid and important to explore - even if you may not have consciously intended them that way.

However, debate is merely base pageantry for the egotistical sycophants who perform and the entertainment of the audience and judges.  It has no place in effective learning/teaching, communication, or science.  I do not mean to be patronizing, but it is beneath me and all smart people.  I prefer rational discourse!  I can recommend a place to debate this subject if you are truly hellbent on it, however.  Some people enjoy playing the silly game, and I don't see anything wrong with that essentially.

But if you are going to talk absolute nonsense that this doesn't support a globe earth model then you are clearly lying to yourself or are a fake flat earther.

I've been accused of worse! In truth it is a bit weirder than that.  My experience has been that there are virtually no flat earther's that fit the popularized stereotypes (slanders) associated with the term, and virtually none that self identify with the title.  "Flat earther" is merely used as a derogatory by most.

What "absolute nonsense" are you referring to? I am prepared to defend and expound upon my ideas and claims!

If you can show me some calculations of astrological positions that consistently give you accurate results/predictions, that use the Earth's planar nature then there is a conversation to be had.

Again, this demonstrates a failure of imagination on your part.  There is no inherent problem in describing the world as a flat and stationary plane with all the lights and motions thereof above us.  You can do it in any language, including mathematics - but it will have no impact on manifest objective reality.  Is it clear to you what I mean?  Please let me know if not - this is critical to grasp and although simple, can still be a little tricky.

The antikythera device is an example of an ancient (>2000) computer with profound "predictive" ability that "models" the world as a flat fixed euclidian plane.  It could even predict the color of the eclipse!  I am quite sure that this working "model" has done nothing to convince you of the reality of a flat earth (nor should it!). Is my point clear, or does this all sound like rambling to you?

171

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Zetetic method vs UA

« on: October 20, 2020, 02:28:35 AM »

@JSS

What is the purpose of focusing on what interferometers were FIRST built to measure?

You might have arrived late to the party.  Stack has made an assumption that they are attempting to disingenuously/erroneously pass off as historical fact without any support (even anecdotal / personal "reasoning").  I am endeavoring to help keep them honest with themselves and others (only if they wish it, however). 

What the interferometer does, and how it works, is actually much more relevant to the shape of the world and the observation of various phenomena (several erroneously attributed to the earth's presumed rotation) than it appears at first glance!

I agree that it is a minor point, but if it weren't important to understand I would have dropped it long before now.  The other reason I continue to focus on it is because I have made mistakes like this before, and I wish to help stack to do better - if I can and they will allow me.

Doesn't matter, they still do both.

In the case of the interferometer, that is completely correct.  However what is key is HOW it is doing it.  We might need another thread where all this jibber jabber can go and stop cluttering this one.

There is no reason the LIGO interferometers would not work just as well as my home-brewed version.

Definitely true!  In fact, there is every reason to suspect that they would work much better!  However, ligo's arms are of fixed length, calibrated, and insulated from local noise and vibration.  Great pains are taken to avoid any path length deviation.  It is true that a vibration could cause a mirror (or the arm itself) to move and cause fringe patterns - it's just that that is not what causes the fringe patterns in ligo - nor is that the source of the fringe patterns in stationary and uniformly moving FOG's/RLG's.

When gravitational waves pass through the two arms, the interferometers detect the change in distance and record the results.

That is their earnest belief/conviction, yes.  However, it is not what is happening.  The interferometer is measuring perturbation in the medium of which light is comprised and travels within.  There is no "gravitational wave" - that is largely a made up term to mislead laypeople into thinking "gravity" has been found/detected.

This is direct evidence of gravitational waves,

It is direct measurement of the light waves traveling in each arm.  From it we can infer about the media through which light travels and is comprised.  The arms of the interferometer did not change length.  Noise and vibration did not move the mirrors.  The path lengths remain fixed as best as can be achieved by ungodly amounts of money being thrown at the problem.

they are literally measuring space stretching and compressing in real time.

This is essentially correct in my view, assuming the data is real - which is highly suspect.

172

Flat Earth Theory / Re: UA and Gravitational Time Dilation

« on: October 20, 2020, 01:54:52 AM »

@JSS

What exactly have you solved?

All time and simultaneity paradoxes introduced, and worse - REVERED/HALLOWED - if you can fathom that level of stupidity, by relativists.

Time is not an independent variable, and it cannot be manipulated (for one reason) BECAUSE it is non real.  The now is the same for all observers.

Can you use this solution of yours to calculate the correct frequency adjustments for satellites in Relativistic orbits?

If the equations work, why change them? Deluding yourself into thinking that because your equations work (in limited use cases, with error) that you understand the way reality works is a logical flaw all bayesians fall for.  Scientists who practice science (the scientific method) are not so easily deluded (though they do, regrettably, often still find a way...). Equation worship is a scourge.

Some new method to data transmission or logic processing or math?

Nope! Much like relativity, i have nothing like that for you!

Can you break the speed of light limit?

The limit is defined by the media of which the light wave is composed and travels through.  It is not a fundamental law, as much as a property.  If aether dragging (or manipulation) is possible (I think it is), then yes - much like in the relativistic framework you can have "faster than light" speed depending on frame of reference (galilean/newtonian).  If not, then no - BUT you get absolute motion and time as a trade off, which is totally worth it.

Your belief that time isn't real... what are the results of that?

I try to avoid belief, especially in matters of knowledge/fact and most especially in science.  I'm just stating facts, matter of factly, as most all do!  If you have some evidence to refute these facts - lay 'em on me!

This is why I say what you are talking about is just philosophy.

That's true!  Science is JUST philosophy (natural philosophy) but it has experiment to keep it "grounded"/connected to the manifest objective reality we all share.

It can't produce results, it can't do any work

We were lied to / mistaught about philosophy (and all of science, a branch of philosophy).  It can (help us to) do great work!  But it must be demonstrated to be so!  I side with einstein on this point - a scientific theory must be judged by the biblical maxim, "from its fruits shall it be judged".  I am not saying that recognizing that time is a human fiction with no manifest reality will be particularly fruitful (initially, anyhow) - however it will cut down a large part of a rotten tree blocking out the sun and preventing new growth!  This is the same case with the true shape of the world.

Relativity on the other hand, gives us many things, the ability of GPS to function and compensate for time dilation simply being one of them.

Relativity really didn't give us much of anything (but TOOK our time in a mathematical cul-de-sac instead of practicing physics), but that is a much longer discussion.  There are things that happen as a result of moving quickly, that affect the rate of certain thermodynamic/radiologic processes.  This was discovered through experiment and observation - relativity came afterwards.  This is mostly a case of correlation being mistaken for causation - EXACTLY the sort of delusion that the scientific method was designed/created to avoid! This is WHY relativity is based so heavily on unsound and irreconcilable paradox as well as complicated mathematics and "thought experiment". It is intended to dazzle and confuse - that is all it really ever "gave" us.

173

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"

« on: October 19, 2020, 04:51:27 AM »

@james38

I hope we can have an interesting conversation.

Interesting and productive/effective I hope!

If I'm understanding you correctly, a model is not an explanation. Rather, it is for generating hypotheses to conduct scientific experiments on.

That is a fair interpretation.

But if we are on the Flat Earth Society's "Flat Earth Theory" forum, I think Flat Earth in this context is the presumptive theory.

That's a thought!  Possibly some here may agree with you, however I personally (just an internet rando, not a TFES representative or otherwise able to speak for anyone but myself) have a few issues with the premise.

First, there is no flat earth theory in a scientific context.  Theory has a hallowed place in science, and what fledgling science exists for this subject is not there yet.

Second,  you may have read this on the wiki (and if you have not done so, I recommend a read through or two!), but there is a critical and often neglected distinction between belief and knowledge.  Many, if not most, people will admit/attest that they "believe the world is round" (they rarely say "spherical", "oblate" etc. but we know what they mean.)

They use the verbiage of belief because it is earnest and accurate, as well as colloquial.  There are almost no people in the world prepared to claim and defend that they KNOW what the shape of the entire world is.  Personally, and I am not alone - though may not be the norm in TFES (I'm new-ish), I have no idea what the shape of the entire world is.  I lack the verified and verifiable data to make that determination with certainty - to ACTUALLY know it, as opposed to merely believe as most all else do as a matter of educational requirement/rote.  For this reason, I do not claim that the earth is flat - I claim that it (most likely) cannot be spherical.  My "kind" is often referred to as globe deniers or globe skeptics.

Thirdly (and finally), much of the products (conclusions, analyses, data/observations, experiments) of flat earth research are not so much toward the creation of a new replacement theory, as they are against the presumptive model that is mandated in schools since early childhood with no dissent allowed.  For example, in my research (historical analysis, in this case); I found that not only had pythagoras' unvalidated assumption, of the earth being spherical, never been validated but during all that time it had been taught disingenuously/erroneously as fact to children (like eratosthenes and columbus) for millennia before NASA et al FINALLY validated it in the "space age" (If you believe everything you see on tv...)

However, we flew into space and saw the Earth was a globe.

And if we didn't do that?  What if that only took place on TV and not in real life.  What then?  This may appear to be a wildly speculative hypothetical, but I assure you it is anything but.  This is a worthy question to consider and research regardless of your position.

I have come to this forum hoping for a scientific/philosophical conversation based on evidence, facts, and logic alone.

Excellent, me too! Converse! Just don't debate - it's not for smart people.

So let's leave out any of talk of society's influence so we can have a pure discussion of the evidence and our lines of logic.

If you think it will help us discuss, very well.  However, it is important that you understand the point here - as it is at the crux of your post.  The "default" position (dogma) for anyone "educated" is that the world is spherical.  It is the claim most at issue in the discussion, and it is profitless to pretend like it isn't your claim because TECHNICALLY you didn't say specifically that just now.  Debate is a stupid game.  Rational discourse is much more rewarding and valuable, however it pays to be honest (with yourself and others). It would be dishonest to claim that you earnestly do not believe/claim the world to be spherical, would it not?

From what I've been experiencing, FEers are sincere scientists and thinkers with a theory, and I am coming here to have a respectful conversation.

I'm pleased that has been your experience.  I fear it is not the norm for people foraying (or attempting to) into this subject.  There are many disearnest, disingenuous, and profiteering in this space.

I have requested that a proponent of the opposing theory (FE) to state what would make their theory falsifiable, and show me the evidence that disproves their null hypothesis.

Interesting approach.  What if the picture you posted from nasa was doctored/manipulated, or if the world is flat and antarctica does not encircle it as a wall?

Every theory has assumptions.

Absolutely, all philosophy is built on them.  The question is which one has more of them.  However this is all non-sequitur because occam's razor is for scientific theories and neither the globe model nor the flat earth model (which does not exist in a scientific context either) are scientific theories.  It's also a rule of thumb, not a binding principle towards truth everlasting.

1) The earth is a globe. This is why we saw Antarctica.

This assumes much.  Certainly we can't conclude the shape of the entire world by merely looking at a picture of antarctica... right?

2) The earth is flat.  We saw Antarctica because there is a global elitist conspiracy that produced it as a hoax. There is no Antarctica because it is an ice wall. The human race, despite its technological progress, has been unable to get an image or evidence of this ice wall because of "XYZ"...

Some are convinced that antarctica is an ice wall (or connected to it) and encircles the world. Personally, I have doubts about things I don't know for certain.  The speculation is interesting, and maybe even possible, but depending on it to determine the shape of the world seems unjustified given the little amount of evidence I estimate there is to support it.

Which one of these two theories has more assumptions?

We may have to define some terms.  I'm kind of a stickler meeseeks.

Occam's razor is for scientific theories, not theories in the colloquial sense - as you just used it.

What makes your theory falsifiable?

Karl popper's fringes are not part of the scientific method proper, however I do agree with this one in any case.  In order for a scientific theory to be valid, it must be falsifiable.  Let's say that these words did not have rigorously defined definitions in a scientific context - and there are 2 "theories" going head to head.  RET says the earth is round.  FET says the earth is flat.  Why do/would you feel either is unfalsifiable?

What evidence could possibly exist, that would make you change your belief?

This is your question! You thought it was directed at me, but it wasn't!  You should answer this one (or give it a shot, anyhow)! I am rubber, and you are glue!

Seriously.  You should answer your question above for yourself about yourself. In the meantime, I will answer your question.

First, belief has no place in knowledge/fact, least of all scientific.  If you believe that the earth is flat, round, spherical or any other shape - you have faith, not fact.  I KNOW that the assumption the earth is spherical is over 2 millennia old and has never been validated in all of human history (until arguably NASA et al and their MIC affiliates, if you believe everything you see on tv).  I KNOW that the surface of motionless water under natural conditions (of sufficient quantity and barring negligible surface tension artifacts) is flat, level, and horizontal; and that that natural law of hydrostatics has stood unchallenged for centuries - very much including today.  Because of these things I know, i have deduced that the world is (most likely) not spherical, and cannot be.

To change what I know in this regard would require altering (refuting / changing / updating) the 2 statements that I know are factual above (due to thorough research), or determining the shape of the world in a sufficiently validated and validatable (with independent oversight etc.) manner.  There is only one way to determine the shape of objects in manifest objective reality with certainty, and the earth is no special case.

What evidence would you expect to exist if the round-earth theory was true that you are missing?

The physical measurement (validation/confirmation) of the sustained convex curving of water's surface required by the globe model.  It is perpetually calculated, but has never been measured in all of human history.  This is odd, especially considering it has been taught to children as fact erroneously/disingenuously for millennia.

Debate is a part of science, hence "scientific debates"

Debate is not a part of science.  It isn't part of being president either, but the bloodthirsty meat puppets really like carnage.

Debate is base pageantry for the egotistical sycophants who perform and the entertainment of the audience and judges.  It has no place in effective communication/learning, or science.

Science, despite what we have been incorrectly taught to the contrary, is only what rigorously adheres to the scientific method (with the caveat of natural law, established by rigorous and repeated measurement alone) and colloquially to the body of knowledge that that method produces.  There is no "get audience and judges together for pageantry" nor "debate" step in the scientific method.  We don't argue/debate our way to figuring out how the world works.  That's what science is for!

I look forward to more discussion!

174

Flat Earth Theory / Re: UA and Gravitational Time Dilation

« on: October 18, 2020, 05:19:46 PM »

@JSS

We have extremely precise clocks that can measure the time differences both from changes in altitude and speed.

This is true.  However time isn't real, so you are only measuring with a slide ruler.  The speed at which thermodynamic (yes, including radiometric) processes occur vary with a variety of factors, but time never varies - ever.  The now is the same and simultaneous for all observers.  Look how many irreconcilable paradoxes I just solved!  Relativity is only for children.

This is strong evidence that time dilation does in fact exist.

With the accompanying conditioning / religious dogma / bias - yes, it does appear that way! It is intended to.

Time may or may not exist from a philosophical standpoint, but it certainly exists from a scientific and evidential based one.

It is quite the opposite. It only exists in philosophy. It is a human concept and has no physical reality whatsoever.

175

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Tides and water levels on a flat earth

« on: October 18, 2020, 03:55:06 PM »

@iceman

Jack, why do you say the moon has nothing to do with tides, despite the observational data that support that concept

Good question!

The moon being the cause of the tides is pure mythology.  It is a dogma of the faith of scientism.  You learn it as unquestionable truth at a shamefully tender age, and no dissent is allowed (as in most churches).

From that "given truth" established in childhood, correlation (extremely thin, I should add) is disingenuously/erroneously presented as causation as it often is in mythology.

If you evaluate the data critically you will find, as I have, that there is no causative correlation between the moon, sun, or any other light in the sky.  The tidal nodes locations, their frequencies, amplitudes, and timings are all not connected to the lights in the sky.  It was just a lie (or potentially, mistake) we were told as children, among MANY of them.

why would Newton have been anti-tide, what data was withheld to him, and by who?

Another great question!

In newtons time, much like today, the cause of the tides was unknown.  It was only after newton invoked the philosophically unsound (and anathema to all of physics) and stupid epicurean gravity for his mathematical fiction that the concept of the moon causing the tides was born.  Newton had the thought (of the moon causing tides) first, supposedly, and was a fantastically proud and disagreeable son of a bitch.  It was his theory, and the idea that someone else would get the credit for his discovery irked him on a grand scale.

He had the idea, and the new mathematical framework to validate it (so he believed, anyhow) - but what he lacked was precise data on the moon in order to confirm the connection he expected to be there if gravity were in fact real, and the moon was as massive as was believed at the time.

The royal lunar observatory refused to share the data with him.  It is my contention that had this data been shared, newton would have scrapped gravity entirely, and certainly the speculation that the moon was massive and caused the tides.

176

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Tides and water levels on a flat earth

« on: October 17, 2020, 11:01:42 PM »

@HonestEnquirer

what mechanism is proposed for the existence of tides?

Sadly, when mythology presented erroneously/disingenuously as science is discarded as the fiction it is - an alternative is not often forthcoming. The moon has nothing to do with the tides, and had newton been given the data withheld to him - I think he would have scrapped the whole fantasy then and there.

Accepting that some locations will be at high tides at the same time that others are at low tide, does this not imply that a not-completely-level slope or even curve must exist between any two such places?

It does!  Water can be any shape, however at rest (and of non-MINISC-ule quantity/surface area) its surface is flat, level, and horizontal and no measurement exists to refute that natural law (nor has for centuries).

177

Flat Earth Theory / Re: UA and Gravitational Time Dilation

« on: October 17, 2020, 06:33:32 PM »

@fisherman

The reason time dilation happens in the first place

It is my contention that time dilation does not happen, under any circumstances.  The now of all observers is the same, and it matters not how fast you travel or other such things.  There is no time of any kind.  It is a non-real human concept.

Light, as a pressure wave, varies most with the media it is traveling through.  Fictional/conventional concepts like "time" are not involved.  The media is what is different.  Light, as a pressure wave, requires direct interaction with matter in order to be affected in any way. This is experimental fact with no refutation, to the chagrin of the silly relativists who are no less than an entire (fictional) revolution behind in terms of "current" theories in physics.

I am aware my views are unpopular. However, if it is not consistent with experiment - it's junk. There is no time that exists, and no "spacetime" that can in any way be demonstrated or verified experimentally.  The aether on the other hand...  The age of aether-mcarthyism must come to an end.

178

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Zetetic method vs UA

« on: October 15, 2020, 10:53:00 PM »

That's all well and good.

Where is the support for your claim that the interferometer was FIRST created to measure distance and then repurposed to be used to measure motion instead?

179

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Does Flat Earth/UA reject the concept of spacetime?

« on: October 15, 2020, 10:42:41 PM »

@Longitube

These are unsubstantiated opinions, with no reason to believe them given.

They are facts with no evidence to the contrary.  Sorry time travel nerds, it's all fantasy!

Thermodynamic process is unidirectional.  There is no past, there is no future.  There is only now.

However, since debate is beneath you and I’m free to ignore you, forgive me for wasting your valuable time and thank you for the option.

Debate is beneath me, and all smart people - perhaps you as well? I engage for discussion!  I am happy for you to supply any evidence for your fiction, at your leisure!

180

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Creation

« on: October 14, 2020, 01:17:32 PM »

@AmoebaReeba

What is the accepted creation theory for a flat Earth?

A theory, in a scientific context, is (supposed to be) the most solid / vetted / experimentally validated knowledge in all of science.

Of course there is nothing like that for a "flat earth" if such a thing there be.

Likewise, of course there is nothing like that for a "round earth" either.

What we were taught, erroneously/disingenuously, from childhood (get 'em young!) as the science of "creation" is all evidenceless fiction - aka, mythology.  No science was involved at any point.  Science is only what rigorously adheres to the scientific method, with the caveat of natural law. The big bang, all stellar and planetary "evolution", as well as all planetology/climatology are mythology masquerading as science.  There are no experiments - hence, all we have is mythology - just like all the other times in human history.  Imagine being gullible enough to believe, TODAY things are finally different than they have always been.

You don't have a creation theory (in a scientific context) at all.  All you have is mythology.  Many of us here eschew mythology and belief in matters of knowledge/fact, ESPECIALLY scientific.