Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - ichoosereality

Pages: [1] 2 3  Next >
1
I completely agree.  The question becomes how to get someone to examine their thinking / methodology?
With ever more sources actively exploiting this common human phenomenon for partisan purposes, it's ever more important to figure out how to encourage such self examination.

Reading about folks who have left "cults" and those that helped them do so, a few things seem common.
* It takes a personal connection (so that will be hard just over the net)
* It takes time
* It takes empathy, no one likes to be made to feel wrong or stupid etc.

2
My experience of Tom Bishop is that he spends a disproportionate amount of time thinking about and trying to prove something is true which so obviously isn't true to everyone else.  OK make that most people.  There are one or two others who believe the Earth is flat as well.

What can you tell people with that kind of mindset?  Nothing probably!
Right, I don't think you can tell them anything.  I think the person has to be willing to question their own (way of) thinking.  I thought Tom might be up for that, but maybe not.  It's not an easy thing to do.

3
Its common in science for there to be differing views or competing theories on things.  String theory for example is not universally accepted but its getting there.  Likewise for the multiverse.   (I am not an expert in physics, just an interested layman).  The same happened for climate change which was viewed somewhat skeptically back when it was proposed in the 70s, but is essentially universally accepted now (mostly by the 90s).  The same could be said decades ago for continental drift.  But for the globe earth there are no such differing views.  The entirety of industry, science, engineering, and academia agree on the globe earth.  The FE believers are all layman.  Why is that?

4
Prior to running an experiment one has to clearly describe what you aim to prove (i.e. so the experiment is falsifiable).
No such formulation of "bendy light" exists.  I do not think any such formulation is possible that would match actual observations.  But that fact that none is even offered clearly shows that this is just FE hand waving used as a crutch by folks who want to believe (or at least claim that they believe) in a FE.  Why is it that (it appears) that no one with the requisite scientific training to create such a formulation will do so?  Is every member of every science faculty and all their students for the last 50? 100? years (that's many millions) part of the conspiracy?
Come on.

Apologies if this sounds harsh, but I don't think professed FE believers really hold that belief, they just like to say so.  How many FE'ers have boarded a long haul flight fully expecting to get to their desired destination (as happens 1000s of times a day) despite the flight being navigated, planned and fueled all on a globe earth model?  How may FE'ers are receiving satellite TV?  How many FE'ers are routinely using GPS?

The globe earth is apparent in aspects of every day modern life in which I suspect many FE'ers readily partake.  Humans have traveled extensively over the earth and all of those distances correspond to the globe earth not the FE.  In all of that travel no dome or wall or infinite plane has ever been observed.  Yet some seem to genuinely persist in their belief in a FE (there are of course trolls here as well).  The interesting question is why?

I ask as I think this is a major issue in our civilization but particularly in the US.  This effect has come up with the pandemic, the 2020 elections, and climate change.  All of which are very very serious issues on which a significant group refusing to accept reality is a major problem.  I chose the FE to ask about this as it seemed the topic where the evidence is the most overwhelmingly clear (that the FE belief is wrong).   But so far not much internal questioning seems to be on the table.  If one is to take the idea of questioning seriously, shouldn't the question of why you believe what you believe be the most fundamental?

5
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The ISS - Who Should I believe?
« on: November 08, 2021, 01:36:54 AM »
Son there is no SPACE as you know it. NO ISS, NO Satellites, No mask will stop germs unless its a full blown respirator type.
Just noticed this bit of gibberish .  Others can/are responding to the FE nonsense, so I'll just touch on the mask misinformation.
It is true that only a full blown respirator can "stop" (as in prevent with 100% certainty) respiratory transmission of disease.  But that
is also largely irrelevant to the issues around mask wearing during the pandemic since the purpose of wearing a surgical mask in public
during a pandemic where the disease is largely airborne is exactly the same as why medical staff wear them during surgery.  That is to
reduce the likelihood of transmission (from the mask wearer to someone nearby as they inhale for the general case or from the medical
staff breathing out towards/into the open wound in the surgical case), not to prevent it with 100% certainty.

6
Flat Earth Community / Re: The borders of the conspiracy
« on: November 06, 2021, 07:41:59 PM »
That's not working with GPS. That's using GPS.
If you want a precise answer, ask a precise question.

At the end of the day, GPS is just a signal frequency popping out of the sky. You don't know what put it there.
We do actually.  Suppose the signal from the satellites is recorded right next to the GPS receiver and
then retransmitted, a sort of relay.  Now consider that relay is computing the signals instead of actually receiving
them from the satellites (I presume this is along the lines of what you have in mind).  That would indeed work for that
ONE location.  But the timing data would be wrong for any other location yet would be received by many thousands of
receivers within range of the transmitter.  So that does't work, let alone work all over the planet including in the middle
of the ocean.

Its also worth noting that the coordinates GPS gives you are of course for the globe earth and those coordinates match up
with the distances and travel times actually experienced anywhere on the planet (even in the southern ocean).

7
Flat Earth Community / Re: The borders of the conspiracy
« on: November 05, 2021, 08:13:07 PM »
Precisely.  Plus of course space based systems like GPS, sat phones, satellite TV, earth sensing, and weather satellites all work. 

Do they? Do you often work with GPS, sat phones, satellite TV, earth sensing and weather satellites?
Yes I use GPS very often and have done so at sea), as have many millions if not few billion others (using GPS or one of the other global or regional systems).  Given that the receiver is measuring arrival times, I see no way that this can be faked.
I have not personally used a Sat phone.
Yes I have used satellite TV and played with moving the dish around watching signal strength).
You can see earth sensing data, just google for it.
Weather satellite data is of course used/seen constantly.

8
Flat Earth Community / Re: The borders of the conspiracy
« on: November 05, 2021, 12:32:12 AM »
Lots of systems exist that have some degree of security protection, of course. The ICBM example you give is a good one. But the fundamental difference between that and the shape of the earth is that a complex system like an ICBM can be protected by the 'need to know' principle - very few people, if indeed any, need access to the totality of the system. They just need to know what their particular part of the system does. They can also openly declare what they do to friends and family as long as they don't go into the specifics. But if your job is to create fake footage of space travel, for example, or to drive the fake astronauts back to their accommodation after the fake launch sequence, then the everything about your job has to be kept secret, because even the existence of your job blows the secret. And that's the problem for FE - it requires an enormous number of people to be working extremely hard in total secrecy to fabricate something, and it wouldn't take much of a whistleblow to completely undermine the whole thing.
Precisely.  Plus of course space based systems like GPS, sat phones, satellite TV, earth sensing, and weather satellites all work.  But the most basic proof of the globe earth is simply that humans have traveled over every inch of it and travel times and distances in the southern hemisphere, let alone over the southern pole, correspond to the globe earth not the flat earth.  Traveling in roughly a straight line from South America over Antarctica you do not hit a wall or a dome or find an infinite frozen waste but merely land in Australia. 

Which of course is why the goal of the mods here is not to facilitate debate but to misdirect and discourage it as they know any actual debate will show FE to be nonsense.

9
Flat Earth Community / Re: If you could go to space, would you?
« on: October 05, 2021, 03:23:49 AM »
The resources consumed make it a poor choice for tourism.  It would be very cool to go, but even if I could afford it I can not justify it.

If you do not think anything let alone anyone has been to space, how do you explain the 100s of 1,000s of people in all sorts of industries and government programs from many countries over the last 50 years or so that have a direction connection with such activity, all managing to keep the secret?

10
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Will Inspiration4 convince Flat Earth believers?
« on: September 11, 2021, 07:52:03 PM »
On September 15th, the Inspiration4 space flight is scheduled to take 4 civilians to space on board a SpaceX Dragon capsule. These civilians will see Earth from space, take pictures and give first hand accounts of what they see. If they report that they see a globe, will you believe their simple, first hand, observations? Will you acknowledge this large science experiment as proof one way or the other?  One of the Flat Earth values is to just look and believe what your eyes are telling you; to believe the most obvious, simplest truth. Will that apply to the crew of Inspiration4? Will you believe their first hand report or dismiss it?
FEers did not come to their beliefs by a scientific review of the available data, so I think they are unlikely to abandon it based on a bit of additional data.
Even if the more extreme posts here are by trolls, actual believers reading them will have their beliefs reinforced.

11
Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is beyond the south pole?
« on: September 10, 2021, 08:51:00 PM »
I think"ice wall" is a not needed postulate. Past  Antarctica (which let us posit is a strip of land encircling the known world which is why US government won't let anyone go there since Byrd),
PanAm flight 50 in 1977 didn't seem to have a problem with permissions, nor after flying from Cap Town over the south pole, did they find an ice wall, an infinite frozen plane or an infinite ocean, they found Auckland.  The earth has been circumnavigated many times by many routes and the times and distances recorded all match the globe earth.

With all due respect, whatever that story was about PanAm is false. If you watch "Flat Earth Clues" by computer scientist Mark Sargent, it plainly states that since Admiral Byrd, nobody has been allowed to go back to Antartica.
Oh give me a break.  There are and continue to be many expeditions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Antarctic_expeditions
You can even go as a tourist https://duckduckgo.com/?q=antarctica+tourism&t=osx&ia=web

Mark Sargent's video is utter BS.  It is a myth that for the first few thousand years of our civilization everyone thought the world was flat.  As just one obvious example why would Eratostheenes have set out to measure the circumference (in about 200 BCE) if he though it was flat?   We teach that the earth is a globe for the same reason we teach that 2+2=4.  Because they are true.   Sargent offers no support for any of his assertions, he just asserts them.  But even Sargent does NOT say Antartica is "off limits" but a treaty prevents colonization, not visitation or overflights.

12
Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is beyond the south pole?
« on: September 10, 2021, 09:54:38 AM »
I think"ice wall" is a not needed postulate. Past  Antarctica (which let us posit is a strip of land encircling the known world which is why US government won't let anyone go there since Byrd),
PanAm flight 50 in 1977 didn't seem to have a problem with permissions, nor after flying from Cap Town over the south pole, did they find an ice wall, an infinite frozen plane or an infinite ocean, they found Auckland.  The earth has been circumnavigated many times by many routes and the times and distances recorded all match the globe earth.

13
Suggestions & Concerns / Yet another warning
« on: September 08, 2021, 08:46:17 AM »
Here is the sequence of events:
A user (whose name I do not recall) posted in FE Theory a a new thread with few questions (I think the title was something like "could to find in the FAQ), they involved things like the fact that the ISS can be seen with just binoculars.
Then about a week later after getting no responses that same uses posted "I guess no one is going to respond"
To which I replied with the reason I thought no one would respond which as far as I can see has a lot to do with the entire MO of FE theory and what is going on on this board.
So then I got a warning for off-topiic posting and the thread was deleted (as far as I can tell).

So if my post was off-topic for the FE theory board (despite it being a response to a post already there) where should it have been posted?

14
Flat Earth Theory / Re: I'm new here! A bunch of generic questions?
« on: September 03, 2021, 01:15:29 AM »
It would server as compelling evidence that it COULD be faked.

In potentia/imagination maybe, but i think you agree that just because we can imagine it doesn't make it achievable/reasonable nor actual.
The point is that if it can not be faked, imagining otherwise is pointless.  You obviously know that, why else all the evasion?

The entire experiment depends on the two satellites being in a very well known orbit and watching how that orbit is altered by flying over more or less mass.

True.  That is what is claimed.  The major trouble, and a chief reason other possibilities are considerable, is that the claim is not validateable/verifiable.  It depends on abject appeal to authority in order to believe.
The structures (usually bodies of underground water) that the system finds, and that no one know of before, actually exist.  Or are you saying that since you did not personally see all of this and witness the launch, travel to space yourself to see the satellites are there,  and all of the related technology etc you do not believe it?

We have well developed thrones of mass, its impact on space and time, orbital mechanics, etc.

We have many models for such things, most of them contradictory.  None of them were ever correct before (historically), and there is good reason to recognize they are still not correct now.
Again you make wild claims but do not back up a single one.  This is your theme.  You did not answer a single question I asked.
You're an articulate troll, but a troll none the less.  I'm done with you.   It is highly unlikely that you actually believe anything you have posted.  So I'm not going to allow you to waste any more of my time.

15
Can anyone prove it is wrong? Thanks for insight!
I suggest that stating a wild notion that isn't well specified and then saying to prove it wrong is not a path to understanding.
Night is a term humans use to describe the period when the position in question on the celestial body in question is rotated away from the sun.  Usually that position is where the person happens to be and on the earth, but occasionally you hear discussion of the Martian Night and so on.
Darkness is the way we describe the environmental condition of our retinas not receiving (or where they would not receive) sufficient stimulation to discern our surroundings (whether we are present or not).

16
Flat Earth Theory / Re: I'm new here! A bunch of generic questions?
« on: September 01, 2021, 07:24:38 AM »
If you'll forgive the topic stray (just thought of this)
How does the FE model account for eclipses?   I guess you could conjure up the moon getting in front of the sun for a solar ecplise but how do you explain a lunar eclipse?

https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration

Scroll down to the lunar eclipse section.
Thanks, I'll grant that the EA pages don't lack for imagination.  The notion that all light curves "upward" presumably that is relative to the surface of the earth, is a rather geocentric point of view, but it also has major problems for things like the laser retroreflector/range finders left on the moon.  If this curving were happening the path the beam takes when the moon is at a lower position would be greater than when it is more overhead, but all observatories get the same distance (with in about 6 inches). Oh but wait the moon landings never happened and all the astronomers that have used the reflectors are part of the conspiracy, right?

If EA was happening you would get the maximum signal strength on your SAT TV when pointing your dish lower than the satellite's actual position, but that is not what is experienced.

But back to the lunar eclipse, the claim is that it's not the earth's shadow but "The Lunar Eclipse occurs when the Moon moves beyond the Sun's light".  This would be a very gradual light to dark transition but what we see is a sharp transition with all the subtle characteristics of a shadow.


17
Flat Earth Theory / Re: I'm new here! A bunch of generic questions?
« on: September 01, 2021, 02:08:12 AM »
We want the official method for the published Earth circumference when comparing how correct Eratosthenes was. If the official method for getting the Earth's circumference for published values is just repeating the same experiment, then it puts the experiment into question. You are using the same experiment to verify itself.
Both methods use just basic geometry given that the earth is a globe.  Any such measurement anywhere on the planet (I recall yeas ago Jacob Bruowski did it with a rental truck that he drove down  aver staring N/S road in the middle of the US and put tape on the side to sight on a star).   If no matter where you do it, or what the distance between your points, it all comes out to about the same that is pretty good evidence that the technique works.  If the earth were not a globe why would it work?

The GPS method appears just to be Eratosthenes' method, but using GPS to get your position:
No.  GPS measures position and altitude by computing the distance to at least 4 satellites from your current position.  It works anywhere on the planet (and now there are 5 such systems I think).  The calculation includes complete knowledge of the orbits so the receiver knows where they are so after solving for how far away each is an establishing the position of the receiver relative to that set of satellites in knows where you are by knowing where they are.  And its always right (barring things like signal reflections in cities) so its model of the orbits is correct.  The sum total of all those postions paints a picture of a round earth.

The stopwatch method says at the bottom of this paper "Results typically are within 15% for a regular class, within 10% for an Honors or AP class.", which is way off:
Sure, but that test is only over about 6 ft (standing to lying down).  Do it with two people with synchronized stop watches in the top and bottom of a tall building or tower and you'll get much greater accuracy.

If you'll forgive the topic stray (just thought of this)
How does the FE model account for eclipses?   I guess you could conjure up the moon getting in front of the sun for a solar ecplise but how do you explain a lunar eclipse?

18
Flat Earth Theory / Re: I'm new here! A bunch of generic questions?
« on: September 01, 2021, 01:02:51 AM »
Read you own link Tom.  "in its modern form".  This is the modern form of the ancient method, it says nothing about that being the only method.

It's the only official method Britannica knows of, in its article called "Measuring the Earth, Modernized"
Again even by the title its the modern version of this method.  Indeed it could well be the "official method" whatever that means exactly.  But
that does not mean it is the only method, does it?

19
Flat Earth Theory / Re: I'm new here! A bunch of generic questions?
« on: August 31, 2021, 10:39:04 PM »
Quote from: ichoosereality
Eratosthenes MEASURED the size of the earth, assuming it was round.  And the number he got is very close to the number we know today using vastly different measurement techniques.  If the earth is not round, how did he get that result?

Incorrect. The modern method is just the same method as Eratosthenes' method, and uses Eratosthenes' same assumptions.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Measuring-the-Earth-Modernized-1673316

Quote
In its modern form ...
Read you own link Tom.  "in its modern form".  This is the modern form of the ancient method, it says nothing about that being the only method.  Today we also have the massive point data of GPS showing us that the surface of the earth is in fact a globe and how big it is.   You can also make a decent approximation by just using a good stopwatch and measuring the time difference between seeing the sunrise (or set or moon rise or set, or any distant star rise or set) from two heights (even standing vs lying down). 

20
Flat Earth Theory / Re: I'm new here! A bunch of generic questions?
« on: August 31, 2021, 08:31:51 PM »
You have not said anything about HOW it would be faked.

That's true.  I rarely speculate on such things, and I doubt it would do much good in this case.  Lets imagine I've done all that already, and just presented you a possible (I think we've both agreed, not very plausible) explanation for how it is faked.

Would that prove/demonstrate anything?  Would that serve as some sort of compelling evidence for you? If so, why?
It would server as compelling evidence that it COULD be faked.  I have provided a clear explanation for why it can not be.  You want to wave that away by imagining you have a countered that
explanation.  You have not.

Quote
Or explain how the GRACE experiment produced correct data (i.e. lead us to find underground water that did not know about).
Assuming there are GRACE satellites - they presumably use them to indirectly measure such things from high altitude.  Otherwise it is probably composite data from other real sources. Of course there are many other possibilities.
Again your argument is just hand waving.  The entire experiment depends on the two satellites being in a very well known orbit and watching how that orbit is altered by flying over more or less mass.

Quote
So they are tracking around in the expected orbital paths and are launched into that path based on the globe model and newtonian mechanics (though relativity does come into time adjustments for their clocks) but are not in orbit. ?   What does that mean?
I think this is particularly unlikely, however perhaps not impossible.  Just because we believe we know how things work, and can demonstrably use those things, doesn't prove that belief true.

I think it is more likely, that if they are up there and moving as we expect they are - they are riding a current of some kind.  The earth is most likely stationary, and the sky rotates above us. They would still require large balloons or other means to remain aloft until that system inevitably fails.

Some speculate that the satellites are entirely fictional, and this is the reason there are so few photos of them and virtually no photos of them in orbit.  They conclude that the things we see in the sky are not satellites and point to the apparent sizes of such objects (such as the iss) being inconsistent with their supposed distances as an evidence.
We have well developed thrones of mass, its impact on space and time, orbital mechanics, etc.  When we use that to do experiments (like launch satttelites) we observe their behavior is exactly as our theory predicts.  Yet you want to say all that means nothing and maybe they are "riding currents".

Quote
The globe earth IS the default from very far back, this has been known for a couple of thousand years. 
Many people mention eratosthenes or columbus when discussing "proving" the world spherical - but what they misunderstand is that both of those people already KNEW the world was round for the same reason we do today; we are taught it as fact from childhood, just like they were.
Eratosthenes MEASURED the size of the earth, assuming it was round.  And the number he got is very close to the number we know today using vastly different measurement techniques.  If the earth is not round, how did he get that result?

Quote
FE doesn't even HAVE a full model (i.e. theory).

Models are not theories.  However - in general, flat earth researchers do not spend their time producing either, so in a way you are right.  There is the globe model, and then there is no model (yet).  Models of the entire world take significant time and investment to create.  Expecting them to already exist is foolish.
Yes so much easier to just wave your hands and make silly claims. I get it.

Quote
Please generate a table of sunrise, sunset, location data based on FE math.
That would be tricky considering we lack the verified and verifiable data to do so.  In any case, the lights in the sky may move and shine where they please - the shape of the world doesn't enter into that.  Looking up to study what is down beneath your feet, is booth foolish and unscientific.
The lights in the sky "shine where they please"? Are you attributing free will to such things?
Further the shape of the world has a great deal to do with how light strikes objects and casts shadows etc.  The FE model can not even explain how roughly half the earth is dark and half light.  Why don't you start with that?

Quote
If the globe earth were true the observations we see for daylight/night, sunrise, sunset, our view of the stars, etc all are exactly what we would expect.
It's slightly less amazing when you realize that the presupposed interpretation of those phenomena has been conditioned through education for millennia.
If the observations are not as the global earth model predicts, then please point out those descrepeneces.

Quote
Testing theories based on observation via Baysean reasoning is how science works.
The scientific method does not involve "baysean reasoning" nor does it allow mere observation to EVER test a theory/hypothesis.
So geology, cosmology, oceanography, ecology, most of biology, anything about the actual world as opposed to a lab experiment is not science in your view.  You're wrong.

Quote
You do not understand science.
 
Believe me, the reverse is the case - but that will take time to establish/recognize.
Read Sean Carol's The Big Picture, it happens to have an excellent explanation of the role of Bayesian reasoning in science.

Quote
We have two theories.

I hate to be a stickler meseeks, but I must for the purposes of our discussion.  The colloquial definitions that most everyone learn for scientific vernacular are wrong.  For example, your use of the word "theory".  In science, speculations on the cause of a natural phenomenon are called hypotheses. Theories are not speculations at all (ideally).
Now you are just playing word games.  If this were a technical discussion among scientists then yes we would need to be careful about such things.  But it is far from that and I think you clearly gleaned my meaning.

Quote
One that the earth is a globe and one that it is a flat disk.
ALL the observation we have is exactly what we would expect to see if the globe theory were true. 

Except for all the observations that contradict it, sure.
Perhpas you can list out some of those contradictory observations?

Quote
None of the observations we make are what we would expect if the earth was flat (particularly not ever finding the edge).

Actually, the vast majority of observations support the world being flat (but that doesn't make it flat!).
As for the "edge" - no one is completely certain there is one.  Biblicalists cite "the four corners" of the world mentioned.  Some speculate the earth to be an infinite plane with no edge.
Again you play games.  No observation has ever been made of the edge, OR of a vast infinite plane.  But your reference to the Bible is perhaps informative.  Is all this just part of you religions belief?

Quote
So bayesian reasoning says the globe theory is the correct one. 
And you think that makes it correct?  If we pretended that the two "theories" were, in fact, just that - applying occams razor would favor the flat world (perhaps not a "wafer disc") because it requires less assumptions; But that doesn't make it correct!
I think that makes it the theory that has the most (in this case actually overwhelming) support and thus is the best we can achieve about what is so in the world.  We could all be brains in jars of course but so far we have no evidence of that.  Further Occams Razor would clearly favor a single model that explained all the movements of the stellar phenomena that we see (other planets their moons, the path of our own planet,  our moon, asteroids, etc) and not some wildly complex setup with either a dome over the disk earth or an INFINTE plane, and all the complex movements we observe in the cosmos being specified for each body.  The RE is hugely simpler than the FE.

Quote
Why don't you get this?  Explain that to me if you would.

I'm working on it! Communication takes time.
I can't say that you have even begun.

Pages: [1] 2 3  Next >