Re: Occam's razor
« Reply #20 on: January 01, 2018, 07:30:28 PM »
Back on the topic of Occam's razor, the wiki article is misleading at best.

Quote
Occam's Razor asks us which explanation makes the least number of assumptions. The explanation which makes the least number of assumptions is the simplest explanation. Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory.

Occam's Razor has more than one edge. One of the edges is that the explanation should be as simple as possible.

The other edge is that THE EXPLANATION HAS TO BE SUFFICIENT TO EXPLAIN THE OBSERVATIONS.

Because flat earth theory cannot explain sufficiently a very large number of observed phenomena, it is not sufficient.
Once flat earth theory attempts to explain planetary motion, eclipses, etc, then it starts making MORE assumptions than round earth theory.

Here are some assumptions of flat earth theory that not necessary in round earth theory:
- Nonstop flights between Sydney and Johannesburg don't exist. Or, jet airplanes can fly at any arbitrary speed and pilots choose speeds to make round earth routes appear true, despite the huge variance in fuel costs this would provide.
- NASA is all a consipiracy. Oh, I guess ESA and the Russians also must be part of it. Oh, whoops, private businesses are also launching rockets? Let's assume they are making it up as well.
- Perspective does magic things, geometry is wrong, etc.

Here are some things that I've not seen ANY FLAT EARTH EXPLANATION for:
- Two high tides per day, timed to match the moon
- Gravity not being uniform throughout the earth, but depending on latitude
- The sun not setting in the right place in the southern hemisphere
- 24 hour sunlight on both poles
- The night sky (south celestial pole(s) and intersections of their systems)
- The sun moving at a constant 15 degrees per hour

Occam's razor would admit the simplest explanation for all these phenomena, but no such explanation from the flat earth side is available, so Occam's razor indicates it is a failed theory.

Re: Occam's razor
« Reply #21 on: January 01, 2018, 08:59:33 PM »
And, potentially, every person who needs to be deterred.

this is the part of your argument i find silly/magical.  you're just sort of asserting that anyone who is in a position to blow the whistle must know of thomas baron and be deterred by his death.

i doubt that thomas baron is mentioned anywhere in the nasa employee training manual.
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

Offline StinkyOne

  • *
  • Posts: 805
    • View Profile
Re: Occam's razor
« Reply #22 on: January 02, 2018, 01:43:27 PM »
lol thomas baron.  basically no one has ever even heard of thomas baron except for the relative handful of people who believe he was murdered.
And, potentially, every person who needs to be deterred. Essentially, your counter-argument is that you and your friends haven't heard of him... until you have (which by itself is not a strong argument but hey-ho). I strongly doubt you're one of the people who need to know, or who would have been following this particular whistleblower's actions.

the record appears to show that his primary report was already delivered!
So, a report has been delivered to a single person, then Baron mysteriously dies, and then oh no, the report can no longer be found!!!!

Yeah, that certainly does not help your case.

Hey Pete, how did they manage to get him to drive his car into the path of a train? Seems there are MUCH easier ways to kill someone. You make yourself look foolish hanging onto a supposed "murder" that took place 50 years ago. The people in power who could have orchestrated this are likely dead. You guys need a new fake murder to keep people in line.
I saw a video where a pilot was flying above the sun.
-Terry50

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Occam's razor
« Reply #23 on: January 02, 2018, 04:15:18 PM »
you're just sort of asserting that anyone who is in a position to blow the whistle must know of thomas baron and be deterred by his death.
That's not what I'm saying. It is possible that your own perception of "nobody I know has ever heard of Baron" is not representative of how widespread the knowledge of his predicament is among potential whistle-blowers.

I'm sure you're sincere in your conviction that no one has heard of Baron, but I'm not convinced that your perception is relevant here. And neither is mine, hence my careful choice of words and merely positing a possibility.

So, your theory is that, like Thomas Baron, every person who attempts to come out in support of the Flat Earth is murdered by NASA?
As Thork already pointed out, Powerland's predicament seems to suggest you don't need to kill someone to silence them.

Hey Pete, how did they manage to get him to drive his car into the path of a train? Seems there are MUCH easier ways to kill someone.
Sorry, I'd make an absolutely rubbish assassin - I'm skin and bones and have the mentality of a sedated lamb. Because of my lack of expertise, I can't really comment on what means of staging an "accident" are easy, and which are not.

I will bear in mind that you do claim to have this expertise, however.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2018, 04:18:54 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Re: Occam's razor
« Reply #24 on: January 02, 2018, 04:40:37 PM »
you're just sort of asserting that anyone who is in a position to blow the whistle must know of thomas baron and be deterred by his death.
That's not what I'm saying. It is possible that your own perception of "nobody I know has ever heard of Baron" is not representative of how widespread the knowledge of his predicament is among potential whistle-blowers.

I'm sure you're sincere in your conviction that no one has heard of Baron, but I'm not convinced that your perception is relevant here. And neither is mine, hence my careful choice of words and merely positing a possibility.

So, your theory is that, like Thomas Baron, every person who attempts to come out in support of the Flat Earth is murdered by NASA?
As Thork already pointed out, Powerland's predicament seems to suggest you don't need to kill someone to silence them.

Hey Pete, how did they manage to get him to drive his car into the path of a train? Seems there are MUCH easier ways to kill someone.
Sorry, I'd make an absolutely rubbish assassin - I'm skin and bones and have the mentality of a sedated lamb. Because of my lack of expertise, I can't really comment on what means of staging an "accident" are easy, and which are not.

I will bear in mind that you do claim to have this expertise, however.
Since our overarching topic here is 'Occam's Razor' how about we take a look at things from that perspective? I see two sides here, which appears to require less assumptions?

1) Baron's car broke down on the tracks without enough time for him to get out from the way of the oncoming train. Assumptions I see being made: A) Baron's car was not in perfect working order. B) Something happened in the course of driving over the tracks to stop his car. C) This car stopping issue was normal enough he didn't think to escape the car to get away from the train, rather than trying to restart it. Alt C) The train was too close to get out of the car in time. D) The lengthy earlier report is deemed not important enough (and/or too long) to attach to the Congressional committees report.

2) Baron's car was sabotaged to break down on the train tracks for him to be hit and killed. Assumptions I see being made: A) Baron had important information not contained in, or to help clarify, his lengthy earlier report that would severely damage NASA's reputation. B) His car is tampered with in just the right way to make it stop on the train tracks. C) He leaves at just the right time to make a forced stop on the train tracks lethal. D) The train was too close for him and his family to get out in time. Alt D) The doors were sabotaged to not open again after the car was stopped. E) The lengthy earlier report is disposed of to ensure full secrecy.

Even disregarding the assumption that the report was damaging enough on it's own that it had to be disposed of, 2 seems a much harder case to make when there's no evidence for foul play other than the investigation stating there was no evidence of foul play. Unless I'm missing something here? It sure appears a far simpler answer that the car simply wasn't in perfect working order, than to suspect there was another hand at play in making it not work at the correct time. But maybe that's just me, as Occam's DOES have some degree of bias associated with it.

Offline StinkyOne

  • *
  • Posts: 805
    • View Profile
Re: Occam's razor
« Reply #25 on: January 02, 2018, 05:26:33 PM »
Sorry, I'd make an absolutely rubbish assassin - I'm skin and bones and have the mentality of a sedated lamb. Because of my lack of expertise, I can't really comment on what means of staging an "accident" are easy, and which are not.

I will bear in mind that you do claim to have this expertise, however.

I'll add this to my list of things you're rubbish at. I don't think it takes a genius to figure out that timing a train and a car to be at the same location at the same time is probably not the easiest way of killing someone. Faked suicide, house fire, poisoning. All of those are relatively easier from a logistics point of view. And, again, all the perpetrators are likely dead or at least in their mid-70s by now.
I saw a video where a pilot was flying above the sun.
-Terry50

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Occam's razor
« Reply #26 on: January 02, 2018, 08:26:11 PM »
I don't think it takes a genius to figure out that timing a train and a car to be at the same location at the same time is probably not the easiest way of killing someone.
You seem to be under the impression that that's what actually happened. Why are you so confident about this?
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Re: Occam's razor
« Reply #27 on: January 02, 2018, 09:21:09 PM »
I don't think it takes a genius to figure out that timing a train and a car to be at the same location at the same time is probably not the easiest way of killing someone.
You seem to be under the impression that that's what actually happened. Why are you so confident about this?
Because that's the implication when you/the wiki says he was assassinated?

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Occam's razor
« Reply #28 on: January 02, 2018, 09:43:19 PM »
Because that's the implication when you/the wiki says he was assassinated?
Of course not, what a ridiculous suggestion. The man died, and the totally legitimate official story is that it was a traffic accident. As you correctly observed, I don't buy into the totally legitimate official story, and thus I'm unwilling to take its assumptions for granted.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Re: Occam's razor
« Reply #29 on: January 02, 2018, 10:28:18 PM »
Because that's the implication when you/the wiki says he was assassinated?
Of course not, what a ridiculous suggestion. The man died, and the totally legitimate official story is that it was a traffic accident. As you correctly observed, I don't buy into the totally legitimate official story, and thus I'm unwilling to take its assumptions for granted.
That's what I suspected. Do you have any evidence whatsoever for your claim though? Or is it, as I suggested above, you simply 'smell a red herring' as it were? This seems like one more of those things that need to be bought into to keep NASA as the boogeymen FE needs them to be.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Occam's razor
« Reply #30 on: January 02, 2018, 11:15:30 PM »
Do you have any evidence whatsoever for your claim though?
Do I have any evidence to back up the question of "Why is StinkyOne so confident that the official explanation of events is accurate?"

No. No, I do not. I'm not entirely sure how that would even work.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Offline StinkyOne

  • *
  • Posts: 805
    • View Profile
Re: Occam's razor
« Reply #31 on: January 04, 2018, 07:18:32 PM »
Do you have any evidence whatsoever for your claim though?
Do I have any evidence to back up the question of "Why is StinkyOne so confident that the official explanation of events is accurate?"

No. No, I do not. I'm not entirely sure how that would even work.

You've implied that this person was murdered to keep other whistle blowers in line. Leaving aside any questions about his testimony, which focused on safety issues, do you have ANY evidence that he was murdered? If you're going to claim his "murder" was to keep others quiet about <insert theory here>, you should try to have some evidence. You have to show something that indicates the facts on the scene were wrong. He was hit by a train and there was a witness. (sure she could have been a plant, but again, pure speculation) On top of all that, you seem to think a "murder" that occurred 50 years would keep people in line today. That is a huge stretch give how easy it is to leak information in the modern world.
I saw a video where a pilot was flying above the sun.
-Terry50

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Occam's razor
« Reply #32 on: January 04, 2018, 07:25:20 PM »
You've implied that this person was murdered to keep other whistle blowers in line.
Not directly, no, but I won't try to undermine your personal interpretation. You do you.

do you have ANY evidence that he was murdered?
The extremely unlikely circumstances of his death (by your own assessment!), together with the mysterious disappearance of all copies of his report. How strange these events would take place over the course of only a few days. Then again, perhaps it's just all an extreme coincidence, and the silence of potential whistleblowers is just part of the coincidence. As is your apparent expertise on assassinations.

On top of all that, you seem to think a "murder" that occurred 50 years would keep people in line today.
Well, I guess I'll point out for the second time in this thread that Baron is not the only known case of whistleblowers being silenced. Thork brought up Powerland, remember? I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve by having us state this over and over, but here you go.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2018, 07:27:57 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Offline StinkyOne

  • *
  • Posts: 805
    • View Profile
Re: Occam's razor
« Reply #33 on: January 04, 2018, 08:11:55 PM »
Not directly, no, but I won't try to undermine your personal interpretation. You do you.
I will revise that statement to say the wiki pushes the whistle blower murder thing. You didn't take a firm stance in this thread and I'm not bothering to go quote mining.

Quote
The extremely unlikely circumstances of his death (by your own assessment!), together with the mysterious disappearance of all copies of his report. How strange these events would take place over the course of only a few days. Then again, perhaps it's just all an extreme coincidence, and the silence of potential whistleblowers is just part of the coincidence.
Baron had already testified to congress. He could have stood up and said NASA is faking space flight, but instead all he did was point out safety problems. Why is that? His 500 page report was delivered to congress and said to have contained more details on safety issues, which I think we can all agree that back in the heyday of the cold war, safety was secondary. Where does any of this point to helping your position that the Earth is flat? Heck, let's say he was killed for his knowledge. (which I don't think happened, but...) He had already delivered his report and testimony. He didn't go public with any flat Earth nonsense. It is just a suspicious case that FEers run with because they have no real facts.

Quote
Well, I guess I'll point out for the second time in this thread that Baron is not the only known case of whistleblowers being silenced. Thork brought up Powerland, remember?
First, I believe almost nothing BT says. I don't know enough about Boylan to comment much. From what I can gather, he is a comic/artist that said images from NASA are fake. He was a freelance artist for NASA, right? That sure makes him an expert...lmao.
I saw a video where a pilot was flying above the sun.
-Terry50

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Occam's razor
« Reply #34 on: January 04, 2018, 09:52:25 PM »
I will revise that statement to say the wiki pushes the whistle blower murder thing.
Where does the Wiki say that Thomas Baron has been murdered to detract future whistleblowers?

Heck, let's say he was killed for his knowledge. (which I don't think happened, but...) He had already delivered his report and testimony. He didn't go public with any flat Earth nonsense.
Dead people rarely go public with anything, I'm told, and since the report has mysteriously gone missing, you're in no position to tell me what was or wasn't contained within.

First, I believe almost nothing BT says.
A wise choice.

I don't know enough about Boylan to comment much.
It's mostly how rapidly his mental condition has deteriorated after he came out as a whistleblower. Scary stuff. And all completely coincidental, of course!
« Last Edit: January 04, 2018, 09:54:04 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Offline StinkyOne

  • *
  • Posts: 805
    • View Profile
Re: Occam's razor
« Reply #35 on: January 05, 2018, 02:34:16 AM »
It's mostly how rapidly his mental condition has deteriorated after he came out as a whistleblower. Scary stuff. And all completely coincidental, of course!

But does he qualify as a whistle blower? He was a freelance artist. If the powers that be can keep "the secret" from the engineers, how in the hell was this guy supposed to know anything?? He could go to the doctor and have his blood tested for things like lead and other neurotoxins if he was worried he had been poisoned. I personally find the Baron case to be more suspicious. (though I still think it falls under the category of coincidence given the manner of death and the fact that he already had his chance to speak)

The other thing that is semi-interesting is that neither of these people were true NASA employees. They only had the knowledge that NASA allowed them to have. Just saying...
I saw a video where a pilot was flying above the sun.
-Terry50

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Occam's razor
« Reply #36 on: January 05, 2018, 04:08:18 PM »
If the powers that be can keep "the secret" from the engineers, how in the hell was this guy supposed to know anything??
Well, if, as he claims, he literally painted NASA's "photos", he probably knew that he was painting them. People tend to have knowledge of the things they personally did.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Offline StinkyOne

  • *
  • Posts: 805
    • View Profile
Re: Occam's razor
« Reply #37 on: January 05, 2018, 06:01:53 PM »
If the powers that be can keep "the secret" from the engineers, how in the hell was this guy supposed to know anything??
Well, if, as he claims, he literally painted NASA's "photos", he probably knew that he was painting them. People tend to have knowledge of the things they personally did.

You're not a dumb person. You know if NASA was covering this shit up, they wouldn't be handing out their secrets to freelance artists. He probably did generate images of celestial objects - NASA uses artist interpretation all the time. (i.e. for exoplanets) The generated images are labeled as such.
I saw a video where a pilot was flying above the sun.
-Terry50

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 1367
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: Occam's razor
« Reply #38 on: January 05, 2018, 07:54:50 PM »
According to Occam's Razor, it is more legitimate to believe that the Earth is round than flat.
Incorrect.
Well I'm glad we sorted that out.
Care to elaborate?

I'd suggest clicking the link, as this topic has been covered ad nauseam.

Considering the often pointed out errors in the Wiki I would hardly call that proof.
Do you have a citation for this sweeping generalisation?

JohnAdams1145

Re: Occam's razor
« Reply #39 on: January 05, 2018, 09:27:21 PM »
The appropriate wiki article is located at: https://wiki.tfes.org/Occam%27s_Razor

Regardless of the arguments discussed in this thread, I'd like to propose that the article be edited to correct obvious factual inaccuracies that leave the argument stuck on those inaccuracies. It is clear that whoever wrote the wiki article has a flawed understanding of basic physics and should take and truly understand a course in it.

Quote
What's the simplest explanation; that my experience of existing upon a plane wherever I go and whatever I do is a massive illusion, that my eyes are constantly deceiving me and that I am actually looking at the enormous sphere of the earth spinning through space at tens of thousands of miles an hour, whirling in perpetual epicycles around the universe; or is the simplest explanation that my eyes are not playing tricks on me and that the earth is exactly as it appears?

The simplest explanation is that your local coordinate system is a plane because the Earth is so large that it seems mostly flat at any one point (its curvature is small on the human scale; a basketball is far more curved). Anyone who understands math could tell you this.

Quote
What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter straight up at 7 miles per second, and that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis, explore the solar system, and constantly wow the nation by landing a man on the moon and sending robots to mars; or is the simplest explanation that they really can't do all of that stuff?

Whoever wrote this paragraph clearly has not done any sort of engineering. Technology today is truly marvelous. It's hard to imagine how all of this stuff was developed. Even basic metalworking is an art itself and yet we use this in the quantities of millions of metric tons! Are you seriously going to say that because a hard drive stores billions of times more numbers than you can hold in your brain that they don't exist? Or that a microprocessor that can do computations millions of times faster than your brain costs only $2? Or that explosives exist? This is fallacious reasoning at its best, and obscene ignorance at its worst. The chemistry and the physics are all there. Small-scale experiments have been done. Rockets do work in space and they have been launched. Speeds of ballistic missiles have been measured. Ballistic missiles have been tested. They work. Also, the writer assumes that we send rockets straight up. This is not true, and anyone with such a poor understanding of space exploration should at least do some research before asserting that all of it is fake.

Quote
When I walk off the edge of a three foot drop off and go into free fall while observing the surface of the earth carefully the earth appears to accelerate up towards me. What's the simplest explanation; that there exists hypothetical undiscovered Graviton particles emanating from the earth which accelerates my body towards the surface through unexplained quantum effects; or is the simplest explanation that this mysterious and highly theoretical mechanism does not exist and the earth has just accelerated upwards towards me exactly as I've observed?

First, while we cannot unify GR and the Standard Model, that says nothing about our observed gravity. Second, the writer should read the other pages on the wiki and note that EVEN FE THEORY ASSUMES THE EXISTENCE OF GRAVITY. Such ignorance is unforgivable. This is not to mention that UA posits that space is not isotropic, that there is a preferred coordinate system, and that literally everything else we observe in terms of orbits is due to gravity, while the Earth is a special case. Do you expect me to believe this? The simplest explanation is that there is some force in nature that pulls me toward the Earth.

Quote
What's the simplest explanation; that when I look up and see the sun slowly move across the sky over the course of the day, that the globe earth is spinning at over a thousand miles per hour - faster than the speed of sound at the equator - despite me being unable able to feel this centripetal acceleration, or is the simplest explanation that the sun itself is just moving across the sky exactly as I have observed?

This is wrong on so many levels. First, when we speak of speeds, we need to speak of REFERENCES. 1000 mph with reference to WHAT? It is true that points on the equator move at speeds over a thousand miles per hour WITH REFERENCE TO THE EARTH'S AXIS. Points on the equator move at NEGLIGIBLE SPEED with respect to the AIR at the equator (which also moves with the ground). The writer clearly suffers from Dunning-Kruger, misjudging his knowledge in physics by including terms such as "centripetal acceleration" without even understanding on a basic level (uniform circular motion) what it means. Of course you feel the centripetal force. THAT IS GRAVITY. Clearly the author has never drawn a basic force diagram in his life. The magnitude of gravity minus the magnitude of the normal force of the ground on you (what you actually feel) gives you the magnitude of the centripetal acceleration you experience. You do feel like you weigh less at the equator because of the spinning Earth. This has been measured and agrees with even the uniform circular motion calculation.

Quote
What's the simplest explanation; that the sun, moon, and stars are enormous bodies of unimaginable mass, size, and distances which represent frontiers to a vast and infinite unknowable universe teeming with alien worlds, black holes, quasars and nebulae, and phenomena only conceivable in science fiction; or is the simplest explanation that the universe isn't so large or unknown and when we look up at the stars we are just looking at small points of light in the sky exactly they appear to be?
This is even more wrong than the last point. What's the simplest explanation, that lab-scale experiments are vastly different from the stars and that they get the energy from "magic"? Or that they are balls of gas with nuclear fusion? You can't have both. What's the simplest explanation? Basic optics makes stars look small or you can't do math?

Even if we can't agree that the Earth is round, we can surely agree that the writer of this article lacks a basic understanding of physics and yet believes that he is well-equipped to ridicule accepted science. So I propose that this article be rewritten to reflect at least the current understanding of the debate.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2018, 09:32:14 PM by JohnAdams1145 »