There are quite a few series on this theme.
I think he should of gone less on the outright derision, more for the humour. When you are shooting fish in a barrel it's a bit crass to shout insults.
Look forward to the rest though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgY8zNZ35uw
Cool Hard Logic begins a 4 part series debunkning FE Theory. Right off the bat, it looks like did not research much here, because he is missing some of the more sophisticated solutions to the problems he points out. Still some good points are made and he is a funny dude.
Other than his derision of FEers, what do members think are the good/bad points he makes in this video?
Right off the bat, it looks like did not research much here, because he is missing some of the more sophisticated solutions to the problems he points out.
CHL is always entertaining, but he has the unfortunate tendency to say what the groups he's addressing "must" believe rather than what they *do* believe. He ends up debunking a strawman, and his follower base is not critical enough to verify his assumptions.I'm not at all keen on his attitude,
CHL is always entertaining, but he has the unfortunate tendency to say what the groups he's addressing "must" believe rather than what they *do* believe. He ends up debunking a strawman, and his follower base is not critical enough to verify his assumptions.
CHL is always entertaining, but he has the unfortunate tendency to say what the groups he's addressing "must" believe rather than what they *do* believe. He ends up debunking a strawman, and his follower base is not critical enough to verify his assumptions.I'm not at all keen on his attitude,
He's a bit too much like those terrible videos from Eric Dubay, Jeranism and TheMorgile for my liking, though these are full of so many errors of simple fact that they lose all credibility.
I came here partly to escape those videos and find a more reasoned approach to the flat earth.
Isnt the entire notion of a 'reasoned approach to flat earth' ridiculous in its own right?
If reasons comes even close the FE the entire thing is demolished.
Isnt the entire notion of a 'reasoned approach to flat earth' ridiculous in its own right?
No.QuoteIf reasons comes even close the FE the entire thing is demolished.
Objectively false. It's always cute when round earthers who barely have an understanding of their own model come here and make an assessment along these lines.
And always funny to hear FEers talk about Rounders not understanding 'their model' as if it is a model based on some kind of faith.
Spherical earth is a fact
Damn it, you can even SEE the curvature of the earth if you possess eyesight and a double-digit IQ.
In the meantime, FEers dont even agree on their model.
They cant create a map, cant explain the sun, the moon, the horizon
or explain how a billion people in 'the conspiracy' can keep quiet about it, nevermind explain WHY it would be kept quiet.
Please refrain from low content posting and so on and so forth.Isnt the entire notion of a 'reasoned approach to flat earth' ridiculous in its own right?
No.QuoteIf reasons comes even close the FE the entire thing is demolished.
Objectively false. It's always cute when round earthers who barely have an understanding of their own model come here and make an assessment along these lines.
Please refrain from low content posting and so on and so forth.Isnt the entire notion of a 'reasoned approach to flat earth' ridiculous in its own right?
No.QuoteIf reasons comes even close the FE the entire thing is demolished.
Objectively false. It's always cute when round earthers who barely have an understanding of their own model come here and make an assessment along these lines.
And always funny to hear FEers talk about Rounders not understanding 'their model' as if it is a model based on some kind of faith.
That's a nice strawman you've made. A pretty common RE tactic.QuoteSpherical earth is a fact
Well it sure is tough to argue with that irrefutable logic.QuoteDamn it, you can even SEE the curvature of the earth if you possess eyesight and a double-digit IQ.
Where and how can you see the curvature? And how is IQ related?QuoteIn the meantime, FEers dont even agree on their model.
It's almost like different people can have different thoughts or opinions...QuoteThey cant create a map, cant explain the sun, the moon, the horizon
Actually, FEers have created several maps. The sun, moon, and horizon have been explained. You should try searching the forum.Quoteor explain how a billion people in 'the conspiracy' can keep quiet about it, nevermind explain WHY it would be kept quiet.
Why would there be a billion people involved in a conspiracy?
I will answer two of your questions. Curvature. yes, you can see it and it has been witnessed about a gazillion times. But I have noticed that FEers cant see it no matter how pronouced. We see it from aircraft - but FEers dont. We see it from space, but FEers dont. We see it on very large fat areas, but FEers dont. So yes, billions of people have seen the curvature.
Low IQ. It is an observation that FEers tend to be poorly educated and of below-average intelligence and/or have mental health challenges. EVERY SINGLE ONE.
If you can find me a prominent scientist who is a FEer I will retract that claim forthwith. ad when I mean scientist I mean university educated and qualified, not some self-proclaimed 'scientist' with a year 8 education
We see it from aircraft - but FEers dont. We see it from space, but FEers dont.Well, yes, that would be a geometric impossibility bearing in mind the size of the round Earth model, and the altitudes at which aircraft fly. If you can see curvature from aircraft, then you have just dismissed the scientific consensus. Welcome aboard, brother!
Low IQ.Interesting. I would never brag about my Mensa membership, but... ;)
It is an observation that FEers tend to be poorly educated and of below-average intelligence and/or have mental health challenges. EVERY SINGLE ONE.I hold a Master's degree, and I'm currently in very early stages of my PhD (much to Jura's dismay).
If you can find me a prominent scientist who is a FEer I will retract that claim forthwith.Eh, I guess you'll have to give me like 10 years before I get there. Watch this space.
I will answer two of your questions. Curvature. yes, you can see it and it has been witnessed about a gazillion times. But I have noticed that FEers cant see it no matter how pronouced. We see it from aircraft - but FEers dont. We see it from space, but FEers dont. We see it on very large fat areas, but FEers dont. So yes, billions of people have seen the curvature.
What were the conditions which you have seen it from an aircraft? Do you know what would be required to notice curvature assuming a round-earth? Also, where do you see it on "very large fat areas?" I am actually interested in your response. This goes back to my previous statement that many of you round earthers don't understand your own model, but sure to like to repeat things they've heard from others. I'd like for you to prove me wrong.QuoteLow IQ. It is an observation that FEers tend to be poorly educated and of below-average intelligence and/or have mental health challenges. EVERY SINGLE ONE.
Going to need some evidence for this one, champ.QuoteIf you can find me a prominent scientist who is a FEer I will retract that claim forthwith. ad when I mean scientist I mean university educated and qualified, not some self-proclaimed 'scientist' with a year 8 education
This request is irrelevant. Other than satisfying your own arbitrary conditions, it is also a logical fallacy.
So far, there is only one person I have seen in this thread guilty of what you are claiming, and that is you. It seems you have some issues with projection. You might want to work on that. You should also work on providing evidence for your bold claims, otherwise it is simply nonsensical conjecture.
We see it from aircraft - but FEers dont. We see it from space, but FEers dont.Well, yes, that would be a geometric impossibility bearing in mind the size of the round Earth model, and the altitudes at which aircraft fly. If you can see curvature from aircraft, then you have just dismissed the scientific consensus. Welcome aboard, brother!Low IQ.Interesting. I would never brag about my Mensa membership, but... ;)It is an observation that FEers tend to be poorly educated and of below-average intelligence and/or have mental health challenges. EVERY SINGLE ONE.I hold a Master's degree, and I'm currently in very early stages of my PhD (much to Jura's dismay).If you can find me a prominent scientist who is a FEer I will retract that claim forthwith.Eh, I guess you'll have to give me like 10 years before I get there. Watch this space.
I will answer two of your questions. Curvature. yes, you can see it and it has been witnessed about a gazillion times. But I have noticed that FEers cant see it no matter how pronouced. We see it from aircraft - but FEers dont. We see it from space, but FEers dont. We see it on very large fat areas, but FEers dont. So yes, billions of people have seen the curvature.
What were the conditions which you have seen it from an aircraft? Do you know what would be required to notice curvature assuming a round-earth? Also, where do you see it on "very large fat areas?" I am actually interested in your response. This goes back to my previous statement that many of you round earthers don't understand your own model, but sure to like to repeat things they've heard from others. I'd like for you to prove me wrong.QuoteLow IQ. It is an observation that FEers tend to be poorly educated and of below-average intelligence and/or have mental health challenges. EVERY SINGLE ONE.
Going to need some evidence for this one, champ.QuoteIf you can find me a prominent scientist who is a FEer I will retract that claim forthwith. ad when I mean scientist I mean university educated and qualified, not some self-proclaimed 'scientist' with a year 8 education
This request is irrelevant. Other than satisfying your own arbitrary conditions, it is also a logical fallacy.
So far, there is only one person I have seen in this thread guilty of what you are claiming, and that is you. It seems you have some issues with projection. You might want to work on that. You should also work on providing evidence for your bold claims, otherwise it is simply nonsensical conjecture.
Like shooting fish in a barrel. if FE had any credbility as a viable alternative model, there would be at least ONE reputable scientist who supports it or gives it credence. All I asked is that you show me ONE. But naturally you declined.
And my claim is that Flat Earthers are of low IQ and poorly educated. Now if you wish to dispute that then show me evidence that disproves it. For the vast majority of people, belief in FE itself is evidence of poor education and low IQ.
Over to you to see if you can offer any evidence or proof to counter my claims. I dont expect much for the aforementioned reasons.
I will answer two of your questions. Curvature. yes, you can see it and it has been witnessed about a gazillion times. But I have noticed that FEers cant see it no matter how pronouced. We see it from aircraft - but FEers dont. We see it from space, but FEers dont. We see it on very large fat areas, but FEers dont. So yes, billions of people have seen the curvature.
What were the conditions which you have seen it from an aircraft? Do you know what would be required to notice curvature assuming a round-earth? Also, where do you see it on "very large fat areas?" I am actually interested in your response. This goes back to my previous statement that many of you round earthers don't understand your own model, but sure to like to repeat things they've heard from others. I'd like for you to prove me wrong.QuoteLow IQ. It is an observation that FEers tend to be poorly educated and of below-average intelligence and/or have mental health challenges. EVERY SINGLE ONE.
Going to need some evidence for this one, champ.QuoteIf you can find me a prominent scientist who is a FEer I will retract that claim forthwith. ad when I mean scientist I mean university educated and qualified, not some self-proclaimed 'scientist' with a year 8 education
This request is irrelevant. Other than satisfying your own arbitrary conditions, it is also a logical fallacy.
So far, there is only one person I have seen in this thread guilty of what you are claiming, and that is you. It seems you have some issues with projection. You might want to work on that. You should also work on providing evidence for your bold claims, otherwise it is simply nonsensical conjecture.
Like shooting fish in a barrel. if FE had any credbility as a viable alternative model, there would be at least ONE reputable scientist who supports it or gives it credence. All I asked is that you show me ONE. But naturally you declined.
So you have no evidence for your claims. GotchaQuoteAnd my claim is that Flat Earthers are of low IQ and poorly educated. Now if you wish to dispute that then show me evidence that disproves it. For the vast majority of people, belief in FE itself is evidence of poor education and low IQ.
You really don't understand how burden of proof works, do you? It isn't my job to provide evidence to counter your baseless, nonsensical claims. It your job to prove your claims. Of course you can't prove it, so you try to deflect. I do appreciate you showing everyone that you lack a grasp of simple logic, though.QuoteOver to you to see if you can offer any evidence or proof to counter my claims. I dont expect much for the aforementioned reasons.
Sorry friend, you've failed again. I would suggest doing some research to understand the basics of how logic works. You clearly don't understand it, and your failures are making you look worse with every post. Good luck, friend!
Ironic that you talk of 'burden of proof' and then talk about FE while providing ZERO proof.
At least my hypothesis has no evidence of being wrong.
Ironic that you talk of 'burden of proof' and then talk about FE while providing ZERO proof.
Still waiting for you to provide evidence for your claims. You have literally proven my point that many round earthers don't understand their own model well enough to criticize someone else's.QuoteAt least my hypothesis has no evidence of being wrong.
Your "hypothesis" has no evidence at all, because you refuse to provide any. You simply make baseless claims and then deflect when called out.
I simply asked you to provide PROOF or at least significant evidence. This is a classic Flat Earth position: deny all round-earth evidence and then provide zero proof of your own.
I am quite happy to debate, but debate what? Mere claims without any evidence and a mountain of contrary proofs?
I simply asked you to provide PROOF or at least significant evidence. This is a classic Flat Earth position: deny all round-earth evidence and then provide zero proof of your own.
Proof or evidence for what? You are the one making claims and then dodging all requests to provide evidence.QuoteI am quite happy to debate, but debate what? Mere claims without any evidence and a mountain of contrary proofs?
You should try debating, then. Your position thus far has been to make claims with no supporting evidence, followed by you essentially saying "prove me wrong." That isn't how debates work at all.
I claim the earth is a sphere.Yes you have, and you've provided no evidence to support that claim.
AS supporting evidence I cite the existence of satellitesYou haven't cited anything. You've made another claim with no evidence.
the 10 million photos of the earth... as a sphere.Citation needed.
I claim boats disappearing over the horizon.Yet you still provide no evidence to support your position. You do well at making claims, though.
I claim air travel times as evidence.Air travel times exist in both models. You're really not very good at supporting your points, even anecdotally (as it's established you never provide evidence for your claims).
Now. YOU provide some SOLID evidence for your flat-earth hypothesis.I'd suggest reviewing the FAQ and wiki. Those resources offer infinitely more evidence than you have put forth so far.
PS. it is absolutely unacceptable to simply claim that all photgraphic evidence is faked as you will undoubtedly do.As I will undoubtedly do? Where have I done that? You're attacking an argument I never made. Do you know what the term for that tactic is? You should because you do it an awful lot...
if you want to try that stunt then you have to actually provide evidence that they are faked and not merely claim it.Given that I've made no such claim, this is literally irrelevant. You really need to brush up on basic logic.
I claim the earth is a sphere.Yes you have, and you've provided no evidence to support that claim.QuoteAS supporting evidence I cite the existence of satellitesYou haven't cited anything. You've made another claim with no evidence.Quotethe 10 million photos of the earth... as a sphere.Citation needed.QuoteI claim boats disappearing over the horizon.Yet you still provide no evidence to support your position. You do well at making claims, though.QuoteI claim air travel times as evidence.Air travel times exist in both models. You're really not very good at supporting your points, even anecdotally (as it's established you never provide evidence for your claims).QuoteNow. YOU provide some SOLID evidence for your flat-earth hypothesis.I'd suggest reviewing the FAQ and wiki. Those resources offer infinitely more evidence than you have put forth so far.QuotePS. it is absolutely unacceptable to simply claim that all photgraphic evidence is faked as you will undoubtedly do.As I will undoubtedly do? Where have I done that? You're attacking an argument I never made. Do you know what the term for that tactic is? You should because you do it an awful lot...Quoteif you want to try that stunt then you have to actually provide evidence that they are faked and not merely claim it.Given that I've made no such claim, this is literally irrelevant. You really need to brush up on basic logic.
I claim the earth is a sphere.Yes you have, and you've provided no evidence to support that claim.QuoteAS supporting evidence I cite the existence of satellitesYou haven't cited anything. You've made another claim with no evidence.Quotethe 10 million photos of the earth... as a sphere.Citation needed.QuoteI claim boats disappearing over the horizon.Yet you still provide no evidence to support your position. You do well at making claims, though.QuoteI claim air travel times as evidence.Air travel times exist in both models. You're really not very good at supporting your points, even anecdotally (as it's established you never provide evidence for your claims).QuoteNow. YOU provide some SOLID evidence for your flat-earth hypothesis.I'd suggest reviewing the FAQ and wiki. Those resources offer infinitely more evidence than you have put forth so far.QuotePS. it is absolutely unacceptable to simply claim that all photgraphic evidence is faked as you will undoubtedly do.As I will undoubtedly do? Where have I done that? You're attacking an argument I never made. Do you know what the term for that tactic is? You should because you do it an awful lot...Quoteif you want to try that stunt then you have to actually provide evidence that they are faked and not merely claim it.Given that I've made no such claim, this is literally irrelevant. You really need to brush up on basic logic.
So you have no evidence, then. Gotcha.
I'll ask that you don't continue to derail threads with your nonsense. You're either trolling or being intentionally obtuse at this point. Either way, it isn't conducive to discussion and you've failed to support a single claim you've made so far in this thread.
If you want to debate, then make a point and support it with evidence.
And you can confirm this is an unedited image? Those blue marble photos look so different over the years:
(http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g327/samuel_adams1/NASA%20Blue%20Marble%20Compilation.jpg)
Astonishly (to you) weather and cloud patterns are all different on each day.
And colour saturation is a factor of all cameras as you would know if you ever used one.
BUT I PROVIDED evidence.
Now it is YOUR turn to proved evidence FOR a flat earth.Did I claim the earth was flat in this thread? Once you figure that out, you should research the terms "evidence" and "burden of proof." If you still need help after that, just let me know. I don't usually hold the hand of round earth logicians this much, but I'll make an exception for you since you've been failing so hard thus far.
Not debunking a round earth but actual credible evidence FOR a flat earth.I would suggest reviewing the FAQ and wiki. It's clear you have no understanding of the FE model (or the RE model for that matter)
Over to you where you will either run away, debunk a round earth evidence or make some outlandish statement and think that is evidence.
Forget it loser. You are just like every other flat-earther - stupid beyond measure.
just missing the clouds and stuff...
And you can confirm this is an unedited image? Those blue marble photos look so different over the years:Not a valid point.
(http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g327/samuel_adams1/NASA%20Blue%20Marble%20Compilation.jpg)
And you can confirm this is an unedited image? Those blue marble photos look so different over the years:Not a valid point.
(http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g327/samuel_adams1/NASA%20Blue%20Marble%20Compilation.jpg)
Making that point using this image is evidence that you don't understand basic geometry.
Those photos are taken at different distances.
Nice try, im not going to let you bait me into stooping to that level by applying semantics. Even though you're a mod I take it the rules apply to all of us, no? There's no reason to be juvenile.And you can confirm this is an unedited image? Those blue marble photos look so different over the years:Not a valid point.
(http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g327/samuel_adams1/NASA%20Blue%20Marble%20Compilation.jpg)
Making that point using this image is evidence that you don't understand basic geometry.
Those photos are taken at different distances.
What isn't a valid point? I think you are confused. I'd suggest going back and reading again but that never seems to help you.
I simply asked the user I was responding to if he could confirm that the image was unedited. The only other thing I said is that earth looks different in the images from the compilation I linked. Are you suggesting that they don't look different?
Nice try, im not going to let you bait me into stooping to that level by applying semantics. Even though you're a mod I take it the rules apply to all of us, no? There's no reason to be juvenile.And you can confirm this is an unedited image? Those blue marble photos look so different over the years:Not a valid point.
(http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g327/samuel_adams1/NASA%20Blue%20Marble%20Compilation.jpg)
Making that point using this image is evidence that you don't understand basic geometry.
Those photos are taken at different distances.
What isn't a valid point? I think you are confused. I'd suggest going back and reading again but that never seems to help you.
I simply asked the user I was responding to if he could confirm that the image was unedited. The only other thing I said is that earth looks different in the images from the compilation I linked. Are you suggesting that they don't look different?
But then again, you believe the earth is flat.
And you can confirm this is an unedited image? Those blue marble photos look so different over the years:
(http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g327/samuel_adams1/NASA%20Blue%20Marble%20Compilation.jpg)
And you can confirm this is an unedited image? Those blue marble photos look so different over the years:
(http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g327/samuel_adams1/NASA%20Blue%20Marble%20Compilation.jpg)
DUH !
If you took pictures of something at different times and from different angles, wouldn't you expect them too look different ?
So what's the point ?And you can confirm this is an unedited image? Those blue marble photos look so different over the years:
(http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g327/samuel_adams1/NASA%20Blue%20Marble%20Compilation.jpg)
DUH !
If you took pictures of something at different times and from different angles, wouldn't you expect them too look different ?
Of course they would look different. Where did I suggest otherwise?
So what's the point ?And you can confirm this is an unedited image? Those blue marble photos look so different over the years:
(http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g327/samuel_adams1/NASA%20Blue%20Marble%20Compilation.jpg)
DUH !
If you took pictures of something at different times and from different angles, wouldn't you expect them too look different ?
Of course they would look different. Where did I suggest otherwise?
So what's the point ?And you can confirm this is an unedited image? Those blue marble photos look so different over the years:
(http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g327/samuel_adams1/NASA%20Blue%20Marble%20Compilation.jpg)
DUH !
If you took pictures of something at different times and from different angles, wouldn't you expect them too look different ?
Of course they would look different. Where did I suggest otherwise?
The point was me asking the user I replied to if they could confirm the authenticity of the image they were providing as evidence to support their claim. I'm not sure what's so hard for some of you to understand about that simple request.
We just don't understsand the reason for your paranoia....or whatever you call it.......when you are presented with simple facts snd evidence.
I would trust NASA more than TFES. Period. Of course, I am biased. I have been a U.S. Government Employee : ROTC, USN, FAA
IF some one would post a photo of a flat earth, would you question its authenticity ? The AEP won't do.LOL.
The point was me asking the user I replied to if they could confirm the authenticity of the image they were providing as evidence to support their claim. I'm not sure what's so hard for some of you to understand about that simple request.You asked if they were unedited, not if they were authentic and then went on to make some vague and irrelevant comment about how different the blue marble has looked over the years. After you and Fliggs engaged in less than savory conversation, why should your request be taken in good faith? Or why should anyone try and read in to your request something that isn't there?
The point was me asking the user I replied to if they could confirm the authenticity of the image they were providing as evidence to support their claim. I'm not sure what's so hard for some of you to understand about that simple request.You asked if they were unedited, not if they were authentic and then went on to make some vague and irrelevant comment about how different the blue marble has looked over the years. After you and Fliggs engaged in less than savory conversation, why should your request be taken in good faith? Or why should anyone try and read in to your request something that isn't there?
And you can confirm this is an unedited image? Those blue marble photos look so different over the years:
(http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g327/samuel_adams1/NASA%20Blue%20Marble%20Compilation.jpg)
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Earth%20from%20Space/20160727%20-%20Russian%20Satellite%20Photo%20around%20midday%20-%20December%202015_zpsuep9wrte.png) Russian Satellite Photo (around midday) - December 2015 | ..... | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Earth%20from%20Space/20160726%20-%20Himawari-8%2020160705120000fd_zpsbdu5jlnj.png) Himawari-8 20160705120000fd | ..... | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Earth%20from%20Space/20160726%20-%20DSCOVR%20EPIC%20187_1003703_africa_zpsduxzmo1m.png) DSCOVR EPIC 187_1003703_africa | ..... |
You ask: "And you can confirm this is an unedited image?", It has obviously been edited numerous times and not necessarily by NASA. NASA never released that image at all! So, no I won't even try!
But,
(1) Some of the earlier photos were composites - NASA said so. A photo of the Globe from much closer than geosynchronous altitude misses a lot of the surface, so earlier photos had to be composites, so what?
(2) Of course photos of the globe will look different. The image you get depends very much on the distance, and which part of the globe is in view.
(3) And the look of the photo depends on the colour treatment. All photos are taken on three or more colour channels and mixed later. Even in the days of the trusty Kodachrome we all know how much colour could vary.
Here are three "satellite" photos (one is from DSCOVR) showing all of these variations.One thing that your and all other flat earthers just have to realise is that NASA and the numerous other space agencies are not the slightest bit interested in proving that the earth is a Globe, that was settled long, long ago.
Russian Satellite Photo (around midday) - December 2015.....
Himawari-8 20160705120000fd.....
DSCOVR EPIC 187_1003703_africa.....
And that picture of yours asks "Why is there never any real video of the earth spinning, only still?" Well, it would be a very, very boring video unless sped up a lot, the earth only spins at 0.007 rpm and any "time lapse" video will be claimed as "fake"!
So here is a time-lapse of the spinning earth, along with Not Again! Along with the claim "Another NASA Fake" by MrThriveAndSurvive to save you the trouble of "debunking" it!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mmfM-fEiecIt does not take much to pick holes in MrThriveAndSurvive's arguments, like the perennial cry "I can't see any atmosphere" - big deal, the atmosphere is effectively about 7 km thick, and the earth 12,742 km, you work it out.
Why is it that so many flat earthers, and MrThriveAndSurvive in particular, are so completely devoid of any sense of perspective or proportion?If you are ;D interested ;D in the "original", all 19 secs of it, here is a link to it EPIC View of Moon Transiting the Earth (https://youtu.be/DMdhQsHbWTs)
(https://yt3.ggpht.com/-yGgyfF0s0tA/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAAAA/kiuOchD_wtI/s88-c-k-no-mo-rj-c0xffffff/photo.jpg)
PS If Sexmaniac thinks I am making the pictures small to deceive him, let him, I couldn't care less. I am not trying to present any detail in any photos anyway, Go chase up the originals if you don't like these.
Every bit as much as your post had to do with the OP, "Cool Hard Logic - Testing Flattards - Part 1".
You ask: "And you can confirm this is an unedited image?", It has obviously been edited numerous times and not necessarily by NASA. NASA never released that image at all! So, no I won't even try!
My question was about the image Fliggs posted, not mine. Mine was just a poke at him to see his response. I shouldn't have done that because he just got angry and went off on other, unrelated tangents.QuoteBut,
(1) Some of the earlier photos were composites - NASA said so. A photo of the Globe from much closer than geosynchronous altitude misses a lot of the surface, so earlier photos had to be composites, so what?
(2) Of course photos of the globe will look different. The image you get depends very much on the distance, and which part of the globe is in view.
(3) And the look of the photo depends on the colour treatment. All photos are taken on three or more colour channels and mixed later. Even in the days of the trusty Kodachrome we all know how much colour could vary.
Here are three "satellite" photos (one is from DSCOVR) showing all of these variations.One thing that your and all other flat earthers just have to realise is that NASA and the numerous other space agencies are not the slightest bit interested in proving that the earth is a Globe, that was settled long, long ago.
Russian Satellite Photo (around midday) - December 2015.....
Himawari-8 20160705120000fd.....
DSCOVR EPIC 187_1003703_africa.....
And that picture of yours asks "Why is there never any real video of the earth spinning, only still?" Well, it would be a very, very boring video unless sped up a lot, the earth only spins at 0.007 rpm and any "time lapse" video will be claimed as "fake"!
So here is a time-lapse of the spinning earth, along with Not Again! Along with the claim "Another NASA Fake" by MrThriveAndSurvive to save you the trouble of "debunking" it!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mmfM-fEiecIt does not take much to pick holes in MrThriveAndSurvive's arguments, like the perennial cry "I can't see any atmosphere" - big deal, the atmosphere is effectively about 7 km thick, and the earth 12,742 km, you work it out.
Why is it that so many flat earthers, and MrThriveAndSurvive in particular, are so completely devoid of any sense of perspective or proportion?If you are ;D interested ;D in the "original", all 19 secs of it, here is a link to it EPIC View of Moon Transiting the Earth (https://youtu.be/DMdhQsHbWTs)
(https://yt3.ggpht.com/-yGgyfF0s0tA/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAAAA/kiuOchD_wtI/s88-c-k-no-mo-rj-c0xffffff/photo.jpg)
PS If Sexmaniac thinks I am making the pictures small to deceive him, let him, I couldn't care less. I am not trying to present any detail in any photos anyway, Go chase up the originals if you don't like these.
What does any of this have to do with the discussion?
And you can confirm this is an unedited image? Those blue marble photos look so different over the years:the post i was responding to.
(http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g327/samuel_adams1/NASA%20Blue%20Marble%20Compilation.jpg)
Every bit as much as your post had to do with the OP, "Cool Hard Logic - Testing Flattards - Part 1".
And it seemed quite relevant toAnd you can confirm this is an unedited image? Those blue marble photos look so different over the years:the post i was responding to.
(http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g327/samuel_adams1/NASA%20Blue%20Marble%20Compilation.jpg)
Images reduced to save space.
I think you're confused about the order of operations in my quote. I suppose I could've separated it better, but the first part of what you quoted from me was in response to Fliggs' single image posting. I already explained that above if you'd take the time to read the thread. If you're trying to make some other point, I apologize because I don't see it.
I think you're confused about the order of operations in my quote. I suppose I could've separated it better, but the first part of what you quoted from me was in response to Fliggs' single image posting. I already explained that above if you'd take the time to read the thread. If you're trying to make some other point, I apologize because I don't see it.
And you are more interested in the details of debating, than in facts.
The points I were making were that
(1) even NASA claimed that the early ones were composites of satellite photos taken from low earth orbit and that the clouds were "pasted in", so what.
(2) there are good reasons for NASA's photos being different.
(3) contrary to the claims in that image there is video of the rotating earth from space, not "real time", that would be a bit useless, and none from geostationary weather satellites - for obvious reasons.
But, since this does fit into your debating ideas, just forget I posted it!
This thread seemed to turn away from the original post. Ignoring his condescension, does anyone have any refuting evidence/math against CHL's video?Not I!
Master degree in what? Gender Studies? How about you claim you have a science degree and doing a PhD in a science discipline. If anything you say is even remotely true it will be an Arts Degree where you havent touched maths or science since primary school.Whoops, I missed that question. Computer science. My PhD is likely going to attempt to develop a novel approach to sentiment analysis.
And you can confirm this is an unedited image? Those blue marble photos look so different over the years:Not a valid point.
(http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g327/samuel_adams1/NASA%20Blue%20Marble%20Compilation.jpg)
Making that point using this image is evidence that you don't understand basic geometry.
Those photos are taken at different distances.
No.And you can confirm this is an unedited image? Those blue marble photos look so different over the years:Not a valid point.
(http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g327/samuel_adams1/NASA%20Blue%20Marble%20Compilation.jpg)
Making that point using this image is evidence that you don't understand basic geometry.
Those photos are taken at different distances.
Aside from these images not taken using what could be termed as a, "point and shoot camera," and actually taken using digital scans of specific areas and then "stitched together (subject to all the other conditions of such types of imagery)" the argument of "perspective," then becomes one not hinging on field of vision, focal length, or distance.
It becomes an argument based only on the imagination and current world view of the presenter.
No.
Regardless of the Composite nature of the image, the distance is still key to understand why the size of the continents differ. This is what happens when looking at a sphere from different distances, regardless of the Composite nature of the image.
No.
Regardless of the Composite nature of the image, the distance is still key to understand why the size of the continents differ. This is what happens when looking at a sphere from different distances, regardless of the Composite nature of the image.
This must qualify as the most laughable response ever uttered here on this forum.
Acknowledging the composite nature of the image, the fact they are stitched, and then boldly stating this entire would not impact the nature of perspective shown.
Absolutely total garbage.
I direct your attention to the 2012 image.
There is no possible way North America would take up that amount of a so-called globe of 8000 miles diameter, no matter the reported distance from which the original scans took place.
No.
Regardless of the Composite nature of the image, the distance is still key to understand why the size of the continents differ. This is what happens when looking at a sphere from different distances, regardless of the Composite nature of the image.
This must qualify as the most laughable response ever uttered here on this forum.
Acknowledging the composite nature of the image, the fact they are stitched, and then boldly stating this entire would not impact the nature of perspective shown.
Absolutely total garbage.
I direct your attention to the 2012 image.
There is no possible way North America would take up that amount of a so-called globe of 8000 miles diameter, no matter the reported distance from which the original scans took place.
Is that so?
Mind you, composite can mean a number of things: Mix of RGB channels in digital photography (every single digital camera out there), stitching multiple images into one complete one. Being composite doesn't change the fact that the distance to a sphere changes how many degrees of the sphere you're able to observe.
Example: https://www.metabunk.org/sk/globe_comparison_with_distance.jpg
Nobody should require people to be educated in a certain field to make statements. Bold statements based on ones own interpretation of reality are invalid though. Don't waste my time.
You basically said nothing of value with that reply, as expected. It doesn't matter how many parameters you apply, them being wavelength scans, stitching and so on. You're still trying to argue that distance doesn't change the amount of degrees you're able to observe on a sphere, which is wrong. It's not a debatable matter, it's just how it is. You're simply just wrong.No.
Regardless of the Composite nature of the image, the distance is still key to understand why the size of the continents differ. This is what happens when looking at a sphere from different distances, regardless of the Composite nature of the image.
This must qualify as the most laughable response ever uttered here on this forum.
Acknowledging the composite nature of the image, the fact they are stitched, and then boldly stating this entire would not impact the nature of perspective shown.
Absolutely total garbage.
I direct your attention to the 2012 image.
There is no possible way North America would take up that amount of a so-called globe of 8000 miles diameter, no matter the reported distance from which the original scans took place.
Is that so?
Mind you, composite can mean a number of things: Mix of RGB channels in digital photography (every single digital camera out there), stitching multiple images into one complete one. Being composite doesn't change the fact that the distance to a sphere changes how many degrees of the sphere you're able to observe.
Exactly my point.
And why do you ignore the process of stitching?
Why do you insist on promoting these images as if they are "point and shoot?"
They are not.
The process by which these images arise is better described as data gathering (via scanning in various light wavelengths) and subsequent data interpretation.Example: https://www.metabunk.org/sk/globe_comparison_with_distance.jpg
Nobody should require people to be educated in a certain field to make statements. Bold statements based on ones own interpretation of reality are invalid though. Don't waste my time.
Do not trot out point and shoot comparisons as being valid.
Don't waste anyone's time, specifically yours, with these weak arguments.
You basically said nothing of value with that reply, as expected. It doesn't matter how many parameters you apply, them being wavelength scans, stitching and so on. You're still trying to argue that distance doesn't change the amount of degrees you're able to observe on a sphere, which is wrong. It's not a debatable matter, it's just how it is. You're simply just wrong.
Life's too short to argue with couch scientists.
You basically said nothing of value with that reply, as expected. It doesn't matter how many parameters you apply, them being wavelength scans, stitching and so on. You're still trying to argue that distance doesn't change the amount of degrees you're able to observe on a sphere, which is wrong. It's not a debatable matter, it's just how it is. You're simply just wrong.
Life's too short to argue with couch scientists.
Yes, because sending up three satellites in 3 different orbits that allows for single shot full disc images just to prove that what we already know still stands and assure you what you think you know about the shape of the earth is wrong, seems plausible.You basically said nothing of value with that reply, as expected. It doesn't matter how many parameters you apply, them being wavelength scans, stitching and so on. You're still trying to argue that distance doesn't change the amount of degrees you're able to observe on a sphere, which is wrong. It's not a debatable matter, it's just how it is. You're simply just wrong.
Life's too short to argue with couch scientists.
One other thing:
If your images offered at metabunk are meant to be utilized as a proof then it should be relatively simple for NASA to perfectly replicate the same types of imagery with a "point and shoot," single snapshot device.
ON DEMAND.
In other words, send up three satellites equipped with "point and shoot," devices, do the corresponding math to scale, make the allowances, and voila!
Images ON DEMAND for anybody.
Yes, because sending up three satellites in 3 different orbits that allows for single shot full disc images just to prove that what we alreadyknowBELIEVE still stands and assure you what you BELIEVE about the shape of the earth iswrongCORRECT, seems plausible.
I concede the point you raise about my specious and foolish comparison between single shot, point and shoot images requiring no further processing or artist rendering and that of the digital scanning and imagery presented by NASA. You are correct. Perspective would only change based on the world view of the individual.
Very mature indeed. Not even going to bother :)Yes, because sending up three satellites in 3 different orbits that allows for single shot full disc images just to prove that what we alreadyknowBELIEVE still stands and assure you what you BELIEVE about the shape of the earth iswrongCORRECT, seems plausible.
I concede the point you raise about my specious and foolish comparison between single shot, point and shoot images requiring no further processing or artist rendering and that of the digital scanning and imagery presented by NASA. You are correct. Perspective would only change based on the world view of the individual.
FTFY.
No need to thank me!
Very mature indeed. Not even going to bother :)Yes, because sending up three satellites in 3 different orbits that allows for single shot full disc images just to prove that what we alreadyknowBELIEVE still stands and assure you what you BELIEVE about the shape of the earth iswrongCORRECT, seems plausible.
I concede the point you raise about my specious and foolish comparison between single shot, point and shoot images requiring no further processing or artist rendering and that of the digital scanning and imagery presented by NASA. You are correct. Perspective would only change based on the world view of the individual.
FTFY.
No need to thank me!
Very mature indeed. Not even going to bother :)Yes, because sending up three satellites in 3 different orbits that allows for single shot full disc images just to prove that what we alreadyknowBELIEVE still stands and assure you what you BELIEVE about the shape of the earth iswrongCORRECT, seems plausible.
I concede the point you raise about my specious and foolish comparison between single shot, point and shoot images requiring no further processing or artist rendering and that of the digital scanning and imagery presented by NASA. You are correct. Perspective would only change based on the world view of the individual.
FTFY.
No need to thank me!
A satellite placed at a Lagrange point of 1.5 mio km and a satellite in an orbit of 100,000 km each Snapping a one-shot photo of the same point on earth would provide two photos showing different sized surface features relative to the visible surface of the sphere.
A satellite placed at a Lagrange point of 1.5 mio km and a satellite in an orbit of 100,000 km each Snapping a one-shot photo of the same point on earth would provide two photos showing different sized surface features relative to the visible surface of the sphere.
Is your assertion that this is the technology we use now? A satellite with a digital camera attached?
A satellite placed at a Lagrange point of 1.5 mio km and a satellite in an orbit of 100,000 km each Snapping a one-shot photo of the same point on earth would provide two photos showing different sized surface features relative to the visible surface of the sphere.
Is your assertion that this is the technology we use now? A satellite with a digital camera attached?
A brief description of the EPIC camera on DSCOVR. (https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/epic)
A slightly more in depth description. (http://avdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/pub/DSCOVR/EPIC_NISTAR_Documents/DSCOVR-EPIC-Description.pdf)
It uses a CCD (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge-coupled_device) sensor to capture images, so yes, it is a type of digital camera.
A satellite placed at a Lagrange point of 1.5 mio km and a satellite in an orbit of 100,000 km each Snapping a one-shot photo of the same point on earth would provide two photos showing different sized surface features relative to the visible surface of the sphere.
Is your assertion that this is the technology we use now? A satellite with a digital camera attached?
A brief description of the EPIC camera on DSCOVR. (https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/epic)
A slightly more in depth description. (http://avdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/pub/DSCOVR/EPIC_NISTAR_Documents/DSCOVR-EPIC-Description.pdf)
It uses a CCD (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge-coupled_device) sensor to capture images, so yes, it is a type of digital camera.
And that was only in use for the most recent photos correct?
Hey, look, another thread hijacked by andruszkow's blatant trolling.
I'll be the first to say it: andruszkow is actually a Flat Earther who's just here for cheap laughs.
Projection much?And here's Totes, the guy who wants inconvenient sources removed due to super-serious concerns, rushing to the rescue!
Projection much?And here's Totes, the guy who wants inconvenient sources removed due to super-serious concerns, rushing to the rescue!
I think I've struck gold.
A satellite placed at a Lagrange point of 1.5 mio km and a satellite in an orbit of 100,000 km each Snapping a one-shot photo of the same point on earth would provide two photos showing different sized surface features relative to the visible surface of the sphere.
Is your assertion that this is the technology we use now? A satellite with a digital camera attached?
A brief description of the EPIC camera on DSCOVR. (https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/epic)
A slightly more in depth description. (http://avdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/pub/DSCOVR/EPIC_NISTAR_Documents/DSCOVR-EPIC-Description.pdf)
It uses a CCD (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge-coupled_device) sensor to capture images, so yes, it is a type of digital camera.
And that was only in use for the most recent photos correct?
If these (http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g327/samuel_adams1/NASA%20Blue%20Marble%20Compilation.jpg) are the photos you are referring to, I haven't looked them all up. Anything since the 90's is likely to be digital. I believe the original blue marble was on film.
Edit: Before CCD/CMOS sensors were in use, you had these things (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_camera_tube), which I would hesitate to call a "digital camera".
A satellite placed at a Lagrange point of 1.5 mio km and a satellite in an orbit of 100,000 km each Snapping a one-shot photo of the same point on earth would provide two photos showing different sized surface features relative to the visible surface of the sphere.
Is your assertion that this is the technology we use now? A satellite with a digital camera attached?
A brief description of the EPIC camera on DSCOVR. (https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/epic)
A slightly more in depth description. (http://avdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/pub/DSCOVR/EPIC_NISTAR_Documents/DSCOVR-EPIC-Description.pdf)
It uses a CCD (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge-coupled_device) sensor to capture images, so yes, it is a type of digital camera.
And that was only in use for the most recent photos correct?
If these (http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g327/samuel_adams1/NASA%20Blue%20Marble%20Compilation.jpg) are the photos you are referring to, I haven't looked them all up. Anything since the 90's is likely to be digital. I believe the original blue marble was on film.
Edit: Before CCD/CMOS sensors were in use, you had these things (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_camera_tube), which I would hesitate to call a "digital camera".
The question is: are the DISCOVR images the only ones supposedly far enough away to have Earth's photo taken in one shot? From my research, that appears to be the case. The other images wouldn't have been able to be taken in a single shot, and there are actually in depth explanations about how many of them were created.
That being said, using that photographs of a globe example is out of the question as far as comparing the apparent sizes of continents when looking at NASA imagery. We can only compare the images that use similar methods of capture/generate.
If they continue to misrepresent the sizes of continents, and the colors of the earth with this extremely technical and difficult method of a satellite suspended perfectly in a gravity pit pointing perfectly at the Earth from a million miles away then we can revisit the topic.
Struck gold? So you admit that you are just trolling for reactions for cheap laughs?No, but I must have hit a nerve for you guys to become so tribal so quickly. It's evidence that I'm right about you two.
Are you just being mean drunk right now?I tend to only drink in the evening these days.
How is valid points trolling?Presenting logic along the lines of "my points are valid because I said so" really doesn't help your case.
Well, I guess I did strike gold.Congratulations then. I see no point in the Internet warriorism though. I corrected a statement about surface features based on distance in a calm fashion. Not because I say so, but because that's just how it is. Everyone can take pictures of spherical objects at home and confirm it.
That being said, using that photographs of a globe example is out of the question as far as comparing the apparent sizes of continents when looking at NASA imagery. We can only compare the images that use similar methods of capture/generate.
A satellite placed at a Lagrange point of 1.5 mio km and a satellite in an orbit of 100,000 km each Snapping a one-shot photo of the same point on earth would provide two photos showing different sized surface features relative to the visible surface of the sphere.
Is your assertion that this is the technology we use now? A satellite with a digital camera attached?
A brief description of the EPIC camera on DSCOVR. (https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/epic)
A slightly more in depth description. (http://avdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/pub/DSCOVR/EPIC_NISTAR_Documents/DSCOVR-EPIC-Description.pdf)
It uses a CCD (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge-coupled_device) sensor to capture images, so yes, it is a type of digital camera.
Yup, as per usual a factual debate gets ruined by applying criticism on the semantics allowing you to completely ignore the important part.
It does not matter if the camera utilized is point and shoot. It does not matter that the angle from which the pictures of the globus where taken from differ from the first. You can clearly see that the distance changes the apparent size of the surface features based on the distance alone.
A satellite placed at a Lagrange point of 1.5 mio km and a satellite in an orbit of 100,000 km each Snapping a one-shot photo of the same point on earth would provide two photos showing different sized surface features relative to the visible surface of the sphere.
Even if the field of view were narrowed by both cameras, taking photos that would later need to be stitched together for a complete full disc image, the result would be the same assuming both cameras is set at neutral zoom. It has nothing to do with types of cameras even though you want to make it to be about cameras or doctoring images. It's about geometry and perspective. Nothing else.
The particular example I provided from metabunk is just an example. I've previously provided the exact same example with a soccer ball because people also dismissed the metabunk example back then. There's nothing magical to it. It's not even a technical challenge. It's just geometry and perspective.
Now stop applying ambiguity to every single argument where there's none to be applied. Let high school students debate in that manner, or the other Internet warriors, and try to act like an adult.
What a bunch of nothing, way to go!Yup, as per usual a factual debate gets ruined by applying criticism on the semantics allowing you to completely ignore the important part.
It does not matter if the camera utilized is point and shoot. It does not matter that the angle from which the pictures of the globus where taken from differ from the first. You can clearly see that the distance changes the apparent size of the surface features based on the distance alone.
A satellite placed at a Lagrange point of 1.5 mio km and a satellite in an orbit of 100,000 km each Snapping a one-shot photo of the same point on earth would provide two photos showing different sized surface features relative to the visible surface of the sphere.
Even if the field of view were narrowed by both cameras, taking photos that would later need to be stitched together for a complete full disc image, the result would be the same assuming both cameras is set at neutral zoom. It has nothing to do with types of cameras even though you want to make it to be about cameras or doctoring images. It's about geometry and perspective. Nothing else.
The particular example I provided from metabunk is just an example. I've previously provided the exact same example with a soccer ball because people also dismissed the metabunk example back then. There's nothing magical to it. It's not even a technical challenge. It's just geometry and perspective.
Now stop applying ambiguity to every single argument where there's none to be applied. Let high school students debate in that manner, or the other Internet warriors, and try to act like an adult.
No ambiguity.
I clearly stated distance matters.
I also clearly stated your specious comparison of the pics from metabunk are not an accurate comparison due to the point and shoot nature, unknown parameters, and failure to provide any information relative to scaling so as to replicate the results.
Clear enough?
I cannot help it your argumentation is bogus.
The scientific method (providing input and results data so that tests, outcomes, and claims can be subject to replication and falsification) is not all that important. Just trust the information.
Hehe, that FTFY thing is so cute. It makes the Internet warriors feel so cool and special. It's OK, "let the kids" is my attitude.The scientific method (providing input and results data so that tests, outcomes, and claims can be subject to replication and falsification) is not all that important. Just trust the information.
FTFY.
No need to thank me!
Hehe, that FTFY thing is so cute. It makes the Internet warriors feel so cool and special. It's OK, "let the kids" is my attitude.
No, but I must have hit a nerve for you guys to become so tribal so quickly. It's evidence that I'm right about you two.
.. yet you're the one who moderates (?) a website set up for your "society"...That was most certainly not the case in February 2017.
who's the tribal one here?Given your insistence on attacking me for having called someone out over a year ago, I think your question can be treated as rhetorical.
Right off the bat, it looks like did not research much here, because he is missing some of the more sophisticated solutions to the problems he points out.Actually I don’t know any ‘sophisticated solutions’ to the latitude problem. Flatearthers agree with latitude and longitude as measurement systems, the problem is to reconcile this with distance as measured by travel time, e.g. by air travel. They typically claim that reported flight times are wrong, as discussed in another thread.
if any of CHL's assumptions (with regard to the maths) in this video are erroneous, please clarify and provide a correction to that assumption. I see there are a lot of places in the tfes forums and associated wiki and resources that address some maths, but none addressing these specific problems.One specific assumption he makes is about the distance from the east to the west coast of Australia. This is not a maths assumption, but a measurement assumption. See the video at 6:30, where he shows that the distance implied by the FE model is 8,886 km, but the actual distance is 3,687km. However the ‘actual distance’ he quotes is from Google maps. A Flatearther would immediately object that Google uses round earth assumptions, and that no one has actually done a proper measurement of the distance between those points.
CHL is always entertaining, but he has the unfortunate tendency to say what the groups he's addressing "must" believe rather than what they *do* believe. He ends up debunking a strawman, and his follower base is not critical enough to verify his assumptions.That’s not true. The buffoonery aside, he is making clear and logical points that anyone on the opposing side must think about and address. The distance between Red Rock and Leeman is a case in point. Flatearthers agree (as far as I know) on latitude and longitude, and most FE models use these. But this has to be reconciled with the actual distance. That requires a coherent objection the other side. Not a straw man.
That’s not true. The buffoonery aside, he is making clear and logical points that anyone on the opposing side must think about and address.The problem is that he makes up his own "opposing side" - and I doubt his imaginary friends are going to respond in any way that we could perceive.
Rather than presenting an actual FE model (I'm not necessarily saying our model, but one he could actually provide a reference to), he simply asserts what Flat Earthers believe based on... well, I dunno what. His imagination?
The FE model is that the earth is flat, according to him. Are you disputing that?It's precisely this kind of simplistic thinking that justifies the creation of strawmen.
Your point then is that a less simplistic version of the FE model might cut the mustard? But what do you mean by flat surface, as opposed to any other kind of surface? Do you mean a surface that obeys the postulates of Euclidean geometry? In that case, there is no FE model whatsoever that would resolve the distance problems he points out.The FE model is that the earth is flat, according to him. Are you disputing that?It's precisely this kind of simplistic thinking that justifies the creation of strawmen.
I agree that CHL does a fair bit of straw-manning, but part of the problem is there is no coherent FE model which you all agree on.The problem is that there can be no such coherent model. The meaning of ‘flat’ is a surface that obeys standard Euclidean geometry. But the world’s surface does not obey standard Euclidean geometry. Ergo etc.
Your point then is that a less simplistic version of the FE model might cut the mustard?No, my point is not something else from what I said. My point is that misrepresenting your opponent makes your argument largely worthless.
Can you explain clearly and coherently exactly how he has misrepresented in the case of the 'Australia' point? What particular belief or model is he supposed to be misrepresenting?Your point then is that a less simplistic version of the FE model might cut the mustard?No, my point is not something else from what I said. My point is that misrepresenting your opponent makes your argument largely worthless.
What particular belief or model is he supposed to be misrepresenting?No, that's the problem. He's not trying to represent any model.
Spelling it out. He takes two points on the same latitude, then makes three claims
1. The difference in longitude is 38 deg.
2. The distance overland is 3,687km.
3. The distance implied by any FE model is 8,885km.
What FE model or belief is he misrepresenting here?
Yes he is. He says that the distance implied by any FE model is 8,885km. Did you miss that?What particular belief or model is he supposed to be misrepresenting?No, that's the problem. He's not trying to represent any model.
That's not true. In the bipolar model you can place the symmetry axis such, that the distance for Australia would fit. That's the convenience of having no agreed model. You can always point out that you're arguing against the wrong model.Are you certain of that? In that case the model would have to dispute the assumption of 38 degrees longitude, no? I may be wrong.
Yes he is. He says that the distance implied by any FE model is 8,885km. Did you miss that?No, it just happens to be a lie. Thank you for reinforcing my point.
I don't think you'll be able to find a FE model that states that.I used the word imply. So your claim, understood properly, is that no FE model implies the calculation he uses to calculate the distance between two points of different longitude, but identical latitude? Can you confirm please?
That's not true. In the bipolar model you can place the symmetry axis such, that the distance for Australia would fit. That's the convenience of having no agreed model. You can always point out that you're arguing against the wrong model.Are you certain of that? In that case the model would have to dispute the assumption of 38 degrees longitude, no? I may be wrong.
Yes the bipolar model is symmetric in the east-west and north-south direction. But the symmetry axis in the north-south direction is not fixed. If it would go through Australia we would have a similar mapping of distances to longitudes/latitudes as on a globe. In general the bipolar map has less significant problems with distortions than the unipolar one.
Of course, it has other severe problems, but for discussions it is quite convenient to have it as backup to counter arguments.
That's one of endless possibilities to draw it. Of course it has distortions, but not that severe as the unipolar one has in the south. And the circular one in the wiki has even less distortions. Not for Australia, but that you can correct by putting Australia on the vertical symmetry axis.Ah right. So for any counterclaim whatsoever, you can in theory produce an arbitrary model to oppose the specific counterclaim, and also complain that it is a 'straw man'.
The point is not to show one single map, that solves all problems, it's about having something that you can present for the problem that is actually discussed.
So you can draw a flat map with a more or less undistorted Australia, so you are able to refuse the claim there can be no map that shows Australia undistorted. And so easily you can disregard all arguments against a flat earth one by one.
However, this is not how we do science, at least as I learned it.
Yes, but no one here is claiming to do science, in the opposite they have strong objections against science and scientific argumentation.Could some bona fide Flatearther confirm this please? The objections in question are not against the claims of established science themselves, but rather scientific methodology itself, i.e. the method science uses to confirm or disconfirm truth claims. That's pretty important.
This thread is probably relevant here.Yes, but no one here is claiming to do science, in the opposite they have strong objections against science and scientific argumentation.Could some bona fide Flatearther confirm this please? The objections in question are not against the claims of established science themselves, but rather scientific methodology itself, i.e. the method science uses to confirm or disconfirm truth claims. That's pretty important.
I thought that FE did use the scientific methodology, except they come up with different answers.
Ask a Question -> Create a Hypothesis -> Perform an Experiment to prove hypothesis true -> Conclusion.
The part in bold is not true, the experiment is designed to TEST the hypothesis, not prove it true.Picky point, the etymology of 'prove', which still reflects its sense, is the Latin 'probare', to test. 'Proof' in the sense of logical proof or deduction, is probably the strongest form of test.
Wow, that IS picky! :DThe part in bold is not true, the experiment is designed to TEST the hypothesis, not prove it true.Picky point, the etymology of 'prove', which still reflects its sense, is the Latin 'probare', to test. 'Proof' in the sense of logical proof or deduction, is probably the strongest form of test.
But the fact they say "prove hypothesis true" clearly means they are using the word in the more conventional sense, that a hypothesis is made and then an experiment is constructed to show it true, which isn't what is done. Actually no experiment can prove a hypothesis true, it can only disprove it, or add more confidence that the hypothesis is true.Yes correct, as Popper would have said (I think). Sorry for being picky.
Without experiments on the universe to tell us whether the underlying theories are true, you are just observing and interpreting. Astronomy is not a real science. Anyone can look at something and imagine up an explanation. The practice is a disgrace and really no better than Astrology.My emphasis. Wow.
Yes, but no one here is claiming to do science, in the opposite they have strong objections against science and scientific argumentation.Could some bona fide Flatearther confirm this please? The objections in question are not against the claims of established science themselves, but rather scientific methodology itself, i.e. the method science uses to confirm or disconfirm truth claims. That's pretty important.
I thought that FE did use the scientific methodology, except they come up with different answers.
Yes the bipolar model is symmetric in the east-west and north-south direction. But the symmetry axis in the north-south direction is not fixed. If it would go through Australia we would have a similar mapping of distances to longitudes/latitudes as on a globe. In general the bipolar map has less significant problems with distortions than the unipolar one.
Of course, it has other severe problems, but for discussions it is quite convenient to have it as backup to counter arguments.
Is this the model (below)? How would it not have distortions of distance? The equatorial regions for example? [edit] Also the mapping below has curved lines of longitude.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c9/MercTranSph_enhanced.png)
I used the word imply. So your claim, understood properly, is that no FE model implies the calculation he uses to calculate the distance between two points of different longitude, but identical latitude? Can you confirm please?No, I can't confirm that. One's standards of implication can vary greatly. To me, the statement is utter nonsense, and I can't think of model in which it would apply. This is why it is absolutely essential for the author to provide his reference material and justify his assumptions. He does not do that, simply because he is not capable of doing it.
To me, the statement is utter nonsense, and I can't think of model in which it would apply.Sorry, which statement is utter nonsense?
No, I can't confirm that.I was asking you to confirm what you actually meant. You misquoted me, and I replied saying perhaps you meant 'that'. You now say you can't confirm what you meant. So what did you mean? I find your English difficult to parse, by the way.
Without experiments on the universe to tell us whether the underlying theories are true, you are just observing and interpreting. Astronomy is not a real science. Anyone can look at something and imagine up an explanation. The practice is a disgrace and really no better than Astrology.My emphasis. Wow.
Yes the bipolar model is symmetric in the east-west and north-south direction. But the symmetry axis in the north-south direction is not fixed. If it would go through Australia we would have a similar mapping of distances to longitudes/latitudes as on a globe. In general the bipolar map has less significant problems with distortions than the unipolar one.
Of course, it has other severe problems, but for discussions it is quite convenient to have it as backup to counter arguments.
Is this the model (below)? How would it not have distortions of distance? The equatorial regions for example? [edit] Also the mapping below has curved lines of longitude.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c9/MercTranSph_enhanced.png)
That model wont work.
At present we are sailing from North west Australia to japan, and i am pretty certain we are not going PAC~Man off the edge of the world doing it.....
Sorry, I forgot to mention, that the Pac-Man effect is a necessity for the bipolar model... But, nothing is perfect...Why is that?
Sorry, I forgot to mention, that the Pac-Man effect is a necessity for the bipolar model... But, nothing is perfect...Why is that?
[edit] Is it because to get from NW Aus to Japan, you have to go from bottom to top? Couldn't you roll it up like a cylinder?
Sorry, I forgot to mention, that the Pac-Man effect is a necessity for the bipolar model... But, nothing is perfect...Why is that?
[edit] Is it because to get from NW Aus to Japan, you have to go from bottom to top? Couldn't you roll it up like a cylinder?
Sorry, which statement is utter nonsense?The idea that Australia is some 8000km across.
I find your English difficult to parse, by the way.I'm sorry to hear that. I'm sure it's not perfect, but most people seem to cope just fine.
If this is utter nonsense, is it then correct to assume, that you believe Australia has the size one can find in usual sources like maps, wikipedia and other encyclopedias?You continue to misunderstand my point. My personal views are of utterly no significance to my objections to how CHL does things.
Yet the author clearly does specify which model he is referring to, namely the Azimuthal Equidistant Projection.That does nothing to clarify which model he's referring to. Very few models use different maps.
And it is mathematically true that this model has Australia coming out at 8000km across!Ah, yes, emptily insisting that you can just transpose RET principles into FET is a great way of debating.
I said mathematically true. Mathematics is what mathematics is. It is indifferent to RE or FE models. If I claim that 2+1=3, is this RET? How?And it is mathematically true that this model has Australia coming out at 8000km across!Ah, yes, emptily insisting that you can just transpose RET principles into FET is a great way of debating.
The azimuthal equidistant projection is an azimuthal map projection. It has the useful properties that all points on the map are at proportionately correct distances from the center point, and that all points on the map are at the correct azimuth (direction) from the center point. A useful application for this type of projection is a polar projection which shows all meridians (lines of longitude) as straight, with distances from the pole represented correctly. The flag of the United Nations contains an example of a polar azimuthal equidistant projection. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuthal_equidistant_projectionSo the author is making assumptions that both sides can agree with. Remember a large number of flat earthers claim the United Nations map is the real FE map. And he is using a bit of mathematics using an isosceles triangle. These are not ‘RET principles [transposed]into FET’. The starting point is assumptions both sides agree on.
That does nothing to clarify which model he's referring to.Lol the azimuthal equidistant projection is the model. That is all we need, see the definition of the model above.
If I claim that 2+1=3, is this RET? How?Well, you did assume base 10. 2+1 could very well be 10. Since the model critiqued has not been specified, we don't have a way of ascertaining what CHL is attacking.
Lol the azimuthal equidistant projection is the model.No, it isn't. The image you're referring to is a common feature of the vast majority of models.
I'll try to be more specific this time and just tackle one thing at a time.For the record, in general the FE side insists that there IS no model of the flat Earth. "We don't have a map" is an oft repeated phrase. Hence none of your questions, or indeed CHL's video, contains any relevance.
1. How do flat Earth advocates reconcile the distance problem that CHL highlighted in this video?
It seems that many of you have established that he's making assumptions about which model to use, and that the model CHL chose is incorrect. Okay then. This act of his likely has implications, so let's address those.
1a. Which model ought he have used? Why?
1b. In what way does the use of the proper model affect CHL's geometric analysis?
1c. Does the proper model leave any other problems unresolved?
JQV
I'll try to be more specific this time and just tackle one thing at a time.For the record, in general the FE side insists that there IS no model of the flat Earth. "We don't have a map" is an oft repeated phrase. Hence none of your questions, or indeed CHL's video, contains any relevance.
1. How do flat Earth advocates reconcile the distance problem that CHL highlighted in this video?
It seems that many of you have established that he's making assumptions about which model to use, and that the model CHL chose is incorrect. Okay then. This act of his likely has implications, so let's address those.
1a. Which model ought he have used? Why?
1b. In what way does the use of the proper model affect CHL's geometric analysis?
1c. Does the proper model leave any other problems unresolved?
JQV
1a. Which model ought he have used? Why?For the purpose of a video like this, it doesn't matter in particular - it'll just be addressing the specific model you've chosen. It's when you choose to make up your own version of the argument you're debunking that you've got a problem.
1a. Which model ought he have used? Why?For the purpose of a video like this, it doesn't matter in particular - it'll just be addressing the specific model you've chosen. It's when you choose to make up your own version of the argument you're debunking that you've got a problem.
I'll try to be more specific this time and just tackle one thing at a time.
1. How do flat Earth advocates reconcile the distance problem that CHL highlighted in this video?
1a. Which model ought he have used? Why?
1b. In what way does the use of the proper model affect CHL's geometric analysis?
1c. Does the proper model leave any other problems unresolved?
JQV
Clearly there is only one map of the world, which will tell us the shape.I'll try to be more specific this time and just tackle one thing at a time.
1. How do flat Earth advocates reconcile the distance problem that CHL highlighted in this video?
1a. Which model ought he have used? Why?
1b. In what way does the use of the proper model affect CHL's geometric analysis?
1c. Does the proper model leave any other problems unresolved?
JQV
1. How do flat Earth advocates reconcile the distance problem that CHL highlighted in this video?
It's impossible to accurately measure distance because round earth measuring devices and systems are specifically built to return results that support a round earth. Beyond a certain distance a flat earth mile is very different than a round earth mile.
1a. Which model ought he have used? Why?
There is no accurate flat earth model or flat earth map. one has yet to be created.
1b. In what way does the use of the proper model affect CHL's geometric analysis?
There is no accurate flat earth model or flat earth map. one has yet to be created.
1c. Does the proper model leave any other problems unresolved?
since There is no accurate flat earth model or flat earth map someone first needs to make a tested flat earth model and a flat earth map which is agreed upon by a majority of the flat earth community.
This is very difficult when some flat earthers believe there is a dome, some do not.
Some believe in gravity, some do not.
Some believe in a huge ice wall around the edge and some believe that we are in the middle of an infinite plane.
Some believe that we are the center of the universe some do not.
Clearly there is only one map of the world, which will tell us the shape.
1. Why doesn't it matter which model he uses?Because he currently doesn't use one at all. Moving from debunking a position that nobody holds to a position that somebody holds is a net positive, regardless of who said somebody is.
2. What statements make his version of the flat Earth argument erroneous? In what way are they misrepresentative of the flat Earth argument?I'm going to have to cop out of that one. This discussion originally took place more than a year ago, and I just don't have it in me to re-watch it and generate a list, plus I see no value in doing so. I'll point to the fact that most RE'ers who spent some time here readily acknowledge that the video is misrepresentative.
It is not possible to plot a flat earth map which matches reality. That is not my opinion, it is geometry.Which geometry?
If those distances are correctIf.
It is not possible to plot a flat earth map which matches reality. That is not my opinion, it is geometry.Which geometry?
...the geometry of a flat planeWhich brings us back to the absolute necessity of picking a model before trying to debunk it. Not everyone will accept your assumption of Euclidean geometry.
???...the geometry of a flat planeWhich brings us back to the absolute necessity of picking a model before trying to debunk it. Not everyone will accept your assumption of Euclidean geometry.
You can look at the distances between other pairs of cities and do a drawing to see if they fit on a large sheet of paper. If they don't then either:No, I'm suggesting that you have to pick a model in order to dispute it. If said model is based on Euclidean geometry, then I have no issue with that, since I also believe them to be wrong. I will, however, object to the idea that this somehow disproves all Flat Earthers' views.
1) The earth isn't flat or
2) The distances are wrong - and that will need some evidence given the things I've mentioned.
Are you suggesting that triangles work differently depending on the scale?
No, I'm suggesting that you have to pick a model in order to dispute it. If said model is based on Euclidean geometry, then I have no issue with that, since I also believe them to be wrong. I will, however, object to the idea that this somehow disproves all Flat Earthers' views.
I believe Pete is stating (or implying very poorly instead of just spitting it out) that he holds to a model of a flat Earth, where the space above the flat plane of the Earth is non-Euclidean. As such, all of these 'measured distances' can technically be correct when based upon the assumption of a Euclidean space, but instead of the Earth being curved space is curved. Roughly. It was a model I never grokked very well personally, and is not particularly well presented anywhere here as far as I'm aware.No, I'm suggesting that you have to pick a model in order to dispute it. If said model is based on Euclidean geometry, then I have no issue with that, since I also believe them to be wrong. I will, however, object to the idea that this somehow disproves all Flat Earthers' views.
Ooh. That's a bit slippery.
That would be fair enough if you had a coherent model but Tom has said that there isn't a model. He says that there's not enough investment for FE research and you don't have the resources.
But that means that whatever objection we present you can say we are objecting to a different model to the model you believe in.
If you're going to play fair you should at least present the model you DO believe in so people can comment on it.
And I guess the you is singular there if you (plural) don't have an agreed model
I'm intrigued at what other geometry you think works on a flat plane. If the earth is flat then it can be modelled by a 2d surface, yes, no?
If no then...what?! I'd like you to elaborate on where that reasoning falls down.
If yes then...OK. So let's say we have a piece of paper which I hope we can agree is a 2D surface which we will use to represent the whole earth.
London is somewhere on that surface, it has an X and Y co-ordinate. So does London. So does Sydney. And so on.
You will find that if you start with a blank piece of paper and try and plot the locations of those cities starting with one arbitrarily and using the round earth distances between them then you will be unable to. This is why RE says that there is no flat earth map which can work, ergo the earth is not flat.
So either...
1) You don't accept the distances as given by the RE model
2) You reject the whole premise of modelling the earth by a flat plane like a piece of paper.
Or both. If 2 then how would you model it? If 1 then what is your basis for rejecting those distances? I've said above why I believe there is good evidence for them.
...the geometry of a flat planeWhich brings us back to the absolute necessity of picking a model before trying to debunk it. Not everyone will accept your assumption of Euclidean geometry.
...the geometry of a flat planeWhich brings us back to the absolute necessity of picking a model before trying to debunk it. Not everyone will accept your assumption of Euclidean geometry.
Hi Pete
I keep seeing you and other people do this. I'm actually on your side on this. Note that I mentioned in one of my earlier posts, I'd rather discuss with you your thoughts about this subject, instead of what I think are your thoughts on the subject. The latter gets us nowhere, as we're seeing in this thread. Since there are many models (or no models apparently, in some people's view) let's just focus on you, then. I think that will be the most productive use of our time here.
On what model or, system of measurements, do you base your position that the earth is flat? That's what I was getting at anyways in my first post where I asked what would be an appropriate correction to CHL's assumptions, so let's just jump to that end and discuss it.
If you have time (I know you said you're a busy guy, so am I), could you go over some of the wave tops? I don't need supreme detail - though an idea of some of the maths involved would be a nice addition. For example, if I were making some claim based on arc lengths I'd bring up trigonometry but save the details of S=rθ
NOTE: My arc length bit is just a "for instance." I just want to provide an idea of the level of detail (not much) that I'm looking for as a stepping off point for our conversation.
JQV
Just so you know Pete doesn't normally take a stance on these issues. As such it can be frustratingly difficult to get a straight answer from him. After all you can't be wrong if you don't commit to anything.