[3DGeek]

Since our beliefs are based on things like "birds descend into the horizon" and yours are based on "since the sun lights exactly 50% of the earth at all times... therefore.." your burden of proof is a lot higher. We just need to show that birds descend for our assertions and you need to prove that 50% of the earth is lit at all times for yours.

Wait...what?  How does "birds descent into the horizon" prove the flat earth?   Quite the contrary, I'd say.  The RET has a perfectly reasonable explanation for this fact...so even if it is also provable in FET, it doesn't in any way demonstrate the flatness of the Earth.

There really are very VERY few observations that you claim to have made that are not fully explainable in terms of RET.   The few that do (the Rowbotham Bedford Levels thing for example) have been repeated and produced the opposite result...showing them to be at best inconclusive.

I have yet to see a SINGLE piece of evidence that shows something that would only be true if the Earth was flat...not a single one.

On the other hand, I've posted at least a dozen things that FET cannot explain and which resulted in no FE'er even trying to explain.  Just today, I present clear, simple evidence that your bipolar map is junk.  Do you immediately jump in with a clear explanation of how you CAN explain this?   No - you just nit-pick the PVoutput.org results...which aren't even important to my proof.

Other evidence - such as how photons can travel in straight lines and yet still produce a sunset resulted in you making the bold claim that you would start a new thread to fully explain this issue - and then completely failing to do so...TWICE.

The only sane conclusion here is that you simply don't have evidence to countervail the things that FET cannot explain - and you have no evidence for the things that you say RET couldn't explain.

If this was "tres.org" rather than "tfes.org" - what things would you be posting there to demonstrate that RET isn't true?   I don't think you'd have a damned thing to say.  You have ZERO solid evidence.

[StinkyOne]

Man this thread really proves my point. Prove GPS works...lol. Simple, I geocache occasionally. I take Lat/long info and use a GPS app on my phone. Using that info, I am able to find the cache without much trouble. I also know the speed is accurate because I've played around with the app on the highway where it shows my speed. It always matches my speedometer. None of this will be proof enough for Tom, which I'm fine with. He is just playing games because he knows he can't actually win the debate.

Further, all this empiricism stuff is nonsense. A human's senses are shite at determining the real nature of the world. It's fine for simple stuff, but that's about it. One need only look at the electromagnetic spectrum for proof of that. (oh wait, I'm guessing I have to prove it exists...) We can only detect a small segment of the total spectrum.

[Xfires]

The particular quote you gave gives several empirical examples. Assertions are not made without basis. No one said that it was "fact". A lot of what we believe is merely the empirical conclusion to the world around us, as opposed to the hypothetical possibilities that Round Earthers believe.

Since our beliefs are based on things like "birds descend into the horizon" and yours are based on "since the sun lights exactly 50% of the earth at all times... therefore.." your burden of proof is a lot higher. We just need to show that birds descend for our assertions and you need to prove that 50% of the earth is lit at all times for yours.

Also, as the party making the huge claim against all the science that we have believed ever since the Greek times, I think you have the much higher burden of proof. If you had common sense you would create a page where I can see all of your claims and the science and proof behind them.

   -Here a few counterpoints real quick.
   1) You claim that NASA is propagating false information but how do you explain every other spaces program and independent company that uses space travel.
   2) You claim that GPS is false because it uses RET assumptions. This is a very dumb thing to claim because all you are really doing is proving that the RET assumptions lead us to the truth. This is because GPS has been tested by millions of people around the world. You ask us for evidence but you don't except the fact that you can go on your phone right now and check your location using GPS.

 

[Curious Squirrel]

All of your "empirical evidence" listed here though is predicted on the Earth being flat. If the Earth isn't flat you have no evidence for your perspective. If the Earth isn't flat, you have no evidence for the light from a lighthouse not stretching forever. Every one of these is based upon begging the question. You presume the Earth to be flat, and ascribe how things work based upon that assumption. You then use those "proofs" to assert the Earth is flat. You have zero positive evidence that describes only a flat Earth. Your standard of evidence is far lower for something supporting a flat Earth than refuting it. Just look through Rowbotham's work, he's a model for many poorly documented experiments, and objections without strong shown reason for them.

Empirical evidence IS positive evidence. It is the most powerful evidence you can have. You keep trying to convince us of illusions and such, but you seem to have a hard time actually demonstrating your wild claims.

Our standard of evidence is just fine. The person with the claim provides the evidence. You are expected to defend your claims. If you want to challenge our claims of descending birds in return, that is fine. We are willing to do that.

PLEASE stop cherry picking what I'm saying. I said: Positive evidence for a strictly flat Earth. You have NOTHING that can be explained only upon a flat Earth. In fact many of your explanations are based upon "The Earth is flat, X can be seen to be happening, so Y must be true!" When Y is anything but true for every other known scenario. But I'm not about to pull this off into another sunset discussion. Suffice to say YOU are the one making the claim the Earth is flat, but fail to see the 'evidence' you are presenting is wholly insufficient. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" after all. I would challenge you to offer any evidence you feel holds up to any form of rigor, and I bet I can show how the conclusion can't be trusted because of not enough rigor in what has been reported, or because of assumptions without evidence.

[douglips]

Since our beliefs are based on things like "birds descend into the horizon" and yours are based on "since the sun lights exactly 50% of the earth at all times... therefore.." your burden of proof is a lot higher. We just need to show that birds descend for our assertions and you need to prove that 50% of the earth is lit at all times for yours.

I gave it an honest shot, but I can't find any videos of birds descending into the horizon. I always lose sight of the birds well above the horizon.

Do you have any evidence of the hypothesis that birds descend into the horizon?

[Mark_1984]

What’s the relevance of birds descending into the horizon ?

[Roger G]

There is no relevance in birds descending to the horizon. It is merely a a simple statement that Tom can make then sit and watch the REs flapping around and getting frustrated at his ability to accept evidence on anything RE. As I have said elsewhere, this whole forum and Tom's flat earth postulations are just the intellectual entertainment for an intelligent man who knows as well as every other thinking person here that the earth is a globe. I is very noticeable that as soon as any debate gets technical or scientific, only Tom continues the discussion with clever flim flamming. He is a master at it and I'm sure gains great amusement from it as I do reading it. I'm sure that most of the REs also know this and enjoy the sparring as much as he does.

It would be nice to hear that there are some serious FEs who are professionals and with a good background knowledge and real world experience getting involved in technical discussions apart from Tom. Perhaps members who are pilots, offshore sailors, meteorologists etc. Sadly I am afraid there aren't any 

Roger

[Wonderlander]

Okay so the sun is now a lighthouse spot light....a little out there but sort of plausable if FET is real. Can someone please explain several things, how do we stay put on Earth? Even if the Earth is flat we need some sort of gravity to stay on Earth. Otherwise we would be floating around space like they do in space. Also if Earth is flat does that mean the other planets in our solar system are too? If not why are we (Earth) the only flat planet? Does the same apply to the Moon, is that flat? And the Sun?
Also why can we only see one side of Earth in space at a time? Surely the Sun would produce enough light to see at least the outline of Earth in space??

[Mark_1984]

They’ve got gravity covered. It’s universal acceleration. Supposedly the Earth is being accelerated upwards at a constant 9.8m/s. That’s fair enough, it would be indistinguishable from gravity. However, it doesn’t explain why the atmosphere doesn’t get blown off the edge of the disc, unless there is a 50+ mile high wall around the edge. It doesn’t explain why there are measurable but small variations in gravity over the planet, and so on.

[Curious Squirrel]

Okay so the sun is now a lighthouse spot light....a little out there but sort of plausable if FET is real. Can someone please explain several things, how do we stay put on Earth? Even if the Earth is flat we need some sort of gravity to stay on Earth. Otherwise we would be floating around space like they do in space.

FES here believes in Universal acceleration. At a basic level it nicely explains 'gravity' although they attempt to account for anomolies with 'celestial gravitation' (note not the same as gravity) which is iffy at best.

Also if Earth is flat does that mean the other planets in our solar system are too? If not why are we (Earth) the only flat planet? Does the same apply to the Moon, is that flat? And the Sun?

"Earth isn't a planet" is the reason the Earth is flat and nothing else we observe is. Usually 'backed up' by "Why should the center of intelligent observation NOT be unique?" or some variation on the fact that Earth is - presently - rather unique in some way in the universe, so why should it be the same as everything else.

Also why can we only see one side of Earth in space at a time? Surely the Sun would produce enough light to see at least the outline of Earth in space??

Space travel is a hoax, all images from space are fake. The 'edge' that can be seen in some high altitude videos is just the edge of the spotlight sun.

Discussing any of these more in depth should really be done in their own thread(s) or in ones already about them so I'll leave off with just answering your questions to the best of my understanding of what the FE hypothesis says.

[RJDO]

Since our beliefs are based on things like "birds descend into the horizon" and yours are based on "since the sun lights exactly 50% of the earth at all times... therefore.." your burden of proof is a lot higher. We just need to show that birds descend for our assertions and you need to prove that 50% of the earth is lit at all times for yours.

Okay. Now I am convinced he isn’t serious. Proof that the earth is 50% lit at all times.

Nope...Nope. He isn’t real. All you have to do is call someone. Anyone. Anywhere. Not hardly a huge scientific process. When you call them, ask if it is light out or not.

Won’t even go into the day/night cycles of the poles on this one.

Nope. He has to be some sort of troll.

[Tom Bishop]

Since our beliefs are based on things like "birds descend into the horizon" and yours are based on "since the sun lights exactly 50% of the earth at all times... therefore.." your burden of proof is a lot higher. We just need to show that birds descend for our assertions and you need to prove that 50% of the earth is lit at all times for yours.

Okay. Now I am convinced he isn’t serious. Proof that the earth is 50% lit at all times.

Nope...Nope. He isn’t real. All you have to do is call someone. Anyone. Anywhere. Not hardly a huge scientific process. When you call them, ask if it is light out or not.

Won’t even go into the day/night cycles of the poles on this one.

Nope. He has to be some sort of troll.

Calling someone and asking if it is light does not prove that 50% of the earth is illuminated.

I understand that you guys are really trying your hardest on this, but you really need to think things through and avoid embarassing yourselves.

[Tom Bishop]

Man this thread really proves my point. Prove GPS works...lol. Simple, I geocache occasionally. I take Lat/long info and use a GPS app on my phone. Using that info, I am able to find the cache without much trouble. I also know the speed is accurate because I've played around with the app on the highway where it shows my speed. It always matches my speedometer. None of this will be proof enough for Tom, which I'm fine with. He is just playing games because he knows he can't actually win the debate.

Further, all this empiricism stuff is nonsense. A human's senses are shite at determining the real nature of the world. It's fine for simple stuff, but that's about it. One need only look at the electromagnetic spectrum for proof of that. (oh wait, I'm guessing I have to prove it exists...) We can only detect a small segment of the total spectrum.

Empiricism isn't based on eyesight or vision, it's based on what we actually experience. There are ways for us to experience Infra-Red and other spectrum. There is not a real way for us to experience something like "gravitons".

[RJDO]

Since our beliefs are based on things like "birds descend into the horizon" and yours are based on "since the sun lights exactly 50% of the earth at all times... therefore.." your burden of proof is a lot higher. We just need to show that birds descend for our assertions and you need to prove that 50% of the earth is lit at all times for yours.

Okay. Now I am convinced he isn’t serious. Proof that the earth is 50% lit at all times.

Nope...Nope. He isn’t real. All you have to do is call someone. Anyone. Anywhere. Not hardly a huge scientific process. When you call them, ask if it is light out or not.

Won’t even go into the day/night cycles of the poles on this one.

Nope. He has to be some sort of troll.

Calling someone and asking if it is light does not prove that 50% of the earth is illuminated.

I understand that you guys are really trying your hardest on this, but you really need to think things through and avoid embarassing yourselves.

Sorry. You are right. It does not prove that. It would take multiple people calling and multiple people answering throughout the world to take this project on. But, it can be done. And we can prove if it is light by using video calls, such as Skype or FaceTime.

And for the record, I believe you owe me an answer on great circle sailing/ Mercator sailing.

[TomInAustin]

Since our beliefs are based on things like "birds descend into the horizon" and yours are based on "since the sun lights exactly 50% of the earth at all times... therefore.." your burden of proof is a lot higher. We just need to show that birds descend for our assertions and you need to prove that 50% of the earth is lit at all times for yours.

Okay. Now I am convinced he isn’t serious. Proof that the earth is 50% lit at all times.

Nope...Nope. He isn’t real. All you have to do is call someone. Anyone. Anywhere. Not hardly a huge scientific process. When you call them, ask if it is light out or not.

Won’t even go into the day/night cycles of the poles on this one.

Nope. He has to be some sort of troll.

Calling someone and asking if it is light does not prove that 50% of the earth is illuminated.

I understand that you guys are really trying your hardest on this, but you really need to think things through and avoid embarassing yourselves.

It's not lit 50%, 100% of the time, there are a few times the moon's shadow blocks a bit.

Simple stuff Tom

[3DGeek]

Since our beliefs are based on things like "birds descend into the horizon" and yours are based on "since the sun lights exactly 50% of the earth at all times... therefore.." your burden of proof is a lot higher. We just need to show that birds descend for our assertions and you need to prove that 50% of the earth is lit at all times for yours.

Okay. Now I am convinced he isn’t serious. Proof that the earth is 50% lit at all times.

Nope...Nope. He isn’t real. All you have to do is call someone. Anyone. Anywhere. Not hardly a huge scientific process. When you call them, ask if it is light out or not.

Won’t even go into the day/night cycles of the poles on this one.

Nope. He has to be some sort of troll.

Calling someone and asking if it is light does not prove that 50% of the earth is illuminated.

I understand that you guys are really trying your hardest on this, but you really need to think things through and avoid embarassing yourselves.

No Tom - I do not need "50% of the earth is illuminated" to make these proofs.  Even if the earth were (say) 40% illuminated or 60%, this image would look pretty much as it does now:



No matter how you slice it - at midnight GMT you need a dark patch in the center of your map - and an annular ring of light around it.  This is true on any day of the year - and regardless of the Day/Night mix.

Where is your sun when it's midnight GMT?   You pick a place...any place you think might be right.  Is this going to look like a "flashlight"?

Bear in mind that your claims for how perspective makes sunsets work also demands that the sun is at whatever the "vanishing point" distance is from the eye.  That means that the region of sunlight should be circular.

Really - how are you going to get out of this bind?   Certainly complaining about 50% sunlight at the equinox doesn't help you out at all.

[devils advocate]

You claim you know something, and so you should provide evidence for this knowledge.

I have used my GPS successfully, accurate to within minutes (traffic and AutoBahn speeds making absolute perfection impossible) in Germany, Austria, Czech Republic, Poland, The Netherlands, Great Britain, Northern Ireland, France, Australia..

I have used paper maps with equal success in various African nations and Canadian prairies all of which conform to the distances and dimensions found on Google maps.

This is proof that both Google maps is accurate and relates to the OS maps and that GPS matches the two. These are based on a round planet and it ALL fits.

Furthermore my many flights around the globe confirm these distances (via flight times and in-flight displays). The views from the plans windows confirm the land/sea expected by the given route. The speed sensation is consistent with big acceleration at take off and then pretty stable throughout (i.e. NO sudden change to MACH speeds. EVER).

You cannot even provide a map.

[3DGeek]

Empiricism isn't based on eyesight or vision, it's based on what we actually experience. There are ways for us to experience Infra-Red and other spectrum. There is not a real way for us to experience something like "gravitons".

I see from your profile picture that you wear glasses (me too).  You're using a scientific "instrument" (your glasses) to view the world.  Your experience of the world is modified by those things.

So at what point does a gravity wave telescope depart from the realm of things that we're allowed to use?

Take the example of Infra-Red light.   Some time after Sir Isaac Newton figured out that sunlight could be broken up into it's component colors.   In 1800, Sir William Hurschel wondered whether any particular color of the sunlight was responsible for it's heat.

So he bought eight identical thermometers and a nice large prism.   He broke the light up into the pretty rainbow and put seven of the thermometers so that their bulbs were each lit up by a separate color.   Being a good scientist, he understood that he needed a "control" - so he took his eighth thermometer and put it next to the others - outside of the path of light - so he could record the room temperature.

To his horror (I guess) he found that the control thermometer climbed rapidly in temperature - where the ones in the various colors of sunlight didn't.

It looked to him as though the temperature in the room had somehow shot up!

It didn't take him long to realise that there was an extra "invisible" color at the red end of the spectrum...something you couldn't see - but which the prism was separating out just like the other light.

He called that "infra-red"...and understood that by far the most energy in sunlight was coming through the "invisible" parts of it.

So his "observation" used a prism and a bunch of thermometers and produced a result that you can't "directly" experience.    Does this count as an "actual experience" - or did his use of intermediaries, such as prisms and thermometers somehow invalidate his experiment in your eyes?

The problem is where you draw the line.

Does the precise measuring equipment used by LIGO to observe gravity waves differ philosphically from thermometers and a prism - or from eye glasses for that matter?   Where is the boundary?

[TomInAustin]

Empiricism isn't based on eyesight or vision, it's based on what we actually experience. There are ways for us to experience Infra-Red and other spectrum. There is not a real way for us to experience something like "gravitons".

I see from your profile picture that you wear glasses (me too).  You're using a scientific "instrument" (your glasses) to view the world.  Your experience of the world is modified by those things.

So at what point does a gravity wave telescope depart from the realm of things that we're allowed to use?

Take the example of Infra-Red light.   Some time after Sir Isaac Newton figured out that sunlight could be broken up into it's component colors.   In 1800, Sir William Hurschel wondered whether any particular color of the sunlight was responsible for it's heat.

So he bought eight identical thermometers and a nice large prism.   He broke the light up into the pretty rainbow and put seven of the thermometers so that their bulbs were each lit up by a separate color.   Being a good scientist, he understood that he needed a "control" - so he took his eighth thermometer and put it next to the others - outside of the path of light - so he could record the room temperature.

To his horror (I guess) he found that the control thermometer climbed rapidly in temperature - where the ones in the various colors of sunlight didn't.

It looked to him as though the temperature in the room had somehow shot up!

It didn't take him long to realise that there was an extra "invisible" color at the red end of the spectrum...something you couldn't see - but which the prism was separating out just like the other light.

He called that "infra-red"...and understood that by far the most energy in sunlight was coming through the "invisible" parts of it.

So his "observation" used a prism and a bunch of thermometers and produced a result that you can't "directly" experience.    Does this count as an "actual experience" - or did his use of intermediaries, such as prisms and thermometers somehow invalidate his experiment in your eyes?

The problem is where you draw the line.

Does the precise measuring equipment used by LIGO to observe gravity waves differ philosophically from thermometers and a prism - or from eyeglasses for that matter?   Where is the boundary?

The boundary is quite clear.  It's anything that challenges a belief system.   When it's pointed out that a man could not live in the belly of a whale, fundamentalists will cry foul.  Same goes for a pair of every animal in the world on a boat.  Same for anything that can and does blow holes in the FE experience. 

 

[3DGeek]

Does the precise measuring equipment used by LIGO to observe gravity waves differ philosophically from thermometers and a prism - or from eyeglasses for that matter?   Where is the boundary?

The boundary is quite clear.  It's anything that challenges a belief system.   When it's pointed out that a man could not live in the belly of a whale, fundamentalists will cry foul.  Same goes for a pair of every animal in the world on a boat.  Same for anything that can and does blow holes in the FE experience. 

Shhh...no giving hints!  :-)

I agree - but when confronted with an unreasonable claim, the best one can do is to show just how unreasonable it is.

When confronted with someone who is a zealot - the best one can do is to push their limits to see how far they'll go with it.  Once you know those limits, you can destroy them while remaining within them.

So if Tom claims that prisms and thermometers are OK - but LIGO isn't - we'll find some way to destroy FE using technology no fancier than prisms and thermometers.

Actually, this is already done.  I've posted SO MANY disproofs - and most of them have gone completely unchallenged.