9141

Flat Earth Community / Re: Reversal of Burden of Proof

« on: March 05, 2016, 09:50:32 PM »

I raise this because despite having lurked on the previous site and now this one for many years, the most common response to a request for proof of a flat earth is "look out of your window". It's rather a basic "proof", in my opinion, but I rarely see anything more persuasive.

The most basic and obvious proofs are the most powerful. The burden is on those who deny the basic and obvious.

If you are suggesting that a claim which is "basic and obvious" does not require proof, then I strongly disagree with you. Whether something is basic and/or obvious is subjective, and irrespective of that even the most basic claims must be supported by evidence. Let's say that I do not deny your claim, but I do still require you to prove it. What is the evidence in support of a flat earth (if there is any), save for that the earth appears flat?

The basic and obvious is vindicated by the fact that it is the basic and obvious. All opposing theories must attack that to find their place in the world. Whether you believe the earth is concave, convex, or irregular, you must show evidence against the prevailing reality that the earth is flat. A Flat Earth is the prevailing reality upon which all contradictory hypothesis' must engage.

If you are claiming that ghosts exist, you must contradict the prevailing reality that ghosts do not exist. It is not the burden of the people who think that ghosts do not exist to prove that they don't. The burden of proof is on the people claiming that they do exist.

The people saying that ghosts do not exist don't need to prove a thing. Not a thing.

9142

Flat Earth Community / Re: Reversal of Burden of Proof

« on: February 28, 2016, 01:56:24 AM »

Why are you here debating if you believe that all of this is obvious nonsense? Do you debate the people who think that unicorns exist too?

9143

Flat Earth Community / Re: Reversal of Burden of Proof

« on: February 28, 2016, 12:38:33 AM »

It's really very simple.  Our senses tell us the Earth is flat and our first and most reliable method of understanding the world around us is our senses.  I think in any situation the burden of proof should be on the one presenting the theory that is not immediately obvious rather than the one that is immediately obvious.

To use an example that has nothing to do with the shape of the Earth, what if we are presented with what appears to be a living mouse whose activity reasonably duplicates those of an actual mouse?  Is the burden of proof not on the one claiming that it is a mechanical construct rather than a living thing?  Of course, that person might then open up the mouse and show us the mechanical innards that prove it is not an actual living thing.  Then the burden of proof is satisfied, but only after sufficient evidence is provided to show that our senses are deceiving us.

Yes, I agree "It's really very simple", but I do not agree that "Our senses tell us the Earth is flat".

Well, if you're going to just deny reality, I see no reason to engage in debate with you.

Just what reality am I denying?

All the points I mentioned are things I see! Am I supposed to deny my own eyes? Neither you nor anyone else has queried or discussed one of those points!

Not a single one of them is a direct observation regarding the shape of the Earth.  In fact if you feel the need to point to such things as evidence that the Earth is round, you are supporting my argument that the burden of proof lies with RE rather than FE.  So, thanks, I guess.

Yes, I suppose you are right,
but of course common sense tells us:

• that steel ships can never float,
  
• heavier that air objects can never fly,
  
• that the sun is a flaming chariot that climbs up from the east and goes down in the west, finding some way to get back under the earth ready for the next day,
  
• that it is completely impossible to talk to someone in another place,
  
• that even large ships clearly sink well before they disappear in the distance.

Yes, I know I'm being stupid, but not all first impressions are correct, especially when other simple observations contradict then.
But, as they say, there are none so blind as those that will not see.

Except that observational evidence is a much different thing than "common sense".

9144

Flat Earth Community / Re: Reversal of Burden of Proof

« on: February 26, 2016, 07:10:23 PM »

I raise this because despite having lurked on the previous site and now this one for many years, the most common response to a request for proof of a flat earth is "look out of your window". It's rather a basic "proof", in my opinion, but I rarely see anything more persuasive.

The most basic and obvious proofs are the most powerful. The burden is on those who deny the basic and obvious.

Your version of basic and obvious does not account for some basic and obvious concepts though.  For example: human sense are often insufficient to observe the predictions of FE theory or RE fact.

It doesn't matter. You could also say that they are insufficient to see that the earth is a torus.

The fact remains that the basic observational evidence tells us that the earth is flat. A flat earth is the most obvious truth, not a hypothetical torus.

9145

Flat Earth Community / Re: Reversal of Burden of Proof

« on: February 26, 2016, 04:18:22 PM »

I raise this because despite having lurked on the previous site and now this one for many years, the most common response to a request for proof of a flat earth is "look out of your window". It's rather a basic "proof", in my opinion, but I rarely see anything more persuasive.

The most basic and obvious proofs are the most powerful. The burden is on those who deny the basic and obvious.

9146

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Polaris proves the earth is round.

« on: February 24, 2016, 03:35:59 PM »

Tom, it doesn't help for you to merely quote the Wiki when the question being asked is " What does this line from the wiki mean?"  Especially if the line you quote was actually already quoted by the other guy, which means he saw it already and it didn't help the first time he read it.  It probably won't help the second time either, especially removed from the surrounding context. 

So I will tell you what I nderstand Rabinoz's question to be.  Maybe I'm wrong, in which case I apologize, but I would like an answer myself, so nothing lost.  Here it is: How can a shadow illuminate anything?  That's not what shadows do, illuminate.  They block illumination.

Here's the line again, with my emphasis addd to bring attention to the part we're asking about: "When one observes the phases of the moon he sees the moon's day and night, a shadow from the sun illuminating half of the spherical moon at any one time."  Clearly states that a shadow is illuminating the moon, we/I just wonder what that means.  I think it might just be a typo, but I would lke to know for sure.

The wording is correct. Here is an alternative version:

a shadow [caused by] the sun illuminating half of the spherical moon

There is not much difference between the word "from". From can have several meanings. "Caused by" is the clear meaning here. Hardly anyone would interpret it as a shadow illuminating anything in this context. It clearly says the sun is the one doing the illuminating, not that the shadow is illuminating, as the words "sun" and "illuminating" are right next to each other and the words "shadow" and "illuminating" are not.

9147

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Polaris proves the earth is round.

« on: February 24, 2016, 04:03:23 AM »

Also "a shadow from the sun" sounds a bit strange - a shadow from a light source?

What sounds strange about that? The sun doesn't make shadows?

The sun only makes shadows because an object in interposed between the sun and the shadowed object (here the moon).

What third object is casting a shadow on the moon to cause the phases?

When one observes the phases of the moon he sees the moon's day and night, a shadow from the sun illuminating half of the spherical moon at any one time.

9148

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Polaris proves the earth is round.

« on: February 24, 2016, 12:12:56 AM »

And since we know the moon only just barely obscures the sun, it follows that if it is closer than the sun it must also be smaller than the sun. This contradicts your Wiki, someone should redo the math there.

What does the Wiki say about how high and large the moon is?

i am sure I can answer that!

The moon is a rotating sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.

I see the word approximately in there.

When one observes the phases of the moon he sees the moon's day and night, a shadow from the sun illuminating half of the spherical moon at any one time.
The lunar phases vary cyclically according to the changing geometry of the Moon and Sun, which are constantly wobbling up and down and exchange altitudes as they rotate around the North Pole.
When the moon and sun are at the same altitude one half of the lunar surface is illuminated and pointing towards the sun, This is called the First Quarter Moon. When the observer looks up he will see a shadow cutting the moon in half. The boundary between the illuminated and unilluminated hemispheres is called the terminator.
When the moon is below the sun's altitude the moon is dark and a New Moon occurs.
When the moon is above the altitude of the sun the moon is fully lit and a Full Moon occurs.

Mind you if you look at the geometry it does strike me as being a bit weird, but then from my distorted perspective light travels in straight lines! Silly me!
Also "a shadow from the sun" sounds a bit strange - a shadow from a light source?

What sounds strange about that? The sun doesn't make shadows?

9149

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Polaris proves the earth is round.

« on: February 23, 2016, 10:08:53 PM »

And since we know the moon only just barely obscures the sun, it follows that if it is closer than the sun it must also be smaller than the sun. This contradicts your Wiki, someone should redo the math there.

What does the Wiki say about how high and large the moon is?

9150

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Polaris proves the earth is round.

« on: February 23, 2016, 03:16:29 AM »

Yes, I suppose if you choose to disbelieve that anything can be outside you little world 25,000 miles is a huge distance.

Mind you the distance to the moon was measured long before Rowbotham (or NASA) came along and then measured by radar in the 1940's and again by laser in the late 1960's and 1970's.
Guess what, the measurements all agree to within the accuracies expected in each case. Even Hipparchus in the 2nd century BC used parallax to estimate the distance at about 400,000 km, about 7% away from the current figures.

Hippachus assumed the earth was round in his calculations.

http://www.michaelbeeson.com/interests/GreatMoments/Hipparchus.pdf

9151

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Polaris proves the earth is round.

« on: February 22, 2016, 06:04:45 PM »

It is a thought experiment that may or may not have anything to do with the real world.  Also, isn't it incredibly dishonest to use a classical philosopher to show that classical philosophy does not apply to the real world?

It's more dishonest to use classic philosophy which was disproven by a classic philosopher of the same era.

Nope, quantum space-time is just an idea with no empirical evidence.  People are trying to find a way to see if foamy space-time is true, but to no avail.  You understanding is incorrect.  Regardless, the wave-particle nature of the quantum world means that sometimes things appear quantum and sometimes they don't and this appears to be an actual property of matter-energy and not just an issue with uncertainty.

Wave-particle duality of particle physics has nothing to do with whether space is quantized or not, as both particles and waves are above the resolution of plank length.

9152

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Polaris proves the earth is round.

« on: February 22, 2016, 04:54:14 PM »

It is also short-sighted to assume that your experience is enough to perceive what would happen on the Planck scale.  In fact, we can safely assert with no hope of counter-example, that you could not, without benefit of technological aid, perceive what is happening on that scale.

Zeno's Paradox experiments deal with how space and time work on the smallest scales.

All this is somewhat moot anyway, since there is no one who would definitively say space is quantized.  This is why there is even a search for space-time foam.  As far as we can tell, energy and matter sometimes exhibit quantum properties, but space appears to be continuous.

It is my understanding that space and time does exhibit quantum properties, but it's easier to use continuous math for longer distances and bigger scales, so that is what is used.

9153

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Polaris proves the earth is round.

« on: February 22, 2016, 04:07:42 PM »

Oh, come off it! How small is the Planck distance? About 1.6 x 10^-35 m or about 10^-20 times the size of a proton - utterly miniscule compared to even the wavelength of green light (5.10 x 10^-7 m)!

And you think that the directions of light might be quantised to an extent that might affect our observations.

Sure, plancks may be incredibly, incredibly dense. But have you ever heard of the inverse squared law?



Usually it deals with energy intensity, but we can also use it to see that the space to fill is increasing at an exponential rate away from the source.

In any case, what is it to you? Your whole universe is a tiny hemisphere 40,000 km in diameter and (I guess) 20,000 km high, so why are you bothering to discuss long distances!

It's only tiny if we assume the theory of an universe with distances of thousands light years. Speaking from human experience, not "theory", anyone traveling 25,000 miles would say that is a very long distance indeed.

9154

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Polaris proves the earth is round.

« on: February 22, 2016, 06:20:54 AM »

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

You said it yourself, under that model a star or sun will recede into infinity but never set. How do we know that? Under that model it is also impossible for a sun or a star to move any small distance across that number line at all.

It is erroneous to base conclusions for how the world should be at the  large or the small scales that one cannot experience, on nothing more than an ancient mathematical model of a perfect universe.

I am curious about this bit "You said it yourself, under that model a star or sun will recede into infinity but never set."
All very well for you to ask "How do we know that?"

All the evidence that we have is that light travels in straight lines. Do you have anything to the contrary?

Other than that "bendy light" is needed to support the Flat Earth Hypothesis.

I do just wonder what astronomers think of this idea?
Also is seems an absolutely amazing coincidence that the supposed "magnification" in the "atmolayer" interface (or whatever) is precisely the amount needed to keep the sun (and moon) to exactly the size expected on the globe earth.
In other words what "Flat Earth theorists" have done is to tranfer the curvature on the earth into the curvature of light! Looks highly suspicious to me.

I think poor old Occam has mislaid his razor!

Well, one thing I can speculate on is that if space is quantized, it is not possible for light to take all possible angles over very long distances. That is one example for why "sizing up" an ancient continuous model of a perfect universe is erroneous. We do not know about physics at larger scales.

It is incredibly short sighted to simply assume what will happen at all scales. We must begin from experience. Experience will tell us the truth independent of any particular model or theory. And if you cannot find an experience of two parallel lines or objects receding into infinity and never touching, then I am afraid you are delusional.

9155

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sun and Moon shape

« on: February 21, 2016, 07:48:41 PM »

Despite what you want to think of the effect, that its a result of imperfect craftsmanship, or whatever, the fact is that the effect exists and that laser beams enlarge over distance. The effect is, therefore, a credit to the idea that light rays enlarge over distance as claimed in the Wiki.

9156

Flat Earth Theory / Re: what about the edge of earth ?

« on: February 21, 2016, 12:23:48 AM »

i was really expecting much better answer. we have planes now that can fly around the earth in a day and you telling me that we dont know where it ends ! its human nature to explore everything and that was clear through out history. what happen now!

Pilots also like to stay on known flight routes, where it's warm and and the weather is hospitable.

When far from home in the wilderness how often have you ventured off all hiking trails and paths to explore the wilderness out of curiosity?

9157

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: I made some new pictures for the wiki.

« on: February 21, 2016, 12:02:29 AM »

Good work Thork, I know we have advocated similar ideas in the past on the .org forum, and the pictures you provided make sense. This should go in the Wiki under Cosmos -> The Sun -> Midnight Sun as a possible explanation.

9158

Flat Earth Theory / Re: what about the edge of earth ?

« on: February 20, 2016, 09:48:27 PM »

We don't know if there is an edge. Some hold that the earth is an infinite plane.

9159

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sun and Moon shape

« on: February 20, 2016, 07:41:11 PM »

An addition was added to the Magnification at Sunset page in the Wiki:

http://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

Beam Divergence

This phenomenon of enlarging rays is also seen in lasers. Supposedly "straight" rays of light will spread out when shining over long distances.



From the Wikipedia entry on Beam Divergence we read:

    "The beam divergence of an electromagnetic beam is an angular measure of
    the increase in beam diameter or radius with distance from the optical
    aperture or antenna aperture from which the electromagnetic beam emerges."

9160

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Polaris proves the earth is round.

« on: February 20, 2016, 02:12:31 PM »

The math I am using is easily verifiable.

Please verify it then. Show us that two objects which recede infinitely into the distance on parallel lines will never touch.

I put it right there in front of you. It's triangles, the most basic trigonometry. Trigonometry has been tried, tested, verified, and validated for thousands of years.

Who validated that an overhead receding body on a flat surface will never set? You are clearly putting your faith in a mathematical model to tell us how perspective works at long distances.

In which world are Zeno's paradoxes an "article of faith"? It must be an interesting place.

How do you feel about other elementary mathematical concepts? Are real numbers an "article of faith", too? Do you accept any other aspects of mathematics than "I like triangles"?

Zeno's paradox is a red herring. I'm talking about simple trigonometry. It's a statement of faith to claim that it is invalid. Actually, it's a statement of buffoonery. Trigonometric relationships are not theory in any way. They are fact. Again test it yourself.
If you're unclear how triangles relate to the topic of this thread, try this: see if you can identify any triangles in the illustration below:

The Greek math of Geometry and Trigonometry, with its hypothetical number lines and points in space, that Zeno is criticizing in his paradoxes, is really the same math you are trying to use here in your proofs. That type of continuous math really doesn't work, especially at extremes.

You said it yourself, under that model a star or sun will recede into infinity but never set. How do we know that? Under that model it is also impossible for a sun or a star to move any small distance across that number line at all.

It is erroneous to base conclusions for how the world should be at the  large or the small scales that one cannot experience, on nothing more than an ancient mathematical model of a perfect universe.