The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Spycrab on March 06, 2018, 03:21:35 AM
-
So, i have been reading through these forums for quite a while, it was fascinating, keep up the good work. However, I have noticed a little discrepancy, particularly with the reliance on empiricism. Its based on what one observes with ones senses, correct? One teeny tiny little problem. Our senses can lie. Optical illusions exist. Nose blindness, hallucinations, you get the idea. Compounding this, several Flat Earth Theory astronomical phenomena are explained away with said illusions and incorrect observations. Tom Bishop's wonderful, magical, all-purpose-theory-hole-sealant, 'perspective' for example. Anyone care to explain?
-
Our senses can lie.
That's why nobody suggests you should only perform one experiment, or rely on a single observation. You build up evidence and rely on its preponderance. If, after collecting a reasonable amount of data points, this process leads you to believe that the Earth is a certain shape, then the conclusion should be easy.
It's not an easy process, and it's not meant to be one.
On a more philosophical note, if the majority of your experiences turn out to be illusions, perhaps you ought to rethink what an illusion is.
-
The problem is not just illusion. The horizon DOES appear flat because a large enough curve and a straight line are not distinguishable. That is simply a limit of our visual acuity.
So looking at the horizon is not a sufficient observation to determine the shape of the earth, any more than observing the sun going round the sky is sufficient to determine that the sun is going round us as this is indistinguishable from the earth rotating.
I have yet to understand what empirical observations other than "the horizon looks flat" (flawed for the reasons I have outlined) have led to the conclusion of a flat earth.
-
Okay, okay, fair enough Pete. You've go me there. However, is it really empirical to smooth out rough patches in the theory with things that rely on our senses not showing us what is really there? The vanishing point, for example where it is claimed humans have a fixed visual limit, despite being able to see farther from higher? Or the 'spotlight sun' that allegedly makes the earth look round? How about said sun somehow setting via 'perspective' when a receding light source would just shrink until it passed beyond the human limit? Sounds like rationalizing. Such as the convoluted mirrors and celestial cog work and all that bizarre nonsense apparently going on in the night sky. Personally, looks like inventing odd solutions to equally odd problems.
-
Okay, okay, fair enough Pete. You've go me there. However, is it really empirical to smooth out rough patches in the theory with things that rely on our senses not showing us what is really there? The vanishing point, for example where it is claimed humans have a fixed visual limit, despite being able to see farther from higher? Or the 'spotlight sun' that allegedly makes the earth look round? How about said sun somehow setting via 'perspective' when a receding light source would just shrink until it passed beyond the human limit? Sounds like rationalizing. Such as the convoluted mirrors and celestial cog work and all that bizarre nonsense apparently going on in the night sky. Personally, looks like inventing odd solutions to equally odd problems.
That has always been a sticking point for both geocentrism and FET. They cannot usually follow the scientific method to achieve a consensus, as their hypotheses will rarely be accurate. Instead, they need to create a framework that works around their observations -- and when a challenge arises, they have to keep building, and these "solutions" often contradict one another.
In the round earth world (and this is a discussion Pete has completely ignored) we can create a hypothesis and see it proven true (example: Einstein's gravitational waves, which were found 100 years after they were hypothesized). We can accurately predict the exact timings of solar eclipses, and the exact paths of the totality.
I'll ask again: When has FET ever shown itself to be capable of the same?
-
the Flat Earther is the Ultimate Empiricist. What we see and experience of the world is the extent of our total knowledge. In order for an alternative explanation to have merit, it must be observed or experienced, and it is hard to argue against that.... Round Earth Theory is rationalized in many of its elements, while Flat Earth Theory is empirically determined.
I'm just struggling with the fact that so many Flat Earthers do not stick to this philosophy.
I mean they make statements about a Glass Dome, and weather balloons being up in the sky with satellites suspended, Ice Wall but they just rationalize as none of them has ever seen it felt it touched it.
There seem to be so many only nominal FE members. Who are the real FE-ers?
Maybe I need to revise my percentage down underneath my post!?!??
-
Our senses can lie.
That's why nobody suggests you should only perform one experiment, or rely on a single observation. You build up evidence and rely on its preponderance. If, after collecting a reasonable amount of data points, this process leads you to believe that the Earth is a certain shape, then the conclusion should be easy.
It's not an easy process, and it's not meant to be one.
On a more philosophical note, if the majority of your experiences turn out to be illusions, perhaps you ought to rethink what an illusion is.
Many data points of the angle of the sun and satellites have been collected, have you used them to prove the shape of the earth?
-
Our senses can lie.
That's why nobody suggests you should only perform one experiment, or rely on a single observation. You build up evidence and rely on its preponderance. If, after collecting a reasonable amount of data points, this process leads you to believe that the Earth is a certain shape, then the conclusion should be easy.
It's not an easy process, and it's not meant to be one.
... but why are you doing this ONLY for the shape of the Earth, when you're happy to rely on the work of others, and take them at their word, in SO many other things in your daily life?
Why is science held up to be questionable with regards to the shape of the Earth, but trusted everywhere else?
Example/analogy 1; People should take the word of science when it declares that Chernobyl, and other nuclear accident sites, are highly radioactive, and not safe to enter. We have geiger counters to tell us this.
Or would you suggest that we send a control group of people in there, and wait until they show signs of sickness before we conclude something is wrong? Do you want to do this experiment yourself, just to make sure you are empirically satisfied?
Example/analogy 2: People should take the word of science with regards to hazardous gases, nerve agents and such.
Or do you advocate experimenting on them yourself, just to make sure you are empirically satisfied?
-
Yes I’m sorry but that’s how we work. Real FE-ers are Ultimate Empiricists. Unless we see it we don’t believe it.
But I can see someone else getting sick and then I know.
I can see a 14-story rocket go up in the sky but where does it go? I can assume it comes down, but what do I know. It might as well keep going
-
Yes I’m sorry but that’s how we work. Real FE-ers are Ultimate Empiricists. Unless we see it we don’t believe it.
Cool. So you don't believe that any country you've not been to really exists?
I've never been to Australia for example so what, all the footage from it is fake? All the people who claim to come from there are lying?
What a strange way to live life...
-
No. Pay attention to what my dashingly-smiling and handsomely-named colleague has said. You can empirically observe things indirectly, and just because you haven't observed something doesn't mean it's false by default. You simply have no confirmation one way or another.
Not believing in something is not the same as believing the opposite.
-
No. Pay attention to what my dashingly-smiling and handsomely-named colleague has said.
I think this is just about the only thing I've seen you write that I whole-heartedly agree with.
You can empirically observe things indirectly, and just because you haven't observed something doesn't mean it's false by default.
What would you say is an acceptable way of indirectly observing something? So let's take Australia. I've never been but I see it the map, I've seen a load of photos and video from there.
Is that good enough? I mean, it is for me but I could say the same about the round earth. Never been into space, I've not observed it, but I've seen a load of photos and video and a round earth matches observations so that's good enough for me.
-
So let's take Australia. I've never been but I see it the map, I've seen a load of photos and video from there.
This is a very personal thing to decide, and I'm in no position to dictate your epistemology. However, for my personal tastes, the answer would be "no". This is because I've seen a map and countless footage of Coruscant.
But, of course, this is an oversimplification. I have reasonable causes to doubt the existence of Coruscant, which I do not have for Australia. So, from a practical standpoint (limited resources, lack of time, desire to actually live a relatively simple life), I will take much more convincing to accept that Coruscant exists than that Australia does.
Again, note the separation between accepting something as likely to be true, and conceding it as an immutable fact. It doesn't have to be a binary yes-no question.
-
What I'm interested in is where your reasonable doubt came from when it comes to the shape of the earth.
You used to believe in the globe I guess because that is what we are all taught.
I'm wondering what things you started to think could not be explained by a globe which could be explained by a flat earth.
I mean, you might think the moon landings were faked. Fine, a relatively common view. A wrong one in my opinion, but fairly common.
But it's quite a leap from there to think that the whole shape of the earth is different to what we've been told.
Most* people who think the moon landings were faked don't see that as evidence for a flat earth
(*admittedly my opinion rather than a well researched fact, but I suspect this is highly likely to be so).
-
Again, note the separation between accepting something as likely to be true, and conceding it as an immutable fact. It doesn't have to be a binary yes-no question.
If I may add to that again, please. This is also the reason why we don't have a something called a 'Flat Earth map'. Because if I draw a map of the earth, and someone from another place (say Japan, if it exists) looks at it, how can he accept the map if he doesn't even know if America exists or India or Australia.
I am fortunate enough to live in Australia for a few years now. I've seen a few countries in South East Asia, and Australia, but they are the only ones I accept as true.
So even if Pete drew a map (if he could, because noone seems to have been able to draw a map that matches the empirical evidence of Flat Earth), I could simply not accept it as being true for a fact. Sorry if you don't understand it.
-
Again, note the separation between accepting something as likely to be true, and conceding it as an immutable fact. It doesn't have to be a binary yes-no question.
If I may add to that again, please. This is also the reason why we don't have a something called a 'Flat Earth map'. Because if I draw a map of the earth, and someone from another place (say Japan, if it exists) looks at it, how can he accept the map if he doesn't even know if America exists or India or Australia.
I am fortunate enough to live in Australia for a few years now. I've seen a few countries in South East Asia, and Australia, but they are the only ones I accept as true.
So even if Pete drew a map (if he could, because noone seems to have been able to draw a map that matches the empirical evidence of Flat Earth), I could simply not accept it as being true for a fact. Sorry if you don't understand it.
Oh don't get it twisted -- I think we understand that (I'm writing this from the US -- is that enough for you to believe it exists?) as that's exactly how empiricism works.
The thing I don't understand is how much of FET relies on things people haven't seen. The ice wall, for example. I would imagine that you yourself will admit that it might not exist, but most of the FE believers here will insist that it does without having seen it for themselves.
Also, the map hasn't been drawn because it isn't possible.
-
Again, note the separation between accepting something as likely to be true, and conceding it as an immutable fact. It doesn't have to be a binary yes-no question.
If I may add to that again, please. This is also the reason why we don't have a something called a 'Flat Earth map'. Because if I draw a map of the earth, and someone from another place (say Japan, if it exists) looks at it, how can he accept the map if he doesn't even know if America exists or India or Australia.
I am fortunate enough to live in Australia for a few years now. I've seen a few countries in South East Asia, and Australia, but they are the only ones I accept as true.
So even if Pete drew a map (if he could, because noone seems to have been able to draw a map that matches the empirical evidence of Flat Earth), I could simply not accept it as being true for a fact. Sorry if you don't understand it.
You appear to be principled, do you not feel hypocritical then using technology that owes its existence to theoretical physics?
-
Actually I apologize, using the word hypocritical is negative.
I should say do you not feel any unease living in a society and using technology that would most probably not exist if we stuck solely to only building on knowledge we can verify through pure observation?
-
You appear to be principled, do you not feel hypocritical then using technology that owes its existence to theoretical physics?
You mean GPS? Yes, I am a pilot, and I have empirically determined that it just works. I'm not sure how, but it's approved as primary means of navigation for my profession, which includes descending in between mountains at night in cloud, with specimens of the general public on board. In total we had 4,000,000,000 passengers with zero deaths over 2017. That means something.
The fact that I don't yet understand how it works, or how it matches my observations of the earth being flat even from an airplane, doesn't mean that I am ignorant. (Not that you said that)
Planes used to navigate by NDB, and VOR, which both have considerable problems for navigation.
For example with the NDB and VOR we need to allow for 5 degree error. This is an 8 km error (!!!) if you are 60 miles from the beacon. I have seen this too, the needle on the instrument just waver, and for example if there is a thunderstorm nearby, the needle swings to the strike...
With a standard GPS system, we allow for a 1km error. That is valid anywhere, close to a waypoint, far from a waypoint, in mountains or over water, as long as the system does not give a warning in regard to position accuracy. (Aviation GPSes tell the pilot when their position is inaccurate). Once we go in to land, the allowed error drops down to 300 metres.
That is how precise we can use it, and there is no other navigation system available that comes close to how it performs.
-
You are a pilot and you believe in a flat earth? Really?
You know your routes are planned using great circles, right?
-
What these smilers are describing is akin to Pyrrhonism (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pyrrhonism).
If one were able to show that the epistemology Pete & Pete-flattering-alt are describing is bunk, would that convince them to abandon flat Earth belief?
I predict not
-
You appear to be principled, do you not feel hypocritical then using technology that owes its existence to theoretical physics?
You mean GPS? Yes, I am a pilot, and I have empirically determined that it just works. I'm not sure how, but it's approved as primary means of navigation for my profession, which includes descending in between mountains at night in cloud, with specimens of the general public on board. In total we had 4,000,000,000 passengers with zero deaths over 2017. That means something.
The fact that I don't yet understand how it works, or how it matches my observations of the earth being flat even from an airplane, doesn't mean that I am ignorant. (Not that you said that)
Planes used to navigate by NDB, and VOR, which both have considerable problems for navigation.
For example with the NDB and VOR we need to allow for 5 degree error. This is an 8 km error (!!!) if you are 60 miles from the beacon. I have seen this too, the needle on the instrument just waver, and for example if there is a thunderstorm nearby, the needle swings to the strike...
With a standard GPS system, we allow for a 1km error. That is valid anywhere, close to a waypoint, far from a waypoint, in mountains or over water, as long as the system does not give a warning in regard to position accuracy. (Aviation GPSes tell the pilot when their position is inaccurate). Once we go in to land, the allowed error drops down to 300 metres.
That is how precise we can use it, and there is no other navigation system available that comes close to how it performs.
No, I'm talking about pretty much everything that has a microchip in it, and not whether or not you understand how they work, but how come you are OK with the fact that they are the products of a form of science you appear to reject, yet you are presumably happy to use them (given you are posting on the Internet).
If everyone followed your strict adherence to observation then none of these things would have been invented.
-
You are a pilot and you believe in a flat earth? Really?
You know your routes are planned using great circles, right?
I only fly short routes (our sector is called General Aviation). When I am on the ground, or in the air, the earth is flat nonetheless. Even high in the air at 10,000s of feet. Still flat.
I always accept the possibility that I might be mistaken though. But what I see and experience is what I know. If something else comes along, I must sense it. Otherwise leave it as unknown.
-
What I'm interested in is where your reasonable doubt came from when it comes to the shape of the earth.
You used to believe in the globe I guess because that is what we are all taught.
I'm wondering what things you started to think could not be explained by a globe which could be explained by a flat earth.
It's hard to tell, it's not something that happened overnight, nor was it down to a single "Aha!" moment. It might have started with anomalies in how far one can see and my inability to visually discern curvature from commercial flights.
I mean, you might think the moon landings were faked. Fine, a relatively common view. A wrong one in my opinion, but fairly common.
But it's quite a leap from there to think that the whole shape of the earth is different to what we've been told.
Most* people who think the moon landings were faked don't see that as evidence for a flat earth
I agree - I think that would be a reversal of the cause-effect relationship. Do you have anyone specific in mind when you bring this up? Someone who thinks the Earth is flat because the Moon landings were faked?
-
they are the products of a form of science
Do you know how the microchip came to be? There are many different stories. All I know is that it works. Same as GPS. It just works.
Same as weather radar. I use it a lot when I'm flying. It is always accurate. I'm not sure how they make the 'satellite' pictures look almost the same as what the weather radar shows, that I have observed to be accurate. I have never been shown a satellite. Perhaps they just merge images from high-flying planes.
But as far as weather radar, I'm yet to meet a FE-er that denounces weather radar and the detail that it shows. So I'm not the only one.
-
It might have started with anomalies in how far one can see and my inability to visually discern curvature from commercial flights.
An interesting comment. I wonder if your view would be different had you flown on Concorde?
-
It might have started with anomalies in how far one can see and my inability to visually discern curvature from commercial flights.
An interesting comment. I wonder if your view would be different had you flown on Concorde?
According to RET you should be able to see it also from other planes than just a Concorde.
-
It might have started with anomalies in how far one can see and my inability to visually discern curvature from commercial flights.
An interesting comment. I wonder if your view would be different had you flown on Concorde?
According to RET you should be able to see it also from other planes than just a Concorde.
There are no other commercial planes that fly high enough to see the curve of the Earth. I highly doubt Pete has access to military aircraft, so in light of that, you are wrong.
-
Thing is, there aren't discrepancies in how far you can see, or whatever. Sounds like a case of not knowing what he was looking at, mixed with a chip on the shoulder and bad philosophy.
How far do you think you should be able to see from the top of a mountain, given the Earth is a globe? Or from a commercial flight? Figure it out, using WGS84 and other public info. Make a prediction. Test it against what you actually see. Share your methods with your peers.
You don't have to trust NASA to know the Earth is not flat, just use that big brain of yours
-
I'm wondering what things you started to think could not be explained by a globe which could be explained by a flat earth.
It's hard to tell, it's not something that happened overnight, nor was it down to a single "Aha!" moment. It might have started with anomalies in how far one can see and my inability to visually discern curvature from commercial flights.[/quote]
I don't understand the first of those. The second...I'm unclear why you regard that as the smoking gun as the earth is too big for a curve to be discerned at the height of commercial flights. I've heard anecdotally that it could be seen from Concorde, which flew higher, and there are so many photos and videos from higher - not just from NASA but lots of amateur balloon footage. You really think all of that is fake?
Do you have anyone specific in mind when you bring this up? Someone who thinks the Earth is flat because the Moon landings were faked?
No. Just making the point that many people believe the moon landings were fake but most don't see that as evidence that the earth is flat.
You guys seem to work the other way around: The earth is flat ergo the moon landings must have been faked and all evidence to the contrary must be wrong or faked.
This is rather closed minded. New evidence is not considered, you assume without basis it must be fake because it contradicts your world view rather than considering whether your world view may be wrong.
-
All i can say for both camps - this does not look like a discussion about anything... you are going in circles....
FLAT EARTHERS - Please provide your best and undeniable proof that the earth is flat. Multiple arguments are very welcome, i ask for facts followed by conclusions from observations or calculations. You cannot deny math, hence it is absolutely best way to proove anything. And i mean i need proof, no need qoutes from bible, no need insults or " go research yourself " stuff. I am here to find out what is what. No need for pictures or videos. Give me math, simple or complex, anything. Would love to see your own experiments as all i see in this forum is " empirical proof" which does not revolve around your eye sight only... experiments please. Small scale, large scale, anything. Can be done by you or any other person, as long as it has proper math because numbers dont lie
Same for the ROUNDEARTHERS please
I have spent 3 days reading this forum and i have not found a single thread dedicated to proof alone, avoiding " but you said this and that " crap.
I am an empty bowl and a summary of proof which will be the most convincing considering the number or arguments, amount of data and sensibility of it in relation to laws of nature and how it fits to the world model will win.
As far as i am concerned this is the greatest opportunity to put all " undeniable proof" in to one place and then go from there. Otherwise not a single thread will come anywhere near a conclusion. No need for personality, i need proof please
I appreciate for any input, lets end this once and for all dare i say? ( no need to answer this, i just ask to give me proof as per above and only that )
Big big thank you
-
So, i have been reading through these forums for quite a while, it was fascinating, keep up the good work. However, I have noticed a little discrepancy, particularly with the reliance on empiricism. Its based on what one observes with ones senses, correct? One teeny tiny little problem. Our senses can lie. Optical illusions exist. Nose blindness, hallucinations, you get the idea. Compounding this, several Flat Earth Theory astronomical phenomena are explained away with said illusions and incorrect observations. Tom Bishop's wonderful, magical, all-purpose-theory-hole-sealant, 'perspective' for example. Anyone care to explain?
This is the primary problem, there always needs to be trust. Do you trust other peoples theories, people you know, people you dont, pictures, video's, your eyes and other senses and finally your mind. Rene descartes Demon hypothesis cannot be disproved and is similar to the Symulation Hypothesis put forward by Nick Bostrom. There really is nowhere to hang your hat.
My next door neighbour is a friend of Tim Peake, they went to school together, served in the military together and are still good friends. If Tim had been paid off or threatened, he would know. I saw a photo he took, the Earth was round.
I trust my neighbour and his friend and the picture I saw. Enough to believe there world is round. That doesnt mean mine is.....when Im considering it or thinking about it.
I trust my neighbour and his friend
-
Same for the ROUNDEARTHERS please
I have spent 3 days reading this forum and i have not found a single thread dedicated to proof alone, avoiding " but you said this and that " crap.
I am an empty bowl and a summary of proof which will be the most convincing considering the number or arguments, amount of data and sensibility of it in relation to laws of nature and how it fits to the world model will win.
As far as i am concerned this is the greatest opportunity to put all " undeniable proof" in to one place and then go from there. Otherwise not a single thread will come anywhere near a conclusion. No need for personality, i need proof please
I appreciate for any input, lets end this once and for all dare i say? ( no need to answer this, i just ask to give me proof as per above and only that )
Big big thank you
3DGeek created a list at one point during his time on here. https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6902.0 It's not exactly comprehensive, nor is it necessarily valid for him to be claiming victory in some of these, but together they are a pretty solid body of evidence towards the RE. My personal favorite is linked in my signature.
-
All i can say for both camps - this does not look like a discussion about anything... you are going in circles....
FLAT EARTHERS - Please provide your best and undeniable proof that the earth is flat. Multiple arguments are very welcome, i ask for facts followed by conclusions from observations or calculations. You cannot deny math, hence it is absolutely best way to proove anything. And i mean i need proof, no need qoutes from bible, no need insults or " go research yourself " stuff. I am here to find out what is what. No need for pictures or videos. Give me math, simple or complex, anything. Would love to see your own experiments as all i see in this forum is " empirical proof" which does not revolve around your eye sight only... experiments please. Small scale, large scale, anything. Can be done by you or any other person, as long as it has proper math because numbers dont lie
Same for the ROUNDEARTHERS please
I have spent 3 days reading this forum and i have not found a single thread dedicated to proof alone, avoiding " but you said this and that " crap.
I am an empty bowl and a summary of proof which will be the most convincing considering the number or arguments, amount of data and sensibility of it in relation to laws of nature and how it fits to the world model will win.
As far as i am concerned this is the greatest opportunity to put all " undeniable proof" in to one place and then go from there. Otherwise not a single thread will come anywhere near a conclusion. No need for personality, i need proof please
I appreciate for any input, lets end this once and for all dare i say? ( no need to answer this, i just ask to give me proof as per above and only that )
Big big thank you
Here you go: https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_329.html
Even better: https://himawari8.nict.go.jp/
-
Here you go: https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_329.html
Even better: https://himawari8.nict.go.jp/
To which I add
https://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/SearchPhotos/ShowQueryResults-CoolIris.pl?results=EarthDisc
(from the Whole Earth category within this - https://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/Collections/Historical/)
Humankind has amassed over 50 years of orbital spaceflight. You cannot have an orbit without an orb, globe or sphere around which you travel. I'm happy to cite links to one or two of these if asked, but itemising them all individually is far too onerous a task at the moment.
In terms of those who have verified the presence of these orbital craft independently of the space agencies, I cite four parties;
The Space Geodesy Facility
The International Laser Ranging Service
Plane Wave Media
Me.
I've observed the ISS on more than one occasion, sometimes twice in one evening. There's no doubt it is an orbital craft. Nothing else explains its behaviour.
In terms of one of the most recent instances of an orbital craft;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sC8Yh3UT-Do
-
Thing is, there aren't discrepancies in how far you can see, or whatever. Sounds like a case of not knowing what he was looking at, mixed with a chip on the shoulder and bad philosophy.
Well, I'll take easily repeatable observation over a blank assertion.
An interesting comment. I wonder if your view would be different had you flown on Concorde?
I highly doubt Pete has access to military aircraft, so in light of that, you are wrong.
I can confirm that I do not indeed have access to military aircraft. I'm more of a high-powered computing kinda guy. I will not speculate about what I would or wouldn't see from a Concorde, since a thought experiment like this is largely useless.
You guys seem to work the other way around: The earth is flat ergo the moon landings must have been faked and all evidence to the contrary must be wrong or faked.
I don't think this is particularly representative of many FE'ers. Then again, I'm sure there are some who solely think like this. Sure, the argument of "the Earth is flat, therefore space exploration must be faked" has been used before, but it's used as a supporting argument, and not the basis of the belief.
3DGeek created a list at one point during his time on here.
3DGeek's methodology illustrates so beautifully what's wrong with the RE mindset. He doubled down on ideology so hard that he mistook Texas for Japan, just because he thought he'd finally prove the Earth round.
-
Thing is, there aren't discrepancies in how far you can see, or whatever. Sounds like a case of not knowing what he was looking at, mixed with a chip on the shoulder and bad philosophy.
Well, I'll take easily repeatable observation over a blank assertion.
An interesting comment. I wonder if your view would be different had you flown on Concorde?
I highly doubt Pete has access to military aircraft, so in light of that, you are wrong.
I can confirm that I do not indeed have access to military aircraft. I'm more of a high-powered computing kinda guy. I will not speculate about what I would or wouldn't see from a Concorde, since a thought experiment like this is largely useless.
You guys seem to work the other way around: The earth is flat ergo the moon landings must have been faked and all evidence to the contrary must be wrong or faked.
I don't think this is particularly representative of many FE'ers. Then again, I'm sure there are some who solely think like this. Sure, the argument of "the Earth is flat, therefore space exploration must be faked" has been used before, but it's used as a supporting argument, and not the basis of the belief.
3DGeek created a list at one point during his time on here.
3DGeek's methodology illustrates so beautifully what's wrong with the RE mindset. He doubled down on ideology so hard that he mistook Texas for Japan, just because he thought he'd finally prove the Earth round.
What is a RE mindset, there is no doubt about the shape of the earth, do you have an issue with WGS-84?
-
What is a RE mindset, there is no doubt about the shape of the earth, do you have an issue with WGS-84?
From WGS 84:
Defining Parameters: WGS 84 identifies four defining parameters. These are the semi-major
axis of the WGS 84 ellipsoid, the flattening factor of the Earth, the nominal mean angular
velocity of the Earth, and the geocentric gravitational constant as specified below.
Even they talk about the flatness of the earth.
-
What is a RE mindset, there is no doubt about the shape of the earth
You have answered your own question, and it is this level of dogmatism that makes you guys so funny.
-
You guys seem to work the other way around: The earth is flat ergo the moon landings must have been faked and all evidence to the contrary must be wrong or faked.
I don't think this is particularly representative of many FE'ers. Then again, I'm sure there are some who solely think like this. Sure, the argument of "the Earth is flat, therefore space exploration must be faked" has been used before, but it's used as a supporting argument, and not the basis of the belief.
But this is exactly the reasoning given in this Wiki page:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Place_of_the_Conspiracy_in_FET
P1) If personally unverifiable evidence contradicts an obvious truth then the evidence is fabricated
P2) The Flat Earth is an obvious truth
So you don't need to provide any evidence that Elon Musk's recent launch was faked. It showed a globe earth which contradicts P2 so it must have been.
No evidence is required.
This is not a particularly rational mindset, one's opinion should always be open to change if one is shown evidence which contradicts it.
What I see time after time on here is evidence just dismissed, wilfully misunderstood or simply called fake if it shows FE to be wrong.
What is not explained on that Wiki page is why you regard P2 as "obvious" given that it flies in the face of all modern (and all quite old actually) science.
And "the horizon looks flat" is not evidence for a flat earth.
-
What is a RE mindset, there is no doubt about the shape of the earth
You have answered your own question, and it is this level of dogmatism that makes you guys so funny.
Interesting definition of "dogma". Is it dogma that I believe oxygen is the constituent element of the air that allows me to continue living?
Is it dogma that I don't reject the mountain of photographic, documentary, technological, observational, astronomical evidence for the shape of the earth on the grounds of an undefined conspiracy?
Is it dogma that I believe the reason the sun stays an identical shape and size and speed as I look at it throughout the day is because it indeed does remain the same distance from me?
Was it dogma that allowed scientists from Europe, India and the Middle East throughout (pre-medieval) history to independently calculate the size of the Earth that corresponds with the actual measured distances in use today by shipping companies, telecommunication companies, airlines.
Or is it dogma that enables you to reject all of this because of something to do with unmeasured, unverifiable, untestable ideas about perspective/thick air/magic energy and contradictory flat earth geographic depictions.
I get what you are doing on a philosophical level - and as an exercise this is valid in questioning "What is belief?" and "What is real?" and "How do we know what we know?". But in propagating inadequate explanations and provable ignorance beyond the scope of the philosophical, surely you have tied yourself to the rock of dogma and cannot free yourself from its destination?
-
And "the horizon looks flat" is not evidence for a flat earth.
Yes it is. To a real Flat Earther he must see and observe the world around him and that is what he knows. Everything else is left unknown.
You are misunderstanding the following said:
Well, I'll take easily repeatable observation over a blank assertion.
It is also true in order for something to become truth, it must be shown. So if you want to convince me you need to show me. I'd like to leave out rationalization and just know what I see.
What I am still struggling with though, and I believe true Flat Earthers are struggling with me that there are instances where people are trying to show something, but the so-called "Flat Earther" (not a real one) says: "I'm sorry, not interested. I don't care what you want to show me as I already know what you are going to show me and my conclusion is such and such." That goes against Flat Earthism. Knowledge can only be gained by experience, but this cannot be reversed as:
"I choose my experiences to control the extent of my knowledge." Another translation of this sentence could read as "I happy with being fat, dumb and happy and I am not interested at all in gaining knowledge."
The real Flat Earther would say: "I want to gain knowledge by experience". So show me.
That's why I think there are so many nominals. Just as Christianty unfortunately. ???
-
But this is exactly the reasoning given in this Wiki page:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Place_of_the_Conspiracy_in_FET
Hmm, that is a strange page. I wonder how it made it there in the first place. I shall investigate and address it.
-
3DGeek created a list at one point during his time on here.
3DGeek's methodology illustrates so beautifully what's wrong with the RE mindset. He doubled down on ideology so hard that he mistook Texas for Japan, just because he thought he'd finally prove the Earth round.
I know you have an issue with that one experiment (and I would be lying if I pretended I didn't too) but that doesn't discount the rest of what he's put forth as good food for thought at least, especially the ones with little to no FE response to them. You wanting to throw out everything he's put forth on the basis of that single 'proof' being problematic in it's execution is not something in your favor. I would also note, that particular try isn't listed on that page either.
But this is exactly the reasoning given in this Wiki page:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Place_of_the_Conspiracy_in_FET
Hmm, that is a strange page. I wonder how it made it there in the first place. I shall investigate and address it.
I look forward to seeing anything that happens here. I've been referencing it for some time. I vaguely recall seeing it in a source at some point, but which one it was escapes me unfortunately, so I can't be positive it was somewhere other than that page.
-
And "the horizon looks flat" is not evidence for a flat earth.
Yes it is. To a real Flat Earther he must see and observe the world around him and that is what he knows. Everything else is left unknown.
I have to disagree with you on this point. "The horizon looks flat" is not evidence that an empiricist would rely on alone, because of the knowledge that if a sphere is big enough, and if one is close enough to it it will appear flat. By the same logic one cannot be inside a house and look out of the window and say "It looks warm outside" and therefore conclude it is warm outside. A true empiricist would need to experience with all his senses, not just his eyes from a single view point. A true empiricist would understand the inadequacy of relying on a single sense from a single point and would therefore use all his senses and a variety of view points in order to verify that his senses are correct, thus justifying his faith in his senses for experiencing the world.
-
What I am still struggling with though, and I believe true Flat Earthers are struggling with me that there are instances where people are trying to show something, but the so-called "Flat Earther" (not a real one) says: "I'm sorry, not interested. I don't care what you want to show me as I already know what you are going to show me and my conclusion is such and such." That goes against Flat Earthism.
This is often the result of having the hundreds of people asking the same questions that have already been answered hundreds of times both here, in the wiki as well as in the FAQ.
-
What I am still struggling with though, and I believe true Flat Earthers are struggling with me that there are instances where people are trying to show something, but the so-called "Flat Earther" (not a real one) says: "I'm sorry, not interested. I don't care what you want to show me as I already know what you are going to show me and my conclusion is such and such." That goes against Flat Earthism.
This is often the result of having the hundreds of people asking the same questions that have already been answered hundreds of times both here, in the wiki as well as in the FAQ.
If you don't want to have a debate about flat earth, having an open flat earth debate forum is probably not for you. Perhaps spend your time improving the wiki instead?
-
What is a RE mindset, there is no doubt about the shape of the earth, do you have an issue with WGS-84?
From WGS 84:
Defining Parameters: WGS 84 identifies four defining parameters. These are the semi-major
axis of the WGS 84 ellipsoid, the flattening factor of the Earth, the nominal mean angular
velocity of the Earth, and the geocentric gravitational constant as specified below.
Even they talk about the flatness of the earth.
In what context, not the shape of the whole earth?
-
What is a RE mindset, there is no doubt about the shape of the earth
You have answered your own question, and it is this level of dogmatism that makes you guys so funny.
Please explain, I notice you have not commented on WGS-84.
-
What I am still struggling with though, and I believe true Flat Earthers are struggling with me that there are instances where people are trying to show something, but the so-called "Flat Earther" (not a real one) says: "I'm sorry, not interested. I don't care what you want to show me as I already know what you are going to show me and my conclusion is such and such." That goes against Flat Earthism.
This is often the result of having the hundreds of people asking the same questions that have already been answered hundreds of times both here, in the wiki as well as in the FAQ.
Key to this is the production of a map and model, both of which 'you' cannot seem to do, or even define how you would do it.
-
You can address multiple people in a single post. There is a modify button. It will help keep you from triple posting.
-
What is a RE mindset, there is no doubt about the shape of the earth, do you have an issue with WGS-84?
From WGS 84:
Defining Parameters: WGS 84 identifies four defining parameters. These are the semi-major
axis of the WGS 84 ellipsoid, the flattening factor of the Earth, the nominal mean angular
velocity of the Earth, and the geocentric gravitational constant as specified below.
Even they talk about the flatness of the earth.
In what context, not the shape of the whole earth?
I assumed that when you kept talking about WGS 84 you would have read through the specifications yourself.
-
What is a RE mindset, there is no doubt about the shape of the earth, do you have an issue with WGS-84?
From WGS 84:
Defining Parameters: WGS 84 identifies four defining parameters. These are the semi-major
axis of the WGS 84 ellipsoid, the flattening factor of the Earth, the nominal mean angular
velocity of the Earth, and the geocentric gravitational constant as specified below.
Even they talk about the flatness of the earth.
In what context, not the shape of the whole earth?
I assumed that when you kept talking about WGS 84 you would have read through the specifications yourself.
Yes, it defines the round earth.
-
And "the horizon looks flat" is not evidence for a flat earth.
Yes it is. To a real Flat Earther he must see and observe the world around him and that is what he knows. Everything else is left unknown.
No, it isn't.
Unless you disagree that a small section of a large enough circle and a flat line are indistinguishable to the naked eye. But that is not something which is debatable, it is demonstrably true. So seeing a flat horizon is not sufficient evidence to conclude a flat earth. If you saw a curve then you'd know the earth is not flat, if you don't then while a flat earth cannot be discounted it is not the only possibility.
That's where other observations are required.
And luckily we have plenty of other observations from amateur balloons, high altitude pilots and astronauts testifying to a curve.
Now, you can say that they are all lying and you won't believe it till you see it for yourself but this is a strange way to go through life.
No-one literally goes through life like this, refusing to drink tap water for example because someone else has certified it safe and you haven't personally verified it.
It is also true in order for something to become truth, it must be shown. So if you want to convince me you need to show me.
Well no, that isn't true. The truth is the truth. Truth is absolute, it doesn't depend on your opinion or what you have observed. The earth has a certain shape. You can determine that based on observations (as discussed, observing a flat horizon is not enough information to definitively determine it) but the shape of it is not dependant on your opinion. If the only way to convince you is to show you then train to be an astronaut or send up a balloon.
-
Our senses can lie.
That's why nobody suggests you should only perform one experiment, or rely on a single observation. You build up evidence and rely on its preponderance. If, after collecting a reasonable amount of data points, this process leads you to believe that the Earth is a certain shape, then the conclusion should be easy.
It's not an easy process, and it's not meant to be one.
On a more philosophical note, if the majority of your experiences turn out to be illusions, perhaps you ought to rethink what an illusion is.
If I ask my neighbour to ask Tim Peake (ISS Astronaught) for the picture that I was shown, that Tim had sent him, looking out of the ISS (at a round earth) would this constitute proof?
-
Defining Parameters: WGS 84 identifies four defining parameters. These are the semi-major
axis of the WGS 84 ellipsoid, the flattening factor of the Earth, the nominal mean angular
velocity of the Earth, and the geocentric gravitational constant as specified below.
Even they talk about the flatness of the earth.
Assuming you mean the bold statement, what do you take this statement to mean?
-
It is also true in order for something to become truth, it must be shown. So if you want to convince me you need to show me.
Well no, that isn't true. The truth is the truth. Truth is absolute, it doesn't depend on your opinion or what you have observed. The earth has a certain shape. You can determine that based on observations (as discussed, observing a flat horizon is not enough information to definitively determine it) but the shape of it is not dependant on your opinion. If the only way to convince you is to show you then train to be an astronaut or send up a balloon.
Actually, he has a good point. If you want to be shown, some brief online shopping will get you a high altitude balloon and wireless camcorder for as low as $166(133.36€). Oh, but you'd better watch out, the atmosphere is probably being paid off by NASA. ;)
On a side note, if you want to be 'shown', maybe stop instinctively discrediting every ounce of proof you are presented via video, photo, mathematical, etc. methods? If you're rejecting the dissenting logic because it disagrees, you're not an empiricist.