The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: secretagent10 on March 07, 2022, 06:09:53 AM
-
Most of us here have encountered it everywhere, where someone that’s technically a “globe earther” never really engaged in discourse about the shape of the earth or thought about it beyond surface level.
The average person that isn’t interested in science/space discussion likely has a simplified set of views about our world, such as “when you get high enough, gravity just turns off in space” or “spacesuits are made of cloth”. It’s (generally!) these people that become flat earthers, and start to learn more. It’s led to years of debate and discussion and scientific experiments, which I think is great.
Where flat earth discussion falls flat is the literalism behind it, and this honestly kills a lot of discussion as people outside the FE community are turned off by that sort of thing.
Starting with skepticism, years of debate and independent research/learning/logic etc. has led me to have a personal understanding of the natural world that wasn’t simply fed to me (that corroborates with the globally-accepted heliocentric model).
It’s a fantastic educational experience (thought experiment), and there’s lots of us that end up with reaffirmed knowledge of the globe earth after years of this. I just wish there wasn’t this sense of literalism tied to the discourse where you have people believing that world is LITERALLY flat, it seems like this has been a detriment to the community.
-
Where did you get the idea that you *have to* believe one way or another? That directly contradicts everything we've been saying about our purpose here.
-
What should FE discussion have, if not "literalism" ?
Lyricism? Poeticism?
Why should FE-ers not be taken literally?
-
It’s a fantastic educational experience (thought experiment)
I have come to the view that for many on here that is what FE is - a thought experiment.
If the earth were flat then how would you explain sunrise, for example. We know that the sun doesn't go physically under the earth, it's always day time somewhere. So how does that work?
We know that gravity pulls things towards the centre of mass, but on earth we fall down. So how does that work?
And so on.
As a thought experiment it is quite interesting, I have more issues with it as a literal belief as that involves a myriad of conspiracy theories and dismissal of pretty much all scientific knowledge.
Which is not in itself harmful - I mean, it doesn't really matter what shape the earth is. But when that sort of thinking extends to Covid, Global Warming etc - that's where the dangers lie.
-
Yeah, it is actually RE adherents running the Biolabs performing gain of function research and setting loose dangerous pathogens, waging an elemental war on the very substance that comprises most everything that exists in the universe, and starting and fomenting death and destruction among all the peoples of the flat earth.
None of these very real things have been set loose upon humanity by any FE adherent.
Globesters don't care about people.
-
Yeah, it is actually RE adherents running the Biolabs performing gain of function research and setting loose dangerous pathogens, waging an elemental war on the very substance that comprises most everything that exists in the universe, and starting and fomenting death and destruction among all the peoples of the flat earth.
None of these very real things have been set loose upon humanity by any FE adherent.
Globesters don't care about people.
A couple of points here my friend, are you saying that all Ball Earthers are callously and deliberately endangering the planet? Sure, there are a lot of Ball Earthers who are screwing the planet over, but that's just because there are more ball Earthers than Flat Earthers per capita, so of course, in a ven diagram the Ball Earthers who don't care will be substantially more.
Are you saying there is causation between RE belief and harmful acts against the planet? To what end? we have to share the wonderful world together, no matter what shape it is.
In my experience, a lot of ecologically aware people are Ball Earthers, but again, is that just because there are more RE than FE people in the general population?
Peace brother,
RBD
-
Yeah, it is actually RE adherents running the Biolabs performing gain of function research and setting loose dangerous pathogens, waging an elemental war on the very substance that comprises most everything that exists in the universe, and starting and fomenting death and destruction among all the peoples of the flat earth.
None of these very real things have been set loose upon humanity by any FE adherent.
Globesters don't care about people.
A couple of points here my friend, are you saying that all Ball Earthers are callously and deliberately endangering the planet?
Yes.
Sure, there are a lot of Ball Earthers who are screwing the planet over, but that's just because there are more ball Earthers than Flat Earthers per capita, so of course, in a ven diagram the Ball Earthers who don't care will be substantially more.
100 percent is 100 percent.
Are you saying there is causation between RE belief and harmful acts against the planet? To what end? we have to share the wonderful world together, no matter what shape it is.
In my experience, a lot of ecologically aware people are Ball Earthers, but again, is that just because there are more RE than FE people in the general population?
Peace brother,
RBD
I don't know if there is a causal link or not, and I do not care.
I was pointing out the fact that globesters typically engage in the blame game, trying to pin things like Covid, climate change, etc., on FE, and that it is in fact globesters who practice the stupid science when it comes to such things.
-
So globesters are blaming FE for Covid and climate change.
I see.
-
I was pointing out the fact that globesters typically engage in the blame game, trying to pin things like Covid, climate change, etc., on FE, and that it is in fact globesters who practice the stupid science when it comes to such things.
I can't say I've ever seen anyone pin Covid or Climate Change on FE. Do you have an example? Is yours an extrapolation that some folks see FE as a pseudoscience/anti-science kind of thing?
-
The only link is in the response to Covid or climate change. The same thinking which helps people fall down the FE rabbit hole also helps them fall down anti-vaxx or climate change denial rabbit holes.
It’s not a link so much as an underlying root cause
-
That's pretty much the theme of the latest FE book out, "Off the Edge: Flat Earthers, Conspiracy Culture, and Why People Will Believe Anything"
-
I was pointing out the fact that globesters typically engage in the blame game, trying to pin things like Covid, climate change, etc., on FE, and that it is in fact globesters who practice the stupid science when it comes to such things.
I can't say I've ever seen anyone pin Covid or Climate Change on FE. Do you have an example? Is yours an extrapolation that some folks see FE as a pseudoscience/anti-science kind of thing?
Yeah, following below:
As a thought experiment it is quite interesting, I have more issues with it as a literal belief as that involves a myriad of conspiracy theories and dismissal of pretty much all scientific knowledge.
Which is not in itself harmful - I mean, it doesn't really matter what shape the earth is. But when that sort of thinking extends to Covid, Global Warming etc - that's where the dangers lie.
And then the follow up:
The only link is in the response to Covid or climate change. The same thinking which helps people fall down the FE rabbit hole also helps them fall down anti-vaxx or climate change denial rabbit holes.
It’s not a link so much as an underlying root cause
As if a link is not a cause.
So much disingenuous rhetorical garbage in that post.
A vast majority of unvaccinated people are globesters.
A vast majority of the climate change deniers and the idiots pursuing man-made solutions, which is quite simply ridiculous in and of itself, are globesters.
Seems you have quite a bit of influence to exercise in your own community of fellow believers first, rather than proselytize here.
-
As if a link is not a cause.
Correct, it isn't. I'm talking about a common root cause.
Your mum caused you to be born. Her sister caused your cousin to be. Your grandmother is the underlying root cause of both you and your cousin. So you and your cousin are linked but you did not "cause" your cousin nor he/she you. See?
A vast majority of unvaccinated people are globesters.
Well, sure. Because the vast majority of people are.
But I bet most of the anti vaxxers also believe in other conspiracy theory nonsense. They might not have fallen so far down those rabbit holes to have fallen down this one, but the root cause, the underlying psychology, is the same. I don't blame FE for Covid or Climate Change, I'm not trying to "pin" those things on FE, that makes no sense. But the underlying psychology is common amongst FE, climate change denial and anti vaxxers - the distrust of the mainstream and subject matter experts, the belief that "they" are conspiring to misinform you because reasons.
-
A vast majority of unvaccinated people are globesters.
Sure, the vast majority of unvaccinated people are globesters. Are you really struggling with this concept?
-
As if a link is not a cause.
Correct, it isn't. I'm talking about a common root cause.
Your mum caused you to be born. Her sister caused your cousin to be. Your grandmother is the underlying root cause of both you and your cousin. So you and your cousin are linked but you did not "cause" your cousin nor he/she you. See?
It is still a link. If no cause, then no linking. You're engaged in semantical games.
A vast majority of unvaccinated people are globesters.
Well, sure. Because the vast majority of people are.
But I bet most of the anti vaxxers also believe in other conspiracy theory nonsense. They might not have fallen so far down those rabbit holes to have fallen down this one, but the root cause, the underlying psychology, is the same. I don't blame FE for Covid or Climate Change, I'm not trying to "pin" those things on FE, that makes no sense. But the underlying psychology is common amongst FE, climate change denial and anti vaxxers - the distrust of the mainstream and subject matter experts, the belief that "they" are conspiring to misinform you because reasons.
Unvaccinated people are not anti-vaxx. Keep choosing the terminology to make yourself comfortable with your thoughts, however.
Doesn't help you or the people you claim to want to help in any fashion, messiah.
-
A vast majority of unvaccinated people are globesters.
Sure, the vast majority of unvaccinated people are globesters. Are you really struggling with this concept?
Not at all, just stating facts. You're struggling with it, posting on a FE forum.
-
A vast majority of unvaccinated people are globesters.
Sure, the vast majority of unvaccinated people are globesters. Are you really struggling with this concept?
Not at all, just stating facts. You're struggling with it, posting on a FE forum.
The vast majority of people are globesters. Is that not a fact? It also seems like the vast majority of posters on FE forums are globesters too. Although I don't know that for a fact.
-
I can speak from personal experience about having faith in a Spherical world to that of a Flat one - like I actually believe it's probably true. My research methods have evolved over time and I transfer these methods into politics and in every area of my life. In some cases I change my thinking or add to it.
It's not a negative thing for everyone. You learn alot in the process and it's not like you "forget" what the other side is saying.
-
Where did you get the idea that you *have to* believe one way or another? That directly contradicts everything we've been saying about our purpose here.
Reworded the original post to convey what I meant. I understand that nobody’s saying you “have to” believe anything.
-
As a thought experiment it is quite interesting, I have more issues with it as a literal belief as that involves a myriad of conspiracy theories and dismissal of pretty much all scientific knowledge.
Which is not in itself harmful - I mean, it doesn't really matter what shape the earth is. But when that sort of thinking extends to Covid, Global Warming etc - that's where the dangers lie.
I agree. It seems that literal belief in FE is ironically a symptom of not becoming learned in the topic.
Many FE arguments are born from a sort of misunderstanding about observable phenomena, such as denial of the conservation of momentum/rockets in a vacuum. It becomes a mix of Olympic mental gymnastics and a simple lack of intuitive understanding of physics.
So many argument tactics used by FE proponents are so blatantly dishonest and diversionary. That doesn’t mean FE isn’t a great exercise in what “knowing” is and how to find the answers yourself!
-
I agree that investigating things for yourself, even if the answer is well known, is a good thing. I happened to go to a college (many years ago) where everyone (irrespective of chosen speciality) took the same 2 years of math, physics, chemistry, mechanics, numerical analysis, programming etc. Initially I was a bit annoyed by this wanting to jump into computers/EE. But during a physics lab where I was recreating the early bubble chamber experiments to show that charge was quantized I noticed that despite knowing the outcome, doing it myself changed (if only slightly) how I held that knowledge. The same thing can be said for just learning to recognize actual scientific work (understating peer review etc) as opposed to just popular press nonsense.
Sadly I see little to none of FE media (this site included) endorsing that view and instead basically being propaganda.
-
So many argument tactics used by FE proponents are so blatantly dishonest and diversionary.
Really? Prove it. Point out a topic in our Wiki that is blatantly dishonest - https://wiki.tfes.org/
-
I agree that investigating things for yourself, even if the answer is well known, is a good thing.
It is a good thing with the caveat that those investigations should be guided. I remember doing experiments at school like plotting the way light travels through a glass block when learning about refraction. The FE narrative that kids are indoctrinated and just have to accept what they’re taught simply isn’t true.
Most of the FE people you see on YouTube haven’t got a clue what they’re doing. I guess it’s commendable that they’re trying to investigate stuff but unless you have a basic understanding you’re going to make mistakes which will lead you to the wrong conclusions.
It’s a mindset I don’t understand - people with little or no scientific knowledge do some tests and think that their results show that all of science is wrong and they’ve discovered something which has eluded the greatest minds in science. Wouldn’t a more reasonable conclusion be that they’ve made a mistake and probably should seek some help from someone with more expertise in the relevant area?
-
So many argument tactics used by FE proponents are so blatantly dishonest and diversionary.
Really? Prove it. Point out a topic in our Wiki that is blatantly dishonest - https://wiki.tfes.org/
The way you cherry pick is dishonest.
A for example is on this page:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Equivalence_Principle#General_Relativity_and_Accelerating_Upwards
Where you quote from “Gravity: A Short Introduction”. You quote a bit which fits your narrative but you ignore other parts even in the pages you can preview which clearly talks about the earth as a spherical planet.
-
I agree that investigating things for yourself, even if the answer is well known, is a good thing.
It is a good thing with the caveat that those investigations should be guided.
Totally agree.
-
So many argument tactics used by FE proponents are so blatantly dishonest and diversionary.
Really? Prove it. Point out a topic in our Wiki that is blatantly dishonest - https://wiki.tfes.org/
The way you cherry pick is dishonest.
I was thinking the same thing with the example of GPS and satellite TV as the two most obvious ways most people use space technology. Yet the wiki has no explanation of how they could be possible given a FE (that I could find anyway, there is a video that claims someone claims GPS is ground based but that is very different from explaining how that could work (hint: it can not)).
-
So many argument tactics used by FE proponents are so blatantly dishonest and diversionary.
Really? Prove it. Point out a topic in our Wiki that is blatantly dishonest - https://wiki.tfes.org/
The way you cherry pick is dishonest.
A for example is on this page:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Equivalence_Principle#General_Relativity_and_Accelerating_Upwards
Where you quote from “Gravity: A Short Introduction”. You quote a bit which fits your narrative but you ignore other parts even in the pages you can preview which clearly talks about the earth as a spherical planet.
That part of the Wiki does not claim that the authors think that the Earth is flat and that the Earth is accelerating upwards. It's describing how gravity works in General Relativity. It is explaining that the upwardly accelerating Equivalence Principle effects happen in GR because spacetime is curved.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Equivalence_Principle#General_Relativity_and_Accelerating_Upwards
General Relativity and Accelerating Upwards
The Equivalence Principle is a fundamental tenet of General Relativity, which describes that the surface of the Earth is accelerating upwards through curved space-time to cause the EP effects as experienced on Earth.
From Gravity: A Very Short Introduction (Archive) by Cosmologist Timothy Clifton (bio), we read:
“ Consider a skydiver jumping out of an airplane. The skydiver falls freely, up to the effects of air resistance. According to Einstein, the skydiver's path is the straightest line possible through the curved space-time around the Earth. From the skydiver's perspective this seems quite natural. Except for the air rushing past her, the skydiver feels no perturbing forces at all. In fact, if it weren't for the air resistance, she would experience weightlessness in the same way that an astronaut does in orbit. The only reason we think the skydiver is accelerating is because we are used to using the surface of the Earth as our frame of reference. If we free ourselves from this convention, then we have no reason to think the skydiver is accelerating at all.
Now consider yourself on the ground, looking up at the falling daredevil. Normally, your intuitive description of your own motion would be that you are stationary. But again this is only because of our slavish regard to the Earth as the arbiter of what is at rest and what is moving. Free yourself from this prison, and you realize that you are, in fact, accelerating. You feel a force on the soles of your feet that pushes you upwards, in the same way that you would if you were in a lift that accelerated upwards very quickly. In Einstein's picture there is no difference between your experience sanding on Earth and your experience in the lift. In both situations you are accelerating upwards. In the latter situation it is the lift that is responsible for your acceleration. In the former, it is the fact that the Earth is solid that pushes you upwards through space-time, knocking you off your free-fall trajectory. That the surface of the Earth can accelerate upwards at every point on its surface, and remain as a solid object, is because it exists in a curved space-time and not in a flat space.
With this change in perspective the true nature of gravity becomes apparent. The free falling skydiver is brought to Earth because the space-time through which she falls is curved. It is not an external force that tugs her downwards, but her own natural motion through a curved space. On the other hand, as a person standing on the ground, the pressure you feel on the soles of your feet is due to the rigidity of the Earth pushing you upwards. Again, there is no external force pulling you to Earth. It is only the electrostatic forces in the rocks below your feet that keep the ground rigid, and that prevents you from taking what would be your natural motion (which would also be free fall).
So, if we free ourselves from defining our motion with respect to the surface of the Earth we realize that the skydiver is not accelerating, while the person who stands on the surface of the Earth is accelerating. Just the opposite of what we usually think. Going back to Galileo's experiment on the leaning tower of Pisa, we can now see why he observed all of his cannonballs to fall at the same rate. It wasn't really the cannonballs that were accelerating away from Galileo at all, it was Galileo that was accelerating away from the cannonballs! ”
In a section titled Why Is Spacetime Curved? of the book Time Travel in Einstein’s Universe by John Richard Gott III (bio), professor of astrophysical sciences at Princeton University, we read:
“ A famous (perhaps apocryphal) story about Einstein describes one occasion when he fell into conversation with a man at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton. During their chat, the man suddenly pulled a little book from his coat pocket and jotted something down. Einstein asked, “What is that?" “Oh,” the man answered, “it's a notebook I keep, so that any time I have a good idea I can write it down before I forget it.” “I never needed one of those," Einstein replied. “I only had three good ideas.”
One of them occurred to him in 1907—what he would later call the “happiest” idea of his life. Einstein noted that an observer on Earth and an observer on an accelerating spaceship in interstellar space would have the same sensations. Follow this chain of thought to see why. Galileo had shown that an observer dropping two balls of different mass on Earth sees them hit the floor at the same time. If an observer in an accelerating rocket in interstellar space performed the same experiment, dropping two balls of different mass, they would float motionless in space—but, since the rocket was firing, the floor of the spaceship would simply come up and hit both of them at once. Both observers thus should see the same thing. In one case, it is the result of gravity; in the other case, it is caused by an accelerating floor with no gravity involved. But then Einstein proposed something very bold—if the two situations looked the same, they must be the same. Gravity was nothing more than an accelerated frame-of—reference. Likewise, Einstein noted that if you get in an elevator on Earth and cut the cable, you and everything in the elevator will fall toward Earth at the same rate. (Galileo again—objects of different mass all fall at the same rate.) So, how do things look to you in the falling elevator? Any object you drop will float weightless in the elevator—because you, the object, and the elevator are all falling at the same rate together. This is exactly what you would see if you were in a spaceship floating in interstellar space. All the objects in the spaceship, including you, would be weightless. If you want to experience weightlessness just like an astronaut, all you have to do is get in an elevator and cut the cable. (This works, of course, only until the elevator hits bottom.)
Einstein's assertion that gravity and acceleration are, the same—which he called the equivalence principle—was influenced, no doubt, by his previous success in equating the situation of a stationary magnet and a moving charge with that of a stationary charge and a moving magnet. But if gravity and accelerated motion were the same, then gravity was nothing but accelerated motion. Earth's surface was simply accelerating upward. This explained why a heavy ball and a light ball, when dropped, hit the floor at the same time. When the balls are released, they just float there—weightless. The floor (Earth) simply comes up and hits them. What a remarkably fresh way of looking at things!
Still one must ask how Earth’s surface could be accelerating upward (away from Earth's center) if Earth itself is not getting bigger and bigger with time like a balloon. The only way the assertion could make sense is by considering spacetime to be curved.
Einstein proposed that mass and energy cause spacetime to curve. It took him 8 years of hard work to derive the equations governing this. He had to learn the abstruse geometry of curved higher dimensional spaces. He had to learn about the Riemannian curvature tensor—a mathematical monster with 256 components telling how spacetime could be curved. This was very difficult mathematics, and Einstein ran upon many false leads. But he didn't give up because he had great faith in the idea. ”
The problem here is on your part. You think that the Wiki says those authors believe the Earth is flat, when it does not say that at all. It is describing how General Relativity works in conventional Round Earth Theory.
Again, the Wiki is correct and the problem is with you and your poor reading comprehension. That section is clearly about the RE theory, hence 'Earth itself is not getting bigger and bigger with time like a balloon'.
Where is the blatantly dishonesty? You have failed to point it out to us, and have only succeeded in showing how you are an abjectly poor reader.
-
That part of the Wiki does not claim that the authors think that the Earth is flat and that the Earth is accelerating upwards. It's describing how gravity works in General Relativity. It is explaining that the upwardly accelerating Equivalence Principle effects happen in GR because spacetime is curved.
Thanks for providing another example of your dishonest cherry picking.
You choose the parts of Relativity and mainstream science which fit your narrative - so you use Relativity to explain why we don't accelerate past the speed of light. But you dismiss all the parts of science which don't work so well on a flat earth.
Cherry picking is a form of dishonesty.
-
That part of the Wiki does not claim that the authors think that the Earth is flat and that the Earth is accelerating upwards. It's describing how gravity works in General Relativity. It is explaining that the upwardly accelerating Equivalence Principle effects happen in GR because spacetime is curved.
Thanks for providing another example of your dishonest cherry picking.
You choose the parts of Relativity and mainstream science which fit your narrative - so you use Relativity to explain why we don't accelerate past the speed of light. But you dismiss all the parts of science which don't work so well on a flat earth.
Cherry picking is a form of dishonesty.
Poor reading comprehension again. Where does the Wiki say that it's rejecting General Relativity? That section is explaining how General Relativity works on an RE. The Wiki makes no mention of GR possibly working on a FE at all.
-
https://wiki.tfes.org/Equivalence_Principle#General_Relativity_and_Accelerating_Upwards
General Relativity and Accelerating Upwards
The Equivalence Principle is a fundamental tenet of General Relativity, which describes that the surface of the Earth is accelerating upwards through curved space-time to cause the EP effects as experienced on Earth.
That is not a accurate statement of the EP. All the references I could find are similar to these and do NOT include the idea of "accelerating upwards though curved space-time".
In the theory of general relativity, the equivalence principle is the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass, and Albert Einstein’s observation that the gravitational “force” as experienced locally while standing on a massive body (such as the Earth) is the same as the pseudo-force experienced by an observer in a non-inertial (accelerated) frame of reference.
In the theory of general relativity, the equivalence principle is the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass, and Albert Einstein's observation that the gravitational "force" as experienced locally while standing on a massive body (such as the Earth) is the same as the pseudo-force experienced by an observer in a non-inertial (accelerated) frame of reference.
The Newtonian Version
Gravitational mass is the charge to which gravity couples. Inertial mass is a measure of how fast an object accelerates--given the same force, increasing the inertial mass implies decreasing acceleration. The simplest way to state the equivalence principle is this: inertial mass and gravitational mass are the same thing. Then, gravitational force is proportional to inertial mass, and the proportionality is independent of the kind of matter. This implies the Universality of Free Fall(UFF): in a uniform gravitational field, all objects fall with the same acceleration, e.g. 9.8m/s2 near the surface of the earth.
The Einsteinian Version
All objects fall the same way under the influence of gravity; therefore, locally, one cannot tell the difference between an accelerated frame and an unaccelerated frame.
There are many more. You have cherry picked a book that deviates from the common description of the EP but that describes it to your liking in that it includes "accelerating upwards") and that is a dishonest representation of the EP.
-
There are many more. You have cherry picked a book that deviates from the common description of the EP but that describes it to your liking in that it includes "accelerating upwards") and that is a dishonest representation of the EP.
There are three books in the section of the Wiki (https://wiki.tfes.org/Equivalence_Principle#General_Relativity_and_Accelerating_Upwards) that describe GR and the EP in that way. It references Gravity: A Very Short Introduction by Cosmologist Timothy Clifton, the section Why Is Spacetime Curved? of the book Time Travel in Einstein’s Universe by John Richard Gott III, professor of astrophysical sciences at Princeton University, and Relativity Visualized by physicist Lewis Carroll Epstein.
They are explaining how gravity and the EP works in General Relativity. You quoted passages which do not seek to go into it to explain why space time is curved and how it works as those authors do. The sources in the Wiki are works by physicists who detail why space was decided to be curved.
The main problem this website has is that we are having a discussion with sixth graders. ::)
-
Point out a topic in our Wiki that is blatantly dishonest - https://wiki.tfes.org/
See the quote under all of AATW's posts.
-
There are many more. You have cherry picked a book that deviates from the common description of the EP but that describes it to your liking in that it includes "accelerating upwards") and that is a dishonest representation of the EP.
There are three books in the section of the Wiki (https://wiki.tfes.org/Equivalence_Principle#General_Relativity_and_Accelerating_Upwards) that describe GR and the EP in that way. It references Gravity: A Very Short Introduction by Cosmologist Timothy Clifton, the section Why Is Spacetime Curved? of the book Time Travel in Einstein’s Universe by John Richard Gott III, professor of astrophysical sciences at Princeton University, and Relativity Visualized by physicist Lewis Carroll Epstein.
They are explaining how gravity and the EP works in General Relativity. You quoted passages which do not seek to go into it to explain why space time is curved and how it works as those authors do. The sources in the Wiki are works by physicists who detail why space was decided to be curved.
But you do not state that the reason that space is curved (i.e. the presence of the mass of the earth) is clearly antithetical to a FE?
The main problem this website has is that we are having a discussion with sixth graders. ::)
And yet it is you who is hurling insults.
-
The main problem this website has is that we are having a discussion with sixth graders.
I invite you to share with us the level of your education.
-
They are explaining how gravity and the EP works in General Relativity. You quoted passages which do not seek to go into it to explain why space time is curved and how it works as those authors do. The sources in the Wiki are works by physicists who detail why space was decided to be curved.
So the wiki entry is meant to say that GR is correct?
-
Anything that quotes from Rowbottom, whilst not being explicitly dishonest, is dubious at least. We have no record other than RB's text and line drawings. No photographs. No third-party observation.
Move up to present day, and we have photographic evidence in direct contradiction to Rowbottom's canal markers;
Reply #31 et al in https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=19064.msg260040#msg260040
-
Anything that quotes from Rowbottom, whilst not being explicitly dishonest, is dubious at least. We have no record other than RB's text and line drawings. No photographs. No third-party observation.
Right. And claims about more modern experiments are also potentially dishonest.
Take the Bishop Experiment. Did that even happen? My signature outlines some reasonable basis for scepticism - sun bathers on a chilly day?
No photographic evidence has been posted, no detailed record of the method and results for review.
"I did a thing and this is what I saw" is not a level of evidence Tom would accept from anyone else.
-
But you do not state that the reason that space is curved (i.e. the presence of the mass of the earth) is clearly antithetical to a FE?
Actually the Wiki has FE gravity theories involving the presence of mass causing gravity - https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration#Alternatives_to_Universal_Acceleration
This alternative theory involves Newtonian Gravity, but a similar one could be made for curving space as well.
Anything that quotes from Rowbottom, whilst not being explicitly dishonest, is dubious at least. We have no record other than RB's text and line drawings. No photographs. No third-party observation.
Move up to present day, and we have photographic evidence in direct contradiction to Rowbottom's canal markers;
Reply #31 et al in https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=19064.msg260040#msg260040
This is not blatant dishonesty. Rowbotham's claims and documentation are a form of evidence.
Also, you missed the parts in the Wiki where it says it was reproduced:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence#Similar_Experiments
(https://i.imgur.com/lcBNYLN.png)
Anything that quotes from Rowbottom, whilst not being explicitly dishonest, is dubious at least. We have no record other than RB's text and line drawings. No photographs. No third-party observation.
Right. And claims about more modern experiments are also potentially dishonest.
Take the Bishop Experiment. Did that even happen? My signature outlines some reasonable basis for scepticism - sun bathers on a chilly day?
If you didn't live towards the arctic circle you would know that tourist hotspots like the beaches of Monterey and Santa Cruz, California are of a character where people enjoy themselves in cold weather.
https://goneoutdoors.com/enjoy-cold-day-beach--2282696.html
(https://i.imgur.com/DxfpImq.jpg)
As related in the link above, it is possible to get a sunburn in cold weather. With direct sunlight is it possible to get quite warm, even if the general temperature is considered cold.
No photographic evidence has been posted, no detailed record of the method and results for review.
Claims are evidence. A scientific paper involving chemistry, biology, ecology, etc. do not need photographic evidence of the experiments involved. The words and claims and given results are evidence.
After I performed Rowbotham's water convexity experiment they were reproduced by the Flat Earth community dozens of times, as seen in the litany of sources in the Wiki -
https://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence#Why_I.27m_a_Flat_Earther..._37_Must-See_Experiments https://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence#Further_Flat_Earth_Evidence
-
Claims are evidence.
Well sure. We've had this conversation - not all evidence is created equal.
You saying "I did a thing and this is what I saw" is evidence of a kind, but how much more compelling it would be if you carefully documented your method and results and showed some photographic proof of those results. That would be something which one could properly scrutinise.
Someone recently made a claim about a conversation he had with a friend about computer software which uses spherical geometry equations to accurately calculate distances. Your response was a 3 word dismissal, "sure you did"
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=19193.msg260610#msg260610
No follow up questions, no asking for further details, just a flat out dismissal.
And that is another form of your dishonesty - the level of scrutiny you apply to evidence depends entirely on whether that evidence backs up your world view. Anything which does is accepted without question. Anything which does not is either dismissed or scrutinised to death. It's possible that in this you are only being dishonest with yourself.
A good example of this was the experiment with the boat and the laser. You spent 2 days saying it was flawed - which was actually your misunderstanding of the method. I tried in vain to explain that to you. In the end someone else managed to explain it to you at which point you called the experiment fake and ran away. So...
-
Also, you missed the parts in the Wiki where it says it was reproduced:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence#Similar_Experiments
Lake Manitoba; shows only the glow FROM the lights. Does not show that the camera has a direct sightline TO the lights.
When driving at night, I see the glow from the approaching car's headlights over the brow of the hill before I have a sightline to the vehicle itself. Can it be demonstrated that's not what's happening here?
Have you no comment at all on the examples I gave you above?
-
Take the Bishop Experiment. Did that even happen? My signature outlines some reasonable basis for scepticism - sun bathers on a chilly day?
I hate this argument so much. You keep asking me not to conclude bad faith from your arguments, but it's so difficult when your best point is "ehehehe he used a word I think is not fitting!"
If it is a clear and chilly day, i wonder why people are sunbathing and paddling in the water? Not normal activities when it is “chilly”.
I've visited California before. Suffice to say that "chilly" is a relative term.
Ultimately, this is just another thread where RE'ers complain about the fact that sometimes humans speak colloquially. "Ga-hyuk, it can't be flat because mountains exist!"
-
Take the Bishop Experiment. Did that even happen? My signature outlines some reasonable basis for scepticism - sun bathers on a chilly day?
I hate this argument so much. You keep asking me not to conclude bad faith from your arguments, but it's so difficult when your best point is "ehehehe he used a word I think is not fitting!"
Best argument? I'm poking fun. And he's the one making a claim, the burden of proof is on him, now me.
He's welcome to refute it, it's been in my sig for ages.
And he has above with articles about how to enjoy the beach on a cold day which, amusingly, talks about how you'll have to wrap up warm and have the beach to yourself - not the sun bathing, paddling larkfest Tom describes.
But my main point is the differing level of scrutiny he applies to evidence depending on whether it confirms his worldview or not. Come on, dude, you know that's his thing. He expects us to accept his results without evidence other than his own claim - because claims are evidence. But other claims are dismissed with a 3 word "sure you did".
-
Also, you missed the parts in the Wiki where it says it was reproduced:
I propose further discussion in Investigations;
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=19213.0
-
Best argument?
When AATW sends his arguments, he's not sending his best. He's not sending you. He's not sending you. He's sending arguments that have lots of problems, and he’s bringing those problems with us. He's bringing "just poking fun". He's bringing "obviously being a little tongue-in-cheek". They’re just wrong. And some, I assume, are actually funny.
He's welcome to refute it, it's been in my sig for ages.
I know, we've addressed it before. Why you chose to keep it is beyond me.
-
Best argument? I'm poking fun. And he's the one making a claim, the burden of proof is on him, now me.
He's welcome to refute it, it's been in my sig for ages.
And he has above with articles about how to enjoy the beach on a cold day which, amusingly, talks about how you'll have to wrap up warm and have the beach to yourself - not the sun bathing, paddling larkfest Tom describes.
People do visit the beaches and sunbathe in the cold weather of California, sometimes even during the winter.
https://oureverydaylife.com/how-to-sunbathe-in-winter-12126258.html
(https://i.imgur.com/0yg6UjS.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/awz88uO.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/br9n4jf.png)
But my main point is the differing level of scrutiny he applies to evidence depending on whether it confirms his worldview or not. Come on, dude, you know that's his thing. He expects us to accept his results without evidence other than his own claim - because claims are evidence. But other claims are dismissed with a 3 word "sure you did".
I actually didn't tell you to accept anything.
-
But you do not state that the reason that space is curved (i.e. the presence of the mass of the earth) is clearly antithetical to a FE?
Actually the Wiki has FE gravity theories involving the presence of mass causing gravity - https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration#Alternatives_to_Universal_Acceleration
Your claimed "alternative" is just a bunch of scribbled equations with no explanation and includes such nonsense as
mass = area * density
but of course meter2 * kg/meter3 would be kg/meter not kg.
I suspect it is from yet another self published paper, i.e. its meaningless. Peer review is key to how science works. This is another aspect of your dishonesty. You cite supposed references that are not legitimate but how many folks go to the trouble of tracking them down to see that?
-
Your claimed "alternative" is just a bunch of scribbled equations with no explanation and includes such nonsense as
mass = area * density
Funny, I didn't have a problem verifying that mass is related to density and area/volume.
From the equation:
(https://i.imgur.com/9dJlMiP.png)
https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/physics/density.php
(https://i.imgur.com/K70EoRy.png)
-
Your claimed "alternative" is just a bunch of scribbled equations with no explanation and includes such nonsense as
mass = area * density
Funny, I didn't have a problem verifying that mass is related to density and area/volume.
From the equation:
(https://i.imgur.com/9dJlMiP.png)
https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/physics/density.php
(https://i.imgur.com/K70EoRy.png)
I have to wonder if you even read what you post. My critique is that the page you show says density is mass divided by AREA. You then say you have no problem finding that density is equal to mass device by VOLUME. That is correct, VOLUME not AREA.
-
So many argument tactics used by FE proponents are so blatantly dishonest and diversionary.
Really? Prove it. Point out a topic in our Wiki that is blatantly dishonest - https://wiki.tfes.org/
The issue is missing context. Lots of things seemed to be plucked from their original context and used as a soundbite to support something that was not intended. Take “The Conspiracy” page, https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy
There’s a quote featured prominently:
"All government agencies lie part of the time, but NASA is the only one I've ever encountered that does so routinely.''
—George A. Keyworth, Science Advisor to President Regan in testimony before Congress, March 14, 1985
The quote has nothing to do with ’The Conspiracy’ in terms of how the wiki puts it, “The purpose of NASA is to fake the concept of space travel to further America's militaristic dominance of space.”, the bolded part, as in “fake”, but everything to do with “America’s militaristic dominance of space”. Not to mention, there's no record of that exact wording, no source. There's no mention in the Congressional records for the Senate or House on 3/14/1985:
https://www.congress.gov/bound-congressional-record/1985/03/14
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CRECB-1985-pt4/pdf/GPO-CRECB-1985-pt4-6.pdf
From an LA Times article where a similar quote is mentioned:
Why Challenger Was Doomed : The story of the ill-fated space shuttle goes far beyond O-rings, say the officials who were involved. Politics, economics, egos and ambition were also to blame. (https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1987-01-18-tm-5326-story.html)
“George C. Keyworth, the President’s science adviser and a former weapons designer at Los Alamos, was openly trying to force Beggs to relinquish control of the shuttle to the Air Force, which Keyworth and others thought was better suited for operational responsibilities. Keyworth--a somewhat nervous man who loves slogans and considered himself an important part of Reagan’s White House team--attacked the space station plan as a “motel in the sky for astronauts.”
Keyworth was a huge Reaganite-Hawk and wanted the “Star Wars" (Strategic Defense Initiative) program to happen in full, at the expense of funding for a Space Station (ISS).
“Keyworth--a somewhat nervous man who loves slogans and considered himself an important part of Reagan’s White House team--attacked the space station plan as a “motel in the sky for astronauts.”
Reagan gave NASA $150 million for the ISS in the 1985 budget. Keyworth was not happy.
Hence the context of the quote:
"That lingering bitterness would have dramatic consequences for both the shuttle program and for (James) Beggs.(NASA head)
“Of all the organizations that I have dealt with . . . I have only seen one that lied. It was NASA,” science adviser Keyworth says today. “The reason they lie, of course, is because they are wrapped up in a higher calling. In their eyes these are white lies. They tell lies in order to do what has to be done. Because in the end the result will be for the betterment of the public. So they are not lying from evil. But, nevertheless, they are lying.”
In short, the quote in the wiki is placed into a manufactured context that NASA “lies”, “fakes” Space Travel. When, in actuality, the quote is in regard to budgeting for one form of “space travel” over another. It literally has nothing to do with “lying” about or "faking" the existence of Space Travel - Which is the context of the entire wiki entry.
The context of the quote in no way supports the wiki's description of "The Conspiracy".
-
Your claimed "alternative" is just a bunch of scribbled equations with no explanation and includes such nonsense as
mass = area * density
Funny, I didn't have a problem verifying that mass is related to density and area/volume.
From the equation:
(https://i.imgur.com/9dJlMiP.png)
https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/physics/density.php
(https://i.imgur.com/K70EoRy.png)
I have to wonder if you even read what you post. My critique is that the page you show says density is mass divided by AREA. You then say you have no problem finding that density is equal to mass device by VOLUME. That is correct, VOLUME not AREA.
Yes, because volume and area are so unalike that the related equation must not exist. ::)
https://www.sensorsone.com/area-and-area-density-to-mass-calculator/
(https://i.imgur.com/7DilB3j.png)
-
In short, the quote in the wiki is placed into a manufactured context that NASA “lies”, “fakes” Space Travel. When, in actuality, the quote is in regard to budgeting for one form of “space travel” over another. It literally has nothing to do with “lying” about or "faking" the existence of Space Travel - Which is the context of the entire wiki entry.
The context of the quote in no way supports the wiki's description of "The Conspiracy".
Are you actually arguing that NASA was lying about federal budgets and where the money is going? That is fairly major and is indicative that NASA is untrustworthy.
But this is just speculation on your part on what he meant. If you click on the Assorted Quotations link and find the source where he was interviewed by Joseph Torento we can see that Keyworth thought the entire basis of the Shuttle was a lie. Keyworth also says in that quote that NASA lied from "the top to the bottom", not just about one specific thing as you allege.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Assorted_Quotations
(https://i.imgur.com/g4BsxqZ.png)
-
Yes, because volume is completely different than area and the related equation must not exist. ::)
Yes volume IS completely different than area. For an object of uniform density AND thickness an "area-density" can be computed, but that is NOT what your wiki page says, it says only "density" and makes no claims about uniformity.
-
Yes volume IS completely different than area.
Yes, so completely different that the equation is the same as the one for the volume equation and the one in the Wiki section.
(https://i.imgur.com/M10KnK7.png)
https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/physics/density.php
(https://i.imgur.com/9s4N1ID.png)
-
In short, the quote in the wiki is placed into a manufactured context that NASA “lies”, “fakes” Space Travel. When, in actuality, the quote is in regard to budgeting for one form of “space travel” over another. It literally has nothing to do with “lying” about or "faking" the existence of Space Travel - Which is the context of the entire wiki entry.
The context of the quote in no way supports the wiki's description of "The Conspiracy".
Are you actually arguing that NASA was lying about federal budgets and where the money is going? That is fairly major and is indicative that NASA is untrustworthy.
Nope.
But this is just speculation on your part on what he meant. If you click on the Assorted Quotations link and find the source where he was interviewed by Joseph Torento we can see that Keyworth thought the entire basis of the Shuttle was a lie. Keyworth also says in that quote that NASA lied from "the top to the bottom", not just about one specific thing as you allege.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Assorted_Quotations
(https://i.imgur.com/g4BsxqZ.png)
This is exactly what I'm talking about: Plucking quotes and such completely out of context. For instance, you cut off the quote above. From your source, here's the full quote:
(https://i.imgur.com/2LBIM83.png)
You left off exactly what he was referring to, "If you believe that the shuttle is going to be cheap relative to ELVs [Expendable Launch Vehicles], then I'm forced to ask you, 'Does that imply that we will spend no money to assure the safety of men on board?' And I think the answer is. "Of course not."
He's not talking about what you have in the wiki, i.e., "The purpose of NASA is to fake the concept of space travel to further America's militaristic dominance of space." He's talking about funding.
Yet, by taking the quote out of the context of the actual discussion, you imply that NASA is lying about space travel. Keyworth was a big supporter of Space Travel, he just wanted different programs funded, e.g., more militaristic use of space travel technology, than what NASA admins were fighting for.
In other words, put quotes and other info into context. Don't cherry-pick.
-
You left off exactly what he was referring to, "If you believe that the shuttle is going to be cheap relative to ELVs [Expendable Launch Vehicles], then I'm forced to ask you, 'Does that imply that we will spend no money to assure the safety of men on board?' And I think the answer is. "Of course not."
In that quote Keyworth is saying that the claims of the Shuttle are not realistic. This is directly related to the viability of the space travel claims.
In other words, put quotes and other info into context. Don't cherry-pick.
I fully understand what "From the top to the bottom they lie" means. You do not. You are ignoring this and are attempting to claim that Keyworth only thought one specific thing was a lie, when he clearly thinks they are lying from the top to the bottom and that there are numerous lies.
Keyworth is clearly claiming that there are lots of lies at all levels, and here you are claiming that he was concerned about a specific thing. That is a cherrypicking argument by definition.
-
You left off exactly what he was referring to, "If you believe that the shuttle is going to be cheap relative to ELVs [Expendable Launch Vehicles], then I'm forced to ask you, 'Does that imply that we will spend no money to assure the safety of men on board?' And I think the answer is. "Of course not."
In that quote Keyworth is saying that the claims of the Shuttle are not realistic. This is directly related to the viability of the space travel claims.
But doesn't FET claim nothing has been put into orbit (after all you can not orbit a disk with a dome). He is only questioning the safety of the MANNED shuttle as opposed to ELVs both of which presume a globe earth and the standard solar system model. So how is this furthering your position in any way?
-
You left off exactly what he was referring to, "If you believe that the shuttle is going to be cheap relative to ELVs [Expendable Launch Vehicles], then I'm forced to ask you, 'Does that imply that we will spend no money to assure the safety of men on board?' And I think the answer is. "Of course not."
In that quote Keyworth is saying that the claims of the Shuttle are not realistic. This is directly related to the viability of the space travel claims.
Clearly not. Funny, Keyworth himself disagrees with you. He was all in for space travel…
Keyworth Calls for Bold Push in Space
Taking a sharp new tack on the civilian space program, presidential science adviser (https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.221.4606.132)
However, in a recent interview with Science, Keyworth explained his new approach as a matter of national pride. There is now a broad public awareness that the country's future depends on science and technology, he says.
Perhaps a new space endeavor could be an appropriate way of sustaining that awareness.
"I think the country would take a major thrust in space very seriously,* he says. "We've shown that the shuttle works, and is reliable. We know we have the technology to build a space station. (In fact). most advocates of a space station readily acknowledge that it is only an intermediate step in a more ambitious long-range goal of exploring the solar system. Why, then, can't we be forthright and lay those ideas out on the table? Do we want to tell the American people that we have bold objectives in space? Or do we want to sneak up on it?'
-
I did not claim that Keyworth believes that space travel is entirely fake. He clearly suggest that he thinks that space travel occurs in some of his statements. But from other statements he obviously thinks that NASA lies a lot, and that they tell lies "from the top to the bottom" and that they "tell lies do do what has to be done". This ties in directly to the honesty of NASA's claims.
-
I did not claim that Keyworth thinks that space travel is entirely fake. He obviously thinks that NASA lies a lot, and that they tell lies "from the top to the bottom." This ties in directly to the honesty of NASA's claims.
So he is a reliable source of information when you agree with his view or at least your interpretation of his view even if that view is a small part of a larger picture that you think is totally false. That seems like, pretty flawed reasoning to me and well within the bounds of another type of cherry-picking.
-
I did not claim that Keyworth thinks that space travel is entirely fake. He obviously thinks that NASA lies a lot, and that they tell lies "from the top to the bottom." This ties in directly to the honesty of NASA's claims.
So he is a reliable source of information when you agree with his view or at least your interpretation of his view even if that view is a small part of a larger picture that you think is totally false. That seems like, pretty flawed reasoning to me and well within the bounds of another type of cherry-picking.
It is clearly cherry picking on your part. You want to discard the statements you don't like, which is cherry picking. If we accept all statements we see the fallacy.
"From the top to the bottom they lie"
Another time he says:
"The shuttle works"
You want to hang onto the second sentence, when it is nullified by the first. Erroneous. He might even believe the second sentence, which is ultimately nullified since he doubts NASA's honesty at all levels. He also made the first quote years after the second one.
-
I did not claim that Keyworth thinks that space travel is entirely fake. He obviously thinks that NASA lies a lot, and that they tell lies "from the top to the bottom." This ties in directly to the honesty of NASA's claims.
So he is a reliable source of information when you agree with his view or at least your interpretation of his view even if that view is a small part of a larger picture that you think is totally false. That seems like, pretty flawed reasoning to me and well within the bounds of another type of cherry-picking.
It is clearly cherry picking on your part. You want to discard the statements you don't like, which is cherry picking. If we accept all statements we see the fallacy.
I have not accepted or discarded ANY statement he has made. I claim only that he clearly thinks space travel is real which presumes the globe earth and the standard model of the solar system.
"From the top to the bottom they lie"
Another time he says:
"The shuttle works"
You want to hang onto the second sentence, when it is nullified by the first. Erroneous. He might even believe the second sentence, which is ultimately nullified since he doubts NASA's honesty at all levels. He also made the first quote years after the second one.
Again I have not done this. His statements could well be inconsistent, I have not examined them in enough detail to know. All I am claiming is that he clearly accepts the standard globe model of the earth and space travel which you claim are 100% false, yet you want to use his views that are a small part of that as authoritative. That seems very inconsistent.
-
... from other statements he obviously thinks that NASA lies a lot, and that they tell lies "from the top to the bottom" and that they "tell lies do do what has to be done". This ties in directly to the honesty of NASA's claims.
Fine. Let's assume, wrongly, for the purposes of this discussion, that NASA has lied about everything they did.
That leaves Roscosmos, the Russian Space Agency, and their predecessors. First orbital craft - Russian. First man, woman, animal in space - all Russian missions. A whole host of orbital and lunar missions. Partner with USA, Canada and Europe in the ISS.
That leaves SpaceX. JAXA. ESA, and a host of others, from multiple countries, all with active space programs.
Proving NASA lies carries no implication that the rest of them have.
-
"From the top to the bottom they lie"
Another time he says:
"The shuttle works"
You want to hang onto the second sentence, when it is nullified by the first.
And you want to interpret the first to mean something which fits your agenda - he's saying that NASA lie at all levels, you want to interpret that as everything they say is a lie.
"From the top to the bottom they lie" and "Everything they say is a lie" are not equivalent, and the second sentence above demonstrates that your interpretation cannot be correct.
As has been pointed out elsewhere, even if we suppose that NASA are a sham and faking all their missions, that still leaves us with multiple other national space agencies and now private enterprises who have the capability to launch people and objects in to space, we'd have to explain what the ISS is - given that you can literally see it from the ground. We'd have to wonder how the hell GPS and satellite TV works. We'd have to ask the good people at Jodrell Bank what they were doing in the 60s when they claimed to be tracking both Russian and American craft in the space race. We'd probably want to ask the Australians what they were doing when they thought they were relaying messages from the Apollo missions, etc, etc.
This is the conspiracy theory mindset - you cling to tiny scraps of evidence which you believe confirm your view, you dismiss the tsunami of evidence which shows you to be wrong. It is a form of dishonestly, my only question is whether you really believe this stuff - so are being dishonest with yourself - or don't and are being dishonest with us for your own amusement.
-
Keyworth worked at the Whitehouse, not at NASA. Obviously he might not know exactly what was a lie from an engineering standpoint, but he nonetheless believes he has seen enough to know that they are lying from the top to the bottom, which is noteworthy.
It is dishonest to try and claim that Keyworth believed in a globe and not a flat earth, so his statements should be discarded. It is dishonest to claim that Keyworth said something indicating that he believed in space travel because he said [insert Keyworth statement from years prior]. It is dishonest to try and interpret "from the top to the bottom" as he meant one specific thing.
Pure dishonesty. Even if Keyworth actually believes that they are lying at all levels, but that they still make space travel happen somehow, it is still noteworthy.
You people sound like a woman ignoring her partner's lies and denying that she was being cheated on despite knowing that her partner was a serial liar.
-
Keyworth worked at the Whitehouse, not at NASA. Obviously he might not know exactly what was a lie from an engineering standpoint, but he nonetheless believes he has seen enough to know that they are lying from the top to the bottom, which is noteworthy.
Since there is no context for this comment (its from a private interview) we do not know just what he meant. Does he mean that everything that NASA claims is a lie? Or that every paper/report from NASA has some aspect that is not 100% truthful or correct or the best estimate available? Or (what I suspect) that NASA had a culture of not wanting to pass up bad news and hence lies, even if lies of omission, about program status were common. This is a common and serious problem in large organizations where the person writing a status report is (often correctly) afraid that the person reading it will have no real understanding of the issues.
It is dishonest to try and claim that Keyworth believed in a globe and not a flat earth, so his statements should be discarded.
Who is saying this? Clearly he thought the earth was a globe. But that in no way implies (to folks agreeing that the earth IS a globe) that his stamens should be discarded. But it IS an inconsistency for you. You want to agree with him on some things (NASA lies) but claim he is mistaken on something far more all encompassing namely the shape of the earth. If he is a reliable source why is he not reliable about that?
It is dishonest to claim that Keyworth said something indicating that he believed in space travel because he said [insert Keyworth statement from years prior].
He mentions expendable launch vehicles (ELVs) in the same quote not from years earlier. Plus the quote is about shuttle safety not that the shuttle is some sort of myth/CGI thing. He clearly thinks that the shuttle exists and works, but that it is not safe (which alas was true).
It is dishonest to try and interpret "from the top to the bottom" as he meant one specific thing.
I have not done so. see above for what I suspect he meant about NASA culture.
Pure dishonesty. Even if Keyworth actually believes that they are lying at all levels, but that they still make space travel happen somehow, it is still noteworthy.
You people sound like a woman ignoring her partner's lies and denying that she was being cheated on despite knowing that her partner was a serial liar.
Odd choice of analogy. What we are left with is that you offer a quote from an interview with Regan's science advisor that indicates that he thinks (the part you want to cherrypick) that NASA lies a lot AND (the part you want to ignore) that what NASA does (send things into orbit) is real and hence the earth is a globe. OK fine. I am good with accepting all of that, or none of that. What I think is dishonest is just accepting the part you agree with and ignoring the rest. To have the option of accepting part and rejecting part you have to show why that is reasonable (e.g. that part was in his area of expertise and part was not) but you have not attempted to do so and since its all about NASA and what NASA does it all seems pretty much in the same bucket.
-
What should FE discussion have, if not "literalism" ?
Lyricism? Poeticism?
Why should FE-ers not be taken literally?
Sorry, I should have been more clear. It’s not that FE-ers themselves should not be taken literally, but that the idea of literally believing the earth is flat seems sort of like missing the point.
Most random people will not have a great 100% sound explanation for why they think the earth is a globe, and I could technically disprove them and make them a flat-earther with some effort. This makes new skeptics feel like there must be some sort of problem with the globe model - after all, shouldn’t it be obvious?
Some initiative and learning is great, and like I said, myself and many others have gone down this path to prove for ourselves the earth is in fact a globe. It just seems there’s far too many eager to jump to the conclusion that the earth is literally flat when they carry only low-level FE arguments under their belt from some YouTube videos.
Knowing the other side is great, just like knowing your own stance. While I know the earth is a globe, I could write a very convincing book on why the earth could be flat.
FE discussion is, as it is, generally benign and informative. More laypeople should be talking about general science and why we know things.
-
Sorry, I should have been more clear. It’s not that FE-ers themselves should not be taken literally, but that the idea of literally believing the earth is flat seems sort of like missing the point.
Most random people will not have a great 100% sound explanation for why they think the earth is a globe, and I could technically disprove them and make them a flat-earther with some effort. This makes new skeptics feel like there must be some sort of problem with the globe model - after all, shouldn’t it be obvious?
Only if you lie a lot. The globe model IS obvious if you stick to facts. Plus its not just about the shape of the earth but the entire cosmos and much of science that has to be denied plus there has to be a massive conspiracy to cover it all up. Even all that can not explain GPS and satellite TV, yet they believe anyway. Believing all that seems like a gigantic leap to me and I don't think people make it (if they really do so) by being told a few lies. If there are folks who really think the earth is flat and our entire view of the cosmos is wrong and there is a massive conspiracy I think they have to want to believe that. That they see believing something so outside the norm as empowering themselves in some way. There is something about believing in conspiracies that attracts people and FE is the biggest one of all. The FE claims have been debunked many times even on this site yet the FEers here still claim to believe. What can it be other than that they want to do so? FEers are not less intelligent that the rest of us so why are they not convinced when presented with explanations of how wrong the FE idea is? Why do they think they are smarter than the scientists who study such things their entire lives? Because they want to. Another way to see this is that there isn't one FE model FEers think is the case, there are dozens if not more. It isn't so much thinking a particular FE claim is true but (wanting to) think the RE everyone else accepts is false. Or at least so it seems to me.
-
Only if you lie a lot.
Yet you have been unable to show a blatant lie in the Wiki.
The FE claims have been debunked many times even on this site
You guys have been unable to debunk a single article in the Wiki. We have repeatedly asked you to do so with unsatisfactory results on your end.
Pretty pathetic show of results if you think there are "mountains" of evidence against it.
-
Tom, have you considered that ichoosereality feels very, very strongly about this?
icr, I will not repeat myself. If you have nothing to contribute, do not post in the upper fora. Repeatedly calling your opponents obviously wrong is not contributing.
-
Only if you lie a lot.
You guys have been unable to debunk a single article in the Wiki. We have repeatedly asked you to do so with unsatisfactory results on your end.
Pretty pathetic show of results if you think there are "mountains" of evidence against it.
And yet when we do show obvious flaws in your thinking, with evidence, you have a track record of simply running away from the thread. Like this one, most recently: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=19193.msg260735#msg260735 (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=19193.msg260735#msg260735)
-
Only if you lie a lot.
You guys have been unable to debunk a single article in the Wiki. We have repeatedly asked you to do so with unsatisfactory results on your end.
Pretty pathetic show of results if you think there are "mountains" of evidence against it.
And yet when we do show obvious flaws in your thinking, with evidence, you have a track record of simply running away from the thread. Like this one, most recently: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=19193.msg260735#msg260735 (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=19193.msg260735#msg260735)
Pretty sure I am talking about the Tomahawk's 1500 mile range there, which the Wiki also references in the Aviation article:
(https://i.imgur.com/2SIuBFo.png)
This section is about the Tomahawk.
You are brining up this other different system for Surface-Area-Missiles, which the Wiki does not refer to, and which I did not bring up as a point of argument, which you claim has nothing to do with the Tomahawk's range, isn't used by the Tomahawk, and which you claim can use a spherical earth model for short ranges for the SAMs. See the problem there? This is called avoidance.
If you actually did have a litany of contradictory evidence against these Wiki articles you would be able to address the claims directly with a mountain of direct contradictory evidence, rather than the indirect attempts at argument you are able to provide.
-
You guys have been unable to debunk a single article in the Wiki. We have repeatedly asked you to do so with unsatisfactory results on your end.
The sections which show Rowbottom's experiments are basically hearsay, just written claims and line drawings. It has been debated in other threads whether or not that counts as anything to be debunked
I posted links to my YouTube videos which have evidence which directly contradicts Rowbottom, with photos and actual measurements, but Pete classified that as "spamming" my own stuff and punted it to AR or CN, I forget which.
I started a thread to try and engage you in direct discussion on the mechanics of the canal experiment, compare and contrast to present-day equivalents, but you and everyone else have ignored it thus far. I'm trying to take it in stages, and gain either agreement or not at each stage, without over-complicating the issue, but it remains to be seen whether or not that will last.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=19213.0
-
Only if you lie a lot.
Yet you have been unable to show a blatant lie in the Wiki.
Perhaps you genuinely see it this way. The wiki here is full of half truths, lies of omission, etc. The bottom line is that there is zero uncertainty about the shape of the earth (unless of course we are all brains in jars, then anything is possible). You attempt to paint a known false picture.
The FE claims have been debunked many times even on this site
You guys have been unable to debunk a single article in the Wiki. We have repeatedly asked you to do so with unsatisfactory results on your end.
Pretty pathetic show of results if you think there are "mountains" of evidence against it.
If you want to get into specifics then explain how GPS works on a flat earth? Likewise for satellite TV or how even with bendy light the light/dark transition is straight (which it is). If Pete would allow it I'd ask for you to show how lasers can operate with bendy light, but he has made it clear that is off limits.
Since I am guessing you would avoid those topics let me approach it another way. How does it make sense that you and your fellow FEers with no scientific expertise, who have not studied the cosmos as your life's work see a radially different world than those how do have this expertise and have dedicated their lives to such study? And that is not an isolated case its the FEers agains the entire scientific community and a huge swath of industry (i.e. all space based industries). So you have to come up with with a conspiracy to explain it, right? It just doesn't pass the smell test. Its not all that different from you claiming you can turn coal into gold, or can teleport yourself to other parts of the (of course flat) earth, etc. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and you have not remotely come close to providing such.
-
You guys have been unable to debunk a single article in the Wiki. We have repeatedly asked you to do so with unsatisfactory results on your end.
The sections which show Rowbottom's experiments are basically hearsay, just written claims and line drawings. It has been debated in other threads whether or not that counts as anything to be debunked
I posted links to my YouTube videos which have evidence which directly contradicts Rowbottom, with photos and actual measurements, but Pete classified that as "spamming" my own stuff and punted it to AR or CN, I forget which.
I started a thread to try and engage you in direct discussion on the mechanics of the canal experiment, compare and contrast to present-day equivalents, but you and everyone else have ignored it thus far. I'm trying to take it in stages, and gain either agreement or not at each stage, without over-complicating the issue, but it remains to be seen whether or not that will last.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=19213.0
As I recall you said that you made an observation and saw something sunken in the distance. I recall referring to the Sinking Ship Caused by Refraction (https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect_Caused_by_Refraction) page and said that we need more than a single reference to a sinking effect. You purposely replied with "Why?", ignoring the suggestions presented to you, as if refraction didn't exist to cause a sinking effect.
Rowbotham's multi-point experiment (https://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence#The_Bedford_Canal_Experiments) is an interesting one, since it tests the straightness of the light over the distance of the observation. You call it 'hersey', ignore modern repetitions (https://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence#Similar_Experiments), and have not reproduced the experiment, insisting on the single two-point observation you made. I don't know what more there is to discuss with you on this except to say that it appears your criticism is a work in progress.
-
Tom, have you considered that ichoosereality feels very, very strongly about this?
icr, I will not repeat myself. If you have nothing to contribute, do not post in the upper fora. Repeatedly calling your opponents obviously wrong is not contributing.
I did not do so as part of the usually (or supposedly) discussion about evidence or some experiment but about how FE believes come into being i.e. a more epistemological debate) and to be clear, you are "obviously wrong". I'm not using that assertion as some sort of comeback but to see why another explanation of how an FlEer comes to accept such things is needed. How do intelligent folks come to such a view? Its not like "how do some cosmologists think the multi-verse is real while others do not" sort of thing. Its very different and what makes it different is that the FE position is "obviously wrong", how else can I put it? I'm not trying to insult anyone or name call etc But when the worlds cosmologists and earth scientists and space scientists and a large swath of industry all across the nations are 100%, not 99.99% but 100% against you in an area where we have huge amounts of data, isn't that "obviously wrong"?
-
ICR... This is a debate forum. You can't just say that someone's wrong, or 99.9% of information is against them without backing it up. You have to actually make and support points. You don't have high ground to demand information. Coming from a fellow round earther, please take some time to find some specific evidence.
-
As I recall you said that you made an observation and saw something sunken in the distance.
You recall wrong. I've explicitly stated that this has nothing to do with either "ships going over the horizon", nor "the sunken-ship effect" to paraphrase the above, and I fail to see why you keep dragging sunken ships into it ...
I recall referring to the Sinking Ship Caused by Refraction (https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect_Caused_by_Refraction) page and said that we need more than a single reference to a sinking effect. You purposely replied with "Why?", ignoring the suggestions presented to you, as if refraction didn't exist to cause a sinking effect.
You may well have "referred" to that, but, as I asked, why, when I explicitly do not claim any "sinking effect" ?
Rowbotham's multi-point experiment (https://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence#The_Bedford_Canal_Experiments) is an interesting one, since it tests the straightness of the light over the distance of the observation.
Do you reckon it shows the straightness of light, then? Or do you think that's in doubt?
-
Only if you lie a lot.
You guys have been unable to debunk a single article in the Wiki. We have repeatedly asked you to do so with unsatisfactory results on your end.
Pretty pathetic show of results if you think there are "mountains" of evidence against it.
And yet when we do show obvious flaws in your thinking, with evidence, you have a track record of simply running away from the thread. Like this one, most recently: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=19193.msg260735#msg260735 (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=19193.msg260735#msg260735)
Pretty sure I am talking about the Tomahawk's 1500 mile range there, which the Wiki also references in the Aviation article:
(https://i.imgur.com/2SIuBFo.png)
This section is about the Tomahawk.
You are brining up this other different system for Surface-Area-Missiles, which the Wiki does not refer to, and which I did not bring up as a point of argument, which you claim has nothing to do with the Tomahawk's range, isn't used by the Tomahawk, and which you claim can use a spherical earth model for short ranges for the SAMs. See the problem there? This is called avoidance.
If you actually did have a litany of contradictory evidence against these Wiki articles you would be able to address the claims directly with a mountain of direct contradictory evidence, rather than the indirect attempts at argument you are able to provide.
The video you’ve linked to is a public demonstration that neither it’s creator, nor you, have understood the document in question. For those interested in the full text, it’s here:
https://www.jhuapl.edu/Content/techdigest/pdf/V16-N01/16-01-Biemer.pdf (https://www.jhuapl.edu/Content/techdigest/pdf/V16-N01/16-01-Biemer.pdf)
You’re all over the place with your arguments. The paper is indeed about tomahawk; more specifically it’s about modelling how likely one tomahawk is, or later on multiple tomahawks are, to make it to a target. This means modelling how detectable they are, how likely they are to be engaged by SAMs, and how likely the SAM is to damage or destroy them.
It’s all there in the paper - it doesn’t need any other evidence because you have provided it. See my other post in the linked thread, which you haven’t addressed at all.
Yes tomahawks have a pretty long range, but the radar detection and SAM engagements that are being modelled are over much shorter distances, which is why the flat earth assumption is ok for simple modelling purposes.
-
As I recall you said that you made an observation and saw something sunken in the distance.
You recall wrong. I've explicitly stated that this has nothing to do with either "ships going over the horizon", nor "the sunken-ship effect" to paraphrase the above, and I fail to see why you keep dragging sunken ships into it ...
I recall referring to the Sinking Ship Caused by Refraction (https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect_Caused_by_Refraction) page and said that we need more than a single reference to a sinking effect. You purposely replied with "Why?", ignoring the suggestions presented to you, as if refraction didn't exist to cause a sinking effect.
You may well have "referred" to that, but, as I asked, why, when I explicitly do not claim any "sinking effect" ?
This is some sort of pedantry from you, claiming that you didn't see a ship and that you didn't claim it was an effect. Why does it seem that you are unable to have an honest conversation?
Yes tomahawks have a pretty long range, but the radar detection and SAM engagements that are being modelled are over much shorter distances, which is why the flat earth assumption is ok for simple modelling purposes.
Again, you want to talk about SAMs, which you think is okay to use on a spherical earth for short distances, but also think it's okay for the Tomahawk to use on a flat earth for long distances.
Do you see the fallacy there?
-
ICR... This is a debate forum. You can't just say that someone's wrong, or 99.9% of information is against them without backing it up. You have to actually make and support points. You don't have high ground to demand information. Coming from a fellow round earther, please take some time to find some specific evidence.
I think I do have the high ground. Peer reviewed mainstream journals are where what goes on in science is documented and where a key part of science happens. If you have something that goes against the prevailing view and do not have much to back it up, it can take a long time to get published e.g. string theory took about 12 years I think. But if you have the data it can be fast (like the accelerating expansion of the cosmos). Can the FEers point to a single article let alone multiple or continuing articles in an appropriate (i.e. topical) mainstream journal that makes the case for a flat earth in the last 50 (just to pick a number) years? I don't think so. Further this particular thread (as I understood the OP anyway, perhaps I am mistaken) is not about the specifics of FE Vs RE but about the debate itself. Though I did allow myself to get distracted briefly when I replied to Tom that
If you want to get into specifics then explain how GPS works on a flat earth? Likewise for satellite TV or how even with bendy light the light/dark transition is straight (which it is). If Pete would allow it I'd ask for you to show how lasers can operate with bendy light, but he has made it clear that is off limits.
-
Again, you want to talk about SAMs, which you think is okay to use on a spherical earth for short distances, but also think it's okay for the Tomahawk to use on a flat earth for long distances.
Do you see the fallacy there?
I’m afraid I don’t really see a coherent argument, or even a coherent, comprehensible sentence there. What exactly are you saying?
-
Again, you want to talk about SAMs, which you think is okay to use on a spherical earth for short distances, but also think it's okay for the Tomahawk to use on a flat earth for long distances.
Do you see the fallacy there?
I’m afraid I don’t really see a coherent argument, or even a coherent, comprehensible sentence there. What exactly are you saying?
The Tomahawk uses flat earth for long distances. You want to keep bringing up SAMs and the SAM spherical earth model you saw and how spherical earth is okay to use for short distances because long distances need an accurate world model. Your argument needs work.
-
As I recall you said that you made an observation and saw something sunken in the distance.
You recall wrong. I've explicitly stated that this has nothing to do with either "ships going over the horizon", nor "the sunken-ship effect" to paraphrase the above, and I fail to see why you keep dragging sunken ships into it ...
I recall referring to the Sinking Ship Caused by Refraction (https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect_Caused_by_Refraction) page and said that we need more than a single reference to a sinking effect. You purposely replied with "Why?", ignoring the suggestions presented to you, as if refraction didn't exist to cause a sinking effect.
You may well have "referred" to that, but, as I asked, why, when I explicitly do not claim any "sinking effect" ?
This is some sort of pedantry from you, claiming that you didn't see a ship and that you didn't claim it was an effect. Why does it seem that you are unable to have an honest conversation?
Where did I say I "didn't see a ship"? I saw the ship. The ship was not suffering any "sunken ship effect" (from going over the horizon). You introduced that into the discussion. I made no claim about any "effect". You're the one who keeps talking about effects, not me.
Ready for any honest conversation you can muster. I started a thread for it - https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=19213.0
Let's talk about the canal experiment, ideally over at that thread. Does it demonstrate straight light or not?
-
My understanding has always been that Tomahawk navigates by Terrain Profile Matching, in which case it could navigate with equal ease on a flat, globe or banana shaped world, as long as it has contour map data for the terrain below its course.
In other words, it navigates just the way you and I drive; by ascertaining our current position, comparing with desired position, and producing an error signal. We don't drive to the end of the street on a specific heading for a specific distance and turn left; we drive down the street, monitoring where we are in relation to the kerb and white lines until we reach the stop sign, then turn left, maintaining road position etc. We can navigate this way, using small scale maps, over any distance. Tomahawk does just the same, using terrain contours as a datum. It is only ever interested in, and bases its spatial awareness on, the terrain immediately below it.
-
My understanding has always been that Tomahawk navigates by Terrain Profile Matching, in which case it could navigate with equal ease on a flat, globe or banana shaped world, as long as it has contour map data for the terrain below its course.
In other words, it navigates just the way you and I drive; by ascertaining our current position, comparing with desired position, and producing an error signal. We don't drive to the end of the street on a specific heading for a specific distance and turn left; we drive down the street, monitoring where we are in relation to the kerb and white lines until we reach the stop sign, then turn left, maintaining road position etc. We can navigate this way, using small scale maps, over any distance. Tomahawk does just the same, using terrain contours as a datum. It is only ever interested in, and bases its spatial awareness on, the terrain immediately below it.
I see zero sources on how it works to use a FE model on an RE, just "your understanding".
-
The Tomahawk uses flat earth for long distances.
Does it? What precisely for, and where is your source for that?
You want to keep bringing up SAMs and the SAM spherical earth model you saw
No, the paper that your source analysed brought up the subject of SAMs, you just haven’t understood that.
and how spherical earth is okay to use for short distances because long distances need an accurate world model.
This is just muddled garbage. Short distances…for what, exactly? It’s all about context. As I made clear in the other post, what model you use depends on what precisely you are modelling (radar detection, SAM tracking, blast damage) and what level of accuracy is required. It’s all in the paper.
Your argument needs work.
No, it needs answers from you, not just desperate flailing around (as here) or complete silence (as in the other thread).
-
Again, you want to talk about SAMs, which you think is okay to use on a spherical earth for short distances, but also think it's okay for the Tomahawk to use on a flat earth for long distances.
Do you see the fallacy there?
I’m afraid I don’t really see a coherent argument, or even a coherent, comprehensible sentence there. What exactly are you saying?
The Tomahawk uses flat earth for long distances. You want to keep bringing up SAMs and the SAM spherical earth model you saw and how spherical earth is okay to use for short distances because long distances need an accurate world model. Your argument needs work.
The long and short is that the document in the video you presented says that Tomahawk simulations when targeting something specific, use TRAMS which is based on digitized terrain information from the Digital Terrain Elevation Database (DTED - A geoid) provided by the Defense Mapping Agency or a simple spherical Earth model.
Unless your video and the document are wrong.
-
My understanding has always been that Tomahawk navigates by Terrain Profile Matching, in which case it could navigate with equal ease on a flat, globe or banana shaped world, as long as it has contour map data for the terrain below its course.
In other words, it navigates just the way you and I drive; by ascertaining our current position, comparing with desired position, and producing an error signal. We don't drive to the end of the street on a specific heading for a specific distance and turn left; we drive down the street, monitoring where we are in relation to the kerb and white lines until we reach the stop sign, then turn left, maintaining road position etc. We can navigate this way, using small scale maps, over any distance. Tomahawk does just the same, using terrain contours as a datum. It is only ever interested in, and bases its spatial awareness on, the terrain immediately below it.
I see zero sources on how it works to use a FE model on an RE, just "your understanding".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_(missile)#Navigation
". . . Based on comparison results the missile's inertial navigation system is updated and the missile corrects its course . . ."
It flies at low level, and only looks at the terrain immediately surrounding it. At least, that's my understanding of reading this.
-
The missile knows where it is at all times. It knows this because it knows where it isn't. By subtracting where it is from where it isn't, or where it isn't from where it is (whichever is greater), it obtains a difference, or deviation. The guidance subsystem uses deviations to generate corrective commands to drive the missile from a position where it is to a position where it isn't, and arriving at a position where it wasn't, it now is. Consequently, the position where it is, is now the position that it wasn't, and it follows that the position that it was, is now the position that it isn't.
In the event that the position that it is in is not the position that it wasn't, the system has acquired a variation, the variation being the difference between where the missile is, and where it wasn't. If variation is considered to be a significant factor, it too may be corrected by the GEA. However, the missile must also know where it was.
The missile guidance computer scenario works as follows. Because a variation has modified some of the information the missile has obtained, it is not sure just where it is. However, it is sure where it isn't, within reason, and it knows where it was. It now subtracts where it should be from where it wasn't, or vice-versa, and by differentiating this from the algebraic sum of where it shouldn't be, and where it was, it is able to obtain the deviation and its variation, which is called error.
-
You guys have been unable to debunk a single article in the Wiki. We have repeatedly asked you to do so with unsatisfactory results on your end.
Ah, but whether you regard results as "unsatisfactory" seems to be entirely based on whether they fit your worldview or not.
I read an article about this, I've posted it here before, I won't do so again now. But basically the trick you pull is that you operate in the sceptical context but you do so selectively depending on whether the thing you're scrutinising confirms your worldview or not. I don't know whether you're doing it knowingly for the lolz, or unwittingly and therefore fooling yourself. If you operate in that sceptical context then it's easy to dismiss anything.
For example, let's say you think kangaroos are fake.
So I tell you of a time I saw one at a zoo. You say I'm lying or mistaken.
So I bring someone who works at the zoo tending the kangaroos, you say that he's a shill and lying too.
So I tell you I know a world expert in kangaroos, you say he doesn't know what he's talking about.
So I show you a picture or video of a kangaroo, you say it's CGI.
So I take you to the zoo, we go and see the kangaroos, you see one hopping around...and then say it's an animatronic.
You then claim on forum.kangaroosarefake.org, for which you edit the Wiki, that
"You guys have been unable to debunk a single article in the Wiki. We have repeatedly asked you to do so with unsatisfactory results on your end."
You see how silly that sounds? This sort of thinking has played out on here in multiple threads. There was a thread about crepuscular rays where in the end I made a 3D model showing exactly how they work, you never replied again in the thread. There was the thread about the experiment with the laser and the boat, you spend 2 days misunderstanding it - claiming that I was the one who didn't understand it. Then when someone else finally explained it to you and you did understand it correctly, you simple called it fake and ran away.
Wiki articles have been debunked numerous times, but the level of evidence you require to accept that is impossible to meet. But evidence which you think backs up a FE you accept fairly unquestioningly.
-
You guys have been unable to debunk a single article in the Wiki. We have repeatedly asked you to do so with unsatisfactory results on your end.
Ah, but whether you regard results as "unsatisfactory" seems to be entirely based on whether they fit your worldview or not.
I read an article about this, I've posted it here before, I won't do so again now. But basically the trick you pull is that you operate in the sceptical context but you do so selectively depending on whether the thing you're scrutinising confirms your worldview or not. I don't know whether you're doing it knowingly for the lolz, or unwittingly and therefore fooling yourself. If you operate in that sceptical context then it's easy to dismiss anything.
For example, let's say you think kangaroos are fake.
So I tell you of a time I saw one at a zoo. You say I'm lying or mistaken.
So I bring someone who works at the zoo tending the kangaroos, you say that he's a shill and lying too.
So I tell you I know a world expert in kangaroos, you say he doesn't know what he's talking about.
So I show you a picture or video of a kangaroo, you say it's CGI.
So I take you to the zoo, we go and see the kangaroos, you see one hopping around...and then say it's an animatronic.
You then claim on forum.kangaroosarefake.org, for which you edit the Wiki, that
"You guys have been unable to debunk a single article in the Wiki. We have repeatedly asked you to do so with unsatisfactory results on your end."
This is how I feel. There could be some philosophical/entertainment value in debating whether kangaroos exist, but there’s a certain willfully forced “skepticism” that would push me to believe kangaroos are not real. This sort of thinking is harmless in the case of things like FE but manifests negatively in some cases (COVID conspiracies).
Simply put, it is much more comforting to believe that you just have the grand answer that nobody else does, that everybody else is a sheep, instead of accepting that there is no big evil conspiracy. The world is far more boring than that.
-
That’s interesting, because that’s how I feel about conspiracy theorists. It’s like they need to feel that the world is a bit more exciting than it really is. Which in the case of FE is particularly silly as the Apollo Missions, the ISS, the space telescopes and the images we get from them, the Curiosity rover and probes sent to other planets are exciting enough without thinking there are big conspiracies and none of that is real.
And I agree that FE thinking is not in itself harmful but the same underlying mindset leads to anti vaxxers, climate change deniers etc, and that does cause real harm.
-
That’s interesting, because that’s how I feel about conspiracy theorists. It’s like they need to feel that the world is a bit more exciting than it really is. Which in the case of FE is particularly silly as the Apollo Missions, the ISS, the space telescopes and the images we get from them, the Curiosity rover and probes sent to other planets are exciting enough without thinking there are big conspiracies and none of that is real.
It seems unlikely to me that what motivates an FEer is that they have a desire to have the world be one way or the other (except for those that adopt what they see as their chosen religion's view, though I think (but could easily be mistaken) that covers a minority of FEers). I think it's far more likely that it's about how adopting a very unorthodox view makes them feel about themselves. That it's the delusion of them seeing themselves as seeing or knowing what the vast majority do not see no matter what that happens to be.
This could be why rational debate is not possible as for the FEer it is not about the subject matter but about how holding their position makes them feel.
All rather speculative of course. My expertise is in IT not psychology, but I think the explanation fits the behavior we see here.
And I agree that FE thinking is not in itself harmful but the same underlying mindset leads to anti vaxxers, climate change deniers etc, and that does cause real harm.
Exactly.