81

Flat Earth Theory / Re: ECHOSTAR (Private Satellite) Earth footage?

« on: March 24, 2022, 05:35:35 PM »

Let me refresh your memory

Your abysmal reading comprehension is not my problem.

As usual you offer no actual evidence to support your accusations.  You obviously just like making them. Having to actually offer reasoning and backup is totally inconsistent with the FE view in the first place so I suppose it should come as no surprise that you take a similar approach in all your interactions.

82

Flat Earth Theory / Re: ECHOSTAR (Private Satellite) Earth footage?

« on: March 24, 2022, 10:23:17 AM »

We send space craft to Mars (a trip of about 300 million miles) based on the standard solar system view (i.e. RE).

What?

What exactly do you not understand?  The TRIP takes nearly 300Million miles (something like 292.5 if you want more accuracy).  https://mars.nasa.gov/news/8785/nasas-perseverance-rover-is-midway-to-mars/

83

Flat Earth Theory / Re: ECHOSTAR (Private Satellite) Earth footage?

« on: March 24, 2022, 08:36:02 AM »

The claim was that the signals are coming from a probe sitting on Mars.

That is one of the claims, yes. Of course, it's not the one currently under discussion. Are you really so far removed from reality as to ignore all discussion between AATW and me and just make up your own argument for me?

Let me refresh your memory

Surely someone has to be lying here. Either my ex-colleague, or her bosses - or someone up the chain.

Not necessarily. They could all be wrong.

As usually you do not actually have a response but just play games.   If AATW's ex-colleague is not lying then the data is coming from somewhere and someone has to know where.  If that place isn't Mars then it is clearly NOT the case that they are "all wrong" but some are lying about it.  Its not that complicated.

If FE is true, then none of that works.

A baseless conjecture, which also happens to be false. How very anti-reality of you.

Rocket trajectories and orbits (even partial orbits) are calculated for a round earth and trips to Mars are calculated for the std model where Mars is 300 Million miles or so away (when at the optimum time for a visit at least) clearly that does not match the FE view of planets circulating above the flat earth.  So again just answer the simple question, has NASA sent space craft to mars, some of which have deposited landers/rovers there that continue to transmit back to earth, or not?  Its a simple question, but I doubt you will answer it.

You have clearly painted yourself into a corner.  If we have craft on Mars than FE is wrong, if we do not have craft on Mars then someone must be lying about the data stream AATW's friend is analyzing. 

84

Flat Earth Theory / Re: ECHOSTAR (Private Satellite) Earth footage?

« on: March 23, 2022, 11:44:40 PM »

and it is coming from somewhere else

What a strange assumption to make out of nowhere.

The claim was that the signals are coming from a probe sitting on Mars.  You claim they could be "mistaken".  So if the data stream is not coming from Mars, then it must be "coming from somewhere else".  How is that an assumption?

(as the FE view insists)

You don't know the first thing about "the FE view" or what it "insists" on. It would be a good idea to develop some understanding before making loud assertions. Again, I'd have hoped you'd choose reality.

We send space craft to Mars (a trip of about 300 million miles) based on the standard solar system view (i.e. RE).  If FE is true, then none of that works.   So do we have space craft on Mars or not?

85

Flat Earth Theory / Re: ECHOSTAR (Private Satellite) Earth footage?

« on: March 23, 2022, 10:36:39 PM »

but it is in fact being generated on earth and fed into the data stream somewhere

Seems like a strange assumption to make out of nowhere. I thought you were all about choosing reality?

If someone is analyzing data claimed to be coming from Mars, and it is coming from somewhere else (as the FE view insists), then where would that be if not somewhere on earth?   How can that be explained by (as you say) "they could all be wrong"?

86

Flat Earth Theory / Re: ECHOSTAR (Private Satellite) Earth footage?

« on: March 23, 2022, 07:14:30 PM »

Surely someone has to be lying here. Either my ex-colleague, or her bosses - or someone up the chain.

Not necessarily. They could all be wrong.

If the person analyzing data is told it comes from a probe on Mars, but it is in fact being generated on earth and fed into the data stream somewhere, doesn't someone (actually many someones) have to be involved in making that happen?  That isn't just being wrong.

87

Flat Earth Theory / Re: ECHOSTAR (Private Satellite) Earth footage?

« on: March 23, 2022, 06:28:53 PM »

There is no such place as 22,000 miles above the surface of the earth.

How is it then that you get the strongest signal when your directional antenna is pointed at that spot?

88

Flat Earth Theory / Re: ECHOSTAR (Private Satellite) Earth footage?

« on: March 23, 2022, 05:49:54 PM »

For-profit companies aren't interested in fun.

On the contrary. Satellite TV is a direct to consumer business.  Anything they can do to make their customers smile when they are thinking about the company or its service is good for business especially if its incremental cost is near zero, which this is.  While this likely was fun for the company engineers (which is also good for the company), its fun for their customers that the company was thinking about.

89

Flat Earth Theory / Re: ECHOSTAR (Private Satellite) Earth footage?

« on: March 23, 2022, 01:23:38 AM »

likewise for the position of the broadcast point of satellite TV.  Why does the signal strength max out when the antenna is pointed to the specified orbit point no matter where you are located?
Likewise for GPS, which is direct from the satellites to your phone/receiver and the system will not work if it is anything else.  Can you explain that?

A solar eclipse is when the moon gets between the earth and the sun (which in the FE case makes the sun very small so one might ask what makes it shine).  But a lunar eclipse is when the earth gets between the sun and the moon.  How does that happen for the FE?  (and you can observe both of these with no technology).

We see the sun, moon, and stars rise and set exactly as a rotating earth would show so you invent bendy light and claim it explains it despite not offering any direct evidence nor explanation in physics for it..  Not only is bendy light falsified by large solid state lasers, but even if it were true it would not make the day/night line be straight, but we observe it to be so.   Doesn't that make it clear that you have decided on the FE model first and are inventing things that you think will make that model consistent with observation?

Of course there is the fact that after extensive travel we find that the layout of the land matches the globe earth perfectly but not the flat earth and the little issue of the containment mechanism (a wall or dome or ice wall or infinite plane or whatever) never being found.

There is plenty of directly attainable data but you just ignore it Tom. 

As for NASA and all the other county's space agencies and private companies and universities faking all this data for decades yet making its all consistent and putting in things to be discovered, we are just not that smart.  It is NOT possible.

Of course your response will be some flip answer of "its not legitimate" or "read the far" or something having nothing to do with actual observation and analysis.  Something makes you want to (at least claim to) believe in the FE.  What is it?

Do you think you (as a layman, like me and everyone else here) know better than the worlds scientists on quantum mechanics, or chemistry, or materials science, or aerodynamics, or fluid mechanics or micro electronics any number of other areas?  I'm guessing not.  So why do you think so on the shape of the earth?

90

Flat Earth Theory / Re: ECHOSTAR (Private Satellite) Earth footage?

« on: March 22, 2022, 11:50:26 PM »

Considering that you have provided zero verifiable information showing that the data is legitimate, your assertions are as easily dismissed as they are stated.

What do you mean by "legitimate" here?  Do you contend that the space telescopes I provided a link to (via the wikipedia) do not exist?  or that the scientists publishing papers on them over the last 50 years or so made up their data?  or what?

91

Flat Earth Theory / Re: ECHOSTAR (Private Satellite) Earth footage?

« on: March 22, 2022, 11:12:35 PM »

Same question for the 1000s (10s of 1000s?) of folks that have worked on analyzing the huge amount of data from the 100 or so space telescopes claimed to have been launched.  Where do FEers think that all that data came from and how was it kept consistent yet contained new (still consistent) things to be discovered.  Are all those working in the various fields "in on it"?  or what?  I really do not see an answer other than its real.  How do FEers resolve this?

92

Flat Earth Theory / Re: ECHOSTAR (Private Satellite) Earth footage?

« on: March 22, 2022, 11:00:33 PM »

I do wonder what some FE people believe is going on with all this.

Why must pointing out that someone wrong about something come with a detailed psychoanalysis? I know RE'ers love to do that (c.f. "people who disagree with me do so because they need to feel special, or like they belong somewhere!!!1!!1!"), but there is no rhyme or reason to this approach.

If someone is attempting in good faith to access verifiable data and objectively analyze it with out bias yet comes to a clearly wrong conclusion, then showing them their error can be effective.  But if someone has a huge confirmation bias and will come to such a wrong conclusion no matter what, then that same approach will be fruitless.  Isn't that a worthwhile distinction to determine?

93

Flat Earth Theory / Re: ECHOSTAR (Private Satellite) Earth footage?

« on: March 22, 2022, 06:24:56 PM »

The "they fake it" claim is even more ridiculous for space telescope data.  While Hubble (and now JWST) are the well known ones, there have been around 100 special purpose telescopes launched, with more planned.  This started in the mid 60s and has covered the spectrum from radio to game rays.  Among the amazing achievements is a 3D map (including movement) of the 2 billion stars we can see plus nearby galaxies produced by Gaia.  The idea that this vast amount of data could be faked starting in the 60s and not only remain self-consistent throughout the decades and consistent with ever improving ground based observation but contain new things to be discovered by the thousands of researchers working in cosmology, astrophysics, theoretical physics etc, is simply not possible.

94

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat earth discourse is valuable without the literalism involved.

« on: March 20, 2022, 07:13:21 PM »

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.

95

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Bipolar Model- An Investigation.

« on: March 20, 2022, 05:18:48 AM »

Sure, you can speculate on lots of different explanations on what happened, but it remains an anomaly which happens to agree with the North Azimuthal projection.

How does it agree?  It does not show the path going direct from NYC to Seattle and most such flights show the expected great circle route as does the first part of the one you show.

96

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Bipolar Model- An Investigation.

« on: March 20, 2022, 02:28:55 AM »

This really shows your confirmation bias Tom.  You accept that the tracking data is correct wrt showing the flight being diverted to Seattle, but not that it is correct about the flight path from NY up to the point of diversion of this, let alone the usual nonstop flight (not going straight over Seattle but taking the globe great circle route to HNL).  Further this was obviously not a critical emergency since for that they would have landed in Salt Lake.  This was a diversion.  For diversions the airport to divert to is up to the airline.  For example losing a generator is not an issue as there are several but starting a long pacific flight down a generator is not advisable.   There could be many reasons why they diverted to Seattle. Maybe the part they needed was there, or maybe they were going to change planes and a replacement plane was in Seattle.  Without knowing the details its impossible to say but there is nothing in this that casts doubt on the tracking data, unless you have come to that conclusion first.

97

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat earth discourse is valuable without the literalism involved.

« on: March 19, 2022, 06:58:21 PM »

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.

98

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat earth discourse is valuable without the literalism involved.

« on: March 19, 2022, 05:14:53 PM »

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"?

99

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat earth discourse is valuable without the literalism involved.

« on: March 19, 2022, 05:05:54 PM »

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.

100

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat earth discourse is valuable without the literalism involved.

« on: March 19, 2022, 07:48:57 AM »

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.