Re: Flat earth discourse is valuable without the literalism involved.
« Reply #60 on: March 16, 2022, 11:10:45 PM »
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.
If "bendy light" were real the spot shape and power output of large solid-state lasers would vary depending on their orientation relative to the surface of the earth, but this is not observed thus bendy light is not real.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3109
    • View Profile
Re: Flat earth discourse is valuable without the literalism involved.
« Reply #61 on: March 16, 2022, 11:31:47 PM »
... 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.
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

Re: Flat earth discourse is valuable without the literalism involved.
« Reply #62 on: March 17, 2022, 10:24:36 AM »
"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.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10170
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat earth discourse is valuable without the literalism involved.
« Reply #63 on: March 18, 2022, 05:06:55 PM »
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.

Re: Flat earth discourse is valuable without the literalism involved.
« Reply #64 on: March 18, 2022, 06:01:58 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2022, 08:24:51 PM by ichoosereality »
If "bendy light" were real the spot shape and power output of large solid-state lasers would vary depending on their orientation relative to the surface of the earth, but this is not observed thus bendy light is not real.

Re: Flat earth discourse is valuable without the literalism involved.
« Reply #65 on: March 19, 2022, 05:03:31 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2022, 05:05:17 AM by secretagent10 »

Re: Flat earth discourse is valuable without the literalism involved.
« Reply #66 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.
If "bendy light" were real the spot shape and power output of large solid-state lasers would vary depending on their orientation relative to the surface of the earth, but this is not observed thus bendy light is not real.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10170
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat earth discourse is valuable without the literalism involved.
« Reply #67 on: March 19, 2022, 10:58:32 AM »
Quote from: ichoosereality
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.

*

Online Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 15324
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Flat earth discourse is valuable without the literalism involved.
« Reply #68 on: March 19, 2022, 11:01:15 AM »
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.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

شاحنات صعبة للغاية

Online SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 755
    • View Profile
Re: Flat earth discourse is valuable without the literalism involved.
« Reply #69 on: March 19, 2022, 01:55:08 PM »
Quote from: ichoosereality
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



*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10170
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat earth discourse is valuable without the literalism involved.
« Reply #70 on: March 19, 2022, 04:25:36 PM »
Quote from: ichoosereality
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

Pretty sure I am talking about the Tomahawk's 1500 mile range there, which the Wiki also references in the Aviation article:



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.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2022, 04:44:22 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3109
    • View Profile
Re: Flat earth discourse is valuable without the literalism involved.
« Reply #71 on: March 19, 2022, 04:57:39 PM »
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
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

Re: Flat earth discourse is valuable without the literalism involved.
« Reply #72 on: March 19, 2022, 05:05:54 PM »
Quote from: ichoosereality
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.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2022, 05:17:49 PM by ichoosereality »
If "bendy light" were real the spot shape and power output of large solid-state lasers would vary depending on their orientation relative to the surface of the earth, but this is not observed thus bendy light is not real.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10170
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat earth discourse is valuable without the literalism involved.
« Reply #73 on: March 19, 2022, 05:07:58 PM »
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 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 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, 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.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2022, 05:16:48 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Flat earth discourse is valuable without the literalism involved.
« Reply #74 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"?
« Last Edit: March 19, 2022, 05:19:51 PM by ichoosereality »
If "bendy light" were real the spot shape and power output of large solid-state lasers would vary depending on their orientation relative to the surface of the earth, but this is not observed thus bendy light is not real.

*

Offline jomples

  • *
  • Posts: 31
  • Hi
    • View Profile
Re: Flat earth discourse is valuable without the literalism involved.
« Reply #75 on: March 19, 2022, 05:18:34 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.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3109
    • View Profile
Re: Flat earth discourse is valuable without the literalism involved.
« Reply #76 on: March 19, 2022, 05:54:52 PM »
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 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 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?



=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

Online SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 755
    • View Profile
Re: Flat earth discourse is valuable without the literalism involved.
« Reply #77 on: March 19, 2022, 06:49:10 PM »
Quote from: ichoosereality
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

Pretty sure I am talking about the Tomahawk's 1500 mile range there, which the Wiki also references in the Aviation article:



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

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.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10170
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat earth discourse is valuable without the literalism involved.
« Reply #78 on: March 19, 2022, 06:53:43 PM »
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 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?

Quote from: SteelyBob
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?
« Last Edit: March 19, 2022, 06:57:37 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Flat earth discourse is valuable without the literalism involved.
« Reply #79 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
Quote
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.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2022, 07:06:41 PM by ichoosereality »
If "bendy light" were real the spot shape and power output of large solid-state lasers would vary depending on their orientation relative to the surface of the earth, but this is not observed thus bendy light is not real.