11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: falsification, epistemology, FE and RE

« Last post by Roundy on May 19, 2024, 11:22:03 PM »

So the solipsist can not believe RE or FE.

As I understand it, according to the definition of solipsism, of course? Seems odd to make your conclusion to such a long post something that is a given.

12

Flat Earth Theory / falsification, epistemology, FE and RE

« Last post by jimster on May 19, 2024, 07:52:24 PM »

The wiki contains falsification of RE, even though RE has many observations and explains things like equatorial telescope mounts, sunset/sunrise, eclipse, day and night, 24 hour sun or darkness at the poles, etc etc etc. So let's say RE is falsified despite many reasons to think it is true. My question is whether FE models can be falsified. It seems to me that the ratio of proof of RE to falsification of RE is pretty high, many reasons to believe RE and few to falsify it. FE believers seem to hypothesize various explanations of the problems with various FE models without experiments, proof, equations, etc, just "well, it might be".

My question is why can't RE belief be saved by "well, it might be ..." as FE often is?

Could the true FE model be determined by falsification similar to RE falsification?

If that standard applied to all FE models, would any survive? Why can't the FE world falsify all but one model to determine the true form of the earth? If inconsistencies can be explained by unproven hypothetical forces, how can the FE world ever figure out which is true?

Is it the case that RE has to be complete, consistent, and flawless, while FE can have inconsistencies and not correlate to observations without "unknown forces and unknown equations" as the wiki formerly explained EA (aka "bendy light")?

Does someone have a flawless FE model, no inconsistencies that require light to bend etc? Or are all RE and FE models flawed and we can never know?

I submit that there is no falsification of anything that can not be explained by some mechanism you dream up if no experiment, equations, or other sharable and verifiable is required and that includes RE. For instance, one could easily make up a previously unknown force to explain Michaelson Morley RE falsification. I submit that in this sense, RE is exactly the same as FE models in that you have some reason to believe it, but it has flaws. Until we have experiments, observations, equations etc to explain things like UA and EA, FE is no more unfalsified than RE.

So the solipsist can not believe RE or FE.

13

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden

« Last post by Lord Dave on May 19, 2024, 06:58:14 PM »

Know what probably happened?  Automated messages.  Likely setup in advance to send out a pre-made message on that day every year Biden is in office.

I wonder if Ashley Biden's diary was programmed to send out pre-made messages?

No, it was stolen and sold to the right because they love invading privacy.

14

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden

« Last post by Action80 on May 19, 2024, 06:25:46 PM »

Know what probably happened?  Automated messages.  Likely setup in advance to send out a pre-made message on that day every year Biden is in office.

I wonder if Ashley Biden's diary was programmed to send out pre-made messages?

15

Flat Earth Community / Re: The Final Experiment

« Last post by Pete Svarrior on May 18, 2024, 06:27:31 PM »

Well, firstly I'd note that there is no FE authority. The basis of this being chosen as the experiment was FE YouTubers agreeing that this observation would be problematic for FE.

Yeah, I'm just suggesting that that's a critical flaw in the decision-making process, without claiming to be an authority myself. They'll run their experiment, they'll reach their conclusion (we both agree what it will be), and... what happens then?

The grifters on YouTube continue grifting - ceasing was never an option. Earnest FE'ers continue being FE'ers - after all, the experiment doesn't attempt to address anything meaningful. RE'ers are gonna strut around like pigeons and repeatedly proclaim victory (unchanged from the norm). So... what are we dropping $60k+ on here, exactly? And where is it coming from?

Right now, this has all the markings of an attempt at embezzlement. That is why I'm against it. Otherwise, I don't care what the YT crowd do - they don't affect real FE'ers in any way.

There's some stuff on the Wiki with light shining through a glass dome but I don't think that would actually explain this.

People get confused by the glass dome, I get that. As a visualisation, it has the same problem as trying to use a massively scaled-down ball to demonstrate gravity. The scaled-down FE model makes adjustments (replacing the atmolayer with a glass dome) to make it visually equivalent to the real efects of EA combined with internal reflection.

Of course, I'm entirely guessing as to what your objection might be here - but that's usually what it is.

That said - a small side point of objection here: that particular aspect of the model has a lot of tractions with groups other than ours, even ones that think we're FBI shills or whatever. Even comes up among the Twitter anti-vax deep-south crazies. The claim that they spoke to multiple FE'ers and nobody pointed this out to them is extremely suspicious to me.

I vaguely agree it won't achieve anything - my gut feel is the YouTubers who are conceding that this would be an issue for (their version of) FE would not actually concede the point if they made the observations, because cognitive dissonance.

Or because they're grifters with a financial incentive.

Mind you, the same goes for the RE'ers.

FTFE, the only participant so far, previously had some of his accounts blocked after some nasties porn-bombed him during a livestream. He immediately started crying for donations, explaining that he's disabled and that if the revenue from his online persona runs dry, he'd be left without a means to live. He's probably stuck with his "stupidity bad, i am very smart" schtick for the rest of his life.

16

Flat Earth Community / Re: The Final Experiment

« Last post by AATW on May 18, 2024, 05:02:03 PM »

You watch too much YouTube. Seriously.

This is certainly true, although I don't actually watch that much FE stuff on there.
I quite like Dave McKeegan, I've gone off SciManDan. Don't watch much of anyone else.

It wouldn't, though. It's only an issue for the YouTubers' understanding of FE.

Well, firstly I'd note that there is no FE authority. The basis of this being chosen as the experiment was FE YouTubers agreeing that this observation would be problematic for FE.
So they might not understand your version of FET, but they would presumably say the same about you not understanding their version. Who is the authority here?
Secondly, I'd be interested how a 24 hours sun rotating in one direction around the observer at or near the Northern pole, and in the other direction at or near the Southern pole would work in the Monopole model. There's some stuff on the Wiki with light shining through a glass dome but I don't think that would actually explain this. The Bi-polar model may explain it better but creates a load of other issues in terms of how the sun moves and how that would match observations.

It's an extremely low bar to set, and one that can be met without wasting a ton of donation money. Like, yeah, those guys are gonna see the Sun for an entire day, and it's gonna accomplish nothing.

I vaguely agree it won't achieve anything - my gut feel is the YouTubers who are conceding that this would be an issue for (their version of) FE would not actually concede the point if they made the observations, because cognitive dissonance.

Now, what would be interesting is to see how much money they embezzle out of the scheme

The finances are interesting and unclear to me. Maybe the answer is in one of their YouTube videos but how this is being financed is unclear to me. There's no "Donate" button on the website, or if there is I couldn't see it. Maybe there's something about it in one of the videos but I'm not sure how they're raising the money. I agree that some scrutiny of that is appropriate.

17

Flat Earth Community / Re: The Final Experiment

« Last post by Pete Svarrior on May 17, 2024, 10:16:29 PM »

Yeah, I know, there's probably a deeper underlying issue here. Why wouldn't I trust these upstanding people, especially after they publicly disclosed their financial incentives? It just doesn't make sense.

18

Flat Earth Community / Re: The Final Experiment

« Last post by DuncanDoenitz on May 17, 2024, 10:14:16 PM »

It's on the internet, and you suspect its a scam?  Have you no faith in human kindness? 

I'm truly shocked by your cynicism, Pete.  Shocked. 

19

Flat Earth Community / Re: The Final Experiment

« Last post by Pete Svarrior on May 17, 2024, 09:52:58 PM »

Oh, and for the sake of clarity: it's also very telling that the only people the YouTube channel refers to as potential FE'ers to be involved are known grifters with a financial incentive. Let's be blunt: this is a scam on both sides, and we should all be better than giving them any time out of our days.

20

Flat Earth Community / Re: The Final Experiment

« Last post by Pete Svarrior on May 17, 2024, 09:48:34 PM »

I saw an interview the bloke behind this did with FTFE.

Ah, truly a duo of titans then. A guy whose entire livelihood relies on insisting that the Earth is round and calling his detractors idiots validated this other guy. Yes, quite, indubitably.

You watch too much YouTube. Seriously.

The aim is to send one globe earther and one flat earther to Antarctica to observe the 24 hour sun - which would be an issue for the monopole model.

It wouldn't, though. It's only an issue for the YouTubers' understanding of FE. It's an extremely low bar to set, and one that can be met without wasting a ton of donation money. Like, yeah, those guys are gonna see the Sun for an entire day, and it's gonna accomplish nothing.

Now, what would be interesting is to see how much money they embezzle out of the scheme 👀

Any thoughts on this? Would any of you have liked to be invited or would be interested in going?

I wouldn't go (entirely pointless, we already know the outcome), but I would love to offer independent scrutiny of their finances. I am openly sceptical, perhaps verging on hostile, so if they can open their books to me and get an admission that I saw no irregularities, that would surely boost their credibility. Well, within the limitations of how much credibility a faux-experiment with a predetermined outcome can have.