7061

Flat Earth Theory / Re: New member with one question for FE members

« on: February 10, 2018, 02:32:57 AM »

Branson's craft will only get to the edge of space and come back down again. At the edge of space you are looking down at a circle, and will therefore see some curvature.

See: https://wiki.tfes.org/High_Altitude_Photographs

7062

Earth Not a Globe Workshop / Re: Notes on The Importance of Empiricism

« on: February 06, 2018, 06:36:34 PM »

You have a valid point in that axioms that are taken must be justified and challenged. You are right that the assumptions of mathematical models should not be taken without criticism. But I believe that wholly dismissing logical deduction (such as mathematics, which is just a rigorous system for applying logical rules consistently) will not only backfire against readers, but also constrain Flat Earth in what it can do. For example, indirect measurement is accomplished through using similar triangles. It is probably more reliable than slinging a tape measure down the Willis Tower. There is no harm in applying mathematics as long as you can justify empirically that 1) your lines are straight and 2) the triangles are really similar (AA/SAS/SSS).

How will it backfire on us? There is nothing wrong with using rationalized logic as a preliminary method, like you did in your example above. At this point it is considered rationalization -- speculation and conjecture. In order for it to be considered a truth it it must progress to the show stage.

We are not disregarding or limiting anything. We just have higher standards than you do.

My point is that you shouldn't have to do an experiment to verify the height of the Willis Tower is what the indirect measurement says it is if you accept that your lines are straight and the triangles are similar and your measurements of the small triangle are accurate. The laws of logic and mathematics dictate that any accurate direct measurement of the Willis Tower should line up with the indirect measurement, as long as what you took to be axioms (your lines are straight, similar triangles, measurement accuracy) to be true. If you did a direct measurement of the Willis Tower and got a different answer, then instead of saying that the math was wrong, you need to consider any experimental flaws in your direct measurement.

There are many types of math. There are many types of mathematical models. Axioms are not infallible. Those axioms make many simple assumptions about the world, which may not be entirely true. It is not a given that the world operates on the commonly used laws and logic of mathematics. Look into Zeno's Paradox. Zeno shows that the universe cannot be mathematically continuous. He shows that space and time can't truly be represented by a number line that is infinitely divisible.

If your logic rests on the assumption that the universe is continuous, then you should be prepared to demonstrated that the universe is continuous when called on it. If you can't show that the universe is continuous, then you cannot use that assumption when making declarations such as "the sun should infinitely approach the horizon and never touch it".

Your shield that "it is commonly used math, so it must be true!" is based on fallacious reasoning; an appeal to authority. However, your authorities contradict you. Einstein has made numerous works showing that space is not Euclidean, and that Euclid was wrong in many aspects. Quantum Theory supports a non-continuous universe and also makes many arguments against Euclidean space. Why should we put our full faith into an Ancient Greek model that is thousands of years old?

If you are going to tell us that space is a continuous number line and therefore this or that should happen according to that theory, and that you need not demonstrate anything further because of "Math!", that is not acceptable. You need to show that the underlying assumptions are true. If you can't do that, then you need to abandon your line of reasoning altogether.

7063

Earth Not a Globe Workshop / Re: Notes on The Importance of Empiricism

« on: February 04, 2018, 04:34:39 PM »

If you saw half a car sticking out of the ground it is possible that the car is half-buried. Did you think about that?

I quite specifically said if you saw it "going" over a hill. So as I see it go and can see less and less of it I don't think "It's got caught in quicksand!", I think "It's going over the brow of the hill, that's why I can no longer see it".
And if it was a car then as cars generally drives on roads I would assume that it is a hill and the road continues over the other side of it.
My general experience of the world is that objects disappear from the bottom as they go over a hill (which they don't on a plane, whatever Rowbotham may claim) and that roads are not built up hills which terminate in a sheer drop. I imagine people who build roads that do would get sued quite a lot by bereaved relatives.

You can only expect those things because we have a lot of experimental evidence involving cars and hills. If we had zero experimental evidence, and therefore zero emperical knowledge, then we cannot really say what is happening.

As I said, the direct evidence of where the sun is at sunset is from the shadows it casts. Perspective does not affect the angle or length of shadows.
And if the sun and moon are as close as you suppose then you could take observations and do some triangulation to prove that.

Whatever conclusion you come up with needs to be without undemonstrated assumption. If you make an undemonstrated assumption then your conclusion becomes weaker. The more undemonstrated assumptions, the weaker the conclusion.

The level of proof and direct evidence you require seems to wildly vary depending on whether it fits in with your world view or not.
All the "proofs" in ENaG are basically Rowbotham saying "this is what I have observed". That's it. And you blindly accept it.
Anything which shows the earth to be spherical you demand an absurdly high level of proof for. A level that can never really be satisfied.
You really should look into things like cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias.

How is asking for direct evidence for your claims an "absurdly high" level of evidence? We usually ask for some very basic evidence for things that you are resting your logic on, which is necessary to turn your speculation into knowledge.

Every single argument REers have made on this forum has been easily defeated in this manner. Every single one of them. I don't really have the time to address all of the people who come here, but when we do have a conversation, and we have had many since 2007 on the two tfes websites, touching on almost all subjects, it is pretty easy to pick where the fault is and where the assumptions are.

If you are going to argue perspective, you first need to demonstrate that perspective operates in the manner you believe it to operate on, for your argument to have merit. That is the rule for you, and that is also the rule for me. There are no double standards.

The problem is that we can just point to empirical reality that shows that in a perspective railroad track scene the perspective lines meet in the distance, for example, and therefore that is direct evidence of how perspective operates. You need to contradict that because according to your model it is impossible for those perspective lines to meet. You are arguing against reality -- an uphill battle and most disadvantageous position -- and this is really the root of all of your complaining that things are so hard and difficult for you here.

7064

Earth Not a Globe Workshop / Re: Notes on The Importance of Empiricism

« on: February 03, 2018, 04:11:13 PM »

The fact that you are so quick to rationalize and jump to conclusions shows that you are not really much of a free thinker.

If you saw half a car sticking out of the ground it is possible that the car is half-buried. Did you think about that?

If you saw a car driving up and over a hill, how do you know that it makes it behind the hill? How do you know it was a hill? Maybe it was a cliff and you were witnessing a suicide.

While we generally know that those types of things are rare, we already have a lot of experimental knowledge about cars and hills to base our knowledge on. The same cannot be said about perspective and the sun, and so we should not make such ready comparisons. I cannot simply hop into the sun and drive it around for my video camera.

Direct evidence is necessary for a direct conclusion. Anything less is speculation and conjecture.

7065

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The moon

« on: February 03, 2018, 04:01:11 PM »

Are you telling me that if I put two rulers end-to-end that the length isn't 24 feet?

You work with 12-foot long rulers 

Please read the rules (point 3). Reported.

Sir, are you saying that an entire branch of mathematics stops working at large scales?
I'm sorry your education system failed you.

Surely if the continuous nature of the universe is correct there are tests showing it to be correct. Please show us a test or experiment that has verified Elucid's model.

You made the claim, you provide the evidence.
Also, isn't the point of our advancement in science and math so that we don't have to practically do everything and rely on stuff we know is PROVEN (math). If a person actually measured the distance and verified say trigonometry, who's to say someone will come up to say what about this star, and this star. How do you know trigonometry works on these?

What claim did I make is thread? Asking for evidence of your claims is a position of skepticism. The burden of proof isn't on the skeptic. You need to prove your own claims that we live in a continuous universe.

We need emperical conclusions from direct evidence, not rationalized logic. Why do you think that the universe adheres to an ancient mathematical model that was never really tested to apply to perspective?

Once it can be SHOWN that perspective operates in a continuous fashion, THEN we can expect it to be that way.

7066

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The moon

« on: February 03, 2018, 03:38:30 AM »

Tom, do you even know what Euclidean geometry is? It's literally the geometry of straight lines, AKA the only geometry most people know about. Are you telling me that if I put two rulers end-to-end that the length isn't 24 feet? You've got to be kidding me. What tests do you need? If you're saying that light doesn't travel in a straight line in space, then you're hopeless.

A test or experiment? You've got to be kidding me. Do you hear your ignorance? There are plenty of tests that show this is the case; triangles drawn out in a room, you not getting lost by walking around... Euclidean geometry assumes a space in which you can draw straight lines.

We can't just assume how much bodies will rotate infinitely into the distance, or that bodies will descend forever without intersecting with the horizon. What evidence was ever produced to corroborate those assumptions? We need evidence, not leaps of logic.

7067

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The moon

« on: February 03, 2018, 02:41:32 AM »

Sir, are you saying that an entire branch of mathematics stops working at large scales?
I'm sorry your education system failed you.

Surely if the continuous nature of the universe is correct there are tests showing it to be correct. Please show us a test or experiment that has verified Elucid's model.

7068

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The moon

« on: February 02, 2018, 10:27:13 PM »

When have you ever shown them to *stop* working at those scales, without relying on another factor? Do this and you have a case. Without it it's just your word, your 'what if' against the fact that it works properly at every testable distance. If you claim there's an exception to a rule it's on you to prove it, that's the burden of proof. Without first proving the Earth is flat, you cannot point to the sun or moon for evidence. If you have evidence somewhere else, let's see the math.

It's not a "what if." It's a "where's the evidence?" Elucid predicts that an overhead receding body will never reach the horizon. They will approach each other forever, slowing infinitely as they approach, and never touching. Where is the TEST of this assumption that the universe operates in this continuous manner? His theories about how things should behave at long distances are untested.

7069

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The moon

« on: February 02, 2018, 09:16:20 PM »

It's not the reversed orientation that is the problem. Here's a simple diagram:

Elucid's ideas about geometry and perspective was never demonstrated to apply at large scales. When did Elucid ever study how things would look that are hundreds or thousands of miles away?

7070

Earth Not a Globe Workshop / Re: Notes on The Importance of Empiricism

« on: February 02, 2018, 09:08:41 PM »

So when I observe that the sun is sinking below the horizon, and all that is visible is the top half circle of the sun, I should conclude that half of the sun must be below the horizon

Did you observe that the half of the sun was below the horizon?

If you did not observe that, then that cannot be the direct conclusion. You are using rationalization -- a number of logical leaps and assumptions, to make your conclusion, not empericism.

Yet, from what I can understand the Flat Earth explanation for this observation is that it is essentially an optical illusion that has to do with perspective (correct me if I'm wrong).  Is that not rationalization for a direct observation from nature that wouldn't be possible in the flat earth model?

Your idea of "wouldn't be possible" is based on rationalization that makes many assumptions about how things would or should work. If.. if.. if...

7071

Earth Not a Globe Workshop / Re: Notes on The Importance of Empiricism

« on: February 01, 2018, 05:28:14 PM »

I think you're conflating several things together in "rationalization", which will backfire against readers who believe in their own sense of logic.

There is nothing wrong with making logical deduction:
1. I know watering plants makes them grow.
2. I know rain drops water that is indistinguishable from the water from the tap on the ground.
3. Therefore I conclude that rain makes plants grow.

Logic is not enough. Surely if we replaced "know" with "show" in your above assessment, it would be FAR more conclusive. This is the difference between rationalism and empiricism. Rationalists go off on tangents with what they "know" and empiricists focus on what is shown.

You have a valid point in that axioms that are taken must be justified and challenged. You are right that the assumptions of mathematical models should not be taken without criticism. But I believe that wholly dismissing logical deduction (such as mathematics, which is just a rigorous system for applying logical rules consistently) will not only backfire against readers, but also constrain Flat Earth in what it can do. For example, indirect measurement is accomplished through using similar triangles. It is probably more reliable than slinging a tape measure down the Willis Tower. There is no harm in applying mathematics as long as you can justify empirically that 1) your lines are straight and 2) the triangles are really similar (AA/SAS/SSS).

How will it backfire on us? There is nothing wrong with using rationalized logic as a preliminary method, like you did in your example above. At this point it is considered rationalization -- speculation and conjecture. In order for it to be considered a truth it it must progress to the show stage.

We are not disregarding or limiting anything. We just have higher standards than you do.

Truths are the conclusions which are made from all available evidence, and form the base axioms with which we understand our universe.

This is wrong. Axioms are used in conjunction with observational/empirical evidence to derive truth. For example, an axiom that we might use is that our eyes are not being fooled by mind-controlling alien overlords, and we can use our eyes to make reliable observations. It would be circular reasoning to accept the conclusions as axioms themselves.

This really depends on how you define conclusion. Your example "our eyes are not being fooled by mind-controlling alien overlords" and "we can use our eyes to make reliable observations" must be conclusions in some sense, even if you use it to make other conclusions.

7072

Flat Earth Theory / Re: GPS cannot work without satellites.

« on: January 31, 2018, 10:45:18 PM »

A number of possibilities could be happening. Youtube and the rest of the internet discuss much more about the space hoax than we do. As a curious mind I encourage you to delve into the matter.

7073

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Planes running into the earth

« on: January 30, 2018, 03:17:32 AM »

Would that work though? Lift is a force, gravity is a force. If the force of lift is greater than the force of gravity then you have liftoff.
But if the earth was simply accelerating upwards - the FE idea is that it is that acceleration which provides the force which we feel as gravity - then as soon as the plane left the ground it would no longer be pushed upwards by this acceleration so wouldn't the earth just accelerate back into it?
Wouldn't the only way to take off be to do so at a rate of acceleration greater than g?

My physics might be wrong here!

The earth is also pushing up the air.

7074

Flat Earth Theory / Re: "The stars are not light-years away"

« on: January 30, 2018, 01:31:48 AM »

The red shift and blue shift of a substance's spectral lines isn't something that only happens with high velocities. It also happens in chemistry. Look into Bathochromic Shift and Hyposchromatic Shift. The spectral lines of a substance can shift left or right along the color spectrum for a variety of chemical reasons.

http://photonicswiki.org/index.php?title=Changes_in_Absorption_Spectra

Terminology for absorption shifts

Bathochromic, Hypsochromic, Hyperchromic, Hypochromic shifts summarized

Changes in chemical structure or the environment lead to changes in the absorption spectrum of molecules and materials. There are several terms that are commonly used to describe these shifts, that you will see in the literature, and with which you should be familiar.

Bathochromic: a shift of a band to lower energy or longer wavelength (often called a red shift).
Hypsochromic: a shift of a band to higher energy or shorter wavelength (often called a blue shift).
Hyperchromic: an increase in the molar absorptivity.
Hypochromic: an decrease in the molar absorptivity.

Solvatochromism

Negative and positive solvatochromism

If as substance shifts to a lower energy state with a longer wavelength, it is referred to as a Bathochromic shift or (also called) red shift. The color will move more toward the red. Conversely, something that moves to higher energy will be referred to as a hypsochromic shift. If there is an increase in the absorptivity or cause the spectrum to become more intense, it will be referred to as a hyperchromic shift. But a decrease is referred to as a hypochromic shift. There is a variety of factors that can cause these changes. One of the factors is found in a process known as solvatochromism. This explains why certain molecules can, in a profound way, look very different in terms of their color depending on whether the molecules are in a polar or non-polar solvent.

Solvatochromism is the property of a molecule changing its color as a function of the solvent polarity. But it is actually more complex than that. It can be related to the solvent polarizability as well. Basically it is the change in the color of a material, or change in the spectrum, as a function of the dielectric properties of the solvent. The dielectric properties of the solvent have polarizability and polarity built into them. Therefore, if molecules go from a less polar solvent to a more polar solvent and a red shift or a bathochromic shift occurs, then the substance is referred to as being positively solvatochromic. Conversely if you put molecules into a more polar solvent and a blue shift occurs, i.e. higher energy, the molecules are referred to as being negatively solvatochromic.

7075

Flat Earth Theory / Re: "The stars are not light-years away"

« on: January 29, 2018, 06:40:57 PM »

If you were to hear a single high pitch sound. You need knowledge of what that sound should sound like normally, if it even has a normal sound, for any gauge on the matter.

Correct. So the question is do we know what the "sound" is at rest?
And the answer is yes. Because scientists are not just saying "hey, this star looks a bit red". They are doing spectroscopy and looking at absorption lines which match the signature of certain elements. The lines of various elements are known to be always at the same part of the spectrum when at rest. If you see that same pattern of lines shifted towards the red end of the spectrum then either:
1) The source of that light is moving and it's Doppler shift or
2) The pattern is from some new element whose signature exactly matches that of a known element but the new element's signature is slightly shifted. It's an element we have never observed before.

1 is the only reasonable explanation.

I do think it is a simple matter of whether the star is blue or red, just like the doppler shift of sound is a simple mater of the pitch is high or low, and believe that you are misinterpreting what is actually happening. I will come back to this later.

7076

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.

« on: January 29, 2018, 05:31:19 PM »

As long as Tom thinks objects "see" perspective, there is no way to convince him that he is wrong. Tom once said that if you fire a projectile at the Sun on the horizon, that projectile would hit the sun.

It's interesting that Tom is actually correct about this. Two pieces of wrong thinking:
1) That the sun is 3000 miles above a flat earth and
2) That objects "see" perspective
Have cancelled themselves out to lead him to the correct conclusion, even if he got there for the wrong reasons.
I'm still amused at him saying that if you see a row of lampposts then you can raise your hand so that from your persepctive your hand is above the level of a distance lamp and thus:

The distant lamp post is now looking up at your hand
The distant lamp post has the opposite perspective. It sees you at the horizon and it sees your hand slightly above the horizon, and therefore its photons are angled upwards at it.

My emphasis. Meanwhile, in the real world...



I don't think I have ever seen Tom budge an inch in any of these debates no matter how wrong he is shown.
Meanwhlie he clings to Rowbotham, a man who thought the moon was translucent...

That side view scene does not properly incorporate perspective. See the p-brane video that talks about those kind of scenes.

7077

Flat Earth Theory / Re: "The stars are not light-years away"

« on: January 29, 2018, 11:04:43 AM »

So you question science?  Why not join an appropriate forum to question this and then come back and tell us what they all say.

This is the appropriate forum, and it is your responsibility to make your defense.

7078

Flat Earth Theory / Re: "The stars are not light-years away"

« on: January 29, 2018, 10:33:59 AM »

Observing a blue star and logically deducing that it is because it is blue it is approaching you is rationalization, and certainly not a direct evidence that will produce a direct conclusion, as a controlled experiment would provide.

Why do you keep ignoring what people are trying to explain to you?
If you know the pitch of an emergency vehicle siren at rest and you hear one where the pitch is higher than you would expect then you can deduce that the vehicle is moving towards you. If the pitch is lower than you would expect then you can deduce that the vehicle of moving away from you.
Doppler shift is proven every time a moving object which is making a sound goes past you, the reasons for it are well known.
That is basically what is going on here. Scientists are NOT saying "Hey, that star looks a bit red, it must be moving away from us".
What they are doing is doing spectroscopy and noticing that the absorption lines - the positions of which are known, analogous to the pitch of the siren at rest - are shifted towards the red end of the spectrum. That shows Doppler shift and that shows movement.
The science between all this is well understood and proven.
You not understanding it, as you have repeatedly shown you don't, is not a counter argument.

If you were to hear a single high pitch sound, it is not possible from that alone to know whether it is a doppler effect or simply a high pitch sound. You need knowledge of what that sound should sound like normally, if it even has a normal sound, for any gauge on the matter.

Hearing a whole variety of sounds, without knowledge of their ranges, and that is assuming that there are ranges, does not tell us whether it is normal for all of those sounds to be that way, or whether it is one sound that is put under different conditions.

Similarly, since the stars cannot be put under controlled conditions, any "normal" cannot be determined.

7079

Flat Earth Theory / Re: "The stars are not light-years away"

« on: January 29, 2018, 01:23:56 AM »

controlled experiment

so i promise i'll stop pestering this thread after this post, but i have one more genuine confusion.

you make this request for "controlled experiments" multiple times in this thread; but, your "notes on empiricism" does not at all make clear that this is the only path to knowledge.

some quotes:

Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation.
...
[We are] concerned with the description, prediction, and understanding of natural phenomena, based on empirical evidence from observation and experimentation.
...
Empiricists claim that sense experience is the ultimate source of all our concepts and knowledge.
...
What we see and experience of the world is the extent of our total knowledge. In order for an alternative explanation to have merit, it must be observed or experienced, and it is hard to argue against that.

you're clearly trying to imply in this thread that we cannot learn anything about stars since we cannot bring them to earth.  but your own standard for an empirical statement does not include this ridiculous criterion.

so i guess what i'm asking is: is a "controlled" experiment the only path to knowledge?  why do the observations we've all presented in this thread not count as "empirical evidence from observation and experiment?"

Well, you didn't observe that stars that are moving towards you are blue and that stars that are moving away from you are red. A controlled experiment with the stars would provide that observation.

Observing a blue star and logically deducing that it is because it is blue it is approaching you is rationalization, and certainly not a direct evidence that will produce a direct conclusion, as a controlled experiment would provide.

7080

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.

« on: January 27, 2018, 10:03:15 PM »

I have to say, for who knows how many times I have already, that Rowbotham is just not right about perspective. Earth Not A Globe is bunk. Reading it like it's a textbook is asking to get misled.

I am looking forward to the flat earth response to my post above although I suspect I won't get one.
And it should be noted that I haven't proved above that the earth is a globe, I have simply proved that for photos like this to occur:



Then:
EITHER, the sun has to be PHYSICALLY below the mountain
OR the light has to bend in some way so it appears to be.

One possible explanation for this of course is that light does travel in straight lines and the earth is a rotating globe.
But it doesn't rule out a flat earth. It just means that if light travels in straight lines then the sun cannot simply be circling above a flat earth. If it did then shadows could not be cast like this.

If they are going to cling to a flat earth model then they are going to have to rethink their circling sun or come up with some way for light to bend to explain photos like this.
I look forward to my Nobel (Ig Nobel?) Prize for contributions to Flat Earth...what I will charitably call "Physics".

Didn't we discuss this already? The mountain is seeing the sun at its horizon. The horizon is at 90 degrees. The sun is illuminating the mountain from the side.

A spotlight or bright flashlight illuminating your body from a 90 degree angle level with you would create a large outwardly growing shadow, correct? That is what is happening here.

Yes, this was discussed before.
And someone is every time trying to "explain" that "mountain gets sunlight at 90 degrees from Sun that is 3000 miles higher (while only 6000 miles farther)".
You are smarter than 90% of the people here.
Calculate the angle yourself.

And someone is always trying to skip to tell on what is shadow of the mountain cast.
(If it is on "thin air", then why we see only shadow of the top of the mountain?)
If "shadow of the mountain goes downwards", then where is the shadow of the clouds?

Blurring the explanation and "pushing it under the carpet" every time, will just "spill it back for every carpet cleaning".

That is more of an argument that the sun cannot make it to the horizon. This is answered in Earth Not a Globe and in the following Youtube video by p-brane, who basically comes up with the same explanation that Rowbotham did and illustrates it for us.