1

Flat Earth Community / Re: Reversal of Burden of Proof

« on: March 06, 2016, 04:47:49 PM »

I raise this because despite having lurked on the previous site and now this one for many years, the most common response to a request for proof of a flat earth is "look out of your window". It's rather a basic "proof", in my opinion, but I rarely see anything more persuasive.

The most basic and obvious proofs are the most powerful. The burden is on those who deny the basic and obvious.

If you are suggesting that a claim which is "basic and obvious" does not require proof, then I strongly disagree with you. Whether something is basic and/or obvious is subjective, and irrespective of that even the most basic claims must be supported by evidence. Let's say that I do not deny your claim, but I do still require you to prove it. What is the evidence in support of a flat earth (if there is any), save for that the earth appears flat?

The basic and obvious is vindicated by the fact that it is the basic and obvious. All opposing theories must attack that to find their place in the world. Whether you believe the earth is concave, convex, or irregular, you must show evidence against the prevailing reality that the earth is flat. A Flat Earth is the prevailing reality upon which all contradictory hypothesis' must engage.

If you are claiming that ghosts exist, you must contradict the prevailing reality that ghosts do not exist. It is not the burden of the people who think that ghosts do not exist to prove that they don't. The burden of proof is on the people claiming that they do exist.

The people saying that ghosts do not exist don't need to prove a thing. Not a thing.

Again, you are making a claim that the earth is flat. I'm asking whether you have any proof to support that claim, other than that it appears flat.

I don't agree either that a flat earth is the prevailing reality. I suspect that for the majority of people, their reality is that we live on a spheroid.

Re ghosts. The question of whether a thing exists is not comparable to the question of earth's shape. The burden of proof remains on you, Tom.

2

Flat Earth Community / Re: Reversal of Burden of Proof

« on: February 29, 2016, 02:31:25 PM »

I raise this because despite having lurked on the previous site and now this one for many years, the most common response to a request for proof of a flat earth is "look out of your window". It's rather a basic "proof", in my opinion, but I rarely see anything more persuasive.

The most basic and obvious proofs are the most powerful. The burden is on those who deny the basic and obvious.

If you are suggesting that a claim which is "basic and obvious" does not require proof, then I strongly disagree with you. Whether something is basic and/or obvious is subjective, and irrespective of that even the most basic claims must be supported by evidence. Let's say that I do not deny your claim, but I do still require you to prove it. What is the evidence in support of a flat earth (if there is any), save for that the earth appears flat?

3

Flat Earth Community / Re: Reversal of Burden of Proof

« on: February 29, 2016, 09:23:49 AM »

I see that some flat earth proponents do positively claim the earth is flat, therefore taking on the burden of proof, and support their claim with "look out of your window" or "look down". This is the evidence upon which they rely in support of their positive assertion. I see the logic, but it is an extremely basic argument. Perhaps it is not the intention of the society or of the flat earth movement to be taken seriously. I anticipate a counter-argument along the lines of "why would we want to be taken seriously by people who refuse to question inconsistencies between what they see and what they are told?", and that may be why this debate will never get any further than these message boards.

If this forum were a courtroom, and the flat earthers had brought their claim that the earth is a disc, what finding would the judge make? He or she would be bound to consider evidence from both sides, but ultimately the burden of proof would be upon the claimant. Let's assume that the burden of proof is "on the balance of probabilities", such as in civil courts in England and Wales.

4

Flat Earth Community / Reversal of Burden of Proof

« on: February 26, 2016, 02:28:58 PM »

I've read the wiki entry for burden of proof. For those that haven't read it recently or at all, the question posed is

"Isn't the burden of proof on you to prove it?"

The response is that no, it is the reader/RE supporter who claims that "NASA can send men to the moon, robots to mars, and space ships into the solar system", and therefore the burden is upon that person to prove their claim(s).

I make no such claims. However, this entire site is based upon the premise, and therefore does claim, that the earth is flat.

Do FE believers consider themselves always to be the defendant/respondent in circumstances where the shape of the earth is being discussed? Do they never positively claim that the earth is flat? If they do, then they become the claimant, and therefore the burden of proving the claim rests with them.

I raise this because despite having lurked on the previous site and now this one for many years, the most common response to a request for proof of a flat earth is "look out of your window". It's rather a basic "proof", in my opinion, but I rarely see anything more persuasive.

I hold out little hope of any informative response. I might even be chastised for deigning to visit the website and expecting to be spoonfed evidence of a flat earth.

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravitational Waves

« on: February 12, 2016, 02:59:04 PM »

Is that correct?

I don't know. Have you measured it?

I'm applying your statement re objects with mass to two specific objects, viz, me and the earth. I'm not stating what the strength of that gravitation might be. Only that on the strength of your assertion, it exists.

I'm not being intentionally obtuse when I ask, what is the "it" that I might or might not have measured?

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: A question for all round earthers

« on: February 12, 2016, 11:46:35 AM »

To the OP:

Let's reverse your hypothesis and assume I was raised and educated to believe the earth is an oblate spheroid orbiting the sun at a distance of c.93,000,000 miles. Then one day someone tells me that actually the earth is a disc of unknown dimensions, and that the sun is a few thousand miles away. What specifically is so believable about that person's worldview?

FAOD I am aware that the earth looks flat while one is standing upon it. Given the purported dimensions of the spheroidal earth, that alone would not convince me that I had been lied to from birth.

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Polaris proves the earth is round.

« on: February 12, 2016, 10:40:04 AM »

I'm talking about area, not circumference.

The area of the "circle" you describe with radius "r" is significantly less than the area of a square with side length "2r".

I raised this issue re the value of pi being constant. If pi is the same value for all calculations, the calculation of the area of a circle demonstrates that it cannot be 4.

Why would to total area within the two shapes need to be the same?

Would the total area within a square and a triangle need to be the same if they have an identical perimeter?

I see what you mean Tom. You are saying that even if pi = 4, a circle of radius "r" and a square of side length "2r" do not have to have the same area.

We must disagree on how to calculate the area of a circle. I use area = pi x r^2

Using my calculation, inputting pi as 4, then a circle with radius 10 cm has an area of 4 x 10 x 10 = 400 cm^2.

The area of a square with side length 2r is (2r)^2 = 20 x 20 = 400 cm^2.

So that is why I say, if pi = 4, then a circle and a square as described above will have the same area.

I don't see what triangles have to do with this, specifically.

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Polaris proves the earth is round.

« on: February 12, 2016, 09:58:26 AM »

I'm talking about area, not circumference.

The area of the "circle" you describe with radius "r" is significantly less than the area of a square with side length "2r".

I raised this issue re the value of pi being constant. If pi is the same value for all calculations, the calculation of the area of a circle demonstrates that it cannot be 4.

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Polaris proves the earth is round.

« on: February 12, 2016, 09:35:34 AM »

It absolutely makes more sense to base science off of the observed and experienced rather than the theoretical and hypothetical. What was provided was a model based on little more than an idea of how things should work under the theories of art school perspective and geometry, not how they actually work.

The Ancient Greeks made a lot of assumptions about the physical world when coming up with Geometry. A lot of the assumptions turned out to be mistakes. For one, circles do not actually exist, since the universe is quantized, and any such related math is inaccurate. If one were to trace a line along all of the little pixilated plancks which make up the circumference of the most perfect "circle" in the universe one would find that pi is actually equal to 4, rather than the theoretical value of 3.14159...

I will be writing more on this topic of experience vs hypothesis in The 21st Century Edition of Earth Not a Globe, a modernized reboot of Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham, which we are working on in the Earth Not a Globe Workshop.

Interesting thoughts about the differences between the physical and the theoretical world. I'll try to make this small experiment: I'll estimate the volume of an orange using pi= 4 or pi=3,1415, and then I'll submerge in water and see how much water it'll displace and compare the measured volume with the calculated ones. Does that make sense?

That would assume the orange is perfectly round. It is not.

BTW I measure (with a tape measure) th circumference of a metal lid of diameter 111.4 mm and it comes to 351 mm. When I divide that out I get a 3.15 - (can't get 4 out of it) I'll take those Greeks over the rubbish Mathis puts out any day!

You are assuming the circumference of a metal lid is perfectly round. It is not. If you were to actually trace in all of the imperfections of the circumference there would be additional length there.

If one were to trace a line along all of the little pixilated plancks which make up the circumference of the most perfect "circle" in the universe one would find that pi is actually equal to 4, rather than the theoretical value of 3.14159...

In addition to being used to calculate the circumference of a circle, pi is also used to calculate the area of the same shape. In order for pi to be of use in calculations, its value needs to remain constant. Disagree with that if you will.

If we compare the area of a circle of radius 10 cm using both pi = 3.142 (to three decimal places) and pi = 4.000

10 x 10 x 3.142 = 314.2 cm^2

10 x 10 x 4.000 = 400.0 cm^2

The difference is an area of 85.8 cm^2.

I cannot visualise a circle with radius 10 cm and area 400 cm^2. If anyone can draw one, then please do. It might be useful to compare it (to scale) with a square of side length 20cm, as they have the same area.

There is hidden area in the circumference of a non-perfect circle.

Thanks Tom, now if you can show the most refined "circle" next to a square with side length 2 x radius [edited], we can see whether they have the same area.

In fact if you can (apologies, I cannot), overlay the two figures to show the difference in area. I wager the "circle" will fit inside the square with room to spare.

If that is the case, then where is the missing area from the "circle"? Very well hidden indeed!

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravitational Waves

« on: February 12, 2016, 09:20:00 AM »

Gravitation is simply the attraction between two objects with mass.

I'm an object with mass. So is the earth. Therefore gravitation is the attraction between me and the earth.

Is that correct?

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Polaris proves the earth is round.

« on: February 12, 2016, 08:33:47 AM »

If one were to trace a line along all of the little pixilated plancks which make up the circumference of the most perfect "circle" in the universe one would find that pi is actually equal to 4, rather than the theoretical value of 3.14159...

In addition to being used to calculate the circumference of a circle, pi is also used to calculate the area of the same shape. In order for pi to be of use in calculations, its value needs to remain constant. Disagree with that if you will.

If we compare the area of a circle of radius 10 cm using both pi = 3.142 (to three decimal places) and pi = 4.000

10 x 10 x 3.142 = 314.2 cm^2

10 x 10 x 4.000 = 400.0 cm^2

The difference is an area of 85.8 cm^2.

I cannot visualise a circle with radius 10 cm and area 400 cm^2. If anyone can draw one, then please do. It might be useful to compare it (to scale) with a square of side length 20cm, as they have the same area.

12

Flat Earth Community / Re: Magnetic Field Line Diagram Help

« on: February 11, 2016, 12:57:12 PM »

Yes Tom, quite right. Real magnetic field lines are always either orange or teal-coloured.

Consider this a warning to myself, not to post low-content in the upper fora.

13

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Real World Reactions to the Flat Earth Model

« on: March 17, 2015, 01:33:50 PM »

Thanks to those who have responded. And congratulations Thork on your 3,000th post.

I imagine it's not something you feel the need to tell people in the real world in any event. Unless you are a militant flat-earther. Are there any of those on here?

14

Flat Earth Theory / Real World Reactions to the Flat Earth Model

« on: March 13, 2015, 01:38:43 PM »

Hello All

I've lurked for a couple of years, and have read the FAQ and quite a large number of topic threads. The issue I'm interested in does not seem to be covered in any of the posts I've read, albeit the usual advance apology applies in case I have missed reference to it elsewhere.

There are clearly a large number of people who believe in FET over RET or, in any event, who profess to on this website. With this being the internet, it's practically impossible to accurately discern a person's true beliefs and/or motive for putting forward a particular viewpoint.

I'd like to invite FET proponents to say whether they routinely express their beliefs anywhere other than the internet, and if so whether their family/friends/acquaintances are skeptical or supportive. As a sub-question, I'd like to know whether FET supporters were brought up by FET believing parents or whether they arrived at their beliefs through independent research and/or thought processes.

I have no ulterior motive. I am simply curious. If this is not a subject any FET theorists wish to discuss then at least thanks for reading this post.

DT