The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: ah4truth2017 on December 09, 2017, 05:57:52 AM
-
As I've been researching, it seems that we all make cases assuming we are right, then argue points from that standing. But few/none are independently verifiable when based solely on observation.
- You say UA, I say gravity.
- Light travels straight across Monterrey Bay, I say it refracts in the atmosphere.
- You say the sun is a spotlight, I say the dark side faces away from the sun.
- I say plane routes are the reported distance, you say planes must somehow fly faster in the southern hemisphere.
- I say the sun disappears behind the horizon, you say it gets too far to see.
...I could probably keep going, but I've made my point. We keep yelling arguments while never giving ground on our basic assumption. My favorite post to read so far was one from Tom Bishop, which used "might" and "possible" 8-10 times in a single paragraph. In effect, "the earth has to be flat so I must make a conjecture about everything that I can't explain," instead of, "you make a good point, maybe I should reevaluate my assumptions." (Tom's post is just an example, round-earthers do the same thing)
Now, at the risk of sounding hypocritical, I'd like to present a case where I believe observations can lead to only one conclusion. For a moment, I'm going to accept everything about the Flat Earth. Most importantly:
- Latitude is the angle of the sun at equinox.
- The sun rotates arund the north pole, and is centered between it and the north pole at equinox.
- The sunset is a result of the sun being too far too see (both size, and travel of light through the atmosphere)
Consider this map:
(https://cyxfaa.dm2301.livefilestore.com/y4mpR_NFdo5YbjFb_Hpal-ecJ9Xi7WiRqzxEG_E9TayeZR1YVA1-i-Z1pu1v5yt9GE2SeKwA8fEyfqUEwfZi4QwYDLsByUhrMlxVslTmQg_iqiBWcApn9VByT5Ak_Gk0TwEGhFjKKHoTotPpnSDwPAibCsalv8JM5S-E6JLsvi9pHB1sdoO5o6_x74lS-DDV8fSYCmCWeWBFon0BWm0FSpNrg?width=512&height=512&cropmode=none)
- I have not tried to place continents, as they are immaterial.
- Montreal, Iquitos, and Valdivia have been placed according to their latitude.
- On the day of the equinox, all three cities have the same sunrise, so I've positioned their longitude accordingly, given the circle/spotlight of the sun.
Now, those cities can't move. So let's see what happens when we advance the sun by 90 degrees (6 hours)
(https://dpqgow.dm2301.livefilestore.com/y4msOALyDjtuMaAdsLzxnaufa_t7LSxBWq7HqVzLlaRbwiqdiTYZDVWXuj4OunQBuOGD19VN86yh2qg8nAfwMwz05nFidbFB3d2EGkHrGZvEc7Pezx83bVRd6iXXdkG0USA9gexA7wS89eTfkbvQjtERpjipRzQHeQR8K0QGwSPaSloYeBdAosnhkZbl4dgx5v3iyN71KZHD86a2JIpQtws3w?width=512&height=512&cropmode=none)
A few observations
- It's sunset in Valdivia, despite being 2:00PM. (Remember, the sun only moved 6 hours)
- It's still broad daylight in Montreal, even though it's supposed to have the same sunset time.
- Same story as Montreal for Iquitos. The sun sets at the same time as Valdivia, but the city is clearly still in broad daylight.
Conclusion: I would argue that the only reasonable explanation (other than a round earth) is the "spotlight" isn't actually a circle on the ground. Except that means the sun's rays don't follow a mathematically consistent vanishing point or dissipation in the atmosphere. So really:
- To have the correct sunrise & latitude on a flat earth, these cities must be at these coordinates.
- At these coordinates, they cannot also have the same sunset.
- Therefore, the earth cannot be flat.
QED
-
Great Post...I actually had a very similar post on a different forum (although yours was WAY more developed and thought out than mine), and the responses I received were about what you would expect from FEers...the typical pseudo-science babble they always resort to when painted into a corner. Actually, calling it pseudo-science gives it too much credit, it is more complete nonsense wrapped in a blanket of scientific jargon.
Anyway, I am not sure what your reasons are for engaging these people...for me it is combination of boredom and entertainment value (I am new to these forums, but well versed on "debating" these folks). I long ago came to the conclusion that there are 3 types of FEers: The trolls, The Fundamentalists trying to justify a completely biblical interpretation of the universe, and the ignorant masses. SO here is the problem with a post like yours, as awesome as it is: The trolls...well they're trolls so who cares, the Fundies are so brainwashed they will always invent new "science" to contradict any evidence you have, and the ignorant masses are to dumb to understand anything you said. Hell, the ignorant masses are too dumb to explain why they believe in a flat earth other than, "I saw it on youtube", and "the earth is flat because it looks flat".
Anyway, enough rambling from me...good post.
-
Firstly, before we engage with this, do you have any actual evidence, outside of a theoretical sun calculator and specious ad hominem fallacies, that these points really do see exactly 12 hour days at that time as proposed by the Round Earth model?
-
Firstly, before we engage with this, do you have any actual evidence, outside of a theoretical sun calculator and specious ad hominem fallacies, that these points really do see exactly 12 hour days at that time as proposed by the Round Earth model?
A starting point would be for you to confirm that timeanddate.com are correct for your location.
-
Firstly, before we engage with this, do you have any actual evidence, outside of a theoretical sun calculator and specious ad hominem fallacies, that these points really do see exactly 12 hour days at that time as proposed by the Round Earth model?
No personal attacks were intended, merely a general observation of responses I see from both sides. My intent was to head off any assumptions in either my own argument or any rebuttals. As to the specific post I mentioned, I will have to search my history for it, which I can't do at the moment.
I used timeanddate.com, and as no one has ever made the case that times of sunrise/sunset are inaccurate (just the mechanism by which it rises/sets) I will count that as evidence enough. (I'm sure I could find more if you really want it, but I expect the same data.)
-
I used timeanddate.com, and as no one has ever made the case that times of sunrise/sunset are inaccurate.
I believe I had requested actual evidence. Pointing out that we have no evidence to the true or falseness of a theory is not evidence that it is true.
-
I used timeanddate.com, and as no one has ever made the case that times of sunrise/sunset are inaccurate.
I believe I had requested actual evidence. Pointing out that we have no evidence to the true or falseness of a theory is not evidence that it is true.
Please define exactly what you would accept as actual evidence.
-
I used timeanddate.com, and as no one has ever made the case that times of sunrise/sunset are inaccurate.
I believe I had requested actual evidence. Pointing out that we have no evidence to the true or falseness of a theory is not evidence that it is true.
I used timeanddate.com to check sunset times every day of my last trip to the beach. Was accurate every time. There you go.
But seriously, how do you envision this evidence? Suppose forum users validate the predicted times against actual times on a given weekday for 6 weeks and found it was correct. Would you then accept that the sites predictions were accurate? If not, please outline an experimental basis on which you would accept it.
-
I used timeanddate.com, and as no one has ever made the case that times of sunrise/sunset are inaccurate.
I believe I had requested actual evidence. Pointing out that we have no evidence to the true or falseness of a theory is not evidence that it is true.
I used timeanddate.com to check sunset times every day of my last trip to the beach. Was accurate every time. There you go.
But seriously, how do you envision this evidence? Suppose forum users validate the predicted times against actual times on a given weekday for 6 weeks and found it was correct. Would you then accept that the sites predictions were accurate? If not, please outline an experimental basis on which you would accept it.
Any sort of real evidence for the specific claims in the OP would be nice. As it is we have no evidence.
Your comments about your own supposed observation where timeanddate was accurate or approxinate is irrelevant. We have no idea what kinds of tables or methods are used to come up with those calulations, whether it is using one universal method, multiple methods, or whether it is using any elements that are experience or pattern based. When we emailed timeanddate with a request to show their methods they refused and cited proprietary data.
-
I used timeanddate.com to check sunset times every day of my last trip to the beach. Was accurate every time. There you go.
But seriously, how do you envision this evidence? Suppose forum users validate the predicted times against actual times on a given weekday for 6 weeks and found it was correct. Would you then accept that the sites predictions were accurate? If not, please outline an experimental basis on which you would accept it.
Any sort of real evidence for the specific claims in the OP would be nice. As it is we have no evidence.
Your comments about your own supposed observation where timeanddate was accurate or approxinate is irrelevant. We have no idea what kinds of tables or methods are used to come up with those calulations, whether it is using one universal method, multiple methods, or whether it is using any elements that are experience or pattern based. When we emailed timeanddate with a request to show their methods they refused and cited proprietary data.
My "supposed" observation? Are you saying that I lied?
Anyway, I was not referring to the OP. I was asking what experimental evidence you would accept to believe that timeanddate predictions are correct, regardless of how they are calculated. I believe that their calculations are correct and that they can't be correct on a flat Earth. So you will invent some excuse to ignore them or you will require some sort of experimental basis that can't be performed.
-
In regards to the OP, I commend the poster. That's an excellent observation and a logical layout of the facts.
Tom has to come back and deny that certain facts are known to modern science. Like what time the sun rises. Then he tried to change the subject asking about 12 hour days when the original post didn't say that. It said that the round sun spotlight explanation showed sunset 6 hours after sunrise in a certain city.
-
Tom Bishop, thanks for participating. Are you saying that the sunset and sunrise calculations and tables commonly accepted and relied on universally are wrong? Are you saying they are bad evidence? Are you saying that timeanddate.com in particular is unreliable?
Can you be very, very specific in a purposely falsifiable way as to what you are suggesting?
-
Have I personally been in all 3 cities to see their sunrise at the same time (and likewise for sunset the same day) and documented it in a way that isn't considered faked? No.
Do I trust other sources on which farming, industry, and society depend? Every time.
-
Tom, it would be helpful in this discussion to have a reference to the sunrise/sunset times for those cities according to flat Earth models. Can you or someone else from the FE side provide this?
I'll need to think through the trig on this, but on the equinox the sun is above the equator, so the spotlight would be centered on the equator, with the extremities of the circle of light at the north pole, south pole/ice wall. I think that would imply the longest daylight at the equator, the shortest daylight at the poles, and a proportionally decreasing amount of daylight based on latitude. Would that be correct?
-
Firstly, before we engage with this, do you have any actual evidence, outside of a theoretical sun calculator and specious ad hominem fallacies, that these points really do see exactly 12 hour days at that time as proposed by the Round Earth model?
As usual up pops Tom asking for evidence that is widely available.
When we question you you often direct us to "research FE theory", read Rowbotham or your Wiki. In this already case we direct YOU to go to timeanddate, check it's data against what you empirically see. Phone a friend and ask them to confirm it for their location. Repeat until you are satisfied that despite the fact they won't explain their private inner workings to a stranger over an email the data they present is accurate!
We know you wont do this because if you do, you'll have to give up this absurd theory.
Because as you know, as well as the rest of us, earth is not flat and your ever more desperate pleas for "time buying" evidence and other stalling techniques only demonstrate your acceptance of this fact.
The OP here is a fantastic display of logical, neutral, ZETETIC thinking (sun is SEEN to rise and set at recorded times). You have no serious response, because the OP proves, again, that earth cannot be flat (as you know).
-
Its your responsibility to provide the evidence for your own claims. Please stop trying to weasle out of providing basic evidence for the claims asserted.
-
Its your responsibility to provide the evidence for your own claims. Please stop trying to weasle out of providing basic evidence for the claims asserted.
How can we provide evidence to an "empirical only" perspective??? You reject all evidence you haven't seen yourself!! All I suggest is that you could verify time and date yourself seeing as you refute all 2nd hand evidence! It is most certainty NOT weaseling on any level, apart from yours.
-
Its your responsibility to provide the evidence for your own claims. Please stop trying to weasle out of providing basic evidence for the claims asserted.
So you will invent some excuse to ignore them or you will require some sort of experimental basis that can't be performed.
I guess it was option A.
The OP laid out a very thoughtful case. Your response basically is that the case is invalid since the time of sunrise is unknown, and I guess that to anyone who believes the Earth is flat, that information can not be determined. And you have the nerve use "weasel" to describe someone else's response. That's hilarious.
So let's be hypothetical for a moment. IF those sunrise times were correct, what would your response be?
-
Its your responsibility to provide the evidence for your own claims. Please stop trying to weasle out of providing basic evidence for the claims asserted.
How can we provide evidence to an "empirical only" perspective??? You reject all evidence you haven't seen yourself!! All I suggest is that you could verify time and date yourself seeing as you refute all 2nd hand evidence! It is most certainty NOT weaseling on any level, apart from yours.
I'm not asking for any impossible level of evidence. We don't reject all evidence we have not seen ourselves. Don't you see us quoting links in our discussions?
We just need basic evidence for these claims you say prove your model. What do you have against the need for providing basic evidence for your clains?
-
Its your responsibility to provide the evidence for your own claims. Please stop trying to weasle out of providing basic evidence for the claims asserted.
These are not the claims of a few people, you are just being asked to confirm that timeanddate.com is correct for your location. If you were truly interested in the subject you would tell us.
-
We have the evidence from all the photovoltaic installations on that website whose name escapes me.
I believe the only thing we had left to prove there was that PV cells don't produce significant power until about 15 minutes after sunrise, if we can show that we have 1 million+ independent solar observatories that were installed for power generation purposes and thus aren't in the pocket of Big Oblate Spheroid.
-
Its your responsibility to provide the evidence for your own claims. Please stop trying to weasle out of providing basic evidence for the claims asserted.
How can we provide evidence to an "empirical only" perspective??? You reject all evidence you haven't seen yourself!! All I suggest is that you could verify time and date yourself seeing as you refute all 2nd hand evidence! It is most certainty NOT weaseling on any level, apart from yours.
I'm not asking for any impissible level of evidence. We don't reject all evidence we have not seen ourselves. Don't you see us quoting links in our discussions?
We just need basic evidence for these claims you say prove your model. What do you have against the need for providing basic evidence for your clains?
Please describe what you understand basic evidence to mean.
ps, no need to use the word 'we'. And links to current and recent research please.
-
I'm not asking for any impissible level of evidence. We don't reject all evidence we have not seen ourselves. Don't you see us quoting links in our discussions?
Alright, since external links are sufficient:
https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/canada/montreal?month=3&year=2017 (https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/canada/montreal?month=3&year=2017)
https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/peru/iquitos?month=3&year=2017 (https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/peru/iquitos?month=3&year=2017)
https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/chile/valdivia?month=3&year=2017 (https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/chile/valdivia?month=3&year=2017)
http://www.sunrise-and-sunset.com/en/sun/canada/montreal/2017/march (http://www.sunrise-and-sunset.com/en/sun/canada/montreal/2017/march)
http://www.sunrise-and-sunset.com/en/sun/peru/iquitos/2017/march (http://www.sunrise-and-sunset.com/en/sun/peru/iquitos/2017/march)
http://www.sunrise-and-sunset.com/en/sun/chile/valdivia/2017/march (http://www.sunrise-and-sunset.com/en/sun/chile/valdivia/2017/march)
http://sunsetsunrisetime.com/Canada/Montreal_2412.html (http://sunsetsunrisetime.com/Canada/Montreal_2412.html)
http://sunsetsunrisetime.com/Peru/Iquitos_15460.html (http://sunsetsunrisetime.com/Peru/Iquitos_15460.html)
http://sunsetsunrisetime.com/Chile/Valdivia_2783.html (http://sunsetsunrisetime.com/Chile/Valdivia_2783.html)
...do I need to keep going? There's three separate websites with matching data. The last one (sunsetsunrisetime.com (http://sunsetsunrisetime.com)) even leaves the times in UTC, showing they actually are the same without trying to know the local time zone (and daylight savings) laws. (After all, there are over 500 variations)
On top of that, there's a combined 2.2 million people living in those 3 cities.
-
An online calculator isn't evidence for the claim. Those are not observations or experiences.
If you guys have no evidence for this then we have nothing to discuss.
-
Its your responsibility to provide the evidence for your own claims. Please stop trying to weasle out of providing basic evidence for the claims asserted.
How can we provide evidence to an "empirical only" perspective??? You reject all evidence you haven't seen yourself!! All I suggest is that you could verify time and date yourself seeing as you refute all 2nd hand evidence! It is most certainty NOT weaseling on any level, apart from yours.
I'm not asking for any impossible level of evidence. We don't reject all evidence we have not seen ourselves. Don't you see us quoting links in our discussions?
We just need basic evidence for these claims you say prove your model. What do you have against the need for providing basic evidence for your clains?
Basic evidence is provided by timeanddate, you are being asked to verify this evidence from your own perspective so the debate can continue.
As yet I have seen NO evidence for UA, FE maps, celestial navigation, the shadow object etc so no the idea that you provide evidence and links for your claims is false
-
An online calculator isn't evidence for the claim. Those are not observations or experiences.
If you guys have no evidence for this then we have nothing to discuss.
Okay, then by all means explain what evidence is sufficient. If I had a picture or video, it's fake. If I travel there and write down a time, it's fake. (Nor can I be in all three places to validate the "same time" assertion.) You claim an external source is valid, until it isn't. A calculator works because the sun, in both models, travels a consistent & predictable path. You'll note that all 9 links are for March 2017 (rather than supposing that 2018 will be correct) so either they're just wrong or all 3 are making the same lie.
I would have preferred to see you debate this based on the position of TFES, rather than doubting any evidence I try to present. My case hasn't discounted your evidence, so if we're left with "nothing to discuss," then it isn't because I have no evidence.
-
Tom Bishop, is it your position that:
1. Sunrise and sunset times for all points and days on earth are not known?
2. Distances between all cities on earth are not known?
-
I don't understand this. Tom, I thought we agreed that latitude and longitude are well established concepts? They don't have to mean the earth is round, but for centuries the Royal Navy used them to navigate, and we have well established measurements of latitudes and longitudes.
Some conclusions that I would expect you to agree with:
- Latitude indicates the angle the sun makes from the azimuth at noon on the equinox, and is 90 degrees minus the angle from azimuth to the north star (when visible, and corrected for the north star's slight offset from true north)
- Longitude indicates time offset from Greenwich Mean/UTC - 15 degrees per hour. 0 degrees longitude is where the sun is highest in the sky at noon UTC (except for the analemma of course)
I presented to you books from the Royal Navy on how to do latitude and longitude measurements based on the sun, stars, and moon from 150+ years ago, and books with tables of the latitudes and longitudes of many places around the world, and with logbooks from e.g. Captain Cook's voyages showing latitude/longitude measurements just about every day.
Do we not agree that latitude and longitude correspond to positions of the sun?
-
I am not interested in engaging in this discussion further until evidence has been presented.
-
Firstly, before we engage with this, do you have any actual evidence, outside of a theoretical sun calculator and specious ad hominem fallacies, that these points really do see exactly 12 hour days at that time as proposed by the Round Earth model?
Well, how about we proceed from the definition of "equinox"? Do you recognize the term equinox, and if so, how do you define it?
-
I am not interested in engaging in this discussion further until evidence has been presented.
Tom, you have been asked several times to define (to us non-zetetics) what standard of evidence would be acceptable for this discussion to continue, beyond what has already been provided. Short of understanding that, it's no wonder that we can't continue a healthy debate. Or do I need to itemize my concerns about the flat earth "evidence?"
If you still aren't going to be clear, then I guess good day to you.
-
I'm not asking for any impossible level of evidence. We don't reject all evidence we have not seen ourselves. Don't you see us quoting links in our discussions?
We just need basic evidence for these claims you say prove your model. What do you have against the need for providing basic evidence for your clains?
Once again, please give an example of what you would accept as evidence that time and date.com is correct? I don't expect any serious answer since you know acknowledging them as correct will never help your FE case, so you want to maintain a case that allows you to ignore their data.
Do you accept sunrise/sunset times provided by TV/newspapers as accurate?
I don't know how many users are on this forum, but I suspect there are many from different parts of the world. Let's collectively do an experiment with timeanddate forecasts vs. predictions made according to your flat Earth model. That should be informative, right?
-
Well, since Tom has chosen to not accept the provided evidence, I figure I'll wrap up my foray into the Flat Earth world with an explanation that would help people independently verify my claims with other examples.
First off, start with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_longitude (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_longitude), and find examples of cities with longitude within 5-20' of each other. The fact they are a round-earth longitude is irrelevant, this is just a starting point. Look up their equinox sunrise/sunset on one of many websites (if you trust them), and you will find they are within a minute or two, depending on the initial difference in longitude.
- Provided your examples are notably different latitudes, the same case as the original post will work. Similar latitudes don't falsify my claim, they just don't help because the math *technically* works to support FE just as well at that point.
- My original post didn't strictly need Iquitos to demonstrate the point. However, having the 3rd data point ensures no circle/curve of the "spotlight" can possibly work for both sunrise & sunset. (As in a mathematical proof that 3 points can only be intersected by one circle.)
-
Thanks again for the thoughtful post. The FE faithful will continue to reject anything that potentially conflicts their core belief. Predictions of sunset/sunrise times from any source will be on that list along with GPS, satellite TV, sat phones, spacecraft, etc.
-
It was fun, I only wish it could have sparked an actual discussion. I don't really have time to debate something that is just stonewalled. That said, it might be fun to take https://wiki.tfes.org/A_hundred_proofs_the_Earth_is_not_a_globe (https://wiki.tfes.org/A_hundred_proofs_the_Earth_is_not_a_globe) and break each one down one by one. I wonder how many will just need a "show me the evidence." (like the one about a lunar eclipse with both sun & moon above the horizon?)
-
The thing that feels the most dishonest about all this is that none of us humans really thinks for a moment that at sunset the sun fades into the distance rather than sinking in full glory below the horizon.
That said, it might be fun to take https://wiki.tfes.org/A_hundred_proofs_the_Earth_is_not_a_globe (https://wiki.tfes.org/A_hundred_proofs_the_Earth_is_not_a_globe) and break each one down one by one.
I agree it would be interesting to go one by one through those proofs, especially since many of them are maddeningly wrong. I initially was trying to focus on the Wiki page about Eratosthenes, but I was given a runaround instead of any interest at all in improving that page.
-
Yes, and it's hard to take the "show me the evidence" demand seriously from people that claim a mystery shadow object is responsible for eclipses
-
Yes, and it's hard to take the "show me the evidence" demand seriously from people that claim a mystery shadow object is responsible for eclipses
Did you have a point to make, or did you feel just quoting a post from another user somehow adds anything useful to the thread?
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that it was accidental. Going to go the next level ban from here.
-
Yes, and it's hard to take the "show me the evidence" demand seriously from people that claim a mystery shadow object is responsible for eclipses
Let's also be clear that those aren't my words. (@Moderator, I suspect a failure in formatting rather than an intentional "quote only" post.)
-
(like the one about a lunar eclipse with both sun & moon above the horizon?)
If anyone wants to discuss this further, it really should get its own thread (rather than distracting from the point on sunrise/sunset) ...but since I brought it up here, I thought it worthy of mention. I searched on it, and was surprised to learn that a "selenelion" is a real thing. Pictures are the only evidence though, so I guess you really can't know for sure.
-
I found this on another thread:
If you wish to verify your predictions, fell free. Travel to Makokou on the day of your test and you can verify your prediction for us.
We will be responsible for verifying our own predictions, and you will be responsible for verifying yours. Does that sound fair?
Tom does a fairly reasonable job in the first page of that thread laying out what is acceptable evidence, and expresses frustration with the multitudes of us who can't really track with what evidence is meaningful & valid. Maybe the Wiki or Forum guidelines could benefit from a summary like this? I haven't found a good description online as to what zeteticism accepts, and most of us probably don't have the resources to travel and verify our own predictions.
Accepting what evidence we can provide would create much more interesting conversations. At the very least, they could lay the groundwork for some experimentation that both sides could be happy with.
-
I found this on another thread:
If you wish to verify your predictions, fell free. Travel to Makokou on the day of your test and you can verify your prediction for us.
We will be responsible for verifying our own predictions, and you will be responsible for verifying yours. Does that sound fair?
Tom does a fairly reasonable job in the first page of that thread laying out what is acceptable evidence, and expresses frustration with the multitudes of us who can't really track with what evidence is meaningful & valid. Maybe the Wiki or Forum guidelines could benefit from a summary like this? I haven't found a good description online as to what zeteticism accepts, and most of us probably don't have the resources to travel and verify our own predictions.
Accepting what evidence we can provide would create much more interesting conversations. At the very least, they could lay the groundwork for some experimentation that both sides could be happy with.
I've grown to think of it (Tom's desperate insistence on needless evidence) like a terminally ill person's desperate belief in the afterlife. They can't allow for any logic or factual based ideas to demonstrate that the idea of heaven is crazy because they need something to cling to.
If he were a true zetetic he would be out there verifying all these sources for himself, thus proving that timeanddate etc can accurately predict sunrise/sunset. He would then build this data into his theory, along with all the other data that is provided. The fact that he proverbially sticks his fingers in his ears and shouts "NaNaNa I can't hear you" shows that he is no true zetetic, he has his hypothesis (flat earth) and he is only interested in things that can help prove it, anything that presents a problem is just batted away with these crazy demands for unnecessary evidence.
-
I found this on another thread:
If you wish to verify your predictions, fell free. Travel to Makokou on the day of your test and you can verify your prediction for us.
Tom does a fairly reasonable job in the first page of that thread laying out what is acceptable evidence
You think so, but....suppose I come on here the day of the equinox and say “I’m in Makokou, the test is conclusive, Round Earth for the win!” Do you really expect anybody, round or flat, to simply accept that? I don’t. Any more than I accept the results of the Bishop Experiment just because Bishop says he performed it and he says the results mean what he thinks they mean.
We will be responsible for verifying our own predictions, and you will be responsible for verifying yours. Does that sound fair?
To someone unfamiliar with how science is actually done, I suppose that SOUNDS fair. But in the real world, when proponents of Theory X make a prediction and claim to have experimental proof, their experiment must be repeated, their results duplicated, and their conclusions verified by opponents of Theory X before it ‘counts’ for anything. The example at hand, Tom requesting proof that everywhere in the world actually has a twelve hour day on the equinox (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=7980.msg134610#msg134610): in my 40+ years I have personally been in many different cities around the world on an Equinox Day. Multiple US cities at latitudes northern and southern, even a few overseas locations (one in Australia, two in Asia, and several out at sea aboard a US Navy ship). Each time, local news has a story about the twelve hour day, and it never failed to be a twelve hour day. My personal testimony to this is of no value with Tom, and nor should it be. After all, I would not believe him, if he claimed to have experienced thirteen hours of sun on Equinox Day somewhere, so why should he accept my story? However, what SHOULD be of value is the fact that THE WHOLE WORLD has the same experience of local media announcing a twelve hour day, relevant museums and observatories holding events around it, and nobody ever reporting that the twelve hour day failed to occur. Ever.
-
I found this on another thread:
If you wish to verify your predictions, fell free. Travel to Makokou on the day of your test and you can verify your prediction for us.
Tom does a fairly reasonable job in the first page of that thread laying out what is acceptable evidence
You think so, but....suppose I come on here the day of the equinox and say “I’m in Makokou, the test is conclusive, Round Earth for the win!” Do you really expect anybody, round or flat, to simply accept that? I don’t. Any more than I accept the results of the Bishop Experiment just because Bishop says he performed it and he says the results mean what he thinks they mean.
Yeah, I really only meant "reasonable" insofar as he does more than simply demand evidence and expect that our research and/or divination comes to the same standard of proof.