Re: Flat earth discourse is valuable without the literalism involved.
« Reply #20 on: March 15, 2022, 07:20:39 PM »
I agree that investigating things for yourself, even if the answer is well known, is a good thing.  I happened to go to a college (many years ago) where everyone (irrespective of chosen speciality) took the same 2 years of math, physics, chemistry, mechanics, numerical analysis, programming etc. Initially I was a bit annoyed by this wanting to jump into computers/EE. But during a physics lab where I was recreating the early bubble chamber experiments to show that charge was quantized I noticed that despite knowing the outcome, doing it myself changed (if only slightly) how I held that knowledge.  The same thing can be said for just learning to recognize actual scientific work (understating peer review etc) as opposed to just popular press nonsense.
Sadly I see little to none of FE media (this site included) endorsing that view and instead basically being propaganda.
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: 10079
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat earth discourse is valuable without the literalism involved.
« Reply #21 on: March 15, 2022, 07:27:38 PM »
So many argument tactics used by FE proponents are so blatantly dishonest and diversionary.

Really? Prove it. Point out a topic in our Wiki that is blatantly dishonest - https://wiki.tfes.org/

Re: Flat earth discourse is valuable without the literalism involved.
« Reply #22 on: March 15, 2022, 08:15:05 PM »
I agree that investigating things for yourself, even if the answer is well known, is a good thing.
It is a good thing with the caveat that those investigations should be guided. I remember doing experiments at school like plotting the way light travels through a glass block when learning about refraction. The FE narrative that kids are indoctrinated and just have to accept what they’re taught simply isn’t true.
Most of the FE people you see on YouTube haven’t got a clue what they’re doing. I guess it’s commendable that they’re trying to investigate stuff but unless you have a basic understanding you’re going to make mistakes which will lead you to the wrong conclusions.
It’s a mindset I don’t understand - people with little or no scientific knowledge do some tests and think that their results show that all of science is wrong and they’ve discovered something which has eluded the greatest minds in science. Wouldn’t a more reasonable conclusion be that they’ve made a mistake and  probably should seek some help from someone with more expertise in the relevant area?
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"

Re: Flat earth discourse is valuable without the literalism involved.
« Reply #23 on: March 15, 2022, 08:18:59 PM »
So many argument tactics used by FE proponents are so blatantly dishonest and diversionary.

Really? Prove it. Point out a topic in our Wiki that is blatantly dishonest - https://wiki.tfes.org/
The way you cherry pick is dishonest.
A for example is on this page:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Equivalence_Principle#General_Relativity_and_Accelerating_Upwards

Where you quote from “Gravity: A Short Introduction”. You quote a bit which fits your narrative but you ignore other parts even in the pages you can preview which clearly talks about the earth as a spherical planet.
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"

Re: Flat earth discourse is valuable without the literalism involved.
« Reply #24 on: March 15, 2022, 08:21:36 PM »
I agree that investigating things for yourself, even if the answer is well known, is a good thing.
It is a good thing with the caveat that those investigations should be guided.
Totally agree.
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 #25 on: March 15, 2022, 08:25:51 PM »
So many argument tactics used by FE proponents are so blatantly dishonest and diversionary.

Really? Prove it. Point out a topic in our Wiki that is blatantly dishonest - https://wiki.tfes.org/
The way you cherry pick is dishonest.
I was thinking the same thing with the example of GPS and satellite TV as the two most obvious ways most people use space technology.  Yet the wiki has no explanation of how they could be possible given a FE (that I could find anyway, there is a video that claims someone claims GPS is ground based but that is very different from explaining how that could work  (hint: it can not)).
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: 10079
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat earth discourse is valuable without the literalism involved.
« Reply #26 on: March 15, 2022, 08:54:34 PM »
So many argument tactics used by FE proponents are so blatantly dishonest and diversionary.

Really? Prove it. Point out a topic in our Wiki that is blatantly dishonest - https://wiki.tfes.org/
The way you cherry pick is dishonest.
A for example is on this page:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Equivalence_Principle#General_Relativity_and_Accelerating_Upwards

Where you quote from “Gravity: A Short Introduction”. You quote a bit which fits your narrative but you ignore other parts even in the pages you can preview which clearly talks about the earth as a spherical planet.

That part of the Wiki does not claim that the authors think that the Earth is flat and that the Earth is accelerating upwards. It's describing how gravity works in General Relativity. It is explaining that the upwardly accelerating Equivalence Principle effects happen in GR because spacetime is curved.

Quote
https://wiki.tfes.org/Equivalence_Principle#General_Relativity_and_Accelerating_Upwards

General Relativity and Accelerating Upwards

The Equivalence Principle is a fundamental tenet of General Relativity, which describes that the surface of the Earth is accelerating upwards through curved space-time to cause the EP effects as experienced on Earth.

From Gravity: A Very Short Introduction (Archive) by Cosmologist Timothy Clifton (bio), we read:

  “ Consider a skydiver jumping out of an airplane. The skydiver falls freely, up to the effects of air resistance. According to Einstein, the skydiver's path is the straightest line possible through the curved space-time around the Earth. From the skydiver's perspective this seems quite natural. Except for the air rushing past her, the skydiver feels no perturbing forces at all. In fact, if it weren't for the air resistance, she would experience weightlessness in the same way that an astronaut does in orbit. The only reason we think the skydiver is accelerating is because we are used to using the surface of the Earth as our frame of reference. If we free ourselves from this convention, then we have no reason to think the skydiver is accelerating at all.

Now consider yourself on the ground, looking up at the falling daredevil. Normally, your intuitive description of your own motion would be that you are stationary. But again this is only because of our slavish regard to the Earth as the arbiter of what is at rest and what is moving. Free yourself from this prison, and you realize that you are, in fact, accelerating. You feel a force on the soles of your feet that pushes you upwards, in the same way that you would if you were in a lift that accelerated upwards very quickly. In Einstein's picture there is no difference between your experience sanding on Earth and your experience in the lift. In both situations you are accelerating upwards. In the latter situation it is the lift that is responsible for your acceleration. In the former, it is the fact that the Earth is solid that pushes you upwards through space-time, knocking you off your free-fall trajectory. That the surface of the Earth can accelerate upwards at every point on its surface, and remain as a solid object, is because it exists in a curved space-time and not in a flat space.

With this change in perspective the true nature of gravity becomes apparent. The free falling skydiver is brought to Earth because the space-time through which she falls is curved. It is not an external force that tugs her downwards, but her own natural motion through a curved space. On the other hand, as a person standing on the ground, the pressure you feel on the soles of your feet is due to the rigidity of the Earth pushing you upwards. Again, there is no external force pulling you to Earth. It is only the electrostatic forces in the rocks below your feet that keep the ground rigid, and that prevents you from taking what would be your natural motion (which would also be free fall).

So, if we free ourselves from defining our motion with respect to the surface of the Earth we realize that the skydiver is not accelerating, while the person who stands on the surface of the Earth is accelerating. Just the opposite of what we usually think. Going back to Galileo's experiment on the leaning tower of Pisa, we can now see why he observed all of his cannonballs to fall at the same rate. It wasn't really the cannonballs that were accelerating away from Galileo at all, it was Galileo that was accelerating away from the cannonballs! ”

In a section titled Why Is Spacetime Curved? of the book Time Travel in Einstein’s Universe by John Richard Gott III (bio), professor of astrophysical sciences at Princeton University, we read:

  “ A famous (perhaps apocryphal) story about Einstein describes one occasion when he fell into conversation with a man at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton. During their chat, the man suddenly pulled a little book from his coat pocket and jotted something down. Einstein asked, “What is that?" “Oh,” the man answered, “it's a notebook I keep, so that any time I have a good idea I can write it down before I forget it.” “I never needed one of those," Einstein replied. “I only had three good ideas.”

One of them occurred to him in 1907—what he would later call the “happiest” idea of his life. Einstein noted that an observer on Earth and an observer on an accelerating spaceship in interstellar space would have the same sensations. Follow this chain of thought to see why. Galileo had shown that an observer dropping two balls of different mass on Earth sees them hit the floor at the same time. If an observer in an accelerating rocket in interstellar space performed the same experiment, dropping two balls of different mass, they would float motionless in space—but, since the rocket was firing, the floor of the spaceship would simply come up and hit both of them at once. Both observers thus should see the same thing. In one case, it is the result of gravity; in the other case, it is caused by an accelerating floor with no gravity involved. But then Einstein proposed something very bold—if the two situations looked the same, they must be the same. Gravity was nothing more than an accelerated frame-of—reference. Likewise, Einstein noted that if you get in an elevator on Earth and cut the cable, you and everything in the elevator will fall toward Earth at the same rate. (Galileo again—objects of different mass all fall at the same rate.) So, how do things look to you in the falling elevator? Any object you drop will float weightless in the elevator—because you, the object, and the elevator are all falling at the same rate together. This is exactly what you would see if you were in a spaceship floating in interstellar space. All the objects in the spaceship, including you, would be weightless. If you want to experience weightlessness just like an astronaut, all you have to do is get in an elevator and cut the cable. (This works, of course, only until the elevator hits bottom.)

Einstein's assertion that gravity and acceleration are, the same—which he called the equivalence principle—was influenced, no doubt, by his previous success in equating the situation of a stationary magnet and a moving charge with that of a stationary charge and a moving magnet. But if gravity and accelerated motion were the same, then gravity was nothing but accelerated motion. Earth's surface was simply accelerating upward. This explained why a heavy ball and a light ball, when dropped, hit the floor at the same time. When the balls are released, they just float there—weightless. The floor (Earth) simply comes up and hits them. What a remarkably fresh way of looking at things!

Still one must ask how Earth’s surface could be accelerating upward (away from Earth's center) if Earth itself is not getting bigger and bigger with time like a balloon. The only way the assertion could make sense is by considering spacetime to be curved.

Einstein proposed that mass and energy cause spacetime to curve. It took him 8 years of hard work to derive the equations governing this. He had to learn the abstruse geometry of curved higher dimensional spaces. He had to learn about the Riemannian curvature tensor—a mathematical monster with 256 components telling how spacetime could be curved. This was very difficult mathematics, and Einstein ran upon many false leads. But he didn't give up because he had great faith in the idea. ”

The problem here is on your part. You think that the Wiki says those authors believe the Earth is flat, when it does not say that at all. It is describing how General Relativity works in conventional Round Earth Theory.

Again, the Wiki is correct and the problem is with you and your poor reading comprehension. That section is clearly about the RE theory, hence 'Earth itself is not getting bigger and bigger with time like a balloon'.

Where is the blatantly dishonesty? You have failed to point it out to us, and have only succeeded in showing how you are an abjectly poor reader.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2022, 09:14:23 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Flat earth discourse is valuable without the literalism involved.
« Reply #27 on: March 15, 2022, 10:31:02 PM »
That part of the Wiki does not claim that the authors think that the Earth is flat and that the Earth is accelerating upwards. It's describing how gravity works in General Relativity. It is explaining that the upwardly accelerating Equivalence Principle effects happen in GR because spacetime is curved.
Thanks for providing another example of your dishonest cherry picking.
You choose the parts of Relativity and mainstream science which fit your narrative - so you use Relativity to explain why we don't accelerate past the speed of light. But you dismiss all the parts of science which don't work so well on a flat earth.
Cherry picking is a form of dishonesty.
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: 10079
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat earth discourse is valuable without the literalism involved.
« Reply #28 on: March 15, 2022, 10:37:18 PM »
That part of the Wiki does not claim that the authors think that the Earth is flat and that the Earth is accelerating upwards. It's describing how gravity works in General Relativity. It is explaining that the upwardly accelerating Equivalence Principle effects happen in GR because spacetime is curved.
Thanks for providing another example of your dishonest cherry picking.
You choose the parts of Relativity and mainstream science which fit your narrative - so you use Relativity to explain why we don't accelerate past the speed of light. But you dismiss all the parts of science which don't work so well on a flat earth.
Cherry picking is a form of dishonesty.

Poor reading comprehension again. Where does the Wiki say that it's rejecting General Relativity? That section is explaining how General Relativity works on an RE. The Wiki makes no mention of GR possibly working on a FE at all.

Re: Flat earth discourse is valuable without the literalism involved.
« Reply #29 on: March 15, 2022, 11:35:01 PM »
https://wiki.tfes.org/Equivalence_Principle#General_Relativity_and_Accelerating_Upwards

General Relativity and Accelerating Upwards

The Equivalence Principle is a fundamental tenet of General Relativity, which describes that the surface of the Earth is accelerating upwards through curved space-time to cause the EP effects as experienced on Earth.

That is not a accurate statement of the EP.  All the references I could find are similar to these and do NOT include the idea of "accelerating upwards though curved space-time".

In the theory of general relativity, the equivalence principle is the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass, and Albert Einstein’s observation that the gravitational “force” as experienced locally while standing on a massive body (such as the Earth) is the same as the pseudo-force experienced by an observer in a non-inertial (accelerated) frame of reference.
In the theory of general relativity, the equivalence principle is the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass, and Albert Einstein's observation that the gravitational "force" as experienced locally while standing on a massive body (such as the Earth) is the same as the pseudo-force experienced by an observer in a non-inertial (accelerated) frame of reference.
The Newtonian Version
Gravitational mass is the charge to which gravity couples. Inertial mass is a measure of how fast an object accelerates--given the same force, increasing the inertial mass implies decreasing acceleration. The simplest way to state the equivalence principle is this: inertial mass and gravitational mass are the same thing. Then, gravitational force is proportional to inertial mass, and the proportionality is independent of the kind of matter. This implies the Universality of Free Fall(UFF): in a uniform gravitational field, all objects fall with the same acceleration, e.g. 9.8m/s2 near the surface of the earth.
The Einsteinian Version
All objects fall the same way under the influence of gravity; therefore, locally, one cannot tell the difference between an accelerated frame and an unaccelerated frame.

There are many more.  You have cherry picked a book that deviates from the common description of the EP but that describes it to your liking in that it includes "accelerating upwards") and that is a dishonest representation of the EP.

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: 10079
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat earth discourse is valuable without the literalism involved.
« Reply #30 on: March 15, 2022, 11:41:07 PM »
Quote from: ichoosereality
There are many more.  You have cherry picked a book that deviates from the common description of the EP but that describes it to your liking in that it includes "accelerating upwards") and that is a dishonest representation of the EP.

There are three books in the section of the Wiki that describe GR and the EP in that way. It references Gravity: A Very Short Introduction by Cosmologist Timothy Clifton,  the section Why Is Spacetime Curved? of the book Time Travel in Einstein’s Universe by John Richard Gott III, professor of astrophysical sciences at Princeton University, and Relativity Visualized by physicist Lewis Carroll Epstein.

They are explaining how gravity and the EP works in General Relativity. You quoted passages which do not seek to go into it to explain why space time is curved and how it works as those authors do. The sources in the Wiki are works by physicists who detail why space was decided to be curved.

The main problem this website has is that we are having a discussion with sixth graders.  ::)
« Last Edit: March 16, 2022, 12:00:50 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3080
    • View Profile
Re: Flat earth discourse is valuable without the literalism involved.
« Reply #31 on: March 16, 2022, 12:03:54 AM »
Point out a topic in our Wiki that is blatantly dishonest - https://wiki.tfes.org/

See the quote under all of AATW's posts.
=============================
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 #32 on: March 16, 2022, 12:06:03 AM »
Quote from: ichoosereality
There are many more.  You have cherry picked a book that deviates from the common description of the EP but that describes it to your liking in that it includes "accelerating upwards") and that is a dishonest representation of the EP.

There are three books in the section of the Wiki that describe GR and the EP in that way. It references Gravity: A Very Short Introduction by Cosmologist Timothy Clifton,  the section Why Is Spacetime Curved? of the book Time Travel in Einstein’s Universe by John Richard Gott III, professor of astrophysical sciences at Princeton University, and Relativity Visualized by physicist Lewis Carroll Epstein.

They are explaining how gravity and the EP works in General Relativity. You quoted passages which do not seek to go into it to explain why space time is curved and how it works as those authors do. The sources in the Wiki are works by physicists who detail why space was decided to be curved.
But you do not state that the reason that space is curved (i.e. the presence of the mass of the earth) is clearly antithetical to a FE?

The main problem this website has is that we are having a discussion with sixth graders.  ::)
And yet it is you who is hurling insults.
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: 3080
    • View Profile
Re: Flat earth discourse is valuable without the literalism involved.
« Reply #33 on: March 16, 2022, 12:08:30 AM »
The main problem this website has is that we are having a discussion with sixth graders.

I invite you to share with us the level of your education.
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

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

Nearly?

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3286
    • View Profile
Re: Flat earth discourse is valuable without the literalism involved.
« Reply #34 on: March 16, 2022, 01:06:39 AM »
They are explaining how gravity and the EP works in General Relativity. You quoted passages which do not seek to go into it to explain why space time is curved and how it works as those authors do. The sources in the Wiki are works by physicists who detail why space was decided to be curved.

So the wiki entry is meant to say that GR is correct?

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3080
    • View Profile
Re: Flat earth discourse is valuable without the literalism involved.
« Reply #35 on: March 16, 2022, 09:27:13 AM »
Anything that quotes from Rowbottom, whilst not being explicitly dishonest, is dubious at least. We have no record other than RB's text and line drawings. No photographs. No third-party observation.

Move up to present day, and we have photographic evidence in direct contradiction to Rowbottom's canal markers;

Reply #31 et al in https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=19064.msg260040#msg260040

« Last Edit: March 16, 2022, 09:29:17 AM by Tumeni »
=============================
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 #36 on: March 16, 2022, 09:52:58 AM »
Anything that quotes from Rowbottom, whilst not being explicitly dishonest, is dubious at least. We have no record other than RB's text and line drawings. No photographs. No third-party observation.
Right. And claims about more modern experiments are also potentially dishonest.
Take the Bishop Experiment. Did that even happen? My signature outlines some reasonable basis for scepticism - sun bathers on a chilly day?
No photographic evidence has been posted, no detailed record of the method and results for review.
"I did a thing and this is what I saw" is not a level of evidence Tom would accept from anyone else.
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: 10079
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat earth discourse is valuable without the literalism involved.
« Reply #37 on: March 16, 2022, 11:24:52 AM »
But you do not state that the reason that space is curved (i.e. the presence of the mass of the earth) is clearly antithetical to a FE?

Actually the Wiki has FE gravity theories involving the presence of mass causing gravity - https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration#Alternatives_to_Universal_Acceleration

This alternative theory involves Newtonian Gravity, but a similar one could be made for curving space as well.

Anything that quotes from Rowbottom, whilst not being explicitly dishonest, is dubious at least. We have no record other than RB's text and line drawings. No photographs. No third-party observation.

Move up to present day, and we have photographic evidence in direct contradiction to Rowbottom's canal markers;

Reply #31 et al in https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=19064.msg260040#msg260040

This is not blatant dishonesty. Rowbotham's claims and documentation are a form of evidence.

Also, you missed the parts in the Wiki where it says it was reproduced:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence#Similar_Experiments



Anything that quotes from Rowbottom, whilst not being explicitly dishonest, is dubious at least. We have no record other than RB's text and line drawings. No photographs. No third-party observation.
Right. And claims about more modern experiments are also potentially dishonest.
Take the Bishop Experiment. Did that even happen? My signature outlines some reasonable basis for scepticism - sun bathers on a chilly day?

If you didn't live towards the arctic circle you would know that tourist hotspots like the beaches of Monterey and Santa Cruz, California are of a character where people enjoy themselves in cold weather.

https://goneoutdoors.com/enjoy-cold-day-beach--2282696.html



As related in the link above, it is possible to get a sunburn in cold weather. With direct sunlight is it possible to get quite warm, even if the general temperature is considered cold.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
No photographic evidence has been posted, no detailed record of the method and results for review.

Claims are evidence. A scientific paper involving chemistry, biology, ecology, etc. do not need photographic evidence of the experiments involved. The words and claims and given results are evidence.

After I performed Rowbotham's water convexity experiment they were reproduced by the Flat Earth community dozens of times, as seen in the litany of sources in the Wiki -

https://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence#Why_I.27m_a_Flat_Earther..._37_Must-See_Experiments https://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence#Further_Flat_Earth_Evidence
« Last Edit: March 16, 2022, 01:27:16 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Flat earth discourse is valuable without the literalism involved.
« Reply #38 on: March 16, 2022, 12:07:04 PM »
Claims are evidence.
Well sure. We've had this conversation - not all evidence is created equal.
You saying "I did a thing and this is what I saw" is evidence of a kind, but how much more compelling it would be if you carefully documented your method and results and showed some photographic proof of those results. That would be something which one could properly scrutinise.

Someone recently made a claim about a conversation he had with a friend about computer software which uses spherical geometry equations to accurately calculate distances. Your response was a 3 word dismissal, "sure you did"

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=19193.msg260610#msg260610

No follow up questions, no asking for further details, just a flat out dismissal.
And that is another form of your dishonesty - the level of scrutiny you apply to evidence depends entirely on whether that evidence backs up your world view. Anything which does is accepted without question. Anything which does not is either dismissed or scrutinised to death. It's possible that in this you are only being dishonest with yourself.
A good example of this was the experiment with the boat and the laser. You spent 2 days saying it was flawed - which was actually your misunderstanding of the method. I tried in vain to explain that to you. In the end someone else managed to explain it to you at which point you called the experiment fake and ran away. So...
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 Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3080
    • View Profile
Re: Flat earth discourse is valuable without the literalism involved.
« Reply #39 on: March 16, 2022, 12:41:54 PM »
Also, you missed the parts in the Wiki where it says it was reproduced:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence#Similar_Experiments

Lake Manitoba; shows only the glow FROM the lights. Does not show that the camera has a direct sightline TO the lights.

When driving at night, I see the glow from the approaching car's headlights over the brow of the hill before I have a sightline to the vehicle itself. Can it be demonstrated that's not what's happening here? 


Have you no comment at all on the examples I gave you above?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

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

Nearly?