*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 15170
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Flat earth discourse is valuable without the literalism involved.
« Reply #40 on: March 16, 2022, 01:36:25 PM »
Take the Bishop Experiment. Did that even happen? My signature outlines some reasonable basis for scepticism - sun bathers on a chilly day?
I hate this argument so much. You keep asking me not to conclude bad faith from your arguments, but it's so difficult when your best point is "ehehehe he used a word I think is not fitting!"

If it is a clear and chilly day, i wonder why people are sunbathing and paddling in the water? Not normal activities when it is “chilly”.
I've visited California before. Suffice to say that "chilly" is a relative term.

Ultimately, this is just another thread where RE'ers complain about the fact that sometimes humans speak colloquially. "Ga-hyuk, it can't be flat because mountains exist!"
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

شاحنات صعبة للغاية

Re: Flat earth discourse is valuable without the literalism involved.
« Reply #41 on: March 16, 2022, 01:56:30 PM »
Take the Bishop Experiment. Did that even happen? My signature outlines some reasonable basis for scepticism - sun bathers on a chilly day?
I hate this argument so much. You keep asking me not to conclude bad faith from your arguments, but it's so difficult when your best point is "ehehehe he used a word I think is not fitting!"
Best argument? I'm poking fun. And he's the one making a claim, the burden of proof is on him, now me.
He's welcome to refute it, it's been in my sig for ages.
And he has above with articles about how to enjoy the beach on a cold day which, amusingly, talks about how you'll have to wrap up warm and have the beach to yourself - not the sun bathing, paddling larkfest Tom describes.
But my main point is the differing level of scrutiny he applies to evidence depending on whether it confirms his worldview or not. Come on, dude, you know that's his thing. He expects us to accept his results without evidence other than his own claim - because claims are evidence. But other claims are dismissed with a 3 word "sure you did".
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 #42 on: March 16, 2022, 02:01:36 PM »
Also, you missed the parts in the Wiki where it says it was reproduced:

I propose further discussion in Investigations;

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=19213.0
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

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

Nearly?

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 15170
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Flat earth discourse is valuable without the literalism involved.
« Reply #43 on: March 16, 2022, 03:56:53 PM »
Best argument?
When AATW sends his arguments, he's not sending his best. He's not sending you. He's not sending you. He's sending arguments that have lots of problems, and he’s bringing those problems with us. He's bringing "just poking fun". He's bringing "obviously being a little tongue-in-cheek". They’re just wrong. And some, I assume, are actually funny.

He's welcome to refute it, it's been in my sig for ages.
I know, we've addressed it before. Why you chose to keep it is beyond me.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

شاحنات صعبة للغاية

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10080
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat earth discourse is valuable without the literalism involved.
« Reply #44 on: March 16, 2022, 04:49:53 PM »
Best argument? I'm poking fun. And he's the one making a claim, the burden of proof is on him, now me.
He's welcome to refute it, it's been in my sig for ages.
And he has above with articles about how to enjoy the beach on a cold day which, amusingly, talks about how you'll have to wrap up warm and have the beach to yourself - not the sun bathing, paddling larkfest Tom describes.

People do visit the beaches and sunbathe in the cold weather of California, sometimes even during the winter.

https://oureverydaylife.com/how-to-sunbathe-in-winter-12126258.html






Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
But my main point is the differing level of scrutiny he applies to evidence depending on whether it confirms his worldview or not. Come on, dude, you know that's his thing. He expects us to accept his results without evidence other than his own claim - because claims are evidence. But other claims are dismissed with a 3 word "sure you did".

I actually didn't tell you to accept anything.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2022, 05:05:44 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Flat earth discourse is valuable without the literalism involved.
« Reply #45 on: March 16, 2022, 05:11:50 PM »
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

Your claimed "alternative" is just a bunch of scribbled equations with no explanation and includes such nonsense as
mass = area * density
but of course meter2 * kg/meter3 would be kg/meter not kg.

I suspect it is from yet another self published paper, i.e. its meaningless.  Peer review is key to how science works.  This is another aspect of your dishonesty.  You cite supposed references that are not legitimate but how many folks go to the trouble of tracking them down to see that?
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: 10080
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat earth discourse is valuable without the literalism involved.
« Reply #46 on: March 16, 2022, 05:39:04 PM »
Your claimed "alternative" is just a bunch of scribbled equations with no explanation and includes such nonsense as
mass = area * density

Funny, I didn't have a problem verifying that mass is related to density and area/volume.

From the equation:



https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/physics/density.php


Re: Flat earth discourse is valuable without the literalism involved.
« Reply #47 on: March 16, 2022, 05:53:13 PM »
Your claimed "alternative" is just a bunch of scribbled equations with no explanation and includes such nonsense as
mass = area * density

Funny, I didn't have a problem verifying that mass is related to density and area/volume.

From the equation:



https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/physics/density.php



I have to wonder if you even read what you post.  My critique is that the page you show says density is mass divided by AREA.  You then say you have no problem finding that density is equal to mass device by VOLUME.  That is correct, VOLUME not AREA.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2022, 06:32:36 PM by ichoosereality »
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 stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3286
    • View Profile
Re: Flat earth discourse is valuable without the literalism involved.
« Reply #48 on: March 16, 2022, 06:15:56 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 issue is missing context. Lots of things seemed to be plucked from their original context and used as a soundbite to support something that was not intended. Take “The Conspiracy” page, https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy

There’s a quote featured prominently:

"All government agencies lie part of the time, but NASA is the only one I've ever encountered that does so routinely.''
—George A. Keyworth, Science Advisor to President Regan in testimony before Congress, March 14, 1985

The quote has nothing to do with ’The Conspiracy’ in terms of how the wiki puts it, “The purpose of NASA is to fake the concept of space travel to further America's militaristic dominance of space.”, the bolded part, as in “fake”, but everything to do with “America’s militaristic dominance of space”. Not to mention, there's no record of that exact wording, no source. There's no mention in the Congressional records for the Senate or House on 3/14/1985:
https://www.congress.gov/bound-congressional-record/1985/03/14
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CRECB-1985-pt4/pdf/GPO-CRECB-1985-pt4-6.pdf

From an LA Times article where a similar quote is mentioned:

Why Challenger Was Doomed : The story of the ill-fated space shuttle goes far beyond O-rings, say the officials who were involved. Politics, economics, egos and ambition were also to blame.

George C. Keyworth, the President’s science adviser and a former weapons designer at Los Alamos, was openly trying to force Beggs to relinquish control of the shuttle to the Air Force, which Keyworth and others thought was better suited for operational responsibilities. Keyworth--a somewhat nervous man who loves slogans and considered himself an important part of Reagan’s White House team--attacked the space station plan as a “motel in the sky for astronauts.

Keyworth was a huge Reaganite-Hawk and wanted the “Star Wars" (Strategic Defense Initiative) program to happen in full, at the expense of funding for a Space Station (ISS).

Keyworth--a somewhat nervous man who loves slogans and considered himself an important part of Reagan’s White House team--attacked the  space station plan as a “motel in the sky for astronauts.”

Reagan gave NASA $150 million for the ISS in the 1985 budget. Keyworth was not happy.
Hence the context of the quote:

"That lingering bitterness would have dramatic consequences for both the shuttle program and for (James) Beggs.(NASA head)
“Of all the organizations that I have dealt with . . . I have only seen one that lied. It was NASA,” science adviser Keyworth says today. “The reason they lie, of course, is because they are wrapped up in a higher calling. In their eyes these are white lies. They tell lies in order to do what has to be done. Because in the end the result will be for the betterment of the public. So they are not lying from evil. But, nevertheless, they are lying.”


In short, the quote in the wiki is placed into a manufactured context that NASA “lies”, “fakes” Space Travel. When, in actuality, the quote is in regard to budgeting for one form of “space travel” over another. It literally has nothing to do with “lying” about or "faking" the existence of Space Travel - Which is the context of the entire wiki entry.

The context of the quote in no way supports the wiki's description of "The Conspiracy".

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10080
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat earth discourse is valuable without the literalism involved.
« Reply #49 on: March 16, 2022, 06:34:04 PM »
Your claimed "alternative" is just a bunch of scribbled equations with no explanation and includes such nonsense as
mass = area * density

Funny, I didn't have a problem verifying that mass is related to density and area/volume.

From the equation:



https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/physics/density.php



I have to wonder if you even read what you post.  My critique is that the page you show says density is mass divided by AREA.  You then say you have no problem finding that density is equal to mass device by VOLUME.  That is correct, VOLUME not AREA.

Yes, because volume and area are so unalike that the related equation must not exist. ::)

https://www.sensorsone.com/area-and-area-density-to-mass-calculator/

« Last Edit: March 16, 2022, 06:51:54 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10080
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat earth discourse is valuable without the literalism involved.
« Reply #50 on: March 16, 2022, 06:57:59 PM »
In short, the quote in the wiki is placed into a manufactured context that NASA “lies”, “fakes” Space Travel. When, in actuality, the quote is in regard to budgeting for one form of “space travel” over another. It literally has nothing to do with “lying” about or "faking" the existence of Space Travel - Which is the context of the entire wiki entry.

The context of the quote in no way supports the wiki's description of "The Conspiracy".

Are you actually arguing that NASA was lying about federal budgets and where the money is going? That is fairly major and is indicative that NASA is untrustworthy.

But this is just speculation on your part on what he meant. If you click on the Assorted Quotations link and find the source where he was interviewed by Joseph Torento we can see that Keyworth thought the entire basis of the Shuttle was a lie. Keyworth also says in that quote that NASA lied from "the top to the bottom", not just about one specific thing as you allege.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Assorted_Quotations

« Last Edit: March 16, 2022, 07:09:58 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Flat earth discourse is valuable without the literalism involved.
« Reply #51 on: March 16, 2022, 07:00:52 PM »

Yes, because volume is completely different than area and the related equation must not exist. ::)
Yes volume IS completely different than area.  For an object of uniform density AND thickness an "area-density" can be computed, but that is NOT what your wiki page says, it says only "density" and makes no claims about uniformity.
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: 10080
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat earth discourse is valuable without the literalism involved.
« Reply #52 on: March 16, 2022, 07:36:45 PM »
Yes volume IS completely different than area.

Yes, so completely different that the equation is the same as the one for the volume equation and the one in the Wiki section.



https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/physics/density.php

« Last Edit: March 16, 2022, 07:40:13 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3286
    • View Profile
Re: Flat earth discourse is valuable without the literalism involved.
« Reply #53 on: March 16, 2022, 07:40:00 PM »
In short, the quote in the wiki is placed into a manufactured context that NASA “lies”, “fakes” Space Travel. When, in actuality, the quote is in regard to budgeting for one form of “space travel” over another. It literally has nothing to do with “lying” about or "faking" the existence of Space Travel - Which is the context of the entire wiki entry.

The context of the quote in no way supports the wiki's description of "The Conspiracy".

Are you actually arguing that NASA was lying about federal budgets and where the money is going? That is fairly major and is indicative that NASA is untrustworthy.

Nope.

But this is just speculation on your part on what he meant. If you click on the Assorted Quotations link and find the source where he was interviewed by Joseph Torento we can see that Keyworth thought the entire basis of the Shuttle was a lie. Keyworth also says in that quote that NASA lied from "the top to the bottom", not just about one specific thing as you allege.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Assorted_Quotations



This is exactly what I'm talking about: Plucking quotes and such completely out of context. For instance, you cut off the quote above. From your source, here's the full quote:



You left off exactly what he was referring to, "If you believe that the shuttle is going to be cheap relative to ELVs [Expendable Launch Vehicles], then I'm forced to ask you, 'Does that imply that we will spend no money to assure the safety of men on board?' And I think the answer is. "Of course not."

He's not talking about what you have in the wiki, i.e., "The purpose of NASA is to fake the concept of space travel to further America's militaristic dominance of space."  He's talking about funding.

Yet, by taking the quote out of the context of the actual discussion, you imply that NASA is lying about space travel. Keyworth was a big supporter of Space Travel, he just wanted different programs funded, e.g., more militaristic use of space travel technology, than what NASA admins were fighting for.

In other words, put quotes and other info into context. Don't cherry-pick.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10080
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat earth discourse is valuable without the literalism involved.
« Reply #54 on: March 16, 2022, 07:46:59 PM »
You left off exactly what he was referring to, "If you believe that the shuttle is going to be cheap relative to ELVs [Expendable Launch Vehicles], then I'm forced to ask you, 'Does that imply that we will spend no money to assure the safety of men on board?' And I think the answer is. "Of course not."

In that quote Keyworth is saying that the claims of the Shuttle are not realistic. This is directly related to the viability of the space travel claims.

Quote from: stack
In other words, put quotes and other info into context. Don't cherry-pick.

I fully understand what "From the top to the bottom they lie" means. You do not. You are ignoring this and are attempting to claim that Keyworth only thought one specific thing was a lie, when he clearly thinks they are lying from the top to the bottom and that there are numerous lies.

Keyworth is clearly claiming that there are lots of lies at all levels, and here you are claiming that he was concerned about a specific thing. That is a cherrypicking argument by definition.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2022, 07:50:09 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Flat earth discourse is valuable without the literalism involved.
« Reply #55 on: March 16, 2022, 08:04:24 PM »
You left off exactly what he was referring to, "If you believe that the shuttle is going to be cheap relative to ELVs [Expendable Launch Vehicles], then I'm forced to ask you, 'Does that imply that we will spend no money to assure the safety of men on board?' And I think the answer is. "Of course not."

In that quote Keyworth is saying that the claims of the Shuttle are not realistic. This is directly related to the viability of the space travel claims.
But doesn't FET claim nothing has been put into orbit (after all you can not orbit a disk with a dome).  He is only questioning the safety of the MANNED shuttle as opposed to ELVs both of which presume a globe earth and the standard solar system model.  So how is this furthering your position in any way?
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 stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3286
    • View Profile
Re: Flat earth discourse is valuable without the literalism involved.
« Reply #56 on: March 16, 2022, 09:22:42 PM »
You left off exactly what he was referring to, "If you believe that the shuttle is going to be cheap relative to ELVs [Expendable Launch Vehicles], then I'm forced to ask you, 'Does that imply that we will spend no money to assure the safety of men on board?' And I think the answer is. "Of course not."

In that quote Keyworth is saying that the claims of the Shuttle are not realistic. This is directly related to the viability of the space travel claims.

Clearly not. Funny, Keyworth himself disagrees with you. He was all in for space travel…

Keyworth Calls for Bold Push in Space
Taking a sharp new tack on the civilian space program, presidential science adviser

 
However, in a recent interview with Science, Keyworth explained his new approach as a matter of national pride. There is now a broad public awareness that the country's future depends on science and technology, he says.

Perhaps a new space endeavor could be an appropriate way of sustaining that awareness.
"I think the country would take a major thrust in space very seriously,* he says. "We've shown that the shuttle works, and is reliable. We know we have the technology to build a space station. (In fact). most advocates of a space station readily acknowledge that it is only an intermediate step in a more ambitious long-range goal of exploring the solar system. Why, then, can't we be forthright and lay those ideas out on the table? Do we want to tell the American people that we have bold objectives in space? Or do we want to sneak up on it?'

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10080
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat earth discourse is valuable without the literalism involved.
« Reply #57 on: March 16, 2022, 10:23:38 PM »
I did not claim that Keyworth believes that space travel is entirely fake. He clearly suggest that he thinks that space travel occurs in some of his statements. But from other statements he obviously thinks that NASA lies a lot, and that they tell lies "from the top to the bottom" and that they "tell lies do do what has to be done". This ties in directly to the honesty of NASA's claims.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2022, 10:31:45 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Flat earth discourse is valuable without the literalism involved.
« Reply #58 on: March 16, 2022, 10:30:18 PM »
I did not claim that Keyworth thinks that space travel is entirely fake. He obviously thinks that NASA lies a lot, and that they tell lies "from the top to the bottom." This ties in directly to the honesty of NASA's claims.
So he is a reliable source of information when you agree with his view or at least your interpretation of his view even if that view is a small part of a larger picture that you think is totally false.  That seems like, pretty flawed reasoning to me and well within the bounds of another type of cherry-picking.
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: 10080
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat earth discourse is valuable without the literalism involved.
« Reply #59 on: March 16, 2022, 10:35:00 PM »
I did not claim that Keyworth thinks that space travel is entirely fake. He obviously thinks that NASA lies a lot, and that they tell lies "from the top to the bottom." This ties in directly to the honesty of NASA's claims.
So he is a reliable source of information when you agree with his view or at least your interpretation of his view even if that view is a small part of a larger picture that you think is totally false.  That seems like, pretty flawed reasoning to me and well within the bounds of another type of cherry-picking.

It is clearly cherry picking on your part. You want to discard the statements you don't like, which is cherry picking. If we accept all statements we see the fallacy.

"From the top to the bottom they lie"

Another time he says:

"The shuttle works"

You want to hang onto the second sentence, when it is nullified by the first. Erroneous. He might even believe the second sentence, which is ultimately nullified since he doubts NASA's honesty at all levels. He also made the first quote years after the second one.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2022, 10:55:03 PM by Tom Bishop »