Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Randominput

Pages: [1] 2  Next >
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Conspiracy theories and Occam's Razor
« on: April 07, 2017, 05:37:36 AM »
Very in depth answer... hahaha.
"Occam's Razor asks us which explanation makes the least number of assumptions."
Literally everything you say about a flat earth is an assumption because there is no actual evidence...

Don't expect much from these people, they do after all think the earth is flat.

It's empirical that the earth is flat. It takes spacious ancient Greek reasoning and appeals to authority to justify a round one.
Show me empirical evidence of a flat earth then that round earth doesn't explain. Show me empirical evidence of a flat earth that is as accurate and verifiable as the round earth explanation would be.

We don't have to, because it is the clear conclusion based on the observational evidence.  It's up to you guys to prove us wrong.  Also, I'm sorry, but just the fact that something can explain something doesn't mean it does explain it.  Besides being an illogical argument, it's just lazy.

But it should remain that the simplest explanation is most likely to be correct, as Occam's razor would suggest. Conspiracy aside, very few explanations I see on here fit with that.

On one hand, the horizon appears flat, the simplest theory would stand to be that its flat. But as you investigate more it becomes less than simple.
Take distant objects and their relation to the horizon. The Sun and Moon in FE rotate above the disc, yet rather than fading into the distance as one would expect (after similar observations with fog and the like), it image is assumed to be dramatically distorted to the point of showing the face from a rather sharp angle, as well as a significant change in apparent size. With ships, they cross over mast first, explained by a distortion that behaves very differently despite being the same medium. Not only do those theories seem to contradict each other, but they make a lot of complex assumptions.
The RE explanation simply states that the earth is round, so ships find themselves obscured. The Earth simply orbits the Sun, and the Moon orbits Earth.
Gravity is also rather simple in RE theory. Mass is attracted to mass. More mass, more attraction. FE suggests a constant acceleration by an entirely unobserved propelling force. Both seem simple in their own worlds, but FE already has 2 complex answers, whereas RE has 2 simple answers supported by a third simple answer.

As for the conspiracy, well, which seems simpler: all the leaders and scientists workin together to hide the truth of a flat world for some unspecified reason that brings forth such unity between mortal enemies, or that every presented explanation has made the least amount of assumptions, and supported or been supported by previous​ simple explanations for other phenomena.

It may seem like RE is complicated, but it is simply a mountain of the simplest answers, all supporting each other. FE, while seemingly simple at first, becomes increasingly convoluted as complex answers struggle to explain a phenomenon, with simple answers being supported only by complex answers.

Haven't read too much of this thread (apologies to all) but I say mention of the atmoplane and its transparency. I live in South Carolina, and as many may know there was massive fire rather near my state. This fire created alot of smoke, some of which found its way above my area.
As I was crossing a bridge (both as a passenger and lacking my phone, so no pictures) but it was late in the day and the sun was setting. Now on a normal day (as it had been the previous dozens of times I've crossed this bridge in my life) the sun would ever so slowly descend and eventually find the sea-level marshlands obscure my view of it. This most recent day, with the smoke lingering like a thick fog, found the sun a few hours before setting lacking its usual glare. This was because of literal miles of smoke. A few hours later as the sun found itself probably 45 minutes or so from the horizon, the sun became difficult to locate (despite knowing where it should be) because nearly half of it descended to the point where the smoke was too thick to see the sun through. About ten minutes later, the smoke fully obscured the sun, leaving us with only ambience lighting for rest of its trip to and past the horizon.

Now why I mention this is because this experience of mine (and the reverse of the sun appearing) would happen daily were the world flat and the atmoplane thick enough to obscure it. Instead I only got see it once, and that was thanks to a massive fire polluting its neighbouring states.

This was a rather unique sun "set" as I've witnessed it on a single day, rather than 6700 or so that make up my life. (Although were the Earth actually flat the sun would not only fade, but shrink and distort, but that's not my point here)

I really wish I had had my phone that day so I could've shown you guys the difference between the sun fading and the sun setting.

"Unprincipled and disrespective"
While some were indeed rude to you, others, at least myself, did not intend to be rude. In fact, you elected to ignore me because I said you shouldn't ignore people for having different opinions in the debate forum. One could even stretch to say that I claimed your actions to be in and of themselves, unprincipled. And yet I found myself promptly ignored, which I can say is disrespectful to both myself, and the debate forum.

Aside from that, you say Intikam means revenge. You signed on with that name, with suggests either your presence itself is vindictive in nature, or that you intended to be terribly rude to anyone here who slighted you. The latter, of course, being the worst since it implies you came here with the intent (retaliatory or not) to be disrespectful to those of us here.

Don't condemn us for not adhering to principles you yourself never intended to follow.

Inti, I haven't the foggiest what you may have posted here (I've ignored you), but I can't help but notice no one has responded but you.
If I had to guess, this is because no one wants to waste precious time and bandwidth responding when they are on your ignore list. And last I checked, every RE'er here is on that list. If you want someone to talk to, consider growing up, unignoring us, and not treating every counter-argument as a personal insult. Then maybe you'll not find yourself so lonely.

Just some random input from RandomInput.

Oh the horror, I'm actually agreeing with inti here (I think, I can't see his posts because I'm ignoring him, so it's all guessing from the context).
I can understand wanting to bring this thing to our attention, but it in and of itself isn't really a debate topic. And two posts of complaining about someone 'stealing' your fans makes your motive for bringing it here sound more for the sake of your ego, rather than that of the debate.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Round Earth Debunk: Strawberry moon !
« on: July 06, 2016, 09:07:40 PM »

I've never seen any flat earth theory proponent say that the moon, or the sun should look half the size when they set.

I also stand by my original illustration and outline of the moon, btw.

Barring yet to be otherwise observed magnification/refraction, the moon would be significantly smaller at the horizon. Far more than what is truly observed. And it'd be much flatter than what is truly observed as well.

I do hope to see others. I like the actual debate, even though we'll probably always disagree. Inti takes that away. With him, either you agree, or you're "disrespecting" him.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Astronomy debunk: The stars are not exist !
« on: June 30, 2016, 05:27:23 PM »
Some men are talking but nobody see.  ;D

Ignored for disrespect (Also for the greater good of the debate forum :P).

The sun sets in china as it rises in america. Literally the same thing is happening here. The same thing.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Astronomy debunk: The stars are not exist !
« on: June 27, 2016, 05:40:13 AM »
As as been covered, the cameras are at fault, not the stars (ever use a camera to record an old TV? Looks funky don't it?).

Second how could closer stars be less visible when you close the distance? I think even Tom, with his odd ideas of perception and refraction, would agree that that is silly.

Third, light pollution. Take a laser pointer in a dark room. You can see it pretty well right? Turn on light. Can't see the laser light too well huh? Another experiment: take two cheap flashlights outside at night. One fairly close, one rather distant. The light of the nearer light will wash out the light of the further one.

But I'm being ignored anyway, and I really shouldn't be doing this to my poor thumb(I'm on mobile).

I too have made it onto Inti's list. Heck, I did it with such grandois that he didn't even reply to tell me. XD

Even though I'm being ignored I'll throw out a laymans response.

Take 2 glasses, one filled with water and one without. Place a thermometer in each glass. Then place an ice cube in each glass. Wait ten minutes and record tempurature change for each glass. The glass with water should be colder than the one without.
That is a demonstration of how density effects transmission of heat. The air in the thermosphere is ridiculously thin, and so the heat can hardly transfer to the spacecraft.

Why are you on the debate portion of the FE site if you don't want to debate? 
Literally logged in just to say this.

Seriously Inti, this is the debate forum, meaning we debate. If you want to post something as "fact" without anyone to disagree or argue the point, don't bring it into the debate forum.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: some doubts about the globe
« on: June 07, 2016, 09:45:56 AM »
Posted: 2 weeks ago
I was in the Flat Earth bandwagon a while back.I have changed my views a bit and now i consider myself to be an earthal agnostic (i dont want to use global or planar :P,if there is a better word please inform me) on the matter.However I have some doubts about the globe which I cannot get my head around.

1.Change in Gradient

If the Earth is a sphere,wont there be constant gradient shifts everywhere? In Australia we would be upside down as compared to the American or Northern European and vice versa.How do people get adjusted to these gradient shifts and why do we not feel any semblance of a slope change when travelling to two countries with almost opposite slopes?(America and New Zealand/Australia).Shouldn't a dude going from the United States to Australia feel like the world is upside down?

The Earth's center of gravity is at its core. While I am really being pulled on by every particle in Earth, the combined forces pull us down. Since RE doesn't get gravity from constant acceleration, no matter where on the surface you stand, you will always be pulled to the core. Down will always be whatever direction I fall.
Biologically ,humans get a sense of gravity and other accelations from liquid-filled tubes near our ears. Our brains can translate these liquids sloshing around as accelerations. Anything from gravity to hitting the brakes on your car will be felt with these, and in most cases, these can tell us what down is. And since we@re being pulled to the center of Earth, down is the core.

Typos are because I'm on mobile and hate autocorrect.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Science and FET
« on: May 10, 2016, 07:30:10 PM »
According to the Ancient Greeks they should never appear to touch, because the Ancient Greeks are assuming their own mathematically perfect universe.
No. For the love of sanity no. They appear to touch because of how physically limited our eyes are. If we had infinite resolution on an infinitesimally small point, the they would never appear to touch. Our perception is not reality.

According to the ancient greeks, two pefectly straight lines (meaning no curves, bends, or angles) that are parallel (meaning they are neither converging nor diverging) will never touch. That is what they said it it is true. They never once said that our eyes would never percieve them to touch. And again, the difference between appear to touch and physically touch is very clear, and by all means should be obvious.

If I put my fingers close to my face so they appear to be larger than the guy in front of me, and close them, it'll appear I just crushed him. But lo and behold, I open my fingers and the man is unharmed, as if my hand wasn't actually large enpugh to crush him. Similar to how distant tracks don't touch, or the two passing cars on a road don't crash.

Perception is different from reality.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Science and FET
« on: May 10, 2016, 05:11:38 PM »

Well, we believe that the sun is "appearing to touch" and not "actually touching". By making that argument and agreeing that railroad tracks do observably touch you are in agreement with our position that we live in an imperfect universe where perspective at great distances does not necessarily adhere to the mathematical universe of the ancient greeks which says that two parallel lines will never touch.
That literally does not and never will make sense tom.
If I wanted to test that myself, since I have straight tracks no more than a mile from my house, I could. Just rig up a battery to a transmitter and some aluminum plates. Hold the receiver and keep walking until they appear to touch (and then some). If I don't get a signal (and I won't) then that proves that they do not, in fact, touch. This means that parallel lines do not touch. They physically do not touch. True parallels will never touch. They neither converge nor diverge and are perfectly straight. There is no reason for them to touch.

*sigh* Look tge human eye is not reliable. There are countless optical illusions out there that can fool them. Make our brains see something that isn't there, see things in ways the really aren't. If You watch a car's wheel on the highway, they may look as if they are turning backwards. They aren't. Tgey appear this way because our eyes are physically limited. Our brain tries to fill in the gaps.
Again, given the right weather and lighting, even your local forest could look damn near fake.
I get what I'm saying can go both ways, and that's why I'm pissed about how you quoted me.

This whole damn thread is a useless moot point because you guys don't believe it despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I hate these threads. They accomplish nothing for anyone entirely because this arguement goes both ways.

The human eye is honestly the least reliable tool of measurement. It is low res, low framerate, and easily tricked.

Looks fake, looks flat does not cut it. That toy car 2 inches from my face looks like a full-size SUV. Is it? No.
Is that image fake? Maybe. Have you provided compelling evidence to support this hypothesis? No. Do I have any reason to believe its fake then? No, not really.

Inki, I don't want to say this in the thread you linked to, because its not in the debate forum. But why are you so obsessed with flight paths? You do realise basing your map upon flight paths is going to give this horribly distorted thing, right? As has been said in you other map thread those paths are chosen for political and crash safety reasons.

Honestly I'd have more faith in an FE map that super-sized the southern hemisphere oceans and blamed the short travel times  on wormholes or stretched reality or something. At least that's more sane then telling me continents I could document myself are a completely different shape.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Science and FET
« on: May 10, 2016, 11:20:40 AM »
Just saying this as a RE-er, lets not let this thread become an RE circle-jerk, lest we all look like a row of gaping fecal spraying posteriors.

You know what, it does look fake.

Thank you for keeping it real. The whole bit about parallel lines and what not is apples and oranges.

At first glance, and then after much examination, this absolutely appears to be a 3d graphic lunar surface super imposed in front of a composite earth.

Maybe they will say the lunar surface is just mapped out from data and not an actual photograph, that might make sense. But to try to pass this off as a genuine photograph is just plain amateur. I've seen so much better cgi in movies, that looks even believable, and even then I always spot it.

Here's the Japanese equivalent for comparison, and even these look way more realistic.

Apologies for being gone a couple days and not responding sooner. Anyway I'm upset that you took that sentence out of context. Seriously not cool.  Had you actually bothered to read my whole post you'd see that the gist of it is that reality sometimes looks fake. Instead you read the first sentence and quote it out of context to support your own arguement. That's kind of a dick move. It really is.

You know what, it does look fake. Does not mean it is. Parallel lines seem to converge at a distance. Doesn't mean they do (and if you really, genuinely think parallel lines touch, you lose my ability to take you seriously. Saying the Earth is flat is one thing, saying parallel lines touch is something else).

Fact is there are some images of some places on Earth that you could probably see for yourself that look fake. Saying those are fake would be like saying your couch is fake.

Might it be fake? Yes. Is it 100% certainly fake? No. The only certainty is that we are certain of nothing (but saying a millennium of research is fake with no repeatable experiment saying otherwise is silly. Have a base for your arguements at least).

Pages: [1] 2  Next >