#### Tumeni

• 2604
##### Re: Occams razor according to Flat Earth
« Reply #60 on: June 08, 2020, 09:44:46 AM »
Whether it does or not does not affect the geometry of the objects in the scene.
You claimed that this was an observation, and not a piece of maths homework.

The "maths homework" is there to determine whether or not the observation is consistent with a flat plane of the lands and sea. I think you realise that.

Don't dither and delay by rambling about "the geometry" - specify what it is that you think can be observed, keeping in mind that the line you drew cannot be the sightline if you do not assume light to travel in a straight line.

Don't steal my question. That's what I've been asking here, and what I asked every flat-earther who came to comment on the YouTube video - "What do you SEE behind and beyond the top of the ship's cranes in the photo? Sea? Sky? Something else?"

Every flat-earther avoids this question like they would avoid a ten-foot pole covered in dog doo-doo.

I asked it earlier in this thread, but you don't appear to have answered it yet, either. And now you simply ask me the same thing?

The line I drew CAN be the representation of the sightline IF light travels in straight lines, and if it did so at the time of my observation. Y/N?  But for the time being, the line defines the geometric relationship between the objects.

The suggestion that there is straight vs. curvy suggests that we could draw two distinct sets of geometry; one with the light following straight lines, one with it not. But what would be the basis for drawing the non-straight ones? What curve would they follow? I'm happy to draw the geometry both ways, to do two sets, if you or anyone else can provide some basis for the curvy way.

So for the time being, it's reasonable to take it as straight
You're contradicting yourself. You say that you're not assuming light to travel in a straight line, and that you are assuming it.

No, I'm saying that for consideration of the geometry of the scene, it doesn't matter whether it does or not. The geometry would be consistent between a lit scene and and unlit one. You're trying to dodge out of considering the geometry by mingling the observation and the homework based on it.

Please pick one and stick to it. If it's the latter, I refer you to my very first post on this subject pointing out your blatant dishonesty. If it's the former, then your diagram is not representative of what's seen in the photo, since it makes an assumption about optics that you know to be false.

Again - What do YOU see behind and beyond the top of the ship's cranes in the photo?    Sea? Sky? Something else?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

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

Nearly?

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 12837
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: Occams razor according to Flat Earth
« Reply #61 on: June 08, 2020, 10:01:31 AM »
The "maths homework" is there to determine whether or not the observation is consistent with a flat plane of the lands and sea. I think you realise that.
For this to be true, your diagram needs to become representative of what one would see. How to achieve that depends on the assumptions you're making about light. So far, you've been inconsistent with those, so we need to get you to pick one set of assumptions and work with it.

Don't steal my question.
You claim that there is a "simple observation" to be had here, but you present a diagram that's not linked to one. You're going to have to deal with the consequences of your logic if you want this discussion to progress.

The line I drew CAN be the representation of the sightline IF light travels in straight lines, and if it did so at the time of my observation. Y/N?
That is a likely possibility. You'd have to answer a few more questions to make it a certainty, but all of that is irrelevant since you know the "if" clause to already be false. F → P

No, I'm saying that for consideration of the geometry of the scene, it doesn't matter whether it does or not. The geometry would be consistent between a lit scene and and unlit one.
There wouldn't be much in your photograph if the scene was unlit. Here, have a diagram to help you understand the geometry behind the situation.

Unfortunately, you cannot discuss photography without discussing light and optics. Choosing a false assumption about these and asking me to answer questions that follow from that false assumption is unlikely to be very effective.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2020, 10:07:29 AM by Pete Svarrior »

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

#### AllAroundTheWorld

• 4217
##### Re: Occams razor according to Flat Earth
« Reply #62 on: June 08, 2020, 10:07:13 AM »
Must say, Tumeni, I don't often agree with Pete but he does have a point here.
Your diagram does indeed show the geometry of the situation and is agnostic of the way light behaves.
But you are using that diagram to demonstrate the impossibility of the image on a FE. That is only valid if light travels in straight lines.
If it does then yeah, you shouldn't see the horizon intersecting the boat. Why don't you see more sea beyond it?
If light behaves differently though then that changes the argument (I'm not saying light does behave differently, just if).

I think FE has a general problem with a horizon just a few miles away if you're on a beach looking out to sea at the shoreline. Why can't you see further?
As this thread is about Occam's razor I'd suggest the simplest explanation for a sharp horizon line is that you're looking at the edge of the earth.
In RE, you are of course. The sea curves away from you, the horizon is effectively the edge made by that curvature.

In FE either the light bends or there is some perspective effect but then I'd suggest that invoking those no longer makes it the simplest explanation for the observation.
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

#### somerled

• 319
##### Re: Occams razor according to Flat Earth
« Reply #63 on: June 08, 2020, 03:13:54 PM »
This is sir Bernard Lovell explaining why none of the dishes at Jodrell Bank are capable of tracking a space mission  Listen as he explains what they actually do - they gather data and deduce velocities and accelerations from phase shift in signals , doppler shift .

That's a strange sentence. You start by making a claim that Jodrell Bank weren't capable of tracking the missions and then you go on to explain exactly how they did.
I don't know what a balloon satellite is or how you'd make one follow the path which the Apollo missions took. But Lovell also explains in that video about the delay in getting the signal back because of the distances involved. That wouldn't happen with a balloon satellite which, by definition, must be in the atmosphere and therefore relatively close.

Quote from Lovell about 20s in " none of the telescopes in this tracking network have a narrow enough beam to get an accurate position of the spacecraft " that is they cannot track spacecraft .

It's not my claim , it's reality .
YOU claimed Jodrell Bank tracked the Apollo craft all the way to the surface .

Lovell explains that data signals are what the dishes collect . That's what I outlined .They could come from anywhere and doppler shift occurs when a signal is reflected like say from a balloon satellite . Makes it all easy to fake in otherwords .

Why don't you look up the list of balloon satellites , you are allowed to do that - not top secret .  9 launched during the sixties  , seems they sort slowed down after the apollo thing petered out.

#### Bikini Polaris

• 197
##### Re: Occams razor according to Flat Earth
« Reply #64 on: June 11, 2020, 02:56:51 PM »
But you are using that diagram to demonstrate the impossibility of the image on a FE. That is only valid if light travels in straight lines.
...
In FE either the light bends or there is some perspective effect but then I'd suggest that invoking those no longer makes it the simplest explanation for the observation.

Light not travelling in a straight light would wipe out the entire ENAG by Rowbotham. And from the comments here, I think Pete doesn't like Rowbotham much.

The point is that the whole zetetic method depends on each person, and so when you collect the models of 100 FEs, you get at least 100 different assumptions, where REs, for as they wrong as they are supposed to be, and slightly ignorant on astronomy too, accept a single model no matter what they "see".
Quote from: Pete Svarrior
these waves of smug RE'ers are temporary. Every now and then they flood us for a year or two in response to some media attention, and eventually they peter out. In my view, it's a case of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 12837
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: Occams razor according to Flat Earth
« Reply #65 on: June 11, 2020, 03:15:23 PM »
REs [...] accept a single model no matter what they "see".
This is untrue. It took us just a couple of days to find RE'ers who don't believe in the Equivalence Principle and RE'ers who don't believe the Doppler Effect follows its definition. If you look toward past history of debates here, you have RE'ers who think gravity induces speed, not acceleration, RE'ers who believe network traffic can travel between Silicon Valley in Japan in 70ms, RE'ers who think light always travel in straight lines, and so on, and so forth.

No, RE'ers' beliefs are all over the place, and very few of them fully subscribe to the model that's supposed to be authoritative. The difference is that we try not to mock you guys for trying to figure things out.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2020, 03:18:40 PM by Pete Svarrior »

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

#### Bikini Polaris

• 197
##### Re: Occams razor according to Flat Earth
« Reply #66 on: July 05, 2020, 11:58:02 AM »
Your response of "could be an illusion...." says nothing about what is and is not the simplest explanation. In fact, you are adding more complexities to justify your position.

I believe that proposing at least two different models, where longitude lines can either diverge or converge, shows that FE explaination is not very simple.
Quote from: Pete Svarrior
these waves of smug RE'ers are temporary. Every now and then they flood us for a year or two in response to some media attention, and eventually they peter out. In my view, it's a case of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 8447
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Occams razor according to Flat Earth
« Reply #67 on: July 05, 2020, 10:07:03 PM »
It seems to me that Occam's Razor would say that if you believe that there is data which seems to contradict one model, then the simplest explanations to that is either the data is wrong or another model may be likelier to be the truth.

#### AllAroundTheWorld

• 4217
##### Re: Occams razor according to Flat Earth
« Reply #68 on: July 06, 2020, 09:12:50 AM »
It seems to me that Occam's Razor would say that if you believe that there is data which seems to contradict one model, then the simplest explanations to that is either the data is wrong or another model may be likelier to be the truth.
I don't think that's anything to do with Occam's razor, aren't those the only two logical explanations?
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

#### Tumeni

• 2604
##### Re: Occams razor according to Flat Earth
« Reply #69 on: August 19, 2020, 11:33:07 AM »
Not been here for a while, but it strikes me that if light does not travel in straight lines, then, as was pointed out above, at least one of the main experiments in ENAG is negated, for the same reason that my observation has been.

It also strikes me that there are a limited number of ways that light could behave between two points;

One - straight line
Two and Three - regular defined curves above or below the notional straight line between points
The fourth, "random" behaviour could also include a regular variance above and below the notional straight line between the points; an oscillation type of behaviour.

Does anyone consider there are any other options?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

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

Nearly?

#### iamcpc

• 831
##### Re: Occams razor according to Flat Earth
« Reply #70 on: August 20, 2020, 09:00:42 PM »
Does anyone consider there are any other options?

how light behaves really determines on what the light is, or is not, passing through.

Light passing through a vacuum not affected by any sort of gravitational, magnetic, or other quantum fields, or any sort of dark matter or dark energy behaves pretty much the same.

Light passing through things like those things listed above or any sort of other solid, liquid, or gaseous matter will behave very differently.

it may go straight, bounce, split

look at the 1:30 mark one light source splits into two.

one stream of photons of multiple different wavelengths may split into a wider stream of photons grouped together by wavelength like with a prism or a rainbow.

A photon will also behave differently based on the quantum state and wave function like in the double slit experiment.

#### Tumeni

• 2604
##### Re: Occams razor according to Flat Earth
« Reply #71 on: August 21, 2020, 09:10:09 AM »
Light passing through things like those things listed above or any sort of other solid, liquid, or gaseous matter will behave very differently.

Fair enough, but in the example I/we are talking about (EDIT from reply #23), there are no different media. Only air.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2020, 02:44:54 PM by Tumeni »
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

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

Nearly?