3941

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Stand up proof

« on: May 13, 2018, 08:10:42 AM »

In order to take ENAG to the task you will need to provide contradicting experiments. There are more than just explanations in the work. There are experiments which prove the various attributes of those explanations. Those need to be contradicted.

They have been.
And every time you dismiss those experiments on spurious grounds and when you finally agree there are no reasonable grounds for dismissing them you just declare them fake.

 

3942

Flat Earth Community / Re: 1/3 of millennials not sure if earth is round

« on: May 13, 2018, 08:02:40 AM »

the only real way to figure this out is to travel, without planes

Yeah, if only there was some way to do that...


 

3943

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered

« on: May 13, 2018, 07:51:59 AM »

Again, the bulge of the earth was caused because the earth was spinning at the time it was hot and malleable and the force could cause it to change shape.
Since then the oceans formed and there's been billions of years of tectonic page moving.

EDIT: By the way. You really really should go on a simple science course. It may not change any of your views but it would help you debate stuff armed with a bit of knowledge about what our current scientific models say. You repeatedly show on here you don't know much about that. And there is nothing wrong with that in itself, not everyone can know everything, but arguing in such a condescending way from a place of such ignorance does you no favours.

3944

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Repeat Bedford level test?

« on: May 13, 2018, 07:48:05 AM »

"He's wrong"

"Not so"

Good one. Your rebuttals are so convincing

.
Your rebuttals are literally "that's wrong because Rowbotham said so" and "This experiment is wrong because it gives a result I don't agree with"
The second of those not quite what you say, but it's funny how every experiment, no matter how poorly designed and executed, which show a result which appears to back up what you believe prove you to be right, but any experiment which shows you to be wrong is flawed or, if every spurious objection is demolished, simply declared fake.

3945

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: NASA Live Stream

« on: May 13, 2018, 07:36:13 AM »

what if satellites are ground-based and just made like they were space-based with positional tracking and propaganda.

Then I'd ask you what these dishes are pointing at.

http://sawyertravel.blogspot.co.uk/2009/03/our-satellite-dish.html

And if you're going to say "how do you know they're pointing at anything?" I have 2 points:

1) Why would satellite providers send you a disk for free as Sky do if those dishes don't actually point at anything. What a ridiculous waste of money, why would they do that?
2) I have personal experience of my signal being blocked by a neighbour putting up scaffolding, I know how precisely these dishes must be pointed to receive a signal and how they stop working if they don't have clear line of sight to the satellite. Someone else in another thread suggested the signals could be something else in the sky but offered no explanation or suggestion as to what technology could make an object hover in a stationary position for years on end. What would power it? What would stop it moving?

3946

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered

« on: May 13, 2018, 07:29:07 AM »

I believe his argument is that if there is a bulge to the earth, because of centripetal acceleration, then naturally the water should have gone to the equator since that is easier to move than the land.

There's a bulge because as the earth cooled it was spinning, the centripetal force made the earth bulge slightly.
But at that stage of the earth's history there was no water, the crust was just cooling molten rock.
I haven't watched the rest of the video but the first point is pretty silly and shows no understanding of the theories about the history of the earth's formation.
He seems to imagine an earth as it is now bulging because of the centripetal force, that isn't what happened.

3947

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?

« on: May 13, 2018, 07:18:43 AM »

Occam's razor isn't hard baked into the scientific method, it is just a guideline. If it were then we wouldn't have Relativity or Quantum Theory which may be many things but simple isn't one of them. If you agree it is flawed in the sense that it is not some universal law that the simplest explanation is always the correct one then why do you have a Wiki page about it (which honestly isn't well written, you can write a page like that to back up any idea if you word it in the right way). More work on the Wiki?

3948

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?

« on: May 12, 2018, 01:04:01 PM »

You may not like it, but the conclusions in the Occam's Razor page in our Wiki are the simplest explanations.

And the only things wrong with that are

1) Simplest is subjective. There is no objective "simplometer" you can use to determine which is the simplest.
2) That page has been written with a FE slant, so of course you make it sound like your explanation is the simplest.
3) Occam's razor is not a fundamental law of the universe, it's just a guideline.

3949

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Stand up proof

« on: May 12, 2018, 12:58:14 PM »

The amount and height of swells on the ocean varries throughout the day and by location. If we were set up a timelapse a video camera we would see that sometimes one can see more or less of that hotel throughout the day.

Except...

Whenever I have doubts about the shape of the earth I simply walk outside my home, down to the beach, and perform this simple test. The same result comes up over and over throughout the year under a plethora of different atmospheric conditions.
—Tom Bishop

https://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence

Doesn't seem to have been a problem for you.

This is why the experiments are performed on large bodies of standing water, as there can be issues with waves and swells on ocean conditions.

But your experiment wasn't on standing water, it was across a bay open to the ocean...
Are we expected to believe that over a stretch of 23 miles there was no wave or swell over 20 inches high?

3950

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Stand up proof

« on: May 12, 2018, 12:19:20 PM »

You may use a telescope to modify your perspective angles and push back that point where the rail road tracks meet together, but so too does Rowbotham describe that you can use a telescope to reverse the sinking ship effect on flat bodies of water, showing the effect is not due to any curvature of the earth and more to do with angular limits of the scene. A telescope cannot see behind a hill of water.

Right. Which brings us back to the original experiment which started this thread. The pictures are taken by zooming so why hasn't the zoom "restored" the distant objects



With a viewer height of 2 feet quite a lot of the hotel is occluded, from 6 feet it isn't. On a flat earth it should be the same.
And if you're going to talk about waves and vanishing points then you'll have to explain why this is the explanation for the observation at 2 feet looking at a hotel 11 miles away, but in your experiment you claim that with a viewer height of 20 inches (again, less than 2 feet) and looking at a distant beach 23 miles away (i.e. more than 11) you can see the beach "all the way down to the shoreline.

Why aren't waves and vanishing points an issue for you?

Experiments > Non-Experiments

Agreed. How funny then that every time you're show experiments which don't show what you want them to show you just shout "FAKE!" or dismiss them on spurious grounds, while refusing to do any experiments yourself.

3951

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Stand up proof

« on: May 11, 2018, 10:01:44 PM »

It appears that now you are talking about a different experiment than the first "stand up proof" experiment in the Metabunk link. In that link the author "proves" his claim by sitting down and standing up at the shore of a beach.

That was the original experiment, later on in the thread someone posts the pictures I’m referencing. It is basically the same experiment, just with pictures taken at 3 different heights and the first one taken at 6 feet instead of 2 as with the original experiment.

You appear to be saying "Okay okay you got me... but explain THIS picture." Is that right? To add on top of that you attempt an attack on another experiment performed 10 years ago?

You appear to be dodging the issue, as usual.
Even in the original experiment the initial photo is taken at 2 feet.
Fun fact 20 inches is less than 2 feet.

So please explain how in these photos taken from 2 feet your explanation for the occlusion is waves and swells, but in The Bishop Experiment you claim to be able to see across a 23 mile expanse of sea and see the distant beach “all the way down to the shore line” from a viewer height of 20 inches.
When your experiment was conducted is irrelevant, were waves different 10 years ago?

3952

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?

« on: May 11, 2018, 05:41:03 PM »

I've given a whole list of things above that would have to be true in order for the earth to be flat.
Possible? I guess so, again in the purest sense. Plausible in any way? Not remotely.

Right, and we've generated similar lists as an argument against the Earth being round. The Wiki page on Occam's Razor is a good example of a mediocre argument (though not one I'm looking to outright remove - enhance, perhaps). I don't like that format, since it doesn't add much to the discussion; or, at the very least, it carries little persuasive power. You and I will probably find different things to be highly implausible.

The Occam's Razor page is weak. If you want me to go through it then I can but as you say, it's not based on observations, it's just saying "wow, NASA claim to be able to send rockets into space, I don't believe that's possible so isn't it simpler to think they can't?". I mean, what kind of argument is that?! It's too subjective.
If you can point me in the direction of a better link then I'd like to have a look.

3953

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Stand up proof

« on: May 11, 2018, 05:35:01 PM »

40 foot high waves? The Metabunk author is just standing up and sitting down at the shore of the beach.

Look at the picture I linked to. In that example he takes 3 photos from 6 feet, 40 feet and 80 feet.
So even if we accept that 6 feet waves are occluding the distant hills in the first photo, that cannot be the explanation for the second and 3rd.
And how come waves and swells aren't an issue in your Bishop experiment when your eye level is allegedly 20 inches.

Your claim is that in the photo I linked to waves are the explanation for occlusion with a viewer height of 6 feet, but in the Bishop Experiment you claim:

With a good telescope, laying down on the stomach at the edge of the shore on the Lovers Point beach 20 inches above the sea level it is possible to see people at the waters edge on the adjacent beach 23 miles away near the lighthouse. The entire beach is visible down to the water splashing upon the shore. 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 and teenagers merrily throwing Frisbees to one another. I can see runners jogging along the water's edge with their dogs. From my vantage point the entire beach is visible.

You don't see any problem here?

3954

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?

« on: May 11, 2018, 03:46:39 PM »

That actually makes sense IF you can demonstrate that your methodology is less likely to lead to a false conclusion or cannot lead to a false conclusion.
Can you?

I doubt you'll entertain it, but I can certainly try. One of the main reasons the legal system has to rely upon reasonable doubt is that we can't (or at least really don't want to) try to reproduce a murder over and over until we're sure that we reproduced the perfect murder. Even if we take the absurdity of that proposal out of the equation, common law has its benefits when trying to figure out things that happened in the past. The Zetetic approach is that of one who is not concerned much with time. I'm not in a rush, and the Earth is unlikely to suddenly change shapes [or, rather, if it does, I'll have more important concerns to deal with], and outside of some violent individuals sending me the occasional death threat, the Earth being flat has very little impact on my life.

There is no reason for me not to take my time, and to carry on expanding my worldview rather than settling on a false conclusion.

Hmm. We need to be careful here because we are on the verge of having a sensible debate.

I do see the difference between trying to determine what has happened and trying to determine the truth about, say, the shape of the earth.
But there are common threads. In order to determine what is true we have to look at evidence. In my example that would be witness testimony, forensic evidence and so on. For something like the shape of the earth that would be experimental data. Observations.

But in both cases the evidence only adds to the probability that the theory is correct. Nothing is definitive in the purest sense.
I've given a whole list of things above that would have to be true in order for the earth to be flat.
Possible? I guess so, again in the purest sense. Plausible in any way? Not remotely.

3955

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Stand up proof

« on: May 11, 2018, 02:00:41 PM »

Those are called waves and swells.

That doesn't explain this picture:

https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/20170313-094520-f0g0s-jpg.25848/

As I showed elsewhere, waves can only block more than their own height if they are higher than your eye level:


And given that in the picture on metabunk the middle part of the image is 40 foot high, unless you're suggesting the waves are that high, that explanation doesn't work.

EDIT: Also, how come waves and swells don't get in the way when you're doing your (strangely undocumented) Bishop Experiment where over a 20 mile expanse of water you claim to be able to see the distant beach all the way down to the shoreline.

3956

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?

« on: May 11, 2018, 01:25:46 PM »

I don't particularly care - if your methodology leads you to a false conclusion, then I have little interest in it and will pursue alternatives.

That actually makes sense IF you can demonstrate that your methodology is less likely to lead to a false conclusion or cannot lead to a false conclusion.
Can you?

3957

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Testable difference between FE and RE

« on: May 11, 2018, 01:23:36 PM »

Wow. So you've proven it definitively...and yet, somehow, pretty much everyone on earth disputes that.
Maybe your "proof" isn't quite as watertight as you think?

Knowledge takes time to propagate; and given how rapidly the FE movement is growing, we're doing quite well. Nonetheless, thank you very much for your concern trolling. It's always entertaining.

You say that. Einstein's theories superseded hundreds of years of Newtonian mechanics and fairly quickly revolutionised our understanding of lots of things.
They became adopted because they work. They explain observations, they make predictions which have been confirmed by experimentation.
GPS wouldn't work if they didn't take into account relativistic time dilation effects, for example.

Rowbotham was writing long before Einstein and his ideas have not caught on because they are, to use a technical term, complete horseshit.
You claiming they are proven carries no weight when practically no-one agrees with you.

It is quite endearing that you think your ideas are catching on. The internet has allowed crazies to talk to one another far more efficiently but this is never going to be a mainstream thing. A couple of hundred people in a Jury's Inn in Birmingham where one of the speakers was an NHS Manager does not have the markings of a movement which is sweeping the...disc.

3958

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Testable difference between FE and RE

« on: May 11, 2018, 11:59:13 AM »

You just need to provide your current proof of the shape of the earth and there would be no need for further discussions.

It's already out there and we've discussed it to death - I agree that there is no need for further discussions, but there's no pleasing the malcontents. They'll always demand more; or, as you just did, they'll simply pretend that it never happened.

Wow. So you've proven it definitively...and yet, somehow, pretty much everyone on earth disputes that.
Maybe your "proof" isn't quite as watertight as you think?

3959

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?

« on: May 11, 2018, 11:51:26 AM »

Okay. Let's say I didn't shoot Tom. What does it matter that 10 people claim they saw me (you could easily round up 10 angry RE'ers to say something incriminating about me - some people really dislike me)?

Really? How is that is possible? You are so very charming.

If your methodology leads to a false conclusion, then frankly I don't want to hear much about it.

Well, the more relevant question is whether there is ANY methodology which CANNOT lead to a false conclusion.
I'd say no, no there isn't.
If you know of one then let's hear it.

The legal process is, in theory, about discerning truth. Inherent in it is the admission that it is imperfect, hence reasonable doubt.
But there is no perfect system and as evidence stacks up for something it becomes less and less reasonable to doubt it.
It might not be a perfect way of determining what is true but it's probably the best we can do.

Can I definitively say that the earth is round? In the truest sense, no. But is there any reasonable doubt? None at all.

3960

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Stand up proof

« on: May 11, 2018, 09:49:31 AM »

I am wondering about the 'troll' theory, although not wanting to be rude to Tom, of course. Some of the replies are preposterous in a cleverly funny sort of way. OTOH Tom is a member of the board of the FE organisation, surely he would not be risking his reputation with other members. The video of the recent conference suggested the members were entirely serious.

The possibilities with Tom are:

1) Troll
2) Not a flat earth believer but just enjoys debate, likes debating from an impossible to defend standpoint.
3) A true believer who is a mess of cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias.

Can't quite decide which.

And just to add the strength of evidence should not be assessed by how easy it is to dismiss - any evidence can be dismissed - but how probable or valid those dismissals are. So in my example is it possible that all 10 witnesses mistook the shooter for Pete? Yes, it's possible. And is it possible that he just happened to handle the gun before the shooting. Again yes, it's possible. But are these things probable, especially in combination? As I've said elsewhere, there's a reason courts convict if something is proven beyond reasonable doubt. There will always be some doubt.