The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: Obviously on September 19, 2017, 05:47:37 AM
-
For example, if you flew over Antarctica, would that help? Or if you went to space? Maybe seeing a ship disappear behind the horizon, bottom portion first?
Very curious to hear your response.
And I bet you're wondering what would in turn convince me that it's flat - glad you asked!
Here's what would do it for me... pretty much any one of these:
1) seeing the sun & moon shrink in size as they move away, as your wonderful youtube videos promise
2) seeing pictures of "the real" Antarctica, the wall, the edge, the turtle - whatever it is you think is there?
3) seeing a logical explanation of your take on this amazing force called "gravity", which I guess you ignore, or don't believe in, or just use other words like "density" or "acceleration" in its place (w/o really explaining anything)
4) proper FE map with distances -- if your fantasy is indeed real, then why are you taking so long to go outside and map it all out? maybe you'll be the first one to reconcile all the flight time issues that have been pointed out oh so many times!
5) hearing an actual scientist (with like an actual degree in Physics or something, someone who's published real papers, done real research, maybe taught in a university) come out in favor of FE and explain how it all really works
-
1) seeing the sun & moon shrink in size as they move away, as your wonderful youtube videos promise
It's actually worse than that. Tom's beloved "alternative perspective" concept would result in them being oval-shaped as well as smaller.
2) seeing pictures of "the real" Antarctica, the wall, the edge, the turtle - whatever it is you think is there?
The photo of the "ice wall" on the Wiki isn't even dry land - it's actually a photo of a large iceberg.
3) seeing a logical explanation of your take on this amazing force called "gravity", which I guess you ignore, or don't believe in, or just use other words like "density" or "acceleration" in its place (w/o really explaining anything)
None of the provided FE explanations cover the reason why gravity is less at the equator and more at the poles. This rules out universal acceleration - so to fix that, they have to add gravity back in again and hand-wave about multiple effects going on here.
4) proper FE map with distances -- if your fantasy is indeed real, then why are you taking so long to go outside and map it all out? maybe you'll be the first one to reconcile all the flight time issues that have been pointed out oh so many times!
The problem they have is actually worse than that. It takes a bit of math/geometry skills to understand the problem - but if you accept airline flight distances (or their flight times and airplane cruise speeds) - then there is no possible FE map that can work because the six distances between four cities that lie on the corners of a large quadrilateral can be shown to not be possible in a two-dimensional map. Their ONLY recourse is to deny those flight distances/times/speeds are correct.
5) hearing an actual scientist (with like an actual degree in Physics or something, someone who's published real papers, done real research, maybe taught in a university) come out in favor of FE and explain how it all really works
That would be amusing!
-
1) seeing the sun & moon shrink in size as they move away, as your wonderful youtube videos promise
Just a heads-up: this is inconsistent with FET - it should do the opposite of convincing you if it were shown. YouTube videos are generally a bad source for this stuff, unless you really want to get trolled.
For example, if you flew over Antarctica, would that help?
Potentially.
Or if you went to space?
No.
Maybe seeing a ship disappear behind the horizon, bottom portion first?
That's one of the strongest proofs of FET there are - seeing it (as I have many times before) would only strengthen my conviction.
Overall, I would really recommend that you familiarise yourself with FET before trying to argue about it. And not from the likes of 3DGeek, if I may make a gentle suggestion.
-
For example, if you flew over Antarctica, would that help?
Potentially.
Great, that's what I was looking for! Dear RE readers, perhaps we should put together a kickstarter campaign and raise some money to send these poor souls on a trip like this: http://www.antarcticaflights.com.au/ I am guessing that many flerfers cannot afford this, or would avoid going at all costs just to make sure their precious belief system is not shattered, but maybe we can find a few who still have their doubts.
-
Maybe seeing a ship disappear behind the horizon, bottom portion first?
That's one of the strongest proofs of FET there are - seeing it (as I have many times before) would only strengthen my conviction.
Overall, I would really recommend that you familiarise yourself with FET before trying to argue about it. And not from the likes of 3DGeek, if I may make a gentle suggestion.
Huh? How so? I've always seen it is a pretty ambivalent 'proof' for either side. Both claim it supports them, in reality both have put forth a solid enough reason it happens in their version I don't personally see it as a good proof in either direction.
-
Overall, I would really recommend that you familiarise yourself with FET before trying to argue about it. And not from the likes of 3DGeek, if I may make a gentle suggestion.
That's funny. 3d's threads (with the exception of the Ping) are full of bulletproof logic. You seem to be a relatively smart guy. You should do a point by point rebuttal to this one.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6902.0
Hopefully, you can do better than Tom's "Your disproofs are rubbish." response.
-
1) seeing the sun & moon shrink in size as they move away, as your wonderful youtube videos promise
Just a heads-up: this is inconsistent with FET - it should do the opposite of convincing you if it were shown. YouTube videos are generally a bad source for this stuff, unless you really want to get trolled.
For example, if you flew over Antarctica, would that help?
Potentially.
Or if you went to space?
No.
Maybe seeing a ship disappear behind the horizon, bottom portion first?
That's one of the strongest proofs of FET there are - seeing it (as I have many times before) would only strengthen my conviction.
Overall, I would really recommend that you familiarise yourself with FET before trying to argue about it. And not from the likes of 3DGeek, if I may make a gentle suggestion.
Ships going bottom-first over the horizon is NOT a FET proof - the """law of perspectives""" is easily debunked using telescopes or binoculars. This has been brought up in this forum many times before - you either didn't see the disproofs or are willfully ignoring them. I will post a link to the thread in which it is discussed: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=14325.0
-
Please refrain from quoting an entire post if you're only going to respond to one sentence of it. It only serves to reduce the readability of your own post.
the """law of perspectives""" is easily debunked using telescopes or binoculars
Indeed, it is trivially easy to confirm or debunk with a powerful telescope. That's why it's such a strong and easy-to-reproduce proof. I would recommend that you try it one day.
That's funny. 3d's threads (with the exception of the Ping) are full of bulletproof logic. You seem to be a relatively smart guy. You should do a point by point rebuttal to this one.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6902.0
Hopefully, you can do better than Tom's "Your disproofs are rubbish." response.
Wow, you guys have been busy. I respond to threads when I see them and when I find them interesting. Most of my work takes place outside of the forum. Plus, as you may have noticed, my recent efforts at talking to 3DG have resulted in nothing but him crying about how much of a professional he is.
That, combined with his complete omission of my responses to the ping thread, his complete misrepresentation of my responses to the tides thread, and whole spate of "nobody responded, THEREFORE I WIN :D" threads really doesn't make me think that this is a productive use of anyone's time.
Clearly, his purpose here is to claim victory regardless of what's actually happening. Wouldn't you agree it's better for me to talk to people who actually want to re-evaluate their views, or who might inspire me to re-evaluate mine?
EDIT: Having looked through the thread, I agree with Tom's response. A fair few of these have already been discussed to death, and in other threads he simply chose to ignore any and all counter-arguments or strawman them into making himself look like the victor. I am now even more confident than before that 3DG deserves nothing but a healthy dose of ridicule.
-
Please refrain from quoting an entire post if you're only going to respond to one sentence of it. It only serves to reduce the readability of your own post.
the """law of perspectives""" is easily debunked using telescopes or binoculars
Indeed, it is trivially easy to confirm or debunk with a powerful telescope. That's why it's such a strong and easy-to-reproduce proof. I would recommend that you try it one day.
That's funny. 3d's threads (with the exception of the Ping) are full of bulletproof logic. You seem to be a relatively smart guy. You should do a point by point rebuttal to this one.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6902.0
Hopefully, you can do better than Tom's "Your disproofs are rubbish." response.
Wow, you guys have been busy. I respond to threads when I see them and when I find them interesting. Most of my work takes place outside of the forum. Plus, as you may have noticed, my recent efforts at talking to 3DG have resulted in nothing but him crying about how much of a professional he is.
That, combined with his complete omission of my responses to the ping thread, his complete misrepresentation of my responses to the tides thread, and whole spate of "nobody responded, THEREFORE I WIN :D" threads really doesn't make me think that this is a productive use of anyone's time.
Clearly, his purpose here is to claim victory regardless of what's actually happening. Wouldn't you agree it's better for me to talk to people who actually want to re-evaluate their views, or who might inspire me to re-evaluate mine?
EDIT: Having looked through the thread, I agree with Tom's response. A fair few of these have already been discussed to death, and in other threads he simply chose to ignore any and all counter-arguments or strawman them into making himself look like the victor. I am now even more confident than before that 3DG deserves nothing but a healthy dose of ridicule.
Tried it Boston harbor weeks ago - obviously debunked the "law of perspectives." It's absolute nonsense.
-
Once again: please refrain from quoting an entire post if you're only going to respond to one sentence of it.
Tried it Boston harbor weeks ago - obviously debunked the "law of perspectives." It's absolute nonsense.
Curious. It would be interesting to see how you managed to botch it. Perhaps you should start a new thread to describe your misadventure? Meanwhile, it's easily accessible to everyone, and will continue to help drive our momentum :)
-
Once again: please refrain from quoting an entire post if you're only going to respond to one sentence of it.
Are you a mod?
-
[...]his complete misrepresentation of my responses to the tides thread,[...]
responses? I don't want to derail the thread, but your comment there was rather short of the whole story, unless we are talking different threads, in which case disregard the following and point me please to the right one... I suspect that you take a certain pleasure in "leaving it there as an exercise for the reader" ;D but you can't fault people for misunderstanding you, then. Saying that it works in the same way in two systems that are supposed to be extremely different, without further qualifications, is not really an answer... 3d might be at fault for not asking follow up questions, but you aren't making anyone's life easier with that style of debate.
-
Are you a mod?
No, why?
-
Are you a mod?
No, why?
Care to comment on this? http://www.antarcticaflights.com.au/ It seemed to be conveniently ignored unless I missed something.
-
Care to comment on this? http://www.antarcticaflights.com.au/ It seemed to be conveniently ignored unless I missed something.
Of course you missed something. The very post the link was provided in response to.
For example, if you flew over Antarctica, would that help?
Potentially.
-
Care to comment on this? http://www.antarcticaflights.com.au/ It seemed to be conveniently ignored unless I missed something.
Of course you missed something. The very post the link was provided in response to.
For example, if you flew over Antarctica, would that help?
Potentially.
I missed nothing. You said a flight over Antarctica would potentially change your mind. A link was then posted showing a company already doing this. I asked for comment because this seems like it could potentially impact your views on a flat Earth.
-
Overall, I would really recommend that you familiarise yourself with FET before trying to argue about it. And not from the likes of 3DGeek, if I may make a gentle suggestion.
That's funny. 3d's threads (with the exception of the Ping) are full of bulletproof logic.
It was disheartening, for me, to see the ping thread being claimed as "proof". I enjoyed all of his other posts but could only understand in-depth parts of them, and not nearly enough to know with certainty whether or not they were completely accurate. They are well typed out, full of detail, generally argued well, etc... I really enjoyed reading them. But the one subject I did know enough about, it was wrong.
I would like to think the other arguments are bulletproof, but I just don't know anymore. It's too bad, I really did enjoy all the other posts. It's kind like an athlete you are a fan of testing positive for steroids, it makes you look differently at their other accomplishments.
-
StinkyOne, please either use quotes appropriately, or not at all.
I missed nothing.
Oh no, you're doing that thing again.
You said a flight over Antarctica would potentially change your mind. A link was then posted showing a company already doing this. I asked for comment because this seems like it could potentially impact your views on a flat Earth.
So you're somehow drawing an equivalency between me personally flying over the Ice Wall and there being a website that claims to let people already do that for extortionate amounts of money. If you expect me to change my views every time someone points out that a website exists, well, that's par for the course for you.
-
So you're somehow drawing an equivalency between me personally flying over the Ice Wall and there being a website that claims to let people already do that for extortionate amounts of money. If you expect me to change my views every time someone points out that a website exists, well, that's par for the course for you.
[/quote]
To be fair even if a Go Fund Me page was set up and paid for you to take the flight how would you even know then?
I'm sure talk of video's playing in the windows, distrust of all compass and navigation bearings would be used to argue that the path stated was not the actual path flown. Even if you were satisfied that you had flown over the RE Antarctic it would mean nothing as you don't believe that map to be accurate anyway? As FE doesn't have a map it would be a case of saying: I flew over something, we don't know the pattern of the continents thus there would be no reason for you to change your opinion.
When taken further I think that there is absolutely nothing that could change your mind which is the genius of this site and the FE debate.
-
To be fair even if a Go Fund Me page was set up and paid for you to take the flight how would you even know then?
Well, I said it could potentially convince me, not that it immediately will. The main reason why it might not convince me is that the Earth is flat.
That said, I am unwilling to set up a GoFundMe. TFES prides itself in the fact that we don't go asking people for money. It makes it easier to defend ourselves from accusations of being a money-making scheme (and we get those a lot)
I'm sure talk of video's playing in the windows, distrust of all compass and navigation bearings would be used to argue that the path stated was not the actual path flown. Even if you were satisfied that you had flown over the RE Antarctic it would mean nothing as you don't believe that map to be accurate anyway? As FE doesn't have a map it would be a case of saying: I flew over something, we don't know the pattern of the continents thus there would be no reason for you to change your opinion.
Hypothetically, any of that could happen, but I doubt it would. I don't believe we'd see a video - that would be trivial to tell apart. I'm also more than happy to trust a simple navigational device, as long as I get to put one together myself. It wouldn't take much - hook up an accelerometer, magnetometer and gyroscope to a Raspberry Pi or Arduino, do a tiny bit of data processing, and you're golden. Maybe throw in GPS for good measure. I already own most of the components and the programming aspect would be trivial.
When taken further I think that there is absolutely nothing that could change your mind which is the genius of this site and the FE debate.
I disagree, but I will admit that it would take an extraordinary piece of evidence to convince someone like myself. This is because I've performed numerous experiments to confirm FET for my own benefit, and continue to do so in my spare time.
-
I'm also more than happy to trust a simple navigational device, as long as I get to put one together myself. It wouldn't take much - hook up an accelerometer, magnetometer and gyroscope to a Raspberry Pi or Arduino, do a tiny bit of data processing, and you're golden. Maybe throw in GPS for good measure. I already own most of the components and the programming aspect would be trivial. [/quote]
Thanks for your answer Pete, this whole thing is starting to make sense now. Are you able to elaborate on the navigational device aspect? Forgive me if I am tarring you with the standard FE brush but from what I've read on Wiki there is no FE map thus I don't see how one could be sure of our place on the ground (if we don't know the location/dimensions etc)
Also the navigation aids such as position of the sun/starts etc or compass readings seem to be at odds with FE theory as these constants are not known are they?
And GPS: would this work on FE as this would have to trust that the satellites are where they say they are; 12,550 miles up in medium earth orbit? And they do use a RE model:
https://in-the-sky.org/satmap_globe.php?year=2017&month=9&day=21
Appreciate your help in my understanding :)
-
StinkyOne, please either use quotes appropriately, or not at all.
I missed nothing.
Oh no, you're doing that thing again.
You said a flight over Antarctica would potentially change your mind. A link was then posted showing a company already doing this. I asked for comment because this seems like it could potentially impact your views on a flat Earth.
So you're somehow drawing an equivalency between me personally flying over the Ice Wall and there being a website that claims to let people already do that for extortionate amounts of money. If you expect me to change my views every time someone points out that a website exists, well, that's par for the course for you.
^^Quotes for peter
The cost is irrelevant. The website is irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that there are already people doing the very thing you said might change your mind. I'll try to spell things out more clearly so you can keep up.
-
the fact that there are already people doing the very thing you said might change your mind
Not only is it not a fact at this stage (it's a claim), they also don't do the very thing I said might change my mind. I said my mind might be change if I, personally, were sent on such a flight. Their existence, even if true, is meaningless by itself.
Once again you struggle to understand what's being said. If instead of focusing so much on abusing forum features you spent more time reading posts, you could stop embarrassing yourself.
Thanks for your answer Pete, this whole thing is starting to make sense now. Are you able to elaborate on the navigational device aspect? Forgive me if I am tarring you with the standard FE brush but from what I've read on Wiki there is no FE map thus I don't see how one could be sure of our place on the ground (if we don't know the location/dimensions etc)
You are correct that, in some ways, we couldn't know our location for sure. However, careful data collection may (or may not - I don't want to speak with too much certainty here) help us overcome that hurdle in the future. If I were to embark on such a flight, it would only make sense for me to try and collect as much information as is possible.
Also the navigation aids such as position of the sun/starts etc or compass readings seem to be at odds with FE theory as these constants are not known are they?
Compass readings are not at odds with FET. You are correct about the rest.
And GPS: would this work on FE as this would have to trust that the satellites are where they say they are; 12,550 miles up in medium earth orbit? And they do use a RE model:
https://in-the-sky.org/satmap_globe.php?year=2017&month=9&day=21
Well, for starters, if we're performing an experiment, we should remain open to either model turning out to be correct in the end. Regardless of which model would prevail, it is a simple case of having more data to reinforce the proof. For example, if I did take a GPS with me and (for some bizarre reason) it told me that I was actually flown to the North Pole, not the Ice Wall, it would raise some questions. Similarly, if we collected data that's consistent with RET, it would make the RE'ers' job easier in the future.
-
When taken further I think that there is absolutely nothing that could change your mind which is the genius of this site and the FE debate.
I disagree, but I will admit that it would take an extraordinary piece of evidence to convince someone like myself. This is because I've performed numerous experiments to confirm FET for my own benefit, and continue to do so in my spare time.
Like what? This is a genuine, honest question. I asked you on another thread, but I suspect you simply missed the question as it was a bit of a busy thread at the time. I see a lot of you guys saying stuff like this, but I've never gotten an actual, legitimate response when asked exactly what these experiments entail so far. Please, explain one or two for me/us, and go into exacting detail as though you were writing for a scientific journal. This should include:
1) Precise notes on the details of how to set it up, such that anyone else could do it without further input from you.
2) Exactly what it is you are seeing, or what is happening.
3) Something either explaining some of what's happening, or at least lay out why what has just been seen can only happen on a flat Earth, and never on a round Earth.
I would love to see some of these things that have so thoroughly convinced some of the smarter sections of the FE crowd.
-
Like what? This is a genuine, honest question. I asked you on another thread, but I suspect you simply missed the question as it was a bit of a busy thread at the time. I see a lot of you guys saying stuff like this, but I've never gotten an actual, legitimate response when asked exactly what these experiments entail so far. Please, explain one or two for me/us, and go into exacting detail as though you were writing for a scientific journal.
The reason you do not receive a response is because of your standards of what is "actual" and "legitimate". When I go out to test things out for my own benefit, I hardly keep notes. I set up a small-scale experiment (which is patently not scientific or rigorous), play around with things, and then move on with my life. I have stated many times, for example, that I reproduced experiments similar to the Bishop Experiment/Bedford Level Experiment/Sinking Ship Experiment, but I have neither will nor notes to write scientific papers about them. Plus, I'm already busy enough writing journal papers in my primary field. Make no mistake - while I'm a thoroughly convinced FE'er, this is certainly not my main occupation.
I'm an empiricist, and many RE'ers here are too, whether they realise this or not. That's why when we claim we've seen things, they simply say we must be lying. The only way for them to accept things is to attempt the experiments themselves. This is something I will always encourage FE'ers and RE'ers alike to engage in.
-
Thanks for your answer Pete, this whole thing is starting to make sense now. Are you able to elaborate on the navigational device aspect? Forgive me if I am tarring you with the standard FE brush but from what I've read on Wiki there is no FE map thus I don't see how one could be sure of our place on the ground (if we don't know the location/dimensions etc)
You are correct that, in some ways, we couldn't know our location for sure. However, careful data collection may (or may not - I don't want to speak with too much certainty here) help us overcome that hurdle in the future. If I were to embark on such a flight, it would only make sense for me to try and collect as much information as is possible.
Also the navigation aids such as position of the sun/starts etc or compass readings seem to be at odds with FE theory as these constants are not known are they?
Compass readings are not at odds with FET. You are correct about the rest.
And GPS: would this work on FE as this would have to trust that the satellites are where they say they are; 12,550 miles up in medium earth orbit? And they do use a RE model:
https://in-the-sky.org/satmap_globe.php?year=2017&month=9&day=21
Well, for starters, if we're performing an experiment, we should remain open to either model turning out to be correct in the end. Regardless of which model would prevail, it is a simple case of having more data to reinforce the proof. For example, if I did take a GPS with me and (for some bizarre reason) it told me that I was actually flown to the North Pole, not the Ice Wall, it would raise some questions. Similarly, if we collected data that's consistent with RET, it would make the RE'ers' job easier in the future.
Thanks for your reply Pete, that has really helped me start to make sense of this issue, I appreciate your time in explaining it to me :)
-
Like what? This is a genuine, honest question. I asked you on another thread, but I suspect you simply missed the question as it was a bit of a busy thread at the time. I see a lot of you guys saying stuff like this, but I've never gotten an actual, legitimate response when asked exactly what these experiments entail so far. Please, explain one or two for me/us, and go into exacting detail as though you were writing for a scientific journal.
The reason you do not receive a response is because of your standards of what is "actual" and "legitimate". When I go out to test things out for my own benefit, I hardly keep notes. I set up a small-scale experiment (which is patently not scientific or rigorous), play around with things, and then move on with my life. I have stated many times, for example, that I reproduced experiments similar to the Bishop Experiment/Bedford Level Experiment/Sinking Ship Experiment, but I have neither will nor notes to write scientific papers about them. Plus, I'm already busy enough writing journal papers in my primary field. Make no mistake - while I'm a thoroughly convinced FE'er, this is certainly not my main occupation.
I'm an empiricist, and many RE'ers here are too, whether they realise this or not. That's why when we claim we've seen things, they simply say we must be lying. The only way for them to accept things is to attempt the experiments themselves. This is something I will always encourage FE'ers and RE'ers alike to engage in.
Actually you've given me plenty. I have a thorough distrust of the Bishop/Bedford Level experiments. NOT because I don't think they have seen what they claim to be seeing, but because they (along with the sinking ship) are not solely proof for FE. They show we might not understand the optics of things properly, as well as the simple fact there are FAR too many variables when sighting over water. Sinking ship is awash, because the explanation from each side work to enough of a degree I don't see it as proof for either side.
I don't think you're lying in what is being seen when you guys do the sight experiments and such. I just think you're attributing to 'the Earth isn't round' what can be explained by other phenomenon. Beyond that, a single example of something not working right, does not disprove something. It only shows there might be room to experiment and explain that aspect better. I've seen what looks like too much of an opposite shore or something. But there are far more interesting issues that I see with a FE, that I can observe and they match perfectly with what RE says I should see. You've surely seen a number of them brought up by 3DGeek recently, but things like sunset/rise, distances, and time of day are all things I cannot explain with any FE mapping/explanation attempt I've seen. If such simple things can't be explained, how can I believe a hypothesis?
-
The reason you do not receive a response is because of your standards of what is "actual" and "legitimate". When I go out to test things out for my own benefit, I hardly keep notes. I set up a small-scale experiment (which is patently not scientific or rigorous), play around with things, and then move on with my life. I have stated many times, for example, that I reproduced experiments similar to the Bishop Experiment/Bedford Level Experiment/Sinking Ship Experiment, but I have neither will nor notes to write scientific papers about them. Plus, I'm already busy enough writing journal papers in my primary field. Make no mistake - while I'm a thoroughly convinced FE'er, this is certainly not my main occupation.
I'm an empiricist, and many RE'ers here are too, whether they realise this or not. That's why when we claim we've seen things, they simply say we must be lying. The only way for them to accept things is to attempt the experiments themselves. This is something I will always encourage FE'ers and RE'ers alike to engage in.
I fully agree and encourage people to do experiments of their own. But the key to good science is whether other people can reproduce your experiments - or perhaps offer alternative explanations for them.
So if you keep them to yourself - and become convinced by them - then any experimental error you made - or any alternative explanation you might have missed - becomes a flaw that you've now built firmly into your psyche.
So...maybe you see a ship NOT disappear over the horizon. OK - that's an experiment. You take that and say "Now I've done the experiment - the ship DIDN'T disappear as expected - so the Earth Is Flat - and I'll base the rest of my life on that conclusion."
But the trouble is - that if you look at other people's efforts to do the same experiment (such as my own) - they both fail to reproduce your results (Yep...my ship vanished over the horizon, hull-first) - AND have alternative explanations for the results you obtained. (Refraction through temperature inversions over the ocean at grazing angles...to pick just one).
But you've now blinded yourself to those other results.
Personally - having seen convincing-looking experiments that both do and do not show FET/RET to be true - I'm inclined to say "This experiment is inconclusive - so I'll seek other explanations instead".
When I do that, I look toward the sun to see if sets in the evening...it certainly does.
I look for other experiments that show that it doesn't...and there are none. 100% of people agree that the sun sets.
But there are alternative explanations...Tom's "alternative perspective", the "electromagnetic accelerator", etc.
So in this case, it's not the experiment that's problematic - it's the explanation of it. So I examine all of the alternative explanations ("The Earth Is Round", "Perspective is...um...something different", "Light travels along curved paths because of...I dunno...unicorn farts maybe").
Now I look at which of those explanations holds water. Well, "The Earth is Round" certainly works. The others really don't. They both require that light doesn't travel in straight lines...and that's not a tenable argument because if you apply it to all of the points on the circle of the sun, they don't preserve it's circularity.
So right now - I ignore the "ships over the horizon" experiment as "inconclusive" - and pay great attention to the "sunset problem" because that does not seem to have more than one possible conclusion.
But to do an experiment yourself - and then base all future belief on it's result while ignoring other people's efforts at doing the same experiment - and ignoring alternative explanations - that's a ridiculous way to run your life.
-
3DG, as always, you decided to entirely ignore the point of my words and chose to focus on a strawman instead. I suggested the very opposite of "running my life" through these off-hand, quick-check experiments. We have already tried discussing documented experiments with you, and we both know how that ended.
You also presented a ludicrous hypothetical for the Sinking Ship Experiment - the ship is expected to sink under FET - it's one of the strongest proofs that the Earth is flat when combined with restoration through a telescope.
Stop wasting everyone's time.
Curious Squirrel - what you've described is why I remain open-minded. I'm personally convinced that the Earth being flat is the simplest, most elegant explanation for these inconsistencies, but it's not the only one, naturally.
-
3DG, as always, you decided to entirely ignore the point of my words and chose to focus on a strawman instead. I suggested the very opposite of "running my life" through these off-hand, quick-check experiments. We have already tried discussing documented experiments with you, and we both know how that ended.
You also presented a ludicrous hypothetical for the Sinking Ship Experiment - the ship is expected to sink under FET - it's one of the strongest proofs that the Earth is flat when combined with restoration through a telescope.
Stop wasting everyone's time.
It seems my comment last time this got brought up was ignored. The ""law of perspectives"" is NOT a FET proof because it has been thoroughly debunked (both on this forum and other places online) by professional scientists and amateurs alike.
"Here is how 3D perspective works in reality.
Each 3D coordinate is mapped into a 2D planar view using the following relationship:
3D [x,y,z] -> 2D [x/z, y/z] (with 0,0 being the center of our view).
You'll notice that this is exactly the same as our previous formula where the apparent size equals the height (x for horizontal and y for vertical here) divided by the distance (z).
That's ALL that perspective is. Things get smaller with distance.
Let's say we have a distant building (simplified to just one vertical line here) that goes from [0, 0, 100] to [0, 50, 100] (so it's 50 y units tall, at 100 z units distant) and some water in front of it that covers [0,0,50] to [0,20,50] (so the water is closer to us at z = 50 units and only 20 y units high).
These coordinates map to:
[0, 1/2] << top of building (50/100)
[0, 2/5] << top of water, which begins to hide the more distant building
[0, 0] << bottom of water AND bottom of building
Because the water was closer it will occlude the more distant building.
So we see water up to 2/5 and then building up to 1/2 in our projected view.
But if that water is FLAT then it's ALWAYS at [0,0,*] -- every Z distance is 0, so it's ALWAYS at [0,0] along that line of sight. So now we get a mapping of:
[0, 1/2] << top of building (50/100) -- we see the ENTIRE building - just smaller because it's more distant
[0, 0] << water AND bottom of building
What if we move that building to be ten times further, at 1000 z units away?
[0, 1/20] << top of building (50/1000) -- we STILL see the ENTIRE building - just equally smaller because it's more distant
[0, 0] << water AND bottom of building
No matter how far away you move that building, every single foot of the entire building is going to be the same angular size from our view. You will never see only the top of the building and have the bottom missing due to "perspective" smashing it into the ground.
So this means that otherwise parallel lines receding from our view get closer to together but never actually converge and, AT NO POINT, would an object that is above some line of sight be hidden by an object BELOW it.
So if your eye is above the ground and you are looking straight out, the ground could NEVER hide part of a building at any distance. That would violate the actual Law of Perspective. If you change the angles then sure, something closer can hide something further away but it has to be IN your line of sight to do so -- it cannot be a plane that lies BELOW your line of sight."
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=14325.0
https://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com/2016/10/flat-earth-failures-perspective-and.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yth2tGZpRQk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POoQHdznfaQ
-
3DG, as always, you decided to entirely ignore the point of my words and chose to focus on a strawman instead. I suggested the very opposite of "running my life" through these off-hand, quick-check experiments. We have already tried discussing documented experiments with you, and we both know how that ended.
You also presented a ludicrous hypothetical for the Sinking Ship Experiment - the ship is expected to sink under FET - it's one of the strongest proofs that the Earth is flat when combined with restoration through a telescope.
Except for the fact that doesn't happen.
-
Curious Squirrel - what you've described is why I remain open-minded. I'm personally convinced that the Earth being flat is the simplest, most elegant explanation for these inconsistencies, but it's not the only one, naturally.
I would not argue with you on that for this one specific experiment point. The Earth being flat is a wonderfully elegant and simple explanation for the sinking ship and the Bedford Level type experiments and results. Personally though, those alone aren't enough when there are FAR larger and more problematic issues that need to be solved for a flat Earth. Ranging from how does the sun set/rise in the way we observe, to the whole NASA issue. Again, one type of experiment being out of place with what is easy to answer, does not make it so one must swallow everything else. At least for me. FE *requires* that we haven't gone into space for instance, or at a bare minimum every single shot of Earth from space is fake, no matter who it comes from. Sorry, not buying it.
-
It seems my comment last time this got brought up was ignored. The ""law of perspectives"" is NOT a FET proof because it has been thoroughly debunked (both on this forum and other places online) by professional scientists and amateurs alike.
Even if you could somehow twist your brain into Tom's crazy-perspective view, it fails for another reason.
If it can moosh the center of the sun to the horizon (from 3,000 miles down to zero) - then how come it doesn't also moosh the TOP of the sun to the horizon (from 3,030 miles down to zero)?
What would happen if the alternate perspective idea was true would be that the Sun (and also the moon) would slowly squish down into an ellipse - and then into a horizontal line as we approached sunset.
A few minutes before sunset, you'd see a thin horizontal bright line lowering towards the horizon.
Since this doesn't happen - we can say that the alternate perspective thing doesn't work without having to go to the trouble of debunking it.
Another problem is that if it's an optical effect, it should operate symmetrically in all axes. So if I stand on my head and look at a sunset then the sun should be higher in the sky...not lower. If I lay on my side and watch the sunset - it should move closer to my line of sight in a horizontal direction.
This also doesn't happen.
How come the stars - which are at similar distances to the sun don't get denser around the horizon line as they get further away from us?
The proponents of it can't even draw a simple diagram showing how the rays of sunlight travel from the sun to our eyes.
Even if you fully accept it - it cannot explain how clouds get illuminated from below just as the sun is setting.
The video that everyone seems to use (by Mr P-brane) is just ridiculously wrong. He says "You can't use this 2D diagram to represent the real world" and then within 30 seconds does exactly that! He double-counts perspective (so it happens twice) and then he fails to notice how near-to-far distances are compressed as well as vertical distances.
Alternative perspective is busted in so many obvious and silly ways...but for some reason, people seem to simply accept it.
-
It seems my comment last time this got brought up was ignored. The ""law of perspectives"" is NOT a FET proof because it has been thoroughly debunked (both on this forum and other places online) by professional scientists and amateurs alike.
Even if you could somehow twist your brain into Tom's crazy-perspective view, it fails for another reason.
If it can moosh the center of the sun to the horizon (from 3,000 miles down to zero) - then how come it doesn't also moosh the TOP of the sun to the horizon (from 3,030 miles down to zero)?
What would happen if the alternate perspective idea was true would be that the Sun (and also the moon) would slowly squish down into an ellipse - and then into a horizontal line as we approached sunset.
A few minutes before sunset, you'd see a thin horizontal bright line lowering towards the horizon.
Since this doesn't happen - we can say that the alternate perspective thing doesn't work without having to go to the trouble of debunking it.
Another problem is that if it's an optical effect, it should operate symmetrically in all axes. So if I stand on my head and look at a sunset then the sun should be higher in the sky...not lower. If I lay on my side and watch the sunset - it should move closer to my line of sight in a horizontal direction.
This also doesn't happen.
How come the stars - which are at similar distances to the sun don't get denser around the horizon line as they get further away from us?
The proponents of it can't even draw a simple diagram showing how the rays of sunlight travel from the sun to our eyes.
Even if you fully accept it - it cannot explain how clouds get illuminated from below just as the sun is setting.
The video that everyone seems to use (by Mr P-brane) is just ridiculously wrong. He says "You can't use this 2D diagram to represent the real world" and then within 30 seconds does exactly that! He double-counts perspective (so it happens twice) and then he fails to notice how near-to-far distances are compressed as well as vertical distances.
Alternative perspective is busted in so many obvious and silly ways...but for some reason, people seem to simply accept it.
I want to add that the fact that FE'rs keep citing this "law" as a "proof" of FET only lends to their discreditation - citing things that are so thoroughly debunked is counterproductive. I'm looking at you, Pete.
Also, on the point RE: everyone's photos of space needing to be fake for FET to be true... this is what's wrong with almost every conspiracy theory ever. The people who think they've been "red-pilled" presume that there are thousands of people conspiring together to keep the truth from getting out. The logistics of doing this are hard enough for the government on minor issues. I can't imagine how difficult it would be to keep everyone quiet about the Earth actually being flat. Furthermore, why would anyone put forth the effort required to organize such a massive conspiracy, especially regarding the shape of the Earth? This is all a paranoid delusion of kids who didn't get enough hugs growing up, IMO.
-
Personally though, those alone aren't enough when there are FAR larger and more problematic issues that need to be solved for a flat Earth. Ranging from how does the sun set/rise in the way we observe, to the whole NASA issue. Again, one type of experiment being out of place with what is easy to answer, does not make it so one must swallow everything else. At least for me. FE *requires* that we haven't gone into space for instance, or at a bare minimum every single shot of Earth from space is fake, no matter who it comes from. Sorry, not buying it.
That's fair enough - I appreciate your thoughts behind this, and I understand your reasons for disagreeing. :)
-
Pete, I would be curious to hear your thoughts on FE's favorite word, "perspective"! Do you actually subscribe to Tom's gobbledygook excuses for sunset and sunrise?
You seem like a fairly intelligent individual, you demonstrate actual reasoning abilities, and your vocabulary seems to indicate that you have an actual education, unlike most flerfers (my theory is that you're probably on the FE team just for fun - maybe you were on a debate team in high school and perhaps this is your way of keep your skills sharp). I strongly believe that no one actually reasons themselves into becoming a flathead; it basically has to be a faith thing, given the overwhelming amount of evidence against it.