The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: jackvanadium on August 08, 2017, 10:57:33 AM
-
Alright, so you think that the earth is flat. You don't believe that satellite photos are real, and that's fine. But what I'm asking is what will actually prove to you that the Earth is round?
The earth might actually be flat, although unlikely, and I probably have more knowledge about this than the average person (not to say I'm an expert or anything), so I'm not going to rule that out of the table. No matter what evidence exists, whether it be the fact that I can fly from Europe to America via the Atlantic, or loop around the world by going past Asia, or that photos have been taken of planet Earth itself in a round form and never in a flat form, you seem to think that everything is fake. So I ask you this: What does science need to provide you to convert you into thinking the earth is roughly spherical? (Not exactly, but it's close enough). I saw a good video a while ago about why conspiracy theories are flawed, and the verdict was that all conspiracy theorists say that all evidence against the theory is fake, which is why I ask this.
-
To my mind, there are a few major problems with the "NASA conspiracy" idea.
1) It would have to involve every space agency - both public and private in every country that does this stuff. That's a lot of organizations. People like Elon Musk would somehow have to be muzzled when they first started to spend their own money to get into space and discovered the clear inconsistencies in their launch data.
2) It would have to go beyond just the space agencies themselves. Their contractors, the data analysis people, people like me who make software simulations of their systems.
3) TFES claims that NASA (and others) do this because of the money they get paid for doing space-related activities, and to keep earning it, they have to fake a round earth. But worldwide, the private space industry earns about $120 billion a year for their shareholders. So somehow these agencies have to produce more than they consume. Elon Musk would have had to be convinced to keep making fake launches and to make plans to go to Mars.
4) Why would governments allow people like Virgin Galactic and SpaceX to start offering to take people up into orbit (and later to the moon and Mars) when this would only widen the conspiracy to more and more members of the public?
5) It would have to involve a VERY large number of people. Not just employees - but people who supply equipment, people who analyse data,
6) Astronomers are acutely aware of the roundness of the Earth - they would be unable to operate space telescopes - or even accurately point their ground-based equipment to examine the universe without being a part of the conspiracy.
7) The conspiracy would have to go back in time too. People who navigated by the stars and travelled long distances in sailing ships would have been acutely aware of the vastly longer distances they had to travel in the southern hemisphere than in the north - and all of their books and instruments relating to navigation would have to have reflected that. Almost all sailors below the very lowest ranks would have had to learn this stuff - and then every single one of them would have had to know that there were two sets of books on navigation...two sets of charts...one faked, the other real. Every single one of them who wrote stories of their travels would have to have been lying about it. Even the rebels - pirates - people at war with each other - merchants - every single one of them would have had to be in on the conspiracy over at least 400 years...and not ONE of them spoke out!
8) Modern day international airlines and long distance shipping companies would have to be a part of it. Ships only travel just so fast...and to get from A to B in the expected times, so that freight would arrive in a timely manner...that would require them to understand the shape of the Earth. So everyone at WalMart who orders products from China, Indonesia and Korea would have to know that the Earth is flat and be bound to keep it a secret.
Basically, an insanely large percentage of the people of the world over the last 400 years managed to keep this secret from their families. Nobody blabbed in all that time.
It's not credible...it truly isn't.
-
We don't need to 'debunk' anything. The Flat Earth Hypothesis needs to prove itself. It's not the commonly accepted state of affairs, it's not the null hypothesis, it's the new suggestion. Therefore it's not enough to simply attempt to disprove some of the statements of RE, nor to point at explanations that could work both ways. The FE Hypothesis needs to present a model, equations, and more that can be tested and confirmed accurate. Without these it's just a unproven and untested hypothesis, not a theory. If FE believers want to displace the standard model, that's what's required of them. Seeing as we don't even have a model in over 100 years of recent resurgence, I have my doubts they can provide the rest of what's needed.
-
To my mind, there are a few major problems with the "NASA conspiracy" idea.
1) It would have to involve every space agency - both public and private in every country that does this stuff. That's a lot of organizations. People like Elon Musk would somehow have to be muzzled when they first started to spend their own money to get into space and discovered the clear inconsistencies in their launch data.
SpaceX is a public-private entity known as a government contractor which works within the secure realms of government regulations and classifications.
2) It would have to go beyond just the space agencies themselves. Their contractors, the data analysis people, people like me who make software simulations of their systems.
I have news for you. NASA is entirely composted of government contractors. The only people who actually work at NASA are the civil servant directors/managers who supervise the contracts. If you go to a NASA base, everyone there is a contractor.
3) TFES claims that NASA (and others) do this because of the money they get paid for doing space-related activities, and to keep earning it, they have to fake a round earth. But worldwide, the private space industry earns about $120 billion a year for their shareholders. So somehow these agencies have to produce more than they consume. Elon Musk would have had to be convinced to keep making fake launches and to make plans to go to Mars.
You are assuming that Elon Musk is "in on it". SpaceX is a contractor who follows orders of the government, not its own. SpaceX may have only provided the rocket and mechanical support for launch, while the government is actually at the controls of where the rocket actually goes after liftoff.
4) Why would governments allow people like Virgin Galactic and SpaceX to start offering to take people up into orbit (and later to the moon and Mars) when this would only widen the conspiracy to more and more members of the public?
See above.
5) It would have to involve a VERY large number of people. Not just employees - but people who supply equipment, people who analyse data,
Are you implying that if you buy a computer from Dell that they are "in" on the computer fraud you are going to conduct with it?
6) Astronomers are acutely aware of the roundness of the Earth - they would be unable to operate space telescopes - or even accurately point their ground-based equipment to examine the universe without being a part of the conspiracy.
NASA has invested significantly in high altitude observatories suspended on balloons and on high altitude airplanes with telescopes inside of them. Those astronomers may be getting real space data from NASA to analyze and make wrong theories about. See:
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/SOFIA/index.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balloon-borne_telescope
7) The conspiracy would have to go back in time too. People who navigated by the stars and travelled long distances in sailing ships would have been acutely aware of the vastly longer distances they had to travel in the southern hemisphere than in the north - and all of their books and instruments relating to navigation would have to have reflected that. Almost all sailors below the very lowest ranks would have had to learn this stuff - and then every single one of them would have had to know that there were two sets of books on navigation...two sets of charts...one faked, the other real. Every single one of them who wrote stories of their travels would have to have been lying about it. Even the rebels - pirates - people at war with each other - merchants - every single one of them would have had to be in on the conspiracy over at least 400 years...and not ONE of them spoke out!
People travel perfectly fine using a Mercator map where Greenland is larger than the continent of Africa and where Antarctica is a massive landmass larger than all of the continents combined. Also, there are alternative Flat Earth models to consider.
8) Modern day international airlines and long distance shipping companies would have to be a part of it. Ships only travel just so fast...and to get from A to B in the expected times, so that freight would arrive in a timely manner...that would require them to understand the shape of the Earth. So everyone at WalMart who orders products from China, Indonesia and Korea would have to know that the Earth is flat and be bound to keep it a secret.
Those are all Northern Hemisphere and equatorial companies and locations. So...
-
People travel perfectly fine using a Mercator map where Greenland is larger than the continent of Africa and where Antarctica is a massive landmass larger than all of the continents combined.
No one travels using a Mercator map. A pilot leaving New York bound for Paris uses sectional charts. Do you know what a sectional chart is?
-
We don't need to 'debunk' anything. The Flat Earth Hypothesis needs to prove itself. It's not the commonly accepted state of affairs, it's not the null hypothesis, it's the new suggestion. Therefore it's not enough to simply attempt to disprove some of the statements of RE, nor to point at explanations that could work both ways. The FE Hypothesis needs to present a model, equations, and more that can be tested and confirmed accurate. Without these it's just a unproven and untested hypothesis, not a theory. If FE believers want to displace the standard model, that's what's required of them. Seeing as we don't even have a model in over 100 years of recent resurgence, I have my doubts they can provide the rest of what's needed.
Flat Earth is the null hypothesis. It is the empirical truth. To believe in a Round Earth we must trust in an authority to tell us that it is round.
-
We don't need to 'debunk' anything. The Flat Earth Hypothesis needs to prove itself. It's not the commonly accepted state of affairs, it's not the null hypothesis, it's the new suggestion. Therefore it's not enough to simply attempt to disprove some of the statements of RE, nor to point at explanations that could work both ways. The FE Hypothesis needs to present a model, equations, and more that can be tested and confirmed accurate. Without these it's just a unproven and untested hypothesis, not a theory. If FE believers want to displace the standard model, that's what's required of them. Seeing as we don't even have a model in over 100 years of recent resurgence, I have my doubts they can provide the rest of what's needed.
Flat Earth is the null hypothesis. It is the empirical truth. To believe in a Round Earth we must trust in an authority to tell us that it is round.
Or you could watch the data as commercial airlines fly from point to point using great circle navigation. Using proven accurate technology no less. Or is Flight Track data only real when I use it?
-
Or you could watch the data as commercial airlines fly from point to point using great circle navigation. Using proven accurate technology no less. Or is Flight Track data only real when I use it?
I have yet to see an assessment which discounts all possible continental layout and distance configurations.
-
We don't need to 'debunk' anything. The Flat Earth Hypothesis needs to prove itself. It's not the commonly accepted state of affairs, it's not the null hypothesis, it's the new suggestion. Therefore it's not enough to simply attempt to disprove some of the statements of RE, nor to point at explanations that could work both ways. The FE Hypothesis needs to present a model, equations, and more that can be tested and confirmed accurate. Without these it's just a unproven and untested hypothesis, not a theory. If FE believers want to displace the standard model, that's what's required of them. Seeing as we don't even have a model in over 100 years of recent resurgence, I have my doubts they can provide the rest of what's needed.
Exactly. Burden of proof is on them. But we have a problem, they will never lift a finger to check or flesh out their idea. I've come to the conclusion there is some kind of mental disorder involved. I mean that with no joking or mean-spiritedness. I think that's why they hang on to some old book written hundreds of years ago as gospel. It says what they want to hear. Anything that doesn't is wrong because they have the truth. I'm not a doctor so it's just my gut instinct talking, but I think it's along the lines of someone you don't like says something you objectively know is wrong. The feeling of correcting them is pleasurable, it's just human nature. But with FE it's a superiority complex (google and read the definition, it's rings true). FE is perfect for this. There's just enough pseudoscience on the most basic level to hang on to that they can convince themselves they have the truth. From there it's conformation bias all the way in. You can reject anything you haven't personally seen and what you see is completely up to you.
They don't want to prove the Earth is flat, they already know it is, because it has to be or they're wrong and they're just not ready for that.
-
We don't need to 'debunk' anything. The Flat Earth Hypothesis needs to prove itself. It's not the commonly accepted state of affairs, it's not the null hypothesis, it's the new suggestion. Therefore it's not enough to simply attempt to disprove some of the statements of RE, nor to point at explanations that could work both ways. The FE Hypothesis needs to present a model, equations, and more that can be tested and confirmed accurate. Without these it's just a unproven and untested hypothesis, not a theory. If FE believers want to displace the standard model, that's what's required of them. Seeing as we don't even have a model in over 100 years of recent resurgence, I have my doubts they can provide the rest of what's needed.
Exactly. Burden of proof is on them. But we have a problem, they will never lift a finger to check or flesh out their idea. I've come to the conclusion there is some kind of mental disorder involved. I mean that with no joking or mean-spiritedness. I think that's why they hang on to some old book written hundreds of years ago as gospel. It says what they want to hear. Anything that doesn't is wrong because they have the truth. I'm not a doctor so it's just my gut instinct talking, but I think it's along the lines of someone you don't like says something you objectively know is wrong. The feeling of correcting them is pleasurable, it's just human nature. But with FE it's a superiority complex (google and read the definition, it's rings true). FE is perfect for this. There's just enough pseudoscience on the most basic level to hang on to that they can convince themselves they have the truth. From there it's conformation bias all the way in. You can reject anything you haven't personally seen and what you see is completely up to you.
They don't want to prove the Earth is flat, they already know it is, because it has to be or they're wrong and they're just not ready for that.
There's also the simple fact (and I completely expected this reply from Tom) that they believe theirs is the default view, because they don't understand how the null hypothesis works. If we were 2000ish years ago, and Galileo and others were first offering up these sorts of things, then FE was the null hypothesis. But right now, in this era, RE is the null hypothesis. It is the commonly accepted answer, it has a working model that can be tested against, and more.
We don't need to 'debunk' anything. The Flat Earth Hypothesis needs to prove itself. It's not the commonly accepted state of affairs, it's not the null hypothesis, it's the new suggestion. Therefore it's not enough to simply attempt to disprove some of the statements of RE, nor to point at explanations that could work both ways. The FE Hypothesis needs to present a model, equations, and more that can be tested and confirmed accurate. Without these it's just a unproven and untested hypothesis, not a theory. If FE believers want to displace the standard model, that's what's required of them. Seeing as we don't even have a model in over 100 years of recent resurgence, I have my doubts they can provide the rest of what's needed.
Flat Earth is the null hypothesis. It is the empirical truth. To believe in a Round Earth we must trust in an authority to tell us that it is round.
That's not how this works. Round Earth is the common, default view. That makes it the null hypothesis. Just like scholars and other did thousands of years ago to make RE the common stance, you must now do the same. Just because your visual tests (that don't always come up with the same answer btw) imply a flat Earth, does not make it the null hypothesis. Just like you repeating it over and over doesn't make it any more true. FE has to prove itself, because it is no longer the common theory. Or do you not understand how burden of proof actually works? RE has a working model, and can be tested against with working experiments and distances. RE has had over 100 years and doesn't even have a working visual model/map for it's hypothesis. Repeating something over and over doesn't make it true, and claiming RE is an appeal to authority is idiotic, and shows a clear lack of understanding of both the workings of RE, and the 'evidence' so far provided by FE.
-
We don't need to 'debunk' anything. The Flat Earth Hypothesis needs to prove itself. It's not the commonly accepted state of affairs, it's not the null hypothesis, it's the new suggestion. Therefore it's not enough to simply attempt to disprove some of the statements of RE, nor to point at explanations that could work both ways. The FE Hypothesis needs to present a model, equations, and more that can be tested and confirmed accurate. Without these it's just a unproven and untested hypothesis, not a theory. If FE believers want to displace the standard model, that's what's required of them. Seeing as we don't even have a model in over 100 years of recent resurgence, I have my doubts they can provide the rest of what's needed.
Exactly. Burden of proof is on them. But we have a problem, they will never lift a finger to check or flesh out their idea. I've come to the conclusion there is some kind of mental disorder involved. I mean that with no joking or mean-spiritedness. I think that's why they hang on to some old book written hundreds of years ago as gospel. It says what they want to hear. Anything that doesn't is wrong because they have the truth. I'm not a doctor so it's just my gut instinct talking, but I think it's along the lines of someone you don't like says something you objectively know is wrong. The feeling of correcting them is pleasurable, it's just human nature. But with FE it's a superiority complex (google and read the definition, it's rings true). FE is perfect for this. There's just enough pseudoscience on the most basic level to hang on to that they can convince themselves they have the truth. From there it's conformation bias all the way in. You can reject anything you haven't personally seen and what you see is completely up to you.
They don't want to prove the Earth is flat, they already know it is, because it has to be or they're wrong and they're just not ready for that.
There's also the simple fact (and I completely expected this reply from Tom) that they believe theirs is the default view, because they don't understand how the null hypothesis works. If we were 2000ish years ago, and Galileo and others were first offering up these sorts of things, then FE was the null hypothesis. But right now, in this era, RE is the null hypothesis. It is the commonly accepted answer, it has a working model that can be tested against, and more.
We don't need to 'debunk' anything. The Flat Earth Hypothesis needs to prove itself. It's not the commonly accepted state of affairs, it's not the null hypothesis, it's the new suggestion. Therefore it's not enough to simply attempt to disprove some of the statements of RE, nor to point at explanations that could work both ways. The FE Hypothesis needs to present a model, equations, and more that can be tested and confirmed accurate. Without these it's just a unproven and untested hypothesis, not a theory. If FE believers want to displace the standard model, that's what's required of them. Seeing as we don't even have a model in over 100 years of recent resurgence, I have my doubts they can provide the rest of what's needed.
Flat Earth is the null hypothesis. It is the empirical truth. To believe in a Round Earth we must trust in an authority to tell us that it is round.
That's not how this works. Round Earth is the common, default view. That makes it the null hypothesis. Just like scholars and other did thousands of years ago to make RE the common stance, you must now do the same. Just because your visual tests (that don't always come up with the same answer btw) imply a flat Earth, does not make it the null hypothesis. Just like you repeating it over and over doesn't make it any more true. FE has to prove itself, because it is no longer the common theory. Or do you not understand how burden of proof actually works? RE has a working model, and can be tested against with working experiments and distances. RE has had over 100 years and doesn't even have a working visual model/map for it's hypothesis. Repeating something over and over doesn't make it true, and claiming RE is an appeal to authority is idiotic, and shows a clear lack of understanding of both the workings of RE, and the 'evidence' so far provided by FE.
What does the "common view" have anything to do with anything? Is the most popular religion the null hypothesis that all other have to prove wrong? The null hypothesis is the hypothesis that all can see and experience for themselves.
-
We don't need to 'debunk' anything. The Flat Earth Hypothesis needs to prove itself. It's not the commonly accepted state of affairs, it's not the null hypothesis, it's the new suggestion. Therefore it's not enough to simply attempt to disprove some of the statements of RE, nor to point at explanations that could work both ways. The FE Hypothesis needs to present a model, equations, and more that can be tested and confirmed accurate. Without these it's just a unproven and untested hypothesis, not a theory. If FE believers want to displace the standard model, that's what's required of them. Seeing as we don't even have a model in over 100 years of recent resurgence, I have my doubts they can provide the rest of what's needed.
Exactly. Burden of proof is on them. But we have a problem, they will never lift a finger to check or flesh out their idea. I've come to the conclusion there is some kind of mental disorder involved. I mean that with no joking or mean-spiritedness. I think that's why they hang on to some old book written hundreds of years ago as gospel. It says what they want to hear. Anything that doesn't is wrong because they have the truth. I'm not a doctor so it's just my gut instinct talking, but I think it's along the lines of someone you don't like says something you objectively know is wrong. The feeling of correcting them is pleasurable, it's just human nature. But with FE it's a superiority complex (google and read the definition, it's rings true). FE is perfect for this. There's just enough pseudoscience on the most basic level to hang on to that they can convince themselves they have the truth. From there it's conformation bias all the way in. You can reject anything you haven't personally seen and what you see is completely up to you.
They don't want to prove the Earth is flat, they already know it is, because it has to be or they're wrong and they're just not ready for that.
There's also the simple fact (and I completely expected this reply from Tom) that they believe theirs is the default view, because they don't understand how the null hypothesis works. If we were 2000ish years ago, and Galileo and others were first offering up these sorts of things, then FE was the null hypothesis. But right now, in this era, RE is the null hypothesis. It is the commonly accepted answer, it has a working model that can be tested against, and more.
We don't need to 'debunk' anything. The Flat Earth Hypothesis needs to prove itself. It's not the commonly accepted state of affairs, it's not the null hypothesis, it's the new suggestion. Therefore it's not enough to simply attempt to disprove some of the statements of RE, nor to point at explanations that could work both ways. The FE Hypothesis needs to present a model, equations, and more that can be tested and confirmed accurate. Without these it's just a unproven and untested hypothesis, not a theory. If FE believers want to displace the standard model, that's what's required of them. Seeing as we don't even have a model in over 100 years of recent resurgence, I have my doubts they can provide the rest of what's needed.
Flat Earth is the null hypothesis. It is the empirical truth. To believe in a Round Earth we must trust in an authority to tell us that it is round.
That's not how this works. Round Earth is the common, default view. That makes it the null hypothesis. Just like scholars and other did thousands of years ago to make RE the common stance, you must now do the same. Just because your visual tests (that don't always come up with the same answer btw) imply a flat Earth, does not make it the null hypothesis. Just like you repeating it over and over doesn't make it any more true. FE has to prove itself, because it is no longer the common theory. Or do you not understand how burden of proof actually works? RE has a working model, and can be tested against with working experiments and distances. RE has had over 100 years and doesn't even have a working visual model/map for it's hypothesis. Repeating something over and over doesn't make it true, and claiming RE is an appeal to authority is idiotic, and shows a clear lack of understanding of both the workings of RE, and the 'evidence' so far provided by FE.
What does the "common view" have anything to do with anything? Is the most popular religion the null hypothesis that all other have to prove wrong? The null hypothesis is the hypothesis that all can see and experience for themselves.
"The null hypothesis (H0) is a hypothesis which the researcher tries to disprove, reject or nullify.
The 'null' often refers to the common view of something, while the alternative hypothesis is what the researcher really thinks is the cause of a phenomenon."
FE is H1. It is NOT the null hypothesis, as it is not the common view. RE was proven roughly 2k years ago. Sadly much of the specifics of how have been lost, but considering it's been in use since that time, with multiple explanations fitting it, as well as a working model, it's H0. The null. Religion is an entirely different matter than science, don't know why you brought that up. They don't play by the same rules at all.
-
"The null hypothesis (H0) is a hypothesis which the researcher tries to disprove, reject or nullify.
The 'null' often refers to the common view of something, while the alternative hypothesis is what the researcher really thinks is the cause of a phenomenon."
FE is H1. It is NOT the null hypothesis, as it is not the common view. RE was proven roughly 2k years ago. Sadly much of the specifics of how have been lost, but considering it's been in use since that time, with multiple explanations fitting it, as well as a working model, it's H0. The null. Religion is an entirely different matter than science, don't know why you brought that up. They don't play by the same rules at all.
How is religion an entirely different matter? Are the mechanics of the universe not a scientific concept? Most people believe in a deity of some sort who created/controls the universe. Popular majority wins, according to you. Therefore, if you believe otherwise, it is your burden to "prove them wrong". The popular majority is always correct by default, and burden is definitely not on the claimant of things beyond experience to prove their claim, since clearly, that is not how the burden of proof works.
-
"The null hypothesis (H0) is a hypothesis which the researcher tries to disprove, reject or nullify.
The 'null' often refers to the common view of something, while the alternative hypothesis is what the researcher really thinks is the cause of a phenomenon."
FE is H1. It is NOT the null hypothesis, as it is not the common view. RE was proven roughly 2k years ago. Sadly much of the specifics of how have been lost, but considering it's been in use since that time, with multiple explanations fitting it, as well as a working model, it's H0. The null. Religion is an entirely different matter than science, don't know why you brought that up. They don't play by the same rules at all.
How is religion an entirely different matter? Are the mechanics of the universe not a scientific concept? Most people believe in a deity of some sort who created/controls the universe. Popular majority wins, according to you. Therefore, if you believe otherwise, it is your burden to "prove them wrong". The popular majority is always correct by default, and burden is definitely not on the claimant of things beyond experience to prove their claim, since clearly, that is not how the burden of proof works.
Yet you have no evidence about the shape of the earth. What happened to your triangle calculations?
-
"The null hypothesis (H0) is a hypothesis which the researcher tries to disprove, reject or nullify.
The 'null' often refers to the common view of something, while the alternative hypothesis is what the researcher really thinks is the cause of a phenomenon."
FE is H1. It is NOT the null hypothesis, as it is not the common view. RE was proven roughly 2k years ago. Sadly much of the specifics of how have been lost, but considering it's been in use since that time, with multiple explanations fitting it, as well as a working model, it's H0. The null. Religion is an entirely different matter than science, don't know why you brought that up. They don't play by the same rules at all.
How is religion an entirely different matter? Are the mechanics of the universe not a scientific concept? Most people believe in a deity of some sort who created/controls the universe. Popular majority wins, according to you. Therefore, if you believe otherwise, it is your burden to "prove them wrong". The popular majority is always correct by default, and burden is definitely not on the claimant of things beyond experience to prove their claim, since clearly, that is not how the burden of proof works.
Science, IMHO, has gone and continues to go out of it's way to disprove a supernatural involvement. I'd say they have excepted it's the null. The thing is, science can only operate in the world it exists in. What I mean is this: Imagine your a character in a computer simulation, the most complex simulation that has or will ever exist. You can't know the true nature of the universe, unless that's part of the simulation. You can only know what the rules of the "game" allow.
Anyway, the point still remains, there is literally NO DOUBT a globe is not only the excepted position of 99% of the population, but the only one that has an absolute, rock solid, working model that you can't touch with a ten foot pole. You wouldn't dare to try. You guys walked outside one day, looked at the horizon expecting to see what standing on a cylinder would look like, can't fathom how big a planet is and ran with it. Most people don't give a crap to even bother with FE'ers after decades of photo's showing exactly what people in the dam dark ages knew, the Earth is round. Nearly every piece of technology around us wouldn't function if the earth wasn't a globe, the code and physical make-up show it. Haven't heard back from you on whether you plan to disprove RE by watching the sunrise on the equinox and show us how it didn't rise where we all know it will? Or if you plan to take a vacation and take a few flights to show us we are full of shit? Why not? Superiority complex.
-
"The null hypothesis (H0) is a hypothesis which the researcher tries to disprove, reject or nullify.
The 'null' often refers to the common view of something, while the alternative hypothesis is what the researcher really thinks is the cause of a phenomenon."
FE is H1. It is NOT the null hypothesis, as it is not the common view. RE was proven roughly 2k years ago. Sadly much of the specifics of how have been lost, but considering it's been in use since that time, with multiple explanations fitting it, as well as a working model, it's H0. The null. Religion is an entirely different matter than science, don't know why you brought that up. They don't play by the same rules at all.
How is religion an entirely different matter? Are the mechanics of the universe not a scientific concept? Most people believe in a deity of some sort who created/controls the universe. Popular majority wins, according to you. Therefore, if you believe otherwise, it is your burden to "prove them wrong". The popular majority is always correct by default, and burden is definitely not on the claimant of things beyond experience to prove their claim, since clearly, that is not how the burden of proof works.
Because religion is not a testable hypothesis. Without something to test against and disprove, it cannot be a null hypothesis. Religion addresses the 'how' of the formation of the universe in an untestable way, not with a valid testable hypothesis. It doesn't fit into this schema at all, because religion no longer addresses the how of everyday things, but is rather about things we can only theorize about. Round Earth is the base model of the world now, the commonly accepted testable model. There is no religion that fits those same criteria. Thus, no religion is the null hypothesis. But in this day and age, RE IS the null hypothesis. It's the one commonly accepted among the world (by a wide margin) it has a model that can be tested and measured against, and it has mathematical formulae and theories which produce repeatable results. FE has almost none of that, instead having a hodge podge of hypotheses that don't always fit together into a unified whole, and has glaring issues that are either ignored, or talked around. Like where does the sun move? Oh wait, that goes back to not even having a working model, and the last update was about 100 years ago where you just slapped a globe onto a flat surface.
-
It's the one commonly accepted among the world (by a wide margin)
Religion is most commonly accepted among the world. Therefore religion is true and science is false. Burden is on you to disprove religion.
Who says that God is untestable? He exists, He does things, therefore He is testable. Once you are able to disprove God, get back to us, because the burden is on you to disprove this popular null hypothesis and not on its claimants.
-
It's the one commonly accepted among the world (by a wide margin)
Religion is most commonly accepted among the world. Therefore religion is true and science is false. Burden is on you to disprove religion.
Who says that God is untestable? He exists, He does things, therefore He is testable. Once you are able to disprove God, get back to us, because the burden is on you to disprove this popular null hypothesis and not on its claimants.
Yet you still fail to want to discuss observations and measurements of the earth.
-
Don't you just love how Tom picks a single thing to try and refute while ignoring anything else that might be said that's valid? Or takes it out of context to attempt to make a point? Oh, or even better, pleads ignorance to widely known facts claiming that they need to be re-proven because they weren't written down by a man dead for over a century.
It's the one commonly accepted among the world (by a wide margin)
Religion is the commonly accepted among the world. Therefore religion is true and science is false. Burden is on you to disprove religion.
Who says that god is untestable? He exists, therefore He is testable. In fact, the Bible has a lot of claims which might be found in archeology, genetics, etc. Once you are able to disprove the Bible, get back to us, because the burden is on you to disprove this popular null hypothesis and not on its claimants.
But there is no single commonly accepted religion, and nearly every single one says you cannot find a god via science. Or have you had your head in the sand for the last few decades? Also many religions don't claim all of science is false, that's something you literally just made up on the spot. Beyond that, even if it was 'science is true or religion is true' there's no such thing as a null hypothesis in religion. So such a thing wouldn't even exist.
I can't even believe I have to break it down this far, just to try and force you from weaseling out of giving a legitimate answer. Among the scientific community, the commonly accepted theory (used here in the scientific sense, and if you don't know the difference educate yourself please) is the default, the null, and what any new hypothesis must disprove, or be a more accurate fit for. At present, FE can't even put forth a model to test against, or any equations to test. It's a glorified hypotheses. Show me your FE model Tom. Or how about that equation for Electromagnetic Accelerator that you claim to have cut down. At least then we'd have something to test against and you could begin on the path to being a theory. You don't even know the number of the 'constant' in your EA calculation for fuck's sake. You demand incredible amounts of evidence, and don't even hold your own tests to the same standard.
-
Or you could watch the data as commercial airlines fly from point to point using great circle navigation. Using proven accurate technology no less. Or is Flight Track data only real when I use it?
I have yet to see an assessment which discounts all possible continental layout and distance configurations.
No shit, you've only seen it discount all of your possible layouts and distance configurations. Works swimmingly on ours.
-
It's the one commonly accepted among the world (by a wide margin)
Religion is most commonly accepted among the world. Therefore religion is true and science is false. Burden is on you to disprove religion.
Who says that God is untestable? He exists, He does things, therefore He is testable. Once you are able to disprove God, get back to us, because the burden is on you to disprove this popular null hypothesis and not on its claimants.
ALL mainstream religions believe the Earth is a Globe and that's what the topic is. So focus
-
People travel perfectly fine using a Mercator map where Greenland is larger than the continent of Africa and where Antarctica is a massive landmass larger than all of the continents combined.
No one travels using a Mercator map. A pilot leaving New York bound for Paris uses sectional charts. Do you know what a sectional chart is?
Ships also use sectional charts.
The chart room on a ship has cabinets filled with many drawers filled with many sectional charts.
Each chart is made from projections made from the globe and covering a small enough area to minimize distortion.
The same is true for aviation sectional charts.
-
It's the one commonly accepted among the world (by a wide margin)
Religion is most commonly accepted among the world. Therefore religion is true and science is false. Burden is on you to disprove religion.
Who says that God is untestable? He exists, He does things, therefore He is testable. Once you are able to disprove God, get back to us, because the burden is on you to disprove this popular null hypothesis and not on its claimants.
ALL mainstream religions believe the Earth is a Globe and that's what the topic is. So focus
One of the problems with some very fundamentalist religions is said to be that they determine the word "circle" as being a two-dimensional circle rather than a three-dimensional sphere and base their flat earth beliefs on this.
There is also something about it that the Hewbrew language did not have a word for sphere at the time this was written.
-
Or you could watch the data as commercial airlines fly from point to point using great circle navigation. Using proven accurate technology no less. Or is Flight Track data only real when I use it?
I have yet to see an assessment which discounts all possible continental layout and distance configurations.
No shit, you've only seen it discount all of your possible layouts and distance configurations. Works swimmingly on ours.
The current Flat Earth maps were not created with any attention to continental layouts or distances. They are projections of a globe to showcase a particular concept of navigation or polar layout, and are not original creations.
We have looked into this issue on a number of occasions, and the current opinions seems to be that it is impractical for us to make a map as discussed here (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71445.0).
-
But there is no single commonly accepted religion, and nearly every single one says you cannot find a god via science. Or have you had your head in the sand for the last few decades? Also many religions don't claim all of science is false, that's something you literally just made up on the spot. Beyond that, even if it was 'science is true or religion is true' there's no such thing as a null hypothesis in religion. So such a thing wouldn't even exist.
I can't even believe I have to break it down this far, just to try and force you from weaseling out of giving a legitimate answer. Among the scientific community, the commonly accepted theory (used here in the scientific sense, and if you don't know the difference educate yourself please) is the default, the null, and what any new hypothesis must disprove, or be a more accurate fit for. At present, FE can't even put forth a model to test against, or any equations to test. It's a glorified hypotheses. Show me your FE model Tom. Or how about that equation for Electromagnetic Accelerator that you claim to have cut down. At least then we'd have something to test against and you could begin on the path to being a theory. You don't even know the number of the 'constant' in your EA calculation for fuck's sake. You demand incredible amounts of evidence, and don't even hold your own tests to the same standard.
No religion says that it is impossible to find God with science. Which one said that? If God exists or does things in any capacity then it is possible to find evidence for his existence. More people believe in God than those who do not. If you are a non-believer, that makes the burden of proof on you!
If you can lead by example on this matter and prove that God does not exist, I would appreciate it. Let me know by sending me a PM or by creating a new thread that you have disproven the existence of God. The burden of proof is on you, after all. I will then agree with your argument that the burden of proof is not on those who make claims of things beyond experience, and that it is actually based on "majority opinion". I will also reverse all of my criticisms on the concept of proving a negative, which I have shared on this forum, and immediately proceed to answering all of the "prove me wrong" threads.
-
Or you could watch the data as commercial airlines fly from point to point using great circle navigation. Using proven accurate technology no less. Or is Flight Track data only real when I use it?
I have yet to see an assessment which discounts all possible continental layout and distance configurations.
No shit, you've only seen it discount all of your possible layouts and distance configurations. Works swimmingly on ours.
The current Flat Earth maps were not created with any attention to continental layouts or distances. They are projections of a globe to showcase a particular concept of navigation or polar layout, and are not original creations.
We have looked into this issue on a number of occasions, and the current opinions seems to be that it is impractical for us to make a map as discussed here (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71445.0).
So you guys are ok with taking the word of one man on his experiments, but you can't trust the distances we've been given for the landmasses of the continents of the Earth and the oceans? Because that's what I'm getting out of this. The numbers for the distances across the states are easy to find. The distances for the width of Australia, Europe, NA, SA, Asia, Africa and Antarctica are easy to find, as well as the distances broken down into smaller chunks. You're telling me that we can't trust any of those distances? That you blanket refuse to use them in an effort to put together a map because...why exactly? If making a map is so hard, how did the map of the globe come about? How is it accurate at the local level for everyone? Where did the distances for the Rand McNally Road Atlas come from? Your claim boils down to "We can't make a map because all the people who created maps and charted distances that are available online are part of the Round Earth conspiracy!!!!1!1!!"
Once again your post contribution in that thread seems to be "Disprove me because that's what you have to do!" rather than understanding it's on you to provide the proof. If you can't make a map that works with known distances (hopefully/potentially corroborated via flight times) you don't have a theory. You have a hypothesis, and a rather poor one at that.
EDIT: I had a second post to address more, but comp crashed and I don't have time to retype it right now. Later if things aren't discussed/addressed more by others before then.
-
So you guys are ok with taking the word of one man on his experiments, but you can't trust the distances we've been given for the landmasses of the continents of the Earth and the oceans? Because that's what I'm getting out of this. The numbers for the distances across the states are easy to find. The distances for the width of Australia, Europe, NA, SA, Asia, Africa and Antarctica are easy to find, as well as the distances broken down into smaller chunks. You're telling me that we can't trust any of those distances? That you blanket refuse to use them in an effort to put together a map because...why exactly? If making a map is so hard, how did the map of the globe come about? How is it accurate at the local level for everyone? Where did the distances for the Rand McNally Road Atlas come from? Your claim boils down to "We can't make a map because all the people who created maps and charted distances that are available online are part of the Round Earth conspiracy!!!!1!1!!"
Once again your post contribution in that thread seems to be "Disprove me because that's what you have to do!" rather than understanding it's on you to provide the proof. If you can't make a map that works with known distances (hopefully/potentially corroborated via flight times) you don't have a theory. You have a hypothesis, and a rather poor one at that.
The issue is that no one in the society will give serious consideration to the notion of simply "looking up" distances. Questions will arise on whether it was calculated on the presumption of a globe, and flight logs will be necessary. Then there is a matter that planes do not make direct straight line paths to their destinations, will regularly use jet streams, be delayed, etc.
It is also not a given that taking a flight from location A to location B tells us the distance between those two points based on the time of arrival. One might theorize that an aircraft has a cruising speed of so and so miles per hour, but how was that calculated? Based on assumed Round Earth distances when the plane made a test flight to a "known" location in its development?
As you can see, the matter is all a little more complicated than just needing to Google distances.
-
So you guys are ok with taking the word of one man on his experiments, but you can't trust the distances we've been given for the landmasses of the continents of the Earth and the oceans? Because that's what I'm getting out of this. The numbers for the distances across the states are easy to find. The distances for the width of Australia, Europe, NA, SA, Asia, Africa and Antarctica are easy to find, as well as the distances broken down into smaller chunks. You're telling me that we can't trust any of those distances? That you blanket refuse to use them in an effort to put together a map because...why exactly? If making a map is so hard, how did the map of the globe come about? How is it accurate at the local level for everyone? Where did the distances for the Rand McNally Road Atlas come from? Your claim boils down to "We can't make a map because all the people who created maps and charted distances that are available online are part of the Round Earth conspiracy!!!!1!1!!"
Once again your post contribution in that thread seems to be "Disprove me because that's what you have to do!" rather than understanding it's on you to provide the proof. If you can't make a map that works with known distances (hopefully/potentially corroborated via flight times) you don't have a theory. You have a hypothesis, and a rather poor one at that.
The issue is that no one in the society will give serious consideration to the notion of simply "looking up" distances. Questions will arise on whether it was calculated on the presumption of a globe, and flight logs will be necessary. Then there is a matter that planes do not make direct straight line paths to their destinations, will regularly use jet streams, be delayed, etc.
It is also not a given that taking a flight from location A to location B tells us the distance between those two points based on the time of arrival. One might theorize that an aircraft has a cruising speed of so and so miles per hour, but how was that calculated? Based on assumed Round Earth distances when the plane made a test flight to a "known" location in its development?
As you can see, the matter is all a little more complicated than just needing to Google distances.
FFS Why don't you get together and buy a decent theodolite and just start checking near you? We have to prove you wrong, but you have no map, no math, no theory, nothing. Don't you get it? When you can't come up with a single equation to predict sunrises, sunsets, elevations, eclipses etc...... and WE CAN EVERYDAY, what's left to check? I can't prove anything wrong you can't even come up with.©
-
FFS Why don't you get together and buy a decent theodolite and just start checking near you? We have to prove you wrong, but you have no map, no math, no theory, nothing. Don't you get it? When you can't come up with a single equation to predict sunrises, sunsets, elevations, eclipses etc...... and WE CAN EVERYDAY, what's left to check? I can't prove anything wrong you can't even come up with.©
There is a lack of funding to develop such things. Our yearly budget is $0 while Round Earth Theory has had hundreds of years and near endless funding.
Much of our time is dedicated to educating the public that Round Earth Theory isn't as certain as it seems, such as the eclipses and planet predictions being based on using pattern recognition on historic tables of past observations, and not actually predicted in a geometric sense.
-
So you guys are ok with taking the word of one man on his experiments, but you can't trust the distances we've been given for the landmasses of the continents of the Earth and the oceans? Because that's what I'm getting out of this. The numbers for the distances across the states are easy to find. The distances for the width of Australia, Europe, NA, SA, Asia, Africa and Antarctica are easy to find, as well as the distances broken down into smaller chunks. You're telling me that we can't trust any of those distances? That you blanket refuse to use them in an effort to put together a map because...why exactly? If making a map is so hard, how did the map of the globe come about? How is it accurate at the local level for everyone? Where did the distances for the Rand McNally Road Atlas come from? Your claim boils down to "We can't make a map because all the people who created maps and charted distances that are available online are part of the Round Earth conspiracy!!!!1!1!!"
Once again your post contribution in that thread seems to be "Disprove me because that's what you have to do!" rather than understanding it's on you to provide the proof. If you can't make a map that works with known distances (hopefully/potentially corroborated via flight times) you don't have a theory. You have a hypothesis, and a rather poor one at that.
The issue is that no one in the society will give serious consideration to the notion of simply "looking up" distances. Questions will arise on whether it was calculated on the presumption of a globe, and flight logs will be necessary. Then there is a matter that planes do not make direct straight line paths to their destinations, will regularly use jet streams, be delayed, etc.
It is also not a given that taking a flight from location A to location B tells us the distance between those two points based on the time of arrival. One might theorize that an aircraft has a cruising speed of so and so miles per hour, but how was that calculated? Based on assumed Round Earth distances when the plane made a test flight to a "known" location in its development?
As you can see, the matter is all a little more complicated than just needing to Google distances.
If you had the funds how would you measure distances?
-
FFS Why don't you get together and buy a decent theodolite and just start checking near you? We have to prove you wrong, but you have no map, no math, no theory, nothing. Don't you get it? When you can't come up with a single equation to predict sunrises, sunsets, elevations, eclipses etc...... and WE CAN EVERYDAY, what's left to check? I can't prove anything wrong you can't even come up with.©
There is a lack of funding to develop such things. Our yearly budget is $0 while Round Earth Theory has had hundreds of years and near endless funding.
Much of our time is dedicated to educating the public that Round Earth Theory isn't as certain as it seems, such as the eclipses and planet predictions being based on using pattern recognition on historic tables of past observations, and not actually predicted in a geometric sense.
Umm, Bullshit. All the equations are on wikipedia and use Radians and Pi for some reason? and a theodolite: https://www.google.com/aclk?sa=l&ai=DChcSEwjY9J6458jVAhXcCCoKHeUWCcEYABABGgJ0bQ&sig=AOD64_0r70GMhLywOZTA31X5HQf7BJMoug&ctype=5&q=&ved=0ahUKEwj0xJi458jVAhWn5lQKHVfQAQkQpysICA&adurl=
$400
-
FFS Why don't you get together and buy a decent theodolite and just start checking near you? We have to prove you wrong, but you have no map, no math, no theory, nothing. Don't you get it? When you can't come up with a single equation to predict sunrises, sunsets, elevations, eclipses etc...... and WE CAN EVERYDAY, what's left to check? I can't prove anything wrong you can't even come up with.©
There is a lack of funding to develop such things. Our yearly budget is $0 while Round Earth Theory has had hundreds of years and near endless funding.
Much of our time is dedicated to educating the public that Round Earth Theory isn't as certain as it seems, such as the eclipses and planet predictions being based on using pattern recognition on historic tables of past observations, and not actually predicted in a geometric sense.
Your 'yearly budget' is whatever you guys put into it, which if you actually care about it and making it a valid theory instead of a nonsense hypothesis should be greater than $0.
The timing of the eclipses is corroborated by historic patterns, and where they will be visible is entirely based upon two equations developed within the last 50 years. We've shown that to you, that's the facts and they don't care if you believe them or not.
So you guys are ok with taking the word of one man on his experiments, but you can't trust the distances we've been given for the landmasses of the continents of the Earth and the oceans? Because that's what I'm getting out of this. The numbers for the distances across the states are easy to find. The distances for the width of Australia, Europe, NA, SA, Asia, Africa and Antarctica are easy to find, as well as the distances broken down into smaller chunks. You're telling me that we can't trust any of those distances? That you blanket refuse to use them in an effort to put together a map because...why exactly? If making a map is so hard, how did the map of the globe come about? How is it accurate at the local level for everyone? Where did the distances for the Rand McNally Road Atlas come from? Your claim boils down to "We can't make a map because all the people who created maps and charted distances that are available online are part of the Round Earth conspiracy!!!!1!1!!"
Once again your post contribution in that thread seems to be "Disprove me because that's what you have to do!" rather than understanding it's on you to provide the proof. If you can't make a map that works with known distances (hopefully/potentially corroborated via flight times) you don't have a theory. You have a hypothesis, and a rather poor one at that.
The issue is that no one in the society will give serious consideration to the notion of simply "looking up" distances. Questions will arise on whether it was calculated on the presumption of a globe, and flight logs will be necessary. Then there is a matter that planes do not make direct straight line paths to their destinations, will regularly use jet streams, be delayed, etc.
It is also not a given that taking a flight from location A to location B tells us the distance between those two points based on the time of arrival. One might theorize that an aircraft has a cruising speed of so and so miles per hour, but how was that calculated? Based on assumed Round Earth distances when the plane made a test flight to a "known" location in its development?
As you can see, the matter is all a little more complicated than just needing to Google distances.
Then take some time and corroborate smaller distances. If you look at a Road Atlas or something, pick two points and travel between them. If your results show the same as given for the Atlas, you've validated for yourself the accuracy of that map. Do that with others, and compare. Work with other members of those who believe in FE, or find those willing to assist in this manner (assuming you'll trust them, which seems to be something you can't do) to help verify the accuracy. Verify enough maps and bam. You've got working, known distances to be using, and comparing to what's listed online. Best of all the only cost is a few days of many peoples time, and the cost of a tank of gas for each. "Many hands make light work."
But there is no single commonly accepted religion, and nearly every single one says you cannot find a god via science. Or have you had your head in the sand for the last few decades? Also many religions don't claim all of science is false, that's something you literally just made up on the spot. Beyond that, even if it was 'science is true or religion is true' there's no such thing as a null hypothesis in religion. So such a thing wouldn't even exist.
I can't even believe I have to break it down this far, just to try and force you from weaseling out of giving a legitimate answer. Among the scientific community, the commonly accepted theory (used here in the scientific sense, and if you don't know the difference educate yourself please) is the default, the null, and what any new hypothesis must disprove, or be a more accurate fit for. At present, FE can't even put forth a model to test against, or any equations to test. It's a glorified hypotheses. Show me your FE model Tom. Or how about that equation for Electromagnetic Accelerator that you claim to have cut down. At least then we'd have something to test against and you could begin on the path to being a theory. You don't even know the number of the 'constant' in your EA calculation for fuck's sake. You demand incredible amounts of evidence, and don't even hold your own tests to the same standard.
No religion says that it is impossible to find God with science. Which one said that? If God exists or does things in any capacity then it is possible to find evidence for his existence. More people believe in God than those who do not. If you are a non-believer, that makes the burden of proof on you!
If you can lead by example on this matter and prove that God does not exist let me know by sending me a PM or by creating a new thread that you have disproven God. I will then agree with your argument that the burden of proof is not on those who make claims of things beyond experience, and that it is actually based on "majority opinion". I will also reverse all of my criticisms on the concept of proving a negative, which I have shared on this forum, and immediately proceed to answering all of the "prove me wrong" threads.
You continue to either not understand or ignore the actual thrust of my argument. Now, I'll admit looking I don't see an official stance from any that God cannot be found with science (at least recently, and digging back further is proving difficult for some reason) but it IS a stance of a not insignificant amount of believers from what I'm seeing. But really, that's neither here nor there.
Again, this isn't about how you feel, or majority in other fields. This is about science, where the commonly accepted theory is the default. The one that has to be disproven. RE did this a few thousand years ago. Now FE is in that position, and it has much larger hurdles to overcome because of scientific advancement. Religion and god are not comparable in this field. RE and FE are not yes/no or existent/nonexistent sides of a coin. They are Option A or Option B. That is why god and religion have no place and can't be compared to this. One side isn't proving or claiming a negative, one side is presenting the arguments held as truth/correct by the scientific community, and the other is attempting to say those are wrong. IN SCIENCE that means the latter have the burden of proof. I don't know how to make that any more clear. This is how the process works, this is how we've had breakthroughs and discoveries for many years now. Scientific progress is about showing how something currently thought correct is incorrect, or only correct to a point. Right now, science says RE is correct. That makes the burden on FE to disprove RE and create a working replacement. Ye god I hope this gets it through to you and you don't just ignore it like you've done multiple times now, but my hopes are low.
-
Your 'yearly budget' is whatever you guys put into it, which if you actually care about it and making it a valid theory instead of a nonsense hypothesis should be greater than $0.
The timing of the eclipses is corroborated by historic patterns, and where they will be visible is entirely based upon two equations developed within the last 50 years. We've shown that to you, that's the facts and they don't care if you believe them or not.
You guys keep claiming that, but have been unable to provide a model and NASA and various astronomy websites explicitly state on their eclipse predicting websites that they are using cycle charts. This is a topic deserving of its own thread if you would like to discuss further.
Then take some time and corroborate smaller distances. If you look at a Road Atlas or something, pick two points and travel between them. If your results show the same as given for the Atlas, you've validated for yourself the accuracy of that map. Do that with others, and compare. Work with other members of those who believe in FE, or find those willing to assist in this manner (assuming you'll trust them, which seems to be something you can't do) to help verify the accuracy. Verify enough maps and bam. You've got working, known distances to be using, and comparing to what's listed online. Best of all the only cost is a few days of many peoples time, and the cost of a tank of gas for each. "Many hands make light work."
That sounds like a nice project to do. We will add it to the list. Unfortunately, time is money, and resources are limited. It is a shame that people like you are so quick to demand experiments or projects be performed but refuse to investigate and contribute for yourselves.
-
You continue to either not understand or ignore the actual thrust of my argument. Now, I'll admit looking I don't see an official stance from any that God cannot be found with science (at least recently, and digging back further is proving difficult for some reason) but it IS a stance of a not insignificant amount of believers from what I'm seeing. But really, that's neither here nor there.
Again, this isn't about how you feel, or majority in other fields. This is about science, where the commonly accepted theory is the default. The one that has to be disproven. RE did this a few thousand years ago. Now FE is in that position, and it has much larger hurdles to overcome because of scientific advancement. Religion and god are not comparable in this field. RE and FE are not yes/no or existent/nonexistent sides of a coin. They are Option A or Option B. That is why god and religion have no place and can't be compared to this. One side isn't proving or claiming a negative, one side is presenting the arguments held as truth/correct by the scientific community, and the other is attempting to say those are wrong. IN SCIENCE that means the latter have the burden of proof. I don't know how to make that any more clear. This is how the process works, this is how we've had breakthroughs and discoveries for many years now. Scientific progress is about showing how something currently thought correct is incorrect, or only correct to a point. Right now, science says RE is correct. That makes the burden on FE to disprove RE and create a working replacement. Ye god I hope this gets it through to you and you don't just ignore it like you've done multiple times now, but my hopes are low.
[/quote
The existence of a God who created and controls the universe is a scientific concept. How is it purely a religious concept? Religion is making a direct claim about how the universe operates. There are MORE PEOPLE who believe in the existence of God than not, who say that the universe operates in this way. That means that the burden of proof is on you.
If you are unable to cope with the responsibility of disproving God, that just means that you are clearly wrong, and a coward, for walking away from your burden of proving a negative, and we have nothing further to discuss.
-
You continue to either not understand or ignore the actual thrust of my argument. Now, I'll admit looking I don't see an official stance from any that God cannot be found with science (at least recently, and digging back further is proving difficult for some reason) but it IS a stance of a not insignificant amount of believers from what I'm seeing. But really, that's neither here nor there.
Again, this isn't about how you feel, or majority in other fields. This is about science, where the commonly accepted theory is the default. The one that has to be disproven. RE did this a few thousand years ago. Now FE is in that position, and it has much larger hurdles to overcome because of scientific advancement. Religion and god are not comparable in this field. RE and FE are not yes/no or existent/nonexistent sides of a coin. They are Option A or Option B. That is why god and religion have no place and can't be compared to this. One side isn't proving or claiming a negative, one side is presenting the arguments held as truth/correct by the scientific community, and the other is attempting to say those are wrong. IN SCIENCE that means the latter have the burden of proof. I don't know how to make that any more clear. This is how the process works, this is how we've had breakthroughs and discoveries for many years now. Scientific progress is about showing how something currently thought correct is incorrect, or only correct to a point. Right now, science says RE is correct. That makes the burden on FE to disprove RE and create a working replacement. Ye god I hope this gets it through to you and you don't just ignore it like you've done multiple times now, but my hopes are low.
[/quote
The existence of a God who created and controls the universe is a scientific concept. How is it purely a religious concept? Religion is making a direct claim about how the universe operates. There are MORE PEOPLE who believe in the existence of God than not, who say that the universe operates in this way. That means that the burden of proof is on you.
If you are unable to cope with the responsibility of disproving God, that just means that you are clearly wrong, and a coward, for walking away from your burden of proving a negative, and we have nothing further to discuss.
Wow, combining both a personal attack, with reductio ad absurdum. I'm mildly impressed. Not to mention you completely skip over the reasoning behind my point. Bravo Tom, bravo. A new low even for you. You're right, if you can't understand how the two are different, and the existence of god (or not) doesn't compare from a scientific standpoint to FE vs RE, then we don't have anything further to discuss. You are clearly more interested in sticking your fingers in your ears (not reading and responding to the actual points being made) than you are in a discussion about what is the scientific null in this scenario. All you have is this god argument you keep going back to, when it's very foundation is different due to being an existence debate, NOT an option debate. God exists vs. god does not exist, have very different requirements and issues than FE vs RE, and the fact you continue to ignore that so you can pound your chest about this god thing tells me you aren't interested in that. Which is fine, but at least be honest that you don't care about the difference rather than pretending there isn't one. At least then I know to stop trying to educate you on it.
Your 'yearly budget' is whatever you guys put into it, which if you actually care about it and making it a valid theory instead of a nonsense hypothesis should be greater than $0.
The timing of the eclipses is corroborated by historic patterns, and where they will be visible is entirely based upon two equations developed within the last 50 years. We've shown that to you, that's the facts and they don't care if you believe them or not.
You guys keep claiming that, but have been unable to provide a model and NASA and various astronomy websites explicitly state on their eclipse predicting websites that they are using cycle charts. This is a topic deserving of its own thread if you would like to discuss further.
You were given a model and information on it in another thread. That you chose to ignore the given model, and misread the information given is not my fault.
Then take some time and corroborate smaller distances. If you look at a Road Atlas or something, pick two points and travel between them. If your results show the same as given for the Atlas, you've validated for yourself the accuracy of that map. Do that with others, and compare. Work with other members of those who believe in FE, or find those willing to assist in this manner (assuming you'll trust them, which seems to be something you can't do) to help verify the accuracy. Verify enough maps and bam. You've got working, known distances to be using, and comparing to what's listed online. Best of all the only cost is a few days of many peoples time, and the cost of a tank of gas for each. "Many hands make light work."
That sounds like a nice project to do. We will add it to the list. Unfortunately, time is money, and resources are limited. It is a shame that people like you are so quick to demand experiments or projects be performed but refuse to investigate and contribute for yourselves.
Do you see me saying I wouldn't be up for assisting with this? I just figured you wouldn't ever trust anything I or another RE'er had to say considering you can't seem to even trust our word about observing sun rise and set times. How would this be any different? Actually, take that back partly. I would LOVE to assist with this if you would accept my data, but I just remembered my car odometer doesn't work (broken wire connection so it's tracking distances, but the display doesn't light up to be read). But that doesn't mean there wouldn't be others up for it. It's just a question of do you trust people who don't believe in a FE, considering that seems to be an issue for you in other threads.
-
The existence of a God who created and controls the universe is a scientific concept. How is it purely a religious concept? Religion is making a direct claim about how the universe operates. There are MORE PEOPLE who believe in the existence of God than not, who say that the universe operates in this way. That means that the burden of proof is on you.
While it's true that there are fewer atheists in the world than theists - atheism is larger by far than any single religion in the world. Agnosticism is larger still than that...but it's hard to measure the degree of doubt in the minds of theists.
So only if you're prepared to lump together a bunch of people with wildly divergent ideas about god or gods-plural can you claim that there is a numerical majority for any particular set of beliefs.
If you are unable to cope with the responsibility of disproving God, that just means that you are clearly wrong, and a coward, for walking away from your burden of proving a negative, and we have nothing further to discuss.
No - it does not. It's not cowardice.
The people who "invented" these religions (sometime in the very dim and distant past) were very clever. They set up the 'rules' of the game so that they could never be disproven. If you want to kick back and relax "praying to the gods" while the rest of your tribe go out hunter-gathering for 10 hours a day - then you'd better figure out a way for you to NEVER be wrong in what you say...so...um..."God can do anything - and he doesn't have to explain why!"
By taking a rough definition of a "god" as: "A being who is omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent" - you guarantee that god(s) cannot possibly be disproven by any means whatever. If someone were to come up with an experiment that firmly and forever disproved the existence of any god(s) - then theists would simply come back and say "God wishes everyone to rely on faith and not concrete evidence - so of course he made your experiment come out the way it did."....and our hypothetical experimenter would have no come-back because "omnipotence" means that the god could make the experiment come out any way he/she/it wanted...and "omniscience" means that we can't even surprise this god by doing the experiment without being noticed...we can't even do the experiment far enough away from the gods to prevent them from messing with it because they are "omnipresent"....very clever!
So the "God hypothesis" is impossible to disprove - it was designed that way. It's "unfalsifiable" - so use a science term.
Even logical arguments of the form "Can God create a rock that's so heavy he can't lift it?" or "Can God create a mathematical theorem that even he can't prove?" can be danced around by the clergy. "He can do whatever he wants."...so much for Godel's incompleteness theorem, Quantum uncertainty, Chaos theory and Heisenburg's uncertainty principle!
In the case of unfalsifiable hypotheses, we can never know the answer...it's "Russells' Teapot" all over again.
In such cases, we cannot simply give up on life and not use the information we have - so the fallback position is "Occam's Razor" - which has proven to be a useful (if not entirely reliable) tool for humanity in the past. It says (broadly) that the simplest explanation is most likely to be the correct one...and in almost every case, that's true.
The simplest explanation is that there are no gods. This fits daily facts very well - and if we operate on those principles - the predictions we make about the universe turn out to be surprisingly accurate an overwhelming majority of the time.
But yes - STRICTLY SPEAKING, nobody should be an atheist - we should (logically) all be agnostics. However, these two terms refer to a mental state - and those who are atheists are as certain as it is possible to be (given unfalsifiability and Occam's Razor) that there is no god - and that's "good enough" for them to say "I believe there is no god (and the odds that I'm wrong are vanishingly small)."
-
You continue to either not understand or ignore the actual thrust of my argument. Now, I'll admit looking I don't see an official stance from any that God cannot be found with science (at least recently, and digging back further is proving difficult for some reason) but it IS a stance of a not insignificant amount of believers from what I'm seeing. But really, that's neither here nor there.
Again, this isn't about how you feel, or majority in other fields. This is about science, where the commonly accepted theory is the default. The one that has to be disproven. RE did this a few thousand years ago. Now FE is in that position, and it has much larger hurdles to overcome because of scientific advancement. Religion and god are not comparable in this field. RE and FE are not yes/no or existent/nonexistent sides of a coin. They are Option A or Option B. That is why god and religion have no place and can't be compared to this. One side isn't proving or claiming a negative, one side is presenting the arguments held as truth/correct by the scientific community, and the other is attempting to say those are wrong. IN SCIENCE that means the latter have the burden of proof. I don't know how to make that any more clear. This is how the process works, this is how we've had breakthroughs and discoveries for many years now. Scientific progress is about showing how something currently thought correct is incorrect, or only correct to a point. Right now, science says RE is correct. That makes the burden on FE to disprove RE and create a working replacement. Ye god I hope this gets it through to you and you don't just ignore it like you've done multiple times now, but my hopes are low.
[/quote
The existence of a God who created and controls the universe is a scientific concept. How is it purely a religious concept? Religion is making a direct claim about how the universe operates. There are MORE PEOPLE who believe in the existence of God than not, who say that the universe operates in this way. That means that the burden of proof is on you.
If you are unable to cope with the responsibility of disproving God, that just means that you are clearly wrong, and a coward, for walking away from your burden of proving a negative, and we have nothing further to discuss.
Religion implies super natural in most definitions, I personally feel whatever your paradigm is, is your religion. As I said in my other post God would be outside the laws and physics of this universe by definition. He is no more subject to them than a programmer is to a simulation he wrote. and still has nothing to do with any of this.
Are you taking the position you have no responsibility to back up any claims or assertions you make because "we" haven't disproved God? It's preposterous. and again so telling. No one on our side would back away from explaining in detail as best they were able ANY "If the Earth is round then how come X......?" You are running down the nuttiest debating tactic I have ever seen to avoid having to come up with any reasonable answer for anything. Take all your theories and provide a single formula (based on your theories, not RE) that can be used to predict or explain anything we ALREADY can, you won't. You haven't even checked what direction the sun is rising at your own location. I'll give you a hint, it's getting closer and closer to due East.
-
Religion implies super natural in most definitions
The people who believe in God don't think that their beliefs are "super natural" or "para-normal. They would describe it as very natural and normal. Those people outnumber you. Therefore the burden of proof is to prove them wrong. You cannot simply redefine their beliefs.
No one on our side would back away from explaining in detail as best they were able ANY "If the Earth is round then how come X......?"
This is incorrect. There are several questions you back away from and cannot explain. For instance, the full moon should be impossible on a Round Earth (https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Full_Moon_is_Impossible_in_Round_Earth_Theory), but the topic is generally avoided and excuses are given when brought up.
-
Religion implies super natural in most definitions
The people who believe in God don't think that their beliefs are "super natural" or "para-normal. They would describe it as very natural and normal. Those people outnumber you. Therefore the burden of proof is to prove them wrong. You cannot simply redefine their beliefs.
No one on our side would back away from explaining in detail as best they were able ANY "If the Earth is round then how come X......?"
This is incorrect. There are several questions you back away from and cannot explain. For instance, the full moon should be impossible on a Round Earth (https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Full_Moon_is_Impossible_in_Round_Earth_Theory), but the topic is generally avoided and excuses are given when brought up.
You really wanna go there with the moon when FE has squat? Know what, challenge accepted. I've gotta take care of something, but soon as I'm back I'll be tackling this and show you why that illustration is so terribly wrong.
-
Ok, so first off we need to get a better idea of the sizes and distances involved here, because that image just doesn't cut it at all. Under RE this image (https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/Numbers/Math/Mathematical_Thinking/earthmoon.GIF) is a to scale representation of Earth and the moon for sizes and distances. This Earth is about 1/8 inches in diameter (actual diameter is about 8,000 miles) and the moon is 3.75 inches away (actual distance is about 240,000 miles away) with a diameter of about 1/32 of an inch (actual diameter of about 2,000 miles). Using this same scale, the sun would have to be over 1 foot in diameter (actual size diameter is about 864,000 miles) and the center would be about 121 feet from the center of our Earth circle. These distances are very hard to comprehend and deal with, and it's why scale images showing all three barely exist.
But, these give us some very useful numbers. With the diameter of the Earth, and the distance to the moon, we've got everything we need to create a triangle! This will give us the angle of the largest difference between two sides of the Earth, which will tell us how much difference each side should actually expect to see in their viewing angle of the moon. Very helpfully you even used an angle calculator (https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/geometry-plane/triangle-theorems.php) earlier on another thread, so let's see what we get when we plug things into this, shall we? I'll use the same notation as your calculator so you can follow along.
Side lengths (Used M since your calculator doesn't have an option for miles, but using the same numbers means we won't change the angle results)
side a: 8,000 (Diameter of Earth representing the two people on either side of it.)
side b: 240,000 (Distance to the moon for person C)
side c: 240,000 (Distance to the moon for person B)
Plug these in and we get
angle A: 1.90995 °
angle B: 89.045 °
angle C: 89.045 °
So that means, angle of viewing difference between two observers is only about 2° at the outside. I would note even placing the moon at a 90° angle to one of the observers still leaves us with that same angle. What does all this mean?
Firstly, because of the size of the sun, the Umbra and Penumbra cast by the Earth are both quite small. In fact the Earth's Umbra by the time it reaches the moon (due in part to light curving through the atmosphere) doesn't actually block out the moon fully. But even in the images created by intikan, the moon at a full 90° angle to one side of the Earth, the other side will only see a difference of just less than 2° to one side. Which isn't all that discernible to the human eye, especially considering the shifting the moon goes under on it's own. I'd be more than happy to work on delving more into this issue, but this should provide a good foundation.
-
This is incorrect. There are several questions you back away from and cannot explain. For instance, the full moon should be impossible on a Round Earth (https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Full_Moon_is_Impossible_in_Round_Earth_Theory), but the topic is generally avoided and excuses are given when brought up.
Really? **REALLY*!?!? You're still claiming that to be true?
Wow!
The problem is that the diagrams in that Wiki pages are *WAY* off-scale and they don't allow for the fact that the moon's orbit around the earth is not parallel to the plane of the ecliptic.
This one is drawn EXACTLY to scale (I just drew it) - except that the Sun (that ENORMOUS orange blob off to the left) should be maybe 600 feet off to the left of your computer screen.
The Earth (red dot), Moon (black dot) and the distance between them are drawn accurately to scale:
(https://renaissanceinnovations.com/TFES_eclipse.png)
Also in this picture - the horizontal orange line is the "plane of the ecliptic" - it's the line from the center of the Earth to the center of the sun.
The pink sloping line is the plane of the Moon's orbit - which is tilted at an angle of 5.145 degrees to the ecliptic in RET and in my diagram.
Now - tell me again why the moon can't be fully illuminated? At the upper extreme of it's orbit - when it's furthest away from the sun, you can CLEARLY see that the Earth cannot possibly cast a shadow onto the moon - or block the sunlight in any way.
So - please be a good chap and fix the nonsense on your Wiki - truly, it doesn't make you look good when you falsify information so blatently to prove your point. Any schoolkid could debunk that load of old nonsense.
Thanks.
-
This is incorrect. There are several questions you back away from and cannot explain. For instance, the full moon should be impossible on a Round Earth (https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Full_Moon_is_Impossible_in_Round_Earth_Theory), but the topic is generally avoided and excuses are given when brought up.
Really? **REALLY*!?!? You're still claiming that to be true?
Wow!
The problem is that the diagrams in that Wiki pages are *WAY* off-scale and they don't allow for the fact that the moon's orbit around the earth is not parallel to the plane of the ecliptic.
This one is drawn EXACTLY to scale (I just drew it) - except that the Sun (that ENORMOUS orange blob off to the left) should be maybe 600 feet off to the left of your computer screen.
The Earth (red dot), Moon (black dot) and the distance between them are drawn accurately to scale:
https://renaissanceinnovations.com/TFES_eclipse.png
Also in this picture - the horizontal orange line is the "plane of the ecliptic" - it's the line from the center of the Earth to the center of the sun.
The pink sloping line is the plane of the Moon's orbit - which is tilted at an angle of 5.145 degrees to the ecliptic in RET and in my diagram.
Now - tell me again why the moon can't be fully illuminated? At the upper extreme of it's orbit - when it's furthest away from the sun, you can CLEARLY see that the Earth cannot possibly cast a shadow onto the moon - or block the sunlight in any way.
So - please be a good chap and fix the nonsense on your Wiki - truly, it doesn't make you look good when you falsify information so blatently to prove your point. Any schoolkid could debunk that load of old nonsense.
Thanks.
As implied in the link, it should be impossible to see a full moon, or anything approaching a full moon, in the sky during the day. I have made a new thread which simplifies the argument: http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6686.0
-
This is incorrect. There are several questions you back away from and cannot explain. For instance, the full moon should be impossible on a Round Earth (https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Full_Moon_is_Impossible_in_Round_Earth_Theory), but the topic is generally avoided and excuses are given when brought up.
Really? **REALLY*!?!? You're still claiming that to be true?
Wow!
The problem is that the diagrams in that Wiki pages are *WAY* off-scale and they don't allow for the fact that the moon's orbit around the earth is not parallel to the plane of the ecliptic.
This one is drawn EXACTLY to scale (I just drew it) - except that the Sun (that ENORMOUS orange blob off to the left) should be maybe 600 feet off to the left of your computer screen.
The Earth (red dot), Moon (black dot) and the distance between them are drawn accurately to scale:
https://renaissanceinnovations.com/TFES_eclipse.png
Also in this picture - the horizontal orange line is the "plane of the ecliptic" - it's the line from the center of the Earth to the center of the sun.
The pink sloping line is the plane of the Moon's orbit - which is tilted at an angle of 5.145 degrees to the ecliptic in RET and in my diagram.
Now - tell me again why the moon can't be fully illuminated? At the upper extreme of it's orbit - when it's furthest away from the sun, you can CLEARLY see that the Earth cannot possibly cast a shadow onto the moon - or block the sunlight in any way.
So - please be a good chap and fix the nonsense on your Wiki - truly, it doesn't make you look good when you falsify information so blatently to prove your point. Any schoolkid could debunk that load of old nonsense.
Thanks.
As implied in the link, it should be impossible to see a full moon, or anything approaching a full moon, in the sky during the day. I have made a new thread which simplifies the argument: http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6686.0
See problems with your diagram.
-
This is incorrect. There are several questions you back away from and cannot explain. For instance, the full moon should be impossible on a Round Earth (https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Full_Moon_is_Impossible_in_Round_Earth_Theory), but the topic is generally avoided and excuses are given when brought up.
Really? **REALLY*!?!? You're still claiming that to be true?
Wow!
The problem is that the diagrams in that Wiki pages are *WAY* off-scale and they don't allow for the fact that the moon's orbit around the earth is not parallel to the plane of the ecliptic.
This one is drawn EXACTLY to scale (I just drew it) - except that the Sun (that ENORMOUS orange blob off to the left) should be maybe 600 feet off to the left of your computer screen.
The Earth (red dot), Moon (black dot) and the distance between them are drawn accurately to scale:
https://renaissanceinnovations.com/TFES_eclipse.png
Also in this picture - the horizontal orange line is the "plane of the ecliptic" - it's the line from the center of the Earth to the center of the sun.
The pink sloping line is the plane of the Moon's orbit - which is tilted at an angle of 5.145 degrees to the ecliptic in RET and in my diagram.
Now - tell me again why the moon can't be fully illuminated? At the upper extreme of it's orbit - when it's furthest away from the sun, you can CLEARLY see that the Earth cannot possibly cast a shadow onto the moon - or block the sunlight in any way.
So - please be a good chap and fix the nonsense on your Wiki - truly, it doesn't make you look good when you falsify information so blatently to prove your point. Any schoolkid could debunk that load of old nonsense.
Thanks.
As implied in the link, it should be impossible to see a full moon, or anything approaching a full moon, in the sky during the day. I have made a new thread which simplifies the argument: http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6686.0
See problems with your diagram.
Your query has been responded to. Please discuss in the thread dedicated to it rather than here.
-
This is incorrect. There are several questions you back away from and cannot explain. For instance, the full moon should be impossible on a Round Earth (https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Full_Moon_is_Impossible_in_Round_Earth_Theory), but the topic is generally avoided and excuses are given when brought up.
Really? **REALLY*!?!? You're still claiming that to be true?
Wow!
The problem is that the diagrams in that Wiki pages are *WAY* off-scale and they don't allow for the fact that the moon's orbit around the earth is not parallel to the plane of the ecliptic.
This one is drawn EXACTLY to scale (I just drew it) - except that the Sun (that ENORMOUS orange blob off to the left) should be maybe 600 feet off to the left of your computer screen.
The Earth (red dot), Moon (black dot) and the distance between them are drawn accurately to scale:
https://renaissanceinnovations.com/TFES_eclipse.png
Also in this picture - the horizontal orange line is the "plane of the ecliptic" - it's the line from the center of the Earth to the center of the sun.
The pink sloping line is the plane of the Moon's orbit - which is tilted at an angle of 5.145 degrees to the ecliptic in RET and in my diagram.
Now - tell me again why the moon can't be fully illuminated? At the upper extreme of it's orbit - when it's furthest away from the sun, you can CLEARLY see that the Earth cannot possibly cast a shadow onto the moon - or block the sunlight in any way.
So - please be a good chap and fix the nonsense on your Wiki - truly, it doesn't make you look good when you falsify information so blatently to prove your point. Any schoolkid could debunk that load of old nonsense.
Thanks.
As implied in the link, it should be impossible to see a full moon, or anything approaching a full moon, in the sky during the day. I have made a new thread which simplifies the argument: http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6686.0
So, just going to ignore all points made up about your original claim here and redirect to something else? >.> Ok, guess we go take a look.
-
This is incorrect. There are several questions you back away from and cannot explain. For instance, the full moon should be impossible on a Round Earth (https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Full_Moon_is_Impossible_in_Round_Earth_Theory), but the topic is generally avoided and excuses are given when brought up.
Really? **REALLY*!?!? You're still claiming that to be true?
Wow!
The problem is that the diagrams in that Wiki pages are *WAY* off-scale and they don't allow for the fact that the moon's orbit around the earth is not parallel to the plane of the ecliptic.
This one is drawn EXACTLY to scale (I just drew it) - except that the Sun (that ENORMOUS orange blob off to the left) should be maybe 600 feet off to the left of your computer screen.
The Earth (red dot), Moon (black dot) and the distance between them are drawn accurately to scale:
https://renaissanceinnovations.com/TFES_eclipse.png
Also in this picture - the horizontal orange line is the "plane of the ecliptic" - it's the line from the center of the Earth to the center of the sun.
The pink sloping line is the plane of the Moon's orbit - which is tilted at an angle of 5.145 degrees to the ecliptic in RET and in my diagram.
Now - tell me again why the moon can't be fully illuminated? At the upper extreme of it's orbit - when it's furthest away from the sun, you can CLEARLY see that the Earth cannot possibly cast a shadow onto the moon - or block the sunlight in any way.
So - please be a good chap and fix the nonsense on your Wiki - truly, it doesn't make you look good when you falsify information so blatently to prove your point. Any schoolkid could debunk that load of old nonsense.
Thanks.
As implied in the link, it should be impossible to see a full moon, or anything approaching a full moon, in the sky during the day. I have made a new thread which simplifies the argument: http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6686.0
So, just going to ignore all points made up about your original claim here and redirect to something else? >.> Ok, guess we go take a look.
It's OK - I'll just re-post my drawing there too.
-
Religion implies super natural in most definitions
The people who believe in God don't think that their beliefs are "super natural" or "para-normal. They would describe it as very natural and normal. Those people outnumber you. Therefore the burden of proof is to prove them wrong. You cannot simply redefine their beliefs.
No one on our side would back away from explaining in detail as best they were able ANY "If the Earth is round then how come X......?"
This is incorrect. There are several questions you back away from and cannot explain. For instance, the full moon should be impossible on a Round Earth (https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Full_Moon_is_Impossible_in_Round_Earth_Theory), but the topic is generally avoided and excuses are given when brought up.
I am one of those people, so no, I'm not outnumbered. As were most of the greatest minds humanity has ever produced. (Einstein, Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, many many more.
“Everyone who is seriously committed to the cultivation of science becomes convinced that in all the laws of the universe is manifest a spirit vastly superior to man, and to which we with our powers must feel humble.” Another famous quote of his was “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
Albert Einstein
I was simply referring to the dictionary definition. God is most certainly "supernatural" and no knowledgeable believer in at least Christianity and Judaism is going to say different. I know you don't read and think seriously about anything we post, but I've said it 3 times now. The creator of the universe would, by definition, be outside the influence of what he created. Furthermore, I believe your problem here is your definition of religion is believing in something everyone knows isn't true.
Also, I, as a believer, don't have to disprove a dam thing to you. (As you've you spent most of this thread asserting in order to avoid any effort on your part)
As for a full moon being impossible and us running away....
I realize you have a unhealthy obsession with everything being flat, apparently your even projecting it into space. It may come as a complete shock but the orbits of the planets and other objects in the universe are not....wait for it.... FLAT Dun dun dun
http://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/why-isnt-there-an-eclipse-every-full-moon
-
(https://image.ibb.co/b0xsUv/Moon_phases5_400x400_los.jpg)
There you go, nice paint picture. What do you know, I put your horizon lines, put them on your moon phases picture and Shazam! In the morning and evening you can see a very illuminated moon, who knew? Oh yeah, everyone.
I also checked your date, the moon phase was Waxing gibbous - Visible: 93%
https://www.calendar-12.com/moon_calendar/2017/april
But, SUPER JOB AVOIDING EASILY VERIFIED DISTANCES PROVING YOU WRONG, no one even noticed.