The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: IronHorse on June 04, 2020, 09:52:10 PM
-
What's the simplest explanation; that my experience of existing upon a plane wherever I go and whatever I do is a massive illusion, that my eyes are constantly deceiving me and that I am actually looking at the enormous sphere of the earth spinning through space at tens of thousands of miles an hour, whirling in perpetual epicycles around the universe; or is the simplest explanation that my eyes are not playing tricks on me and that the earth is exactly as it appears?
If I was a bacterium or microbe walking over the surface of a beach ball (comparable size scale to a human walking on Earth) I could carry on walking for ever but I would never have any conscious awareness that I was walking on a curved surface. Nor indeed would it ever look curved to me. So no tricks here - just a matter of scale.
What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second, and that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis, explore the solar system, and constantly wow the nation by landing a man on the moon and sending robots to mars; or is the simplest explanation that they really can't do all of that stuff?
Why is it a more simple explanation to say they really can't do all that 'stuff'? Space flight is a very recent invention (spurred on my WWII and originated by the Germans). Just because some people consider something to be unbelievable that doesn't mean to say it is not true and real. Unless of course that something counters a personal belief in which case you can choose not to believe it.
When I walk off the edge of a three foot drop off and go into free fall while observing the surface of the earth carefully the earth appears to accelerate up towards me. What's the simplest explanation; that there exists hypothetical undiscovered Graviton particles emanating from the earth which accelerates my body towards the surface through unexplained quantum effects; or is the simplest explanation that this mysterious and highly theoretical mechanism does not exist and the earth has just accelerated upwards towards me exactly as I've observed?
You can say the Earth appears to accelerate toward the person in freefall if you wish. Equally valid is the observation that the person is accelerating towards the ground. How can you show for definite that it is the Earth accelerating upwards towards the stationary person? You can claim it for sure but how can you show that the FE claim is any more valid than the conventional claim that the person is falling towards the Earth? In fact the person and the earth are accelerating towards each other but because the Earth is so much more massive that the person, the amount of acceleration of the Earth towards the person is so small as to be unmeasurable.
What's the simplest explanation; that when I look up and see the sun slowly move across the sky over the course of the day, that the globe earth is spinning at over a thousand miles per hour - faster than the speed of sound at the equator - despite me being unable able to feel this centripetal acceleration, or is the simplest explanation that the sun itself is just moving across the sky exactly as I have observed?
Again why is it the simplest explanation? This is basically just saying that you should reach a conclusion based purely and exclusively on the directly available observational evidence. That is not the case in nature. The Earths rate of spin at a given latitude is constant. That is why you don't feel it. Also in relation to the Earths circumference the rate of spin is very slow (360 degrees over 24 hours) so you don't get any conscious real-time sensation of centripetal acceleration. If you were to sit on a roundabout in a kiddies playground and have it spin once every 24 hours you wouldn't feel that spinning either.
What's the simplest explanation; that the sun, moon, and stars are enormous bodies of unimaginable mass, size, and distances which represent frontiers to a vast and infinite unknowable universe teeming with alien worlds, black holes, quasars and nebulae, and phenomena only conceivable in science fiction; or is the simplest explanation that the universe isn't so large or unknown and when we look up at the stars we are just looking at small points of light in the sky exactly they appear to be?
Again another case where 'simple' and 'real' are completely different. I look up in the sky at Betelgeuse for example and I find it hard to imagine that if I were to replace the Sun with Betelgeuse then the whole of the inner solar system would be swallowed up. Can I prove that myself? No but astronomers have studied Betelgeuse using various techniques (all of which I know will be unacceptable as evidence from the FE point of view) and I respect and accept the results of their research. We know that Betelgeuse is a red supergiant from spectral observations. The FE response will be prove it! show it to be true! evidence please! Well there is plenty of that out there so take a page out of your own manual and do your own research.
In summary the FE interpretation of 'Occams Razer' is simply that seeing is always believing. Actually that is not true. Not by a long shot.
-
We don't need Occams Razor . All we need do is a simple geometric survey along a stretch of a few miles of canal . So easy and straightforward.
It's incredible that this isn't carried as part of junior school curriculum .
-
How is seeing a flat earth not the simplest explanation for its flatness?
Your response of "could be an illusion...." says nothing about what is and is not the simplest explanation. In fact, you are adding more complexities to justify your position.
-
How is seeing a flat earth not the simplest explanation for its flatness?
Your response of "could be an illusion...." says nothing about what is and is not the simplest explanation. In fact, you are adding more complexities to justify your position.
When you see the color brown, the simplest explanation might be that you are looking at one monochromatic color; brown. But. Brown is actually a combination of colors which you don't see (yellow, red, black).
When you look at a straight piece of oak wood, it looks like a flat straight piece of oak. But, when looking at the surface with magnification, you see all kinds of pores on the wood that you otherwise cannot observe with your naked eye.
Humans don't generally have the capacity to hear the high pitched sound of a dog whistle. The simplest explanation would be that because we don't hear it, that it must not exist. However, we know this is not the case.
When I look out of my window and observe a vast expanse of land or ocean waters, it looks like its continuously flat. That would be the simplest explanation. But, it isn't; the shape of the Earth is a round globe; observers such as astronauts have seen curvature from space, with some from the Apollo missions having taken pictures of the entire globe Earth.
-
When I look out of my window and observe a vast expanse of land or ocean waters, it looks like its continuously flat. That would be the simplest explanation.
Great. I am glad that we agree that FE is the simplest explanation to this.
-
When I look out of my window and observe a vast expanse of land or ocean waters, it looks like its continuously flat. That would be the simplest explanation.
Great. I am glad that we agree that FE is the simplest explanation to this.
When astronauts look out their windows, they see the Earth is a sphere. That the earth is a sphere is the simplest explanation to this.
When the Apollo astronauts were on their way to the moon, they didn't see the stars rotate, but saw the Earth spinning. That the Earth spins and the stars don't is the simplest explanation to this.
The OP says that there are a lot of complex observations that show the Earth is a sphere, and he is correct. But there are also some simple direct observations too. Simplest doesn't always mean correct, but the Earth being a sphere has both, and plenty of them.
-
When I look out of my window and observe a vast expanse of land or ocean waters, it looks like its continuously flat. That would be the simplest explanation.
Great. I am glad that we agree that FE is the simplest explanation to this.
You didn't include the rest of my quote. You snipped only the first half but omitted the second half, which was the point I was trying to make.
-
When astronauts look out their windows, they see the Earth is a sphere. That the earth is a sphere is the simplest explanation to this.
When the Apollo astronauts were on their way to the moon, they didn't see the stars rotate, but saw the Earth spinning. That the Earth spins and the stars don't is the simplest explanation to this.
The OP says that there are a lot of complex observations that show the Earth is a sphere, and he is correct. But there are also some simple direct observations too. Simplest doesn't always mean correct, but the Earth being a sphere has both, and plenty of them.
That invokes: Astronauts, space ships, the physical possibility of safe space travel, earth orbit, and technologies to reach space or escape velocity. That is pretty fantastic, and unfortunately a far more complex explanation for this. You are adding on more requirements and complexities to justify your belief.
As printed in the OP the simplest explanation is that NASA can't really do all of that stuff. And since the simplest explanation is that NASA can't really do all of that stuff, FE remains the simplest explanation.
-
How is seeing a flat earth not the simplest explanation for its flatness?
Simple observation and geometry shows it is Not Flat, though.
-
When astronauts look out their windows, they see the Earth is a sphere. That the earth is a sphere is the simplest explanation to this.
When the Apollo astronauts were on their way to the moon, they didn't see the stars rotate, but saw the Earth spinning. That the Earth spins and the stars don't is the simplest explanation to this.
The OP says that there are a lot of complex observations that show the Earth is a sphere, and he is correct. But there are also some simple direct observations too. Simplest doesn't always mean correct, but the Earth being a sphere has both, and plenty of them.
That invokes: Astronauts, space ships, the physical possibility of safe space travel, earth orbit, and technologies to reach space or escape velocity. That is pretty fantastic, and unfortunately a far more complex explanation for this. You are adding on more requirements and complexities to justify your belief.
As printed in the OP the simplest explanation is that NASA can't really do all of that stuff. And since the simplest explanation is that NASA can't really do all of that stuff, FE remains the simplest explanation.
Jet airplanes are pretty fantastic, and very complex. The idea that I have a billion tiny microscopic switches inside my phone flicking on and off a billion times a second is pretty fantastic. The idea that we have massive nuclear aircraft carriers and submarines is pretty fantastic. And huge space shuttles and rockets that go very, very high up, witnessed by thousands if not millions of people is pretty fantastic. But they are all true. The idea that those rockets actually go where they are going after getting all the way up there is a simple idea, far less complex than somehow making them vanish and land unseen somewhere and duplicates put up to land days later.
The only requirement is to believe people up there told the truth.
But in the end, rockets and guidance systems and all that don't matter. We have pictures, and testimony from the people up there. The simplest explanation is that they are telling the truth, which is way less complex than fabricating all that evidence and having thousands of people keeping a massive conspiracy going. That is complicated and hard to believe.
As for FE being the simplest explanation, it needs to actually explain things first before it can count as an explanation.
-
Jet airplanes are pretty fantastic, and very complex. The idea that I have a billion tiny microscopic switches inside my phone flicking on and off a billion times a second is pretty fantastic.
Yes, and those things need to be widely available to people for acceptance and confidence that they exist. If you made such claims several hundred years ago you would be laughed at. Claiming "these people have this magic tech" would not really cut it.
That's what you are doing now, claiming that an exclusive group has a special technology. Doesn't cut it.
-
Jet airplanes are pretty fantastic, and very complex. The idea that I have a billion tiny microscopic switches inside my phone flicking on and off a billion times a second is pretty fantastic.
Yes, and those things need to be widely available to people for acceptance and confidence that they exist. If you made such claims several hundred years ago you would be laughed at. Claiming "I know this person who had this magic tech" would not really cut it.
That's what you are doing now, claiming that an exclusive group has a special technology. Doesn't cut it.
That's not at all what I'm claiming.
Saying that people hundreds of years ago wouldn't believe you if you described a cell phone doesn't mean cell phones don't exist, that's a false argument. People wouldn't believe most of what we have to day, but we still have and use it.
That exclusive group is pretty big now, comprising of many countries and anyone with enough money to pay for a trip, or to buy his own rocket with a camera and launch it.
And it's not special technology. It's simply bigger and more expensive things that we already have and use. We have jets that fly people around the world every day, I have launched model rockets, the idea that we can make bigger rockets isn't exactly mind-bending.
Nothing NASA does requires magic, it's just bigger and more expensive versions of things I know exist.
And only some people need things to "be widely available to people for acceptance and confidence that they exist". The vast majority of the world doesn't feel that way. They believe the space program, they believe in the Large Hadron Collider Exists, though few have ever seen it. I've never been to the White House, but I'm sure it's real. I've never SEEN a microprocessor fabrication facility but I know my phone chips were made there and not in a witches cauldron.
Most people don't need to directly touch or see something to understand it's real. Who has seen a doctor perform open heart surgery in person? Very few, but does anyone think all those surgeries are fake and Doctors are liars?
What I'm claiming, is people have been to space and seen the Earth, taken pictures, videos, and come back to talk about it... and I have to believe either...
1. We used technology that I understand and seems quite reasonable based on everything else we can do.
Or...
2. Thousands, or millions of people are involved in a vast web of lies and deceit and all astronauts are actors and liars and it's a perfect conspiracy and massive amounts of data and observations are totally made up and nobody noticed.
Number one is the obvious choice for me.
-
Saying that people hundreds of years ago wouldn't believe you if you described a cell phone doesn't mean cell phones don't exist, that's a false argument.
If you were describing a cell phone to people hundreds of years ago it would mean that the burden of proof is on you. And claiming to someone that a group of people who you don't even know, are claiming to have this "magic" technology, leaves it as a pretty terrible and insufficient argument.
-
Saying that people hundreds of years ago wouldn't believe you if you described a cell phone doesn't mean cell phones don't exist, that's a false argument.
If you were describing a cell phone to people hundreds of years ago it would mean that the burden of proof is on you. And claiming to someone that a group of people who you don't even know, are claiming to have this "magic" technology, leaves it as a pretty terrible and insufficient argument.
We aren't hundreds of years ago right now, and rockets aren't magic, it's just technology that isn't at all hard to understand the basic concepts of. I've never been on a nuclear aircraft carrier, it's amazing and awe inspiring how something that big can float and move around so fast, and I have no idea the details on how to build one. But I've been on boats. I understand the concept. I don't feel like all sailors are liars.
-
Saying that people hundreds of years ago wouldn't believe you if you described a cell phone doesn't mean cell phones don't exist, that's a false argument.
If you were describing a cell phone to people hundreds of years ago it would mean that the burden of proof is on you. And claiming to someone that a group of people who you don't even know, are claiming to have this "magic" technology, leaves it as a pretty terrible and insufficient argument.
We aren't hundreds of years ago right now, and rockets aren't magic, it's just technology that isn't at all hard to understand the basic concepts of. I've never been on a nuclear aircraft carrier, it's amazing and awe inspiring how something that big can float and move around so fast, and I have no idea the details on how to build one. But I've been on boats. I understand the concept. I don't feel like all sailors are liars.
You are claiming that because you think something is possible and based on 'simple concepts' that we should accept its truth and all incidental complexities which may follow.
Now apply your logic to the people who claim fantastic things such as magic powers and astrology prevailing in the past. You dismiss them instantly, even though many people think that those things are 'possible' and were prevalent. The people who believe in those things also have 'basic concepts' from which they justify the existence of those things. There is endless writings on how magics and energies can exist within us and the universe, and how someone can potentially harness that power, etc, etc. It is argued that these are very simple concepts, and so we should believe those past stories.
We find a totally invalid argument.
-
Saying that people hundreds of years ago wouldn't believe you if you described a cell phone doesn't mean cell phones don't exist, that's a false argument.
If you were describing a cell phone to people hundreds of years ago it would mean that the burden of proof is on you. And claiming to someone that a group of people who you don't even know, are claiming to have this "magic" technology, leaves it as a pretty terrible and insufficient argument.
We aren't hundreds of years ago right now, and rockets aren't magic, it's just technology that isn't at all hard to understand the basic concepts of. I've never been on a nuclear aircraft carrier, it's amazing and awe inspiring how something that big can float and move around so fast, and I have no idea the details on how to build one. But I've been on boats. I understand the concept. I don't feel like all sailors are liars.
You are claiming that because you think something is possible that we should accept it's true.
Now apply your logic to the people who claim fantastic things such as telepathy, magic powers, special knowledge of the future. You dismiss them instantly, even though many people think that those things are 'possible'.
We find a totally invalid argument.
I am not claiming that, you are putting words into my mouth.
I'm thinking that with everything I know of science and the current limits of technology and what I've personally witnessed and experienced, that rockets capable of reaching orbit seems very possible. Far more likely than the entire multi-national industry, and the whole world being a vast lie and globe spanning conspiracy. That's my personal belief. You may find that a totally invalid argument, and you are entitled to your opinion.
I don't believe magic powers because I've never seen any evidence that magic exists. Now, if faeries or baby dragons were something I had seen, if magic was something I could touch and was all over the world, then I'd be likely to believe in people having magic powers too. But they don't. Rockets however, do exist. It's much less of a stretch to believe that bigger ones exist too, especially with an entire world of evidence out there. I've touched those rockets with my own hands, and you can claim they are models or fakes, but I know that yes we can build such things, and see no evidence to believe they don't work as claimed.
-
I'm thinking that with everything I know of science and the current limits of technology and what I've personally witnessed and experienced, that rockets capable of reaching orbit seems very possible.
That's nice. But how is this any different than the legions of people who believe that magics are possible, based on endless and substantial old stories of magics and mysticisms being performed?
They believe something is possible, and justify their belief on those third party stories which they did not witness themselves. It is, of course, easy to say how simple it is to believe that magics and energies can exist to allow those stories to be true. So why not? Energies exist within us and the universe that need only be manipulated. Maybe we should believe the compelling stories and compilation of evidence for those things.
Again, we find that it is extremely fallacious to believe in something just because you think it's 'possible' and 'everything I've seen suggests...' and the litany of other fallacies which have been employed. Leaps of logic and faith isn't really acceptable evidence at all.
-
I'm thinking that with everything I know of science and the current limits of technology and what I've personally witnessed and experienced, that rockets capable of reaching orbit seems very possible.
That's nice. But how is this any different than the legions of people who believe that magics are possible, based on endless and substantial old stories of magics and myscicisms being performed?
They believe something is possible, and justify their belief on those third party stories which they did not witness themselves. It is, of course, easy to say how simple it is to believe that magics and energies can exist to allow those stories to be true, so why not?
Again, we find that it is fallacious to believe in something just because you think it's 'possible'.
If dragons flew around and breathed magic fire, then if someone said they had magic powers I wouldn't just dismiss it. It's all based on evidence, observations.
I never saw the Nile, but I am sure it exists. I never saw The Emerald City, but I'm just as sure it doesn't exist. Why? Because the Nile has a vast amount of evidence that it exists, and the Emerald City has a vast amount of evidence that it's just a movie.
You are saying that we should believe absolutely nothing at all. I disagree. There are limits to what we can personally experience. Nobody has seen an atom, but I have no doubt they are real.
-
Atomic theory is a good one, because it's not really clear that subatomic particles exist. It is possible that matter is made of waves. (http://www.rhythmodynamics.com/Gabriel_LaFreniere/matter.htm) It certainly would explain why some particles can 'act as waves'.
Have you ever seen a subatomic particle?
An argument for atoms would need to be self evident, rather than on faith. An argument founded on "I can believe that they can possibly exist, and so that's why I believe it" is rather irrational.
-
How is seeing a flat earth not the simplest explanation for its flatness?
So Tom are you suggesting that you can reach a formative conclusion that the Earth is flat based on what you can see directly?
From the window of my house I cannot see any mountains, oceans, forests or deserts directly but I know they are all out there beyond what I can see. So should I assume that none of those well known features of the Earth actually exist? If I limit my acceptance of what exists and what is real to what I can see directly then I would suggest that I am going to put a severe limit on what I accept as real and true.
There is a common saying that we see what we want or expect to see and not what we don't. So as a flat Earth believer Tom you see a flat horizon and naturally conclude that is evidence enough (for you) that the Earth is flat. But then do you ask yourself ''is there any other possible explanation for what I see?' And the answer to that is yes there is. We can only see a very, very small part of the Earths surface and so on a sphere the horizon is an equal distance away in all directions. Hence it appears flat. That is true regardless of where you are.
This something that has been pointed out over and over and over again. FE have their own explanations to suit their belief and that is that.
-
How is seeing a flat earth not the simplest explanation for its flatness?
Because seeing a sharp horizon line a few miles away is not what you'd see on a flat earth
On a globe earth a sharp horizon line is expected because of the way the land curves away from you.
On a flat earth why is the horizon a sharp line just a few miles away?:
(https://i.ibb.co/Kb1CbJs/Horizon.jpg)
Why can you not see further? If the earth was flat then you wouldn't see a sharp line, it would surely be more of a fading out as on a foggy day
(https://i.ibb.co/PtqkCv3/foggy.jpg)
A sharp line is observed when you're looking at the edge of something.
-
We can argue with and point out to FE believers that their assertions based on their simple explanations don't necessary follow as true. However as in any belief system they will dismiss all the counter evidence we present to them and carry on with their beliefs regardless.
What Tom has not done so far is to provide me with an example of a 'simple observation' that in itself provides us with irrefutable proof that shows his flat Earth belief is true. In other words what is his flat Earth belief based on?
-
I'm thinking that with everything I know of science and the current limits of technology and what I've personally witnessed and experienced, that rockets capable of reaching orbit seems very possible.
That's nice. But how is this any different than the legions of people who believe that magics are possible, based on endless and substantial old stories of magics and mysticisms being performed?
Right. So yeah, you're basically right. A lot of people believe in psychics. There are people who go and see shows where these people use cold reading techniques to mislead their audience. And some people come out of those shows saying "there's no way he/she could have known..."
Read a bit about the techniques they people use and it's not as impressive as it looks - read about Barnum statements, for example.
So yeah, no dispute that people believe some pretty "out there" things without much basis - maybe because they want to feel comforted that dead relatives can still communicate.
But there's a difference between that and what space agencies (not just NASA) are doing.
Psychics don't perform well in proper scientific tests. James Randi famously offered a million bucks to anyone who could display genuine paranormal abilities under proper scientific conditions. Shouldn't be too hard if these people really have the powers they claim.
So far he still has his money.
The whole way the NASA part of the Occams Razor page is written is not about which makes the fewest assumptions, it's just an argument from incredulity. And it doesn't even bear up to much scrutiny
What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch
From scratch? What does that mean? Rockets were invented in ancient China, developed in more modern times and in the Second World War the Germans were using V2 rockets. The first photo from space was taken in 1946 using an adapted V2 rocket - 12 years before NASA were even formed. Rocket technology is not some amazing new thing that NASA developed from scratch, the US took a lot of the scientists who had been working in Germany in the War were taken to the US to continue and develop their work further.
You're claiming that NASA have access to a form of technology which the rest of us do not. Patently not true, have you heard of fireworks? Those are simple rockets. Of course we don't have access to the type of rockets NASA spend millions on any more than I have access to a Formula One racing car - but I do have a car on my drive and I know cars exist. I don't have access to the kind of fighter jets the US military have but I can go on a commercial airline. If NASA were claiming to be able to teleport people to the ISS then yeah, I might have cause to doubt them, but that is not their claim.
Also...you can go and see rocket launches. They're not private. Annoyingly I missed the SpaceX one - I'm in the UK but it did pass over here and a friend saw it go over. People in the US were no doubt watching the launch. I've seen a Shuttle launch. You might not be able to go on a Space Shuttle but you can certainly go and watch one launch - well, not any more but the rocket launches going on now.
So what's the simplest explanation? That the launch I saw secretly landed somewhere with no witnesses, the astronauts spent a week somewhere in hiding and then they somehow managed to launch again without anyone noticing (rocket launches can be seen from a long way) and managed to fly and come to land at the time and place NASA said it would. And that was going on for decades with Shuttle launches with no whistleblowers, no witnesses to any of this skullduggery.
And the US aren't the only country with a space programme, many do now.
When it comes to the moon landing you know that Jodrell Bank in the UK were tracking the Apollo craft all the way to the surface?
China have a probe which took good enough quality photos to see the Apollow landing sites. This is not just a unilateral claim, other countries have "checked their workings", so to speak.
-
How is seeing a flat earth not the simplest explanation for its flatness?
Because seeing a sharp horizon line a few miles away is not what you'd see on a flat earth
On a globe earth a sharp horizon line is expected because of the way the land curves away from you.
On a flat earth why is the horizon a sharp line just a few miles away?:
(https://i.ibb.co/Kb1CbJs/Horizon.jpg)
To expand on this - look out from height X, on land, over a ship or other object at sea, which is of a height LESS THAN X.
This yields a downward sightline through the top of the object.
Since non-parallel lines must meet, the downward sightline MUST meet the water at some point.
If the sightline CLEARLY does not meet the water, then the seas CANNOT be flat.
(https://i.imgur.com/fG5MK18.jpg?1)
(https://i.imgur.com/1YmzYvU.jpg)
-
Atomic theory is a good one, because it's not really clear that subatomic particles exist. It is possible that matter is made of waves. (http://www.rhythmodynamics.com/Gabriel_LaFreniere/matter.htm) It certainly would explain why some particles can 'act as waves'.
Have you ever seen a subatomic particle?
An argument for atoms would need to be self evident, rather than on faith. An argument founded on "I can believe that they can possibly exist, and so that's why I believe it" is rather irrational.
I don't want to get sidetracked too far but you are referencing Gabriel LaFreniere who's claim to fame is making a lot of animated gifs on a website. Nothing published or peer-reviewed, no experiments, no predictions, and at best can be called speculation. So to the contrary, it's very clear that yes, atoms do exist. Quantum theory explains why they sometimes act as waves.
This is demonstrating exactly the same problem we have been discussing. You are dismissing the very idea that atoms exist based on one random web page, when tens of thousands of scientists, experiments, research papers, countless measurements, experiments, theories, equations and observations say otherwise. Yes, atoms exist, atoms are real.
As far as seeing a single atom, we have done that too (https://images.newscientist.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/13170915/a7639384-2b5f-4294-b3529347d576cd4e_featuretwocolumnwide.jpg?width=778).
Ok, back to the subject at hand before we digress too far.
The problem is your argument can apply to everything. We don't directly see anything, our brains just receive electrical impulses generated by photons hitting our retinas, so who can truly say what is actually out there. You can use your argument to deny the existence of reality itself which gets us nowhere.
Evidence based belief is the basis of our entire existence, and not irrational at all. I can't see my bathroom right now, but I know it still exists. I know there are no baby dragons frolicking in my bathtub. I don't need to run in there and check.
And thus I believe the hundreds of astronauts that have seen with their own eyes and brought back pictures and videos that the Earth is round. Because I believe that large rockets can get into space. Because I know small rockets exist and work because I have seen and used them. I know we can make big things, I have seen that too. All the evidence points to these things being real. I have no more reason to doubt the existence of rockets in orbit than I do to doubt the existence of Dubai skyscrapers, even though I have not personally visited wither Dubai or space.
-
When I look out of my window and observe a vast expanse of land or ocean waters, it looks like its continuously flat. That would be the simplest explanation.
Great. I am glad that we agree that FE is the simplest explanation to this.
Any credibility you may have left starts to dwindle every time you cherry pick a quote from someone to twist their point. It's quite obvious what he's saying. At first glance you don't get the full picture of things. At first glance you might see a shape and say "yep, case closed thats it" but it's not that simple. Any argument you make suggesting that you can just observe the earth being flat in such a simple manner is pointless, because you cannot. This goes back to what I was saying in another thread about isolated observations.
Also arguing that modern phones look like witchcraft to people of the past is just silly. We know the technology for a smart phone exists but a regular joe cannot make a smartphone themselves, so what then, is Apple lying and actually using witchcraft? Is that really your mindset Tom? What's your simplest argument for how smart phones were made? because you sure as hell can't make one so I guess it really is simply magic. God forbid you rely on other people knowing what they're doing to make it for you and trust that they aren't using magic.
-
As someone who has always considered myself to have a rational, common sense approach to thinking, I find it difficult to understand how the minds of flat Earthers work. Tom asks 'have you ever seen a sub-atomic particle? My answer would be something along the lines of WTF do you think?!? No one has ever seen a sub atomic particle but evidence for the fact that electrons (a sub atomic particle) exist comes in the form of electricity! Unless of course Tom has another suggestion for what electricity is?
If you are going to question the existence of literally everything for which there is no direct observational evidence then you are going to be left in a very strange place. Atomic theory has been gradually developed over the years and refined as more and different experiments, observations and results have come to light. You cannot say point blank that just because you cannot lay your eyes on a sub atomic particle directly that they don't exist.
Quantum mechanics makes a lot of weird predictions that counter our common sensical minds but hey.. that's what makes it so fun and fascinating to study isn't it? I love anything like that.
-
So Tom are you suggesting that you can reach a formative conclusion that the Earth is flat based on what you can see directly?
Actually, the subject was the simplest explanation and nothing more than that. Flat = Flat is objectively the simplest explanation, as agreed by an RE proponent on the previous page.
Because seeing a sharp horizon line a few miles away is not what you'd see on a flat earth
Now you are bringing in complexities and arguments which are not even demonstrated, arguing from your personal expectations and reasoning as your source, which makes for a somewhat less empirical and more tenuous argument. You believe that Juipiter has a somewhat sharpish edge despite being a gaseous planet, right? You believe that a quarter isn't visible from one mile away, right?
This is demonstrating exactly the same problem we have been discussing. You are dismissing the very idea that atoms exist based on one random web page, when tens of thousands of scientists, experiments, research papers, countless measurements, experiments, theories, equations and observations say otherwise. Yes, atoms exist, atoms are real.
Actually the fact that there is an alternative possibility shows us that we need to see complelling evidence either way and can't rely on your ideas of "I think it might be possible.." and "everything I've seen suggests.." and "it follows.." Those are justifications based on human logic and faith, as reasons to reject the necessity of empirical evidence.
You cannot say point blank that just because you cannot lay your eyes on a sub atomic particle directly that they don't exist.
Quantum mechanics makes a lot of weird predictions that counter our common sensical minds but hey.. that's what makes it so fun and fascinating to study isn't it? I love anything like that.
You say that because we can't lay our eyes on a subatomic particle that we can't say that it doesn't exist and then cite the weird theories of Quantum Mechanics which contradicts common sense.
Don't you see the problem there? You are promoting existing theories, and then say the theories make no sense in the very next sentence. Farcical.
-
Now you are bringing in complexities and arguments which are not even demonstrated, arguing from your personal expectations and reasoning as your source, which makes for a somewhat less empirical and more tenuous argument.
My empirical observations of the world around me suggest that where I see a sharp line at the end of an object then either
1) That is the end of that object or
2) The angle of the surface of the object has changed in such a way that I can no longer see it.
The only other possibility is that visibility is poor in such a way that at some point I can no longer see the object, but in that case I observe a fading away into the distance, not a sharp edge.
And my other observation of the world is that when object B is partially obscured by object A then object A is in front of object B. So when I see a car go over a hill I witness it disappearing over the edge of the hill bottom first. When I see something like the Turning Torso video the simplest explanation is that part of the building is behind the water somehow.
You believe that Juipiter has a somewhat sharpish edge despite being a gaseous planet, right?
Yes, because although it's gaseous it is has a defined edge. if you were up close to it maybe the edge would be less well defined as with the edge of a tennis ball. From a distance though it appears as a well defined edge.
You believe that a quarter isn't visible from one mile away, right?
With the naked eye, correct. And if I have clear line of sight to it then with optical magnification I should be able to see it again. If I zoom into a horizon I don't see more sea beyond it, the sharp line remains which leads me back to one of the two possibilities I outlined above.
-
Flat = Flat is objectively the simplest explanation, as agreed by an RE proponent on the previous page.
.. but it's contradicted by the simplest observation. I refer you to my post above.
Personal experience. Saw it myself, and took the photo.
-
.. but it's contradicted by the simplest observation. I refer you to my post above.
Your "simple" observation relies on light travelling in straight lines, something that we both know to be extremely unlikely.
Poor form, Tumeni. Poor form.
-
.. but it's contradicted by the simplest observation. I refer you to my post above.
Your "simple" observation relies on light travelling in straight lines, something that we both know to be extremely unlikely.
Prove to me that it is not doing this in my photo. Not just a vague claim that it is "unlikely" to do so.
EDIT: Alternatively, suggest to us by HOW MUCH you think it will bend, and we can do the maths based on it bending either way, and see how that varies from my result based on straight light, and see if there is any meaningful difference. I have all the distances and heights, ready to do my 'rithmetic
-
Pete, could you give us your reasons why you think it is 'extremely unlikely' that light travels in straight lines please?
-
I'm thinking that with everything I know of science and the current limits of technology and what I've personally witnessed and experienced, that rockets capable of reaching orbit seems very possible.
That's nice. But how is this any different than the legions of people who believe that magics are possible, based on endless and substantial old stories of magics and mysticisms being performed?
Right. So yeah, you're basically right. A lot of people believe in psychics. There are people who go and see shows where these people use cold reading techniques to mislead their audience. And some people come out of those shows saying "there's no way he/she could have known..."
Read a bit about the techniques they people use and it's not as impressive as it looks - read about Barnum statements, for example.
So yeah, no dispute that people believe some pretty "out there" things without much basis - maybe because they want to feel comforted that dead relatives can still communicate.
But there's a difference between that and what space agencies (not just NASA) are doing.
Psychics don't perform well in proper scientific tests. James Randi famously offered a million bucks to anyone who could display genuine paranormal abilities under proper scientific conditions. Shouldn't be too hard if these people really have the powers they claim.
So far he still has his money.
The whole way the NASA part of the Occams Razor page is written is not about which makes the fewest assumptions, it's just an argument from incredulity. And it doesn't even bear up to much scrutiny
What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch
From scratch? What does that mean? Rockets were invented in ancient China, developed in more modern times and in the Second World War the Germans were using V2 rockets. The first photo from space was taken in 1946 using an adapted V2 rocket - 12 years before NASA were even formed. Rocket technology is not some amazing new thing that NASA developed from scratch, the US took a lot of the scientists who had been working in Germany in the War were taken to the US to continue and develop their work further.
You're claiming that NASA have access to a form of technology which the rest of us do not. Patently not true, have you heard of fireworks? Those are simple rockets. Of course we don't have access to the type of rockets NASA spend millions on any more than I have access to a Formula One racing car - but I do have a car on my drive and I know cars exist. I don't have access to the kind of fighter jets the US military have but I can go on a commercial airline. If NASA were claiming to be able to teleport people to the ISS then yeah, I might have cause to doubt them, but that is not their claim.
Also...you can go and see rocket launches. They're not private. Annoyingly I missed the SpaceX one - I'm in the UK but it did pass over here and a friend saw it go over. People in the US were no doubt watching the launch. I've seen a Shuttle launch. You might not be able to go on a Space Shuttle but you can certainly go and watch one launch - well, not any more but the rocket launches going on now.
So what's the simplest explanation? That the launch I saw secretly landed somewhere with no witnesses, the astronauts spent a week somewhere in hiding and then they somehow managed to launch again without anyone noticing (rocket launches can be seen from a long way) and managed to fly and come to land at the time and place NASA said it would. And that was going on for decades with Shuttle launches with no whistleblowers, no witnesses to any of this skullduggery.
And the US aren't the only country with a space programme, many do now.
When it comes to the moon landing you know that Jodrell Bank in the UK were tracking the Apollo craft all the way to the surface?
China have a probe which took good enough quality photos to see the Apollow landing sites. This is not just a unilateral claim, other countries have "checked their workings", so to speak.
You obviously weren't around at the times of the Apollo missions .Jodrell bank were not tracking Apollo 11. Nasa alone tracked their craft using their Aussie tracking facility .
Jodrell tracked Luna 15 at that time .
I watched Patrick Moore explain that Jodrell could not track Apollo 11 .
Have a look at this site
http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/jodrell/jodrole2.htm
Interesting info in there . Look at the tracking of Luna 9 - it seems that facsimile transmissions were made by bouncing signals off echo II balloon satellite in 1966. That lighter than air craft had been up there since 1964. The whole space thing is suspect .
I've seen a quote from head of nasa radio transmission at that time , can't recall his name , who admitted that it was possible that all Apollo radio transmission data could have been faked .
-
Prove to me that it is not doing this in my photo.
I'm sorry, that's not how the burden of proof works. Substantiate your own claims. If you can't, concede that you tried to get away with an unfalsifiable hypothesis.
-
I don't think my asking you to explain your claim that it is 'extremely unlikely' that light travels in straight lines comes under the definition of burden of proof. So why then Pete do you consider that it is not just unlikely but extremely unlikely that light travels in straight lines when there is a lot of evidence our there that show us it does. The use of lasers in architecture and construction for example relies on the basis that light travels in straight lines.
Light rays can be made to bend by travelling through mediums of different densities. That is called refraction. If a light ray were to travel through a vacuum over whatever distance where the density within that vacuum is constant then the ray would continue to travel in a straight line. Why wouldn't it?
The software that I use to build an all sky pointing model for my telescope mount takes into account the amount of light refraction caused by the atmosphere at different altitudes above the horizon and makes a correction for it. Here is a description of how it works... note the references to refraction.
https://www.siriusimaging.com/Help/APCC/advanced_pointing_model.htm
It amounts to a few minutes of arc at most which is less than the size of the FOV and decreases with distance from the horizon. But even for a star at say 10-20 degrees altitude the amount of refraction is much, much less than the amount of light bending apparently proposed by your EA hypothesis to explain the rising and setting of the Sun or the phases of the Moon.
-
I don't think my asking you to explain your claim that it is 'extremely unlikely' that light travels in straight lines comes under the definition of burden of proof.
I wasn't responding to you. I'm addressing a specific individual, and referencing discussions we've had previously.
-
I watched Patrick Moore explain that Jodrell could not track Apollo 11 .
Where did you watch this?
Have a look at this site http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/jodrell/jodrole2.htm
Interesting info in there .
Yup, nothing to confirm that JB did NOT track Apollo, just pages that deal with the tracking of Soviet craft...
I've seen a quote from head of nasa radio transmission at that time , can't recall his name , who admitted that it was possible that all Apollo radio transmission data could have been faked .
Should be really easy to find it again, then. Since you know he was "head of radio transmission"
-
Does it matter who you were responding to?
You are the one who said it is extremely unlikely that light travels in straight lines so I am asking you to explain why you consider it to be so unlikely. There is a lot of evidence out there that suggests it does travel in straight lines.
-
Does it matter who you were responding to?
Yes. Tumeni is making claims which he's already been proven wrong on, and is pretending not to know much about it. I don't particularly feel like explaining basic optics to a newcomer for the umpteenth time, but pointing out Tumeni's dishonesty is somewhat necessary here.
He is welcome to substantiate his own claims without trying to reverse the burden of proof. If he has evidence that the assumption that he posited is true, I'm sure he'll provide it post-haste. Meanwhile, I won't engage in this "well, prove God doesn't exist!" BS.
-
Well, even though light 'wibbles' and bends slightly it's a bit different from the sweeping, large arcs of curvature that would be needed for the earth the be flat. That's not to say that it isn't the case either, but we've seen light being more straight than bent. Although this is a subject I tend not to consider proof of 'anything' since, obviously no matter if light is straight, wibbling or massively curves the end result is you seeing the thing on the other end of the light so you'd really have to prove 'how' light is bending, not 'if' it is.
-
Your "simple" observation relies on light travelling in straight lines, something that we both know to be extremely unlikely.
Given the DATA of the observation, and without any reference to the behaviour of light, we can form the geometry;
Observation height 100m
Ship height 46m or so.
Distance to ship - between 14 and 22km, determined by it passing between two islands of known distance.
This yields a geometrical figure. The presumed flat plane of the sea, continued to a point under the observation point, forms a horizontal base of between 14 and 22km. A vertical at each end, one of 100m, one of 46m, and a fourth, angled side connecting the tops of the verticals.
Doesn't matter if light is bending or not, this is the physical geometry of the situation, IF we presume the lands and seas to be flat, and with the exception of the topography of the land that places the observer 100m above sea level.
This figure can be split into a rectangle and a triangle, and we can apply Pythagorean geometry to the triangle. See my diagram above. This gives us angle B. With angle B and the height of the observer, we can determine where the continuation of the hypotenuse of that triangle leads, and where it should meet the continuation of that flat base beyond the 46m side, IF the base is flat. This forms a triangle with side a being the observer height, side b the base formed by the (presumed) flat sea on which the ship sails, and a hypotenuse connecting observer to the base.
(https://i.imgur.com/1YmzYvU.jpg)
The continuation of that angle line SHOULD meet the flat base line somewhere between 25 and 39.29km away from the observer, according to simple geometry. It CANNOT miss the base.
If we could draw a rope or wire out from the observation point, not have it sag, bend, or wave in the wind, connect it to the top of the ship, and extend it in a straight continuation line onward past the ship, it would meet a presumed flat sea between 25 and 39.29km away. Regardless of how light behaves.
Agree?
I'll ask the same question I asked on YouTube, but which all the FEers over there avoided answering; "What do you SEE behind and beyond the top of the cranes on the ship? Sea? Sky? Something else?"
All the distances, heights and calculations are referenced in detail in my YouTube video on the observation. I know this has been removed once already for "spamming the forums", but since it's all written out there already, I am disinclined to retype it all here.
If mods want to remove it, then just say so, and I'll edit it out of this post, but it CONTAINS THE DATA pertinent to this discussion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdxpJMXGeHE
-
I watched Patrick Moore explain that Jodrell could not track Apollo 11 .
Where did you watch this?
Have a look at this site http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/jodrell/jodrole2.htm
Interesting info in there .
Yup, nothing to confirm that JB did NOT track Apollo, just pages that deal with the tracking of Soviet craft...
I've seen a quote from head of nasa radio transmission at that time , can't recall his name , who admitted that it was possible that all Apollo radio transmission data could have been faked .
Should be really easy to find it again, then. Since you know he was "head of radio transmission"
Here http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/history/tracking/part2.html
That's from Jodrell Bank Centre for Astrophysics , Department for Physics and Astronomy .
They did not track Apollo 11 .
Interesting how they were bouncing data around by balloon satellite in the 60's .
The nonsense that Jodrell tracked apollo is a recent addition to space race mythology.
BBC article from 2009 . See the beginning of the myth . http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/manchester/hi/people_and_places/history/newsid_8150000/8150469.stm
Read this paragraph " However, while all eyes were on Armstrong and the Apollo 11 mission, astronomers at Jodrell Bank were busy monitoring the movements of a different spacecraft orbiting the Moon on the same day."
-
"That's from Jodrell Bank Centre for Astrophysics , Department for Physics and Astronomy"
... and it says at the top of the page it's merely a duplicate of what you posted earlier, duplicated with that Swedish guy's permission.
https://www.jodrellbank.net/20-july-1969-lovell-telescope-tracked-eagle-lander-onto-surface-moon/
"In July 1969, the Jodrell Bank Observatory team team, led by the observatory Director Sir Bernard Lovell, used telescopes at the Cheshire site including the Lovell Telescope and the 50ft telescope (now the 42ft telescope) to simultaneously monitor signals from the Apollo 11 Eagle lander and the Russian unmanned module Luna 15 spacecraft, both on lunar missions."
"...On July 20 1969, the scientists at Jodrell Bank were simultaneously observing two dramatic events. The Lovell Telescope, their largest, was receiving signals from the Soviet Luna-15 probe, which was supposed to land just hours after the Apollo 11 landing...
Also ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJuLvxkSiNo
"...Meanwhile, even as Luna-15 was preparing to land on the moon, the Mark-II telescope, another large radio telescope on the grounds of Jodrell Bank, was tracking and receiving transmissions from Apollo-11. Audio and data from the mission was being demodulated, and although the facility didn’t have the equipment necessary to demodulate and display the video from Apollo-11, they were able to watch the transmissions via the BBC’s coverage of the events on broadcast television..."
-
Agree?
Of course not. The shape you'd draw to illustrate the situation strictly relies on the behaviour of light. You chose a scenario in which light travels in a straight line. Substantiate your assumption, keeping in mind that you have prior knowledge of its falsity.
-
The shape you'd draw to illustrate the situation strictly relies on the behaviour of light.
No, it does not.
If I stood on the observation point in the middle of the night, with no Moon, and the ship was in the same place it was when I took the photograph, the geometry of the situation would be exactly the same.
No?
We presume the seas to be flat. Don't need light to do that. We draw verticals at each end of the scene, one under the observation point, one under the top of the ship. Don't need light. We connect the tops of the verticals. We can do that in the dark.
No?
-
.. but it's contradicted by the simplest observation. I refer you to my post above.
Your "simple" observation relies on light travelling in straight lines, something that we both know to be extremely unlikely.
Generally speaking, what would be the reason for light to not travel in a straight line?
-
The only way in which the path of a light ray can be bent is by the process of refraction. The amount of refraction (deviation from its original path) is a function of both the wavelength of light involved and the difference in densities of the mediums involved. This gives us a ratio known as the refractive index.
Note that even refraction does not cause a light ray to follow a curved path (as seems to be implied by the diagrams of FE electromagnetic acceleration) but rather it changes instantaneously the direction of an otherwise straight path.
As I pointed out earlier the atmosphere causes a slight refraction effect because air is denser than the vacuum of space beyond and the density of the atmosphere decreases with height above the surface. I also mentioned how this refraction effect is very small compared to the amount of bending that the FE Wiki seems imply takes place as per
https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration
Rather it is in the order of arc minutes which would be barely noticeable to the naked eye. Here's a graph to show how the amount of refraction (in arc minutes) varies with altitude in degrees.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction#/media/File:BennettAtmRefractVsAlt.png
Videos have been posted before by FE'ers claiming to provide evidence the 'bending' of light such as this one
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifbCsha7Syc
But of course that is not the light bending but an example of light undergoing total internal reflection within the flow of water coming out of the bottle.
-
You obviously weren't around at the times of the Apollo missions .Jodrell bank were not tracking Apollo 11. Nasa alone tracked their craft using their Aussie tracking facility
Well, you're right, I wasn't born. But I don't see how that's relevant. They were tracking Apollo 11, according to their own website:
https://www.jodrellbank.net/20-july-1969-lovell-telescope-tracked-eagle-lander-onto-surface-moon/
From the initial operation of the Lovell Telescope, the telescope had become entwined with the “Space Race”, tracking spacecraft operated by both the Russians and Americans beginning with the world’s first artificial satellite Sputnik 1 in October 1957. In July 1969, the Jodrell Bank Observatory team team, led by the observatory Director Sir Bernard Lovell, used telescopes at the Cheshire site including the Lovell Telescope and the 50ft telescope (now the 42ft telescope) to simultaneously monitor signals from the Apollo 11 Eagle lander and the Russian unmanned module Luna 15 spacecraft both on lunar missions.
Signals intercepted (see below) by the 50ft telescope showed the signals received when Neil Armstrong took manual control of the Eagle lander as well as the moment when the Eagle lander module touched down on the surface of the moon.
If you can find the quote from Patrick Moore then I'll have a look, but a vague memory if you saying he said a thing is not very satisfactory.
I'm not sure what your source adds, it speaks about Jodrell tracking numerous craft which were headed to the moon in the space race.
I've seen a quote from head of nasa radio transmission at that time , can't recall his name , who admitted that it was possible that all Apollo radio transmission data could have been faked .
OK, then provide the source. Just saying "I saw a quote from someone who said a thing" doesn't really help the discussion.
-
No?
No.
We connect the tops of the verticals. We can do that in the dark.
Okay. If you do not assume that light travels in a straight line, then connecting the vertices with a straight line is arbitrary, and requires substantiation. You could connect them with any curve of your choosing, and it would be entirely as meaningful. Of course, you were discussing what we can see, so the meaning of your line is somewhat obvious. But that in turn brings us back to the assumption you know to be false.
But I'll humour you. Explain the significance and meaning of the function you chose to connect the two points while not assuming that light travels in a straight line.
-
"That's from Jodrell Bank Centre for Astrophysics , Department for Physics and Astronomy"
... and it says at the top of the page it's merely a duplicate of what you posted earlier, duplicated with that Swedish guy's permission.
https://www.jodrellbank.net/20-july-1969-lovell-telescope-tracked-eagle-lander-onto-surface-moon/
"In July 1969, the Jodrell Bank Observatory team team, led by the observatory Director Sir Bernard Lovell, used telescopes at the Cheshire site including the Lovell Telescope and the 50ft telescope (now the 42ft telescope) to simultaneously monitor signals from the Apollo 11 Eagle lander and the Russian unmanned module Luna 15 spacecraft, both on lunar missions."
"...On July 20 1969, the scientists at Jodrell Bank were simultaneously observing two dramatic events. The Lovell Telescope, their largest, was receiving signals from the Soviet Luna-15 probe, which was supposed to land just hours after the Apollo 11 landing...
Also ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJuLvxkSiNo
"...Meanwhile, even as Luna-15 was preparing to land on the moon, the Mark-II telescope, another large radio telescope on the grounds of Jodrell Bank, was tracking and receiving transmissions from Apollo-11. Audio and data from the mission was being demodulated, and although the facility didn’t have the equipment necessary to demodulate and display the video from Apollo-11, they were able to watch the transmissions via the BBC’s coverage of the events on broadcast television..."
It's from 2016 . Listen to what they say from the beginning . Head of jodrell bank O'Brien was 5 year old at the time . Comedian O'brien says "you found this" - "yes it's one of our prize plums" so quickly stifles debate on where it came from . Garbled description of what it was supposedly tracking . Whatever it was musta been bouncing up and down on the moon and the lander landed in mid air. Lame explanation of " we just got things adjusted properly in time to track the landing " . Fkn hilarious , and complete bollox .
Jodrell Bank ,for at least 30 yrs, acknowledged that it did not track the eagle . And now it did?
The whole thing is complete fiction - so easy to " fly me to the moon " in the 60's . Technology advances apart from wocket science that retreats. Good job the balloon satellites haven't regressed .
-
It's from 2016 . Listen to what they say from the beginning . Head of jodrell bank O'Brien was 5 year old at the time . Comedian O'brien says "you found this" - "yes it's one of our prize plums" so quickly stifles debate on where it came from
And this article has an interview from one of the engineers who did the tracking
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-49001181
Your arguments are a mixture of claims about remembered statements you provide no source for, arguments from incredulity and flat out denial.
The one source you did provide does confirm that they were tracking craft going to the moon.
No, it wasn’t easy in the 60s, they threw a LOT of money at it. As public interest waned they no longer had the budget to do it - the last 2 Apollo missions were cancelled because of that.
Rocket technology hasn’t failed to advance but budgets have been significantly cut since the space race.
-
Okay. If you do not assume that light travels in a straight line, then connecting the vertices with a straight line is arbitrary, and requires substantiation.
No, it's not a case of me "not assum(ing)" that light travels in straight lines, nor a case of an arbitrary choice.
We're considering the geometry of the situation with the presumption that the sea and lands, excluding local topography, are flat. If they have any curve at all, they are Not Flat. So to consider the geometry on the basis that they are flat, we have to consider straight lines.
The plane of the sea is therefore presumed to be flat, a straight line. The two verticals at each end are also considered to be straight lines. There's no reason to draw these as curves. We now have three sides of a geometric figure, all straight.
There's no reason to draw a curve for the fourth side of the figure unless someone has some basis for what type or extent of curve to use. It's not an "arbitrary" choice to select a straight line to connect two points at all. It's completion of a geometric figure which already has three straight sides.
You could connect them with any curve of your choosing, and it would be entirely as meaningful.
I could, but there's no reason to, until there's a sound basis to determine what the curve should look like. Until then, I connect the two points concerned with a straight line to form a geometric shape. I can then consider the geometric relationship between observer and ship, since the angles of the geometric shape can be determined with simple Pythagorean theory.
Of course, you were discussing what we can see, so the meaning of your line is somewhat obvious. But that in turn brings us back to the assumption you know to be false. But I'll humour you. Explain the significance and meaning of the function you chose to connect the two points while not assuming that light travels in a straight line.
It's the shortest path between the two points. There's no reason to SELECT a curve without any basis to determine what the curve should be. Without that basis, I draw a straight line between the points to determine the geometric relation between them.
-
Okay, so you chose the curve because it's the shortest (in your favourite geometry, at least). However, you are not assuming that light travels in a straight line.
So: What is the significance of the line you drew? What is it supposed to illustrate? Previously, you said that it was a sightline, but it clearly can't be that since that wouldn't be straight.
So, given that you are not assuming light to be travelling in straight lines, what is the meaning of that line? What does it represent in the real world? What "simple observation" does it enable?
-
Okay, so you chose the curve because it's the shortest (in your favourite geometry, at least). However, you are not assuming that light travels in a straight line.
Whether it does or not does not affect the geometry of the objects in the scene. The relationship between them would still be the same whether they were lit or not. Mid-day or midnight, their sizes and distances would not change
So: What is the significance of the line you drew? What is it supposed to illustrate?
It defines the geometric relationship between the observer point and the top of the ship, yielding the downward angle of the line being considered.
Previously, you said that it was a sightline, but it clearly can't be that since that wouldn't be straight.
Why not? You seem to unable or unwilling to tell us what form it would follow, if it were not straight. So for the time being, it's reasonable to take it as straight, until you can come up with a valid other form for it.
So, given that you are not assuming light to be travelling in straight lines, what is the meaning of that line? What does it represent in the real world? What "simple observation" does it enable?
I'm considering the geometry without reference to light travel. That is not the same as "not assuming light to be travelling in straight lines". The "meaning" of the line is to establish the relationship of the line to the horizontal or vertical.
The "real world" is depicted in the photo. The exercise is to presume the sea to be flat and consider the geometry of the situation, were that to be the case, to see if that presumed flatness fits in with the photo.
Again; what do you SEE behind and beyond the top of the ship's cranes in the photo? Sea? Sky? Something else?
-
How is seeing a flat earth not the simplest explanation for its flatness?
Your response of "could be an illusion...." says nothing about what is and is not the simplest explanation. In fact, you are adding more complexities to justify your position.
No wait, "flatness" is not a shape. FEs do no tell us the whole shape of the rock we live upon. Let's compare apples with apples, we have a sphere floating in space on one side, and what do we have on the other side? The unknownable unknown+a flat surface? But now Tom please don't tell me that Occam's razor states that "not knowing" is simpler than knowing.
-
It's from 2016 . Listen to what they say from the beginning . Head of jodrell bank O'Brien was 5 year old at the time . Comedian O'brien says "you found this" - "yes it's one of our prize plums" so quickly stifles debate on where it came from
And this article has an interview from one of the engineers who did the tracking
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-49001181
Your arguments are a mixture of claims about remembered statements you provide no source for, arguments from incredulity and flat out denial.
The one source you did provide does confirm that they were tracking craft going to the moon.
No, it wasn’t easy in the 60s, they threw a LOT of money at it. As public interest waned they no longer had the budget to do it - the last 2 Apollo missions were cancelled because of that.
Rocket technology hasn’t failed to advance but budgets have been significantly cut since the space race.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAmK1ahRXzc
From 1968 , apollo 8 mission 7 months before apollo 11 mission.
This is sir Bernard Lovell explaining why none of the dishes at Jodrell Bank are capable of tracking a space mission Listen as he explains what they actually do - they gather data and deduce velocities and accelerations from phase shift in signals , doppler shift .
Fair enough but doppler effects are caused by several effects including reflection of signal . Echo 11 balloon satellite perhaps .
He states that this method applies to all deep space probes. Has to be that way , saves having to solve n body problems inherent in the globe model .
Just bounce signals of a balloon satellite and you have a space probe . Cynical I know but easy way of creating the whole myth of outa space .
-
VID
From 1968 , apollo 8 mission 7 months before apollo 11 mission.
This is sir Bernard Lovell explaining why none of the dishes at Jodrell Bank are capable of tracking a space mission Listen as he explains what they actually do - they gather data and deduce velocities and accelerations from phase shift in signals , doppler shift .
Fair enough but doppler effects are caused by several effects including reflection of signal . Echo 11 balloon satellite perhaps .
He states that this method applies to all deep space probes. Has to be that way, saves having to solve n body problems inherent in the globe model .
Just bounce signals of a balloon satellite and you have a space probe . Cynical I know but easy way of creating the whole myth of outa space .
Is there a reason that you're not posting the conversation verbatim?
-
This is sir Bernard Lovell explaining why none of the dishes at Jodrell Bank are capable of tracking a space mission Listen as he explains what they actually do - they gather data and deduce velocities and accelerations from phase shift in signals , doppler shift .
That's a strange sentence. You start by making a claim that Jodrell Bank weren't capable of tracking the missions and then you go on to explain exactly how they did.
I don't know what a balloon satellite is or how you'd make one follow the path which the Apollo missions took. But Lovell also explains in that video about the delay in getting the signal back because of the distances involved. That wouldn't happen with a balloon satellite which, by definition, must be in the atmosphere and therefore relatively close.
-
Whether it does or not does not affect the geometry of the objects in the scene.
You claimed that this was an observation, and not a piece of maths homework. Don't dither and delay by rambling about "the geometry" - specify what it is that you think can be observed, keeping in mind that the line you drew cannot be the sightline if you do not assume light to travel in a straight line.
So for the time being, it's reasonable to take it as straight
You're contradicting yourself. You say that you're not assuming light to travel in a straight line, and that you are assuming it. Please pick one and stick to it. If it's the latter, I refer you to my very first post on this subject pointing out your blatant dishonesty. If it's the former, then your diagram is not representative of what's seen in the photo, since it makes an assumption about optics that you know to be false.
-
Whether it does or not does not affect the geometry of the objects in the scene.
You claimed that this was an observation, and not a piece of maths homework.
The "maths homework" is there to determine whether or not the observation is consistent with a flat plane of the lands and sea. I think you realise that.
Don't dither and delay by rambling about "the geometry" - specify what it is that you think can be observed, keeping in mind that the line you drew cannot be the sightline if you do not assume light to travel in a straight line.
Don't steal my question. That's what I've been asking here, and what I asked every flat-earther who came to comment on the YouTube video - "What do you SEE behind and beyond the top of the ship's cranes in the photo? Sea? Sky? Something else?"
Every flat-earther avoids this question like they would avoid a ten-foot pole covered in dog doo-doo.
I asked it earlier in this thread, but you don't appear to have answered it yet, either. And now you simply ask me the same thing?
The line I drew CAN be the representation of the sightline IF light travels in straight lines, and if it did so at the time of my observation. Y/N? But for the time being, the line defines the geometric relationship between the objects.
The suggestion that there is straight vs. curvy suggests that we could draw two distinct sets of geometry; one with the light following straight lines, one with it not. But what would be the basis for drawing the non-straight ones? What curve would they follow? I'm happy to draw the geometry both ways, to do two sets, if you or anyone else can provide some basis for the curvy way.
So for the time being, it's reasonable to take it as straight
You're contradicting yourself. You say that you're not assuming light to travel in a straight line, and that you are assuming it.
No, I'm saying that for consideration of the geometry of the scene, it doesn't matter whether it does or not. The geometry would be consistent between a lit scene and and unlit one. You're trying to dodge out of considering the geometry by mingling the observation and the homework based on it.
Please pick one and stick to it. If it's the latter, I refer you to my very first post on this subject pointing out your blatant dishonesty. If it's the former, then your diagram is not representative of what's seen in the photo, since it makes an assumption about optics that you know to be false.
Again - What do YOU see behind and beyond the top of the ship's cranes in the photo? Sea? Sky? Something else?
-
The "maths homework" is there to determine whether or not the observation is consistent with a flat plane of the lands and sea. I think you realise that.
For this to be true, your diagram needs to become representative of what one would see. How to achieve that depends on the assumptions you're making about light. So far, you've been inconsistent with those, so we need to get you to pick one set of assumptions and work with it.
Don't steal my question.
You claim that there is a "simple observation" to be had here, but you present a diagram that's not linked to one. You're going to have to deal with the consequences of your logic if you want this discussion to progress.
The line I drew CAN be the representation of the sightline IF light travels in straight lines, and if it did so at the time of my observation. Y/N?
That is a likely possibility. You'd have to answer a few more questions to make it a certainty, but all of that is irrelevant since you know the "if" clause to already be false. F → P
No, I'm saying that for consideration of the geometry of the scene, it doesn't matter whether it does or not. The geometry would be consistent between a lit scene and and unlit one.
There wouldn't be much in your photograph if the scene was unlit. Here, have a diagram to help you understand the geometry behind the situation.
(https://i.imgur.com/LVS2b7p.png)
Unfortunately, you cannot discuss photography without discussing light and optics. Choosing a false assumption about these and asking me to answer questions that follow from that false assumption is unlikely to be very effective.
-
Must say, Tumeni, I don't often agree with Pete but he does have a point here.
Your diagram does indeed show the geometry of the situation and is agnostic of the way light behaves.
But you are using that diagram to demonstrate the impossibility of the image on a FE. That is only valid if light travels in straight lines.
If it does then yeah, you shouldn't see the horizon intersecting the boat. Why don't you see more sea beyond it?
If light behaves differently though then that changes the argument (I'm not saying light does behave differently, just if).
I think FE has a general problem with a horizon just a few miles away if you're on a beach looking out to sea at the shoreline. Why can't you see further?
As this thread is about Occam's razor I'd suggest the simplest explanation for a sharp horizon line is that you're looking at the edge of the earth.
In RE, you are of course. The sea curves away from you, the horizon is effectively the edge made by that curvature.
In FE either the light bends or there is some perspective effect but then I'd suggest that invoking those no longer makes it the simplest explanation for the observation.
-
This is sir Bernard Lovell explaining why none of the dishes at Jodrell Bank are capable of tracking a space mission Listen as he explains what they actually do - they gather data and deduce velocities and accelerations from phase shift in signals , doppler shift .
That's a strange sentence. You start by making a claim that Jodrell Bank weren't capable of tracking the missions and then you go on to explain exactly how they did.
I don't know what a balloon satellite is or how you'd make one follow the path which the Apollo missions took. But Lovell also explains in that video about the delay in getting the signal back because of the distances involved. That wouldn't happen with a balloon satellite which, by definition, must be in the atmosphere and therefore relatively close.
Quote from Lovell about 20s in " none of the telescopes in this tracking network have a narrow enough beam to get an accurate position of the spacecraft " that is they cannot track spacecraft .
It's not my claim , it's reality .
YOU claimed Jodrell Bank tracked the Apollo craft all the way to the surface .
Lovell explains that data signals are what the dishes collect . That's what I outlined .They could come from anywhere and doppler shift occurs when a signal is reflected like say from a balloon satellite . Makes it all easy to fake in otherwords .
Why don't you look up the list of balloon satellites , you are allowed to do that - not top secret . 9 launched during the sixties , seems they sort slowed down after the apollo thing petered out.
-
But you are using that diagram to demonstrate the impossibility of the image on a FE. That is only valid if light travels in straight lines.
...
In FE either the light bends or there is some perspective effect but then I'd suggest that invoking those no longer makes it the simplest explanation for the observation.
Light not travelling in a straight light would wipe out the entire ENAG by Rowbotham. And from the comments here, I think Pete doesn't like Rowbotham much.
The point is that the whole zetetic method depends on each person, and so when you collect the models of 100 FEs, you get at least 100 different assumptions, where REs, for as they wrong as they are supposed to be, and slightly ignorant on astronomy too, accept a single model no matter what they "see".
-
REs [...] accept a single model no matter what they "see".
This is untrue. It took us just a couple of days to find RE'ers who don't believe in the Equivalence Principle and RE'ers who don't believe the Doppler Effect follows its definition. If you look toward past history of debates here, you have RE'ers who think gravity induces speed, not acceleration, RE'ers who believe network traffic can travel between Silicon Valley in Japan in 70ms, RE'ers who think light always travel in straight lines, and so on, and so forth.
No, RE'ers' beliefs are all over the place, and very few of them fully subscribe to the model that's supposed to be authoritative. The difference is that we try not to mock you guys for trying to figure things out.
-
Your response of "could be an illusion...." says nothing about what is and is not the simplest explanation. In fact, you are adding more complexities to justify your position.
In addition to what iampc posted, I've posted some more information here on the topic: https://wiki.tfes.org/Distances_in_the_South
I believe that proposing at least two different models, where longitude lines can either diverge or converge, shows that FE explaination is not very simple.
-
It seems to me that Occam's Razor would say that if you believe that there is data which seems to contradict one model, then the simplest explanations to that is either the data is wrong or another model may be likelier to be the truth.
-
It seems to me that Occam's Razor would say that if you believe that there is data which seems to contradict one model, then the simplest explanations to that is either the data is wrong or another model may be likelier to be the truth.
I don't think that's anything to do with Occam's razor, aren't those the only two logical explanations?
-
Not been here for a while, but it strikes me that if light does not travel in straight lines, then, as was pointed out above, at least one of the main experiments in ENAG is negated, for the same reason that my observation has been.
It also strikes me that there are a limited number of ways that light could behave between two points;
(https://i.imgur.com/b9bpJKm.jpg)
One - straight line
Two and Three - regular defined curves above or below the notional straight line between points
The fourth, "random" behaviour could also include a regular variance above and below the notional straight line between the points; an oscillation type of behaviour.
Does anyone consider there are any other options?
-
Does anyone consider there are any other options?
how light behaves really determines on what the light is, or is not, passing through.
Light passing through a vacuum not affected by any sort of gravitational, magnetic, or other quantum fields, or any sort of dark matter or dark energy behaves pretty much the same.
Light passing through things like those things listed above or any sort of other solid, liquid, or gaseous matter will behave very differently.
it may go straight, bounce, split
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtVbb_MWNDg
look at the 1:30 mark one light source splits into two.
one stream of photons of multiple different wavelengths may split into a wider stream of photons grouped together by wavelength like with a prism or a rainbow.
A photon will also behave differently based on the quantum state and wave function like in the double slit experiment.
-
Light passing through things like those things listed above or any sort of other solid, liquid, or gaseous matter will behave very differently.
Fair enough, but in the example I/we are talking about (EDIT from reply #23), there are no different media. Only air.