The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Spikily on April 26, 2018, 01:39:04 PM

Title: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?
Post by: Spikily on April 26, 2018, 01:39:04 PM
So I was asking around and was asked the question, Are other objects in the solar system, like the moon, flat like the earth?
Title: Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 26, 2018, 01:40:32 PM
No.
Title: Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?
Post by: Spikily on May 04, 2018, 06:14:31 PM
Why Though?
Title: Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?
Post by: Curious Squirrel on May 04, 2018, 07:05:56 PM
Why Though?
Because other objects are observably non-flat due to a variety of factors, most notably things like the movement of the Great Red Spot on Jupiter.
Title: Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 04, 2018, 08:24:34 PM
Why Though?

If basketballs are round does that mean the basketball court must be round as well?
Title: Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?
Post by: Tumeni on May 04, 2018, 08:57:45 PM
Why Though?

If basketballs are round does that mean the basketball court must be round as well?

If all other planets are round, and exhibit the same characteristics as the Earth, in going around the Sun, in having Moons of their own .... why would Earth be flat?
Title: Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 04, 2018, 09:17:06 PM
Why Though?

If basketballs are round does that mean the basketball court must be round as well?

If all other planets are round, and exhibit the same characteristics as the Earth, in going around the Sun, in having Moons of their own .... why would Earth be flat?

You're right. They must not exhibit the same characteristics as the earth then.
Title: Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on May 04, 2018, 10:31:57 PM
You're right. They must not exhibit the same characteristics as the earth then.
Don't they?
Orbit the sun, have their own moons, have atmospheres and seasons and night and day and poles and geology.
There are lots of similarities between earth and the other planets.

There's life here because we are in the "Goldilocks zone" and other planets aren't and maybe we won the cosmic lottery, but fundamentally the inner rocky planets have very similar characteristics.
Title: Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?
Post by: Tumeni on May 04, 2018, 11:51:30 PM
You're right. They must not exhibit the same characteristics as the earth then.

But they do. Hundreds upon thousands of astronomers, cosmologists, astrophysicists and the like all agree on this.

Who are you to contradict them?
Title: Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 06, 2018, 08:44:15 AM
Who are you to contradict them?
A person who doesn't fall for arguments from authority
Title: Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?
Post by: Tumeni on May 06, 2018, 10:25:49 AM
Who are you to contradict them?
A person who doesn't fall for arguments from authority

The 'authority' in question is/are not some evil subspecies of mankind.

They are/were regular, ordinary folks like you and me, except they've built up experience and knowledge in their field which you have not.

If you wish to correct me on this, and outline your specific qualifications and experience in the field of astronomy, astrophysics, or the like, please do so.

If someone repeatedly quotes from ENaG, are they "arguing from authority", or not?
Title: Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 06, 2018, 11:43:02 AM
The 'authority' in question is/are not some evil subspecies of mankind.
I don't care. If your argument is "this is true because Big Space Man said so", then your argument is useless.

If someone repeatedly quotes from ENaG, are they "arguing from authority", or not?
No, you've failed to present an analogous situation. If someone repeatedly claim that the Earth is flat because Rowbotham said so, they would be arguing from authority. Explicitly bringing up the work someone has done is not the same.
Title: Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?
Post by: Pickel B Gravel on May 06, 2018, 05:46:44 PM
Why Though?

I think the problem is people wrongly classify the earth as a planet. So, many assume that if the earth is a planet, it must be the shape of other celestial bodies.
Title: Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?
Post by: Tumeni on May 06, 2018, 11:05:45 PM
The 'authority' in question is/are not some evil subspecies of mankind.
I don't care. If your argument is "this is true because Big Space Man said so", then your argument is useless.

No different from FEer saying "this is true because Big Man Rowbotham said so", surely?

If someone repeatedly quotes from ENaG, are they "arguing from authority", or not?
No, you've failed to present an analogous situation. If someone repeatedly claim that the Earth is flat because Rowbotham said so, they would be arguing from authority. Explicitly bringing up the work someone has done is not the same.

Why bring up his work at all, if it doesn't support the claim of the Earth being flat? If it doesn't support this, what does it support?
Title: Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 07, 2018, 12:19:55 PM
Why bring up his work at all, if it doesn't support the claim of the Earth being flat? If it doesn't support this, what does it support?
I'm not sure where you got this idea, but given the falsity of your premise, I'll answer your question with a resounding "Yes"
Title: Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?
Post by: ElTrancy on May 08, 2018, 05:49:32 PM
Why Though?

I think the problem is people wrongly classify the earth as a planet. So, many assume that if the earth is a planet, it must be the shape of other celestial bodies.
I'm confused, Earth is not a planet? Alright, give us proof. You say so yourself that you do not accept facts without proof, so please support your claims or nobody will take you seriously. Also, I would like to have a debate about evolution, or the holocaust in a different setting, if possible.
Title: Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on May 08, 2018, 07:43:04 PM
The 'authority' in question is/are not some evil subspecies of mankind.
I don't care. If your argument is "this is true because Big Space Man said so", then your argument is useless.
Well. Not useless.

During the Brexit debate there was an infamous quote from Gove about people having "had enough of experts",
I think it was in the context of economists who failed to predict various financial crashes so what do they know about the economic impact of Brexit?
Fairly reasonable, I guess. The economy is notoriously complicated difficult to predict. But the general point is not reasonable.

If I go to the doctor with certain symptoms and he says I need an MRI, after he's looked at the results and told me what he thinks is wrong I don't say "Let me look at that..."
I might ask for a second opinion but I'd want that second opinion to come from another medical expert. I don't have the medical knowledge or experience to interpret the results myself.
They do. That's what makes them the experts, or authorities. Doesn't automatically mean they're right, but their training and experience makes their opinion about what is wrong more valid than mine.

When every single serious scientist says that we're living on a planet which shares a lot of common features with the other planets and, like the other planets, is revolving around the sun then it's not irrelevant to the debate.

Could they all be wrong? I suppose it's possible.
But that would also mean that every single space agency is lying to us.
Every rocket launch is faked - in the sense that they don't really go into orbit.
Every photo and piece of film from space is faked.
A load of people are involved in the production of those photos and video and are keeping quiet about it.
Every astronaut is lying.
The space tourists are too.
Sky are lying about my TV signals coming from a satellite, or they are being tricked into thinking they are and the signals are coming from some other source.
GPS also works in a way differently to the way we are led to believe.
The airline and shipping industries are lying or mistaken about the way they plot their routes taking into account the curve of the earth.
And so on.

If there was some serious debate about this in science then fine, appealing to an authority who happens to back up a heliocentric model would be fallacious.
But there isn't. This debate was settled hundreds of years ago and nothing has come to light since which casts any doubt on that.

Pointing that out is not invalid or useless as part of the debate.
Title: Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 09, 2018, 07:25:52 AM
Pointing that out is not invalid or useless as part of the debate.
It is entirely invalid and useless. The FE position questions whether or not we should believe the "authorities" on the matter. Retorting with "but look at all those things they said!" is pointless unless it comes with an additional qualifier. The FE side has no business that something is false just because NASA said it (although we are guilty of this at times), and the RE side is not going to get anywhere just saying "NASA said so ergo it's true".

By your own admission, this is what sets Gove's infamous quote apart from the issue here. Gove qualified his claims for why we shouldn't trust experts - whether his justification was good or not is another matter entirely, but he didn't just bluntly say "people say x, therefore truth value"
Title: Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?
Post by: hexagon on May 09, 2018, 08:45:15 AM
The reliability of an expert relies on his qualification. And the level to be a scientist is very high. E.g. studying physics is not like learning a foreign language, where you just memorize the new vocabulary and grammar. Studying physics means that you went through all the theories by yourself. You reproduce the proofs, you apply them in different situations, you repeat experiments by yourself and interpret the results. Given the hundred thousands of physics students world-wide every day some important experiment is done again by some, one import law is derived again, again and again. You can not be a scientist by just repeating what someone else said. That's not how it works...   
Title: Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?
Post by: Tumeni on May 09, 2018, 09:12:19 AM
The FE position questions whether or not we should believe the "authorities" on the matter.

But with the situation today, less and less of those who have the evidence are the "authorities". For just one example, look at SpaceX. Do you regard them as an "authority" figure? If so, why? I see them as an independent, a private company. One that crept  up and quietly subverted the establishment, in at least one aspect of space flight (reusability).

With the equipment available to you and any other flat earther today, you can see things which show you, beyond any doubt, that we have multiple objects in orbital flight around the Earth.

You can observe the ISS for yourself. You see it at particular times because its track is predictable, and the predictions are not based on any kind of FE mechanics or motion

(isstracker, in-the-sky.org, or just google "when will the iss pass over me" or similar...)

You can buy tracking telescopes and software which track the smaller satellites for you. The only reason the tracking software works is that it knows where each satellite will be, because their tracks are predictable. These predictions are not based on any kind of FE mechanics or motion

(Plane Wave Media, or planewavemedia on YouTube for their demonstration videos)

You can buy/rent a satellite uplink truck in practically any civilised country, and a FE friend could receive a downlink from you in another civilised country where they could rent another truck

(google "satellite truck rental {placename}" for the locale in which you want to rent

You can test what the authority says with a small amount of gear, and not much expenditure. Have you tried any of this so far? If not, why not?  Would you be willing to try this in the future? If not, why not?
Title: Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on May 09, 2018, 10:01:41 AM
but he didn't just bluntly say "people say x, therefore truth value"
Outside of the world of mathematics it’s pretty much impossible to prove anything absolutely
There is a reason why in UK courts something must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
You have 10 witnesses that say that Pete shot Tom in cold blood over a dispute over the FE Wiki. They all claim they saw him.
What if they are all mistaken? It’s possible. Or it was someone who really looks like Pete.
But Pete’s fingerprints are on the gun.
Well, how do you know he didn’t handle the gun earlier in the day then left the gun lying around and someone else shot Tom?
…and so on.
The objections can get increasingly ridiculous but you could always say there’s some doubt. But is the doubt reasonable?
That’s for the jury to decide.

If I was building a case for a round earth the fact that every serious scientist believes in a round earth would absolutely be part of the case.
In itself it doesn’t prove it, but it does add weight to the likelihood of it being true.
This why they have "expert witnesses" in court cases, their expertise does add weight to a claim.
It doesn't automatically make it true but their opinion isn't irrelevant either.

Is it possible that every scientist is mistaken?
That all rocket launches by multiple countries are faked and secretly land somewhere?
That every photo and video from space is faked.
That every astronaut is lying.
That all the space tourists are too, or have been fooled somehow.
That the ISS isn't real and observations of it from earth are actually of something else?
Is it possible that Sky is lying about their signals coming from a geostationary satellite or being fooled by the European space agency?
Is it possible that GPS and satellite phones work in a way differently to the way they’re said to?

By the strictest definition of the word I’d have to concede that yes, all this is possible.
But is there anything which provides some reasonable doubt and makes any of this plausible?
I’d say no.

And the thing is, you can test things for yourself. You should get horizon dip on a globe earth, several ways have been shown recently which demonstrates that, I see no effort from any FE to do their own tests. As someone else noted, you can observe the ISS for yourself. You don't have to take other people's word for it.
You say you have done some experiments on the sinking ship thing. It's a shame your results aren't more easily available, I'd like to look at them.
The best I've seen about that on here is from Tom where a speck was "restored" by zoom. But the speck was just that, you could see no detail. And when they zoomed in it was clear the ship was not as far away as the horizon. You can see plenty of examples online of ships beyond the horizon which can't be restored by zoom because they are clearly behind a "hill of water". I don't have the equipment to do my own tests and, honestly, I don't feel the need to.

I'd like to understand why Tom thinks that earth is different from the other planets. Yes, there's life here. But otherwise we have many of the same characteristics as the other planets, there's no good reason to think we're special (leaving religion aside) or different from the other planets.
Title: Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?
Post by: ElTrancy on May 09, 2018, 01:40:14 PM
but he didn't just bluntly say "people say x, therefore truth value"
Outside of the world of mathematics it’s pretty much impossible to prove anything absolutely
There is a reason why in UK courts something must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
You have 10 witnesses that say that Pete shot Tom in cold blood over a dispute over the FE Wiki. They all claim they saw him.
What if they are all mistaken? It’s possible. Or it was someone who really looks like Pete.
But Pete’s fingerprints are on the gun.
Well, how do you know he didn’t handle the gun earlier in the day then left the gun lying around and someone else shot Tom?
…and so on.
The objections can get increasingly ridiculous but you could always say there’s some doubt. But is the doubt reasonable?
That’s for the jury to decide.

If I was building a case for a round earth the fact that every serious scientist believes in a round earth would absolutely be part of the case.
In itself it doesn’t prove it, but it does add weight to the likelihood of it being true.
This why they have "expert witnesses" in court cases, their expertise does add weight to a claim.
It doesn't automatically make it true but their opinion isn't irrelevant either.

Is it possible that every scientist is mistaken?
That all rocket launches by multiple countries are faked and secretly land somewhere?
That every photo and video from space is faked.
That every astronaut is lying.
That all the space tourists are too, or have been fooled somehow.
That the ISS isn't real and observations of it from earth are actually of something else?
Is it possible that Sky is lying about their signals coming from a geostationary satellite or being fooled by the European space agency?
Is it possible that GPS and satellite phones work in a way differently to the way they’re said to?

By the strictest definition of the word I’d have to concede that yes, all this is possible.
But is there anything which provides some reasonable doubt and makes any of this plausible?
I’d say no.

And the thing is, you can test things for yourself. You should get horizon dip on a globe earth, several ways have been shown recently which demonstrates that, I see no effort from any FE to do their own tests. As someone else noted, you can observe the ISS for yourself. You don't have to take other people's word for it.
You say you have done some experiments on the sinking ship thing. It's a shame your results aren't more easily available, I'd like to look at them.
The best I've seen about that on here is from Tom where a speck was "restored" by zoom. But the speck was just that, you could see no detail. And when they zoomed in it was clear the ship was not as far away as the horizon. You can see plenty of examples online of ships beyond the horizon which can't be restored by zoom because they are clearly behind a "hill of water". I don't have the equipment to do my own tests and, honestly, I don't feel the need to.

I'd like to understand why Tom thinks that earth is different from the other planets. Yes, there's life here. But otherwise we have many of the same characteristics as the other planets, there's no good reason to think we're special (leaving religion aside) or different from the other planets.

That...that is probably the best argument I've ever read...
Title: Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?
Post by: Rushy on May 09, 2018, 05:23:45 PM
We can view other objects and see that they are round. They are also barren and lifeless. The two are quite related. Round worlds can't support life.
Title: Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?
Post by: 9 out of 10 doctors agree on May 09, 2018, 05:47:46 PM
They are also barren and lifeless.
Only as far as we know. My favorite solution to the Fermi Paradox: they're out there somewhere, just impossible to see.
Quote
The two are quite related.
Correlation =/= causation.
Quote
Round worlds can't support life.
If Europa's surface ice suddenly melted, what would stop life from forming?
Title: Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?
Post by: ElTrancy on May 09, 2018, 05:50:43 PM
They are also barren and lifeless.
Only as far as we know. My favorite solution to the Fermi Paradox: they're out there somewhere, just impossible to see.
Quote
The two are quite related.
Correlation =/= causation.
Quote
Round worlds can't support life.
If Europa's surface ice suddenly melted, what would stop life from forming?

I'm also confused, since A is similar to B and A and B don't have life, then C can't support life if it was like A and B...does that make any sense?
Title: Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?
Post by: Rushy on May 09, 2018, 07:19:33 PM
They are also barren and lifeless.
Only as far as we know. My favorite solution to the Fermi Paradox: they're out there somewhere, just impossible to see.

That's not a solution, that's a concession.

Quote
The two are quite related.
Correlation =/= causation.

An idea parroted by people who have never once touched the subject of data analysis in their entire lives.

Quote
Round worlds can't support life.
If Europa's surface ice suddenly melted, what would stop life from forming?

What exactly would cause life to form there? I'm sure you know exactly how life is formed, and you can prove it. Your Nobel prize in chemistry awaits!
Title: Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?
Post by: 9 out of 10 doctors agree on May 09, 2018, 08:01:45 PM
They are also barren and lifeless.
Only as far as we know. My favorite solution to the Fermi Paradox: they're out there somewhere, just impossible to see.

That's not a solution, that's a concession.
Our largest telescopes can barely make out exoplanets as tiny dots. Do you really think that we'd see aliens?
Quote

Quote
The two are quite related.
Correlation =/= causation.

An idea parroted by people who have never once touched the subject of data analysis in their entire lives.
Ah, so pirates prevent global warming? Got it.
Quote
Quote
Round worlds can't support life.
If Europa's surface ice suddenly melted, what would stop life from forming?

What exactly would cause life to form there? I'm sure you know exactly how life is formed, and you can prove it. Your Nobel prize in chemistry awaits!
Perhaps I should restate it: how does the fact that Europa is a sphere preclude the formation of life?
Title: Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on May 09, 2018, 09:43:25 PM
An idea parroted by people who have never once touched the subject of data analysis in their entire lives.
Dude, come on!

http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
Title: Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?
Post by: Rushy on May 10, 2018, 03:21:40 PM
Our largest telescopes can barely make out exoplanets as tiny dots. Do you really think that we'd see aliens?

No, they don't? You're only referring to visible spectrum telescopes trying to visibly look at planets. That's a very shortsighted way of viewing the universe.

Ah, so pirates prevent global warming? Got it.

Do you have evidence they don't? Pirates cut down on shipping lanes, and shipping is by far the largest contributor of CO2. Dismissing a correlation just because you think it's silly is a good way to make you look silly instead.

Perhaps I should restate it: how does the fact that Europa is a sphere preclude the formation of life?

How does it not?

An idea parroted by people who have never once touched the subject of data analysis in their entire lives.
Dude, come on!

http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

And? Have you investigated all of those correlations and concluded that they're 100% unrelated and can't possibly ever be equal? The argument was "correlation =/= causation", which is wrong. Correlation and causation are equal sometimes, and not equal at others. Plainly stating that they are unequal all the time is just a way to show how uneducated you are regarding statistics.
Title: Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on May 10, 2018, 03:29:26 PM
*sigh*

When people say that Correlation does not equal Causation pretty much everyone understands that to mean that just because there is a Correlation between two sets of data that doesn't mean that they are correlated because one causes the other.

Obviously correlation is a possibility. But not a given because of the correlation.
Title: Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?
Post by: Curious Squirrel on May 10, 2018, 03:37:13 PM
Perhaps I should restate it: how does the fact that Europa is a sphere preclude the formation of life?

How does it not?
Can't come up with a single reason a sphere cannot support life. You're the one claiming it can't, support your claim.
Title: Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?
Post by: Rushy on May 10, 2018, 03:43:53 PM
*sigh*

When people say that Correlation does not equal Causation pretty much everyone understands that to mean that just because there is a Correlation between two sets of data that doesn't mean that they are correlated because one causes the other.

Obviously correlation is a possibility. But not a given because of the correlation.

Obviously it's not understood as that, given how both of you made extremely poor arguments for the statement in the first place which only go to show a further misunderstanding of the subject.

Perhaps I should restate it: how does the fact that Europa is a sphere preclude the formation of life?

How does it not?
Can't come up with a single reason a sphere cannot support life. You're the one claiming it can't, support your claim.

For what reason does the universe exist? If you cannot answer, then the universe doesn't exist! Very astute argument you have going. Tell me more.

What we know: no spherical body has life on it

What you claim: yeah they totally can have life they just don't

Who is the one that really needs to support a claim here? It isn't me, all the evidence is already in my favor.
Title: Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on May 10, 2018, 03:46:26 PM
What we know: no spherical body has life on it
Er...I can think of one that does.  :D
Title: Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?
Post by: Curious Squirrel on May 10, 2018, 04:09:27 PM
Perhaps I should restate it: how does the fact that Europa is a sphere preclude the formation of life?

How does it not?
Can't come up with a single reason a sphere cannot support life. You're the one claiming it can't, support your claim.

For what reason does the universe exist? If you cannot answer, then the universe doesn't exist! Very astute argument you have going. Tell me more.

What we know: no spherical body has life on it

What you claim: yeah they totally can have life they just don't

Who is the one that really needs to support a claim here? It isn't me, all the evidence is already in my favor.
You're claiming there's a reason specifically a spherical body cannot support life. If Earth is a spherical body, it's in the right everything to support life. What would prevent it? What about a planet being spherical stops the ability for it to support life? Even if Earth is flat, what is the difference between a flat body and a spherical body that prevents life from developing upon a spherical body? Your claim is there's something, so what is it?
Title: Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?
Post by: 9 out of 10 doctors agree on May 10, 2018, 04:11:32 PM
Our largest telescopes can barely make out exoplanets as tiny dots. Do you really think that we'd see aliens?

No, they don't? You're only referring to visible spectrum telescopes trying to visibly look at planets. That's a very shortsighted way of viewing the universe.
Then you tell me how, given a round Earth, we could observe extraterrestrial life.
Quote
Ah, so pirates prevent global warming? Got it.
Do you have evidence they don't? Pirates cut down on shipping lanes, and shipping is by far the largest contributor of CO2. Dismissing a correlation just because you think it's silly is a good way to make you look silly instead.
On the other hand, it kinda makes you look silly if you're presented literally a joke correlation and try to take it seriously. Thank you for my new sig quote.

Also, shipping by boat is fairly low-carbon and would have been zero-carbon at the time piracy was widespread.
Quote
Perhaps I should restate it: how does the fact that Europa is a sphere preclude the formation of life?

How does it not?
Because the only thing, as far as I know, precluding life on Europa is that its oceans are frozen. If I hypothetically thaw its oceans and keep it that way for billions of years, why shouldn't life form?

Playing hot potato with the burden of proof does nothing. I am asking you what shape has to do with life.
Quote
An idea parroted by people who have never once touched the subject of data analysis in their entire lives.
Dude, come on!

http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

And? Have you investigated all of those correlations and concluded that they're 100% unrelated and can't possibly ever be equal? The argument was "correlation =/= causation", which is wrong. Correlation and causation are equal sometimes, and not equal at others. Plainly stating that they are unequal all the time is just a way to show how uneducated you are regarding statistics.
The point of that is that it's p-hacking.
Title: Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 11, 2018, 10:53:32 AM
Outside of the world of mathematics it’s pretty much impossible to prove anything absolutely
That may be your personal epistemology, but I have little interest in philosophy.

There is a reason why in UK courts something must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
You have 10 witnesses that say that Pete shot Tom in cold blood over a dispute over the FE Wiki. They all claim they saw him.
What if they are all mistaken? It’s possible. Or it was someone who really looks like Pete.
But Pete’s fingerprints are on the gun.
Well, how do you know he didn’t handle the gun earlier in the day then left the gun lying around and someone else shot Tom?
…and so on.
The objections can get increasingly ridiculous but you could always say there’s some doubt. But is the doubt reasonable?
That’s for the jury to decide.
Okay. Let's say I didn't shoot Tom. What does it matter that 10 people claim they saw me (you could easily round up 10 angry RE'ers to say something incriminating about me - some people really dislike me)? If your methodology leads to a false conclusion, then frankly I don't want to hear much about it.

And, of course, we both know that common law systems fail regularly. You have complex issues like jury nullification, the decline of the legal profession which focuses so much in determining bureaucratic legalisms over the spirit of the matter, etc.

Yeah, if you want to view the world as a lawyer, I'm not stopping you, but I'm definitely not coming with you.

In itself it doesn’t prove it, but it does add weight to the likelihood of it being true.
I don't believe I've ever denied it. What I questioned is the circular reasoning of "We should believe NASA because NASA said we should believe them." It's the same as the Bible - the Bible is the infallible word of God because God said so in the Bible. Sorry, that's simply insufficient. To take it back to your Phoenix Wright analogy - me saying that I totally didn't murder Tom, if presented by itself and with no supporting arguments, is not going to be particularly relevant to the case most of the time.

It doesn't automatically make it true but their opinion isn't irrelevant either.
Okay, so basically you've written a whole bunch of paragraphs that boil down to you explicitly agreeing with me. Why do I even bother?
Title: Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?
Post by: Tumeni on May 11, 2018, 11:43:04 AM
What I questioned is the circular reasoning of "We should believe NASA because NASA said we should believe them."

I suggest you believe them because they, and others, provide solid evidence for what they say, and that evidence is in a far better form than simple line diagrams and commentary in a hundreds-year old text like ENaG, which seems to be the go-to reference point around here.

Again, why does it always come back to NASA ... ?  The world was proved to be a globe long before they came along.

The first orbital satellite, animal in space, man and woman in space, were all Russian/Soviet accomplishments.

There are multiple other Space Agencies in the world. There are numerous organisations in geodesic and other disciplines unconnected to NASA who also provide solid evidence of the globe.

There's a new satellite launch almost every day, somewhere in the world, by both govt-led space agencies and by independent, commercial operators. There's a satellite industry in most every civilised country on Earth. You can buy/hire your own satellite uplink/downlink truck and test them for yourself, by renting bandwidth on any of many satellites. You can buy/hire a portable satellite rig, such as used by news-gathering teams, and again - test the systems for yourself. You can hire a company like SpaceX to launch satellites for you. You can install your own domestic satellite TV reception kit, and self-align it with multiple satellites. 

70+ years - c'mon, let that sink in - 70+ years of launching satellites into orbit, since Sputnik in 1957.

Eye witnesses to launches. Hundreds of thousands of operational personnel, including designers, builders, operators, etc. Eye witnesses to their progress across the skies, both professional and amateur. Tracking by multiple independent agencies. Use of satellite data by multiple customers and consumers. Eye witnesses to failed satellites burning up on re-entry. Eye-witnesses to a recent satellite, having completed almost two orbits, leaving Earth orbit to head out beyond Mars.

I'm genuinely baffled as to how you can write all this off as .... hoax, conspiracy, whatever way you want to describe it.

In terms of quality and quantity of firm, solid data, it tramples all over ENaG and leaves it wheezing in the dust.
Title: Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on May 11, 2018, 11:51:26 AM
Okay. Let's say I didn't shoot Tom. What does it matter that 10 people claim they saw me (you could easily round up 10 angry RE'ers to say something incriminating about me - some people really dislike me)?

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

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

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

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

Can I definitively say that the earth is round? In the truest sense, no. But is there any reasonable doubt? None at all.
Title: Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 11, 2018, 01:00:56 PM
Well, the more relevant question is whether there is ANY methodology which CANNOT lead to a false conclusion.
I don't particularly care - if your methodology leads you to a false conclusion, then I have little interest in it and will pursue alternatives. After all, I'm just exchanging a guaranteed failure for a likely failure.

I suggest you believe them because they, and others, provide solid evidence for what they say, and that evidence is in a far better form than simple line diagrams and commentary in a hundreds-year old text like ENaG, which seems to be the go-to reference point around here.
That's rather quite different from what you said before. You were so adamant that pointing out the BBC quoted them saying these things was important. I propose that it is not. Without trying to run away from the subject, would you care to defend your position?
Title: Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on May 11, 2018, 01:25:46 PM
I don't particularly care - if your methodology leads you to a false conclusion, then I have little interest in it and will pursue alternatives.
That actually makes sense IF you can demonstrate that your methodology is less likely to lead to a false conclusion or cannot lead to a false conclusion.
Can you?
Title: Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 11, 2018, 02:02:49 PM
That actually makes sense IF you can demonstrate that your methodology is less likely to lead to a false conclusion or cannot lead to a false conclusion.
Can you?
I doubt you'll entertain it, but I can certainly try. One of the main reasons the legal system has to rely upon reasonable doubt is that we can't (or at least really don't want to) try to reproduce a murder over and over until we're sure that we reproduced the perfect murder. Even if we take the absurdity of that proposal out of the equation, common law has its benefits when trying to figure out things that happened in the past. The Zetetic approach is that of one who is not concerned much with time. I'm not in a rush, and the Earth is unlikely to suddenly change shapes [or, rather, if it does, I'll have more important concerns to deal with], and outside of some violent individuals sending me the occasional death threat, the Earth being flat has very little impact on my life.

There is no reason for me not to take my time, and to carry on expanding my worldview rather than settling on a false conclusion.
Title: Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?
Post by: Tumeni on May 11, 2018, 02:13:23 PM
That's rather quite different from what you said before. You were so adamant that pointing out the BBC quoted them saying these things was important. I propose that it is not. Without trying to run away from the subject, would you care to defend your position?

I have no recollection of saying or writing this, and a search on the forum for the term "BBC" only brings up your post here. No other posts.
Title: Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 11, 2018, 02:28:10 PM
I have no recollection of saying or writing this, and a search on the forum for the term "BBC" only brings up your post here. No other posts.
Even the magnificent Pete Svarrior makes mistakes sometimes - I mixed this discussion up with another one (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9483.msg150123#msg150123), and I mistook you for another avatar-less RE'er with a remarkably similar posting style. My apologies.
Title: Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on May 11, 2018, 03:46:39 PM
That actually makes sense IF you can demonstrate that your methodology is less likely to lead to a false conclusion or cannot lead to a false conclusion.
Can you?
I doubt you'll entertain it, but I can certainly try. One of the main reasons the legal system has to rely upon reasonable doubt is that we can't (or at least really don't want to) try to reproduce a murder over and over until we're sure that we reproduced the perfect murder. Even if we take the absurdity of that proposal out of the equation, common law has its benefits when trying to figure out things that happened in the past. The Zetetic approach is that of one who is not concerned much with time. I'm not in a rush, and the Earth is unlikely to suddenly change shapes [or, rather, if it does, I'll have more important concerns to deal with], and outside of some violent individuals sending me the occasional death threat, the Earth being flat has very little impact on my life.

There is no reason for me not to take my time, and to carry on expanding my worldview rather than settling on a false conclusion.
Hmm. We need to be careful here because we are on the verge of having a sensible debate.

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

But in both cases the evidence only adds to the probability that the theory is correct. Nothing is definitive in the purest sense.
I've given a whole list of things above that would have to be true in order for the earth to be flat.
Possible? I guess so, again in the purest sense. Plausible in any way? Not remotely.
Title: Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 11, 2018, 04:30:43 PM
I've given a whole list of things above that would have to be true in order for the earth to be flat.
Possible? I guess so, again in the purest sense. Plausible in any way? Not remotely.
Right, and we've generated similar lists as an argument against the Earth being round. The Wiki page on Occam's Razor is a good example of a mediocre argument (though not one I'm looking to outright remove - enhance, perhaps). I don't like that format, since it doesn't add much to the discussion; or, at the very least, it carries little persuasive power. You and I will probably find different things to be highly implausible.
Title: Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?
Post by: 9 out of 10 doctors agree on May 11, 2018, 04:37:01 PM
Right, and we've generated similar lists as an argument against the Earth being round.
Where can I find one such list? I'd like to debunk it.
Title: Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on May 11, 2018, 05:41:03 PM
I've given a whole list of things above that would have to be true in order for the earth to be flat.
Possible? I guess so, again in the purest sense. Plausible in any way? Not remotely.
Right, and we've generated similar lists as an argument against the Earth being round. The Wiki page on Occam's Razor is a good example of a mediocre argument (though not one I'm looking to outright remove - enhance, perhaps). I don't like that format, since it doesn't add much to the discussion; or, at the very least, it carries little persuasive power. You and I will probably find different things to be highly implausible.
The Occam's Razor page is weak. If you want me to go through it then I can but as you say, it's not based on observations, it's just saying "wow, NASA claim to be able to send rockets into space, I don't believe that's possible so isn't it simpler to think they can't?". I mean, what kind of argument is that?! It's too subjective.
If you can point me in the direction of a better link then I'd like to have a look.
Title: Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 11, 2018, 06:41:18 PM
It's just something I've seen come up in discussion before. As I said, it's not an argument format that I consider particularly useful or interesting, so I didn't exactly make any effort to take note of it.
Title: Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?
Post by: Spycrab on May 11, 2018, 10:04:00 PM
Well it's a matter of phrasing. It can swing both ways. e.g.

Is the earth stationary and unmoving with an invisible dome and tyrannical secret government lying to the masses about the earth's shape in a desperate attempt to get money from taxpayers by making them think it is for a space program, constantly fabricating photos to keep up the illusion, compounded by multiple illusions and a bizarre set of rules for perspective, or is the earth round and life goes on as normal?

Is the earth a speck in the infinite cosmos spinning around a burning ball of plasma that is one of an infinite number that are all in turn spinning around impossibly large galaxies, that there are also an infinite number of, and 95% of all that is invisible, but still has mass, and the earth is indeed a sphere but it is too big to see the roundness, and the sun doesn't orbit us, it just looks like it does, or is the earth flat like it looks like it is?
Title: Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 12, 2018, 05:14:14 AM
I've given a whole list of things above that would have to be true in order for the earth to be flat.
Possible? I guess so, again in the purest sense. Plausible in any way? Not remotely.
Right, and we've generated similar lists as an argument against the Earth being round. The Wiki page on Occam's Razor is a good example of a mediocre argument (though not one I'm looking to outright remove - enhance, perhaps). I don't like that format, since it doesn't add much to the discussion; or, at the very least, it carries little persuasive power. You and I will probably find different things to be highly implausible.
The Occam's Razor page is weak. If you want me to go through it then I can but as you say, it's not based on observations, it's just saying "wow, NASA claim to be able to send rockets into space, I don't believe that's possible so isn't it simpler to think they can't?". I mean, what kind of argument is that?! It's too subjective.
If you can point me in the direction of a better link then I'd like to have a look.

You may not like it, but the conclusions in the Occam's Razor page in our Wiki are the simplest explanations.
Title: Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?
Post by: inquisitive on May 12, 2018, 07:15:52 AM
It's just something I've seen come up in discussion before. As I said, it's not an argument format that I consider particularly useful or interesting, so I didn't exactly make any effort to take note of it.
How convenient.
Title: Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 12, 2018, 10:53:58 AM
How convenient.
I agree - it would be very inconvenient for me to memorise every discussion I've participated in over the past decade or so, just so I can respond to every request from some guy with entitlement issues.

Seriously, though? You're going to pull this shit when I'm making a point against FE'ers? Are you so desperate on pulling a "gotcha"?

Well it's a matter of phrasing. It can swing both ways.
That's certainly part of the problem. Either side can make a "well duh!" non-argument to support their position, but the conversation will never go anywhere.
Title: Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on May 12, 2018, 01:04:01 PM
You may not like it, but the conclusions in the Occam's Razor page in our Wiki are the simplest explanations.
And the only things wrong with that are

1) Simplest is subjective. There is no objective "simplometer" you can use to determine which is the simplest.
2) That page has been written with a FE slant, so of course you make it sound like your explanation is the simplest.
3) Occam's razor is not a fundamental law of the universe, it's just a guideline.
Title: Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 13, 2018, 12:39:11 AM
3) Occam's razor is not a fundamental law of the universe, it's just a guideline.
While I disagree with Tom on other points, he has you dead to rights here. Occam's Razor is an extremely common principle in the scientific method. And, as you pointed out yourself, it is deeply flawed and can't serve as anything more than an informal guideline. This is just one of many ways in which the Zetetic method is superior.
Title: Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on May 13, 2018, 07:18:43 AM
Occam's razor isn't hard baked into the scientific method, it is just a guideline. If it were then we wouldn't have Relativity or Quantum Theory which may be many things but simple isn't one of them. If you agree it is flawed in the sense that it is not some universal law that the simplest explanation is always the correct one then why do you have a Wiki page about it (which honestly isn't well written, you can write a page like that to back up any idea if you word it in the right way). More work on the Wiki?
Title: Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 13, 2018, 07:32:02 AM
Occam's razor isn't hard baked into the scientific method, it is just a guideline. If it were then we wouldn't have Relativity or Quantum Theory which may be many things but simple isn't one of them. If you agree it is flawed in the sense that it is not some universal law that the simplest explanation is always the correct one then why do you have a Wiki page about it (which honestly isn't well written, you can write a page like that to back up any idea if you word it in the right way). More work on the Wiki?

The page is a response to the "Occam's Razor shows that you are wrong" posts we regularly receive.

Where does the page assert that the simplest explanation is the correct explanation? That is something you have entirely made up. Universal rule? Correct? Who said any of that? The page is merely determining the simplest explanation.
Title: Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 13, 2018, 09:03:26 AM
(which honestly isn't well written, you can write a page like that to back up any idea if you word it in the right way). More work on the Wiki?
Please stop doing this. I opened this conversation by bringing up the page and saying it needs work. I'm glad you agree, but don't phrase it as a suggestion.
Title: Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?
Post by: isaacN on May 13, 2018, 03:33:04 PM
3) Occam's razor is not a fundamental law of the universe, it's just a guideline.
While I disagree with Tom on other points, he has you dead to rights here. Occam's Razor is an extremely common principle in the scientific method. And, as you pointed out yourself, it is deeply flawed and can't serve as anything more than an informal guideline. This is just one of many ways in which the Zetetic method is superior.

While the scientific method has brought about every discovery that has led to the modern world, with countless scientific break throughs and discoveries, im strugling to find one discovery that has been made by the Zetetic method that has benefited society. Bearing that in mind, on what basis are you making the claim that the Zetetic is superiour, i would really like to understand your reasoning.
Title: Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?
Post by: Curious Squirrel on May 13, 2018, 03:37:36 PM
Occam's razor isn't hard baked into the scientific method, it is just a guideline. If it were then we wouldn't have Relativity or Quantum Theory which may be many things but simple isn't one of them. If you agree it is flawed in the sense that it is not some universal law that the simplest explanation is always the correct one then why do you have a Wiki page about it (which honestly isn't well written, you can write a page like that to back up any idea if you word it in the right way). More work on the Wiki?

The page is a response to the "Occam's Razor shows that you are wrong" posts we regularly receive.

Where does the page assert that the simplest explanation is the correct explanation? That is something you have entirely made up. Universal rule? Correct? Who said any of that? The page is merely determining the simplest explanation.
But it's not. You need to use Occam's Razor correctly, which in this context isn't 'the simplest explanation' but closer to 'which makes the least amount of assumptions' to which I would argue it is FE that makes more assumptions. Occam's Razor, in the scientific community, tends to be about a preference towards empirical explanation/observations as those are the simplest. The ones involving your senses. In that vein, Occam's Razor is very much a core part of Zeteticism as well. When applied to hypotheticals and similar, it's closer to asking the least amount of assumptions. Which, as far as NASA is concerned, I haven't been able to come up with how FE makes less assumptions.
Title: Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?
Post by: isaacN on May 13, 2018, 03:42:33 PM
No.

How can you be so sure of this? On what data are you basing your answer on?
Title: Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?
Post by: TheDoctorGaming on May 18, 2018, 02:26:02 PM
No.
If there the rest of the objects in the observable universe are spherical. How come earth is flat
Title: Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 19, 2018, 07:54:35 AM
If there the rest of the objects in the observable universe are spherical. How come earth is flat
If there the rest of the objects in the observable universe are devoid of life. How come earth has humans on it

Your question is a silly one for many reasons, but let's start with the most obvious one. You don't know that all other bodies are round. Indeed, you know for a fact that not all are (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ʻOumuamua).
Title: Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on May 19, 2018, 08:25:43 AM
The rest of the objects of a certain size will be spherical, or roughly so, because gravity will pull them into that shape.
That is why the comparison with earth and other planets makes sense in terms of their shape.
The rest of the objects won't necessarily have life on them because certain additional criteria have to be met for that to be so - a planet being in the "goldilocks zone" where liquid water can be present is thought to be one.

Gravity is universal so that comparison is valid, conditions for life is not so it doesn't.
Title: Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 19, 2018, 10:12:50 AM
conditions for life is not [universal]
Please provide a verifiable alternative set of conditions for life, one substantially different from that present on Earth.
Title: Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?
Post by: Tumeni on May 19, 2018, 10:44:25 AM
conditions for life is not [universal]
Please provide a verifiable alternative set of conditions for life, one substantially different from that present on Earth.

They will depend on the life form, surely?
Title: Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 19, 2018, 11:10:08 AM
They will depend on the life form, surely?
That's okay - pick your favourite extraterrestrials. I'm just looking for an example to substantiate his point.
Title: Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?
Post by: Tumeni on May 19, 2018, 04:11:52 PM
They will depend on the life form, surely?
That's okay - pick your favourite extraterrestrials. I'm just looking for an example to substantiate his point.

I have no favourites, and no way of determining whether or not there are life-supporting conditions for them until humankind encounters them.

Look at, for instance;

Fish
Plankton

Life forms which exist in environments that we humans would find alien.

Title: Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 19, 2018, 07:01:45 PM
I have no favourites, and no way of determining whether or not there are life-supporting conditions for them until humankind encounters them.
You also have no way of determining whether or not other flat planes exist out there.

Look at, for instance;

Fish
Plankton

Life forms which exist in environments that we humans would find alien.
I don't think any reasonable person would consider fish or plankton to be extraterrestrial beings. As such, your argument does not address AATW's assertion in any meaningful way.
Title: Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?
Post by: inquisitive on May 19, 2018, 07:11:15 PM
I have no favourites, and no way of determining whether or not there are life-supporting conditions for them until humankind encounters them.
You also have no way of determining whether or not other flat planes exist out there.

Look at, for instance;

Fish
Plankton

Life forms which exist in environments that we humans would find alien.
I don't think any reasonable person would consider fish or plankton to be extraterrestrial beings. As such, your argument does not address AATW's assertion in any meaningful way.
With no prior knowledge, how would you determine the shape of the earth?
Title: Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on May 20, 2018, 08:52:14 PM
conditions for life is not [universal]
Please provide a verifiable alternative set of conditions for life, one substantially different from that present on Earth.
It is not possible to answer that question. We have very little data about the conditions on a planet or moon which mean it can support life. We only know of one object which has intelligent (and even that is debatable!) life on it. From that we can can conclude that planets with earth's properties - with an atmosphere, at the right distance from its sun so it is in the temperature range that liquid water can exist, with a certain mix of elements, are capable of sustaining life. We don't know how likely life is to arise on such planets though. Is it pretty much inevitable given enough time? Did we win the cosmological lottery and we're the only planet with life on? Is it somewhere in between? Right now we just don't know. We're only just starting to be able to detect exoplanets.
Is it possible that planets or moons which don't share earth's properties could harbour life? Some kind of life which is alien to us in every sense of the word? We don't know of any which do but, again, data is limited, we have studied our own solar system and not found any signs of life there but we've really only scratched the service - sent a few probes to do fly-bys, landed a few on Mars and Venus but that's about it.

TL;DR, we don't really have enough data to know what conditions on a planet or moon are able to support life as we only know of one which does. So the answer to:

Quote
If there the rest of the objects in the observable universe are devoid of life. How come earth has humans on it

is: We don't know if the rest of the objects are devoid of life because even within our own solar system we've only just started exploration of them, we've only been able to send craft to them for 40 years or so, exoplanets are only just being discovered now and are far too far away for us to explore with existing technology. We don't know whether there is life anywhere else. Early indications are that it is rare but we don't have enough data right now to be sure.

But the shape of objects. We have a lot more data about that. We haven't, as far as I know, observed an object above a certain size (more accurately mass) which is not spherical. All the stars, planets and moons (again, above a certain size) appear to be spheres. And we understand why that is, gravity naturally pulls objects of a certain mass into a sphere:

https://www.spaceanswers.com/deep-space/what-is-the-minimum-size-a-celestial-body-can-become-a-sphere/

Ergo, why wouldn't the earth be a sphere?

This actually raises a question about your Wiki which says that the other planets are "pretty small",
It doesn't state how small, but if they're less than a few hundred kilometres in diameter then they wouldn't be spherical - like that object you mentioned before, that object is too small to be pulled into a sphere by gravity and neither would the other planets be if they are as small as you suppose (I have assumed that "pretty small" means smaller than the flat earth sun which I believe is said to be about 30km across, correct me if I have that wrong).