701

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Occam's Razor and FET

« on: April 25, 2016, 06:33:44 PM »

Yeah, fixing your broken system of inquiry makes us look really bad. No, seriously.

What was that about science adapting itself as new information becomes available? Why would you cling so dogmatically to a disproved system?

"Zeteticism differs from the usual scientific method in that using zeteticism one bases his conclusions on experimentation and observation rather than on an initial theory that is to be proved or disproved. A zetetic forms the question then immediately sets to work making observations and performing experiments to answer that question, rather than speculating on what the answer might be then testing that out" -- http://rationaltheory.wikia.com/wiki/Zetetic_Method

There is a good reason why Zeteticism isn't widely practiced. The main way to prove or disprove a theory is by making predictions based on that theory, then setting up an experiment to test whether those predictions prove to be true or not. If the results of the experiment contradict the predictions, then the theory is false. If the results are consistent with the predictions, then that is evidence that the theory is correct.

A Zeteticist (is that the correct word?) can't do this. They have to generate a new theory from scratch after each and every experiment. If the same theory is generated after every experiment, then you can gain confidence that that theory is correct. However, if the theories aren't the same, there is no way to test inconsistencies between the theories. Are both theories true? Do they contradict each other? The only way to answer these questions is to make predictions based on the theories, and then test the predictions. A true Zeteticist can't do this.

This results in a large number of unrelated, weak theories to describe multiple observations. For example:
- Undescribed "Celestial gears" to explain the movement of stars in the southern hemisphere
- Undescribed atmospheric effects causes the sun to disappear behind the horizon.
- Undescribed atmospheric effects causes the sun to maintain brightness and size, despite it moving away from us.
- Spotlight shaped sun to explain timezones.
- Spherically shaped sun to explain the non-elliptical shape of the sun. Or "perspective". Depends who you ask.
- The moon must be flat in order to show the same phase to everyone at the same time.
- The moon must be spherical in order to show the same shape to everyone at the same time.
- Unexplained luminescence (moonshrimp?) to explain light from the moon.
- lots and lots of conspiracies to explain away all the contradicting photographic evidence from space.
- etc...

Compare that with theories generated by the scientific method that are required to explain the above observations:
- Newton's theory of gravity explains why the earth is spherical, why it is orbiting the sun, why the moon is orbiting the earth. This in turn explains: movement of the stars, movement of the sun, movement of the moon, phases of the moon, shape of the sun and moon, movement of the planets, timezones, etc...

This brings us back to the original point of this thread: Occam's Razor.

Which is more likely:
1. the theory that has a different sub-theory to explain away every contradicting observation, many of which aren't mutually consistent?
2. the theory that explains the same number of observations, with much fewer, mutually consistent theories? The theory that is a result of the same body of scientific knowledge that has successfully produced all other technological advances: airplanes, computers, medicine, etc...

So, which system of inquiry is really broken? Who is the one really clinging dogmatically to a broken system?

702

Flat Earth Community / Re: Friendly Debate

« on: April 25, 2016, 05:27:09 PM »

I think lawyers are smarter than scientists.  I base this on the fact that lawyers more than any of the rest of us know how to use language.  Lawyers run things and scientists are servants. 

I believe in God and I go to church (Methodist) regularly and read my Bible.

"For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves" -- Luke 22:27

Seems a bit hypocritical to insult scientists for being servants. There are plenty of professions that have fewer people in positions of power than lawyers. Are doctors stupid too? Artists? Athletes? Mathematicians? Pastors?

703

Flat Earth Community / Re: New to this

« on: April 25, 2016, 05:11:14 PM »

When the history of the world is complete the biggest disappointment of the human race will be the promise of science.

If you think they aren't doing a good job, why don't you show them how to do it better? Is there a specific theory that you find lacking? A specific example of ineptitude perhaps? It's easy to point fingers from the sidelines...

704

Flat Earth Community / Re: New to this

« on: April 25, 2016, 05:09:30 PM »

Please don't be distracted by the hordes of self-righteous "debunkers". They're best ignored, unless you're looking for some cheap amusement.

Yep, best to ignore them. It makes it much easier to believe in one's personal theories if you ignore the people proving those theories wrong.

705

Flat Earth Community / Re: New to this

« on: April 25, 2016, 04:47:56 PM »

My personal beliefs are that science has come to a point of diminishing returns and the human race has gone about as far as it can.   Science has helped in some sense but there was effective medicine and happy and healthy people who lived long lives before the advent of science.

I am curious as to why you believe this. Any evidence to support it?

Scientists are not the smartest people nor are scientists gifted.  Artists and athletes are the gifted among us.   Lawyers are the smartest; they run things, don't they?  Scientists are a dime a dozen and even if Archimedes, Newton and Einstein never existed science would be just as far along as what it is.   Scientists are a dime a dozen.  Scientists are always servants and never masters.  Elvis Presley was gifted whereas  Einstein dreamed of being a concert violinist but he was either too lazy or not talented enough to get there.  You may have guessed by now I have a very low opinion of science as it is practiced these days.   Science has produced a new brand of shyster in my opinion and those people just can't be trusted.  When the history of the world is finished I am of the opinion that the greatest disappointment of the human race will be the promise of science.

Goodness, did a scientist steal your wife or something?

I believe in God and I go to church (Methodist) regularly and read my Bible.

Declaring this, then spewing a bunch of baseless insults surely reflects really well on your church. I'm sure they would be proud...

706

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why can't Polaris been seen at the coast of Antartica?

« on: April 23, 2016, 09:01:29 PM »

The wake behind a ship spreads out behind it. This is easily demonstrated with a toy boat in a bathtub. The wake isn't a straight line into the horizon.

They are referring to the turbulent/aerated water created by the engine, not the diverging wave pattern. Regardless, I agree with you that it isn't necessarily parallel.

On a slightly different subject, you ignored my post that directly refuted your earlier comments in the thread. Care to comment?

707

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why can't Polaris been seen at the coast of Antartica?

« on: April 23, 2016, 08:53:45 PM »

Do you see the horizontal lines on the wall?

I see that line, but why did you draw your line several inches below it?

The other one is just a reflect of that.

How did you generate this reflection? It certainly isn't mirrored horizontally over the image (not that that would be appropriate). It looks like you just randomly chose a line that would intersect the right line on the horizon.

Even if you trace from the other physical line on the wall It will reach the same point.

Oh really?


Once again, the vanishing point is above the horizon. (Assuming those lines are actually parallel in reality. I can't say for sure that they are.)

The laws of perspective aren't up for debate. They are very clean cut,

Could you actually explain these laws? If you know them so well and they aren't up for debate, surely you can explain them to us?

the fact some here say a vinishing point doesnt "exist" is astounding.

No one said that. They said the vanishing point isn't necessarily on the horizon.

708

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why can't Polaris been seen at the coast of Antartica?

« on: April 23, 2016, 07:59:39 PM »

I'd hate to break it to you, but I actually traced the angle of perspective based on an actual level horizontal line. Seems to work out.

Completely dishonest. You used an arbitrary reference point, one designed to get the results YOU need, rather that the wake disturbance that is clearly parallel  the POV.

Are you kidding me? I used an actually horizontal line obviously parallel to the ground. Why would the wake be the right thing to use anyway? First of all, it would be maybe 15-20 feet below the point of view. Secondly the wake tapers out as you move, not sure if you've ever seen wake behind a boat or not.

So tell me again, who arbitrarily chose something to draw lines on something?

What horizontal line parallel to the ground are you talking about? Your red lines look completely arbitrary to me. Also, what does being 15-20 feet below the point of view have to do with anything?

That being said, wakes aren't necessarily exactly parallel, although they usually look very close to parallel. I wouldn't consider this proof of anything.

709

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 2 Simple, Definitive Proofs That the Earth Isn't Flat

« on: April 23, 2016, 03:54:58 AM »

Ugh, still only off topic comments, but since no flat-earthers are responding to the original topic...

If the horizon you describe is your eyes are actually resolving the vertical curvature of the earth, wouldn't you be able to perceive the horizontal curvature as well?

That is absolute proof that the horizon isn't the curvature of the earth, just the resolution of your eyes or whatever apparatus you're using looking into the distance, subject to the rules of perspective.

How about instead of guessing, you do the actual math and calculate how much curvature you should expect to see in the horizontal direction? Then you can compare your prediction with reality, and see if you correct! This would be much more convincing than just guessing.

Standing in the middle of a circle, looking outward at its arc, you would see straight lines. You have to look at the circle from outside to recognize its curve.

Your wording is kind of confusing, but I think I understand what you mean. Let me take a whack at it:

If you are standing very near the surface of the sphere, relative to the size of the sphere, the horizon will appear as a straight line. You have to look at the sphere from a significant distance away from the sphere, relative to its size, to recognize the curve of the horizon.

710

Flat Earth Community / Re: Zero witnesses

« on: April 22, 2016, 06:54:03 PM »

inb4: "Look out your window"

... good luck with the question though.

711

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Salt flats

« on: April 22, 2016, 06:52:12 PM »

If pictures from space are rejected, why would the completion and documentation of this experiment be accepted?

It probably wouldn't, which is why I advocate proofs that are easier for the average person to confirm. (Don't derail this thread by debating the proofs I linked to please!)

But that's beside the point. It's still an interesting experiment to discuss.

712

Flat Earth Community / Re: Gravity

« on: April 22, 2016, 06:14:44 PM »

Look, guys, I'm not a smart guy - especially scientifically. I already know this. I'm using argument ("argument" if you wish) to explore ideas.

Debate/arguing is a great way to further your understanding of a subject that you already have a basic understanding of. It is NOT useful if you don't already have a basic understanding of the subject.

I repeat, go learn basic kinematics first, then basic Newtonian physics, then come back to debate the ideas.

Stupid people are welcome. Wilfully ignorant people are not. That's my policy, anyway.

713

Flat Earth Community / Re: Gravity

« on: April 22, 2016, 06:02:12 PM »

Also, you might try googling the difference between movement and acceleration.  They are not the same thing.  You're really out of your element here if you're not willing to do some basic research.

Acceleration is the change of velocity. Any object that is accelerating is moving. Acceleration is a type of movement.

You can accelerate with zero velocity.

No one here wants to hold your hand through an entire course on kinematics. If you have the entire internet at your finger tips, then use it. Learn kinematics before trying to debate it. No, a cursory glance through wikipedia isn't enough. You need a thorough knowledge of it, including the ability to correctly answer a wide range of related practice problems. There is nothing more annoying than arrogant ignorance.

714

Flat Earth Community / Re: Gravity

« on: April 22, 2016, 05:48:22 PM »

Ok so we've definitely established that the x and y axis are independent. Why doenst the target get moved out of the way? (because of the upward acceleration of the earth, I mean)

Also, acceleration is definitely movement.

When you are accelerating, you are moving. Acceleration belongs to the set of movement.

Speed, Velocity, Acceleration.

In Other words Don't feed the Troll unless you insist on being apart of a Monty Python Sketch.

*cough* Hanlon's Razor *cough*

715

Flat Earth Community / Re: Gravity

« on: April 22, 2016, 05:03:31 PM »

Alright, lets put the target close enough and below me at an angle such that the parabolic arch would be horizontal to the surface. I'll have to shoot downward and the bullet will definitely not increase its altitude. Then, I'll drop a bullet at the same time. The dropped bullet will hit the ground and the fired projectile will not. Why?

Ok, now I feel like you are probably just trolling... but just in case you aren't: The target is in the way. Also, you need to shoot horizontally for the experiment to be valid.

If you don't want to wait until your highschool physics course to learn this stuff, lookup a course in kinematics. Khan academy probably has some pretty good lessons on it. Then move on to Newton's laws of motion. Then special relativity. A bit of calculus wouldn't hurt. THEN you can come and argue this stuff to your heart's content.

716

Flat Earth Community / Re: Gravity

« on: April 22, 2016, 04:53:56 PM »

If you assume no obstacles, air resistance, or curvature of the earth, then yes, they will hit the ground at exactly the same time. Horizontal motion and vertical motion are independent.

Ok, if I shoot a bullet at a target 100 yards away and drop a bullet at the same time, one will hit the ground and the other wont even hit the ground. Why?

Because there is a target in the way. See the bolded part in my quote.

717

Flat Earth Community / Re: Gravity

« on: April 22, 2016, 04:52:03 PM »

However it does bring an interesting question to my mind about why we experience gravitational effects when we accelerate at great speeds.  What causes the effects felt from what RE's call "multiple G's" in the Flat earth model?

There is no reason to think G's would be felt any differently under Universal Acceleration than under gravity. Those "gravitational effects" due to acceleration is just further evidence that acceleration feels exactly the same as a force in the opposite direction. See: equivalence principle (As has been stated multiple times already in this thread)

718

Flat Earth Community / Re: Gravity

« on: April 22, 2016, 04:47:22 PM »

Yes, I clearly lack this understanding. I'm not as old, smart, or experienced as you. I'm trying to understand by asking questions. Its how I learn best. Can you please help me to understand?

No, you aren't trying to understand. He is giving you good answers and you are refusing to believe him. I realize it's rather difficult to believe any physics coming from a flat-earther, but in this case, he is correct. Perhaps you will believe me instead, as someone who does NOT believe the earth is flat?

1. acceleration is movement and yes: 9.8 meters per second.

No, acceleration is absolutely NOT the same as movement. 9.8 m/s² is correct.

This is demonstrably false. They would not hit the ground at the same time. The fired bullet would take significantly longer than half a second to finally hit the ground.

If you assume no obstacles, air resistance, or curvature of the earth, then yes, they will hit the ground at exactly the same time. Horizontal motion and vertical motion are independent.

It's great that you are trying to learn this stuff, but you really need at least a basic understanding of highschool level physics before trying to argue this stuff. By your comments, I assume you haven't taken physics in highschool yet. If you are going to insult someone for their "understanding of basic physics", you better be REALLY sure you are correct. Better yet, just don't insult them at all.

719

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why can't Polaris been seen at the coast of Antartica?

« on: April 22, 2016, 04:17:08 PM »

Except the distance between the rails of the track are 4ft 8.5" (USA/Canada).

Yes... I didn't claim otherwise. I just said it is constant, and that the ratio of width to distance is small. Why start the sentence with "except"?

FE claims an Earth Sun distance of 3,000 miles.  The Sun is moving over the Equator on a disk that measures approx 12,600 miles in diameter.

Geometry says that minimum angle of the Sun above the FE for an observer standing on the North Pole or the "Ice Wall" is 26.57 degrees. Figuring in the average refraction that 26.57 degrees is now 26.5 degrees.

Did you actually read my entire post? I also used the 3000 mile distance. I used someone standing at the equator instead of the poles since the equator is much more accessible. I also gave flat-earthers the benefit of the doubt by using the distance to the sun at midnight (long after it has actually set). A better distance would be the distance to the sun at 9pm, which would be 4000*sqrt(2), which gives a = arctan(3000/(4000*sqrt(2))) = 28 degrees.

720

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why can't Polaris been seen at the coast of Antartica?

« on: April 22, 2016, 04:05:48 AM »

Look, you agree that perspective lines can appear to merge, but in actuality have not merged.

We agree. The sun can appear to merge with the horizon, but in actuality not have merged.

What do you disagree with?

Let's compare the train track scenario with the sun scenario.

Observations:

• The distance between the parallel train tracks appears to decrease, and eventually reach zero, as it recedes into the distance.
• The distance between the sun and the horizon appears to decrease, and eventually reach zero, as it recedes into the distance.

Since we know that the train tracks are parallel to each other, it seems plausible that the sun's path might also be parallel to the earth, right? Excellent! Flat earth for life!

Let's think about it a little deeper though. What determines the apparent distance between the train tracks? The deciding factor is the ratio of the actual distance between the tracks, to the distance to the point we are looking at. If we are standing on one of the tracks, the angular diameter of the tracks at a given distance is:

a = arctan(w/d)

a = angular diameter of the tracks at the specified distance. This decreases, approaching zero, as the tracks recede into the distance. Notice: a only becomes zero when w/d is zero.
w = physical distance between the tracks. This stays constant if the tracks are parallel.
d = the distance to the point on the tracks we are looking at. Notice: w/d is only zero when d is infinite. Of course, d can't actually be infinite in reality, so w/d is never actually zero. It can be very very small though, and appear to the human eye to be zero.

Now let's apply this to the sun scenario:
a = angular diameter between the sun and the horizon.
w = physical distance between the sun and the earth. 3000 miles seems to be the most quoted number by flat-earthers.
d = the distance between you and the spot the sun is hovering over the earth. For someone on the equator, during the equinox, the maximum this can be is the equatorial diameter of the earth. About 8000 miles.

Now, we want to see how small we can make the angle between the sun and the horizon be. To do that, we have to find the smallest possible value of w/d = 3000/8000. This gives a corresponding value for a = arctan(3000/8000) = 21 degrees.

Therefore, the SMALLEST angle possible between the sun and the horizon would be 21 degrees on a flat earth.

The difference between the train tracks and the sun is that the train tracks continues in a straight line. The ratio between the width of the tracks to the distance from the tracks continues to get smaller. The sun takes a circular path, and the ratio of the distance between the earth and the sun to the distance away from the sun never gets very small before the sun loops back around.

Therefore, a circular path of the sun above the earth is impossible. A similar argument can be made for the setting of Polaris behind the horizon as latitude decreases.