Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - WellRoundedIndividual

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10  Next >
No, the evidence in the picture does not make the conclusion that someone had certain intentions or not. You cannot claim that the artist had any sort of agenda or NASA had any sort of agenda by choosing to make the image the way they did. Literally, the only thing you can say about this image is that the sizes, distances and shapes of individual objects vary and may not represent the true characteristics of each object. You can INFER what you want, but it does not make your claim a fact or the truth.

It has already been established that the Eratosthenes experiment can be duplicated with similar results on a flat earth with using only 2 points. However, if there are 3 or more points, then results on a round earth will differ from a flat earth. You can go to to view schools from around the world posting their results of the experiment. Those data points can then be imported into Excel or whatever you like to use and see if the results point to a flat earth or a round earth. (Or you can google it and find out that someone already did this exact same thing and it points to a round earth). Or you can just yell conspiracy.

It is called equivocation.

I agree. Wording can be misleading sometimes.  I am not sure if there could be a referendum on using certain terms on this site, but it would be nice. Being able to definitively say theory vs proposal, etc. Being able to discern which is which would allow us to fully clear the air. A lot of time is wasted between people pointing out that things being claimed are merely proposals of some long drawn out thought experiment - which is fine, but most of the time it is just left hanging there as a proposal and then it gets slaughtered. Thats great that people can come up with these alternative ideas, but it would be even better if there was some attempt at coming up with an experiment, or having evidence to back up the claim, or at least proposing an idea for an experiment and looking for suggestions on how to implement it properly. Most of what I have seen on here is mere conjecture.

Takes me back to the days when I first learned the word swag. Stupid/Simple wild ass guess. Then I learn pop culture now has the ownership of it (even though it is a shortened form of swagger).

I would disagree that FE theories are elaborate - if you are talking in the terms of the scientific definition of a theory.

Repeated zetetic observations are the only thing supporting the notion of a flat earth theory.

The rest of these so called "theories" are mere proposals of untested and unverified claims and equations.

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world."

What theories of flat earth are you proposing to be true theories - besides the single one I pointed out?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: zetetic vs atmolayer
« on: Today at 03:29:58 PM »
Sure, but there has been no evidence shown that an atmolayer or dome has been detected by any device. There is nothing inherently wrong with using a device to detect the presence of something.

Agreed. There is absolutely nothing wrong with questioning things, and positing that the earth may actually be flat.  I have a problem with it when it ventures into unscientific territory and starts adding on ad hoc explanations, highly contextualized scenarios to make theories work, and government conspiracies.  Thats not science.

I would venture to say that graphic designers in most part aren't concerned with scientific accuracy.  They are looking at making it look appealing to the eye.

But then again, it could be a mole. I mean, all of this discussion is mere assertions without any evidence - so this is more of a lower fora post.

And the Mars Rover is massive! How did NASA launch something so massive out of the Earth's atmosphere?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is every other planet round?
« on: Today at 01:46:07 AM »
A shadow moon is a poor explanation for causing the lunar eclipse. Now this is literally an ad hoc explanation. It's a great theory that can never be proven false or true, due to the fact the FE Wiki says it cannot be seen. Lol ok...

Yes, this is literally what he says:

"In all the images I took today - there were over 400 in total - the curve of the horizon shows the same, while the straight edges stay straight.

The curve matches both the simulated curve from Walter Bislin's website and the expected pixel difference between the centre of the curve and the edge (~4).
Rory, Thursday at 4:01 PM #39"

So, Tom Bishop is a liar.

Oh it is very likely that they were able to determine the failure. Its rather simple, actually. When attending college for engineering, you take a course on failure analysis. You are able to determine with some probability the mode of failure on all sorts of stuff. As long as you know the material of the objects at hand, and you are intelligent enough to look up the properties of said material in an engineering handbook, such as Young's modulus. You can then analyze which object failed first based on material properties, dimensions of the object, and inspecting the failure site (the point on the object where it tore, etc). Probable cause of failure means that the sequence of events that lead to the failure are not completely certain so there are more than just one mitigating factor that led to the failure and therefore the most likely of the culprits is therefore determined to be the cause of failure.

Please refrain from talking about failure analysis if you don't understand the principles behind it.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Round Earth proof - comments?
« on: March 14, 2019, 07:15:31 PM »
Has anyone taken a look at the data on this website?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Virgin Galactic
« on: March 14, 2019, 02:59:38 PM »
People like Branson are visionaries. Real life does not happen according to people's predictions. Sometimes it serves simply as a catalyst to create something new or something improved.  Star Trek predicted cell phones in the 60s - the first brick cell phone for public use was what...late 80s, early 90s? Some things do not always come to fruition either. The genius Tesla was working on wireless energy - that never happened. (Insert the start of government conspiracy theories here, please lol).


I'm still unconvinced, too, that there is much to gain from sending people into space. Doing so was demonstrating political power and supposed scientific prowess originally. There are desirable results from faking space travel, though.

Is there much to gain from sitting here debating endlessly the possibilities of a round earth vs a flat earth? Is there anything to gain from any exploration?

Here is what we have achieved through space travel.

The idea of rockets and rocket propulsion has been around for a long time.

This isnt too greatly detailed, but I tried to find something that wasnt part of the NASA website in case anyone freaked out.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Mount Everest?
« on: March 13, 2019, 07:34:50 PM »
@WellRoundedIndividual: Is the article called "Electromagnetic Propulsion"?

No. It is thus:

QED, yes, I agree. I wasn't to keen on it, because it was just a word salad with no mathematical proof showing the derivation of the equation.

Just read up on Ray Kurzweil and the Law of Accelerating Returns. Advances in technology are on exponential curve. There is one particular graph showing the advances in computing power. Just looking at that alone shows that we are more than capable of getting a rocket into space. You hold a cellphone that is more powerful than a laptop from 5 years ago. And you think we can't figure out how to get a rocket into space? We have had geniuses like Nikola Tesla invent radio (shut up, Marconi lovers), AC electricity, bladeless turbines, the Tesla coils used in power transmission transformers. And you want to doubt our ability for rocket flight?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The effect FE has on me
« on: March 13, 2019, 12:47:19 AM »
You can calculate GS, aka ground speed, using the time it takes to pass between two landmarks with a known distance. Since, at least in the US, the grids on which country roads are laid out are in one square mile increments, you could technically use that as a landmark, assuming the surveyor and road workers paved the road properly.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Theory: Formal Development (Part I)
« on: March 12, 2019, 11:04:11 PM »
I would like this claim verified that QED has a PhD and is a physicist. Where is the evidence?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10  Next >