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 - Xfires

Pages: [1]
Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is and isn't proof
« on: November 13, 2017, 01:47:58 PM »
The particular quote you gave gives several empirical examples. Assertions are not made without basis. No one said that it was "fact". A lot of what we believe is merely the empirical conclusion to the world around us, as opposed to the hypothetical possibilities that Round Earthers believe.

Since our beliefs are based on things like "birds descend into the horizon" and yours are based on "since the sun lights exactly 50% of the earth at all times... therefore.." your burden of proof is a lot higher. We just need to show that birds descend for our assertions and you need to prove that 50% of the earth is lit at all times for yours.

Also, as the party making the huge claim against all the science that we have believed ever since the Greek times, I think you have the much higher burden of proof. If you had common sense you would create a page where I can see all of your claims and the science and proof behind them.

   -Here a few counterpoints real quick.
   1) You claim that NASA is propagating false information but how do you explain every other spaces program and independent company that uses space travel.
   2) You claim that GPS is false because it uses RET assumptions. This is a very dumb thing to claim because all you are really doing is proving that the RET assumptions lead us to the truth. This is because GPS has been tested by millions of people around the world. You ask us for evidence but you don't except the fact that you can go on your phone right now and check your location using GPS.


Flat Earth Theory / Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
« on: November 13, 2017, 01:47:50 PM »
Are then actually any FET people on this site that are willing to discuss how they actually believe this stuff?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is and isn't proof
« on: November 13, 2017, 12:53:18 PM »
I think Tom has quite neatly priced my point. Maps have been used for hundreds of years very successfully to navigate in both north and south hemispheres by sailors and pilots. They know how fast their craft go, and how long the journey should take. Guess what, the journey takes the right amount of time. Proof enough for most people, but not the flat earthers. Watch Tom make some ridiculous reason why the above isn’t true !

Those are very big claims. You are assuming what other people actually know and experience. If I choose to challenge it, as claimant you need to be willing to defend those assertions.

You seem to be trying to argue that you can just make claims and not have to defend them, and that as long as it's "common knowledge" we should automatically eat it all up as truth.

That's my point, your claim that "birds descend into the horizon" is only my perspective and that holds true whether you believe in the flat earth or the round earth. Therefore it makes very little sense to use it as a reason to believe in the flat earth.
-Furthermore, your claim that we need to show you evidence that GPS works are very shallow. This is because people in the scientific community have no reason to prove something that is already known as fact so it is almost impossible to give you evidence that you will reach your impossible standard.

   -How about this, please inform me to how the Coriolis effect and the jet stream would be possible using the FET. You must show your evidence and research that drew you to this conclusion otherwise it is just an unproven hypothesis.

I know this is not the actual research papers but they tend to cost money.

Flat Earth Community / Re: Anyone for a public discussion?
« on: November 13, 2017, 03:17:49 AM »

The whole paper is about creating a simple 3D model of rotating bodies and then concluding that because a simulation can be made of moving bodies, that the n-body problem has been solved.

At no point do they actually come up with a solution to the three body problem. They think that they can create a 3D model of moving bodies, run it a few times, see the pattern and therefore they can predict future occurrences from the pattern and the three body problem has been solved.

This is like saying that you solved the 3 body problem because you went online to one of those comet gravity simulators and tossed some balls around to rotate around each other, traced out where they were moving and that you therefore solved the 3 body problem.

It is not the same at all. In your example, you are finding a pattern where there is none, whereas, in the 3 body problem, they have run the simulations so many times that they can see the same pattern repeat itself so many times that they can formulate a guess that it is accurate to a close enough margin that it doesn't really matter   

Flat Earth Theory / What is and isn't proof
« on: November 13, 2017, 02:06:21 AM »
From what I have read over the last three hours the definition of proof very drastic from thread to thread and from person to person.

   -The claim that
The Sun's area of light is limited to a circular area of light upon the earth much like the light of a lighthouse is limited to a finite circular area around it. The rotating light on a lighthouse does not propagate infinitely into the distance. This means that only certain portions of the Earth are lightened at a time. It also describes how night and day arise on a Flat Earth. The apparent view of rising and setting are caused by perspective, just as a flock of birds overhead will descend into the horizon as they fly into the distance.
has very little evidence for it anywhere and yet FET thinks it is fact. I haven't found any evidence for this claim yet. Tom Bishop claims that any claim is his to prove and that without proof it can't be treated as a true statement. This same standard does not seem to be upheld by many of the FET.
   -My question is twofold, First what evidence is there for the FET that is also held to the same level of scrutiny and is proven by science(For science to work you must hold peer reviews even if you believe the same thing) and Second , Why does the RET have to prove basic knowledge as fact with many, many different forms of evidence from different sources but the supporters FET do not.

This is my first post to this form so feel free to leave tips that will help me convey my message, also if anyone would like me to a few of the claims and proofs the FET use as basic beliefes tha would be awsome because everything on the wiki is baseless and without any true documentation

Pages: [1]