1

Flat Earth Community / On the Notion of Flat Earth Belief Growth

« on: April 11, 2021, 06:56:05 AM »

So Pete and me have crossed swords a few times on the idea that FE belief is growing to the point where it’s a significant percentage of people who believe in FE. Don’t get me wrong, you guys are certainly more known than you were 10 years ago and there’s certainly some evidence which shows it has got some traction in certain areas. Although there’s also evidence that some people simply pretend to believe in a flat earth online for the lolz.

Anyway, so scimandan spent a few hours on Omegle fishing for flat earthers and found not a one. Not the most scientific approach maybe, but make of this what you will. If FE belief was as prevalent as some on here claim then surely by chance you’d find some believers this way.

2

Flat Earth Community / Re: Starting to doubt my faith in globism

« on: April 09, 2021, 02:32:48 PM »

Other than by trusting that the car maker's self-diagnostic is working ... how?

I'm seriously not here to teach you basic car maintenance. This will be covered during your driving lessons.

Wasn't covered in mine. Literally no idea how to test this (although, to be honest, I am clueless about cars).
If you're not crashing your car to test it then what are you doing? Using some tool to test the sensor?
If so then how do you know the tool is accurate? You've just shifted the problem, haven't you?
And this is the fundamental problem. At some point unless you're able to start from first principles you're self - and most people don't have the skills to do that - you're going to have to trust someone or something outside of yourself.

3

Science & Alternative Science / And Then There Were Five

« on: April 08, 2021, 06:09:22 AM »

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/56643677

Evidence building for a fifth force of nature although it all sounds a bit complicated and I’m not sure how it changes or refines our understanding of reality

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Antarctica Sun

« on: April 07, 2021, 08:07:25 PM »

Jack, can you explain how the Antarctic 24 hour sun is different than the well established phenomenon in the Arctic?

The only difference really seems to be that the Arctic 24 hour sun works with the monopole FE model and the Antarctic one does not.
Neither are easy to verify of course, but the level of credulity and scrutiny seems to depend on whether the claimed observations work with the model.

5

Flat Earth Investigations / VFX Artists React to the Moon Landing

« on: April 07, 2021, 03:12:29 PM »

I think this is the right place for this.
As per the title. Interesting video of a few guys who work in the VFX industry watching footage from the moon landings and commenting on how authentic it looks.



Few points of interest, they comment on the length of some of the shots which they say would have been incredibly difficult to do in miniature or slow mo. The way the dust moves doesn't make sense in an atmosphere where you'd get turbulence.
The reflections in the visors would have been problematic - you'd expect to see lights or of the camera.
They compare it to the film 2001 which would have been state of the art VFX of the time and note how different it looks and how clear the effects are in it are.

I thought it was interesting because most of the "moon landing is fake" arguments which focus on how the footage is fake come from people with no expertise in the field.

6

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth Article: How NOT to Debate a Flat Earther

« on: April 06, 2021, 08:57:26 AM »

Tom knows that refraction is a factor. And he knows it's not consistent. He's literally written a Wiki page about it which contains the timelapse I have referred to:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect_Caused_by_Refraction

But the Wiki page also says that

Sometimes it occurs, and at other times it does not occur

Which is demonstrably false. There is no observation where a ship sails away further and further and never sinks below the horizon. Just doesn't happen.
Unless the Bishop experiment is true of course - the results claimed, and the consistent nature of them would be revolutionary.
What a shame Tom never thought to document the result...

7

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth Article: How NOT to Debate a Flat Earther

« on: April 06, 2021, 06:38:02 AM »

Have you provided anything more for us than excuses there?

Yes.

One thing FE people love to do is use a curve calculator, compare that with observations, note they don’t match and erroneously conclude that the earth must be flat. It’s laughable really.

We have an atmosphere and that is a confounding factor. You do know that, you posted a time lapse which shows the varying effects. Even curve calculators which account for refraction can’t know the atmospheric conditions when observations were made.

But ships do always sink below the horizon, and distant beaches are not visible from a low viewer height. I don’t believe that any amount of refraction is going to let you, from a viewer height of 20 inches, see over an expanse of 23 miles to a distant beach all the way down to the shoreline. So the Bishop Experiment is potentially revolutionary, if true. Especially as you got the result consistently. Such a shame you forgot to take your camera or document the experiment in any way on any of the occasions. Your continued failure to provide any evidence for your result is noted.

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: About the conspiracy

« on: April 05, 2021, 08:36:17 PM »

Numerical approximations are good for prediction, but don't fully simulate it based on the underlying laws.

Splitting the n body problem into multiple 2 body problems is clearly a solution “based on the underlying laws”.

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: About the conspiracy

« on: April 05, 2021, 08:26:36 PM »

I would rather have no laws than adopting your lame tactic of holding up false ones and trying to justifying its massive failures.

What massive failures? Does your GPS not work? Mine does. Do you not have satellite TV? Maybe cable is more of a thing over there, but I have it as do millions of people and I’ve observed the way the dishes are angled differently in countries near the equator, a lot steeper exactly as you’d expect when pointing at a geostationary satellite “above” the equator.

Have you investigated the ISS? You know you can see it from the ground exactly where and when expected?

I’d say those are some pretty massive successes. What can FE predict? Give me one thing.

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: About the conspiracy

« on: April 05, 2021, 07:56:27 PM »

Regarding FE there are no underlying laws for its systems to falsify.

So you’re backing a model of reality which you have discovered no underlying laws for.
And have no working map. This is the horse you’re backing?

The closest you seem to have is an equation for EA which contains a constant you have no value for and which has no ability to predict anything. Compelling.

As for RE laws “not working”, you’ll have to tell that to GPS, the ISS and the rover sitting on Mars right now. Your only counter argument is to shout “FAKE!!” even though you use GPS and can see the ISS from earth if you care to look.

A model doesn’t have to be perfect to be useful. There are mathematical reasons why these models cannot make perfect predictions - it’s the same reason weather forecasts are imperfect. But they’re clearly good enough to be of use. And the practical applications of them prove that we live on a globe.

11

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth Article: How NOT to Debate a Flat Earther

« on: April 05, 2021, 12:37:40 PM »

you acknowledge the existence of this ability to see further than should be possible on an RE

You can certainly see further than you could if we didn’t have an atmosphere. But we do have an atmosphere.
That can vary results to a degree, but ships still always sink below the horizon, there is no observation you can point me to where a ship goes out to sea and goes further and further and can always be fully restored by optical zoom without sinking below the horizon.

If you are at a viewing height of 20 inches and looking 23 miles across a bay then you won’t be able to see the distant beach “all the way down to the water line”. This is your claim and you claim to be able to reproduce this observation consistently. What a shame that you’ve never thought to document it when it would be such powerful evidence of a flat earth. I can’t imagine why...

12

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth Article: How NOT to Debate a Flat Earther

« on: April 05, 2021, 11:55:08 AM »

So your sinking ship proof is invalidated

It’s invalidated by the Bishop experiment, which demonstrates that a span of 23 miles of sea is flat.
Unfortunately you forgot to take your camera on all the occasions when you did the experiment and thus have failed to revolutionise science.
Suggest you take it next time so you can claim your Nobel prize.

13

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth Article: How NOT to Debate a Flat Earther

« on: April 05, 2021, 11:45:07 AM »

You need to prove which version is refraction. Mystery not solved.

What do you mean “which version”?
The amount of refraction varies depending on atmospheric conditions. That’s what the time lapse shows. So...all the versions, I guess? Just to varying degrees.

But for some reason that didn’t seem to be an issue for you, you claim you can get consistent results. Can you prove that?

14

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth Article: How NOT to Debate a Flat Earther

« on: April 05, 2021, 06:09:02 AM »

That's a good article in the OP. If there are contradicting observations to the sinking ship effect it is the duty of that scientist to get to the bottom of it, not to ignore it and continue repeating the dogma.

It’s generally differing levels of refraction.
Mystery solved.
You know this of course, you have posted a time lapse video which shows this.

But on the Wiki you claim the Bishop experiment yields consistent results
“over and over throughout the year."
Strangely, you have never thought to document those results.

15

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth Article: How NOT to Debate a Flat Earther

« on: April 02, 2021, 05:40:01 PM »

Great information thanks for the reply. When you say "shift" to a skeptical perspective - can you elaborate?

I mean the level of evidence for something  which will be accepted by a person depends on whether the something conforms to their beliefs.

We are all prone to this to an extent - there are psychological effects like confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance. But it’s taken to the extreme by some people.

In the skeptical context you never really know anything. But most people don’t apply that to every situation.

16

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth Article: How NOT to Debate a Flat Earther

« on: April 02, 2021, 09:25:19 AM »

Key sentence here:

The author does provide one proof that has proven to be unassailable by flat-Earthers

This is technically true, but only because FE belief involves shifting to a sceptical context, but only selectively.
Good article about that here:

https://qz.com/1264453/to-argue-with-flat-earthers-use-philosophy-not-science/

17

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden

« on: April 02, 2021, 07:39:51 AM »

Unfortunately politics is so divisive these days. Too many people see things in complete black and white. Trump is GOOD, Biden is BAD (or the other way around, depending on how you vote).
So EVERYTHING Trump does is good and to be defended no matter how crass, embarrassing or demonstrably false. And EVERYTHING Biden does is bad.

It’s a pretty pathetic and simplistic way of looking at the world but it’s worryingly prevalent.

It’s no better over here. The quality of debate over Brexit was lamentably poor.

18

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden

« on: April 01, 2021, 05:04:03 PM »

Holy shit, are we going to have 4 years of this BDS?

inb4 someone says "no, Kamala will take over in 6 months"

19

Flat Earth Theory / Re: About the conspiracy

« on: March 31, 2021, 10:20:12 AM »

The Earth's flatness is experimentally verifiable

If this were true then why would FET not be the prevailing view?
In fact things like EA are attempts at explaining why experiments do not produce the results you'd expect on a flat earth.

20

Flat Earth Theory / Re: About the conspiracy

« on: March 31, 2021, 09:58:11 AM »

there was a reality TV show that did this once and, even though they chose people precisely because they had zero tech knowledge and were extremely gullible, they still didn't buy it

Ha. I'd completely forgotten about that show! I did watch at the time, and tbf they did fool a few people:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4537748.stm
But they picked people who they assessed as suggestible and who had little of no knowledge of space.
They told people it wouldn't be a vertical take off and that they wouldn't be weightless. Obviously actual astronauts are weightless so if it is all fake and they're being fooled then God alone knows how you'd simulate that.