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 - Bikini Polaris

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5  Next >
1
Flat Earth Theory / Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
« on: February 19, 2020, 09:35:11 PM »
(Note the ridiculously FLAT horizon from one side of the shot to the other and you can skip to 44 seconds if you like.)

Note the ridiculously crisp cutting line made by the horizon, *as if* it was going to frontally dive down.

2
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Infinite Earth and zeteticism
« on: February 16, 2020, 09:27:19 PM »
That would be a good topic to look into for an article. You should help us look into it.

Philosophy scholar and professor Daniel Tanguay, at the University of Ottawa seems to think that the Zetetic Philosophy is a valid philosophy:

https://books.google.com/books?id=HcR3bVP7qvUC&pg=PA201&dq=%22zetetic+philosophy%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiyu6eejNTnAhUFCM0KHcmjDu0Q6AEIOzAD#v=onepage&q=%22zetetic%20philosophy%22&f=false

The search term "zetetic philosophy" seems to bring up much other interesting commentary in other works as well.

I can help with an article shortly explaining Pyrrhonian skepticism, that is the very first known zeteticism.

I also found Marcellot Truzzi Zetetic Scholar, that is more tuned to what I see in FEs: https://nyaspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1981.tb34482.x

But overall a direct criticism of the Zetetic Cosmology would be needed.

3
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are plane tickets real?
« on: February 16, 2020, 02:11:21 PM »
Significantly weakened… You mean proven incorrect?

One thing that you have to understand is that PROOF is impossible. To me PROOF means 0% chance of error.
You could say here this picture of the blue sky is PROOF the sky is blue.
But there is a very small chance that there is a flaw with the camera
There is small chance there could be a flaw in the evolution of our optical cortex/retina which makes our brain turn the incorrect color blue.
The photo could be photo shopped
Someone could have dumped a big cloud of blue dye/dust in the sky just before the picture was taken
Sometimes the sky is red and orange.

So it's no PROOF. It's evidence.

At the same time, outside the mathematical world, there do not exist 100% precise statements. The earth is round is just a hugely rough approximation of its shape. The same for a flat earth. The same for train schedules, the same for everything. But often evidence roughly excludes other possibilities, so that the freedom to be in some way is very much limited too.

4
Flat Earth Theory / Re: I'm a RE'r and have some questions!
« on: February 16, 2020, 01:56:54 PM »


I think in the more biblical models nothing revolves around the earth. I think everything is above the earth.

I don't really understand what the firmament is but basically the entire universe is above the earth.

I respectfully disagree. A downward movement of the Sun, as described in great length in the Bible, implies that the Sun sets below the Earth, not above.

I would see your view point if there were not a good half dozen verses explaining that the earth can't move or the earth does not move or the earth will never move

I'm not discussing that, I agree that for the Bible the Earth doesn't move. But at the same time for the Bible the Sun moves in a vertical way, plus setting under the horizon and rising from below the horizon.

5
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Infinite Earth and zeteticism
« on: February 15, 2020, 04:46:53 PM »
Rowbotham doesn't have a problem with talking about hypothetis', the book is full of them. He teaches that things beyond our ability of direct study is a matter of belief, and should be treated as such, rather than one option declared as true.

Are there other sources commenting on Zeteticism? It would be nice to see other philosopher's views and criticisms on that, since following a single source is quite far from being scientific and quote close to being a cult.

6
Flat Earth Theory / Re: I'm a RE'r and have some questions!
« on: February 15, 2020, 11:56:54 AM »
What if you were standing on your head, wouldn't the movement be upwards for a sunset? God takes into account the general perspective of the reader.

It's still a vertical movement w.r.t. the horizon. The Bible clearly states that the Sun makes a clear path:

Psalm 19:6 It rises at one end of the heavensand makes its circuit to the other; nothing is deprived of its warmth.

So the movement is a clear vertical one: rise and set and a circuit above our heads.


I think in the more biblical models nothing revolves around the earth. I think everything is above the earth.

I don't really understand what the firmament is but basically the entire universe is above the earth.

I respectfully disagree. A downward movement of the Sun, as described in great length in the Bible, implies that the Sun sets below the Earth, not above.

By the same token, a fixed Earth is totally consistent with what the Bible says, without any interpretation needed.

7
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are plane tickets real?
« on: February 14, 2020, 08:22:28 PM »
I read some of the threads and I think y’all take this “prove it” thing too far. For example, I have never actually been to Europe, therefor I don’t know it actually exists. If you showed me pictures of it ....

If the sceptic truly wants to "question everything" (another line which appears frequently) then they would never get anything done in their day, for they'd never get beyond questioning their breakfast, and anything which preceded it.

Spot on. Technically FEs aren't "sceptics" but "Pyrrhonists", that is they doubt literally everything and reach a methodological "suspension of judgement". One can see that from the fact that FEs accept different contradictory, and sometimes unprovable, statements at the same time, without questioning them and without sharing values but only few things they believe false. That's the reason the FE community is basically a divided one. In Philosophy being a Pyrrhonist poses many (unresolved) difficulties, not last the problem that if you cannot believe in anything you couldn't even be Pyrrhonist in the first place. So, in general, being Pyrrhonist is not a great achievement, being it a relatively easy and safe, but questionable, play. Back to the plane ticket problem, it extends to a whole running global society where nationally independent businesses run without exploiting the real flat geometry of the planet and losing so much money, because you know, the NASA conspiracy from the sixties..


8
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Iran's Space Suit is a Halloween Costume
« on: February 14, 2020, 08:24:48 AM »
As far as we know, Iran failed to send satellites in space; the US, but probably other countries too, are worried it succeeds in doing that for military reasons. Sending humans is a totally different story, being largely useless and super-expensive to do (and also risking human lives).

What puzzles me about conspiracies is that when one starts accepting crazy stories, literally any story can be made up contradicting any other... for example, how do we know that a fake astronaut suite is part of a misinformation plan to actually hide the fact that they are succeeding in their project but want to look weak? How do we know that in reality the Earth is round but the CIA created the Flat Earth theories to hide the fact that they know it? How do we know that we know what believe we know? :)

9
Flat Earth Theory / Re: I'm a RE'r and have some questions!
« on: February 14, 2020, 08:09:44 AM »
Joshua 10:13

And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

This passage does not say the sun stood still, the earth stood still too, and the moon stayed. This passage VERY clearly indicates that the movement of the sun and the moon in the sky is because the sun and moon are the ones moving not the earth. This is backed up by the many many passages specifically saying the earth does not move. Even if one of those passages is interpreted as some sort of a metaphor or parable there are still several others which are not.

How can the movement be only in the sky if it's written that the sun "hasted not to go down"? I know it's difficult or nearly impossible to universally interpret the Bible, but it clearly states in many passages that the sunset is created out of a downward movement of the sun.

10
Flat Earth Theory / Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
« on: February 13, 2020, 06:14:53 PM »
How is that possible?? I know for a FACT that I was taught in school that the Universe began with a Big Bang...

...sending all matter exploding outward throughout space.

The Big Bang is more like a "big inflation" or also "big flash". No "matter" existed at the beginning, but it started to form when, as the space was inflating, the average temperature went down. Also, it is unknown how any matter actually exists, and scientists speculate some form of asymmetry which favors matter versus anti-matter.

The Big Bang is a theory that comes from the cosmic background radiation, this can be received also on ground by very sensitive telescopes. As usual, it's "just a theory", but it puts together many astronomical observations and is currently accepted as the only one we have about our universe.

Most people don't understand what is significant about these images of sunlight from behind clouds...

These images prove multiple 'observable' facts about our sun.

1. They show, beyond any shadow of a doubt, how close our sun is to us.


Still I cannot understand how many images of crepuscular rays show them parallel.


11
Flat Earth Community / Re: Media Resistance
« on: February 04, 2020, 10:40:26 PM »
Also at an altitude of 10,000 feet you can see hundres of miles in any direction on a clear day... no curvature is visible.

Frontal curvature is really apparent and measurable. The horizon dipping behind, the crisp clear line that ends and dips down, far clouds that go down and touch the horizon.

Regarding the OP, have you ever thought that maybe Flat Earth is fought for hiding another conspiracy and diverting people attention from lousy monetary policies and global warming?

12
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Revisiting Bedford Level Experiment
« on: February 04, 2020, 10:35:21 PM »
I still don't get how FEs interpret refraction and how they model it. Rowbotham clearly ignored it, but he doesn't represent all FEs. As far as I can't see the current state of this discussion is that the current theory of refraction assumes a Globe Earth in it, even though those assumptions could be "theoretically" ignored. But still this doesn't rule out that the Bedford canal apparent flatness could be well due to refraction, and this fits nicely with the common idea of FEs to ignore visual proofs.

13
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Revisiting Bedford Level Experiment
« on: January 13, 2020, 11:15:05 AM »
Trying to getting back to the OP:

1 - Refraction does exist for FEs and it may cause the sinking ship effect, see https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect_Caused_by_Refraction

2 - Rowbotham acknowledges the existence of the Sinking Ship effect, but adding that it's unpredictable and it doesn't prove RE.

3 - Rowbotham shows he doesn't understand air refraction and that, by the same token as 2, also the Bedford Level Experiment wouldn't necessarily prove FE.

4 - FET is still unable to provide formulas for that, and maybe it could be a totally unpredictable effect for FEs. Even though I'd be curious to know how in the mentioned link in 1 it's boldly stated:

Quote
Firstly, the reader should note that, if that curvature seen the photograph were actually the curvature of the earth, the image would suggest that earth is very small.

without any reference to any formula. The same sentence somehow shows that FET does indeed acknowledge that seeing that the earth is round is really difficult because it's so big.

14
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Revisiting Bedford Level Experiment
« on: January 09, 2020, 07:32:01 PM »
In the LIGO experiment which model of earth curvature (oblate spheroid or pearoid) did the building bods account for ? Did they just account for the fictional R = 6370km in such a delicate experiment ?

The LIGO setup is not floating on water, so I don't think it would prove anything. Maybe the closest thing to a visual proof (that REs would take as a disproof of their theory blablabla) would be to check the Bedford Canal supposed flatness at an increased height, where the temperature gradient wouldn't affect light so much.

15
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Revisiting Bedford Level Experiment
« on: January 07, 2020, 11:58:44 PM »
But you do have two problems otherwise.
1.   In the Wiki, it is stated that one of the reasons that ships vanish below the horizon, which is the same thing as this Bedford experiment, is refraction.  You can have it both ways; either refraction interferes with the path of light in the flat earth model or it doesn’t.

Based on the wiki, the sinking ship effect may have many causes. I don't know if FEs consider one to be the most frequent, but in that case, I believe it would be the FE theory of Optical Resolution, which places the vanishing point of perspective at no more than 7 miles in front of you.

2.   Whenever I have seen these “Rowbotham effects” demonstrated, it is pretty clear that the experimenter always puts the observation point and the target very close to the ground. (including Rowbotham).  The reason seems pretty obvious when you are close to the ground, the thermal gradient is the highest and therefore the refraction is the highest and you get the illusion that the earth is curved more than it is.  If you see others experiment, they always make sure to do it well above the surface, which minimises refraction and shows that the earth is curved.

The primary sin of these experiments is that they are visual. So considering that refraction creates optical illusions, they both don't prove anything either way. The OP stated we'd need a vacuum tube and laser, and I think he's right.

16
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: January 07, 2020, 06:56:49 PM »
Does anyone really doubt Trump represents his voters? I mean, given that there's not much to discuss about.

17
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Revisiting Bedford Level Experiment
« on: January 06, 2020, 01:24:14 PM »
Then lead away , I am interested to see the logical steps .

Let me try that:
 
Fact 1: Atmo-something refraction due to temperature gradient exists, proof: mirages as in the following figure:



Fact 2: Atmo-something refraction can indeed be modeled with Math formulas (we may not agree on the exact formulas, but those formulas do exist).

Fact 3: In a FE temperature gradient would go upwards in layers that are horizontal, but in a RE they would be concentric spherical shells.

Fact 4: Given the Math formulas believed by REs, and assuming Fact 3, and a temperature gradient, from the RET point of view the Bedford Level experiment would give the same exact results both on FE and RE.

Conclusion: Rowbotham concluded FE from an observation that was enough for him, but not enough for those using a certain set of Math formulas (aka REs). For the latters, temperature gradient should have been taken into account. Now somerled you don't trust REs Math formulas, but this doesn't disprove Fact 1 and also doesn't exempt FE experimenters to not consider the possibility that visual results on land survey could be due to atmo-something refraction.

18
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Revisiting Bedford Level Experiment
« on: December 28, 2019, 10:45:44 AM »
Rowbotham does reference some tests with barometers in Experiment 9.

There he writes that

Quote
Refraction can only exist when the medium surrounding the observer is different to that in which the object is placed. As long as the shilling in the basin is surrounded with air, and the observer is in the same air, there is no refraction; but whilst the observer remains in the air, and the shilling is placed in water, refraction exists

and that being moisture equal at the two ends of the bank,

Quote
In a short time afterwards the two sets of observers met each other about midway on the northern bank of the canal, when the notes were compared, and found to be precisely alike--the temperature, density, and moisture of the air did not differ at the two stations at the time the experiment with the telescope and flag-staff was made. Hence it was concluded that refraction had not played any part in the observation, and could not be allowed for, nor permitted to influence, in any way whatever, the general result.

refraction *should* not have played (in his view) a role, because source and observer are in the same medium. But this is obvious and Rowbotham doesn't mention the other refraction due to gradual changes of the air in height (as the OP) and this happens to be exactly the explaination given to the Bedford Experiment by REs. So there you have from two different theories of how a round-earth-with-atmosphere should work two different conclusions deriving from the same experiment.

It would be a pretty big refraction coincidence to put the top of the poles in a line like that. The top of the first flag would have to have been projected 8 inches into the air, the second flag 2.67 feet, the third flag 6 feet, the fourth flag 10.6 feet, the fifth flag 14.29 feet, and the sixth flag 24.01 feet into the air, when the later flags should be below the horizon.

Earth curve calculator (https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=6&h0=5&unit=imperial) gives me a smaller number. Anyway refraction makes it look like a curved surface is straight, so everything in between looks like on the same line.

19
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Revisiting Bedford Level Experiment
« on: December 23, 2019, 12:09:58 AM »
It is well-known that the measurements in surveying over distances of some miles can be affected by atmospheric refraction due to the change in index of refraction of air with height.

Is that because they see an earth which doesn't match up with theory?

Tom your observation is unfair as Rowbotham himself keeps referring to a supposed "round earth theory" in his ENAG. For example, in https://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za07.htm he states:

Quote
If the earth is a globe, the series of flags in the last experiment would have had the form and produced the results represented in the diagram, Fig. 5

but we don't know what kind of globe he was referring to. He observes that his experiment didn't match his own expectation of the globe, but this doesn't prove the globe wrong if his expectation of how a globe would work were wrong in the first place. I think Rowbotham interprets how light would travel in a globe in a purely geometrical way, ignoring any possible effect of refraction or any other of the many effects we now know exist on earth independently to its shape. And let me add that yes, afaik if the Bedford level experiment was conducted on a ideal world where light travels in perfect vacuum without being refracted or modified in any possible way, that would be just simple logic that earth was flat, light being a placeholder of a quite long horizontal level.  But why Rowbotham never consider the possibility of refraction? Wasn't he aware of the existence of that?

20
Flat Earth Theory / Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
« on: December 22, 2019, 11:42:17 PM »
I don't care about your opinions about the government to be clear, just the physical theories.

You first chose to put forward the "trust your government" point.

And if this us the wrong approach, explain what would be a right one.

When you prepare a talk the first thing you do is assessing your audience. If you address someone who created an entire wiki on flat earth, would you expect to just pass by, shout a low quality argument, and then to just shrug at everyone because they don't understand? You're an engineer, so I ask you to self-evaluate the effect of your post in terms of results and time to reward ratio.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5  Next >