Recent Posts

21
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Help a newbie out!
« Last post by Acorn on Today at 02:35:52 AM »
I'm thinking about joining the society and I was just wondering what some of the more nuanced aspects of the group are i.e. general stance on religion, how the world came to be, etc. I understand the basics, but I just want to hear it from the people who really represent this group
22
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« Last post by honk on Today at 02:10:35 AM »
http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/18/politics/donald-trump-myeshia-johnson-recording/index.html

Ecch, it feels dirty to agree with Sarah Huckabee Sanders. :(

Why? Do you believe her - and by extension, Trump's - side of the story? I don't. Either Trump or Wilson is lying, and it's almost certainly Trump. He has a history of disrespecting veterans, being crude and insensitive in the face of tragedy, and blatant dishonesty.
23
So Tom thinks a guy playing scientist down by a canal is a controlled environment, but a 4km long laser interferometer housed in a vacuum isn't. Wait, did I mention that built two of them in different regions to reduce the possibility of spurious noise in the data. Yeah...are there any serious FEers out there?

24
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What is the flat earth position?
« Last post by StinkyOne on Today at 12:47:51 AM »
Does it give the right information for your location?

Maybe it does. I have not really checked.

Perfectly timed example Tom! You criticize the scientific method for trying to prove it's own hypothesis and hold your Zetetic method in high regard (which claims to evaluate EVERY POSSIBILITY to thus ensure that the TRUTH is found) and yet here you are offered something that may challenge your hypothesis and you avoid it! Same detail in another thread when they were asking you to do something with a piece of string to check the angles of the moon and you responded something akin to" why would I conduct your experiments?". Not the actions of a real truth seeker I think, more like someone who is exactly trying to prove only their own hypothesis and shying from any test that may challenge it!
He makes a fair point about it potentially being possible to predict sunrise/set times with pattern-based software. Looking at things here: http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/RS_OneYear.php they don't appear to vary too much for the same day year to year. I have a suspicion a pattern could be there, but have neither the time nor the tools to attempt to find out. I'm not sure the timing of sunrise/set are all that amazing of a proof for RE anyway without conclusive proof they're found using the movement of the planets. I personally feel it's been provided elsewhere, but that's neither here nor there. The fact it happens at all is far greater evidence against FE in my opinion. I do hope Tom can find the time to get back to the most recent perspective thread though. I'm so very curious about his reply.

Except I went through the documentation provided by the developer of SOFA and showed that there was zero evidence of this pattern-based stuff Tom made up. In fact, all of the relevant functions I looked at were using trig to calculate positions and times down to the microsecond. But hey, who needs facts on this board when we have Zetetecists and their thorough method?  ::)
Oh I agree. As I said "...conclusive proof they're found using the movement of the planets. I personally feel it's been provided elsewhere..." It's just the information has relatively small variance, and I suspect it's POSSIBLE there could in fact be a pattern of some form to it. I just don't have the ability to go dredging through years worth of data points to try and see if there is one. That doesn't mean the suggestion that timeanddate.com (which as Tom mentioned DID refuse to give us what they use) could potentially be using it has no merit. Just that we have other sources that clearly show an equation based upon planetary motion and it's answers match all other sources we have that just give that info.

Sorry, this wasn't directed at you so much as I was using it as a jumping off point to remind Tom that I already showed him that it wasn't pattern based.
25
The water convexity scenario is controllable.
No, it's not and you are being willfully ignorant if you believe it is. At a minimum to claim it's controllable means you have no ground to stand on to deny the Foucault pendulum effect. Which means you need to account for that now in your pet conjecture. But in truth you cannot control the air between point A and point B, nor measure all of it. The exact thing that will throw this experiment off, is the thing you cannot control. How is that a controllable experiment? People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
26
Flat Earth General / Re: Scientists Make First Detection of Neutron Star Collision
« Last post by 3DGeek on October 18, 2017, 10:57:20 PM »
Tom appears to worship at the temple of the Bedford Levels Experiment...er...Observation - blindly ignoring the total lack of controls done in that case.

This isn't just a double standard...this is a quadruple standard!

Everything is controllable, and had been controlled, about the water convexity experiments. The experiments were performed repeatedly under a variety of atmospheric conditions, modifications were made to put marker bodies along the light path to the end to see how they behave, and tools such as barometers have been used to assess pressure. More recent youtube water convexity experiments have involved lasers.

The water convexity scenario is controllable; whereas space is not controllable and must be guessed at.

But how do we know the air was really air?   How do we know there wasn't marsh-gas floating on top?  How do we know there wasn't a gigantic downward wind blowing a hollow patch in the water?

Sure - these are all stupid criticisms - but no worse than you transporting my thought experiment about water temperatures to an alien world so you could pour scorn on it.

Rowbotham did his experiment - and he made one TERRIBLE mistake.  He put his eyepoint really close to the water level - which maximised the humidity and temperature gradient and thereby created just enough refractive index change over that LONG distance to bend the light beam.

When the experiment was repeated with the eyepoint high enough above the water to eliminate that mistake - Rowbotham's effect vanished and the result was a clear demonstration of Earth curvature.

THAT is a controlled experiment.   Try it with eye at water level, try it again at three feet above the water - compare results.   Ooops...seems like the bizarre effect goes away when you control for humidity and temperature inversions.

It's a bad idea to continually parade the one and only experiment ever done that might maybe have supported your case in a situation where proper experimental hygiene destroys your result.
27
Flat Earth General / Re: Chinese space station to crash soon "within months"
« Last post by 3DGeek on October 18, 2017, 10:45:18 PM »
Are you talking about this incredibly phony Chinese space station?



Wow!  That sure was some hokey debunking!

1) I don't know what this "wave blower" thing is claimed to be.  I've watched a LOT of footage of astronauts in those water tanks and I've never seen anything of that nature.  Not to say it doesn't exist - but Google doesn't find an references to it.
2) At 0:29 it's said that the (chinese) mission commander said the astronauts entered "Into the water"...I'm guessing his English is better than your Chinese - but not as good as it needed to be.  Not exactly a smoking gun.
3) At 0:38 it's said that we're seeing a water bubble float upwards and change speed.  Well if you zoom in, it's not round - so for sure it ain't a bubble.  The change in speed did puzzle me for a bit - but if you slow the video WAY down - you can see that this thing is either a reflection in the helmet - not an actual object - or it lodges under the front of the helmet at the top of the visor.  Then some other, faster, object flies past in a roughly similar spot - but again, it's clearly not round like a bubble...and it's tumbling.  I have to say that I'm kinda horrified that the Chinese are letting debris float out into space like that...but nobody said they were good at this stuff. At 1:00 and 1:10 you can see more of this debris - but this time it's not going out of shot vertically - but at an angle.  So not a bubble.  Is this why the videographer is claiming that there are "blowers"?  Maybe that's his excuse for the diagonal motions here?
4) At 1:15 the caption says that rows of lights can be seen where open space should be.  Well, we can clearly see from the lighting of the scene that there are a couple of rows of LED lights attached to the camera that are what is reflected in the astronauts wristwatch.  There isn't just "Space" there - there's "Space PLUS the camera that's taking the video and a set of lights bolted to the camera somewhere".  Notice that this reflection only happens when the watch face is at right angles to our line of sight...proving that the lights are where the camera is.
5) At 1:34, the caption asks "From the other camera angle, where did those lights go?" - and judging by the illumination on the floating Astronaut's legs, I'd say they were below the curve of the spacecraft. At 1:45, the caption asks where the astronaut is being illuminated from...and I think we have our answer.
6) At 1:54, the caption states that the flag looks like it's being waved underwater.  I've gotta say, no it doesn't.  Water creates immense drag - and this flag is preserving it's momentum insanely well - it's flapping around more vigorously than it would in air even!  NO...not convincing evidence of fakery...quite the opposite.
7) At 2:04, the caption asks why the astronauts never let go?  They never free float like in USA or Russian space walks.   Well, in early NASA space walks, they DIDN'T let go either.  Most of the ISS footage you see of Russians and Americans are when they are attached to the Canadarm - a giant robotic arm that keeps them poisitioned with their feet in a harness.   But if you were a Chinese astronaut out in real deep space for the first time - with untested tethers and a seemingly bottomless pit beneath your feet...don't you think you might be inclined to hold onto something solid!  The videographer says that if they did let go they'd be "pulled away by the water" - but that's stupid.  The entire REASON for training in a big water tank is precisely so this kind of thing DOESN'T happen!  The spacesuits they wear in those training tanks are carefully weighed down.   If they weren't then their guy's feet would be five feet above his head.  (Maybe those mythical "wave blowers" are something to do with it?)
8) At 2:14, we're treated to the funniest caption yet!  "Why is the earth always in the same position?"   Wow!  What bozo wrote that line?!   The spacecraft is IN ORBIT - it's altitude and orientation aren't changing...duh!  Then - to add to the hilarity: "Somehow the craft's movement matches the earth's exactly?  For hours?"...well, yes!  Those GPS satellites do it for DECADES.  That's what an orbit is.
9) At 2:37 we're told that the clouds are moving past too fast.  Well, guess what?  The spacecraft is moving at about 8,000 mile per hour.  Yeah - the clouds move past pretty quick at that speed.  The craft goes all the way around the earth every 72 minutes!  That's **FAST**.
10) Why is the video and audio so clear?   Well, if you spend enough money - it can be.  This was a major day for the Chinese - the went all out here.  Also, it's not clear if this is live footage or data streamed back to Earth after the event.  If it's the latter then they can send high quality video at slower than realtime and the quality can be STUNNING.  If you ever get to see the 70mm film footage shot on the Space Shuttle years ago - it's AMAZING.  The audio on the sample didn't seem so great though...tiny microphone inside tiny helmet...not surprising.  The "comparison" footage is all from 10 years ago...and technology has improved since then.
11) At 3:20, we're invited to compare this to US underwater training...and unsurprisingly, it's all washed out blue and you can see the support divers, lots of bubbles, and the sides of the pool.
12) At 3:32, there is some babble about proof that their gymnasts were underage...I have no clue about the relevance of this.  But I'm pretty sure their space agency is not the same organization as their sports cheating department.

So - what have we learned here?

Nothing whatever.  Not a single darned thing.  This is a truly terrible "debunking" video.  You can pull it apart without any effort whatever.



28
Flat Earth General / Re: Scientists Make First Detection of Neutron Star Collision
« Last post by Revel on October 18, 2017, 10:44:12 PM »
The water convexity scenario is controllable; whereas space is not controllable and must be guessed at.

Oh, come off it! "space...must be guessed at." Are you kidding me? You call them guesses, of all words? Did we "guess" that the neutron collision occurred some hundreds of millions of years ago? Was Galileo some flat Earther that got lucky enough to make a telescope and record the motion of stars and our planets? Theories developed through astronomy aren't even mere speculations. They're solid inferences. The reason that the Big Bang theory is widely accepted, despite appropriate controversy, is through inductive reasoning, which may, arguably, serve as grounds for general notions, but still allows scientists to better understand the universe. We don't make up conjectures based on what is guessed. Replication is not the sole method necessary for something to be considered true, to validate.
29
Flat Earth General / Re: Scientists Make First Detection of Neutron Star Collision
« Last post by Tom Bishop on October 18, 2017, 10:24:35 PM »
Tom appears to worship at the temple of the Bedford Levels Experiment...er...Observation - blindly ignoring the total lack of controls done in that case.

This isn't just a double standard...this is a quadruple standard!

Everything is controllable, and had been controlled, about the water convexity experiments. The experiments were performed repeatedly under a variety of atmospheric conditions, modifications were made to put marker bodies along the light path to the end to see how they behave, and tools such as barometers have been used to assess pressure. More recent youtube water convexity experiments have involved lasers.

The water convexity scenario is controllable; whereas space is not controllable and must be guessed at.
30
Flat Earth General / Re: Scientists Make First Detection of Neutron Star Collision
« Last post by 3DGeek on October 18, 2017, 09:52:36 PM »
I am not sure what sort of reaching metaphor you are trying to make.

I am referencing 3D's description of the experiment.

Quote
but there is nothing alien about light and gravity

Unless you can put all aspects of celestial phenomena under controlled conditions, observation alone does not cut it.

Astronomy does not follow the Scientific Method. Observe --> Interpret are the steps used in pseudosciences such as Astrology. It is not science.

To quote from the Wiki:

Quote
"Zeteticism is a system of scientific inquiry. The word is derived from the Greek verb ζητέω (zeteo), which means "I seek; I examine; I strive for". A zeteticist is a person who practises zeteticism.

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."

And let's quote Tom again:  "Observe --> Interpret are the steps used in pseudosciences such as Astrology. It is not science."
And the Wiki again: "using zeteticism one bases his conclusions on experimentation and observation".

I'll let you draw your own conclusions from that.  :-)

The thing that's most annoying about this "zeteticism" thing is that it would be very useful here - but as far as I can tell, not a SINGLE experiment of ANY kind had been done by the FE'ers in the last 100 years.   When real experiments are done (eg by flying a man to the moon and having him take an actual photograph of the Earth) it's ignored.

Tom appears to worship at the temple of the Bedford Levels Experiment...er...Observation - blindly ignoring the total lack of controls done in that case.

This isn't just a double standard...this is a quadruple standard!