Recent Posts

21
Flat Earth Debate / What is the flat earth position?
« Last post by devils advocate on October 17, 2017, 11:03:29 PM »
So on questions such as how sunsets occur on flat earth etc there is not a universal response from the FE crew...Pete Svarrior confirms that Tom Bishop does not represent their views, Junker chucks threads to nonsense and J-man talks 'God did it' and other bollox, so I ask where is (and why not) is there a community answer to basic RE problems with the FE theory? You have no agreed map, answer to sunsets, moon appearance across the earth, pinhole camera observations etc so if you three can't even agree how do you hope to persuade us?
22
Flat Earth General / Re: Scientists Make First Detection of Neutron Star Collision
« Last post by Tom Bishop on October 17, 2017, 10:42:50 PM »
So if, instead of boiling the water myself, I'd gone to some natural hot-springs and used my thermometer to measure the temperature of the boiling water that I found there - would Tom accuse me of "Junk science"?

Yes, that is junk science. There are no controls in that observation. If you walked around an alien planet and found something that looked like boiling water you do not know that it is boiling, and you do not know that it is water.
23
Nope, nothing that could be easily verified by an outsider. Not that 3D presented anything himself. However, as I am currently managing this site's social media stuff, I have a good gauge of the people who engage with our content (both believers and dissenters in their respective categories).

So Pete could you give us a breakdown of who is on this site, believing in FE from the various continents?
24
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Need help from FEers for an English paper
« Last post by GrayLeopard802 on October 17, 2017, 10:02:44 PM »
I discovered the flat earth theory when I was looking on Pinterest when I was 12. I believed it because I always thought the round earth was king of weird. The biggest piece of evidence that convinced me is that the government has lied about a LOT of things.
25
Flat Earth Q&A / MOVED: Needing funding for the wall climb
« Last post by junker on October 17, 2017, 09:41:34 PM »
26
First. Angloplane? Never heard that word before and a google search turns up nothing.
The word "Anglosphere" is likely to be more common, although it obviously isn't a sphere.

Second, and I'm not saying he isn't exaggerating some, but do you by any chance have any sort of source for this? I've never seen any kind of poll of FE'ers, although I personally feel the statement is likely a bit closer if substituting 'Northern Hemisphere' for 'NA or the UK' but that's me.
Nope, nothing that could be easily verified by an outsider. Not that 3D presented anything himself. However, as I am currently managing this site's social media stuff, I have a good gauge of the people who engage with our content (both believers and dissenters in their respective categories).
27
Almost 100% of FE'ers live in North America or the UK. 
Perhaps unsurprisingly by now, you have lied once again. Angloplane residents make up a relatively small minority of Flat Earthers, very far from your alleged "almost 100%"
First. Angloplane? Never heard that word before and a google search turns up nothing. Second, and I'm not saying he isn't exaggerating some, but do you by any chance have any sort of source for this? I've never seen any kind of poll of FE'ers, although I personally feel the statement is likely a bit closer if substituting 'Northern Hemisphere' for 'NA or the UK' but that's me. But if you could explain 'Angloplane' and cite a source for your 'small minority' statement that would be great. I'll admit I should perhaps have been on 3D, but viewed it as hyperbole and not worth making a fuss over.
28
Almost 100% of FE'ers live in North America or the UK. 
Perhaps unsurprisingly by now, you have lied once again. Angloplane residents make up a relatively small minority of Flat Earthers, very far from your alleged "almost 100%"

I wonder whether your constant and deliberate spreading of misinformation constitutes a breach of the rules, given just how frequent it is. I might have to enquire about that, since polite requests don't seem to work on you. It's one thing for you to try and "debunk" us by claiming that Dallas is in Japan, and another thing entirely to continuously and deliberately misrepresent your opponents in a debate, especially when introducing the subject to newcomers.
29
Flat Earth General / Re: Scientists Make First Detection of Neutron Star Collision
« Last post by 3DGeek on October 17, 2017, 07:58:50 PM »
Tom's problem is whether an "observation" counts as an "experiment".    If it does, then astronomers are scientists - if it doesn't then Tom is right and they aren't scientists.

So - here is my hypothesis:  Water boils at 100 degC.   My experiment is to set up a thermometer in a container of water that's gradually heating up.  When I see that the water is boiling - I look at the thermometer and write down the temperature.

That is (without doubt) an experiment.

But if we break it down, I designed some apparatus that I hoped would produce the desired effect - then I observed the reading given back to me by the equipment.

This is precisely what the LIGO people did.  They hypothesised that there are gravity waves.   They designed a piece of equipment (like my thermometer) that would measure those waves.   They waited for something to happen - and they observed the results given back to them by the apparatus.

There really is ALMOST no difference between my water boiling experiment and their gravity wave observation.

The only real difference is that I caused the heat to be applied to the water in order to make it boil rather than simply waiting around for some natural source of boiling water.

So if, instead of boiling the water myself, I'd gone to some natural hot-springs and used my thermometer to measure the temperature of the boiling water that I found there - would Tom accuse me of "Junk science"?

I think Tom wants the LIGO people to deliberately crash to neutron stars together and look at the results.   That's obviously not going to be possible - so Tom feels free to tell us that their results are junk.

So it all comes down to the precise definition of the word "experiment".

The dictionary definition of the word "experiment" is:

* Dictionary.com:  A test, trial, or tentative procedure; an act or operation for the purpose of discovering something unknown or of testing a principle, supposition, etc.
* Merriam Webster: An operation or procedure carried out under controlled conditions in order to discover an unknown effect or law, to test or establish a hypothesis, or to illustrate a known law.
* Oxford English Dictionary: A scientific procedure undertaken to make a discovery, test a hypothesis, or demonstrate a known fact.
* Cambridge English Dictionary: A test done in order to learn something or to discover whether something works or is true.
* Collins: A scientific test done in order to discover what happens to something in particular conditions.

So some of these are circular definitions "A scientific test" is a terrible definition if "science" is defined by the need to do experiments!  So scrap the OED and Collins definitions!

The definitions in Cambridge and Dictionary.com clearly allow astronomical observations to be classed as "Experiments".

Merriam Webster's definition brings forth an interesting question though.  It demands that experiments are "carried out under controlled conditions" - and that's a tough bar for Astronomy to meet.   You can't very well point one gravity wave detector someplace where there is no gravity wave - and another where there is - and prove that there is a difference...right?   That would be a controlled experiment.

BUT...AHA!

Gotcha!

That's precisely what LIGO does.   It has TWO gravity wave detectors at right angles to one another...AND another pair called VIRGO at a second site.   If just one one of these detectors picks up a wobble - then it's ignored.   If both arms of LIGO detect the same exact wobble and VIRGO doesn't - then it's something nearby and it's ignored.

But if the exact SAME wobble is detected on the SAME arms of BOTH detectors - and there is an appropriate speed-of-light delay between the two...then the only explanation is a passing gravity wave.

And in THIS case - they were able to figure out the direction to the source - and to get people with optical telescopes to go look in the exact same spot in the sky...and there was a new source of intense light at that exact spot.

This is VERY good science.   It's reproducible in two ways (VIRGO and optical telescopes)...it's controlled.   It is an "EXPERIMENT" by any dictionary definition of the word.

(Actually, there is another contraption called "AURIGA" which can detect gravity waves - and they've collaborated with LIGO too).

What's more - it's getting better, there are at least six more gravity wave observatories being planned...and following these successes, more LIGO-like detectors are at the funding stage in India and...I forget the other place.

30
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The vanishing point
« Last post by Curious Squirrel on October 17, 2017, 07:39:44 PM »
3DGeek, you brought up:

Quote
I deny this claim.  It does not.   You're a confirmed Zetetic - you can only have come to this conclusion as a result of experimental evidence.  Where is this evidence?

Seemed only fitting to inform you it's been covered by Rowbotham, you've likely just forgotten. I can't place where it is right now, but he essentially stated: "The devices used to sight long distance angles show a dip below the horizontal when looked through at the horizon. Upon removing the glass from them though, the horizon was once again right at the level of the eye. Thus, the way the glass is used is defective." Or something to that effect. Basically claiming that his eyes are a better instrument for measuring it, than the instrument we created to help us measure it. I'm certain Tom will bring it up though, as it fits the idea of evidence for 'horizon rises to eye level' as well as a similar story I recall in ENaG about him going on a balloon ride. Sorry I can't find the pages right now, recall it being somewhat early on in ENaG though.