*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 3803
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: "Empirical" Evidence
« Reply #20 on: February 27, 2014, 01:29:35 AM »
And here's a less recent example of why it may be a good idea to fake this stuff: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/8416561/Soviet-Union-lied-about-1961-Yuri-Gagarin-space-mission.html

If you want to advertise an ideology, it's a good idea to show some worthwhile successes to go with it.
I'm sorry, but where in that article does it say that the Russians faked Gagarin's mission?  In fact, in some ways, getting caught lying about how and where he landed proves that the mission was not faked. 
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5637
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: "Empirical" Evidence
« Reply #21 on: February 27, 2014, 04:27:01 AM »
I'm sure you are aware there are many much better methods of making news than a space launch.
No one's trying to make the news, I'm just asking you to read it now and then.

Leaving your condescension aside, I became confused when you quoted yourself.

Quote
I don't see how the involvement of non-space-faring nations is relevant in this situation.

Those are all spacefaring nations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_space_agencies#List_of_space_agencies_with_launch_capability
You're not even attempting to answer my questions anymore. If you plan to keep trying to sidetrack this discussion by bringing up irrelevant crap, you may as well just talk to yourself. I have better things to do than deal with your intentionally obtuse attitude.

You seem to be getting upset for no reason.  It appears you said his comment was irrelevant because he was including non-space faring nations.  He quite rightly responded by saying those were space-faring nations, negating your complaint.  Where is the problem?
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

Re: "Empirical" Evidence
« Reply #22 on: February 27, 2014, 05:07:05 AM »
I don't see how the involvement of non-space-faring nations is relevant in this situation.

Those are all spacefaring nations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_space_agencies#List_of_space_agencies_with_launch_capability
You're not even attempting to answer my questions anymore. If you plan to keep trying to sidetrack this discussion by bringing up irrelevant crap, you may as well just talk to yourself. I have better things to do than deal with your intentionally obtuse attitude.

You asked, "What makes you think they know about each other's fakery?"  I responded that I don't think it matters; but, if it does, then I think they'd likely know because they're so internationally cooperative.  I listed examples of such cooperative nations.  Then, you said, "I don't see how the involvement of non-space-faring nations is relevant in this situation."  I took you to be saying that my example nations were not spacefaring.  I responded with evidence that those nations are spacefaring.  I'm genuinely not sure what your point is since you won't just state it clearly, but I'm trying to respond to you as directly as possible.  Not sure what you're so upset about.

If I'm the one being unclear, here's my point (taking the point of view of NASA):

1.  You're correct that the individuals responsible for faking space travel have much to lose.  For the fakery narrative to make sense, they must similarly have a lot to gain.

2.  The most obvious reason I can see to fake space travel in the 50s and 60s is to prove to the USSR that you can nuke them with ICBMs.  If you believe that the USSR has ICBMs, and if you believe that you never will, then it makes some sense to try and fake it to maintain deterrence.

3.  If you don't actually have ICBMs, and if ICBMs are critical to your national interests, then it doesn't make any sense to keep pretending to go to space once you've 'proven' to the USSR that you can.  It doesn't get you any more hard power.  All it does is increase your exposure to the risk of getting caught.  There's no reason for fake space stations and fake Hubble and fake planetary probes and fake weather satellites etc.  You've argued that you do it for something like 'reputation' or 'prestige,' but those aren't very valuable to foreign affairs.  Why risk exposure for them?

4.  Hard power drives international relations, not 'reputation' or 'prestige.'  I think that nations behave according to their national interests.  The US having a space program doesn't affect those foreign interests.  At least not anything like our alliances, economy, and military do.  And, again, you yourself said that the US already has its reputation tarnished regularly by violating international law (and spying on foreign diplomats and government officials).

Your two links don't really address any of that.  The first says that life sucks hard for an Italian official who got caught stealing from their space program or something.  It doesn't say anything about that being bad for Italy or it's program or anything else.

The second says that the USSR lied about the landing location so they could say they set a world record.  It doesn't say that they flight was fake. 
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9832
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: "Empirical" Evidence
« Reply #23 on: February 27, 2014, 12:13:19 PM »
You're correct that the individuals responsible for faking space travel have much to lose.
That admission took you long enough.

For the fakery narrative to make sense, they must similarly have a lot to gain.
And they have, back in the days of the space race. Now they're just living out the consequences of a poor decision of the past.

2.  The most obvious reason I can see to fake space travel in the 50s and 60s is to prove to the USSR that you can nuke them with ICBMs.  If you believe that the USSR has ICBMs, and if you believe that you never will, then it makes some sense to try and fake it to maintain deterrence.
Fair enough. I disagree, since ICBMs have nothing to do with sustained space flight, but okay.

3.  If you don't actually have ICBMs, and if ICBMs are critical to your national interests, then it doesn't make any sense to keep pretending to go to space once you've 'proven' to the USSR that you can.  It doesn't get you any more hard power.  All it does is increase your exposure to the risk of getting caught.  There's no reason for fake space stations and fake Hubble and fake planetary probes and fake weather satellites etc.
Under your (invalid) assumption, perhaps.

You've argued that you do it for something like 'reputation' or 'prestige,' but those aren't very valuable to foreign affairs.  Why risk exposure for them?
Because our dealings with the likes of the United States are quite different from those with China. Among other things, the United States are respected as one of the world's leading countries (if not simply the leading country) in science and technology, as well as the ideology they so actively promote. The ideology bit is already plunging like crazy, what with recent (and not-so-recent) news of the USA ignoring human rights or basic diplomatic protocol. Especially now, they are in a position where they cannot stop easily; although it's worth noting that they've been trying, by continuously cutting NASA's budget. Eventually, the space craze will just quietly die off. They don't want to risk exposure. They simply have to do so to avoid blowing their cover while quietly closing down the whole business.

4.  Hard power drives international relations, not 'reputation' or 'prestige.'
Which is exactly why nations like India are respected, eh? You can say "hard power" as many times as you want, and it will still not be the sole (or even the most important) factor driving diplomacy.

The second says that the USSR lied about the landing location so they could say they set a world record.  It doesn't say that they flight was fake.
Um, yeah. If mainstream media reported that space flight was faked, I don't think we'd be having this discussion. Then again, you don't read the news and rely on being "well-informed" instead, so perhaps we would be. In either case, I wouldn't be the one in the minority.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Re: "Empirical" Evidence
« Reply #24 on: March 04, 2014, 09:48:49 PM »
You're correct that the individuals responsible for faking space travel have much to lose.
That admission took you long enough.
I didn't realize that it was even in contention.  Of course the individuals responsible for such a fraud have much to lose by getting caught.  I've been arguing that the United States has little to lose in terms of its foreign interests abroad.  It's allies must already know, and it's relations with its adversaries (ie. Russia) already have little to do with soft power (reputation) and everything to do with hard power (economic and military strength).

Additionally, I'm arguing that the only rational reason available to explain why such individuals would take such a risk is to convince the USSR that the US possess fully functional ICBMs.  The gains from soft power alone are minimal and unpredictable.  However, this hypothesis fails to explain why these individuals would continue the fraud and increase their risk of exposure for the next 50 years for no additional gain.

You suggest that they're just letting it die quietly.  The facts do not bear that out:




They're sure taking their sweet time.  And instead of letting it die quietly, they're sensationalizing their fake probes, fake satellites, fake space telescopes, fake astronomical images, fake space stations, fake astronauts, fake rovers, fake employees, fake rockets, fake moon rocks, etc.  Precisely none of your narrative makes any logical sense.

You've argued that you do it for something like 'reputation' or 'prestige,' but those aren't very valuable to foreign affairs.  Why risk exposure for them?
Because our dealings with the likes of the United States are quite different from those with China. Among other things, the United States are respected as one of the world's leading countries (if not simply the leading country) in science and technology, as well as the ideology they so actively promote. The ideology bit is already plunging like crazy, what with recent (and not-so-recent) news of the USA ignoring human rights or basic diplomatic protocol. Especially now, they are in a position where they cannot stop easily; although it's worth noting that they've been trying, by continuously cutting NASA's budget. Eventually, the space craze will just quietly die off. They don't want to risk exposure. They simply have to do so to avoid blowing their cover while quietly closing down the whole business.

The US isn't the global hegemon because of 'science and technology,' at least not much beyond the contribution those two make to our military and economic strength.  It's not because of how impressed everyone is with us.  To the limited extent that our scientific knowledge is impressive to other nations, and to the limited extent that it materially affects US foreign policy, sending humans into space is just a tiny part of that impression.  Personally, I think that the information and medical sectors are much more compelling to other nations.  Vastly more so than the fact that we send anyone to the Moon.

Soft power is simply much, much larger and more complex than the US looking good because we went to space.  It's much broader.  It's about ideology and culture.  Some authors, like Joseph Nye, believe that it's one of the primary forces that shapes international relations are large.  I think he's mistaken about its importance, but that's just me.  Either way, putting a human on the Moon isn't really a big part of it: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/59888/joseph-s-nye-jr/the-decline-of-americas-soft-power

4.  Hard power drives international relations, not 'reputation' or 'prestige.'
Which is exactly why nations like India are respected, eh? You can say "hard power" as many times as you want, and it will still not be the sole (or even the most important) factor driving diplomacy.

It's a term of art. 

India supports my narrative.  Despite its strong soft power, it has little ability to influence the behavior of nations around the globe.  If your argument were correct, then we should expect India and all its soft power to be the global hegemon.  They could duke it out with Denmark over Nicest Nation Ever.  Instead, India has relatively little influence over its own region.  It's still embroiled in territorial disputes with China and Pakistan with no end in sight.  "Respect" isn't really doing much for India. 

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21574511-indias-lack-strategic-culture-hobbles-its-ambition-be-force-world-can-india
Quote
NOBODY doubts that China has joined the ranks of the great powers: the idea of a G2 with America is mooted, albeit prematurely. India is often spoken of in the same breath as China because of its billion-plus population, economic promise, value as a trading partner and growing military capabilities. All five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council support—however grudgingly—India’s claim to join them. But whereas China’s rise is a given, India is still widely seen as a nearly-power that cannot quite get its act together.

Nothing about China's ideology is attractive to the global community at-large.  Why do you think they're a global power and India isn't?
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9832
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: "Empirical" Evidence
« Reply #25 on: March 04, 2014, 10:02:12 PM »
You suggest that they're just letting it die quietly.  The facts do not bear that out:




They're sure taking their sweet time.
Yes, if you tried paying attention to what I said instead of looking for ways to trip me up with semantics and empty "well-informed, thanks" rhetoric, you'd realise that this is consistent with what I said. They'd like to let it die, but they can't. Your graphs are excellent evidence of that, and I thank you for strengthening my argument.

The US isn't the global hegemon because of 'science and technology,' [...]
Again, you can restate it as much as you won't, and it still won't make your argument any more true. You need to start substantiating it if you want to get anywhere.

Soft power is simply much, much larger and more complex than the US looking good because we went to space.  It's much broader.  It's about ideology and culture.
Absolutely agreed. The reason we're not discussing irrelevant elements of soft power is that they're irrelevant. You really need to stop trying to shift the focus of this discussion away.

Despite its strong soft power, it has little ability to influence the behavior of nations around the globe.  If your argument were correct, then we should expect India and all its soft power to be the global hegemon. [...]
Right, now that I no longer have doubts that you have no interest in an educated debate, this conversation is over, as far as I'm concerned.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Re: "Empirical" Evidence
« Reply #26 on: March 05, 2014, 12:55:01 AM »
Yes, if you tried paying attention to what I said instead of looking for ways to trip me up with semantics and empty "well-informed, thanks" rhetoric, you'd realise that this is consistent with what I said. They'd like to let it die, but they can't. Your graphs are excellent evidence of that, and I thank you for strengthening my argument.
Your constant insistence that I'm trying to be deceptive is getting tiresome.  I probably just misunderstood you.  You aren't exactly verbose, and you typically leave the reader to guess at what your point might be. 

You're merely asserting that these conspirators 'can't' let NASA die.  Even if that's true, my graphs show that NASA funding has been pretty stable since 1975.  Meanwhile, that money has been spread around to lots and lots of new endeavors, like probes, satellites, and telescopes.  It makes no sense for the conspirators to expose themselves to more risk in that way.  It makes no sense that the conspirators have the power to initiate a space program on that scale, but not to kill it.

The US isn't the global hegemon because of 'science and technology,' [...]
Again, you can restate it as much as you won't, and it still won't make your argument any more true. You need to start substantiating it if you want to get anywhere.
...at least not much beyond the contribution those two make to our military and economic strength.  It's not because of how impressed everyone is with us.

I provided you with the examples of the US, Russia, and China.  All three of these are nations that, as you agree, struggle to maintain a positive image internationally and are all consistently involved in violations of international law.  China and Russia especially struggle to make their political philosophies attractive to...anyone.  And yet, these three nations wield the greatest influence in the international community.  Contrast this with India, a nation that is both beloved and culturally influential, and, as I evidenced, internationally inept.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stratfor/2013/05/22/the-virtues-of-hard-power/
Quote
Hard power has not been in vogue since the Iraq War turned badly in about 2004. In foreign policy journals and at elite conferences, the talk for years has been about “soft power,” “the power of persuasion” and the need to revitalize the U.S. State Department as opposed to the Pentagon: didn’t you know, it’s about diplomacy, not military might! Except when it isn’t; except when members of this same elite argue for humanitarian intervention in places like Libya and Syria. Then soft power be damned.

The fact is that hard power is supremely necessary in today’s world, for reasons having nothing to do with humanitarian intervention. Indeed, the Harvard professor and former government official, Joseph S. Nye, Jr., who, in 2004, actually coined the term “soft power” in an eponymous book, has always been subtle enough in his own thinking to realize how relevant hard power remains.

As I write, the two areas of the world that are most important in terms of America’s long-term economic and political interests — Asia and Europe — are undergoing power shifts. The growth of Chinese air and naval power is beginning to rearrange the correlation of forces in Asia, while the weakening of the European Union in geopolitical terms – because of its ongoing fiscal crisis — is providing an opportunity for a new Russian sphere of influence to emerge in Central and Eastern Europe. Of course, both challenges require robust diplomacy on America’s part. But fundamentally what they really require is a steadfast commitment of American hard power. And the countries in these two most vital regions are not bashful about saying so.

The coup in Ukraine is another excellent example of why hard power is so much more important to protecting national interests.  Russia is able to react to the coup in Ukraine with relative impunity due largely to the fact that they have nuclear weapons.  They've said as much explicitly.  The US and EU response isn't limited by how much they like Russia.  It's limited by the size and power of the Russian military.  It's limited by the resistance to a possible trade war with a nation that exports so much energy.  The West's desire for closer economic and political ties with Ukraine have nothing to do with Ukraine's sterling reputation (the opposite, in fact) and everything to do with the West's desire to contain Russia.

I can keep going, but you haven't yet provided any evidence that soft power is vital to US influence in foreign affairs.  You haven't provided any evidence that admiration of US 'science and technology' is critical to soft power.

Soft power is simply much, much larger and more complex than the US looking good because we went to space.  It's much broader.  It's about ideology and culture.
Absolutely agreed. The reason we're not discussing irrelevant elements of soft power is that they're irrelevant. You really need to stop trying to shift the focus of this discussion away.

I obviously think that they're relevant.  If soft power is about many different aspects of our culture and ideology, then it doesn't make sense for anyone to start a fake space program to increase US soft power.  It's too small an aspect of soft power.  It has too small an effect to take such a monumental risk.  That's my point.  Soft power alone isn't a rational incentive to take such serious risks.

That's why I linked the Nye article (oh hey, more evidence that you said I didn't provide).  It explains the important aspects of the US soft power landscape, and all of the things he talks about have vastly greater leverage on US foreign policy than NASA.

Despite its strong soft power, it has little ability to influence the behavior of nations around the globe.  If your argument were correct, then we should expect India and all its soft power to be the global hegemon. [...]
Right, now that I no longer have doubts that you have no interest in an educated debate, this conversation is over, as far as I'm concerned.

Fine by me.  I've been at least as civil as you've been, and I've done my best to engage your arguments seriously.  You just keep calling me stupid and accusing me of intentionally trying to obfuscate the discussion. 

Merely asserting that all of your claims are obviously true isn't very persuasive.
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9832
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: "Empirical" Evidence
« Reply #27 on: March 05, 2014, 01:36:07 AM »
If soft power is about many different aspects of our culture and ideology, then it doesn't make sense for anyone to start a fake space program to increase US soft power.  It's too small an aspect of soft power.  It has too small an effect to take such a monumental risk.  That's my point.  Soft power alone isn't a rational incentive to take such serious risks.
Ever heard of those people who confuse evolution with abiogenesis? That's what you're doing right now, and that's why this is my last response to you. You take offence to me claiming you're doing this on purpose, but the only alternative is that you have absolutely no self-awareness. I'm doing you a favour by assuming you're just an unexperienced troll.

Perhaps someone else will take you up on your trollfest, but I doubt it. In either case, best of luck.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Re: "Empirical" Evidence
« Reply #28 on: March 05, 2014, 03:16:07 AM »
If soft power is about many different aspects of our culture and ideology, then it doesn't make sense for anyone to start a fake space program to increase US soft power.  It's too small an aspect of soft power.  It has too small an effect to take such a monumental risk.  That's my point.  Soft power alone isn't a rational incentive to take such serious risks.
Ever heard of those people who confuse evolution with abiogenesis? That's what you're doing right now, and that's why this is my last response to you.
This is a good example of why it's better to just state plainly why you disagree with my statement.  I genuinely don't know what point you're trying to make.  I guess you mean that I'm conflating two fundamentally disparate concepts, but I don't know which ones because you won't just say it.

You take offence to me claiming you're doing this on purpose, but the only alternative is that you have absolutely no self-awareness. I'm doing you a favour by assuming you're just an unexperienced troll.

Perhaps someone else will take you up on your trollfest, but I doubt it. In either case, best of luck.
I'm not offended.  I'm actually doing my best to respond constructively to someone who is, at this point, just calling me an ignorant, disingenuous troll over and over again (ok, the troll part is new...kudos).  I guess I have no self-awareness, but I'm not even sure what you mean by that, either.

I'm stating my responses clearly and directly.  You're name-calling and offering terse, ambiguous remarks.  Not sure what else I can do to facilitate productive discussion.
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

Re: "Empirical" Evidence
« Reply #29 on: May 24, 2014, 02:51:16 AM »
Yes, but there is simply no point in trying to make people think the earth is round. Ok, the earth is flat, now what? For a sizable chunk of humans alive today, the shape of the earth really doesn't matter. My friend that is a gas station cashier really doesn't give 2 flying fucks about stuff like this, because it doesn't effect him. So why would governments and scientists try and convince us? Thats what point I was making. And the whole North Korea thing doesn't matter, because North Korean's as a whole probably don't give a shit about space, they are just trying not to starve to death under the heel of a tyrant. They waste their money on propaganda like that, it really doesn't do anything for them.

I agree completely. As a scientist I could not care less about the shape of the Earth. I only care about the things I need for my everyday life. How long will the airplane trip to Europe be? Where should I point my telescope to? How long will this new road be?

If I could get any answers at all starting from a flat Earth, I would be more than happy to accept this. But the answers are just not there. Only useless explanations after the fact.

I would, however, find a worldwide conspiracy about the shape of the Earth in less than a month. Maybe even in less than a week. And I would blow the top off the Conspiracy and become famous and rich in less than a year.

*

Offline pilot172

  • *
  • Posts: 84
  • Thunder down under
    • View Profile
Re: "Empirical" Evidence
« Reply #30 on: June 03, 2014, 12:45:46 PM »
think if they don't want you to find out about the shape of the earth why is it possible to build and launch your own rocket, they have an old missile test range in south Australia open to the public and I guess if you go out far enough into the bush in Australia you could launch your own rocket, right now you can buy a diy orbital rocket for $8000 if the conspiracy doesn't want anyone finding out why is that allowed to be sold
1 in 10 suicides apparently could be stopped if someone smiled or made the person happy for a minute so its my goal in life to make as many people as happy as possible...also QUEENSLANDER!!!!

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9832
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: "Empirical" Evidence
« Reply #31 on: June 03, 2014, 04:06:33 PM »
Why would it be disallowed? It'll just crash and burn anyway - it's a self-solving problem.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

*

Offline pilot172

  • *
  • Posts: 84
  • Thunder down under
    • View Profile
Re: "Empirical" Evidence
« Reply #32 on: June 04, 2014, 11:17:51 AM »
so the pictures the myriad of pictures they bring back not evidence, or do you and I need to build a rocket to settle this
1 in 10 suicides apparently could be stopped if someone smiled or made the person happy for a minute so its my goal in life to make as many people as happy as possible...also QUEENSLANDER!!!!

*

Offline jroa

  • *
  • Posts: 3094
  • Kentucky Gentleman
    • View Profile
Re: "Empirical" Evidence
« Reply #33 on: June 04, 2014, 11:42:58 AM »
How high would that rocket have to go in order see the whole Earth?

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: "Empirical" Evidence
« Reply #34 on: June 04, 2014, 12:33:10 PM »
How high would that rocket have to go in order see the whole Earth?
Just how is seeing the whole Earth relevant? Surely we can determine the Earth's basic shape without such detail, right? Can you come up with a test from such a rocket to determine RE versus FE at some moderate height? What height and for how long would answer the question for you?
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

*

Offline jroa

  • *
  • Posts: 3094
  • Kentucky Gentleman
    • View Profile
Re: "Empirical" Evidence
« Reply #35 on: June 04, 2014, 12:39:47 PM »
Well, if you can't see the whole Earth, then you really can't make an empirical judgement on the shape, now can you? 

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: "Empirical" Evidence
« Reply #36 on: June 04, 2014, 01:10:47 PM »
Well, if you can't see the whole Earth, then you really can't make an empirical judgement on the shape, now can you?
Really? Why is that? I don't need to see all of my cat to make an empirical judgement that she's a cat. Why would you need to see all of the Earth to decide if it's basically flat or not? Again:
Can you come up with a test from such a rocket to determine RE versus FE at some moderate height? What height and for how long would answer the question for you?
See: http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/features/bm_gallery_4.html
« Last Edit: June 04, 2014, 01:18:37 PM by Gulliver »
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 3803
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: "Empirical" Evidence
« Reply #37 on: June 04, 2014, 01:17:43 PM »
Well, if you can't see the whole Earth, then you really can't make an empirical judgement on the shape, now can you?
Sure you can.  Just looking out your window is enough to empirically convince most FE'ers that the earth is flat.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2014, 01:21:17 PM by markjo »
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline jroa

  • *
  • Posts: 3094
  • Kentucky Gentleman
    • View Profile
Re: "Empirical" Evidence
« Reply #38 on: June 04, 2014, 01:19:23 PM »
If I can't see all of the US at once, then I am taking other peoples' word of the shape of it.  Can we agree on this? 

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: "Empirical" Evidence
« Reply #39 on: June 04, 2014, 01:47:08 PM »
If I can't see all of the US at once, then I am taking other peoples' word of the shape of it.  Can we agree on this?
No. You can design an empirical data collection to ensure that you've accurately tested the hypothesis. And as markjo expressed, please apply the same standards to both FET and RET. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence

And again:
Can you come up with a test from such a rocket to determine RE versus FE at some moderate height? What height and for how long would answer the question for you?
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.