Re: Occams razor according to Flat Earth
« Reply #20 on: June 05, 2020, 07:34:55 AM »
How is seeing a flat earth not the simplest explanation for its flatness?
Because seeing a sharp horizon line a few miles away is not what you'd see on a flat earth
On a globe earth a sharp horizon line is expected because of the way the land curves away from you.
On a flat earth why is the horizon a sharp line just a few miles away?:



Why can you not see further? If the earth was flat then you wouldn't see a sharp line, it would surely be more of a fading out as on a foggy day



A sharp line is observed when you're looking at the edge of something.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Re: Occams razor according to Flat Earth
« Reply #21 on: June 05, 2020, 08:52:25 AM »
We can argue with and point out to FE believers that their assertions based on their simple explanations don't necessary follow as true. However as in any belief system they will dismiss all the counter evidence we present to them and carry on with their beliefs regardless.

What Tom has not done so far is to provide me with an example of a 'simple observation' that in itself provides us with irrefutable proof that shows his flat Earth belief is true.  In other words what is his flat Earth belief based on?
« Last Edit: June 05, 2020, 10:51:31 AM by IronHorse »

Re: Occams razor according to Flat Earth
« Reply #22 on: June 05, 2020, 09:40:22 AM »
Quote
I'm thinking that with everything I know of science and the current limits of technology and what I've personally witnessed and experienced, that rockets capable of reaching orbit seems very possible.

That's nice. But how is this any different than the legions of people who believe that magics are possible, based on endless and substantial old stories of magics and mysticisms being performed?
Right. So yeah, you're basically right. A lot of people believe in psychics. There are people who go and see shows where these people use cold reading techniques to mislead their audience. And some people come out of those shows saying "there's no way he/she could have known..."
Read a bit about the techniques they people use and it's not as impressive as it looks - read about Barnum statements, for example.
So yeah, no dispute that people believe some pretty "out there" things without much basis - maybe because they want to feel comforted that dead relatives can still communicate.
But there's a difference between that and what space agencies (not just NASA) are doing.
Psychics don't perform well in proper scientific tests. James Randi famously offered a million bucks to anyone who could display genuine paranormal abilities under proper scientific conditions. Shouldn't be too hard if these people really have the powers they claim.
So far he still has his money.

The whole way the NASA part of the Occams Razor page is written is not about which makes the fewest assumptions, it's just an argument from incredulity. And it doesn't even bear up to much scrutiny

Quote
What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch

From scratch? What does that mean? Rockets were invented in ancient China, developed in more modern times and in the Second World War the Germans were using V2 rockets. The first photo from space was taken in 1946 using an adapted V2 rocket - 12 years before NASA were even formed. Rocket technology is not some amazing new thing that NASA developed from scratch, the US took a lot of the scientists who had been working in Germany in the War were taken to the US to continue and develop their work further.

You're claiming that NASA have access to a form of technology which the rest of us do not. Patently not true, have you heard of fireworks? Those are simple rockets. Of course we don't have access to the type of rockets NASA spend millions on any more than I have access to a Formula One racing car - but I do have a car on my drive and I know cars exist. I don't have access to the kind of fighter jets the US military have but I can go on a commercial airline. If NASA were claiming to be able to teleport people to the ISS then yeah, I might have cause to doubt them, but that is not their claim.

Also...you can go and see rocket launches. They're not private. Annoyingly I missed the SpaceX one - I'm in the UK but it did pass over here and a friend saw it go over. People in the US were no doubt watching the launch. I've seen a Shuttle launch. You might not be able to go on a Space Shuttle but you can certainly go and watch one launch - well, not any more but the rocket launches going on now.

So what's the simplest explanation? That the launch I saw secretly landed somewhere with no witnesses, the astronauts spent a week somewhere in hiding and then they somehow managed to launch again without anyone noticing (rocket launches can be seen from a long way) and managed to fly and come to land at the time and place NASA said it would. And that was going on for decades with Shuttle launches with no whistleblowers, no witnesses to any of this skullduggery.

And the US aren't the only country with a space programme, many do now.
When it comes to the moon landing you know that Jodrell Bank in the UK were tracking the Apollo craft all the way to the surface?
China have a probe which took good enough quality photos to see the Apollow landing sites. This is not just a unilateral claim, other countries have "checked their workings", so to speak.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2050
    • View Profile
Re: Occams razor according to Flat Earth
« Reply #23 on: June 05, 2020, 10:00:56 AM »
How is seeing a flat earth not the simplest explanation for its flatness?
Because seeing a sharp horizon line a few miles away is not what you'd see on a flat earth
On a globe earth a sharp horizon line is expected because of the way the land curves away from you.
On a flat earth why is the horizon a sharp line just a few miles away?:


To expand on this - look out from height X, on land, over a ship or other object at sea, which is of a height LESS THAN X.
This yields a downward sightline through the top of the object.

Since non-parallel lines must meet, the downward sightline MUST meet the water at some point.

If the sightline CLEARLY does not meet the water, then the seas CANNOT be flat.



=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

*

Offline JSS

  • *
  • Posts: 463
  • Math is math!
    • View Profile
Re: Occams razor according to Flat Earth
« Reply #24 on: June 05, 2020, 10:59:54 AM »
Atomic theory is a good one, because it's not really clear that subatomic particles exist. It is possible that matter is made of waves. It certainly would explain why some particles can 'act as waves'.

Have you ever seen a subatomic particle?

An argument for atoms would need to be self evident, rather than on faith. An argument founded on "I can believe that they can possibly exist, and so that's why I believe it" is rather irrational.

I don't want to get sidetracked too far but you are referencing Gabriel LaFreniere who's claim to fame is making a lot of animated gifs on a website. Nothing published or peer-reviewed, no experiments, no predictions, and at best can be called speculation. So to the contrary, it's very clear that yes, atoms do exist. Quantum theory explains why they sometimes act as waves.

This is demonstrating exactly the same problem we have been discussing. You are dismissing the very idea that atoms exist based on one random web page, when tens of thousands of scientists, experiments, research papers, countless measurements, experiments, theories, equations and observations say otherwise. Yes, atoms exist, atoms are real.

As far as seeing a single atom, we have done that too.

Ok, back to the subject at hand before we digress too far.

The problem is your argument can apply to everything.  We don't directly see anything, our brains just receive electrical impulses generated by photons hitting our retinas, so who can truly say what is actually out there. You can use your argument to deny the existence of reality itself which gets us nowhere.

Evidence based belief is the basis of our entire existence, and not irrational at all. I can't see my bathroom right now, but I know it still exists. I know there are no baby dragons frolicking in my bathtub. I don't need to run in there and check.

And thus I believe the hundreds of astronauts that have seen with their own eyes and brought back pictures and videos that the Earth is round. Because I believe that large rockets can get into space. Because I know small rockets exist and work because I have seen and used them. I know we can make big things, I have seen that too. All the evidence points to these things being real. I have no more reason to doubt the existence of rockets in orbit than I do to doubt the existence of Dubai skyscrapers, even though I have not personally visited wither Dubai or space.

Offline ChrisTP

  • *
  • Posts: 878
    • View Profile
Re: Occams razor according to Flat Earth
« Reply #25 on: June 05, 2020, 12:54:21 PM »
When I look out of my window and observe a vast expanse of land or ocean waters, it looks like its continuously flat. That would be the simplest explanation.

Great. I am glad that we agree that FE is the simplest explanation to this.
Any credibility you may have left starts to dwindle every time you cherry pick a quote from someone to twist their point. It's quite obvious what he's saying. At first glance you don't get the full picture of things. At first glance you might see a shape and say "yep, case closed thats it" but it's not that simple. Any argument you make suggesting that you can just observe the earth being flat in such a simple manner is pointless, because you cannot. This goes back to what I was saying in another thread about isolated observations.

Also arguing that modern phones look like witchcraft to people of the past is just silly. We know the technology for a smart phone exists but a regular joe cannot make a smartphone themselves, so what then, is Apple lying and actually using witchcraft? Is that really your mindset Tom? What's your simplest argument for how smart phones were made? because you sure as hell can't make one so I guess it really is simply magic. God forbid you rely on other people knowing what they're doing to make it for you and trust that they aren't using magic.
Tom is wrong most of the time. Hardly big news, don't you think?

Re: Occams razor according to Flat Earth
« Reply #26 on: June 05, 2020, 01:01:49 PM »
As someone who has always considered myself to have a rational, common sense approach to thinking, I find it difficult to understand how the minds of flat Earthers work. Tom asks 'have you ever seen a sub-atomic particle?  My answer would be something along the lines of WTF do you think?!?  No one has ever seen a sub atomic particle but evidence for the fact that electrons (a sub atomic particle) exist comes in the form of electricity! Unless of course Tom has another suggestion for what electricity is?

If you are going to question the existence of literally everything for which there is no direct observational evidence then you are going to be left in a very strange place. Atomic theory has been gradually developed over the years and refined as more and different experiments, observations and results have come to light. You cannot say point blank that just because you cannot lay your eyes on a sub atomic particle directly that they don't exist. 

Quantum mechanics makes a lot of weird predictions that counter our common sensical minds but hey.. that's what makes it so fun and fascinating to study isn't it? I love anything like that.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7042
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Occams razor according to Flat Earth
« Reply #27 on: June 05, 2020, 03:17:25 PM »
Quote
So Tom are you suggesting that you can reach a formative conclusion that the Earth is flat based on what you can see directly?

Actually, the subject was the simplest explanation and nothing more than that. Flat = Flat is objectively the simplest explanation, as agreed by an RE proponent on the previous page.

Quote
Because seeing a sharp horizon line a few miles away is not what you'd see on a flat earth

Now you are bringing in complexities and arguments which are not even demonstrated, arguing from your personal expectations and reasoning as your source, which makes for a somewhat less empirical and more tenuous argument. You believe that Juipiter has a somewhat sharpish edge despite being a gaseous planet, right? You believe that a quarter isn't visible from one mile away, right?

Quote
This is demonstrating exactly the same problem we have been discussing. You are dismissing the very idea that atoms exist based on one random web page, when tens of thousands of scientists, experiments, research papers, countless measurements, experiments, theories, equations and observations say otherwise. Yes, atoms exist, atoms are real.

Actually the fact that there is an alternative possibility shows us that we need to see complelling evidence either way and can't rely on your ideas of "I think it might be possible.." and "everything I've seen suggests.." and "it follows.." Those are justifications based on human logic and faith, as reasons to reject the necessity of empirical evidence.

Quote
You cannot say point blank that just because you cannot lay your eyes on a sub atomic particle directly that they don't exist.

Quantum mechanics makes a lot of weird predictions that counter our common sensical minds but hey.. that's what makes it so fun and fascinating to study isn't it? I love anything like that.

You say that because we can't lay our eyes on a subatomic particle that we can't say that it doesn't exist and then cite the weird theories of Quantum Mechanics which contradicts common sense.

Don't you see the problem there? You are promoting existing theories, and then say the theories make no sense in the very next sentence. Farcical.
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

Re: Occams razor according to Flat Earth
« Reply #28 on: June 05, 2020, 04:11:24 PM »
Now you are bringing in complexities and arguments which are not even demonstrated, arguing from your personal expectations and reasoning as your source, which makes for a somewhat less empirical and more tenuous argument.

My empirical observations of the world around me suggest that where I see a sharp line at the end of an object then either
1) That is the end of that object or
2) The angle of the surface of the object has changed in such a way that I can no longer see it.

The only other possibility is that visibility is poor in such a way that at some point I can no longer see the object, but in that case I observe a fading away into the distance, not a sharp edge.

And my other observation of the world is that when object B is partially obscured by object A then object A is in front of object B. So when I see a car go over a hill I witness it disappearing over the edge of the hill bottom first. When I see something like the Turning Torso video the simplest explanation is that part of the building is behind the water somehow.

Quote
You believe that Juipiter has a somewhat sharpish edge despite being a gaseous planet, right?

Yes, because although it's gaseous it is has a defined edge. if you were up close to it maybe the edge would be less well defined as with the edge of a tennis ball. From a distance though it appears as a well defined edge.

Quote
You believe that a quarter isn't visible from one mile away, right?

With the naked eye, correct. And if I have clear line of sight to it then with optical magnification I should be able to see it again. If I zoom into a horizon I don't see more sea beyond it, the sharp line remains which leads me back to one of the two possibilities I outlined above.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2050
    • View Profile
Re: Occams razor according to Flat Earth
« Reply #29 on: June 05, 2020, 04:56:05 PM »
Flat = Flat is objectively the simplest explanation, as agreed by an RE proponent on the previous page.

.. but it's contradicted by the simplest observation. I refer you to my post above.

Personal experience. Saw it myself, and took the photo.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2020, 05:13:54 PM by Tumeni »
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11104
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Occams razor according to Flat Earth
« Reply #30 on: June 05, 2020, 09:31:24 PM »
.. but it's contradicted by the simplest observation. I refer you to my post above.
Your "simple" observation relies on light travelling in straight lines, something that we both know to be extremely unlikely.

Poor form, Tumeni. Poor form.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2050
    • View Profile
Re: Occams razor according to Flat Earth
« Reply #31 on: June 05, 2020, 10:05:57 PM »
.. but it's contradicted by the simplest observation. I refer you to my post above.
Your "simple" observation relies on light travelling in straight lines, something that we both know to be extremely unlikely.

Prove to me that it is not doing this in my photo. Not just a vague claim that it is "unlikely" to do so.

EDIT: Alternatively, suggest to us by HOW MUCH you think it will bend, and we can do the maths based on it bending either way, and see how that varies from my result based on straight light, and see if there is any meaningful difference. I have all the distances and heights, ready to do my 'rithmetic
« Last Edit: June 05, 2020, 11:26:30 PM by Tumeni »
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

Re: Occams razor according to Flat Earth
« Reply #32 on: June 06, 2020, 08:30:14 AM »
Pete, could you give us your reasons why you think it is 'extremely unlikely' that light travels in straight lines please?

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 319
    • View Profile
Re: Occams razor according to Flat Earth
« Reply #33 on: June 06, 2020, 10:14:01 AM »
Quote
I'm thinking that with everything I know of science and the current limits of technology and what I've personally witnessed and experienced, that rockets capable of reaching orbit seems very possible.

That's nice. But how is this any different than the legions of people who believe that magics are possible, based on endless and substantial old stories of magics and mysticisms being performed?
Right. So yeah, you're basically right. A lot of people believe in psychics. There are people who go and see shows where these people use cold reading techniques to mislead their audience. And some people come out of those shows saying "there's no way he/she could have known..."
Read a bit about the techniques they people use and it's not as impressive as it looks - read about Barnum statements, for example.
So yeah, no dispute that people believe some pretty "out there" things without much basis - maybe because they want to feel comforted that dead relatives can still communicate.
But there's a difference between that and what space agencies (not just NASA) are doing.
Psychics don't perform well in proper scientific tests. James Randi famously offered a million bucks to anyone who could display genuine paranormal abilities under proper scientific conditions. Shouldn't be too hard if these people really have the powers they claim.
So far he still has his money.

The whole way the NASA part of the Occams Razor page is written is not about which makes the fewest assumptions, it's just an argument from incredulity. And it doesn't even bear up to much scrutiny

Quote
What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch

From scratch? What does that mean? Rockets were invented in ancient China, developed in more modern times and in the Second World War the Germans were using V2 rockets. The first photo from space was taken in 1946 using an adapted V2 rocket - 12 years before NASA were even formed. Rocket technology is not some amazing new thing that NASA developed from scratch, the US took a lot of the scientists who had been working in Germany in the War were taken to the US to continue and develop their work further.

You're claiming that NASA have access to a form of technology which the rest of us do not. Patently not true, have you heard of fireworks? Those are simple rockets. Of course we don't have access to the type of rockets NASA spend millions on any more than I have access to a Formula One racing car - but I do have a car on my drive and I know cars exist. I don't have access to the kind of fighter jets the US military have but I can go on a commercial airline. If NASA were claiming to be able to teleport people to the ISS then yeah, I might have cause to doubt them, but that is not their claim.

Also...you can go and see rocket launches. They're not private. Annoyingly I missed the SpaceX one - I'm in the UK but it did pass over here and a friend saw it go over. People in the US were no doubt watching the launch. I've seen a Shuttle launch. You might not be able to go on a Space Shuttle but you can certainly go and watch one launch - well, not any more but the rocket launches going on now.

So what's the simplest explanation? That the launch I saw secretly landed somewhere with no witnesses, the astronauts spent a week somewhere in hiding and then they somehow managed to launch again without anyone noticing (rocket launches can be seen from a long way) and managed to fly and come to land at the time and place NASA said it would. And that was going on for decades with Shuttle launches with no whistleblowers, no witnesses to any of this skullduggery.

And the US aren't the only country with a space programme, many do now.
When it comes to the moon landing you know that Jodrell Bank in the UK were tracking the Apollo craft all the way to the surface?
China have a probe which took good enough quality photos to see the Apollow landing sites. This is not just a unilateral claim, other countries have "checked their workings", so to speak.

You obviously weren't around at the times of the Apollo missions .Jodrell bank were not tracking Apollo 11. Nasa alone tracked their craft using their Aussie tracking facility .

Jodrell tracked Luna 15 at that time .
I watched Patrick Moore explain that Jodrell could not track Apollo 11 .

Have a look at this site

 http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/jodrell/jodrole2.htm

Interesting info in there . Look at the tracking of Luna 9 - it seems that facsimile transmissions were made by bouncing signals off echo II balloon satellite in 1966. That lighter than air craft had been up there since 1964. The whole space thing is suspect .

I've seen a quote from head of nasa radio transmission at that time , can't recall his name , who admitted that it was possible that all Apollo radio transmission data could have been faked .




*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11104
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Occams razor according to Flat Earth
« Reply #34 on: June 06, 2020, 10:21:28 AM »
Prove to me that it is not doing this in my photo.
I'm sorry, that's not how the burden of proof works. Substantiate your own claims. If you can't, concede that you tried to get away with an unfalsifiable hypothesis.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Re: Occams razor according to Flat Earth
« Reply #35 on: June 06, 2020, 10:50:50 AM »
I don't think my asking you to explain your claim that it is 'extremely unlikely' that light travels in straight lines comes under the definition of burden of proof.  So why then Pete do you consider that it is not just unlikely but extremely unlikely that light travels in straight lines when there is a lot of evidence our there that show us it does. The use of lasers in architecture and construction for example relies on the basis that light travels in straight lines.

Light rays can be made to bend by travelling through mediums of different densities. That is called refraction. If a light ray were to travel through a vacuum over whatever distance where the density within that vacuum is constant then the ray would continue to travel in a straight line. Why wouldn't it?

The software that I use to build an all sky pointing model for my telescope mount takes into account the amount of light refraction caused by the atmosphere at different altitudes above the horizon and makes a correction for it.  Here is a description of how it works... note the references to refraction.

https://www.siriusimaging.com/Help/APCC/advanced_pointing_model.htm

It amounts to a few minutes of arc at most which is less than the size of the FOV and decreases with distance from the horizon.  But even for a star at say 10-20 degrees altitude the amount of refraction is much, much less than the amount of light bending apparently proposed by your EA hypothesis to explain the rising and setting of the Sun or the phases of the Moon. 



« Last Edit: June 06, 2020, 11:21:09 AM by IronHorse »

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11104
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Occams razor according to Flat Earth
« Reply #36 on: June 06, 2020, 11:20:19 AM »
I don't think my asking you to explain your claim that it is 'extremely unlikely' that light travels in straight lines comes under the definition of burden of proof.
I wasn't responding to you. I'm addressing a specific individual, and referencing discussions we've had previously.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2050
    • View Profile
Re: Occams razor according to Flat Earth
« Reply #37 on: June 06, 2020, 11:25:53 AM »
I watched Patrick Moore explain that Jodrell could not track Apollo 11 .

Where did you watch this?

Have a look at this site    http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/jodrell/jodrole2.htm

Interesting info in there .

Yup, nothing to confirm that JB did NOT track Apollo, just pages that deal with the tracking of Soviet craft...

I've seen a quote from head of nasa radio transmission at that time , can't recall his name , who admitted that it was possible that all Apollo radio transmission data could have been faked .

Should be really easy to find it again, then. Since you know he was "head of radio transmission"
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

Re: Occams razor according to Flat Earth
« Reply #38 on: June 06, 2020, 11:27:30 AM »
Does it matter who you were responding to? 

You are the one who said it is extremely unlikely that light travels in straight lines so I am asking you to explain why you consider it to be so unlikely. There is a lot of evidence out there that suggests it does travel in straight lines.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11104
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Occams razor according to Flat Earth
« Reply #39 on: June 06, 2020, 11:32:04 AM »
Does it matter who you were responding to? 
Yes. Tumeni is making claims which he's already been proven wrong on, and is pretending not to know much about it. I don't particularly feel like explaining basic optics to a newcomer for the umpteenth time, but pointing out Tumeni's dishonesty is somewhat necessary here.

He is welcome to substantiate his own claims without trying to reverse the burden of proof. If he has evidence that the assumption that he posited is true, I'm sure he'll provide it post-haste. Meanwhile, I won't engage in this "well, prove God doesn't exist!" BS.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice