[huh?]

They must have all of the answers!

No, I do not believe science has ever claimed to have all the answerers -they just happen to have many more answers than people who do not use or understand science

[geckothegeek]

yes,
but I still count it as evidence for a round Earth because there is no explanation of why the sky would be domed in the flat earth model whereas the round Earth model accounts for it.

The flat earth illustration of where the dome and the earth meet seems to contradict the flat earth idea of the horizon as being at an infinite distance ? The dome would also have to be at a maximum distance or height at the center of the flat earth ? Above the North Pole ? And zero distance in height where the dome meets the earth ? Along the ice ring ? It would also seem that the dome would be lower in height over New York and Paris according to the illustration ? The height of the dome would have to decrease the closer you got to the ice (whatever it is) at the edge of the earth ?

[huh?]

yes it would seem that at the Antarctic things get pretty strange in FE theory

[Pongo]

I believe that's exactly how the theory of gravity came about.

I do not know if there is a theory of gravity.

Christ, come back after you've had high school physics. I don't have much interest in teaching people the round-earth model. It never ceases to amaze me how people can defend something so completely that they clearly know almost nothing about.

[huh?]

As far as when the Earth will be pulled into the sun I believe that the prediction is that the sun will turn into a red giant when it has burned off enough fuel and will expand to engulf the Earth in several billion years.

But science definitely can predict that we will not be pulled into the sun by gravity this century.

Whereas in the flat earth model since you have no idea why or how the sun is up there you also have no idea what it will do tomorrow much less 85 years from now. The FE model is not even able to predict how it will travel across the sky.

[huh?]

[Christ, come back after you've had high school physics. I don't have much interest in teaching people the round-earth model. It never ceases to amaze me how people can defend something so completely that they clearly know almost nothing about.

Oh, now I really want to know -what is "the theory of gravity"?

[huh?]

I can definitely believe that.

You all come up with very inventive spins on things.

[geckothegeek]

I can definitely believe that.

You all come up with very inventive spins on things.

I don't want to get ahead of "huh?" but I would be interested in the distance from the earth to the moon. It is one of my favorite subjects.

[Tom Bishop]

They must have all of the answers!

No, I do not believe science has ever claimed to have all the answerers -they just happen to have many more answers than people who do not use or understand science

Actually, science generally admits that it has no solid answers for any physical phenomena.

[huh?]

Scientist do not like to say they are 100% positive about much (particularly physicist's)

but I do not think many would go as far as saying that they have "no solid answers"

If we simply discounted all knowledge as not being 100% proven we would have no technology.

the fact that we do not know 100% about light or gravity I suppose can be defined as not solid but 95% is still pretty good.

[huh?]

I guess the problem with determining the distance to the moon is that it actual requires one use trigonometry and indirect observation.

I would guess that using homemade sextants spaced two hundred miles apart and simple geometry would reveal a distance far more than 3000 miles.

But still not very accurate -particularly if you assume a flat Earth.

But the FE rule seems to be:
Do not trust anything other than direct observation through one individuals own eyes and from a single point of view without using any sort of measuring device.

Given that baseline and the fact that a humans eyes are only a few inches apart it becomes very hard to judge distance.

[huh?]

Yeah I do not know about that.

A theory is an unproven idea so I suppose there could be paradox in some but it would prove a theory as being incorrect.

"The bottom line is that most observations with ultra zoom cameras or magnifying devices don't show the curvature that you would expect if you take the Round Earth Formula seriously. "

Since you actually witnessed a ship sinking as it moved away from you I have trouble understanding that conclusion. I think that you could add some precision in your measuring devices but your only talking about a slight discrepancy as to the amount of curvature based on inaccurate distance estimates, no understanding of expected refraction and low grade optics.

I think overall you are a standout and have done an excellent job of using science. 

"1- Do you take the RE-formula seriously?"

-what formula are you referring too?


"2- Are you doing tests and experiments in the field?"

-well to be honest I take the lazy approach and just assume that people who know how to put TV satellites in space and rovers on Mars can figure out the shape of Earth. However, in the discussion about light reflecting off a spherical  shape I did test it myself and have produced some models in sketchup which illustrate that the FE model does not work.



3- Do you accept that there are paradoxes regarding all theories and observations?
 
-what do you consider a paradox?
1.a statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory:

given this definition No I do not think that all theories and observations have paradoxes.
If, on the other hand, you mean "do we know everything about everything" I would say No we do not know everything about everything.

For example take the Bedford Canal Level Experiment.
Is it a paradox when a boat can be seen from 5 miles away from a point just above the water surface when at the same time poles 12 feet above the water shows a curve?

That would be true if we could not account for the discrepancy in a repeatable way. But the fact is that refraction can be measured and predicted. So it is not actually a paradox.

The fact that gravity does not work correctly at the subatomic level demonstrates the fact that we do not know everything about gravity but that is not a paradox that is an abscense of knowledge.

So maybe I am missing something or defining something different than you -what paradox do you think there is which makes the spherical shape of the Earth questionable?


"4- Do you accept the possibility that the reality could be different than what science tells you?"

-Yes, to a point. No use in questioning the shape of the Earth because it is extremely well documented and proven.
Black Holes on the other hand are not. The size, age, expansion and origin of the universe, light, gravity are all either not proven or obviously missing pieces of knowledge


"5- Does every observation have to fit into the frame of science? And if not you will come up with an explanation, even if you cannot prove it."

-Yes -Although maybe I do not understand what you are driving at here.
I believe in cause and effect -in other words there is no magic and there is a reason for everything. A theory is an unproven explanation so yes I like theories. I am particularly interested in theories about matter and space. 

[Tom Bishop]

Scientist do not like to say they are 100% positive about much (particularly physicist's)

but I do not think many would go as far as saying that they have "no solid answers"

If we simply discounted all knowledge as not being 100% proven we would have no technology.

the fact that we do not know 100% about light or gravity I suppose can be defined as not solid but 95% is still pretty good.

No, really, scienticians freely admit that they don't really know anything about anything. Pick any physical theory, and there is a competing theory to describe that phenomena.

Scienticians cannot even be certin that atoms even exist. There are alternative theories which describe matter as a series of waves: http://www.rhythmodynamics.com/Gabriel_LaFreniere/matter.htm

The idea presented in the link is that sub-atomic particles do not exist, and what we believe are sub-atomic particles are actually just waves of varying properties. The function and operation of a wave-only electron is indistinguishable from a conventional electron. The operation of a computer chip does not demonstrate either hypothesis. A computer chip can work just as well with a wave electron as it can with a conventional electron.

Scienticians teach children that conventional atomic theory is fact, when it is not. There are competing hypothesis' of equal predictive capability. No version of atomic theory has been demonstrated to be true. Yet scienticians are all the happier to go on teaching and believing in the most popular fantasy. Truth does not matter to the scientician. Scienticians teach the most popular fantasy with the best media hype, not that which has been demonstrated to be true.

[huh?]

That is a bit of a misconception.
There is no doubt that there are atoms what is in doubt is exactly what they are made of.

But sure I think that people in general are guilty of simplifying answers and presenting the current best theory as fact.

And again we can always point to things we do not know
-that is not the same as saying that everything we know is invalid because we do not know everything..

Is there proof that the universe is expanding? No but there is some evidence.
Dark matter is just another way of saying -we don't know what that is

Certainly I believe scientist and media could do a better job and not be so "as a matter of fact" about everything.

[Tom Bishop]

We don't know anything. The matter-wave controversy in atomic theory is but one controversy of many.

Science cannot be relied on as an arbiter of truth. There are so many questions, so many inconsistencies, one is left to fend for themselves in a sea of uncertainty. The Flat Earth Theory is our interpretation of physical phenomena, and we have gathered supporting evidence to demonstrate it.

[huh?]

"We don't know anything."

I suppose this depends on ones definition of "know".

The old thought experiment - I think there for I am  -is true and so we all know we are.

Again no doubt that there are a lot of things we do not know.


"There are so many questions, so many inconsistencies, one is left to fend for themselves in a sea of uncertainty"
 
Not really Tom, sorry but I think that you have an overabundance of paranoia that makes things seem more suspicious than they really are.


"The Flat Earth Theory is our interpretation of physical phenomena, and we have gathered supporting evidence to demonstrate it."

The Flat Earth Theory is built upon ignorance of science and extreme paranoia.
Flat Earth believers do not collect evidence they collect hearsay from other flat earth believers and then just accept it because it supports their world view.


If in fact you collected supporting evidence you would be creating a model which actually has predictive capabilities.


But as the discussion on the reflection off of a spherical surface demonstrated, FE'ers tend to say things that are relatively easy to disprove but keep saying them anyway. Then some other FE'er links to their statement and says hey this person said this so it must be right.

 

 

 



 

[huh?]

I doubt that Gabriel Lafreniere was anything more than a science hobbyist. 

Although I think that he had some good points and I think that in recent years the science has headed his way some with string theory

[Tom Bishop]

"We don't know anything."

I suppose this depends on ones definition of "know".

The old thought experiment - I think there for I am  -is true and so we all know we are.

Not even that is true. How do you know that you're not an NPC in some sort of video game simulation and your entire life is pre-programmed to lead a certain way? You can't truly say whether you have free will, or are thinking for yourself or not.

[huh?]

"How do you know that you're not an NPC in some sort of video game simulation and your entire life is pre-programmed to lead a certain way?"

-It would not matter what I was made of or if I was preprogramed -either way I still exist.

My existence does not depend on me having free will

Simply the fact that I can think proves my existence -what I think or what I am made of has absolutely no bearing on that truth.

Maybe God did not have to actually create us in a physical form maybe we only exist in Gods imagination. Even then I still exist.

If an hour from now, God decides to stop imagining me than I suppose I will stop existing at that time. For all I know God occasionally takes a break from imaging me and so I pop in and out of existence.

[huh?]

Only people who do tests and experiments outside the comfortable home will find out that the reality could be different than what mainstream science is telling you.

If you want to be a theorist believing that 'science' is always right, then that's what you are. A theorist.

Yes that is true. On the other hand if every human had to independently verify every bit of information than we would still be in the stone age. I do not need to be able to design and build a computer from scratch in order to use it.

I never said that science is always right so I guess I am not a theorist by your definition
although I do have some theories so by my definition I guess I am.

I do not really know what the implications of being a theorist would be. I suppose that would be a person who can create a plausible explanation for some phenomena so I guess that would be good.


I suppose the question comes down to what a rational person should take for granted and what needs to be independently verified.

So for me, the round earth model accurately predicts everything I need to know and much modern technology depends on it being correct. 40 different countries have combined launched more than 6000 satellites over the past 55 years of which about 500 are currently operational and are used to give GPS coordinates, TV, communications, weather forecasting, solar weather, science, etc..

The fact that I can see over the horizon a bit more than I would have thought does not really come into play because I can assume that I am only ignorant in my understanding of what I should be able to see. 

When one can use Google Earth to predict where the sun will be seen from any spot on Earth I think most rational people would come to the conclusion that who ever made it knew what they where doing.