[Smokified]

I am saying that the Round Earth Theory is something which must be proven by default, not assumed.

How can RET be proven to the satisfaction of FE'ers when the FE'ers keep rejecting all evidence that proves RET?

The evidence is justifiably rejected. In the case of the sinking ship Rowbotham studies the matter and concludes that in many situations the sinking ship effect can be restored with a telescope, proving that it is not really be going behind a "hill of water". The same is reported in Zetetic Cosmogony by Thomas Winship and other works.

You will need to respond to and address those studies rather than complain about your ancient proofs being rejected.

OK. Here is the response. Sometimes the reason the ship can't be resolved by the human eye is because it is too distant and lighting conditions are poor etc. These are the situations in which Rowbotham concludes that the sinking ship effect can be restored with a telescope. What you need to address if you really want to refute this global earth proof is the times when the ship can't be restored or when we see exactly the same amount of ship no matter what strength of telescope we are using, if any at all.

I find it exceedingly interesting how you put this much effort into dispensing this kind of absolute BS.  Are you really under the impression that you are fooling anyone?  Do you actually believe what you are saying? 

Visibility conditions play a factor in scenarios where a ship can be restored into vision using optical enhancement, however this can only be observed until the ship moves beyond the line of site as dictated by the curvature of the earth. A major thing the FE theory leaves out is ocean swelling caused by constant wind direction.  This can mean that the surface of the water is several feet higher several miles out to sea if the wind conditions allow for it.  This would give the false perception that you are seeing the ship beyond the distance you should be able to based on the curvature of the earth due to the ship being elevated from your position.

We have optical lenses that take pictures of the earth from 300 miles in space with decent detail.  You can't use the claim that we lack the technology to see far enough to prove the earth is flat.  Unless you are ok with just flat out lying.

Are you responding to me? You should read my post again. Please point out where I have flat-out lied.

Maybe you should read my post again and try to follow the context this time.

I clearly explained exactly what would make you a liar.  You won't have to look too far since it is literally the sentence before it...

[Boots]

I am saying that the Round Earth Theory is something which must be proven by default, not assumed.

How can RET be proven to the satisfaction of FE'ers when the FE'ers keep rejecting all evidence that proves RET?

The evidence is justifiably rejected. In the case of the sinking ship Rowbotham studies the matter and concludes that in many situations the sinking ship effect can be restored with a telescope, proving that it is not really be going behind a "hill of water". The same is reported in Zetetic Cosmogony by Thomas Winship and other works.

You will need to respond to and address those studies rather than complain about your ancient proofs being rejected.

OK. Here is the response. Sometimes the reason the ship can't be resolved by the human eye is because it is too distant and lighting conditions are poor etc. These are the situations in which Rowbotham concludes that the sinking ship effect can be restored with a telescope. What you need to address if you really want to refute this global earth proof is the times when the ship can't be restored or when we see exactly the same amount of ship no matter what strength of telescope we are using, if any at all.

I find it exceedingly interesting how you put this much effort into dispensing this kind of absolute BS.  Are you really under the impression that you are fooling anyone?  Do you actually believe what you are saying? 

Visibility conditions play a factor in scenarios where a ship can be restored into vision using optical enhancement, however this can only be observed until the ship moves beyond the line of site as dictated by the curvature of the earth. A major thing the FE theory leaves out is ocean swelling caused by constant wind direction.  This can mean that the surface of the water is several feet higher several miles out to sea if the wind conditions allow for it.  This would give the false perception that you are seeing the ship beyond the distance you should be able to based on the curvature of the earth due to the ship being elevated from your position.

We have optical lenses that take pictures of the earth from 300 miles in space with decent detail.  You can't use the claim that we lack the technology to see far enough to prove the earth is flat.  Unless you are ok with just flat out lying.

Are you responding to me? You should read my post again. Please point out where I have flat-out lied.

Maybe you should read my post again and try to follow the context this time.

I clearly explained exactly what would make you a liar.  You won't have to look too far since it is literally the sentence before it...

All right. Well it certainly felt like you were implying that I had  "use[d] the claim that we lack the technology to see far enough to prove the earth is flat." If you feel I made that claim could you point out where? Or do you just make random statements like that periodically.

[Tom Bishop]

I am saying that the Round Earth Theory is something which must be proven by default, not assumed.

How can RET be proven to the satisfaction of FE'ers when the FE'ers keep rejecting all evidence that proves RET?

The evidence is justifiably rejected. In the case of the sinking ship Rowbotham studies the matter and concludes that in many situations the sinking ship effect can be restored with a telescope, proving that it is not really be going behind a "hill of water". The same is reported in Zetetic Cosmogony by Thomas Winship and other works.

You will need to respond to and address those studies rather than complain about your ancient proofs being rejected.

OK. Here is the response. Sometimes the reason the ship can't be resolved by the human eye is because it is too distant and lighting conditions are poor etc. These are the situations in which Rowbotham concludes that the sinking ship effect can be restored with a telescope. What you need to address if you really want to refute this global earth proof is the times when the ship can't be restored or when we see exactly the same amount of ship no matter what strength of telescope we are using, if any at all.

The instances where the ship was not restorable was addressed as well. See the chapter Perspective at Sea in Earth Not a Globe.

[Smokified]

All right. Well it certainly felt like you were implying that I had  "use[d] the claim that we lack the technology to see far enough to prove the earth is flat." If you feel I made that claim could you point out where? Or do you just make random statements like that periodically.

The entire premise of your argument in this thread tries to split hairs on our ability to use advanced optics to see distant objects under certain conditions.  The fact is that when an object moves far enough away in relation to the perspective that it is being observed, it can move to a position where it can no longer be observed specifically due to the curvature of the earth (see: line of sight).  That being said, we have the optical technology to see far enough to prove the curvature of the earth, yet you continue with this example of a ship knowing full well it is a bogus example and has been debunked with facts that you can observe for yourself.  To try and press false information as evidence to support a point you know is wrong, is called lying.  Unless you are in fact just delusional and have no idea what you are doing.

The instances where the ship was not restorable was addressed as well. See the chapter Perspective at Sea in Earth Not a Globe.

You assume that just because people disagree, they are unaware of the information.  Just because the issue was "addressed" doesn't mean any of it is even remotely true.  And by the rules of your empirical beliefs, you have to assume this is all false since you yourself have never seen it anyways.

You will lose 100% of the time when you try to argue perception against fact (whether you admit it to yourself or not).

[Boots]

All right. Well it certainly felt like you were implying that I had  "use[d] the claim that we lack the technology to see far enough to prove the earth is flat." If you feel I made that claim could you point out where? Or do you just make random statements like that periodically.

The entire premise of your argument in this thread tries to split hairs on our ability to use advanced optics to see distant objects under certain conditions.  The fact is that when an object moves far enough away in relation to the perspective that it is being observed, it can move to a position where it can no longer be observed specifically due to the curvature of the earth (see: line of sight).  That being said, we have the optical technology to see far enough to prove the curvature of the earth, yet you continue with this example of a ship knowing full well it is a bogus example and has been debunked with facts that you can observe for yourself.  To try and press false information as evidence to support a point you know is wrong, is called lying.  Unless you are in fact just delusional and have no idea what you are doing.

Well just for your benefit, I've posted the sum total of my contribution to this thread below. I really think you may have me mistaken for someone else. Either that or you misunderstood my point. I was actually making an argument against TB. He has now responded with a counter argument which I haven't really looked at yet. Do you agree with me or TB. Or what is your point exactly?

If your FE friend was really confident in his belief he wouldn't feel the need to push so hard. It is obvious he is trying to solidify his belief by attempting to convince those around him that he is correct.

Of course it's not necessarily true. I was just trying to fit in with the (lack of) logic on display in this thread.

OK. Here is the response. Sometimes the reason the ship can't be resolved by the human eye is because it is too distant and lighting conditions are poor etc. These are the situations in which Rowbotham concludes that the sinking ship effect can be restored with a telescope. What you need to address if you really want to refute this global earth proof is the times when the ship can't be restored or when we see exactly the same amount of ship no matter what strength of telescope we are using, if any at all.

Are you responding to me? You should read my post again. Please point out where I have flat-out lied.

All right. Well it certainly felt like you were implying that I had  "use[d] the claim that we lack the technology to see far enough to prove the earth is flat." If you feel I made that claim could you point out where? Or do you just make random statements like that periodically.

[Smokified]

All right. Well it certainly felt like you were implying that I had  "use[d] the claim that we lack the technology to see far enough to prove the earth is flat." If you feel I made that claim could you point out where? Or do you just make random statements like that periodically.

The entire premise of your argument in this thread tries to split hairs on our ability to use advanced optics to see distant objects under certain conditions.  The fact is that when an object moves far enough away in relation to the perspective that it is being observed, it can move to a position where it can no longer be observed specifically due to the curvature of the earth (see: line of sight).  That being said, we have the optical technology to see far enough to prove the curvature of the earth, yet you continue with this example of a ship knowing full well it is a bogus example and has been debunked with facts that you can observe for yourself.  To try and press false information as evidence to support a point you know is wrong, is called lying.  Unless you are in fact just delusional and have no idea what you are doing.

Well just for your benefit, I've posted the sum total of my contribution to this thread below. I really think you may have me mistaken for someone else. Either that or you misunderstood my point. I was actually making an argument against TB. He has now responded with a counter argument which I haven't really looked at yet. Do you agree with me or TB. Or what is your point exactly?

If your FE friend was really confident in his belief he wouldn't feel the need to push so hard. It is obvious he is trying to solidify his belief by attempting to convince those around him that he is correct.

Of course it's not necessarily true. I was just trying to fit in with the (lack of) logic on display in this thread.

OK. Here is the response. Sometimes the reason the ship can't be resolved by the human eye is because it is too distant and lighting conditions are poor etc. These are the situations in which Rowbotham concludes that the sinking ship effect can be restored with a telescope. What you need to address if you really want to refute this global earth proof is the times when the ship can't be restored or when we see exactly the same amount of ship no matter what strength of telescope we are using, if any at all.

Are you responding to me? You should read my post again. Please point out where I have flat-out lied.

All right. Well it certainly felt like you were implying that I had  "use[d] the claim that we lack the technology to see far enough to prove the earth is flat." If you feel I made that claim could you point out where? Or do you just make random statements like that periodically.

I quoted the parts of your "contributions" that I was discussing.  And then I followed up with an explanation.... 

I am not sure where the confusion is coming from....or maybe I am.

Instead of making this about you, like a child would, why don't you focus on the facts that dispute your position and either admit you are wrong and move on like a big boy.... or at least provide some kind of factual disputing evidence.

[Boots]

All right. Well it certainly felt like you were implying that I had  "use[d] the claim that we lack the technology to see far enough to prove the earth is flat." If you feel I made that claim could you point out where? Or do you just make random statements like that periodically.

The entire premise of your argument in this thread tries to split hairs on our ability to use advanced optics to see distant objects under certain conditions.  The fact is that when an object moves far enough away in relation to the perspective that it is being observed, it can move to a position where it can no longer be observed specifically due to the curvature of the earth (see: line of sight).  That being said, we have the optical technology to see far enough to prove the curvature of the earth, yet you continue with this example of a ship knowing full well it is a bogus example and has been debunked with facts that you can observe for yourself.  To try and press false information as evidence to support a point you know is wrong, is called lying.  Unless you are in fact just delusional and have no idea what you are doing.

Well just for your benefit, I've posted the sum total of my contribution to this thread below. I really think you may have me mistaken for someone else. Either that or you misunderstood my point. I was actually making an argument against TB. He has now responded with a counter argument which I haven't really looked at yet. Do you agree with me or TB. Or what is your point exactly?

If your FE friend was really confident in his belief he wouldn't feel the need to push so hard. It is obvious he is trying to solidify his belief by attempting to convince those around him that he is correct.

Of course it's not necessarily true. I was just trying to fit in with the (lack of) logic on display in this thread.

OK. Here is the response. Sometimes the reason the ship can't be resolved by the human eye is because it is too distant and lighting conditions are poor etc. These are the situations in which Rowbotham concludes that the sinking ship effect can be restored with a telescope. What you need to address if you really want to refute this global earth proof is the times when the ship can't be restored or when we see exactly the same amount of ship no matter what strength of telescope we are using, if any at all.

Are you responding to me? You should read my post again. Please point out where I have flat-out lied.

All right. Well it certainly felt like you were implying that I had  "use[d] the claim that we lack the technology to see far enough to prove the earth is flat." If you feel I made that claim could you point out where? Or do you just make random statements like that periodically.

I quoted the parts of your "contributions" that I was discussing.  And then I followed up with an explanation.... 

I am not sure where the confusion is coming from....or maybe I am.

Instead of making this about you, like a child would, why don't you focus on the facts that dispute your position and either admit you are wrong and move on like a big boy.... or at least provide some kind of factual disputing evidence.

Quite simply, I was saying that if the ship can be restored with a telescope it was never beyond the horizon in the first place, only too small to see because of distance or lighting. I then told TB that he needed to address the situations where the boat had not been able to be restored. What exactly do you disagree with? There is no lying and to me it seems pretty staight forward. Tom Bishop had no trouble understanding it.

[Oami]

I might copy here my opening from the "Science" section.

In science there are different kinds of theories. While some theories may peacefully coexist, some can not. When two (or more) theories conflict with each other, we may need to decide (assuming we are interested in the topic in the first place), which theory is better.

So, what methods do you actually use to determine, which theory to believe in? There may be several different answers, but I'll put my criteria here.

In order for theory A to be better than theory B, one of the following three conditions must be met:
1) B is proven false and A is not.
2) Neither is proven false, but A explains things better than B. (That is: it explains a greater number of things or more important things relevant to the topic.)
3) Neither is proven false, and both explain things equally well, but A is simpler than B. (This is also known as the Occam razor.)

It is worth noting that if a theory is false, it might be proven false: but if a theory is true, it can never be proven true. If a theory is true, we can test it, and we will have the results that are predicted by the theory: but if we test a theory a million times and every time get the right result, that doesn't prove that the million-and-first test will also give the right results, instead of failing because of some reason that the first million tests didn't take into account.

And to get back here... the globe theory has not been proven false, it explains pretty well what it is supposed to explain, and it is relatively simple. This is why it is popular.