How can we debunk this theory?
« on: August 08, 2017, 10:57:33 AM »
Alright, so you think that the earth is flat. You don't believe that satellite photos are real, and that's fine. But what I'm asking is what will actually prove to you that the Earth is round?

The earth might actually be flat, although unlikely, and I probably have more knowledge about this than the average person (not to say I'm an expert or anything), so I'm not going to rule that out of the table. No matter what evidence exists, whether it be the fact that I can fly from Europe to America via the Atlantic, or loop around the world by going past Asia, or that photos have been taken of planet Earth itself in a round form and never in a flat form, you seem to think that everything is fake. So I ask you this: What does science need to provide you to convert you into thinking the earth is roughly spherical? (Not exactly, but it's close enough). I saw a good video a while ago about why conspiracy theories are flawed, and the verdict was that all conspiracy theorists say that all evidence against the theory is fake, which is why I ask this.

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 779
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: How can we debunk this theory?
« Reply #1 on: August 08, 2017, 12:15:05 PM »
To my mind, there are a few major problems with the "NASA conspiracy" idea.

  1) It would have to involve every space agency - both public and private in every country that does this stuff.  That's a lot of organizations.  People like Elon Musk would somehow have to be muzzled when they first started to spend their own money to get into space and discovered the clear inconsistencies in their launch data.

  2) It would have to go beyond just the space agencies themselves.  Their contractors, the data analysis people, people like me who make software simulations of their systems.

  3) TFES claims that NASA (and others) do this because of the money they get paid for doing space-related activities, and to keep earning it, they have to fake a round earth.   But worldwide, the private space industry earns about $120 billion a year for their shareholders.  So somehow these agencies have to produce more than they consume.  Elon Musk would have had to be convinced to keep making fake launches and to make plans to go to Mars.

  4) Why would governments allow people like Virgin Galactic and SpaceX to start offering to take people up into orbit (and later to the moon and Mars) when this would only widen the conspiracy to more and more members of the public?

  5) It would have to involve a VERY large number of people. Not just employees - but people who supply equipment, people who analyse data,

  6) Astronomers are acutely aware of the roundness of the Earth - they would be unable to operate space telescopes - or even accurately point their ground-based equipment to examine the universe without being a part of the conspiracy.

  7) The conspiracy would have to go back in time too.  People who navigated by the stars and travelled long distances in sailing ships would have been acutely aware of the vastly longer distances they had to travel in the southern hemisphere than in the north - and all of their books and instruments relating to navigation would have to have reflected that.  Almost all sailors below the very lowest ranks would have had to learn this stuff - and then every single one of them would have had to know that there were two sets of books on navigation...two sets of charts...one faked, the other real.  Every single one of them who wrote stories of their travels would have to have been lying about it.  Even the rebels - pirates - people at war with each other - merchants - every single one of them would have had to be in on the conspiracy over at least 400 years...and not ONE of them spoke out!

  8) Modern day international airlines and long distance shipping companies would have to be a part of it.  Ships only travel just so fast...and to get from A to B in the expected times, so that freight would arrive in a timely manner...that would require them to understand the shape of the Earth.  So everyone at WalMart who orders products from China, Indonesia and Korea would have to know that the Earth is flat and be bound to keep it a secret.

Basically, an insanely large percentage of the people of the world over the last 400 years managed to keep this secret from their families.   Nobody blabbed in all that time.

It's not credible...it truly isn't.
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

Re: How can we debunk this theory?
« Reply #2 on: August 08, 2017, 12:37:00 PM »
We don't need to 'debunk' anything. The Flat Earth Hypothesis needs to prove itself. It's not the commonly accepted state of affairs, it's not the null hypothesis, it's the new suggestion. Therefore it's not enough to simply attempt to disprove some of the statements of RE, nor to point at explanations that could work both ways. The FE Hypothesis needs to present a model, equations, and more that can be tested and confirmed accurate. Without these it's just a unproven and untested hypothesis, not a theory. If FE believers want to displace the standard model, that's what's required of them. Seeing as we don't even have a model in over 100 years of recent resurgence, I have my doubts they can provide the rest of what's needed.
FET - A few old books making claims and telling you how things must be based on the words contained therein. This sounds familiar....

The triangle doesn't work

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2810
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: How can we debunk this theory?
« Reply #3 on: August 08, 2017, 02:32:50 PM »
To my mind, there are a few major problems with the "NASA conspiracy" idea.

  1) It would have to involve every space agency - both public and private in every country that does this stuff.  That's a lot of organizations.  People like Elon Musk would somehow have to be muzzled when they first started to spend their own money to get into space and discovered the clear inconsistencies in their launch data.

SpaceX is a public-private entity known as a government contractor which works within the secure realms of government regulations and classifications.

Quote
  2) It would have to go beyond just the space agencies themselves.  Their contractors, the data analysis people, people like me who make software simulations of their systems.

I have news for you. NASA is entirely composted of government contractors. The only people who actually work at NASA are the civil servant directors/managers who supervise the contracts. If you go to a NASA base, everyone there is a contractor.

Quote
  3) TFES claims that NASA (and others) do this because of the money they get paid for doing space-related activities, and to keep earning it, they have to fake a round earth.   But worldwide, the private space industry earns about $120 billion a year for their shareholders.  So somehow these agencies have to produce more than they consume.  Elon Musk would have had to be convinced to keep making fake launches and to make plans to go to Mars.

You are assuming that Elon Musk is "in on it". SpaceX is a contractor who follows orders of the government, not its own. SpaceX may have only provided the rocket and mechanical support for launch, while the government is actually at the controls of where the rocket actually goes after liftoff.

Quote
  4) Why would governments allow people like Virgin Galactic and SpaceX to start offering to take people up into orbit (and later to the moon and Mars) when this would only widen the conspiracy to more and more members of the public?

See above.

Quote
5) It would have to involve a VERY large number of people. Not just employees - but people who supply equipment, people who analyse data,

Are you implying that if you buy a computer from Dell that they are "in" on the computer fraud you are going to conduct with it?

Quote
  6) Astronomers are acutely aware of the roundness of the Earth - they would be unable to operate space telescopes - or even accurately point their ground-based equipment to examine the universe without being a part of the conspiracy.

NASA has invested significantly in high altitude observatories suspended on balloons  and on high altitude airplanes with telescopes inside of them. Those astronomers may be getting real space data from NASA to analyze and make wrong theories about. See:

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/SOFIA/index.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balloon-borne_telescope


Quote
  7) The conspiracy would have to go back in time too.  People who navigated by the stars and travelled long distances in sailing ships would have been acutely aware of the vastly longer distances they had to travel in the southern hemisphere than in the north - and all of their books and instruments relating to navigation would have to have reflected that.  Almost all sailors below the very lowest ranks would have had to learn this stuff - and then every single one of them would have had to know that there were two sets of books on navigation...two sets of charts...one faked, the other real.  Every single one of them who wrote stories of their travels would have to have been lying about it.  Even the rebels - pirates - people at war with each other - merchants - every single one of them would have had to be in on the conspiracy over at least 400 years...and not ONE of them spoke out!

People travel perfectly fine using a Mercator map where Greenland is larger than the continent of Africa and where Antarctica is a massive landmass larger than all of the continents combined. Also, there are alternative Flat Earth models to consider.

Quote
8) Modern day international airlines and long distance shipping companies would have to be a part of it.  Ships only travel just so fast...and to get from A to B in the expected times, so that freight would arrive in a timely manner...that would require them to understand the shape of the Earth.  So everyone at WalMart who orders products from China, Indonesia and Korea would have to know that the Earth is flat and be bound to keep it a secret.

Those are all Northern Hemisphere and equatorial companies and locations. So...
« Last Edit: August 08, 2017, 02:41:20 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 401
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: How can we debunk this theory?
« Reply #4 on: August 08, 2017, 02:43:21 PM »

People travel perfectly fine using a Mercator map where Greenland is larger than the continent of Africa and where Antarctica is a massive landmass larger than all of the continents combined.



No one travels using a Mercator map.  A pilot leaving New York bound for Paris uses sectional charts.   Do you know what a sectional chart is? 
The distance from New York to Paris is unknown.

de·lu·sion
noun
1.   an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2810
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: How can we debunk this theory?
« Reply #5 on: August 08, 2017, 02:43:41 PM »
We don't need to 'debunk' anything. The Flat Earth Hypothesis needs to prove itself. It's not the commonly accepted state of affairs, it's not the null hypothesis, it's the new suggestion. Therefore it's not enough to simply attempt to disprove some of the statements of RE, nor to point at explanations that could work both ways. The FE Hypothesis needs to present a model, equations, and more that can be tested and confirmed accurate. Without these it's just a unproven and untested hypothesis, not a theory. If FE believers want to displace the standard model, that's what's required of them. Seeing as we don't even have a model in over 100 years of recent resurgence, I have my doubts they can provide the rest of what's needed.

Flat Earth is the null hypothesis. It is the empirical truth. To believe in a Round Earth we must trust in an authority to tell us that it is round.

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 401
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: How can we debunk this theory?
« Reply #6 on: August 08, 2017, 02:50:06 PM »
We don't need to 'debunk' anything. The Flat Earth Hypothesis needs to prove itself. It's not the commonly accepted state of affairs, it's not the null hypothesis, it's the new suggestion. Therefore it's not enough to simply attempt to disprove some of the statements of RE, nor to point at explanations that could work both ways. The FE Hypothesis needs to present a model, equations, and more that can be tested and confirmed accurate. Without these it's just a unproven and untested hypothesis, not a theory. If FE believers want to displace the standard model, that's what's required of them. Seeing as we don't even have a model in over 100 years of recent resurgence, I have my doubts they can provide the rest of what's needed.

Flat Earth is the null hypothesis. It is the empirical truth. To believe in a Round Earth we must trust in an authority to tell us that it is round.

Or you could watch the data as commercial airlines fly from point to point using great circle navigation.  Using proven accurate technology no less.  Or is Flight Track data only real when I use it?
The distance from New York to Paris is unknown.

de·lu·sion
noun
1.   an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2810
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: How can we debunk this theory?
« Reply #7 on: August 08, 2017, 02:58:11 PM »
Or you could watch the data as commercial airlines fly from point to point using great circle navigation.  Using proven accurate technology no less.  Or is Flight Track data only real when I use it?

I have yet to see an assessment which discounts all possible continental layout and distance configurations.

*

Offline Merkava

  • *
  • Posts: 63
  • Masterdebater
    • View Profile
Re: How can we debunk this theory?
« Reply #8 on: August 08, 2017, 03:22:49 PM »
We don't need to 'debunk' anything. The Flat Earth Hypothesis needs to prove itself. It's not the commonly accepted state of affairs, it's not the null hypothesis, it's the new suggestion. Therefore it's not enough to simply attempt to disprove some of the statements of RE, nor to point at explanations that could work both ways. The FE Hypothesis needs to present a model, equations, and more that can be tested and confirmed accurate. Without these it's just a unproven and untested hypothesis, not a theory. If FE believers want to displace the standard model, that's what's required of them. Seeing as we don't even have a model in over 100 years of recent resurgence, I have my doubts they can provide the rest of what's needed.

Exactly.  Burden of proof is on them.  But we have a problem, they will never lift a finger to check or flesh out their idea.  I've come to the conclusion there is some kind of mental disorder involved.  I mean that with no joking or mean-spiritedness.  I think that's why they hang on to some old book written hundreds of years ago as gospel.  It says what they want to hear.  Anything that doesn't is wrong because they have the truth.  I'm not a doctor so it's just my gut instinct talking, but I think it's along the lines of someone you don't like says something you objectively know is wrong.  The feeling of correcting them is pleasurable, it's just human nature.  But with FE it's a superiority complex (google and read the definition, it's rings true).  FE is perfect for this.  There's just enough pseudoscience on the most basic level to hang on to that they can convince themselves they have the truth.  From there it's conformation bias all the way in.  You can reject anything you haven't personally seen and what you see is completely up to you. 
They don't want to prove the Earth is flat, they already know it is, because it has to be or they're wrong and they're just not ready for that.
Is it really too much effort to visualize in your head a light rolling around the middle of a plate isn't going to be "east" or "west" of anything it touches EVER?

Re: How can we debunk this theory?
« Reply #9 on: August 08, 2017, 03:31:31 PM »
We don't need to 'debunk' anything. The Flat Earth Hypothesis needs to prove itself. It's not the commonly accepted state of affairs, it's not the null hypothesis, it's the new suggestion. Therefore it's not enough to simply attempt to disprove some of the statements of RE, nor to point at explanations that could work both ways. The FE Hypothesis needs to present a model, equations, and more that can be tested and confirmed accurate. Without these it's just a unproven and untested hypothesis, not a theory. If FE believers want to displace the standard model, that's what's required of them. Seeing as we don't even have a model in over 100 years of recent resurgence, I have my doubts they can provide the rest of what's needed.

Exactly.  Burden of proof is on them.  But we have a problem, they will never lift a finger to check or flesh out their idea.  I've come to the conclusion there is some kind of mental disorder involved.  I mean that with no joking or mean-spiritedness.  I think that's why they hang on to some old book written hundreds of years ago as gospel.  It says what they want to hear.  Anything that doesn't is wrong because they have the truth.  I'm not a doctor so it's just my gut instinct talking, but I think it's along the lines of someone you don't like says something you objectively know is wrong.  The feeling of correcting them is pleasurable, it's just human nature.  But with FE it's a superiority complex (google and read the definition, it's rings true).  FE is perfect for this.  There's just enough pseudoscience on the most basic level to hang on to that they can convince themselves they have the truth.  From there it's conformation bias all the way in.  You can reject anything you haven't personally seen and what you see is completely up to you. 
They don't want to prove the Earth is flat, they already know it is, because it has to be or they're wrong and they're just not ready for that.
There's also the simple fact (and I completely expected this reply from Tom) that they believe theirs is the default view, because they don't understand how the null hypothesis works. If we were 2000ish years ago, and Galileo and others were first offering up these sorts of things, then FE was the null hypothesis. But right now, in this era, RE is the null hypothesis. It is the commonly accepted answer, it has a working model that can be tested against, and more.

We don't need to 'debunk' anything. The Flat Earth Hypothesis needs to prove itself. It's not the commonly accepted state of affairs, it's not the null hypothesis, it's the new suggestion. Therefore it's not enough to simply attempt to disprove some of the statements of RE, nor to point at explanations that could work both ways. The FE Hypothesis needs to present a model, equations, and more that can be tested and confirmed accurate. Without these it's just a unproven and untested hypothesis, not a theory. If FE believers want to displace the standard model, that's what's required of them. Seeing as we don't even have a model in over 100 years of recent resurgence, I have my doubts they can provide the rest of what's needed.

Flat Earth is the null hypothesis. It is the empirical truth. To believe in a Round Earth we must trust in an authority to tell us that it is round.
That's not how this works. Round Earth is the common, default view. That makes it the null hypothesis. Just like scholars and other did thousands of years ago to make RE the common stance, you must now do the same. Just because your visual tests (that don't always come up with the same answer btw) imply a flat Earth, does not make it the null hypothesis. Just like you repeating it over and over doesn't make it any more true. FE has to prove itself, because it is no longer the common theory. Or do you not understand how burden of proof actually works? RE has a working model, and can be tested against with working experiments and distances. RE has had over 100 years and doesn't even have a working visual model/map for it's hypothesis. Repeating something over and over doesn't make it true, and claiming RE is an appeal to authority is idiotic, and shows a clear lack of understanding of both the workings of RE, and the 'evidence' so far provided by FE.
FET - A few old books making claims and telling you how things must be based on the words contained therein. This sounds familiar....

The triangle doesn't work

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2810
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: How can we debunk this theory?
« Reply #10 on: August 08, 2017, 03:34:29 PM »
We don't need to 'debunk' anything. The Flat Earth Hypothesis needs to prove itself. It's not the commonly accepted state of affairs, it's not the null hypothesis, it's the new suggestion. Therefore it's not enough to simply attempt to disprove some of the statements of RE, nor to point at explanations that could work both ways. The FE Hypothesis needs to present a model, equations, and more that can be tested and confirmed accurate. Without these it's just a unproven and untested hypothesis, not a theory. If FE believers want to displace the standard model, that's what's required of them. Seeing as we don't even have a model in over 100 years of recent resurgence, I have my doubts they can provide the rest of what's needed.

Exactly.  Burden of proof is on them.  But we have a problem, they will never lift a finger to check or flesh out their idea.  I've come to the conclusion there is some kind of mental disorder involved.  I mean that with no joking or mean-spiritedness.  I think that's why they hang on to some old book written hundreds of years ago as gospel.  It says what they want to hear.  Anything that doesn't is wrong because they have the truth.  I'm not a doctor so it's just my gut instinct talking, but I think it's along the lines of someone you don't like says something you objectively know is wrong.  The feeling of correcting them is pleasurable, it's just human nature.  But with FE it's a superiority complex (google and read the definition, it's rings true).  FE is perfect for this.  There's just enough pseudoscience on the most basic level to hang on to that they can convince themselves they have the truth.  From there it's conformation bias all the way in.  You can reject anything you haven't personally seen and what you see is completely up to you. 
They don't want to prove the Earth is flat, they already know it is, because it has to be or they're wrong and they're just not ready for that.
There's also the simple fact (and I completely expected this reply from Tom) that they believe theirs is the default view, because they don't understand how the null hypothesis works. If we were 2000ish years ago, and Galileo and others were first offering up these sorts of things, then FE was the null hypothesis. But right now, in this era, RE is the null hypothesis. It is the commonly accepted answer, it has a working model that can be tested against, and more.

We don't need to 'debunk' anything. The Flat Earth Hypothesis needs to prove itself. It's not the commonly accepted state of affairs, it's not the null hypothesis, it's the new suggestion. Therefore it's not enough to simply attempt to disprove some of the statements of RE, nor to point at explanations that could work both ways. The FE Hypothesis needs to present a model, equations, and more that can be tested and confirmed accurate. Without these it's just a unproven and untested hypothesis, not a theory. If FE believers want to displace the standard model, that's what's required of them. Seeing as we don't even have a model in over 100 years of recent resurgence, I have my doubts they can provide the rest of what's needed.

Flat Earth is the null hypothesis. It is the empirical truth. To believe in a Round Earth we must trust in an authority to tell us that it is round.
That's not how this works. Round Earth is the common, default view. That makes it the null hypothesis. Just like scholars and other did thousands of years ago to make RE the common stance, you must now do the same. Just because your visual tests (that don't always come up with the same answer btw) imply a flat Earth, does not make it the null hypothesis. Just like you repeating it over and over doesn't make it any more true. FE has to prove itself, because it is no longer the common theory. Or do you not understand how burden of proof actually works? RE has a working model, and can be tested against with working experiments and distances. RE has had over 100 years and doesn't even have a working visual model/map for it's hypothesis. Repeating something over and over doesn't make it true, and claiming RE is an appeal to authority is idiotic, and shows a clear lack of understanding of both the workings of RE, and the 'evidence' so far provided by FE.

What does the "common view" have anything to do with anything? Is the most popular religion the null hypothesis that all other have to prove wrong? The null hypothesis is the hypothesis that all can see and experience for themselves.
« Last Edit: August 08, 2017, 03:36:43 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: How can we debunk this theory?
« Reply #11 on: August 08, 2017, 03:47:04 PM »
We don't need to 'debunk' anything. The Flat Earth Hypothesis needs to prove itself. It's not the commonly accepted state of affairs, it's not the null hypothesis, it's the new suggestion. Therefore it's not enough to simply attempt to disprove some of the statements of RE, nor to point at explanations that could work both ways. The FE Hypothesis needs to present a model, equations, and more that can be tested and confirmed accurate. Without these it's just a unproven and untested hypothesis, not a theory. If FE believers want to displace the standard model, that's what's required of them. Seeing as we don't even have a model in over 100 years of recent resurgence, I have my doubts they can provide the rest of what's needed.

Exactly.  Burden of proof is on them.  But we have a problem, they will never lift a finger to check or flesh out their idea.  I've come to the conclusion there is some kind of mental disorder involved.  I mean that with no joking or mean-spiritedness.  I think that's why they hang on to some old book written hundreds of years ago as gospel.  It says what they want to hear.  Anything that doesn't is wrong because they have the truth.  I'm not a doctor so it's just my gut instinct talking, but I think it's along the lines of someone you don't like says something you objectively know is wrong.  The feeling of correcting them is pleasurable, it's just human nature.  But with FE it's a superiority complex (google and read the definition, it's rings true).  FE is perfect for this.  There's just enough pseudoscience on the most basic level to hang on to that they can convince themselves they have the truth.  From there it's conformation bias all the way in.  You can reject anything you haven't personally seen and what you see is completely up to you. 
They don't want to prove the Earth is flat, they already know it is, because it has to be or they're wrong and they're just not ready for that.
There's also the simple fact (and I completely expected this reply from Tom) that they believe theirs is the default view, because they don't understand how the null hypothesis works. If we were 2000ish years ago, and Galileo and others were first offering up these sorts of things, then FE was the null hypothesis. But right now, in this era, RE is the null hypothesis. It is the commonly accepted answer, it has a working model that can be tested against, and more.

We don't need to 'debunk' anything. The Flat Earth Hypothesis needs to prove itself. It's not the commonly accepted state of affairs, it's not the null hypothesis, it's the new suggestion. Therefore it's not enough to simply attempt to disprove some of the statements of RE, nor to point at explanations that could work both ways. The FE Hypothesis needs to present a model, equations, and more that can be tested and confirmed accurate. Without these it's just a unproven and untested hypothesis, not a theory. If FE believers want to displace the standard model, that's what's required of them. Seeing as we don't even have a model in over 100 years of recent resurgence, I have my doubts they can provide the rest of what's needed.

Flat Earth is the null hypothesis. It is the empirical truth. To believe in a Round Earth we must trust in an authority to tell us that it is round.
That's not how this works. Round Earth is the common, default view. That makes it the null hypothesis. Just like scholars and other did thousands of years ago to make RE the common stance, you must now do the same. Just because your visual tests (that don't always come up with the same answer btw) imply a flat Earth, does not make it the null hypothesis. Just like you repeating it over and over doesn't make it any more true. FE has to prove itself, because it is no longer the common theory. Or do you not understand how burden of proof actually works? RE has a working model, and can be tested against with working experiments and distances. RE has had over 100 years and doesn't even have a working visual model/map for it's hypothesis. Repeating something over and over doesn't make it true, and claiming RE is an appeal to authority is idiotic, and shows a clear lack of understanding of both the workings of RE, and the 'evidence' so far provided by FE.

What does the "common view" have anything to do with anything? Is the most popular religion the null hypothesis that all other have to prove wrong? The null hypothesis is the hypothesis that all can see and experience for themselves.
"The null hypothesis (H0) is a hypothesis which the researcher tries to disprove, reject or nullify.

The 'null' often refers to the common view of something, while the alternative hypothesis is what the researcher really thinks is the cause of a phenomenon."
FE is H1. It is NOT the null hypothesis, as it is not the common view. RE was proven roughly 2k years ago. Sadly much of the specifics of how have been lost, but considering it's been in use since that time, with multiple explanations fitting it, as well as a working model, it's H0. The null. Religion is an entirely different matter than science, don't know why you brought that up. They don't play by the same rules at all.
FET - A few old books making claims and telling you how things must be based on the words contained therein. This sounds familiar....

The triangle doesn't work

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2810
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: How can we debunk this theory?
« Reply #12 on: August 08, 2017, 04:45:16 PM »
"The null hypothesis (H0) is a hypothesis which the researcher tries to disprove, reject or nullify.

The 'null' often refers to the common view of something, while the alternative hypothesis is what the researcher really thinks is the cause of a phenomenon."
FE is H1. It is NOT the null hypothesis, as it is not the common view. RE was proven roughly 2k years ago. Sadly much of the specifics of how have been lost, but considering it's been in use since that time, with multiple explanations fitting it, as well as a working model, it's H0. The null. Religion is an entirely different matter than science, don't know why you brought that up. They don't play by the same rules at all.

How is religion an entirely different matter? Are the mechanics of the universe not a scientific concept? Most people believe in a deity of some sort who created/controls the universe. Popular majority wins, according to you. Therefore, if you believe otherwise, it is your burden to "prove them wrong". The popular majority is always correct by default, and burden is definitely not on the claimant of things beyond experience to prove their claim, since clearly, that is not how the burden of proof works.

Re: How can we debunk this theory?
« Reply #13 on: August 08, 2017, 04:53:58 PM »
"The null hypothesis (H0) is a hypothesis which the researcher tries to disprove, reject or nullify.

The 'null' often refers to the common view of something, while the alternative hypothesis is what the researcher really thinks is the cause of a phenomenon."
FE is H1. It is NOT the null hypothesis, as it is not the common view. RE was proven roughly 2k years ago. Sadly much of the specifics of how have been lost, but considering it's been in use since that time, with multiple explanations fitting it, as well as a working model, it's H0. The null. Religion is an entirely different matter than science, don't know why you brought that up. They don't play by the same rules at all.

How is religion an entirely different matter? Are the mechanics of the universe not a scientific concept? Most people believe in a deity of some sort who created/controls the universe. Popular majority wins, according to you. Therefore, if you believe otherwise, it is your burden to "prove them wrong". The popular majority is always correct by default, and burden is definitely not on the claimant of things beyond experience to prove their claim, since clearly, that is not how the burden of proof works.
Yet you have no evidence about the shape of the earth.  What happened to your triangle calculations?

*

Offline Merkava

  • *
  • Posts: 63
  • Masterdebater
    • View Profile
Re: How can we debunk this theory?
« Reply #14 on: August 08, 2017, 05:53:23 PM »
"The null hypothesis (H0) is a hypothesis which the researcher tries to disprove, reject or nullify.

The 'null' often refers to the common view of something, while the alternative hypothesis is what the researcher really thinks is the cause of a phenomenon."
FE is H1. It is NOT the null hypothesis, as it is not the common view. RE was proven roughly 2k years ago. Sadly much of the specifics of how have been lost, but considering it's been in use since that time, with multiple explanations fitting it, as well as a working model, it's H0. The null. Religion is an entirely different matter than science, don't know why you brought that up. They don't play by the same rules at all.


How is religion an entirely different matter? Are the mechanics of the universe not a scientific concept? Most people believe in a deity of some sort who created/controls the universe. Popular majority wins, according to you. Therefore, if you believe otherwise, it is your burden to "prove them wrong". The popular majority is always correct by default, and burden is definitely not on the claimant of things beyond experience to prove their claim, since clearly, that is not how the burden of proof works.

Science, IMHO, has gone and continues to go out of it's way to disprove a supernatural involvement.  I'd say they have excepted it's the null.  The thing is, science can only operate in the world it exists in.  What I mean is this:  Imagine your a character in a computer simulation, the most complex simulation that has or will ever exist.  You can't know the true nature of the universe, unless that's part of the simulation.  You can only know what the rules of the "game" allow.

Anyway, the point still remains, there is literally NO DOUBT a globe is not only the excepted position of 99% of the population, but the only one that has an absolute, rock solid, working model that you can't touch with a ten foot pole.  You wouldn't dare to try.  You guys walked outside one day, looked at the horizon expecting to see what standing on a cylinder would look like, can't fathom how big a planet is and ran with it.  Most people don't give a crap to even bother with FE'ers after decades of photo's showing exactly what people in the dam dark ages knew, the Earth is round.  Nearly every piece of technology around us wouldn't function if the earth wasn't a globe, the code and physical make-up show it.  Haven't heard back from you on whether you plan to disprove RE by watching the sunrise on the equinox and show us how it didn't rise where we all know it will?  Or if you plan to take a vacation and take a few flights to show us we are full of shit?  Why not?  Superiority complex.
Is it really too much effort to visualize in your head a light rolling around the middle of a plate isn't going to be "east" or "west" of anything it touches EVER?

Re: How can we debunk this theory?
« Reply #15 on: August 08, 2017, 05:59:38 PM »
"The null hypothesis (H0) is a hypothesis which the researcher tries to disprove, reject or nullify.

The 'null' often refers to the common view of something, while the alternative hypothesis is what the researcher really thinks is the cause of a phenomenon."
FE is H1. It is NOT the null hypothesis, as it is not the common view. RE was proven roughly 2k years ago. Sadly much of the specifics of how have been lost, but considering it's been in use since that time, with multiple explanations fitting it, as well as a working model, it's H0. The null. Religion is an entirely different matter than science, don't know why you brought that up. They don't play by the same rules at all.

How is religion an entirely different matter? Are the mechanics of the universe not a scientific concept? Most people believe in a deity of some sort who created/controls the universe. Popular majority wins, according to you. Therefore, if you believe otherwise, it is your burden to "prove them wrong". The popular majority is always correct by default, and burden is definitely not on the claimant of things beyond experience to prove their claim, since clearly, that is not how the burden of proof works.
Because religion is not a testable hypothesis. Without something to test against and disprove, it cannot be a null hypothesis. Religion addresses the 'how' of the formation of the universe in an untestable way, not with a valid testable hypothesis. It doesn't fit into this schema at all, because religion no longer addresses the how of everyday things, but is rather about things we can only theorize about. Round Earth is the base model of the world now, the commonly accepted testable model. There is no religion that fits those same criteria. Thus, no religion is the null hypothesis. But in this day and age, RE IS the null hypothesis. It's the one commonly accepted among the world (by a wide margin) it has a model that can be tested and measured against, and it has mathematical formulae and theories which produce repeatable results. FE has almost none of that, instead having a hodge podge of hypotheses that don't always fit together into a unified whole, and has glaring issues that are either ignored, or talked around. Like where does the sun move? Oh wait, that goes back to not even having a working model, and the last update was about 100 years ago where you just slapped a globe onto a flat surface.
FET - A few old books making claims and telling you how things must be based on the words contained therein. This sounds familiar....

The triangle doesn't work

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2810
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: How can we debunk this theory?
« Reply #16 on: August 08, 2017, 06:23:57 PM »
It's the one commonly accepted among the world (by a wide margin)

Religion is most commonly accepted among the world. Therefore religion is true and science is false. Burden is on you to disprove religion.

Who says that God is untestable? He exists, He does things, therefore He is testable. Once you are able to disprove God, get back to us, because the burden is on you to disprove this popular null hypothesis and not on its claimants.

Re: How can we debunk this theory?
« Reply #17 on: August 08, 2017, 06:31:03 PM »
It's the one commonly accepted among the world (by a wide margin)

Religion is most commonly accepted among the world. Therefore religion is true and science is false. Burden is on you to disprove religion.

Who says that God is untestable? He exists, He does things, therefore He is testable. Once you are able to disprove God, get back to us, because the burden is on you to disprove this popular null hypothesis and not on its claimants.
Yet you still fail to want to discuss observations and measurements of the earth.

Re: How can we debunk this theory?
« Reply #18 on: August 08, 2017, 06:34:27 PM »
Don't you just love how Tom picks a single thing to try and refute while ignoring anything else that might be said that's valid? Or takes it out of context to attempt to make a point? Oh, or even better, pleads ignorance to widely known facts claiming that they need to be re-proven because they weren't written down by a man dead for over a century.

It's the one commonly accepted among the world (by a wide margin)

Religion is the commonly accepted among the world. Therefore religion is true and science is false. Burden is on you to disprove religion.

Who says that god is untestable? He exists, therefore He is testable. In fact, the Bible has a lot of claims which might be found in archeology, genetics, etc. Once you are able to disprove the Bible, get back to us, because the burden is on you to disprove this popular null hypothesis and not on its claimants.
But there is no single commonly accepted religion, and nearly every single one says you cannot find a god via science. Or have you had your head in the sand for the last few decades? Also many religions don't claim all of science is false, that's something you literally just made up on the spot. Beyond that, even if it was 'science is true or religion is true' there's no such thing as a null hypothesis in religion. So such a thing wouldn't even exist.

I can't even believe I have to break it down this far, just to try and force you from weaseling out of giving a legitimate answer. Among the scientific community, the commonly accepted theory (used here in the scientific sense, and if you don't know the difference educate yourself please) is the default, the null, and what any new hypothesis must disprove, or be a more accurate fit for. At present, FE can't even put forth a model to test against, or any equations to test. It's a glorified hypotheses. Show me your FE model Tom. Or how about that equation for Electromagnetic Accelerator that you claim to have cut down. At least then we'd have something to test against and you could begin on the path to being a theory. You don't even know the number of the 'constant' in your EA calculation for fuck's sake. You demand incredible amounts of evidence, and don't even hold your own tests to the same standard.
FET - A few old books making claims and telling you how things must be based on the words contained therein. This sounds familiar....

The triangle doesn't work

*

Offline Merkava

  • *
  • Posts: 63
  • Masterdebater
    • View Profile
Re: How can we debunk this theory?
« Reply #19 on: August 08, 2017, 06:36:57 PM »
Or you could watch the data as commercial airlines fly from point to point using great circle navigation.  Using proven accurate technology no less.  Or is Flight Track data only real when I use it?

I have yet to see an assessment which discounts all possible continental layout and distance configurations.

No shit, you've only seen it discount all of your possible layouts and distance configurations.  Works swimmingly on ours.
Is it really too much effort to visualize in your head a light rolling around the middle of a plate isn't going to be "east" or "west" of anything it touches EVER?