# "Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory."?

• 71 Replies
• 16717 Views
?

#### Scintific Method

• 1448
• Trust, but verify.
##### Re: "Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory."?
« Reply #60 on: July 12, 2013, 03:49:52 PM »
Quote
Who said math was wrong?

It must be, for all the calculations ever done to indicate a round earth with a 93 million mile distant sun.

The math isn't wrong. The equations predict a sun 93 million miles away presuming the observer is on a globe, and a few thousand miles away presuming the observer is on a plane.

Show me the equations you are referring to, and how they can give these widely varied results. Keep in mind, we have been over this point already: take measurements from two points, and you can argue that the assumption of earth's shape plays a role; take measurements from more than two points, and the earth's shape is no longer in question.

Quote
The doppler effect indicates neither speed or position.

Also, it's impossible to tell the speed of a distant object just by looking at it, without any background reference points. You require observations from multiple points and complex trigonometry, or some sort of radar detector.

That made me laugh! How do you think police radar guns work Tom? They use the Doppler effect to measure speed.

The Doppler Effect alone cannot measure speed. I would suggest looking up some equations for using the Doppler Effect to find speed. You will find that knowledge of the objects velocity is required, and represented as v in the equations.

Again, please show which equations you are referring to. And again, you are wrong, which others have already pointed out to you quite effectively.

Quote
I have done an experiment using the mountains near where I live, details can be found here, and results here. The results indicated a round earth.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Sinking_Ship_Effect

The sinking ship effect (which, by the way, is yet another inaccurate use of perspective as an explanation) would not yield the results I got.
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

#### Tom Bishop

• Flat Earth Believer
• 17521
##### Re: "Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory."?
« Reply #61 on: July 12, 2013, 05:28:41 PM »
Quote
Still does not explain how the sun gets down to the horizon from ~27° above it.

Actually, it does.

Quote
Quote
In previous discussions we've shown pictures of the day-light lunar eclipse, which contradicts Round Earth Theory.

No, it doesn't, for reasons quite thoroughly explained elsewhere.

The thorough explanation given for both the sun and moon appearing in the sky when they should be below the horizon was that "refraction did it".

Do you not know how refraction works? This is a perfectly reasonable explanation, with scientific evidence to back it up, unlike the FE explanation (or complete lack thereof).

What scientific evidence?

Quote
Quote
Sometimes the sun just seems to fade out to the opacity of the atmosphere, without even hitting the horizon, suggesting that the disappearance of the sun is more too do with the atmosphere's thickness, and less on the horizon.

The key word there being "sometimes". Your explanation lacks the consistency required to be credible. Besides, can't you see the fog in the provided image?

The images suggest that the sun is disappearing into a fog near the surface of the earth, and its apparent dipping beneath the horizon is a refraction effect.

Didn't you just try to discredit refraction as an explanation of things? My point still stands.

In my example we can see that the sun is "dipping" into the horizon and there is an obvious refraction effect which results in the sun appearing liquidy.

In your case, a perfect refraction effect is occurring which makes a distinct sun in the sky.

Quote
Quote
If the earth is round the celestial objects are far away. If the earth is flat the celestial bodies are close. This assumption affects the meaning of the observations in the triangulation.

As has been pointed out in the past, this only effects the results if only two measurements are taken. If more than two are taken, we are faced with the fact that only those assuming a round earth give consistent distances; those assuming a flat earth give inconsistent results. For example, the sun: when measured from 45° North and 45° South and assuming a flat earth, the resulting distance is 3,000 miles. When measured from 30° North and South, and still assuming a flat earth, you get 3,464 miles. At 10°, it's 11,343 miles. See the problem with assuming a flat earth?

How do you know the results are inconsistent? Have you measured and checked?

Yes. I have also taken historical measurements, and the FES's own wiki, which all show inconsistency when a flat earth is assumed.

In which scientific journal can I find your work?

The shape of the path it takes, and the consistent rate at which it traverses this path (15° per hour). Actually, this is the best and most easily viewed proof of a round earth. I have actually tried to create a credible flat earth theory of my own (why not? every FE'er on here seems to have their own theory), but one sticking point (of many) has always been the sun's movement. There is just no way to get it to fit a flat earth model, and believe me, I've tried!

Art school perspective is not correct. I would suggest reading Earth Not a Globe, where the matter is proven by numerous experiments.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2013, 05:42:41 PM by Tom Bishop »

#### Tom Bishop

• Flat Earth Believer
• 17521
##### Re: "Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory."?
« Reply #62 on: July 12, 2013, 05:32:22 PM »
There wouldn't be a hard line, like we see in these pictures. If the opacity would play a role, the transition from light to darkness would be much more gradual.

In the far distance, near the horizon, hundreds of miles takes up a single pixel of the screen. Why would the fading be gradual?
Because, if I follow your reasoning, the opacity does not suddenly become too thick. It is gradual. Like you see in this picture. The ground near the photographer is clearer, but as the opacity decreases, the ground fades away in the mist.

http://jameswoodward.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/themist.jpg

But what happens if you move backwards and are at such a distance that the fade out gradient only takes up a few pixels of the screen? Then the fade-out would be more sudden, wouldn't it?

Quote
If you would have watched the videos, provided in the link, you'd know. The camera spins around. Not one particular side stands out from the rest, it is the same horizon everywhere. Also the photos of the horizon. It shows the same incline, not one part of the horizon is more stretched than the other.

I can't tell. Please analyze the curvature in the video mathematically to show that at all times the curvature is an arc of a circle and that at no point is the curvature elliptical.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2013, 05:40:54 PM by Tom Bishop »

#### Tom Bishop

• Flat Earth Believer
• 17521
##### Re: "Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory."?
« Reply #63 on: July 12, 2013, 05:42:07 PM »
Show me the equations you are referring to, and how they can give these widely varied results. Keep in mind, we have been over this point already: take measurements from two points, and you can argue that the assumption of earth's shape plays a role; take measurements from more than two points, and the earth's shape is no longer in question.

Quote
Again, please show which equations you are referring to. And again, you are wrong, which others have already pointed out to you quite effectively.

I am not wrong. A radar gun bounces a signal off of the moving object to determine its distance.

If the distance was not needed only a receiver/camera would be needed, to measure the Doppler Effect and compute a speed. But no such device exists. If the police had point a device which did not bounce a radar signal off of you it would render in-car radar detectors ineffective.

Quote
The sinking ship effect (which, by the way, is yet another inaccurate use of perspective as an explanation) would not yield the results I got.

The Sinking Ship Effect uses the same explanation for why the sun descends: Art School perspective is not correct. Read Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2013, 05:46:22 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

#### neimoka

• 738
##### Re: "Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory."?
« Reply #64 on: July 12, 2013, 06:15:23 PM »
I am not wrong. A radar gun bounces a signal off of the moving object to determine its distance.

If the distance was not needed only a receiver/camera would be needed, to measure the Doppler Effect and compute a speed. But no such device exists. If the police had point a device which did not bounce a radar signal off of you it would render in-car radar detectors ineffective.
You are wrong. A radar gun bounces it's signal off a moving vehicle to determine it's speed, not it's distance. I suggest you stop making statements about things you clearly do not understand.

I already presented an equation for determining v with known transmit frequency and c in this thread. You know of an equation that requires the distance to be known for calculating speed, let's see it. Perhaps you are confusing the need to know the signal's speed with needing to know the distance?

Your other points in the quoted post are completely irrelevant. An actively transmitting doppler radar gun is a cost-efficient instrument for traffic control but that does not mean that other methods would not exist. Lidar speed guns for an instance do not transmit radio waves and they measure speed by measuring distance at short intervals, allowing to calculate the rate at which the distance changes.

#### markjo

• Content Nazi
• The Elder Ones
• 39118
##### Re: "Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory."?
« Reply #65 on: July 12, 2013, 06:29:54 PM »
No, it doesn't. This argument based on prediction is the worst argument you marbles post on this forum. I can predict that the lights will turn on when I flip my light switch. But this repeatable prediction doesn't mean that my personal theories regarding the nature of electricity are correct.
The value of the prediction is based on the accuracy of the model used to make that prediction.  Right now, there is not enough accurate data to create a FE model that can be used to make any useful predictions.  On the other hand, there are quite a few RE models that can, and do, make invaluable predictions on a regular basis.

There are ancient civilizations who believed that the earth was flat, such as the Ancient Babylonians, who could predict the the position of the planets and eclipses of the moon, thousands of years into the future.

Which of those predictions were based on the geometry of a FE cosmos and which were based on simple pattern recognition?

Also, are you 100% sure that the Ancient Babylonians had a true FE cosmology?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_astronomy#Cosmology
Quote
In Babylonian cosmology, the Earth and the heavens were depicted as a "spatial whole, even one of round shape" with references to "the circumference of heaven and earth" and "the totality of heaven and earth". Their worldview was not exactly geocentric either. The idea of geocentrism, where the center of the Earth is the exact center of the universe, did not yet exist in Babylonian cosmology, but was established later by the Greek philosopher Aristotle's On the Heavens. In contrast, Babylonian cosmology suggested that the cosmos revolved around circularly with the heavens and the earth being equal and joined as a whole.[12]
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

#### Scintific Method

• 1448
• Trust, but verify.
##### Re: "Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory."?
« Reply #66 on: July 12, 2013, 06:42:11 PM »

Okay, I see a detailed response is required here. The latitudes 45° North and South are each ~3000miles from the equator, so when a flat earth is assumed, and the sun's angle above the horizon is measured on an equinox, the sun can be said to be ~3000 miles above it. However, if the measurements were made from latitudes 30° North and South on the equinox, the resultant calculated height would be ~3464 miles. The closer you went to the equator, the higher the sun would be according to this method. Also, taking measurements at another time of year (a solstice for example) will provide more conflicting results. Do you want me to go into it, or can you work it out yourself?

Read Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.

I've done that. The number of mistakes, inconsistencies, misconceptions and outright biased comments render this a very unreliable publication. See the various threads I started in Debate regarding chapters/sections within ENaG.

I am not wrong. A radar gun bounces a signal off of the moving object to determine its distance.

If the distance was not needed only a receiver/camera would be needed, to measure the Doppler Effect and compute a speed. But no such device exists. If the police had point a device which did not bounce a radar signal off of you it would render in-car radar detectors ineffective.

As has been explained already (although perhaps not like this), a radar gun fires a burst of radio waves at a set frequency (which is regularly checked and calibrated) at a target, measures the frequency of the reflected radio waves (which is effected by the Doppler effect) and calculates the speed of the target relative to the radar gun. Do you understand now?

Quote
Still does not explain how the sun gets down to the horizon from ~27° above it.

Actually, it does.

How, exactly?

Quote
Do you not know how refraction works? This is a perfectly reasonable explanation, with scientific evidence to back it up, unlike the FE explanation (or complete lack thereof).

What scientific evidence?

Do you actually wear glasses? If you wear glasses, then you are wearing evidence of refraction and the amount of research that has gone into it.

Put simply, there is a tendency for light to follow the curve of the earth due to the nature of the atmosphere (denser near the surface). This tendency means that the sun and moon can appear to be above the horizon, even when they are physically below it.

In my example we can see that the sun is "dipping" into the horizon and there is an obvious refraction effect which results in the sun appearing liquidy.

In your case, a perfect refraction effect is occurring which makes a distinct sun in the sky.

See above, and don't forget that there is a definite fog in you image, which is not always present during a sunset or sunrise.

In which scientific journal can I find your work?

Don't be a dick Tom, you didn't ask for published works, just whether I checked the results. Check them yourself, you'll see exactly what I mean. Assuming you can do basic trigonometry that is...

Quote
The shape of the path it takes, and the consistent rate at which it traverses this path (15° per hour). Actually, this is the best and most easily viewed proof of a round earth. I have actually tried to create a credible flat earth theory of my own (why not? every FE'er on here seems to have their own theory), but one sticking point (of many) has always been the sun's movement. There is just no way to get it to fit a flat earth model, and believe me, I've tried!

Art school perspective is not correct. I would suggest reading Earth Not a Globe, where the matter is proven by numerous experiments.

This comment had nothing to do with perspective Tom, I suggest you read it again. I also suggest you refresh yourself on basic geometry, and angular velocity. And no, as stated, I do not consider ENaG an accurate source of information. Too much bias and too many errors.
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

?

#### Alex Tomasovich

• 1030
##### For Tom
« Reply #67 on: July 12, 2013, 08:25:42 PM »
Tom, since you've managed to miss my posts for a bit, I'll place them here for easy-rebuttal. I apologize for the long post, so I'll summarize my concerns quickly, and explain in more detail below.

• Sun observations made by myself in the Falkland Islands and northern Oregon disagree with FE predictions, both uni- and bi-polar models, by at least 40 degrees.
• FE sunset predicts a light refraction upwards of over 26 degrees upward over a distance of at most 1,121 kilometers but more realistically through just over 100 kilometers of atmosphere, in direct opposition to the laws of refraction, indicating an unknown and unmeasured light behavior.
• If 2 is, in fact, explainable through bent light (such an extreme angle change is not only implausible through refraction, but in blatant contradiction with the measured speed of light in the atmosphere), certainly some phenomena (say, well-known, well-documented, and well-calculated refraction) could explain light bending merely 0.09 degrees over the Bedford Level Experiment.

[1]
Okay, I did some calculations, and according to your theory, on the winter solstice (shortest day of the year), I (at 45.5 N) should see the sun rise about 21 degrees east of due south and set about 21 degrees west of due south.

Instead I've observed it rise about 60 degrees east of due south and set about 60 degrees west of due south.

While this isn't as bad as when I was in the Falkland Islands (discrepancy of about 90 degrees), 40 degrees isn't something to shake a stick at. How does the light from an object make it appear as though it rises and sets 40 on either side?

[2] According to your wiki, the upper layer of the atmosphere ends at just under 500 kilometers. A triangle with one side 500 km and the opposite angle of 26.5 (already determined as the angle of the sun at sunset) has a hypotenuse of 1121 km.

More realistically, since weather balloons have confirmed that the stratolayer has an atmospheric pressure of .1% that of sea level, the overwhelming majority of the atmosphere is beneath 50 kilometers, meaning the sunlight passes not through 1121 kilometers, but only 112.

[3] ni*sin(anglei) = nr*sin(angler) where n = speed of light (vacuum) / speed of light (substance in question). Solving for 1 * sin(63.5) = nr * sin(90) leaves nr = 0.895, instead of the well-measured and recorded value of 1.0003. This also implies the speed of light is much greater in the atmosphere than a vacuum.

As you yourself have pointed out, refraction through the lower levels of the atmosphere is extreme, offering a distorted sun during rising or setting, and the presence of lunar eclipses where both the sun and moon are visible imply refraction can affect up to a couple degrees and match, for a short distance, the curvature of the Earth*

* I know this sounds like circular reasoning (round earth, ergo round earth), but at least my rebuttal to the Bedford Level Experiment is with a well-documented and well-known phenomena, whereas all the rebuttal's I've seen against the Cavendish Experiment (note, I've not yet read this) have been 'maybe wind' even when it's been performed in completely enclosed environments ("As a result the torsion balance technique to test gravity in laboratories have been very carefully designed to eliminate as much as possible external and internal induced perturbations, in particular those caused by radiation/temperature effects.")
« Last Edit: July 13, 2013, 11:06:01 AM by Alex Tomasovich »

#### Tom Bishop

• Flat Earth Believer
• 17521
##### Re: "Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory."?
« Reply #68 on: July 13, 2013, 09:50:07 PM »
All of this is off topic. Start individual threads about these subjects if you wish to expand on them.

?

#### Scintific Method

• 1448
• Trust, but verify.
##### Re: "Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory."?
« Reply #69 on: July 13, 2013, 10:08:17 PM »
All of this is off topic. Start individual threads about these subjects if you wish to expand on them.

The simplest explanation is that the earth is flat because that is what is experienced.

Translation: "I have no comeback to any of the above, so I'm bailing out with a completely unscientific parting comment."

Back on topic: One point on which Occam's Razor supports round earth is the path of the sun.

The simplest explanation for this is that the earth is round and rotates. This explains the apparent motion of the sun without requiring any further complications.

Trying to explain this in a way that supports a flat earth requires:
- a mechanism for the sun to travel in circles over the earth, which vary in radius over the course of a year, without conserving it's angular momentum;
- light to behave in a thus-far unheard of manner;
- some kind of atmospheric magnification effect that only effects the sun, moon, stars and nothing else;
- and some way for the sun to shine on a location such as McMurdo Station when it is midday in England.

Good luck explaining all that in a simple and straightforward manner!
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

?

#### Alex Tomasovich

• 1030
##### Re: "Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory."?
« Reply #70 on: July 13, 2013, 10:19:30 PM »
All of this is off topic. Start individual threads about these subjects if you wish to expand on them.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,56592.0.html#.UeI0L421G1Q
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59200.0.html#.UeI0To21G1Q

And, for an extra bonus,

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59191.0.html#.UeI0XY21G1Q

I assume you haven't seen them quite yet, despite them being up for a short while (well, the Sunlight thing's been up for months), since I've yet to recieve a reply on them.

As to this being off-topic, I completely disagree. I'm merely pointing out that the 'simpleness' of the flat-earth theory falls flat on it's face when you try to explain every-day observations. See Method's post.

?

#### neimoka

• 738
##### Re: "Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory."?
« Reply #71 on: July 14, 2013, 03:55:19 AM »
All of this is off topic. Start individual threads about these subjects if you wish to expand on them.
Is that your way of avoiding having to admit that you're wrong?

Do post your evidence for your version of how doppler radar works if you have it, please. Here's a suitable thread if this one isn't good enough. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,57752.0.html#.UeKEnyEW3RU
« Last Edit: July 14, 2013, 04:01:29 AM by neimoka »