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

  • 71 Replies
  • 16132 Views
?

RyanTG

  • 312
  • If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
"Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory."?
« on: July 08, 2013, 10:43:45 AM »
I was browsing the Wiki when I came across this marvellous and ingenious piece here.

Needless to say, I believe this particular page is completely and utterly wrong in its premises and its conclusions. For clarity, I will write the definition down:

"It states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected."

The author(s) of the post, it seems, haven't particularly understood the principle and have instead created this narrative that the hypothesis favoured by Occam's Razor is the original explanation or the explanation that makes the most intuitive sense. The most intuitive answer does not equal the correct answer however.

The author(s) also fails to be able to understand what the word "assumption" and "hypothesis" means and fails to be able to recognise that these DO NOT translate to modern day theories and are not comparable.

Aside from the mention of gravitons, the conventional explanations discussed are NOT hypotheses and they do NOT give assumptions. They are theories and they are backed up by empirical evidence.

Along with the obvious bias approach to this page (something discredited in a wiki), the points have been utterly bastardised.

I will use the last point as the exemplar on this forum post:

"What's the simplest explanation; that the sun, moon, and stars are enormous bodies of unimaginable mass, size, and distances which represent frontiers to a vast and infinite unknowable universe teeming with alien worlds, galactic civilizations, black holes, quarks and nebulae, and phenomena only conceivable in science fiction; or is the simplest explanation that the universe isn't so large or unknown and when we look up at the stars we are just looking at small points of light exactly they appear to be?"

On the surface and due to how the author has wrote this, it seems that the current explanation endorsed by the scientific community makes the most assumptions(which are not assumptions) and then therefore should be discredited. Aside from the fact that Occam's Razor is not sacrosanct and does not hold up in all situations, it does not highlight the actual assumptions given by the explanations the author advocates.

What would it mean if all which is mentioned is "only conceivable in science fiction; or is the simplest explanation that the universe isn't so large or unknown and when we look up at the stars we are just looking at small points of light exactly they appear to be"?

It would mean that:

1) Particle physics is demonstrably erroneous in all of its observations and theory. The atomic model is completely and utterly wrong, all observations that point to the existence of quarks are utterly wrong.
2) Measured sizes of planets, the sun and distances between stars are constantly producing results that are obviously not taking into account some sort of error. Some error that is systematically being ignored and has been ignored by all those who take these measurements since the inception of the equipments capable of gathering this data. Tom Bishop has notably said that the distance between the sun and the earth (and maybe the earth and other planets/stars) is erroneous because of the assumption that the earth is spherical. Apart from this being distorted, to say the least, it is at least an explanation. There is no explanation offered as to why the measured diameter, luminosity, density, volume, circumference, spectra of light (to name a few) of the sun and the planets are wrong however.
3) Observations made through telescopes, grounded and space alike are wrong. The fact that they undeniably show the existence of galaxies, stars and planets is, to the author, completely useless. Observations made to deduce the existence of black holes are wrong, and once again physicists and researchers in this field are completely oblivious.
4) "the universe isn't so large or unknown". Measurements for the expansion of the universe are wrong, red shift is wrong, the fact that the early universe contained only light elements does not credit the big bang theory, the fact there is the existence a cosmic microwave background permeating the universe does not credit a large universe etc.
5) To put it bluntly, the entirety of cosmology, astrophysics and astronomy is wrong.

The fundamental flaw in this page is that the author(s) tries to compare the theories and substantiated explanations advocated by the consensus to hypotheses that are not substantiated.

Occam's Razor would hold ground in this situation if everything being talked about was a hypothesis, this is evidently not the case. Occam's Razor is used as a guidance, it is NOT applicable in this situation.

The forum page should be severely changed or removed in my opinion.

Thank you for reading. (Sorry for the long post)

?

RyanTG

  • 312
  • If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
Re: "Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory."?
« Reply #1 on: July 08, 2013, 11:06:13 AM »
I'll add that I only listed some of the assumptions of the ideas that are advocated by the author that would effect modern conventional theories.

I did not list the assumptions the actual hypotheses make such as with the NASA one, that they are able to keep potentially thousands of people from speaking out, along with fooling the scientific community and also silencing the media.

The post was one take so I forgot, sorry!

?

darknavyseal

  • 439
  • Round Earth, for sure, maybe.
Re: "Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory."?
« Reply #2 on: July 08, 2013, 11:36:40 AM »
continued...

-All the governments of the world are trying to conceal the truth about the Earth

-Bendy light?

-Weird perspective?

 

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17289
Re: "Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory."?
« Reply #3 on: July 10, 2013, 12:01:26 PM »
I was browsing the Wiki when I came across this marvellous and ingenious piece here.

Needless to say, I believe this particular page is completely and utterly wrong in its premises and its conclusions. For clarity, I will write the definition down:

"It states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected."

The explanation with the fewest assumptions is, get this, the simplest explanation.

Quote
The author(s) of the post, it seems, haven't particularly understood the principle and have instead created this narrative that the hypothesis favoured by Occam's Razor is the original explanation or the explanation that makes the most intuitive sense. The most intuitive answer does not equal the correct answer however.

Occam's Razor favors the explanation with the simplest explanation.

See: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

Quote
What would it mean if all which is mentioned is "only conceivable in science fiction; or is the simplest explanation that the universe isn't so large or unknown and when we look up at the stars we are just looking at small points of light exactly they appear to be"?

It would mean that:

1) Particle physics is demonstrably erroneous in all of its observations and theory. The atomic model is completely and utterly wrong, all observations that point to the existence of quarks are utterly wrong.


But no one ever proved the atomic model in a lab. There are competing hypothesis' for atomic theory. For example, some believe that matter exists as waves, and that atoms do not physically exist.

http://web.archive.org/web/20110711095644/http://www.glafreniere.com/matter.htm

Quote
2) Measured sizes of planets, the sun and distances between stars are constantly producing results that are obviously not taking into account some sort of error. Some error that is systematically being ignored and has been ignored by all those who take these measurements since the inception of the equipments capable of gathering this data. Tom Bishop has notably said that the distance between the sun and the earth (and maybe the earth and other planets/stars) is erroneous because of the assumption that the earth is spherical. Apart from this being distorted, to say the least, it is at least an explanation. There is no explanation offered as to why the measured diameter, luminosity, density, volume, circumference, spectra of light (to name a few) of the sun and the planets are wrong however.

The hypothesis' related to the diameter of a celestial body is dependent on an accurate distance. If the distance is wrong, then the diameter, the assumed 'gravity', the circumference, etc., must also be wrong.

One a flat earth the observations and data points which suggest a 92 million mile distant sun on a round earth also suggests a sun a few thousand miles away on a flat one.
 
See: http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Distance_to_the_Sun

Quote
3) Observations made through telescopes, grounded and space alike are wrong. The fact that they undeniably show the existence of galaxies, stars and planets is, to the author, completely useless. Observations made to deduce the existence of black holes are wrong, and once again physicists and researchers in this field are completely oblivious.

The interpretation of those bodies as "worlds" thousands of miles in diameter is primarily dependent on the assumed distances from the earth being correct.

Quote
4) "the universe isn't so large or unknown". Measurements for the expansion of the universe are wrong, red shift is wrong, the fact that the early universe contained only light elements does not credit the big bang theory, the fact there is the existence a cosmic microwave background permeating the universe does not credit a large universe etc.

I do not believe anyone has directly tested the early universe or the expansion of the universe.

Quote
5) To put it bluntly, the entirety of cosmology, astrophysics and astronomy is wrong.

Astronomy is not a science. It should not be a surprise that it is wrong.

Quote
Occam's Razor would hold ground in this situation if everything being talked about was a hypothesis, this is evidently not the case. Occam's Razor is used as a guidance, it is NOT applicable in this situation.

Everything discussed is a hypothesis. Astronomy is not a science. Astronomers are not scientists. The practice of Astronomy does not follow the Scientific Method, as is demanded of other sciences.

Here's an image displaying the steps of the Scientific Method:




See that? Astronomy fails right where the "test with an experiment" part comes in. Newton never did any experiments to prove his hypothesis of gravity as a force. Copernicus never did any experimentation to prove his hypothesis of the earth is revolving around the sun. No experimentation is ever attempted. The need for it is denied entirely.

How many experiments on the universe did Stephan Hawking perform before he published his theories on the metric expansion of space?

The steps in Astronomy are Observe -> Interpret, just like any religion or pseudoscience. It is little better than Astrology, which also follows the Observe -> interpret method. This is in no way aligned with the Scientific Method.

For example, it's believed that water is a molecule made from H20. Two hydrogens and one oxygen. To test this we can use the electrolysis of water to come to the absolute truth of the matter. Electricity separates the elements into sealed of flasks. One element comes out twice as much as the other.

If there is any question such as "maybe it's not really oxygen", the hypothesis can be put to the test (important!) by conducting an experiment like lighting it on fire, mixing it with another element for a reaction, or airing into a sealed container with an insect. The experimenter can try all sorts of different things to come to the truth of the matter. If there's another question it can always be put to the test to see if the hypothesis has merit. Whatever the question might be, it can be put to the test. Each and every variable can be controlled and modified for whatever the experiment is testing. In the end, after many successive hypothesis' and experimental trials, the experimenter can come to the concrete conclusion that the oxygen in water is the same oxygen known elsewhere.

Astronomy cannot come to conclusions of any sort. Nothing can be put to the test. The astronomer cannot performed controlled experiments on the universe. It simply cannot be studied in such a manner. The field exists as one hypothesis built on another, rambled off in mumbling pretension. It is not comparable to the sciences like chemistry or biology. The credibility of Astronomy is very low.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2013, 12:28:45 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: "Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory."?
« Reply #4 on: July 10, 2013, 01:18:06 PM »
Astronomy cannot come to conclusions of any sort. Nothing can be put to the test. The astronomer cannot performed controlled experiments on the universe. It simply cannot be studied in such a manner. The field exists as one hypothesis built on another, rambled off in mumbling pretension. It is not comparable to the sciences like chemistry or biology. The credibility of Astronomy is very low.

There are other ways of testing than 'put it in a bottle and see'. Astronomy may not be able to physically test anything, but the theories derived from observation predict other phenomena. For example:

"What if comets orbit the sun? Well, then they'd come by at regular intervals, like how seasons come by at regular intervals. That means this comet here should be back in about 72 years." Then, 72 years later, you check observations against theory. If the prediction (regular comets) holds true to observation, the theory is a bit stronger.

Over the course of time there have been many astronomical theories, and they either grow stronger with observation or they are destroyed. For instance: Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9, discovered in 1993. Astronomers looked at it and said, "This comet is mighty close to Jupiter. If our theory of gravity's correct, then it's actually orbiting Jupiter. If that's true, our observations show it's highly eccentric, such that it should hit Jupiter at around July 16, 1994, and the collision should last about five days."

Then they watched, and saw, between 16 July and 22 July, 1994, 21 impacts against Jupiter.

The theory made predictions which were then observed to come true.

Quote
The explanation with the fewest assumptions is, get this, the simplest explanation.

Okay, shall we go through them?

  • Everyone south of the equator lies as to where and when the sun rises[1]
  • Every space-capable nation consistently lies about space explorations
  • Every sunset involves magically turning 26.5 degrees into 0.01667 degrees
  • A handful of experiments performed a hundred years ago were done perfectly but the millions of experiments performed today all suffer some flaw
  • Every trans-antarctic expedition has lied about their results (and somehow teleported themselves across the world)
  • Every government and applicable experts consistently lie about GPS
  • Every measurement of the distance of celestial objects is either a lie or affected by a very consistent but unnoticed error
  • Every red-shift measurement of the speed of celestial objects is either a lie or affected by a very consistent but unnoticed error
  • Observations made by millions of regular people are fictitious, holographic, or mis-understandings of what is really seen
  • Competitive shipping and transportation companies agree to use less-efficient routes at the cost of millions, if not billions of dollars
  • Math as we know it, as it has been used to build and design everything from computers to kilometer-tall towers, is wrong

Yup, absolutely Flat Earth has the fewest assumptions, and is the simplest explanation.

[1] http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,56592.msg1514517.html#msg1514517

Re: "Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory."?
« Reply #5 on: July 10, 2013, 02:00:41 PM »
See that? Astronomy fails right where the "test with an experiment" part comes in. Newton never did any experiments to prove his hypothesis of gravity as a force. Copernicus never did any experimentation to prove his hypothesis of the earth is revolving around the sun. No experimentation is ever attempted. The need for it is denied entirely.

How many experiments on the universe did Stephan Hawking perform before he published his theories on the metric expansion of space?
It was a rather long post so I quoted just that little bit, but my response applies to the rest as a whole.

You speak of distance to all celestial objects as being hypothetical, but you are forgetting that man-made vessels have traveled to many of them (within our own solar system of course); does this not count as "experiment"?

That, of course, is quickly dismissed as "space flight is a hoax", but that exactly is my second point: the entire flat earth theory, and belief in a planar earth in any manner, boils down to this one thing: The Conspiracy. Frankly, what else is there to it? If the conspiracy does not exist in all it's magnificence, a planar earth immediately becomes entirely impossible, and as proving nonexistence of The Conspiracy is not practically possible (or you'd deny that proof anyway)... well, that's pretty much it. It's like continuing to ask "how do I know what I know" ad infinitum, any theory or evidence is completely meaningless here.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17289
Re: "Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory."?
« Reply #6 on: July 10, 2013, 02:05:23 PM »
There are other ways of testing than 'put it in a bottle and see'. Astronomy may not be able to physically test anything, but the theories derived from observation predict other phenomena. For example:

"What if comets orbit the sun? Well, then they'd come by at regular intervals, like how seasons come by at regular intervals. That means this comet here should be back in about 72 years." Then, 72 years later, you check observations against theory. If the prediction (regular comets) holds true to observation, the theory is a bit stronger.

Over the course of time there have been many astronomical theories, and they either grow stronger with observation or they are destroyed. For instance: Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9, discovered in 1993. Astronomers looked at it and said, "This comet is mighty close to Jupiter. If our theory of gravity's correct, then it's actually orbiting Jupiter. If that's true, our observations show it's highly eccentric, such that it should hit Jupiter at around July 16, 1994, and the collision should last about five days."

Then they watched, and saw, between 16 July and 22 July, 1994, 21 impacts against Jupiter.

The theory made predictions which were then observed to come true.

Your example is irrelevant. I could be in an air balloon watching a street scene below of a bus driving along a road, on an apparent impact course with a motorcycle, and make an accurate prediction of when the impact will occur, all without knowing my distance to the bus or the motorcycle.

If there were a series of busses in a line on a collusion course with, say a warehouse, I could also guess the amount of time it would take between the first impact and the last impact. Using tools to look at the pace of the angular change as the buses move below me may help in a mathematical prediction, but knowledge of the distance between the observer and the buses is unneeded to make a prediction.

Quote
Okay, shall we go through them?

  • Everyone south of the equator lies as to where and when the sun rises

I don't believe anyone has claimed this. There are two Flat Earth models, with different sun movements. Which one are you challenging?

Can you show us an example of one of these lies?

Quote
Every space-capable nation consistently lies about space explorations

There are really only a few nations which claim launch capability. The majority of the "space nations" contract out either NASA/ESA/RSA to build run their spacecraft. Countries like Denmark may claim to be a "space power," but they have no rockets, no satellites, and only make that claim because they once paid NASA a lot of money to put a Danish national on the ISS. Hardly a space power.

These space programs are usually blatantly phony. See these videos on China's space program for example:

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">China's Space Walk Was FAKE (part 1)
#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Proof China Faked Their Spacewalk (Part 2)

Quote
  • Every sunset involves magically turning 26.5 degrees into 0.01667 degrees

Did you factor in refraction? Seeing a perfect sunset is a rare occurrence. If you watch a typical sunset closely you will see that it is actually disappearing into an inversion layer above the earth.



In previous discussions we've shown pictures of the day-light lunar eclipse, which contradicts Round Earth Theory. Under RET it should be impossible for the sun and moon to be in the sky during a lunar eclipse. The response from this forum was that refraction did it, bringing the moon and sun from below the horizon and into the sky. If refraction can do something as amazing as then, then it stands that refraction can also make the sun disappear when it gets appropriately far away.

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.



In both images we can see that the atmosphere gets very thick near the horizon, resulting in the fading of light and extreme refraction effects.

Quote
A handful of experiments performed a hundred years ago were done perfectly but the millions of experiments performed today all suffer some flaw

Yes, the flaw is that, unlike the trials you referenced, there is no experimentation behind modern Astronomy. Astronomy does not follow the Scientific Method.

Quote
  • Every trans-antarctic expedition has lied about their results (and somehow teleported themselves across the world)

I support the model where Antarctica exists as a continent.

Quote
  • Every government and applicable experts consistently lie about GPS

GPS satellites are military, and much about them is classified. The government doesn't put out the rocket designs, the satellite schematics, or the technologies into the public domain. You are misled in your assertion that we would know much about what they are.

Quote
  • Every measurement of the distance of celestial objects is either a lie or affected by a very consistent but unnoticed error

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.

Quote
  • Every red-shift measurement of the speed of celestial objects is either a lie or affected by a very consistent but unnoticed error

What experiments of celestial bodies? Do you mean observations?

Quote
  • Observations made by millions of regular people are fictitious, holographic, or mis-understandings of what is really seen

What observations?

Quote
  • Competitive shipping and transportation companies agree to use less-efficient routes at the cost of millions, if not billions of dollars

Under what model?

Quote
  • Math as we know it, as it has been used to build and design everything from computers to kilometer-tall towers, is wrong

Who said math was wrong?  ???
« Last Edit: July 10, 2013, 02:56:06 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17289
Re: "Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory."?
« Reply #7 on: July 10, 2013, 02:23:52 PM »
See that? Astronomy fails right where the "test with an experiment" part comes in. Newton never did any experiments to prove his hypothesis of gravity as a force. Copernicus never did any experimentation to prove his hypothesis of the earth is revolving around the sun. No experimentation is ever attempted. The need for it is denied entirely.

How many experiments on the universe did Stephan Hawking perform before he published his theories on the metric expansion of space?
It was a rather long post so I quoted just that little bit, but my response applies to the rest as a whole.

You speak of distance to all celestial objects as being hypothetical, but you are forgetting that man-made vessels have traveled to many of them (within our own solar system of course); does this not count as "experiment"?

That, of course, is quickly dismissed as "space flight is a hoax", but that exactly is my second point: the entire flat earth theory, and belief in a planar earth in any manner, boils down to this one thing: The Conspiracy. Frankly, what else is there to it? If the conspiracy does not exist in all it's magnificence, a planar earth immediately becomes entirely impossible, and as proving nonexistence of The Conspiracy is not practically possible (or you'd deny that proof anyway)... well, that's pretty much it. It's like continuing to ask "how do I know what I know" ad infinitum, any theory or evidence is completely meaningless here.

Except that there is plenty of evidence for a conspiracy. See the China videos above, for example.

One argument we usually hear is that China's program is indeed fake, but China isn't NASA. But this does not make sense. If China's fake space program is allegedly working with NASA and others on space projects, what does that say about NASA's integrity?
« Last Edit: July 10, 2013, 02:32:40 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: "Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory."?
« Reply #8 on: July 10, 2013, 02:36:00 PM »
Every space-capable nation consistently lies about space explorations

There are really only a few nations which claim launch capability. The majority of the "space nations" contract out NASA/ESA/RSA to run their spacecraft.

It is true that only a few nations have launch ability. You are however disregarding the fact that numerous nations use that launch capability; they build instruments and satellites that are then launched, and then they communicate with their now space-borne equipment, receiving data from them proving the earth to be round. Number of nations necessarily taking part in the conspiracy is not small. And of course it does not end with nations and their governments as there are numerous commercial uses for satellites. Ability to communication with satellites isn't restricted only to government agencies either.

Those videos somehow prove their space program to be false, I don't think so. You're seeing what you want to see. It is also irrelevant (see above).

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17289
Re: "Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory."?
« Reply #9 on: July 10, 2013, 02:46:17 PM »
It is true that only a few nations have launch ability. You are however disregarding the fact that numerous nations use that launch capability; they build instruments and satellites that are then launched, and then they communicate with their now space-borne equipment, receiving data from them proving the earth to be round. Number of nations necessarily taking part in the conspiracy is not small. And of course it does not end with nations and their governments as there are numerous commercial uses for satellites. Ability to communication with satellites isn't restricted only to government agencies either.

Those videos somehow prove their space program to be false, I don't think so. You're seeing what you want to see. It is also irrelevant (see above).

Even if a country does build a satellite with a transmitter and a receiver, and then hands it off to NASA along with $40M to put it into space, how do they know that NASA doesn't just attach it to one of those high altitude dirigibles with a 4 year lifespan?

And if space travel in FET is possible, how do they know it's in space around a Round Earth, and not in space over a flat one? Most communications satellites don't even have cameras.

Re: "Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory."?
« Reply #10 on: July 10, 2013, 02:58:28 PM »
It is true that only a few nations have launch ability. You are however disregarding the fact that numerous nations use that launch capability; they build instruments and satellites that are then launched, and then they communicate with their now space-borne equipment, receiving data from them proving the earth to be round. Number of nations necessarily taking part in the conspiracy is not small. And of course it does not end with nations and their governments as there are numerous commercial uses for satellites. Ability to communication with satellites isn't restricted only to government agencies either.

Those videos somehow prove their space program to be false, I don't think so. You're seeing what you want to see. It is also irrelevant (see above).

Even if a country does build a satellite with a transmitter and a receiver, and then hands it off to NASA along with $40M to put it into space, how do they know that NASA doesn't just attach it to one of those high altitude dirigibles with a 4 year lifespan?

And if space travel in FET is possible, how do they know it's in space around a Round Earth, and not in space over a flat one? Most communications satellites don't even have cameras.
Off the top of my head, doppler effect for one (indicates their speed and position). They can also be seen, travelling across the sky too fast to be in the atmosphere. Weather satellites etc travel around the globe and transmit their measurements... we have gps and we do have ample images of the earth showing it to be a globe. As for the blimps or whatever, we've been through that and it just won't work. And ofc there are people orbiting the earth and you can actually contact them and they'll actually tell you, yes, they are in space right now.

I don't even want to argue about that, we both surely know that there will be no conclusion to it. But do you agree that all of FET hinges on the conspiracy being real? That was my second point, first one was that all of astronomy (such as distances to moon, sun and planets) isn't hypothetical.

(edit - some typos)
« Last Edit: July 10, 2013, 03:06:03 PM by neimoka »

?

Pyrolizard

  • 699
  • The Militant Skeptic
Re: "Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory."?
« Reply #11 on: July 10, 2013, 03:07:24 PM »
It is true that only a few nations have launch ability. You are however disregarding the fact that numerous nations use that launch capability; they build instruments and satellites that are then launched, and then they communicate with their now space-borne equipment, receiving data from them proving the earth to be round. Number of nations necessarily taking part in the conspiracy is not small. And of course it does not end with nations and their governments as there are numerous commercial uses for satellites. Ability to communication with satellites isn't restricted only to government agencies either.

Those videos somehow prove their space program to be false, I don't think so. You're seeing what you want to see. It is also irrelevant (see above).

Even if a country does build a satellite with a transmitter and a receiver, and then hands it off to NASA along with $40M to put it into space, how do they know that NASA doesn't just attach it to one of those high altitude dirigibles with a 4 year lifespan?

And if space travel in FET is possible, how do they know it's in space around a Round Earth, and not in space over a flat one? Most communications satellites don't even have cameras.

So photographs and video from orbit are now evidence enough to prove we're capable of space flight?  Because a good many shots of the earth have been posted to the forums, I'm sure.  Here, one that clearly shows the curvature of the earth.



But that's an obvious fake, it doesn't show a planar earth.  Obviously doctored and only the Flat Earthers can tell.
Quote from: Shmeggley
Wherever someone is wrong on the internet, Pyrolizard will be there!

Quote from: Excelsior John
I dont care about the majority I care about Obama.
Let it always be known that Excelsior John is against democracy.

Re: "Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory."?
« Reply #12 on: July 10, 2013, 03:20:54 PM »
Okay, shall we go through them?

  • Everyone south of the equator lies as to where and when the sun rises

I don't believe anyone has claimed this. There are two Flat Earth models, with different sun movements. Which one are you challenging?

Can you show us an example of one of these lies?

There is a link to my own experience living in the Falkland Islands, where I saw the sun rise in the south-east at midnight, crest in the north around 8, and set in the south-west around 3. This is impossible unless there is a second, 'southern-hemisphere' sun that orbits Antarctica, but if that's the case people near the equator should see two suns.

Quote
There are really only a few nations which claim launch capability. The majority of the "space nations" contract out either NASA/ESA/RSA to build run their spacecraft. Countries like Denmark may claim to be a "space power," but they have no rockets, no satellites, and only make that claim because they once paid NASA a lot of money to put a Danish national on the ISS. Hardly a space power.

These space programs are usually blatantly phony. See these videos on China's space program for example:

China as a bad example is a bad example. NASA releases full-length footage of all the ISS spacewalks. Surely you can find something in there to show me it's completely and undeniably fake.

Quote
Did you factor in refraction? Seeing a perfect sunset is a rare occurrence. If you watch a typical sunset closely you will see that it is actually disappearing into an inversion layer above the earth.


Every picture you've shown me (and ever picture I've seen (and every sunset I've seen)) that indicates this refraction is taken when the sun is MUCH less than 26 degrees above the horizon. Each example shows the sun easily less than 10--far lower than the sun would appear on a typical sunset for your sun-orbits-the-north-pole model.

Quote
In previous discussions we've shown pictures of the day-light lunar eclipse, which contradicts Round Earth Theory. Under RET it should be impossible for the sun and moon to be in the sky during a lunar eclipse. The response from this forum was that refraction did it, bringing the moon and sun from below the horizon and into the sky. If refraction can do something as amazing as then, then it stands that refraction can also make the sun disappear when it gets appropriately far away.

Yes, refraction can do some amazing things, like take objects about 4 degrees below the horizon appear to be above the horizon. What it cannot do is make something 26.5 degrees above the horizon appear to touch the horizon.

Quote
Quote
A handful of experiments performed a hundred years ago were done perfectly but the millions of experiments performed today all suffer some flaw

Yes, the flaw is that, unlike the trials you referenced, there is no experimentation behind modern Astronomy. Astronomy does not follow the Scientific Method.

Yes, but this list was for assumptions of Flat Earth, not assumptions of Flat Earth Astronomy. Countless Cavendish experiments have been performed, all agreeing to within a ridiculously small amount as to the intensity of gravity. Countless things have been launched into orbit for experimentation purposes, all agreeing that orbit is possible.

Quote
Quote
Every government and applicable experts consistently lie about GPS

GPS satellites are military, and much about them is classified. The government doesn't put out the rocket designs, the satellite schematics, or the technologies into the public domain. Your assumption that we would know much about what they are is erroneous.

I don't care how they got into space, I care that it works. The exact schematics of airplane wings are kept secret by air-frame manufacturers, that doesn't mean airplanes don't work. The physics behind GPS is understood enough to pinpoint to within a few meters where a receiver is on the Earth. Unless the governments launch GPS balloons and keep them exactly where the falsified orbital mechanics says they'll be, the fact that it works, that I can take my handheld unit and be told to within 5 meters where I am, shows that GPS satellites are orbiting the planet.

Quote
Quote
Every red-shift measurement of the speed of celestial objects is either a lie or affected by a very consistent but unnoticed error

What experiments of celestial bodies? Do you mean observations?

I never mentioned experiments of celestial bodies. I said 'measurements'. Please try to read my posts before replying. Yes, I mean observations. Specifically galactic rotation, stellar drift and spread, galactic drift and spread.

Quote
Quote
Observations made by millions of regular people are fictitious, holographic, or mis-understandings of what is really seen

What observations?

Mt. Rainier is the tallest mountain in the state of Washington at 4.4 kilometers ASL. Mt. St. Helens is a half-mountain 81 kilometers away from Mt. Rainier. Mt. Rainier can be seen from the summit of Mt. St. Helens. This, in itself, is not damning.

However, only the top of Mt. Rainier is visible, and by this I mean it sticks directly to the horizon. The highest point between the two is Allen Mountain at 1.5 kilometers--far too low to cover even the treeline of Mt. Rainier. If I couldn't see Rainier's base because of atmospheric haze, then surely its peak would slowly vanish into white haze, and then some nearer point, say, Allen Mountain, would emerge from the other end. This is not what is observed.

Same observations and arguments for Mt. Hood (3.4 kilometers) and Mt. Jefferson (3.2 kilometers).

Quote
Quote
Math as we know it, as it has been used to build and design everything from computers to kilometer-tall towers, is wrong

Who said math was wrong?  ???

Mind if I step in?

Equations: Skip if you don't like math
(snip)
The distance to the Sun has already been calculated by ancient mathematicians who were smarter than you. I have no regard for your calculations with artificial constants and ratios.

Throughout these forums I've seen attempts to bring in math (most often trigonometry) only to be replied with "Math was invented by Round-Earthers." The times I've brought math up have either been blatantly ignored or ... well, muggsybogues1 has been the only one to reply to my math, and you've seen his post.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17289
Re: "Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory."?
« Reply #13 on: July 10, 2013, 03:40:05 PM »
It is true that only a few nations have launch ability. You are however disregarding the fact that numerous nations use that launch capability; they build instruments and satellites that are then launched, and then they communicate with their now space-borne equipment, receiving data from them proving the earth to be round. Number of nations necessarily taking part in the conspiracy is not small. And of course it does not end with nations and their governments as there are numerous commercial uses for satellites. Ability to communication with satellites isn't restricted only to government agencies either.

Those videos somehow prove their space program to be false, I don't think so. You're seeing what you want to see. It is also irrelevant (see above).

Even if a country does build a satellite with a transmitter and a receiver, and then hands it off to NASA along with $40M to put it into space, how do they know that NASA doesn't just attach it to one of those high altitude dirigibles with a 4 year lifespan?

And if space travel in FET is possible, how do they know it's in space around a Round Earth, and not in space over a flat one? Most communications satellites don't even have cameras.
Off the top of my head, doppler effect for one (indicates their speed and position). They can also be seen, travelling across the sky too fast to be in the atmosphere.

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.

So photographs and video from orbit are now evidence enough to prove we're capable of space flight?  Because a good many shots of the earth have been posted to the forums, I'm sure.  Here, one that clearly shows the curvature of the earth.

I see the NASA logo in the corner.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2013, 03:42:04 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: "Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory."?
« Reply #14 on: July 10, 2013, 03:41:22 PM »
Every sunset involves magically turning 26.5 degrees into 0.01667 degrees

Did you factor in refraction? Seeing a perfect sunset is a rare occurrence. If you watch a typical sunset closely you will see that it is actually disappearing into an inversion layer above the earth.



In previous discussions we've shown pictures of the day-light lunar eclipse, which contradicts Round Earth Theory. Under RET it should be impossible for the sun and moon to be in the sky during a lunar eclipse. The response from this forum was that refraction did it, bringing the moon and sun from below the horizon and into the sky. If refraction can do something as amazing as then, then it stands that refraction can also make the sun disappear when it gets appropriately far away.

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.



In both images we can see that the atmosphere gets very thick near the horizon, resulting in the fading of light and extreme refraction effects.

The wiki here says the sun is about 3,000 miles above the Earth's surface. Taking an average day length of 12 hours, the sun would set 1/4th of the way around the world from an observer, or roughly 10,000 kilometers (at the equator--the distance would be less the farther north one goes). The wiki also states the 'Tropolayer' extends to 18 kilometers, the 'stratolayer' another 32 beyond that. Weather balloons have gone into the stratolayer have measured an air pressure of 1/1000th that of sea level. For the sake of refraction, anything above the stratolayer might as well be a vacuum, for all the air that'll affect anything.

Now, with a horizontal distance of 10,000 kilometers and a height of 4828 kilometers, the light from the sun must travel at 25.8 degrees below parallel to the Earth's surface to reach our observer, who is watching the sun set. For our observer to see the sun on the horizon (light rays parallel to the earth's surface), the light must be bent all 25.8 degrees within the 115 kilometers it is inside or below the stratolayer. That's .22 degrees per kilometer.

Now, if this is possible (and it so obviously is, for obviously the Earth is flat, and obviously the sun should be 25.8 degrees above the horizon, so obviously the light must refract .22 degrees per kilometer), then is it not possible that other observations might be affected? I mean, take the precious Bedford Level experiment, with it's 10-kilometer stretch of water. In those ten kilometers, the light could have been bent over 2 degrees from horizontal--probably more since this light is entirely within the thickest part of the atmosphere! That means light from the boat could have left at 1 degree above horizontal, bent over, and hit the telescope 1 degree below horizontal, making the boat appear 175 meters above the bridge!

Or, horror of horrors, refraction could've also easily bent the light a measly .09 degrees downward to match the curve of the Earth, as theorized by Round Earth, to make the boat completely visible to an observer.

?

Pyrolizard

  • 699
  • The Militant Skeptic
Re: "Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory."?
« Reply #15 on: July 10, 2013, 03:45:37 PM »
So photographs and video from orbit are now evidence enough to prove we're capable of space flight?  Because a good many shots of the earth have been posted to the forums, I'm sure.  Here, one that clearly shows the curvature of the earth.

I see the NASA logo in the corner.

Point?  Photographic evidence is valid, so until you can point out a flaw that shows it's fake, it's still valid.
Quote from: Shmeggley
Wherever someone is wrong on the internet, Pyrolizard will be there!

Quote from: Excelsior John
I dont care about the majority I care about Obama.
Let it always be known that Excelsior John is against democracy.

Re: "Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory."?
« Reply #16 on: July 10, 2013, 04:00:06 PM »
It is true that only a few nations have launch ability. You are however disregarding the fact that numerous nations use that launch capability; they build instruments and satellites that are then launched, and then they communicate with their now space-borne equipment, receiving data from them proving the earth to be round. Number of nations necessarily taking part in the conspiracy is not small. And of course it does not end with nations and their governments as there are numerous commercial uses for satellites. Ability to communication with satellites isn't restricted only to government agencies either.

Those videos somehow prove their space program to be false, I don't think so. You're seeing what you want to see. It is also irrelevant (see above).

Even if a country does build a satellite with a transmitter and a receiver, and then hands it off to NASA along with $40M to put it into space, how do they know that NASA doesn't just attach it to one of those high altitude dirigibles with a 4 year lifespan?

And if space travel in FET is possible, how do they know it's in space around a Round Earth, and not in space over a flat one? Most communications satellites don't even have cameras.
Off the top of my head, doppler effect for one (indicates their speed and position). They can also be seen, travelling across the sky too fast to be in the atmosphere.

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.


Maybe it doesn't in FET, I don't know. Alternative methods that you mention also happen to agree with a round earth. Like I said I really don't want to argue about this.

Anyway that was just a mere sidenote. I see that you didn't answer my questions, if you don't want to, you could just say so.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17289
Re: "Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory."?
« Reply #17 on: July 10, 2013, 04:03:35 PM »
There is a link to my own experience living in the Falkland Islands, where I saw the sun rise in the south-east at midnight, crest in the north around 8, and set in the south-west around 3. This is impossible unless there is a second, 'southern-hemisphere' sun that orbits Antarctica, but if that's the case people near the equator should see two suns.

In the model with Antarctica as a continent the sun "switches gears" every 6 months between the Southern Hemisphere and the Northern Hemisphere. There are not two suns.

Quote
China as a bad example is a bad example. NASA releases full-length footage of all the ISS spacewalks. Surely you can find something in there to show me it's completely and undeniably fake.

Why is China a bad example? Because you have no rebuttal to the blatant fakery?

Quote
(and every sunset I've seen)) that indicates this refraction is taken when the sun is MUCH less than 26 degrees above the horizon. Each example shows the sun easily less than 10--far lower than the sun would appear on a typical sunset for your sun-orbits-the-north-pole model.

Quote
In previous discussions we've shown pictures of the day-light lunar eclipse, which contradicts Round Earth Theory. Under RET it should be impossible for the sun and moon to be in the sky during a lunar eclipse. The response from this forum was that refraction did it, bringing the moon and sun from below the horizon and into the sky. If refraction can do something as amazing as then, then it stands that refraction can also make the sun disappear when it gets appropriately far away.

Quote
Yes, refraction can do some amazing things, like take objects about 4 degrees below the horizon appear to be above the horizon. What it cannot do is make something 26.5 degrees above the horizon appear to touch the horizon.

Why not? When you look horizontally across the surface of the earth you are looking through tens of thousands of miles of atmosphere. When you look up you are only looking through 50 miles of atmosphere. Even at 26 degrees from the horizon line, the thickness of the atmosphere is extreme.

Quote
Yes, but this list was for assumptions of Flat Earth, not assumptions of Flat Earth Astronomy. Countless Cavendish experiments have been performed, all agreeing to within a ridiculously small amount as to the intensity of gravity.

The Cavendish Experiment is a known scam.

http://i.space.com/images/i/000/029/545/original/dnews-mars-rat.jpg?1370026881

Quote
I don't care how they got into space, I care that it works. The exact schematics of airplane wings are kept secret by air-frame manufacturers, that doesn't mean airplanes don't work. The physics behind GPS is understood enough to pinpoint to within a few meters where a receiver is on the Earth. Unless the governments launch GPS balloons and keep them exactly where the falsified orbital mechanics says they'll be, the fact that it works, that I can take my handheld unit and be told to within 5 meters where I am, shows that GPS satellites are orbiting the planet.

How can you tell that GPS Satellites are orbiting around a planet when you look at your GPS unit?

Quote
I never mentioned experiments of celestial bodies. I said 'measurements'. Please try to read my posts before replying. Yes, I mean observations. Specifically galactic rotation, stellar drift and spread, galactic drift and spread.

All further hypothesis' regarding rotation speed, diameter, etc are irrelevant when you don't know their distance from you.

The Doppler Effect gives you neither distance or speed.

Quote
Mt. Rainier is the tallest mountain in the state of Washington at 4.4 kilometers ASL. Mt. St. Helens is a half-mountain 81 kilometers away from Mt. Rainier. Mt. Rainier can be seen from the summit of Mt. St. Helens. This, in itself, is not damning.

However, only the top of Mt. Rainier is visible, and by this I mean it sticks directly to the horizon. The highest point between the two is Allen Mountain at 1.5 kilometers--far too low to cover even the treeline of Mt. Rainier. If I couldn't see Rainier's base because of atmospheric haze, then surely its peak would slowly vanish into white haze, and then some nearer point, say, Allen Mountain, would emerge from the other end. This is not what is observed.

Same observations and arguments for Mt. Hood (3.4 kilometers) and Mt. Jefferson (3.2 kilometers).

Distant mountains do vanish into a haze. It is rare that they appear to be cut half way into the horizon. If they are, it only means that the lands ascend to higher than line of sight at some point between you and the mountain.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17289
Re: "Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory."?
« Reply #18 on: July 10, 2013, 04:06:14 PM »
So photographs and video from orbit are now evidence enough to prove we're capable of space flight?  Because a good many shots of the earth have been posted to the forums, I'm sure.  Here, one that clearly shows the curvature of the earth.

I see the NASA logo in the corner.

Point?  Photographic evidence is valid, so until you can point out a flaw that shows it's fake, it's still valid.

I did point out a flaw. NASA is a proven fraud on these forums. Therefore any "photographic" evidence from them is discredited.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2013, 04:10:26 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: "Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory."?
« Reply #19 on: July 10, 2013, 04:13:41 PM »

The Doppler Effect gives you neither distance or speed.


Just out of curiosity, why do you say that doppler radars can not measure distance or speed? Because, you know, that's exactly what they do.

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: "Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory."?
« Reply #20 on: July 10, 2013, 04:14:54 PM »
Your example is irrelevant.

Wrong, it's absolutely relevant. Being able to make a prediction so far into the future with such precision after observing the object in question for only a brief time depends on a very well formed theory.

There are two Flat Earth models, with different sun movements.

Both have been pretty thoroughly debunked, and neither explain how the sun can be seen to rise in the Southeast and set in the Southwest from a position South of the Tropic of Capricorn.

If you watch a typical sunset closely you will see that it is actually disappearing into an inversion layer above the earth.

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

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.

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?

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?

Quote
  • Observations made by millions of regular people are fictitious, holographic, or mis-understandings of what is really seen

What observations?

Path of the sun, satellites, path of celestial objects, the ISS, just to name a few.

Quote
  • Competitive shipping and transportation companies agree to use less-efficient routes at the cost of millions, if not billions of dollars

Under what model?

Any flat earth model.

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 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.

Distant mountains do vanish into a haze. It is rare that they appear to be cut half way into the horizon. If they are, it only means that the lands ascend to higher than line of sight at some point between you and the mountain.

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.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2013, 04:22:45 PM by Scintific Method »
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."

Re: "Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory."?
« Reply #21 on: July 10, 2013, 04:17:57 PM »
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.

Not true. If it's emitting some kind of signal at a known frequency, a deviation of the observed frequency would be due to the speed of the object. You've dismissed the doppler effect, but this is exactly how such measurements are used. If your satellite, say, Sputnik, were emitting a frequency of, say, 20.0050 MHz and you were registering a signal of 20.0055 MHz, you could calculate that this satellite is moving roughly 8 kilometers per second toward you. If you registered a signal of 20.0045 MHz, it's going 8 kilometers per second away from you.

This is the same concept as RADAR, but with mounted RADAR. There, you send a signal of a known frequency and read the result, which will be changed by the velocity of whatever bounces the signal back to you. With the Sputnik example, the source simply emits a known frequency, but it's still changed by the relative velocity of the object we're measuring.

Thus, by simply observing something against a blank background, you can calculate it's velocity.

Quote
So photographs and video from orbit are now evidence enough to prove we're capable of space flight?  Because a good many shots of the earth have been posted to the forums, I'm sure.  Here, one that clearly shows the curvature of the earth.

I see the NASA logo in the corner.

So NASA's proud that they've taken suck a kick-ass picture. So what? We all know that even if some private company got into space ... wait, didn't SpaceX do that already? any pictures they took would be part of the conspiracy. Thus, we reach this point: you will accept pictorial evidence of a round earth. Any photograph taken of a round earth is faked. Thus, you will not accept any pictorial evidence of a round earth.

* This number is innacurate as to how quickly telescopes must move to track satellites, but it gets the point across. I hope
« Last Edit: July 11, 2013, 08:35:03 AM by Alex Tomasovich »

?

Pyrolizard

  • 699
  • The Militant Skeptic
Re: "Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory."?
« Reply #22 on: July 10, 2013, 04:20:07 PM »
So photographs and video from orbit are now evidence enough to prove we're capable of space flight?  Because a good many shots of the earth have been posted to the forums, I'm sure.  Here, one that clearly shows the curvature of the earth.

I see the NASA logo in the corner.

Point?  Photographic evidence is valid, so until you can point out a flaw that shows it's fake, it's still valid.

I did point out a flaw. NASA is a proven liar on these forums. Therefore any "photographic" evidence from them is assumed to be bunk.

Here's the thing about that.  You still haven't pointed out a flaw in the photograph.  That you believe NASA employees are liars, yes.  Point out a flaw with this photo though, because if there's no flaw in the photograph, it's real regardless of who took it.

Edit:
Quote
So photographs and video from orbit are now evidence enough to prove we're capable of space flight?  Because a good many shots of the earth have been posted to the forums, I'm sure.  Here, one that clearly shows the curvature of the earth.

I see the NASA logo in the corner.

So NASA's proud that they've taken suck a kick-ass picture. So what? We all know that even if some private company got into space ... wait, didn't SpaceX do that already? any pictures they took would be part of the conspiracy. Thus, we reach this point: you will accept pictorial evidence of a round earth. Any photograph taken of a round earth is faked. Thus, you will not accept any pictorial evidence of a round earth.

For the record, there is a version without a link on it, I just took the first one I saw and it happened to be from a site that wanted to give credit to NASA when due.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2013, 04:24:26 PM by Pyrolizard »
Quote from: Shmeggley
Wherever someone is wrong on the internet, Pyrolizard will be there!

Quote from: Excelsior John
I dont care about the majority I care about Obama.
Let it always be known that Excelsior John is against democracy.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17289
Re: "Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory."?
« Reply #23 on: July 10, 2013, 04:26:07 PM »

The Doppler Effect gives you neither distance or speed.


Just out of curiosity, why do you say that doppler radars can not measure distance or speed? Because, you know, that's exactly what they do.

I'm talking about a standard Blue Shift/Red Shift, not a Radar Gun. If you see light shifted to the blue spectrum, you cannot get a speed reading from that without knowing how far away the object in question is. The only way to get speed information is by knowing the distance. You can't tell how fast a blue star is moving by merely looking at its blueness, without knowing its distance.

The radar from a radar gun gauges the distance by using a reflecting radar wave and a timer get the distance, and by studying the Doppler shift of light. The device computes the speed of the object by calculating the shift of light in relation to the distance. With only one of these variables, speed could not be computed.

http://physics.about.com/od/physicsintherealworld/f/dopplerradar.htm
« Last Edit: July 10, 2013, 04:38:20 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: "Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory."?
« Reply #24 on: July 10, 2013, 04:38:06 PM »
In the model with Antarctica as a continent the sun "switches gears" every 6 months between the Southern Hemisphere and the Northern Hemisphere. There are not two suns.

Interesting theory. I shall get back to you with calculations to see if this agrees with what I presently observe in the Pacific Northwest. Out of curiosity, this means that the Tropic of Capricorn is the same distance from the South Pole as the Tropic of Cancer is from the North?

Quote
Why is China a bad example? Because you have no rebuttal to the blatant fakery?

Because China is working hard to become an extremely powerful nation, and part of that is having a space program. After all, all the cool kids are doing it! (Japan, Canada, USA, Russia, Europe ...) They have extreme incentive to attempt to prove to the world they have people in orbit before they have people in orbit. It's the same incentive the SU and the US would've had to fake their own manned missions into space. But now that Europe, Japan, and Canada have joined, and we're actually all working together as friends (see International Space Station), there's no reason to fake anything. Hence, you have not (and will not) find evidence of fakery in any of the many hours of released spacewalk footage.

Quote
The Cavendish Experiment is a known scam.

http://i.space.com/images/i/000/029/545/original/dnews-mars-rat.jpg?1370026881

... You do know that's a picture of Mars, and not the Cavendish Experiment, right?

Quote
How can you tell that GPS Satellites are orbiting around a planet when you look at your GPS unit?

Okay, so the conspiracy includes the GPS manufacturers? I mean, they program the GPSs to look for where they think the satellites will be, so either a) that's all a lie and my GPS unit is programmed to pretend to guess where the satellites are based on the time, day, and previous location (you can set your own if you move a long ways!), or b) NASA et al. is really good at directing the GPS balloons to be where orbital mechanics say the satellites would be.

Quote
Distant mountains do vanish into a haze. It is rare that they appear to be cut half way into the horizon. If they are, it only means that the lands ascend to higher than line of sight at some point between you and the mountain.

Okay. By my observations, I could see maybe the top kilometer of the mountain. Maybe. Which means there'd have to be a mountain taller than Mt. St. Helens between me and Rainier. A mountain, I might add, without snow (the upper kilometer of Helens certainly was covered in it, at the time!) and without a peak (the horizon was about as flat as you could expect--only a few bumps here and there). Next time I'll go I'll take a picture.

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: "Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory."?
« Reply #25 on: July 10, 2013, 04:40:21 PM »

The Doppler Effect gives you neither distance or speed.


Just out of curiosity, why do you say that doppler radars can not measure distance or speed? Because, you know, that's exactly what they do.

I'm talking about a standard Blue Shift/Red Shift, not a Radar Gun. If you see light shifted to the blue spectrum, you cannot get a speed reading from that without knowing how far away the object in question is. The only way to get speed information is by knowing the distance. You can't tell how fast a blue star is moving by merely looking at its blueness, without knowing its distance.

The radar from a radar gun gauges the distance by using a reflecting radar wave and a timer get the distance, and by studying the Doppler shift of the moving object. The device computes the speed of the object by calculating the shift of light in relation to the distance. If it did not have one of those variables, speed could not be computed.

http://physics.about.com/od/physicsintherealworld/f/dopplerradar.htm

You are very much mistaken Tom, Doppler effect does not depend on distance at all, it is purely a measure of relative speed, regardless of distance.
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."

Re: "Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory."?
« Reply #26 on: July 10, 2013, 04:59:20 PM »

The Doppler Effect gives you neither distance or speed.


Just out of curiosity, why do you say that doppler radars can not measure distance or speed? Because, you know, that's exactly what they do.

I'm talking about a standard Blue Shift/Red Shift, not a Radar Gun. If you see light shifted to the blue spectrum, you cannot get a speed reading from that without knowing how far away the object in question is. The only way to get speed information is by knowing the distance. You can't tell how fast a blue star is moving by merely looking at its blueness, without knowing its distance.

The radar from a radar gun gauges the distance by using a reflecting radar wave and a timer get the distance, and by studying the Doppler shift of light. The device computes the speed of the object by calculating the shift of light in relation to the distance. With only one of these variables, speed could not be computed.

http://physics.about.com/od/physicsintherealworld/f/dopplerradar.htm
Blue shift and red shift are used when observing stars, galaxies and other very distant celestial objects. You denied usability of doppler in your response to my post where I talked about measuring the speed and distance of satellites orbiting the earth/objects within our solar system so you'll excuse me for the misunderstanding.

It is not necessary to know the distance in order to measure speed with a doppler radar; only the amount of doppler shift is needed. v=(Δf/f)*(c/2). Radar equipment is also very much capable of measuring the travel time of a signal, thus measuring distance alongside with speed. Re-think.

I suppose you're not going to answer my question.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 38529
Re: "Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory."?
« Reply #27 on: July 10, 2013, 06:59:35 PM »
And if space travel in FET is possible, how do they know it's in space around a Round Earth, and not in space over a flat one? Most communications satellites don't even have cameras.
Maybe communications satellites don't have cameras, but plenty of other satellites do.  A lot of those cameras are pointed right back at the earth, collecting valuable data on climate, weather and natural resources that real people use for real work.  In fact, PBS had a NOVA special about some of these satellites and the information that they gather.  Perhaps you could explain how so many real scientists can be fooled by so much fake data.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/earth-from-space.html
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.

Re: "Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory."?
« Reply #28 on: July 11, 2013, 08:52:04 AM »
When you look horizontally across the surface of the earth you are looking through tens of thousands of miles of atmosphere. When you look up you are only looking through 50 miles of atmosphere. Even at 26 degrees from the horizon line, the thickness of the atmosphere is extreme.

As I said, at sunset the light only passes through about 100 kilometers of atmosphere, not tens of thousands of miles. But that's beside the point. According to you, light going from a vacuum and hitting an atmosphere at 26.5 degrees would be diffracted all 26.5 degrees to be parallel with the border between space and the atmosphere.

So you're saying the speed of light in the atmosphere is 333,547 kilometers per second1, or 1.11 times the speed of light in a vacuum?

So, bringing this back to Occam's Razor, which has fewer assumptions, just in this single case: that everything we know about refraction is not only wrong, but drastically wrong, meaning every scientists from experts to high school physics teachers is willingly lying and falsifying every experiment involving refraction.

Or

Every experiment done involving refraction is actually correct, the maths actually do define it as they appear to?

[1] ni*sin(anglei) = nr*sin(angler)


Re: "Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory."?
« Reply #29 on: July 11, 2013, 01:39:32 PM »
In the model with Antarctica as a continent the sun "switches gears" every 6 months between the Southern Hemisphere and the Northern Hemisphere. There are not two suns.

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?