Burden of Proof

My point is, the evidence is all over the place.  We explain FET and the reasons for believing it pretty thoroughly.  The burden is therefore on you to demonstrate why that evidence is wrong.

Quote from: sokarul on September 18, 2008, 06:03:51 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on September 18, 2008, 06:00:03 PM

My point is, the evidence is all over the place.  We explain FET and the reasons for believing it pretty thoroughly.  The burden is therefore on you to demonstrate why that evidence is wrong.

All evidence for a flat earth has been disproved. 

If that was true then the people doing the disproving have done their job.  I don't see what that has to do with the purpose of this thread though.

I see evidence every day which suggests a Flat Earth.

The burden of proof is on you to prove your claim of a world-model beyond human experience.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 04, 2008, 02:00:26 AM

I see evidence every day which suggests a Flat Earth.

The burden of proof is on you to prove your claim of a world-model beyond human experience.

The view out of your window supports round earth theory because you can see the curvature of earth in the form of horizon.
The fe explantion of horizon is more complicated than the re one and there is no evidence supporting it. So the logical conclusion for that evidence is that world is round.

Quote

The view out of your window supports round earth theory because you can see the curvature of earth in the form of horizon.
The fe explantion of horizon is more complicated than the re one and there is no evidence supporting it. So the logical conclusion for that evidence is that world is round.

Nope. The horizon is just an area beyond which one cannot see any further.

And what is the reason why you can't see any further?

Edit: And  if it is due to low visibility (fog etc.) then why when you look at tall tower that is far enough you can't see the base but only the top which seems to to be emerging from the ground.

I know that the aswer to these questions is in the faq, but It assumes the existence of complex optical illusions. And there is no evidence of exictence of these illusions so it would be logical to asume that the less complicated re theory is true unless we got some actual evidence supporting the fe theory.

Quote from: jargo on September 20, 2008, 05:31:57 AM

And what is the reason why you can't see any further?

Edit: And  if it is due to low visibility (fog etc.) then why when you look at tall tower that is far enough you can't see the base but only the top which seems to to be emerging from the ground.

I know that the aswer to these questions is in the faq, but It assumes the existence of complex optical illusions. And there is no evidence of exictence of these illusions so it would be logical to asume that the less complicated re theory is true unless we got some actual evidence supporting the fe theory.

Light bends up.

Quote from: jargo on September 20, 2008, 05:31:57 AM

And what is the reason why you can't see any further?

Edit: And  if it is due to low visibility (fog etc.) then why when you look at tall tower that is far enough you can't see the base but only the top which seems to to be emerging from the ground.

I know that the aswer to these questions is in the faq, but It assumes the existence of complex optical illusions. And there is no evidence of exictence of these illusions so it would be logical to asume that the less complicated re theory is true unless we got some actual evidence supporting the fe theory.

Light bends up.

And outside the fe theory there is no evidence of the existence of such a phenomenon. And besides it is more complicated than the re theorys explanation of the horizon that is: "you can't see through solid rock".

Quote

And outside the fe theory there is no evidence of the existence of such a phenomenon. And besides it is more complicated than the re theorys explanation of the horizon that is: "you can't see through solid rock".

The light bending upwards is no more complicated than the theory that the entire earth bends downwards.

In fact it's easier to imagine a few photons bending upwards than the entire physical earth bending downwards.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 20, 2008, 02:29:26 PM

Quote

And outside the fe theory there is no evidence of the existence of such a phenomenon. And besides it is more complicated than the re theorys explanation of the horizon that is: "you can't see through solid rock".

The light bending upwards is no more complicated than the theory that the entire earth bends downwards.

In fact it's easier to imagine a few photons bending upwards than the entire physical earth bending downwards.

Is it hard to imagine big stone ball? How it is harder than imagining a big stone cylinder that is somehow accelerated by some mystical dark energy?

Ps.
You always talk that the flat earth evidence can be seen by anyone looking out of a window. I would like to know how would the view be different if the re theory would be true?

Quote from: Algol on September 04, 2008, 06:16:41 AM

although i am definately RE, i happen to agree with the FE'ers on this one, the burden of proof must be with us RE guys.

i mean in the real everday world the burden of proof would be on FE people but here and now online, we are the one on their boards and the accepted view here is FET so it is up to us to prove it wrong.

to be honest when i joined a few days back i was annoyed and angry at the easy get out answers but i've adjusted and have found some people to be great at scientific debates, specifically, osama and tom.

anyway come on RE guys get prooving

Dude, sell out much? Ever hear of spell check? Proper capitalization? Analytical reasoning?

For Tom's main points, here's my view.

1)It should not be hard to prove that burning H and O2 together produce a lot of energy, and therefore lift.

2)The SS liftoff weight, including the boosters is on average@ 1,776,000 pounds. That converts to 833.5 tons. Unless he's citing an accumulative number that does not come close to the 100,000 tons Tom cites.

3)I can look up and reference NASA designs on both web search and patent search engines, and see them for myself.

I personally believe their validity. I don't feel the need to prove my opinions to people like Tom, and if he does not feel the need to prove his opinions to people like me, it comes to a standstill. There are no clear winners.

Quote from: jargo on September 21, 2008, 12:54:24 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 20, 2008, 02:29:26 PM

Quote

And outside the fe theory there is no evidence of the existence of such a phenomenon. And besides it is more complicated than the re theorys explanation of the horizon that is: "you can't see through solid rock".

The light bending upwards is no more complicated than the theory that the entire earth bends downwards.

In fact it's easier to imagine a few photons bending upwards than the entire physical earth bending downwards.

Is it hard to imagine big stone ball? How it is harder than imagining a big stone cylinder that is somehow accelerated by some mystical dark energy?

Ps.
You always talk that the flat earth evidence can be seen by anyone looking out of a window. I would like to know how would the view be different if the re theory would be true?

You'd look out your window and see a giant ball.  Duh.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on September 18, 2008, 07:20:20 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on September 18, 2008, 06:00:03 PM

My point is, the evidence is all over the place.  We explain FET and the reasons for believing it pretty thoroughly.  The burden is therefore on you to demonstrate why that evidence is wrong.

Can you post a link to this evidence? Keep in mind that by definition, evidence has to support one theory and not another mutually exclusive theory.

This thread has no logical purpose.

I see evidence every day which suggests a Flat Earth.

The burden of proof is on you to prove your claim of a world-model beyond human experience.

1. Billions of people have, myself included. I can detect a degree of curvature at some beaches with a wide enough view. I have seen the obvious curvature from planes. I believe a majority of RE'ers will agree with this assessment.

"I believe I said that I put myself through college working for an airline, thus having access to free flights around the world.  I also worked for a private FBO, in which the owner owned a Cessna Citation.  I am also a licensed pilot.  Not once, during any of the hundreds if not thousands of flights I've been on, have I ever witnessed the curvature of the Earth."

2. Have you ever seen a flat Earth, ignoring the flawed experiment of looking at a locally linear section of the Earth?

Quote

1. Billions of people have, myself included. I can detect a degree of curvature at some beaches with a wide enough view. I have seen the obvious curvature from planes. I believe a majority of RE'ers will agree with this assessment.

I've looked at the ocean. I've never seen any curvature.

I've been in a plane. I've never seen any curvature.

TheEngineer, a pilot who posts on this forum, tells us that the horizon of the earth is not curved from the air.

Quote:

"I believe I said that I put myself through college working for an airline, thus having access to free flights around the world.  I also worked for a private FBO, in which the owner owned a Cessna Citation.  I am also a licensed pilot.  Not once, during any of the hundreds if not thousands of flights I've been on, have I ever witnessed the curvature of the Earth."

Quote

2. Have you ever seen a flat Earth, ignoring the flawed experiment of looking at a locally linear section of the Earth?

I don't see why any experiments should be "ignored" just because you think it should be.

I've looked at the ocean. I've never seen any curvature.

I've been in a plane. I've never seen any curvature.

TheEngineer, a pilot who posts on this forum, tells us that the horizon of the earth is not curved from the air.

Quote:

"I believe I said that I put myself through college working for an airline, thus having access to free flights around the world.  I also worked for a private FBO, in which the owner owned a Cessna Citation.  I am also a licensed pilot.  Not once, during any of the hundreds if not thousands of flights I've been on, have I ever witnessed the curvature of the Earth."

Quote

1. Billions of people have, myself included. I can detect a degree of curvature at some beaches with a wide enough view. I have seen the obvious curvature from planes. I believe a majority of RE'ers will agree with this assessment.

I've looked at the ocean. I've never seen any curvature.

I've been in a plane. I've never seen any curvature.

TheEngineer, a pilot who posts on this forum, tells us that the horizon of the earth is not curved from the air.

Quote:

"I believe I said that I put myself through college working for an airline, thus having access to free flights around the world.  I also worked for a private FBO, in which the owner owned a Cessna Citation.  I am also a licensed pilot.  Not once, during any of the hundreds if not thousands of flights I've been on, have I ever witnessed the curvature of the Earth."

Quote

2. Have you ever seen a flat Earth, ignoring the flawed experiment of looking at a locally linear section of the Earth?

I don't see why any experiments should be "ignored" just because you think it should be.

http://www.scaled.com/projects/tierone/gallery/june21/15P_P_Sun_rays

http://iq.lycos.co.uk/qa/show/56644/How+high+do+you+need+to+be+so+you+can+see+the+Earth%27s+curvature%3F/

Tom, here's the clue: It's not actually an experiment, because both FE and RE will yield the same result.

Quote

http://www.scaled.com/projects/tierone/gallery/june21/15P_P_Sun_rays

Scaled Composites is a Government Contractor.

Where was that picture taken anyway? From their trip back from the moon?

Quote

http://iq.lycos.co.uk/qa/show/56644/How+high+do+you+need+to+be+so+you+can+see+the+Earth%27s+curvature%3F/

Nope. I've never seen the earth's curvature from the height of an international flight. I've never seen the earth's curvature from the height of the World Trade Center.

Quote

Tom, here's the clue: It's not actually an experiment, because both FE and RE will yield the same result.

There's no reason to consider that a plane might actually be a globe. You can scream "it's an illusion" all you want, but your argument for a massive illusion is still crap.

What evidence do you have that we're experiencing a massive illusion?

If you are designing the "window" experiment, there is every reason to consider that the appearance of a plane "might actually be a globe".  Is fundamental to the validity of the experiment.

As for evidence, if we go higher (to weather balloon heights), a curve starts of emerge.  This indicates that as sea level, the possibility that curve is too slight to detected (by human vision).

Quote

If you are designing the "window" experiment, there is every reason to consider that the appearance of a plane "might actually be a globe".  Is fundamental to the validity of the experiment.

I don' see any evidence that' we're observing an illusion. What evidence do you have that we're experiencing an illusion? I just see a flat plane stretching in every direction.

Quote

As for evidence, if we go higher (to weather balloon heights), a curve starts of emerge.  This indicates that as sea level, the possibility that curve is too slight to detected (by human vision).

I've been to weather baloon height (10,000 meters). I've never seen the curvature of the earth. TheEngineer hasn't either.

Scaled Composites is a Government Contractor.

Where was that picture taken anyway? From their trip back from the moon?

Nope. I've never seen the earth's curvature from the height of an international flight. I've never seen the earth's curvature from the height of the World Trade Center.

Quote

I've been to weather baloon height (10,000 meters). I've never seen the curvature of the earth. TheEngineer hasn't either.

Well, 10,000 meters is the height that airliners fly, and as you know, and always tell people, you wouldn't be able to observe any effects from that altitude.

Quote

1. Billions of people have, myself included. I can detect a degree of curvature at some beaches with a wide enough view. I have seen the obvious curvature from planes. I believe a majority of RE'ers will agree with this assessment.

I've looked at the ocean. I've never seen any curvature.

I've been in a plane. I've never seen any curvature.

TheEngineer, a pilot who posts on this forum, tells us that the horizon of the earth is not curved from the air.

Quote

2. Have you ever seen a flat Earth, ignoring the flawed experiment of looking at a locally linear section of the Earth?

I don't see why any experiments should be "ignored" just because you think it should be.

Keep in mind that by definition, evidence has to support one theory and not another mutually exclusive theory.

I just see a flat plane stretching in every direction.

Keep in mind, seeing the curvature requires a very wide angle view, especially when close to the ground.