The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: clemenza089 on September 02, 2012, 09:33:30 PM
-
I have read the FAQ and wanted to express my thought in pictures.
I hope I did everything correctly when I uploaded the pictures.
I want to show on a FE map which portions are bright and dark at midday over the null meridian at the time of the to solstices and an equinox. I apologize for not being precise, I did everything quickly and freehand, but it roughly reflects the true distribution of light and dark:
(http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/1893/femapsummersol.jpg)
Summer solstice (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/819/femapsummersol.jpg/ (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/819/femapsummersol.jpg/))
(http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/4350/femapequinox.jpg)
Equinox (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/690/femapequinox.jpg/ (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/690/femapequinox.jpg/))
(http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/9341/femapwintersol.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/52/femapwintersol.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
Winter solstice (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/52/femapwintersol.jpg/ (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/52/femapwintersol.jpg/))
If this is the light distribution of the sun, how can you sustain the spotlight theory?
-
The Sun changes altitude over the seasons, causing temperature and surface lighting variances. The straight line day/night picture you have shown is misleading, as that simply does not occur.
-
The Sun changes altitude over the seasons
Of how much? In other words, what is the altitude range? A minimum and maximum altitude would be more than sufficient.
causing temperature and surface lighting variances
So which spotlight will illuminate the whole disk except a hole of darkness?
The straight line day/night picture you have shown is misleading, as that simply does not occur.
I don't intend to prove it now, but do you have an alternative diagram? How is the light distributed during the equinox? Of course dusk and dawn can be within tolerance...
-
The Sun changes altitude over the seasons
Of how much? In other words, what is the altitude range? A minimum and maximum altitude would be more than sufficient.
causing temperature and surface lighting variances
So which spotlight will illuminate the whole disk except a hole of darkness?
The straight line day/night picture you have shown is misleading, as that simply does not occur.
I don't intend to prove it now, but do you have an alternative diagram? How is the light distributed during the equinox? Of course dusk and dawn can be within tolerance...
Clemenza, you have hit upon one of the biggest problems for FET to explain. Keep plugging away and you'll get some good comedy trolling. They also are unable to explain how the south pole experiences 24 hour daylight in the summer. They have no valid diagram to show light distribution on the equinox as they say they have no proper map, however, they are unable to explain the effect of the sun rising due east for every observer on the planet on the day of the equinox.
-
Tell you a secret, I live in Singapore. That's less than 2 degrees north of the equator. On the FE map the sun would rise 30 degrees further north than I'm used to on the equinox. Actually, on the equinox, no one in the world would see the sun rise on the east, I just realized. That's hilarious!
-
Tell you a secret, I live in Singapore. That's less than 2 degrees north of the equator. On the FE map the sun would rise 30 degrees further north than I'm used to on the equinox. Actually, on the equinox, no one in the world would see the sun rise on the east, I just realized. That's hilarious!
Well, we are just a couple of weeks away from being able to test this worldwide. I think we should.
-
The problem with the illustrations is that they assume that the earth is a globe. The earth is not a globe.
-
The problem with the illustrations is that they assume that the earth is a globe. The earth is not a globe.
Woot! Tom rolls up in here now!
So Tom, how would the lighting look like if the Earth is not a globe? Please do explain I am sure we would love to hear it.
So the question is... What would the lit portions of Earth be on a flat Earth compared to the observable lighting on a round Earth? I would really like to see. And please do give evidence.
-
The problem with the illustrations is that they assume that the earth is a globe. The earth is not a globe.
You can easily correlate your FE maps with rising times and sunset times and show clemenza089 if he is wrong or right.
-
The problem with the illustrations is that they assume that the earth is a globe. The earth is not a globe.
Woot! Tom rolls up in here now!
So Tom, how would the lighting look like if the Earth is not a globe? Please do explain I am sure we would love to hear it.
So the question is... What would the lit portions of Earth be on a flat Earth compared to the observable lighting on a round Earth? I would really like to see. And please do give evidence.
If you want extraneous research done you should paypal all donations to tom.bishop.enterprises@gmail.com. I will be sure to prioritize your request.
-
The problem with the illustrations is that they assume that the earth is a globe. The earth is not a globe.
Woot! Tom rolls up in here now!
So Tom, how would the lighting look like if the Earth is not a globe? Please do explain I am sure we would love to hear it.
So the question is... What would the lit portions of Earth be on a flat Earth compared to the observable lighting on a round Earth? I would really like to see. And please do give evidence.
If you want extraneous research done you should paypal all donations to tom.bishop.enterprises@gmail.com. I will be sure to prioritize your request.
You can do it with internet, but are you going to do it?
-
The problem with the illustrations is that they assume that the earth is a globe. The earth is not a globe.
Woot! Tom rolls up in here now!
So Tom, how would the lighting look like if the Earth is not a globe? Please do explain I am sure we would love to hear it.
So the question is... What would the lit portions of Earth be on a flat Earth compared to the observable lighting on a round Earth? I would really like to see. And please do give evidence.
If you want extraneous research done you should paypal all donations to tom.bishop.enterprises@gmail.com. I will be sure to prioritize your request.
You can do it with internet, but are you going to do it?
Once I see an appropriate amount of money in my account I will begin your research project.
-
The problem with the illustrations is that they assume that the earth is a globe. The earth is not a globe.
Woot! Tom rolls up in here now!
So Tom, how would the lighting look like if the Earth is not a globe? Please do explain I am sure we would love to hear it.
So the question is... What would the lit portions of Earth be on a flat Earth compared to the observable lighting on a round Earth? I would really like to see. And please do give evidence.
If you want extraneous research done you should paypal all donations to tom.bishop.enterprises@gmail.com. I will be sure to prioritize your request.
You can do it with internet, but are you going to do it?
Once I see an appropriate amount of money in my account I will begin your research project.
YOU want to prove the Earth to be flat. Do a little work lazy man. It just takes time and a computer.
-
Time is money. Start putting donations into my account and I'll tell you when to stop.
-
Time is money. Start putting donations into my account and I'll tell you when to stop.
I thought you were eager to prove FET. Turns out you're not. Why is that so?
-
The problem with the illustrations is that they assume that the earth is a globe. The earth is not a globe.
Woot! Tom rolls up in here now!
So Tom, how would the lighting look like if the Earth is not a globe? Please do explain I am sure we would love to hear it.
So the question is... What would the lit portions of Earth be on a flat Earth compared to the observable lighting on a round Earth? I would really like to see. And please do give evidence.
If you want extraneous research done you should paypal all donations to tom.bishop.enterprises@gmail.com. I will be sure to prioritize your request.
What a scam! Talk about taking advantage of people that want to beleive in something different. What research? That will never happen. You just revealed yourself as a fraud. This website is a fraud, albiet an amusing one.
-
The Sun changes altitude over the seasons, causing temperature and surface lighting variances. The straight line day/night picture you have shown is misleading, as that simply does not occur.
That's called making up bullshit to justify your belief. Did you or Tom download the apps I suggested? Still avoiding that one I see.
-
Ok, I propose we do a simple research, and I will need your help.
To gather more "material" we will analyze the light at midday on meridian 15 east.
Please fill in the blanks, I will make some minute adjustments and draw the lines on the map.
At what time, on 21st March are the following events happening? Please use UTC times.
Irkutsk sunset
Ulanbaatar sunset
Chengdu sunset
Singapore sunset
Perth sunset
New York City sunrise
Port au Prince sunrise
Bogota sunrise
Lima sunrise
Santiago de Chile sunrise
Security question: is the sun shining during either of those events in:
London?
Tripoli?
Cape Town?
-
The Sun changes altitude over the seasons, causing temperature and surface lighting variances. The straight line day/night picture you have shown is misleading, as that simply does not occur.
Oh yes, I forgot to split temperature and lighting... Temperature: when does the sun gain altitude and where does it get warmer? And vice versa?
-
Time is money. Start putting donations into my account and I'll tell you when to stop.
I thought you were eager to prove FET. Turns out you're not. Why is that so?
I'm not the one demanding that studies be performed. You are.
-
Ok, I propose we do a simple research, and I will need your help.
To gather more "material" we will analyze the light at midday on meridian 15 east.
Please fill in the blanks, I will make some minute adjustments and draw the lines on the map.
At what time, on 21st March are the following events happening? Please use UTC times.
Irkutsk sunset
Ulanbaatar sunset
Chengdu sunset
Singapore sunset
Perth sunset
New York City sunrise
Port au Prince sunrise
Bogota sunrise
Lima sunrise
Santiago de Chile sunrise
Security question: is the sun shining during either of those events in:
London?
Tripoli?
Cape Town?
People like Tom Bishop will say this is invalid without actually sending a person to these locations on that date. He claims that all mathematical calculators that can tell you these things are loaded with false data, completely ignoring the fact that whenever anyone uses one to check a sunrise or sunset anywhere in the world, it turns out to be correct.
That is the FE'ers excuse for not compiling data in this manner that would make their idea even more unlikely and difficult to explain. They'd rather suggest reality is wrong than struggle to make an explanation.
-
People like Tom Bishop will say this is invalid without actually sending a person to these locations on that date. He claims that all mathematical calculators that can tell you these things are loaded with false data, completely ignoring the fact that whenever anyone uses one to check a sunrise or sunset anywhere in the world, it turns out to be correct.
That is the FE'ers excuse for not compiling data in this manner that would make their idea even more unlikely and difficult to explain. They'd rather suggest reality is wrong than struggle to make an explanation.
I'd rather say there is a hidden agenda to collect donations and go on holiday for free. I'm thinking about chipping in 5 bucks to send Tom Bishop to record sunrise and sunset in Jalalabad ;D
Still, let's see if we can get those times filled in!
-
Time is money. Start putting donations into my account and I'll tell you when to stop.
I thought you were eager to prove FET. Turns out you're not. Why is that so?
I'm not the one demanding that studies be performed. You are.
Umm... No, he isn't. BoatswainsMate is the one who asked for evidence, not EmperorZhark. You are the one who is demanding money (which, if isn't already against forum rules, should be).
-
Time is money. Start putting donations into my account and I'll tell you when to stop.
I thought you were eager to prove FET. Turns out you're not. Why is that so?
I'm not the one demanding that studies be performed. You are.
Umm... No, he isn't. BoatswainsMate is the one who asked for evidence, not EmperorZhark. You are the one who is demanding money (which, if isn't already against forum rules, should be).
He might send you a diploma from his mill if you cough up enough cash, though.
-
Time is money. Start putting donations into my account and I'll tell you when to stop.
I thought you were eager to prove FET. Turns out you're not. Why is that so?
I'm not the one demanding that studies be performed. You are.
This is a "Flat Earth" website. You should be bending over backwards and have ready made proofs available on demand.......but you don't even have a map.
-
This is a "Flat Earth" website. You should be bending over backwards and have ready made proofs available on demand
We have over a dozen books full of research. If you want any more you'll have to cough up funding.
-
Why does everyone assume that the sun's spotlight must shine in the shape of a circle? Personally, I've never seen proof of this.
-
Why does everyone assume that the sun's spotlight must shine in the shape of a circle? Personally, I've never seen proof of this.
I'm fine with a potato-shaped footprint, but with increasing altitude the footprint should get bigger and retain the same shape. The question is: why is the shape of the footprint changing so dramatically when the latitude of the sun's position is changing?
-
Why does everyone assume that the sun's spotlight must shine in the shape of a circle? Personally, I've never seen proof of this.
If the sun acts as a spotlight and the sun is round (not necessarily spherical), then what other shape would the sun's spotlight form?
-
Why does everyone assume that the sun's spotlight must shine in the shape of a circle? Personally, I've never seen proof of this.
I'm fine with a potato-shaped footprint, but with increasing altitude the footprint should get bigger and retain the same shape. The question is: why is the shape of the footprint changing so dramatically when the latitude of the sun's position is changing?
Because you are assuming that the earth is a globe. It's not.
-
Why does everyone assume that the sun's spotlight must shine in the shape of a circle? Personally, I've never seen proof of this.
For the same reason everyone assumes the earth would be a disc if it was flat. You do have a reason to assume a disc, don't you? And not, say, a rectangle? You can show me some reasoning or evidence for that... can't you? ;)
-
Why does everyone assume that the sun's spotlight must shine in the shape of a circle? Personally, I've never seen proof of this.
I'm fine with a potato-shaped footprint, but with increasing altitude the footprint should get bigger and retain the same shape. The question is: why is the shape of the footprint changing so dramatically when the latitude of the sun's position is changing?
Because you are assuming that the earth is a globe. It's not.
That is the conclusion I'm seeking. Every proof has an assumption in the beginning. In fact I still have good hope to get those times filled in, so I can connect the dots...
-
Why does everyone assume that the sun's spotlight must shine in the shape of a circle? Personally, I've never seen proof of this.
I'm fine with a potato-shaped footprint, but with increasing altitude the footprint should get bigger and retain the same shape. The question is: why is the shape of the footprint changing so dramatically when the latitude of the sun's position is changing?
Because you are assuming that the earth is a globe. It's not.
That is the conclusion I'm seeking. Every proof has an assumption in the beginning. In fact I still have good hope to get those times filled in, so I can connect the dots...
I could draw a sunlit circle on the flat earth map and pose the same question to you: "If the earth is a globe, why isn't this circle I drew changing???"
The end results are the same. I am assuming that the earth is flat in my argument, and not really presenting any data or studies demonstrating my position.
-
Why does everyone assume that the sun's spotlight must shine in the shape of a circle? Personally, I've never seen proof of this.
For the same reason everyone assumes the earth would be a disc if it was flat. You do have a reason to assume a disc, don't you? And not, say, a rectangle? You can show me some reasoning or evidence for that... can't you? ;)
I don't assume it's a disc. It could be a rectangle for all I know. No one has mapped the edge and come back to tell of it.
-
I could draw a sunlit circle on the flat earth map and pose the same question to you: "If the earth is a globe, why isn't this circle I drew changing???"
I would love (and I mean it) to see your version, even if it's just speculation. This is a discussion board after all, and I promise I will take everything seriously, as you could verify in every post of mine.
The end results are the same. I am assuming that the earth is flat in my argument, and not really presenting any data or studies demonstrating my position.
...and we are here to debate about it, nothing wrong with discussing positions...
-
Time is money. Start putting donations into my account and I'll tell you when to stop.
I thought you were eager to prove FET. Turns out you're not. Why is that so?
I'm not the one demanding that studies be performed. You are.
This is a "Flat Earth" website. You should be bending over backwards and have ready made proofs available on demand.......but you don't even have a map.
This.
-
This.
This? . <--
Looks like your biggest argument ;D
-
high altitude photos shows us what appears to be a circle. isnt that where the idea came from in the first place? it would be nice to see a better picture of the 'spotlight' than whats available in the faq.
what makes people think it would be a different shape? given i had a very hard time drawing a circle and still lighting up the lit portion of the earth. i think it was feb 3 or 4th this year? the sun wasnt even above the earth anymore. no wonder the weather was so cold.
-
high altitude photos shows us what appears to be a circle. isnt that where the idea came from in the first place? it would be nice to see a better picture of the 'spotlight' than whats available in the faq.
what makes people think it would be a different shape? given i had a very hard time drawing a circle and still lighting up the lit portion of the earth. i think it was feb 3 or 4th this year? the sun wasnt even above the earth anymore. no wonder the weather was so cold.
Where is the available spotlight picture in the FAQ? These embedded links are quite troublesome, at least to me... please link, thanks!
-
OK, since...
2) If someone asks about say, sunrise times, right now I have absolutely no motivation to answer it. Partly because the answer is already there and the people asking should know how to use the search function by now. However I would make the effort to do the subject again if it wasn't there already, discussed in every manner possible.
...getting the times from the web is OK, I will fill in the times by myself
At what time, on 21st March are the following events happening? Please use UTC times.
Irkutsk sunset: 11:18
Ulanbaatar sunset: 11:07
Chengdu sunset: 11:16
Singapore sunset: 11:15
Perth sunset: 10:26
New York City sunrise: 10:57
Port au Prince sunrise: 10:52
Bogota sunrise: 11:00
Lima sunrise: 11:12
Santiago de Chile sunrise: 10:47
Security question: is the sun shining during either of those events in:
London? Yes
Tripoli? Yes
Cape Town? Yes
I actually expected 11:00 UTC
Perth aside, because it's really significantly further east, all times divert by less than +- 20 minutes.
This proves that the Equinox day/night map I uploaded is accurate, and the spotlight theory needs to be revised.
-
This is probably the most frustrating question by RE to FE. I can be shown that the sun rises and sets in given locations at the times predicted by RE. FE says that the RE is not true, but the sun rises and sets at the predicted times. The map Clemenza089 provided is a decent representation of what this would appear as on the FE map in the FAQ. All he was asking for was an explanation, IE "Why does this happen?" According to FE and sun rise/set times, it does happen, but all he's been told is that it doesn't happen. But it does... so why does it happen?
-
This is probably the most frustrating question by RE to FE. I can be shown that the sun rises and sets in given locations at the times predicted by RE. FE says that the RE is not true, but the sun rises and sets at the predicted times. The map Clemenza089 provided is a decent representation of what this would appear as on the FE map in the FAQ. All he was asking for was an explanation, IE "Why does this happen?" According to FE and sun rise/set times, it does happen, but all he's been told is that it doesn't happen. But it does... so why does it happen?
Internet calculators don't show that the sunrise times match. They are calculators, not observers. No one went out to every point on earth to verify that the predictions throughout the year.
I have an astrological calculator, which calculates my horoscope based on several variables such as the current date and my date of birth. The fact that it is a calculator does not mean that it is reliable.
-
This is probably the most frustrating question by RE to FE. I can be shown that the sun rises and sets in given locations at the times predicted by RE. FE says that the RE is not true, but the sun rises and sets at the predicted times. The map Clemenza089 provided is a decent representation of what this would appear as on the FE map in the FAQ. All he was asking for was an explanation, IE "Why does this happen?" According to FE and sun rise/set times, it does happen, but all he's been told is that it doesn't happen. But it does... so why does it happen?
Internet calculators don't show that the sunrise times match. They are calculators, not observers. No one went out to every point on earth to verify that the predictions throughout the year.
I have an astrological calculator, which calculates my horoscope based on several variables such as the current date and my date of birth. The fact that it is a calculator does not mean that it is reliable.
Show me where I said "Internet calculator."
-
Show me where I said "Internet calculator."
What are you referring to then?
No one went out and did a comprehensive study on the sun at different points on earth throughout the year.
-
Show me where I said "Internet calculator."
What are you referring to then?
No one went out and did a comprehensive study on the sun at different points on earth throughout the year.
First of all, that is a baseless statement. I'm sure that someone has. However, with technology, One could simply ask other people "when does the sun rise where you are? When does it set?" This should be sufficient for collecting data.
-
Show me where I said "Internet calculator."
What are you referring to then?
No one went out and did a comprehensive study on the sun at different points on earth throughout the year.
No one has reported these calculators as being incorrect. Conversely we do have some evidence of correctness. We can therefore say that as far as we know, they are correct. Only Tom bishop disagrees with this, based on no evidence.
The burden of proof is on you Tom, because:
1. You are presenting an bogus (unfalsifiable) argument that these calculators need to be proved for an unspecified number of locations on Earth. The locations is undefined and (I suspect) infinite.
2. You will only need to find one instance where they are not correct to prove your point. You do not want to do this because it involves YOU doing some STUFF. The is against your principals.
-
Show me where I said "Internet calculator."
What are you referring to then?
No one went out and did a comprehensive study on the sun at different points on earth throughout the year.
First of all, that is a baseless statement. I'm sure that someone has.
Who has?
No one has reported these calculators as being incorrect.
Who reported them as being correct?
Conversely we do have some evidence of correctness.
What evidence?
The burden of proof is on you Tom, because:
1. You are presenting an bogus (unfalsifiable) argument that these calculators need to be proved for an unspecified number of locations on Earth. The locations is undefined and (I suspect) infinite.
2. You will only need to find one instance where they are not correct to prove your point. You do not want to do this because it involves YOU doing some STUFF. The is against your principals.
Actually, you guys are the ones here presenting unproven internet calculators as proof. I'm the skeptic here. Your claim, your burden.
On an argument on the existence of ghosts I don't need to prove that ghosts don't exist. You need to prove that they do exist. The burden is always on the claimant and never on the skeptic.
-
The burden of proof is on you Tom, because:
1. You are presenting an bogus (unfalsifiable) argument that these calculators need to be proved for an unspecified number of locations on Earth. The locations is undefined and (I suspect) infinite.
2. You will only need to find one instance where they are not correct to prove your point. You do not want to do this because it involves YOU doing some STUFF. The is against your principals.
Actually, you guys are the ones here presenting unproven internet calculators as proof. I'm the skeptic here. Your claim, your burden.
On an argument on the existence of ghosts I don't need to prove that ghosts don't exist. You need to prove that they do exist. The burden is always on the claimant and never on the skeptic.
You are claiming that the calculators are wrong. This is a claim against current understanding, because they have never been shown to be wrong and have been correct when tested. Burden on Tom.
Can you find a single example of the calculators being incorrect? Still waiting...
-
The burden of proof is on you Tom, because:
1. You are presenting an bogus (unfalsifiable) argument that these calculators need to be proved for an unspecified number of locations on Earth. The locations is undefined and (I suspect) infinite.
2. You will only need to find one instance where they are not correct to prove your point. You do not want to do this because it involves YOU doing some STUFF. The is against your principals.
Actually, you guys are the ones here presenting unproven internet calculators as proof. I'm the skeptic here. Your claim, your burden.
On an argument on the existence of ghosts I don't need to prove that ghosts don't exist. You need to prove that they do exist. The burden is always on the claimant and never on the skeptic.
You are claiming that the calculators are wrong. This is a claim against current understanding, because they have never been shown to be wrong and have been correct when tested. Burden on Tom.
Can you find a single example of the calculators being incorrect? Still waiting...
Claiming that the calculator wrong is the position of the skeptic. I'm the skeptic here. I don't need to prove a negative. You guys came to this thread with the claims that the internet calculators are right. It's your burden to prove those positive claims.
See: http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Burden_of_Proof (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Burden_of_Proof)
-
The burden of proof is on you Tom, because:
1. You are presenting an bogus (unfalsifiable) argument that these calculators need to be proved for an unspecified number of locations on Earth. The locations is undefined and (I suspect) infinite.
2. You will only need to find one instance where they are not correct to prove your point. You do not want to do this because it involves YOU doing some STUFF. The is against your principals.
Actually, you guys are the ones here presenting unproven internet calculators as proof. I'm the skeptic here. Your claim, your burden.
On an argument on the existence of ghosts I don't need to prove that ghosts don't exist. You need to prove that they do exist. The burden is always on the claimant and never on the skeptic.
You are claiming that the calculators are wrong. This is a claim against current understanding, because they have never been shown to be wrong and have been correct when tested. Burden on Tom.
Can you find a single example of the calculators being incorrect? Still waiting...
Claiming that the calculator wrong is the position of the skeptic. I'm the skeptic here. I don't need to prove a negative. You guys came to this thread with the claims that the internet calculators are right. It's your burden to prove those positive claims.
See: http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Burden_of_Proof (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Burden_of_Proof)
Your are a Zetetic, are you not?
A fundamental tenant to the Zetetic philosophy is to search, or examine; to proceed only by inquiry; to take nothing for granted, but to trace phenomena to their immediate and demonstrable causes. Zeticism is a philosophy of skepticism against the fantastic and unobservable.
So since you are skeptical, prove it to yourself.
-
when i did this experiment the calculator was correct. you claim it is not. the burden of proof is your tom.
those calculators are correct, saying they are not is the usual "lalalalalala" technique.
-
The burden of proof is on you Tom, because:
1. You are presenting an bogus (unfalsifiable) argument that these calculators need to be proved for an unspecified number of locations on Earth. The locations is undefined and (I suspect) infinite.
2. You will only need to find one instance where they are not correct to prove your point. You do not want to do this because it involves YOU doing some STUFF. The is against your principals.
Actually, you guys are the ones here presenting unproven internet calculators as proof. I'm the skeptic here. Your claim, your burden.
On an argument on the existence of ghosts I don't need to prove that ghosts don't exist. You need to prove that they do exist. The burden is always on the claimant and never on the skeptic.
You are claiming that the calculators are wrong. This is a claim against current understanding, because they have never been shown to be wrong and have been correct when tested. Burden on Tom.
Can you find a single example of the calculators being incorrect? Still waiting...
Claiming that the calculator wrong is the position of the skeptic. I'm the skeptic here. I don't need to prove a negative. You guys came to this thread with the claims that the internet calculators are right. It's your burden to prove those positive claims.
See: http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Burden_of_Proof (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Burden_of_Proof)
Tom, you have this back to front: Proving the calculator can be wrong is not "proving a negative", numbnuts, because you're looking for a positive result (e.g. "the calculator is wrong, and here's a single piece of evidence that proves it"). However, me proving the non-existence of any errors is proving a negative, and is impossible.
I repeat, we have seen no evidence that the calculators are wrong and plenty that they are right. We are just looking at evidence.
You are making a claim that they are wrong, against the evidence. You have zero evidence. You therefore have to provide missing evidence to back up your claim.
EDIT: Still waiting for your evidence, Tom...
-
I have chosen major cities so it's easily verifiable by extrapolation. The question that follows is: if the times were true, would the map be accurate to a certain degree?
-
Internet calculators don't show that the sunrise times match. They are calculators, not observers. No one went out to every point on earth to verify that the predictions throughout the year.
Is this a question of deltas? How much accuracy do you need? I suppose that a person who has been to 3 of those places and said "yeah, it's quite correct", would still not satisfy you, because the person cannot be in 3 places at the same time, and on the 21st of March 2010, 2011 and 2012 things might dramatically have changed?
-
Claiming that the calculator wrong is the position of the skeptic. I'm the skeptic here. I don't need to prove a negative. You guys came to this thread with the claims that the internet calculators are right. It's your burden to prove those positive claims.
See: http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Burden_of_Proof (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Burden_of_Proof)
I think I have an analogy for what is going on with the "you claim, no you claim" in this thread.
Imagine a person I'll call person 1 (represents Tom) suddenly stated that no cars could actually travel faster than 100 MPH. Well, someone we'll call person 2 calls person 1 out and says that many cars absolutly can go over 100 MPH. Person 1 says prove it. Person 2 says that any number of speedometers on cars could be shown to be indicating over 100 MPH while the car was driving. Person 1 says all speedometers are wrong, they are simply made up numbers and don't accurately reflect speed. Person 2 asks for proof of such a claim and person 1 say that he is not making a claim.
Person 1 says that person 2 is claiming speedometers are accurate and that cars can go over 100 MPH, and he is merely the skeptic and has no burden of proof to show that virtually every automobile speedometer in the world is wrong and that no car on Earth can go over 100 MPH. Person 1 says the burden of proof is on person 2 to prove his claims.
To me this seems like a complete misunderstanding of the "can't prove a negative" argument. You can't prove something doesn't exist if there is zero evidence either way. For instance, you can't ask someone to prove rainbow farting unicorns don't exist, because if they don't exist, then there will never be any evidence to use as proof of anything. Similarly, if someone claims unicorns that fart rainbows do exist, he would have the burden of proof when confronted by skeptics.
However, this is very different from claiming that internet Sunrise and Sunset calculators are wrong. Claiming that an existing device is inaccurate is a positive claim. It is something that could be tested and proof could be shown supporting the claim. To say you are a skeptic is fine. But simply labeling yourself as "skeptical" or "the skeptic" in regards to a certain issue doesn't relieve you from any burden of proof when you claim that something as widely used as Sunset/rise calculators are wrong. You aren't being asked to prove a negative. You aren't being asked to disprove something for which there is no evidence. You are being asked for any evidence which supports your claim that something which does exist, is widely used, and has been accurate each time it has been used by me, is not accurate.
If you don't want to provide any evidence or proof that's fine. I honestly don't care. Whether you have none, or simply can't be bothered, whatever. But the argument that you have nothing to prove because you aren't making any claims is silly to me.
-
Claiming that the calculator wrong is the position of the skeptic. I'm the skeptic here. I don't need to prove a negative. You guys came to this thread with the claims that the internet calculators are right. It's your burden to prove those positive claims.
See: http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Burden_of_Proof (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Burden_of_Proof)
I think I have an analogy for what is going on with the "you claim, no you claim" in this thread.
Imagine a person I'll call person 1 (represents Tom) suddenly stated that no cars could actually travel faster than 100 MPH. Well, someone we'll call person 2 calls person 1 out and says that many cars absolutly can go over 100 MPH. Person 1 says prove it. Person 2 says that any number of speedometers on cars could be shown to be indicating over 100 MPH while the car was driving. Person 1 says all speedometers are wrong, they are simply made up numbers and don't accurately reflect speed. Person 2 asks for proof of such a claim and person 1 say that he is not making a claim.
Person 1 says that person 2 is claiming speedometers are accurate and that cars can go over 100 MPH, and he is merely the skeptic and has no burden of proof to show that virtually every automobile speedometer in the world is wrong and that no car on Earth can go over 100 MPH. Person 1 says the burden of proof is on person 2 to prove his claims.
To me this seems like a complete misunderstanding of the "can't prove a negative" argument. You can't prove something doesn't exist if there is zero evidence either way. For instance, you can't ask someone to prove rainbow farting unicorns don't exist, because if they don't exist, then there will never be any evidence to use as proof of anything. Similarly, if someone claims unicorns that fart rainbows do exist, he would have the burden of proof when confronted by skeptics.
However, this is very different from claiming that internet Sunrise and Sunset calculators are wrong. Claiming that an existing device is inaccurate is a positive claim. It is something that could be tested and proof could be shown supporting the claim. To say you are a skeptic is fine. But simply labeling yourself as "skeptical" or "the skeptic" in regards to a certain issue doesn't relieve you from any burden of proof when you claim that something as widely used as Sunset/rise calculators are wrong. You aren't being asked to prove a negative. You aren't being asked to disprove something for which there is no evidence. You are being asked for any evidence which supports your claim that something which does exist, is widely used, and has been accurate each time it has been used by me, is not accurate.
If you don't want to provide any evidence or proof that's fine. I honestly don't care. Whether you have none, or simply can't be bothered, whatever. But the argument that you have nothing to prove because you aren't making any claims is silly to me.
Welcome to the Tom Bishop show!