Explain this to me.........

Ok. So if the Earth is flat then why do we have time zones? How can it be daylight up in the extreme north for almost 24 hours a day but less than half that on the east coast? Also this video looks pretty compelling to me.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
So i guess this is fake too cause i gotta tell ya that earth looks pretty round to me.

Yes, very clearly curved (note the darkness in the middle is space. Earth is up the top):

Unfortunately, it is a fish eye lens, which makes it much harder to analyse.

This video is probably faked. Hollywood produces thousands of these every year. Ever heard of studios like ILM?

This video is probably faked.

Why would anyone bother to fake a video that proved nothing about the shape of the earth.

Hollywood produces thousands of these every year. Ever heard of studios like ILM?

So? Is that any evidence that ILM Studios did produce that video?

So no takers on the time zone issue huh. Thats a tough one to explain

So no takers on the time zone issue huh. Thats a tough one to explain

Don't be smug that no one has addressed all of your questions when you've shown a total lack of attention to evidence in your "pretty compelling" video that contradicts your premise. If you can't be bothered to check your own evidence, not everyone is going to be eager to engage with you, especially on a question that has been asked many many times.

Also, there is a search function. "Time zones" is a simple search.

Photographic evidence is not valid evidence.

Time zones are explained by Shenton via the spotlight sun.

Photographic evidence is not valid evidence.

What is valid evidence?

First hand evidence or repeatable data points that is consistent. Any fool can, and has knowingly or unknowingly doctored or misrepresented photographic evidence.

Things that are not might be a better list to help define what is, since any definition will ultimately fail to meet mettle:
Government says so
I saw it on the television
Statements of supposed fact
Popularity of the belief
Anything that qualifies as a fallacy

By 'first hand evidence' what do you mean exactly? What about evidence contained in scientific journals or handbooks?  My experience of flat Earth believers is that they dismiss any evidence that does not explicitly support their FE ideology regardless of where it comes from.

FE claim that the Moon is just 3000 miles away without any real explanation for why. RE have repeatedly measured it over many years to be 238,855 miles away using lasers and radar. FE don't accept this simply because it doesn't conform with their own, unverified claims.

Time zones are explained by Shenton via the spotlight sun.

Isn't the RE explanation of time zones (i.e. its rotation) not equally valid in the sense that it works?

Yes, both explanations seem to work within their domain.

In my experience, the raw data is seldom if ever published in journals and handbooks. As long as I can reproduce the data, I'm fine with it being considered "evidence." Unfortunately, many peer reviewed journals publish non-reproducible data sets for a variety of reasons; this makes it a bit hard to accept it at face value.

Also certain activities of scientists make this hard; its is a well known practice to sometimes exclude data that disagrees with your premise, or to use clever curve fitting and number fudging to achieve the desired result. Einstein and Newton both come to mind, let alone the studies that show this is common practice.

So you are only willing to accept something if you can measure it yourself are you?

I'm willing to accept other things as well; Popper's concept of collaboration is not lost on me, though I think it gets misused and misapplied too often.

OK. The BAA (British Astronomical Association) have been publishing their handbook for many years. It is published annually and is a highly respected source of astronomical data and used by astronomers the world over.  In the back of the handbook (p114 of the 2020 copy) it has a list of astronomical and physical constants. The Earths radius (equatorial) is listed as 6,378,136.6m and the polar radius as 6,356,751.9m That gives a ratio of 0.0033528197.

Now that is pretty accurate and not the sort of figures that could simply be made up.  I don't think the BAA is the sort of organisation to 'make things up' or deliberately deceive its paid members do you?

So while it is true to say that there is a degree of flattening due to the Earths rotation it is certainly not true to say that the Earth is flat. Of course if you want to believe otherwise then that is up to you but I would want to see figures from you to the same degree of accuracy that evidence your 'flat' Earth belief.

I don't know the methods used to reach these figures and I cannot make the measurements myself.  However given the nature and stature of the BAA as an organisation I respect their quoted figures and accept them as true.

You can also find the data contained in the handbook here:

http://britastro.org/computing/pdf/Constants.pdf

I'd say that is a number derived off the model in use, not an empirical value. I am reminded of Orwell who asked pointedly in 1984:
"Do you suppose it is beyond us to produce a dual system of astronomy?"

As Hartle points out many different laws can be fitted to a given set of data, and we can never be sure that we have attained the correct law.

Also certain activities of scientists make this hard; its is a well known practice to sometimes exclude data that disagrees with your premise, or to use clever curve fitting and number fudging to achieve the desired result. Einstein and Newton both come to mind, let alone the studies that show this is common practice.

You often make unsupported claims like this.
Would you please give examples with reliable references where "Einstein and Newton" made "use clever curve fitting and number fudging to achieve the desired result"?

RE have repeatedly measured it over many years to be 238,855 miles away using lasers and radar.

No, they have measured it over many years and found it to vary significantly, by roughly 50 000 km if I recall correctly.

we can never be sure that we have attained the correct law.

I find it is almost always an approximation or simplification.

Quote from: John Davis on February 28, 2020, 03:12:51 PM

Also certain activities of scientists make this hard; its is a well known practice to sometimes exclude data that disagrees with your premise, or to use clever curve fitting and number fudging to achieve the desired result. Einstein and Newton both come to mind, let alone the studies that show this is common practice.

You often make unsupported claims like this.
Would you please give examples with reliable references where "Einstein and Newton" made "use clever curve fitting and number fudging to achieve the desired result"?

These are well known facts. One related by a biographer of Newton, Richard Westfall, who said some of his work is "nothing short of deliberate fraud" and that "no one can manipulate the fudge factor quite so effectively as the master mathematician himself"
)  and the other by Einstien himself who said "So much the worse for the experiment"

Sorry wrong einstein bit - putting the kids in bath while doing this. I'll dig up the experiment he faked in a second. I'm pretty sure it was around the gyroscopic ratio.

Yes, both explanations seem to work within their domain.

In my experience, the raw data is seldom if ever published in journals and handbooks. As long as I can reproduce the data, I'm fine with it being considered "evidence." ...

Oh so like if two different people follow a set procedure using a method, they should get the same results?

*gyromagnetic ratio would be one. Einstein had picked and published the value that matched his theory. This was related later by someone there at the time.

Quote from: John Davis on February 28, 2020, 03:11:23 PM

Yes, both explanations seem to work within their domain.

In my experience, the raw data is seldom if ever published in journals and handbooks. As long as I can reproduce the data, I'm fine with it being considered "evidence." ...

Oh so like if two different people follow a set procedure using a method, they should get the same results?

I doubt there is any method to this madness folks call science. Define it for me such that it doesn't exclude legitimate progress that would never have been made but did via science that does not fit said method and I'll gladly concede this point.

Don’t worry I know you are backed into a corner. You wanted repeatability but then say the scientific method is bad.

You are backwards. You want what you say is bad.

Pity

If you say so. I never said scientific method is bad. I said there is no scientific method.

Its a myth told to children so that the boogeyman doesn't visit them and so that we can have children's education curriculums. So, sokarul. What is this method I hate so much?

Quote from: rabinoz on February 28, 2020, 04:52:45 PM

Quote from: John Davis on February 28, 2020, 03:12:51 PM

Also certain activities of scientists make this hard; its is a well known practice to sometimes exclude data that disagrees with your premise, or to use clever curve fitting and number fudging to achieve the desired result. Einstein and Newton both come to mind, let alone the studies that show this is common practice.

You often make unsupported claims like this.
Would you please give examples with reliable references where "Einstein and Newton" made "use clever curve fitting and number fudging to achieve the desired result"?

These are well known facts. One related by a biographer of Newton, Richard Westfall, who said some of his work is "nothing short of deliberate fraud" and that "no one can manipulate the fudge factor quite so effectively as the master mathematician himself"
)  and the other by Einstien himself who said "So much the worse for the experiment"

And it is well known that so-called "well-known facts" often turn out to not be quite so factual.

Richard Westfall writing something does not make is a "fact".
The only fact might be that Richard Westfall said some of his work is "nothing short of deliberate fraud".

That is not evidence. I did find this:

Sir Isaac Newton: . . . . . . .
But sometimes the precision reached is far higher than the original data justify. In the case of Newton's manipulations to make his calculation of the speed of sound agree with the measured speed, Professor Westfall accuses the master of ``nothing short of deliberate fraud.''

As Westfall explains, ``Newton consolidated and confirmed the quantitative character of modern science.'' But, he adds: ``Successful polemics [arguments] are the necessary condition of every intellectual revolution. ... Newton comprehended perfectly the nature of the polemic he deployed.'' Thus, in Westfall's judgment, among the reasons for the success of the ``Principia'' was ``the fudge factor, manipulated with unparalleled skill by the unsmiling Newton.''

To keep this in perspective, Westfall notes that, in spite of Newton's peccadilloes, publication of the ``Principia'' was ``one of the major events of Western history.'' Indeed, Newton's work transcended science to permeate Western thought in general.

And on the speed of sound Newton was wrong because at the time the difference between isothermal and adiabatic expansion was not known.

But it should be realised that Newton was at a transition between alchemy and the occult and what we might call modern science.
It is a little unfair to judge him by modern standards.

And some, such as Flat Earth Scientist Sandokhan still seem to get their wisdom in some matters from that source:
Flat Earth Believers / Re: Experiment regarding the biological effects of moonlight « Message by sandokhan on February 09, 2010, 03:10:09 AM »

Flat Earth Believers / Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory « Message by sandokhan »
GRAVITY IS CAUSED BY THE NEGATIVE COMPONENT OF PRAKRITI, THE TERRESTRIAL RADIATION, ALSO KNOWN AS INERTIA, AND BY THE CONSTANT PRESSURE OF THE VAYU PARTICLES EMITTED BY NIBIRU/TIAMAT.

ANY AND ALL RADIATION TRAVELS THROUGH VAYU, WHICH MAKES UP THE FOUR KINDS/DENSITIES OF AETHER:

http://www.alliancesforhumanity.com/matter/matter_files/image003.jpg

E1 = VAYU / memory/imagination
E2 = TEJAS/PRANA / senses
E3 = APAS / reproduction
E4 = PRAKRITI / metabolism

The positive component of Prakriti is called Assimilation, the process whereby the different nutritive elements of food are incorporated into the body of plant, animal and man.

N. Tesla used Prakriti to send his electrical currents above the flat earth, and also to cause artificial earthquakes.

The human body functions on three levels called octaves: THE OCTAVE OF IMPRESSIONS/THE DIVINE OCTAVE (we receive ojas/ABL+- , prana and generative force through the pineal gland, which IS NOT the third eye of the occultists; the third eye is actually the thalamus gland), THE OCTAVE OF BREATH, and THE OCTAVE OF FOOD.
. . . . . . .
W. Reich, in addition to discovering the biggest secret of the nuclear industry (namely, that there is no nuclear industry to begin with, the nuclear reactors are nothing more than aether accumulators), found that the negative component of Prakriti, inertia, also causes the storms in the atmosphere and causes corrosion/decay.

All major discoveries of the 20th Century in quantum mechanics (quark/antimatter/superstring theory), were copied from the most formidable book ever published on this subject:
http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/pdfindex.htm
http://www.innerpath.com.au/besant/1Occult%20Chemistry.htm

On the fundamental discoveries from Occult Chemistry:
http://www.esotericscience.org/article5a.htm
www.iiyp.org/The_Amazing_Phenomenon.doc

<< etc, etc >>

It looks as though occult sciences are alive and well:

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FARCE OF MODERN PHYSICS: http://davidpratt.info/farce.htm

OCCULT CHEMISTRY, the work copied by Dirac, Gell-Mann, Higgs and many others: http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/pdfindex.htm

As for the lizard thread, all of you now know exactly what is going on: the reptilian bloodline descendants are the ones who invented the round earth theory, who falsified the entire history prior to 1825 ad, and who currently run Nasa.

Yes its well known that well known facts are not factual. You asked for the 'well knowness' of my facts. I gave them. Next time ask a better question.

Yes, we agree Newton committed deliberate fraud.

Did you have any other points to make?

You can format them if you wish with bold and italics?!

Maybe throw a center in there.