Reason for a conspiracy

Given that the Greeks didn't write scientific papers, I would take your Don Quixote mimicking quest to the collected works of Pythagorus or Pappus's works from c.300AD that makes extensive reference to the work of Eratosthenes during Ptolemy's reign.

I would assume the theories on shadow length across the globe, horizon effects on mountain ranges and ships, and the curvature have already been covered and that you've been unable to refute them, merely asking people to constantly "prove" the point whilst failing to realise that th eburden of proof isn't on us, but on you. The FE theory is simply ludicrous. The speeds involved to explain your non-gravity are impossible, the theory of a disc like planet are against everything we know about physics, astronomy and chemistry, and, to cap it all, you're inability to prove the theory is blamed on a "conspiracy". Tin foil hats at the ready....

Given that the Greeks didn't write scientific papers, I would take your Don Quixote mimicking quest to the collected works of Pythagorus or Pappus's works from c.300AD that makes extensive reference to the work of Eratosthenes during Ptolemy's reign.

I would assume the theories on shadow length across the globe, horizon effects on mountain ranges and ships, and the curvature have already been covered and that you've been unable to refute them, merely asking people to constantly "prove" the point whilst failing to realise that th eburden of proof isn't on us, but on you. The FE theory is simply ludicrous. The speeds involved to explain your non-gravity are impossible, the theory of a disc like planet are against everything we know about physics, astronomy and chemistry, and, to cap it all, you're inability to prove the theory is blamed on a "conspiracy". Tin foil hats at the ready....

Well, no.  I suggest you lurk moar; FET has an explanation for everything you bring up.  Whether you agree with them or not is irrelevant to the point you were making about the Conspiracy, so it's all rather moot.  Please try to stay on topic.

I've seen all the nonsense I need to to realise that FES is beyond preposterous and into a realm of comedy gold not seen since Arthur Dent was introduced to Ford Prefect.

I argue nothing but that a Conspiracy is plausible.  

That depends on how far you're willing to stretch the definition of "plausible".

Quote from: Great A Tuin on May 04, 2011, 08:13:14 AM

Given that the Greeks didn't write scientific papers, I would take your Don Quixote mimicking quest to the collected works of Pythagorus or Pappus's works from c.300AD that makes extensive reference to the work of Eratosthenes during Ptolemy's reign.

I would assume the theories on shadow length across the globe, horizon effects on mountain ranges and ships, and the curvature have already been covered and that you've been unable to refute them, merely asking people to constantly "prove" the point whilst failing to realise that th eburden of proof isn't on us, but on you. The FE theory is simply ludicrous. The speeds involved to explain your non-gravity are impossible, the theory of a disc like planet are against everything we know about physics, astronomy and chemistry, and, to cap it all, you're inability to prove the theory is blamed on a "conspiracy". Tin foil hats at the ready....

Well, no.  I suggest you lurk moar; FET has an explanation for everything you bring up.  Whether you agree with them or not is irrelevant to the point you were making about the Conspiracy, so it's all rather moot.  Please try to stay on topic.

stop saying lurk moar to people whom you can't challenge in reasoned debate, and instead of asking for proof the world is a globe, why doj't you prove to us it is not? I know you can't, because it's impossible, but I will look forward to the inevitable comedy science

Roundy,

If you prefer there's a lot of other stuff from the 18th, 19th century and early 20th century which doesn't fit the FE model and predates NASA. These include the very detailed surveys of distances by the French Academy of Sciences (incidentally, the fact that gravity varies slightly was already known to them in the 1790s. That's one reason they needed to go do detailed surveying of the Earth, because pendulums behavior changed where you were. This isn't a problem for FE in general but it is a problem for FE versions with universal acceleration.). That work gave very precise measurements for France and Spain which consistent with the spheroid Earth. At about the same time, or slightly before, many of the colonial empires were making very precise measures of their empires, and the navies were using great circle routes and careful measurements of longitude to navigate. In the 19th century, these maps was further mapped out in detail and confirmed using precise observations of the sun, moon and planets. Later in the 19th century, work was done which detected stellar parallax, completely explainable by a moving speroid Earth. In the 19th century, scientists went on to use stellar spectroscopy to estimate the composition and temperature of the sun. In the early 20th century, maps of the Earth and the surface below the Earth were made by seismologists measuring the length of time and strength of different types of earthquakes. That's an ongoing project with literally thousands of stations worldwide and the data easily accessible.

There's so much basic stuff that FE doesn't have any explanations for that the only (marginally) viable explanation is for an early conspiracy, which not only started off early but controls a lot more than just NASA.  This reflects a general problem FE has: it doesn't produce interesting new science. One major distinction between good science and bad science is whether or not one gets new ideas that predict more about the world in testable ways. Good science does this. Bad science just keeps leading to more and more ad hoc hypotheses to protect itself from falsification. This is a point that was  made by Lakatos, and as philosophers of science go, he's one of the more readable. It seems pretty clear what is happening here: FE is quintessential bad science.

Quote from: JoshuaZ on April 20, 2011, 03:49:21 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 20, 2011, 03:46:49 PM

Secondly, even if it was traveling at 10,000 mph horizontally, over a few minutes it's still only going to travel a few hundred miles.

If a rocket is traveling at 10,000 MPH for 6 minutes then it has traveled 1000 miles (since 6  is a tenth of 60).

Well, when people talk about the speed of a rocket, most of that speed is its vertical velocity, not it's horizontal velocity.

Also, it's definitely not going to spend 6 minutes in space. These type of missiles spend 8 minutes just traveling through the atmosphere to the edge of space before running out of fuel.  Unless it achieves orbit, the amount of time it would spend in space is miniscule.

unless it acheives orbit? really, so you're admitting that orbit is possible? I thought that impossibility was one of the cornerstomes you fe'ers cling too? how can you orbit a disc?

There's so much basic stuff that FE doesn't have any explanations for that the only (marginally) viable explanation is for an early conspiracy, which not only started off early but controls a lot more than just NASA.  This reflects a general problem FE has: it doesn't produce interesting new science. One major distinction between good science and bad science is whether or not one gets new ideas that predict more about the world in testable ways. Good science does this. Bad science just keeps leading to more and more ad hoc hypotheses to protect itself from falsification. This is a point that was  made by Lakatos, and as philosophers of science go, he's one of the more readable. It seems pretty clear what is happening here: FE is quintessential bad science.

From what I've read, it's not deserving of the word "science". It's make believe fantasy put together by a fairly poor bunch of internet trolls to make themselves feel smugly superior by quoting Wikipedia at each other.

I find this all very confusing, why is anyone confused about earth being a disc or a ball! it's a desert, in a vacumn, with some water that allowed us to become humans from dinosaurs, what's to be confused about!

I find this all very confusing, why is anyone confused about earth being a disc or a ball! it's a desert, in a vacumn, with some water that allowed us to become humans from dinosaurs, what's to be confused about!

Don't forget the 32 mile wide moon that somehow exerts gravitational effects across a 78,000 mile round disc. Or have they installed wave machines on the ice wall as well? Damn, that NASA is clever.

ice wall?? that's two times I have heard that, I think there was soemthing in the FAQ's, but it didn't make sense, so, what is it and what's NASA got to do with it?

It's like Hoth combined with The Truman Show...but with mean nasty NASA guards...and no Wampas.

well, to be fair, Lucas had to have gotten that idea from somewhere, I am not surprised tbh. I thought gravity held the water in at the edges, but it must be this mountain range