The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: munkirench on April 22, 2009, 02:25:30 PM
-
Flat Earth dogma states that there is a massive (or at least universally pervasive) conspiracy which spreads ideas concerning all of modern physics and cosmology. Where did this conspiracy originate? The idea of a round earth was conceived by ancient Greek philosophers, and was accepted as "truth" during the 1500s. Surely the ancient Greeks were not in on the Conspiracy? Especially since the Conspiracy revolves around getting funding for space-travel and research? Same goes for the Renaissance... surely Galileo and Copernicus wouldn't have risked their lives taking on the Catholic Church just to start a Conspiracy?
Stipulating that there is indeed an active Conspiracy, how could it have started and been maintained in the face of the massive research into cosmology during the past 400 years? Where would the "funds" that are the impetus for the Conspiracy have come from 400 years ago? All of that research was done by people with telescopes in their back yards, not by orbiters. They needed no funding, and they got no funding, yet they supposedly propagated a massive Conspiracy unsupported by scientific evidence (assuming that the technology for the "projectors" was developed during WWII, as FEers claim).
-
One more for RE. Huzza! ;D
-
Flat Earth dogma states that there is a massive (or at least universally pervasive) conspiracy which spreads ideas concerning all of modern physics and cosmology.
Dogma? :D
Where did this conspiracy originate? The idea of a round earth was conceived by ancient Greek philosophers, and was accepted as "truth" during the 1500s. Surely the ancient Greeks were not in on the Conspiracy?
Of course not, they were simply mistaken, as they were about the birth of fruit flies and quite a lot besides.
Especially since the Conspiracy revolves around getting funding for space-travel and research? Same goes for the Renaissance... surely Galileo and Copernicus wouldn't have risked their lives taking on the Catholic Church just to start a Conspiracy?
They didn't. It's always been the position of the Catholic Church that the Earth is round.
Stipulating that there is indeed an active Conspiracy, how could it have started and been maintained in the face of the massive research into cosmology during the past 400 years? Where would the "funds" that are the impetus for the Conspiracy have come from 400 years ago? All of that research was done by people with telescopes in their back yards, not by orbiters. They needed no funding, and they got no funding, yet they supposedly propagated a massive Conspiracy unsupported by scientific evidence (assuming that the technology for the "projectors" was developed during WWII, as FEers claim).
It's never been proven that the Earth is round. It's been assumed for a very long time (going back to the ancient Greeks, in fact) and any research prior to the Conspiracy that you think proves a round Earth doesn't; since a flat Earth was never even considered by mainstream science, it merely represents a misinterpretation of the data gathered. The RE bias is so strong that the question was never simply "How is this possible?"; it's always been "How is this posssible on a round Earth?" The modern Conspiracy began in the mid-50s, when Sputnik I first went into "orbit".
One more for RE. Huzza! ;D
Hardly.
-
Why do FEers masturbate to semantics? By "dogma", I was referring to the FAQ. In fact, I think I will continue to refer to it as dogma, because besides the idea that the Earth is flat, the existence of a Conspiracy is the one thing which is consistent throughout all FEers.
In case you aren't aware of the scientific process, it does account for exception. This is one of the main differences I see between science in general and the Flat Earth Society...
The FET was literally invented. The ideas in the FET were designed, bit by bit, to match with simple visual observation, along with simple things like the changing seasons.
Science also starts at square 1 with theories invented to match with simple observation, but as exceptions to the invented rules are discovered, the theory is revised to account for the inconsistencies. In this way, Science starts with a mish-mash of inaccuracy, and converges towards a simpler and more complete theory. Example: Quantum Field Theory and General Relativity both account for all everyday observations, and 99% of extreme observation, including observations made on extremely large and extremely small scales. These theories are very general, and account for every observation of classical physics. This property of generality makes them "good" theories... that is, theories which can be relied upon in a very broad range of situations. The extremely few situations which they cannot account for are being studied so that a simpler and broader theory may be formed. This convergence towards a single unification is what makes science special... it makes prediction simpler and simpler, and more accurate to match with observation.
FET, by contrast, is ad hoc... every exception must be accounted for by adding on to the theory... a divergence, instead of convergence.
Perhaps FEers aren't aware, but one of the main reason that scientists accept the Round Earth theory, and all of the classical and modern physics that go along with it, is because these theories make predictions which can be verified. There is NO other reason. These theories are accepted because they work, and they work over both common and uncommon situations. By contrast, FE only accounts for common situations, and doesn't make any predictions. Active vs. Reactive.
But back to the original purpose... Why did the Round Earth theory prevail over the Flat Earth Theory way back when Flat Earth was universally accepted? I realize and accept the modern bias which might prevent "progressive" thought towards FET, but way back when, why would FET have failed and been rejected? My opinion is that FET failed simply because it is false. When two theories face off, the one which produces predictions which match observation the most accurately wins. And that is exactly what happened... Round Earth theory was able to account for all of the things which the Flat Earth theory could not have. Even such an unpopular idea as a heliocentric universe prevailed over the geocentric universe, simply because it matches with observations.
I posit that the only way for FET to be true in the face of modern physics is magic. There is simply no way for modern physics to have failed to realize that the Earth is in fact flat, and the only way for such a discrepancy to actually exist is magic, not a Conspiracy. A Conspiracy could never explain away all of the discrepancies without something like a Time Machine... in which case, they would have no need to propagate the Conspiracy.
-
One more for RE. Huzza! ;D
Hardly.
Hay, I'm not the one that actually belives in stupid shit.
Have you ever heard of Occam's razor?....Oh but you'll tell me he must have made it up so he could be in on the conspiracy.
Grow up...
-
One more for RE. Huzza! ;D
Hardly.
Hay, I'm not the one that actually belives in stupid shit.
Have you ever heard of Occam's razor?....Oh but you'll tell me he must have made it up so he could be in on the conspiracy.
Grow up...
Occam's razor is bullshit,pure and simple. With simple semantics,and can be made to prove anything right.
-
One more for RE. Huzza! ;D
Hardly.
Hay, I'm not the one that actually belives in stupid shit.
Have you ever heard of Occam's razor?....Oh but you'll tell me he must have made it up so he could be in on the conspiracy.
Grow up...
So, to debate a difficult position (and do a good job) is immature, but to register on a debate forum and not state arguments, but only insult the opposition is mature? Without questioning our competency, why don't you try to prove that the Earth is round reasonably and politely?
And stop typing in green font. It doesn't make you look cool or unique.
-
No response to my argument?
-
No response to my argument?
I think you went over their heads.
-
No response to my argument?
You argument is tl;dr. No one's going to respond because no one's going to read.
I read it.
Forum posters need to learn to read long post, especially in a debate forum. It could have vital information that can be used for/ against the poster.
-
I read it and it was a ball of contradiction and flat out falsehoods. He is a classic case of someone that needs to open his mind and shut his mouth.
-
care to point out alleged "falsehoods" and contradictions?
-
In case you aren't aware of the scientific process, it does account for exception. This is one of the main differences I see between science in general and the Flat Earth Society...
Are you saying that the FES does not account for exception?
The FET was literally invented. The ideas in the FET were designed, bit by bit, to match with simple visual observation, along with simple things like the changing seasons.
The RET was literally invented. The ideas in the RET were designed, bit by bit, to match with simple visual observation, along with simple things like the changing seasons.
RET is no different. Assuming no outside influence, people would assume the world is flat.
Science also starts at square 1 with theories invented to match with simple observation, but as exceptions to the invented rules are discovered, the theory is revised to account for the inconsistencies. In this way, Science starts with a mish-mash of inaccuracy, and converges towards a simpler and more complete theory.
Thank you for describing FET.
FET, by contrast, is ad hoc... every exception must be accounted for by adding on to the theory... a divergence, instead of convergence.
Yes,generally you want to fix the holes that are in your theory. RET is no other way.
Perhaps FEers aren't aware, but one of the main reason that scientists accept the Round Earth theory, and all of the classical and modern physics that go along with it, is because these theories make predictions which can be verified. There is NO other reason. These theories are accepted because they work, and they work over both common and uncommon situations. By contrast, FE only accounts for common situations, and doesn't make any predictions. Active vs. Reactive.
FE accounts for all observations as well. What about the fact that the daytime lunar eclipse is physically impossible in the Round Earth model?
But back to the original purpose... Why did the Round Earth theory prevail over the Flat Earth Theory way back when Flat Earth was universally accepted? I realize and accept the modern bias which might prevent "progressive" thought towards FET, but way back when, why would FET have failed and been rejected? My opinion is that FET failed simply because it is false. When two theories face off, the one which produces predictions which match observation the most accurately wins. And that is exactly what happened... Round Earth theory was able to account for all of the things which the Flat Earth theory could not have. Even such an unpopular idea as a heliocentric universe prevailed over the geocentric universe, simply because it matches with observations.
Look out your window. I don't see RE accounting for that observation.
I posit that the only way for FET to be true in the face of modern physics is magic. There is simply no way for modern physics to have failed to realize that the Earth is in fact flat, and the only way for such a discrepancy to actually exist is magic, not a Conspiracy. A Conspiracy could never explain away all of the discrepancies without something like a Time Machine... in which case, they would have no need to propagate the Conspiracy.
Could you please cite an example of such a discrepancy?
Occam's razor is bullshit,pure and simple.
Epic. This really is a top notch debating forum huh?
I stand by the fact that Occams razor is bullshit.
-
I stand by the fact that Occams razor is bullshit.
Maybe if you were able to express in what way "Occams razor is bullshit" exactly...
I will apply Occams razor to weather or not God exists.
What's more likely, that some weird ghost sent his zombie son down to earth to somehow "save us", or that the Big Bang happened.
Looks like god doesn't exist.
What's more likely,that there was nothing never and then somehow there was a big-ass explosion and then somehow life appeared and here we are,or that god did it?
Oh shit,now there is a god.
Also, does anyone have the motivators that describe atheism v theism?
-
I will apply Occams razor to weather or not God exists.
That's a good one. One one side, we have the evidence of god being the bounty of life, and the position of man as ruler of the beasts etc etc.
On the other hand we have the scientific explanation (with evidence) of how life evolved and the development of the human brain leading to a highly intelligent, adaptable and social primate.
Which one makes the least number of assumptions? The religious one. So which one does Occams razor cut away? The religious one.
What's more likely, that this beautiful, intricate, complex, mathematically-guided universe we live in came about purely by chance, or that this beautiful, intricate, complex, mathematically-guided universe we live in had an intelligent designer?
Occam's Razor contradicts the basic logical principle that correlation does not imply causation. Therefore it has no place in a logical debate.
-
What's more likely, that this beautiful, intricate, complex, mathematically-guided universe we live in came about purely by chance, or that this beautiful, intricate, complex, mathematically-guided universe we live in had an intelligent designer?
Occam's Razor contradicts the basic logical principle that correlation does not imply causation. Therefore it has no place in a logical debate.
You don't know what you're talking about.
Occams razor does not ask "What's more likely?" It asks "What makes the least number of assumptions?"
So what makes the least number of assumptions?
An assumed intelligent designer, or a proven process of evolution?
No, my scenario assumes that the intelligent designer drove (or at least initiated) the process of evolution. It seems that the "no God" side makes more assumptions, because on the one hand we have an intelligent designer who put the laws of physics into motion to create our orderly universe, and on the other it has to be assumed that all those laws of physics and our structured universe are simply random. Right now the only scientific way around this is to assume an infinity of unobservable parallel universes, in which ours is that one in 10some incredibly gigantic number universe where things came out "just right" for the universe to be as beautiful and structured as it is, and also have beings that are capable of intelligently observing it. Approaching it from the point of view that there's no God causes us to need to make all these assumptions. Clearly Occam's Razor favors God's existence.
-
Roundy,thank you for saying it much better than I could.
No, my scenario assumes that the intelligent designer drove (or at least initiated) the process of evolution.
And there's your mistake. You make one huge assumption (that God exists).
Science, while there maybe some assumptions made, is able to rationally explain a large majority of the observed world.
Again, science makes the least assumptions, science wins over religion.
However, the original debate was "Occams Razor is bullshit". Since you're trying to use the razor to prove your argument, you're in fact countering that it's bullshit.
Please continue posting.
No, he is demonstrating how Occam's razor is flawed,
-
No, my scenario assumes that the intelligent designer drove (or at least initiated) the process of evolution.
And there's your mistake. You make one huge assumption (that God exists).
I make no such assumption. If I assume God exists, what sense is there applying Occam's Razor to determine if God exists? Please pay attention.
Science, while there maybe some assumptions made, is able to rationally explain a large majority of the observed world.
Indeed it does, and using Occam's Razor it can be used to "prove" that an intelligent designer exists, as I've demonstrated.
-
Using Occam's Razor it can be used to "prove" that an intelligent designer exists, as I've demonstrated.
So Occams razor is a good thing?
No, I never said that. As WoM pointed out, I was merely elucidating Occam's Razor's flaws. I don't believe in God and there's no scientific reason to think that God exists. Yet I just used Occam's Razor to demonstrate that an intelligent designer is more likely than pure randomness. Using the logic that Occam's Razor on its own is able to prove something, I've proven God's existence. Do you see yet why it has no place in logical debate?
-
Do you see yet why it has no place in logical debate?
No. I can see how you have no idea how to apply Occams razor. The rest writes itself.
Wow. Just a couple posts ago you were praising my argument as proof of Occam's Razor's utility. Make up your mind. ::)
-
When you saw that this meant two trolls were fighting over the same kill you switched back to playing the dumb fuck.
Since I can't fight two trolls at once I'll just have to kill one of you now.
*BLAM*
Yeah, that's the usual last gasp of the poor REer who can't back up his arguments - accuse the people he's debating with that they're trolls. It's so sad that your skills at debating are so poor that you need to make up such a lame excuse for losing an argument. :(
-
Yeah, that's the usual last gasp of the poor REer who can't back up his arguments - accuse the people he's debating with that they're trolls.
Well you've already shown you have no idea what you're talking about. I tried to explain to you why you were wrong but you just kept on saying the same thing. Ergo you are a thick as fuck troll. Go away.
You have yet to point out a flaw in my argument. Go ahead, I'll wait.
-
As I look at this I see that the problem with your argument is that it has diverged from the topic of conspiracy origins and is you are now debating the validity of Occams Razor. Why not answer the more challenging aspects of the question such as why did RET prevail over FET even though the notion of FE was widely accepted.
-
Seriously... why are we debating Occam's Razor? Occam's Razor is fucking stupid. It's a useless piece of philosophical drivel.
The original point that I was making in my "tl;dr" post is that science attempts to make predictions about the world. Occam's Razor aside, the best theory is the one which can make the most accurate predictions. And the fact remains that FET is NOT explained by any predictive theory. Every piece of FET had to be invented... Dark Energy? Shadow Object? Ice Wall? Conspiracy? All of these things are totally unrelated, except that they are required to describe normal observations while rejecting the hypothesis that the Earth is round. On the other hand, round-earth science can explain ALL observations with just two theories - Quantum Field Theory, General Theory of Relativity. And no, the theories are NOT inconsistent... they do NOT contradict each other. They simply do not predict each other. But I digress...
FET is useless because it does NOT make predictions. The only predictions it can successfully make are based on things that have already been observed. On the other hand, using science, I can successfully predict the outcome of a scenario without ever having seen a similar scenario before. Prediction is what makes a good, useful theory, and nothing else is relevant. And the fact is that science predicts a round earth, and subsequent predictions based on the acceptance of a round earth are accurate.
In response to Waste of Mind:
The exception I have in mind when describing the obvious necessity of FET to "invent" explanations is the Shadow Object. Round earth theory very easily and simply predicts the occurrence of lunar eclipses, but in order to account for them in FET, the Shadow Object was invented. Aside from the lunar eclipse, there is NO reason to believe that such an object exists. It was invented in order to match with an exception in observation. And as for your claim that lunar eclipses can only be viewed on the night side of round earth... Are you fucking stupid? Have you ever heard someone claim that you can observe a lunar eclipse during the daytime? Every competent child knows that if the earth is casting a shadow on the moon, it must be nighttime in order to observe it. I challenge you to back up your claim, and show me a single record of observation of a lunar eclipse during the daytime.
Assuming no outside influence, people would assume the world is flat.
You mean, assuming that all people are incapable of performing basic mathematics and making observations of the world? And assuming that people are stupid enough to assume that something on the observable scale is exactly what it appears to be on a scale of different magnitudes? Do you believe in atoms? Why should you? You have never seen one. Every direct observation of an atom requires incredibly expensive equipment... look out, everyone, IBM is a part of the conspiracy! They are refuting common observation!! They claim that all matter is NOT infinitely divisible! But obviously, if I take a knife, I can infinitely split a piece of bread, until I no longer have the dexterity to control the knife precisely enough. Atoms must be a hoax.
Look out your window. I don't see RE accounting for that observation
Looking out of my window doesn't account for Special Relativity, basic Chemistry, molecular Biology, or any other extremely micro or macro science. Congratulations, you're just incapable of accepting anything that requires in depth analysis.
and converges towards a simpler and more complete theory
Thank you for describing FET
How does FET converge? It starts with "the earth is flat" and from there, you add in Dark Energy (which was obviously stolen from cosmic observations of "normal" scientists), you invent the shadow object, you invent the Ice Wall, you invent the Conspiracy, you invent the idea of non-conservative "orbits" of celestial objects, you refute all evidence as being fake. I fail to see how this theory converges towards completion.
ad hoc - for or concerned with one specific purpose
The Shadow Object fits this description exactly.
Could you please cite an example of such a discrepancy?
You misunderstood what I was saying. The discrepancy I was pointing out was the obvious fact that the greatest minds on earth have been studying and explaining the world's extreme phenomena, and none of them have come to the conclusion that the Earth is flat.
-
Seriously... why are we debating Occam's Razor? Occam's Razor is fucking stupid. It's a useless piece of philosophical drivel.
Thank you.
To the rest of your points, I don't disagree with you. Science's utility comes not from its ability to accurately describe the world around us but from its ability to make predictions. That's probably why it's so often throughout history been shown to be incorrect in describing the world around us despite its ability to make predictions.
That's why I prefer to approach FE from a different angle. The Earth looks flat to me. Every sense I have tells me it's flat. Therefore I'm going to need extraordinary evidence to be convinced otherwise.
For me, this is a thought experiment. It becomes, "Okay, so let's take it for granted that the Earth is flat. I'm being presented with all this evidence that supposedly proves it otherwise. How are these things possible if the Earth is flat?"
Working out exactly how a FE is possible is what this website is all about. I don't concern myself with which model is "better"; I don't think the ability to make predictions is really any measurement of a theory's relation to reality; after all, Newton's theory of gravity made accurate predictions for years and still does. Then Einstein went and proved it wrong. So much for a theory's utility for making predictions demonstrating the theory's correctness.
Science only gives us an abstraction of reality, and humanity's tendency to interpret experiments with a bias only distorts things further. To go back to Newton as an example of this, his biased interpretation of his observations indicated that masses of matter pull on each other depending on the quantity of mass. He saw a pulling force and he assumed that's what it was. It wasn't until Einstein formulated his conception of four-dimensional space that we knew better.
A round Earth has been assumed since long before we had the means to actually prove it. After two millenia plus of such a bias, it's no wonder that things have been worked out so that certain things appear to prove that the Earth is round.
Such phenomena can only prove the Earth is round if there's no other explanation for the phenomena. So in the name of advancing our understanding of the world, we attempt to remove the bias when considering these questions... questions fundamental to our theory like "Why is there a horizon?" and "Why do things fall?"
Unfortunately we don't have the time, resources, or sheer amounts of people working on such questions as RE has had through the millenia, thanks to that bias. So there are gaps that on the surface appear to counter FE. I feel that given some time less than two thousand years of work those gaps can be filled in, and that's how I approach my involvement in this website.
On the other hand, some apparent gaps have already been filled in quite snugly, suggesting that our endeavor is a worthy one.
I never try to prove FE, and I've backed off my previous assertions that FE has been proven, or even can be proven. As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't need to be proven. RE is the theory that asks us to look at the world in a different way, therefore that's the theory that needs to be proven, if it's correct. I'm content to just assume the Earth is the shape it appears to be, and move in my inquiries from there.
At least until it's proven otherwise.
-
Seriously... why are we debating Occam's Razor? Occam's Razor is fucking stupid. It's a useless piece of philosophical drivel.
Agreed.
The exception I have in mind when describing the obvious necessity of FET to "invent" explanations is the Shadow Object. Round earth theory very easily and simply predicts the occurrence of lunar eclipses, but in order to account for them in FET, the Shadow Object was invented. Aside from the lunar eclipse, there is NO reason to believe that such an object exists. It was invented in order to match with an exception in observation. And as for your claim that lunar eclipses can only be viewed on the night side of round earth... Are you fucking stupid? Have you ever heard someone claim that you can observe a lunar eclipse during the daytime? Every competent child knows that if the earth is casting a shadow on the moon, it must be nighttime in order to observe it. I challenge you to back up your claim, and show me a single record of observation of a lunar eclipse during the daytime.
(http://www.nightskyhunter.com/images/Lunar%20Eclipse%201.jpg)Stolen from another thread.
Assuming no outside influence, people would assume the world is flat.
You mean, assuming that all people are incapable of performing basic mathematics and making observations of the world? And assuming that people are stupid enough to assume that something on the observable scale is exactly what it appears to be on a scale of different magnitudes? Do you believe in atoms? Why should you? You have never seen one. Every direct observation of an atom requires incredibly expensive equipment... look out, everyone, IBM is a part of the conspiracy! They are refuting common observation!! They claim that all matter is NOT infinitely divisible! But obviously, if I take a knife, I can infinitely split a piece of bread, until I no longer have the dexterity to control the knife precisely enough. Atoms must be a hoax.
You show me the basic mathematics that prove the earth it round. The rest of your post is just gibberish.
Look out your window. I don't see RE accounting for that observation
Looking out of my window doesn't account for Special Relativity, basic Chemistry, molecular Biology, or any other extremely micro or macro science. Congratulations, you're just incapable of accepting anything that requires in depth analysis.
You're right, looking our your window does not require knowledge of those things. Thank you for the update captain Obvious.
and converges towards a simpler and more complete theory
Thank you for describing FET
How does FET converge? It starts with "the earth is flat" and from there, you add in Dark Energy (which was obviously stolen from cosmic observations of "normal" scientists), you invent the shadow object, you invent the Ice Wall, you invent the Conspiracy, you invent the idea of non-conservative "orbits" of celestial objects, you refute all evidence as being fake. I fail to see how this theory converges towards completion.
These things weren't "invented", they were theorized after observation and experimentation.
ad hoc - for or concerned with one specific purpose
The Shadow Object fits this description exactly.
And this disproves it how?
Could you please cite an example of such a discrepancy?
You misunderstood what I was saying. The discrepancy I was pointing out was the obvious fact that the greatest minds on earth have been studying and explaining the world's extreme phenomena, and none of them have come to the conclusion that the Earth is flat.
Samuel Birley Rowbotham, PhD. is one of those "great minds" that tends to disagree with RET.
-
Waste of Mind... i'm not going to respond to any of your post, because it adds nothing, and doesn't respond to a thing i've said. It's just semantic masturbation. And that picture of the moon is totally irrelevant. It is consistent with my claim. I won't bother to say why, because if you can't figure it out yourself, you deserve all of the self-delusion that you apparently heap upon yourself.
To the REAL response that actually adds to the discussion:
i wrote out a nice long response, but my laptop ran out of battery, and for some reason shut down instead of hibernating, so it's gone. The gist was: I understand the point of view of wanting to question the world, but you take it too far once you introduce the idea of a conspiracy, because a conspiracy can be used to explain away anything. thought experiments lose their value, just become mental masturbation once you invent a reason to reject all evidence to the contrary of your hypothesis. In this way, you are just as guilty of bias as the REers, because you go out of your way to discount a solution to the problem that obviously works.
Do you reject and question ALL non-observable sciences, such as relativity, chemistry, molecular biology, cosmology? They all have the same amount of evidence, and are all just as valid, as the theory of a round-earth. None of them can be verified through everyday observation, but they are nonetheless supported by mountains of evidence, just like the idea of a round earth. The only difference is that you haven't gone out of your way to explain it away through a deus-ex-machina conspiracy.
-
Well, I try to work around the Conspiracy when it's possible. I really only reject pictures from space agencies and accounts of having been to space on those grounds. Who knows?
I honestly don't see what's wrong with mental masturbation... it looks like two positive things latched together to me. :-\
To run down the list:
I don't reject relativity per se, but I see no logical reason to assume it's correct, and I have no doubt that it's the end of the story; it doesn't account for everything we observe in the universe and as exists so far is not compatible with the other great physical theory Quantum Mechanics.
I was never very good at chemistry so I'm really not concerned with it. Likewise I never took an interest in molecular biology; however I do feel that evolution has been confirmed.
Cosmology as it stands today is riddled with philosophical mumbo-jumbo and assumptions. :)
-
I see. I think that the main difference between us is our intentions. I believe that there is indeed one single objective universe, and that it is not open to interpretation. It works in the ways that it works, and we don't have anything to say about it, except to try and find out exactly how it does work. It appears to me that you are more interested in simply discussing the possible solutions, rather than trying to find the solution. I admit that if the Conspiracy is indeed real, than your claims regarding a flat earth are possible. the reason that I reject the flat earth solution anyway is that I find the existence of a conspiracy to be incredibly unlikely, in the face of both idealistic and realistic analysis. Of course, I concede that anything that has a finite probability is by definition possible, but I think that the probability of all of the claims of FET being true is so slim that in everyday occurrence, it would be approximated as impossible.
Regarding the specific sciences I mentioned, maybe I didn't make my purpose clear. I brought up those sciences just to show that there are incredibly detailed sciences that are supported by nearly irrefutable quantities and qualities of evidence that are most definitely not a part of everyday observation. For instance, the fundamentals of molecular biology are nearly 100% understood, but are impossible to observe with naked senses. To me, there is no possibility of refuting those sciences, at least not without developing a new theory which encompasses the old ones as well, in the same manner that general relativity encompassed newtonian gravitation. Therefore, to me, it is a futile mental exercise to simply think about ways in which they could be false. Not to say that speculation can't be interesting, but that putting any real weight behind those speculations is foolish and self-delusory.
If this forum was a satire, or a parody, I would find it both entertaining and interesting. Unfortunately, it seems that most members have taken the "question everything" ideal and transformed it into "reject everything". The ideologies are very different. One is useful, the other futile.
-
Flat Earth dogma states that there is a massive (or at least universally pervasive) conspiracy which spreads ideas concerning all of modern physics and cosmology. Where did this conspiracy originate? The idea of a round earth was conceived by ancient Greek philosophers, and was accepted as "truth" during the 1500s. Surely the ancient Greeks were not in on the Conspiracy? Especially since the Conspiracy revolves around getting funding for space-travel and research? Same goes for the Renaissance... surely Galileo and Copernicus wouldn't have risked their lives taking on the Catholic Church just to start a Conspiracy?
No, they were just wrong. People have long thought that the Earth was a sphere.
Stipulating that there is indeed an active Conspiracy, how could it have started and been maintained in the face of the massive research into cosmology during the past 400 years? Where would the "funds" that are the impetus for the Conspiracy have come from 400 years ago? All of that research was done by people with telescopes in their back yards, not by orbiters. They needed no funding, and they got no funding, yet they supposedly propagated a massive Conspiracy unsupported by scientific evidence (assuming that the technology for the "projectors" was developed during WWII, as FEers claim).
Again, they were just wrong. The only conspiracy is NASA executives faking a space program in order to keep the funds for themselves. Since everyone assumed the Earth was round, it made sense to fake it as such.
The NASA executives aren't trying to cover up the fact that the Earth is flat; they themselves think it is round. But the space program is entirely fake.
-
Heh... I'm not going to bother to debate the mechanics of a Conspiracy, because you won't be convinced no matter what I say. Although it does make sense that the NASA execs would believe that the Earth is round, it is impossible for them not to have realized it was flat if it was so. Think... it would be much more expensive to build a fake infrastructure capable of acting like the satellites and fake all of the data coming from satellites to match with expected data types (99% of satellites are NOT designed by NASA, but by separate research teams. NASA would have to be able to show the research teams the data from the satellites that were suppose to be in orbit, but were not).
Also, NASA's budget is only 17.6B USD. Do you really think that is enough money to propagate all of the lies and infrastructure necessary to mitigate the consequences of faking the space program? To me, it is absolutely nowhere near enough money. It is obvious to me because I am aware of all of the information, data, and research that both goes into and comes out of the space program. It would be impossible to do what you suggest with only 17.6B per year.
But that's it for the Conspiracy for me! heh... you'll get me going on it, towards a dead end that neither of us will concede.
-
I will apply Occams razor to weather or not God exists.
That's a good one. One one side, we have the evidence of god being the bounty of life, and the position of man as ruler of the beasts etc etc.
On the other hand we have the scientific explanation (with evidence) of how life evolved and the development of the human brain leading to a highly intelligent, adaptable and social primate.
Which one makes the least number of assumptions? The religious one. So which one does Occams razor cut away? The religious one.
What's more likely, that this beautiful, intricate, complex, mathematically-guided universe we live in came about purely by chance, or that this beautiful, intricate, complex, mathematically-guided universe we live in had an intelligent designer?
Occam's Razor contradicts the basic logical principle that correlation does not imply causation. Therefore it has no place in a logical debate.
It doesn't matter what we think makes more sense, what matters is what's true, although the earth is flat, it doesn't mean we have to accept ID/Creationism altogether.
-
If this forum was a satire, or a parody, I would find it both entertaining and interesting. Unfortunately, it seems that most members have taken the "question everything" ideal and transformed it into "reject everything". The ideologies are very different. One is useful, the other futile.
Well I think you took the wrong message from the forum then because we absolutely do not reject everything. For most of us it's a mental exercise (you can call it masturbation if you like): arguing the plausibility of a flat Earth.
-
It would be impossible to do what you suggest with only 17.6B per year.
Not really. Faking a space program is much cheaper than actually having one. And most people don't bother to check the facts; if they did, it would become instantly clear that NASA is a hoax.
-
Ok, since it will be instantly clear, find me a fact. Just one will do. go.
-
If this forum was a satire, or a parody, I would find it both entertaining and interesting. Unfortunately, it seems that most members have taken the "question everything" ideal and transformed it into "reject everything". The ideologies are very different. One is useful, the other futile.
Well I think you took the wrong message from the forum then because we absolutely do not reject everything. For most of us it's a mental exercise (you can call it masturbation if you like): arguing the plausibility of a flat Earth.
I see. Do you actually believe in a round earth? Or if you don't believe in either one, do you think it's relevant or important to find which one is actually correct? Do you believe that there actually is a correct answer? (not trying to flame, just trying to understand)
-
Ok, since it will be instantly clear, find me a fact. Just one will do. go.
NASA is a hoax = FACT.
The moon landing was fake = FACT.
-
I see. Do you actually believe in a round earth? Or if you don't believe in either one, do you think it's relevant or important to find which one is actually correct? Do you believe that there actually is a correct answer? (not trying to flame, just trying to understand)
I'm reasonably sure that the Earth is round. There's just enough doubt to make speculation interesting.
Don't be mistaken, though. We do have members who actually believe the Earth is flat.
-
Ok, since it will be instantly clear, find me a fact. Just one will do. go.
NASA is a hoax = FACT.
The moon landing was fake = FACT.
Roofles@circular reasoning.
As for the moon landing being fake... I have yet to see any convincing evidence. Every single piece of "evidence" offered has been thoroughly debunked.
-
Ok, since it will be instantly clear, find me a fact. Just one will do. go.
NASA is a hoax = FACT.
The moon landing was fake = FACT.
Roofles@circular reasoning.
As for the moon landing being fake... I have yet to see any convincing evidence. Every single piece of "evidence" offered has been thoroughly debunked.
It's not circular reasoning.
There's plenty of proof that we didn't really land on the moon, and yet no proof that we actually did.
Here's a video in which only ONE of the six "astronauts" who have supposedly been to the moon will swear on the bible that they did:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2265515730495966561
One turns down $5,000 JUST to swear on the bible that he actually landed on the moon. Another actually gets angry and PUNCHES the director when called on his lies.
Here's one of many sites filled with all sorts of different evidence that can be easily found with some quick Googling:
http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html
-
The Moon landing was NOT a hoax, and NASA is not either.
In the FAQ, it says the 'profit' for NASA is $47,000,000. 47 million dollars isn't a whole lot when we're talking about covering up the shape of the earth.
-
I actually would have estimated a much larger "pocketed" profit than that. But hey, if the tinfoil club members already have their own estimate, I won't bother to make one of my own.
$47M???? Really??? You honestly think that the world's greatest conspiracy only earns a profit of $47M? Assuming that more than 47 people are in on the Conspiracy (a very conservative estimate, stipulating that the Conspiracy actualy exists), that's less than $1M each per year. A trifling sum. Who would hoax the entire world over something to explosive for less than $1M per year?
I can't believe that ANYONE would possibly think that such a thing could be.
-
The estimate in that thread is VERY conservitive.
-
If by "conservative" you mean "ridiculous and utterly implausible", then I agree.
-
A "VERY conservitive" estimate, in your words (learn how to spell) would be more like in the tens of billions or more. We are talking about a worldwide conspiracy that includes the US, Russia, and China. Those countries don't exactly get along. Concealing the shape of the Earth would take a hell of a lot more money than $47 million.
-
A "VERY conservitive" estimate, in your words (learn how to spell) would be more like in the tens of billions or more. We are talking about a worldwide conspiracy that includes the US, Russia, and China. Those countries don't exactly get along. Concealing the shape of the Earth would take a hell of a lot more money than $47 million.
Their goal isn't to make people think the Earth is a sphere. They couldn't care less about that, except that it would expose their organization as a fraud. Because they actually believed (and possibly still do believe) that the Earth is a sphere it simply made sense for them to fake it as being that way.
-
A "VERY conservitive" estimate, in your words (learn how to spell) would be more like in the tens of billions or more. We are talking about a worldwide conspiracy that includes the US, Russia, and China. Those countries don't exactly get along. Concealing the shape of the Earth would take a hell of a lot more money than $47 million.
I wasn't using FF at the time so hence had no spellcheck. It's not the entire countries getting along,it's just one agency within those governments. Can you please provide some facts or even crude numbers to support your claim of how much it would cost?
-
Even if their cover up was based only on a fake space program, it would still take billions before it became worthwhile.
We're not talking about cost, we're talking about profit. It must be assumed that the cost must be less than $17B, because that is NASA's budget, and profit for Americans in on the conspiracy could not be more than $17B. Not enough money.
-
Even if their cover up was based only on a fake space program, it would still take billions before it became worthwhile.
They have billions.
-
Even if their cover up was based only on a fake space program, it would still take billions before it became worthwhile.
We're not talking about cost, we're talking about profit. It must be assumed that the cost must be less than $17B, because that is NASA's budget, and profit for Americans in on the conspiracy could not be more than $17B. Not enough money.
You are a flying anteater. See? I can make points without any evidence too.
-
You are a flying anteater. See? I can make points without any evidence too.
So you admit you're being outwitted by a flying anteater.
Except I'm not.
-
Look, NASA gets TONS of money every year! BILLIONS of dollars! There is *plenty* of money in there to make it worth a bit of movie magic.
-
Look, NASA gets TONS of money every year! BILLIONS of dollars! There is *plenty* of money in there to make it worth a bit of movie magic.
What he said.
-
Guys, what are you talking about? The conspiracy compendium didn't estimate that the conspiracy made a profit of $47 million a year, it said that they spent that. Having a budget of billions, the conspiracy makes an enormous profit.
-
Guys, what are you talking about? The conspiracy compendium didn't estimate that the conspiracy made a profit of $47 million a year, it said that they spent that. Having a budget of billions, the conspiracy makes an enormous profit.
Who asked you Mr Butt-In?
This is not a private conversation that I'm eavesdropping on. This is the Internet. This is a public message board. Why shouldn't I add my thoughts? They're constructive and add to the discussion.
-
LOL How do you guys know they spent exactly 47 million dollars?
-
LOL How do you guys know they spent exactly 47 million dollars?
I'm not actually sure where that number came from but I imagine it was estimated based on a number of factors.
-
LOL How do you guys know they spent exactly 47 million dollars?
I'm not actually sure where that number came from but I imagine it was estimated based on a number of factors.
Yeah right, ofcourse it was. That number came from someones ass is what it did.
You dont even know if they use GPS-airships or huge GPS-towers, or how they "protect" and "cover" the giant ice-wall. It could be anywhere from 50 million to 10 billion they should use. If they spent only 50 million, it would mean they could only hire 1000 men for 1 year.
-
LOL How do you guys know they spent exactly 47 million dollars?
I'm not actually sure where that number came from but I imagine it was estimated based on a number of factors.
Yeah right, ofcourse it was. That number came from someones ass is what it did.
You dont even know if they use GPS-airships or huge GPS-towers, or how they "protect" and "cover" the giant ice-wall. It could be anywhere from 50 million to 10 billion they should use. If they spent only 50 million, it would mean they could only hire 1000 men for 1 year.
I don't personally believe anyone is guarding the ice wall. It's possible that they have a couple of guys who helicopter out when someone is getting a little too close for comfort, but other than that, you're right, it wouldn't be feasible to have so many men guarding a wall that very few people (if anyone) are trying to find anyway.
-
LOL How do you guys know they spent exactly 47 million dollars?
I'm not actually sure where that number came from but I imagine it was estimated based on a number of factors.
Yeah right, ofcourse it was. That number came from someones ass is what it did.
You dont even know if they use GPS-airships or huge GPS-towers, or how they "protect" and "cover" the giant ice-wall. It could be anywhere from 50 million to 10 billion they should use. If they spent only 50 million, it would mean they could only hire 1000 men for 1 year.
I agree with this post, the FE theory has way to many speculations.
It would be fine to believe that the world is flat but nobody has just noticed it yet, but when you being up a conspiracy, then it gets ridiculous.
-
I don't personally believe anyone is guarding the ice wall. It's possible that they have a couple of guys who helicopter out when someone is getting a little too close for comfort, but other than that, you're right, it wouldn't be feasible to have so many men guarding a wall that very few people (if anyone) are trying to find anyway.
LOL How do you guys know they spent exactly 47 million dollars?
I'm not actually sure where that number came from but I imagine it was estimated based on a number of factors.
Yeah right, ofcourse it was. That number came from someones ass is what it did.
You dont even know if they use GPS-airships or huge GPS-towers, or how they "protect" and "cover" the giant ice-wall. It could be anywhere from 50 million to 10 billion they should use. If they spent only 50 million, it would mean they could only hire 1000 men for 1 year.
I don't personally believe anyone is guarding the ice wall. It's possible that they have a couple of guys who helicopter out when someone is getting a little too close for comfort, but other than that, you're right, it wouldn't be feasible to have so many men guarding a wall that very few people (if anyone) are trying to find anyway.
And noone would find a giant ice-wall covering the whole fucking planet. And noone would notice planes is actually turning 180 degrees whenever they should be traveling over the Pacific Ocean, so they can "circumnavigate". Noone ever looks up at the sky and see those planes. It is not common for planes to even make a large turn. They fly straight pretty much every time. Noone ever records how much time or fuel a plane spent on going from one place to another, to see if it took the right route. Right, I think I got it now! Noone would be able to tell that planes and boats didn't went straight, but in fact made a 180 degree turn. For boats in a day, for planes in an hour.
By the way, NASA have way more than 1000 men right now, and that is WITHOUT having to cover up a stupid conspiracy like this.
-
It's an ice wall,not an ice dome.
-
It's an ice wall,not an ice dome.
It would still be OVER ten times the size of Africa in order to reach around the whole world.
And no-one have found a continent ten times the size of Africa, that is right infront of their noses.
Oh yeah, that's right. Noone ever explores for new land. How did Europeans find Africa and America and Asia back in the old days?
If you actually knew you flew/sailed through the Southern Ocean, and not the Pacific Ocean (which you would easily be able to tell as a captain/pilot, because you would have to make TWO somewhat sharp 180 degree turn), people would wonder what's "behind" the Pacific Ocean.
But oh yeah, that's right. People wouldn't wonder about that. They wouldn't give a fuck that their plane or boat magically turns left or right.
-
But oh yeah, that's right. People wouldn't wonder about that. They wouldn't give a fuck that their plane or boat magically turns left or right.
Look, you have your opinion, and we have ours. Why are you so angry about that?
-
But oh yeah, that's right. People wouldn't wonder about that. They wouldn't give a fuck that their plane or boat magically turns left or right.
Look, you have your opinion, and we have ours. Why are you so angry about that?
I am not mad, I just cant believe this is all real. You guys must be trolls. It is the most ridiculous conspiracy I have ever heard. And to call people, that don't believe in that conspiracy for idiots is just as stupid.
You NEVER give any proof at all in any of the posts in this forum. Your whole FAQ is one big bullshit. All your theories is flawed. When someone from RET come with real proof, as have happened many times before, you either 1) make up an even more bullshit excuse or 2) just ignore it, or 3) call him a noob.
If this was really serious, you are doing a pretty damn bad job at uncovering this whole conspiracy. But is it really serious? Can people be that stupid?
I have already proven how things can stick to the Earth (fx people, or water), how you only can see the top of things from far away (the masts on ships fx), why the Earth LOOKS flat, why there is no conspiracy, how you can PROVE there is not a constant circumnavigation, how GPS must work and MUCH MORE.
And what have you guys done? Given some one-liners and bullshit. This is ridiculous. You guys can't be real.
-
I don't like the assertion that anyone who doesn't subscribe to the majority views is "stupid." In fact, I think it's very closed minded.
-
I don't like the assertion that anyone who doesn't subscribe to the majority views is "stupid." In fact, I think it's very closed minded.
It isn't about sucscribing to whatever the majority believes. It's subscribiing to believe something as silly as the Earth being flat, and then explaining all the things going on in the world by silly bullshit that everyone can see is not true. And THEN don't answering those people, that actually have solid proof of the Earth being round. You guys are the very closed-minded. I would love to see some PROOF from a Flat Earth'er. Pretty much all RET's would, I believe, and not because we want the world to be flat, but because we like the truth. But there is no proof at all. You guys hate to see proof of a Round Earth, which there is TONS of.
-
Exactly... the problem with FET is that it assumes that it is correct to reject the majority view, instead of realizing that "majority" views on matters of fact occur because there exists such a thing as truth. It's not a question of "blindly following the majority" but of every member of the majority reaching the same conclusion independently.
Like I've said in a different post, FEer (probably) started out with an ideal of "question everything" (which I absolutely agree with) to "reject everything". Which really is stupid. And by stupid I don't mean silly, or ridiculous. I mean it is the product of a retarded mind.