The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Skeptek on June 12, 2009, 11:09:17 AM
-
I apologize if this is in the wrong forum, but I hope it won't be deleted.
In my work, I study the mentality and behavior of alleged believers of "alternative theories." There are basically two types. A very small minority actually believe what they say, but most don't and have at least one ulterior motive to keep professing their claims. Usually, it's easy to understand; fame, money, perceived "respect", etc., but for some others, it is truly mysterious. It can (and usually does) bring them great difficulty, shame, financial ruin and even criminal conviction (see Hampden v. Wallace, US v. William Nelson). Another group that fits this profile to a tee is the "alternative health" crowd where profit is certainly the major attraction.
I find it fascinating to examine the mental processes of both sets. If they actually believe, what causes it? Neurological or psychological pathology could be one explanation. Although it may be mild enough for others to miss, some just cannot hide it. Schizophrenic-like speech is prevalent, and makes communication almost impossible. I've met patients that would fit in perfectly here, but it would likely undermine any treatment.
Another possibility is basic emotional need. Real science can be quite frightening to some, especially those who cannot understand (or agree with) the fundamentals of scientific study. To think that the Universe was made especially for us by some magical super-being can be very comforting. An intelligent beginning to our world suggests that we are all in good hands and ultimately have nothing to worry about. Science on the other hand simply shows reality for what it is; good, bad, dangerous or not, and leaves our fate purely up to us. Some people NEED to believe that despite all that they know, there is a hidden, magic safety net that will protect them from the scary facts of life.
I contend that in our heart of hearts, any believer not suffering from a specific condition, is in fact lying to themselves, whether they realize it or not. I've found this to be so common that we ALL do it occasionally, just not to such an extreme. Never underestimate a person's ability to convince themselves of something that makes life happier. "It's not my terrible diet and lack of exercise that makes me fat, it's genetic." Trying to debate facts with a person such as this always fails because it avoids the actual issue, which is that the believer believes rather than understands. Belief is a personal choice that comes from inside. Understanding comes from the reality without and is the consequential and inevitable result of a cascade of universally knowable facts. I'm betting that like similar sites, Occam's Razor is not used much or tolerated well here at all.
This thread is NOT about details of FE theory or any other. It's about the style of DEBATE and MENTAL STATE of believer (real or not). Still, I'll bet a dollar that this thread gets hijacked like all the others, and the mods will do nothing. Any takers?
-
That's quite an interesting take you have there, and I'd like to congratulate you for making an intelligent, rational thread. Now, to discuss:
I find it fascinating to examine the mental processes of both sets. If they actually believe, what causes it? Neurological or psychological pathology could be one explanation. Although it may be mild enough for others to miss, some just cannot hide it. Schizophrenic-like speech is prevalent, and makes communication almost impossible. I've met patients that would fit in perfectly here, but it would likely undermine any treatment.
I'm not a psychologist, and even I was, I highly doubt that I'd be able to diagnose a mental illness over the Internet, but I don't see FE'ers as having obvious mental issues. Dogplatter and Username, for example, conducted interviews with the BBC, and both lead normal, productive lives.
Another possibility is basic emotional need. Real science can be quite frightening to some, especially those who cannot understand (or agree with) the fundamentals of scientific study. To think that the Universe was made especially for us by some magical super-being can be very comforting. An intelligent beginning to our world suggests that we are all in good hands and ultimately have nothing to worry about. Science on the other hand simply shows reality for what it is; good, bad, dangerous or not, and leaves our fate purely up to us. Some people NEED to believe that despite all that they know, there is a hidden, magic safety net that will protect them from the scary facts of life.
I certainly agree with this, especially with what you're saying about religion. But I don't see how FE'ers could really find emotional comfort from believing that the Earth is flat. There's nothing superstitious about FET.
-
Belief is a personal choice that comes from inside.
I disagree. You can't choose to believe, you can only choose to pretend to believe. That's why it annoys me when people say they believe in the christian god so they don't go to hell in case it's true. However, if you have to choose to believe, then you don't really believe, you're just trying to fool "god" or yourself.
I think FE'ers are the equivalent of conspiracy theorists, since it is dependent on the largest conspiracy theory I think I have ever heard of. I think they want to feel like they are important because they must spread the truth to the entire flat world, or maybe just enlightened since they are not fooled by the great conspiracy. I started a thread that was kind of relevant not too long ago:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29417.msg708948#msg708948
I agree that it is very difficult to keep threads on topic here. Whenever faced with difficult questions, they attempt to change the subject. RE'ers just want to prove them wrong, so they attack any argument they see as weak, even if it's not relevant to the thread's topic. This is why it is so easy for FE'ers to change the subject.
I'm not sure what kind of reply you are hoping for, but I think you would have more luck with the patients you work with. They can't help you understand what they themselves do not. At least your patients know there is something wrong with them, which I assume since they are patients, unless they have been forced into treatment.
-
That's quite an interesting take you have there, and I'd like to congratulate you for making an intelligent, rational thread. Now, to discuss:
OH, thank you for not hijacking it right away. Let's see how far we can float this actual discussion.
I'm not a psychologist, and even I was, I highly doubt that I'd be able to diagnose a mental illness over the Internet, but I don't see FE'ers as having obvious mental issues. Dogplatter and Username, for example, conducted interviews with the BBC, and both lead normal, productive lives.
You are completely correct in that nobody can diagnose over the internet. It's not that I see obvious mental illness (not everywhere, anyway). "Schizophrenic-like speech" only refers to an inability to maintain a cohesive and continuous train of thought in one's speech or writings. Many people display this tendency, even those with no actual "illness." It may be as simple as changing the subject mid-sentence or the full blown: "my dog ate my minister's car because the tin-foil hats can't punch through the frequencies..." Ya know?
...I don't see how FE'ers could really find emotional comfort from believing that the Earth is flat. There's nothing superstitious about FET.
Picture how utterly alone some people are. Then picture what it's like to get messages from others that "agree" with your points of view. Getting a reply on a forum can be a huge anchor of comfort in an otherwise lonely world (for some). I know many people like this. ANY group that accepts you can be a great source of friendship and community that they may not get any other way.
I disagree. You can't choose to believe, you can only choose to pretend to believe. That's why it annoys me when people say they believe in the christian god so they don't go to hell in case it's true. However, if you have to choose to believe, then you don't really believe, you're just trying to fool "god" or yourself.
This may just be semantics because I think I agree with you. I guess I don't see much difference between "believing" as they say, and pretending to believe as we see it.
I think FE'ers are the equivalent of conspiracy theorists, since it is dependent on the largest conspiracy theory I think I have ever heard of. I think they want to feel like they are important because they must spread the truth to the entire flat world, or maybe just enlightened since they are not fooled by the great conspiracy. I started a thread that was kind of relevant not too long ago:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29417.msg708948#msg708948
[puts finger on nose]
Exactly. There's a common thread through all conspiracy theorists, and you hit the nail on the head (or nose).
I agree that it is very difficult to keep threads on topic here. Whenever faced with difficult questions, they attempt to change the subject. RE'ers just want to prove them wrong, so they attack any argument they see as weak, even if it's not relevant to the thread's topic. This is why it is so easy for FE'ers to change the subject.
I couldn't agree more.
I'm not sure what kind of reply you are hoping for...
These were EXACTLY the replies I hoped to get, but didn't dream I might.
... but I think you would have more luck with the patients you work with. They can't help you understand what they themselves do not. At least your patients know there is something wrong with them, which I assume since they are patients, unless they have been forced into treatment.
I don't actually work with patients so much as study them. I am a researcher, not a clinician. The funny thing is, most patients do NOT know there is anything different about them. Indeed, a big part of getting better is simply recognizing that they ARE different in some way. As they learn about themselves through treatment, they become more aware of their own condition and some are able to grow emotionally to the point where they ARE able to help us understand what mental processes brought them to the clinic to begin with. Some of the finest psychologists & psychiatrists were and even still are patients (don't let that keep anyone from seeking professional help!). Understanding from experience can be the most profound knowledge there is, if one has been able to overcome the limitations that experience may induce.
Thank you all so much. I was worried that this would not be a forum I could be enthusiastic about, but perhaps I have a place here.
-
Thank you all so much. I was worried that this would not be a forum I could be enthusiastic about, but perhaps I have a place here.
Welcome aboard.
(http://whitecoatrants.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/lucy-doctor-stand.jpg)
-
Well some of the FE believers are also religious and probably use one to support the other.
I think the others probably believe the Earth is flat simply because everyone else believes it is round. I imagine it gives them some inner glow when they think how stupid the rest of the population is for falling for the conspiracy and how not being sucked im themselves elevates them from the herd.
Is there some kind of psychological designation for that?
And the rest are trolls of course.
-
I'm betting that like similar sites, Occam's Razor is not used much or tolerated well here at all.
Flat Earth Theory currently explains the way that stars move across the night sky by 'layered, multiple, counter-rotating, disc-like star systems' in the sky and 'bendy light' which distorts the perspective-induced elipses back into perfect circles:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29590.0
(Contrast this with the simple Round Earth Model of a round Earth spinning under a spherical sky that surrounds it seamlessly.)
Occam's razor is clearly just something that philosophers use to shave with!
Edit: and by "Flat Earth Theory" I mean Tom Bishop ... I think that I was trying to be generous towards his endeavours and those of his fellow Flat Earthers like Levee (who has his/her own, completely different theories about how and why stars move as they do).
-
OK - you've got me really interested now.
What do you think about the state of mind of those "Round Earthers" like myself who engage in whole-hearted yet open-minded debate with the "Flat Earthers" around here?
-
Flat Earth Theory currently explains the way that stars move across the night sky by 'layered, multiple, counter-rotating, disc-like star systems' in the sky and 'bendy light' which distorts the perspective-induced elipses back into perfect circles:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29590.0
(Contrast this with the simple Round Earth Model of a round Earth spinning under a spherical sky that surrounds it seamlessly.)
Occam's razor is clearly just something that philosophers use to shave with!
Edit: and by "Flat Earth Theory" I mean Tom Bishop ... I think that I was trying to be generous towards his endeavours and those of his fellow Flat Earthers like Levee (who has his/her own, completely different theories about how and why stars move as they do).
Indeed, I must agree that FE must the most complex theory I have ever seen. It's no wonder there is no consensus about it, the various layers of complexity intertwine in a soup of contradictions that fight with each other for dominance. It's a boiling cauldron of intersecting dots.
I picture of a room full of individuals all looking at a giant, perfectly square grid of dots. Each of them connects some or all of the dots in a "pattern" that they claim to see. Some of the resulting patterns are similar to one another, but almost all have differences.
From the outside, we observe an argument over the fine points and details of an overall reality that is not evident.
OK - you've got me really interested now.
What do you think about the state of mind of those "Round Earthers" like myself who engage in whole-hearted yet open-minded debate with the "Flat Earthers" around here?
What I think about those like you (and myself) is twofold. We enjoy a good, logical debate because it stimulates mental process and keeps our minds sharp. In addition to that, I think there is also a component that speaks to a need for the furtherance of science. Every serious skeptic that I've witnessed engaging such issues has shown themselves to be true scientific thinkers that do not rely on fallacy to satiate their need for emotional comfort. It is this cold, unemotional assessment of real evidence that distinguishes them.
Edit: I think the need for furthering science stems from the basic desire to contribute one's own abilities and energy to the overall progress of mankind's understanding and mastery over our universe. We see anything that contradicts to be something that deserves effort to correct. This can manifest in myriad ways. One small example is casual and interesting debate about almost any issue.
-
I just wanted to add another thought. I think it is safe to say that what I call "serious skeptics" share a common belief (please say if you don't) that any "conclusion" that does not come from respectful debate that is inclusive of any reasonable position is not going to be generally acceptable in the long run.
Equally so, any conclusion that includes an assertion or debate technique that isn't agreed as reasonable will be similarly rejected eventually unless independently confirmed by other parties and/or methods.
Therefore, reasonable claims and proper debate structure is required to prevent a "contaminated" and therefore irrelevant result. It is the responsibility of anyone who truly wishes to reach an accurate conclusion to agree to and abide by some common set of debating rules. These rules have been well established by the great thinkers of history and can be referenced from countless sources throughout published thought.
-
Therefore, reasonable claims and proper debate structure is required to prevent a "contaminated" and therefore irrelevant result. It is the responsibility of anyone who truly wishes to reach an accurate conclusion to agree to and abide by some common set of debating rules.
Noble sentiments indeed.
(With which I whole-heartedly concur.)
-
What would you make of someone who refuses to accept reasonable evidence which disproves their beliefs, but instead invents ever more complex reasons why they have been right all along?
For example somone might believe that the stars in the night sky (above the Flat Earth) move around on interlacing discs/gears ...
Then when challenged that this would leave areas of black sky without any stars (inbetween the discs) which nobody has ever seen ...
Goes on to say that there must, therefore, be further discs spinning away above the gaps between the original discs.
It is always hard to know, though, whether such individuals are really engaged in some sort of self-delusion, or whether they are just defending their point of view in a viagourous, academic way (as an intellectual exercise).
-
I think there is only one way to decide "not judge" someone's veracity. One must look carefully at their approach to the debate.
I think that some people debate to become wiser, and to possibly give others wisdom as well (show them the truth / convince them). They may have an opinion already, but are always open to other options at some level.
I think others pretend to debate, when actually they are ONLY trying to convince and refuse to entertain any other view.
Where it gets weird is when someone is not open about their intent or not consistent in that intent. You may get what appears to be an attempt at logical deduction and have it deteriorate into fallacy, eventually resulting in the loss of what you may have thought was common ground to work from. If their original intent was only to convince (or became that mid-stream) then you were drawn in under false pretenses and the debate is nonproductive.
If a debater is not familiar with good debate structure, they may not be aware of it at all. In fact, they may actually be convinced that you are only making up your own rules so you can "win." I see this in almost every discussion involving true believers.
Adherence to an accepted debate framework is the only path to meaningful knowledge. To avoid it is to purposely avoid knowledge.
I frequently ask myself: "Are you trying to convince or debate?" If I'm deviating from accepted rules, I've forfeited the debate. I believe it's something all scientists must struggle with to remain objective, open and remain emotionally un-attached to the conclusion. Ultimately it is the facts that decide, not us. We merely seek to become aware of the facts in the best way possible.
Edit: Since all human perception is imperfect, we can only compare notes with one another (debate) to determine the most likely truth. Majority does not always work, but with good structure in scientific study as well as meaningful debate, consensus (across all mankind) is the best we have.
-
Well some of the FE believers are also religious and probably use one to support the other.
I think the others probably believe the Earth is flat simply because everyone else believes it is round. I imagine it gives them some inner glow when they think how stupid the rest of the population is for falling for the conspiracy and how not being sucked im themselves elevates them from the herd.
Is there some kind of psychological designation for that?
And the rest are trolls of course.
I believe that every otherwise healthy adult that subscribes to FE theory is by definition religious. One might argue semantics about the difference between religion and philosophy, but beyond that, I don't see room within a truly scientific belief structure for FE.
Wanting to fit in is a universal human trait. We need acceptance. For some, it may be more difficult to find, which may make it a higher priority than the average person. If one also has trouble with scientific deduction, that can create the proper conditions for a Grand Conspiracy theorist. If you add emotional problems or other issues, zealous behavior of all kinds may result.
There are lots of "designations" for them. I'd love to list my favorites here, but I don't think I've been in these boards long enough yet. That is a good point to address. I wonder what others think.
-
And the rest are trolls of course.
"Trolling" would explain one behaviour trait that you see all too often around here:
People making terse (unnecessarily short) answers which don't really give an explanation, but are more about "I'm clever; you're stupid; you'll have to keep asking me questions so I can drip-feed you my wisdom".
Ego massaging, if you will ...
-
Yes. Troll is absolutely one name that applies in an online setting.
From an overall societal point of view, there's a common personality trait of wanting to be declared right and therefore respected in a group. It's hard to believe (or perhaps not) that a grown person would actually lie about their own beliefs just to be respected in a group. For some, it is better to be completely dishonest about oneself than to be just another member of a non-controversial group.
I think that "proponent" should also be considered in this group. The word describes one's desire to bring others to believe one's own stated position. It shows that one isn't really out to learn on an individual or collective basis. They are out to teach, to spread the word, to tip the balance, to bring legitimacy to their cause by increasing the membership. It's not a scientific pursuit. It's a political one.
A scientific theorist will always adhere strictly to rigid debate structure and will only use actual scientific evidence (acquired using The Scientific Method and already accepted by both sides).
-
A scientific theorist will always adhere strictly to rigid debate structure and will only use actual scientific evidence (acquired using The Scientific Method and already accepted by both sides).
Like the rigid scientific evidence you guys give us for gravitons, dark matter, and bending space?
-
No. Not like those at all. It's clear that you do not understand.
-
A scientific theorist will always adhere strictly to rigid debate structure and will only use actual scientific evidence (acquired using The Scientific Method and already accepted by both sides
Like the rigid scientific evidence you guys give us for gravitons,
Gravitons are, at present theoretical - in the same way that atoms were theoretical to the Ancient Greeks but have since been proven.
Gravitons are, if you will, a scientific hypothesis which will probably be proved or disproved by scientific experiments in the future.
Nothing wrong in that from a scientific point-of-view.
dark matter, and bending space?
Two words: gravitational lensing.
-
If you guys knew the first thing about science, and the "Scientific Method" you would know that "Graviton Theory" fails the Scientific Method. The Scientific Method, as you will recall from class, requires one to come up with a hypothesis and then test that hypothesis.
Here's a link that should be right up your alley: http://www.biology4kids.com/files/studies_scimethod.html
(http://www.biology4kids.com/files/art/study_scimeth3_240x180.gif)
As we can see, "gravitons" fails right after the first step. No experiment has ever suggested or demonstrated "gravitons".
Neither does bending space, dark matter, quintessence, the metric expansion of space, the idea of gravity holding us to the earth, or the idea of gravity forming the earth into a ball, have one tinge of experimental evidence to it.
Two words: gravitational lensing.
That would be an observation. Not an experiment. Nothing about that observation demonstrates that space is bending, gravitons are pulling in the photons, or a Newtonian force is occurring. It's an observation and a guess, which is a hypothesis. Still stuck at stage one.
-
Apples & oranges.
You are comparing a single, esoteric theory to an all-encompassing explanation of the universe.
Say what you will, but what you have presented does not meet the requirements of the scientific method.
You are attacking the debater rather than their position.
-
If you guys knew the first thing about science, and the "Scientific Method" you would know that "Graviton Theory" fails the Scientific Method. The Scientific Method, as you will recall from your fourth grade elementary school class, requires one to come up with a hypothesis and then test that hypothesis.
Here's a link that should be right up your alley: http://www.biology4kids.com/files/studies_scimethod.html
It has become crystal clear to me now ...
That you are not somebody who is interetsed in rational debate and the acquisition of shared knowlege ...
But that you are, instead, someone who takes a juvenille delight in saying rude, insulting or hurtful things to other people in order to feel good about himself.
So at best you are a "troll", and at worst you are a ******** and ******* bully.
As we can see, "gravitons" FAILS right after the first step. No experiment has ever suggested or demonstrated "gravitons".
It is well-known that there are four fundamental forces in The Universe:
1. Electromagnetism which is mediated by the photon
2. The strong nuclear force which is mediated by gluons
3. The weak nuclear force which is mediated by the W and Z bosons
All particles which have been discovered ...
And ..
4. Gravity which is probably mediated by an as yet undiscovered particle which has been called the graviton.
Therefore we have both experimental data and a model of "fundamental interactions" which leads us to hypothesise the existence of gravitons:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction
And any *real* scientist like me can see that none of the above violates any of the principles of science.
All of which is a lot of "pearls" which I am for some insane reason casting before the "swine" of you and your fanatical and ******* Flat Earth chums.
Edit: removed three uncalled-for adjectives - I got carried away and I apologise unresrevedly.
-
This is just a reminder of how off-topic this thread has gone.
The simple fact that this thread is so badly bastardized proves beyond any doubt that the participants have no desire for an actual debate. They are side-tracking in every way possible to avoid being confronted with real science.
Very predictable, this is.
-
So at best you are a "troll", and at worst you are a ******** and ******* bully.
All of which is a lot of "pearls" which I am for some insane reason casting before the "swine" of you and your fanatical and ******* Flat Earth chums.
I have removed three uncalled-for adjectives - I got carried away and I apologise to Tom and The Flat Earth community unresrevedly.
-
Tesla,
You do that a lot (edit your posts to remove detrimental content). I find it quite refreshing that you are one, willing to admit that you said something you regret, and two, that you always leave the evidence of your edits showing that you are also honest.
Sometimes, I have trouble admitting that I've said something inappropriate. It takes a real gentleman to do it right out loud and in front of everyone on a consistent basis.
Personal restraint can be the hardest part of debating an issue that we feel strongly about. What makes a good debater is the ability to keep ones emotions separated from the factual framework. The pursuit of it makes us all better scientists and better people.
Kudos to everyone who makes the effort to be civil to one another. That's not to say that I don't have a mean streak, but I do acknowledge that I'm not perfect, and thought that I should do so BEFORE I lose my cool.
-
Apples & oranges.
You are comparing a single, esoteric theory to an all-encompassing explanation of the universe.
Say what you will, but what you have presented does not meet the requirements of the scientific method.
You are attacking the debater rather than their position.
No. It's not just "Gravitons". It's all of it. The very concept of a Round Earth has never progressed past the hypothesis stage. Do you think Aristotle put his observations to the test? No he didn't. The Round Earth model is built on "hypothesis".
-
The Round Earth model is built on "hypothesis".
Upon what, pray tell, is The Flat Earth Model built upon, then?
Editted for appalling grammar!
Editted further for appalling spelling!
-
MODERATOR!! Where the hell are you?
By allowing every thread to be taken so far off topic, the mods are proving that this forum is NOT about serious debate. It's about preaching the gospel of the Church of the Flat Earth.
-
The very concept of a Round Earth has never progressed past the hypothesis stage.
Oh but it has:
1. I have hypothesised that The Earth is a spinning globe set in a seamless spherical sky.
2. I have gathered evidence which agress with this hypothesis - the "star-trail" pictures.
(See http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29590.0)
3. Therefore my hypothesis can be elevated to the status of a theory.
4. This theory will then stand as being true until somebody else can present evidence of an observation which does nof fit, or is not predicetd by, my original model.
That is how science works -and you can trust me because science is my job.
So Tom (or Levee): do you have any evidence that does not fit my model?
Edit: Sorry for staying off-topic, but I desperately want Tom to address the above.
-
The Round Earth model is built on "hypothesis".
Upon what, pray tell, is The Flat Earth Model built upon, then?
Editted for appalling grammar!
Editted further for appalling spelling!
It's built on experimental evidence. Please see the literature in my signature link for a wealth of it.
Oh but it has:
1. I have hypothesised that The Earth is a spinning globe set in a seamless spherical sky.
The observation of spinning stars is not evidence for a "ball earth". It's evidence for spinning stars.
2. I have gathered evidence which agress with this hypothesis - the "star-trail" pictures.
(See http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29590.0)
3. Therefore my hypothesis can be elevated to the status of a theory.
Nope. The Scientific Method requires an experiment to test a hypothesis. What experiment did you conduct? An observation is not an experiment. It's an observation.
-
Tom, you are missing his point.
You keep referring to details about your belief, when you should be talking about how you have reached that belief.
Your methods are not scientific, but you are claiming that they are. You are being disingenuous by misrepresenting the basis for your belief.
That's not to say that your reasons for your beliefs are not valid. They most certainly are. Only you can judge your own choices and their value to you.
But when you claim to be scientific, you are effectively invalidating your own values by presenting them as something they are not. In the proper context, you cannot be disputed. In the world of science, however, you don't have a leg to stand on.
Have some respect for yourself and your own beliefs by calling them what they are. Not science.
-
Tom, you are missing his point.
You keep referring to details about your belief, when you should be talking about how you have reached that belief.
Your methods are not scientific, but you are claiming that they are. You are being disingenuous by misrepresenting the basis for your belief.
That's not to say that your reasons for your beliefs are not valid. They most certainly are. Only you can judge your own choices and their value to you.
But when you claim to be scientific, you are effectively invalidating your own values by presenting them as something they are not. In the proper context, you cannot be disputed. In the world of science, however, you don't have a leg to stand on.
Have some respect for yourself and your own beliefs by calling them what they are. Not science.
Probably the most insightful post concerning Tom's personality I've seen on this site yet. My own take on Tom has been that of an arrested adolescent suffering from some strange form of oppositional defiant disorder, which interferes with his ability to post coherent thought in an online forum.
-
Very well put!
-
But when you claim to be scientific, you are effectively invalidating your own values by presenting them as something they are not. In the proper context, you cannot be disputed. In the world of science, however, you don't have a leg to stand on.
Have some respect for yourself and your own beliefs by calling them what they are. Not science.
Wrong. We're the scientists. You guys... you're just fantasizers.
Lets get one thing through your head since you think so highly of the Scientific Method: The Scientific Method requires an experiment to be conducted to demonstrate that a hypothesis is true. Remember that little image I provided on the previous page:
(http://www.biology4kids.com/files/art/study_scimeth3_240x180.gif)
Just compare Rowbotham to Aristotile.
- Rowbotham has conducted a plethora of experimental evidence to demonstrate that his hypothesis was true.
- Aristotile conducted no experiments for his hypothesis'. Aristotile just provided some observations and hypothesis'. He did no experiments to prove that his hypothesis' were true.
Now compare Rowbotham to Einstein.
- Rowbotham has conducted many experiments to come to the truth of the matter. His work has been peer reviewed by independent researchers.
- Einstein never conducted any experiments to prove that the fabric of space-time bends. His observation of "gravitational lensing" did nothing to prove that the fabric of space-time bends. It was an observation, not an experiment.
None of your "pillars of science" in the fields of RE astronomy have conducted a single controlled experiment to demonstrate a hypothesis to be true. Newton never did any experiments to prove that gravity was a force. Copernicus never did any experiments to prove that the earth revolved around the sun. Galileo never did any experiments. Stephen Hawking never did any experiments to prove that the metric of space-time expands. It's all observation and hypothesis. Never once has an experiment been conducted.
The closest thing you guys have to an experiment was when Eratosthenes did his little two stick shadow experiment. And he assumed that the earth was a globe in his calculations. When those calculations assume that the earth is a plane the sun is calculated to be very close to the earth.
That's it. That's all you have. There is no experimental evidence which suggests that the earth is a globe, that stars are far away, that space-time bends, that gravitons exist, that the earth was formed through 'gravity', or any of that. It's all hypothesis. Your "science" does not get past stage one of the Scientific Method.
Round Earth Astronomy is not a science. The Scientific Method is not even attempted. You are not "scientists". You do not conduct experiments. You conduct observations and hypothesis. Fantasizers, pure and simple.
-
I think we're both right about Tom, Skeptek.
-
Tom,
You seem intent on teaching us. That is not debate.
I may have had too much airline water...
Did he seriously just reference Rowbotham?
Did he seriously just say "...astronomy is not science"?
WOW. Good stuff, man. 8)
-
Did he seriously just reference Rowbotham?
Rowbotham has provided many experiments which pertain to the subject matter. As have a number of other authors. Please see the resources in my signature link.
Did he seriously just say "...astronomy is not science"?
Uh, it's not. Astronomy is called an "observing science" because it it not a science the way chemistry and biology are a science. With chemistry the researcher can experiment with different elements under controlled conditions and come to the absolute truth of a hypothesis. Chemists can put their subject matter in test tubes and influence it with various types of stimulus. Astronomers can't put the cosmos in the lab, or influence them. No experimentation on the cosmos can be conducted at all. With astronomy the astronomer is stuck here on earth and can only observe and hypothesize.
No one considers astronomy to be a true science. Since it consists of nothing by observation and hypothesis it is actually not even a science at all. It does not get past stage one of the scientific method. Einstein never experimented with anything. Newton didn't experiment. Galileo and Copernicus never experimented. There has never been controlled experimentation what-so-ever in matters of astronomy.
-
Did he seriously just reference Rowbotham?
Rowbotham has provided many experiments which pertain to the subject matter. As have a number of other authors. Please see the resources in my signature link.
Did he seriously just say "...astronomy is not science"?
Uh, it's not. Astronomy is called an "observing science" because it it not a science the way chemistry and biology are a science. With chemistry the researcher can experiment with different elements under controlled conditions and come to the absolute truth of a hypothesis. With astronomy the astronomer is stuck here on earth and can only observe and hypothesize. The astronomer cannot conduct controlled experiments on the cosmos.
No one considers astronomy to be a true science. Since it consists of nothing by observation and hypothesis it is not even a science at all. It does not get past stage one of the scientific method. Einstein never experimented with anything. Newton didn't experiment. Galileo and Copernicus never experimented. There has never been controlled experimentation what-so-ever in matters of astronomy.
Please go back to school.
Anyone catch the "Please go back to school." before he realized that he is teaching, not debating and deleted it? I'm glad I did.
Tom,
You must be able to see that you are in the presence of people who will not accept some of the things you are saying.
I think honesty requires you to be up front about what edits you are making to your posts. You might take a lesson from 30,000 Gauss.
-
Oh but it has:
1. I have hypothesised that The Earth is a spinning globe set in a seamless spherical sky.
The observation of spinning stars is not evidence for a "ball earth". It's evidence for spinning stars.
Ah, but my Round Earth Spherical Sky Model can explain the motion of all stars at all points around The World ...
Wheras your Multiple Layered Counter-Rotating Disc-Like Star Systems cannot.
Therefore my model is better.
2. I have gathered evidence which agress with this hypothesis - the "star-trail" pictures.
(See http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29590.0)
3. Therefore my hypothesis can be elevated to the status of a theory.
Nope. The Scientific Method requires an experiment to test a hypothesis. What experiment did you conduct?
The experiment was getting somebody else to take star-trail pictures.
Star-trails which support my model, not yours.
An observation is not an experiment. It's an observation.
All experiments are based on careful and meticulous observations so I fail to see your point.
-
Hey, Tesla,
You know that you are just playing into his game, right? He doesn't want to debate. He wants to teach us all how stupid we are.
-
All experiments are based on careful and meticulous observations so I fail to see your point.
Observations are not experiments. Scientific experiments involve a control and an influence of variables.
See http://www.esse.ou.edu/glossary_st.html :
CONTROLLED EXPERIMENT: A form of scientific investigation in which one variable, termed the independent or control variable, is manipulated to reveal the effect on another variable, termed the dependent or responding variable, while all other variables in the system are held fixed
Anyone with an IQ above room temperature can see that astronomy does not follow the scientific method and is stuck at the hypothesis stage.
When a science is stuck at hypothesis, guess what? That makes it a pseudoscience. Astronomers observe and hypothesize their "gravitons" the same way people of religion observe and hypothesize that "god did it" or when ESP believers imagine that "brain waves" can influence daily events. It's the same thing. No valid experiments are conducted. The need for experimentation is denied. The "researchers" just have their ideas and that's it. None of their ideas follow, or attempts to follow, the Scientific Method.
It's not a science, and you're not "scientists".
-
You're right, Tom. I am stupid. It's a good thing I've got you to educate me.
Just make sure that you don't address the actual topic of this thread. Keep talking about the details of each part of your beliefs.
I wonder how long a rat can run around a maze before he realizes that HE is the rat and not the researcher. LOL.
-
Einstein never experimented with anything.
But Arthur Eddington did observe that the orbit of the planet Mercury was better explained by Einstein's Relativity than Newtonian Mechanics.
Although this wasn't a true experiment in a lab. with as control it is still science.
Astronomers observe The Universe, make hypotheses and then see if further observations continue to fit their models or not - all perfectly part of the scientific method.
Eddington also acquired the first pictures of star-light bending around The Sun (during an eclipse) which proved that Einstein's curved space-time exists.
And the latter is a proper experiment even though it isn't in a lab. - Eddington effectively used The Sun to bend the star-light.
So there: an astronomer performing a proper experiment with a control - stars at night no Sun - versus the experiment - stars with Sun in the way, Sun being eclipsed.
All good and proper science, in my professional opinion!
-
@ skeptek: i think this is a highly interesting topic you brought up here. i'm no expert on this field but i think you're right with everything you said. the problem with the topic is, that a fe'er posting here would be like someone telling his psychaitrist what's wrong with him. as many fe'ers (as well as any other persons in a similar situation) won't see anything wrong in their own behaviour this topic begged for going off topic
-
Hey, Tesla,
You know that you are just playing into his game, right? He doesn't want to debate. He wants to teach us all how stupid we are.
I am beginning to appreciate that fact.
How fortunate that you showed up when you did to highlight this!
-
@ skeptek: i think this is a highly interesting topic you brought up here. i'm no expert on this field but i think you're right with everything you said. the problem with the topic is, that a fe'er posting here would be like someone telling his psychaitrist what's wrong with him. as many fe'ers (as well as any other persons in a similar situation) won't see anything wrong in their own behaviour this topic begged for going off topic
Thanks for the post. You are absolutely correct. But then, I'm not here to educate or cure them.
-
But Arthur Eddington did observe that the orbit of the planet Mercury was better explained by Einstein's Relativity than Newtonian Mechanics.
OBSERVE is right. That's all they can ever do. Einstein made up some stuff about space bending and tied the variables of his equations to observations of astronomical events. No one observed "space bending" in any experiment. The idea of bending space is a complete hypothesis. Einstein might well have said that his equations were caused by subatomic fairies. It would have led to the same road.
Although this wasn't a true experiment in a lab. with as control it is still science.
Nope. Observation is not science. Anyone can observe something and attribute it to a miracle, or an act of god. That doesn't make it a science. If no controlled experimentation is performed it does not follow the scientific method and is therefore not a science.
Astronomers observe The Universe, make hypotheses and then see if further observations continue to fit their models or not - all perfectly part of the scientific method.
Uh, that's not what the scientific method says at all. Please dig up your elementary school text books.
The Scientific Method: hypothesis -> experiment -> refinement of the idea ->experiment -> final conclusion
Astronomy: hypothesis -> conclusion
Eddington also acquired the first pictures of star-light bending around The Sun (during an eclipse) which proved that Einstein's curved space-time exists.
Another "observation" which doesn't prove anything about the fabric of space-time bending. Did Eddington see the fabric of space-time bend, or did he see some light bending?
And the latter is a proper experiment even though it isn't in a lab. - Eddington effectively used The Sun to bend the star-light.
Nope. What he did was make an observation which could come to any number of interpretations and hypothesis'. Did gravitons influence those photons? How about sub atomic fairies? There was no controlled experimentation or an influence of variables.
So there: an astronomer performing a proper experiment with a control - stars at night no Sun - versus the experiment - stars with Sun in the way, Sun being eclipsed.
No. It was an observation of a stellar event. It was not an experiment. There was no control. Please revise the concept of a controlled experiment.
CONTROLLED EXPERIMENT: A form of scientific investigation in which one variable, termed the independent or control variable, is manipulated to reveal the effect on another variable, termed the dependent or responding variable, while all other variables in the system are held fixed
All good and proper science, in my professional opinion!
Hypothesis which directly leads to conclusion is never good science. It's the very opposite of good science.
-
Please dig up your elementary school text books.
Why do you feel the need to continually make insinuations about our (poor) level of intelligence?
You just come across as a fanatic, and not in a good way.
The Scientific Method: hypothesis -> experiment -> refinement of the idea ->experiment -> final conclusion
Astronomy: hypothesis -> conclusion
OK - I actually find your denigration of "observational science" interesting and worthy of debate.
Why? Because, as a physicist, I am used to having experimental controls (as Rutherford once said: "In science, all is physics; the rest is stamp-collecting!).
But ...
And it's a big but ...
I would suggest that "observational science" can still stay true to the scientific method.
You just have to have a flexible mind in order to appreciate that which, as a fanatic, I fear you do not possess.
This is my take on astronomy, which I would like you to think about rationally rather than just firing back a zealous response:
1. Observe something (e.g. rotation of stars above the UK)
2. Make a model that explains the observations (e.g. Round Earth Spherical Sky)
3. Make a fresh observation (e.g rotation of stars above Australia)
And this fresh observation is sufficiently like an "experiment" for it to be science, IMHO.
Why?
Because it gives us fresh data / information - which is all that experimenation is, the acquisition of fresh data.
4. Assess if the model still fits the new data.
If yes, model holds; if not, get a new model!
5. Repeat step 3.
6. Repeat step 4.
And so on.
So again I suggest that acquiring "fresh observations" is equivalent to doing "experiments" ...
Because both give you new data with which to teast your model / theory.
-
No. It was an observation of a stellar event. It was not an experiment. There was no control. Please revise the concept of a controlled experiment.
CONTROLLED EXPERIMENT: A form of scientific investigation in which one variable, termed the independent or control variable, is manipulated to reveal the effect on another variable, termed the dependent or responding variable, while all other variables in the system are held fixed
Re Eddington's eclipse experiment:-
The "independent variable" was the mass of the intervening object (Sun, or no Sun)
The "dependent variable" was the angular separation of the star near the Sun compared to a star far away.
The angular separation was measured at night with no Sun - the "control" - and during the eclipse; so two observations, not one.
Edit:
And the only thing that changed was the presence of The Sun so "all other variables in the system [were] held fixed".
So it meets your definition of a "controlled experiment" perfectly, IMHO.
-
I would suggest that "observational science" can still stay true to the scientific method.
Absolutely not. Observing something and then making up an explanation, observing some more, and then making up some more, can never constitute true science. You have never demonstrated or proved your fundemental assumptions in the first place. You are just "making it up" as you go along, which is exactly how astronomers came up with 'Dark Energy' and 'Quintessence'. Since their observations didn't fit their ideas of gravity, they just made up a bunch of stuff to fill in the areas where gravity failed.
Never once is it considered that their gravity, general relativity/gravitons are incorrect. They just built upon their hopothesis' with increasingly elaborate ones.
Re Eddington's eclipse experiment:-
The "independent variable" was the mass of the intervening object (Sun, or no Sun)
The "dependent variable" was the angular separation of the star near the Sun compared to a star far away.
The angular separation was measured at night with no Sun - the "control" - and during the eclipse; so two observations, not one.
Edit:
And the only thing that changed was the presence of The Sun so "all other variables in the system [were] held fixed".
So it meets your definition of a "controlled experiment" perfectly, IMHO.
All of that is observation of a stellar event. All we can tell from his observation was that light bends in the presence of the sun. Nowhere is the bending of space-time suggested or demonstrated.
It's an observation. Not an experiment. Why light behaves in the presence of the sun is a complete mystery. There is no way for Eddington to tell why light bends in the presence of the sun. Gravitons, fairies, bending-space, who can say?
-
Absolutely not. Observing something and then making up an explanation, observing some more, and then making up some more, can never constitute true science.
So taking observations, forming a hypothesis based off of them, and then testing that hypothesis with more observations is not science? It's all well and good calling things like dark energy made up, but unless you can propose a better hypothesis to take it's place, I see little reason to dismiss it.
All of that is observation of a stellar event. All we can tell from his observation was that light bends in the presence of the sun. Nowhere is the bending of space-time suggested or demonstrated.
It's an observation. Not an experiment. Why light behaves in the presence of the sun is a complete mystery. There is no way for Eddington to tell why light bends in the presence of the sun. Gravitons, fairies, bending-space, who can say?
You could say something similar for any kind of scientific experiment. You can't tell exactly what is happening, you can only observe it's effects. This doesn't make it stop being science.
-
Observers may notice that this thread is entirely about the study of how the believer chooses to believe, and how it affects their debating styles, rather than the debate of any actual theory.
And yet, the theorist happily demonstrates for us the very behaviors this topic has been setup to study, as though on cue. The desire to preach to anyone who is willing to engage them in their way of "debating" is overwhelming to the point where they have begun to completely ignore the fact that they are performing under a spotlight.
This affords us an interesting opportunity to inject test arguments into the stream to observe the resulting behavioral response. Any takers? Other FE advocates would be good too, believer or not.
-
So taking observations, forming a hypothesis based off of them, and then testing that hypothesis with more observations is not science?
ABSOLUTELY NOT.
You guys don't know the first thing about "real" science. I don't know what substandard schools you attended, because the Scientific Method is required in all sciences. Astronomy is not a science. Here's another image displaying the steps of the Scientific Method:
(http://www.stingerbeescience.com/overview_scientific_method2.gif)
See that? Astronomy fails right where the "test with an experiment" part comes in. Newton never did any experiments to prove his hypothesis of gravity as a force. Copernicus never did any experimentation to prove his hypothesis of the earth is revolving around the sun. No experimentation is ever attempted. The need for it is denied entirely.
The steps in Astronomy are just Observe -> Interpret, just like any religion or pseudoscience.
It's all well and good calling things like dark energy made up, but unless you can propose a better hypothesis to take it's place, I see little reason to dismiss it.
You don't see a reason to dismiss a made up hypothesis without evidence what-so-ever to back it up? When science remains at the hypothesis stage, it is not a science. Science requires, you know, actual "experiments" to be conducted to come to the truth of the matter.
If you are content with hypothesis, you may as well join some cult.
You could say something similar for any kind of scientific experiment.
No. Other sciences are conducted fundamentally different to Astronomy.
For example, it's believed that water is a molecule made from H20. Two hydrogens and one oxygen. To test this we can use the electrolysis of water to come to the absolute truth of the matter. Electricity separates the elements into sealed of flasks. One element comes out twice as much as the other.
If there is any question such as "maybe it's not really oxygen", the hypothesis can be put to the test (important!) by conducting an experiment like lighting it on fire, mixing it with another element, or airing into a sealed container with an insect. The experimenter can try all sorts of different things to come to the truth of the matter. If there's another question it can always be put to the test to see if the hypothesis has merit. Whatever the question might be, it can be put to the test. Each and every variable can be controlled and modified for whatever the experiment is testing. In the end, after many successive hypothesis' and experimental trials, the experimenter can come to the concrete conclusion that the oxygen in water is the same oxygen known elsewhere.
Astronomy cannot come to conclusions of any sort. Nothing can be put to the test. It cannot be studied in such a manner. It exists as one hypothesis built on another, rambled off in mumbling pretension.
You can't tell exactly what is happening, you can only observe it's effects. This doesn't make it stop being science.
Yes, actually it does. If you only observe and hypothesize, it is not a science. Observation and hypothesis is what religions do.
What astronomy does is not "science". It doesn't even pretend to be. Astronomers are not "scientists".
-
Observers may notice that this thread is entirely about the study of how the believer chooses to believe, and how it affects their debating styles, rather than the debate of any actual theory.
If you've been following along you would realize that it is actually the REer who "chooses to believe".
When a "science" remains at hypothesis and its users neglect to put their ideas to the test it's called a "belief," and is therefore a faith issue.
And yet, the theorist happily demonstrates for us the very behaviors this topic has been setup to study, as though on cue. The desire to preach to anyone who is willing to engage them in their way of "debating" is overwhelming to the point where they have begun to completely ignore the fact that they are performing under a spotlight.
Please recall that you started this thread and said
"A scientific theorist will always adhere strictly to rigid debate structure and will only use actual scientific evidence (acquired using The Scientific Method and already accepted by both sides)."
Your science does not follow, or attempt to follow, the Scientific Method. You've been defeated. You are not a "scientific theorist". Stop pretending that you are.
By the way, your signature also says "Claiming to be scientific while not following The Scientific Method makes one a liar".
This affords us an interesting opportunity to inject test arguments into the stream to observe the resulting behavioral response.
That would a first for you guys, to actually test something.
-
I would suggest that "observational science" can still stay true to the scientific method.
Absolutely not.
It is obvious that you have very fixed ideas about what does or does not constitute science ...
Therefore we will have to agree to disagree on that point.
So here is another point which I am sure that you will enjoy having a good old rant about:
1. Hypothesis = The Earth is a sphere.
2. Hypothesis = Things stick to the Earth because of a force called gravity.
3. Hypothesis = Things can escape The earths gravity if they are sent upwards with sufficient velocity.
4. Experiment = build a super-fast machine that can travel upwards with sufficient velocity (rocket).
5. Result = rocket no. 1 (Soveiet Union) goes into orbit around The Earth.
6. Is result repeatable? Yes: rocket no. 2 goes into orbit too (USA).
7. Is result independently verfiable? Yes: several amateurs are able to intercept radio signals from the sattelites (rocket nose cones).
Would you care to discuss how the above fails the scientific method?
I.e. is the science of rocketry not a real science in any way?
-
The Scientific Method: hypothesis -> experiment -> refinement of the idea ->experiment -> final conclusion
Astronomy: hypothesis -> conclusion
Tom:
Would you please post your objections to the "science" of astronomy in my star-trails thread?
That way your comments will sit in the most appropriate thread, and out-siders will be able to match your objections to my observations/model in a clear, logical and ordered way.
By objecting to astronomy in a thread about belief you are rather avoiding taking me on head-to-head.
By not raising your objections in my star-trails thread it appears that you are conceding defeat there - agreeing with me that your Flat earth Model cannot explain all observations.
Or to put it another way:
I have "falsified", disproven or rubbished your model with my observations - which is good science - so you need to come and fix it (if you can)!
-
I.e. is the science of rocketry not a real science in any way?
Rocketry might actually constitute a valid experiment to demonstrate the existence of the earth's orbit if it were true. Too bad the people who run space agencies have been shown to be fundamentally dishonest.
Would you please post your objections to the "science" of astronomy in my star-trails thread?
I've shown you your deficiencies here. That's good enough.
I have "falsified", disproven or rubbished your model with my observations - which is good science - so you need to come and fix it (if you can)!
Observations are not "good science". Please refrain from espousing those heinous lies.
An observation is an observation and nothing more. An observation can come under any number of different interpretations. An interpretation is not considered valid unless it follows the Scientific Method. The hypothesis needs to be put to the test (important!) in a controlled environment before one can proceed with further inquiry. Variables need to be adjusted and multiple trials need to be conducted in order for the researcher to come to a deductive truth.
When one merely observes and interprets he is not conducting "science". When Christians try their lame "the banana was formed perfectly to fit the human hand, therefore god exists" argument they are laughed right out of the room.
The Christian Scientist is structuring his "scientific process" exactly as Astronomers do. Observe -> Interpret.
-
I.e. is the science of rocketry not a real science in any way?
Rocketry might actually constitute a valid experiment to demonstrate the existence of the earth's orbit if it were true. Too bad the people who run space agencies have been shown to be fundamentally dishonest.
So we arrive back at The Conspiracy?
Sigh ...
The Soviets, US, UK, China, France and India have independent evidence that rockety works.
If The Flat earth society wishes to dispute / disprove this ...
Then they (you!) need to come up with some evidence of your own.
Just lamely citing the existence of an un-proved Conspiracy just makes you sound like a mad-man.
If you are so keen on "the scientific method", where is your experimental evidence that rocketry doesn't work?
You are statring to appear like a hypocrite, I'm afraid.
Would you please post your objections to the "science" of astronomy in my star-trails thread?
I've shown you your deficiencies here. That's good enough.
Not so, old chap - you need to address my star-trail hypothesis directly in an open, honest, fair, logical and ordered way.
If not, then you are just being evasive - one of the traits of a "consiracy theorist" that Skeptak has suggested.
If you do not address my hypothesis directly, then a newbie in a month's time is going to read my thread and deduce that I have won the debate by your lack of response - you can't expect people to search through all of the threads in order to piece together your dis-jointed and erratic arguments.
What are you scared of anyway?
-
See that? Astronomy fails right where the "test with an experiment" part comes in. Newton never did any experiments to prove his hypothesis of gravity as a force. Copernicus never did any experimentation to prove his hypothesis of the earth is revolving around the sun. No experimentation is ever attempted. The need for it is denied entirely.
So why is watching the heavens not an experiment? You can control the time and place you watch from and thus the position of everything when you start, so lack of control is hardly a problem.
The steps in Astronomy are just Observe -> Interpret, just like any religion or pseudoscience.
Isn't this what the Zetetic method is all about? You observe the local area being flat, and interpret that as meaning the entire planet is the flat.
You don't see a reason to dismiss a made up hypothesis without evidence what-so-ever to back it up?
Distant galaxies having higher than expected red-shift is not evidence?
For example, it's believed that water is a molecule made from H20. Two hydrogens and one oxygen. To test this we can use the electrolysis of water to come to the absolute truth of the matter. Electricity separates the elements into sealed of flasks. One element comes out twice as much as the other.
If there is any question such as "maybe it's not really oxygen", the hypothesis can be put to the test (important!) by conducting an experiment like lighting it on fire, mixing it with another element, or airing into a sealed container with an insect. The experimenter can try all sorts of different things to come to the truth of the matter. If there's another question it can always be put to the test to see if the hypothesis has merit. Whatever the question might be, it can be put to the test. Each and every variable can be controlled and modified for whatever the experiment is testing. In the end, after many successive hypothesis' and experimental trials, the experimenter can come to the concrete conclusion that the oxygen in water is the same oxygen known elsewhere.
But you still can't say with absolute certainty that it is oxygen. Simply observing something that behaves like oxygen doesn't mean that it is oxygen. Don't jump onto the assumption that if something behaves similar to one thing, it must be that thing.
-
Observations are not experiments.
Nope. Observation is not science. Anyone can observe something and attribute it to a miracle, or an act of god. That doesn't make it a science.
Nope. What he did was make an observation which could come to any number of interpretations and hypothesis'.
Hypothesis which directly leads to conclusion is never good science. It's the very opposite of good science.
Absolutely not. Observing something and then making up an explanation, observing some more, and then making up some more, can never constitute true science.
So the whole "When I look out my window, I see a flat earth" argument has no real place in any scientific debate, Tom?
How about the multiple, gear driven, counter-rotating star systems?
-
So the whole "When I look out my window, I see a flat earth" argument has no real place in any scientific debate, Tom?
How about the multiple, gear driven, counter-rotating star systems?
[satire]
That's is now called the multiple, layered, counter-rotating, disk-like star system theory:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29590.msg714995#msg714995
Do please try to stay abreast of the latest advances in Flat Earth Theory!
[/satirer]
-
The Soviets, US, UK, China, France and India have independent evidence that rockety works.
The US, UK, France, and India are not "independent". They got their rocket technology directly from NASA. NASA was the chief proprietor in the starting of those space agencies.
And China has a space conspiracy with production values so poor that it puts their entire image to shame.
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/china/shenzhou-vii-fake-spacewalk-5809.html
If The Flat earth society wishes to dispute / disprove this ...
Then they (you!) need to come up with some evidence of your own.
We've already presented evidence. See the above for example. That's only one piece of evidence against a single video released from a single space agency. I have a whole library of their fraudulent behavior.
If you are so keen on "the scientific method", where is your experimental evidence that rocketry doesn't work?
The evidence is in the fundamental dishonesty of NASA and Co. Nearly everything they show us has been tampered with, has obvious production flaws, or has been faked entirely. NASA also attempts to silence scientists when they speak about things that they don't like.
If you do not address my hypothesis directly, then a newbie in a month's time is going to read my thread and deduce that I have won the debate by your lack of response - you can't expect people to search through all of the threads in order to piece together your dis-jointed and erratic arguments.
I'm not in the business of repeating myself on commend. I've demonstrated your deficiencies here and that's well enough.
-
I'm not in the business of repeating myself on commend. I've demonstrated your deficiencies here and that's well enough.
It may be enough for you but is it enough for the newbie who will be reading the star-trails thread in a month's time?
Is it really too much to ask for you to post one short article putting forward your belief that all astronomical evidence is useless because it is 'only' an "observational science"?
You are coming across as being somewhat arrogant, disdainful and stubborn.
Edit: can you not summon up the grace and community-mindedness to do this one small thing? Pretty please with a cherry on top?
-
The Soviets, US, UK, China, France and India have independent evidence that rockety works.
The US, UK, France, and India are not "independent". They got their rocket technology directly from NASA. NASA was the chief proprietor in the starting of those space agencies.
And China has a space conspiracy with production values so poor that it puts their entire image to shame.
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/china/shenzhou-vii-fake-spacewalk-5809.html
Just spotted this one:
You haven't said anything negative about the Soviet space programme.
Are you agreeing with me, then, that the fact that The Soviet Union and The USA both put rockets into orbit independently of each other constitutes reasonable evidence that rocketry actually works?
Did you miss out The USSR by mistake - or were you trying to be devious like a politician and only answer half of my question?
-
So why is watching the heavens not an experiment?
It's not an experiment because none of the variables can be controlled. Observing something and then making a hypothesis or interpretation is not "science," so stop trying to pretend that it is. Anyone who does that is not a "scientist".
Isn't this what the Zetetic method is all about? You observe the local area being flat, and interpret that as meaning the entire planet is the flat.
Our observations are backed by experimental evidence (important!). We actually test out our ideas, unlike some. True scientists will always put their ideas to the test.
Please see the wealth of experimental evidence contained in the literature within my signature link.
Distant galaxies having higher than expected red-shift is not evidence?
That's an observation! "Distant" galaxies appearing red is an observation which could come under any number of different meanings. Only a controlled experiment with how a galaxy behaves under the hypothesized conditions will bring anyone to the truth of the matter.
Please cease from providing hypothesis as fact.
But you still can't say with absolute certainty that it is oxygen. Simply observing something that behaves like oxygen doesn't mean that it is oxygen. Don't jump onto the assumption that if something behaves similar to one thing, it must be that thing.
In the electrolysis experiment the oxygen produced by the water can be experimented with in any number of different ways to confirm that it is exactly identical to the oxygen found elsewhere. Experiments can be conducted and the Scientific Method can be applied to your hypothesis of "maybe it's not really oxygen". Anything you hypothesize can be put to the test to come to the truth of the matter. Unlike an astronomer, the chemist doesn't just observe and interpret. A chemist puts the hypothesis to the test. This is the fundamental difference between Astronomy and all other sciences.
-
It may be enough for you but is it enough for the newbie who will be reading the star-trails thread in a month's time?
Is it really too much to ask for you to post one short article putting forward your belief that all astronomical evidence is useless because it is 'only' an "observational science"?
You are coming across as being somewhat arrogant, disdainful and stubborn.
Edit: can you not summon up the grace and community-mindedness to do this one small thing? Pretty please with a cherry on top?
I don't have the time to answer every single thread and every single question. You're going to have to realize deficiencies for your own self.
Just spotted this one:
You haven't said anything negative about the Soviet space programme.
Are you agreeing with me, then, that the fact that The Soviet Union and The USA both put rockets into orbit independently of each other constitutes reasonable evidence that rocketry actually works?
Did you miss out The USSR by mistake - or were you trying to be devious like a politician and only answer half of my question?
Plenty of negative can be said about the Soviet Space Agency. There is some analysis of the Soviet Space Agency's fraudulent tactics in this video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3186616594425246748&q=what+happened+on+the+moon&total=51&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
You're going to have to watch the entire thing, because I don't have the exact time for when it gets into analysis of the Soviet hoax.
Also, NASA and the Soviets worked together on joint space projects during the Cold War.
-
Also, NASA and the Soviets worked together on joint space projects during the Cold War.
Do you have any proof of that?
-
I don't have the time to answer every single thread and every single question. You're just going to have to realize deficiencies for your own self.
Why do you have to be so disdainful?
Why do you have to be so arrogant?
Why do you have to be so anti-social?
Why do you have to be so snooty?
-
Also, NASA and the Soviets worked together on joint space projects during the Cold War.
Do you have any proof of that?
http://www.century-of-flight.net/Aviation%20history/space/Apollo-Soyuz%20Test%20Project.htm
Why do you have to be so disdainful?
Why do you have to be so arrogant?
Why do you have to be so anti-social?
Why do you have to be so snooty?
I've done nothing but share truth in a peaceful and civil manner.
-
Also, NASA and the Soviets worked together on joint space projects during the Cold War.
Do you have any proof of that?
http://www.century-of-flight.net/Aviation%20history/space/Apollo-Soyuz%20Test%20Project.htm
Dude, the ASTP was in 1975 - a long time after Vostok 1 (1961) and Mercury 6 (1962).
Plus the techonologies used - Soyuz and Apollo - were most definitely not designed jointly.
Your arguments do nothing to decrease my belief in the veracity of manned space-flight, as evidenced by numerous sources down the years.
-
Wow. So much effort. So much time. So much work. What a waste.
What we see in this thread is the classic separation of motives (see "Tools of The Debate Imposter" (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29812.msg720984#msg720984)). On the surface, it may seem that these debaters are here for the same thing. If you look carefully, you will see that zero progress has been made in the discussion. That is because Tom will not tolerate any.
Never mind that the topic has been completely off the subject so badly and for so long. That fact is completely lost on the participants. The believer is happy because he is getting the attention he needs so disparately. The scientist is not really "happy", but he is still hoping that there is a chance for progress in the debate. Sadly we can see there is not. Tom is so firmly entrenched in his belief structure that he simply cannot ever allow any outside opinion to penetrate it.
The primary differences between the participants is that Tom is getting exactly what he wants; an endless back and forth that goes nowhere, but Tesla is not. I just hope that Tesla can see that before he gets provoked by Tom into saying something he regrets. That can be a real trophy for some.
Tesla, Tom's only goal at this stage is to anger and frustrate you. If you can step back and look at things from the context of my OP, I think you may see that there is no possibility of anything productive coming from this debate.
What I've learned is to not even read Tom's posts. His behavior is so predictable and inane, it gets to the point where reading becomes a terrible chore. Tom is more willing than most (perhaps any) to dive in and have it out, but he's so unwilling to provide even the most basic foundations to his style that there's just no point in understanding his position any longer. It's too much work and too painful coming from him. There just must be someone here that can be an advocate for the RET without dancing the dance like Tom. If there is, please post IN ANOTHER THREAD!
I am, however still thankful this thread is popular, so I encourage others to post about the actual topic as found in my OP.
Thanks to Tom for the great demonstration of a "True Believer."
-
I've done nothing but share truth in a peaceful and civil manner.
Your disdainful and haughty attitude towards my polite and simple requests for you to engage directly in my star-trails thread is not "civil" behaviour where I come from.
-
On the surface, it may seem that these debaters are here for the same thing. If you look carefully, you will see that zero progress has been made in the discussion. That is because Tom will not tolerate any.
The thought that I am helping to provide evidence for your behavioural studies is most comforting.
At least some scientific knoweldge and worth will come of it all!
-
Dude, the ASTP was in 1975 - a long time after Vostok 1 (1961) and Mercury 6 (1962).
The Cold War took place between 1945 and 1991, which means that the Apollo-Soyuz Project occurred during the Cold War. If you read the link I provided, it indicates that they had been planning it since 1970, one year after America's first moon trip.
Your arguments do nothing to decrease my belief in the veracity of manned space-flight, as evidenced by numerous sources down the years.
Did you look at the evidence or watch that video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3186616594425246748&q=what+happened+on+the+moon&total=51&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0)?
I have a torrent of specific evidence against the Apollo and Mars missions as well, in addition to examples of NASA's dishonesty as a scientific organization.
-
I have a torrent of evidence against the Apollo and Mars missions as well, in addition to examples of NASA's dishonesty as a scientific organization.
The TGC ("Talisman of the Grand Conspiracy") (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29784.0) is worthless here.
-
The TGC ("Talisman of the Grand Conspiracy") (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29784.0) is worthless here.
Plugging your ears and being unwilling to look at evidence is not the virtue of an open mind.
-
All roads lead to The Conspiracy.
-
Your definition of "evidence" has been made more than clear, and others have already rejected it.
Continuing to refer to your information as "evidence" despite the fact that other debaters have already rejected it is pointless and counter productive. It is the very definition of unscientific in this context.
Besides. This thread isn't about your definition of evidence. It's about your behavior and it's effect on the debate. By acting out even more, you are only reinforcing the position I've taken.
All roads lead to The Conspiracy.
That sums it up perfectly. There's no need to bother going down any road provided by Tom.
-
The TGC ("Talisman of the Grand Conspiracy") (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29784.0) is worthless here.
Plugging your ears and being unwilling to look at evidence is not the virtue of an open mind.
Filtering out worthless evidence is a virtue of an good scientist.
-
Indeed. We call it "deduction."
Some prefer "induction." Which means of course, to suck.
-
Your definition of "evidence" has been made more than clear, and others have already rejected it.
Continuing to refer to your information as "evidence" despite the fact that other debaters have already rejected it is pointless and counter productive.
It doesn't matter if you reject it. The truth is there for all to see.
Besides. This thread isn't about your definition of evidence. It's about your behavior and it's effect on the debate. By acting out even more, you are only reinforcing the position I've taken.
By refusing to account for evidence which contradicts your belief and wholehearted faith in NASA and Co, it's your behavior which is indicative of a closed mind.
Filtering out worthless evidence is a virtue of an good scientist.
You have not properly debated or accounted for the arguments presented in the video I provided (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3186616594425246748&q=what+happened+on+the+moon&total=51&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0). You are blindly rejecting anything which confronts your belief system. You have not accounted for the deficiencies in China's production values (http://).
All indications of a mind rusted shut so tight that it exists as an affront to all thinkers and rationalists.
-
It doesn't matter if you reject it. The truth is there for all to see.
Perhaps, but the debate is no longer a scientific one like you are pretending it is.
By refusing to account for evidence which contradicts your belief and wholehearted faith in NASA and Co, it's your behavior which is indicative of a closed mind.
Again, you use the word evidence where it does not apply. The TGC ("Talisman of the Grand Conspiracy") (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29784.0) does not prove the TGC ("Talisman of the Grand Conspiracy") (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29784.0).
You have not properly debated or accounted for the arguments presented in the video I provided. You are blindly rejecting anything which confronts your belief system.
All indications of a mind rusted shut so tight that it exists as an affront to all thinkers and rationalists.
First, you are off topic and trying to encourage others to rejoin your trashing of this thread. Second, no matter how many times you say it is, what you present is not evidence, or argument, or debate, or proper in any scientific discussion.
-
Dude, the ASTP was in 1975 - a long time after Vostok 1 (1961) and Mercury 6 (1962).
The Cold War took place between 1945 and 1991, which means that the Apollo-Soyuz Project occurred during the Cold War. If you read the link I provided, it indicates that they had been planning it since 1970, one year after America's first moon trip.
All of which was a long time after Gagarin and Glenn went into orbit.
Both of those orbital flights were carried out independently of each other.
There was no US-Soveit collusion at that stage,the height of The Cold war - that's whay they called it The Space Race.
Plus the cockpit radio tranmissions from both flights would have been monitored around the globe by scientists from many nations.
-
First, you are off topic and trying to encourage others to rejoin your trashing of this thread. Second, no matter how many times you say it is, what you present is not evidence, or argument, or debate, or proper in any scientific discussion.
Actually it is. In the China video (http://) for example the author is using the Scientific Method to demonstrate inadequacies and tell-tale signs of fakery. Video is slowed and areas of contention are displayed for all to see. That constitutes an experiment. The author is manipulating China's own videos to demonstrate that the space walk was faked. The author presents a sufficient conclusion with adequate evidence and background information. There is also an article on the subject matter which provides additional discrepancies. Now the burden is on the believers to combat the works with evidence of their own.
In the moon video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3186616594425246748&q=what+happened+on+the+moon&total=51&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0) the author is very thorough, invoking the interviews of government contractors, analysis of NASA data (such as Apollo 13 astronauts saying that they could see a beautiful lunar landscape when NASA said that they were on the dark side of the moon), and many other topics of discussion. The soviet space agency is also analyzed. There are many pieces of supporting evidence - scientific, catalogical, temporal - to support the initial hypothesis.
Now the burden is on you to defend your beliefs.
-
Tesla, NOOOOOO!!!! [reaches dramatically]
Come on, really.
First, you are off topic and trying to encourage others to rejoin your trashing of this thread. Second, no matter how many times you say it is, what you present is not evidence, or argument, or debate, or proper in any scientific discussion.
Actually it is. In the China video for example the author is using the Scientific Method to demonstrate inadequacies and tell-tale signs of fakery. Video is slowed and areas of contention are displayed for all to see. That constitutes an experiment. The author is manipulating China's own videos to demonstrate that the space walk was faked. The author presents a sufficient conclusion with adequate evidence and background information. Now the burden is on the believers to combat his work with evidence of their own.
In the moon video the author is very through, invoking the interviews of government contractors, analysis of NASA data (such as Apollo 13 astronauts saying that they could see a beautiful lunar landscape when NASA said that they were on the dark side of the moon), and many other topics of discussion. The soviet space agency is also analyzed. There are many pieces of supporting evidence - scientific, catalogical, temporal - to support the initial hypothesis.
Now the burden is on you to defend your beliefs.
Ok, now Tom, this is in no way meant as an insult. Are you able to read properly? I mean, do you have vision trouble or bad dyslexia perhaps? I invite you to re-read the subject line of this thread.
I also invite you to read about the fact that the TGC ("Talisman of the Grand Conspiracy") (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29784.0) is worthless here and that using the TGC ("Talisman of the Grand Conspiracy") (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29784.0) to prove the TGC ("Talisman of the Grand Conspiracy") (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29784.0) is just one of the (now very tired) ways that you are trashing this thread.
Once again, your insistence on acting out in this particular thread only proves my point more perfectly. Perhaps this is the actual goal?... hm....
-
Dude, the **** was in **** - a long time after **** and ****.
The **** took place between **** and ****, which means that the **** occurred during the ****. If you read the link I provided, it indicates that **** had been **** it since ****, one year after ****'s first ****.
All of which was a long time after **** and **** went into ****.
Both of those ****s were carried out independently of ****.
There was no **** at that stage,the height of The **** - that's whay they called it The ****.
Plus the **** from both **** would have been **** around the **** by **** from many ****.
Ok. I'm asking REAL nice now. Please don't feed the troll any more.
-
Ok, now Tom, this is in no way meant as an insult. Are you able to read properly? I mean, do you have vision trouble or bad dyslexia perhaps? I invite you to re-read the subject line of this thread.
Look, if you are unable to justify or defend any part of your model or beliefs, that's perfectly fine. It's called a forfeit.
I've been perfectly willing to debate any part of the subject matter. You have not. You close your mind to discussion and refuse to participate in discourse.
FES has presented evidence. You have presented none. No rebuttal has been attempted. We're waiting on you.
-
You are not willing to debate anything in any scientific way regardless of your claim to be, and you have flat refused to address this particular debate in any way at all.
You have provided no evidence that has ever been accepted by anyone opposing you making it invalid (which has been pointed out to you countless times).
You are a liar and you are STILL off topic.
-
You are not willing to debate anything in any scientific way regardless of your claim to be, and you have flat refused to address this particular debate in any way at all.
All videos have appropriate supporting evidence. If you are unable to debate or provide supporting evidence for your own rebuttal, that's fine. You lose.
"I don't want to debate with you" is a diversionary tactic which has no place in discourse. It is neither an argument or a rebuttal. It is an admission of a closed mind unable to consider evidence which contradicts his belief system. Closed minds are not scientific, rational, or productive in any way or form.
The burden is on you RE'ers to defend your beliefs, and it has been for a long time.
-
Yes yes, Tom. We all know.
-
Please let me know when you have a rebuttal for the evidence presented against your beliefs. I am willing to discuss the matter further when you do.
-
You mean in a thread that is about that, right?
-
Remember folks... it's about how many posts go back and forth. It's like tennis!
-
You mean in a thread that is about that, right?
This thread has progressed naturally to this subject. RE'ers have made inquiries, and they have been answered with supporting evidence. Now the burden is on the believers to make a rebuttal.
You're a believer, so where's your rebuttal?
-
Dead horse.
Anyone on topic?
-
It's always great when you guys lack the ability to provide rebuttal and argument, and choose to ignore. It demonstrates that you really are the "believer" (keeping with the theme of the thread).
I've demonstrated tact willingness to consider all evidence and debate issues when confronted. You have not. You have demonstrated a closed mind and inability to see facts for what they are: A striking example of a mumbling RE'er who is unable to defend his beliefs at even a mediocre level.
By refusing, or being unable to, respond to confrontation it's evident that the RE'er is neither a debtor or a scientist. The RE'er cannot keep an open mind to facts and evidence. The RE'er displays no willingness to proceed by inquiry. He is an utterly pathetic form of fantasizer and a disgrace to free thinkers everywhere. He is not a "scientist" and he is not a "debator". He is not even a theorist. Theories usually have evidence to back them up.
-
First, you are off topic and trying to encourage others to rejoin your trashing of this thread. Second, no matter how many times you say it is, what you present is not evidence, or argument, or debate, or proper in any scientific discussion.
Actually it is. In the China video (http://) for example the author is using the Scientific Method to demonstrate inadequacies and tell-tale signs of fakery. Video is slowed and areas of contention are displayed for all to see. That constitutes an experiment. The author is manipulating China's own videos to demonstrate that the space walk was faked. The author presents a sufficient conclusion with adequate evidence and background information. There is also an article (http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/china/shenzhou-vii-fake-spacewalk-5809.html) on the subject matter which provides additional discrepancies. Now the burden is on the believers to combat the works with evidence of their own.
In the moon video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3186616594425246748&q=what+happened+on+the+moon&total=51&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0) the author is very thorough, invoking the interviews of government contractors, analysis of NASA data (such as Apollo 13 astronauts saying that they could see a beautiful lunar landscape when NASA said that they were on the dark side of the moon), and many other topics of discussion. The soviet space agency is also analyzed. There are many pieces of supporting evidence - scientific, catalogical, temporal - to support the initial hypothesis.
Now the burden is on you to defend your beliefs.
USA's Project Apollo and China's Project Shenzen both happened a long, long time after Gagarin and Glenn went into orbit.
Please provide me with evidence that the World's first two manned orbital missions were faked in any way or involved collusion between The USA and The USSR.
That is: please answer the question I actually asked, not a question for which you have an answer ready.
Or let's go back furter and make it even simpler:
Please give me proof that The USSR faked Sputnik One - the radio tranmission from which was tracked by keen amateurs the world over as it sped rapidly across the sky (far too fast to have been a plane).
-
Hmmm... I wonder...
You have not done what you say you have done, and I have not done what you say I have done. You have done what you say you have not done and I have not done what I say I have not done.
What you claim is not real and what I claim is real. Your methods are not valid and my methods are valid You are not a scientist and I am a scientist. You are a liar and I am not a liar. You do not know how to debate and I do know how to debate. You are wrong and I am not wrong. You have a picture that makes you look like a televangelist-pedophile and I do not have a picture that makes me look like a televangelist-pedophile. You are bald and I am not bald. You were called Sybil as a child and I was not called Sybil as a child.
See? When something is said as a statement of fact, that means you are not allowed to disagree. Now stop breaking the rules!
-
USA's Project Apollo and China's Project Shenzen both happened a long, long time after Gagarin and Glenn went into orbit.
Please watch the video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3186616594425246748&q=what+happened+on+the+moon&total=51&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0) in its entirety. It does look at Gagarin. It catalogs how the soviets faked scenes within the capsule and pasted together footage from prior events.
Please provide me with evidence that the World's first two manned orbital missions were faked in any way or involved collusion between The USA and The USSR.
Watch the video and take in the evidence. It is apparent that you have not.
Or let's go back furter and make it even simpler:
Please give me proof that The USSR faked Sputnik One - the radio tranmission from which was tracked by keen amateurs the world over as it sped rapidly across the sky (far too fast to have been a plane).
No one saw Sputnick speed "rapidly across the sky". That's a myth. Sputnik was about the size of a basketball.
One has to be pretty naive if that think that people can see a basketball in orbit. This has been discussed before (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=12672.msg184557#msg184557).
No one has "tuned in" to Sputnik either.
-
How do we explain the pervasive survival of creatures like COCK-Roaches and TOM BISHOP (if that's even his real name)? People feed them.
DON'T FEED THE TROLL (or the "Debate Imposter" (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29812.msg720984#msg720984))!
Pretty please? See? I asking REALLY nice now.
-
See? When something is said as a statement of fact, that means you are not allowed to disagree. Now stop breaking the rules!
Statements are only valid when demonstrated. I have demonstrated that there is evidence which contradicts space testimony, and you have not formed a contradiction to that evidence. You have provided no evidence that anything NASA says is true. The need for evidence is, as always, denied.
This thread has established two things:
- Astronomy does not use the scientific method (which you accused us of neglecting).
- When you do bring up your sole evidence "the space man said so," there is no rebuttal to the wealth of evidence demonstrating that space agencies are dishonest.
I've only provided a couple videos here so as not to overwhelm you. When you form a contradiction to the evidence we can proceed. Until then it is declared that you have none.
How do we explain the pervasive survival of creatures like COCK-Roaches and TOM BISHOP (if that's even his real name)? People feed them.
DON'T FEED THE TROLL (or the "Debate Imposter")!
So now your stance is "don't bother debating guys". Great idea. It's not a good idea to debate when a kitten could bat away your arguments.
-
Tom, did you even read this?:
You have not done what you say you have done, and I have not done what you say I have done. You have done what you say you have not done and I have not done what I say I have not done.
What you claim is not real and what I claim is real. Your methods are not valid and my methods are valid You are not a scientist and I am a scientist. You are a liar and I am not a liar. You do not know how to debate and I do know how to debate. You are wrong and I am not wrong.
See? When something is said as a statement of fact, that means you are not allowed to disagree. Now stop breaking the rules!
-
No, wait. I mean did you read this? (this version is much better)
Hmmm... I wonder...
You have not done what you say you have done, and I have not done what you say I have done. You have done what you say you have not done and I have not done what I say I have not done.
What you claim is not real and what I claim is real. Your methods are not valid and my methods are valid You are not a scientist and I am a scientist. You are a liar and I am not a liar. You do not know how to debate and I do know how to debate. You are wrong and I am not wrong. You have a picture that makes you look like a televangelist-pedophile and I do not have a picture that makes me look like a televangelist-pedophile. You are bald and I am not bald. You were called Sybil as a child and I was not called Sybil as a child.
See? When something is said as a statement of fact, that means you are not allowed to disagree. Now stop breaking the rules!
-
Statements of fact are only valid when demonstrated.
When you can demonstrate that any of your "the space man said so" arguments have merit we can continue.
I have provided evidence that "the space man said so" is not a valid argument. I have demonstrated my claims. The space man lies, and he does so terribly. Once you can come up with contradicting evidence, your ideas will have merit. Until then I encourage you to peruse the couple videos I've provided over and over again until you can come up with a coherent rebuttal.
-
No, wait. I mean did you read this? (this version is much better)
Hmmm... I wonder...
[six-year-old]
Awww come on ...
If *you're* going to feed the trolls ...
Then *I* want to feed the trolls!
[/six-year-old]
-
Ok, then lets feed him the proper diet for this thread, eh?
Tom is wrong and we are right... right Tesla?
-
Statements are only valid when demonstrated. I have demonstrated that there is evidence which contradicts space testimony, and you have not formed a contradiction to that evidence. You have provided no evidence that anything NASA says is true. The need for evidence is, as always, denied.
Evidence does not imply absolute truth. I'm very sceptical about most of the evidence you provide anyway. For example, one thing that caught my eye:
(such as Apollo 13 astronauts saying that they could see a beautiful lunar landscape when NASA said that they were on the dark side of the moon)
'The dark side of the Moon' is a misnomer. Trying to pass it off as evidence that NASA is lying is daft. We can't argue your points if this is all they consist of.
- Astronomy does not use the scientific method (which you accused us of neglecting).
What do you feel needs to be done to make observing stars follow your scientific method?
I've only provided a couple videos here so as not to overwhelm you. When you form a contradiction to the evidence we can proceed. Until then it is declared that you have none.
I got about 5 minutes into one of the videos, and from what I've seen it consists of 'There's dangerous stuff in space, so we can't go through it'. Might as well say you can't walk through a zoo.
-
Ok, then lets feed him the proper diet for this thread, eh?
Tom is wrong and we are right... right Tesla?
Demonstration of claims is a fundamental tenet to all debate, and indeed, science.
By constantly refusing to demonstrate ideas, or even look at contradicting evidence, it is apparent that your debating skills are in need of dire improvement. Watch the videos and consume the evidence and let us know when you are ready to put fourth a coherent rebuttal. Once a coherent rebuttal is formed, I will be happy to discuss the matter further.
-
NTheGreat, please.
What Tom has taught us all here is that one needs only to state one's position as though it were accepted fact, and then the magic rules of "Nya-nya-nya-nya-nyaaaaa-nyaaa" apply.
-
Evidence does not imply absolute truth. I'm very sceptical about most of the evidence you provide anyway. For example, one thing that caught my eye:
(such as Apollo 13 astronauts saying that they could see a beautiful lunar landscape when NASA said that they were on the dark side of the moon)
'The dark side of the Moon' is a misnomer. Trying to pass it off as evidence that NASA is lying is daft. We can't argue your points if this is all they consist of.
Please watch the video. It goes into how astronauts made broadcasts of seeing features on the moon (the sea of tranquility, a feature on its front side) at times when NASA pinpointed their location as directly behind the moon.
What do you feel needs to be done to make observing stars follow your scientific method?
Nothing more can be done than the observation of stars, and nothing more has been done. No experimental evidence has been conducted to come to the truth of the matter. It's fundamental that you understand this very basic concept before you affront us with appeals to authority and challenges to contradict the work of your "pillars of science" who, as it turns out, are not conducting science in the first place.
I got about 5 minutes into one of the videos, and from what I've seen it consists of 'There's dangerous stuff in space, so we can't go through it'. Might as well say you can't walk through a zoo.
Watch the video in is entirety. Plenty of evidence is given to support each and every hypothesis. When you have a contradiction to that evidence we can proceed in discourse.
-
Watch the video in is entirety. Plenty of evidence is given to support each and every hypothesis. When you have a contradiction to that evidence we can proceed in discourse.
Perhaps you should create a new thread for each hypothesis, one at a time of course, then if you can manage to stay on topic, we might actually have a debate.
-
Why isn't Tom posting in any of the threads where they are actually waiting for him to respond?
He's off topic here and taking grief from all sides.
Why not take his enthusiasm for the debate into a thread where they have actually asked for it?
Cuz he's an...
IMPOSTOR!! See: "Tools of The Debate Imposter" (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29812.msg720984#msg720984)
-
Perhaps you should create a new thread for each hypothesis, one at a time of course, then if you can manage to stay on topic, we might actually have a debate.
I have created threads for many of these topics. Other FE'ers have also made threads discussing such maters. Each and every one of these areas of contention have been discussed throughout the half million posts on these forums. Never once has an RE'er succeeded in presenting contradicting evidence.
-
NTheGreat, please.
What Tom has taught us all here is that one needs only to state one's position as though it were accepted fact, and then the magic rules of "Nya-nya-nya-nya-nyaaaaa-nyaaa" apply.
I'm just seeing how far I can go. Just stating my position as fact doesn't feel very substantial for me, I'll rather weave around and see what confusing structure Tom cooks up.
Please watch the video. it goes into how Astronauts made broadcasts of seeing features on the moon (the sea of tranquility) at times when NASA pinpointed their location as directly behind the moon.
In time. Although most of what I've seen so far is drivel.
Nothing more can be done than the observation of stars, and nothing more has been done. No experimental evidence has been conducted to come to the truth of the matter.
So what, hypothetically, is needed to allow us to examine the stars with the scientific method, from your point of view? What's the difference between performing spectrometry on a sample inches away from you in a lab and a sample hundreds of light years away? Is there a certain distance when it stops being scientific?
Watch the video in is entirety. Plenty of evidence is given to support each and every hypothesis. When you have a contradiction to that evidence we can proceed in discourse.
Again, huge videos, all I've seen so far is nonsense.
-
I have created threads for many of these topics. Other FE'ers have also made threads discussing such maters. Each and every one of these areas of contention have been discussed throughout the half million posts on these forums. Never once has an RE'er succeeded in presenting contradicting evidence.
If they already have threads, then why are you trying to debate it here in an unrelated thread?
-
Yea, Tom... why?
-
In time. Although most of what I've seen so far is drivel.
Much of the evidence is far beyond your ability to contradict. I understand. In a whirlwind of NASA's inconsistency and delusion, it's virtually impossible to stand up for them.
So what, hypothetically, is needed to allow us to examine the stars with the scientific method, from your point of view? What's the difference between performing spectrometry on a sample inches away from you in a lab and a sample hundreds of light years away? Is there a certain distance when it stops being scientific?
Stars are not lab experiments. When you play with elements in the lab you are not playing with the stars. You may come to the hypothesis that because helium has a red spectrometry, that the red spectrometry of the stars may also be indicative of helium. But that it a hypothesis. There is no test to come to the truth of the matter. You have observed the stars and nothing more, coming to a "conclusion" with no test to back it up. There are may other things which have a similar color in their spectrometry, but helium is a "best guess" because current Nuclear Fusion theories invoke helium.
Real scientists do not hypothesize and conclude. Real scientists hypothesize, test, and then conclude. If there is no test, a conclusion cannot be reached. Astronomers must understand this, and hold it dear to the fundamental tenets of their ideas. They must realize that they are not scientists and that they do not conduct science. They conduct hypothesis and no more.
Again, huge videos, all I've seen so far is nonsense.
The length of the video is immaterial to the debate. If you cannot come up with an argument for "why" the wealth of evidence presented is "nonsense," or why the evidence is wrong, your argument has no merit. I've been encouraging REers to "demonstrate" opinions, and yet it seems to be an impossible task.
If you cannot demonstrate an idea, then it is just an idea. This is an important point to not only the subject matter of the video, but to astronomy as well.
-
...but seriously.
Tom,
At times, you've managed to keep a level head in the face of frustration, and I respect that. However...
You pretend to be convinced that you are a scientific debater, but we (your opponents in this thread) do not agree and even suspect that you wouldn't know a scientific debater if one punched you in the face.
At this stage, NOTHING you say (I assure you) is going to change our minds about this, and I suspect the same goes for you about us.
So what do you propose we do here? Neither of us has anything that will ever be accepted by the other, so aren't we at a permanent impasse? If a fundamental basis for fair debate is mutual respect, and considering that you have wiped your ass with everything scientific presented here (and everywhere else, I'm learning), how can anyone ever be expected to respect you? We cannot, and I suspect you feel the same about us.
Listen. We're on to your game and we don't want to play, except Tesla. He'll dance from dusk til dawn if you buy him a drink. Even if I did tell you that I respected you in future, why would you believe me or anyone else you have done this to?
You've said specific things that make us feel you have no understanding of the most basic necessary techniques for fair and scientific debate.
-
If they already have threads, then why are you trying to debate it here in an unrelated thread?
This isn't an unrelated thread. The author of this thread is calling FE'ers "believers," when really it is the RE'er who is the believer. Please read over this entire thread and make notes of the following:
- Astronomy does not use the scientific method (which the author accused us of neglecting).
- When an RE'er brings up their sole and only evidence of "the space man said so," there is no rebuttal to the wealth of evidence demonstrating that space agencies are dishonest.
That alone makes the RE'er the "believer". An FE'er is always open to debate and discourse. The author of this thread is not willing to discuss his ideas, or respond to contradictions of his belief. That make him a "believer," and a terribly closed minded one at that.
-
Much of the evidence is far beyond your ability to contradict. I understand. In a whirlwind of NASA's inconsistency and delusion, it's virtually impossible to stand up for them.
The problem is there's too much drivel surrounding the evidence. There's no way I could carefully refute every point the videos bring up, simply because the amount of text would be a whole topic in itself, and by the time I had created it all the topic would have moved on. In essence, the shear size of the videos is defence against counter-evidence.
I'll analyse the first couple of minutes of one of these videos:
- Starts with solar particle events. Some figures are quoted, 130 rem and 70 rem. Where do these figures come from? They're essentially meaningless. Who says the astronauts are exposed to this, and who says this will be the effect?
- Talking about an unprotected astronauts passing through space, and the Van Allen belts. Talking about the radiation levels rising and varying, but no actual figures.
- More talking about belts. Still no figures. Who said NASA did Starfish prime?
- Apparently there little agreement on the size of the belts, yet only two sources are quoted. They also said the belts vary a while back anyway, so why should the figures match?
- Talking about flares. No evidence that such things are deadly to astronauts.
- Saying that the hull of the craft was not thick enough to protect the astronauts, yet they seem to neglect to mention all the other stuff being carried in the capsule which could act as a shield.
I could go on, but it would take too long.
Stars are not lab experiments. When you play with elements in the lab you are not playing with the stars. You may come to the hypothesis that because helium have a red spectrometry, that the red spectrometry of the stars may also be indicative of helium. But that it a hypothesis. There is no test to come to the truth of the matter.
So what has to be done to determine when you have 'the truth'? Why is a result collected in the lab considered the truth and one collected from the sky not? Is is simply the fact that you can perform more experiments on the one in the lab?
-
Hey. Nobody can accuse me of not trying.
Perhaps I should make my own forum for FE'ers and moderate it properly to see what happens.
I'd give every FE'er Free Custom Email and their own WebSpace to upload Pictures, Videos and anything else they wanted.
Any FE'ers want a bunch of free stuff? I'll even allow FE'ers to run the place if they wish to
The problem is there's too much drivel surrounding the evidence. There's no way I could carefully refute every point the videos bring up, simply because the amount of text would be a whole topic in itself, and by the time I had created it all the topic would have moved on. In essence, the shear size of the videos is defence against counter-evidence.
That is why he uses such "evidence." It is messy enough to be questionable to anyone, long enough to be difficult to get through and has so many flaws both minor and major that to list them becomes a huge project.
This is the ever repeating pattern. The underlying problem (and why you can never succeed) is that no matter what Tom says, he does not understand or agree with the requirements for scientific proof. Because he is convinced that he does understand, he is unable to see the flaw in his definition of proof, so he is unwilling to stop submitting evidence that does not meet the admissibility requirements of a scientific debate.
It is the very fact that the evidence is rejected by you (with proper explanation) that makes it invalid here. It doesn't make it false, but Tom cannot see the difference between false and inadmissible. He thinks it's true, therefore he thinks it should be accepted, period. He doesn't agree with why you are rejecting it, so he whines about it, but he fails to see that WHY you reject it doesn't really matter. The fact that you do throws it out regardless.
Tom should remember that it's a two way street. If there is evidence we have provided that he rejects (with proper explanation), then we should not keep referencing it either. The fundamental principal of acceptability for any argument in fair debate is what Tom seems incapable of grasping, and as a result, anything he offers as evidence will continue to be the same things that were rejected before and that he knows you will not accept now.
It's a case of doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different (or perhaps not) result.
-
Hey Tom:
I wanted to start a discussion on your two videos in another thraed because it's off-topic here, but a moderator dumped it here:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29829.0
I don't think I can be bothered to watch them now ...
-
There's no way I could carefully refute every point the videos bring up, simply because the amount of text would be a whole topic in itself, and by the time I had created it all the topic would have moved on.
Oh right, you can't refute the evidence because there's "too much of it". What a load. If you were truly interested in defending your beliefs you would address the points in the video and rebut them with evidence of your own.
Starts with solar particle events. Some figures are quoted, 130 rem and 70 rem. Where do these figures come from? They're essentially meaningless. Who says the astronauts are exposed to this, and who says this will be the effect?
Van Allen says they would. You know him, right? He's another of your "pillars of science".
Talking about an unprotected astronauts passing through space, and the Van Allen belts. Talking about the radiation levels rising and varying, but no actual figures.
See Van Allen's work.
- Apparently there little agreement on the size of the belts, yet only two sources are quoted. They also said the belts vary a while back anyway, so why should the figures match?
Please see Van Allen's work for details. Do you own research. If you already knew the basics of your own model you wouldn't be asking these amateur questions and would know where to look.
- Talking about flares. No evidence that such things are deadly to astronauts.
Please look up the concept of Solar Flares. They are very powerful and very destructive.
- Saying that the hull of the craft was not thick enough to protect the astronauts, yet they seem to neglect to mention all the other stuff being carried in the capsule which could act as a shield.
Yes, I am sure their nylon Velcro beds and food stuffs are all very effective at blocking deadly radiation.
I could go on, but it would take too long.
You could go on, but you won't because you've realized that you cannot present contradicting evidence. You have no contradicting evidence what-so-ever to present.
-
So what has to be done to determine when you have 'the truth'? Why is a result collected in the lab considered the truth and one collected from the sky not? Is is simply the fact that you can perform more experiments on the one in the lab?
Experiments in a lab can come to the truth of a matter through trial and error. If there is a question, an experiment in a lab can always put the hypothesis to the test. Many tests can be tried, each in succession, to rule out any hypothesis which might come up.
Observation of the sky cannot do that. There is no trial and error. If it a hypothesis is questioned it cannot be put to the test. Astronomy is entirely devoid of testing and experimentation.
Experimentation is a fundamental tenet to all science. Chemists, Biologists and Psychologists all put their subject matter under carefully designed tests to come to the truth of a hypothesis. Endless trials are conducted, each with a control and slightly different variables. Eventually, after much experimentation and testing, the researchers can come to a truth.
Astronomers don't do that. Astronomers do not follow the Scientific Method. Astronomy is not a "science". Astronomers are not "scientists".
-
Wind him up and watch him go, folks!
-
Claiming to be scientific while not following The Scientific Method makes one a liar.
You mean like Astronomers?
-
Claiming to be scientific while not following The Scientific Method makes one a liar.
You mean like Astronomers?
No, like the Energizer Bunny!
-
This isn't an unrelated thread. The author of this thread is calling FE'ers "believers," when really it is the RE'er who is the believer.
So because you think RE'ers are believers, you would expect a debate about a full-length conspiracy theory video in a thread about the debate tactics of believers?
-
I do believe that today I have glimpsed the true face of the FET movement. The whole thing is a fraud. Each participant may have their own particular reasons for being on board, but none of them are declared in the open.
Science is the mantra, but bullshit is the mainstay.
-
The whole thing is a fraud. Each participant may have their own particular reasons for being on board, but none of them are declared in the open.
We already have a flying spaghetti monster guy here, and quite frankly you're not an improvement. If you truly believe what you posted, then why haven't you left?
-
After finding this website and reading over the forums for the past few days, I have (obviously) decided to create a user account and join in with the "discussions" regarding FE and RE "theories."
While the fine details vary from post to post, there are several themes that seem to recur with "FE Theorists" (which I SHOULD henceforth refer to as SPCs - self-proclaimed cabalists). These consist of (but are not necessarily limited to):
1.) The Grand Conspiracy Theory
2.) Non sequitur replies
3.) Utter disregard or outright neglect for intended meaning, choosing to instead focus on semantics by quoting people out of context.
***
What is even more astounding to me is the sheer number of nonsensical points dubbed as "valid arguments" for why "RE Theory" and "RE Theorists / Explorers" are incorrect. I have yet to find a valid FE point which cannot be used to refute "FE Theory" itself.
Though, here is something for you all to chew on:
FE Society is a group of conspirators who have found, irrefutably, that the Earth is spherical. In an attempt to cover up this truth, which has been accepted world-wide for hundreds of years, they have formed this Grand Conspiracy to cover up these facts. Using the claim of a Grand Conspiracy on "the other side" themselves, they divert attention to their own conspiracy by pointing the finger at everyone else. This has allowed for a slow and gradual increase in their following. They hope, for profit and other conspiratorial reasons, they will be able to convince the world of their lies...
...
...
And 'round and 'round we go...
-
This thread is NOT about details of FE theory or any other.
Then why did you post it in a Flat Earth discussion board, dumbass?
-
Ahhh, yes... I forgot to include in my list:
4.) Resorting to name-calling and other equally ineffective, immature methods of debate
-
So because you think RE'ers are believers, you would expect a debate about a full-length conspiracy theory video in a thread about the debate tactics of believers?
I expect an RE'er to look at the evidence which contradicts his beliefs and then present contradicting evidence of his own. The RE'er needs to defend his belief system. If an RE'er cannot or refuses to do that, and yet still insists that his ideas are fact, then he is a "believer".
-
Would you please post your objections to the "science" of astronomy in my star-trails thread?
I've shown you your deficiencies here. That's good enough.
OK: I am going to ask one more time (very politely as ever) ...
In this thread you have said that we cannot draw any valid scientific conclusions from our observations of the stars.
But in many other threads you have esposed your Multiple, Layered, Gear-Driven, Counter-Rotating, Disk-Like Star Systems Theory to explain the way that the stars and planets move across the sky every night.
I went on to counter this with my own Round Earth Spherical Sky Model.
So:
1. You started the debate about stars
2. I continued it
3. It isn't concluded, and
3. You now refuse to carry on the debate.
Does that seem fair and gentlemanly to you?
Does that seem fair and gentlemanly to anyone else?
So come on, Tom: get yourself over to my "star-trails" thread and start defending your model of the night sky.
Yes we can only "observe" the stars, and yes that makes astronomy an "observational science" ...
But that doesn't remove the desire or need to look up on a starry night and understand why the stars and planets move the way they do.
-
Oh right, you can't refute the evidence because there's "too much of it". What a load. If you were truly interested in defending your beliefs you would address the points in the video and rebut them with evidence of your own.
Right. I'm not going to sit around for hours searching through the video to find this valid evidence. If you want to make a point, don't hide it in hours of nonsense.
Van Allen says they would. You know him, right? He's another of your "pillars of science".
See Van Allen's work.
Please see Van Allen's work for details. Do you own research. If you already knew the basics of your own model you wouldn't be asking these amateur questions and would know where to look.
Where does he make these claims? And what makes his word absolute truth? The fact he discovered them doesn't mean he knows the belts like the back of his hand.
Please look up the concept of Solar Flares. They are very powerful and very destructive.
I can't see why they would cause such a problem with sufficient shielding between the astronauts and the source. They are only really damaging to the complex electronic equipment we have in modern satellites.
Yes, I am sure their nylon Velcro beds and food stuffs are all very effective at blocking deadly radiation
Considering the radiation is mainly particles, I imagine they are quite effective.
You could go on, but you won't because you've realized that you cannot present contradicting evidence. You have no contradicting evidence what-so-ever to present.
Please don't twist my words. If you want me to analyse it, shorten it into something someone would be bothered to analyse.
-
Please don't twist my words. If you want me to analyse it, shorten it into something someone would be bothered to analyse.
The videos last for hours?
That's not fair - Tom should also provide a "clip" or "clips" that give the minimum evidence needed to support his point(s).
In a similar vein, his oft-used "Read Eath Not A Globe" is also rather a somwehat unfair request.
-
Yes we can only "observe" the stars, and yes that makes astronomy an "observational science" ...
But that doesn't remove the desire or need to look up on a starry night and understand why the stars and planets move the way they do.
It doesn't matter how much you "try" to understand. If you cannot test a basic idea with a basic experiment to come to the truth of the matter, you are not understanding anything.
Right. I'm not going to sit around for hours searching through the video to find this valid evidence. If you want to make a point, don't hide it in hours of nonsense.
Oh, so now the video is rejected because it's "too long" and you don't have the attention span. What a terrible excuse to shut your eyes from confrontation and go on believing your tarnished belief system.
The evidence is there for all to see. Not one area has been contradicted.
Where does he make these claims? And what makes his word absolute truth? The fact he discovered them doesn't mean he knows the belts like the back of his hand.
Look up James Val Allen's work. It's apparent that you don't know even the very basics of your model or the work which founds it. I'm not in the business of providing remedial education. Look up the works which describe the Van Allen belts for yourself and then provide your evidence which demonstrates it to be incorrect. You can learn more at your public library.
I can't see why they would cause such a problem with sufficient shielding between the astronauts and the source. They are only really damaging to the complex electronic equipment we have in modern satellites.
Lethal doses of radiation on the Apollo craft would do a little more than "damage complex electronic equipment".
Considering the radiation is mainly particles, I imagine they are quite effective.
Radiation passes through solids. Pleas watch the video and go over the sources. Thick lead shielding is necessary to block radiation.
-
The videos last for hours?
That's not fair - Tom should also provide a "clip" or "clips" that give the minimum evidence needed to support his point(s).
In a similar vein, his oft-used "Read Eath Not A Globe" is also rather a somwehat unfair request.
It's not unfair to ask you to look at the evidence.
-
The videos last for hours?
That's not fair - Tom should also provide a "clip" or "clips" that give the minimum evidence needed to support his point(s).
In a similar vein, his oft-used "Read Eath Not A Globe" is also rather a somwehat unfair request.
It's not unfair to ask you to look at the evidence.
OK then:
Please read the entire Proceedings Of The Royal Atronomical Society - hundred's of years worth of articles - and rebut every piece of evidence therein for a global earth.
Does that sound fair to you?
-
OK then:
Please read the entire Proceedings Of The Royal Atronomical Society - hundred's of years worth of articles - and rebut every piece of evidence therein for a global earth.
Does that sound fair to you?
I have read the entire recorded proceedings of the Royal Astronomical Society. They're available on Google Books. There is no evidence for a "global earth".
A number of famous Flat Earthers such as Samuel Shenton have been fellows of the Royal Astronomical Society, by the way.
-
Yes we can only "observe" the stars, and yes that makes astronomy an "observational science" ...
But that doesn't remove the desire or need to look up on a starry night and understand why the stars and planets move the way they do.
It doesn't matter how much you "try" to understand. If you cannot test a basic idea with a basic experiment to come to the truth of the matter, you are not understanding anything.
If that is true ...
Why did you bother to propose your Counter-Rotating Star-Systems Theory in the first place?
You started, or at least joined in, a debate about the night sky ...
And refusing to finish that debate off just makes you look childish and petulant.
Also:
Given that you can never demonstrate your "Celestial light bends upwards" theory in an actual, earth-based laboratory ...
Why do you allow yourself to use it as an answer all the time?
You would appear to be acting hypocritically.
-
I have read the entire recorded proceedings of the Royal Astronomical Society.
Wow - I am impressed!
In that case could you kindly summarise the findings presented in the following paper?
Clarke, Alexander Ross
"Note on the figure of the earth."
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astonomical Society, 19: 36-38 (1859)
I gather that it presents evidence that The Earth is an oblate spheroid/ellipsoid ...
-
This isn't an unrelated thread. The author of this thread is calling FE'ers "believers," when really it is the RE'er who is the believer.
So because you think RE'ers are believers, you would expect a debate about a full-length conspiracy theory video in a thread about the debate tactics of believers?
Answer this, Tom. THIS is the real issue here. By avoiding the real issue, you prove that you are a fraud.
This thread is NOT about details of FE theory or any other.
Then why did you post it in a Flat Earth discussion board, dumbass?
To expose you all as FRAUDS. Like me, many people come here looking for answers. They want to know what kind of person would actually believe this stuff and brag about it. The truth is simple. Only a truly mentally ill person.
When newcomers arrive, they are immediately lied to by the FAQ and then by each nut-bag who calls the rantings of some retarded bible thumper "evidence" (Tom Bishop).
I posted here because people like Tom Bishop are not content with just having their own fantasies about magic gears that make the sky go 'round. They want to poison real science because they don't understand it and are not qualified to be part of it.
Pretending to be scientific is one of the worst kinds of evil. Every tyrant in history has used some pseudoscience as support or basis for their madness.
Insisting on misrepresenting yourself to society at intimate levels of interaction is a pathology resembling psychosis. We call you "sociopaths."
I feel it is my duty to point out that all "believers" here actually don't. It's all a hoax.
-
If that is true ...
Why did you bother to propose your Counter-Rotating Star-Systems Theory in the first place?
You started, or at least joined in, a debate about the night sky ...
And refusing to finish that debate off just makes you look childish and petulant.
I've always stated that the heavens were unknowable. Rowbotham himself does not make any speculation on the mechanisms and processes of the cosmos. On the topic of the heavens Rowbotham quotes that the movement of the stars are visible to us, but the mechanism is unknown. Rowbotham does not go into rambling hypothesis like Newton, building one hypothesis upon another in mumbling pretension. Rowbotham tells us to proceed only by inquiry.
From Chapter 1 of Earth Not a Globe:
-----
None can doubt that by making special experiments, and collecting manifest and undeniable facts, arranging them in logical order, and observing what is naturally and fairly deducible therefrom, the result must be more consistent and satisfactory than the contrary method of framing a theory or system--assuming the existence and operation of causes of which there is no direct and practical evidence, and which is only claimed to be "admitted for the sake of argument," and for the purpose of giving an apparent and plausible, but not necessarily truthful explanation of phenomena. All theories are of this character. "Supposing, instead of inquiring, imagining systems instead of learning from observation and experience the true constitution of things. Speculative men, by the force of genius may invent systems that will perhaps be greatly admired for a time; these, however, are phantoms which the force of truth will sooner or later dispel; and while we are pleased with the deceit, true philosophy with all the arts and improvements that depend upon it, suffers. The real state of things escapes our observation; or, if it presents itself to us, we are apt either to reject it wholly as fiction, or, by new efforts of a vain ingenuity to interweave it with our own conceits, and labour to make it tally with our favourite schemes. Thus, by blending together parts so ill-suited, the whole comes forth an absurd composition of truth and error. * * * These have not done near so much harm as that pride and ambition which has led philosophers to think it beneath them to offer anything less to the world than a complete and finished system of Nature; and, in order to obtain this at once, to take the liberty of inventing certain principles and hypotheses from which they pretend to explain all her mysteries."
"Theories are things of uncertain mode. They depend, in a great measure, upon the humour and caprice of an age, which is sometimes in love with one, and sometimes with another."
The system of Copernicus was admitted by its author to be merely an assumption, temporary and incapable of demonstration. The following are his words:--"It is not necessary that hypotheses should be true, or even probable; it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculation. * * * Neither let anyone, so far as hypotheses are concerned, expect anything certain from astronomy, since that science can afford nothing of the kind, lest, in case he should adopt for truth, things feigned for another purpose, he should leave this science more foolish than he came. * * * The hypothesis of the terrestrial motion was nothing but an hypothesis, valuable only so far as it explained phenomena, and not considered with reference to absolute truth or falsehood."
The Newtonian and all other "views" and "systems" have the same general character as the "hypothesis of the terrestrial motion," framed by Copernicus. The foundations or premises are always unproved; no proof is ever attempted; the necessity for it is denied; it is considered sufficient that the assumptions seem to explain the phenomena selected. In this way it is that theory supplants theory, and system gives way to system, often in rapid succession, as one failure after another compels opinions to change. Until the practice of theorising is universally relinquished, philosophy will continue to be looked upon by the bulk of mankind as a vain and mumbling pretension, antagonistic to the highest aspirations of humanity. Let there be adopted a true and practical free-thought method, with sequence as the only test of truth and consistency, and the philosopher may become the Priest of Science and the real benefactor of his species. "Honesty of thought is to look truth in the face, not in the side face, but in the full front; not merely to look at truth when found, but to seek it till found. There must be no tampering with conviction, no hedging or mental prevarication; no making 'the wish father to the thought;' no fearing to arrive at a particular result. To think honestly, then, is to think freely; freedom and honesty of thought are truly but interchangeable terms. For how can he think honestly, who dreads his being landed in this or that conclusion? Such an one has already predetermined in his heart how he shall think, and what he shall believe. Perfect truth, like perfect love, casteth out fear."
Let the method of simple inquiry--the "Zetetic" process be exclusively adopted--experiments tried and facts collected--not such only as corroborate an already existing state of mind, but of every kind and form bearing on the subject, before a conclusion is drawn, or a conviction affirmed.
"Nature speaks to us in a peculiar language; in the language of phenomena. She answers at all times the questions which are put to her; and such questions are experiments."
"Nature lies before us as a panorama; let us explore and find delight, she puts questions to us, and we may also question her; the answers may ofttimes be hard to spell, but no dreaded sphinx shall interfere when human wisdom falters."
We have an excellent example of a "Zetetic" process in an arithmetical operation, more especially so in what is called the "Golden Rule," or the "Rule of Three." If a hundredweight of any article costs a given sum, what will some other weight, less or more, be worth? The separate figures may be considered as the elements or facts in the inquiry; the placing and working of them as the logical arrangement of the evidence; and the quotient, or answer, as the fair and natural deduction,--the unavoidable or necessitated verdict. Hence, in every arithmetical or "Zetetic" process, the conclusion arrived at is essentially a quotient; which, if the details are correctly worked, must of necessity be true, and beyond the reach or power of contradiction.
We have another example of the "Zetetic" process in our Courts of Justice. A prisoner is placed at the bar; evidence for and against him is demanded: when advanced it is carefully arranged and patiently considered. It is then presented to the Jury for solemn reconsideration, and whatever verdict is given, it is advanced as the unavoidable conclusion necessitated by the whole of the evidence. In trials, for justice, society would not tolerate any other procedure. Assumption of guilt, and prohibition of all evidence to the contrary, is a practice not to be found among any of the civilised nations of the earth--scarcely indeed, among savages and barbarians; and yet assumption of premises, and selection of evidence to corroborate assumptions, is everywhere and upon all subjects the practice of theoretical philosophers!
The "Zetetic" process is also the most natural method of investigation. Nature herself always teaches it; it is her own continual suggestion; children invariably seek information by asking questions, by earnestly inquiring from those around them. Fearlessly, anxiously, and without the slightest regard to consequences, question after question, in rapid and exciting succession, will often proceed from a child, until the most profound in learning and philosophy, will feel puzzled to reply; and often the searching cross-examinations of a mere natural tyro, can only be brought to an end by an order to retire--to bed --to school--to play--to anywhere--rather than that the fiery "Zetetic" ordeal shall be continued.
If then both Nature and justice, as well as the common sense and practical experience of mankind demand, and will not be content with less or other than the "Zetetic" process, why is it ignored and constantly violated by the learned in philosophy? What right have they to begin their disquisitions with fanciful data, and then to demand that, to these all surrounding phenomena be moulded. As private individuals they have, of course, a right to "do as they like with their own;" but as authors and public teachers their unnatural efforts are immeasurably pernicious. Like a poor animal tied to a stake in the centre of a meadow, where it can only feed in a limited circle, the theoretical philosopher is tethered to his premises, enslaved by his own assumptions, and however great his talent, his influence, his opportunities, he can only rob his fellow men of their intellectual freedom and independence, and convert them into slaves like him-self. In this respect astronomical science is especially faulty. It assumes the existence of certain data; it then applies these data to the explanation of certain phenomena. If the solution seems plausible it is considered that the data may be looked upon as proved--demonstrated by the apparently satisfactory explanation they have afforded. Facts, and explanations of a different character, are put aside as unworthy of regard; since that which is already assumed seems to explain matters, there need be no further concern. Guided by this principle, the secretary of the Royal Astronomical Society (Professor De Morgan, of Trinity College, Cambridge), reviewing a paper by the author, in the Athenum, for March 25th, 1865, says: "The evidence that the earth is round is but cumulative and circumstantial; scores of phenomena ask, separately and independently, what other explanation can be imagined except the sphericity of the earth?" It is thus candidly admitted that there is no direct and positive evidence that the earth is round, that it is only "imagined" or assumed to be so in order to afford an explanation of "scores of phenomena." This is precisely the language of Copernicus, of Newton, and of all astronomers who have laboured to prove the rotundity of the earth. It is pitiful in the extreme that after so many ages of almost unopposed indulgence, philosophers instead of beginning to seek, before everything else, the true constitution of the physical world, are still to be seen labouring only to frame hypotheses, and to reconcile phenomena with imaginary and ever-shifting foundations. Their labour is simply to repeat and perpetuate the self-deception of their predecessors. Surely the day is not far distant when the very complications which their numerous theories have created, will startle them into wakefulness, and convince them that for long ages past they have but been idly dreaming! Time wasted, energies thrown away, truth obscured, and falsehood rampant, constitute a charge so grave that coming generations will look upon them as the bitterest enemies of civilisation, the heaviest drags on the wheels of progress, and the most offensive embodiment of frivolity, pride of learning, and canting formality; worse than this--by their position, their standing in the front ranks of learning, they deceive the public. They appear to represent a solid phalanx of truth and wisdom, when in reality they are but as the flimsy ice of an hour's induration--all surface, without substance, or depth, or reliability, or power to save from danger and ultimate destruction.
Let the practice of theorising be abandoned as one oppressive to the reasoning powers, fatal to the full development of truth, and, in every sense, inimical to the solid progress of sound philosophy.
If, to ascertain the true figure and condition of the earth, we adopt the "Zetetic" process, which truly is the only one sufficiently reliable, we shall find that instead of its being a globe--one of an infinite number of worlds moving on axes and in an orbit round the sun, it is the directly contrary--a Plane, without diurnal or progressive motion, and unaccompanied by anything in the firmament analogous to itself; or, in other words, that it is the only known material world.
-----
-
Clarke, Alexander Ross
"Note on the figure of the earth."
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astonomical Society, 19: 36-38 (1859)
I gather that it presents evidence that The Earth is an oblate spheroid/ellipsoid ...
What of it?
The reason thy think the earth is an oblate spheroid is because things weigh slightly more at the equator than at the North Pole. Such measurements can and are interpreted differently under a Flat Earth model. Many members of the FES question those g-meter measurements altogether, believing the error margin in g meters to be far too great to come to any conclusion.
The researchers are assuming that the earth is a globe, as always. Elsewhere whenever any member of the Royal Astronomical Society provides reasons for believing that the earth is a globe, they quote the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotile verbatim. It's always neglected that Aristotle's work (observations) have been demolished in Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.
-
Clarke, Alexander Ross
"Note on the figure of the earth."
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astonomical Society, 19: 36-38 (1859)
I gather that it presents evidence that The Earth is an oblate spheroid/ellipsoid ...
What of it?
The reason thy think the earth is an oblate spheroid is because things weigh slightly less at the equator than at the North Pole. Such measurements can and are interpreted differently under a Flat Earth model. Many members of the FES question those g-meter measurements altogether, believing the error margin in g meters to be far too great to come to any conclusion.
The researchers are assuming that the earth is a globe, as always. Elsewhere whenever any member of the Royal Astronomical Society provides reasons for believing that the earth is a globe, they quote the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotile verbatim. It's always neglected that Aristotle's work (observations) have been demolished in Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.
But Rowbotham was a bible literalist and his book is religious dogma, and you keep saying that your a scientist. Why do you base your belief on a religious book while saying you are not a religious believer of FE?
-
But Rowbotham was a bible literalist and his book is religious dogma, and you keep saying that your a scientist. Why do you base your belief on a religious book while saying you are not a religious believer of FE?
Rowbotham does not demolish Aristotle's work through religion. He does it through test, trial, and experiment. Please pursue his work Earth Not a Globe, which is available online:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za00.htm
-
But Rowbotham was a bible literalist and his book is religious dogma, and you keep saying that your a scientist. Why do you base your belief on a religious book while saying you are not a religious believer of FE?
Rowbotham does not demolish Aristotle's work through religion. He does it through test, trial, and experiment. Please pursue his work Earth Not a Globe, which is available online:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za00.htm
The book you have referenced a few thousand times is a religious text written by a pseudoscientist about pseudoscience. There is nothing scientific about Rowbotham's work, his book or anyone who follows his teachings. I point out the domain name of the link you provided. You are a liar once again.
-
I've always stated that the heavens were unknowable.
That is not true Tom - as well you know!
Here is just one example where you espouse your belief in "celestial disks":
that means that apart from the poles, there should be static areas in star trail photography.
Star trail photographers are specifically looking for good shots of action and movement when they go through their rolls.
You're also assuming that in the areas above the gaps of the celestial disks there aren't other celestial disks moving in the same general direction as the ones below them.
why aren't there strong intereractions between the edges of gears? why aren't stars torn exchanged between gears on the edge?
They've been moving in this fashion for hundreds of years, if not eons. The stars which would have been torn away would be long gone. Now only a stable system exists.
Now kindly resume your debate with me about the nature of the night sky.
-
Clarke, Alexander Ross
"Note on the figure of the earth."
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astonomical Society, 19: 36-38 (1859)
I gather that it presents evidence that The Earth is an oblate spheroid/ellipsoid ...
What of it?
The reason thy think the earth is an oblate spheroid is because things weigh slightly less at the equator than at the North Pole. Such measurements can and are interpreted differently under a Flat Earth model. Many members of the FES question those g-meter measurements altogether, believing the error margin in g meters to be far too great to come to any conclusion.
The researchers are assuming that the earth is a globe, as always. Elsewhere whenever any member of the Royal Astronomical Society provides reasons for believing that the earth is a globe, they quote the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotile verbatim. It's always neglected that Aristotle's work (observations) have been demolished in Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.
which is what? the pull from the stars? What is this force called? What is the fundamental particle associated with it?
-
Oh, so now the video is rejected because it's "too long" and you don't have the attention span. What a terrible excuse to shut your eyes from confrontation and go on believing your tarnished belief system.
The evidence is there for all to see. Not one area has been contradicted.
It's more the fact I don't have the time. My life's kind of busy right now, so I can't really sit down for several hours wading through the videos. If you want me to refute points, give me points. Don't give me hours of video. The first ten or so minutes of the video I saw could have been summarised as 'We don't think people could have got though the radiation belts'. If the rest of the video's going to be as terse as this, it might as well be summarised as a handful of points. I'm not going to organise your evidence for you.
Look up James Val Allen's work. It's apparent that you don't know even the very basics of your model or the work which founds it. I'm not in the business of providing remedial education. Look up the works which describe the Van Allen belts for yourself and then provide your evidence which demonstrates it to be incorrect. You can learn more at your public library.
Why? Is his work the absolute truth on the matter?
Lethal doses of radiation on the Apollo craft would do a little more than "damage complex electronic equipment".
Radiation passes through solids. Pleas watch the video and go over the sources. Thick lead shielding is necessary to block radiation.
I'm not sure you understand what the radiation in a solar flare and in the belts consists of. It's not the kind you need 3 feet of lead shielding for.
-
Tesla and Skeptek:
This has been a most fascinating thread. One thing I think you're overlooking is the fact that these are mostly kids you are dealing with. I'd expect you two to be honest about your respective ages (I'm 41). But I don't think you'll get ANY truth from these bored college students engaged in what is really a futile excercise. I would love them to explain to their children that the earth is flat.
I can tell just through my experience by the way they talk they are less than 25 (my 15 year old still says noob). The only one I can't quite figure out is Tom, but I'm SURE of the rest. I think Tom is a "grownup" but I'm just not sure what his intent is. Just make sure you're taking this into account in ALL of your responses.
BTW kids, I have ABSOLUTELY NO REASON TO LIE ABOUT ANYTHING to you, so if you've got a question (ie you don't believe anything I've said) let me have it.
Keep the thread going Skeptek it's a good one.
Cheers from the USA
-
This has been a most fascinating thread. One thing I think you're overlooking is the fact that these are mostly kids you are dealing with.
A good point, so thanks for making it.
I did consider t'other day how most people here will be younger than me (41), but I was thinking 20 to 30, not younger.
Younger people are, I gather, more focussed on rapid information and brief discouse like texting ...
And that I have, perhaps, been mis-interpreting their cultural preference for brevity as rudeness ("trolling").
I shall endeavour to be more culturally aware in future ...
-
As has been stated thousands of times across hundreds of threads, video and photographic evidence "proving" that the Earth is spherical has been labeled as a hoax. There is no reason to believe that any evidence provided via video or photographic means are authentic, including videos provided by FE'ers. If RE'ers are capable of and willing to go to such great lengths to "trick" people, then so are FE'ers.
That's why we shouldn't and don't have to go through hours of video footage.
Additionally, Rowbotham is constantly quoted as practically the only source for valid experimentation and rebuttle of hundreds, if not thousands of scientists. I have a theory - Rowbotham was lying about what he observed in his experiments...
I can see that Tom is proving yet again what I stated in my post regarding non sequitur replies and quoting out of context. If he wants to avoid the scientific aspects of proving his theories and continuing a fair debate (something he is obviously avoiding), then perhaps he can logically dictate why it's not only possible, but more likely that one man is the knower of the universal truths about the earth and everyone else is a conspirator and / or a liar. (By the way, sounds very similar to a religion... and no offense to anyone who is religious, as I happen to be both religious and scientific.)
Oh, and I am 24, to answer your question Holeinmysock.
-
The reason thy think the earth is an oblate spheroid is because things weigh slightly more at the equator than at the North Pole.
Did you really mean to type weight(equator) > weight(pole)?
I think that it is generally accepted that the reverse is true ...
Either beacuse of the greater "centrifugal force" at the Round Earth's Equator ...
Or the upward "pull" of The Sun which circles above The Flat Earth Equator.
-
Or the upward "pull" of The Sun which circles above The Flat Earth Equator.
Except Tom doesn't believe in gravitation, so it must be centrifugal force.
-
Well, I attempted to get a conversation about actual FE evidence, but I've been locked out of it now.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29839.0
I was completely sincere in my desire to list the most common reasons to believe the Earth is flat, and even posted what NEEMAN said exactly.
When levee posted completely off topic, I locked the thread and complained to the moderator via the "report" link in NEEMAN's post.
Since then, I myself am locked out from modifying and replying to the topic. I don't understand why.
-
Or the upward "pull" of The Sun which circles above The Flat Earth Equator.
Except Tom doesn't believe in gravitation, so it must be centrifugal force.
Are you suggesting that some parts of Flat Earth Theory are inconsistent?
-
Clarke, Alexander Ross
"Note on the figure of the earth."
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astonomical Society, 19: 36-38 (1859)
I gather that it presents evidence that The Earth is an oblate spheroid/ellipsoid ...
What of it?
The reason thy think the earth is an oblate spheroid is because things weigh slightly more at the equator than at the North Pole. Such measurements can and are interpreted differently under a Flat Earth model. Many members of the FES question those g-meter measurements altogether, believing the error margin in g meters to be far too great to come to any conclusion.
The researchers are assuming that the earth is a globe, as always. Elsewhere whenever any member of the Royal Astronomical Society provides reasons for believing that the earth is a globe, they quote the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotile verbatim. It's always neglected that Aristotle's work (observations) have been demolished in Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.
Thanks for the tip, Tom: there are, indeed, plenty of old scientific journals on books.google.com.
I have now read a report of Clarke's "geodetical "work in "The Monthy Notices of The Royal Astronomical Society" from November 1858.
In it Clarke uses data from "geodetical operations" carried out by Maclear in Southern Africa.
I was then able to find a report on Maclear's work in "Nautical Magazine" from 1847.
In the latter article there is much talk of "plumblines", "measured bases" and "trigonometry" from which I conclude that ...
The data which Clarke used to define the shape of The earth was survey data not gravimetric data as you suggested.
So things weighing more/less at The Equator (gravimetry) is completely irrelevant in this case.
So again I must ask: did you make an honest mistake in your interpretation of Clarke's work, or did you try to mislead us deliberately?
So there you have it:
Scientific survey evidence (simple straight lines measured with theodolites) that The Earth is round and not flat ...
In The Proceedings of The Royal Astronomical Society ...
As I suspected ...
Even though you said that there wasn't.
-
The book you have referenced a few thousand times is a religious text written by a pseudoscientist about pseudoscience. There is nothing scientific about Rowbotham's work, his book or anyone who follows his teachings. I point out the domain name of the link you provided. You are a liar once again.
The domain has nothing to do with the scientific veracity of the work. It's a book agrgragating website. Charles Darwin's book is also hosted on there.
That is not true Tom - as well you know!
Here is just one example where you espouse your belief in "celestial disks":
Now kindly resume your debate with me about the nature of the night sky.
The nature of the night sky is unknowable since we cannot conduct tests to reach the truth of the matter. That's all there is to it.
It's more the fact I don't have the time. My life's kind of busy right now, so I can't really sit down for several hours wading through the videos. If you want me to refute points, give me points. Don't give me hours of video. The first ten or so minutes of the video I saw could have been summarised as 'We don't think people could have got though the radiation belts'. If the rest of the video's going to be as terse as this, it might as well be summarised as a handful of points. I'm not going to organise your evidence for you.
"I'm too busy to watch an hour long video contradicting my beliefs, but I'm not so busy as not to post on these forums all day" is the lamest excuse I've ever heard. Watch the video and then present your contradicting evidence. If you have no contradicting evidence and just opinion, that means you lose.
Bring some acual evidence to the table and we'll talk.
Why? Is his work the absolute truth on the matter?
Read his work and then present your evidence demonstrating James Van Allen to be wrong.
-
Scientific survey evidence (simple straight lines measured with theodolites) that The Earth is round and not flat ...
In The Proceedings of The Royal Astronomical Society ...
As I suspected ...
Even though you said that there wasn't.
There isn't. The work likely isn't discussing whether the earth is round or flat. That issue has been long settled in the minds of the fellows of the Royal Astronomical Society. What they are doing is looking at one specific thing and interpreting its meaning under their model.
And you can read all about plumblines, measured bases, and trigonometry in Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birely Rowbotham.
-
That is not true Tom - as well you know!
Here is just one example where you espouse your belief in "celestial disks":
Now kindly resume your debate with me about the nature of the night sky.
The nature of the night sky is unknowable since we cannot conduct tests to reach the truth of the matter. That's all there is to it.
If "the night sky *is* "unknowable" ...
Why did you ever say that you believed in Gear-Driven Star-Systems?
You are deliberately avoiding that direct question ...
And I am finding that quite annoying.
I also strongly believe that you are deriving some kind of perverse pleasure in refusing my requests to engage ...
Therefore I am going to stop.
In conclusion, though, I must say that I think that you are being highly unreasonable and obstructive for no good reason ...
And for my sanity I must withdraw from this little game that you appear to have drawn me into.
-
If "the night sky *is* "unknowable" ...
Why did you ever say that you believed in Gear-Driven Star-Systems?
You are deliberately avoiding that direct question ...
Rotating stars is what is observed.
You are deliberately avoiding that direct question ...
And I am finding that quite annoying.
I also strongly believe that you are deriving some kind of perverse pleasure in refusing my requests to engage ...
Therefore I am going to stop.
In conclusion, though, I must say that I think that you are being highly unreasonable and obstructive for no good reason ...
And for my sanity I must withdraw from this little game that you appear to have drawn me into.
Don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out.
-
There isn't. The work likely isn't discussing whether the earth is round or flat.
I have enjoyed reading up on surveying in the 1880s ...
Because I can now see how simple surveying from one end of a continent to the other ...
From one mountain-top to the next, if you like ...
Will enable surveyors to measure the arc of part of The Earth's circumference.
They will actually measure the actual curvature just with angles and straight lines (theodolites), and distances (measured in chains in those days, no doubt).
I find that amazing and elegantly simple, really - just from surveying over land.
-
Hey, Tesla and Skptek:
Did you notice none of the children responded? And Tom is only talking to you guys :(
-
Don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out.
And the last thing you hear as the door closes behind me ...
Is my derisive laughter at your pathetic and juvenile attempt at whit and humour ...
-
Tesla and Skeptek:
This has been a most fascinating thread. One thing I think you're overlooking is the fact that these are mostly kids you are dealing with. I'd expect you two to be honest about your respective ages (I'm 41). But I don't think you'll get ANY truth from these bored college students engaged in what is really a futile excercise. I would love them to explain to their children that the earth is flat.
I can tell just through my experience by the way they talk they are less than 25 (my 15 year old still says noob). The only one I can't quite figure out is Tom, but I'm SURE of the rest. I think Tom is a "grownup" but I'm just not sure what his intent is. Just make sure you're taking this into account in ALL of your responses.
BTW kids, I have ABSOLUTELY NO REASON TO LIE ABOUT ANYTHING to you, so if you've got a question (ie you don't believe anything I've said) let me have it.
Keep the thread going Skeptek it's a good one.
Cheers from the USA
Thank you! I've got more, bigger, better, and funnier coming soon!
Hey, Tesla and Skptek:
Did you notice none of the children responded? And Tom is only talking to you guys :(
Yes, I did. Tom has a remarkable way of blocking out what doesn't appeal to him.
I'm glad to see there is someone else examining this thread in the proper light. Tom is quite the conundrum. I suspect he's as sincere as he has ever been with anyone in his life, and I wouldn't be surprised if he says the same crap to his wife/partner and kids. I suspect that Tom's dedication over the years is that of an older person (40+) - so am I - but there is obviously another component; possibly a MINOR mental/emotional/social disorder. I do not think that Tom is a threat to anyone.
My currently strongest theory is that Tom and others like him are just so alienated by society that they have chosen to amuse themselves by spouting absurdity to provoke dialogue in an area in which they feel expert. Since the subject is interesting (like a fantasy novel or game) they collect large quantities of knowledge and materials on it. This collected "evidence" is perceived to be powerful and persuasive, therefore they expect it have the same affect on others. Tom fails to admit that he knows it's all crap and that he's in it for the attention.
Against my grain, Tom's fraudulent pretense of science insults the admirable dedication, hard work and accomplishments of real scientists (some in this very forum, not me).
Examples:
this post (and it's companion (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=18711.msg341185#msg341185)) are brief guides for the forum newcomer.
this is a demonstration that tom bishop is a troll - nothing more, nothing less. the premise is such: no rational person could believe that bishop could be repeatedly proven wrong on, and run away from, so many topics...and also be legitimately sincere in his beliefs. (beliefs which are, by apparent unanimous consensus even among fe'ers, the most staunchly absurd among them.)
these points were collected from a narrow viewpoint. (most are a sampling from my experience with him, and one or two from others). it covers a very limited time frame. i may or may not (probably not) update this post as time goes on to include future (or past) examples.
regular and especially senior members know all of this about bishop already, and won't find much value in reading on. but for the noob, it is essential reading.
- failed to defend rowbotham's magical laws of perspective (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=18600.msg339473#msg339473) (also here (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=18286.msg326520#msg326520).)
- failed to defend claim that 700x magnification of cargo ship behind and below horizon was due to insufficient magnification (such as rowbotham's hand-held spotting scope) (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=18526.msg335497#msg335497) (also here (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=18627.msg338012#msg338012).)
- failed to defend his debunked assertion that compass spins wildly in the arctic circle (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=13157.msg198878#msg198878)
- failed to defend assertion that the 'Bedford Level Experiment' Wikipedia page is flawed (bishop claimed wallace was a fe'er) (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=18308.msg328240#msg328240)
- refused to post pictures corroborating his story of children splashing (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=18238.0)
- failed to provide examples backing up his specific claims of fraud on certain nasa photos (lost on two counts, forfeited on one) (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=18069.msg318325#msg318325)
- failed to explain why do planets line up on the ecliptic in his model of planetary orbit (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=18328.0)
- failed to defend his assertions that photos of ordinary ice shelves were the "ice wall" (this was more of a punt - he said the 'real' ice wall might actually be further in past his finally conceded pseudo-ice wall) (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=18423.msg331118#msg331118)
- confronting bishop with his toronto pic lie went mysteriously undefended (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=17770.msg310327#msg310327)
- failed to defend himself when presented with a list of his blatant contradictions over statements of "photographs are not admissable as evidence" (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=18238.msg329590#msg329590)
- directly contradicted self over what the "real stars" are with ms-paint blobs in one nasa photo version, and dust on the original scan in another; failed to defend self when this fact was pointed out (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=18491.msg333858#msg333858)
- failed to defend or counterattack when his assertion that 'compasses spin wildly in seattle wa', was shredded by fe'ers (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=18446.msg332603#msg332603)
- failed to answer what evidence he would find acceptable to back up re claims (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=18423.msg332064#msg332064)
- a recent status of multiple undefended bishop claims in summary form - some already noted above (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=18491.msg333710#msg333710)
update 200080102: added to subject title, and added introductory text; both to pre-empt the "controversy" this post has for some reason created.
Big thanks to cpt_bthimes for all the hard work and frustration he must have been through. If I had seen all this stuff before, I could have saved some grief and brain cells.
Edited for typos. Added big thanks.
-
"I'm too busy to watch an hour long video contradicting my beliefs, but I'm not so busy as not to post on these forums all day" is the lamest excuse I've ever heard. Watch the video and then present your contradicting evidence. If you have no contradicting evidence and just opinion, that means you lose.
can you link that video your talking about again? im too lazy to look through 9 pages to find out what you guys are talking about
-
In the China video (http://) for example the author is using the Scientific Method to demonstrate inadequacies and tell-tale signs of fakery. Video is slowed and areas of contention are displayed for all to see. That constitutes an experiment. The author is manipulating China's own videos to demonstrate that the space walk was faked. The author presents a sufficient conclusion with adequate evidence and background information. There is also an article (http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/china/shenzhou-vii-fake-spacewalk-5809.html) on the subject matter which provides additional discrepancies.
In the moon video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3186616594425246748&q=what+happened+on+the+moon&total=51&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0) the author is very thorough, invoking the interviews of government contractors, analysis of NASA data (such as Apollo 13 astronauts saying that they could see a beautiful lunar landscape when NASA said that they were on the dark side of the moon), and many other topics of discussion. The soviet space agency is also analyzed. There are many pieces of supporting evidence - scientific, catalogical, temporal - to support the initial hypothesis.
Now the burden is on you to defend your beliefs.
-
Okaaaaay... I'm back from my little forced vacation. Sorry about your mom, Raist.
Having had some time to contemplate this site and the posters here, I've refined some thoughts about this topic.
This thread was started to analyze how people choose what to believe and how that relates to the Flat Earth supporters. It's in this category because it relates directly to the debate as it is presented in these forums. It's an attempt to provide structure to the debate for the benefit of true scientific thinkers.
Very little of the content in this thread actually pertains to it's topic and I think that speaks volumes on my actual point.
In modern culture, the very term "Flat Earther" is used to refer to anyone who claims absurd, backward and ignorant beliefs with a completely inane dismissal of any opposing ideas. Because of this, debating the flat Earth has the potential to be a valuable tool in understanding how real scientific debate works. Beyond that, there is nothing to be gained by undertaking a conversation with a true believer.
I think it is best stated by the owner of this site when they say that their goal is to promote the flat Earth idea. This is in stark contrast to this category's description of being for "serious debate." They aren't really here to learn or better science, but rather to spread the faith, by bringing others to believe as they do. I doubt seriously that folks like Tom even understand how they have reached their beliefs. They wish to be considered intelligent, so they claim to be scientific. The fact that their behavior constantly betrays their true character is easily ignored by many and completely beyond their own ability to perceive.
After being here for a while and reading most of what's written here and elsewhere about this particular group, I'm disappointed to learn that there is no real difference between flat Earth and other pseudoscience. I was hoping to find actual true believers, but it seems that any that exist are either incapable or just not interested in spouting their ideas in public. After all, true belief does not come with a need to convince others. That need only arises when one has serious questions about their own understanding and require validation from a group of like-minded people.
Tom Bishop may be the closest we will ever get to finding a true believer. He knows he is wrong in 90% of what he says, but that part of his personality is so repressed and beaten down by his faith that it no longer has the power to influence his behavior. It could possibly be said that Tom has lied to himself long enough that he actually believes what he says in some sense. I would love to put him and some others here on a polygraph to see what they actually think of the things they say.
I know that Tom and other FE'ers are going to continue trashing this thread (I'm very surprised it hasn't already been shunned to the lesser categories like other serious topics), but I'm still hoping to find more real thinkers here and hear their opinions. Anybody?
-
I know that Tom and other FE'ers are going to continue trashing this thread (I'm very surprised it hasn't already been shunned to the lesser categories like other serious topics)
I'm not going to comment on your post per se as I feel it's really not worthy of comment, but I am curious about what "serious topics" you are referring to that have been "shunned to the lesser categories".
-
I know that Tom and other FE'ers are going to continue trashing this thread (I'm very surprised it hasn't already been shunned to the lesser categories like other serious topics)
I'm not going to comment on your post per se as I feel it's really not worthy of comment, but I am curious about what "serious topics" you are referring to that have been "shunned to the lesser categories".
"Not worthy" indeed. You people really crack me up. Thanks for the bump! ;)
What Roundy really meant was "I don't agree that serious topics get moved to avoid debate." Pretending to be curious when in fact they've made up their mind that there are none is called being "passive-aggressive." This particular case is also an example of a "bait" or "loaded question." By asking a question that one feels will inevitably be answered in way that favors their opinion, they've prepared themselves for a future victory without actually confronting their target.
I'll spell it out again since circle-talk is so popular here. I refer to topics that don't play into the FE'ers game of nonsense and misdirection such as Roundy just demonstrated.
And to add some value to my post, I will elaborate further.
Since the only serious debate here is about the way the debate is corrupted by FE'ers, topics about it should remain in the only category that claims to be about "serious debate." By moving a topic to any other category, it is being labeled as "not serious" so that it will not be considered as such.
Furthermore, the pretense of "moderation" here is absurd. The only steps taken are in reaction to personal attacks upon the moderators themselves and the moving of topics that don't appease the FE'ers need to bastardize the debate process. The most common moderation activity for forums like this is usually correcting and/or punishing off-topic or counter productive posts, but that idea is completely alien here and the issue is generally ignored.
On this site, the title "Moderator" should be replaced with "FE'ers Servant & Protector."
BRING ON THE BAN!
-
I have just read all of this thread and found it rather interesting. If you get the chance, compare this thread to the FE version by Robosteve titled "Fucking Re'ers" Re read the first post here again and then see what you conclusion is. This will support Skeptics main point.
-
Observations are not experiments. Scientific experiments involve a control and an influence of variables.
This is good stuff Mr Bishop but I saw this in another thread so it's not necessarily the REers you should be telling:
It's the only conclusion I can logically draw from what I've directly observed.
You can't logically draw any conclusions about the shape of the earth from what you've directly observed.
So now we're supposed to not trust anything we directly observe? Wow, and I thought I was a skeptic.
From here:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30074.60
-
I have just read all of this thread and found it rather interesting. If you get the chance, compare this thread to the FE version by Robosteve titled "Fucking Re'ers" Re read the first post here again and then see what you conclusion is. This will support Skeptics main point.
I think you mean "Skeptek" rather than "Skeptik" (diff peeps), but I could be wrong.
Not posting a linky makes more work for your reader, friend.
I think that thread (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30085.0) is on a different point. They seem interested in whether FE & RE are actually theories that need debating. It may be a valid discussion, but not the same topic.
I see that Tom Bishop has yet another unwitting victim. Attempting to debate Tom Bishop is the very definition of futility. He only wants an opportunity to repeat his sermon to a new congregation. It's all been said and blown to pieces countless times, but then that's not the point. The point is that if you repeat anything enough times, somebody will believe it.
We would all do well to remember that "The Flat Earth Society" in America that recently dissolved after the death of it's leader was a FOR-PROFIT business. I'm certain that some here look forward to a day when they can monetize this community and once again collect $10 or more from each Woo-Woo every year. Pseudoscience almost always has it's roots in greed. We've no reason to suspect FE'ers are any different.
-
I see that Tom Bishop has yet another unwitting victim. Attempting to debate Tom Bishop is the very definition of futility. He only wants an opportunity to repeat his sermon to a new congregation. It's all been said and blown to pieces countless times, but then that's not the point. The point is that if you repeat anything enough times, somebody will believe it.
Time will tell if I become a victim, but you are wrong if you think I am unwitting. I know why I posted what I did. This is an interesting thread you started, btw.
Mr Bishop may want to have a word with the author of the FAQs which he is so fond of telling people; my favourite:
Q: "Why do you guys believe the Earth is flat?"
A: Well, it looks that way up close.
-
I see that Tom Bishop has yet another unwitting victim. Attempting to debate Tom Bishop is the very definition of futility. He only wants an opportunity to repeat his sermon to a new congregation. It's all been said and blown to pieces countless times, but then that's not the point. The point is that if you repeat anything enough times, somebody will believe it.
Time will tell if I become a victim, but you are wrong if you think I am unwitting. I know why I posted what I did. This is an interesting thread you started, btw.
Mr Bishop may want to have a word with the author of the FAQs which he is so fond of telling people; my favourite:
Q: "Why do you guys believe the Earth is flat?"
A: Well, it looks that way up close.
I apologize for being disrespectful. I did not intend to be so. It does appear that you are better prepared for this than I was.
I've learned that Tom has already "had words" with just about everyone on both sides of this and every other FE forum on the web. I originally thought he was as "respected" here as any FE'er could be, but it turns out that he's probably brought more FE'ers to drop their position than any real scientist ever could.
Tom Bishop, the RE'ers FE'er!
-
I apologize for being disrespectful.
No disrespect seen Skeptek so no apology needed.
Regards
Squat
-
Let's see if I can get banned for taking my own topic off-subject...
Has anyone else ever blasted a teammate in an MMO because you got a cramp in your trigger finger?
Liars bring out the worst in me; another of my many flaws.
Anyone can get caught up in a heated argument and possibly lose sight of their original goal. It is a never ending pursuit of all mankind to recognize our limitations and thereby begin the journey to overcome them. Self-analysis is the foundation of true wellness.
It's when we are unwilling or unable to self-analyze that we run the risk of becoming trapped in a comfortable mindset that has been rendered obsolete or incorrect by new information. The willingness to accept new influence and data keeps our thoughts and feelings relevant to the world around us.
Oh, wait. I seem to have drifted right back on topic. Neato, huh? [self-amused]
-
Radiation passes through solids. Pleas watch the video and go over the sources. Thick lead shielding is necessary to block radiation.
. . . or even factor 30 sun cream.
-
Well folks...
This may be my last post here. On the previous page of this thread, you'll see that I "pretended" to go off topic in my own thread (but didn't actually). I didn't even dream that I would actually get banned for it, but no shit, I got 2 weeks.
I do believe that I've gotten all I can by researching this group, and my findings are stated well in this thread and others (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=search2).
Tom Bishop represents the tiny minority of "believers" that may say the same crap to their closest friends and family, whereas the vast majority of others here and on other FE sites are just trolling. Not to say that Tombot doesn't troll; he's got the chops, that's for sure. It's just that his motives are less clear than others suggesting mental illness.
The remaining posters here are truly trying to start and participate in real debate, but they are bitch-slapped over and over by the "moderators" and regulars in such a way as to frustrate them to the extreme. The result is a degradation of any respectability this site may have ever had, and a guarantee that no real debate will ever occur, and that The Flat Earth Society will never exist in any real way again. I suppose the real world should be thankful for this, but to me it's sad to watch a platform for debate get perverted and corrupted in this way.
Although I have greatly enjoyed discussions with some people here, but it's like drinking from a slightly poisoned well. It may taste fine at first, but the toxicity builds over time until one becomes ill from it's effects. For the sake of mental health, it is best to diverge from any group that is so self-loathing as this, at least in my case anyway.
Tom, I sincerely hope you are continuing to get the treatment you obviously need, and I also hope you have family that loves you unconditionally. We all need a support system.
Daniel, you should be very proud of the size of this group that you've managed to attract here. I just wonder if you can picture what this forum would be like if you were to allow and encourage an honest exchange of ideas. The potential for social interaction and education on a large scale is not insignificant, and I think you could do great things if your energies were employed in a more worthwhile way.
If I have failed to read and/or reply to any posts, I apologize. I cannot bring myself to sift through it any longer.
Thanks again to everyone.
If anyone wishes to contact me, please feel free to do so here:
www.TheFlatEarthSociety.info (http://www.TheFlatEarthSociety.info)
EVERYONE is welcome there. Except DogPlatter... Oh, ok. You can bring your dog too.
Until then, I bid you all farewell. :)
-
I'm locking this thread. There's a suggestions topic in GD if you want to comment on the site's moderation.