The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Voyaging on June 27, 2012, 03:58:42 PM
-
Q: "If you go directly south won't you eventually fall off the edge of the Earth?"
A: Yes, you will. In order to use this fact as proof you need to record a video of someone flying directly south around the world without falling off the edge. Furthermore you need to prove that your navigational equipment allows you to travel directly south without deviating.
I am a professional jet pilot and wish to perform this feat/experiment in order to prove you all wrong. I would gladly record it and include all the evidence that you requested.
However, I fear that, as is common amongst FETs, that you will disregard the evidence, as you have done for the hours/days of video evidence of Earth's spherical shape from satellites. Why should I do this when you will disregard irrefutable evidence? Convince me and I'll do it.
-
I don't think you are pilot. You wouldn't be the first to come here with such claims.
-
Q: "If you go directly south won't you eventually fall off the edge of the Earth?"
A: Yes, you will. In order to use this fact as proof you need to record a video of someone flying directly south around the world without falling off the edge. Furthermore you need to prove that your navigational equipment allows you to travel directly south without deviating.
I am a professional jet pilot and wish to perform this feat/experiment in order to prove you all wrong. I would gladly record it and include all the evidence that you requested.
However, I fear that, as is common amongst FETs, that you will disregard the evidence, as you have done for the hours/days of video evidence of Earth's spherical shape from satellites. Why should I do this when you will disregard irrefutable evidence? Convince me and I'll do it.
You're not going to do any such observation, regardless of whether you're a pilot or not.
-
Q: "If you go directly south won't you eventually fall off the edge of the Earth?"
A: Yes, you will. In order to use this fact as proof you need to record a video of someone flying directly south around the world without falling off the edge. Furthermore you need to prove that your navigational equipment allows you to travel directly south without deviating.
I am a professional jet pilot and wish to perform this feat/experiment in order to prove you all wrong. I would gladly record it and include all the evidence that you requested.
However, I fear that, as is common amongst FETs, that you will disregard the evidence, as you have done for the hours/days of video evidence of Earth's spherical shape from satellites. Why should I do this when you will disregard irrefutable evidence? Convince me and I'll do it.
You're not going to do any such observation, regardless of whether you're a pilot or not.
instead of just giving him your standards of what would qualify, lets just tell him he wont so he cant prove us wrong. good logic.
-
many believe the earth is endless, and you could fly forever "south" and not reach the edge.
but i respect your Zetetic nature and looking forward to see if you find the edge.
-
instead of just giving him your standards of what would qualify, lets just tell him he wont so he cant prove us wrong. good logic.
He logged onto a forum to ask us to take our time to convince him to do something. We don't care. If he wanted to do it he would have done it and then come here saying "See, look what I just did?" He is just someone who wants attention and that is not going to change.
-
It sounds to me like he wants to know would WOULD be accepted as evidence.
I fear that, as is common amongst FETs, that you will disregard the evidence
-
instead of just giving him your standards of what would qualify, lets just tell him he wont so he cant prove us wrong. good logic.
He logged onto a forum to ask us to take our time to convince him to do something. We don't care. If he wanted to do it he would have done it and then come here saying "See, look what I just did?" He is just someone who wants attention and that is not going to change.
Granted he did word it very poorly, i have a great feeling if he had just done it you would not have believed he did it, asking what to do and how (or what you would accept) before doing so leaves less room for errors and is less refutable.
-
I don't think you are pilot. You wouldn't be the first to come here with such claims.
Yes I am.
instead of just giving him your standards of what would qualify, lets just tell him he wont so he cant prove us wrong. good logic.
He logged onto a forum to ask us to take our time to convince him to do something. We don't care. If he wanted to do it he would have done it and then come here saying "See, look what I just did?" He is just someone who wants attention and that is not going to change.
Why would I waste my time doing something to gain evidence if the people who I am trying to convince won't take that evidence into account? This would hardly be a meager task.
-
What kinda jet planes do you fly, Ace?
-
I don't think you are pilot. You wouldn't be the first to come here with such claims.
Yes I am.
instead of just giving him your standards of what would qualify, lets just tell him he wont so he cant prove us wrong. good logic.
He logged onto a forum to ask us to take our time to convince him to do something. We don't care. If he wanted to do it he would have done it and then come here saying "See, look what I just did?" He is just someone who wants attention and that is not going to change.
Why would I waste my time doing something to gain evidence if the people who I am trying to convince won't take that evidence into account? This would hardly be a meager task.
don't worry, i have a feeling you will get one of 2 responses
1) You wont get a concrete way to do it
2) you do and then you faked/part of the conspiracy some how
-
Q: "If you go directly south won't you eventually fall off the edge of the Earth?"
A: Yes, you will. In order to use this fact as proof you need to record a video of someone flying directly south around the world without falling off the edge. Furthermore you need to prove that your navigational equipment allows you to travel directly south without deviating.
I am a professional jet pilot and wish to perform this feat/experiment in order to prove you all wrong. I would gladly record it and include all the evidence that you requested.
However, I fear that, as is common amongst FETs, that you will disregard the evidence, as you have done for the hours/days of video evidence of Earth's spherical shape from satellites. Why should I do this when you will disregard irrefutable evidence? Convince me and I'll do it.
I'm a fan of personal observation, and I'm down for this trip. I live in the Midwestern United States, PM me for more details. We can meet up and go on this adventure together. Shotgun!
-
I want to go too.
Where are we going? The south pole? Can we fly high enough to see the curvature of the earth? Make sure you don't bring a fish eye camera.
-
The flaw in this story is that pilots don't own aircraft. They can't just take their boss' lear jet to the south pole. They can't run off with an F18 during a sortie. They can't take 200 passengers on the scenic route. Pilots go where they are told to go.
-
The flaw in this story is that pilots don't own aircraft. They can't just take their boss' lear jet to the south pole. They can't run off with an F18 during a sortie. They can't take 200 passengers on the scenic route. Pilots go where they are told to go.
that's like saying a race car driver cant own a car of his own.
-
The flaw in this story is that pilots don't own aircraft. They can't just take their boss' lear jet to the south pole. They can't run off with an F18 during a sortie. They can't take 200 passengers on the scenic route. Pilots go where they are told to go.
that's like saying a race car driver cant own a car of his own.
An aircraft capable of flight to Antarctica is out of the rental range of a pilot's salary.
-
The flaw in this story is that pilots don't own aircraft. They can't just take their boss' lear jet to the south pole. They can't run off with an F18 during a sortie. They can't take 200 passengers on the scenic route. Pilots go where they are told to go.
that's like saying a race car driver cant own a car of his own.
An aircraft capable of flight to Antarctica is out of the rental range of a pilot's salary.
How do you know he's not filthy rich?
-
The flaw in this story is that pilots don't own aircraft. They can't just take their boss' lear jet to the south pole. They can't run off with an F18 during a sortie. They can't take 200 passengers on the scenic route. Pilots go where they are told to go.
that's like saying a race car driver cant own a car of his own.
An aircraft capable of flight to Antarctica is out of the rental range of a pilot's salary.
How do you know he's not filthy rich?
How do you know he's not 12 years old?
-
The flaw in this story is that pilots don't own aircraft. They can't just take their boss' lear jet to the south pole. They can't run off with an F18 during a sortie. They can't take 200 passengers on the scenic route. Pilots go where they are told to go.
that's like saying a race car driver cant own a car of his own.
An aircraft capable of flight to Antarctica is out of the rental range of a pilot's salary.
How do you know he's not filthy rich?
Because we have lots of teenagers coming to the site pretending to be pilots.
I don't know what they expect us to say?
"I'm a pilot and I'm going to fly to Antarctica"
"Ok, fine, you do that"
"Yeah I did it, you are all wrong."
"Sure. K thankx bye"
Kinda makes for a stupid thread. It just ends up with us trying to prove he isn't a pilot by asking industry specific questions until the game is up.
I'd rather he said "I'm a unicorn and I live in a kingdom beyond the ice wall". At least that might be something new for me to disprove. :(
-
I don't know what they expect us to say?
I think he expects you to say what you would personally accept as evidence. Which you might know if you had actually read the thread.
-
I don't know what they expect us to say?
I think he expects you to say what you would personally accept as evidence. Which you might know if you had actually read the thread.
I know what he wants. He wants me to say I'd accept video footage so he can rush to youtube and dig out a video. Or that photographic evidence will do so he can do a google image search. Or to describe the landscape so that he can google a blog or online book.
Whatever I say, he'll just reply "ta-dah, someone else did that exact same thing and here it is".
Its a pretty rubbish debate to be part of from an FErs perspective. First he isn't even being honest. I'm expected just to accept any lie he comes up with as fact and secondly he's asking me what argument would be most effective at defeating the FErs? As if coming to a site and arguing the earth is round isn't easy enough? He needs to lie and be given pointers as well.
I'm sure you won't be surprised why FErs never rush to answer these threads with any enthusiasm.
-
I don't know what they expect us to say?
I think he expects you to say what you would personally accept as evidence. Which you might know if you had actually read the thread.
I know what he wants. He wants me to say I'd accept video footage so he can rush to youtube and dig out a video. Or that photographic evidence will do so he can do a google image search. Or to describe the landscape so that he can google a blog or online book.
Whatever I say, he'll just reply "ta-dah, someone else did that exact same thing and here it is".
Its a pretty rubbish debate to be part of from an FErs perspective. First he isn't even being honest. I'm expected just to accept any lie he comes up with as fact and secondly he's asking me what argument would be most effective at defeating the FErs? As if coming to a site and arguing the earth is round isn't easy enough? He needs to lie and be given pointers as well.
I'm sure you won't be surprised why FErs never rush to answer these threads with any enthusiasm.
Ha, This is exactly like looking at a orange and calling it a apple. I get you take the position of the apple but you must also except the possibility of the orange theory. What your telling me right now is "I don't like to debate or understand someone else's position because I get proven wrong to much". Do you completely understand how insane you are?
-
Ha, This is exactly like looking at a orange and calling it a apple.
An apple. An orange.
No, this is me saying, 'I've seen this exact thread every week for years and I can't be bothered to humour the teenager in the OP this time.'
What your telling me right now is "I don't like to debate or understand someone else's position because I get proven wrong to much".
No, I'm saying if you want to debate earth's shape, get on with it. But don't tell me a bunch of lies and ask me 'How should I go about arguing my side of the debate?' Formulating both sides of an argument is akin to talking to yourself. See your comment below.
Do you completely understand how insane you are?
I'll refer you to your comment below this one and you can decide who sounds crazy.
I get you take the position of the apple but you must also except the possibility of the orange theory.
-
Ha, This is exactly like looking at a orange and calling it a apple.
An apple. An orange.
No, this is me saying, 'I've seen this exact thread every week for years and I can't be bothered to humour the teenager in the OP this time.'
What your telling me right now is "I don't like to debate or understand someone else's position because I get proven wrong to much".
No, I'm saying if you want to debate earth's shape, get on with it. But don't tell me a bunch of lies and ask me 'How should I go about arguing my side of the debate?' Formulating both sides of an argument is akin to talking to yourself. See your comment below.
Do you completely understand how insane you are?
I'll refer you to your comment below this one and you can decide who sounds crazy.
I get you take the position of the apple but you must also except the possibility of the orange theory.
Go ahead, correct my grammar. Call me crazy for using a analogy. It doesn't change the fact you're avoiding the question and arguing the legitimacy of a topic on a open debating forum.
Do you completely understand how insane you are?
-
Below is a thread from a guy claiming to have flown in a mig-25.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,50463.0.html (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,50463.0.html)
How many of these threads should I earnestly do my best to answer, when I know the OP is lying from the outset?
There was this guy who was an actual SR-71 pilot. (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=51488.msg1262264#msg1262264)
This guy studies astrophysics (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49557.msg1216771#msg1216771)
this guy is an astronaut (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49557.msg1216771#msg1216771)
This guy works for NASA (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=9302.msg113262#msg113262)
So does this guy (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=6467.msg75722#msg75722)
And this one (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=33764.msg829072#msg829072[/url)
and this one (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11769.msg160195#msg160195)
Just a drop in the ocean. In fact everyone who works at NASA has to come here. Its part of the job. ::)
How is any of this proving earth's shape either way? Its not. Its people trying to score a cheap win. If you want to debate for debate's sake, come down to the lower fora where there is less moderation and the topic isn't stacked in your favour. If you are interested in earth's shape, a thread that starts with a pack of lies is likely to yield very little.
-
Below is a thread from a guy claiming to have flown in a mig-25.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,50463.0.html (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,50463.0.html)
How many of these threads should I earnestly do my best to answer, when I know the OP is lying from the outset?
There was this guy who was an actual SR-71 pilot. (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=51488.msg1262264#msg1262264)
This guy studies astrophysics (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49557.msg1216771#msg1216771)
this guy is an astronaut (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49557.msg1216771#msg1216771)
This guy works for NASA (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=9302.msg113262#msg113262)
So does this guy (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=6467.msg75722#msg75722)
And this one (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=33764.msg829072#msg829072[/url)
and this one (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11769.msg160195#msg160195)
Just a drop in the ocean. In fact everyone who works at NASA has to come here. Its part of the job. ::)
How is any of this proving earth's shape either way? Its not. Its people trying to score a cheap win. If you want to debate for debate's sake, come down to the lower fora where there is less moderation and the topic isn't stacked in your favour. If you are interested in earth's shape, a thread that starts with a pack of lies is likely to yield very little.
Out of every thread you linked not one of them fallow the same topic. Although their similar in that they claim the have proof; this one asks if he gave you 100% in-conclusive proof would you believe him?
-
Would I believe him? Of course. How can you not with 100% proof?
But we are already 2 pages into this debate, a debate I have had many times, and I know how often people return with 100% proof. To date not one of them has.
-
Well, since the force of gravity is roughly the same everywhere on the globe, it could be surmised that the Earth must be spherical. If the Earth were not round, whole hemispheres would have different atmospheric pressure and significantly different sea levels.
If that isnt enough for you,
http://imgur.com/C09AV (http://imgur.com/C09AV)
If that isn't enough for you,
then try simultaneously measuring the length of the shadows cast by identical poles perpendicular to a flat surface that is tangential to the earth's radius at various, distant locations. If indeed the earth is round, then the shadows should all vary in length from one distant location to another, which means that the angle at which the parallel rays of sunlight struck each pole varied from one location to another.
If that isn't enough for you,
you can try observe, with binoculars, ships slowly 'sinking' below the horizon as it sails farther and farther out to the ocean, then watch them come back. They certainly didn't fall off the edge of the earth!
If that isn't enough for you,
Why is the sun shineing ind china, morning in Hawaii and night in mid USA?
If that isn't enough for you,
Look at all the other planets. It'd be logical to assume since every single planet is round earth would be also. Please dont say earth is "SPECUL" because it has life and others don't.
This along with a lot of math that would be in accurate, say targeting using the formula to measure the earths surface.
<3 Connor.
-
Do we need to start posting that picture of Tatooine again? I certainly hope not.
-
Do we need to start posting that picture of Tatooine again? I certainly hope not.
Ha, Planets aren't fictional. You can see them through any telescope.
-
I'm wondering, according to the flat Earth theory, what happens when you sail to the edge of the planet? Do you fall off into space? Hahaha! This is so ridiculous.
I remember when I was about 11 years old, my family traveled to Ireland to see the small town where my great-great grandparents and other ancestors came from before immigrating to the United States.
Anyway, long story short; I remember the plane trip like it was yesterday. It was my first time on a commercial jet, and since it was a transatlantic flight, we were on a Boeing 747. My parents put me in a window seat and I sat there for hours just looking out the window. I remember asking my grandfather how high in the air we were, he said 35,000 feet. Why is this relevant? Because at 35,000 feet in the air, I was able to look over the horizon and see a slight curvature of the Earth. When the sun set, I could look out over the horizon close to where the sun was going down and the Earth's curve was easier to see.
Circumnavigation also proves the flat Earth theory wrong. Basically, all the people who have sailed around the Earth must be in on this big conspiracy also (same with the people who flew around the planet):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumnavigation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumnavigation)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Around_the_world_sailing_record (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Around_the_world_sailing_record)
Oh and if the Earth is flat and gravity does not exist, please explain how the Moon affects the ocean tides. Or is it just some major coincidence that the ocean tides follow the gravitational magical pull of the moon.
-
Ha, Planets aren't fictional. You can see them through any telescope.
And yet you post a NASA Earth photo as if it were real. Also, celestial objects are not round.
-
Celestial objects are not round.
Nice one!
Any proofs?
-
Ha, Planets aren't fictional. You can see them through any telescope.
And yet you post a NASA Earth photo as if it were real. Also, celestial objects are not round.
You claim that planets aren't round while you can look at them through a telescope and prove yourself wrong. I don't know whether this is a case of extreme paranoia or the desire to be unique similar to those bronykids.
-
Celestial objects are not round.
Nice one!
Any proofs?
Have you ever actually looked at them before? They appear quite flat.
You claim that planets aren't round while you can look at them through a telescope and prove yourself wrong. I don't know whether this is a case of extreme paranoia or the desire to be unique similar to those bronykids.
Same question as above.
-
Celestial objects are not round.
Nice one!
Any proofs?
Have you ever actually looked at them before? They appear quite flat.
You claim that planets aren't round while you can look at them through a telescope and prove yourself wrong. I don't know whether this is a case of extreme paranoia or the desire to be unique similar to those bronykids.
Same question as above.
Look at any sphere, they all appear quite flat from any angle. Anyway lets go back to the points I previously stated.
Well, since the force of gravity is roughly the same everywhere on the globe, it could be surmised that the Earth must be spherical. If the Earth were not round, whole hemispheres would have different atmospheric pressure and significantly different sea levels.
If that isnt enough for you,
http://imgur.com/C09AV (http://imgur.com/C09AV)
If that isn't enough for you,
then try simultaneously measuring the length of the shadows cast by identical poles perpendicular to a flat surface that is tangential to the earth's radius at various, distant locations. If indeed the earth is round, then the shadows should all vary in length from one distant location to another, which means that the angle at which the parallel rays of sunlight struck each pole varied from one location to another.
If that isn't enough for you,
you can try observe, with binoculars, ships slowly 'sinking' below the horizon as it sails farther and farther out to the ocean, then watch them come back. They certainly didn't fall off the edge of the earth!
If that isn't enough for you,
Why is the sun shineing ind china, morning in Hawaii and night in mid USA?
If that isn't enough for you,
Look at all the other planets. It'd be logical to assume since every single planet is round earth would be also. Please dont say earth is "SPECUL" because it has life and others don't.
This along with a lot of math that would be in accurate, say targeting using the formula to measure the earths surface.
<3 Connor.
Step by step prove me wrong because i'm not entirely wrong till every point is disproven.
-
Look at any sphere, they all appear quite flat from any angle. Anyway lets go back to the points I previously stated.
Saying they are a sphere because "they could be" is a logical fallacy. They do not look like a sphere, therefore they are not.
Step by step prove me wrong because i'm not entirely wrong till every point is disproven.
Please use the search function, it is there for a reason.
-
They do not look like a sphere, therefore they are not.
Sticking again to appearance?
Applying the same logic, I could look at your avatar and say: you look like an idiot therefore you are. But I dont use this apalling logic.
-
Look at any sphere, they all appear quite flat from any angle. Anyway lets go back to the points I previously stated.
Saying they are a sphere because "they could be" is a logical fallacy. They do not look like a sphere, therefore they are not.
Step by step prove me wrong because i'm not entirely wrong till every point is disproven.
Please use the search function, it is there for a reason.
I can tell you why it's not here for, avoiding a question.This is the debat section not the search function. We debate here if you didn't know.
-
Sticking again to appearance?
Applying the same logic, I could look at your avatar and say: you look like an idiot therefore you are. But I dont use this apalling logic.
That is not a physical characteristic. You can not look at a person and determine abstract qualities. Such a comparison to my logic is inept.
I can tell you why it's not here for, avoiding a question.This is the debat section not the search function. We debate here if you didn't know.
I am not interested in debating your overly used topics that have been defeated multiple other times. If you do not take the time to learn about a topic before you debate it, then I will not take the time to discuss anything with you. You are not worth my time until you learn more about FET. I will not counter your lack of effort with extra effort on my part.
-
Would I believe him? Of course. How can you not with 100% proof?
But we are already 2 pages into this debate, a debate I have had many times, and I know how often people return with 100% proof. To date not one of them has.
That's why I'm asking, because Flat Earthers' concept of proof is intensely skewed, both in their negation of the proof of the round Earth model (which there is an unbelievable amount of) and their acceptance of proof of the Flat Earth model (of which there is none).
Look at any sphere, they all appear quite flat from any angle. Anyway lets go back to the points I previously stated.
Saying they are a sphere because "they could be" is a logical fallacy. They do not look like a sphere, therefore they are not.
Wait, are you being serious right now?
(http://richrock.com/gifs/optical-illusion-wheels-circles-rotating.png)
They look like they're moving, therefore they are.
-
They look like they're moving, therefore they are.
Incorrect premise, thus your conclusion is incorrect.
-
They look like they're moving, therefore they are.
Incorrect premise, thus your conclusion is incorrect.
But they do look like they're moving, even more than planets look flat.
Of course, the conclusion doesn't logically follow. You're using subjectivity to try to prove an objective truth. "I am colorblind, therefore color doesn't exist."
-
They look like they're moving, therefore they are.
Incorrect premise, thus your conclusion is incorrect.
But they do look like they're moving, even more than planets look flat.
Of course, the conclusion doesn't logically follow. You're using subjectivity to try to prove an objective truth. "I am colorblind, therefore color doesn't exist."
Yes, they almost look like they are moving. How does this prove that the Earth is round?
-
But they do look like they're moving, even more than planets look flat.
Close one eye and look at the picture, it won't move at all. If I close one eye and look at a planet, it still appears to be flat.
Of course, the conclusion doesn't logically follow. You're using subjectivity to try to prove an objective truth. "I am colorblind, therefore color doesn't exist."
Color is an abstract figment of your imagination, color, in fact, does not exist at all. While flatness, on the other hand, is an observable physical trait. Also, there is no such thing as objective truth in science. I'm afraid you're in the wrong section, the religion section is downstairs in the lower forums.
-
They look like they're moving, therefore they are.
Incorrect premise, thus your conclusion is incorrect.
But they do look like they're moving, even more than planets look flat.
Of course, the conclusion doesn't logically follow. You're using subjectivity to try to prove an objective truth. "I am colorblind, therefore color doesn't exist."
Yes, they almost look like they are moving. How does this prove that the Earth is round?
If only you paid attention!
It means that because something SEEMS to be it doesn't MEAN that it is. Ergo something can look a certain way and be different. Example: the Earth looks round but by no way it is a proof that it is flat or round.
-
They look like they're moving, therefore they are.
Incorrect premise, thus your conclusion is incorrect.
But they do look like they're moving, even more than planets look flat.
Of course, the conclusion doesn't logically follow. You're using subjectivity to try to prove an objective truth. "I am colorblind, therefore color doesn't exist."
Yes, they almost look like they are moving. How does this prove that the Earth is round?
I wasn't trying to prove Earth was round, I was trying to prove his argument that "If something looks like x, it is x" is logically invalid.
But they do look like they're moving, even more than planets look flat.
Close one eye and look at the picture, it won't move at all. If I close one eye and look at a planet, it still appears to be flat.
Of course, the conclusion doesn't logically follow. You're using subjectivity to try to prove an objective truth. "I am colorblind, therefore color doesn't exist."
Color is an abstract figment of your imagination, color, in fact, does not exist at all. While flatness, on the other hand, is an observable physical trait. Also, there is no such thing as objective truth in science. I'm afraid you're in the wrong section, the religion section is downstairs in the lower forums.
Closing an eye does not affect the perceived movement of the picture. All humans see it moving with one eye as well (except those with vision impairment).
Color exists as a frequency on the light spectrum. It can be measured.
Not sure why you are being insulting and claiming this is the realm of religion, as the study of light is a scientific endeavor.
Similarly, if there is no objective truth, Earth is neither round nor flat, silly.
-
Sticking again to appearance?
Applying the same logic, I could look at your avatar and say: you look like an idiot therefore you are. But I dont use this apalling logic.
That is not a physical characteristic. You can not look at a person and determine abstract qualities. Such a comparison to my logic is inept.
I can tell you why it's not here for, avoiding a question.This is the debat section not the search function. We debate here if you didn't know.
I am not interested in debating your overly used topics that have been defeated multiple other times. If you do not take the time to learn about a topic before you debate it, then I will not take the time to discuss anything with you. You are not worth my time until you learn more about FET. I will not counter your lack of effort with extra effort on my part.
Extra effort? I've actually looked around on these forums and you like to use the "Search function" response. In-fact I haven't seen a legit response from you. So don't just assume I haven't put forth effort.
this is a debate forum if you don't feel like debating topics then don't respond. This "Use the Search Function" is a pathetic way to get your post count up.
-
If the planets are indeed flat, they should appear to be elliptical when seen from different angles other than head-on, especially considering that they're only 3000 miles up.
-
Closing an eye does not affect the perceived movement of the picture.
Incorrect.
All humans see it moving with one eye as well (except those with vision impairment).
Incorrect.
Color exists as a frequency on the light spectrum. It can be measured.
Incorrect.
Not sure why you are being insulting and claiming this is the realm of religion, as the study of light is a scientific endeavor.
Irrelevant to my original statement.
Similarly, if there is no objective truth, Earth is neither round nor flat, silly.
Indeed.
Extra effort? I've actually looked around on these forums and you like to use the "Search function" response. In-fact I haven't seen a legit response from you. So don't just assume I haven't put forth effort.
this is a debate forum if you don't feel like debating topics then don't respond. This "Use the Search Function" is a pathetic way to get your post count up.
If you didn't know how to use the search function, all you had to do was ask. Simply input the the desired topic, enter a username (optional) and enter the range of days. I suggest 365.
-
Closing an eye does not affect the perceived movement of the picture.
Incorrect.
All humans see it moving with one eye as well (except those with vision impairment).
Incorrect.
Color exists as a frequency on the light spectrum. It can be measured.
Incorrect.
Not sure why you are being insulting and claiming this is the realm of religion, as the study of light is a scientific endeavor.
Irrelevant to my original statement.
Similarly, if there is no objective truth, Earth is neither round nor flat, silly.
Indeed.
Extra effort? I've actually looked around on these forums and you like to use the "Search function" response. In-fact I haven't seen a legit response from you. So don't just assume I haven't put forth effort.
this is a debate forum if you don't feel like debating topics then don't respond. This "Use the Search Function" is a pathetic way to get your post count up.
If you didn't know how to use the search function, all you had to do was ask. Simply input the the desired topic, enter a username (optional) and enter the range of days. I suggest 365.
Saying incorrect is not a debate. you have to have facts and evidence behind your claims. This is like arguing with a 3 year old, or even worse a catholic.
Also I never said i haven't or don't know how to use the search function. I suggest some reading comp. classes it will really help with these hard to understand big words I'm using.
-
Similarly, if there is no objective truth, Earth is neither round nor flat, silly.
Indeed.
So you admit Earth isn't flat. Good game, was easy.
By the way, you have severe vision problems if closing your eye causes the image to appear still.
Also, colors are light on a spectrum.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/Linear_visible_spectrum.svg)
-
Voyaging you are still trying to debate with irushwithscvs? Seriously if I was a FE'er I'd be ashamed of myself because I would believe in the same theory as this retard. His logic must be right though. I never saw any evidence that the FET has, and have seen it be disproved multiple times. Therefor it doesn't look like a theory, and it isn't, so irushwithscvs's logic has some truth to it.
-
So you admit Earth isn't flat. Good game, was easy.
Hmm, where did I say that exactly?
By the way, you have severe vision problems if closing your eye causes the image to appear still.
Okay.
Also, colors are light on a spectrum.
The electromagnetic spectrum is irrelevant to the colors your mind assigns to it. The colors are completely made up inside your own head.
-
So you admit Earth isn't flat. Good game, was easy.
Hmm, where did I say that exactly?
By the way, you have severe vision problems if closing your eye causes the image to appear still.
Okay.
Also, colors are light on a spectrum.
The electromagnetic spectrum is irrelevant to the colors your mind assigns to it. The colors are completely made up inside your own head.
As are shapes.
-
As are shapes.
Can you elaborate on this?
-
As are shapes.
Can you elaborate on this?
The shape of something is only as much of an intrinsic quality of that object inasmuch as you perceive that object to be a certain shape.
-
As are shapes.
Can you elaborate on this?
The shape of something is only as much of an intrinsic quality of that object inasmuch as you perceive that object to be a certain shape.
Certainly, but shape, unlike color, exists outside of the human mind. You could say "well, we can only perceive so many dimensions" but that is irrelevant. 3D is relevant to itself and not to a human's perception of it. Therefore we can conclude nothing has a definite shape, but if we limit to three dimensions, we can conclude that the Earth is a cylinder. We live on the flat portion of it, in case you were wondering.
-
The shape of something is only as much of an intrinsic quality of that object inasmuch as you perceive that object to be a certain shape.
[/quote]
we can conclude that the Earth is a cylinder.
[/quote]
Did it hurt when you fell off the hypocritical tree, hit every hypocritical branch, and slammed face first into the albino lifeguard.
-
As are shapes.
Can you elaborate on this?
The shape of something is only as much of an intrinsic quality of that object inasmuch as you perceive that object to be a certain shape.
Certainly, but shape, unlike color, exists outside of the human mind. You could say "well, we can only perceive so many dimensions" but that is irrelevant. 3D is relevant to itself and not to a human's perception of it. Therefore we can conclude nothing has a definite shape, but if we limit to three dimensions, we can conclude that the Earth is a cylinder. We live on the flat portion of it, in case you were wondering.
Ok, so therefore you are saying there is an objective truth? And that Earth has a specific shape even separated from human perception?
-
Ok, so therefore you are saying there is an objective truth?
I am not. What gave you this idea?
that Earth has a specific shape even separated from human perception?
Possibly.
-
Ok, so therefore you are saying there is an objective truth?
I am not. What gave you this idea?
that Earth has a specific shape even separated from human perception?
Possibly.
I think you misunderstand what the word objective means. Your answers to those two questions are contradictory.
-
He cant be a pilot as he would have hit the ice wall and would not be able to post this post.
-
Ok, so therefore you are saying there is an objective truth?
I am not. What gave you this idea?
that Earth has a specific shape even separated from human perception?
Possibly.
I think you misunderstand what the word objective means. Your answers to those two questions are contradictory.
Would you care to elaborate on why they are contradictory?
-
Ok, so therefore you are saying there is an objective truth?
I am not. What gave you this idea?
that Earth has a specific shape even separated from human perception?
Possibly.
I think you misunderstand what the word objective means. Your answers to those two questions are contradictory.
Would you care to elaborate on why they are contradictory?
Well if you are denying the first, then that means you do not believe there is an objective truth (and if you do believe there is, then why did you question that in the first place?)
If you answered "possibly" to the second, that means you are at least open to the idea that the earth has a shape separate from human perception.
If there is an objective truth (the first is true) then the shape is separate from human perception (the second is true), or they could both be wrong, but you can't just have one being true.
-
It's a futile endeavor to try to reason with irushwithscvs, he's clearly one of two things;
1) A very amusing troll
2) Deluded beyond all reason
Oliver Wendell Holmes said it best:
... the hydrostatic paradox of controversy. Don't you know what that means? Well, I will tell you. You know that, if you had a bent tube, one arm of which was of the size of a pipe-stem, and the other big enough to hold the ocean, water would stand at the same height in one as in the other. Controversy equalizes fools and wise men in the same way. And the fools know it.
-
Oliver Wendell Holmes said it best:
... the hydrostatic paradox of controversy. Don't you know what that means? Well, I will tell you. You know that, if you had a bent tube, one arm of which was of the size of a pipe-stem, and the other big enough to hold the ocean, water would stand at the same height in one as in the other. Controversy equalizes fools and wise men in the same way. And the fools know it.
My word, that is a wonderful quote
-
I am literally speechless as to how cool that quote is. I applaud you Burt!
-
Well if you are denying the first, then that means you do not believe there is an objective truth (and if you do believe there is, then why did you question that in the first place?)
If you answered "possibly" to the second, that means you are at least open to the idea that the earth has a shape separate from human perception.
If there is an objective truth (the first is true) then the shape is separate from human perception (the second is true), or they could both be wrong, but you can't just have one being true.
That did not explain why my answers are contradictory.
-
Well if you are denying the first, then that means you do not believe there is an objective truth (and if you do believe there is, then why did you question that in the first place?)
If you answered "possibly" to the second, that means you are at least open to the idea that the earth has a shape separate from human perception.
If there is an objective truth (the first is true) then the shape is separate from human perception (the second is true), or they could both be wrong, but you can't just have one being true.
That did not explain why my answers are contradictory.
If a) perception is absolute, then b) there is no objective shape of the earth. but if you agreed with c) that their is a possibilty that things have an objective quality apart from perception, then a) is untrue. therefore just because something appears a certain way does not mean that in actual fact it is that way.
-
If a) perception is absolute, then b) there is no objective shape of the earth. but if you agreed with c) that their is a possibilty that things have an objective quality apart from perception, then a) is untrue. therefore just because something appears a certain way does not mean that in actual fact it is that way.
All I am seeing is posters explaining what answers would be contradictory, not why my specific answers are in conflict. I have yet to see someone support the claim that my answers were incompatible with one another.
-
Ok, so therefore you are saying there is an objective truth?
I am not. What gave you this idea?
that Earth has a specific shape even separated from human perception?
Possibly.
I think you misunderstand what the word objective means. Your answers to those two questions are contradictory.
Would you care to elaborate on why they are contradictory?
If there is no such thing as objective truth then the shape of the earth, for example, is merely a construct of the senses of an observer. The shape of the earth is inextricably linked to perception. It has no true nature of itself. That is the consequence of the first quotation.
The second quotation indicates that you think the earth may have a true nature independent of perception.
Therein the contradiction lies.
-
If there is no such thing as objective truth then the shape of the earth, for example, is merely a construct of the senses of an observer. The shape of the earth is inextricably linked to perception. It has no true nature of itself. That is the consequence of the first quotation.
The second quotation indicates that you think the earth may have a true nature independent of perception.
Therein the contradiction lies.
This is the third attempt someone has tried to explain why my answers are contradictory and failed to do so. I'm starting to think it was a completely fabricated and false claim.
-
If there is no such thing as objective truth then the shape of the earth, for example, is merely a construct of the senses of an observer. The shape of the earth is inextricably linked to perception. It has no true nature of itself. That is the consequence of the first quotation.
The second quotation indicates that you think the earth may have a true nature independent of perception.
Therein the contradiction lies.
This is the third attempt someone has tried to explain why my answers are contradictory and failed to do so. I'm starting to think it was a completely fabricated and false claim.
Does the earth have an true nature of itself? Yes or no?
-
Well if you are denying the first, then that means you do not believe there is an objective truth (and if you do believe there is, then why did you question that in the first place?)
If you answered "possibly" to the second, that means you are at least open to the idea that the earth has a shape separate from human perception.
If there is an objective truth (the first is true) then the shape is separate from human perception (the second is true), or they could both be wrong, but you can't just have one being true.
That did not explain why my answers are contradictory.
If a) perception is absolute, then b) there is no objective shape of the earth. but if you agreed with c) that their is a possibilty that things have an objective quality apart from perception, then a) is untrue. therefore just because something appears a certain way does not mean that in actual fact it is that way.
Hopefully your explanation will make more sense to him then mine did. I am good with numbers and concepts, not words and explanations :(
-
"This is the third attempt someone has tried to explain why my answers are contradictory and failed to do so. I'm starting to think it was a completely fabricated and false claim."
you said (a) "the earth looks flat therefore it is"
which has two pressupositions
1) that perception determines truth
2)the earth "is" flat
You also also answered
Ok, so therefore you are saying there is an objective truth?
I am not. What gave you this idea?
that Earth has a specific shape even separated from human perception?
Possibly.
We’ll denote the first answer B and the second one C
Let me explain this to you very slowly:
For now let’s put aside whether the earth is flat or round.
(X)If you want (a) to be a valid argument at all, you have to disagree with both B and C, because of presupposition (1), no exceptions, unless you are looking for an escape hatch.
(Y)if you say “possibly” then you have to admit that (a) is false, because of presupposition (1); certainty does not stem from “maybe”.
[BTW; this is where you contradicted yourself you can't say both a and C]
(Z)If you say that you agree with (B) and (C) then the earth has an objective shape regardless of perception. So therefore (a) is an invalid inference
So bringing back in the flat earth theory:
if (X)then it does not matter what shape the earth is, it only seems to be that way to an observer, and so there is no point in you believing either that the earth is round or flat.
If (Y) then you need evidence to back up your statement (conspiracy time).
If (Z), (a) is not proof.
Therefore saying this “the earth looks flat therefore it is” just makes you look naive.
[edited] because I made slip
-
Your extremely long post did nothing but show that my answers are, in fact, not contradictory. Thank you for clearing that up and showing that false claims are not tolerated here.
-
Yeah it seems I conclusively showed you that your answers indisputably true. Thanks for showing me the way.
It looks flat, therefore it is; I will sleep better tonight
-
If there is no such thing as objective truth then the shape of the earth, for example, is merely a construct of the senses of an observer. The shape of the earth is inextricably linked to perception. It has no true nature of itself. That is the consequence of the first quotation.
The second quotation indicates that you think the earth may have a true nature independent of perception.
Therein the contradiction lies.
This is the third attempt someone has tried to explain why my answers are contradictory and failed to do so. I'm starting to think it was a completely fabricated and false claim.
Irushwithscvs, you're clear proof of the old adage: It's no use knocking when there's nobody at home.
-
So far everyone seems to agree that rushy contradicted himself. To make this much shorter, then lets see if anyone besides rushy thinks he did not contradict himself
-
I don't think Rushy contradicted himself. I don't understand why you people are out to get him. He has been more than generous in sharing his knowledge and opinions. Just because you have other opinions, you try to persecute him. Shame on you.
-
That is the problem Jroa, you don't think...
Rushy is trying desperately to stay afloat on a sinking ship. You made the mistake rushy, you put the hole in the boat now own up to it and move on. No one likes you less for making a contradiction statement.
-
You people are so hell bent on finding the slightest thing that you can call wrong that you completely ignore everything that you can not find fault in.
-
No one can explain why I contradicted myself because I did not contradict myself. Go ahead, read their posts. They all talk about "Well, if you had answered this way, then it would be contradictory."
They talk about what answers would have conflicted, not that my answers are conflicting. Its an irrelevant derailment of the thread because the original argument was destroyed. Now they're all upset that they have been bested and can't own up to it. At least I have the common courtesy of noting my mistakes when such mistakes exist.
-
No one can explain why I contradicted myself because I did not contradict myself. Go ahead, read their posts. They all talk about "Well, if you had answered this way, then it would be contradictory."
They talk about what answers would have conflicted, not that my answers are conflicting. Its an irrelevant derailment of the thread because the original argument was destroyed. Now they're all upset that they have been bested and can't own up to it. At least I have the common courtesy of noting my mistakes when such mistakes exist.
Come on rushy :), you did say those things, we had a blast. I can make more effort and go back and edit my post so it has direct quotes from you, then you can challenge it properly.
[Edit]: Punctuation fail.
-
What the hell happened to this thread? And where is Voyaging?
-
Can someone summarise, quote or link? This thread has been off topic so long I can't find where the last high-content post was made.
-
Meh, never mind. It's not necessary. I just came to the last page or two to see if there was any of this proof from the person who is probably 15 or 16 years old claimed to have the capability of getting.
-
Sadly, there never is. They make the post, get all defensive when we ask how it can be so many pilots and astronauts etc turn up here (usually with the literacy of a disinterested urine-soaked tramp) and then they leave before they get to 10 posts.
-
Sadly, there never is. They make the post, get all defensive when we ask how it can be so many pilots and astronauts etc turn up here (usually with the literacy of a disinterested urine-soaked tramp) and then they leave before they get to 10 posts.
Back for insults?
Nice move, Therk.
-
Can someone summarise, quote or link? This thread has been off topic so long I can't find where the last high-content post was made.
I think it was derailed by rushy, the cunning trickster he is. he likes to subvert a rational argument about the flat earth.
-
Wait... Did you say "rational argument" about the "flat earth"? Okay, just making sure.
-
Children, you've gotten very off-topic. The debate is ended until the OP is willing to take a FE'er on this airplane ride. Once that happens, then that FE'er can testify to his experience. Let's be honest, do you really think a random person on a message board saying he might go for a plane ride is enough burden of proof to decide one scientific theory over another?
-
Wait... Did you say "rational argument" about the "flat earth"? Okay, just making sure.
Can a rational argument not be made against FE? which would actually still mean that it is "about it"
-
Children, you've gotten very off-topic. The debate is ended until the OP is willing to take a FE'er on this airplane ride. Once that happens, then that FE'er can testify to his experience. Let's be honest, do you really think a random person on a message board saying he might go for a plane ride is enough burden of proof to decide one scientific theory over another?
Kingman is right. This thread was kind of over before it started. A derailment was a necessary condition for sustaining its life.
-
Damn. I love "I am a pilot" threads. I should hang out up here more often.
Is this guy still around? We could discuss aviation topics together.
-
No, after an entire page of berating him for not being a real pilot, he ran away.
-
Why don't you go away, then, Earth?