The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: Torve on February 26, 2025, 09:59:40 AM
-
Apparently, Eric Dubay has offered $10,000 to anyone who provides proof of RE.
Be advised though that the terms disqualify any evidence that can be "denied".
Any takers?
-
This seems to be offered on behalf of a certain Jay Decasby.
-
Ironic. The payout should go to the Flat Earthers that proved a spinning curved earth in the documentary Behind the Curve. I hope he gets swamped with the obvious he should pay. I wonder if you can post that on his media, or if it will get edited out.
-
Ironic. The payout should go to the Flat Earthers that proved a spinning curved earth in the documentary Behind the Curve.
It was probably denied.
-
Ironic. The payout should go to the Flat Earthers that proved a spinning curved earth in the documentary Behind the Curve.
It was probably denied.
Then it’s not a real bet. Just a FE trolling.
-
Ironic. The payout should go to the Flat Earthers that proved a spinning curved earth in the documentary Behind the Curve.
It was probably denied.
Then it’s not a real bet. Just a FE trolling.
It's in the video's page, the terms and conditions. If it can be "denied" it doesn't qualify. Objectively, those experiments can be "denied" just as anything can be denied. Is grass green? Oh I don't know, but I deny it. There. It's been denied. End of story.
-
Ironic. The payout should go to the Flat Earthers that proved a spinning curved earth in the documentary Behind the Curve.
It was probably denied.
Then it’s not a real bet. Just a FE trolling.
It's in the video's page, the terms and conditions. If it can be "denied" it doesn't qualify. Objectively, those experiments can be "denied" just as anything can be denied. Is grass green? Oh I don't know, but I deny it. There. It's been denied. End of story.
Ok? So it’s just another FE troll. A straw man for his supporters. Where there is actual proof of curvature and rotation.
Like grass is actually green. It’s up to a person to answer without lying. Unless a person is legitimately colourblind. FE’rs might be science “blind”. The problem is, they cannot explain their model without magic and contradictions. And it doesn’t come up with usefully items. Like a dial star atlas of the southern celestial hemisphere. Equatorial mounts for telescopes. Corrections for long range artillery. FE doesn’t even come up with a working/useful map of the entire world.
-
Ok? So it’s just another FE troll. A straw man for his supporters. Where there is actual proof of curvature and rotation.
Like grass is actually green. It’s up to a person to answer without lying. Unless a person is legitimately colourblind. FE’rs might be science “blind”. The problem is, they cannot explain their model without magic and contradictions. And it doesn’t come up with usefully items. Like a dial star atlas of the southern celestial hemisphere. Equatorial mounts for telescopes. Corrections for long range artillery. FE doesn’t even come up with a working/useful map of the entire world.
Meaningless, like everything from FE.
Or in the immortal words of MP:
-
Be advised though that the terms disqualify any evidence that can be "denied".
I've said it before and I'll say it again: there is no evidence so undeniable that an FE'er can't deny it.
-
Seems to be a straight forward challenge!
You must be able to prove the curvature of the Earth and Earth's rotation with either a single experiment which proves both, or two experiments which prove each. The experiment utilises the scientific method and is easily repeatable. How hard can it be????
It's not easy for me, but for Jack Black who experiences both the curvature of the Earth and Earth's motion everyday, it should be a piece of cake!
I'm going to sit back and watch Jack Black pick up this challenge, humiliate Eric Dubay snd this announcer, and collect his rightfully earned $10,000.
-
You must be able to prove the curvature of the Earth and Earth's rotation with either a single experiment which proves both, or two experiments which prove each. The experiment utilises the scientific method and is easily repeatable.
Read the fine print. The experiment must also not be possible to "deny".
-
Seems to be a straight forward challenge!
You must be able to prove the curvature of the Earth and Earth's rotation with either a single experiment which proves both, or two experiments which prove each. The experiment utilises the scientific method and is easily repeatable. How hard can it be????
It's not easy for me, but for Jack Black who experiences both the curvature of the Earth and Earth's motion everyday, it should be a piece of cake!
I'm going to sit back and watch Jack Black pick up this challenge, humiliate Eric Dubay snd this announcer, and collect his rightfully earned $10,000.
So trivial in fact countless people have already met it, by this term ruins it for them all:
"I will have a special guest judge on the panel, none other than the amazing, smart and very talented, the man, the legend himself, Mr. Eric Dubay!"
i.e. he will just reject it.
Not to mention the issue of rejecting any interpretation or logic, and photos.
And the requirement that he is able to replicate it.
-
Apparently, Eric Dubay has offered $10,000 to anyone who provides proof of RE.
Be advised though that the terms disqualify any evidence that can be "denied".
Any takers?
You do know this bounty is like years old, don't you?
https://m.youtube.com/@FlatEarthEric/search?query=%2410%2C000
5 years ago
It says.
So basically, in five years, you've been unable to make proof so airtight that it cannot be denied.
And no, this is not about you offering perfect evidence, and him refusing to believe in it. Much of your evidence (that I have seen personally) involves one of three fallacies:
1. Bait and switch ("I drop this apple here, it has to be gravity", using tricks to declare the argument settled)
2. Appeal to experts/bandwagon (using either the fact that "everyone believes RE" or that some important person said something)
3. Begging the question (This term is often misunderstood, it's basically begging the question "how do you know?" because the statement is fiat or circular reasoning)
In other words, for an argument to be airtight, it has to dispense with such things and offer proof that cannot be denied, not on account of the person listening, but because it is not horseshit.
-
You do know this bounty is like years old, don't you?
And again. The documentary Behind the Cuve proved curvature and spin.
Curvature with a variation of this experiment that anyone can do and the results are reproducible.
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/wallace-method.jpg)
The spin via a ring laser gyroscope. Same for spin which has been known to cause drift in precise gyroscopes used in navigation systems and has to be accounted for. But it’s a little bit more involved and takes navigation equipment. But many discoveries require certain equipment. Probably why the $10,000 dollars was chosen. If you have an airplane and can afford it and the navigation equipment, you wouldn’t bother with a 10,000 dollar bet. Especially since a 20,000 dollar ring laser gyroscope was already obtained and documented to drift because of earth’s spin in the Documentary Behind the Curve.
There is also studies convening long range artillery and drop tests.
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/drop-experiment.jpg)
Weather patterns.
And the simple fact the sun rises and sets in a way not conclusive to flat earth.
Debunking flat Earth using only a stick.
(https://i.imgur.com/A1z3Swo.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/xtf2xl6.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/0OQvzk2.jpeg)
The below video by the same person shows the actual path the stick shadow traveled in France for a time around the equinox.
(https://i.imgur.com/nwa2Wyh.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/O3CqrNU.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/O67W9Dp.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/SunweCO.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/cowcNUf.jpg)
Bulma. How much do you owe me?
It just goes to show the FE in general is a lie and has no honour. People that back FE run FE exactly like the con FE is.
-
Yet no bounty was offered for Behind the Curve.
Did he not watch it?
Probably not. I certainly didn't. Nor do I care that some idiot did half-baked shadow tests with piping.
Here's a video called Ahead of the Curve. Possibly relevant.
Also five years ago.
By now, the majority of flat Earthers and millions of globe Earthers alike have seen the Netflix hit-piece mockumentary "Behind the Curve," starring many of the worst controlled opposition disinformation agents known in the community, intentionally making the subject of "flat Earth" seem as ridiculous as possible.
Yup, he watched it. Pretty sure no money was awarded.
As for his video, the first speaker was too Scottish. I can safely say I've seen neither video. And neither should you.
-
Yet no bounty was offered for Behind the Curve.
Did he not watch it?
I watched the documentary.
It’s been long understood why gyroscopes drift. And the Wallace experiment proves curvature.
Bulma. Now instead of changing the subject. Address the long history of proving spin and curvature way before the documentary.
You do know this bounty is like years old, don't you?
And again. The documentary Behind the Cuve proved curvature and spin.
Curvature with a variation of this experiment that anyone can do and the results are reproducible.
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/wallace-method.jpg)
The spin via a ring laser gyroscope. Same for spin which has been known to cause drift in precise gyroscopes used in navigation systems and has to be accounted for. But it’s a little bit more involved and takes navigation equipment. But many discoveries require certain equipment. Probably why the $10,000 dollars was chosen. If you have an airplane and can afford it and the navigation equipment, you wouldn’t bother with a 10,000 dollar bet. Especially since a 20,000 dollar ring laser gyroscope was already obtained and documented to drift because of earth’s spin in the Documentary Behind the Curve.
There is also studies convening long range artillery and drop tests.
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/drop-experiment.jpg)
Weather patterns.
And the simple fact the sun rises and sets in a way not conclusive to flat earth.
Debunking flat Earth using only a stick.
(https://i.imgur.com/A1z3Swo.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/xtf2xl6.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/0OQvzk2.jpeg)
The below video by the same person shows the actual path the stick shadow traveled in France for a time around the equinox.
(https://i.imgur.com/nwa2Wyh.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/O3CqrNU.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/O67W9Dp.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/SunweCO.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/cowcNUf.jpg)
Bulma. How much do you owe me?
It just goes to show the FE in general is a lie and has no honour. People that back FE run FE exactly like the con FE is.
-
I don't owe you a thing.
You showed a doddering fogey who is supposedly a flat Earther, but looks more of a senile fart than my now dead great uncle. Why even was he testing with circular pipes? That's not any model of the FE that I even know about.
The Earth, as mentioned by the Gleason model, is a disc. You used a stick to "prove" something, and based on a delusion in your head, you were right all along.
Meanwhile, Stonehenge and the Pyramids of Egypt were kinda sorta built to keep solar time. Did they say "There must be something wrong"? No, they kept accurate time, century after century, using what effectively was a stone sticking up in the ground. Almost like... the Earth isn't a spinning ball traveling through the galaxy but a fixed plane, and the sun, the moon, and the stars all show this.
Say among the nations, “The Lord reigns;
Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved;
He will judge the peoples with equity.”
The Lord reigns, He is clothed with majesty;
The Lord has clothed and girded Himself with strength;
Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved.
But yes, I'm sure someone here will see shadows from a ring sitting on the ground, and decide there must be something wrong.
-
I don't owe you a thing.
Bulma. You trying to change the argument again.
Bulma. Your rant still has nothing to do with the below experiments and proofs who’s results are reproducible and demonstrate curvature and spin.
Bulma. Now instead of changing the subject. Address the long history of proving spin and curvature way before the documentary.
You do know this bounty is like years old, don't you?
And again. The documentary Behind the Cuve proved curvature and spin.
Curvature with a variation of this experiment that anyone can do and the results are reproducible.
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/wallace-method.jpg)
The spin via a ring laser gyroscope. Same for spin which has been known to cause drift in precise gyroscopes used in navigation systems and has to be accounted for. But it’s a little bit more involved and takes navigation equipment. But many discoveries require certain equipment. Probably why the $10,000 dollars was chosen. If you have an airplane and can afford it and the navigation equipment, you wouldn’t bother with a 10,000 dollar bet. Especially since a 20,000 dollar ring laser gyroscope was already obtained and documented to drift because of earth’s spin in the Documentary Behind the Curve.
There is also studies convening long range artillery and drop tests.
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/drop-experiment.jpg)
Weather patterns.
And the simple fact the sun rises and sets in a way not conclusive to flat earth.
Debunking flat Earth using only a stick.
(https://i.imgur.com/A1z3Swo.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/xtf2xl6.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/0OQvzk2.jpeg)
The below video by the same person shows the actual path the stick shadow traveled in France for a time around the equinox.
(https://i.imgur.com/nwa2Wyh.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/O3CqrNU.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/O67W9Dp.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/SunweCO.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/cowcNUf.jpg)
Bulma. How much do you owe me?
-
I don't owe you anything, because you fall under the third definition.
(https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/1123593550983090283/1344701137638654032/image.png?ex=67c1de06&is=67c08c86&hm=e890d9cf298da686104172dbd78a97aa300cd8faf3e8a02a1bfa4dca21d07927&=&format=webp&quality=lossless&width=896&height=504)
As for the experiment itself, he could have tested this out with real shadows beforehand. As to the line being straight, yeah? That what light does, it travels in a straight line. That he staggered the two boxes doesn't make a bit of difference.
Where is the vertical curvature, that light on a sphere should exhibit? Oh right, nowhere! Where is the vertical curvature to the shadows on the ring experiment? Again, nowhere. The shadow is completely flat, the rings are at an angle based on the light position (which is probably adjusted to the wrong timezone or to daylight savings). The fact that he pointed out "something is wrong, something's amiss" doesn't make it so. It just means he deliberately pointed out that he supposedly made an error, something that only a shill would do.
And no, you didn't see light go upward on a stick. Stop pretending this is Indiana Jones.
-
As for the experiment itself, he could have tested this out with real shadows beforehand.
What are you babbling about. That is nothing about the ring laser Gyroscope.
And shadow has nothing to do with Campanella‘s experiment.
But at the very end of Behind the Curve, Campanella comes up with a similar experiment, this time involving a light instead of a laser. With two holes cut into styrofoam sheets at the same height, Campanella hopes to demonstrate that a light shone through the first hole will appear on a camera behind the second hole, indicating that a light, set at the same height as the holes, travelled straight across the surface of the Flat Earth. But if the light needs to be raised to a different height than the holes, it would indicate a curvature, invalidating the Flat Earth.
(https://d.newsweek.com/en/full/1343358/flat-earth-light-experiment-behind-curve-netflix-documentary.webp?w=450&f=a7b9aed63d6d1e6fb099f5706db75df0)
Campanella's proposed light experiment, which seems to invalidate the Flat Earth theory at the ending of documentary "Behind the Curve," now streaming on Netflix. DELTA-V PRODUCTIONS
Campanella watches when the light is activated at the same height as the holes, but the light can't be seen on the camera screen. "Lift up your light, way above your head," Campanella says. With the compensation made for the curvature of the Earth, the light immediately appears on the camera. "Interesting," Campanella says. "That's interesting." The documentary ends.
https://www.newsweek.com/behind-curve-netflix-ending-light-experiment-mark-sargent-documentary-movie-1343362
Campanella‘s experiment is to set two holes the same height in sheets of styrofoam. If there is no curvature, a light can be placed at the extreme end of the two holes at the same height and be seen. The light was not seen because of being physically blocked by earth’s curvature. The light was only seen after raising the light high enough over the curvature of the earth so it can be seen. A simple go, no go test. The light experiment was actually conducted over something like three miles over a body of water. The experiment also proved large bodies of water have curvature.
-
, he could have tested this out with real shadows beforehand.
Notice you have to ignore the nature of the experiment and completely lie about it.
Campanella‘s Experiment is just a variation of the below.
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/wallace-method.jpg)
Typical flat earther. Lies and no honour.
-
So basically, in five years, you've been unable to make proof so airtight that it cannot be denied.
Any evidence, no matter how compelling or ironclad, can simply be denied/rejected, by dishonest POS like you and your cult leader.
Look at how much YOU have denied, including just outright ignoring because it doesn't fit your delusional fantasy.
Look at how many things have been clearly explained to you, with you just entirely ignoring it and spouting the same refuted BS again and again.
People can deny the existence of Earth if they want to.
And no, this is not about you offering perfect evidence, and him refusing to believe in it.
No, it very much is about plenty of evidence already existing which clearly demonstrates Earth is round, with dishonest POS like you and your cult leader rejecting it because it doesn't fit your fantasy.
Do you know the easy way to see that the offer is BS?
He spends so much time on discussing what will be rejected, while failing to provide a single example of what would be considered acceptable.
And I don't mean an actual example showing Earth is round, just a hypothetical. Because that would be how the scientific method actually works.
e.g. Consider what was discussed in a different thread, where objects disappear due to curvature, using the null hypothesis.
If it was based upon limited resolution (i.e. the null hypothesis where Earth is flat), then you should be able to zoom in/use better optics to see further.
Under the "alternate" hypothesis, i.e. that Earth is round, curvature is blocking the view, so better optics will let you resolve things better but wont let you see further once you reach the point where the curvature is blocking the view.
So if we get a telephoto lens and zoom in, we will see one of 2 things:
1 - Under the null hypothesis, we can keep seeing further and further. If the bottom appears to be obscured we can zoom in more and see more of it appear.
2 - Under the alternate hypothesis, we can zoom in until we can see a distant object partly obscured by the horizon. Then if we zoom in more, we can see the object better, but no more appears.
Of course, if he provided such an example, the question would then be why hasn't he checked, and we know why, because it will show he is wrong.
Meanwhile, I have done this, and haven't seen any more of the object appear.
I can provide plenty of examples, unfortunately, the results all show Earth isn't flat.
Much of your evidence (that I have seen personally) involves one of three fallacies
No, you just want to pretend it does.
Plenty doesn't. Including plenty you have been presented with here, which you just ignore.
Instead, you just appealing to these strawmen to pretend people are making those arguments.
Yet no bounty was offered for Behind the Curve.
And no honest, sane person would ever expect the bounty to ever be offered to anyone.
Why?
Because Dubay is a lying POS with no interest in the truth and no interest in paying out a bounty that showed he was wrong.
Did he not watch it?
Probably not. I certainly didn't.
i.e. You both choose to remain wilfully ignorant of reality.
It isn't that evidence doesn't exist, instead it is that you don't like what it shows so you ignore it so you can cling to your delusional fantasy.
intentionally making the subject of "flat Earth" seem as ridiculous as possible.
No, just demonstrating how ridiculous FEers are.
You are another great example of just how ridiculous FEers are, as is Dubay.
Should we dismiss you both as controlled opposition disinformation agents?
Yup, he watched it. Pretty sure no money was awarded.
And again, with how much of a lying POS Dubay is, no sane person would expect it to be payed.
Dubay could be taken out into space, clearly shown the rotating round Earth beneath him, and he would still refuse.
As for his video, the first speaker was too Scottish. I can safely say I've seen neither video. And neither should you.
i.e. you want us to remain as wilfully ignorant as you.
No thanks.
You showed a doddering fogey who is supposedly a flat Earther, but looks more of a senile fart than my now dead great uncle. Why even was he testing with circular pipes?
i.e. you didn't even bother attempting to understand it.
Instead, like the lying coward you are, you just looked for an excuse to dismiss it.
This is why the bounty is pointless. Because you lying cowards will just dismiss and refuse to understand.
Meanwhile, Stonehenge and the Pyramids of Egypt were kinda sorta built to keep solar time.
So is a sundial.
That doesn't prove anything.
No, they kept accurate time, century after century
They kept accurate solar time.
So what?
That is like saying if I have this inaccurate watch, and base all ideas of time on it, then this watch keeps time accurately.
It is entirely circular.
When you have a device which can consistently measure time, it shows these solar clocks are wrong.
Almost like... the Earth isn't a spinning ball traveling through the galaxy but a fixed plane, and the sun, the moon, and the stars all show this.
No, nothing like that.
As the stars, the sun, the other planets and moon instead indicate Earth is a rotating planet moving through space.
But yes, I'm sure someone here will see shadows from a ring sitting on the ground, and decide there must be something wrong.
They will if they have a brain and choose to use it.
You CHOOSING not to use it just shows you don't care about reality.
I don't owe you anything, because you fall under the third definition.
Quite the opposite. YOU DO!
You don't even make an attempt to understand. You just dismiss.
Try to actually understand the experiment, and then explain what is wrong with it.
The fact you can't do this, shows the problem is with you.
As to the line being straight, yeah? That what light does, it travels in a straight line.
Light travelling in a straight line doesn't mean that shows will.
And no, you didn't see light go upward on a stick.
You do at sunrise and sunset.
Your wilful rejection of reality wont change that.
-
In other words, for an argument to be airtight, it has to dispense with such things and offer proof that cannot be denied, not on account of the person listening, but because it is not horseshit.
I'd be willing to bet $10,000 that SpaceX could put Eric in a Dragon capsule, launch him into orbit using a Falcon 9, have him do a space walk and he would still deny that space is real and the earth is round.
Eric, and any other RE/space denier with similar challenges, have absolutely no incentive to declare a winner and pay a bounty that they most likely don't even have. Tell you what, when Eric proves that he has the money in an escrow account and is willing to appoint an independent judge to determine the validity of the entries, then I might think about taking it seriously. Until then, these "challenges" nothing but a joke, and I will continue to treat them as such.
-
In other words, for an argument to be airtight, it has to dispense with such things and offer proof that cannot be denied, not on account of the person listening, but because it is not horseshit.
I'd be willing to bet $10,000 that SpaceX could put Eric in a Dragon capsule, launch him into orbit using a Falcon 9, have him do a space walk and he would still deny that space is real and the earth is round.
Eric, and any other RE/space denier with similar challenges, have absolutely no incentive to declare a winner and pay a bounty that they most likely don't even have. Tell you what, when Eric proves that he has the money in an escrow account and is willing to appoint an independent judge to determine the validity of the entries, then I might think about taking it seriously. Until then, these "challenges" nothing but a joke, and I will continue to treat them as such.
If they were honest, it's as simple as this:
To prove the Earth is rotating, look at the sunrise snd sunset. The fact the sun maintains it's perfect circular shape before and during a sunset, and during and after sunrise, means the sun is not travelling over the land, but is instead a very long way, fixed, and the earth is rotating in front of it. There's your rotation.
To prove the curvature of the earth, go to a very tall building - 100 plus floors, and observe from different heights/floors, the limits of how far you can see, with a telescope. The reason you can see farther, the higher you ascend, is because Earth is curved and you can see the curvature this way. There's your curvature.
Eric Dubay would deny both, arguing they dont meet the criteria for scientific experiments as they are both just observations, and probably toss in (and I do mean toss) bullshit explanations for how perspective works.
But the truth is you can watch a thousand sunrises and sunsets with clear skies and the sun will always maintain its circularity. You can test how far you can see from different heights in the same building a thousand times, and the results will be the same.
Flat Earthers are plain and simple - reality deniers.
-
To prove the Earth is rotating, look at the sunrise snd sunset. The fact the sun maintains it's perfect circular shape before and during a sunset, and during and after sunrise, means the sun is not travelling over the land, but is instead a very long way, fixed, and the earth is rotating in front of it. There's your rotation.
To be fair, sunrise and sunset don't prove rotation as they can just as easily explained by a round earth geocentric model. However, sunrise and sunset do fit observations one would expect on a round earth as opposed to flat. Rotation is better shown with something like a gyroscope or a Foucault pendulum.
-
To prove the Earth is rotating, look at the sunrise snd sunset. The fact the sun maintains it's perfect circular shape before and during a sunset, and during and after sunrise, means the sun is not travelling over the land, but is instead a very long way, fixed, and the earth is rotating in front of it. There's your rotation.
To be fair, sunrise and sunset don't prove rotation as they can just as easily explained by a round earth geocentric model. However, sunrise and sunset do fit observations one would expect on a round earth as opposed to flat. Rotation is better shown with something like a gyroscope or a Foucault pendulum.
The flat earthers dont even refer to geocentrism, as it automatically posits earth as a sphere with the entire universe rotating around the ball Earth.
Well, you do the curvature experiment first, followed by the rotation experiment. I dont think a gyroscope or foucault pendulum is necessary.
Shadows show the sun will be directly overhead at midday tomorrow and midday the following day, indicating the Earth has completed a complete 360 degree rotation in that time. Or you could pick any star in the night sky and do the same, with all stars moving across the night sky from East to West, just like the sun, an being back in the same position 24 hours later.
I know you should never assume, but that is the rotation of Earth that is being asked to be proven, yes? Or are they asking for proof for Earth rotating in its orbit around the sun?
-
Or are they asking for proof for Earth rotating in its orbit around the sun?
It's a farce. They're asking for evidence that they will never accept, no matter how undeniable.
-
Or are they asking for proof for Earth rotating in its orbit around the sun?
It's a farce. They're asking for evidence that they will never accept, no matter how undeniable.
Ofcourse!
I'm surprised Eric Dubay hasn't been convinced to become a breatharian. His level of dangerous absurdity and stupidity is that incredibly high. But he is a vegan, so, it wouldn't be a big step for him.
It's a no-brainer that fat sack of shit, Mark Sargent, has not, and never will, try breatharianism. He loves his burger king way too much.
-
Its stupid. You can't prove anything except mathematics. That's just not what science does.
-
Well, science does use mathematics quite a lot. It's a shame that FE has no maths to speak of.
-
Its stupid. You can't prove anything except mathematics. That's just not what science does.
"Beyond a reasonable doubt".
That is generally the standard in law, and some would say it is in science too. If something is true BARD then it can be considered proven.
-
Its stupid. You can't prove anything except mathematics. That's just not what science does.
"Beyond a reasonable doubt".
That is generally the standard in law, and some would say it is in science too. If something is true BARD then it can be considered proven.
Incorrect. The standard in science is "preponderance of evidence". Science never considers considers anything proven because there is always the possibility of unknown variables. However, there is the notion of settled science which means that the confidence is high enough that it's unlikely to change any time soon.
-
Its stupid. You can't prove anything except mathematics. That's just not what science does.
"Beyond a reasonable doubt".
That is generally the standard in law, and some would say it is in science too. If something is true BARD then it can be considered proven.
However, there is the notion of settled science which means that the confidence is high enough that it's unlikely to change any time soon.
Meaning that it would not be considered reasonable to doubt it.
-
Meaning that it would not be considered reasonable to doubt it.
Settled science gets doubted and challenged all the time, not just on sites like this. You just need a better theory that can overcome the preponderance of evidence supporting the settled theory. Something that FE'ers keep trying, and failing, to do.
-
You just need a better theory that can overcome the preponderance of evidence supporting the settled theory. Something that FE'ers keep trying, and failing, to do.
Would you say that it is unreasonable of them to do so?
-
You just need a better theory that can overcome the preponderance of evidence supporting the settled theory. Something that FE'ers keep trying, and failing, to do.
Would you say that it is unreasonable of them to do so?
??? Why should it be unreasonable to come up with a better theory? Newton had a better theory about gravity than the settled science of the time and then Einstein came up with an even better theory about gravity than the settled science of Newton. Better theories than the settled science is how we progress. I just don't see that FE is better than the current settled science, but that doesn't mean that they should stop trying. They just need to do better. Much, much better.
-
You just need a better theory that can overcome the preponderance of evidence supporting the settled theory. Something that FE'ers keep trying, and failing, to do.
Would you say that it is unreasonable of them to do so?
??? Why should it be unreasonable to come up with a better theory? Newton had a better theory about gravity than the settled science of the time and then Einstein came up with an even better theory about gravity than the settled science of Newton. Better theories than the settled science is how we progress. I just don't see that FE is better than the current settled science, but that doesn't mean that they should stop trying. They just need to do better. Much, much better.
So you're saying if the supposed goal is to improve something, anything you do is reasonable? Correct so far?
-
You just need a better theory that can overcome the preponderance of evidence supporting the settled theory. Something that FE'ers keep trying, and failing, to do.
Would you say that it is unreasonable of them to do so?
??? Why should it be unreasonable to come up with a better theory? Newton had a better theory about gravity than the settled science of the time and then Einstein came up with an even better theory about gravity than the settled science of Newton. Better theories than the settled science is how we progress. I just don't see that FE is better than the current settled science, but that doesn't mean that they should stop trying. They just need to do better. Much, much better.
So you're saying if the supposed goal is to improve something, anything you do is reasonable? Correct so far?
No, just because you have a goal of improving something, that doesn't mean that anything you do is reasonable.
The point that you appear to be overlooking is that in science there is never a simple case of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". Instead, theories are accepted based upon the available evidence.
In some cases we know they are wrong, yet they are still used as useful approximations.
In other cases, we don't know if they are right or wrong, but they work with everything we have tested them on.
And in the latter case, sometimes we then later get new evidence to test them in and find they don't work.
And sometimes we know of situations to test in which might break the theory, but don't have a way to test it.
-
Meaning that it would not be considered reasonable to doubt it.
Settled science gets doubted and challenged all the time, not just on sites like this. You just need a better theory that can overcome the preponderance of evidence supporting the settled theory. Something that FE'ers keep trying, and failing, to do.
There are quite a number of examples of advance from places like these forums or where it affected or changed the perceived "settled science" or more accurately scientific consensus. Much of the lack of popularity in String Theory now a days when it was once considered the best path to unification by the mainstream physics community is due to online forums much like these, usenet, and blogs that over and overagain highlighted how it was just more round earth untestable mumbo jumbo.
Luminol, a chemical used to detect blood at crime scenes, was considered a reliable indicator and settled science until forums, including the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) forums -- which are not too different from here, compiled cases where Luminol reacted with substances like bleach or even some vegetables. This in turn lead toto stronger standards in forensics.
-
Meaning that it would not be considered reasonable to doubt it.
Settled science gets doubted and challenged all the time, not just on sites like this. You just need a better theory that can overcome the preponderance of evidence supporting the settled theory. Something that FE'ers keep trying, and failing, to do.
There are quite a number of examples of advance from places like these forums or where it affected or changed the perceived "settled science" or more accurately scientific consensus. Much of the lack of popularity in String Theory now a days when it was once considered the best path to unification by the mainstream physics community is due to online forums much like these, usenet, and blogs that over and overagain highlighted how it was just more round earth untestable mumbo jumbo.
Luminol, a chemical used to detect blood at crime scenes, was considered a reliable indicator and settled science until forums, including the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) forums -- which are not too different from here, compiled cases where Luminol reacted with substances like bleach or even some vegetables. This in turn lead toto stronger standards in forensics.
I applaud that, and I thank you for bringing up these examples.
However, the devil is in the details. Not everything that is said on a forum is justified or reasonable just because some is.
-
Meaning that it would not be considered reasonable to doubt it.
Settled science gets doubted and challenged all the time, not just on sites like this. You just need a better theory that can overcome the preponderance of evidence supporting the settled theory. Something that FE'ers keep trying, and failing, to do.
There are quite a number of examples of advance from places like these forums or where it affected or changed the perceived "settled science" or more accurately scientific consensus. Much of the lack of popularity in String Theory now a days when it was once considered the best path to unification by the mainstream physics community is due to online forums much like these, usenet, and blogs that over and overagain highlighted how it was just more round earth untestable mumbo jumbo.
Luminol, a chemical used to detect blood at crime scenes, was considered a reliable indicator and settled science until forums, including the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) forums -- which are not too different from here, compiled cases where Luminol reacted with substances like bleach or even some vegetables. This in turn lead toto stronger standards in forensics.
I applaud that, and I thank you for bringing up these examples.
However, the devil is in the details. Not everything that is said on a forum is justified or reasonable just because some is.
It appears I misread; I thought it said "not on sites like these" rather than "not just on sites like these"
-
Forgot about this thread. Highlights Dubay is a con and douchebag.
-
That would be notable in 1890. What is that, like two tires of a car? And a banana?
-
Forgot about this thread. Highlights Dubay is a con and douchebag.
Yeah we all knew that here. Tfes.org tried to make him their president. Because Thork.
Yeah we weren't too keen on him since he did the music video where he said Hitler was a cool guy.
-
I don't share Dubay's commitment to veganism (the Zizians, and Hitler himself were at least vegetarian, and veganism means animals get put down since farms raise animals as part of their business). Nor do I agree with his stance on Judaism. He should stick to flat Earth, and not push Nazism.
-
I don't share Dubay's commitment to veganism (the Zizians, and Hitler himself were at least vegetarian, and veganism means animals get put down since farms raise animals as part of their business). Nor do I agree with his stance on Judaism. He should stick to flat Earth, and not push Nazism.
But you are brainwashed into the lie that cars don’t have to labor harder and burn more fuel to produce more power to maintain a constant speed going up a steep hill. Anyone with basic observation skills, or has drive a manual transmission knows you’re full of crap.
Are you really this brainwashed Bulma, or that big of a troll?
-
Meaning that it would not be considered reasonable to doubt it.
Settled science gets doubted and challenged all the time
The issue is they treat science like dogma.
-
I don't share Dubay's commitment to veganism (the Zizians, and Hitler himself were at least vegetarian, and veganism means animals get put down since farms raise animals as part of their business). Nor do I agree with his stance on Judaism. He should stick to flat Earth, and not push Nazism.
Honestly, his FE work isn't very impressive either from what I've read. His Flat Earth Conspiracy book is just a mix of copy pastes from our library uncredited uncited mixed with his own beyond ridiculous nonsense.
-
Meaning that it would not be considered reasonable to doubt it.
Settled science gets doubted and challenged all the time
The issue is they treat science like dogma.
Tell that to the string theorists.
-
I don't share Dubay's commitment to veganism (the Zizians, and Hitler himself were at least vegetarian, and veganism means animals get put down since farms raise animals as part of their business). Nor do I agree with his stance on Judaism. He should stick to flat Earth, and not push Nazism.
Eric Dubay's veganism has ravaged his body, and done nothing to improve his mind. God knows, it certainly hasn't improved his speech impediment.
But, like Goebels in Nazi Germany, he speaks well, and is a good salesman for flat earth. He has his ardent followers who think he's the next messiah.
What makes you think he appeals to NAZI ideology, bulma? I mean, he looks more like he's been starving in a concentration camp, than a NAZI foot soldier.