The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: oogabubchub on July 22, 2010, 11:46:45 PM

Title: [REDACTED]
Post by: oogabubchub on July 22, 2010, 11:46:45 PM
[REDACTED]  :-X
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: Pongo on July 23, 2010, 12:08:38 AM
While you're emailing old professors, send one to your sociology professor asking him or her about conditioned responses to ideas that contradict what a persons individual social institutions have instilled in them.  Ask how this conditioning relates to the Nuremberg Trials and Zimbardo's work.  You're the product of generations of indoctrination.

As Carl Sagan said, "For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: Pongo on July 23, 2010, 12:29:24 AM
That's correct, society would not be where it is today without the lessons taught from institutions.  They are a way to pass information onto new generations and act as a "brain" outside the body in that sense.  They are the true shape of morality by instilling in us social norms and mores.  However, they are also very powerful in that the vast majority of people are highly influenced by what these institutions tell them.  For example, in most rural parts of America right now, there is a strong support for ideas such as a non-Darwinian explanation for the diversity of life.  When your family, preacher, friends, and school (perhaps just alluding to it in this case) all tell you that Darwin is a quack and the Bible is the true meaning of a man, it is very difficult to question it.  These people "know" that Darwin is wrong because that's what their individual institutions have told them.  They do not look at the evidence, they dismiss facts offhandedly, and they balk at ignorance of the opposition.

So, I'm not saying that everything an institution teaches you is wrong, I'm saying -- and so would Carl Sagan -- that you need to have the courage to challenge these preconceptions and seek answers for yourself though skeptical eyes.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: oscpaz00 on July 23, 2010, 12:59:25 AM
Yes, and when you do, if you are right, then it comes out. The Chuch in the Medieval Age was the teaching institution, it was a powerful brainwasher, and some of the things they teached people was that Earth was flat and the center of the universe. Even as powerful and intimidating Church was, a few people, observing the world, came to the conclusion that Earth was round and not the center of the universe. They wer punished, prosecuted, their books forbidden... but they were right, and people accepted it. If you FE'ers were right, you could provide proof, you would be able to prove that theories based in a round earth are not accurate, and that the predictions of your model are closer with what we can observe and experiment. But you didn't, and that's whay nobody believes you. Because you haven't provide with a single proof more than "look at the window, what do you see?".

People are not so reticent to accept new things: Relativity was a revolution, wasn't it? Time is not absolute! But people accepted it because the predictions of the theory were in accordance what the experiments, while the old Newton mechanic was not when speed was close to the speed of light. And Quantum Mechanics? It was even worse! we cannot measure perfectly the speed and position of particles!! Incredible! But people accepted it, because it was in accordance with experiments, and the theory made predictions that were confirmed later.

If your theory of a flat earth were right, people would accept it. But reality is that no one has seen that Ice Wall, or soldiers guarding it. Reality is that travels from south america to south africa don't take as longer as they should according to your maps. Reality is that, when looking at the sun, its path across the sky doesn't match the predictions your theory make. Reality is that people has gone to the south pole, has been around the world in all directions, and they never reported anything about "Ice walls" or the end of the world. Sorry.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: Lorddave on July 23, 2010, 10:13:19 AM
Thank you for stating the obvious. You hit all the important points so there really isn't more to say except that all of FET is making up pseudo-science explanations for observed phenomenon.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on July 23, 2010, 10:36:42 AM
Yes, and when you do, if you are right, then it comes out. The Chuch in the Medieval Age was the teaching institution, it was a powerful brainwasher, and some of the things they teached people was that Earth was flat and the center of the universe.

First of all, yes this is OT, and I realize that, and I'm not trying to start a new debate or anything, and I have no interest in responding to the OP because I think he's right about some things and misunderstood about others but with the proper amount of lurking I believe he's intelligent enough to see where he's mistaken.  The bottom line is that since I'm not a FE believer myself I feel no need to challenge his assertions; I've already responded to posts like his on a number of occasions.  My purpose in responding to you is simply to correct a popular misconception about the Church of the Middle Ages, and thus educate you and maybe help you feel like you got something useful from this site after all, whatever you think of the debate itself.

The Church of the Middle Ages did not teach that the Earth is flat.  They believed it was round.  In fact, it's always been the Church's official position that the Earth is round, since it was first formed as a cohesive unit.

That is all.

Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: Crustinator on July 23, 2010, 11:19:11 AM
While you're emailing old professors, send one to your sociology professor asking him or her about conditioned responses to ideas that contradict what a persons individual social institutions have instilled in them.  Ask how this conditioning relates to the Nuremberg Trials and Zimbardo's work.

Sure.

The earth is round! Look ships are going over the horizon!
You filthy nazi! Always trying to pretend you're only folloving der orderz!

It's not indoctrination. Anyone can check if the earth is flat. I suggest they perform the experiments in ENaG and find out for themselves that it isn't.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on July 23, 2010, 01:37:11 PM
 The bottom line is that since I'm not a FE believer myself...
Also OT, but why does your title say Flat Earth Theorist if you don't believe in FE? Not trying to be confrontational, just curious.

I theorize about FE.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on July 23, 2010, 01:44:26 PM
 The bottom line is that since I'm not a FE believer myself...
Also OT, but why does your title say Flat Earth Theorist if you don't believe in FE? Not trying to be confrontational, just curious.

I theorize about FE.
...Since you seem to be an intelligent guy, I'm sure you know that I wasn't asking my question to find out that Flat Earth Theorist means one who theorizes about the Flat Earth. My question implies more specifically: Why do you theorize about something you don't believe in, or said another way, Why do you not believe in something you theorize? I was hoping I wouldn't have to spell it all out for you.

Why not?
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: Pseudointellect on July 23, 2010, 02:02:43 PM
That's basically what I was thinking too. Isn't life too short to worry about and theorize about things that you don't even think are possible?
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on July 23, 2010, 02:11:35 PM
 The bottom line is that since I'm not a FE believer myself...
Also OT, but why does your title say Flat Earth Theorist if you don't believe in FE? Not trying to be confrontational, just curious.

I theorize about FE.
...Since you seem to be an intelligent guy, I'm sure you know that I wasn't asking my question to find out that Flat Earth Theorist means one who theorizes about the Flat Earth. My question implies more specifically: Why do you theorize about something you don't believe in, or said another way, Why do you not believe in something you theorize? I was hoping I wouldn't have to spell it all out for you.

Why not?
Sorry, I think I've mistaken you for someone who was interested in intelligent and enlightening conversation as opposed to simplistic and uninformative responses.

"Why not?" is a perfectly valid answer to the question "Why?"  Ask any philosophy professor.

Quote
To put it even more explicitly, we as humans can only think about, theorize, or do a limited amount at any one point in time. You have decided spending time and energy theorizing about something you don't believe in is more valuable than doing anything else at this moment. Why is it more valuable to you to spend resources on something you don't believe in?

I find the subject interesting.  
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: Pseudointellect on July 23, 2010, 02:13:06 PM
I find the subject interesting.  

So it's like Pokemon? except more intellectually demanding??
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on July 23, 2010, 02:13:31 PM
I find the subject interesting.  

So it's like Pokemon? except more intellectually demanding??

Ugh.  Not at all.  Pokemon sucks.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: General Disarray on July 23, 2010, 10:32:35 PM
Congrats, either you are an alt or it didn't take you very long to learn how things work around here. Stick around, its really kinda fun once you know what the rules are.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: Crustinator on July 24, 2010, 03:48:35 AM
I theorize about FE.

Ah I see you're suffering from Johndavisosis of the brain. How can you theorize about something you do not believe is true?
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: Ellipsis on July 24, 2010, 04:31:55 AM
Since I'm sure you knew what I meant, you could have easily provided this response without having to run around in circles. It seems like there's a lot of that going on in this forum.

That's how things work here.  When they can't actually defend something, they're likely to run you around in rhetoric by nitpicking at your choice of words.  I think there are two or three actual believers, but the rest are just honing their argumentative skills by playing pretend and learning when to subtly slip in a fallacy.  Welcome to the forest of trolls.
Helpful hint: All FEers believe in their own particular brand.  They'll rarely if ever agree.  No matter how convincing your case, the ones to respond will likely be those who don't believe that specific facet of it (floodlight/skymirror/perspective/EA/gravity).
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: Lorddave on July 24, 2010, 09:52:20 AM
Congrats, either you are an alt or it didn't take you very long to learn how things work around here. Stick around, its really kinda fun once you know what the rules are.

I remember how long it took me to figure out the rules.  Ugh... someone needs to write a rule book.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: Johannes on July 24, 2010, 04:59:20 PM
At the very least FET is an interesting thought experiment to some of the RE'ers here.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: Pongo on July 25, 2010, 02:22:18 AM
I theorize about FE.

Ah I see you're suffering from Johndavisosis of the brain. How can you theorize about something you do not believe is true?

... If people never theorized about new ideas, even in times when they thought it was wrong, then we would never have any new ideas.  No advances in science or even culture.  I submit that you even being able to type that sentence is the zenith of a long strain of ideas and concepts that challenged and overthrew their predating paradigms.  In many cases, I'm sure the theories stood on the shoulders of the perception of impossibility.

You ask how you can theorize in something you do not believe?  I ask how can mankind not?
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: zork on July 25, 2010, 02:59:57 AM
You ask how you can theorize in something you do not believe?  I ask how can mankind not?
I think you are mixing up "fantasize" and "theorize". In FE context we speak about science and FE doesn't quite fit under scientific theory(it's been discussed elsewhere, so I don't argue about that here). It's like if I see holes in street then I can fantasize about little asphalt leprechauns who are nagging holes into asphalt road. I can't find any observations about them other than holes in the road and not any scientific experiments or observations to find evidence about them. So I can fantasize, not theorize.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: Crustinator on July 25, 2010, 07:45:25 AM
... If people never theorized about new ideas, even in times when they thought it was wrong, then we would never have any new ideas.

True but irrelevant. You still have to believe something in order to theorise about it.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on July 25, 2010, 12:51:24 PM
... If people never theorized about new ideas, even in times when they thought it was wrong, then we would never have any new ideas.

True but irrelevant. You still have to believe something in order to theorise about it.

Nah.  I disagree.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: EnglshGentleman on July 25, 2010, 01:37:30 PM
... If people never theorized about new ideas, even in times when they thought it was wrong, then we would never have any new ideas.

True but irrelevant. You still have to believe something in order to theorize about it.

I fail to see how theorizing about something and not believing in something are mutually exclusive.
Lets look at what a theory is.

Quote
theory: a hypothesis; a tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena
from http://wordnet.princeton.edu/ (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/)

I don't see how thinking about how the world could be is impossible if you don't believe it is actually that way. I could theorize how waterbending would scientifically work, even if I know it isn't real.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: ClockTower on July 25, 2010, 01:55:09 PM
... If people never theorized about new ideas, even in times when they thought it was wrong, then we would never have any new ideas.

True but irrelevant. You still have to believe something in order to theorize about it.

I fail to see how theorizing about something and not believing in something are mutually exclusive.
Lets look at what a theory is.

Quote
theory: a hypothesis; a tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena
from http://wordnet.princeton.edu/ (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/)

I don't see how thinking about how the world could be is impossible if you don't believe it is actually that way. I could theorize how waterbending would scientifically work, even if I know it isn't real.
The point is that when you know it isn't real then you can't theorize, in the scientific sense, about it. The Scientific Theory starts with the possible, not what you know to be false.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: PizzaPlanet on July 25, 2010, 01:58:17 PM
ITT: More semantics failure. To believe != to know. You can theorize about things you don't believe to be true. You might even reach a point at which your beliefs will change.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: ClockTower on July 25, 2010, 02:07:10 PM
ITT: More semantics failure. To believe != to know. You can theorize about things you don't believe to be true. You might even reach a point at which your beliefs will change.
Again, you're confusing terms. The OP of the claim was quite clear. In applying the Scientific Method, you cannot theorize about things you know to be false. Science has Facts. Math has Facts. I can theorize about what would happen if an assumption was false, such as that a figure may be moved without affecting its size (That's one of Euclid's postulates.) I cannot though theorize, in the scientific sense, if a Fact were false. I cannot theorize that the world under the falsehood that the Moon is 32 miles in diameter. Once I start with something that we know is false than I can prove everything, whether true or false.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: zork on July 25, 2010, 02:27:03 PM
Lets look at what a theory is.

Quote
theory: a hypothesis; a tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena
from http://wordnet.princeton.edu/ (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/)
I fail to see that "theorizing" about flat earth would explain anything. As all can see it only raises new questions and fails to explain already explained phenomenas.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: Pseudointellect on July 25, 2010, 02:54:13 PM
Think of life as one big exercise in game theory or economics. If the probability of a certain ideology's success or truth in the real world is really, really low in your mind, then the amount of work you put into it likely isn't worth the returns. Life is very short.

(assuming you're serious and trying to get real research done. If you're not, then I guess it can be a hobby)
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: EnglshGentleman on July 25, 2010, 02:59:05 PM
Think of life as one big exercise in game theory or economics. If the probability of a certain ideology's success or truth in the real world is really, really low in your mind, then the amount of work you put into it likely isn't worth the returns. Life is very short.

(assuming you're serious and trying to get real research done. If you're not, then I guess it can be a hobby)

I think that for Roundy, as with most advocates, theorizing about FE is just like a hobby.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on July 25, 2010, 03:44:56 PM
In applying the Scientific Method, you cannot theorize about things you know to be false.

Obviously I'm proof that this is not true.  I do it all the time.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: ClockTower on July 25, 2010, 03:48:14 PM
In applying the Scientific Method, you cannot theorize about things you know to be false.

Obviously I'm proof that this is not true.  I do it all the time.
No. Wrong. I doubt that you could meet the premise without a year of additional education since you think that accelerations are forces.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on July 25, 2010, 03:49:17 PM
In applying the Scientific Method, you cannot theorize about things you know to be false.

Obviously I'm proof that this is not true.  I do it all the time.
No. Wrong.

Despite evidence to the contrary, you make quite an unsupported claim there.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: ClockTower on July 25, 2010, 03:58:26 PM
In applying the Scientific Method, you cannot theorize about things you know to be false.

Obviously I'm proof that this is not true.  I do it all the time.
No. Wrong.

Despite evidence to the contrary, you make quite an unsupported claim there.
I supported my claim in the post. Please do feel free to tell us that you have learned the Scientific Method and also understand Newton's Laws of Motion (Force does not equal acceleration.) and we'll consider your application of The Scientific Method a remote possibility. Until then, you've failed.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on July 25, 2010, 04:04:30 PM
I supported my claim in the post. Please do feel free to tell us that you have learned the Scientific Method and also understand Newton's Laws of Motion (Force does not equal acceleration.) and we'll consider your application of The Scientific Method a remote possibility. Until then, you've failed.

Failed or not, I've done it!

I do understand the difference between force and acceleration, btw.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: ClockTower on July 25, 2010, 05:02:56 PM
I supported my claim in the post. Please do feel free to tell us that you have learned the Scientific Method and also understand Newton's Laws of Motion (Force does not equal acceleration.) and we'll consider your application of The Scientific Method a remote possibility. Until then, you've failed.

Failed or not, I've done it!

I do understand the difference between force and acceleration, btw.
You have not, as it's impossible by definition of the Scientific Method. Study it and understand.

Then why did you screw up the difference in posting in the terminal velocity thread, by the way?
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on July 25, 2010, 05:06:26 PM
You have not, as it's impossible by definition of the Scientific Method.

Sure I have.  But you're entitled to your opinion.

Quote
Then why did you screw up the difference in posting in the terminal velocity thread, by the way?

I misspoke.  Oops!
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: General Disarray on July 25, 2010, 07:24:49 PM
Theorizing about things they don't believe in is what makes DAs here so maddening to debate. They make an obviously ridiculous claim, then either disappear or say they don't have to when asked to present evidence for it. It is in this way they manage to derail most of the threads with legit points, so nothing can ever get accomplished.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: ClockTower on July 25, 2010, 07:28:41 PM
You have not, as it's impossible by definition of the Scientific Method.

Sure I have. 
Quote
Then prove it. There's a Nobel Prize waiting for you.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on July 25, 2010, 08:55:28 PM
My theories are all over the forums.  Conduct a search.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: ClockTower on July 25, 2010, 09:02:44 PM
My theories are all over the forums.  Conduct a search.
What you claim to be theories do indeed litter the forums. Not one in support of FET, especially that forces are accelerations, employ the Scientific Method.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on July 25, 2010, 09:09:17 PM
My theories are all over the forums.  Conduct a search.
What you claim to be theories do indeed litter the forums. Not one in support of FET, especially that forces are accelerations, employ the Scientific Method.

I don't think you understand the Scientific Method.  And the ad hominems regarding the force=acceleration blunder are getting a little embarrassing for you, as I have already admitted my mistake.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: PizzaPlanet on July 25, 2010, 09:12:56 PM
BUT YOU SAID SOMETHING ELSE AND YOU WERE WRONG
AND YOU WERE WRONG
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: markjo on July 25, 2010, 09:37:42 PM
Looks like someone is getting a little bitter.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: PizzaPlanet on July 25, 2010, 10:14:47 PM
BUT HE WAS WRONG
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: ClockTower on July 25, 2010, 10:23:36 PM
My theories are all over the forums.  Conduct a search.
What you claim to be theories do indeed litter the forums. Not one in support of FET, especially that forces are accelerations, employ the Scientific Method.

I don't think you understand the Scientific Method.  And the ad hominems regarding the force=acceleration blunder are getting a little embarrassing for you, as I have already admitted my mistake.
It's not an ad hominem when you're arguing that you've accomplished feats that your postings indicate that you're incapable of. You brought your accomplishments into play with your unsupported boast. Do tell us how you can use the Scientific Method starting from something that is 1) not true, such as FET, 2) not falsifiable, such as FET, or 3) both, such as FET.

While we're all glad that you admitted your "force=acceleration" mistake, you did not do so in the thread where you made the mistake. We though find your excuse that you simply misspoke suspect. You did not offer a correction. Furthermore, we've seen you make other mistakes that indicate that you don't understand science well, such as arguing that the EP applies over more than a point. You still haven't admitted to the "EP applies to two separate points" mistake.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on July 26, 2010, 03:31:47 PM
Looks like someone is getting a little bitter.

Nah, he's been like that ever since he was Gulliver.

It's not an ad hominem when you're arguing that you've accomplished feats that your postings indicate that you're incapable of.

Still, they're a little embarrassing.  I guess we can discount your credentials too for saying that the moon only shines at night?  Obviously it means that everything you say must be wrong.

Also, don't you think that it's a little hypocritical for you to criticize someone for not admitting to his mistakes?
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: Crustinator on July 26, 2010, 04:25:51 PM
I fail to see how theorizing about something and not believing in something are mutually exclusive.

Then you also fail at life.

I don't see how thinking about how the world could be is impossible if you don't believe it is actually that way. I could theorize how waterbending would scientifically work, even if I know it isn't real.

Sounds like you've just theorised yourself into a dead end.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: markjo on July 26, 2010, 07:31:35 PM
Looks like someone is getting a little bitter.

Nah, he's been like that ever since he was Gulliver.

Seems like Gulliver has more lives than The Doctor.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: Pongo on July 27, 2010, 02:16:39 AM
... If people never theorized about new ideas, even in times when they thought it was wrong, then we would never have any new ideas.

True but irrelevant. You still have to believe something in order to theorise about it.

"Spin more than one hypothesis.  If there's something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained.  Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives.  What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among 'multiple working hypotheses,' has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you simply run with the idea that caught your fancy."  -Carl Sagan The Demon Haunted World

Many round Earth proponents think like this.  They have an idea and do not question it under any circumstance.  They do not think of other explanations.  They ignore evidence to the contrary and stick to their notions.  Interestingly, here is the footnote to this exurb...

"This is a problem that effects jury trials.  Retrospective studies show that some jurors make up their minds very early -- perhaps during the opening arguments -- and then retain the evidence that seems to support their initial impressions and reject the contrary evidence.  The method of alternative working hypotheses is not running in their heads."
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: ClockTower on July 27, 2010, 03:26:48 AM
... If people never theorized about new ideas, even in times when they thought it was wrong, then we would never have any new ideas.

True but irrelevant. You still have to believe something in order to theorise about it.

"Spin more than one hypothesis.  If there's something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained.  Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives.  What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among 'multiple working hypotheses,' has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you simply run with the idea that caught your fancy."  -Carl Sagan The Demon Haunted World

Many round Earth proponents think like this.  They have an idea and do not question it under any circumstance.  They do not think of other explanations.  They ignore evidence to the contrary and stick to their notions.  Interestingly, here is the footnote to this exurb...

"This is a problem that effects jury trials.  Retrospective studies show that some jurors make up their minds very early -- perhaps during the opening arguments -- and then retain the evidence that seems to support their initial impressions and reject the contrary evidence.  The method of alternative working hypotheses is not running in their heads."
You should consider your own advice. FEers seem to forget a few points here all too often. A hypothesis needs to be falsifiable. Any FET hypothesis that includes the "conspiracy" is not a hypothesis.

Before testing, there's a research step. All too often, FEers don't do the research to understand what others have done.

Then experimental design requires the construction of tests that test each working hypothesis. So let's say you hypothesize that what you experience as gravity is actually the UA. What tests would you run to determine if UA is the cause? How about the Cavendish result? How about this guy's ideas: http://www.fourmilab.ch/gravitation/foobar/ (http://www.fourmilab.ch/gravitation/foobar/). And this: http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues_2005/2005-07-01/feature1/index.html (http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues_2005/2005-07-01/feature1/index.html).

It sure seems to me that there's plenty of ways to move ahead with testing FET.

The recent "Where is the accurate FE map?" thread points to another test. If FE is right and the NP is the center of the map, then certain distances should vary between FE and RE. Why not measure them and see which is correct?

The hypothesis that a telescope restores the 'sunken hull' effect should be easy enough to test with nothing more than a borrowed pair of binoculars. Why is it FEers either lie about the results or can't afford to perform the experiment? If you follow Sagan's advice, you'd be eager. Heck, if you can't get to the seashore, then just have someone take a photograph of the event for you. Then if a magnifying glass restores the hull in the picture for you then this wild idea is correct. If not, well, you know.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: Crustinator on July 27, 2010, 05:32:25 AM
Many round Earth proponents think like this.  They have an idea and do not question it under any circumstance.

That would be because they believe in the subject they are theorising upon.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: markjo on July 27, 2010, 06:24:38 AM
Many round Earth proponents think like this.  They have an idea and do not question it under any circumstance.  They do not think of other explanations.  They ignore evidence to the contrary and stick to their notions. 

Which evidence to the contrary are you referring to?
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: zork on July 27, 2010, 11:36:32 AM
Many round Earth proponents think like this.  They have an idea and do not question it under any circumstance.  They do not think of other explanations.  They ignore evidence to the contrary and stick to their notions. 
You describe exactly FE side. You don't question under any circumstance flat earth, ignore all evidence which shows otherwise and try forcefully fit all explanations to FE model. And why people who were taught that the eart is round find it hard to believe otherwise... because there isn't any evidence to the contrary. Not one FE believer hasn't shown ever any evidence for FE besides Rowbotham book and notion that the piece of ground beside you is flat.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: Pongo on July 27, 2010, 12:38:07 PM
You should consider your own advice. FEers seem to forget a few points here all too often. A hypothesis needs to be falsifiable. Any FET hypothesis that includes the "conspiracy" is not a hypothesis.

What?  That quote is about questioning the normal ideas.  Clearly I am doing that.  Are you trying to be creative by turning my argument around?  If so, you've failed miserably.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: ClockTower on July 27, 2010, 04:31:46 PM
You should consider your own advice. FEers seem to forget a few points here all too often. A hypothesis needs to be falsifiable. Any FET hypothesis that includes the "conspiracy" is not a hypothesis.

What?  That quote is about questioning the normal ideas.  Clearly I am doing that.  Are you trying to be creative by turning my argument around?  If so, you've failed miserably.
Odd, I didn't see the word "normal" anywhere in the quote or your comments on it. Why would there be two standards anyway, one for normal ideas, and another for FET? That seems rather a miserable excuse to me, but then again maybe you have to make excuses for your miserable 'theory'.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: zork on July 28, 2010, 12:35:19 PM
That quote is about questioning the normal ideas.  Clearly I am doing that. 
What normal idea are you questioning? Idea that the earth is round? No, you don't question it. You just drop it and put up instead idea which you can't support in any way.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: Pongo on July 29, 2010, 12:19:38 AM
You should consider your own advice. FEers seem to forget a few points here all too often. A hypothesis needs to be falsifiable. Any FET hypothesis that includes the "conspiracy" is not a hypothesis.

What?  That quote is about questioning the normal ideas.  Clearly I am doing that.  Are you trying to be creative by turning my argument around?  If so, you've failed miserably.
Odd, I didn't see the word "normal" anywhere in the quote or your comments on it. Why would there be two standards anyway, one for normal ideas, and another for FET? That seems rather a miserable excuse to me, but then again maybe you have to make excuses for your miserable 'theory'.

You strike me as a person who would benefit immensely from being acquainted with the definition of the word "synonym", and a concept known as paraphrasing.  Better yet, read the book from which I am quoting.  It may help you beyond belief.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: ClockTower on July 29, 2010, 12:49:28 AM
You should consider your own advice. FEers seem to forget a few points here all too often. A hypothesis needs to be falsifiable. Any FET hypothesis that includes the "conspiracy" is not a hypothesis.

What?  That quote is about questioning the normal ideas.  Clearly I am doing that.  Are you trying to be creative by turning my argument around?  If so, you've failed miserably.
Odd, I didn't see the word "normal" anywhere in the quote or your comments on it. Why would there be two standards anyway, one for normal ideas, and another for FET? That seems rather a miserable excuse to me, but then again maybe you have to make excuses for your miserable 'theory'.

You strike me as a person who would benefit immensely from being acquainted with the definition of the word "synonym", and a concept known as paraphrasing.  Better yet, read the book from which I am quoting.  It may help you beyond belief.
How do you know that I haven't already read all of Sagan's works? And, again, why doesn't Sagan's sage advice apply to your efforts?
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: Pongo on July 29, 2010, 01:22:43 AM
You should consider your own advice. FEers seem to forget a few points here all too often. A hypothesis needs to be falsifiable. Any FET hypothesis that includes the "conspiracy" is not a hypothesis.

What?  That quote is about questioning the normal ideas.  Clearly I am doing that.  Are you trying to be creative by turning my argument around?  If so, you've failed miserably.
Odd, I didn't see the word "normal" anywhere in the quote or your comments on it. Why would there be two standards anyway, one for normal ideas, and another for FET? That seems rather a miserable excuse to me, but then again maybe you have to make excuses for your miserable 'theory'.

You strike me as a person who would benefit immensely from being acquainted with the definition of the word "synonym", and a concept known as paraphrasing.  Better yet, read the book from which I am quoting.  It may help you beyond belief.
How do you know that I haven't already read all of Sagan's works? And, again, why doesn't Sagan's sage advice apply to your efforts?

Perhaps I didn't explain myself well enough when I first answered this question.  I will try to use plain English and write clearly this time -- as I so hate to do.  That quote is about coming up with different ideas and testing each one of them.  We are doing that here at the Flat Earth Society.  I am unaware of the internal workings of the mind of ClockTower, but here, as with all areas of science, it takes years -- if not decades -- to thoroughly test, retest, and strain a theory through the sieve of truth before dismissing it as false.  As that quote directly and clearly states that alternative hypotheses must be "spun" and tested, and, as we are doing that here, that is how we are "spinning" new ideas and testing them... I'm not sure how much more clear I can be there.  That's how we are following Carl Sagan's direction.

Does that make sense now?  We are following Sagan's advice by doing exactly what his advise states.  I do not know how I can word that more clearly and I pray that you do not need it explained a third time.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: ClockTower on July 29, 2010, 02:13:54 AM
You should consider your own advice. FEers seem to forget a few points here all too often. A hypothesis needs to be falsifiable. Any FET hypothesis that includes the "conspiracy" is not a hypothesis.

What?  That quote is about questioning the normal ideas.  Clearly I am doing that.  Are you trying to be creative by turning my argument around?  If so, you've failed miserably.
Odd, I didn't see the word "normal" anywhere in the quote or your comments on it. Why would there be two standards anyway, one for normal ideas, and another for FET? That seems rather a miserable excuse to me, but then again maybe you have to make excuses for your miserable 'theory'.

You strike me as a person who would benefit immensely from being acquainted with the definition of the word "synonym", and a concept known as paraphrasing.  Better yet, read the book from which I am quoting.  It may help you beyond belief.
How do you know that I haven't already read all of Sagan's works? And, again, why doesn't Sagan's sage advice apply to your efforts?

Perhaps I didn't explain myself well enough when I first answered this question.  I will try to use plain English and write clearly this time -- as I so hate to do.  That quote is about coming up with different ideas and testing each one of them.  We are doing that here at the Flat Earth Society.  I am unaware of the internal workings of the mind of ClockTower, but here, as with all areas of science, it takes years -- if not decades -- to thoroughly test, retest, and strain a theory through the sieve of truth before dismissing it as false.  As that quote directly and clearly states that alternative hypotheses must be "spun" and tested, and, as we are doing that here, that is how we are "spinning" new ideas and testing them... I'm not sure how much more clear I can be there.  That's how we are following Carl Sagan's direction.

Does that make sense now?  We are following Sagan's advice by doing exactly what his advise states.  I do not know how I can word that more clearly and I pray that you do not need it explained a third time.
Do list for us all these tests that you're conducting. Oh, and we'd love to see and review the experimental design of each. Should there be a whole forum dedicated to this huge effort? Or could it be that no one on the FE side of the argument ever bothers to do a proper experiment?
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: zork on July 29, 2010, 04:11:49 AM
Do list for us all these tests that you're conducting. Oh, and we'd love to see and review the experimental design of each. Should there be a whole forum dedicated to this huge effort? Or could it be that no one on the FE side of the argument ever bothers to do a proper experiment?
They just like to say that, it has no actual meaning... But talking about coming up with different ideas... there must be wrong something with original idea when you come up with another one. I would like to know what is wrong about the idea the earth being round and how people notice it that it's wrong. If someone now want to say that "the piece of ground around me is flat and so I started to wonder if the whole earth is flat" then spare me.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: Crustinator on July 29, 2010, 10:26:57 AM
but here, as with all areas of science, it takes years -- if not decades -- to thoroughly test, retest, and strain a theory through the sieve of truth before dismissing it as false.

Hilarious. None of this dismisses the fact that you need to believe in something to theorise upon it.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: markjo on July 29, 2010, 10:35:33 AM
but here, as with all areas of science, it takes years -- if not decades -- to thoroughly test, retest, and strain a theory through the sieve of truth before dismissing it as false.

Hilarious. None of this dismisses the fact that you need to believe in something to theorise upon it.

Or, you could just ask a lawyer.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: Pongo on July 29, 2010, 11:07:53 PM
but here, as with all areas of science, it takes years -- if not decades -- to thoroughly test, retest, and strain a theory through the sieve of truth before dismissing it as false.

Hilarious. None of this dismisses the fact that you need to believe in something to theorise upon it.

This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.  May I submit that you are perhaps projecting your exceptionally poor imagination upon others?
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: Crustinator on July 30, 2010, 04:23:52 AM
but here, as with all areas of science, it takes years -- if not decades -- to thoroughly test, retest, and strain a theory through the sieve of truth before dismissing it as false.

Hilarious. None of this dismisses the fact that you need to believe in something to theorise upon it.

This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.  May I submit that you are perhaps projecting your exceptionally poor imagination upon others?

No.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: MrBoB on August 01, 2010, 05:19:23 PM
but here, as with all areas of science, it takes years -- if not decades -- to thoroughly test, retest, and strain a theory through the sieve of truth before dismissing it as false.

Hilarious. None of this dismisses the fact that you need to believe in something to theorise upon it.

This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.  May I submit that you are perhaps projecting your exceptionally poor imagination upon others?

This whole Forum might actually be the most weird thing Ive seen in a long time. For my first post, I would like to give this discussion a hint:
There's a little difference between hypothesis and theory.
Surely Mr. Roundy cannot theorize about something that he believes not to be true. That would indeed not make sense. He can hypothesize about it, however. His hypothesis would become a theory when it is sound and in accordance with what can be proven using scientific methods. In that case, he will surely believe in it, too, because "theorizing" implies that he is proving a hypothesis to be true. It's quite paradox to prove something and still not even believing in it yourself. I don't think that's possible.

However I would accept a shizophrenia-ill person to argue, that part of him theorizes, and another disbelieves in his own theories. Maybe that's the case. I doubt though, because I can see no way to ever find any proof for this ridiculous hypothesis of a flat earth in the first place.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: clovis2 on August 01, 2010, 10:39:09 PM
As a Flat Earth Believer I can only say that the Truth always has and will prevail.With all due respect to RE's.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: oscpaz00 on August 02, 2010, 01:03:34 AM
As a Flat Earth Believer I can only say that the Truth always has and will prevail.With all due respect to RE's.

Yes, it will. That's why almost everyone believes in the TRUE round Earth. The RE model predicts with incredible accuracy every phenomena we can observe: seasons, tides, moon phases, day duration, travel distances, etc... Your theory can't help you to go from Italy to Brasil; your theory doesn't predict anything. So, according to you, Earth is flat because you say so, you have no proof, no evidence.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: MrBoB on August 02, 2010, 03:38:34 AM
As a Flat Earth Believer I can only say that the Truth always has and will prevail.With all due respect to RE's.

Do you actually?
No, no really, I can't believe anyone here actually believes this shit. This must be the most troll-inhibiting place in the internets. Right after /b/ (http://boards.4chan.org/b/) :P
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: John Davis on August 02, 2010, 09:52:00 AM
From what I understand clovis is one of the older members of the FES and his tenure stretches far back before this site existed.


I also believe.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: zork on August 02, 2010, 11:56:47 AM
As a Flat Earth Believer I can only say that the Truth always has and will prevail.
I understand at last. That's why FET hasn't gained any considerable support in the history of the mankind. It isn't the Truth.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: John Davis on August 02, 2010, 12:06:14 PM
As a Flat Earth Believer I can only say that the Truth always has and will prevail.
I understand at last. That's why FET hasn't gained any considerable support in the history of the mankind. It isn't the Truth.
Any considerable support?  In the history of mankind?  I suggest you check your facts.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: zork on August 02, 2010, 12:20:01 PM
As a Flat Earth Believer I can only say that the Truth always has and will prevail.
I understand at last. That's why FET hasn't gained any considerable support in the history of the mankind. It isn't the Truth.
Any considerable support?  In the history of mankind?  I suggest you check your facts.
I checked.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: John Davis on August 02, 2010, 01:55:54 PM
As a Flat Earth Believer I can only say that the Truth always has and will prevail.
I understand at last. That's why FET hasn't gained any considerable support in the history of the mankind. It isn't the Truth.
Any considerable support?  In the history of mankind?  I suggest you check your facts.
I checked.

For a long time people supported flat earth belief, both "scientifically" as well as religiously.  Most major religions are flat earth religions.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: markjo on August 02, 2010, 02:33:33 PM
Most major religions are were flat earth religions.

Fixed.
That would depend on how literally you take their ancient texts.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: zork on August 02, 2010, 02:34:30 PM
As a Flat Earth Believer I can only say that the Truth always has and will prevail.
I understand at last. That's why FET hasn't gained any considerable support in the history of the mankind. It isn't the Truth.
Any considerable support?  In the history of mankind?  I suggest you check your facts.
I checked.

For a long time people supported flat earth belief, both "scientifically" as well as religiously.  Most major religions are flat earth religions.

 For a long time? How long? And how many people? And "scientifically"? What science it was that showed entire earth to be flat some 6-5..3 thousands year ago? I just can't take that being "considerable" when some local tribes believe that the earth is flat when they have no way knowing how large the earth really is. They were just like FET people now. Sitting on the piece of land, looking it and not seeing further decided that this is all. So, yes, I accept that the idea of flat earth is way more older but having considerable support... no way. But... if I take ignorance in account then I must admit defeat. It's really have been supported considerably by ignorance.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: John Davis on August 02, 2010, 06:43:37 PM
Most major religions are were flat earth religions.

Fixed.
That would depend on how literally you take their ancient texts.
We are talking within the context of the history of man.  There used to be more religions than there are now. The majority of those are flat earth religions.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: oscpaz00 on August 03, 2010, 02:55:44 AM
Most major religions are were flat earth religions.

Fixed.
That would depend on how literally you take their ancient texts.
We are talking within the context of the history of man.  There used to be more religions than there are now. The majority of those are flat earth religions.

Yeah, and most of thos religions believe that the sun and moon are gods. They didn't know anything. But when mankind began to progress with the scientist method, these "beliefs" where discarded, and flat earth theories abandoned. But you can continue believing that earth is flat, without any proof. As I can believe that the Sun is a god and you cannot prove it isn't, can't you?
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: MrBoB on August 03, 2010, 06:54:58 AM
Why doesn't any of you charter a plane, take all FE Believers with you, and have a little journey around the world?

I for my self can say, you fucking idiots must have never left home ever in your entire life. Ive been travelling around the globe a couple of times and I can ensure you there is no such thing as a flat earth. I wonder what believe structures you base your theories on. Is it a christian dogma?

Do you realise how man planes leave this earth day after day for hours and hours? Do you really believe that all pilots, all airlines, all government and anyhow everything in this world follows an incredibly large dogma made up by some fools because they thought to be funny? Who invented the RET if its such a lie? Do you have any idea of the economic factors that would influence such a thing? The profit that one airline could make if you FEers were right and the REers were wrong is phenomenal, simply by reducing time of flight and fuel costs. This is ridiculous.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: John Davis on August 03, 2010, 10:25:50 AM
Most major religions are were flat earth religions.

Fixed.
That would depend on how literally you take their ancient texts.
We are talking within the context of the history of man.  There used to be more religions than there are now. The majority of those are flat earth religions.

Yeah, and most of thos religions believe that the sun and moon are gods. They didn't know anything. But when mankind began to progress with the scientist method, these "beliefs" where discarded, and flat earth theories abandoned. But you can continue believing that earth is flat, without any proof. As I can believe that the Sun is a god and you cannot prove it isn't, can't you?
I didn't say their beliefs were well founded.  I said they were considerable support.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: zork on August 03, 2010, 12:43:53 PM
I didn't say their beliefs were well founded.  I said they were considerable support.
Yes, they were considerably supported by ignorance.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: John Davis on August 09, 2010, 03:12:32 PM
I didn't say their beliefs were well founded.  I said they were considerable support.
Yes, they were considerably supported by ignorance.
Perhaps, but considerable none the less.  Especially considering great races such as the Mayans and Egyptians.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: Crustinator on August 09, 2010, 03:27:34 PM
There used to be more religions than there are now. The majority of those are flat earth religions.

There is no evidence for this claim.

Also. More religions /= major religions. A pygmy in a mud hut thinking the earth is flat is not a major religion.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: zork on August 09, 2010, 03:43:18 PM
I didn't say their beliefs were well founded.  I said they were considerable support.
Yes, they were considerably supported by ignorance.
Perhaps, but considerable none the less.  Especially considering great races such as the Mayans and Egyptians.
Great compared to what? As for now they were local tribes sitting in their piece of land and not knowing anything about other places.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: John Davis on August 09, 2010, 03:44:58 PM
I didn't say their beliefs were well founded.  I said they were considerable support.
Yes, they were considerably supported by ignorance.
Perhaps, but considerable none the less.  Especially considering great races such as the Mayans and Egyptians.
Great compared to what? As for now they were local tribes sitting in their piece of land and not knowing anything about other places.
The Mayans and Egyptians have made huge contributions to the human race in astronomy and other scientific fields.  Little known fact, the Egyptians were one of the first to use antibiotics.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: John Davis on August 09, 2010, 03:46:10 PM
There used to be more religions than there are now. The majority of those are flat earth religions.

There is no evidence for this claim.

Also. More religions /= major religions. A pygmy in a mud hut thinking the earth is flat is not a major religion.
Most texts of major religions currently are written from a flat earth perspective. Simply read them, or do a search here where I know there have been at least 3 threads discussing pagan, judeo, and other major religious beliefs in reference to FE.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: Crustinator on August 09, 2010, 03:49:03 PM
Most texts of major religions currently are written from a flat earth perspective.

There is no evidence for this claim.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: zork on August 09, 2010, 03:53:59 PM
I didn't say their beliefs were well founded.  I said they were considerable support.
Yes, they were considerably supported by ignorance.
Perhaps, but considerable none the less.  Especially considering great races such as the Mayans and Egyptians.
Great compared to what? As for now they were local tribes sitting in their piece of land and not knowing anything about other places.
The Mayans and Egyptians have made huge contributions to the human race in astronomy and other scientific fields.  Little known fact, the Egyptians were one of the first to use antibiotics.
And it still doesn't make go away the fact that they were ignorant about other parts of the earth. In the context of whole earth they were and are going to be local tribes sitting in their piece of land. And being ignorant about the shape of the earth. Whatever shape it may be.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: John Davis on August 09, 2010, 04:08:42 PM
You said they weren't considerable.  I'd say that those that invented astronomy were considerable, whether right or wrong.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: zork on August 09, 2010, 04:27:10 PM
You said they weren't considerable.  I'd say that those that invented astronomy were considerable, whether right or wrong.
Fine with me. It all depends in what angle you look at them.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: Aristarchus on August 09, 2010, 04:41:37 PM
As a Flat Earth Believer I can only say that the Truth always has and will prevail.
I understand at last. That's why FET hasn't gained any considerable support in the history of the mankind. It isn't the Truth.
Any considerable support?  In the history of mankind?  I suggest you check your facts.
I checked.

For a long time people supported flat earth belief, both "scientifically" as well as religiously.  Most major religions are flat earth religions.

Are you frakking serious?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes

Eratosthenes measured the circumference of the Earth well over 2,000 years ago.

You're frakking insane.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 09, 2010, 04:43:47 PM
Quote
For a long time people supported flat earth belief, both "scientifically" as well as religiously.  Most major religions are flat earth religions.

Are you frakking serious?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes

Eratosthenes measured the circumference of the Earth well over 2,000 years ago.

You're frakking insane.

I fail to see the relevance.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: Aristarchus on August 09, 2010, 04:49:12 PM
Quote
For a long time people supported flat earth belief, both "scientifically" as well as religiously.  Most major religions are flat earth religions.

Are you frakking serious?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes

Eratosthenes measured the circumference of the Earth well over 2,000 years ago.

You're frakking insane.

I fail to see the relevance.

It disproves his claim that people supported the flat earth belief for a long time.

It doesn't matter what the early humans thought hundreds of thousands of years ago, since that was long before the development of any major religions and certainly long before the development of science as we would recognize it.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 09, 2010, 04:51:18 PM
Quote
For a long time people supported flat earth belief, both "scientifically" as well as religiously.  Most major religions are flat earth religions.

Are you frakking serious?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes

Eratosthenes measured the circumference of the Earth well over 2,000 years ago.

You're frakking insane.

I fail to see the relevance.

It disproves his claim that people supported the flat earth belief for a long time.

No it doesn't.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: Aristarchus on August 09, 2010, 06:41:01 PM
Quote
For a long time people supported flat earth belief, both "scientifically" as well as religiously.  Most major religions are flat earth religions.

Are you frakking serious?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes

Eratosthenes measured the circumference of the Earth well over 2,000 years ago.

You're frakking insane.

I fail to see the relevance.

It disproves his claim that people supported the flat earth belief for a long time.

No it doesn't.

Ummm........yes, it does. Where the hell did you get your education?
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 09, 2010, 09:46:08 PM
Quote
For a long time people supported flat earth belief, both "scientifically" as well as religiously.  Most major religions are flat earth religions.

Are you frakking serious?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes

Eratosthenes measured the circumference of the Earth well over 2,000 years ago.

You're frakking insane.

I fail to see the relevance.

It disproves his claim that people supported the flat earth belief for a long time.

No it doesn't.

Ummm........yes, it does. Where the hell did you get your education?

No it doesn't.  Even if it had been proven that the Earth was round 2000 years ago it still wouldn't demonstrate that nobody has supported flat earth belief since it happened.  You're using ridiculously faulty logic here.

It's been proven pretty rigorously that the Earth is more than a few thousand years old.  Have you ever heard of Young Earth Creationism?
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: Aristarchus on August 09, 2010, 09:59:11 PM
Quote
For a long time people supported flat earth belief, both "scientifically" as well as religiously.  Most major religions are flat earth religions.

Are you frakking serious?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes

Eratosthenes measured the circumference of the Earth well over 2,000 years ago.

You're frakking insane.

I fail to see the relevance.

It disproves his claim that people supported the flat earth belief for a long time.

No it doesn't.

Ummm........yes, it does. Where the hell did you get your education?

No it doesn't.  Even if it had been proven that the Earth was round 2000 years ago it still wouldn't demonstrate that nobody has supported flat earth belief since it happened.  You're using ridiculously faulty logic here.

It's been proven pretty rigorously that the Earth is more than a few thousand years old.  Have you ever heard of Young Earth Creationism?

Who the fuck is talking about Young Earth Creationism?

And, yes, it was proven that Earth was "round' well over 2000 years ago. If you think otherwise, I must request that you stop consuming so much valuable oxygen at once.

I never said that no one has supported flat Earth belief since, I'm sure some have, but I consider them to have been a useless part of humanity due to their laughable ignorance.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 09, 2010, 10:07:27 PM
Who the fuck is talking about Young Earth Creationism?

It's a valid analogy.  There are still people who believe they can demonstrate scientifically that it's the case, and obviously it's supported religiously.

Quote
And, yes, it was proven that Earth was "round' well over 2000 years ago. If you think otherwise, I must request that you stop consuming so much valuable oxygen at once.

No, it wasn't "proven" round until relatively recently.  Eratosthenes did not prove that the Earth was round with his experiment, he more assumed it.

Quote
I never said that no one has supported flat Earth belief since, I'm sure some have, but I consider them to have been a useless part of humanity due to their laughable ignorance.

Well, whatever you think of them, that is exactly what you said earlier in this thread.  See:
It disproves his claim that people supported the flat earth belief for a long time.



Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: Crustinator on August 10, 2010, 04:22:46 AM
One minute FEers are bawwing that the RE belief has been foisted on society since time immemorial, the next their bawwing that FE belief has been held by major religions since time immemorial.

I wish you'd get your cool story straight.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: markjo on August 10, 2010, 05:29:09 AM
One minute FEers are bawwing that the RE belief has been foisted on society since time immemorial, the next their bawwing that FE belief has been held by major religions since time immemorial.

I wish you'd get your cool story straight.

Are you saying that societies and religions must believe the same thing at the same time?
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: Crustinator on August 10, 2010, 07:00:09 AM
Are you saying that societies and religions must believe the same thing at the same time?

I'm saying JD's cool story is inconsistent. Especially in the provided historical context where religion dictated society.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: Gigamonsta on August 10, 2010, 10:21:16 AM
Quote
For a long time people supported flat earth belief, both "scientifically" as well as religiously.  Most major religions are flat earth religions.

Are you frakking serious?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes

Eratosthenes measured the circumference of the Earth well over 2,000 years ago.

You're frakking insane.

I fail to see the relevance.

It disproves his claim that people supported the flat earth belief for a long time.

No it doesn't.

Ummm........yes, it does. Where the hell did you get your education?

No it doesn't.  Even if it had been proven that the Earth was round 2000 years ago it still wouldn't demonstrate that nobody has supported flat earth belief since it happened.  You're using ridiculously faulty logic here.

It's been proven pretty rigorously that the Earth is more than a few thousand years old.  Have you ever heard of Young Earth Creationism?

Who the fuck is talking about Young Earth Creationism?

And, yes, it was proven that Earth was "round' well over 2000 years ago. If you think otherwise, I must request that you stop consuming so much valuable oxygen at once.

I never said that no one has supported flat Earth belief since, I'm sure some have, but I consider them to have been a useless part of humanity due to their laughable ignorance.

He also believed in the four elements of wind, water, fire and earth. Oh and that women were inferior to men. He sounds so brilliant to me thta Erastothenes. so this old greek fella basically is believed by you because he was old? How was it proved 2k years ago? did all the chinese, aztecs, and others all have access to this old greek guy as he was writing?! of course not!!!! he advanced a hypothesis which has yet to be proved
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: ClockTower on August 10, 2010, 10:36:15 AM
He also believed in the four elements of wind, water, fire and earth. Oh and that women were inferior to men. He sounds so brilliant to me thta Erastothenes. so this old greek fella basically is believed by you because he was old? How was it proved 2k years ago? did all the chinese, aztecs, and others all have access to this old greek guy as he was writing?! of course not!!!! he advanced a hypothesis which has yet to be proved
That would be an ad hominem fallacy.

The hypothesis that the Earth is a sphere is proven.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on August 10, 2010, 10:37:57 AM
He also believed in the four elements of wind, water, fire and earth. Oh and that women were inferior to men. He sounds so brilliant to me thta Erastothenes. so this old greek fella basically is believed by you because he was old? How was it proved 2k years ago? did all the chinese, aztecs, and others all have access to this old greek guy as he was writing?! of course not!!!! he advanced a hypothesis which has yet to be proved
That would be an ad hominem fallacy.

The hypothesis that the Earth is a sphere is proven.
Prove it.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: ClockTower on August 10, 2010, 10:41:50 AM
He also believed in the four elements of wind, water, fire and earth. Oh and that women were inferior to men. He sounds so brilliant to me thta Erastothenes. so this old greek fella basically is believed by you because he was old? How was it proved 2k years ago? did all the chinese, aztecs, and others all have access to this old greek guy as he was writing?! of course not!!!! he advanced a hypothesis which has yet to be proved
That would be an ad hominem fallacy.

The hypothesis that the Earth is a sphere is proven.
Prove it.
Sure. Here's one published work: http://gyanpedia.in/tft/Resources/books/earthpix.pdf (http://gyanpedia.in/tft/Resources/books/earthpix.pdf).
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: markjo on August 10, 2010, 11:49:42 AM
Are you saying that societies and religions must believe the same thing at the same time?

I'm saying JD's cool story is inconsistent. Especially in the provided historical context where religion dictated society.

But not all ancient religions dictated scientific (or philosophical) knowledge.  The ancient Greek philosophers, for example, did just fine without having to invoke their gods to explain every natural event.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: Crustinator on August 10, 2010, 04:46:29 PM
But not all ancient religions dictated scientific (or philosophical) knowledge.  The ancient Greek philosophers, for example, did just fine without having to invoke their gods to explain every natural event.

Probably true.

If you could show a case where Greek society contradicted Greek religion regarding the shape of the earth then you might be onto something.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: Hortensius on August 10, 2010, 05:07:27 PM
Sure. Here's one published work: http://gyanpedia.in/tft/Resources/books/earthpix.pdf (http://gyanpedia.in/tft/Resources/books/earthpix.pdf).

Pretty nice...
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: ClockTower on August 10, 2010, 05:08:58 PM
Sure. Here's one published work: http://gyanpedia.in/tft/Resources/books/earthpix.pdf (http://gyanpedia.in/tft/Resources/books/earthpix.pdf).

Pretty nice...
Thanks. Asimov always did such a great job explaining science. I miss him.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on August 10, 2010, 05:27:19 PM
Is that the best you have  ???
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: ClockTower on August 10, 2010, 05:36:19 PM
Is that the best you have  ???
When did we say that? Are you paying attention? Does FET have anything from someone so well published and respected? RET has one of the top writers explaining how we know the Earth is round. FEers haven't presented any publication in support of FET. I guess you have nothing.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on August 10, 2010, 05:38:07 PM
Is that the best you have  ???
FEers haven't presented any publication in support of FET. I guess you have nothing.
I'll give you a chance to reread that and realize your mistake.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: zork on August 11, 2010, 12:19:57 AM
Is that the best you have  ???
FEers haven't presented any publication in support of FET. I guess you have nothing.
I'll give you a chance to reread that and realize your mistake.
It's bother when all you get always is that "there is" and never anything real. Let's see from FE side any publication in same level that Asimov's was(Rowbotham book isn't). And as I realize that there isn't any meaning to ask any scientific papers from FE side(because there isn't any) then maybe we can lower the bar and ask something from Popular Science which makes sense. From the 20'th century other half(there isn't much use from historic papers which have totally outdated).
 Edit:
And rereading doesn't change anything. FEers haven't presented any publications in support of FET. Forum posts aren't publications.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: Crustinator on August 11, 2010, 11:56:15 AM
Is that the best you have  ???

You got what you asked for. ???
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: seeb49 on September 26, 2010, 02:59:44 PM
For the most part I agree with this post... Other than the theology analogy. That is highly stereotypical.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 03, 2010, 08:42:00 PM
Quote
FEers haven't presented any publications in support of FET. Forum posts aren't publications.

I've had several references in my signature link for almost four years now.

For example; here is one from The English Mechanic on Flat Earth Theory:

"The Flat Earth: another Bedford Canal experiment" (Bernard H.Watson, et al),
ENGLISH MECHANIC, 80:160, 1904

Bedford Canal, England. A repeat of the 1870 experiment.
"A train of empty turf-boats had just entered the Canal from the river Ouse, and
was about proceeding to Ramsey. I arranged with the captain to place the shallowest
boat last in the train, and to take me on to Welney Bridge, a distance of six
miles. A good telescope was then fixed on the lowest part of the stern of the last
boat. The sluice gate of the Old Bedford Bridge was 5ft. 8in. high, the turf-boat
moored there was 2ft. 6in. high, and the notice board was 6ft. 6in. from the water.
The sun was shining strongly upon them in the direction of the south-southwest; the
air was exceedingly still and clear, and the surface of the water smooth as a
molten mirror, so that everything was favourable for observation. At 1.15 p.m. the
train started for Welney. As the boats gradually receded, the sluice gate, the
turf-boat and the notice board continued to be visible to the naked eye for about
four miles. When the sluice gate and the turf-boat (being of a dark colour) became
somewhat indistinct, the notice board (which was white) was still plainly visible,
and remained so to the end of six miles. But on looking through the telescope all
the objects were distinctly visible throughout the whole distance. On reaching
Welney Bridge I made very careful and repeated observations, and finding several
men upon the banks of the canal, I called them to look through the telescope. They
all saw distinctly the white notice board, the sluice gate, and the black turf-boat
moored near them.

Now, as the telescope was 18in. above the water, The line of sight would touch the
horizon at one mile and a half away (if the surface were convex). The curvature of
the remaining four miles and a half would be 13ft. 6in. Hence the turf-boat should
have been 11ft., the top of the sluice gate 7ft. 10in., and the bottom of the
notice board 7ft. below the horizon.

My recent experiment affords undeniable proof of the Earth's unglobularity, because
it rests not on transitory vision; but my proof remains printed on the negative of
the photograph which Mr.Clifton took for me, and in my presence, on behalf of
J.H.Dallmeyer, Ltd.
A photograph can not 'imagine' nor lie!".
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: markjo on October 03, 2010, 08:53:41 PM
"The sun was shining strongly upon them in the direction of the south-southwest; the air was exceedingly still and clear, and the surface of the water smooth as a molten mirror, so that everything was favourable for observation."

Hmmm... It seems to me that Mr. Watson was describing ideal conditions for any number of atmospheric refractive phenomena (mirages, lofting, etc.).
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 03, 2010, 09:08:48 PM
"The sun was shining strongly upon them in the direction of the south-southwest; the air was exceedingly still and clear, and the surface of the water smooth as a molten mirror, so that everything was favourable for observation."

Hmmm... It seems to me that Mr. Watson was describing ideal conditions for any number of atmospheric refractive phenomena (mirages, lofting, etc.).

It's funny how when confronted with one of the many experiments described in the Flat Earth Literature, or when confronted with a test which diametrically opposes RET, the Round Earther's sole and only rebuttal is "An illusion did it".
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: General Disarray on October 03, 2010, 09:14:34 PM
"The sun was shining strongly upon them in the direction of the south-southwest; the air was exceedingly still and clear, and the surface of the water smooth as a molten mirror, so that everything was favourable for observation."

Hmmm... It seems to me that Mr. Watson was describing ideal conditions for any number of atmospheric refractive phenomena (mirages, lofting, etc.).

It's funny how when confronted with one of the many experiments described in the Flat Earth Literature, or when confronted with a test which diametrically opposes RET, the Round Earther's sole and only rebuttal is "An illusion did it".

It's funny how when confronted with one of the many experiments described in scientific journals, or when confronted with a test which diametrically opposes FET (such as the the sun setting), the FE'ers sole and only rebuttal is "An illusion did it."
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: markjo on October 03, 2010, 10:30:50 PM
"The sun was shining strongly upon them in the direction of the south-southwest; the air was exceedingly still and clear, and the surface of the water smooth as a molten mirror, so that everything was favourable for observation."

Hmmm... It seems to me that Mr. Watson was describing ideal conditions for any number of atmospheric refractive phenomena (mirages, lofting, etc.).

It's funny how when confronted with one of the many experiments described in the Flat Earth Literature, or when confronted with a test which diametrically opposes RET, the Round Earther's sole and only rebuttal is "An illusion did it".

Sorry Tom, but atmospheric refractive phenomena (mirages, etc.) are not illusions.  The are very real, very explainable and fairly common under the right conditions.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 03, 2010, 10:35:01 PM
Sorry Tom, but atmospheric refractive phenomena (mirages, etc.) are not illusions.

Actually, they are.

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=mirage&i=0&h=00#c
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: zork on October 04, 2010, 02:41:51 AM
"The sun was shining strongly upon them in the direction of the south-southwest; the air was exceedingly still and clear, and the surface of the water smooth as a molten mirror, so that everything was favourable for observation."

Hmmm... It seems to me that Mr. Watson was describing ideal conditions for any number of atmospheric refractive phenomena (mirages, lofting, etc.).

It's funny how when confronted with one of the many experiments described in the Flat Earth Literature, or when confronted with a test which diametrically opposes RET, the Round Earther's sole and only rebuttal is "An illusion did it".
No, the rebuttal isn't "An illusion did it". Fact is that the temperature of the air above the water and refraction wasn't take account and fact  is that there is refraction. Also, you don't have the photo so it's still questionable.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: markjo on October 04, 2010, 06:38:36 AM
Sorry Tom, but atmospheric refractive phenomena (mirages, etc.) are not illusions.

Actually, they are.

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=mirage&i=0&h=00#c

Even if they are illusions, atmospheric refractive phenomena (not all of which are mirages) are still a perfectly valid explanation for many such observations.  At least it's better than crying conspiracy.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 04, 2010, 02:58:09 PM
No, the rebuttal isn't "An illusion did it". Fact is that the temperature of the air above the water and refraction wasn't take account and fact  is that there is refraction.

"An illusion did it" is exactly your argument when you make a spurious claim of a superior mirage.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: markjo on October 04, 2010, 03:44:12 PM
No, the rebuttal isn't "An illusion did it". Fact is that the temperature of the air above the water and refraction wasn't take account and fact  is that there is refraction.

"An illusion did it" is exactly your argument when you make a spurious claim of a superior mirage.

Are you saying that a superior mirage (or some other atmospheric refractive phenomena) could not be a perfectly valid explanation for the observation?  Saying "an illusion did it" is perfectly valid when it's true.  Just remember, you are essentially saying the same thing when you say that a trick of perspective causes sunsets.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 04, 2010, 03:49:05 PM
No, the rebuttal isn't "An illusion did it". Fact is that the temperature of the air above the water and refraction wasn't take account and fact  is that there is refraction.

"An illusion did it" is exactly your argument when you make a spurious claim of a superior mirage.

Are you saying that a superior mirage (or some other atmospheric refractive phenomena) could not be a perfectly valid explanation for the observation?  Saying "an illusion did it" is perfectly valid when it's true.  Just remember, you are essentially saying the same thing when you say that a trick of perspective causes sunsets.

It must be quite an illusion, then, for a superior mirage to materialize in front of the experimenter's eyes, each and every time the experiment in performed in the literature.

This illusion not only materializes in front of every person who does the experiment, but also projects bodies into the air exactly and precisely where it should if the earth were flat, no higher and no lower. Too high and the illusion would have the body hovering in the air. Too low and the body would be obscured. No sir. This purported illusion projects a distant body into the air exactly where it should be if the earth were flat.

Quite an illusion.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: markjo on October 04, 2010, 06:48:36 PM
This illusion not only materializes in front of every person who does the experiment, but also projects bodies into the air exactly and precisely where it should if the earth were flat, no higher and no lower.

What evidence do you have to support this claim?  I have personally attempted to observed Toronto across Lake Erie from a location where the Toronto skyline is known to be visible, but I was unable to make such an observation.  Obviously this illusion does not occur for everyone who tries it.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 04, 2010, 11:32:57 PM
Obviously Toronto isn't going to be seen on a foggy day.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: ClockTower on October 04, 2010, 11:34:42 PM
Obviously Toronto isn't going to be seen on a foggy day.
Incorrect. It depends on the amount of fog.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: TheJackel on October 04, 2010, 11:47:42 PM
Actually I have seen a superior mirage do just that over lake superior.. Tom, you seem to fail at understanding refraction, temperature, or atmospheric conditions in regards to said experiments. Nor do you comprehend that only spherical Earth is going to give you the ability to show the Earth to be optically flat, concave, and spherical. This is especially true near ground level. And do note that light tends to follow the curvature of the Earth. The conditions posted in your "experiment" are actually prime conditions for said optical phenomenon. I suggest you study superior mirages more because those conditions you posted were very similar to the conditions from which I observed when I had seen a superior mirage over lake superior. You can in fact see over the curvature of the Earth (to a certain extent) giving the right conditions. So your argument here is useless. Especially when under average conditions no such phenomenon is observed.

btw, they can indeed appear to be no higher or lower.. However, even over a FE there is no such thing as exact in terms of elevation.. I suggest you figure out what hills, curbs, mountains, valleys, depths, rocks, cliffs, mounds, trees, grass, or even dunes are to understand your failure here. Do provide the data showing exact and perfectly flat Earth.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: zork on October 04, 2010, 11:57:58 PM
No, the rebuttal isn't "An illusion did it". Fact is that the temperature of the air above the water and refraction wasn't take account and fact  is that there is refraction.

"An illusion did it" is exactly your argument when you make a spurious claim of a superior mirage.

Are you saying that a superior mirage (or some other atmospheric refractive phenomena) could not be a perfectly valid explanation for the observation?  Saying "an illusion did it" is perfectly valid when it's true.  Just remember, you are essentially saying the same thing when you say that a trick of perspective causes sunsets.

It must be quite an illusion, then, for a superior mirage to materialize in front of the experimenter's eyes, each and every time the experiment in performed in the literature.

This illusion not only materializes in front of every person who does the experiment, but also projects bodies into the air exactly and precisely where it should if the earth were flat, no higher and no lower. Too high and the illusion would have the body hovering in the air. Too low and the body would be obscured. No sir. This purported illusion projects a distant body into the air exactly where it should be if the earth were flat.

Quite an illusion.
  The rebuttal still isn't "The illusion did it". The definition of mirage according to the American Meteorological Society's Glossary of Weather and Climate is:
    "Mirage: A refraction phenomenon wherein an image of some distant object is made to appear displaced from its true position because of large vertical density variations near the surface; the image may appear distorted, inverted, or wavering.
 It's not the illusion per se, it is a well explained phenomenon and it does not materialize in front of you every time when the person does the experiment. There is even no such an experiment done in the last 50 or even more years.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: Vindictus on October 05, 2010, 12:56:59 AM
No, the rebuttal isn't "An illusion did it". Fact is that the temperature of the air above the water and refraction wasn't take account and fact  is that there is refraction.

"An illusion did it" is exactly your argument when you make a spurious claim of a superior mirage.

Sounds a lot like "NASA did it", doesn't it?
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: markjo on October 05, 2010, 06:12:38 AM
Obviously Toronto isn't going to be seen on a foggy day.

It wasn't foggy.  In fact, it was a nice, sunny spring day.  However, there was something of a breeze which likely prevented the necessary thermal inversion layer from forming over the lake.
Title: Re: Why RE will never win here
Post by: Crustinator on October 06, 2010, 01:07:40 PM
This illusion not only materializes in front of every person who does the experiment

Can you show some evidence of the "experiment" that isn't over 100 years old?