The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Soulfien on April 08, 2012, 03:19:43 PM
-
I'm curious what the basis for this is....
When we have such brilliant minds at work researching the size, shape, and nature of the celestial heavens (I'm talking about Astronomy), how is it that these brilliant minds have got everything so wrong?
I'm talking about people such as the brilliant Stephen Hawking, one of the most brilliant minds ever to walk the earth.
What evidence is so compelling, so detailed, so EXACT, that it has escaped his brilliant mind? And what are the formulas that are so complex that they prove his own formulas wrong?
For the earth to be flat, everything he has proven about not only the earth but the entire universe has to be wrong. Everything. Every star, every solar system, every galaxy, everything in the universe must stop existing as they have been proven to exist.
Do you realize what you're saying by believing that the Earth is flat? Nothing can exist if the Earth is flat except as something to orbit this simple disc. There has to be some REALLY great and damning formulas to prove this. The entire universe has been mapped out by now with surprising details.
To say that the people who have done this are ... "stupid" or "ignorant" or "just plain wrong" would require some REAL brain power. Yet... I'm not seeing the billions of computations and evidence that would be required to prove that.
-
The scientists you're talking about may have brilliant minds, but unfortunately they don't have zetetic ones. They all operate from the presumption that the Earth is round, and therefore everything they observe, everything they study, and everything they calculate is all interpreted to fit the RE model.
-
Okay, first, we'll discuss what the word "round" means.
"Being such that every part of the surface or the circumference is equidistant from the center"
Whether flat or sphere, we're both in agreement that the Earth is round.
Also, the very characteristic of an explorer is zetetic.
"As an adjective, it means "inquiring, investigating" and "proceeding by inquiry or investigation," or, as a noun, "inquirer.""
Now, again, are you really going to make a determination of a scientists or a physicist that they don't do their homework with absolute certainty?
And finally, where is the proof? There are four types of belief in this world.
There's the kind with absolute certainty through evidence and proof.
The kind through ignorance or hearsay.
The kind through fear brought on by a huge degree of punishment to anyone who goes against the grain (like a place called Hell for anyone who doesn't believe in Christ)
And the belief in something because the person wants a sense of belonging. As in someone who claims belief in something because he wants to be included with others who say they believe.
For this belief to be the first one, there MUST be more proof than there is that the earth is spherical and that the universe is 3-dimensional. The evidence for a spherical earth is astounding and the intelligent zetetic minds behind that evidence equally astounding.
-
The scientists you're talking about may have brilliant minds, but unfortunately they don't have zetetic ones. They all operate from the presumption that the Earth is round, and therefore everything they observe, everything they study, and everything they calculate is all interpreted to fit the RE model.
I almost don't know how to respond to this. We know the Earth is round, and we get nothing by saying it is. You seem to misunderstand how science works.
-
The scientists you're talking about may have brilliant minds, but unfortunately they don't have zetetic ones. They all operate from the presumption that the Earth is round, and therefore everything they observe, everything they study, and everything they calculate is all interpreted to fit the RE model.
I almost don't know how to respond to this. We know the Earth is round, and we get nothing by saying it is. You seem to misunderstand how science works.
You "know" it's round because you believe the people that told you it was round. Before round Earthers were around, everyone believed that the Earth was flat because they believed the people that told them it was flat.
Rather than simply accept what we are told, we observe the would around us for facts.
-
The scientists you're talking about may have brilliant minds, but unfortunately they don't have zetetic ones. They all operate from the presumption that the Earth is round, and therefore everything they observe, everything they study, and everything they calculate is all interpreted to fit the RE model.
I almost don't know how to respond to this. We know the Earth is round, and we get nothing by saying it is. You seem to misunderstand how science works.
You "know" it's round because you believe the people that told you it was round. Before round Earthers were around, everyone believed that the Earth was flat because they believed the people that told them it was flat.
Rather than simply accept what we are told, we observe the would around us for facts.
I don't need other people to tell me everything. We have plenty of videos and pictures that contradict you directly.
-
The scientists you're talking about may have brilliant minds, but unfortunately they don't have zetetic ones. They all operate from the presumption that the Earth is round, and therefore everything they observe, everything they study, and everything they calculate is all interpreted to fit the RE model.
I almost don't know how to respond to this. We know the Earth is round, and we get nothing by saying it is. You seem to misunderstand how science works.
You "know" it's round because you believe the people that told you it was round. Before round Earthers were around, everyone believed that the Earth was flat because they believed the people that told them it was flat.
Rather than simply accept what we are told, we observe the would around us for facts.
I don't need other people to tell me everything. We have plenty of videos and pictures that contradict you directly.
It sounds like you're making his point. Where did these videos and pictures come from?
-
You are making my point, Saddam. You are the one who is claiming that everyone else is just believing what they are told when it is indeed you yourself who is guilty of that.
You see, trying to be dodgy in a debate may work on some people, but it's never worked on me. You claim to know that the earth is flat despite the collection of evidence and proof of concept through the laws of physics and yet you use such simplistic dodge tactics when asked for your proof behind it all.
I have already mentioned in the very first post where the photos and proof came from. You have read it.
So tell us.. where are these facts that you claim exist?
-
Are you changing the subject now?
-
no. I'm asking what type of believer are you? Are you one who has proof above and beyond what everyone else has? If so, then you must be willing to present it?
If you have no proof then that means you are one of the other types of believers... I would guess that you seek a sense of belonging which means you are the 4th type I mentioned.
My subject is, where is the proof that goes above and beyond that presented and analyzed by such brilliant minds like Stephen Hawking?
Hmm? I want to know how you can call such brilliant people idiots?
Edit: Just to be clear, I know the earth is spherical because it's been proven to me. I don't believe what I'm told without evidence. If that were true, I'd still be a christian. I'm an atheist because the bible has been disproven to my satisfaction. I know the earth is a sphere because I've traveled it. I've seen it. I've sailed the oceans. I spent 8 and half years in the Navy. I know that the earth revolves around a star with 7 other planets and 3 psuedoplanets. I know that we're in the Milky Way galaxy and that there are countless other galaxies because the evidence for it is believable.
-
Hmm? I want to know how you can call such brilliant people idiots?
We don't call them idiots, they are just operating under a false premise which skews their conclusions. It's like how Freud is considered the father of physiology despite getting nearly everything wrong.
-
Rather than simply accept what we are told, we observe the would around us for facts.
Unless it's Rowbotham or the word of another FEer.
I'm still waiting for what "facts" FE has other than the old look out your window bit.
And obviously pictures of the earth from space aren't all there is for RE. We can observe the curvature everywhere on earth with the old sinking ship effect, which is probably what moved the Greeks in the first place to believe it was round.
Beyond that, we can see the distance to the horizon increase with altitude, even without obstructions. The horizon itself exists, too. The distance doesn't gradually fade away, unless it happens to be foggy, of course.
Satellites orbit the earth, some in geostationary orbit. Sputnik was the first, and it was easily detected by its radio signal, even the United States. It was designed that way specifically, so people would know the Soviets weren't lying. People could actually measure the strength of the signal and find that the peaks were, in fact, an hour and a half apart. The same length as the time it took to orbit the earth. And the peak signal times matched when it would be passing closest.
Geostationary satellites, as I've mentioned elsewhere, can and have been photographed. You could even photograph them yourself if your location is right and take the angle measurements and see how high up they'd have to be, even on a flat earth.
The height of the sun matches with a round earth. We can calculate its height using a round world model and the answer is the same no matter what latitude we're at. If you use a flat earth model, simple trigonometry should be enough to find the height of the sun. Unfortunately for you guys, the answer changes depending on what latitude you measure from.
FM radio signals are blocked by the curvature of the earth. They're stopped right where the horizon would be for an observer looking out from the transmitter. How curious.
AM radio signals, on the other hand, travel much further because they bounce off the ionosphere. We can detect the ionosphere with radar, also, and it's curved. How odd. Why do AM signals go further than FM signals on a flat earth? If the atmosphere is all that's stopping them, shouldn't they go the same distance?
So yeah, you look at the facts and it doesn't look too great for FE. Of course, you're not truth seekers, you're denialists. Rather than go with what actually fits, you'll come back with something about bendy light, or some other phenomenon that you have no evidence for so you can keep clinging to the idea of a flat earth.
-
We don't call them idiots, they are just operating under a false premise which skews their conclusions. It's like how Freud is considered the father of physiology despite getting nearly everything wrong.
Then where's the evidence that points out their flaws in logic?
Do you understand the scope of your claim? I don't think you do. I think you'd find that you wouldn't understand a fraction of the math that you're saying you have adamantly disproven. I know I wouldn't and I follow the newest discoveries as best I can. If you don't understand the laws of physics they discuss and the math they use, then again, how can you tell me that they are wrong?
Do you understand the education they have that you do not possess?
-
We don't call them idiots, they are just operating under a false premise which skews their conclusions. It's like how Freud is considered the father of physiology despite getting nearly everything wrong.
Then where's the evidence that points out their flaws in logic?
I hate to be so anal, but have you read any Freud? The evidence to refute his wild conjectures is everywhere.
-
There are o evidence that contradicts the observations made by the great minds you previously pointed out.
When FEers cannot find a argument to back up their assumptions, they play the conspiracy card.
Nasa proved earth is round by taking picture, FEers claim it is a conspiracy.
FEers fail to understand that if Einstein had used a false model to create his equations, he would simply fail to be able to predict any of the phenomena his equations predict. This would eventually be highlighted in the experiments made to confirm his equation/s prediction.
For example, Einstein proved that the sun gravity is so strong that it pulls light towards itself. But FEers claim that the sun is just a few miles up in the sky. Therefore according to Einstein's findings, earth should have been destroyed by the sun's gravity according to the FE model.
So who should we believe? Einstein that followed rigorous scientific methodology that was later back up with empiric data from experiments done by other groups of scientists? Or should we believe in the FE model that offers no mathematical model or any sort of real scientific proofs?
-
It is becoming obvious to me that they FE'ers are of the 4th type of believers.
-
I wish the RE'ers in this thread knew how to write a post without hitting enter after every sentence.
-
We believe the Earth is flat because we observe a flat Earth. I really don't understand why this is so hard to grasp.
-
We believe the Earth is flat because we observe a flat Earth. I really don't understand why this is so hard to grasp.
and you just dismiss cat earth's post then? they are valid points
-
We believe the Earth is flat because we observe a flat Earth. I really don't understand why this is so hard to grasp.
You conclude that it's flat by glancing out your window, and then you handwave away, or don't perform, all the other observations that don't fit with that conclusion.
-
I believe clouds are made of cotton candy because clouds look like cotton candy. Therefore I must conclude clouds are in fact made of cotton candy, because my eyes tell me they are similar to cotton candy.
I don't need science to tell me what clouds are made for, I have my eyes.
-
See, from where I live, and I live in a relatively flat area, I'd say that the Earth is always curving in all sorts of directions.
I can't keep track of all the hills, the mountains, the valleys. For all I know the Earth is a giant staircase.
-
We believe the Earth is flat because we observe a flat Earth. I really don't understand why this is so hard to grasp.
You conclude that it's flat by glancing out your window, and then you handwave away, or don't perform, all the other observations that don't fit with that conclusion.
There is no evidence for a round Earth that I find convincing enough to override the direct sensorial evidence I see that the Earth is flat. I've explained this many times.
-
I believe clouds are made of cotton candy because clouds look like cotton candy. Therefore I must conclude clouds are in fact made of cotton candy, because my eyes tell me they are similar to cotton candy.
I don't need science to tell me what clouds are made for, I have my eyes.
Clouds are observable from the inside using nothing more complex than a hot air balloon. And they do not resemble cotton candy. Your analogy is flawed.
-
There is no evidence for a round Earth that I find convincing enough to override the direct sensorial evidence I see that the Earth is flat. I've explained this many times.
Yeah, and it still doesn't make sense, considering the whole sinking ship things, the horizon, etc. If you think assuming flatness will get you closer to the truth, fine, but don't make it out as if you're actually weighing the evidence.
You've weighed one piece of dubious evidence and thrown out the rest.
-
We believe the Earth is flat because we observe a flat Earth. I really don't understand why this is so hard to grasp.
You conclude that it's flat by glancing out your window, and then you handwave away, or don't perform, all the other observations that don't fit with that conclusion.
There is no evidence for a round Earth that I find convincing enough to override the direct sensorial evidence I see that the Earth is flat. I've explained this many times.
What about the direct sensorial evidence of a ship going below the horizon, or a sunset?
-
I believe clouds are made of cotton candy because clouds look like cotton candy. Therefore I must conclude clouds are in fact made of cotton candy, because my eyes tell me they are similar to cotton candy.
I don't need science to tell me what clouds are made for, I have my eyes.
Clouds are observable from the inside using nothing more complex than a hot air balloon. And they do not resemble cotton candy. Your analogy is flawed.
You are wrong.
Balloons don't actually work. Human flight is in fact impossible.
There is a giant conspiracy that want make you believe flight it is possible.
-
There is no evidence for a round Earth that I find convincing enough to override the direct sensorial evidence I see that the Earth is flat. I've explained this many times.
Yeah, and it still doesn't make sense, considering the whole sinking ship things, the horizon, etc. If you think assuming flatness will get you closer to the truth, fine, but don't make it out as if you're actually weighing the evidence.
You've weighed one piece of dubious evidence and thrown out the rest.
None of this constitutes direct sensorial evidence that the Earth is round.
-
There is no evidence for a round Earth that I find convincing enough to override the direct sensorial evidence I see that the Earth is flat. I've explained this many times.
Yeah, and it still doesn't make sense, considering the whole sinking ship things, the horizon, etc. If you think assuming flatness will get you closer to the truth, fine, but don't make it out as if you're actually weighing the evidence.
You've weighed one piece of dubious evidence and thrown out the rest.
None of this constitutes direct sensorial evidence that the Earth is round.
Why not? It certainly suggests the earth is not flat. Unless you want to say its due to an optical effect, in which case how are you sure that an optical effect is not making the earth look flat out your window?
-
We don't call them idiots, they are just operating under a false premise which skews their conclusions. It's like how Freud is considered the father of physiology despite getting nearly everything wrong.
Then where's the evidence that points out their flaws in logic?
I hate to be so anal, but have you read any Freud? The evidence to refute his wild conjectures is everywhere.
Sigmund Freud? A psychiatrist? Why would anyone take the word of a student of the mind over the word of a student of astronomy and physics when it comes to hard facts and scientific data? Freud didn't provide proof and evidence. Psychiatrists deal in interpretations, not facts.
It takes more than a shrink to prove that the earth is flat.
-
We believe the Earth is flat because we observe a flat Earth. I really don't understand why this is so hard to grasp.
I do not observe a flat earth. If you zoom in on a tennis ball you will see a flat surface. This is easily proven. All you need to do is use the right instruments. A trip down to a local college can provide you with the means to test this. Thus, you cannot offer this as proof.
-
There is no evidence for a round Earth that I find convincing enough to override the direct sensorial evidence I see that the Earth is flat. I've explained this many times.
Yeah, and it still doesn't make sense, considering the whole sinking ship things, the horizon, etc. If you think assuming flatness will get you closer to the truth, fine, but don't make it out as if you're actually weighing the evidence.
You've weighed one piece of dubious evidence and thrown out the rest.
None of this constitutes direct sensorial evidence that the Earth is round.
Well, we can argue that the earth is triangular or square if you like. Pick a shape.... or shall I point out again that both the flat earth and the spherical earth is round. A quarter is round. A baseball is round. The difference here is flat or spherical.
-
I believe clouds are made of cotton candy because clouds look like cotton candy. Therefore I must conclude clouds are in fact made of cotton candy, because my eyes tell me they are similar to cotton candy.
I don't need science to tell me what clouds are made for, I have my eyes.
Clouds are observable from the inside using nothing more complex than a hot air balloon. And they do not resemble cotton candy. Your analogy is flawed.
You are wrong.
Balloons don't actually work. Human flight is in fact impossible.
There is a giant conspiracy that want make you believe flight it is possible.
Your arguments are unsound, but I hardly can expect better from a Round Earther.
-
We're all round earthers. I think you meant Spherical Earther. I'm finding it very hard to take your belief seriously when you have not even mastered the very basic geometrical shapes. Without that very basic form of math, how can you expect me to believe that you have actually succeeded in disproving the physicists who disagree with you?
-
We don't call them idiots, they are just operating under a false premise which skews their conclusions. It's like how Freud is considered the father of physiology despite getting nearly everything wrong.
Then where's the evidence that points out their flaws in logic?
I hate to be so anal, but have you read any Freud? The evidence to refute his wild conjectures is everywhere.
Sigmund Freud? A psychiatrist? Why would anyone take the word of a student of the mind over the word of a student of astronomy and physics when it comes to hard facts and scientific data? Freud didn't provide proof and evidence. Psychiatrists deal in interpretations, not facts.
It takes more than a shrink to prove that the earth is flat.
I believe you have missed the point I was making. Gladly, all the information is preserved for you to review.
-
I believe clouds are made of cotton candy because clouds look like cotton candy. Therefore I must conclude clouds are in fact made of cotton candy, because my eyes tell me they are similar to cotton candy.
I don't need science to tell me what clouds are made for, I have my eyes.
Clouds are observable from the inside using nothing more complex than a hot air balloon. And they do not resemble cotton candy. Your analogy is flawed.
You are wrong.
Balloons don't actually work. Human flight is in fact impossible.
There is a giant conspiracy that want make you believe flight it is possible.
Your arguments are unsound, but I hardly can expect better from a Round Earther.
Now you know exactly how REers feel about the FET arguments and the Nasa conspiracy theory.
-
We don't call them idiots, they are just operating under a false premise which skews their conclusions. It's like how Freud is considered the father of physiology despite getting nearly everything wrong.
Then where's the evidence that points out their flaws in logic?
I hate to be so anal, but have you read any Freud? The evidence to refute his wild conjectures is everywhere.
Sigmund Freud? A psychiatrist? Why would anyone take the word of a student of the mind over the word of a student of astronomy and physics when it comes to hard facts and scientific data? Freud didn't provide proof and evidence. Psychiatrists deal in interpretations, not facts.
It takes more than a shrink to prove that the earth is flat.
I believe you have missed the point I was making. Gladly, all the information is preserved for you to review.
You missed my point, actually. My original post is still there and my question remains unanswered.
-
We believe the Earth is flat because we observe a flat Earth. I really don't understand why this is so hard to grasp.
You conclude that it's flat by glancing out your window, and then you handwave away, or don't perform, all the other observations that don't fit with that conclusion.
There is no evidence for a round Earth that I find convincing enough to override the direct sensorial evidence I see that the Earth is flat. I've explained this many times.
Spheres can approach 180 degrees angular size. This geometric proof makes your sensorial evidence as much for a round earth as a flat one.
-
We believe the Earth is flat because we observe a flat Earth. I really don't understand why this is so hard to grasp.
You conclude that it's flat by glancing out your window, and then you handwave away, or don't perform, all the other observations that don't fit with that conclusion.
There is no evidence for a round Earth that I find convincing enough to override the direct sensorial evidence I see that the Earth is flat. I've explained this many times.
Spheres can approach 180 degrees angular size. This geometric proof makes your sensorial evidence as much for a round earth as a flat one.
You'll never get any FE'er to admit that you can zoom in on a sphere enough so that it appears flat. They know it's true, but they won't admit it.
-
That is nonsense. We've admitted as much scores of times. It is also true that the surface of a sufficiently large turtle might give this illusion; I find the turtle idea as laughable as your globe.
-
There is no evidence for a round Earth that I find convincing enough to override the direct sensorial evidence I see that the Earth is flat. I've explained this many times.
Yeah, and it still doesn't make sense, considering the whole sinking ship things, the horizon, etc. If you think assuming flatness will get you closer to the truth, fine, but don't make it out as if you're actually weighing the evidence.
You've weighed one piece of dubious evidence and thrown out the rest.
None of this constitutes direct sensorial evidence that the Earth is round.
Why not? It certainly suggests the earth is not flat. Unless you want to say its due to an optical effect, in which case how are you sure that an optical effect is not making the earth look flat out your window?
It all requires conjecture to make the jump from (as an example) "the ship's hull disappears last as it goes over the horizon" to "the Earth is round". It is therefore not direct sensorial evidence. Sadly every piece of evidence presented fails in this manner.
Well, we can argue that the earth is triangular or square if you like.
Why would we do that? The Earth looks flat.
Pick a shape.... or shall I point out again that both the flat earth and the spherical earth is round. A quarter is round. A baseball is round. The difference here is flat or spherical.
Why would you bother? Silly semantic arguments do not win debates. It's well-understood what is meant by "round" vs "flat" on these forums.
I do not observe a flat earth. If you zoom in on a tennis ball you will see a flat surface. This is easily proven. All you need to do is use the right instruments. A trip down to a local college can provide you with the means to test this. Thus, you cannot offer this as proof.
Thankfully your tennis ball experiment works as conceptual proof of concept for why I believe the Earth is flat. If you zoom into a tennis ball enough, sure, it might look flat, but the direct sensorial evidence tells me that it is spherical. I am sure you agree in this instance that the direct sensorial evidence supports the true shape of the tennis ball. Why should I assume the Earth offers any other sort of result?
-
It all requires conjecture to make the jump from (as an example) "the ship's hull disappears last as it goes over the horizon" to "the Earth is round". It is therefore not direct sensorial evidence. Sadly every piece of evidence presented fails in this manner.
No, it is still direct sensorial evidence. You are directly observing a ship going over the curvature of the earth. You are directly observing that event. That direct observation can then be used as evidence to support the earth being round. It is therefore direct sensorial evidence of a round earth.
But debating that is irrelevant. The issue is why do you ignore it if it directly conflicts with the assertion that the earth is flat?
-
No, it is still direct sensorial evidence. You are directly observing a ship going over the curvature of the earth. You are directly observing that event. That direct observation can then be used as evidence to support the earth being round. It is therefore direct sensorial evidence of a round earth.
It is not. Or if it is, it is only in the same sense that one could say it is direct sensorial evidence of the world being an astronomically large turtle.
-
There is no evidence for a round Earth that I find convincing enough to override the direct sensorial evidence I see that the Earth is flat. I've explained this many times.
Yeah, and it still doesn't make sense, considering the whole sinking ship things, the horizon, etc. If you think assuming flatness will get you closer to the truth, fine, but don't make it out as if you're actually weighing the evidence.
You've weighed one piece of dubious evidence and thrown out the rest.
None of this constitutes direct sensorial evidence that the Earth is round.
Why not? It certainly suggests the earth is not flat. Unless you want to say its due to an optical effect, in which case how are you sure that an optical effect is not making the earth look flat out your window?
It all requires conjecture to make the jump from (as an example) "the ship's hull disappears last as it goes over the horizon" to "the Earth is round". It is therefore not direct sensorial evidence. Sadly every piece of evidence presented fails in this manner.
Well, we can argue that the earth is triangular or square if you like.
Why would we do that? The Earth looks flat.
Pick a shape.... or shall I point out again that both the flat earth and the spherical earth is round. A quarter is round. A baseball is round. The difference here is flat or spherical.
Why would you bother? Silly semantic arguments do not win debates. It's well-understood what is meant by "round" vs "flat" on these forums.
I do not observe a flat earth. If you zoom in on a tennis ball you will see a flat surface. This is easily proven. All you need to do is use the right instruments. A trip down to a local college can provide you with the means to test this. Thus, you cannot offer this as proof.
Thankfully your tennis ball experiment works as conceptual proof of concept for why I believe the Earth is flat. If you zoom into a tennis ball enough, sure, it might look flat, but the direct sensorial evidence tells me that it is spherical. I am sure you agree in this instance that the direct sensorial evidence supports the true shape of the tennis ball. Why should I assume the Earth offers any other sort of result?
Why do you insist on having two arguments instead of one?
" If you zoom into a tennis ball enough, sure, it might look flat, but the direct sensorial evidence tells me that it is spherical."
If it looks flat then your direct senses aren't telling you it's spherical. Pick one. Either your senses are telling you it's flat or they're telling you its spherical. Pick one.
If you place a tiny object the size of 10 microns onto a tennis ball then the tennis ball is going to appear flat to that tiny object. If that tiny object had senses then those senses would be telling that object that it was on a flat surface. You yourself said you agree with this right before you then said you disagree.
And as for why I argue semantics, the title to this thread is called "Intelligence in Debate." It matters that the proper terms are used. It's spherical earth vs flat earth, not round vs flat because both are round.
And my original question still has not been answered.
-
No, it is still direct sensorial evidence. You are directly observing a ship going over the curvature of the earth. You are directly observing that event. That direct observation can then be used as evidence to support the earth being round. It is therefore direct sensorial evidence of a round earth.
It is not. Or if it is, it is only in the same sense that one could say it is direct sensorial evidence of the world being an astronomically large turtle.
What? How could it be evidence of a turtle? I think you are being confused by the term round. Even if it were a turtle, its evidence of it being a round turtle. you can call the earth whatever you want, but it is direct sensorial evidence of curvature.
-
direct sensual evidence is not the best way to advance. much research would of halted if all people used was direct sensual evidence. claiming "devices that show that the earth round must be wrong because my eyes disagree" is not correct.
'it looks flat' just isnt good enough and thats all you can say
@ soulfien please provide evidence that the flat earth is round
-
No, it is still direct sensorial evidence. You are directly observing a ship going over the curvature of the earth. You are directly observing that event. That direct observation can then be used as evidence to support the earth being round. It is therefore direct sensorial evidence of a round earth.
It is not. Or if it is, it is only in the same sense that one could say it is direct sensorial evidence of the world being an astronomically large turtle.
By the same reasoning, seeing that your local area looks flat is not direct sensory evidence either.
-
None of this constitutes direct sensorial evidence that the Earth is round.
What makes you believe that direct sensorial evidence is sufficient to determine the correct shape of the earth?
-
It all requires conjecture to make the jump from (as an example) "the ship's hull disappears last as it goes over the horizon" to "the Earth is round". It is therefore not direct sensorial evidence. Sadly every piece of evidence presented fails in this manner.
And it takes conjecture to make the jump from "it looks sort of flat here in <insert place>" to "the Earth is flat". It is therefore not direct sensorial evidence.
-
I have already provided proof and reference to the earth being spherical. Proof? I've served in the Navy for 8 and a half years. I've been on 3 aircraft carriers. I've been around the earth many times. The circumference of the earth is under 25,000 miles, not 77,000 miles. I've sailed the earth in both directions, not just one. The Navy sails the world all the time and they have very accurate maps. I've had the pleasure of meeting some sailors who had covered more of the earth than I had. I can assure you, it's not flat.
And the reference? Stephen Hawking and other brilliant astronomers and physicists. They have applied math and science to exploring the nature of the universe in ways I can't even begin to understand. What about Galileo?
Galileo has been called the "father of modern observational astronomy", the "father of modern physics", the "father of science", and "the Father of Modern Science".
Great minds who have provided endless proof to back up their claims that this is truly a fascinating 3-dimensional universe. Evidence that you all say is incorrect yet have been unable to say how.
Photos and videos exist all over that show Antarctica as a continent, NOT a ring. It exists as a very large island. It's been explored, walked on, drilled for oil, fished from, and completely mapped out.
Not ONE photo exists that shows an "end of the world" barrier. Not one. Ever. In a world where satellites, planes, and shuttles exist, why haven't we seen anything that proves your claim? Heck, even the lowly fisherman will tell you that it's a sphere.
-
direct sensual evidence is not the best way to advance. much research would of halted if all people used was direct sensual evidence. claiming "devices that show that the earth round must be wrong because my eyes disagree" is not correct.
'it looks flat' just isnt good enough and thats all you can say
@ soulfien please provide evidence that the flat earth is round
round
[round] Example Sentences Origin
round
1 [round] Show IPA adjective, -er, -est, noun, adverb, preposition, verb
adjective
1. having a flat, circular surface, as a disk.
2. ring-shaped, as a hoop.
3. curved like part of a circle, as an outline.
4. having a circular cross section, as a cylinder; cylindrical.
5. spherical or globular, as a ball.
What do I win?
This is your map and as you can see, it's just as round as a sphere is...
(http://images.wikia.com/liberapedia/images/7/79/Flat_earth.jpg)
-
Heck, even the lowly fisherman will tell you that it's a sphere.
I suspect that you didn't mean "lowly". Perhaps you meant "common" or "numerous".
-
Heck, even the lowly fisherman will tell you that it's a sphere.
I suspect that you didn't mean "lowly". Perhaps you meant "common" or "numerous".
I mean lowly as in uneducated. A man who has not had years and years of education. Simply a hard working man who has seen things for himself.
That's all :)
-
Heck, even the lowly fisherman will tell you that it's a sphere.
I suspect that you didn't mean "lowly". Perhaps you meant "common" or "numerous".
I mean lowly as in uneducated. A man who has not had years and years of education. Simply a hard working man who has seen things for himself.
That's all :)
With respect, I don't think that education, or lack thereof, makes someone "lowly".
- low·ly/ˈlōlē/ Adjective: Low in status or importance; humble.
-
That is nonsense. We've admitted as much scores of times. It is also true that the surface of a sufficiently large turtle might give this illusion; I find the turtle idea as laughable as your globe.
Ha! This is how most FE'ers feel. I appreciate the religious and mythological roots of Flat Earth thinking, but I agree. No one with a sound mind thinks elephants and turtles hold the world.
-
There is no evidence for a round Earth that I find convincing enough to override the direct sensorial evidence I see that the Earth is flat. I've explained this many times.
Yeah, and it still doesn't make sense, considering the whole sinking ship things, the horizon, etc. If you think assuming flatness will get you closer to the truth, fine, but don't make it out as if you're actually weighing the evidence.
You've weighed one piece of dubious evidence and thrown out the rest.
None of this constitutes direct sensorial evidence that the Earth is round.
I look at the horizon: I see a sharp line. I don't see the coast of France, even through a powerful telescope. Direct sensorial evidence that France is not visible even though I know it lies in that direction. Direct sensorial evidence that France is not on a flat plane level with the UK. An observation that is not consistent with earth being a flat plane.
I look at the stars and note their positions. I look again later, and see they have moved in such a way that they appear to rotate around a point above the north pole. In the southern hemisphere I can do the same and see apparent rotation around the south pole. Direct sensorial evidence of rotation round two celestial poles. This perfectly fits the idea that the earth is a rotating three dimensional object. An observation that is not consistent with earth being a flat plane.
I go up in a high altitude aircraft or spacecraft and observe firsthand direct sensorial evidence of earth's curvature. An observation that is not consistent with earth being a flat plane.
And how does "FET" tackle these? It has to invoke made-up physics for the first one, it has no explanation at all for the second, and it resorts to accusing all accounts of the third as being lies, since zeteticism very handily includes the instruction to disbelieve any data gathered by anyone else.
That's quite useful for RE'ers, though, because it means we can dismiss Rowbotham's experiment results as a made-up account, just like FE'ers dismiss astronaut testimony. Do as you would be done by.
-
Heck, even the lowly fisherman will tell you that it's a sphere.
I suspect that you didn't mean "lowly". Perhaps you meant "common" or "numerous".
I mean lowly as in uneducated. A man who has not had years and years of education. Simply a hard working man who has seen things for himself.
That's all :)
With respect, I don't think that education, or lack thereof, makes someone "lowly".
- low·ly/ˈlōlē/ Adjective: Low in status or importance; humble.
Insert the correct adjective. My statement still stands as proof that the earth is indeed spherical
-
Heck, even the lowly fisherman will tell you that it's a sphere.
I suspect that you didn't mean "lowly". Perhaps you meant "common" or "numerous".
I mean lowly as in uneducated. A man who has not had years and years of education. Simply a hard working man who has seen things for himself.
That's all :)
With respect, I don't think that education, or lack thereof, makes someone "lowly".
- low·ly/ˈlōlē/ Adjective: Low in status or importance; humble.
Insert the correct adjective. My statement still stands as proof that the earth is indeed spherical
U mean opinion of a "lowly fisherman" is a proof? :o
-
Heck, even the lowly fisherman will tell you that it's a sphere.
I suspect that you didn't mean "lowly". Perhaps you meant "common" or "numerous".
I mean lowly as in uneducated. A man who has not had years and years of education. Simply a hard working man who has seen things for himself.
That's all :)
With respect, I don't think that education, or lack thereof, makes someone "lowly".
- low·ly/ˈlōlē/ Adjective: Low in status or importance; humble.
Insert the correct adjective. My statement still stands as proof that the earth is indeed spherical
U mean opinion of a "lowly fisherman" is a proof? :o
You obviously haven't read this thread. If you had then you would have seen the part where I said that being dodgy doesn't work on me. :) See these senseless posts you make do nothing to dissuade or distract me. They do however act to lead me to understand which of the 4 types of believer you are. You'll have to go back and read the first few posts in this thread to understand what I mean by that.
In short, thanks for your input, but... try harder, please
-
Heck, even the lowly fisherman will tell you that it's a sphere.
I suspect that you didn't mean "lowly". Perhaps you meant "common" or "numerous".
I mean lowly as in uneducated. A man who has not had years and years of education. Simply a hard working man who has seen things for himself.
That's all :)
With respect, I don't think that education, or lack thereof, makes someone "lowly".
- low·ly/ˈlōlē/ Adjective: Low in status or importance; humble.
Insert the correct adjective. My statement still stands as proof that the earth is indeed spherical
U mean opinion of a "lowly fisherman" is a proof? :o
You obviously haven't read this thread. If you had then you would have seen the part where I said that being dodgy doesn't work on me. :) See these senseless posts you make do nothing to dissuade or distract me. They do however act to lead me to understand which of the 4 types of believer you are. You'll have to go back and read the first few posts in this thread to understand what I mean by that.
In short, thanks for your input, but... try harder, please
You talk so much and still no proof. How so?
-
Heck, even the lowly fisherman will tell you that it's a sphere.
I suspect that you didn't mean "lowly". Perhaps you meant "common" or "numerous".
I mean lowly as in uneducated. A man who has not had years and years of education. Simply a hard working man who has seen things for himself.
That's all :)
With respect, I don't think that education, or lack thereof, makes someone "lowly".
- low·ly/ˈlōlē/ Adjective: Low in status or importance; humble.
Insert the correct adjective. My statement still stands as proof that the earth is indeed spherical
U mean opinion of a "lowly fisherman" is a proof? :o
You obviously haven't read this thread. If you had then you would have seen the part where I said that being dodgy doesn't work on me. :) See these senseless posts you make do nothing to dissuade or distract me. They do however act to lead me to understand which of the 4 types of believer you are. You'll have to go back and read the first few posts in this thread to understand what I mean by that.
In short, thanks for your input, but... try harder, please
You talk so much and still no proof. How so?
Nah. I have proof. As does the world. You see, as stated in Intelligence in Debate, (the other thread I'm posting in) I have pointed out that there is an astronomical amount of proof supporting a spherical earth yet YOU seem to want to believe it's flat yet when asked for proof, you back talk, get dodgy, insult, and accuse. You people like Psychiatrists, right? That's called Transference. You want to belong so you believe this flat earth conspiracy and turn your noses up at anyone who doesn't believe how you do.
I have my answer. Not a single one of you can provide the slightest bit of evidence besides "It looks flat when I stare out of my window." Congratulations, Clayman. You have represented your Flat Earth Group like an idiot.
-
Heck, even the lowly fisherman will tell you that it's a sphere.
I suspect that you didn't mean "lowly". Perhaps you meant "common" or "numerous".
I mean lowly as in uneducated. A man who has not had years and years of education. Simply a hard working man who has seen things for himself.
That's all :)
With respect, I don't think that education, or lack thereof, makes someone "lowly".
- low·ly/ˈlōlē/ Adjective: Low in status or importance; humble.
Insert the correct adjective. My statement still stands as proof that the earth is indeed spherical
U mean opinion of a "lowly fisherman" is a proof? :o
You obviously haven't read this thread. If you had then you would have seen the part where I said that being dodgy doesn't work on me. :) See these senseless posts you make do nothing to dissuade or distract me. They do however act to lead me to understand which of the 4 types of believer you are. You'll have to go back and read the first few posts in this thread to understand what I mean by that.
In short, thanks for your input, but... try harder, please
You talk so much and still no proof. How so?
Nah. I have proof. As does the world. You see, as stated in Intelligence in Debate, (the other thread I'm posting in) I have pointed out that there is an astronomical amount of proof supporting a spherical earth yet YOU seem to want to believe it's flat yet when asked for proof, you back talk, get dodgy, insult, and accuse. You people like Psychiatrists, right? That's called Transference. You want to belong so you believe this flat earth conspiracy and turn your noses up at anyone who doesn't believe how you do.
I have my answer. Not a single one of you can provide the slightest bit of evidence besides "It looks flat when I stare out of my window." Congratulations, Clayman. You have represented your Flat Earth Group like an idiot.
U better watch how u represent RE's here ::)
-
direct sensual evidence is not the best way to advance. much research would of halted if all people used was direct sensual evidence. claiming "devices that show that the earth round must be wrong because my eyes disagree" is not correct.
'it looks flat' just isnt good enough and thats all you can say
@ soulfien please provide evidence that the flat earth is round
round
[round] Example Sentences Origin
round
1 [round] Show IPA adjective, -er, -est, noun, adverb, preposition, verb
adjective
1. having a flat, circular surface, as a disk.
2. ring-shaped, as a hoop.
3. curved like part of a circle, as an outline.
4. having a circular cross section, as a cylinder; cylindrical.
5. spherical or globular, as a ball.
What do I win?
This is your map and as you can see, it's just as round as a sphere is...
(http://images.wikia.com/liberapedia/images/7/79/Flat_earth.jpg)
that picture is a concept, there are no maps of the flat earth. as far as i know nobody has ever declared the flat earth as a round disc. because thats very un-zetetic, because nobody has seen the edge
-
so how can you say there is a edge at all?
FEers say the earth is flat because they see the flatness of earth with their own eyes, therefore earth is flat.
So how can you tell there is a icewall edge at all if FEers have not seen it?
-
so how can you say there is a edge at all?
FEers say the earth is flat because they see the flatness of earth with their own eyes, therefore earth is flat.
So how can you tell there is a icewall edge at all if FEers have not seen it?
Because most zetetics are also hypocrites. ;)
-
so how can you say there is a edge at all?
FEers say the earth is flat because they see the flatness of earth with their own eyes, therefore earth is flat.
So how can you tell there is a icewall edge at all if FEers have not seen it?
at the most southern point on the plane there is ice. thats the ice wall.
nobody has seen whats beyond. some people do say that there is no edge, nut most believe there is an edge. but the shape of the world has not been descovered
-
so how can you say there is a edge at all?
FEers say the earth is flat because they see the flatness of earth with their own eyes, therefore earth is flat.
So how can you tell there is a icewall edge at all if FEers have not seen it?
at the most southern point on the plane there is ice. thats the ice wall.
nobody has seen whats beyond. some people do say that there is no edge, nut most believe there is an edge. but the shape of the world has not been descovered
So the argument " I only believe only in what I see" doesn't hold ground.
I doubt any FEers in this forum has even been in Antarctica. So as far you guys know, there is no ice wall.
I mean, it has to be a wall tall enough to hold earth's atmosphere in it. This ice wall should be visible from any point in this planet.
With powerful telescope a FEer could easily prove the earth is flat by observing the ice wall.
-
so how can you say there is a edge at all?
FEers say the earth is flat because they see the flatness of earth with their own eyes, therefore earth is flat.
So how can you tell there is a icewall edge at all if FEers have not seen it?
at the most southern point on the plane there is ice. thats the ice wall.
nobody has seen whats beyond. some people do say that there is no edge, nut most believe there is an edge. but the shape of the world has not been descovered
A weather balloon can travel outside of the atmosphere. A jetliner can fly over 6 miles up. A spy plane can fly at the edge of the atmosphere. A shuttle can escape the earth's gravity and a rocket can fly to the moon and back. The technology is real.
Cameras, telescopes, super computers, etc... exist and we can see light years away. Yet no one, not one person ever has seen the edge of the earth according to you? Have you never seen a plane or a ship? The ability to fly or travel on the water or beneath in a submarine? And you honestly believe flat earthers have done all that they can to prove that what they say is true?
If you don't even know what shape your earth is then how can you defend your claim? You're saying not one of you knows?
-
A shuttle can escape the earth's gravity and a rocket can fly to the moon and back.
Prove it.
-
A shuttle can escape the earth's gravity and a rocket can fly to the moon and back.
Prove it.
Long since proven. Reference: http://www.nasa.gov/ (http://www.nasa.gov/), http://www.federalspace.ru/?lang=en (http://www.federalspace.ru/?lang=en), http://www.jaxa.jp/index_e.html (http://www.jaxa.jp/index_e.html), http://www.cnsa.gov.cn/n615709/cindex.html (http://www.cnsa.gov.cn/n615709/cindex.html), http://www.esa.int/esaCP/index.html (http://www.esa.int/esaCP/index.html), http://www.isro.org/ (http://www.isro.org/), and many more.
-
Long since proven. Reference: http://www.nasa.gov/
Stopped reading here. Try again.
-
Long since proven. Reference: http://www.nasa.gov/
Stopped reading here. Try again.
Why? Are you relying on an ad hominem fallacy to avoid the evidence?
-
Long since proven. Reference: http://www.nasa.gov/
Stopped reading here. Try again.
Why? Are you relying on an ad hominem fallacy to avoid the evidence?
6201 posts and still haven't read the FAQ?
-
Long since proven. Reference: http://www.nasa.gov/
Stopped reading here. Try again.
Why? Are you relying on an ad hominem fallacy to avoid the evidence?
6201 posts and still haven't read the FAQ?
What in the FAQ suggests that you can avoid facing evidence by using ad hominem fallacies?
-
Long since proven. Reference: http://www.nasa.gov/
Stopped reading here. Try again.
Why? Are you relying on an ad hominem fallacy to avoid the evidence?
6201 posts and still haven't read the FAQ?
What in the FAQ suggests that you can avoid facing evidence by using ad hominem fallacies?
Nothing suggests that. But you have to go read the FAQ to understand why am i avoiding your "evidence". ::)
-
Long since proven. Reference: http://www.nasa.gov/
Stopped reading here. Try again.
Why? Are you relying on an ad hominem fallacy to avoid the evidence?
6201 posts and still haven't read the FAQ?
What in the FAQ suggests that you can avoid facing evidence by using ad hominem fallacies?
Nothing suggests that. But you have to go read the FAQ to understand why am i avoiding your "evidence". ::)
So, I'll ask again, then why did you stop reading?
-
Long since proven. Reference: http://www.nasa.gov/
Stopped reading here. Try again.
Why? Are you relying on an ad hominem fallacy to avoid the evidence?
6201 posts and still haven't read the FAQ?
What in the FAQ suggests that you can avoid facing evidence by using ad hominem fallacies?
Nothing suggests that. But you have to go read the FAQ to understand why am i avoiding your "evidence". ::)
So, I'll ask again, then why did you stop reading?
So, I'll answer again, read the FAQ (you can read, right?) and you'll get why i stopped reading (at least i hope so,you look kinda dumb to me).
-
So, I'll ask again, then why did you stop reading?
So, I'll answer again, read the FAQ (you can read, right?) and you'll get why i stopped reading (at least i hope so,you look kinda dumb to me).
I've read the FAQ. I do not get why you stopped beyond relying on an ad hominem fallacy t avoid evidence. I am truly curious why you close your mind to such ponderous, vetted, and definitive evidence. I'm sure that you're not violating the rules* and posting conspiracy theories in the wrong forum, right?
*not a mod.
-
So, I'll ask again, then why did you stop reading?
So, I'll answer again, read the FAQ (you can read, right?) and you'll get why i stopped reading (at least i hope so,you look kinda dumb to me).
I've read the FAQ. I do not get why you stopped beyond relying on an ad hominem fallacy t avoid evidence. I am truly curious why you close your mind to such ponderous, vetted, and definitive evidence. I'm sure that you're not violating the rules* and posting conspiracy theories in the wrong forum, right?
*not a mod.
So you've read the FAQ and still ask such questions ??? You won't dodge your ignorance, you know?
-
So, I'll ask again, then why did you stop reading?
So, I'll answer again, read the FAQ (you can read, right?) and you'll get why i stopped reading (at least i hope so,you look kinda dumb to me).
I've read the FAQ. I do not get why you stopped beyond relying on an ad hominem fallacy t avoid evidence. I am truly curious why you close your mind to such ponderous, vetted, and definitive evidence. I'm sure that you're not violating the rules* and posting conspiracy theories in the wrong forum, right?
*not a mod.
So you've read the FAQ and still ask such questions ??? You won't dodge your ignorance, you know?
So enlighten me. Why did you stop reading at 'NASA'?
-
So, I'll ask again, then why did you stop reading?
So, I'll answer again, read the FAQ (you can read, right?) and you'll get why i stopped reading (at least i hope so,you look kinda dumb to me).
I've read the FAQ. I do not get why you stopped beyond relying on an ad hominem fallacy t avoid evidence. I am truly curious why you close your mind to such ponderous, vetted, and definitive evidence. I'm sure that you're not violating the rules* and posting conspiracy theories in the wrong forum, right?
*not a mod.
So you've read the FAQ and still ask such questions ??? You won't dodge your ignorance, you know?
So enlighten me. Why did you stop reading at 'NASA'?
Ok, read this slowly 3 or 4 times:
NASA and the rest of the world's space agencies who claim to have been to space are involved in a Conspiracy to keep the shape of the Earth hidden.
-
So, I'll ask again, then why did you stop reading?
So, I'll answer again, read the FAQ (you can read, right?) and you'll get why i stopped reading (at least i hope so,you look kinda dumb to me).
I've read the FAQ. I do not get why you stopped beyond relying on an ad hominem fallacy t avoid evidence. I am truly curious why you close your mind to such ponderous, vetted, and definitive evidence. I'm sure that you're not violating the rules* and posting conspiracy theories in the wrong forum, right?
*not a mod.
So you've read the FAQ and still ask such questions ??? You won't dodge your ignorance, you know?
So enlighten me. Why did you stop reading at 'NASA'?
Ok, read this slowly 3 or 4 times:
NASA and the rest of the world's space agencies who claim to have been to space are involved in a Conspiracy to keep the shape of the Earth hidden.
So you won't face the evidence due to a conspiracy theory. You use an ad hominem fallacy to avoid looking at the evidence. Gee, how sad. If you need a CT to hide from the evidence, you lose. Another RET victory.
-
So, I'll ask again, then why did you stop reading?
So, I'll answer again, read the FAQ (you can read, right?) and you'll get why i stopped reading (at least i hope so,you look kinda dumb to me).
I've read the FAQ. I do not get why you stopped beyond relying on an ad hominem fallacy t avoid evidence. I am truly curious why you close your mind to such ponderous, vetted, and definitive evidence. I'm sure that you're not violating the rules* and posting conspiracy theories in the wrong forum, right?
*not a mod.
So you've read the FAQ and still ask such questions ??? You won't dodge your ignorance, you know?
So enlighten me. Why did you stop reading at 'NASA'?
Ok, read this slowly 3 or 4 times:
NASA and the rest of the world's space agencies who claim to have been to space are involved in a Conspiracy to keep the shape of the Earth hidden.
So you won't face the evidence due to a conspiracy theory. You use an ad hominem fallacy to avoid looking at the evidence. Gee, how sad. If you need a CT to hide from the evidence, you lose. Another RET victory.
Sure. You can't prove CT wrong, so all you can now is dumb posts, claiming victory. All RET "victories" look like that actually. ::)
-
it's called denial. The technology exists. They want to claim NASA is false because for NASA to be real, the earth must be spherical. For the earth to be flat then there must be no way to explore it.
I have already pointed out the many ways we can use to explore our tiny little planet and they've all been denied. I'm sure someone on this forum has been on a jet liner at some point in their lives. That means they've been at least 5 miles up. That cannot be admitted though because their stance is that no one can or has explored the flat earth. No one has proven the flat earth. No one can or ever will because in order to do so you must be able to fly.
Prove it they say? Prove that us intelligent humans have created ways to fly? Any evidence I present would be refused, I am sure.
-
So, I'll ask again, then why did you stop reading?
So, I'll answer again, read the FAQ (you can read, right?) and you'll get why i stopped reading (at least i hope so,you look kinda dumb to me).
I've read the FAQ. I do not get why you stopped beyond relying on an ad hominem fallacy t avoid evidence. I am truly curious why you close your mind to such ponderous, vetted, and definitive evidence. I'm sure that you're not violating the rules* and posting conspiracy theories in the wrong forum, right?
*not a mod.
So you've read the FAQ and still ask such questions ??? You won't dodge your ignorance, you know?
So enlighten me. Why did you stop reading at 'NASA'?
Ok, read this slowly 3 or 4 times:
NASA and the rest of the world's space agencies who claim to have been to space are involved in a Conspiracy to keep the shape of the Earth hidden.
How does NASA know the shape of the earth? According to Tom they simply are hiding the fact that they cannot run a real space program.
-
So, I'll ask again, then why did you stop reading?
So, I'll answer again, read the FAQ (you can read, right?) and you'll get why i stopped reading (at least i hope so,you look kinda dumb to me).
I've read the FAQ. I do not get why you stopped beyond relying on an ad hominem fallacy t avoid evidence. I am truly curious why you close your mind to such ponderous, vetted, and definitive evidence. I'm sure that you're not violating the rules* and posting conspiracy theories in the wrong forum, right?
*not a mod.
So you've read the FAQ and still ask such questions ??? You won't dodge your ignorance, you know?
So enlighten me. Why did you stop reading at 'NASA'?
Ok, read this slowly 3 or 4 times:
NASA and the rest of the world's space agencies who claim to have been to space are involved in a Conspiracy to keep the shape of the Earth hidden.
Believe it or not, NASA is not the only group in the world with telescopes. Or RADAR. Or Planes. Or ships. Or cameras. Or satellites. And when an aircraft carrier goes out to sea, that's about 8,000 people if you include the escort ships sailing around the world and no one has ever seen this edge of the world you keep talking about.
You have no proof. You have no pictures. You have no scientific data. No eye-witnesses. None of you have ever traveled anywhere near this edge of the world and you have no idea where the edge of the world even is or the shape of the world because everyone in the entire planet who has seen the world differently than you imagine it is called a liar.
-
So, I'll ask again, then why did you stop reading?
So, I'll answer again, read the FAQ (you can read, right?) and you'll get why i stopped reading (at least i hope so,you look kinda dumb to me).
I've read the FAQ. I do not get why you stopped beyond relying on an ad hominem fallacy t avoid evidence. I am truly curious why you close your mind to such ponderous, vetted, and definitive evidence. I'm sure that you're not violating the rules* and posting conspiracy theories in the wrong forum, right?
*not a mod.
So you've read the FAQ and still ask such questions ??? You won't dodge your ignorance, you know?
So enlighten me. Why did you stop reading at 'NASA'?
Ok, read this slowly 3 or 4 times:
NASA and the rest of the world's space agencies who claim to have been to space are involved in a Conspiracy to keep the shape of the Earth hidden.
Believe it or not, NASA is not the only group in the world with telescopes. Or RADAR. Or Planes. Or ships. Or cameras. Or satellites. And when an aircraft carrier goes out to sea, that's about 8,000 people if you include the escort ships sailing around the world and no one has ever seen this edge of the world you keep talking about.
Firstly, the earth may not have an edge. Secondly, 8,000? I doubt it. At most, half that (+-1200 for the CV, another thousand for escorts, maybe 400 for subs and a smallish tanker/supply ship crew). Also, how is the carrier thing even relevant? I was unaware the the USN have a presence beyond Antarctica.
-
I don't know if you've noticed, but the distance between continents only works if the planet is spherical. Ships do go south of all of the other continents and have radar as well as other means of tracking, not to mention accurate sea charts and communication equipment.
Trust me.... if the planet was flat, they'd know about it.
And I may have been off by a thousand, but I wouldn't say it was anymore than that. My last ship had a crew of about 6,000 people. It was the Abraham Lincoln, CVN - 72. My job on carriers was Avionics. I miss those days.
-
Ah, fair enough. I forgot that your carriers carry a lot more people than UK ones, so I was basing my manning estimates on the Invincibles. The distance/ navigation issue is something that will hopefully be fully addressed in the near future (I am not privy to recent FET breakthroughs).
-
Ah, fair enough. I forgot that your carriers carry a lot more people than UK ones, so I was basing my manning estimates on the Invincibles. The distance/ navigation issue is something that will hopefully be fully addressed in the near future (I am not privy to recent FET breakthroughs).
In fairness, we should have used the more precise term "carrier strike group". Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_strike_group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_strike_group)
-
You have no proof. You have no pictures. You have no scientific data. No eye-witnesses.
What do you have?
-
You have no proof. You have no pictures. You have no scientific data. No eye-witnesses.
What do you have?
Asked and answered.
A shuttle can escape the earth's gravity and a rocket can fly to the moon and back.
Prove it.
Long since proven. Reference: http://www.nasa.gov/ (http://www.nasa.gov/), http://www.federalspace.ru/?lang=en (http://www.federalspace.ru/?lang=en), http://www.jaxa.jp/index_e.html (http://www.jaxa.jp/index_e.html), http://www.cnsa.gov.cn/n615709/cindex.html (http://www.cnsa.gov.cn/n615709/cindex.html), http://www.esa.int/esaCP/index.html (http://www.esa.int/esaCP/index.html), http://www.isro.org/ (http://www.isro.org/), and many more.
And that's just the space agencies. Do you need help with Google or the forum's search function to get more? Pick any of the numerous areas of evidence supporting RET, and I'll help you find the evidence either already posted here or elsewhere on the Internet.
-
I believe the SAW could explain the distances. It would obviously increase as you go farther rimwards. Still working on the math, though, mainly because I'm lazy.
-
Sorry, but what's the SAW?
-
SAW only works if you assume no one has ever gone south of the tip of South America, Africa, or Austrialia. SAW only works if you can work out a reason why no one ever goes to Antarctica. And SAW only works if you rewrite the laws of physics.
To ask a simple question... why would you think no one has ever gone to Antarctica?
-
SAW only works if you assume no one has ever gone south of the tip of South America, Africa, or Austrialia. SAW only works if you can work out a reason why no one ever goes to Antarctica. And SAW only works if you rewrite the laws of physics.
To ask a simple question... why would you think no one has ever gone to Antarctica?
Nobody ever said that.
Sorry, but what's the SAW?
Shadow of the Aetheric Wind.
-
that would account for one direction. What about sailing in the other direction? According to SAW, it would take twice as long, yet it doesn't.
-
I'm curious what the basis for this is....
When we have such brilliant minds at work researching the size, shape, and nature of the celestial heavens (I'm talking about Astronomy), how is it that these brilliant minds have got everything so wrong?
I'm talking about people such as the brilliant Stephen Hawking, one of the most brilliant minds ever to walk the earth.
What evidence is so compelling, so detailed, so EXACT, that it has escaped his brilliant mind? And what are the formulas that are so complex that they prove his own formulas wrong?
For the earth to be flat, everything he has proven about not only the earth but the entire universe has to be wrong. Everything. Every star, every solar system, every galaxy, everything in the universe must stop existing as they have been proven to exist.
Do you realize what you're saying by believing that the Earth is flat? Nothing can exist if the Earth is flat except as something to orbit this simple disc. There has to be some REALLY great and damning formulas to prove this. The entire universe has been mapped out by now with surprising details.
To say that the people who have done this are ... "stupid" or "ignorant" or "just plain wrong" would require some REAL brain power. Yet... I'm not seeing the billions of computations and evidence that would be required to prove that.
Hi Soulfien.
Unfortunately, you"ue fallen for the Stephen Hawking myth. Don"t worry, the majority of the world swallow the Stephen Hawking myth, also.
By putting all your faith into this liuing demi-god of modern science, you haue shorted-out your own critical faculty, powers of reasoning, and probably some other things, too.
Fortunately, you are now in the best place. If you stick around for long enough, you will enjoy the incredible priuelege of hauing your mind corrected by the greatest zetetic thinkers of modern times.
Uery best wishes, Mizuki x
-
I'm curious what the basis for this is....
When we have such brilliant minds at work researching the size, shape, and nature of the celestial heavens (I'm talking about Astronomy), how is it that these brilliant minds have got everything so wrong?
I'm talking about people such as the brilliant Stephen Hawking, one of the most brilliant minds ever to walk the earth.
What evidence is so compelling, so detailed, so EXACT, that it has escaped his brilliant mind? And what are the formulas that are so complex that they prove his own formulas wrong?
For the earth to be flat, everything he has proven about not only the earth but the entire universe has to be wrong. Everything. Every star, every solar system, every galaxy, everything in the universe must stop existing as they have been proven to exist.
Do you realize what you're saying by believing that the Earth is flat? Nothing can exist if the Earth is flat except as something to orbit this simple disc. There has to be some REALLY great and damning formulas to prove this. The entire universe has been mapped out by now with surprising details.
To say that the people who have done this are ... "stupid" or "ignorant" or "just plain wrong" would require some REAL brain power. Yet... I'm not seeing the billions of computations and evidence that would be required to prove that.
Hi Soulfien.
Unfortunately, you"ue fallen for the Stephen Hawking myth. Don"t worry, the majority of the world swallow the Stephen Hawking myth, also.
By putting all your faith into this liuing demi-god of modern science, you haue shorted-out your own critical faculty, powers of reasoning, and probably some other things, too.
Fortunately, you are now in the best place. If you stick around for long enough, you will enjoy the incredible priuelege of hauing your mind corrected by the greatest zetetic thinkers of modern times.
Uery best wishes, Mizuki x
i love your use of convincing evidence.
-
okay... convince me that the "Stephen Hawking" myth is wrong despite the massive scientific evidence there is to back it up.
Convince me with evidence of your own.
-
Unfortunately, you"ue fallen for the Stephen Hawking myth. Don"t worry, the majority of the world swallow the Stephen Hawking myth, also.
And what is this alleged myth that the majority of the world swallows? Please document your evidence that the myth exists and that the majority of the world swallows it.
-
that would account for one direction. What about sailing in the other direction? According to SAW, it would take twice as long, yet it doesn't.
That has occurred to me. Rest assured, when I come public the theory will have an explanation for this.
-
okay... convince me that the "Stephen Hawking" myth is wrong despite the massive scientific evidence there is to back it up.
Convince me with evidence of your own.
The whole Stephen Hawking myth, is a classic example of the emperor"s new clothes.
Read this thread, especially my post about what Bryan Appleyard says about Hawking: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49299.0
Mizuki x
-
I couldn't read that rubbish. Stephen Hawking was not battered and beaten and tortured by NASA. He's got a neurological disease called ALS. Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis. I did a research paper on it for my Biology Course. I'm going into Biomedical Electronics. It's a change from what I did in the NAVY which was Avionics, but I'm sure I'll enjoy it. Besides, I like to be well rounded.
Accusing the most brilliant mind since Einstein of being "wrong" or "silenced" or "tortured" or "controlled" is just absolute nonsense. So instead of simply providing a mass of evidence that includes mathematical equations, formulas, data, hell, even satellite imagery, you simply say "The world hates us" and call it good?
I am willing to bet, hell, I am actually convinced that everyone here relies on weather reports. You check the weather before you go outside or you check the forecast for the week....
That's provided by .... wait for it.... satellites in space!!!! They map the entire globe! Yes, yes, yes, that's proof that there IS no conspiracy! There isn't a single square inch of the globe that hasn't been mapped out publicly! And you KNOW this because you use the technology that's mapping out the world every single day! It's impossible not to!
The world has become so technologically enhanced that to believe the earth is flat, you don't need total ignorance- you need complete denial. Ignorance isn't even good enough anymore. Not one of you here has been able to tell me how the earth and all of the planets just spawned FLAT! You can't do it. Physics requires that the planets form into spheres. It's what physics does... it's the easiest shape to have happened. The universe was not created by any god or architect and I have seen no evidence that anyone here thinks that it was so that just leaves the laws of science to do what is impossible. But hey, as long as you call everyone liars and victims, you can go right on using the very technology that you say doesn't exist while knowing nothing about the world your imagining.
I sign off now. I have asked my questions and have received no answers. I must admit, I was a bit disappointed by the lack of knowledge here. If you're going to imagine a world, you should know everything about it. I mean, people have been imagining a flat earth for around 500,000 years. It wasn't until about 2,700 years ago that it was thought to be a sphere and later on it was proven to be many times over. And yes, again, and for the last time, I've sailed the globe. I've seen more of it than most people. One of the benefits of being in the USN.
So long and thanks for all the fish.
-
Ok Soulfien. But don"t you find it at least a little intriguing that the respected science journalist, Bryan Appleyard, belieues that Hawking, in his book, was "bone-headedly wrong about everything!" ?
Regardless, i wish you well with your studies.
Mizuki x
-
Ok Soulfien. But don"t you find it at least a little intriguing that the respected science journalist, Bryan Appleyard, belieues that Hawking, in his book, was "bone-headedly wrong about everything!" ?
Regardless, i wish you well with your studies.
Mizuki x
I took the time to review your posts in that thread. The links seem to be broken. I'll assume that over time that blog posts were moved (or were deleted); however, you still haven't made your case.
For example, is the myth that Hawking exists?
Is it that he profoundly respected?
Is it that he's published fantastic revelations?
Is it that he's tolerant of laziness, willful ignorance, and the other usual failings of FEers?
-
Ok Soulfien. But don"t you find it at least a little intriguing that the respected science journalist, Bryan Appleyard, belieues that Hawking, in his book, was "bone-headedly wrong about everything!" ?
Regardless, i wish you well with your studies.
Mizuki x
I took the time to review your posts in that thread. The links seem to be broken. I'll assume that over time that blog posts were moved (or were deleted); however, you still haven't made your case.
For example, is the myth that Hawking exists?
Is it that he profoundly respected?
Is it that he's published fantastic revelations?
Is it that he's tolerant of laziness, willful ignorance, and the other usual failings of FEers?
Hi Clocktower.
Of course he exists. And yes, he is indeed respected by the majority of people.
If you know the story of the emperor"s new clothes, you"ll understand the point i am making about Hawking. Whether you agree with me or not.
Mizuki x
-
One note on Stephen Hawking... Are you basing your belief on his quote in "A brief history in time"? Because if so, you're sorely mistaken. He used a joke about a flat earth belief.
Also that journalist's opinion that he was wrong had nothing whatsoever to do with any flat earth belief. He was attacking other theories. Please start doing your homework. Stop making such idiotic claims. It's... not a way to present your case.
-
Ok Soulfien. But don"t you find it at least a little intriguing that the respected science journalist, Bryan Appleyard, belieues that Hawking, in his book, was "bone-headedly wrong about everything!" ?
Regardless, i wish you well with your studies.
Mizuki x
I took the time to review your posts in that thread. The links seem to be broken. I'll assume that over time that blog posts were moved (or were deleted); however, you still haven't made your case.
For example, is the myth that Hawking exists?
Is it that he profoundly respected?
Is it that he's published fantastic revelations?
Is it that he's tolerant of laziness, willful ignorance, and the other usual failings of FEers?
Hi Clocktower.
Of course he exists. And yes, he is indeed respected by the majority of people.
If you know the story of the emperor"s new clothes, you"ll understand the point i am making about Hawking. Whether you agree with me or not.
Mizuki x
So, you still can't even state the "myth". How sad. I was hoping to actually discuss your outlandish, unsupported claim, but all we get is innuendo. I know of nothing about the great man that warrant any myth, especially regarding the fable of the Emperor's New Clothes.
ETA:
Given levee's recent fraud, I've come to doubt the honesty of many FEers, you included. So, with a live link, I asked Mr. Appleyard to respond to your posts in this thread using the form on his blog site.
He ever so kindly responded:
I have never viciously attacked him. I have pointed out he misunderstood Wittgenstein and was, indeed, bone-headedly wrong about a quote he used from Shakespeare. In a very favourable profile I did of him in 1988 I also reported what his then wife said about his severe religious intolerance. He refused to be in the same room as her religious friends. My review of Universe in a Nutshell was favourable but for pointing out his misuse of the quote from Hamlet. I do regard his abrupt scientism as not worthy of him. If you regard any of this as vicious rather than normal, robust discourse, then so be it but I don't
Best Wishes,
Bryan Appleyard
I guess we know that you are misrepresenting Mr. Appleyard's position. I hope that you were just biased, forgetful, of both. I'd hate to add you to the list of frauds (leeve and fabricating quotes; Tom Bishop and fabricating experimental results).
Of course, you're welcome to ask him yourself via the same form.
-
okay... convince me that the "Stephen Hawking" myth is wrong despite the massive scientific evidence there is to back it up.
Convince me with evidence of your own.
(http://)
The whole Stephen Hawking myth, is a classic example of the emperor"s new clothes.
Read this thread, especially my post about what Bryan Appleyard says about Hawking: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49299.0 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49299.0)
Mizuki x
Two things. First, please link to the specific post that you are referring to. Second, please make sure that the link that you are referring to is still live.
I remember reading Appleyard's review of 'A Brief History', - it was scathing but fair.
Here's a link to Appleyard's review of Hawking's 'Universe in a Nutshell', for anyone who is interested: http://www.bryanappleyard.com/2001/11/stephen-hawkings-universe-in-a-nutshell/ (http://www.bryanappleyard.com/2001/11/stephen-hawkings-universe-in-a-nutshell/)
Mizuki x
-
It's a change from what I did in the NAVY which was Avionics,
Excellent. You would be most welcome in the "INS disproves FE" thread where, despite having achieved the objective of its title, there is a dunderheaded FE insisting that Schuler tuning doesn't exist. You would also be able to peer review my method of how INS does disprove FE and objectively critique my argument.
-
Ok Soulfien. But don"t you find it at least a little intriguing that the respected science journalist, Bryan Appleyard, belieues that Hawking, in his book, was "bone-headedly wrong about everything!" ?
Regardless, i wish you well with your studies.
Mizuki x
I took the time to review your posts in that thread. The links seem to be broken. I'll assume that over time that blog posts were moved (or were deleted); however, you still haven't made your case.
For example, is the myth that Hawking exists?
Is it that he profoundly respected?
Is it that he's published fantastic revelations?
Is it that he's tolerant of laziness, willful ignorance, and the other usual failings of FEers?
Hi Clocktower.
Of course he exists. And yes, he is indeed respected by the majority of people.
If you know the story of the emperor"s new clothes, you"ll understand the point i am making about Hawking. Whether you agree with me or not.
Mizuki x
So, you still can't even state the "myth". How sad. I was hoping to actually discuss your outlandish, unsupported claim, but all we get is innuendo. I know of nothing about the great man that warrant any myth, especially regarding the fable of the Emperor's New Clothes.
ETA:
Given levee's recent fraud, I've come to doubt the honesty of many FEers, you included. So, with a live link, I asked Mr. Appleyard to respond to your posts in this thread using the form on his blog site.
He ever so kindly responded:
I have never viciously attacked him. I have pointed out he misunderstood Wittgenstein and was, indeed, bone-headedly wrong about a quote he used from Shakespeare. In a very favourable profile I did of him in 1988 I also reported what his then wife said about his severe religious intolerance. He refused to be in the same room as her religious friends. My review of Universe in a Nutshell was favourable but for pointing out his misuse of the quote from Hamlet. I do regard his abrupt scientism as not worthy of him. If you regard any of this as vicious rather than normal, robust discourse, then so be it but I don't
Best Wishes,
Bryan Appleyard
I guess we know that you are misrepresenting Mr. Appleyard's position. I hope that you were just biased, forgetful, of both. I'd hate to add you to the list of frauds (leeve and fabricating quotes; Tom Bishop and fabricating experimental results).
Of course, you're welcome to ask him yourself via the same form.
Firstly, Mr Clocktower, i certainly did not misrepresent Mr Appleyard"s position on anything. I prouided a link to an interuiew and also some quoted text of his own words from an interuiew.
Secondly, can you post up your post to Mr Appleyard? I couldn"t find it on his blog. Thank you.
Mizuki x
-
Firstly, Mr Clocktower, i certainly did not misrepresent Mr Appleyard"s position on anything. I prouided a link to an interuiew and also some quoted text of his own words from an interuiew.
Secondly, can you post up your post to Mr Appleyard? I couldn"t find it on his blog. Thank you.
Mizuki x
1) I did not post to Mr. Appleyard's blog, nor did I claim to have done so. Please pay attention.
2) Yes, you did misrepresent Mr. Appleyard's position. For example:
Ok Soulfien. But don"t you find it at least a little intriguing that the respected science journalist, Bryan Appleyard, belieues that Hawking, in his book, was "bone-headedly wrong about everything!" ?
Regardless, i wish you well with your studies.
Mizuki x
-
Firstly, Mr Clocktower, i certainly did not misrepresent Mr Appleyard"s position on anything. I prouided a link to an interuiew and also some quoted text of his own words from an interuiew.
Secondly, can you post up your post to Mr Appleyard? I couldn"t find it on his blog. Thank you.
Mizuki x
1) I did not post to Mr. Appleyard's blog, nor did I claim to have done so. Please pay attention.
2) Yes, you did misrepresent Mr. Appleyard's position. For example:
Ok Soulfien. But don"t you find it at least a little intriguing that the respected science journalist, Bryan Appleyard, belieues that Hawking, in his book, was "bone-headedly wrong about everything!" ?
Regardless, i wish you well with your studies.
Mizuki x
How conuenient it was a liue link. So there"s no record of what you said.
You should be ashamed Clocktower. Going onto Mr Appleyard"s blog and bothering him when he"s probably busy writing about science and things. Anyway, if Mr Appleyard reads my posts, he"ll see that i did not misrepresent him.
Your opinion doesn"t matter to me.
Mizuki x
-
Firstly, Mr Clocktower, i certainly did not misrepresent Mr Appleyard"s position on anything. I prouided a link to an interuiew and also some quoted text of his own words from an interuiew.
Secondly, can you post up your post to Mr Appleyard? I couldn"t find it on his blog. Thank you.
Mizuki x
1) I did not post to Mr. Appleyard's blog, nor did I claim to have done so. Please pay attention.
2) Yes, you did misrepresent Mr. Appleyard's position. For example:
Ok Soulfien. But don"t you find it at least a little intriguing that the respected science journalist, Bryan Appleyard, belieues that Hawking, in his book, was "bone-headedly wrong about everything!" ?
Regardless, i wish you well with your studies.
Mizuki x
How conuenient it was a liue link. So there"s no record of what you said.
You should be ashamed Clocktower. Going onto Mr Appleyard"s blog and bothering him when he"s probably busy writing about science and things. Anyway, if Mr Appleyard reads my posts, he"ll see that i did not misrepresent him.
Your opinion doesn"t matter to me.
Mizuki x
Based on his response and the prompting from me, I confidently infer that he read your posts before replying. (I gave him links to the worst of your misrepresentations.)
I assure you that Mr. Appleyard was very prompt and as you can see polite. I don't think he would have taken the time to reply in such detail if correcting misrepresentations wasn't important to him.
Oh and I do have documentation of what I said on his site, but you should contact him yourself--as I already suggested if you wish to confirm his reply. I'm sure he'd love to have some words directly with you over these misrepresentations.
-
If Mr Appleyard is concerned in any way, he"s free to contact me. He"s a capable man.
I"m sure it was a pleasure for him to meet you, Clocktower (albeit, only on the internet). I bet he"s had to go for a bit of a lie-down!
Mizuki x
-
If Mr Appleyard is concerned in any way, he"s free to contact me. He"s a capable man.
I"m sure it was a pleasure for him to meet you, Clocktower (albeit, only on the internet). I bet he"s had to go for a bit of a lie-down!
Mizuki x
You contact him, you slime. You're the one misrepresenting his position and you should at least have the decency to discuss it with him now that you know that that's a possibility.
Either that, or give this whole line of argument up because all you look like now is a fraud.
-
If Mr Appleyard is concerned in any way, he"s free to contact me. He"s a capable man.
I"m sure it was a pleasure for him to meet you, Clocktower (albeit, only on the internet). I bet he"s had to go for a bit of a lie-down!
Mizuki x
You contact him, you slime. You're the one misrepresenting his position and you should at least have the decency to discuss it with him now that you know that that's a possibility.
Either that, or give this whole line of argument up because all you look like now is a fraud.
So tell me, how is prouiding a link to an interuiew and posting-up an interuiew, a misrepresentation?
And why are you being so abusiue? Is that really called for?
Mizuki x
-
It's an accurate descriptor for you. Only you can change this by either
A. Not acting like a slime anymore and contacting him
or
B. Admitting you misrepresented his writing
I doubt you'll do either of those things, so I think it's more than fair to consider you a fraud.
-
For those who haue a genuine interest, here is an excerpt from an interuiew that Bryan Appleyard did with The Fortean Times (as regards his opinion of Hawking, i think it"s pretty damning. Others may think differently):-
'In 1988 I interviewed Stephen Hawking just before A Brief History of Time came out. I come from a scientific family, but I wasn’t particularly interested in science as such.
I’d been writing a book about post-war British culture and I’d vaguely, without thinking about it, assumed that science and the humanities had accepted some sort of deal: science ‘explains’ one type of thing, and religion and so on ‘explained’ other things. When I interviewed Hawking, my complacency fell apart. I thought the man was bone-headedly wrong about everything!
He wasn’t even right about the stuff he put in his book. He misunderstood Wittegenstein. I tried to explain this to him, but he just wheeled himself away. I was shocked. He had this view that science was ‘completable’, that it would have this Theory of Everything within weeks. I just thought that was irrational. After all, every physicist who has ever lived has thought they were on the verge of a Theory of Everything. Also, we know from the Incompletness Theorems of Gödel that mathematics is not completable. Finally, how would we know we had the Theory of Everything? There are various answers to that, but I think they are all likely to be wrong.'
Source: http://thefrogweb.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/bryan-appleyard/
Mizuki x
-
again... since, in your utter denial, you pretend not to have seen it the first time I posted it, that has NOTHING... nothing!!! to do with flat earth theory. nothing. at all. He was talking about his theories on time travel and such. not flat earth.
A brief history in time contains a joke about the earth being flat. A joke. Stephen Hawking did not believe in flat earth.
-
I'm curious what the basis for this is....
When we have such brilliant minds at work researching the size, shape, and nature of the celestial heavens (I'm talking about Astronomy), how is it that these brilliant minds have got everything so wrong. [...]
Appealing to authority.
-
I'm curious what the basis for this is....
When we have such brilliant minds at work researching the size, shape, and nature of the celestial heavens (I'm talking about Astronomy), how is it that these brilliant minds have got everything so wrong. [...]
Appealing to authority.
Yes, he is. Did you think that appealing to authority is always a fallacy? I find his use here logical.
-
I'm curious what the basis for this is....
When we have such brilliant minds at work researching the size, shape, and nature of the celestial heavens (I'm talking about Astronomy), how is it that these brilliant minds have got everything so wrong. [...]
Appealing to authority.
Yes, he is. Did you think that appealing to authority is always a fallacy? I find his use here logical.
We've danced this waltz before.
If you'll recall, this is a site dedicated establishing the factual accuracy or lack thereof of specific claims primarily via debate. So yes, making assumptions and/or taking others' word for the sake of practicality by intentionally sacrificing factual accuracy, is of course a logical fallacy, because examining the accuracy of said presented facts is the whole point of this society.
He's either externalizing/advocating a point open to others (which invites logical critique), or he's babbling about some internal belief he holds without attempting any justification. The latter should never be considered a case with any substance. It shouldn't change or mean anything to anyone else. It's as worthless to advancing our collective knowledge as a religious man preaching faith.
-
I'm curious what the basis for this is....
When we have such brilliant minds at work researching the size, shape, and nature of the celestial heavens (I'm talking about Astronomy), how is it that these brilliant minds have got everything so wrong. [...]
Appealing to authority.
Yes, he is. Did you think that appealing to authority is always a fallacy? I find his use here logical.
We've danced this waltz before.
If you'll recall, this is a site dedicated establishing the factual accuracy or lack thereof of specific claims primarily via debate. So yes, making assumptions and/or taking others' word for the sake of practicality by intentionally sacrificing factual accuracy, is of course a logical fallacy, because examining the accuracy of said presented facts is the whole point of this society.
He's either externalizing/advocating a point open to others (which invites logical critique), or he's babbling about some internal belief he holds without attempting any justification. The latter should never be considered a case with any substance. It shouldn't change or mean anything to anyone else. It's as worthless to advancing our collective knowledge as a religious man preaching faith.
Nope. Appealing to authority remains a proper technique in establishing accuracy.
Since the authorities Soulfien references have published their conclusion with both evidence and peer review, these authorities accurately advance our collective knowledge. Tom Bishop often appeals to the authority Parallax, for example.
You're welcome, of course, to challenge the publications of these authorities. For example, FEer regularly rely on Einstein to support using the EP to explain away terrestrial gravity, yet assail him on his claim that all matter curves space-time.
-
I'm curious what the basis for this is....
When we have such brilliant minds at work researching the size, shape, and nature of the celestial heavens (I'm talking about Astronomy), how is it that these brilliant minds have got everything so wrong. [...]
Appealing to authority.
Yes, he is. Did you think that appealing to authority is always a fallacy? I find his use here logical.
We've danced this waltz before.
If you'll recall, this is a site dedicated establishing the factual accuracy or lack thereof of specific claims primarily via debate. So yes, making assumptions and/or taking others' word for the sake of practicality by intentionally sacrificing factual accuracy, is of course a logical fallacy, because examining the accuracy of said presented facts is the whole point of this society.
He's either externalizing/advocating a point open to others (which invites logical critique), or he's babbling about some internal belief he holds without attempting any justification. The latter should never be considered a case with any substance. It shouldn't change or mean anything to anyone else. It's as worthless to advancing our collective knowledge as a religious man preaching faith.
Nope. Appealing to authority remains a proper technique in establishing accuracy.
You clearly don't know what it means to "establish" accuracy of a claim. The case for it must be made, not the conclusions recited.
-
I'm curious what the basis for this is....
When we have such brilliant minds at work researching the size, shape, and nature of the celestial heavens (I'm talking about Astronomy), how is it that these brilliant minds have got everything so wrong. [...]
Appealing to authority.
Yes, he is. Did you think that appealing to authority is always a fallacy? I find his use here logical.
We've danced this waltz before.
If you'll recall, this is a site dedicated establishing the factual accuracy or lack thereof of specific claims primarily via debate. So yes, making assumptions and/or taking others' word for the sake of practicality by intentionally sacrificing factual accuracy, is of course a logical fallacy, because examining the accuracy of said presented facts is the whole point of this society.
He's either externalizing/advocating a point open to others (which invites logical critique), or he's babbling about some internal belief he holds without attempting any justification. The latter should never be considered a case with any substance. It shouldn't change or mean anything to anyone else. It's as worthless to advancing our collective knowledge as a religious man preaching faith.
Nope. Appealing to authority remains a proper technique in establishing accuracy.
You clearly don't know what it means to "establish" accuracy of a claim. The case for it must be made, not the conclusions recited.
Do tell me of the error of my ways here please. How is relying on the efforts of an authority with expertise in the field under review not establishing accuracy of a claim? Are you saying the building a house on a firm foundation is not building a house? Are you just being pedantic claiming that just such an appeal is not adequate in your opinion?
-
I'm curious what the basis for this is....
When we have such brilliant minds at work researching the size, shape, and nature of the celestial heavens (I'm talking about Astronomy), how is it that these brilliant minds have got everything so wrong. [...]
Appealing to authority.
Yes, he is. Did you think that appealing to authority is always a fallacy? I find his use here logical.
We've danced this waltz before.
If you'll recall, this is a site dedicated establishing the factual accuracy or lack thereof of specific claims primarily via debate. So yes, making assumptions and/or taking others' word for the sake of practicality by intentionally sacrificing factual accuracy, is of course a logical fallacy, because examining the accuracy of said presented facts is the whole point of this society.
He's either externalizing/advocating a point open to others (which invites logical critique), or he's babbling about some internal belief he holds without attempting any justification. The latter should never be considered a case with any substance. It shouldn't change or mean anything to anyone else. It's as worthless to advancing our collective knowledge as a religious man preaching faith.
Nope. Appealing to authority remains a proper technique in establishing accuracy.
You clearly don't know what it means to "establish" accuracy of a claim. The case for it must be made, not the conclusions recited.
Do tell me of the error of my ways here please. How is relying on the efforts of an authority with expertise in the field under review not establishing accuracy of a claim?
Because you are relying on and trusting that someone has made your case. It is a belief that your case is supported, not knowledge. By definition, establishing something as fact requires that its factual nature be demonstrated.
Without any demonstration, it remains a personal faith-based assessment.
-
I'm curious what the basis for this is....
When we have such brilliant minds at work researching the size, shape, and nature of the celestial heavens (I'm talking about Astronomy), how is it that these brilliant minds have got everything so wrong. [...]
Appealing to authority.
Yes, he is. Did you think that appealing to authority is always a fallacy? I find his use here logical.
We've danced this waltz before.
If you'll recall, this is a site dedicated establishing the factual accuracy or lack thereof of specific claims primarily via debate. So yes, making assumptions and/or taking others' word for the sake of practicality by intentionally sacrificing factual accuracy, is of course a logical fallacy, because examining the accuracy of said presented facts is the whole point of this society.
He's either externalizing/advocating a point open to others (which invites logical critique), or he's babbling about some internal belief he holds without attempting any justification. The latter should never be considered a case with any substance. It shouldn't change or mean anything to anyone else. It's as worthless to advancing our collective knowledge as a religious man preaching faith.
Nope. Appealing to authority remains a proper technique in establishing accuracy.
You clearly don't know what it means to "establish" accuracy of a claim. The case for it must be made, not the conclusions recited.
Do tell me of the error of my ways here please. How is relying on the efforts of an authority with expertise in the field under review not establishing accuracy of a claim?
Because you are relying on and trusting that someone has made your case. It is a belief that your case is supported, not knowledge. By definition, establishing something as fact requires that its factual nature be demonstrated.
Without any demonstration, it remains a personal faith-based assessment.
So? The authority has demonstrated the result, published it, and even gone through peer review. Authorities in the field aren't beyond reproach, but each are better at establishing accuracy than anyone here.
Oh, and who said anything about facts? Unless we rely on Parallax's magical "It's true because I check everything myself" technique, we don't deal with establishing facts. They take care of themselves. You should be discussing conclusions.
-
I'm curious what the basis for this is....
When we have such brilliant minds at work researching the size, shape, and nature of the celestial heavens (I'm talking about Astronomy), how is it that these brilliant minds have got everything so wrong. [...]
Appealing to authority.
Yes, he is. Did you think that appealing to authority is always a fallacy? I find his use here logical.
We've danced this waltz before.
If you'll recall, this is a site dedicated establishing the factual accuracy or lack thereof of specific claims primarily via debate. So yes, making assumptions and/or taking others' word for the sake of practicality by intentionally sacrificing factual accuracy, is of course a logical fallacy, because examining the accuracy of said presented facts is the whole point of this society.
He's either externalizing/advocating a point open to others (which invites logical critique), or he's babbling about some internal belief he holds without attempting any justification. The latter should never be considered a case with any substance. It shouldn't change or mean anything to anyone else. It's as worthless to advancing our collective knowledge as a religious man preaching faith.
Nope. Appealing to authority remains a proper technique in establishing accuracy.
You clearly don't know what it means to "establish" accuracy of a claim. The case for it must be made, not the conclusions recited.
Do tell me of the error of my ways here please. How is relying on the efforts of an authority with expertise in the field under review not establishing accuracy of a claim?
Because you are relying on and trusting that someone has made your case. It is a belief that your case is supported, not knowledge. By definition, establishing something as fact requires that its factual nature be demonstrated.
Without any demonstration, it remains a personal faith-based assessment.
So? The authority has demonstrated the result.
You're showing the exact same confusion between belief and knowledge I tried to highlight. You believe the authority has demonstrated the result.
However, assuming you can follow the processes and/or deductions of the experts you blindly trust, you could attempt to demonstrate their cases yourself by recreating/reiterating them here for scrutiny. Simply saying that experts have proven 'x' is the fallacious appeal when establishing 'x'. But saying 'x' must be true because of reasons 'a', 'b', and 'c' would be a way to establish the claim (assuming the logic was sound).
Oh, and who said anything about facts?
Factual accuracy has been the subject for awhile... It shows up as early as in my third sentence within this thread. ???
-
You're showing the exact same confusion between belief and knowledge I tried to highlight. You believe the authority has demonstrated the result.
Furthermore, you could attempt to demonstrate it yourself by recreating/reiterating their processes and/or deductions here for scrutiny. Simply saying that experts have proven "x" is the fallacious appeal. Saying "x" must be true because of reasons "a, b, and c" would be establishing the claim (assuming the logic was sound).
Wrong. Appeal to authority is not always fallacious. If the expert has the needed knowledge and experience, then appealing to him or her or them is a logical step. Unless you're using some pedantic definition of knowledge, there is not significant difference in Science between "knowing that 'a' causes 'b'" and "believing that 'a' causes 'b'. Science only allows for "knowing" in the sense of "believing". We could always be wrong.
Expecting everyone to reproduce every experiment involved in an argument is beyond any sense of reasonable.Oh, and who said anything about facts?
Factual accuracy has been the subject for awhile...
Provide a quote please to support your claim "factual accuracy" has been the subject "for a while".
-
You're showing the exact same confusion between belief and knowledge I tried to highlight. You believe the authority has demonstrated the result.
Furthermore, you could attempt to demonstrate it yourself by recreating/reiterating their processes and/or deductions here for scrutiny. Simply saying that experts have proven 'x' is the fallacious appeal when establishing 'x'. Saying 'x' must be true because of reasons 'a', 'b', and 'c' would be establishing the claim (assuming the logic was sound).
Wrong. Appeal to authority is not always fallacious.
Provide a quote of where I said it was. If you are using it as a general rule of thumb for what is probably correct (based on people's reputations) then it can be a practical personal approach. Wikipedia acknowledged this under "statistical syllogisms" meaning that something is probably factual. This is where the discussion of personal assessment fits in; choosing to believe something without assuring that it fits certain standards.
If the expert has the needed knowledge and experience, then appealing to him or her or them is a logical step.
Practical step.
Unless you're using some pedantic definition of knowledge, there is not significant difference in Science between "knowing that 'a' causes 'b'" and "believing that 'a' causes 'b'. Science only allows for "knowing" in the sense of "believing". We could always be wrong.
Yes, scientific knowledge is open to revision and is not completely sure. Let me adapt that term of "scientific belief" for grammatical ease.
However, [1]believing in the legitimacy of a [2]scientific belief is a secondary layer of belief that doesn't use any sound logic to justify it. It is simply having faith that those scientific "beliefs" were formed in a sound manner. Current accepted scientific theories are all generally considered sound by those who review them. That role of faith is preventable, and much more open to disappointment. This happens when you don't review them.
Expecting everyone to reproduce every experiment involved in an argument is beyond any sense of reasonable.
Not if they expect to force their beliefs specifically regarding the results of those experiments on others. Demonstration is really quite rudimentary to making a sound case. Same goes for trying to publicly convincing others of anything faith-based. It should be ignored until actual reasons can be given.
Oh, and who said anything about facts?
Factual accuracy has been the subject for awhile...
Provide a quote please to support your claim "factual accuracy" has been the subject "for a while".
VVV
We've danced this waltz before.
If you'll recall, this is a site dedicated establishing the factual accuracy or lack thereof of specific claims primarily via debate.
I know you're too stubborn to give up on a lost cause, but I'm gonna grab some sleep. Catch ya in the morning.
-
You're showing the exact same confusion between belief and knowledge I tried to highlight. You believe the authority has demonstrated the result.
Furthermore, you could attempt to demonstrate it yourself by recreating/reiterating their processes and/or deductions here for scrutiny. Simply saying that experts have proven 'x' is the fallacious appeal when establishing 'x'. Saying 'x' must be true because of reasons 'a', 'b', and 'c' would be establishing the claim (assuming the logic was sound).
Wrong. Appeal to authority is not always fallacious.
Provide a quote of where I said it was.
Did I say you said it was?If the expert has the needed knowledge and experience, then appealing to him or her or them is a logical step.
Practical step.
Both. As a statistical syllogism, it will have the following basic structure:[1]
Most of what authority a has to say on subject matter S is correct.
a says p about S.
Therefore, p is correct.
Unless you're using some pedantic definition of knowledge, there is not significant difference in Science between "knowing that 'a' causes 'b'" and "believing that 'a' causes 'b'. Science only allows for "knowing" in the sense of "believing". We could always be wrong.
Yes, scientific knowledge is open to revision and is not completely sure. However, believing in the scientific knowledge/belief is a secondary layer of belief that concerns its existence and doesn't use any sound logic to justify it. It is simply having faith that those scientific "beliefs" were formed in a sound manner. That role of faith is preventable, and much more open to disappointment.
Expecting everyone to reproduce every experiment involved in an argument is beyond any sense of reasonable.
Not if they expect to force their beliefs specifically regarding the results of those experiments on others. Demonstration is really quite rudimentary to making a sound case. Same goes for trying to publicly convincing others of anything faith-based. It should be ignored until actual reasons can be given.
Irrelevant and false. Demonstration is not really quite rudimentary. For example, in 1997 frame dragging can only be measured by a tandem of specialized satellites. Refernce: http://www.phy.duke.edu/~kolena/framedrag.html (http://www.phy.duke.edu/~kolena/framedrag.html). A person could never afford such a complex and expensive (not really quite rudimentary) demonstration.Oh, and who said anything about facts?
Factual accuracy has been the subject for awhile...
Provide a quote please to support your claim "factual accuracy" has been the subject "for a while".
VVV
We've danced this waltz before.
If you'll recall, this is a site dedicated establishing the factual accuracy or lack thereof of specific claims primarily via debate.
Tangential, inaccurate, and your saying "factual" does not make it the subject of the discussion. (You might want to tone down your sense of importance.)
-
You're showing the exact same confusion between belief and knowledge I tried to highlight. You believe the authority has demonstrated the result.
Furthermore, you could attempt to demonstrate it yourself by recreating/reiterating their processes and/or deductions here for scrutiny. Simply saying that experts have proven 'x' is the fallacious appeal when establishing 'x'. Saying 'x' must be true because of reasons 'a', 'b', and 'c' would be establishing the claim (assuming the logic was sound).
Wrong. Appeal to authority is not always fallacious.
Provide a quote of where I said it was.
Did I say you said it was?
You implied it. I made it red in case you're confused.
As a statistical syllogism, it will have the following basic structure:[1]
Most of what authority a has to say on subject matter S is correct.
a says p about S.
Therefore, p is correct.
This is completely compatible with the point I was making. Despite having a format of two premises and a conclusion, this is not a logical deduction and doesn't/cannot guarantee any truth or falsity. It only surmises a generalization based on probability.
Expecting everyone to reproduce every experiment involved in an argument is beyond any sense of reasonable.
Not if they expect to force their beliefs specifically regarding the results of those experiments on others. Demonstration is really quite rudimentary to making a sound case. Same goes for trying to publicly convincing others of anything faith-based. It should be ignored until actual reasons can be given.
Irrelevant and false. Demonstration is not really quite rudimentary. For example, in 1997 frame dragging can only be measured by a tandem of specialized satellites. Refernce: http://www.phy.duke.edu/~kolena/framedrag.html (http://www.phy.duke.edu/~kolena/framedrag.html). A person could never afford such a complex and expensive (not really quite rudimentary) demonstration.
I said demonstration was rudimentary (basic and foundational) for persuasion, not that all examples of demonstration were "simple". You neither show why it is irrelevant nor false. Since we are discussing establishing a claim to others, demonstration seems very relevant. What is really unreasonable, is demanding others to agree with you without providing a sound supporting argument. See my closing question.
Provide a quote please to support your claim "factual accuracy" has been the subject "for a while".
VVV
We've danced this waltz before.
If you'll recall, this is a site dedicated establishing the factual accuracy or lack thereof of specific claims primarily via debate.
Tangential, inaccurate, and your saying "factual" does not make it the subject of the discussion. (You might want to tone down your sense of importance.)
Your inability to admit your mistakes is getting old.
Tell me, which statement do you deny?
1. A claim is an assertion you are trying to prove.
2. Establishing a claim is to prove it.
3. Proof requires a demonstration of the claim's factual accuracy.