The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: kgmon on October 13, 2006, 07:32:25 AM

Title: Burden of Proof
Post by: kgmon on October 13, 2006, 07:32:25 AM
Every time I see someone reference a photograph, video, website, book, anything demonstrating proof of RE it is shot down as fake, photoshopped, manufactured, etc. So the question is, where, or what is proof?

In this thread, I will act like an FE'er, only instead I will really believe the earth is round. Someone who believes the earth is flat, please, offer me some proof of a flat earth, something that would, if it were to show the earth is round, would convince you of its factuality.

Then i will shoot down everything you say. The end.
Title: Re: Burden of Proof
Post by: GeoGuy on October 13, 2006, 07:37:23 AM
Quote from: "kgmon"
Then i will shoot down everything you say. The end.


I somehow doubt that.
Title: Burden of Proof
Post by: woopedazz on October 13, 2006, 07:39:35 AM
1: FE'ers do not, merely those such as myself (who are really RE'ers) tend to take the piss out of a few individuals, especially my good self today.

2:refer to point 1

ummm...k, so the world flat cos...umm, read the FAQ im sure ther's sum decent stuff in there, i havn't read it all yet  :?  but don't worry, i've read most
Title: Burden of Proof
Post by: GeoGuy on October 13, 2006, 07:43:49 AM
Or you could try this: Earth: not a globe (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/index.htm) by Samuel Rowbotham.
Title: Burden of Proof
Post by: kgmon on October 13, 2006, 07:49:14 AM
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
Or you could try this: Earth: not a globe (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/index.htm) by Samuel Rowbotham.


Nope. Due to gravity, and as told by relativity, the light follow the curve in space-time cause by the earth's gravity. Due to our point of reference, on the earth, the light appears to be traveling straight.

Next.
Title: Burden of Proof
Post by: GeoGuy on October 13, 2006, 08:02:18 AM
Quote from: "kgmon"

Nope. Due to gravity, and as told by relativity, the light follow the curve in space-time cause by the earth's gravity. Due to our point of reference, on the earth, the light appears to be traveling straight.

Next.


I take it you didn't actually read the link, as it doesn't have anything to do with what you just said.
Title: Burden of Proof
Post by: kgmon on October 13, 2006, 08:09:34 AM
Quote from: "Sammy R."
But if the earth is a globe, the surface of the six miles length of water would have been 6 feet higher in the centre than at the two extremities, as shown in diagram fig. 2; but as the telescope was only 8 inches above the water, the highest point of the surface would have been at one mile from the place of observation; and below this point the surface of the water at the end of the remaining five miles would have been 16 feet.


This is the gist of most of the arguments, the earth must be flat because as the distance between 2 points increases, visibility is not affected as one would expect with the basic geometry of a sphere. However, see my above post. We are on the sphere. The gravity of the sphere affects space-time in such a way that when light travels, following the curve of space time, from our point of reference, light appears straighter, thus showing how the earth can appear flatter than it actually is.
Title: Burden of Proof
Post by: kgmon on October 13, 2006, 08:13:38 AM
Quote from: "woopedazz"
1: FE'ers do not, merely those such as myself (who are really RE'ers) tend to take the piss out of a few individuals, especially my good self today.

2:refer to point 1

ummm...k, so the world flat cos...umm, read the FAQ im sure ther's sum decent stuff in there, i havn't read it all yet  :?  but don't worry, i've read most


Apologies. Something about this board brings out my irreverent sarcasm.

My point was, I want an FE'er to provide something, that if I were to provide as an RE'er would prove roundness, except that they would do it to prove flatness. The FAQ does not accomplish this, it mostly just explains away RE arguments.
Title: Burden of Proof
Post by: GeoGuy on October 13, 2006, 08:14:15 AM
Quote from: "kgmon"
This is the gist of most of the arguments, the earth must be flat because as the distance between 2 points increases, visibility is not affected as one would expect with the basic geometry of a sphere. However, see my above post. We are on the sphere. The gravity of the sphere affects space-time in such a way that when light travels, following the curve of space time, from our point of reference, light appears straighter, thus showing how the earth can appear flatter than it actually is.


Your argument assumes that we are on a sphere, if Earth is flat obviously the gravity of the planet doesn't affect space time in the same way.
You can't base your argument on the the assumption that Earth is round. It just doesn't work that way.
Title: Burden of Proof
Post by: kgmon on October 13, 2006, 08:25:22 AM
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
Your argument assumes that we are on a sphere, if Earth is flat obviously the gravity of the planet doesn't affect space time in the same way.
You can't base your argument on the the assumption that Earth is round. It just doesn't work that way.


Sure I can. I am working from the assumption that the earth is round, and follows the principles of relativity. I'm looking for proof to the contrary. Sammy's little experiment is not proof, as I clearly showed. Sammy took the assumption that the earth is round and tried to disprove it with the, at the time, assumed fact that light travels in a straight line. By giving a substantial and logical reason light would not travel in an apparent straight line that has developed since Sammy's experiment, I have shown that his argument does not prove anything.
Title: Burden of Proof
Post by: Mephistopheles on October 13, 2006, 08:50:31 AM
Quote from: "kgmon"


Sure I can.


No, you can't.

Next.
Title: Burden of Proof
Post by: kgmon on October 13, 2006, 08:59:52 AM
Maybe my arrogance is too strong, and I apologize for any offence with the "Next" comment.

My point of this thread is to be contrary to the other threads, where the earth is assumed flat, and REs must prove otherwise. Like I said, I will am taking the assumption that the earth is round, and look to the FES for proof otherwise, which has yet to be established.
Title: Burden of Proof
Post by: Mephistopheles on October 13, 2006, 09:02:06 AM
Quote from: "kgmon"
Maybe my arrogance is too strong, and I apologize for any offence with the "Next" comment.

My point of this thread is to be contrary to the other threads, where the earth is assumed flat, and REs must prove otherwise. Like I said, I will am taking the assumption that the earth is round, and look to the FES for proof otherwise, which has yet to be established.


If you assume one side while attempting to poke holes in the other, it means less than assuming the contrary side and poking holes in it on its own terms.
Title: Burden of Proof
Post by: kgmon on October 13, 2006, 09:13:30 AM
Quote from: "Mephistopheles"
If you assume one side while attempting to poke holes in the other, it means less than assuming the contrary side and poking holes in it on its own terms.


I agree to the fullest extent, but it appears that the commonality of the threads here is thus: FE'ers, assuming FE and poking holes in RE. I want something to the contrary. Why? I have seen no adequate proof, and the agreed upon standards of proof for this forum are lacking. FE'ers essentially discredit pictures, video, documentation, expect testimony, and most of the body of scientific evidence as a conspiracy. So, maybe the FE'ers could kindly establish some proof of FE, so we would all know what would constitute proof of RE.
Title: Burden of Proof
Post by: hefdaddy42 on October 13, 2006, 09:54:35 AM
Quote from: "kgmon"
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
Your argument assumes that we are on a sphere, if Earth is flat obviously the gravity of the planet doesn't affect space time in the same way.
You can't base your argument on the the assumption that Earth is round. It just doesn't work that way.


Sure I can. I am working from the assumption that the earth is round, and follows the principles of relativity. I'm looking for proof to the contrary. Sammy's little experiment is not proof, as I clearly showed. Sammy took the assumption that the earth is round and tried to disprove it with the, at the time, assumed fact that light travels in a straight line. By giving a substantial and logical reason light would not travel in an apparent straight line that has developed since Sammy's experiment, I have shown that his argument does not prove anything.
In other words, if a FE'er could disprove relativity, that would help a lot.
Title: Burden of Proof
Post by: dysfunction on October 13, 2006, 09:55:57 AM
Quote from: "kgmon"
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
Or you could try this: Earth: not a globe (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/index.htm) by Samuel Rowbotham.


Nope. Due to gravity, and as told by relativity, the light follow the curve in space-time cause by the earth's gravity. Due to our point of reference, on the earth, the light appears to be traveling straight.

Next.


Exactly how strong do you think the Earth's gravity is? The amount it would cause light to deviate from its course is so small as to be irrelevant for the purposes of this experiment.
Title: Burden of Proof
Post by: phaseshifter on October 13, 2006, 10:42:08 AM
Quote from: "dysfunction"
Quote from: "kgmon"
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
Or you could try this: Earth: not a globe (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/index.htm) by Samuel Rowbotham.


Nope. Due to gravity, and as told by relativity, the light follow the curve in space-time cause by the earth's gravity. Due to our point of reference, on the earth, the light appears to be traveling straight.

Next.


Exactly how strong do you think the Earth's gravity is? The amount it would cause light to deviate from its course is so small as to be irrelevant for the purposes of this experiment.


What do you mean? I don't understand. We don,t need to suppos a strenght of the earth's gravity, it can be calculated. That'S how we know what the earth's escape velocity is, and also the on of the sun and jupiter, even though we don't live on it.
Title: Burden of Proof
Post by: dysfunction on October 13, 2006, 04:34:55 PM
Yes, we do know how strong the Earth's gravity is. We know that it is nowhere near strong enough to cause a curving of light's path over these distances that would be significant in this experiment.
Title: Burden of Proof
Post by: Slorrin on October 17, 2006, 12:33:15 AM
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
Quote from: "kgmon"
This is the gist of most of the arguments, the earth must be flat because as the distance between 2 points increases, visibility is not affected as one would expect with the basic geometry of a sphere. However, see my above post. We are on the sphere. The gravity of the sphere affects space-time in such a way that when light travels, following the curve of space time, from our point of reference, light appears straighter, thus showing how the earth can appear flatter than it actually is.


Your argument assumes that we are on a sphere, if Earth is flat obviously the gravity of the planet doesn't affect space time in the same way.
You can't base your argument on the the assumption that Earth is round. It just doesn't work that way.


No, it does.  YOu can't use something asn argument against a round earth saying "if the earth is round, this phenomemon should not be" and then, when someone says "assuming the round earth, this phenomenon can STILL exist" and then say "That's not fair."

The purpose of that argument was to prove the earth was flat by discussing visibility with a telescope.  It was saying this visibility thing is a fact.  ANd with my understanding of light, geometry, and astronomy, it seems impossible on a round earth.

The the other guy says "no no no, your understanding of light, geometry and astronomy are incomplete, here's something called relativity, which shows how, on a sphere's surface, it can appaer more flat than it is, due to the gravity of the sphere".

So whereas the argument started, rationally, from the observable phenomenon was used to debunk the round earth theory, and then, since that is debunked, alternate explanations for gravity etc.. are hypothesizes and worked out to fit the new model, the new information about how light behaves allows for the phenomenon, previously taken as proof of a flat earth, to no longer conflict with a round earth.


Meaning, because that phenomenon does not conflict with a round earth, it is NOT PROOF that the earth is not round.  To prove the non existence of something you must prove the existence of something that is utterly incompatible with the existence of the other thing.  

Now, the burden of proof, argues the writer of that message, is on the flat earther, to counter the ready observations of round shadows during eclupses, the arc of falling bodies being in the direction of the earth's hypothesized rotation, the phenomenon of night and day.

While the model proposed has explanations for those (Except the arc of freefalling bodies being eastward) it fails to then demonstrate how the model works.  What forces exist, and the means by which those forces act.

What keeps the sun rotating in a ring around the equator?  What imbused the stars and moon with gravity that the earth, hypothetically posessing no gravity, lacks?  

What force permits constant acceleration of an object?  Requiring, essentially, a perpetual source of precise energy, unfluctuating, through eternity.  What power source is that, and what is the physics behind it's operation.  Aside from the observance of "clinging to the earth" what other observable phenomenon are consequences of this perpetual and constant force always applying the same amount of energy to keep acceleration constant.  

How did the flat earth form?  What process brought the liquid water, rock, etc.. together, and allowed it to form into a perfect disk , with a wall of ice to keep the atmosphere and water in.  Where are the remnants of those forces actions upon other things.  

WHy, if the tide is caused by a slight tilting of the earth back and forth, like a see saw, would the tides not ebb from western shores simultaenously but flow to eastern shores simultaenously, all, nomatter the hemisphere (As would happen.  simply reconstruct this model and tilt the plate or pan you have, and watch as the water rushes towards the eastern coasts and away from the western coasts, all at once, and then tilted the other eway, the opposiote) while in reality, tides ebb and flow based on the time of day, irrespective of westerliness or easterliness of the coast.  

These questions are all explainable by a simple theory, round rotating earth in rotation around sun with moon rotating around it.  This theory, beeing the simplest and most repeatedly demonstrable EVEN with tiny experiments in your own home, in order to disprove the round earth, you must propose then demonstrate the existence of one phenomenon at least that can NOT exist in a round earth, but CAN exist in a flat earth, and ONLY in a flat earth.  

I think that is what the gentleman was asking.  

I for one, am not arguing for either theory.  I withhold my judgement until i can examine the nature of and vilidity of the proofs on offer by this theory.

I have the hollow earth theory to examine too.  INdeed, there are more evidence for the hollow earth than flat, at least that i'vecome across so far.
Title: Burden of Proof
Post by: Slorrin on October 17, 2006, 12:37:13 AM
Quote from: "dysfunction"
Yes, we do know how strong the Earth's gravity is. We know that it is nowhere near strong enough to cause a curving of light's path over these distances that would be significant in this experiment.


Light also curves in fluids.  The atmosphere is a gas, and gasses are fluids.  

Not to mention, the mirage effect, and numerous other experiences of perceiving light from a greater distance, refracted by convection...

neither of which proves or disproves a flat earth..

What do you have on offer whic proves a flat earth.  That can not be also explained by a round earth.

One thing that says "okay, if we put two poles at opposite ends of the flat earth, and beam a laser at the hight of the pole to the other pole, it hits that pole dead on, right at the top."

that would do it, that would prove it.  If a laser shone straight south was detectible south of the equator, at the southern ice wall.  IN a flat earth, that would be possible.

that experiement would work.

Has anyone done that experiment?
Title: Burden of Proof
Post by: beast on October 17, 2006, 05:29:26 AM
I'm not sure if I follow what you mean.

"light curves in fluids" ?

I'd like you to back that up with some references.  My impression was that light bent moving from one substance (or lack of substance) to another - but that's clearly not a curve.

(http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/explain/optics/figs/ref2.gif)

The above is the impression I get of how light reacts moving from substances.  You can see that at no point does the light curve but in fact it changes angles at the point of change of substance.


(http://www.celebritytemple.com/jessica_alba/pics/alba2.gif)

On the other hand this is Jessica Alba.  If you follow the contours of her body you can clearly see that it doesn't suddenly change directions and that she isn't made up of straight lines but in fact she has curves.  I see a fairly significant difference between light refracting and curving.
Title: Burden of Proof
Post by: woopedazz on October 17, 2006, 05:35:04 AM
*drool at miss Alba*  :oops:
Title: Burden of Proof
Post by: Unimportant on October 17, 2006, 07:07:39 AM
This thread is over. No one can argue with Beast's post.
Title: Burden of Proof
Post by: Slorrin on October 17, 2006, 10:24:47 AM
Quote from: "beast"
I'm not sure if I follow what you mean.

"light curves in fluids" ?

I'd like you to back that up with some references.  My impression was that light bent moving from one substance (or lack of substance) to another - but that's clearly not a curve.

(http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/explain/optics/figs/ref2.gif)

The above is the impression I get of how light reacts moving from substances.  You can see that at no point does the light curve but in fact it changes angles at the point of change of substance.


(http://www.celebritytemple.com/jessica_alba/pics/alba2.gif)

On the other hand this is Jessica Alba.  If you follow the contours of her body you can clearly see that it doesn't suddenly change directions and that she isn't made up of straight lines but in fact she has curves.  I see a fairly significant difference between light refracting and curving.


Well, light bends in a number f circumstances, such as passing through substances with different refractive indexes.  IN the convection above pavement.  Gravity.

ETc..
Title: Burden of Proof
Post by: Erasmus on October 17, 2006, 11:02:32 AM
Beast, I am totally convinced by your argument ad albam.  Please let me know if you have any other arguments that you'd like to win.
Title: Burden of Proof
Post by: beast on October 17, 2006, 05:32:41 PM
Quote from: "Slorrin"


Well, light bends in a number f circumstances, such as passing through substances with different refractive indexes.  IN the convection above pavement.  Gravity.

ETc..


You did not say that light bent.

Quote from: "slorrin"
Light also curves in fluids. The atmosphere is a gas, and gasses are fluids.


And I reject that statement.  As seen in my diagram - a curve is not the same as a change in direction.  If you can back up your statement with a scientific website link showing light curving in fluids I will be happy to accept that I'm wrong but I doubt you can do that because light doesn't curve.  You could argue that it can curve because of gravity and I accept that because from a perspective it does curve.  I think the more common explanation is that the space time fabric curves and the light goes in a straight line (but appears to curve - a non euclidian straight line I guess).  Philosophically you could definitely still argue that this is a curve.  However curving in fluids?  I think that's bullshit.
Title: Burden of Proof
Post by: phaseshifter on October 17, 2006, 05:44:44 PM
Quote from: "dysfunction"
Yes, we do know how strong the Earth's gravity is. We know that it is nowhere near strong enough to cause a curving of light's path over these distances that would be significant in this experiment.


Its not the earth's gravitational field which causes the light to bend. The earth's field bends time/space, not light. And then, when light makes it's way across that portion of time/space, it it will bend as well since it can only follow that path. Light cannot follow a different line by going outside of time/space.

Clearer?
Title: Burden of Proof
Post by: Skeptical Listener on October 17, 2006, 06:00:49 PM
Now, I don't know general relativity that well, but I'm pretty sure that the Earth's gravity is nowhere near strong enough to bend light to the extent that you say it does.

On the other hand, I can explain why light can bend. The index of refraction of light through air depends on the density of air, which depends on the temperature (Ideal Gas Law). When you see a slight shimmering above the road, it is becuase the air near the road is less dense than the above it, and hence has a lower index of refraction. Hence, the light will bend away from the road, and you will see the sky. Note that you can only observe this shimmering effect when you are looking nearly parallel to the road, because the light is not bent very much.

Now, regarding burden of proof:
I think burden of proof lies with the people who believe in the Flat Earth. The major problem that I see with the Flat Earth Theory is the failure in meeting Occam's Razor (so many assumptions: the unknown force propelling the earth, the necessity of having hundreds of thousands of people in a consipracy, going against basic laws of physics and experiments that have occurred). There is no reason for me to believe in a flat earth; all major scientific evidence points towards the round earth. Now that evidence is false, you might say, but where is the real evidence? How do you know that some unknown force exists? How do you know that the sun works through perspective? You have all these theories, but very few (if any) of them can be substantiated with solid evidence.
Title: Burden of Proof
Post by: Unimportant on October 17, 2006, 06:08:28 PM
Quote from: "Skeptical Listener"
Now, I don't know general relativity that well, but I'm pretty sure that the Earth's gravity is nowhere near strong enough to bend light to the extent that you say it does.

On the other hand, I can explain why light can bend. The index of refraction of light through air depends on the density of air, which depends on the temperature (Ideal Gas Law). When you see a slight shimmering above the road, it is becuase the air near the road is less dense than the above it, and hence has a lower index of refraction. Hence, the light will bend away from the road, and you will see the sky. Note that you can only observe this shimmering effect when you are looking nearly parallel to the road, because the light is not bent very much.

"Bending" and "curving" are different things in the context of this discussion. It's semantic and sometimes frustrating, to be sure, but they are still unique concepts.

No one is denying that light bends in the presence of mediums of variable density - and anyone who does is likely beyond help - but the issue is whether or not light curves under such conditions. As physics defines a curve of light, no, it does not. It only bends.

Quote
I think burden of proof lies with the people who believe in the Flat Earth.

And you would be wrong, unfortunately.
Title: Burden of Proof
Post by: phaseshifter on October 17, 2006, 10:17:16 PM
Quote
And you would be wrong, unfortunately



See, Skeptical Listener, it's pretty much always like this. They don't give reasons. You will get answers like, "no it's not"  " you're wrong" or "it doesn't" Don't expect things to be backed up often on that side.

He doesn't give reasons as to why you would be wrong, it's just stated as a fact that you are. I realise there is no value to those statments, but you should expect to see them a lot and get used to them.
Title: Burden of Proof
Post by: beast on October 18, 2006, 03:31:15 AM
Burden of proof is soooooooooooooooooooooooo easy to understand.  How can you not get it?

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


Clearly it is the REers coming to the FLAT Earth Society who are making the allegations that what we believe is wrong.  If you're coming here to prove us wrong then you have to prove us wrong.  There is no doubt the burden of proof is on the REers.
Title: Burden of Proof
Post by: holybrain on October 18, 2006, 03:33:02 AM
Don't bother giving phaseshifter any actual reasons, I think he had a lobotomy before coming to this site. :lol:
Title: Burden of Proof
Post by: woopedazz on October 18, 2006, 03:38:30 AM
Quote from: "holybrain"
Don't bother giving phaseshifter any actual reasons, I think he had a lobotomy before coming to this site. :lol:


luckily this site helped him gain a high bottom  :roll:  :?  :lol:
Title: Burden of Proof
Post by: Yardstick2006 on October 18, 2006, 06:35:07 AM
Quote from: "beast"
Burden of proof is soooooooooooooooooooooooo easy to understand.  How can you not get it?

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


Clearly it is the REers coming to the FLAT Earth Society who are making the allegations that what we believe is wrong.  If you're coming here to prove us wrong then you have to prove us wrong.  There is no doubt the burden of proof is on the REers.


Maybe in your warped little mind but us in the real world know that if want to 'challenge the norm.' so to speak, then you have to back it up.
Title: Burden of Proof
Post by: beast on October 18, 2006, 06:39:05 AM
This is the Flat Earth Society.  We proclaim that the Earth is flat.  If you come to our society telling us that we are wrong you have to be able to prove it.
Title: Burden of Proof
Post by: Yardstick2006 on October 18, 2006, 10:29:14 AM
Quote from: "beast"
This is the Flat Earth Society.  We proclaim that the Earth is flat.  If you come to our society telling us that we are wrong you have to be able to prove it.



I am sick of this notion that FEtards continue to spout. Listen shitforbrains, the FET refutes over a thousand years of evidence that points to the earth being round. I'd say that as you are the ones that are saying that RE is bunk you are the ones that must put up not us.
Title: Burden of Proof
Post by: holybrain on October 18, 2006, 10:40:57 AM
Quote from: "Yardstick2006"
Quote from: "beast"
This is the Flat Earth Society.  We proclaim that the Earth is flat.  If you come to our society telling us that we are wrong you have to be able to prove it.



I am sick of this notion that FEtards continue to spout. Listen shitforbrains, the FET refutes over a thousand years of evidence that points to the earth being round. I'd say that as you are the ones that are saying that RE is bunk you are the ones that must put up not us.


Yes the FES refutes tons of evidence, but the FES isn't trying to convince anybody. You are.
Title: Burden of Proof
Post by: Unimportant on October 18, 2006, 12:15:41 PM
Quote from: "Yardstick2006"
Maybe in your warped little mind but us in the real world know that if want to 'challenge the norm.' so to speak, then you have to back it up.

Yeah, exactly; if we went out into the real world and claimed the earth was flat, it would be up to us.

We don't do that. Instead, you come into our world and accuse us of having a faulty model. You're the one accusing us, so you've got to prove your claim.
Title: Burden of Proof
Post by: phaseshifter on October 18, 2006, 09:47:17 PM
Well, this is a forum on the internet, and anyone can join. So you pretty muc hexpose yourself to this kind of thing. It was to be expected.
Title: Burden of Proof
Post by: Yardstick2006 on October 19, 2006, 01:43:53 AM
Quote from: "Unimportant"
Quote from: "Yardstick2006"
Maybe in your warped little mind but us in the real world know that if want to 'challenge the norm.' so to speak, then you have to back it up.

Yeah, exactly; if we went out into the real world and claimed the earth was flat, it would be up to us.

We don't do that. Instead, you come into our world and accuse us of having a faulty model. You're the one accusing us, so you've got to prove your claim.


Jesus Christ! YOU ARE THE ONES REFUTING EVERYTHING THAT WE THINK WE KNOW ABOUT THE EARTHS SHAPE SO YOU NEED TO BACK IT UP.


Why even make a website if you have no intention of proving your theory?
Title: Burden of Proof
Post by: holybrain on October 19, 2006, 03:13:45 AM
Quote from: "Yardstick2006"
Quote from: "Unimportant"
Quote from: "Yardstick2006"
Maybe in your warped little mind but us in the real world know that if want to 'challenge the norm.' so to speak, then you have to back it up.

Yeah, exactly; if we went out into the real world and claimed the earth was flat, it would be up to us.

We don't do that. Instead, you come into our world and accuse us of having a faulty model. You're the one accusing us, so you've got to prove your claim.


Jesus Christ! YOU ARE THE ONES REFUTING EVERYTHING THAT WE THINK WE KNOW ABOUT THE EARTHS SHAPE SO YOU NEED TO BACK IT UP.


Why even make a website if you have no intention of proving your theory?


Why join a forum when you have no intention of proving anything?
Title: Burden of Proof
Post by: Yardstick2006 on October 19, 2006, 10:28:30 AM
Because the earth is round.
Title: Burden of Proof
Post by: GeoGuy on October 19, 2006, 10:49:56 AM
Prove it.
Title: Burden of Proof
Post by: Dioptimus Drime on October 19, 2006, 11:06:02 AM
Quote from: "phaseshifter"
Well, this is a forum on the internet, and anyone can join. So you pretty muc hexpose yourself to this kind of thing. It was to be expected.

No, no. It's not that we aren't expecting people to come in and attempt to refute it. The point was simply that you ARE coming in here trying to prove it. This is such a SIMPLE concept, why do you guys not get it? If this was "The Round Earth Society" and a bunch of guys who believed the Earth was flat, THEN we would need to prove our case, but it's the FLAT Earth society, hence you, who disagree with the ideas of the people here, YOU have to prove US wrong.
Is it that hard to understand? Honestly...


~D-Draw
Title: Burden of Proof
Post by: Unimportant on October 19, 2006, 02:13:26 PM
Quote from: "Yardstick2006"
Jesus Christ! YOU ARE THE ONES REFUTING EVERYTHING THAT WE THINK WE KNOW ABOUT THE EARTHS SHAPE SO YOU NEED TO BACK IT UP.

Please tell me that you realize I could say the exact same thing to you.

Of course if you realized that you wouldn't have posted, so I don't know what to think.
Title: Burden of Proof
Post by: Yardstick2006 on October 20, 2006, 09:51:52 AM
Quote from: "DiegoDraw"
Quote from: "phaseshifter"
Well, this is a forum on the internet, and anyone can join. So you pretty muc hexpose yourself to this kind of thing. It was to be expected.

No, no. It's not that we aren't expecting people to come in and attempt to refute it. The point was simply that you ARE coming in here trying to prove it. This is such a SIMPLE concept, why do you guys not get it? If this was "The Round Earth Society" and a bunch of guys who believed the Earth was flat, THEN we would need to prove our case, but it's the FLAT Earth society, hence you, who disagree with the ideas of the people here, YOU have to prove US wrong.
Is it that hard to understand? Honestly...


~D-Draw


No penguinface, if you say the earth is flat YOU have to back it up with proof and not heresay dbaced on what some Bible thumping retard thinks.
Title: Burden of Proof
Post by: Dioptimus Drime on October 20, 2006, 11:40:41 AM
Quote from: "Yardstick2006"
No penguinface, if you say the earth is flat YOU have to back it up with proof and not heresay dbaced on what some Bible thumping retard thinks.

Why is that? I could just as well say that if you say the Earth is round, so YOU have to back it up with proof. Just because the Round Earth Model is more generally accepted by the public doesn't mean that it's the one generally accepted in this society.

Also, I don't believe in the Bible. ;)

~D-DRaw
Title: Burden of Proof
Post by: CrimsonKing on October 20, 2006, 03:01:56 PM
Diego is correct, Us FErs, have what we believe, you have what you believe, now, this seems simple enough, but then you go on to try to say that we are wrong, so the burden of proof is on you
Title: Burden of Proof
Post by: phaseshifter on October 20, 2006, 04:20:16 PM
Quote from: "DiegoDraw"

No, no. It's not that we aren't expecting people to come in and attempt to refute it. The point was simply that you ARE coming in here trying to prove it. This is such a SIMPLE concept, why do you guys not get it? If this was "The Round Earth Society" and a bunch of guys who believed the Earth was flat, THEN we would need to prove our case, but it's the FLAT Earth society, hence you, who disagree with the ideas of the people here, YOU have to prove US wrong.
Is it that hard to understand? Honestly...


~D-Draw


When you make a website, or anything else for that matter (cult, religion political party, clan, discussion group ect.)

People will expect you to be able to prove that your point of view is not bullshit.

Ex:. People go into a cardgame forum and ask, "Hey guys, show me why you think Vampiric dragon is not a tournament worthy card" and people will explain with playtests results and game theory why it isn't.

You go into a fighting game forum and ask, "hey guys, show me why you think that SNK games are better than Capcom ones" People will show, through movies, game theory, per characte option and character balancing what their point of view is based on, and why it is valid.

Same thing with anything else. They won't go "no sir, you came to our site, we're not showing anything to you, YOU show us that Card X, or game X is not what we say it is. That would be seen as snobish to most people and would just alienate newcomers.

It's not realistic to think that people will come to your forum and NOT expect you to prove that your point of view is valid.
Title: Burden of Proof
Post by: holybrain on October 20, 2006, 08:27:22 PM
Quote from: "phaseshifter"
Quote from: "DiegoDraw"

No, no. It's not that we aren't expecting people to come in and attempt to refute it. The point was simply that you ARE coming in here trying to prove it. This is such a SIMPLE concept, why do you guys not get it? If this was "The Round Earth Society" and a bunch of guys who believed the Earth was flat, THEN we would need to prove our case, but it's the FLAT Earth society, hence you, who disagree with the ideas of the people here, YOU have to prove US wrong.
Is it that hard to understand? Honestly...


~D-Draw


When you make a website, or anything else for that matter (cult, religion political party, clan, discussion group ect.)

People will expect you to be able to prove that your point of view is not bullshit.

Ex:. People go into a cardgame forum and ask, "Hey guys, show me why you think Vampiric dragon is not a tournament worthy card" and people will explain with playtests results and game theory why it isn't.

You go into a fighting game forum and ask, "hey guys, show me why you think that SNK games are better than Capcom ones" People will show, through movies, game theory, per characte option and character balancing what their point of view is based on, and why it is valid.

Same thing with anything else. They won't go "no sir, you came to our site, we're not showing anything to you, YOU show us that Card X, or game X is not what we say it is. That would be seen as snobish to most people and would just alienate newcomers.

It's not realistic to think that people will come to your forum and NOT expect you to prove that your point of view is valid.


This is just cut and paste from the Earth is a Cube topic. Give some ORIGINAL arguments.
Title: Burden of Proof
Post by: holybrain on October 20, 2006, 08:52:22 PM
Since phaseshifter can use cut and paste, I will too. Here's phaseshifter's post again.

Quote from: "phaseshifter"
Quote from: "DiegoDraw"

No, no. It's not that we aren't expecting people to come in and attempt to refute it. The point was simply that you ARE coming in here trying to prove it. This is such a SIMPLE concept, why do you guys not get it? If this was "The Round Earth Society" and a bunch of guys who believed the Earth was flat, THEN we would need to prove our case, but it's the FLAT Earth society, hence you, who disagree with the ideas of the people here, YOU have to prove US wrong.
Is it that hard to understand? Honestly...


~D-Draw


When you make a website, or anything else for that matter (cult, religion political party, clan, discussion group ect.)

People will expect you to be able to prove that your point of view is not bullshit.

Ex:. People go into a cardgame forum and ask, "Hey guys, show me why you think Vampiric dragon is not a tournament worthy card" and people will explain with playtests results and game theory why it isn't.

You go into a fighting game forum and ask, "hey guys, show me why you think that SNK games are better than Capcom ones" People will show, through movies, game theory, per characte option and character balancing what their point of view is based on, and why it is valid.

Same thing with anything else. They won't go "no sir, you came to our site, we're not showing anything to you, YOU show us that Card X, or game X is not what we say it is. That would be seen as snobish to most people and would just alienate newcomers.

It's not realistic to think that people will come to your forum and NOT expect you to prove that your point of view is valid.


And now here's D-Draw's response to it.

Quote from: "DiegoDraw"
Quote from: "Earthisround99"
If you come here with a theory that differentiates from The Flat Earth Theory, then you are the accusers, meaning you have to prove us wrong. Any other attempts at logic don't even make sense. Durr.


I did present proof in my FAQ. You the one who hasn't shown me anything to warrant that the earth is not a cube.


You answered questions, but you didn't manage to present any evidence. And, you forget the fact that I DID prove to you that the Earth is not a cube; you just happened to bypass that part.

Quote from: "phaseshifter"
When you make a website, or anything else for that matter (cult, religion political party, clan, discussion group ect.)

People will expect you to be able to prove that your point of view is not bullshit.

Again, you are thinking incorrectly, especially in your examples.

Quote

Ex:. People go into a cardgame forum and ask, "Hey guys, show me why you think Vampiric dragon is not a tournament worthy card" and people will explain with playtests results and game theory why it isn't.

That's not a valid example. The CORRECT way to put that example would be: You go into a Vampiric Dragon tournament forum and tell them that it is not a tournament-worthy card. Obviously, they're going to ask you why you think that, and you are in the position where you have to prove it.

Quote

You go into a fighting game forum and ask, "hey guys, show me why you think that SNK games are better than Capcom ones" People will show, through movies, game theory, per characte option and character balancing what their point of view is based on, and why it is valid.

Again, you're incorrect. Corrected example: You go into an SNK game forum and tell them that you think that Capcom is better. They ask why, and you're required to prove that Capcom is better.

Quote

Same thing with anything else. They won't go "no sir, you came to our site, we're not showing anything to you, YOU show us that Card X, or game X is not what we say it is.

We don't say that we aren't going to show you anything, but if you're going to come and say, "You're wrong" and then leave, what's the point of proving anything?

Quote

That would be seen as snobish to most people and would just alienate newcomers.
:lol:
Alienate newcomers...Don't want to alienate those aliens, hm?

Quote

It's not realistic to think that people will come to your forum and NOT expect you to prove that your point of view is valid. Even if it was, calling people morons would not be a good way of doing that either.

We do prove our point of view, but you have to give us something to prove, otherwise we can't prove a damned thing. Basically, the only way to counter you coming and saying, "The Earth is round" would be for us to say, "Nope, the Earth is flat." But hey, you guys aren't happy with that either. The point isn't for us to NOT prove our point EVER, it's that in order for us to DO so, you have to bring up the issues, and tell us what's wrong FIRST, otherwise we're stuck in a cycle of argument that is just plainly illogical.

Honest to God, what part of this completely logical concept do you guys not understand. IT'S SIMPLE! Freaking Christ...


~D-Draw


Now your post has been refuted again.
Title: Burden of Proof
Post by: Yardstick2006 on October 21, 2006, 09:02:36 AM
Quote from: "phaseshifter"
Quote from: "DiegoDraw"

No, no. It's not that we aren't expecting people to come in and attempt to refute it. The point was simply that you ARE coming in here trying to prove it. This is such a SIMPLE concept, why do you guys not get it? If this was "The Round Earth Society" and a bunch of guys who believed the Earth was flat, THEN we would need to prove our case, but it's the FLAT Earth society, hence you, who disagree with the ideas of the people here, YOU have to prove US wrong.
Is it that hard to understand? Honestly...


~D-Draw


When you make a website, or anything else for that matter (cult, religion political party, clan, discussion group ect.)

People will expect you to be able to prove that your point of view is not bullshit.

Ex:. People go into a cardgame forum and ask, "Hey guys, show me why you think Vampiric dragon is not a tournament worthy card" and people will explain with playtests results and game theory why it isn't.

You go into a fighting game forum and ask, "hey guys, show me why you think that SNK games are better than Capcom ones" People will show, through movies, game theory, per characte option and character balancing what their point of view is based on, and why it is valid.

Same thing with anything else. They won't go "no sir, you came to our site, we're not showing anything to you, YOU show us that Card X, or game X is not what we say it is. That would be seen as snobish to most people and would just alienate newcomers.

It's not realistic to think that people will come to your forum and NOT expect you to prove that your point of view is valid.


FES, you just got pwned.
Title: Burden of Proof
Post by: holybrain on October 21, 2006, 09:56:30 AM
Quote from: "Yardstick2006"
Quote from: "phaseshifter"
Quote from: "DiegoDraw"

No, no. It's not that we aren't expecting people to come in and attempt to refute it. The point was simply that you ARE coming in here trying to prove it. This is such a SIMPLE concept, why do you guys not get it? If this was "The Round Earth Society" and a bunch of guys who believed the Earth was flat, THEN we would need to prove our case, but it's the FLAT Earth society, hence you, who disagree with the ideas of the people here, YOU have to prove US wrong.
Is it that hard to understand? Honestly...


~D-Draw


When you make a website, or anything else for that matter (cult, religion political party, clan, discussion group ect.)

People will expect you to be able to prove that your point of view is not bullshit.

Ex:. People go into a cardgame forum and ask, "Hey guys, show me why you think Vampiric dragon is not a tournament worthy card" and people will explain with playtests results and game theory why it isn't.

You go into a fighting game forum and ask, "hey guys, show me why you think that SNK games are better than Capcom ones" People will show, through movies, game theory, per characte option and character balancing what their point of view is based on, and why it is valid.

Same thing with anything else. They won't go "no sir, you came to our site, we're not showing anything to you, YOU show us that Card X, or game X is not what we say it is. That would be seen as snobish to most people and would just alienate newcomers.

It's not realistic to think that people will come to your forum and NOT expect you to prove that your point of view is valid.


FES, you just got pwned.


YStick, did you even read D-Draw's response to this in Earth is a Cube? I quoted it here so that you would read it before making an idiotic comment. If you wish to dispute D-Draw's response, you can do so at the Earth is a Cube thread.
Title: Burden of Proof
Post by: Yardstick2006 on October 21, 2006, 11:44:42 AM
Yes, but it was stupid, you cant just set up a website saying that the earth is flat and then whine when people ask you to back it up.
Title: Burden of Proof
Post by: GeoGuy on October 21, 2006, 03:45:50 PM
I guess it's a good thing no one does that here then.
Title: Burden of Proof
Post by: phaseshifter on October 21, 2006, 07:43:14 PM
Quote
Now your post has been refuted again.

Hardly, considering. that his assumption. :

Quote
That's not a valid example. The CORRECT way to put that example would be: You go into a Vampiric Dragon tournament forum and tell them that it is not a tournament-worthy card. Obviously, they're going to ask you why you think that, and you are in the position where you have to prove it.
.

Is wrong. As can be proven by anyone going to a random forum and looking at the replies you'll get. I don't think even he beleives what he wrote to be true, it was just for the sake of disagreing. And by the way, pretty much every topic on general that question FE give reasons why they think it's bull. They don't just say, I think you guys are wrong" with nothing added.


Quote
Corrected example: You go into an SNK game forum and tell them that you think that Capcom is better. They ask why, and you're required to prove that Capcom is better.


What world do you live in? Try it if you want, people will be EAGER to show you that you're wong.

Quote
Alienate newcomers...Don't want to alienate those aliens, hm?


I'm going to assume you have no idea what the word means. As there does not seem to be a point to your sentence.

Quote
This is just cut and paste from the Earth is a Cube topic. Give some ORIGINAL arguments.


How is the fact that it was on another topic make it less pertinent? I don't follow your logic.

Like I said, try it. There are forums all over the internet.
Title: Burden of Proof
Post by: beast on October 21, 2006, 07:57:00 PM
Quote from: "phaseshifter"
Quote
Now your post has been refuted again.

Hardly, considering. that his assumption. :

Quote
That's not a valid example. The CORRECT way to put that example would be: You go into a Vampiric Dragon tournament forum and tell them that it is not a tournament-worthy card. Obviously, they're going to ask you why you think that, and you are in the position where you have to prove it.
.

Is wrong. As can be proven by anyone going to a random forum and looking at the replies you'll get. I don't think even he beleives what he wrote to be true, it was just for the sake of disagreing.


I don't know if you've noticed but we're talking about who the actual burden of proof falls upon.  There are plenty of times where the burden of proof doesn't fall on you, but you might try and prove what you're saying anyway - such as the example you gave.  That's great but it's got very little to do with what we're actually talking about - which is which side of the arguement is actually obliged to prove their statements.

If the Flat Earth Society were actually a repuatable scientific website attempting to promote to the world the fact that the Earth is actually flat then the burden of proof would definitely be on us.  However sadly that is not the case.  The Flat Earth Society makes no efforts at all to promote our views or our website.  We are not trying to convince anybody that what we say is actual literal fact.  In fact most of what we do is defend ourselves and make in-jokes at the expense of REers.  

I think it's pretty clear that if you're coming here telling us that we're wrong you have to prove why we're wrong.  If we seek you out and tell you that you're wrong we'd equally have to prove why you're wrong.




Quote

Quote
Corrected example: You go into an SNK game forum and tell them that you think that Capcom is better. They ask why, and you're required to prove that Capcom is better.


What world do you live in? Try it if you want, people will be EAGER to show you that you're wong.


It's not an issue of if they want to or not.  That's not what's being discussed.  It's an issue of who should have to prove who is wrong.


Quote

Quote
Alienate newcomers...Don't want to alienate those aliens, hm?


I'm going to assume you have no idea what the word means. As there does not seem to be a point to your sentence.


I'm going to assume you have no sense of humour since clearly that's an attempt at a joke.
Title: Burden of Proof
Post by: phaseshifter on October 21, 2006, 08:11:12 PM
Quote
I don't know if you've noticed but we're talking about who the actual burden of proof falls upon. There are plenty of times where the burden of proof doesn't fall on you,


read the previous replies beast. it was stated that the burden of proof falls on us  by default because it's not our forum. You don't need to take my word for it, just read it for yourself. That IS what was being discussed.
Title: Burden of Proof
Post by: beast on October 21, 2006, 08:18:20 PM
Yeah exactly - I don't understand what your point is or how it relates to my quote.

When I said "you" I didn't mean "you when you're on this forum" - I mean that in other discussions generally the burden of proof won't always fall on a general "you".  And in fact you totally took that comment out of context because the point I was making was that there are times when a person doesn't have the burden of proof but tries to prove their point anyway.
Title: Burden of Proof
Post by: Yardstick2006 on October 22, 2006, 11:19:59 AM
Quote from: "GeoGay"
I guess it's a good thing no one does that here then.



Only in your twisted little mind.  :lol: