The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: savagepilot on December 05, 2017, 04:43:19 PM

Title: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: savagepilot on December 05, 2017, 04:43:19 PM
Imagine a hermit living in a steep valley.  He, although could easily be She, has never left the valley, never received a formal education, and has never been told of the existence of anything beyond the valley.  Ask this person to draw a map of the world ("world" not being synonymous with "earth" but rather the world of his experience.)  This person will draw something that probably looks like a bowl.  "I see with my eyes the ground sloping up all around me.  Therefore, the world is shaped like this bowl I eat my breakfast from."

I see no difference between this extreme example and someone saying "The world looks flat to me, therefore the world IS flat."  The following thread

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=73039.0 (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=73039.0)

has been pretty much devoted to totallackey saying "I see a flat earth therefore the earth is flat," JackBlack says, "no it isn't," totallackey says "yes it is..." and so on.  Much of the FE proponents use this observational evidence as proof of a flat earth.  "The Bonneville Salt Flats sure look flat to me, so the earth is flat.  It even says so in the name."

I will be quite honest:  if my experience had been growing up in and never leaving Kansas, then I might easily come to the same conclusion.  The world is flat because I can SEE no evidence to the contrary.  Fortunately, we have the experiences of others to draw upon, we have math like trigonometry that demonstrate, based on sun angles and distances, that the world cannot possibly flat.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=73074.0 (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=73074.0)

I am intelligent enough to defer to their experience, which is wider than my own.  And then I gain my own experiences, which corroborate everything I have been told growing up.  I can clearly see the sun dip below the horizon of the ocean on a clear evening.  I can clearly see how Polaris is below the horizon when I fly in the southern hemisphere.  I can clearly see the round shape of the earth's shadow on the full moon during a lunar eclipse, something ordinary in a RE model and unexplainable in any FE model I have seen.

Now, as an airline pilot, my entire career and the safety of my passengers and aircraft are predicated upon navigation on a round earth.  I have even seen irrefutable evidence with my own eyes:  In the winter, we have a flight that departs Komatsu mere minutes after sunset.  Komatsu is on the coast, so I can clearly see the sun dropping below the horizon.  The low bushes in the far distance do not interfere with the horizon more than a few arc minutes.  I line up on runway 24 (about 240 degrees magnetic heading) and depart in that same direction, towards Fukuoka.  After takeoff, I clearly see the ocean horizon; there are no clouds and no fog.  As I climb, I experience something unusual:  the sun appears to rise again.  Was this the sun reappearing from the distant fog?  Could it be that it was above the horizon the whole time and merely obscured?  I check the horizon level on my heads up display.  Nope, the sun is still below the horizon.  The earth has dipped; the edge where the ocean meets the sky is now also below the horizon, and no longer obscuring the sun.  The earth continues to drop below me, revealing more and more sky that would otherwise have been obscured by a flat earth.  This continues for a good fifteen minutes until I reach cruise altitude at 33,000 ft.  Then, even though I am chasing the sun at 550 mph, it slowly - more slowly than were I stationary - sinks again behind the earth.  All of this is happening well below the horizon according to my heads up display.  It's a "double sunset" and is quite common if you are in the right place at the right time.

So I can now state unequivocally, using exactly the same logic as totallackey:  "I have seen with my own eyes that the earth is round.  Therefore IT IS ROUND."  That doesn't make it so.  But I have mountains of evidence to back me up.
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: robintex on December 05, 2017, 05:42:07 PM
I wll inject a bit of honesty, too.
I grew up in North Central Texas which is pretty flat, to.
But we had vacationed to Galveston on several trips.
I had seen the horizon there, but again "honestly" ,  I didn't pay much attention as to the significance of it.
I guess I had just been so indoctrinated and brainwashed into thinking that that globe in the classroom was the shape of the earth.
And I don't remember studying about various projections.
So I really hadn't given any thought as to why Greenland looked so large on that map on the wall. (Which I later  learned was the Mercator Projection.)

I suppose my eyes were opened when I joined the Navy. My first experience was on a transport ship from San Francisco to Japan.
I noticed that the land gradually "sank" below the horizon, shore first, and the last thing you saw were the tops of the mountains beyond the horizon . Which proved the earth wasn't flat.

Since then I have learned a lot on this website about map projections, in particular the Azimuthal Equidistant Projection.
Also that there was a Navy Manual For Lookouts.
The higher you are, the farther you can see to the horizon.
So, although I first just accepted that the earth was a globe, I have expanded my knowledge to know why this is so.
And in retrospect, just how absurd and foolish the idea that the earth is shaped like a flat disc really is.
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: Roundie on December 06, 2017, 11:10:27 AM
Their brains are flat, not the Earth. Flat Brain Theory
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: totallackey on December 06, 2017, 12:58:05 PM
Imagine a hermit living in a steep valley.  He, although could easily be She, has never left the valley, never received a formal education, and has never been told of the existence of anything beyond the valley.  Ask this person to draw a map of the world ("world" not being synonymous with "earth" but rather the world of his experience.)  This person will draw something that probably looks like a bowl.  "I see with my eyes the ground sloping up all around me.  Therefore, the world is shaped like this bowl I eat my breakfast from."

I see no difference between this extreme example and someone saying "The world looks flat to me, therefore the world IS flat."  The following thread

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=73039.0 (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=73039.0)

has been pretty much devoted to totallackey saying "I see a flat earth therefore the earth is flat," JackBlack says, "no it isn't," totallackey says "yes it is..." and so on.  Much of the FE proponents use this observational evidence as proof of a flat earth.  "The Bonneville Salt Flats sure look flat to me, so the earth is flat.  It even says so in the name."

I will be quite honest:  if my experience had been growing up in and never leaving Kansas, then I might easily come to the same conclusion.  The world is flat because I can SEE no evidence to the contrary.  Fortunately, we have the experiences of others to draw upon, we have math like trigonometry that demonstrate, based on sun angles and distances, that the world cannot possibly flat.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=73074.0 (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=73074.0)

I am intelligent enough to defer to their experience, which is wider than my own.  And then I gain my own experiences, which corroborate everything I have been told growing up.  I can clearly see the sun dip below the horizon of the ocean on a clear evening.  I can clearly see how Polaris is below the horizon when I fly in the southern hemisphere.  I can clearly see the round shape of the earth's shadow on the full moon during a lunar eclipse, something ordinary in a RE model and unexplainable in any FE model I have seen.

Now, as an airline pilot, my entire career and the safety of my passengers and aircraft are predicated upon navigation on a round earth.  I have even seen irrefutable evidence with my own eyes:  In the winter, we have a flight that departs Komatsu mere minutes after sunset.  Komatsu is on the coast, so I can clearly see the sun dropping below the horizon.  The low bushes in the far distance do not interfere with the horizon more than a few arc minutes.  I line up on runway 24 (about 240 degrees magnetic heading) and depart in that same direction, towards Fukuoka.  After takeoff, I clearly see the ocean horizon; there are no clouds and no fog.  As I climb, I experience something unusual:  the sun appears to rise again.  Was this the sun reappearing from the distant fog?  Could it be that it was above the horizon the whole time and merely obscured?  I check the horizon level on my heads up display.  Nope, the sun is still below the horizon.  The earth has dipped; the edge where the ocean meets the sky is now also below the horizon, and no longer obscuring the sun.  The earth continues to drop below me, revealing more and more sky that would otherwise have been obscured by a flat earth.  This continues for a good fifteen minutes until I reach cruise altitude at 33,000 ft.  Then, even though I am chasing the sun at 550 mph, it slowly - more slowly than were I stationary - sinks again behind the earth.  All of this is happening well below the horizon according to my heads up display.  It's a "double sunset" and is quite common if you are in the right place at the right time.

So I can now state unequivocally, using exactly the same logic as totallackey:  "I have seen with my own eyes that the earth is round.  Therefore IT IS ROUND."  That doesn't make it so.  But I have mountains of evidence to back me up.
tl:dr

There is huge difference in declaring something to be a fact and something to be a current state of thinking.
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: rabinoz on December 06, 2017, 05:43:57 PM
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
So I can now state unequivocally, using exactly the same logic as totallackey:  "I have seen with my own eyes that the earth is round.  Therefore IT IS ROUND."  That doesn't make it so.  But I have mountains of evidence to back me up.
tl:dr

There is huge difference in declaring something to be a fact and something to be a current state of thinking.
I do realise that you attention span is little better than that of a goldfish, but if you didn't read it why comment?

So sorry, but I cannot find just where savagepilot declared anything "to be a current state of thinking".
Maybe I didn't read it thoroughly enough either.

But he did claim personal evidence that
    "I have seen with my own eyes that the earth is round. Therefore IT IS ROUND."
then admit "That doesn't make it so" but claims "I have mountains of evidence to back me up."

And on the topic, I have no problem with, "it looks flat" because the horizon from all but quite high altitudes looks quite flat
but it is most certainly a fallacy to that the claim "so it is flat" follows from that.

Railroad tracks look as though they meet in the distance, but because we can travel to that distant point and see that they don't.
Likewise, the low altitude horizon "looks flat" but get high enough and we can see that the horizon is flat.
Even at 70,000 ft it is not far from being flat, but it there is a little curve:
(http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/atmos/atmpic/bluesky70000.jpg)
This is an outstanding image of the blue sky and its extent
relative to the diameter of the Earth.

It was taken from a U.S. Air Force U-2 craft at about 70,000 feet.
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: realNarcberry on December 07, 2017, 09:43:36 AM
This thread is an absurd strawman. Nobody thinks the earth is flat just because someone thinks it looks that way.

You can measure it, and easily so. Please see my signature for more details.
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: ItsRoundIPromise on December 07, 2017, 10:43:04 AM
This thread is an absurd strawman. Nobody thinks the earth is flat just because someone thinks it looks that way.
It's not a straw man.  I have seen this exact argument presented in earnest several times in the few short months I have been reading here.

Post #4 from this thread: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72513.msg1974847#msg1974847

is one that I was able to find quickly, but I know there have been other incidents from other posters as well. 

You may not value the argument, but it is being made and therefore not a straw man.   
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: realNarcberry on December 07, 2017, 10:47:36 AM
I believe in data.

When you measure the earth, it's surface is flat. Again, and again, and again.

You can do it yourself with a level and a flat board. Just level the board against the acceleration of the earth, then move the board and do it again. Each time, you'll find that the board will stay level so long as you keep it planar to the previous measurement.
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: JackBlack on December 07, 2017, 11:45:09 AM
This thread is an absurd strawman. Nobody thinks the earth is flat just because someone thinks it looks that way.

You can measure it, and easily so. Please see my signature for more details.
It is not a strawman. This "argument" is used repeatedly by FEers.
But yes, you can measure it, fairly easily. Guess what? The measurements show it is round.

When you measure the earth, it's surface is flat. Again, and again, and again.
Nope. When measured on the small scale you will find there are mountains and hills and the like. Ignoring them and focusing on the local level, you find it indistinguishable from either a flat surface or a round surface, because you cannot tell the difference.

You can do it yourself with a level and a flat board. Just level the board against the acceleration of the earth, then move the board and do it again. Each time, you'll find that the board will stay level so long as you keep it planar to the previous measurement.
And what error do you have?
This is one of the times you can't tell the difference.
If your boards were 1 km long then the change in angle between the boards (assuming Earth was round and you magically kept the boards perfectly flat) would be roughly 0.009 degrees.
If you were to use a more reasonable size, like 10 m, the angle between the boards would be 0.00009 degrees.
That is already getting almost impossible to detect, and you have the issue of making sure your boards remain flat rather than warp ever so slightly.

So how about you try providing a method which can actually distinguish between a flat and round Earth?

Also it wouldn't be level with Earth's acceleration.
This is another thing that can be measured. What would amount to acceleration in your argument varies based upon location. In some locations the acceleration would be higher, in others it would be lower. This also has a decent correlation to latitude (or distance from the equator). It is lowest at the equator at roughly 9.78 m/s^2 and highest at the poles at 9.83 m/s^2.
This difference might seem small (0.05 m/s^2), but over the course of a day that would mean a speed difference of 4320 m/s, or 4.32 km/s.

So if this really was the acceleration of Earth, Earth would be tearing itself apart.
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: realNarcberry on December 07, 2017, 12:27:50 PM
It's a simple test you can do yourself, but instead you assume a round earth and assert the measurements it predicts. Look at the round-earther subverting the test, as usual.

ANOTHER VICTORY FOR FE!!!
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: JackBlack on December 07, 2017, 12:56:27 PM
It's a simple test you can do yourself, but instead you assume a round earth and assert the measurements it predicts. Look at the round-earther subverting the test, as usual.

ANOTHER VICTORY FOR FE!!!
No, another complete failure and pathetic deflection.

Yes, it is a simple test, about as simple as just figuring out which way down is.
So what?
IT PROVES NOTHING!

Pointing out your test is useless is not subverting it.

You do not have the required accuracy to determine if Earth is round or flat from your test.

A such, claiming your test shows Earth is flat is just as dishonest as claiming it shows Earth is round.
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: realNarcberry on December 07, 2017, 12:57:22 PM
as dishonest as claiming it shows Earth is round.

ANOTHER VICTORY FOR FE!!!
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: Curious Squirrel on December 07, 2017, 12:58:14 PM
It's a simple test you can do yourself, but instead you assume a round earth and assert the measurements it predicts. Look at the round-earther subverting the test, as usual.

ANOTHER VICTORY FOR FE!!!
He's not subverting the test. He's telling you the RE predictions of the angle differences. You should be starting with those if you're attempting this in good faith. Calling them 'subverting the test' simply shows you have decided the outcome before you began. But I'm about 90% you're just a very poor troll at this point.
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: JackBlack on December 07, 2017, 01:12:02 PM
as dishonest as claiming it shows Earth is round.

ANOTHER VICTORY FOR FE!!!
Nope.
Ignoring the first half of the sentence doesn't make it false.
It would be dishonest to claim that your experiment shows Earth is round.
But no one here is claiming that.
So you have just another pathetic strawman victory.
Meanwhile, you are claiming that your experiment can show Earth is flat.
But your experiment can't show that and claiming it does is just as dishonest as claiming it shows Earth is round.

So no, not another FE victory, another failure of the FEers.
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: realNarcberry on December 07, 2017, 01:12:57 PM
is just as dishonest as claiming it shows Earth is round.

Well we definitely agree.
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: JackBlack on December 07, 2017, 01:19:45 PM
is just as dishonest as claiming it shows Earth is round.

Well we definitely agree.
Good, that means you agree that your test is useless to determine the shape of Earth.
If it wasn't you would disagree and claim it is more honest to claim that the test shows Earth is flat than to claim it shows Earth is round (or the opposite, that it being round is the more honest conclusion).

Thanks for admitting your test is useless to determine the shape of Earth.
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: Username on December 07, 2017, 01:20:04 PM
Unfortunately for the OP, trigonometry actually shows us a flat earth.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ch4f9PQWwAEvpSL.jpg:large)
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: JackBlack on December 07, 2017, 02:02:23 PM
Unfortunately for the OP, trigonometry actually shows us a flat earth.
No it doesn't.
The trigonometry used in your pathetic image can't distinguish between them.
The image on the left does not show it to scale as it does not show the sun 150 000 000 km away.
However, the results obtained from reality do match that 150 000 000 km distant sun and a round Earth.

The right hand side just blatantly lies.
It starts with the assumption that Earth is flat.

With the symmetry between the 2 points used, and with that many degrees of freedom, you are unable to distinguish between the models using that data. (even with the known distance between the points)
You can have the sun significantly lower, with Earth being concave, then as the sun rises (i.e. gets further away from the point on the equator) the size of Earth increases (more technically the effective radius) until it becomes flat.
Then as you continue having the sun rise, the Earth becomes convex, starting out with an infinite effective and shrinking.

So no, using just those 3 points, even with the distance between them, you cannot determine the shape of Earth.

But the really killer is that it also completely ignores other points. (i.e. other locations where you can observe the apparent location of the sun).
These are points that are needed to be able to actually determine the shape.
At the poles the sun is observed at 0 degrees then.
Notice how that matches a RE, but not a FE.
If you put in other angles, like this image from RAB:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/bwsca1wpyi07oy0/Sun%20Height%20on%20Flat%20Earth%20along%2070degW%20Long.png?dl=1)
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/l7rw2y5ylddm7xx/Sun%20Height%20on%20Globe%20Earth%20along%2070degW%20Long.jpg?dl=1)
you clearly see FE does not match, a RE with a distant sun does.
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: realNarcberry on December 07, 2017, 02:04:53 PM
it is more honest to claim that the test shows Earth is flat than to claim it shows Earth is round

Now you're coming around.
ANOTHER VICTORY FOR FE!!!
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: JackBlack on December 07, 2017, 02:34:44 PM
Earth is round
Hey look, I can do that quote mining BS as well.

Thanks for admitting Earth is round.
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: realNarcberry on December 07, 2017, 02:47:05 PM
Anyone can click your link and expose you as a liar. My links are to quotes of you saying exactly what was quoted.

Please have some respect on these boards or people wont want to debate with you.
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: rabinoz on December 07, 2017, 03:02:13 PM
Earth is round
Hey look, I can do that quote mining BS as well.

Thanks for admitting Earth is round.
Well, surprise, surprise, his "personal text" is Reason > RET.
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: JackBlack on December 08, 2017, 01:49:41 AM
Anyone can click your link and expose you as a liar. My links are to quotes of you saying exactly what was quoted.
Similarly anyone can click your link and expose you as a liar.
You are quote mining me, taking what I say completely out of context to completely change the meaning.

Quoting a quote in your post as if you said it is no more dishonest than taking something I have said completely out of context to pretend I said something which meant something completely different.

Please have some respect on these boards or people wont want to debate with you.
Follow your own advice.
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: rabinoz on December 08, 2017, 05:22:34 AM
Good, that means you agree that your test is useless to determine the shape of Earth.
If it wasn't you would disagree and claim

it is more honest to claim that the test shows Earth is flat than to claim it shows Earth is round
(or the opposite, that it being round is the more honest conclusion).

Thanks for admitting your test is useless to determine the shape of Earth.

Now you're coming around.
ANOTHER VICTORY FOR THE FE!!!
ANOTHER VICTORY FOR DECEPTION FROM THE FE!!!
You seemed to have inadvertently omitted some of the quote so I kindly fixed it for you!
ANOTHER implicit LIE FROM Flat Earthers!!!
I guess lies are the only way to prop up your pathetic pancake planet.

Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: realNarcberry on December 08, 2017, 09:32:12 AM
If you're just going to be calling us liars, how can we truly have an honest debate?
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: Curious Squirrel on December 08, 2017, 09:34:00 AM
If you're just going to be calling us liars, how can we truly have an honest debate?
You haven't been debating honestly from the start, why worry about it now?
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: JackBlack on December 08, 2017, 12:06:35 PM
If you're just going to be calling us liars, how can we truly have an honest debate?
You are yet to debate.
So far all you have been doing is spouting a bunch of baseless claims which have easily been refuted, and lying about people.
Notice how he didn't just call you a liar?
He explained why you were one.

I made a simple statement, of the form:
If A then B.
Prior to that I made it clear that I did not agree with A.

Yet you blatantly misrepresented it and pretended I just said B, and even said that I was coming around, i.e. indicating I agreed with B.
That is lying.

If you don't want to be called a liar, stop being so dishonest.
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: realNarcberry on December 08, 2017, 12:22:03 PM
What is A and B in your little example?
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: JackBlack on December 08, 2017, 12:57:24 PM
What is A and B in your little example?
In context that is quite clear.

My original statement:
Good, that means you agree that your test is useless to determine the shape of Earth.
If it wasn't you would disagree and claim
it is more honest to claim that the test shows Earth is flat than to claim it shows Earth is round.

So to simplify:
If A (it wasn't = your test is useless to determine the shape of Earth, which in more context really means if your test actually showed that Earth is flat) then B (is more honest to claim that the test shows Earth is flat than to claim it shows Earth is round, or more simply, your test shows that Earth is flat).

Have I ever indicated (in context, i.e. without quote mining me) that your test shows Earth is flat? No.
Yet you manipulated my words (by quote mining me) to pretend I said that.
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: realNarcberry on December 08, 2017, 01:19:32 PM
Several of my tests have, actually.
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: rabinoz on December 08, 2017, 01:22:50 PM
If you're just going to be calling us liars, how can we truly have an honest debate?
If you are going to implicitly lie by deceptive and out of context quoting we truly CANNOT have an honest debate.

Not only this but flat earthers accuse many hundreds of thousands and possibly millions of implicitly lying about the true shape of the earth.
So don't you dare try to take the high ground when it comes to accusations of lying.

Have you read the Flat Earth Society's statement on "Place of the Conspiracy in FET"?
Just look it up in "the Wiki" and find that any personally unverifiable evidence that contradicts the FET must be fabricated!
Look at this:
Quote
Place of the Conspiracy in FET
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The existence of such a huge quantity of false information indicates the existence of the conspiracy.

Essentially the reasoning boils down to -

P1) If personally unverifiable evidence contradicts an obvious truth then the evidence is fabricated
P2) The FET (Flat Earth Theory) is an obvious truth
P3) There is personally unverifiable evidence that contradicts the FET

C1) The unverifiable evidence that contradicts the FET is fabricated evidence
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
From THE FLAT EARTH Wiki, Place of the Conspiracy in FET. (http://theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Place+of+the+Conspiracy+in+FET)

It clearly states "The FET (Flat Earth Theory) is an obvious truth" and "If personally unverifiable evidence contradicts an obvious truth then the evidence is fabricated".

Even if I claim to have personally verifiable evidence and that evidence is not personally verifiable by any flat earth believer I am guilty of presenting fabricated evidence, that is lying!

So it is supposed to be acceptable for flat earthers to accuse all 70 or more space agencies of lying about the thousands of satellites in orbit, but a flat earther - YOU - lying by decettfully misquoting is allowable.

Flat earthers simply do not want any contrary evidence verified, because that would destroy The flat earth myth (https://creation.com/flat-earth-myth).
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: rabinoz on December 08, 2017, 01:26:02 PM
Several of my tests have, actually.
Elucidate please! Bald meaningless statements like that are worthless.

And no link to something totally stupid like oceans weighing nothing.
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: realNarcberry on December 08, 2017, 02:08:52 PM
totally stupid like oceans weighing nothing.

Uh, that's exactly what they weigh in water.
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: rabinoz on December 08, 2017, 05:55:00 PM
totally stupid like oceans weighing nothing.

Uh, that's exactly what they weigh in water.
So what!
Who cares what the oceans weigh in water? That is totally irrelevant!

It is what the oceans weigh in the seabed, composed of rocks, sand, dirt etc that matters.

But it would make little difference in your silly argument whether the oceans were held in place by gravitation (as they are) or UA.
Over a small region gravitation and UA would be indistinguishable.

Did you play hookey when that was covered in your Flat Earth Indoctrination 101 course?
Naughty, naughty - you'll never make a good flatularist if you don't remember your Flat Earth Indoctrination.
I do appreciate that much is hard to remember because it makes so little sense, but the flat earth makes no sense anyway!

And no answer to:
Several of my tests have, actually.
Elucidate please! Bald meaningless statements like that are worthless.
Not even a link to any evidence.
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: JackBlack on December 08, 2017, 08:09:24 PM
Several of my tests have, actually.
Care to provide a single example?
Remember, to show it is flat you need to be able to distinguish between flat and round.

Uh, that's exactly what they weigh in water.
No, they don't.
You can't have an ocean in water.
If you do, it simply means the ocean is bigger.
The ocean needs to be in some kind of container, except for a hypothetical water planet.

What you mean (at least if you were presenting it honestly) is that for a small amount of water in the ocean the force of gravity and the force of buoyancy are balanced, meaning it is neutrally buoyant and wont rise or sink.
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: Harrison2901 on December 10, 2017, 01:10:59 AM
totally stupid like oceans weighing nothing.

Uh, that's exactly what they weigh in water.

What? Oceans are just massive bodies of water, how can they weigh nothing in water? Like JackBlack said putting an ocean in water would just make it a bigger. Do you understand how stupid that statement was?
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: savagepilot on December 12, 2017, 02:42:39 PM
John Davis posted a lovely diagram above.  His comment was:  "trigonometry shows us a flat earth."  Within the diagram itself, I read "More elegant is the Zetetic approach which does not assume anything" (I have no beef with that statement) and just inches to the right says "we use Zetetic method to show the TRUE context of the The Shadows of Poles in the ground.  The FLAT EARTH" (which invalidates the previous statement). It is quite clear that in Davis' diagram (and only Davis' diagram) both theories are equally valid based on the information shown.  The only way to conclude a flat earth from that diagram is to ASSUME that the earth is flat, which both violates Zetetic method and ignores the evidence posed by a globe earth.

Fortunately, JackBlack swiftly and soundly proved how inherently misleading that diagram is by providing actual observational data (known angles of the height of the sun on a given day at a given time), and mathematics that have been demonstrated, proven, and are irrefutable (a^2 + b^2 = c^2).  Even using the Zetetic method, looking at that diagram for the very first time by someone with absolutely no preconceived notions about the shape of the earth, it is impossible to see anything but evidence of a round earth.

Most of the evidence posted on this site advocating a flat earth is either misleading (like Davis' diagram above), flawed (that very strange vanishing point diagram from, what, 80 years ago? which I can't find now but will search and provide if asked), or contradictory (multiple and irreconcilable theories for what the stars are, is the moon illuminated, why meteors fall with a sideways trajectory, what causes the sun to appear to sink below the horizon... the list goes on.)

I stand by my statement:  just because the earth looks flat to you, does not mean it is flat.  And, in all fairness, it is impossible for me or anyone to discern any curve in the horizon when standing at ground level.  This is why we gather other information, such as sunsets, shadows of mountains on the underside of clouds, double sunsets like what I described in my OP, photographic evidence provided by people who have made observations we are unable to, and come to our conclusion.  The observational evidence, taken as a whole, proves that the earth is round.
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: Marvin the Martian on December 13, 2017, 12:16:16 AM
Eratosthenes (276 BC-194 BC) was a Greek mathematician, geographer and astronomer. He is noted for devising a map system based on latitude and longitude lines. Eratosthenes will always be remembered for the calculation of the Earth's circumference circa 240 BC, using trigonometry and knowledge of the angle of elevation of the Sun at noon in Alexandria.

Eratosthenes knew that on the summer solstice at local noon on the Tropic of Cancer, the Sun would appear at the zenith, directly overhead (sun elavation of 90) - though Syene was in fact slightly north of the tropic. He also knew, from using a vertical stick and measuring the cast shadow, that in his hometown of Alexandria, the angle of elevation of the Sun would be 83 or 7 south of the zenith at the same time. Assuming that Alexandria was due north of Syene - Alexandria is in fact on a more westerly longitude - he concluded, using geometry of parallel lines, that the distance from Alexandria to Syene must be 7/360 of the total circumference of the Earth. The distance between the cities was known from caravan travellings to be about 5,000 stadia. He established a final value of 700 stadia per degree, which implies a circumference of 252,000 stadia. The exact size of the stadion he used is no longer known (the common Attic stadion was about 185 m), but it is generally believed that Eratosthenes' value corresponds to between 39,690 km and 46,620 km. The circumference of the Earth around the poles is now measured at around 40,008 km. Eratosthenes result is not bad at all.

(https://media1.britannica.com/eb-media/65/465-004-9D8B1DF6.jpg)

(http://)

(http://)

(http://)



Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: savagepilot on December 13, 2017, 12:39:56 AM
By using only two points I could quite as easily say you demonstrated that the sun is 7,533 km above the flat earth. We need more points. So while Erastothenes was onto something, he began with the assumption that the earth was round.
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: Marvin the Martian on December 13, 2017, 12:55:16 PM
By using only two points I could quite as easily say you demonstrated that the sun is 7,533 km above the flat earth. We need more points. So while Erastothenes was onto something, he began with the assumption that the earth was round.

Two sticks are used to demonstrate his experiment but his version was a little more than that. He was able to tell the Sun was directly overhead because of the shadow in the well. In the flat earth model the Sun circles the pizza shaped Earth like a spotlight shining down.

Either it proves a round Earth or it proves the FE model is inaccurate...
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: JackBlack on December 13, 2017, 01:50:28 PM
Two sticks are used to demonstrate his experiment but his version was a little more than that. He was able to tell the Sun was directly overhead because of the shadow in the well. In the flat earth model the Sun circles the pizza shaped Earth like a spotlight shining down.

Either it proves a round Earth or it proves the FE model is inaccurate...
Yes, 2 sticks are used to demonstrate his experiment.
But when just using 2 (or 3 in a symmetric arrangement) you rely upon the assumption that Earth is round and the sun is far away.
The experiment itself (in isolation) works equally well when assuming a flat Earth with a close sun.
It also works with a round Earth and close sun and an inside out Earth and close sun.

There are not enough data to determine the model unambiguously.

it is like asking you to solve:
x+y=5.
There is no definitive solution. As you change one variable, the others change as well.

As such, it does not prove a round Earth or prove FE inaccurate.
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: Marvin the Martian on December 14, 2017, 01:39:27 PM
Yes, 2 sticks are used to demonstrate his experiment.
But when just using 2 (or 3 in a symmetric arrangement) you rely upon the assumption that Earth is round and the sun is far away.
The experiment itself (in isolation) works equally well when assuming a flat Earth with a close sun.
It also works with a round Earth and close sun and an inside out Earth and close sun.

There are not enough data to determine the model unambiguously.

it is like asking you to solve:
x+y=5.
There is no definitive solution. As you change one variable, the others change as well.

As such, it does not prove a round Earth or prove FE inaccurate.

You have no clue what you are talking about. Eratosthenes experiment was used to measure the circumference of the Earth not the curvature. His formula can be used on any size sphere, watch the video below. His measurement of the Earth was within 0.5 to 17 percent, he measured in stadia and those units changed over time.

(http://)

Quote
Eratosthenes of Cyrene, (born c. 276 BCE, Cyrene, Libyadied c. 194 BCE, Alexandria, Egypt), Greek scientific writer, astronomer, and poet, who made the first measurement of the size of Earth for which any details are known. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Eratosthenes
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: JackBlack on December 14, 2017, 01:48:18 PM
You have no clue what you are talking about. Eratosthenes experiment was used to measure the circumference of the Earth not the curvature.
No, I do know what I am talking about, and you seem to have no way to object.
His method was based upon the sun being very far away and Earth being round.
The same measurements can be used under different assumptions (that Earth is flat and the sun is near) to show the sun is a few thousand km above Earth.

2 points is not enough to prove either way.

IT DOES NOT PROVE A ROUND EARTH!!!

If you think it does, provide this proof, without assuming the sun is far away or that Earth is round.
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: Marvin the Martian on December 14, 2017, 02:38:27 PM
You have no clue what you are talking about. Eratosthenes experiment was used to measure the circumference of the Earth not the curvature.
No, I do know what I am talking about, and you seem to have no way to object.
His method was based upon the sun being very far away and Earth being round.
The same measurements can be used under different assumptions (that Earth is flat and the sun is near) to show the sun is a few thousand km above Earth.

2 points is not enough to prove either way.

IT DOES NOT PROVE A ROUND EARTH!!!

If you think it does, provide this proof, without assuming the sun is far away or that Earth is round.

Actual science disproves your opinion. How can you claim it's not accurate when you are unwilling or unable to do the experiment. This video is shows how accurate the formula is and they are using the sun to measure the circumference of a table top. You lose...

One's unwillingness or inability to do the experiment doesn't discount the experiments of others.

(http://)
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: JackBlack on December 14, 2017, 03:17:32 PM
Actual science disproves your opinion.
Then why don't you provide some of this actual science which disproves that fact?

The simple fact is his experiment did not have enough measurements to prove Earth is round.
If you wish to disagree, PROVE IT!

This video is shows how accurate the formula is and they are using the sun to measure the circumference of a table top. You lose...
Nope. I'm still winning.
Notice how it assumes Earth is a sphere?
Notice how you claimed it proved Earth is a sphere.
That is what you need to show.
You need to show how this experiment proved Earth is a sphere.

Until you do so, you lose.
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: Marvin the Martian on December 14, 2017, 04:30:45 PM
Then why don't you provide some of this actual science which disproves that fact?

The simple fact is his experiment did not have enough measurements to prove Earth is round.
If you wish to disagree, PROVE IT!

Nope. I'm still winning.
Notice how it assumes Earth is a sphere?
Notice how you claimed it proved Earth is a sphere.
That is what you need to show.
You need to show how this experiment proved Earth is a sphere.

Until you do so, you lose.

Eratosthenes experiment has been tested on smaller scales and shown to be very accurate. Actually you lose by your own words...

As such, it does not prove a round Earth or prove FE inaccurate.

The important thing here is to remember it was used to measure circumference. Hmmm what is circumference???

Quote from: Merriam Webster
Definition of circumference
1 : the perimeter of a circle The circle measures 22 inches in circumference.
2 : the external boundary or surface of a figure or object : periphery from the center to the circumference of the sphere
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/circumference

I would say that proved a spherical shape. Watch this video "How Do You Calculate Circumference?" Eratosthenes experiment is used to measure the circumference of a table top.

Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: Marvin the Martian on December 14, 2017, 06:44:27 PM
Unfortunately for the OP, trigonometry actually shows us a flat earth.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ch4f9PQWwAEvpSL.jpg:large)

The Zetetic method leaves out Eratosthenes did his experiment on the Summer Solstice at local noon on the Tropic of Cancer, the Sun was at it's zenith (directly overhead).

His experiment could only be accurately recreated during the Summer Solstice. However it can be recreated accurately on a small scale. I don't think you understand the formula correctly. This video demonstrates the experiment using a table top and the results are compared to the actual measurements. You can't do the same experiment using the same table and get correct results using the Zetetic method. Try it and see then make us a video...

(http://)
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: Username on December 14, 2017, 06:56:53 PM
It is clearly a fallacy, but its still all the evidence all of us have.
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: Marvin the Martian on December 14, 2017, 07:35:52 PM
It is clearly a fallacy, but its still all the evidence all of us have.

Are you saying the Zetetic method is a fallacy? Eratosthenes's experiment has been confirmed to be accurate. It's not precise but provides the circumference of a circle within a few percent. Not bad for using a shadow and a ruler.
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: SpaceCadet on December 15, 2017, 01:43:41 AM
Marvin, lemme blow your Martian whistle here and ask for a time out. Jack isn't arguing for a flat earth from Eratosthenes's experiment. He is saying, which is correct by the way, that Erato's experiment was not designed to prove the earth is round. His experiment was to calculate the circumference of an earth he already knew to be round. So if you take his eexperiment without any previous assumptions, you can show that the earth has a circumference of 25,000 miles or that a small very small sun is at a height of 5,000 miles above a flat earth.

However, I tend to agree with you that Erato's experiment also disproves the current model of the flat earth based on AEP projection of the globed earth. With a small sun circling a flatearth, I don't see how Erato could have gotten a straight line shot into his well. I may be wrong. So will someone with a better grasp of maths and modeling check that out please.
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: JackBlack on December 15, 2017, 01:54:08 AM
Eratosthenes experiment has been tested on smaller scales and shown to be very accurate.
Yes, when you make assumptions about the shape.
It does not have enough data to determine the shape.



Actually you lose by your own words...
As such, it does not prove a round Earth or prove FE inaccurate.
The important thing here is to remember it was used to measure circumference. Hmmm what is circumference???
Nope, I still don't lose.
You are still yet to show how it proves a round Earth.
Assuming a round Earth to measure the circumference does not prove a round Earth.
Try again.

I would say that proved a spherical shape.
I would say it assumed one.
If it was to prove a spherical shape, why would it start with the assumption it was a sphere?

Try again.
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: JackBlack on December 15, 2017, 01:56:08 AM
However, I tend to agree with you that Erato's experiment also disproves the current model of the flat earth based on AEP projection of the globed earth. With a small sun circling a flatearth, I don't see how Erato could have gotten a straight line shot into his well. I may be wrong. So will someone with a better grasp of maths and modeling check that out please.
With the sun circling above you still have the same straight line down to the sub-solar point.

Where it fails is using the additional data, like further north where you end up with different sun heights under the FE model.
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: SpaceCadet on December 15, 2017, 02:06:27 AM
However, I tend to agree with you that Erato's experiment also disproves the current model of the flat earth based on AEP projection of the globed earth. With a small sun circling a flatearth, I don't see how Erato could have gotten a straight line shot into his well. I may be wrong. So will someone with a better grasp of maths and modeling check that out please.
With the sun circling above you still have the same straight line down to the sub-solar point.

Where it fails is using the additional data, like further north where you end up with different sun heights under the FE model.

Agreed. But would a small flat earth sun have been over Eratosthenes's well Syene at the particular time he did the experiment?
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: rabinoz on December 15, 2017, 02:15:13 AM
I would say that proved a spherical shape. Watch this video "How Do You Calculate Circumference?" Eratosthenes experiment is used to measure the circumference of a table top.
Firstly that measurement does not exactly replicate Eratosthenes' measurement.
Eratosthenes measured the angles at two points on the earth at the same time.
With only those two points and no other information the shadow angles could have come
          from a near sun about 6330 km (about 3940 miles) above a flat earth or
          from a very distant sun over a Globe shaped earth 40,000 km (about 24,900 miles) in circumference.
In Eratosthenes time the Globe was the accepted shape of the earth and he was simply aiming at measuring the earth's circumference.

In that video, the table is rotated, so that the distance to the light source is quite irrelevant. It uses a similar technique to Eratosthenes, but it is not the same.

So, while I certainly believed the earth is a Globe, Eratosthenes' measurement with only two point does not prove the earth is a Globe.
If, however, the same experiment is performed with more than two points and at widely spaced angles can show the difference.
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: JackBlack on December 15, 2017, 03:24:47 AM
Agreed. But would a small flat earth sun have been over Eratosthenes's well Syene at the particular time he did the experiment?
Yes.
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: Marvin the Martian on December 15, 2017, 01:18:29 PM
Agreed. But would a small flat earth sun have been over Eratosthenes's well Syene at the particular time he did the experiment?
Yes.

Wrong! He did the Experiment on the Equator during the Summer Solstice. The Sun is only directly overhead on the Equator twice a year. The Summer Solstice and Winter Solstice. Nobody has ever duplicated his experiment precisely and proven a flat Earth.

Eratosthenes's formula can be tested on a small scale, like a tabletop. It has been proven to be very accurate. Watch the video...

(http://)

Denying the obvious and ignoring scientific fact doesn't make you right... It makes you an idiot!
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: JackBlack on December 15, 2017, 02:24:45 PM
Agreed. But would a small flat earth sun have been over Eratosthenes's well Syene at the particular time he did the experiment?
Yes.

Wrong!
Nope. I'm correct.
The sun was over the well.
That does not change between the FE and RE models.

Nobody has ever duplicated his experiment precisely and proven a flat Earth.
And no one has ever been able to duplicate his experiment and prove a round Earth, as it relies upon the assumption that Earth is round to determine the circumference of Earth.

Denying the obvious and ignoring scientific fact doesn't make you right... It makes you an idiot!
And that's why you are an idiot.
The experiment does not prove Earth is round like you claim it does.
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: Marvin the Martian on December 15, 2017, 02:43:21 PM
Nope. I'm correct.
The sun was over the well.
That does not change between the FE and RE models.

And no one has ever been able to duplicate his experiment and prove a round Earth, as it relies upon the assumption that Earth is round to determine the circumference of Earth.

And that's why you are an idiot.
The experiment does not prove Earth is round like you claim it does.

The Sun was over the well because it was on the Equator during the Summer Solstice. It was only directly over head two days of the year. Leaving out a important factor as that will negate the entire experiment. You can't do half of it and claim you have gotten accurate results, it doesn't work that way.

"Eratosthenes heard about a famous well in the Egyptian city of Swenet (Syene in Greek, and now known as Aswan), on the Nile River. At noon one day each year the summer solstice (between June 20 and June 22) the Suns rays shone straight down into the deep pit." https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-content/big-history-project/solar-system-and-earth/knowing-solar-system-earth/a/eratosthenes-of-cyrene

His experiment has been duplicated many times, you can do so yourself, watch the video instead of denying it's impossible. It's actually so simple a kid does it. I guess that verifies you have less scientific understanding than a ten year old...

(http://)

The experiment was used to measure circumference, we been over this already Captain Coriolis... What is circumference??? It's the perimeter of a circle. His experiment proved a round earth. But then again you don't even know the difference between 2D and 3D...

Did he measure the circumference of a square, a rectangle or a sphere??? HAHA!!!
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: JackBlack on December 15, 2017, 03:06:30 PM
The Sun was over the well because it was on the Equator during the Summer Solstice.
No it wasn't.
The sun is not over the equator during the solstice. It is over the equator during the equinox.
Also, the location used is no where near the equator.
Did you mean it was on the over the Tropic of Cancer, which only occurs once per year?

Leaving out a important factor as that will negate the entire experiment.
And I haven't done so.
Even on a FE model, the sun would have still been directly overhead.


His experiment has been duplicated many times, you can do so yourself, watch the video instead of denying it's impossible.
Start reading what has been said and responding to it, not what you want people to say.
I have never said it is impossible. I have only said that that experiment (i.e. without any other data) can't be used to prove Earth is round.
It is entirely consistent with a FE as well.

It's actually so simple a kid does it. I guess that verifies you have less scientific understanding than a ten year old...
No. It actually shows I have more, as I can realise that the result is based upon assumptions, which are not shown by this experiment.

The experiment was used to measure circumference, we been over this already Captain Coriolis
Yes, we have. Yet you still don't seem to understand it.
BASED UPON THE ASSUMPTION THAT EARTH IS A SPHERE IT WAS USED TO MEASURE THE CIRCUMFERENCE!!!

As such it assumes Earth is a sphere.
It is incapable of PROVING earth is a sphere.

Meanwhile, you claimed it proved Earth was a sphere.
That is the lie you need to back up.
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: Marvin the Martian on December 15, 2017, 03:38:57 PM
The sun is not over the equator during the solstice. It is over the equator during the equinox.
Also, the location used is no where near the equator.
Did you mean it was on the over the Tropic of Cancer, which only occurs once per year?
And I haven't done so. Even on a FE model, the sun would have still been directly overhead.
meanwhile, you claimed it proved Earth was a sphere.
That is the lie you need to back up.

Yes I meant Tropic of Cancer I accidentally typed Equator because I'm a little busy ATM.

If the Earth isn't elliptical and it isn't flat then what shape is it???

If you haven't done the experiment how can you claim it's not accurate??? Like I said a ten year old was able to do so. Do the experiment on a small scale, then measure and see how accurate it is. I have and I will do so again and upload a video. I will also do a flat earth model to show it's not accurate in that model.

In 240 B.C., the Greek astronomer Eratosthenes made the first good measurement of the size of Earth. By noting the angles of shadows in two cities on the Summer Solstice. https://www.windows2universe.org/?page=/citizen_science/myw/w2u_eratosthenes_calc_earth_size.html

At Syene (now Aswān), some 800 km (500 miles) southeast of Alexandria in Egypt, the Suns rays fall vertically at noon at the summer solstice. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Eratosthenes

At noon one day each year the summer solstice (between June 20 and June 22) the Suns rays shone straight down into the deep pit." https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-content/big-history-project/solar-system-and-earth/knowing-solar-system-earth/a/eratosthenes-of-cyrene


Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: JackBlack on December 15, 2017, 03:57:22 PM
If you haven't done the experiment how can you claim it's not accurate???
Again
I'M NOT CLAIMING THAT!!!

Your claim:
Either it proves a round Earth or it proves the FE model is inaccurate...
My claim:
It does not prove Earth is round.

That is what you need to address.
Can you show how the experiment proves Earth is round?
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: Marvin the Martian on December 15, 2017, 07:26:29 PM
If you haven't done the experiment how can you claim it's not accurate???
Again
I'M NOT CLAIMING THAT!!!

Your claim:
Either it proves a round Earth or it proves the FE model is inaccurate...
My claim:
It does not prove Earth is round.

That is what you need to address.
Can you show how the experiment proves Earth is round?

Calculating the perimeter of a circle proves it's round. I have stated how several times. What does the experiment show??? Circumference... What is circumference??? The perimeter of a circle. Eratosthenes's experiment can be verified on a small scale and it does not work on any other shape other than a sphere, circle, globe, orb, etc....

The Greeks knew the Earth was round thousands of years ago. They wouldn't have been able to circumnavigate the globe before Christ was born if they didn't understand the World.

Stick to your claims the experiment isn't accurate without doing it. Yeah you say you didn't say that but you are... Haha You are so stupid you don't even realize I'm still baiting you... I'm a hungry troll keep feeding me haha! Dumbass like I really give a flying f*ck what you really believe, I'm just entertaining myself haha!

Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: JackBlack on December 15, 2017, 08:19:24 PM
Calculating the perimeter of a circle proves it's round.
No it doesn't.
It needs to be round to calculate the perimeter.

I have stated how several times.
No you haven't. You are yet to even come close to showing how it proves it is round.

What does the experiment show???
How to calculate the circumference of Earth, ASSUMING EARTH IS ROUND!!!!
It in no way proves Earth is round.

Eratosthenes's experiment can be verified on a small scale and it does not work on any other shape other than a sphere, circle, globe, orb, etc....
No, it works fine with plenty of shapes, including a flat surface, where the angles determine the height of the sun.

The Greeks knew the Earth was round thousands of years ago.
Not because of this.

Stick to your claims the experiment isn't accurate without doing it.
Again, I have never said that. I have just said the experiment does not prove a round Earth.

I'm just entertaining myself haha!
So your a masochist that likes being beaten?
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: Marvin the Martian on December 15, 2017, 09:41:15 PM
So your whole argument amounts to "nuh-uh"...

Taking up a contradictory position doesn't proof you're right. You haven't provided any science that disproves anything I have said. I posted plenty of examples from reputable websites that confirm my statements and debunk yours.

I win you lose and we are all laughing at you...
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: JackBlack on December 15, 2017, 10:00:30 PM
So your whole argument amounts to "nuh-uh"...
No, my argument is that your claim is baseless, and that the experiment (alone) did not have enough data to determine the shape of Earth.

Taking up a contradictory position doesn't proof you're right. You haven't provided any science that disproves anything I have said. I posted plenty of examples from reputable websites that confirm my statements and debunk yours.
No you haven't.
You are yet to provide a single source which shows that it proves Earth is round.
As such you have provided nothing that confirms your statement and nothing that debunks my argument.
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: Marvin the Martian on December 15, 2017, 10:50:44 PM
You prove yourself wrong haha. I'm not here to prove the Earth is round. Here's your answer Captain Coriolis...

So you have a picture of an allegedly flat horizon.
So what?
That is what you would expect for a round Earth.

Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: JackBlack on December 15, 2017, 11:18:58 PM
You prove yourself wrong haha.
No I don't.
I have still shown you are full of shit.

I'm not here to prove the Earth is round.
Then fuck off.

Until you can prove how the experiment proves a round Earth, you fail.
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: Marvin the Martian on December 15, 2017, 11:46:23 PM
I care less... Therefore I'm not going outside in 17 degree weather to prove something I don't even care about to some fucktard that is so clueless that he don't even realize circumference is the perimeter of a circle... Maybe I will do it for shits and giggles on a day when it's not so bad out.

You cannot prove the experiment doesn't prove the Earth is round Captain Coriolis. You say it doesn't but the last time I checked your word wasn't worth much... I say it does, prove it doesn't...

Oh what's this???

Remember, a sphere is a 3D object, how can you show a complete sphere in a 2D picture?
We are looking at the flight track on the surface of Earth, i.e. the line the flight path traces over the surface of Earth. That does not have depth as it is limited to 2D.
following the Earth's surface, i.e. in 2D, it is straight.


 
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: SpaceCadet on December 16, 2017, 12:43:55 AM
Marv, you are beginning to sound like a cross between Jane and Totally lacking. You are argueing a point that your opponent isn't making.

Eratosthenes' experiment calculated the circumference of a round earth. It did not proove a round earth. This is because the experiment performed exactly as he did it can be used to argue that a small sun circles a flat earth at a low altitude of about 5000 miles.

If you perform the experiment with a third point, then it gives the circumference of a round earth while totally disproving a flat earth.

Jack is simply saying Eratosthenes set out to measure the circumference of a round earth and not to disprove a flat earth. He already knew the earth was round. He assumed that right from the start. He didn't need to nor want to prove it. It was a given. Already.
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: Marvin the Martian on December 16, 2017, 01:16:16 AM
Marv, you are beginning to sound like a cross between Jane and Totally lacking. You are argueing a point that your opponent isn't making.

Eratosthenes' experiment calculated the circumference of a round earth. It did not proove a round earth. This is because the experiment performed exactly as he did it can be used to argue that a small sun circles a flat earth at a low altitude of about 5000 miles.

If you perform the experiment with a third point, then it gives the circumference of a round earth while totally disproving a flat earth.

Jack is simply saying Eratosthenes set out to measure the circumference of a round earth and not to disprove a flat earth. He already knew the earth was round. He assumed that right from the start. He didn't need to nor want to prove it. It was a given. Already.

Yeah I know it wasn't to prove the Earth was round, I said that several times. What I am saying is if he was able to correctly determine the circumference and we can do the same for ourselves, then we know the method works. If you measure circumference correctly you indirectly yet simultaneously proven an spherical shape. The way to verify which is correct is to test a RE and a FE model using a table top.

If the RE method gives the correct circumference and the FE method does not, then that proves a round sphere Earth, and disproves a round flat one, that's simple common sense.

Watch this video, this is how I will do it as the RE method, then I will lay it flat and do it like that as a FE model. Doesn't get any better than that right?

(http://)

The way the FE method (Zetetic) is shown it will not give the correct circumference of the circle. I will do it that way and other ways to try to get a correct circumference to be fair. I build lasers I know a lot about light and how it reacts. Shadows distort depending on the angle of the light source and the angle of the shadow object. That makes not much of a visual difference but it does when you measure and do the math.

All the debate on this forum about Eratosthenes's experiment and nobody has actually done it.


Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: JackBlack on December 16, 2017, 01:34:06 AM
I care less
Yes, if you actually cared you wouldn't be spouting such childish crap.

Therefore I'm not going outside in 17 degree weather to prove something I don't even care about to some fucktard that is so clueless that he don't even realize circumference is the perimeter of a circle
Going outside will prove nothing.
You need to show how this experiment proves a round Earth.
No taking extra data to make it so you don't have unconstrained variables.

Just using 2 points, you need to show how it shows Earth is round, as similar experiments easily let you find the height of a building or some other object.

For example, this one here:
(http://www.tiem.utk.edu/~gross/bioed/bealsmodules/triangle3.gif)
(from here: http://www.tiem.utk.edu/~gross/bioed/bealsmodules/triangle.html )
This experiment is equivalent.
Beneath the tree, the top is straight up, just like the sun.

Some distance away, the top is now at some angle, just like the sun.
It uses a right angle triangle and determines the tree's height.
But according to your reasoning, we should be able to use this to determine the circumference of Earth.
Lets see, a distance of 71 ft, an angle of 31.8 degrees, and thus an angle from vertical of 58.2 degrees
So each degree is 1.22 ft, so Earth's circumference must be 439 ft.

That doesn't sound right does it.
But it uses equivalent observations and equivalent math.
So what went wrong?
Was it because in order for the math to hold up the sun/top of the tree would need to be very far away?


What you are doing is like having an equation:
y+x=5, and saying this means x=5 because y=0.
But that isn't the case.
x can be 0 and y can be 5, x can be 3 and y can be 2.
You don't have enough information to solve it.

Just like those 2 measurements is not enough to determine both the shape of Earth and the height of the tree/sun.

You cannot prove the experiment doesn't prove the Earth is round Captain Coriolis.
The burden is on you to prove it does as you claimed it does.
All I need to do is point out your claim is unsubstantiated.


I say it does, prove it doesn't...
If I must.
His observation was that in Syrene, the sun was directly overhead.
Some 800 km away, the sun was at an angle of elevation of roughly 83 degrees.

By assuming Earth is flat, this forms a right angle triangle.
Thus we have the base (or adjacent side) which is 800 km, with an angle of 83 degrees and want to find the height.
Simple trig (using tan) gives us:
tan(83 deg)=h/800 km
h=800*tan(83 deg) km
=6515 km.
So the sun is 6515 km above a flat Earth.
But that is just one possibility.

In general, there are (at least) these 4 possibilities:
(https://i.imgur.com/7utT9BM.png)
(Yes, I know it isn't too scale and the measurements are examples, but it shows the point).
You have a round Earth with a distant sun. But that would require assuming (or having another experiment) tell you the sun is far away.
But the sun can move closer.
As you bring the sun closer, Earth would expand. This gives another option, a large round Earth with a nearish sun.
Eventually, this expansion will necessitate an infinite radius. This gives another option, a flat Earth with a near sun.
But you can bring the sun even closer. This now results in Earth being inside out, giving the 4th option of an inside out Earth with a very close sun.

Notice how there are 2 variables here, the shape of Earth and the distance to the sun. (technically three as it is also the position of the sun).
You don't have Eratosthenes experiment does not have enough data to find a unique solution.

Going to admit you were wrong now, or will you continue with your stupidity. Sure, you can pretend it is trolling to try and hide how stupid you are, but everyone knows.
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: Marvin the Martian on December 16, 2017, 01:37:08 AM
It's this simple, this is how it was done. Watch the video.

(http://)
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: JackBlack on December 16, 2017, 02:17:09 AM
It's this simple, this is how it was done. Watch the video.
No.
Stop deflecting.
Show quite clearly how it proves Earth is round.
Show what is wrong with what I have said.
If you can't do that, admit you were wrong or fuck off.
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: rabinoz on December 16, 2017, 03:22:41 AM
It's this simple, this is how it was done. Watch the video.
We've watched you video and it does not prove the earth is a Globe anymore than Eratosthenes' measurement did with only two points.
But Eratosthenes never set out to prove the earth was a Globe anymore than that video set out to prove the table was a circular.
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: Sam Hill on December 16, 2017, 06:59:56 PM
Guys, guys, chill out.  All you have to do is add a third city to the mix, then one side or the other will have their evidence.

Here, I've done it for you using values contributed by the artist formerly known as Intikam:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/oHBIS4EKv-zvTY0sl4l8GJc5mDunM3FdRs85LDRWYiRyO-RixGKx7JnoxRd6wVbstmqrT6tQWQnJ9_CqnxBj8vC1mDlUUBdPqGaM-S7keoo37xNA5O-ju-8aiYEKI1z8SjtaOL8EqtS2f9eH_zFamnzOgy2QnTPpDvR46JdjwDv_GTlewfxoezee1gNiZdGU5c55BCY5mFIeLflpF89VlTNcp4vVMmPjAdbqvoBkB3RiBjjaB_ZQM5l_8UrimB8UVOuLg6s19LClSQFooS1Gr5TLox_cbie-C_YUnQYfYwpA1-LsNDzkdrWrz4-YkXNJXw9mbbd4fIZ4JwnGnA4BT4h363fIPqkZwCUxlDstqzinY1YWSLEWB8LtUI8YbUJRCSzE-E9C1WfuucWSSQgD9koyi_fZKhCaxZbMUKNtPF9hZUnwHiLHG0UpVeSTZ0WJy8dohB9zimsVzzsJGka2O6NCwNNPODlJFW3L1Uc4tfNyPXTFOsrKPt3ClZTjDTmhR1hqyighh60TW4EhFimUJFki2eP3mIwsQr-Is-B0xPq5f9tZGzxQh7Ww_GeU9g1lqUZ7ynza02K5AQEq2q3hLcNyjSa4URvZm8AvN4pYmBQHd5FBiS1DfvHW4YRSpC_TP3CVll61hHfF5jq44eh_cIWIv5dF-pPE_SVG=w1680-h860-no)

All of this put together is pretty convincing.
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: JackBlack on December 16, 2017, 07:26:05 PM
Guys, guys, chill out.  All you have to do is add a third city to the mix, then one side or the other will have their evidence.
And that has never been the issue.
The issue was his claim that the experiment with only 2 points magically proves Earth is round.
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: Bullwinkle on December 18, 2017, 12:06:08 AM
What have we learned?
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: rabinoz on December 18, 2017, 02:52:37 AM
What have we learned?
To be ever vigilant in dealing with Martians?
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: Marvin the Martian on December 18, 2017, 01:08:56 PM
Eratosthenes's formula can be used to correctly calculate the circumference of a circle. Circumference is the perimeter, can the formula be used to correctly determine the perimeter of a square? Of a triangle? Of a polygon?

The experiment confirms the Earth is round because we can test it. That's where the video comes in. It shows that the methods is accurate within a few percent. The method only works with a circle, sphere, orb, ellipse, etc...

The fact this method only works with objects that are round proves the Earth is round. Otherwise Eratosthenes couldn't have accurately measured the circumference of the Earth. Square pegs don't fit in round holes... Something most 2yr old kids know...
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: JackBlack on December 18, 2017, 01:51:57 PM
Eratosthenes's formula can be used to correctly calculate the circumference of a circle.
Again, this was never objected to.
This means that assuming Earth is a circle/sphere, you can use the measurements to determine its circumference.
It does not prove Earth is a sphere. It requires the assumption that it is one.

The experiment confirms the Earth is round because we can test it.
No it doesn't.
It shows that Earth is consistent with being round, not that it necessarily is round.
It relies upon assuming Earth is round to determine it's circumference.
The same measurements (and thus the same experiment) can be used to determine the height of the sun assumign a flat Erth.

That's where the video comes in. It shows that the methods is accurate within a few percent.
It shows that you can measure the circumference of a roudn object. It does not show that observations like this mean the object is round.

Again, the experiment I posted shows that the same method works to determine the height of an object.

The fact this method only works with objects that are round proves the Earth is round. Otherwise Eratosthenes couldn't have accurately measured the circumference of the Earth.
However, if Earth was flat the same measurements could have resulted with Eratosthenes calculating the circumference of Earth, even though it would not have one.

Again, this is an experiment using the same observational methodology:


You have the distance from what is equivalent to the sub-solar point and the angle to the object.
This is used to determine the height of the object.

These measurements are equivalent to Eratosthenes. Thus the same measurements can be used to determine the height of the sun above a flat Earth.

As such the experiment does not prove Earth is round.
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: Username on December 18, 2017, 06:46:12 PM
It's not a logical fallacy - that is open. Its is an actual fallacy. But until we see evidence that differs - that is another story.
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: rabinoz on December 18, 2017, 07:25:00 PM
It's not a logical fallacy - that is open. Its is an actual fallacy. But until we see evidence that differs - that is another story.
I'm curious, you claim not to believe in "a conspiracy", so are these possible "evidence"?

Here is a 1959 photo from United States Air Force:
55 years ago today (1959),
the 1st color photo of Earth from space
was taken from a Thor missile - 1 Dec 2014.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B3x9kz8IMAA-5nN.png)
From: Ron Baalke, Space Explorer
at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
Asteroid 6524 Baalke.
(https://twitter.com/ronbaalke/status/539444127709265920)

From NASA 1972:
(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/as10-34-5013-orig.jpg)
Blue Marble - Image of the Earth from Apollo 17 (click for bigger copy) (https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/as10-34-5013-orig.jpg)

From ESA 2012:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/08sp0gkdwx2kk5m/20170731%20-%20MSG-3_first_image_crop.png?dl=1)
MSG-3 captured its first image of the Earth

From Russia 2015:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/lp60myxsgo0xmj8/20160727%20-%20Russian%20Satellite%20Photo%20around%20midday%20-%20December%202015.png?dl=1)
Russian Satellite Photo
around midday in Dec 2015
From Japan, Dec 19, 2017:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/v2ucmgsl63qakln/20171219%20-%20Himawari%208%2022.20%20UTC%2018%20December%202017%20true%20Color%20Reproduction%20Image%20-%20fd__trm_2210.jpg?dl=1)
Himawari 8 22:20 UTC 18 December 2017 "True Color Reproduction Image"

The earth sure looks like a Globe from all these different sources.

Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: Marvin the Martian on December 18, 2017, 09:48:38 PM
This means that assuming Earth is a circle/sphere, you can use the measurements to determine its circumference. It does not prove Earth is a sphere. It requires the assumption that it is one.

These measurements are equivalent to Eratosthenes. Thus the same measurements can be used to determine the height of the sun above a flat Earth.

The problem is his formula only works with circumference...  The same measurements can be used to show the fictional height of a fictional Sun over a fictional flat Earth... You don't see the problem there??? That same formula can also be used to calculate the height of Bigfoot, the length of the Loch Ness Monster and the weight of Santa Claus...

Assuming a shape and then proving it through math and science... That formula can still be tested by anybody willing to do the experiment...

What would you b doing if you were not responding to this post... Take the troll bait... You know you can't resist it... Hungry little bugger...
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: JackBlack on December 18, 2017, 11:21:36 PM
The problem is his formula only works with circumference...  The same measurements can be used to show the fictional height of a fictional Sun over a fictional flat Earth... You don't see the problem there???
I do see it and I have been pointing it out repeatedly while you continually ignore it.
THAT IS THE PROBLEM!
The same measurements can be used to show the height of the sun over a FE.
It is only by assuming a spherical Earth and distant sun that you determine the circumference.
The experiment is unable to tell the difference between a near sun over a flat Earth and a distant sun away from a round Earth (and other possibilities as well).

As such, HIS EXPERIMENT DOES NOT PROVE EARTH IS ROUND!!!

That is the point I have been making repeatedly.


That same formula can also be used to calculate the height of Bigfoot, the length of the Loch Ness Monster
Only if you have the corresponding measurements.

Assuming a shape and then proving it through math and science
Except it wasn't proven by that experiment.

That formula can still be tested by anybody willing to do the experiment.
And the experiment itself still doesn't prove Earth is round.
Again, the same experiment (i.e. measurements, in isolation) can determine the height of the sun above a FE.

As such it does not prove Earth is round.

You either need something else to show Earth is round or your need more data making it a different experiment.

What would you b doing if you were not responding to this post
That varies a lot. I mainly come here to fill some free time and keep me occupied.

Take the troll bait
You can keep saying that, and the more you do the more it seems like you are using it as an excuse to hide your stupidity.

I don't care if you are a troll, I'm still going to point out your BS.

Unlike you, I care about the truth.
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: Marvin the Martian on December 21, 2017, 10:01:53 AM
I mainly come here to fill some free time and keep me occupied.
Unlike you, I care about the truth.

Who the fuck you trying to kid... Yourself??? Dude you're the biggest fucking troll on this forum and you're on here 24/7 you lying SOB!

Yeah you care sooo much about the truth that's why you're on the only forum where nobody gives a rats ass about the truth... Including you! If you were worried about the truth... You would start by admitting you're a fucking troll!!!
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: JackBlack on December 21, 2017, 12:52:16 PM
Who the fuck you trying to kid... Yourself??? Dude you're the biggest fucking troll on this forum and you're on here 24/7 you lying SOB!

Yeah you care sooo much about the truth that's why you're on the only forum where nobody gives a rats ass about the truth... Including you! If you were worried about the truth... You would start by admitting you're a fucking troll!!!
And there you go with all the baseless insults.

But thanks for admitting you don't care about the truth.
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: Marvin the Martian on December 21, 2017, 09:48:07 PM
Who the fuck you trying to kid... Yourself??? Dude you're the biggest fucking troll on this forum and you're on here 24/7 you lying SOB!

Yeah you care sooo much about the truth that's why you're on the only forum where nobody gives a rats ass about the truth... Including you! If you were worried about the truth... You would start by admitting you're a fucking troll!!!
And there you go with all the baseless insults.

But thanks for admitting you don't care about the truth.

Yeah cause you're the purveyor of truth...

The insults are not baseless, you're a complete waste of a perfectly good keyboard. Your ISP should be fined by the FCC for even giving your dumbass access to the internet! If those pro-lifers would have known you would have turned out to be the waste of life you are, they would have never stopped your mom from entering that abortion clinic...

Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: JackBlack on December 22, 2017, 12:06:41 AM
Who the fuck you trying to kid... Yourself??? Dude you're the biggest fucking troll on this forum and you're on here 24/7 you lying SOB!

Yeah you care sooo much about the truth that's why you're on the only forum where nobody gives a rats ass about the truth... Including you! If you were worried about the truth... You would start by admitting you're a fucking troll!!!
And there you go with all the baseless insults.

But thanks for admitting you don't care about the truth.

Yeah cause you're the purveyor of truth...

The insults are not baseless, you're a complete waste of a perfectly good keyboard. Your ISP should be fined by the FCC for even giving your dumbass access to the internet! If those pro-lifers would have known you would have turned out to be the waste of life you are, they would have never stopped your mom from entering that abortion clinic...
So I shall take this as an admission that you were wrong and that Eratosthenes didn't prove Earth was round, nor is his experiment, which just utilises 2 points, capable of doing such?
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: Marvin the Martian on December 22, 2017, 12:56:53 AM
No you should take it as you are too stupid to understand the process of elimination. What shapes can Eratosthenes's formula be used to measure ACCURATELY??? A circle

Fictional make believe shit doesn't count. the FET version is bullshit because the angle of the shadow in relation to the angle of other shadow shows the angle of the Sun.

I grew up hunting, fishing, hiking, camping, rafting, etc... If you grew up behind a keyboard there are a lot of things you don't realize about nature and the world...

Have you even ever done the experiment? NOPE... Theoretically you base your argument on FET... Yet you refute ALL FET... So how the fuck does that work bozo???

FET is viable and proven science when it supports your statements but complete bullshit when it doesn't??? You fucking dumbass piece of shit... You too stu, stu, stupid to understand what the fuck I'm saying to you. You're full of bullshit and and I just pointed out how.

(http://)

By the way... Have a look at my sig! thanks for that gold nugget of "wisdom/failure" haha!!!
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: JackBlack on December 22, 2017, 01:22:30 AM
No you should take it as you are too stupid to understand the process of elimination. What shapes can Eratosthenes's formula be used to measure ACCURATELY??? A circle
Forget his formula.
What shapes do his measurements work on?
Both, a spherical Earth (including an inside out one) and a flat Earth.
As such, IT DOES NOT PROVE EARTH IS ROUND!!!

Fictional make believe shit doesn't count. the FET version is bullshit because the angle of the shadow in relation to the angle of other shadow shows the angle of the Sun.
Except the formulas work fine. The FE version calculates the height of the sun, just like plenty of other examples which calculate the height of objects based upon trig.
The angle to the sun isn't the problem.


Theoretically you base your argument on FET... Yet you refute ALL FET... So how the fuck does that work bozo???
No, I base my argument on the fact that you do not have enough data to solve for all variables.


You're full of bullshit and and I just pointed out how.
And there you go lying yet again.
You have been completely unable to point out how I am wrong.
Instead you just continually make up shit and ignore the argument being made.


By the way... Have a look at my sig! thanks for that gold nugget of "wisdom/failure" haha!!!
You mean more of your pathetic dishonesty?
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: rabinoz on December 22, 2017, 03:47:00 AM
No you should take it as you are too stupid to understand the process of elimination. What shapes can Eratosthenes's formula be used to measure ACCURATELY??? A circle.
What "process of elimination"? Who says that the earth could only be flat or spherical? Why could it not be very ellipsoidal?
Or even a cube:
Quote from: BY ROBERT LAMB
What if Earth were a cube?
Back in 1884, a Swiss astronomer by the name of Arndt made headlines when he claimed to have discovered a very curious planet in an orbit beyond Neptune -- a surprisingly cubical planet.

From: What if Earth were a cube? (https://www.stufftoblowyourmind.com/blogs/what-if-earth-was-a-cube.htm)
Yes, I think it's ridiculous too, but some earthlings even believe the earth to be flat, honest!

But, you really are an ignorant little Martin aren't you?
You're probably playing hookey from your Martian School to come here and make a nuisance of yourself!
Just wait till I get onto your Mummy Martian and tell her what you've been up to!

Now, down to business:
Please explain how measuring the shadow angles at only two points could tell between:Eratosthenes knew that the earth was a Globe, so all he was doing was measuring its circumference.

But, just suppose (hypothetically of course) that these modern flat earthers are right and what Eratosthenes actually measured was the different shadow angles due to a comparatively close sun, as in:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/7ixz2w5yo3ne9ql/Sun%20Height%20Flat%20Earth%20at%2045%C2%B0.png?dl=1)
The distance and angles in the above diagram could be from a flat earth with a sun about 5000 km high or from a Globe earth of circumference 40,000 miles in circumference.

Old Eratosthenes, of course, measured the angles in Alexandria and Syene (Aswan), only about 800 miles apart.

Without further information the Eratosthenes experiment cannot tell you whether the earth is curved or flat and cannot even tell what type of curve.

By the way, this video you posted:

How Do You Calculate Circumference? (Mr. Wizard)
does not replicate Eratosthenes measurement. I'll let Mr Smarty-Pants, Marvin the Martian work out why!
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: EvolvedMantisShrimp on December 22, 2017, 04:39:28 AM
You are correct that when Eratosthenes performed that experiment, he already took two previous observations as facts: that the Earth was a sphere and that the sun was very far away; far away where it's rays would be virtually parallel.

Setting aside the first of those, let's focus on the second. What previous observations could Eratosthenes and his contemporaries have made that would have brought them to that conclusion? The answer lies in altitude. Suppose you measure the angle of the shadow of a stick in the ground when the shadow is perfectly parallel with the stick. Suppose another person is doing the same at the same time miles up on the side of a mountain. The difference between those angles ought to be small but measurable if the sun is nearby. But if the angles are identical, then it is evidence that the sun is very far away.

It is that kind of observation that led to treating the rays of the sun as originating from very far away.
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: rabinoz on December 22, 2017, 05:13:41 AM
You are correct that when Eratosthenes performed that experiment, he already took two previous observations as facts: that the Earth was a sphere and that the sun was very far away; far away where it's rays would be virtually parallel.

Setting aside the first of those, let's focus on the second. What previous observations could Eratosthenes and his contemporaries have made that would have brought them to that conclusion? The answer lies in altitude. Suppose you measure the angle of the shadow of a stick in the ground when the shadow is perfectly parallel with the stick. Suppose another person is doing the same at the same time miles up on the side of a mountain. The difference between those angles ought to be small but measurable if the sun is nearby. But if the angles are identical, then it is evidence that the sun is very far away.
But how do you ascertain that the local verticals are parallel or not?
The difference in angles could be due either to the local verticals diverging, as on the Globe or due to a nearby sun.
Some independent evidence of the distance to the sun is necessary.

Measuring the angles from more the two points can provide that evidence, as I have tried to point out in numerous posts.
For example, Re: trigonometry Reply #43 on: December 09, 2017, 08:47:55 PM (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=73074.msg1993768#msg1993768)

Quote from: EvolvedMantisShrimp
It is that kind of observation that led to treating the rays of the sun as originating from very far away.
I believe the first evidence of the sun and moon being great distances away came from the fact that neither the sun nor the moon change in apparent size as they appear to move across the sky.
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: EvolvedMantisShrimp on December 22, 2017, 05:15:58 AM
You are correct that when Eratosthenes performed that experiment, he already took two previous observations as facts: that the Earth was a sphere and that the sun was very far away; far away where it's rays would be virtually parallel.

Setting aside the first of those, let's focus on the second. What previous observations could Eratosthenes and his contemporaries have made that would have brought them to that conclusion? The answer lies in altitude. Suppose you measure the angle of the shadow of a stick in the ground when the shadow is perfectly parallel with the stick. Suppose another person is doing the same at the same time miles up on the side of a mountain. The difference between those angles ought to be small but measurable if the sun is nearby. But if the angles are identical, then it is evidence that the sun is very far away.
But how do you ascertain that the local verticals are parallel or not?
The difference in angles could be due either to the local verticals diverging, as on the Globe or due to a nearby sun.
Some independent evidence of the distance to the sun is necessary.

Measuring the angles from more the two points can provide that evidence, as I have tried to point out in numerous posts.
For example, Re: trigonometry Reply #43 on: December 09, 2017, 08:47:55 PM (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=73074.msg1993768#msg1993768)

Quote from: EvolvedMantisShrimp
It is that kind of observation that led to treating the rays of the sun as originating from very far away.
I believe the first evidence of the sun and moon being great distances away came from the fact that neither the sun nor the moon change in apparent size as they appear to move across the sky.

That's more strong evidence.
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: Marvin the Martian on December 22, 2017, 10:17:48 AM
No you should take it as you are too stupid to understand the process of elimination. What shapes can Eratosthenes's formula be used to measure ACCURATELY??? A circle.
What "process of elimination"? Who says that the earth could only be flat or spherical? Why could it not be very ellipsoidal?
Or even a cube:
Quote from: BY ROBERT LAMB
What if Earth were a cube?
Back in 1884, a Swiss astronomer by the name of Arndt made headlines when he claimed to have discovered a very curious planet in an orbit beyond Neptune -- a surprisingly cubical planet.

From: What if Earth were a cube? (https://www.stufftoblowyourmind.com/blogs/what-if-earth-was-a-cube.htm)
Yes, I think it's ridiculous too, but some earthlings even believe the earth to be flat, honest!

But, you really are an ignorant little Martin aren't you?
You're probably playing hookey from your Martian School to come here and make a nuisance of yourself!
Just wait till I get onto your Mummy Martian and tell her what you've been up to!

Now, down to business:
Please explain how measuring the shadow angles at only two points could tell between:
  • a circle,
  • an ellipse,
  • a parabola or
  • a hyperbola.
Eratosthenes knew that the earth was a Globe, so all he was doing was measuring its circumference.

But, just suppose (hypothetically of course) that these modern flat earthers are right and what Eratosthenes actually measured was the different shadow angles due to a comparatively close sun, as in:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/7ixz2w5yo3ne9ql/Sun%20Height%20Flat%20Earth%20at%2045%C2%B0.png?dl=1)
The distance and angles in the above diagram could be from a flat earth with a sun about 5000 km high or from a Globe earth of circumference 40,000 miles in circumference.

Old Eratosthenes, of course, measured the angles in Alexandria and Syene (Aswan), only about 800 miles apart.

Without further information the Eratosthenes experiment cannot tell you whether the earth is curved or flat and cannot even tell what type of curve.

By the way, this video you posted:

How Do You Calculate Circumference? (Mr. Wizard)
does not replicate Eratosthenes measurement. I'll let Mr Smarty-Pants, Marvin the Martian work out why!

Funny thing is Mr Wizard credits Eratosthenes for the formula in the video... So how do you figure it does not replicate it? One stick is directly under the Sun and they accurately measure circumference of the table.

The shadow angle tells the direction and angle of the Sunlight dumbass not the shape. Ever heard of a Sundial??? A shadow reacts differently on different shapes. The angle of illumination and the shape of an object affects the shape and size of a shadow.

(https://lightnightgreekfire.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/cylindershadows.jpeg)
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: Marvin the Martian on December 22, 2017, 10:47:56 AM
No, I base my argument on the fact that you do not have enough data to solve for all variables.

No, you based your argument on the same FET theory you refuted back in the beginning of the thread. Let's look at how many times you contradicted yourself... We see who the liar is now...

And I quote...
1. "It is entirely consistent with a FE... Notice how that matches a RE, but not a FE"
2. "It starts with the assumption that Earth is flat... it relies upon the assumption that Earth is round"
3. "You clearly see FE does not match, a RE with a distant sun does... The experiment is unable to tell the difference between a near sun over a flat Earth and a distant sun away from a round Earth"

I have only said that that experiment (i.e. without any other data) can't be used to prove Earth is round. It is entirely consistent with a FE as well.

Yes, 2 sticks are used to demonstrate his experiment. But when just using 2 you rely upon the assumption that Earth is round and the sun is far away. The experiment itself works equally well when assuming a flat Earth with a close sun. As such, it does not prove a round Earth or prove FE inaccurate.

The same measurements can be used to show the height of the sun over a FE. It is only by assuming a spherical Earth and distant sun that you determine the circumference.
The experiment is unable to tell the difference between a near sun over a flat Earth and a distant sun away from a round Earth
Again, the same experiment can determine the height of the sun above a FE.

Unfortunately for the OP, trigonometry actually shows us a flat earth.
No it doesn't.
The trigonometry used in your pathetic image can't distinguish between them.
The image on the left does not show it to scale as it does not show the sun 150 000 000 km away.
However, the results obtained from reality do match that 150 000 000 km distant sun and a round Earth.

The right hand side just blatantly lies.
It starts with the assumption that Earth is flat.

So no, using just those 3 points, even with the distance between them, you cannot determine the shape of Earth.

But the really killer is that it also completely ignores other points. (i.e. other locations where you can observe the apparent location of the sun).
These are points that are needed to be able to actually determine the shape.
At the poles the sun is observed at 0 degrees then.
Notice how that matches a RE, but not a FE.
you clearly see FE does not match, a RE with a distant sun does.

The sun was over the well. That does not change between the FE and RE models.
And no one has ever been able to duplicate his experiment and prove a round Earth, as it relies upon the assumption that Earth is round to determine the circumference of Earth.
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: Marvin the Martian on December 22, 2017, 10:53:10 AM
By the way... Have a look at my sig! thanks for that gold nugget of "wisdom/failure" haha!!!
You mean more of your pathetic dishonesty?

Actually that's more of your pathetic dishonesty... Care to expand on what you meant by "it spins on its axis and orbits the sun. The 2 are fundamentally different... Because when an object spins, it does so about its axis"

Clearly you claim Earth's orbit around the Sun has no axis, then in the same post you claim objects spin on an axis... So which is it???
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: JackBlack on December 22, 2017, 12:12:53 PM
You are correct that when Eratosthenes performed that experiment, he already took two previous observations as facts: that the Earth was a sphere and that the sun was very far away; far away where it's rays would be virtually parallel.

Setting aside the first of those, let's focus on the second. What previous observations could Eratosthenes and his contemporaries have made that would have brought them to that conclusion? The answer lies in altitude. Suppose you measure the angle of the shadow of a stick in the ground when the shadow is perfectly parallel with the stick. Suppose another person is doing the same at the same time miles up on the side of a mountain. The difference between those angles ought to be small but measurable if the sun is nearby. But if the angles are identical, then it is evidence that the sun is very far away.

It is that kind of observation that led to treating the rays of the sun as originating from very far away.
I don't think they would have had the precision for that. There are other options such as noting the sun rises due east for everyone on the equinox (which I'm not sure if they would have been able to do), or noting that the apparent size remains fairly constant.
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: Marvin the Martian on December 22, 2017, 12:21:25 PM
You are correct that when Eratosthenes performed that experiment, he already took two previous observations as facts: that the Earth was a sphere and that the sun was very far away; far away where it's rays would be virtually parallel.

Setting aside the first of those, let's focus on the second. What previous observations could Eratosthenes and his contemporaries have made that would have brought them to that conclusion? The answer lies in altitude. Suppose you measure the angle of the shadow of a stick in the ground when the shadow is perfectly parallel with the stick. Suppose another person is doing the same at the same time miles up on the side of a mountain. The difference between those angles ought to be small but measurable if the sun is nearby. But if the angles are identical, then it is evidence that the sun is very far away.

It is that kind of observation that led to treating the rays of the sun as originating from very far away.
I don't think they would have had the precision for that. There are other options such as noting the sun rises due east for everyone on the equinox (which I'm not sure if they would have been able to do), or noting that the apparent size remains fairly constant.

So what you are saying is you have no answer or explanation for your direct undeniable contradiction...

By the way... Have a look at my sig! thanks for that gold nugget of "wisdom/failure" haha!!!
You mean more of your pathetic dishonesty?

Actually that's more of your pathetic dishonesty... Care to expand on what you meant by "it spins on its axis and orbits the sun. The 2 are fundamentally different... Because when an object spins, it does so about its axis"

Clearly you claim Earth's orbit around the Sun has no axis, then in the same post you claim objects spin on an axis... So which is it???
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: JackBlack on December 22, 2017, 12:22:28 PM
Funny thing is Mr Wizard credits Eratosthenes for the formula in the video... So how do you figure it does not replicate it? One stick is directly under the Sun and they accurately measure circumference of the table.
And there you go ignoring the point, YET AGAIN.

Yes, the formula can be used to determine the circumference of a circularly symmetric object, including Earth assuming Earth is a sphere and the sun is distant.
But that does not prove Earth is a sphere.
The same formula can also be used by measuring the angle of a shadow cast by a stick on a table sitting under a light in a house and used to determine the circumference of the table, but in this case it doesn't work as the light is too close and the table surface is flat.

Having a formula doesn't mean you prove the result.

The shadow angle tells the direction and angle of the Sunlight dumbass not the shape.
Yes, that is right. It tells you were the sun is, not the shape of Earth.
Yet you claimed it proved Earth is round.

No, I base my argument on the fact that you do not have enough data to solve for all variables.
No, you based your argument on the same FET theory you refuted back in the beginning of the thread.
And there you go lying yet again.
I already stated what I based my argument on; the simple fact that 2 points does not give enough data to provide a unique solution.

Let's look at how many times you contradicted yourself... We see who the liar is now...
You mean let's dishonestly take my posts out of context to pretend there is a contradiction. So you are still the liar here, and this is just another pathetic deflection, so lets not.
Instead, lest focus on your claim the these measurements prove Earth is round.
Can you back up that lie at all?

Actually that's more of your pathetic dishonesty... Care to expand on what you meant by "it spins on its axis and orbits the sun. The 2 are fundamentally different... Because when an object spins, it does so about its axis"
No, I explained it enough in the other thread.
It isn't my dishonesty at all, it is just another pathetic distraction to try and avoid your massive fuck up.

Now can you show how this simple experiment with 2 observations of the sun angle, one directly overhead and one at some angle, as well as the distance between them, show that Earth is round?
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: Marvin the Martian on December 22, 2017, 12:33:20 PM
You haven't explained shit... Does Earth's orbit have an axis or not??? Because you said it doesn't then said it does... Which is it???

You also told me Eratosthenes supports FET but told John Davis it does not...

What about claiming a line is 2D than denying you did so??? Where is your explanation for that??? Quoted you out of context?? Even though it's your own words proving you wrong. You contradict yourself to such an extent your own statements can be refuted with your own statements.

You lose troll I exposed your dishonesty numerous times now...
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: rabinoz on December 22, 2017, 01:22:54 PM
<< Irrelevant ravings of Marvin the Moronic Martian expunged >>
How about debating actual issues, like Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy, instead of proving what obnoxious little Martian you are.

Are all Martians as bad as you are, or are you an escapee from the Martian Mental Menagerie?

If other Martians are anything like you, we'll have to get Trump to erect a huge wall between us and Mars.
Though Trump would probably rather nuke that little light in the sky that we call Mars, just to show those pesky North Koreans that he can do it.

So, Mr Marvin the Moronic Martian, just watch how you behave in future!
Title: Re: Why "it looks flat so it is flat" is a logical fallacy
Post by: JackBlack on December 22, 2017, 01:26:57 PM
You haven't explained shit
I have explained your questions, not stop with the pathetic distractions. Deal with the topic at hand.

You also told me Eratosthenes supports FET but told John Davis it does not...
I said it is unable to tell the difference.
I told you that it does not prove Earth is round.

Rather than back up your claims you continually go off on pathetic tangents.

Explain how it proves Earth is round, or shut up.