1

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why is it so important for you to believe that the earth is flat?

« on: June 18, 2007, 08:00:41 AM »

Then it's about time you stop using the other celestial bodies "slight gravitational pull"
to explain certain phenomenon.

2

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Once again regarding the conspiracy...

« on: June 14, 2007, 11:20:54 AM »

I never though of it that way. How do you make money I wonder?

3

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Once again regarding the conspiracy...

« on: June 14, 2007, 10:55:11 AM »

The best FE answer would simply be that they're stupid.

4

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Once again regarding the conspiracy...

« on: June 14, 2007, 10:29:34 AM »

Obviously there is no problem if the story is "alot of rot and stinking lies"

5

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Once again regarding the conspiracy...

« on: June 14, 2007, 10:20:49 AM »

To get more money for cleaning the junk?

That doesn't make sense. You have to assume that the reason
the governments of the world are pouring money into the
space industry is to get scientific results, therefore it would
be in NASA's best interest to downplay the problems.

Now that story is only an example, but the first time I read
it was 1999 or so, and according to NASA the problem is
becoming more acute and there's no viable solution available.

6

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Big bad mother nature

« on: June 14, 2007, 10:08:28 AM »

The ice wall is actually supposed to be made out of rock, like RE antarctica.

7

Flat Earth Debate / Once again regarding the conspiracy...

« on: June 14, 2007, 10:05:25 AM »

Don't you find it strange that NASA spreads stories such as this:

http://www.space.com/news/ap_060120_space_junk.html

Since the goal of the conspiracy is too keep the space industry
prospering, why would they go through the trouble of thinking
this up?

8

Flat Earth Debate / Re: My proofs against the theory.

« on: June 14, 2007, 09:56:50 AM »

Agreed.

9

Flat Earth Debate / Re: My proofs against the theory.

« on: June 14, 2007, 09:48:51 AM »

The trendline is obtained by linear fitting in Excel. The R2 value is the so called correlation coefficient which is always between 0 and 1. If it's exactly 1, the relation between the variables is exactly linear. If it's zero there is no linear relation between the variables. In our case, it is pretty much to 1, so I'd say it's a straight horizon anytime.  Grin

I don't understand the point of testing this. Imagine making a 360 degree panorama,
how could it curve the way you're testing it?  The curve goes away from the point
of reference in all directions (if you believe in RE).

Also, you seem to have the terminology mixed up. R2 is the coefficient of determination and
measures the fit, which in simple regression happens to be the degree of linear relationship.
The correlation coefficient ranges from -1 to 1, and shows the degree of positive or
negative correlation. The square of the correlation coefficient yields R2 in simple regression.

Let me be clear that I'm not trying to offend you, and I'm also aware of you being an RE'er.