Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - silverhammermba

Pages: [1]
I already posted this is another thread, but it deserves its own I think. In addition to the FAQ we really need a FPBA (Frequently Posted Bullshit Arguments) so that we can refer people to it.

I honestly cannot believe that this perspective argument is still coming up. "Basic laws of perspective" they say, "obvious empirical evidence" they say. Even if the FEers are correct about the whole "sinking into the ground" thing, it cannot be due to perspective. Perspective is nothing more than the appearance of objects becoming smaller as they move further away. All of the "laws" of perspective that people love to reference so much are simply due to trivial trigonometry. I'm even going to demonstrate with a picture.

Diagram 1: Here the object's actual distance from our center of vision is y. Its apparent distance is theta. Even as y remains constant, as x approaches infinity, theta approaches 0. That is, the object appears closer to the center of our vision as it moves further away even though it is physically not moving closer. This is because theta = arctan(y/x) and arctan(0) = 0.

Diagram 2: Here the object's distance from the observer is x, it's actual height is y, and it's apparent height is theta. Yet again, as the object moves further away y remains constant, x approaches infinity, and consequently theta approaches 0. To simplify the math, let's just assume that the object is vertically centered in our vision (this only affects the coefficients). We can split the triangle in half along the horizontal and thus get theta/2 = arctan(y/2x) and yet again arctan(0) = 0. So as the object moves further away, it appears to be smaller even though its actual height is not changing.

See? All that there is is relative position and trigonometry. Now whenever you crazy FEers bring up "perspective" you have to argue it with only those two things: relative position and trigonometry. Use math, use pictures, do NOT cite Samuel "Rowboatman" Rowbotham.

Flat Earth Debate / Now here's an idea regarding the conspiracy
« on: December 22, 2007, 10:35:54 PM »
How about instead of arguing over who's write about the shape of the Earth, we do this first:

Let's discuss whether or not a conspiracy cover up is a legitimate argument for backing up any theory.

If this can be refuted, then that's 99% of FE arguments gone kaput right there. Frankly, I'm sick of rebutting the same old conspiracy arguments over and over again for the same reasons.

Flat Earth Debate / I can't believe you guys are still arguing
« on: June 08, 2007, 09:28:00 PM »
I used to post on these forums a lot and I was stopping in today expecting to see at least a slight decrease in activity.

Do you guys realize that all that ever happens month in and month out is that the exact same questions are asked over and over and again? All of the FE'ers respond to these questions with the exact same belligerent, incomplete, incorrect answers and the RE'ers just sit around agreeing with each other for the exact same reasons that we always do.

When I joined I'd say there were at least 10 or so FE'ers around, now it seems like all that is left are the ever-vigilant Narcberry, Tom Bishop and TheEngineer.

Since the second they joined, these FE'ers have all been arguing with RE'ers. Many intelligent RE'ers have attempted to convince them of their stupidity with many, many intelligent and valid arguments to no avail. You know what? I am willing to bet without almost complete confidence that not a single FE'er on these forums has ever been swayed over to RE. Furthermore I am also willing to bet with similar confidence that no FE'er will ever allow themselves to ever be swayed over to RE ever.

The kind of FE'er that joins this forum is the kind that won't even believe that the Earth is round if you shot them into space and let them orbit it a few times.

Frankly, I think that aside from being a practice ground for logical debate these forums are pointless. Everyone just sits around and pats each other on the back if they believe the same model or chews each other out if they don't. They achieve no purpose.

Flat Earth Debate / Such a far-reaching conspiracy...
« on: April 19, 2007, 11:02:04 PM »
A company that actually provides cruises:
Someone who used the service (that's 39 people each paying $3,000 each):

An expedition that sailed around well over half the coast of Antarctica (that's over 39,000 miles according to FET):

A photographer's expedition to Antarctica:

Flat Earth Debate / FE'ers need to prove RE theory wrong
« on: April 11, 2007, 06:34:01 PM »
The RE model is the most widely accepted in the world. It has stood unchallenged for so long that it is now generally accepted as fact.

Thus, the burden of proof lies on the FE'ers to prove RE theory wrong and furthermore that FE theory is correct.

However, the problem is that I have not seen any such activity whatsoever on these forums. All that I have seen is elaborate explanations for why the various aspects of the RE model can be made to work with the FE model. In fact, nearly every single aspect of FE theory seems to stem directly as a counter-point to some aspect of RE theory. In order to prove your theory you need to find two things:

1. Indisputable facts that absolutely do not work with the RE model
2. Facts completely independent of either model that would only work with the FE model

Let me explain them
1. Proving that certain things might not work with RE or that certain things aren't necessarily true with RE is not sufficient. They must be absolutely incompatible with a round Earth
2. This is incorrect: "Assume the Earth is flat. Then A is true because of B, C because of D, etc." What you must do is this: "Assume that we know nothing about the shape of the Earth. I know that X is definitely true. By experimentation and observation, X can only be true if the Earth is flat."

I know that many of you FE'ers believe beyond a doubt that the Earth is truly flat. That's the best way to get people to not take you seriously. If you instead operate under the assumption that the FE model have very compelling evidence, that might convince people to listen to you.

Flat Earth Debate / The most important question of all
« on: March 29, 2007, 08:24:55 PM »
If you believe in RE theory, what would it take to convince you that the Earth is flat?

If you believe in FE theory, what would it take to convince you that the Earth is spherical?

I think that these are questions that every single person on these forums should be required to answer. Please, be specific in your responses and try not to start a flame war or get off topic arguing specific points of either theory.

Oh, and a very helpful link

Flat Earth Debate / Orientation of the FE
« on: March 26, 2007, 12:00:27 PM »
RAmenBrother said this as a reply to another thread, but it was such a big point that I felt like it really deserved it's own post.

On the FE model, why is the north pole at the center of the disk? Wouldn't a south pole-centric model be just as viable? This isn't completely fantastic reasoning either. Many ancient cartographers drew maps of the world that would be considered "upside down" by modern standards. Luckily with the RE model, it doesn't matter how the continents are oriented - you FE'ers, however, need to pick one. Considering that the two different orientations would result in wildly different geography, you've got a bit of a problem there.

Think about it, the labels North and South are completely redundant. Same with positive and negative when referring to magnetism. Both could be switched with absolutely no effect. The same goes with the completely redundant ordering of North before South.

Please, stop making posts that pose the question in the title. Seriously, there's like 5 on the front page of this section.

Yeah, it's an interesting thought considering that all of your experiences could be just a figment of your imagination, but it is ultimately pointless.

To the question: "How do I know that anything other than me exists?"
I respond: "What the hell are you going to do about it?"

Seriously, even if by some incredible feat you found out conclusively that all of existence was just a thought in your brain, would you really live your life any differently?

Flat Earth Debate / Some Astronomy
« on: March 22, 2007, 11:19:03 PM »
Why can I see certain notable constellations appear in radically different parts of the sky at different times of the year?

If the Earth is accelerating upwards, why don't any constellations disappear below the edge of the Earth and never return? If the stars are accelerating with us, why do they appear to move around?

Note: edited so that hopefully people would stop getting off topic

I've been reading the forums a lot and of all the debate going on, there's one thing that I have yet to see addressed. So I made this topic.

I have noticed that one big argument used by the FE people is that RE'ers have RE theory so strongly implanted into their head from biased government education that they subconsciously skew information and ignore facts in order to maintain their beliefs. I suppose that makes sense, in a way.

(This following paragraph is the whole point of this thread)
However, have the FE'ers ever considered the possibility that they themselves are so hard-set on defending themselves and debunking RE theory that they will go to any length, no matter how far-fetched or ridiculous in order to maintain their views? Far too often I see many intelligent, legitimate questions being met with such responses as, "You're lying" or "You're letting yourself be brainwashed by the government". The very nature of these forums is, supposedly, to spread knowledge of the "truth" and educate ignorant RE'ers. However, far more often the behavior I'm seeing is the internet equivalent of plugging your ears and going, "LALALALALA!" You guys want so badly for your theory to be accepted in the scientific world, yet your behavior is completely unscientific. Science isn't about choosing a viewpoint and defending it to the death, science is about collecting evidence and generating a viewpoint based upon it. You seem to be going about it completely backwards! You all decided that the Earth was flat and then you went out and started looking for evidence that backs you up -- that's not how it works.

Pages: [1]