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 - Atom Man

Pages: [1]
1
Flat Earth Q&A / Australia and daylight times
« on: November 20, 2010, 04:31:53 AM »
According to Thork, Australia does not exist. If this really is the case then where in the world is it?
http://members.iinet.net.au/~jacob/riseset.html
This link contains 3 years data (2008 [recorded] - 2010 [predicted]) of sunrise, sunset times for Perth Western Australia.

Also
http://www.sunrisesunset.com/
A site that contains all major cities.

I would recomment to any FEer to compaire Perth to California, since apparently our weather condictions are simmilar.

With all this data someone from the FES can plot the daylight times on a FE map. If FET is correct you should end up with a spotlight effect, if not then an alternitive model has to be used (likely RET).


Where as according to FE, flight times are part of a conspiricy. Actal sunrise sunset times cannot be forged.

2
Flat Earth Q&A / Please provide a summary of FE Theories
« on: September 30, 2010, 07:02:06 AM »
Just as a point of curiosity, can an official from the FES provide a summary of FE theories. By this statement I do mean one theory for each aspect.

For some examples,
Does the Earth have infinate width and depth?
Is the Sun a spot light ot a sphere?
Is bendy light a current FET?
How are the differences in North, South constelations, seasons validated?
Coriallis effect; cyclones v tornadoes?
Is the matter in the universe all the same?
Is there a current FE map?
What main stream theories are correct and which are not?
UA v Garvity?

Please do not respond with John Davis v Bishop theories. Give one answer, what is it, why that theory and how was it determined?

With the answers please provide a short explainations rather than over simplified one word answer. At the moment I would like to know what we should be debating in preference to arguing over the details.

3
Flat Earth General / Civilian Space Flight
« on: August 26, 2010, 05:31:22 AM »
http://www.copenhagensuborbitals.com/index.php

You have about 3 days to provide a constructive response on this one.

Why is it that a private organisation like Copenhagen Sub Orbitials can raise enough funds to develop and launch a rocket. Yet FES cant get enough funds to do anything.

Since this group is independent, there should be no need for any conspiricy.

Pleanty of information and images are available on the web site that illustrate what they are doing and how they are going about it.

Good luck FES.

4
Flat Earth General / Validation of FES Facebook images.
« on: June 22, 2010, 07:20:17 AM »
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=23033272998&v=photos#!/photo_search.php?oid=23033272998&view=all

1/35 is a picture of a round earth with some discussion.
The essence of the argument is that sustained space flight is not possible so therefore the picture must be manufactured. The first question is can sustained space flight be falsified? There are many government and non-government groups that have successful and unsuccessfully attempted space flight. (Also see comments about pic 18/35).

4/35 is a flat Earth sun orbit representation. The provided image does not support the fact that day  light in summer greater than 12. According to the image even during summer, I would estimate that day light would be approximately 24 h x 1/pi long (let’s say 8 hours roughly).

6/35 FES wine bottle. Are grapes flat too?

7/35 Apparent ice wall. There is no reference to where or when the picture was taken. A picture of a person standing in front of a glacier proves nothing in its own right. It could be a picture taken in Australia, New Zealand, Ice land, Green land, Swiss alps, Antarctica or what have you. If convincing the world that the Earth is round is so profitable, then why is it not being used as a stimulus against the GFC. Claiming a money spinning conspiracy may have had some validity 1950’s – 1960’s, but if you check out government spending in sciences since then you will see that it has declined significantly. As the saying goes, you can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time. According to the conspiracy claim, anyone who has studied sciences for the last few centuries has been fooled by some masterful conspiracy.

9 and 10/35 FE Map, Sun light Alternative model. So which one is correct or more correct, 4/35 or 9/35, and why so? According to this map, if I have to head North from Fremantle port in Western Australia to get to the African continent. There’s an experiment for a FE’er, is a couple of 16 year old girls can sail solo around the world, I’m sure at least one FE’er can get the funding and courage to sail to Africa from Western Australia and record the direction headings.

11/35 is the same as 9/35.

12/35 Now were getting some where. I guess that it is meant to represent someone’s path as they sailed around the world? Since no FE believer trusts second hand data, give that sailing around the world thing a go. Lets us know how you will determine direction and distance. I’m guessing that GPS is out of the question?

13 - 17, 19, 21 – 35/35 Invalid. Artists representations, pictures or repeated images.

18/35 Apparent picture of the Ice wall from space. Check out the time date stamp 13 3: 06. If sustained space flight is impossible then this picture is invalid. If Sustained space slight is valid, then you have to review all comments about pictures taken from space. Either space pictures are valid or not. Fair enough to individually evaluate each picture on its merits, but a blanket approach can no longer apply.

20/35 News paper article. I would be interested to know the terms and conditions of the FE challenge. I would suggest that this prize gets reinstated with preset criteria evaluated by an independent third party.

Is the reason for lack of an accurate FE map due to funding, effort or reality? I find it difficult to believe that after all the centuries that the concept of a FE has been banded about, that no one at all has come up with an accurate representation.

If you want a genuine debate pre-define what reasonable evidence is required.

It was also nice to see that my last threads were removed (Denial) then locked (Support or the theorists). Cheers for that JD.

5
Flat Earth Debate / Support or the theorists
« on: June 19, 2010, 06:59:05 AM »
The following mostly relates to an article in New Scientist, State of Denial (15 may 2010 pp 35 - 45).

I am a sceptic, but I'm not a denier (Michael Shermer, pp 36 - 37)

"When I call myself a sceptic, I mean that I take a scientific approach to the evaluation of claims. A climate sceptic, for example, examines specific claims one by one, carefully considers the evidence for each, and is willing to follow the facts where ever they lead.

A climate denier has a position staked out in advance, and sorts through the data employing  "confirmations bias" - the tendency to look for and find confirmatory evidence for pre-existing beliefs and ignore or dismiss the rest
." (pp 36)

Whose conspiracy? (Debora MacKenzie, pp 38 - 41)

"What ever they are denying, denial movements have much in common with one another, not least the use of similar tactics.

All set themselves up as a courageous underdogs fighting a corrupt elite engaged in a conspiracy to suppress the truth or foist a malicious lie on ordinary people
." (pp 38)

"He (Greg Poland) believes that instigators of denialist movements have more serious psychological problems than most of their followers "They display all the features of paranoid personality disorder", he says, including anger, intolerance of criticism, and what psychiatrists call a grandiose sense of their own importance." (pp 39)

"People who buy into one denialism may support others." (pp 40)

Giving life to a lie (Jim Giles, pp 42 - 43)

"Cascades can drive the popularity of everything from YouTube videos to medial procedures. They also mean that falsehoods can come to be believed  simply because others believe in them." (pp 42)

How to be a Denialist (paraphrased pp 39)
1. Allege there's a conspiracy.
2. Use fake experts to support you story.
3. Cherry-pick the evidence.
4. Create impossible standards for your opponents.
5. Use logical fallacies.
6. Manufacture doubt.

6
Flat Earth General / Denial
« on: June 18, 2010, 06:40:22 AM »
The following mostly relates to an article in New Scientist, State of Denial (15 May 2010 pp 35 - 45).

I am a sceptic, but I'm not a denier (Michael Shermer, pp 36 - 37)

"When I call myself a sceptic, I mean that I take a scientific approach to the evaluation of claims. A climate sceptic, for example, examines specific claims one by one, carefully considers the evidence for each, and is willing to follow the facts where ever they lead.

A climate denier has a position staked out in advance, and sorts through the data employing  "confirmations bias" - the tendency to look for and find confirmatory evidence for pre-existing beliefs and ignore or dismiss the rest
." (pp 36)

Whose conspiracy? (Debora MacKenzie, pp 38 - 41)

"What ever they are denying, denial movements have much in common with one another, not least the use of similar tactics.

All set themselves up as a courageous underdogs fighting a corrupt elite engaged in a conspiracy to suppress the truth or foist a malicious lie on ordinary people
." (pp 38)

"He (Greg Poland) believes that instigators of denialist movements have more serious psychological problems than most of their followers "They display all the features of paranoid personality disorder", he says, including anger, intolerance of criticism, and what psychiatrists call a grandiose sense of their own importance." (pp 39)

"People who buy into one denialism may support others." (pp 40)

Giving life to a lie (Jim Giles, pp 42 - 43)

"Cascades can drive the popularity of everything from YouTube videos to medial procedures. They also mean that falsehoods can come to be believed  simply because others believe in them." (pp 42)

How to be a Denialist (paraphrased pp 39)
1. Allege there's a conspiracy.
2. Use fake experts to support you story.
3. Cherry-pick the evidence.
4. Create impossible standards for your opponents.
5. Use logical fallacies.
6. Manufacture doubt.

Psychological evaluation of FER's has been done before on this discussion board, but it is good to have some reference material. This does seem all too familiar to anyone who has been on this discussion.

7
Flat Earth General / "Preaching to the (un)converted"
« on: September 19, 2009, 06:15:54 PM »
The following is a quote from a book review by Randy Olsen for The greatest Show on Earth.

'We all know that creationists are not rational thinkers. They are driven by beliefs, not by logic. Dawkins provides a transcript of his interview with the president of Concerned Women of America which reads like a Monty Python skit as the women, a bullheaded creationist, simply answers all of Dawkins's sophisticated argumentation by saying she's not convinced - like a character standing in front of a hail of bullets taunting "you missed me."'

New Scientist 12 September 2009 pp 48

From the posts over the years by many REer's there is a general consensus that this is example applies here too. Most REe's are here for the engaging in discussion most likely with the knowledge that no FEer will ever change their mind. Despite the depth and detail of RET.

8
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Mono magnetic poles
« on: September 19, 2009, 08:13:41 AM »
I can across an article (mostly theoretical) the other day about mono magnetic poles. That's right a polarity with out an opposite pole as in all common magnets. I'll leave it at this for now while you all try to find the article (there is a reason for this). Maybe for once some FE members may actually have to read a science journal for once. I'm hoping that this will lead to some real discussion from FEr's.

9
Flat Earth Debate / Earth Quakes
« on: June 27, 2009, 09:44:06 AM »
Here's another one, during earthquakes two types of waves are generated. Primary longitudinal waves and secondary transverse waves. Primary waves can be detected from any point on the planet, where as secondary waves can only be detected at relatively close positions.

Primary waves can propagate through solid, liquid or gas. Where as secondary waves can only propagate through solids. If the Earth is flat then both types of waves would be detected on all points. Or should I start adding seismologists to the conspiracy list.

10
Flat Earth Q&A / What is a theory?
« on: February 25, 2009, 04:38:19 AM »
I would just like to have something cleared up. The word theory in scientific terms has a different meaning than that of what most people assume. Since some of the FEH (Flat Earth Hypothesisers) get picky about the use of some scientific words so will I.

A theory is only a theory when it has reproducible experiments. So please don't call RET just a theory; It is not conjecture or a belief. It represents how concepts are related or correlated.

If there is no experimental evidence to support the concept then its a hypothesis. A hypothesis is based on the understanding of related concepts and what implications they may have (prior to testing).

A belief is just what you think i.e. an opinion.

If even Tom Bishop recognises that a flat Earth map is only a hypothetical map. I know how tired this argument is on this site, where is the experimental evidence for a FE.

If RET is so incorrect then where are you experiments to counter our evidence?

Please also explain the Greenland effect. Also remember that if you can still see the Northern star at 23 deg south that's the tilt of the Earth. In the FE Solar (spot light) movement why does the sun "set" and not disappear into the distance?

There are two types of opinion, mine, and wrong.

Have fun   :)


Pages: [1]