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 - The Question1

Pages: [1]
1
Flat Earth General / Zeteticism.
« on: May 31, 2010, 04:27:38 PM »
If you want it defined,go here:http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za04.htm

Now,one particular section strike me as quite peculiar.

Quote from: ENaG
Until the practice of theorising is universally relinquished, philosophy will continue to be looked upon by the bulk of mankind as a vain and mumbling pretension, antagonistic to the highest aspirations of humanity.

Is it me,or does this seem contradictory since he also talks about icewalls and such?

2
Flat Earth Q&A / Lets talk about navigation.
« on: May 26, 2010, 08:08:43 PM »
Specifically,we are talking about navigating in the southern hemisphere on the FE map displayed in the FAQ(the icewall model.)
First,i am going to state the obvious.Navigating(in the air or on sea) uses a round earth model.That being said if we navigate with the model,it must be the one closer to reality correct?

Well,you could say that maps aren't always representive of reality.Maps however,ARE representive of the DISTANCES between places(the accurate ones anyway.)So it stands to reason that since:

1)FE and RE map assumes the world is a different shape.
2)Distances between countries in the southern hemisphere are from a different distance.
and 3)The RE map is used to navigate everyday.

Conclusion:Current Maps(I.E the ones that display a Round Earth) are the most accurate.

3
Flat Earth General / What else does the conspiracy cover up?
« on: May 25, 2010, 05:43:49 PM »
Besides faking space missions,does the conspiracy try to cover up anything else?(Like icewall guards for example.)

4
Flat Earth Q&A / Lets talk about the Tropic lines.
« on: May 24, 2010, 09:27:28 PM »
Now,if you ever looked at a map/globe you have probably seen these lines.You may have also seen that they are the same lengths.
Their is however,a discrepancy between the RE map and the FE map.
In an actual map they are as described above.
However in an FE map:

Its a rough sketch(since photobucket does not have a circle thingy)
The red is the Tropic of Cancer,and the blue is the Tropic of Capricorn.
Why the difference in length?

5
Flat Earth General / FE=Pseudoscience(topic from RES)
« on: April 08, 2010, 04:32:16 PM »
Got it from here:[url]http://theroundearthsociety.net/index.php?topic=162.0[/url
Note:Italic is thread author's opinion.
Thought it might be an interesting read.
Pseudoscience:
is a belief or process which masquerades as science in an attempt to claim a legitimacy which it would not otherwise be able to achieve on its own terms; it is often known as fringe- or alternative  science. The most important of its defects is usually the lack of the carefully controlled and thoughtfully interpreted experiments which provide the foundation of the natural sciences and which contribute to their advancement.

Basically means ignoring what is known in pursuit of the unknown. The method of which is ignoring or contradicting existing knowledge.
I know a lot about this subject to so dont come up with no BS, I study psychology at the university of sydney.

Here is an exerpt from a lecture from a website by a top psychologist:

The word "pseudo" means fake. The surest way to spot a fake is to know as much as possible about the real thing—in this case, about science itself. Knowing science does not mean simply knowing scientific facts (such as the distance from earth to sun, the age of the earth, the distinction between mammal and reptile, etc.) It means understanding the nature of science—the criteria of evidence, the design of meaningful experiments, the weighing of possibilities, the testing of hypotheses, the establishment of theories, the many aspects of scientific methods that make it possible to draw reliable conclusions about the physical universe.

Because the media bombard us with nonsense, it is useful to consider the earmarks of pseudoscience. The presence of even one of these should arouse great suspicion. On the other hand, material displaying none of these flaws might still be pseudoscience, because its adherents invent new ways to fool themselves every day. Most of the examples in this article are related to my field of physics, but similar beliefs and behavior are associated with iridology, medical astrology, meridian therapy, reflexology, subluxation-based chiropractic, therapeutic touch, and other health-related pseudosciences.

1. Pseudoscience displays an indifference to facts.
Instead of bothering to consult reference works or investigating directly, its advocates simply spout bogus "facts" where needed. These fictions are often central to the pseudoscientist's argument and conclusions. Moreover, pseudoscientists rarely revise. The first edition of a pseudoscience book is almost always the last, even though the book remains in print for decades or even centuries. Even books with obvious mistakes, errors, and misprints on every page may be reprinted as is, over and over. Compare this to science textbooks that see a new edition every few years because of the rapid accumulation of new facts and insights.

Ah this is a GREAT example. Rowbotham lived in the 1800's yet you still use his work like a bible for the theory

2. Pseudoscience "research" is invariably sloppy.
Pseudoscientists clip newspaper reports, collect hearsay, cite other pseudoscience books, and pore over ancient religious or mythological works. They rarely or never make an independent investigation to check their sources.

Citing pseudoscience books. That sounds familiar with being constantly told to read "The Earth is Not a Globe"

3. Pseudoscience begins with a hypothesis—usually one which is appealing emotionally,
and spectacularly implausible—and then looks only for items which appear to support it.

Conflicting evidence is ignored. Generally speaking, the aim of pseudoscience is to rationalize strongly held beliefs, rather than to investigate or to test alternative possibilities. Pseudoscience specializes in jumping to "congenial conclusions," grinding ideological axes, appealing to preconceived ideas and to widespread misunderstandings.

Fits right in with the evil conspiracy, giving the FE believers an enemy to hate

4. Pseudoscience is indifferent to criteria of valid evidence.
The emphasis is not on meaningful, controlled, repeatable scientific experiments. Instead it is on unverifiable eyewitness testimony, stories and tall tales, hearsay, rumor, and dubious anecdotes. Genuine scientific literature is either ignored or misinterpreted.

Misinterpreted definitely. Take Tom Bishop and his reading of Richard Branson's biography believing it to be him following the path of Satanism. Its all been misinterpreted.

5. Pseudoscience relies heavily on subjective validation.
Joe Blow puts jello on his head and his headache goes away. To pseudoscience, this means jello cures headaches. To science this means nothing, since no experiment was done. Many things were going on when Joe Blow's headache went away—the moon was full, a bird flew overhead, the window was open, Joe had on his red shirt, etc.—and his headache would have gone away eventually in any case, no matter what. A controlled experiment would put many people suffering from headaches in identical circumstances, except for the presence or absence of the remedy it is desired to test, and compare the results which would then have some chance of being meaningful. Many people think there must be something to astrology because a newspaper horoscope describes them perfectly. But close examination would reveal that the description is general enough to cover virtually everyone. This phenomenon, called subjective validation, is one of the foundations of popular support for pseudoscience.

This is just like how the Flat Earth believers "look out their window" and see that it is flat, therefore they conclude the earth is flat. This is clearly just a narrow minded naive view

6. Pseudoscience depends on arbitrary conventions of human
culture, rather than on unchanging regularities of nature.

For instance, the interpretations of astrology depend on the names of things, which are accidental and vary from culture to culture. If the ancients had given the name Mars to the planet we call Jupiter, and vice versa, astronomy could care less but astrology would be totally different, because it depends solely on the name and has nothing to do with the physical properties of the planet itself.

Includes the satanic symbols apparently existing in NASA symbols

7. Pseudoscience always achieves a reduction to absurdity if pursued far enough.
Maybe dowsers can somehow sense the presence of water or minerals under a field, but almost all claim they can dowse equally well from a map! Maybe Uri Geller is "psychic," but are his powers really beamed to him on a radio link with a flying saucer from the planet Hoova, as he has claimed? Maybe plants are "psychic," but why does a bowl of mud respond in exactly the same way, in the same "experiment?"

Sound like the whole dinosaurs building boats arguments

8. Pseudoscience always avoids putting its claims to a meaningful test.
Pseudoscientists never carry out careful, methodical experiments themselves—and they also generally ignore results of those carried out by scientists. Pseudoscientists also never follow up. If one pseudoscientist claims to have done an experiment (such as the "lost" biorhythm studies of Hermann Swoboda that are alleged basis of the modern pseudoscience of biorhythms), no other pseudoscientist ever tries to duplicate it or to check him, even when the original results are missing or questionable! Further, where a pseudoscientist claims to have done an experiment with a remarkable result, he himself never repeats it to check his results and procedures. This is in extreme contrast with science, where crucial experiments are repeated by scientists all over the world with ever-increasing precision.

Care to show us a meaningful, unbiased test FE'ers?

9. Pseudoscience often contradicts itself, even in its own terms.
Such logical contradictions are simply ignored or rationalized away. Thus, we should not be surprised when Chapter 1
of a book on dowsing says that dowsers use newly cut twigs, because only "live" wood can channel and focus the "earth-radiation" that makes dowsing possible, whereas Chapter 5 states that nearly all dowsers use metal or plastic rods.

Such as how I often see contadictary statements made of FE'ers to the FAQ?

10. Pseudoscience deliberately creates mystery where none
exists, by omitting crucial information and important details.
Anything can be made "mysterious" by omitting what is known about it or presenting completely imaginary details. The "Bermuda Triangle" books are classic examples of this tactic.

Ah now this is a common one. Such as the mystery beyond the ice wall. The unknown power source in the FE sun. What is on the other side of the earth is also mysterious. Things that are left unexplained, are just stated as unknown and mysterious

11. Pseudoscience does not progress.
There are fads, and a pseudoscientist may switch from one fad to another (from ghosts to ESP research, from flying saucers to psychic studies, from ESP research to looking for Bigfoot). But within a given topic, no progress is made. Little or no new information or uncovered. New theories are seldom proposed, and old concepts are rarely modified or discarded in light of new "discoveries," since pseudoscience rarely makes new "discoveries." The older the idea, the more respect it receives. No natural phenomena or processes previously unknown to science have ever been discovered by pseudoscientists. Indeed, pseudoscientists almost invariably deal with phenomena well known to scientists, but little known to the general public—so that the public will swallow whatever the pseudoscientist wants to claim. Examples include firewalking and "Kirlian" photography.

Darn right it doesnt progress. They are still using 150 year old literature


12. Pseudoscience attempts to persuade with rhetoric, propaganda, and
misrepresentation rather than valid evidence (which presumably does not exist).

Pseudoscience books offer examples of almost every kind of fallacy of logic and reason known to scholars and have invented some new ones of their own. A favorite device is the non sequitur. Pseudoscientists also love the "Galileo Argument." This consists of the pseudoscientist comparing himself to Galileo, and saying that just as the pseudoscientist is believed to be wrong, so Galileo was thought wrong by his contemporaries therefore the pseudoscientist must be right too, just as Galileo was. Clearly the conclusion does not follow! Moreover, Galileo's ideas were tested, verified, and accepted promptly by his scientific colleagues. The rejection came from the established religion which favored the pseudoscience that Galileo's findings contradicted.

Now this Galileo argument fits perfectly. I have seen direct examples of this many times in my time on FES
13. Pseudoscience argues from ignorance, an elementary fallacy. Many pseudoscientists base their claims on incompleteness of information about nature, rather than on what is known at present. But no claim can possibly be supported by lack of information. The fact that people don't recognize what they see in the sky means only that they don't recognize what they saw. This fact is not evidence that flying saucers are from outer space. The statement "Science cannot explain" is common in pseudoscience literature. In many cases, science has no interest in the supposed phenomena because there is no evidence it exists; in other cases, the scientific explanation is well known and well established, but the pseudoscientist doesn't know this or deliberately ignores it to create mystery.

Like dismissing valid RE evidence?

14. Pseudoscience argues from alleged exceptions, errors, anomalies, strange events,
and suspect claims—rather than from well-established regularities of nature.

The experience of scientists over the past 400 years is that claims and reports that describe well-understood objects behaving in strange and incomprehensible ways tend to reduce upon investigation to deliberate frauds, honest mistakes, garbled accounts, misinterpretations, outright fabrications, and stupid blunders. It is not wise to accept such reports at face value, without checking them. Pseudoscientists always take such reports as literally true, without independent verification.

This is like accepting work by Rowbotham as evidence, when it has been disproven by modern science

15. Pseudoscience appeals to false authority, to emotion,
sentiment, or distrust of established fact.

A high-school dropout is accepted as an expert on archaeology, though he has never made any study of it! A psychoanalyst is accepted as an expert on all of human history, not to mention physics, astronomy, and mythology, even though his claims are inconsistent with everything known in all four fields. A movie star swears it's true, so it must be. A physicist says a "psychic" couldn't possibly have fooled him with simple magic tricks, although the physicist knows nothing about magic and sleight of hand. Emotional appeals are common. ("If it makes you feel good, it must be true." "In your heart you know it's right.") Pseudoscientists are fond of imaginary conspiracies. ("There's plenty of evidence for flying saucers, but the government keeps it secret.") And they argue from irrelevancies: When confronted by inconvenient facts, they simply reply, "Scientists don't know everything!"

Dismissing all modern scientists and physicists working on the basis that the earth is round. No FE'ers seem to accept many actual scientists or people who actually know what they are talking about

16. Pseudoscience makes extraordinary claims and advances fantastic
theories that contradict what is known about nature.

They not only provide no evidence that their claims are true. They also ignore all findings that contradict their conclusions. ("Flying saucers have to come from somewhere—so the earth is hollow, and they come from inside." "This electric spark I'm making with this electrical apparatus is actually not a spark at all, but rather a supernatural manifestation of psycho-spiritual energy." "Every human is surrounded by an impalpable aura of electromagnetic energy, the auric egg of the ancient Hindu seers, which mirrors the human's every mood and condition.")

Extraordinary claims sounds like a common element of FE. Dinosaurs building boats. The conspiracy. Bendy light etc etc

17. Pseudoscientists invent their own vocabulary in which many terms lack
precise or unambiguous definitions, and some have no definition at all.

Listeners are often forced to interpret the statements according to their own preconceptions. What, for for example, is "biocosmic energy?" Or a "psychotronic amplification system?" Pseudoscientists often attempt to imitate the jargon of scientific and technical fields by spouting gibberish that sounds scientific and technical. Quack "healers" would be lost without the term "energy," but their use of the term has nothing whatsoever to do with the concept of energy used by physicists.

This one is a favourite. Bendy light. The Shadow Object. All invented by FE

18. Pseudoscience appeals to the truth-criteria of scientific
methodology while simultaneously denying their validity.

Thus, a procedurally invalid experiment which seems to show that astrology works is advanced as "proof" that astrology is correct, while thousands of procedurally sound experiments that show it does not work are ignored. The fact that someone got away with simple magic tricks in one scientific lab is "proof" that he is a psychic superman, while the fact that he was caught cheating in several other labs is ignored.

Invalid experiments are common, those by Rowbotham that have been disproved by modern science. Here is an older quote from a topic i found from Chris Spaghetti:
Quote
Quote
Several of the experimenents listed in his book use an instrument known as a theodalite to test that the levels of flags/bridges/masts of ships, etc were the same. His experiments are flawed simply because he seems to overestimate the curvature of the Earth, in his diagrams, the Earth's curve pictured would make the planet a few feet in diameter, don't say that it's scaled to fit on the page because the curviture and angles on a diagram drawn to any scale should be equal. An angle at 40 degrees at 1:2 should be 40 degrees at 1:1,000,000. So his drawings are poorly scaled, his boats and features would have to be hundreds of feet high to get that level of curvature.

Second point is that he does not take into account human/instrument levels. He uses a theodalite (sp) which is a powerful surveying tool, however they are not utterly infallible, even some of the best theodalites on the market are accurate to 20 seconds (a second is a portion of a degree, equivalent to .00## in metric).

Also he uses these instruments over very large areas, I quote "A good theodolite was placed on the northern bank of the canal, midway between Welney Bridge and the Old Bedford Bridge, which are fully six miles apart, as shown in diagram, fig. 7. The line of sight from the "levelled" theodolite fell"

6 miles? Modern Theodalites are accurate (to the nearest 20 seconds) up to roughly 30 metres. To use a theodalite over a 6-mile range is absurd. To put this into perspective I was doing a ground survey outside a college yesterday with the stations (points to be measured) roughly 10 metres apart. We took our face-left and face-right measurements and when we came together again to compare results, we discovered we were roughly 20 seconds out (acceptable margin) most likely due to human error. This is over 10 metres, imagine the discrepancies over mile distances.

In conclusion- His experiments are flawed to incorrect assumptions about the curvature of the Earth and innaccuracies in the instrumentation.[/
i]

19. Pseudoscience claims that the phenomena it studies are "jealous."
The phenomena appear only under certain vaguely specified but vital conditions (such as when no doubters or skeptics are present; when no experts are present; when nobody is watching; when the "vibes" are right; or only once in human history.) Science holds that genuine phenomena must be capable of study by anyone with the proper equipment and that all procedurally valid studies must give consistent results. No genuine phenomenon is "jealous" in this way. There is no way to construct a TV set or a radio that will function only when no skeptics are present! A man who claims to be a concert-class violinist, but does not appear to have ever owned a violin and who refuses to play when anyone is around who might hear him, is most likely lying about his ability to play the violin.

Note how experiments made by Tom have just been done by him in a biased manner with no experts or skeptics present?

6
Flat Earth Q&A / Things yet to be explained(Properly) by FET.
« on: April 06, 2010, 12:24:58 PM »
Things not explained on FE.

Firstly,a post that summarizes nicely why i believe in RE over FE.
http://theroundearthsociety.net/index.php?topic=9.msg107#msg107

-GPS
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=36546.0
-Equinox
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=25336.0
-Midnight Sun
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=25214.0
-Tropic Lines
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39167.0
-Moon Shadow
Instead,a theory about an anti-moon
-Large distances required for travel in the southern hemisphere.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39227.0

-The fact that gravity varies on the planet(For those who believe in UA.)
-Falling Meteors.
if EVERYTHING is going up because of UA,why not Meteoroids?
-International Space Station(ISS)
I think ISS's exact speed and altitude is irrelevant. The fact that it can disappear behind clouds means that it is at least 5-10km high (the usual altitude of Cirrocumulus clouds). The only other object, other than an orbiting body, that could remain at that altitude is some type of high-altitude plane. No exhaust trail or rocket flare has been observed, so it couldn't be a rocket plane. Balloons are out, as no balloon or any similar structure has been observed on the ISS.

That leaves some sort of high-altitude jet. This is unreasonable for several reasons:
  • Aerodynamics-wise, the ISS's design is horrible.
  • If it were a jet-powered aircraft, it would have to refuel at least once per day. Not only is this conspicous and difficult to keep quiet (even more people, an air force base's worth, have to brought into the "Conspiracy"), but it would likely be very expensive. A craft the size of the ISS would require a large amount of fuel to ascend back up to altitude and remain there, and even more people would have to be paid to keep quiet. The supposed motive of the Conspiracy is monetary gain, so why would they spend so much on a deception. Surely cheaper methods of trickery are available.

An orbiting body is really the only explanation for the ISS.
-Compass
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=38554.0
-Sunrise/set
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39283.60
-Angular Diameter
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39735.40
Daylight hours.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39400.0
) Earthquakes thread showing P-waves and S-waves being consistent with RET
) Why the distance of the moon and sun are accurately measured using Radar, triangulation, and parallax.

Bedford canal: http://theroundearthsociety.net/index.php?topic=76.0

Disproved proofs: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=25232.msg560231#msg560231 Note this one link contains other links.


Now,i know someone is going to say something like "Lurk moar"
But i have been to threads where these questions have been asked,and have not been given satisfactory answers.

Anything else that needs adding i will do so.

Pages: [1]