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 - JRoweSkeptic

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Suggestions & Concerns / This forum needs an overhaul
« on: July 14, 2018, 04:57:14 PM »
My suggestion
Lock FE General, FE Q&A, FE Debate. Archive them so they are not searched by default (though a user could choose to tick them if he or she so wished).
In their place create new subforums. My suggestions would be:
  • Basic FET - to serve to answer the simple questions like how we stay on the Earth's surface, neutrino experiments, the coriolis effect.
  • FET Defense - to serve as an area for REers to, rather than ask questions, poke holes in existing models. Where energy comes from for UA, etc.
  • RET Defense - see above, but for FEers to post arguments and problems with mainstream RET.

Though these are just suggestions and by no means vital, they serve a more useful purpose than the current. There is some room for interpretation, such as 'ask me anything about ___,' I would suggest classing them by how people are meant to respond. If they're meant to point out flaws in FET, then it goes in FET defense. Meanwhile a challenge like 'Ask me about the moon landing,' from a REer that wants to explain why objections don't hold would go in RET defense as posters would be taking an anti-RET perspective. This way each forum board has a clear, defined, unambiguous purpose. Are people going there to make arguments against FET, or to make arguments against RET?
(The idea behind those names is _ET on defense, but in retrospect that is unclear. Perhaps RE/FE Debate, but that does run the risk of confusion).

Why I suggest this
  • Because I have a forum so I know it's a simple fix. It's easy to create and lock boards, could probably be done in five minutes. The only bit I couldn't do so simply is alter the search function and that's only because I can't access the code. Once you found the code for it, it'd be easy to change it to deselect
  • The search function as is, is unusable. This has been repeatedly pointed out. Doing this will remove all the clutter and mean discussions need only be had once
  • The current forums do not serve their intended purpose. Q&A remains a waste, everything moved out of it, and FE General and Debate are basically interchangeable.
  • Currently there's no way to know what kind of thread you're getting; it is of more interest to a user to know whether they'll even want to argue in a thread or how much they'll need to explain, than whatever nebulous non-description the current categories provide
  • Reunification likely isn't happening, and even if it were the other site has changed its boards, we don't need to try and match.

Related Aids
These aren't required. The above alone would make a huge difference, but these would supplement the change.
  • No penalty for necrobumping. With a working search feature, it will only be helped if old threads can be discussed in, problems added to etc. (Minor, there are flaws as well as advantages, no one wants another unreadable monstrosity like Heiwa's thread)
  • An introductory PM, perhaps sent to all current users upon the change, to inform them of the forum rules and board purposes, along with a recommendation to use the search feature (minor, but easy)
  • Punishment for starting a discussion that had already been had without adding anything new. This demonstrates a user has failed to read the PM or put any effort in, respect should be earned and their immediate lack of courtesy merits punishment. They aren't a user to prize when they act so lazily. (major, otherwise nothing will change)
  • Related to above, deletion/removal of posts that change the topic. This is already meant to be done but it's given a lot of free reign. Move the posts rather than post a warning, maybe merge with a thread if the discussion's being had. (major, keeping a forum with a workable search function is vital)
  • Move posts, not threads. When rules get broken with respect to a thread fitting in a subforum, more often the whole thread is moved. This is ridiculous. Certain posts broke the rules, snip them off

I hope this will actually be read this time.

Suggestions & Concerns / Just my two cents
« on: June 14, 2018, 12:40:04 PM »
Like some kind of fool I actually care about this site. There needs to be a good site for FE discussion and debate somewhere and this seems to be the best bet. At the very least it's active, and isn't run by a tyrant. But as literally every user who tries to debate as a FEer, it is currently unusable.

Instead of brushing that aside, pay attention for once.

This is a major, systemic, long-term problem that has been well-established for quite a while now, and nothing is being done. Nothing has ever been done. A huge swathe of your userbase finds that this site fails at its most basic intended purpose and that apparently isn't considered a flaw worth fixing. I don't even know any more.
But in the vain hope that someone actually is going to read this, like it isn't just going to be ignored like every other attempt to change something about the site, I'd like to list some of the more major things that stand out.

Take the status quo, and shove it
This seems to be a factor. Everyone is so focused on defending the way things are that they don't bother to look for better ways. Take the big three FE forums; they suck. They are not used for their intended purpose in the slightest. FE Q&A is just a mess because everyone gets too passionate to not debate, FE General and FE Debate have basically ended up being the same thing. Sure, the intent behind them is different and fine, but who cares when that isn't what's resulting?

In an ideal world I'd suggets locking them, archiving them and making three subforums. FE Basic to serve as what Q&A is meant to be, for all the noobs to repeat the same stock arguments endlessly. FE Advanced to serve as proper debate, for the more developed and interesting arguments like neutrinos, or things that specifically address specific FE models rather than the generic 'gotcha!' shit that plagues the forum. And third, RE Defense or some such thing, where the flaws in RET can be discussed.
Normally I'd be more hesitant before suggesting a major change like this, except I have my own forum. If your host is remotely competent all that would take maybe five minutes. And it has a better use too; it completely clears out the backlog. Change the search default to not go over the FEG/Q&A/FED forums (though still have them be tickable boxes) and hopefully we will only need to have the same old discussions once. Answers can actually be found more easily then. The search function, yet another feature of the forum that fails in its intended purpose, will work.

More generally though, just look back at the site. There were plenty of discussions about having a formal debate section, a mass PM option, enthusiastic responses... and nothing ever comes from it.
People want change. That is evident. Do something.

Letter and spirit of the law
You have users who dedicate themselves to making this site as hostile and toxic as possible. I'll admit I've dipped into that side more than once when the frustration at putting up with this place gets to be too much, and that's the problem. You have a few basic good behavior rules, that barely get enforced but whatever, and that isn't enough. Punish the users who don't follow the spirit of the rules either, who might toe the line but can lawyer their way around to be technically following them, and who still make the site unpleasant.

This site should not be a chore to use. The fact it is, is the problem.
As I've mentioned before, making this site toxic, maintaining that environment, cripples the moderation team. What's the worst you can do, ban someone? Congrats, you've given them a vacation. Best case scenario you've banned someone who actually cares about the FE debate and was incensed by troublemakers and trolls, worst case you've banned someone that really doesn't give a damn and'll be back to do the same just as soon as it runs out.
You need this site to be enjoyable. That is the only way for the moderation team to have any power. Accept the fact it isn't, you know full well why, pretty much every user of consequence does, and do something about it already.
Banning the users that make this site a chore is not a loss. If someone is unpleasant then they've got to go, even if they can smarm their way onto the right side of the letter of the law.

Ignorance is a problem
This ties into my first point. Too many noobs, whether they've been here for years or for days, asking after the same tedious dull stock points that everyone is sick of. Freshen up the FAQ and/or wiki, hell go ask Jane to write it given she seems to have done more to make an FAQ than any of the actual staff here, have the terms and conditions upon signing up (and if this forum has an introductory PM, that too) link to it, tell noobs to read it, and if someone is not willing to put in that tiniest bit of effort and read the most basic few questions before making demands, warn and ban them. They are not someone to prize the presence of.

I am quite literally begging you at this point. Make this site usable, make it good, don't just ignore the constant requests for improvement that you get.

Time for an experiment. On a sunny day, boil some water, pour it into a mug. Leave it.
Give it a few hours and it will be cold. If you touch it, it will feel cold. But logically it started off warmer than the air around it, and could not end up colder simply by being left to cool. The water is room temperature, according to current scientific theory.
But if you touch it, it will feel cold. Why is that, why would it feel colder than something that should be the same temperature?

And that's the point the more dishonest posters on this forum are going to stop reading, going to google the mainstream answer and then post that while yelling at me. Ignore them.
Because there is a supposed answer to this; heat capacity. The problem is that it's nonsense.
The idea is that it is harder to heat up water than it is air, because water being a liquid has many more molecules to heat up. Our bodies, being warmer, lose their heat to try and heat up the water/air and in doing so feel colder because they lose more heat to the water.
The problem is, this is nonsense.

There are a few ways to prove this. The first is a more interesting experiment, for warmer climes. When the natural temperature is around 100F, warmer than body temperature, perform the same experiment. You should have no reason to find the water cool if your body does not need to heat it up.

Otherwise, for the rest of us, there's an easy way to think about this. Water has more heat, that's what those molecules mean. There's a lot more tiny little balls acting to warm you up. Even when they're colder, they have far more energy than the air. That's part of it.
The second part is the most important though, and it's speed. if your body is genuinely losing some of its heat to warm up the water around it, it should not be basically instantaneous upon touching room temperature water. It takes time to lose heat, the difference between water and air should therefore take actual time to notice and make any kind of difference in what you feel.

the real explanation is trivial. Water is not intelligent, when it cools down it does not know how much energy needs to dissipate. If it sends too little, it has to keep cooling. Obviously then, eventually, it will need to send too much; sending the exact amount is so absurdly unlikely as to be impossible.
Now the air will try to warm it again, but the same holds. It sends too much, the water responds by doing the same. And that's just the surface level.
If you left it indefinitely, it would eventually even out, but that's assuming uniform temperature in the environment, which is unlikely.

It's simple, intuitive, the principle observed over and over, with huge implications. It's fundamental to certain FE models too.

And before you hit me with that 'but a thermometer says they're the same,' a thermometer cannot reasonably be expected to give an accurate reading from two separate mediums. A liquid imparts more pressure, thus gives a false reading of higher temperature. And, yes, the pressure can be exerted through the glass, matter isn't 100% rigid and unmoving.

The Lounge / Who is this Joe guy?
« on: April 08, 2018, 08:29:36 AM »
41317, I know he's on here but haven't seen much, and he's posting on my forum. As much as I welcome everyone, I don't want my forum to be used to suck anyone into a cult and I'm getting a lot of cult vibes from him. Can anyone tell me more about him? Is he harmless, am I wrong, or is he looking for recruits?
If you can let me know anything more about him, please do.

(Leave the RE vs FE squabbling at the door, I don't care if you think he's wrong, I want to know what he's after).

Using a google resource:

A direct flight from Perth, Australia to Johannesburg, Africa takes 11 hours, 10 minutes.
A direct flight the previous day from Johannesburg, Africa to Perth, Australia takes 9 hours, 5 minutes.

The round earth value for the distance is 8309km. The plane for the flight above is an Airbus A340, with a cruising speed of 871km/h. Given the nearby times, wind speeds should be close.
Therefore if the plane flew without any outside force, it should take approximately 9 hours 32 minutes.
The average speed for the flight from Perth to Johannesburg is 744km/h.
The average speed for the flight from Johannesberg to Perth is 914.75km/h.

Jet streams tend to have the speed 177km/h. This is almost exactly the difference between the two average cruising speeds. So, tell me, what's going on? This is as though one plane flies in the middle of the jet stream and gets the full brunt to speed it up, but the other is able to completely ignore it and fly unaffected. It doesn't fly counter to the jet stream, it doesn't fly a little way below and is caught in air currents carrying some momentum from the jet stream. It apparently flies at a dramatically different enough altitude that these 177km/h winds stop exerting any force whatsoever.
We can tell that both should be affected given that the faster plane certainly would use the jet stream logically, and the slower plane's speed is drastically different to the predicted speed of the Airbus.
If the RE map is so accurate, what explains this discrepancy?

Suggestions & Concerns / Why do you let him get away with it?
« on: April 02, 2018, 02:56:28 PM »
There are users whose sole contribution to this site is to make it as toxic and unpleasant as possible. One of the most prolific is jackblack, who on the rare occasions he adds anything of the slightest scientific value is sure to do it in such a way to provoke whoever he's talking to.

Skimming only the first page at the time of posting of his past posts you have:

Personal attacks and overt mocking

Low content posting

Attempts to change the subject

And spamming the same thing over and over, demonstrated in these two threads:

Quality of post doesn't enter into it. You can think he's right, you can think he's wrong, but the way he acts should disgust any honest user of this forum.
I have previously made a post on the tactics used by many roundies to win debates in place of providing logic. Jackblack is guilty of almost every single one, and usually appeals to at least one with every post he makes.
He does not try to add to a discussion. He is aggressive, unpleasant, smug, dishonest, and is far more likely to try and change the topic or exhaust whoever he's talking to than to actually take part in a conversation.

I have not even gone into his tendency to, when he posts, not express his opinion but rather go through the entire thread and respond to disparate random single lines from everything anyone he disagrees with has said creating a huge ramble of vitriol no one should be expected to read. He does this regularly, and it isn't though there is anything intelligent to say in most of it. More often than not he just makes a snide remark in response to the line, acting superior. Also he repeats the same thing over and over in these posts.
He is a user that acts like this regularly, any time he joins a thread. He doesn't add anything, honestly he just appears to get so angry at the concept of FET he has to object to the slightest mention.
One solitary example of something he does constantly would be:
The very first part of that post is a rant with no purpose, and he just gets progressively more unhinged as the post goes on.

I am aware that I am guilty of losing my temper on this forum, as I'm sure many users would love to point out. The first thing to say is that the situations do not compare. I always begin calmly, I lose my temper as a reaction to users like jackblack and the way they act. Jackblack is angry by default, he never seems to be calm. And the second thing is, sure, if jackblack facing consequences mean I have to take some too, I will happily face it. I just care about the forum being usable.

I am well aware moderators never seem to respond to objections raised in S&C any more, but however futile it may be I have to ask. Why are users who contribute nothing to this site faced with no penalties whatsoever?
I recall a post by Space Cowgirl which pointed out that the reason for a lot of my bad behaviour is that I let posts from users like jackblack 'get to me,' and that it is my fault for engaging. And I accept that, it is a fair comment, but it also means she seems to tacitly agree that his posts are meant to antagonize, they are meant to get to people, make tempers run high, be as humorless and unpleasant as possible. On a debate site where readers are going to see posts like that, especially with confirmation bias goggles on, that is significant.
Why is this welcomed? Why is this prized? Why do users face no consequences for their constant efforts to not only view this forum as boring, unpleasant and vitriolic, but make others see it that way too?

If I am taking this too seriously, then your solution is to not engage with a user like him. And if that is the case, why do you allow him to post if no one should react to him?
This is not round vs flat, this is people who want to use the forum vs people dedicated to making it as toxic as possible. If you want to use the forum you shouldn't be welcoming users who try to force everyone off of it.

This is forbidden by the rules, by common sense, and any user that has to engage with people like that would find the same.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / What is Normal Behavior?
« on: March 31, 2018, 06:38:49 PM »
It might seem like an odd question, but I ask you to consider it. Everyone has a solid idea of what good behavior is, what bad behavior is... But what is normal? We are so comfortable calling people good and bad, but never in acknowledging middle ground.

Scenario 1: a typical hero fantasy. A hospital in a war zone, let's say, full of people unable to defend themselves and unable to move. There is one man, armed, assigned to protect the hospital, and an approaching, pitiless division of the rival army.
Should that man turn and run, or should he risk and likely lose his life trying to hold off the group by himself?
It is easy to say that the former is desertion and bad behavior, and the latter even with sacrifice is heroic and good behavior.
But there isn't middle ground in the situation. He can either fight or flee, is neither action a normal one?

Scenario 2: considerably milder, an actor is given a lacklustre script. The plot is incoherent, the charactization non-existent, the direction baffling. Should he give it his all, should he phone it in?
An actor said to phone it in is often criticized, justifiably. Would this then be bad behavior? After all, an actor that gives it their all is exhibiting good behavior. Should they try or not try?

Scenario 3: something of a control. A man drives down a quiet road and sees a homeless wandering pedestrian. That man can keep on driving and do nothing, or swerve, run over and kill the pedestrian. Alternatively we can make a third option from this, and the man pulls over and writes a cheque for a million dollars because he's hypothetical and we can make him as rich as we want.
It is easy to sort this. Murder is bad, charity is good, doing nothing in this case is normal behavior.

Scenario 3 gives us our barometer. If someone does what would normally be expected of them, that is normal behavior. So for scenario 1 and 2, what is it that you expect?
I do not expect people to give their lives, and view doing so as something especially brave, so desertion would be normal in that situation.
I would not expect an actor to put more into the film than the rest of the crew, so I would say phoning it in is normal and giving it his all is noteworthy and so good.

What about you?
It is far too rare for behavior, good behavior especially, to be acknowledged in the same way bad is. In many cases we demand good behavior and treat normal as though it is bad. There is an unjustified dichotomy, good and bad with nothing in between.

I remember one particular lesson with my computing professor more clearly than most. He was talking about when he in turn was learning, and his professor told him that if he wanted to see the forefront in computing and information techology and programming he should go down to the arcade.
He wasn't wrong. Of all things, it was video games that really started show what could be done with IT. I recommend to everyone interested to look up the history and intricacies of the classics, the inventiveness they relied on to solve major problems and bypass limitations are ingenius.

One example is Doom, commonly heralded as one of the first 3-D games. Except it wasn't, the hardware was incapable of rendering 3-D. Instead, the game had a 2-D map lain out, and rendered the environment based essentially on what existed in a straight line from a dot on that map. Each dot of the boundary on that 2-D map contained the data for a whole vertical line to be rendered in the game. You can note the faux 3-D by how no part of the map was above another, for example. Another would be how a shot forwards would hit an enemy regardless of their elevation; the game itself is playing in 2-D no matter the visual illusion of walking around a 3-D room with various walls and corners.
Another is the original Super Mario Bros. There's a famous glitch in which when two pipes are nearby, the leftmost might take you to a hidden area with coins, while the rightmost might take you to a further part of the level. However the game doesn't store the data assigned to each pipe, it only has one loading zone active at a time based on how far through the map you are. There are certain locations were you can scroll the screen correctly so that the right pipe's loading zone is active when you can still access the left, for example.
Pokemon too is famous. The early games have a wide variety of well-known glitches, from MissingNo, to being able to trigger an encounter with Mew (or indeed multiple pokemon), and then you get onto underflowing. They pushed the hardware to its limits, and it shows.

I say this not because I am paid, but to illustrate a point. They had to work around all manner of limitations, the hardware not being able to take what they could give it, and they did so. In the early 80s, if you wanted to see computers truly pushed to the limits of what they could do, you didn't go to NASA, you went to a guy jumping over barrels and chasing a monkey.

I also had a both amusing and disturbing fact brought to my attention recently, that if human-form robots do indeed become a reality, chances are a good chunk of the work for that is going to come from brothels. Certainly there are a lot of people working on developing true AI and robot intelligence, but they're working on the coding. As far as the physical body goes, there is a whole industry dedicated to fashioning sexbots, hyperrealistic down to the tiniest detail (for obvious reasons) with constantly increasing levels of accuracy, already being put to work. Add a few motors, and the first AI is probably going to be inhabiting a sex toy.

Academia isn't where useful discoveries are found. The limits are only pushed when you have a reason to, people that want a realistic robot to fuck are going to pay for that realism, people that want to make a functioning game are going to pull out all the stops. Discoveries are only made when people are driven to make them by some kind of passion or need.
Wartime is often spoken of as one of the places technology marches on, but we shouldn't limit ourselves to just that. It isn't the only drive.

We need to get used to thinking of knowledge as a circle, spanning all the various disciplines. That circle marks the border of what our current advancement theoretically lets us achieve.
Within that circle is a splodge, completely contained within it, maybe brushing the edge occasionally, with leaving various gaps. Those gaps are the things we could easily figure out, if only there was the need.

Suggestions & Concerns / 'There is no answer' answers
« on: March 27, 2018, 07:08:11 AM »
Can we enact a zero tolerance policy on roundies butting into threads to claim FEers can't answer a question?
There is no way to defend that kind of behavior, especially in the upper forum. They aren't answering a question, they aren't providing any information, they're just engaging in self-righteous posturing. This site has a fair problem with trolls, and this kind of behavior is an easy way to locate them; it demonstrates someone that just arrogantly wants to hear themselves speak, rather than inform or learn.

I am referring to posts like:

Honestly, nothing.  Ask yourself what it would take to convince a true believer of any religion to stop believing.  Add to this difficulty that many who claim to support FE are simply trolls playing a part for fun.

Bumping this post.
I want to hear from some FE the explanation for this.

wanna know why there aren't any answers....
because no FEB know's them

I am the same, I would love to have a debate with some flat earth believers and try to understand there logic.

You will be waiting a long time. There really aren't any actual flat earth theories at all, just misunderstanding of how physics work.
They have not even been able to figure out a map that makes sense. The most famous excuse you hear when you debunk their maps is that "there is no official map".

The Sun in many flat Earth models acts like a spotlight due to the opacity of the atmosphere.  In other words...

Do you have an accurate FE map that you have drawn these flight paths on?

That's an oxymoron if there was one. An accurate FE map.

If someone genuinely believes there is no answer, they would not need to post; they would let the lack of responses speak for itself, or respond when others do post. Instead they butt in, they interrupt, it's an obvious threat. Users that intentionally antagonize act like this, basically letting any FEer that posts know that if they answer the question they are going to have to put up with that particular roundie's bs. It's nothing more than a trick to prevent discussion and dishonestly claim victory.
No user who actually cares about debate would feel any need to say this. They would respond if an answer is given, or reference the silence later as a problem.

I propose this behavior is not treated with something small like a warning. While the offense itself is minor, it is not a mistake a good user would make. There is never any excuse for this. Let's say a simple one-day ban, increasing if they repeat. This may seem extreme, but the site is thoroughly unpleasant to use when one has to engage with the users that resort to those kinds of tactics, posturing over debate, and the kind of user that makes posts like this is not one to want around. Again, as small as the error may be it indicates a far too prevalent attitude, and no honest users would feel the need to say such things.
Because of that, it seems an ideal litmus test.

Flat Earth Debate / RET: The Single-Biome Universe
« on: March 27, 2018, 05:17:11 AM »
There is an easy way to determine that other celestial objects are not as we are taught. Before I begin this argument I will make a note on terminology. As a result of this argument, and the model itself, the Earth is the only thing I would call a planet. Mercury, Venus et al are not the same class of entity and have far more in common with stars than the Earth. However, as most people are used to thinking of them as planets, I will default to the mainstream terminology for the purposes of this post so that my point is clearer.

You likely have a clear image of many celestial objects in your head, planets and otherwise. The moon is endless plains of grey sand and rock. Mars is rust-brown sand and rock. Venus is volcanic and toxic. Jupiter is endlessly stormy gas. And everything we've seen from photos and statements from mainstream scientists is in line with this. Everything else in the Solar System is what is termed a single biome planet; a body with only one ecology.
It's an idea that is popular in sci-fi. The best known examples would be Star Wars; we have Hoth the ice planet, Tattooine the desert world. Something of a cliche, and plainly one that appeals to the human imagination, despite repeated criticism from the scientific.

But is it realistic?
We have only one planet that we can directly observe, and we see it covered in rainforest and desert and sea and ice. Certainly, if a world lacks water or plant life there are limits to the variation possible, but there should still be some. If you want to limit the materials to just sand and rock, then we should observe some areas of pure sand, some solid areas of just rock, but if you look at the myriad photos claimed to be of the moon (for example) then no matter the landing site they all seem to be pretty much identical. If you look at all the images from the Mars Rovers, it's the same. Loose rocks scattered over a sandy plain. There is no variation in the surface, the materials, the composition...
And that is to say nothing of the utter lack of climate variation.
Instead every single body that we have seen is little more than a quarry, and every single world that we are told about supposedly lacks any variation.

The way we are told the Solar System is composed is devoid of any logic or common sense.

This is a question that dates all the way back to Newton, who first pointed out that as a consequence of gravity, the stars ought to be attracting each other. Instead, over billions of years, they have appeared roughly the same distance apart though they should have been accelerating closer constantly.
Newton posited one explanation for this; that of an infinite universe. In this case all stars would be attracted in all directions equally, resulting in no net movement.

Modern RE cosmology posits another explanation, that of a finite universe but with space itself stretching.
There are two flaws with this. One is that without some notion of concentrations of space (which REers steadfastly reject) stretching fundamentally means nothing. Two, and more crucially, there is no mechanism for this. I asked this some time ago, specifically requesting users not try to evade or distract, but that was literally all I was met with. Changes of topic, personal attacks, avoidance of the question.
The closest I got was the claim that there were ideas, but none of these ideas were given. This notion fails to even be an ad hoc hypothesis because there is no attempt at an actual explanation of how it is even conceivably possible.
The notion of a finite universe relies fundamentally on dark energy propelling the expansion of the universe, accelerating it to keep pace with the draw of the stars, but there is no even hypothetical explanation of how this could happen, no mechanism whatsoever.
Further, even this idea relies on truly absurd levels of fine-tuning. The accelerating rate at which the stars are drawn together, and 'pushed' apart, has been so perfectly balanced over billions of years that we have seen no significant effect.

So, scientifically speaking, we should examine the other option. That of an infinite universe.
REers might raise a few issues with regard to explanations of observations, but in and of themselves those are minor, it's all a matter of time. More time has been dedicated to the finite expanding model, so of course enough hypotheses have been proposed. There are almost always a myriad of potential answers, it all comes down to the evidence for them. Indeed, in science the utter lack of a potential explanation or mechanism is a rare deathblow for a model, as above.
What matters here is creation. An infinite, uniform universe as we must have cannot be formed by natural means. Nature is not so neat. Perhaps there were infinite big bangs, but in that case there will be either gaps or areas of overlap. And even then, the formation of something truly infinite is rather absurd.
The one recourse would be a God of some description, a creator that could easily create the infinite universe. Further, this is the only recourse for the finite expanding universe due to the fine-tuning to balance the expansion and attraction, and potentially even the only proposed hypothesis for the mechanism of expansion itself.

This is, itself, nothing new. A theistic universe has been proposed by many REers, but they fail to acknowledge one simple fact.
The RE universe is not one that would have been created by God. In it, we are nothing, we are one random rock around a random star in a random galaxy, a mote of dust against the universe. And yet almost every theist would tell you that we are supposedly God's motivation for the universe.
In which case, why is the Earth not more significant, as a flat Earth would be?

Now, I am not a religious man, but it seems plain to me. Religious belief is not tenable under the Round Earth notion. Further, it is simultaneously required to hold an intellectually honest position among all the quirks of fine-tuning or infinity that RET requires. The RE universe relies on intent to form, but in the same moment contradicts that intent.

Under FET however there is freedom. There is room for natural formation, no need for such obscene amounts of fine-tuning, no need for the intent of a creator, no need for unexplainable phenomenon, but divine creation still remains a possibility as intent and consequence line up.

I would ask you not to distract, but after the other times I have tried I have little hope of that. Instead I will leave this post as a testament.

Flat Earth Debate / Stretching Space
« on: February 24, 2018, 10:05:39 AM »
A key tenet of RET is the idea that space is constantly expanding. The distance to all the stars is increasing. This is trivially answered under DET when there is a constant (if slight, net) upwards force on them, and similarly under many classical uniplanar FE models.
The RET explanation is that space itself is stretching.

Let's leave aside the hypocrisy of REers who rely on space being able to stretch, but object to the idea of concentrations because space is meant to be 'nothing.'

The driving force of the stretching of space is said to be dark energy. This is not a theory, it is a mere hypothesis with no supporting evidence beyond the fact it is what an REer requires.
So let us talk about your model, let us use your notion of space. Tell me how this supply of 'dark' energy causes the inflation of space. Give the causative factor that links "Presence of dark energy," to "Space constantly expands."
None of your usual evasion and distraction, this is a straight question that needs a straight answer. Without this, your model fails. I am not asking for a theory, I am asking for a mere hypothesis, something that could even possibly exert the effect you claim, on your model of space. This is not a mere property of space, this is something acting on space itself and causing a perpetual expansion, indeed, an accelerating one. How?

Stretching is easy to conceptualise if you have a notion of concentration, but you insist that's not the case, so let's hear it. How is your model possible?

Flat Earth Debate / ItsRoundIPromise: DET Questions
« on: February 22, 2018, 07:28:53 AM »
Posting this in a new thread because the post itself comes from an older one that I'm not going to bump or drag off topic. The OP was dishonest and deserves no attention.

I've read everything in your link, and whether you are too close to the issue to recognize how much is missing in your explanation of if you are just messing with people, I don't know. 
I do not see any problem with it. Your post is quite literally the first time I have seen anyone attempt to respond, I once made a thread dedicated to asking what peoples' problems were with my definition and it was nothing but pages of evasion. Roundies love to insist it's wrong but it is like pulling teeth to get any explanation for why.

There's so much wrong with this reasoning process it's difficult to know where to begin, but I'll highlight the two major problems.  First, grouping the many myriad assumptions that are required to make DET work under one giant assumption doesn't mean you get to claim a single assumption.  It just doesn't work that way.  Any assumption made that is required for the model is an assumption that needs to be acknowledged separately, even if it's more convenient for you to group them together to get a lower number.
I disagree with this. There is only one assumption to DET; there are multiple conclusions and things that follow from the assumption, certainly, but you only need to assume one thing for all that to follow. It isn't a giant assumption. It's a small one with a big impact, but the impact shouldn't be conflated with the assumption itself.
For example, one such assumption people accuse DET of possessing (including in that thread) is the space travel conspiracy. However, that is not the case. The conspiracy is a conclusion, following on from the facts of the model, rather than serving as something held a priori. Thus, it is not an assumption.

Second, just claiming that all of the observational evidence that exists for a spherical Earth works in DET isn't the same as providing evidence for DET.  All that does is cancel counterarguments made against DET.  When people want to see evidence, we want to see some physical observation that demonstrates that stars are chunks of incandescent metal in an aetheric whirlpool AND NOT giant balls of hydrogen.  Just because you believe that stars COULD be explained by your DET model doesn't mean you have evidence that differentiates DET from the paradigm. 
A physical observation that demonstrates they are something? That's just observation. All information we have matches exactly with how a DET star would appear, what more is it possible to provide?
Turn it around; do you have any evidence for the belief that they are giant balls of hydrogen, beyond believing that explanation matches the observation and theory you have? Matching observations is the only kind of evidence that exists. If you disagree, I offer the challenge I have given to countless REers before, give me some kind of evidence for a model that is not merely noting an observation is in line with a theory.

I know you're going to just dismiss me as a troll and probably get all hostile, but, from someone who read what you link, the reality is you don't have nearly as much as you think you do, and I would advise you to start listening to your "trolls" and see if their criticisms can help you build a better model.
I never default to calling someone a troll. It takes time. When someone consistently reads what I post and then insists I mean the opposite, repeatedly lies to my face, outright ignores answers or engages in blatantly dishonest tactics, then I conclude they are just trolling.
Disagreement is not enough. I like it when people disagree with me, I like debate, I do not like putting up with dishonesty.
I am aware of what people say about me. Those ones are most likely the trolls, or convinced by trolls, because after all people are more likely to agree with a round earther than a flat earther just on principle. It is the people that rely on that kind of dishonesty that I dislike.

I am happy to discuss, so long as you do not ignore my responses, and don't take the fact I disagree with you as an insult.

Flat Earth Believers / The Round Earther Playbook
« on: February 15, 2018, 02:38:54 PM »
This is for those that debate in the main forums. I'm taking note of the various dishonest tactics that are employed by round earthers, so that they can better be caught. I wish I had good solutions, but there's little more we can do beyond be aware, and do the obvious.
All this comes from my experience using this forum. I will do my best to name no names. I will also refrain from fallacies specific to certain arguments, and deal primarily with more general underhanded tactics meant to give an illusion of victory in a debate, when they instead demonstrate nothing but the round earther's dishonesty.

There's the cliche in debates that one should be unemotional. If one gets angry, one has lost. This is of course not true, one's temper has nothing to do with the logic of one's position, but it is a persistent belief, and one they take full advantage of.
The round earther will antagonize. They will take note of what bothers you, and will persist in using it. Often this will take the form of lies, misrepresentations, too consistent to be accidental and persisting long after they have been corrected. There will be insults as well; I suspect many have alts for this purpose, one more 'reasonable' account, and one that can get away with all manner of crudity and mockery. They work together, the latter to anger you and the former to swoop in and claim victory when you get justifiably annoyed.
This works too to force flat earthers from the site, making the forum unbearable to use. If you try to debate, you feel angry, you feel worse and worse each time. It's simple manipulation.
Many claim to be innocent of this, but judge them by their deeds, not their words. Often protestations of innocence are a further example of this tactic. When they repeatedly and openly lie, there is no other explanation for this entrapment.

When a flat earther makes an argument, or makes a point, there are only a handful that will be debated. The round earther resorts to little beyond the same few stock arguments you've heard a hundred times, and if you push them to develop those points or discuss anything new, they cannot.
As such, when a post is made asking something new of them, they will distract. They will persistently refuse to answer a question, and with their force of numbers will push the thread to several pages. When that is done, the casual reader would assume there was a response somewhere in the multitude of preceding pages, when there was nothing.

This is a more cliche fallacy. They will make demands that are simply not reasonable, whether it is a list of a hundred questions, or simply two or three incredibly detailed ones. It would likely take an hour to respond to such things, and that was if the asker was genuinely interested in what you had to say. This is rarely going to be the case as often these questions take the form of the aforementioned stock arguments.
Alternatively, users may make overlong posts, jumping on every turn of phrase or repetition of a point, expecting every single line to be responded to.
This also takes the form of the round earthers using their aforementioned force of numbers. There are more of them than us, both in real life and on the forum. They have the numbers advantage, so any answer a flat earther gives will be responded to by five or six round earthers. They use this to create a false equivalence, 'we responded! Why can't you?' when in fact any flat earther has to put in several times as much work to keep up with any active thread.
Through tactics like this, they exhaust us, in another attempt to drive us from our forum.

Pursuit and Backstabbing
Certain flat earthers are 'marked' if you will, they have expressed specific beliefs that round earthers do not like. As such, certain users will bring these up all the time, regardless of the relevance to the topic under discussion.
This is connected to the above techniques. It both serves as a distraction, but in addition the flat earther will often be blamed for the topic change when it was round earthers who sought to bring it up. Thus, it also serves to provoke.
They will especially do this in a flat earther's thread, in an attempt to set us against each other. A flat earther makes a thread, another flat earther posts in that thread, and the round earthers will take the beliefs of that second poster and make them the topic. This serves both as a smokescreen, and an attempt to encourage bitterness, but it of course takes two people to carry on a discussion, and it is the round earthers that are deciding to engage with only that one user. It is not the flat earther's fault for defending themselves, it is the round earther's for the distraction from what the first flat earther wished to discuss.
This also takes the form of trying to make us argue against one another's models, when we disagree. There is of course little time for this in the forum, with how few users there are when so many of us are forced away, it is just a distraction and another attempt to drive a wedge between us.
Separating flat earthers is a primary goal of round earthers. When this forum loses its sense of community, we have less reason to stay here, and as with the rest of their techniques it speaks to their end goal of trying to silence us, not by intelligent discussion, but by cheap and deceitful tactics.

This is connected to the previous, but it is commonplace enough to deserve its own section. As in the provocation section, they will blame a flat earther for being angry rather than look at their own side and wonder what exactly it was that drove the flat earther to anger. Similarly, many will see you respond to trolls in kind, and will blame you for it. They will insist you should engage with those that are not listening, those that have repeatedly used dishonest tactics, and call you out for being dismissive of trolls while never criticizing those same trolls for their behavior.
They attempt to cast us as the villains, and never once set their own house in order.

Confirmation Bias
This one takes many forms, and underpins the other tactics.
Forums such as this are, for the most part, not for the benefit of those taking part in the discussions. They are for the benefit of the readers, who make up a majority of the site's viewers. Because of this, round earthers have an advantage. The majority of the world believes in a round earth without question, and laughs rather than thinks about the possibility of a flat earth. Thus, readers naturally have a bias, even if they do their best. They will think that the round earther is being genuine, and the flat earther underhanded, no matter what the truth of the situation is.
A round earther can lie to your face, or more generally lie about you, and they will be believed. Calling out the lie meanwhile achieves less, because you believe in the wrong shape of the world.
Further, as mentioned above, round earthers will adamantly deny their abuse of these tactics, and simply because they are round earthers, they will be believed. They will claim flat earthers are responsible and tell many similar lies, and the majority of readers will believe them without ever analysing the situation.

I wish I could end on a more hopeful note. If you have useful responses, this would be a good thread to add them, and perhaps we can work together to help deal with this site's troll problem.
The one thing I will say is this. Though it can be disheartening to be faced by all of this, it is worth remembering what it is round earthers claim. They believe that a globe Earth is far superior to all alternatives, supported by undeniable science, and that alternatives are based on nothing. But if this was the case, why are they pathologically incapable of honest discussion, resorting instead to such fallacies and tricks as the above?
The very fact that they need to make the arguments they do is a far greater argument for FET than anything else.

Flat Earth General / SpaceX: The Latest
« on: February 06, 2018, 03:20:55 PM »

Take a look while the livestream's up.
A simple car that survived being launched up through the atmosphere, survived the friction, and got out into outer space, floating so freely that a camera can not only see its undamaged frame, but the space around it. And look how quickly the stars whoosh by.

Just look.
You can tell the solo company's a bit less practised at this.

Suggestions & Concerns / Suggestions to aid good faith
« on: February 04, 2018, 08:45:51 AM »
These are my best suggestions for dealing with this site's troll problem, that are smaller scale rules that I hope will be doable. I can see no downsides.
On most sites this kind of thing would go unsaid, no other forum allows users to get away with the kind of behavior that is perpetually on display here, but as it is necessary I propose we make it explicit.

Addressing Ignored Users
Ban it, if a user addresses someone they know is ignored, delete the post and warn them. if they continue to do it even knowing they are warned, especially if it is to the same user, ban them.
There is no reason to allow this kind of behavior. It is constantly used by round earthers to fire off cheap shots at flat earthers that they know will not respond. It has no bearing on the truth of either side, only on the tactics one side resorts to. When this is allowed, it makes the ignore function unusable for those of us who take part in debates, because you know an unpleasant user will butt in, say something that is easy to respond to, and everyone will assume they have a point just because they go ignored.
Talking to people who will not reply is a dishonest tactic that should not be permitted.

Promoting other threads
There has been a tendency among some users to turn multiple threads into discussions about one issue. Linking threads that are relevant to the topic are understandable, but this is not that.
It is common for two users to have a discussion in one thread. Then one party typically views themselves as having won, or be winning, and they then drag that topic into others, claim the other could not respond, claim they'd refuted the other's point of view... They don't continue the discussion. It is another dishonest tactic, that gives the illusion of victory because the other party will be too exhausted to carry on the exact same discussion in five threads at a time.
If they want to make sure a user sees a thread, they can PM. Anything else is just blatant posturing.
There is no reason to allow this. It is a particularly malevolent form of low-content and off-topic posting.

This won't solve every problem with the trolls, and as ever they ought to be relaxed in CN/AR, but in the higher debate forums the environment is intolerable at least in part because of behavior like this.
If ignoring actually made it safe to ignore users, and if threads were less cluttered and exhaustion less of a commonplace tactic, it would go some way toward improving it.

Flat Earth Debate / Put the spectroscopy bullshit to rest already
« on: February 03, 2018, 11:14:15 AM »
Spectroscopy is a way to examine the spectrum of light emitted by an object.
There are three important concepts here. First is the emission spectra; these are specific patterns of wavelengths of light that correspond uniquely to each element. You can detect elements such as hydrogen and iron this way.
Second is the absorption spectra. This is the most important to spectroscopy; according to the REer, the gas that composes the Sun absorbs certain wavelengths of light, and so these will be absent from the spectra emitted by the Sun. The Sun is not the only object to have an absorption spectra however, even empty space does. Light passes through pockets of gas, and is thus affected.
The most important concept here is the continuous spectra, however. This is the full spectrum of light, without any lines absorbed. This is the initial state, and it is emitted by anything that radiates heat. The round earther will tell you that the spectra of the Sun tells you it is composed of gas, but that is simply wrong, spectroscopy can only tell you that those gases are between us and a source of light and heat. The physical object itself emits a continuous spectrum, this is observed here on Earth as well, the absorption spectra tells us only the composition of what surrounds the light source.
So if the Sun is a solid, white-hot object, the absoption spectra does not tell us the composition of that object as any such object will have a basically identical continuous spectra. It only tells us what elements are present in the surroundings of the object.

Short version: you do not understand spectroscopy and you never have. You saw something vaguely relevant, thought it looked cool, and decided to use it as a cheap 'gotcha!' argument when you understood absolutely nothing.

You are more than welcome to look this up.
Have fun learning the goddamn basics of what you rely upon as an argument.

I bet this isn't going to stop a single one of you from spamming the same lie though, is it?

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Responses to Pseudoscience
« on: February 01, 2018, 04:08:02 PM »
Why is it that the mainstream responds to supposed pseudoscience with mockery? If you are confident in your science, then it should be able to weather a challenge.
A handful of topics, those that do harm, do get some scientific studies. Homeopathy would be one example. All of this analysis is however skin deep. It's brute force, and only applies to specific topics like psychics and faith healing that make regular claims. None of it is based on understanding.
Let's take ghosts as an easy example. People claim to have seen ghosts, that isn't easily testable because maybe they won't show up every day, who knows? But what a scientist should do, if they are honest, is to listen, learn, and apply their knowledge to that.

This is easy.

Someone sees a ghost. Ok, so there is something that interacts with photons. To interact with radiation, it must have some kind of mass. As ghosts come out of nowhere, this mass must come from somwhere. Say, the energy in a room. The cliche is for a room to become colder when ghosts appear, so this tracks.
I'll use UK figures as with the age of many castles, compared to the US, it is a good site for supposed hauntings.
The average temperature is 9.5C. Again, using a cliche, it becomes cool enough to see one's breath condense. that means 9.5 degrees celsius are reduced. Using a rough size of a castle corridor as 2.5mx2mx12m, we have 72kg of air, 72000g, and the energy in that 9.5C is then 163401 Joules.
Using Einstein's famous formula, the mass created by this energy is 1.8x10-12g
This allows for about a quadrillion atoms in the ghost, and using the color of the ghost you can roughly calculate what elements would need to have been created. Alternatively, one could calculate the thickness required for something to be observable. better yet, you could do both.
One could also note that this mass could not even create the average skin cell, so it would be a poor facsimile of any living being.

It seems to me this is what science should be about.
If someone challenges you, you shouldn't respond with mockery, you should understand them. This isn't what science teaches though is it? Science teaches closed-mindedness, commitment to the status quo. You can preach otherwise all you want, but that isn't born out by fact. Schools tell you what you think, not how to think, they tell you the conclusions you should draw.
No scientist would do the above, even though it is so simple to do that I can do it in a matter of minutes. A scientist with a better understanding of molecular weight and opacity and who didn't use my rushed figures could do much, they could use detailed accounts given to them by people that saw ghosts and could tell you something about what it is those people would have had to seen, including whether or not it was possible. With study, they would have better figures for temperature lost, size of apparition, and much more than my envelope calculations.
But to do that, they would need to take the time to understand a contrary viewpoint. That is the opposite of what science has become.
And if you disagree, tell me why none of the responses to pseudoscience are built on an understanding of that 'science.'
When a scientist is confronted by a medium, they don't take into account what it would mean for some force to influence the electrochemical nature of the brain. When someone speaks about a soul, the ways for immaterial and material to interact in a fashion limited by physical brain functionality never go examined. Science hits a wall, and they don't try to understand how anything beyond that wall could work.
Take homeopathy. Studies done to refute that only look at who gets healed and who doesn't. It works in this case certainly, but why not take the approach of looking at consequences? See what would happen with diluted particles, how it would need to work for the lower amounts to be more efficient, maybe run the numbers through filtration and see how much of every particle would likely have shared a body of water with your vial-full at some stage...
A line is drawn in the sand, and they say no more. beyond this is pseudoscience. It's wrong. And maybe it is, much of it likely is. But the way scientists try to prove that is lacking indeed.

Why is it they are scared of teaching scientists to think and honestly consider alternatives, even just as a tool for refutation?
When it comes to pseudoscience, scientists fail to use any method accept brute force analysis of conclusions. In situations where predictability cannot be relied upon, or supposed psychic blocks, surely basic scientific analysis of consequences would be the preferred tool?

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Fakery
« on: January 31, 2018, 02:55:13 PM »
Recently something called 'deepfakes' has been in the news. It is a piece of software that some particularly disgusting people use for fake pornography of celebrities and people they know as well as, as this is the internet, inserting Nicholas Cage into anything you care to imagine.
Here is Nicholas Cage in Raiders of the Lost Ark

And that is substantially lower quality than many out there.

The idea behind the software is simple. Using primitive AI and 'training' it on footage and images of a face, it learns to insert and edit and replace to place it in other footage.
The app was put up online fairly recently with the idea that any amateur could use it. You heard that correctly, any amateur can create fake video footage that most people could not easily recognize as fake. Many people have speculated on the potentially disastrous effects of this, from topics that vary from revenge porn to political scandal.

I want to suggest you look at this another way.

In the present, software, knowledge and technology has advanced to the point where an untrained amateur could, in a day, create convincing fake footage of Nicholas Cage as Lois Lane. This is publicly available, basically amateur-level stuff.
Before this point, there are necessary precursors that must have been reached.

One is, obviously, people with the technical expertise of the app developer being able to fake such footage the long way round.
Next is more sinister. We move beyond individuals; after all, corporations (IT corporations most of all) make a living off of being ahead of the market. If a random person can develop such software, a larger company absolutely could have before. They could also have dedicated the time to creating fakes without an AI algorithm.

Look past the obvious implications.

A look at the world and natural evolution tells us about the relationship between predator and prey. One cannot develop if the other does not as well. Anything else is self-destructive.
So, logically, as the technology to fake develops, the software to detect fakes must as well.
One of the ways to ascertain if footage was accurate before, was if it moved rather than was a still image. Plainly this is no longer a factor. For a 'trained' AI (to use a term they use) you will notice no clear blurring. I placed an image into online tools to detect edited images, as you can, and it is not especially clear. And, to emphasise, this is free, publicly available, hobby-designed software that someone threw together.
If that doesn't scare you, we are not living in the same world.
But, more than that, how are there not counters already? Why is it better known how to fake an image than how to detect a fake? Yes, law enforcement use a few bits of software, but it is not nearly as efficient as this which basically does all the work for you, once you supply the images via also free video-to-frame-image software. To detect a fake you need both specialized software and someone trained in its use, to create a fake you need one program. The software to detect fake still images is substantially less well-designed than the software to create fake videos, and yet the latter is a task incredibly more complex.

The software to forge and fake is years ahead of its counterpart. Technical companies have had access to this faking ability for some time now.
Each of these are simple, logical facts.
Consider why.

Suggestions & Concerns / Can we do something about the trolls already?
« on: January 28, 2018, 10:17:26 AM »
I know for a fact I am not the only person concerned with this. There are countless users who add nothing to the site except to waste the time of every other users. Many are vulgar, many are not, but even the polite trolls shouldn't be ignored. if anything they're worse because that facade will convince more people to waste time on them, and give a false impression to readers should they be ignored.

We shouldn't be grateful for the presence of morons. Temporary bans on the more acceptable ones, permabans for repeat offenders. Stop giving the round earthers the freedom to get away with all the mockery and timewasting they do. They have an entire world that agrees with them, they don't deserve this site too.
What kind of message do you think you are sending?

I am all for round earthers coming here to discuss and debate. To learn about FET, and to try to poke holes, back and forth, but I do not support this relentless spamming and campaign of mockery and dishonesty that multiple users are guilty of.
Just because they claim to be debating doesn't change the fact of their behavior, and that fact is that they are just wasting everybody's time. Can we please be rid of that? No one wants that here. We get enough of it in the real world.

Flat Earth Debate / Eclipse proportions refute RET
« on: January 24, 2018, 04:09:49 PM »
Step one. Calculate the proportional sizes of the Sun and moon during an annular eclipse. You'll find the Sun appears to be approximately 1.3 times the size of the moon, it will vary depending on which eclipse.

Step two. Create two isoceles triangles, one giving the angular distance of the Sun in the sky, one giving the angular distance of the moon. We can fill in these values.
We want the angles to be equal, to give the situation of a total eclipse. The angular distance of both objects will be the same. So in both triangles, the angle will be x. The side opposite this angle will have length M (the apparent size of the moon) in the moon triangle, and 1.3 M in the Sun triangle.
The remaining two sides will be k in the Sun triangle, and k+c in the moon triangle. k is the distance to the Sun. c is unknown, defined to just be the difference between the distance to the Sun and the distance to the moon. It will likely be negative.

Step three. Use the cosine rule to come up with a quadratic formula relating c and k.

Step four. Solve for c. If you don't know how to solve a quadratic equation, I can't help you.

I cannot write math into the forum, but I expect any capable reader will be able to run through and verify the calculations for themselves. Using p as the proportion (given as 1.3 above, but left open so that you may test with your own).
You will find that the distance to the moon, k+c, is k/p times the square root of (2-p2)
Certainly, there is some error in this calculation. According to RET the precise distances to the Sun and moon vary, as does p, but using p=1.3 and k as the distance to the Sun google gives me the distance to the moon as 64 million km. This is substantially different to the value RET gives.

For those interested in the theory behind this calculation, we begin by finding a proportion relating the Sun and moon. We then create, essentially, one large triangle. At one point is the observer, who looks up during a total eclipse to see the Sun and moon with the same angular size. They are different distances away however, so this triangle (currently a V, with the observer looking up) will have two lines opposite the angle, at varying distances away. One is the moon, the further is the Sun. Thus, there are two triangles in this one, the only differences being a) the size of the object, b) the distance to the object.
We can then use the proportion to relate the two distances, so b is the only unknown left to find. The distance to the Sun gives us the distance to the moon, and vice versa.

The RE values are dramatically far from what it is RET states.

Edit: Breakdown to demonstrate how many of the responses are either evasion or misunderstanding.

During a total eclipse, we can calculate the distance from the moon to the Earth in terms of their relative sizes, and the distance from the Sun to the Earth.
Their relative sizes stay the same during an annular eclipse. Only the distances change.
Calculate their relative sizes with pixel measurements of a photo during an annular eclipse, say, or whichever kind of measurement you prefer.
Use this knowledge to remove that unknown during a (limiting) total eclipse, where the Sun and moon appear the same size. You now have a gauge of distance to the moon in terms of distance to the Sun.

None of this relies on any assumptions, beyond the basic assumptions of math and logic. It applies to both FET and RET, but if we apply it to the RE numbers, they fail.

Flat Earth General / Let's break this down
« on: November 10, 2017, 05:09:01 PM »
I'm sick of coming here. I don't even know how I'm alive right now after the last time but whatever. Every time I come back I think maybe I'll find one genuine conversation but no, it's always the same. I'm not going to bother.
So instead have one good, long breakdown. What FET is, why it is scientifically preferred, and why the rounders on this site know full well that their notion is dead.

There is so much evidence that RET has failed.

We could talk about the formation of such a world. Under RET all celestial bodies are said to have formed because of gravity. Disparate particles were scattered throughout the universe, and said particles collided, ultimately being drawn inwards. This is easy to disprove with basic knowledge of momentum. If one particle collides with another they are not going to stick together, one is going to knock the other away. Further, basic knowledge of error will tell you that the movement will not have any net direction, a particle is knocked one way, and then is immediately knocked the other; even if particles do stick together it could be struck away, the same way to see balls on a Newton's cradle move.
I have tried to discuss this with REers before. They could only resort to metallic bonding: metals, which I remind you, could not exist under RET before the formation of stars.
Gravity will not make particles of dust stick together. There is no center to pull them to before a planet exists, and no reason for the particles to be particularly focused at various random locations to later become each stellar system. All you get is random collisions that cancel each other out and leave you with nothing. The absolute best case scenario for the round earther is one star, one world, right in the middle of everything, as all the particles were drawn back to the center, even if you can grant the notion of gravity magically making dust stick together and ignore momentum. Clearly there is more than one star.

We could disprove RET with reference to gravity and tides.
According to the round earther, tides occur because the moon exerts more force, from gravity, on the side of the Earth closer to it. By the time the moon's gravity reaches the far side of the Earth it is substantially weaker.
This is well-established under RET; there is something known as the Roche limit. Any satellite that gets closer to a planetary body than the Roche limit of said world would be torn apart by those tidal forces, with the force on the far side of the object being greater than those on the near side. It would quite literally be torn apart.
Of course, all us humans are within the Roche limit, but then we're not satellites. It is still an undeniable fact that there is a constantly varied force on each of us, and even on our buildings, where the tops are subject to a different force than the bottoms. This disparity is supposed to be enough to tear apart whole moons.
The response to this? Nothing. Obsessing over the fact I used the Roche limit as an illustration, and ignoring the central thrust of the argument.

We can also look at sunsets. The light at sunrise/sunset turns red due to Rayleigh scattering, when it passes through a lot more air. It even makes the sky around it look red.
Curiously this behavior is specific to the Sun and its environs. Note of course that all that matters is how far the Sun travels through the air, it wouldn't scatter in the vacuum RET says composes most of the distance between us and the Sun. And let us not forget the most important part of RET; the curve of the Earth. When the Sun sets it goes behind that curve, so concerned strictly with the atmosphere, the light from it only passes through a little more air than any other object you care to mention that goes over the horizon. The only difference is altitude, but given that air is much thinner at height, and that the Sun and sky can go red some distance above the horizon, we are left with two problems.
One, skyscrapers. Travel away from one, no matter how tall, the top never goes red. Indeed, the same can be said for stars. Why is the Sun unique in turning red?
Two, turn your back to the sunset. If it is the distance light travels that affects the color, one should expect the sky farthest from the Sun to turn red first.
All this is more than enough to prove that the celestial bodies in the sky cannot function the way RET states.
The response to this? Handwaving, blanket denial, and a total lack of reasoning.

These are just three of the arguments I have given in my time here.
But any round earther will tell you that no FEer has arguments for their position, or that we only resort to the 'look out the window!' cliche. It doesn't matter how long they've been here, it doesn't matter how many threads they've seen and even posted in, they will tell you we have nothing.
They will lie, right to your face.

What is FET?
When we realize the flaws in the model we're all taught, we look further. We think and consider new options.
A flat earther is naturally skeptical. It slows the progress of developing a model, but it ensures that when solid conclusions are reached, when there is consensus, what we have is solid.
As of yet there is no one, grand unified FE model. This is not a weakness, this openness is a strength. We are encouraged to think for ourselves, to work by ourselves, putting together the model we find the strongest.
When the flawed foundations of mainstream RET are rejected we begin anew. I personally drew from the basics of mainstream science, believing there was enough independent corroboration, but not all would do so. I also looked at many FE models, and focused on the strengths of each in order to combine them and form the model I call DET.
DET is complicated, as it must be. The same can be said of any FE model. They are not easy, they are not meant to be. They are detailed scientific theories put together in an attempt to explain what we observe in the world. One wouldn't go up to Einstein and complain relativity wasn't grade school level.
Not every FEer would come to FET this way, but even if they take the most illogical of paths it should not matter. FET stands on its own merits. We need no trickery to defend it.

How many of you round earthers out there can honestly say you tried to learn a model before rejecting it? I've barely seen it. The round earther talks a lot about being logical and scientific, but when push comes to shove they will regularly make sweeping claims about a topic they emphatically and blatantly know nothing about.
FE models are complicated because they are different. They replace assumptions of RET, focus on new elements, or define new concepts. Replace, say, gravity with just one different core tenet and the knock-on effects will be huge.
This doesn't equal ad hoc, despite the repeated lie. One thing may have many consequences, what matters is what that one thing is, how it is defined... It is never defined as 'does what is needed,' they are said to have limited, specific properties. For example the one altered entity under DET is defined to 'flow from high concentrations to low,' and that's all. This would have many consequences in the vicinity of any such concentrations, but one could hardly call it convenient. It's all defined from square one.
This could not stop someone lying though, nor would it stop someone being take in by that lie. After all, if you are not familiar with the complexities of the model and the chain of cause-and-effect much of it might well seem like it comes out of nowhere.

I would be remiss if I didn't bring up the much-misused Occam's Razor. There is the persistent idea in the world at large that an idea being complicated means that it's wrong: this is not true. Occam's razor compares two competing explanations and rejects the one that relies on too many unjustified assumptions.
One model might assume A, and A has consequences B, C, D, E... Ultimately though it has just that one assumption A.
The other model might assume A and B, A having no consequences and B causing C.
The latter model is simpler to learn, but it still relies on an unnecessary assumption. The former model, however is complicated, but less complex.

So what is a flat Earther?
Someone that rejects RET for reasons gone into lightly here, and who seeks to think for themselves. We develop our own models and work from there, creating entirely new ways to see the world.
When these new ways take effort to learn, to understand, many round earthers turn back there and then.

Evidence is a trivial topic to cover, but apparently merits it.
I define evidence for a theory as: an observation that is in line with what a theory states.
This may seem overly simple, but it functions. It covers experimentation, but doesn't limit itself to that so as to encompass both simpler avenues and sciences such as astronomy where one could hardly manipulate planets.
Alone however this is not enough to compare models. Multiple theories might be able to explain the same observations, and in that case one resorts to Occam's Razor and favors the one that makes fewest assumptions.
So evidence for a theory is:

a) an observation explained by a theory
b) when that theory relies on fewer assumptions than any alternative

I have received many objections to this, but a total lack of substance. I started a thread specifically to get to the bottom of why so many people complained about this, it gained 124 replies, and no one even tried.
There is no such thing as a piece of evidence for a model which is not just an observation in line with what said model states, nor is there ever a time where you'll find a theory which all observations are in line with, that relies on minimal assumptions, which is not based on evidence.
You are welcome to try and think of one.

The most common complaint is that this isn't phrased the exact same way as the definition for evidence you get when you type it into google. But so what? We can think for ourselves, and this demonstrably functions.
The best attempt at a response is to focus on the idea of predictions; that a scientific theory must predict something new about the world.
However, this is flawed. It favors tradition over logic. if this were true one could hold to a theory that explained exactly as much as an alternative, but needed to assume an extra entity. This is illogical, with good reason. Predictions are used solely to gather more observations in line with a theory.
Hanging everything on verified predictions is to say a model is better because it came first.

It is worth pointing out, however, that FE models do make predictions. DET, for example, predicts a discontinuity in the rate at which gravity decreases with height. This is specific and testable.
It just isn't a test an amateur can carry out in the comfort of their own home and, really, what else would you expect? In the world we live in centuries have passed, RET has been nipped and tucked and tweaked and shifted, to the point it's groaning under the pressure, for all those observations to be fit into it. There are highly unlikely to be any simple classroom experiments that'd unearth a new fact.

So, FET offers falsifiable tests. It is based on logic after arguments demonstrated RET fails. FEers give evidence.
Don't you ever let a round earther tell you otherwise.
FET is a scientifically tenable theory that bears no resemblance to the lies REers knowingly spread.

So we've talked a lot about FET. Now, let's talk about the round earther.
They will make claims about models they do not know or understand. They will hurl abuse if you profess belief in FET. They will assume you are wrong before ever hearing a word from you. They will not listen. They have an idea of you in their head and nothing will ever dispel it.
They will make demands, and ignore you when you answer. They might ask you to perform an experiment, but they will disbelieve you if your results are not in line with what they want (yet they will not do the same experiment to confirm). They will expect you to do the most absurd of things irrespective of how much time and money you have.
They will delight in provoking you and antagonizing you, and when you finally snap they will take it as proof of your illogic.

There are two forms of round earther arguments.

The first is the 'How?' They will note something like the magnetic field of the Earth, geothermal energy, circumpolar stars, and asks how it occurs in FET.
This is not a disproof, and should not be treated as such. It is the equivalent of raising one's hand in the classroom; it asks a question about science. However most of the time it can only be answered with respect to other aspects of science. As I've said, FET is complicated. There are numerous departures from RET, so to answer such a question one either has to go from almost basics and explain the chain of consequences, or leave gaps simply saying 'this is how it is,' and give the immediately explanation for the observation.
Both answers are pointless. It is exhausting to explain an entire theory every time you are asked, and it goes ignored anyway. They brush it off, or skim it and come off with a worse misunderstanding than if they'd just guessed. And if you give the abridged version, they assume you have no more details rather then the fact you decided not to explain every little thing and be there all day. They say those gaps are assumptions, not separate topics you can and have explained elsewhere.
I link my DE model in my signature and have always. How often do you think people read the model before asking me about it, and how often do you think I am expected to regurgitate it on a whim?

The second type of argument is the informed one, the proper disproof, that specifically targets part of an FE model. These are exceedingly rare, and typically fail because the round earther either has no understanding of the model and does not wish to be corrected, or because aspects of RET were relied upon as assumptions and were shoved where they were not wanted.

The round earther on this site can easily be categorised. One could ask why they would come here, why they're interested in something so laughable in the world at large.
The answer is simple; they wish to feel superior. They come to laugh at the stupidity. They either ignore even the FAQ assuming they were the first people to ever think of an argument, or they read it, realize that FET is more complicated than they thought, and resolve to never put any effort in.
It doesn't matter that you have a model, they will not learn it. It doesn't matter that you've done experiments, they will ignore it. They are not here to learn FET and are just here to jeer and insult and make themselves feel smarter. They do not try to explain why you are wrong, they simply insist that they are right, and do so with more arrogance than you could imagine.
I have no doubt a select handful were interested in learning FET, perhaps to give it a fair say, but they are turned on by their own side just as much until they either leave or conform.

It is easy to spot the fallacies of a round earther.

a) exhaustion. They will either list countless arguments, or make overlong posts it would take an hour to respond to, and object when you don't quote and reply to each and every line. They will insist that if they could do it, you could do it, even when a FEer has countless round earthers to respond to while a round earther rarely has to engage with more than one flat earther. They will repeat the exact same question, even after acknowledging an answer.
b) circular reasoning. They will make a statement of RET, insist upon it, refuse to justify it, and claim that disproves FET. It does not matter how hard you push, they would not accept any other explanation.
c) tradition. They mount countless arguments that come down to no more than 'RET was here first.' They have had more time to develop their model so of course it has more details, none of that alters how false it is or how correct FET is.
d) distraction. They will try to drag the conversation to some grammatical quirk or word choice and totally ignore the point you're making. Sometimes they will even initiate a blatant change of topic from the one they are losing.

Which brings me to

FET is dead on arrival.
Not because of how it functions, but because no one will ever listen. No matter what experiments you perform, what predictions you make, you'll be met with the same.
A crowd of ignorance. Of straw men. Round earthers who will pluck some nonsense you never said and insist you defend it. They insist they know your own model better than you and insist you defend their straw man rather than correct themselves. They will focus on irrelevancies and trivialities, they will spam and spam until you get tired, and then they'll claim that as a victory and hound you. They will lie and berate and belittle and act shocked when you lose your temper.
And not one will they ever listen. Not once will they take the time to learn FET in order to make an informed judgement. No, they've already made up their minds. You'd think it would be no trouble if they were secure in their beliefs.

But FET never gets a chance.

No debate. No honesty. Just lies, insults, fallacy after fallacy, and even this post will be met with more of the same outrage.

and there is no. goddamn. point. to any of it. All that work for nothing.
DET is yours to learn and make your own judgement on. Don't reject it because it's different, take the time to understand it, to see how it does work rather than assuming it doesn't, and make up your own mind.

Sooner or later meanwhile I'll succeed and you'll be rid of me. If months of work is met with nothing but the same childish fucking insults and complete and utter ignorance, people making all their sweeping arrogant claims without knowing a fucking thing, then there really is no point.

Adios. Hopefully for good.
I hope any other flat earthers learn from my mistakes.

Suggestions & Concerns / 'There is no answer' answers
« on: July 28, 2017, 03:32:23 AM »
Please can a zero tolerance policy on posts like this be enforced?

If you are expecting/hoping for scientific explanations with testable hypotheses, prepare to be underwhelmed.  If you get any responses, they will be 100% conjecture and/or false equivalency ("it looks flat, occam's razor says go with simplest answer, so it is flat").  Basially, keep your expectations of any intelligent conversation low...  It really doesn't take long to lose your patience here.

This is just the latest example I've seen, but nearly all the time a new round earther posts a thread, someone chimes in with inane nonsense like this, and there isn't even a pretense at contribution. Posts like this are useless, and they happen all the damn time.
Even if you want to move past the dishonesty of users like this 'answering' for FET by saying there's no answer, when chances are they've not only seen the answer but discussed it before, posts like this are still pointless. What is contributed to a discussion by saying this? I don't care if you agree with them, I expect even for the OP it has got to be exhausting to put up with seeing a response to a question only to find out, no, it's just a REer who thinks they're being clever.

It's a symptom of a larger problem with the site, the REers who think the world revolves around them (irony intended) but something still needs to be done.

There is no reason to defend posts like this, and no purpose behind them. No one interested in a discussion would ever contribute something like this. There is no reason not to ensure posters like this are punished.

Flat Earth Debate / The Lighten Up Thread: Haiku Debate
« on: July 25, 2017, 02:59:16 PM »
There's too much anger here. As such, in this thread we'll debate FET vs RET, but you can only post in haiku. Any non-haikus must go ignored.
And make sure you debate FET/RET, this thread's still in debate.

Gravity requires
Far too many assumptions.
Why does mass bend space?

Flat Earth General / RE Arguments Summarized
« on: July 25, 2017, 10:50:56 AM »
As round earthers typically just make the same few arguments endlessly, I'm making this post and thread as a reference point. There are only a handful of topics that get used most of the time.
My hope is that FE scientists developing their models can use this as a basic test, and that RE newbies will pause before repeating one of these tired old arguments yet again.
This is just anti-FE arguments, of course there are other questions like "What makes the Sun shine?" but those do not try to find a contradiction. It's also nothing directed at specific models, just the basic newbie questions asked about FET.
Let me know if I miss anything. Please don't debate, I'm posting this in the probably vain hope that an actual discussion can be had on this site if it's focused on anti-FET remarks. I want a full list of RE objections.

Many of these are basically the same question repeated to focus on a different aspect, but for the sake of clarity I acted as though they're all independent.

The Sun and Moon
Why does 24 hour sunlight exist at the poles?
Why does the Sun appear to travel in a straight line across the sky rather than curve?
Why does the Sun set bottom-up?
Why does the Sun appear to shine on the underside of clouds?
What causes the lengths of days to change?
What causes time zones?
What causes the moon's phases?
What causes solar eclipses?
What causes lunar eclipses?
How are eclipses predictable?
What causes libration?
How do the Sun and moon appear the same size all day?
Why does the Sun rise due East on the equinox for all observers?

General Space
Where do meteors come from?
If the Sun, moon and planets seem round, why isn't the Earth?
What are transits of the Sun?
How do you explain photos from space?
How do you explain the ISS?
How do you explain satellites and GPS?
What causes stars to rotate around two celestial poles?
How is there a constant angular distance between stars?

How do supposed distances line up with FET?
Why do flight times correspond to RET?
Why do flight paths match up with great circle paths on a globe?
Why do ships seem to sink on the horizon?
What causes the Earth's magnetic field and inclination?
What causes earthquake waves?
What causes geothermal energy?
What causes the coriolis effect?
What causes hurricanes?
Why do hurricanes not cross the equator?
How do you explain this photo of curvature?
How do you explain high, low, spring, neap tides?
Why can we see further at higher altitudes?
Why can we not see on endlessly?
Why do we stay on the Earth's surface?
How is circumnavigation possible?
How do equatorially aligned telescopes function with just one motor?
Why do radio signals fade in accordance with curvature?

Suggestions & Concerns / General Suggestions
« on: July 22, 2017, 04:26:09 PM »
We all know this forum has its share of problems. I would like to go over the most prominent that I have noticed over my time here. They're in no particular order, but they can have a major effect on the usability and enjoyment of the forum.

The Default Theme
One of the most common errors I can get on my computer, and that I'm sure is common universally, is not being able to utilize drop-down lists properly. If the drop-down list does not appear, I cannot quote a post, or edit my posts, and further I cannot even access the part of my profile necessary to try and change the theme. It'd be smarter for the default theme to rely on no bells and whistles, and recommend 'upgrades' for users with a more consistent connection.

The blocking function works well only on forums where a certain standard of discussion is maintained, or on ones which don't often rely on discussions with specific users. This forum has neither. For an FEer to block a REer, that REer invariably hounds them and spams the same questions over and over, 'just ignore them' is not good advice because this is a debate forum. Everyone who reads the thread will assume the FEer is dodging questions, or the FEer will have to engage and put up with the abusive, thoroughly unpleasant users that make up the majority of the userbase. With the standard of discussion maintained here it is perfectly acceptable for users to behave that way.
At the very least there should be a rule for users to not address the ones that have them blocked. Doing so is unfair just from a logical standpoint, what is the point in making an argument that will never be responded to if not to score a cheap, dishonest point? Have some leeway for honest mistakes, but when it's done consistently it's blatant harassment.

Mods have anonymity to the overall userbase when banning and leaving warnings, stop being so goddamn nice. I'll happily take a ban if I've gotten snippy but please start dealing with the toxicity seriously. This forum is meant to be enjoyable and yet arrogance and personal attacks are commonplace, it is impossible as an FEer to engage in a simple discussion or attempt to explain a certain principle without either jackblack coming in with an ungodly long ramble responding to every little quirk of phrase you've made in the entirety of the thread often just making the same straw man ten times in a row, lonegranger popping by to throw out some insults, rabinoz having a good old chortle about how stupid FET is and how right RET is with no substance, and it looks like Neil's back now so we all know that'll end in disaster.
This has turned into a forum that serves no purpose other than to make people angry. I sincerely doubt that is intended or wanted by anyone. If REers kick up a fuss when they can't insult, reban for a longer time; they've shown their true colors. We shouldn't prize the presence of antagonisers. Don't ban for no reason, but do more than warn and have a realistic standard of what counts for harassment and personal attacks because this constant patronizing and self-importance and snide superiority and obvious mockery is beyond exhausting to deal with. FEers leave this forum in droves rather than put up with it, name one who's anywhere near as active as your typical REer.
Ditto for FEers, the ones that are trolling, treat them the same. There are just far less of them, and most seem to act the way they do due to their treatment.
Keep the users who actually discuss fairly, but do we seriously have to put up with the likes of jackblack and lonegranger?

This might be a huge undertaking, though with the help of the general userbase it could work. Is there any way to be able to mark certain threads so that they do not appear when using the search function? The same questions get asked hundreds of times, and FEers answer the first dozen before being tired of repeating themselves, and it makes the search function a mess. This goes both for finding questions, and researching answers. If someone wants to search for, say, celestial gears, it doesn't help if they just find dozens of threads saying "What causes bla bla bla?" "Celestial gears." Those threads help no one, it'd be best to just save the threads that actually explain what celestial gears are.
Ideally just delete the useless threads given the lack of content, though I understand that could be controversial. Archiving seems best. It might be more technical, but if necessary mark them as belonging to another section which can be ticked on/off on the search if someone is desperate to find something in an obselete thread. Worst case though, being able to actually research on this site has more benefit than finding something Heiwa said in that monstrosity of a challenge thread or looking up that guy that didn't believe in mountains.

Minor point, but the homepage is broken. Presumably there is meant to be a header image of some description; there isn't, and without it the 'Flat Earth Society' title blocks off a number of the links.

A better wiki/FAQ
This truly is a disaster, and always has been. It vastly oversimplifies FET and barely pays lip service to any alternatives. We should be celebrating the diversity of FE models, and the freedom to develop and refine so often missing in science. a round earther has made a better FAQ than the actual one, and that's just embarassing.
At the very least there should be more there to indicate it is just a jumping off point.

At a certain point stupidity starts being intentional. The number of users who insist FET has no answers for certain objections, never even attempts to answer certain objections... when they themselves have been involved in debates on those subjects and have seen the responses is beyond a joke. It is intentional and knowing misrepresentation, and is done consistently with no consequences.

These are just a few of my thoughts. I don't expect everyone to agree with all of them, but hopefully it sparks a little consideration.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Social Progress is an Oxymoron
« on: July 21, 2017, 05:07:11 PM »
Give a man a fish and he'll be fed for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll be fed for his entire life.

As anyone could tell you, societies function by people being helped by one another. You are helped by law enforcement, shops, farmers... You do not have to supply everything you need, others do that for you.
But as any realist will tell you, societies function because there is a benefit to people helping one another. Each time someone helps you, they gain something, whether monetary or employment-related.
Which is where the proverb gains importance. The benefit is for people to help you more. There are two ways to do this; either fill more needs, or create new needs.

They always choose the latter. Look at what is necessary today, compared to years ago. Cars must be faster, phones must have a new shape, TVs must be 4K... None of this has any significant impact.
Or we can look at social trends. Historically it was attractive for women to put on weight, when it was far harder for people to feed themselves. Now where food is commonplace, skinniness has become attractive because now diets and excercise get sold.
Or there's toothpaste. It serves no purpose, a brush with good technique can deal with plaque, but brushes only need replacing maybe once a year if you're unlucky, and then you have people going onto electric toothbrushes, while toothpaste is a regular investment.

Societies function because they give you a fish, rather than teaching you how to get your own.

Socities must incentivize this kind of behavior to work, but when they do you end up with this. A chain of dependence and reliance on and on, with needs being created only to be filled by some new creation.
Society cannot progress, because to progress you must learn. It merely creates the illusion of progress by creating a niche that was never needed before.

You can respond to this in one of two ways.
One, acknowledge that this occurs and that society is based on being instructed, and improve it within that framework.
Two, fight the notion and try independence despite the drawbacks.

There is no perfect solution. The danger is when people do neither of these, trying to reduce control as though it wasn't needed, and without teaching the world to fish.

Flat Earth Debate / RE Timescales Destroy the Earth
« on: July 20, 2017, 03:14:28 PM »
Puddles form on rainy days, yet these do not just stay where they are. They evaporate, but how? Water boils at 100C, anything less and it'd just sit there. I doubt it ever gets that hot where you are though. The hottest place I've ever been wasn't even half that, yet it wasn't filled with puddles.
The answer is simple. Essentially, it still takes in energy from sunlgiht, getting the energy needed for a tiny portion to evaporate, section after section, until nothing is left. This is a simplified explanation, but it contains the key to the underlying principle.
It takes just a few hours for water to evaporate this way.
What might be achieved over days? Weeks? Months? Years? Centuries? Four and a half billion years?
According to RET, that's the approximate age of the Earth. You'd have thought we'd have seen more of an effect by now, wouldn't you? Even stone melts. Certainly it needs a much higher temperature, but if it takes six hours for a puddle to vanish (at best), we have 6570000000000 times that with the supposed extreme heat of the core an extra supply of energy along with the Sun, and what, we see nothing?
If the Earth was as old as RET claims, it would have ceased to exist long ago, the same way puddles evaporate after rain.

For those unaware, the reason the Sun appears red at sunrise/sunset is, according to REers, that light scatters due to how much air it passes through. This phenomenon is called Rayleigh scattering, and in RET the sunlight hits the Earth's atmosphere at an angle and when it travels a long horizontal distance to reach you, it passes through more air than if it was going vertically. Hence, it scatters and appears red.
This is a property of light itself, not of the Sun. Any light wave that travels sufficient distance through air will scatter.

And that's where this becomes important. This ship is on the horizon, and many ships are similar, heading out as far as any object can be seen from sea level. The light from them travels about as far as the light from the Sun during sunset; in fact, more so, sunlight has to travel through the atmosphere to it, and then travel all the way back to the observer. While the path of the Sun during sunset includes a journey through the atmosphere not near the ground, under RET, the path of sunlight reflected off a sinking ship takes a similar vertical journey.
If things were as simple as RET proposes, the ship we see would not be grey/blue, but rather the same oranges and yellows and red we see during sunset. The light waves reflected off it should scatter, as any light waves that travel far enough through the air do.

tl;dr version
Light reflected off an object such as a ship on the horizon travels farther through air the the light from the Sun during sunset. It should appear red due to Rayleigh scattering.

It becomes immediately apparent that RET presents an oversimplification of the Sun's behavior.

Flat Earth General / The blue amrble
« on: July 10, 2017, 09:40:18 AM »
Is this realy the best kind of evidence you people have? A blue marble. They liteerally lell you that it is a photo pf a marble but oh now hy would you listen to that it must be the arh from space. it would be hialriuous if it wan't so sad.

Its' a picture of a belu dot. it isnm't convincing in the sliughest. And it rweally is telling that even in so quite unquote better phots that the earth still looks so much like a marble. special effects were alwyas much more model based in the ealry days.

You r all so convinced that the world is round because of a fucking marbel.

hwo does thsi  make nse to any of ytou?!

Pages: [1] 2 3 4