### 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.

### Messages - CognitiveDissonance001

Pages: [1] 2
1
##### The Lounge / Re: .99999 does not equal 1
« on: August 19, 2008, 07:39:24 PM »
So now you guys are saying that 0.8888.. does equal 0.9999..

You guys should take math 101.

Where. Tell me where anyone besides you got that impression, and we'll walk you through it using small words.

CD

2
##### The Lounge / Re: .99999 does not equal 1
« on: August 18, 2008, 04:02:38 PM »
Than you must agree that 2/3 = 0.666...6667 something that the previous two posters said is absurd!

No, I would agree that 2/3 = 0.666... = 0.(6).

0.666...6667 is syntactically meaningless in mathematics, just like "grub the woods red ball" means nothing in English despite the fact that all the individual words are English words.

Well, I suppose it does mean something - repeated attempts to use a meaningless syntax indicate that narcberry is fundamentally illiterate (Innumerate?) in mathematics - since any proof that 0.(9) = 1 is going to require that the reader be mathematically competent, it's rather foolish to keep trying to do so.

narcberry is not, so let's move on.

CD

3
##### The Lounge / Re: .99999 does not equal 1
« on: August 18, 2008, 03:52:15 PM »
This just in: no such thing as infinite 9's.

Really - Question for you Narcberry.

If I write 1 as 1.0...

How many zeroes can I put after the one?

By all means, I think we need to know the maximum precision of the number system according to narcberry.

CD

4
##### The Lounge / Re: .99999 does not equal 1
« on: August 15, 2008, 06:33:44 PM »

5
##### The Lounge / Re: .99999 does not equal 1
« on: August 15, 2008, 06:27:55 PM »
It becomes undefined only when x=1.
but if 0.99999..... will eventually equal 1 with enough nines how many can we put before it becomes one and makes the equation undefined since by the logic put forth here the answer is no longer just one.

It becomes 1 when you stop adding nines and add a 0.(some number of 0's)1.

Such as 0.99999 + 0.00001 = 1

You can't add enough nines to equal one, since adding produces a finite number of them.  0.999... is just another way of writing 1.

So infinity = 1...

Nope. 0.(9) = 0.9999... = 9/9 = 1

Infinity = Aleph nought = the domain of countable numbers, and operates under an entirely different set of rules.

CD

6
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: A quick note on perspective
« on: August 15, 2008, 06:24:15 PM »
My apologies - but that would also cause gravitational (Or whatever you with to call your mechanism) 'lensing' of starlight, which, since one does not see stars positions 'warp' in respect to other stars either near the horizon nor at any other time, means that no such lensing is taking place.

This would be true regardless of the nature of the lensing.

Since Stars pass overhead a a constant speed without any such clustering or dispersal  effects of lensing, no such lensing is taking place.

Without some other verifiable prediction generated by your effect other than "Generates the exact same effects of a spherical, rotating planet, regardless of attempts to distinguish it from same" I must regard that attempt as needlessly complicating the simplest possible explanation.

CD

7
##### Flat Earth Debate / A quick note on perspective
« on: August 15, 2008, 06:13:16 PM »
Quote
Q: "Please explain sunrises/sunsets."

A: It's a perspective effect.  Really, the sun is just getting farther away; it looks like it disappears because everything gets smaller and eventually disappears as it gets farther away.
In one of the odder premises of Zetetic astronomy, there is an odd argument that the appearance of sunrise and sunset is a function of a trick of perspective.

It's such an odd argument, contrary to human experience and so easily debunked, that it seems to me to be worth debunking it in a separate thread.

The premise is that the sun (as well as the north star, constellations et al) only seem to precede over the horizon because of the longer angle of view lowering the star until it 'appears' to drop below the horizon.

Unfortunately, this contradicts basic math and the rules of perspective on two separate issues.

First of all - there is no 'illusion of perspective' that causes an item to 'disappear' over the horizon of a flat surface despite being there within line of sigth - neither halfway, partway, or completely.

The second is that the sun and the moon have nearly identical angular sizes - both approximately 30 minutes, or 1/2 degree, a consistent value because their orbits are sufficiently distant that the irregularities in the orbital distance have virtually no effect on their size from *our* perspective.

Unfortunately - neither of these apply to a 32 mile in diameter object a mere 3,000 miles away when overhead.

As you can see, basic trigonometric calculations show that the sun will look just like we would expect *any* large body that approaches, passes, and then retreats from our point of view to look - it will get large slowly from the distance, doubling in size as it halves it's range - reach it's maximum size of ~30 arcminutes (1/2 degree) at noon, then *rapidly* decrease in size as it retreats into the distance, rather like being passed by a rude driver in a corvette 32 miles wide. It will never have any portion of itself fall 'under' the horizon unless that horizon actually rise up to meet it - which, at 14.04 degrees inclination even half way across the earth's radius in the northern hemisphere mean only in deep valleys would this ever happen.

Nor will it get 'that' small - although it will seem to shrink to some 10-20% of it's maximum size, that is still three to seven arcminutes of size, or three to six times the size of Venus at it's brightest (at 1.1 arcminutes) - so even at midnight in the middle of winter - it would be virtually impossible to miss, racing across the sky at such speeds.

Atmospheric interference perhaps? Unlikely - remember that we *can* see the stars at night, certainly well under the 7 to 14 degrees inclination that will be the furthest the sun will 'fall' before coming back up - I just watched the perseid showers last week, and can say that even here, 15 miles outside of Indianapolis, I can see stars quite clearly  as the come over the horizon, so atmospheric interference that can't block starlight will certainly not block the stray light emitted from a 32 mile diameter bright object when scattered across an atmosphere 80 miles high.

Sadly, the perspective theory is easily debunked.

Cognitive Dissonance

8
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why?
« on: August 15, 2008, 01:42:38 PM »
Just out of curiosity, can you please explain why he needs to answer your question before you'll answer his?  He asked the first question.  He asks, you answer...then you get to ask and he answers.  Thats how we learn things from each other and get things done.

In my experience usually someone asks a question the person asked has only a few options.

- Answer the question if he knows the answer.
- Tell the questioner "I don't know".
- Ask a clarifying question so as to be better able to answer accurately.
- Be rude and ignore the question altogether.
- Turn the question back on the original questioner because you haven't the faintest idea of the answer and you hope the original questioner will provide a reasonable answer that you can regurgitate nearly verbatim.

With respect Robosteve, can you tell us which category your line of reasoning falls into in this thread?  Or is there a 6th option I have not included above?  If there is, please tell us what it is.

There is a sixth option that my question falls into quite nicely. It may be succinctly described as "ask a rhetorical question of similar form to illustrate the inanity of the original question".

Will you at least tell us if you do or do not know the answer to the original question?  If so, when?

The question does not deserve an answer. See above.

Then you failed badly in your attempt to do so as your 'rhetorical question' and it's follow-ups have illustrated your own inanity to far greater affect than thay have the original poster.

Cd

9
##### The Lounge / Re: Britain in Five Words or less
« on: August 15, 2008, 01:38:37 PM »
cod and chips twice please

Sorry "Cod and Chips" twice would be six words.

<G> CD

10
##### The Lounge / Re: .99999 does not equal 1
« on: August 14, 2008, 09:06:01 PM »

0.4999...5 != 0.5

0.499... = .4 + 0.09999...
0.099999..*100 = 9.99999...
9.9999...-0.0999..=9.9= 0.099999...*99
9.9/99 = 0.1
0.4+0.1=0.5

0.49999... = 0.5

Math still works, sorry
CD

Except you forget the 5 at the end, which disproves everything you just said.

Ah - you're right  - I assumed that you made a statement that was actually mathematically legal and that anything that made it look completely outside grammar was a typo, but since you wrote 0.4999...5, which is an undefined statement, and .5 *is* defined, you're quite right.

0.4999...5 = 1/0 = undefined - there, all better now.

11
##### The Lounge / Re: .99999 does not equal 1
« on: August 14, 2008, 08:05:53 PM »

0.4999...5 != 0.5

0.499... = .4 + 0.09999...
0.099999..*100 = 9.99999...
9.9999...-0.0999..=9.9= 0.099999...*99
9.9/99 = 0.1
0.4+0.1=0.5

0.49999... = 0.5

Math still works, sorry
CD

12
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why?
« on: August 14, 2008, 05:15:41 PM »
Nah - but I do know logic, applied and symbolic at the college level, and mathematics up to number theory, and it's fun debunking this stuff.

CD

13
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why?
« on: August 14, 2008, 04:20:32 PM »
ok then answer my question:

why is that not an answer to your question?

Answers generally provide some sort of response to the question at hand.

this kind of circular argument is why you are not able to convince people the earth is flat. that and the lack of evidence.

Evidence . . . Logic . . . experimental data . . . knowledge of the scientific method . . . self-consistency . . .

There's a 20K limit on these posts isn't there - <G>

CD

14
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why?
« on: August 14, 2008, 04:06:38 PM »
In the RE model, why do the stars (and possibly the moon) need to exist?  Obviously they are not there specifically for our amusement, so why then do they exist?

Is this a serious question?

If you have to ask that, you don't deserve an answer.

Stop acting stupid then.

Be fair - He's not acting.

15
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Doughnut-shaped Earth
« on: August 14, 2008, 03:46:45 PM »
Gravity is caused by our natural attraction to our deliciously sweet planet.

If the doughnut floated up causing gravitational pull, the southern hemisphere would be uninhabitable.
What a preposterous idea. ha!
ninjas
please, this is a serious theory

Obviously - everyone knows the intercontinental tunnels under the earth (Or, perhaps we should say . . .  crust), are run by Tibetan monks *not* ninjas. If they weren't, why would China invade Tibet? The Climate?

Good Lord - bringing nun-chucks into the conversation

CD.

16
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Earth is accelerating up?
« on: August 14, 2008, 03:39:22 PM »
And probably the funniest thing i've heard is that the sunset is an optical illusion...wtf??? Please explain!

Oh - that's a argument that they seem to have pulled over from Zetetic Astronomy regarding by Rowbotham.

The math in this text is incredibly bad - according to the intro "Rowbotham was an accomplished debater who reputedly steamrollered all opponents", but frankly, reading the text, I'm having a hard time believing it - the math on a lot of his work (I'm still glancing at it and deciding which parts to debunk - it's pretty bad though.) doesn't pass the smell test.

I've got a suspicion that his 'accomplished debating skills' are along the same lines as the FE posts here - they say things that don't pass muster and while people are sitting around going "These are not the standard definitions of the words their using" declare victory - even Socrates conceded he couldn't out-debate a sophist when they refused to grant any standard terms for the debate.

So what you do is you keep defending your territory by forcing the other side to establish that, yes, magnetism implies both a north *and* a south pole, and yes the Cavendish experiment *does* establish an attractive force . . . and eventually they get tired of reproving long established principles and leave, and you claim you proved something and 'won'.

When the educated people that actually know how to debate and use logic note that you never actually proved anything, you accuse them of elitism and trying to lord it over the peasants and still claim you won.

If that reminds you of modern GOP politics, that's not entirely coincidental - <G>

CD.

17
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Questions to add to the FAQ
« on: August 14, 2008, 03:16:27 PM »

Q: "Why doesn't water run off the Earth?"

A: There is a vast ice wall that keeps the water where it is. The ice wall is roughly 150ft high. This also explains why you can find a vast plane of ice when you travel south.

Antarctica as a continent does not exist.

80 miles high or 150 ft?

The first 150 ft is visible - the next 80 invisible. C'mon, use your head man.

CD

18
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Doughnut-shaped Earth
« on: August 14, 2008, 03:14:17 PM »
Magma - the jelly filling!

There should be a hole on the side somewhere where the magma was pumped in then - ROAD TRIP!!!!

CD

19
##### The Lounge / Re: Britain in Five Words or less
« on: August 14, 2008, 03:11:14 PM »
Born to queue?

Even Vogons don't read Chaucer?

Parliament: Congress + three drink minimum?

Our Government invented Musical Chairs?

-----------
Over five

Conquered the world looking for better food?

It's cute: Go ahead and Brag about your centennials, we have Pubs older than that.

Royalty: A closely related group of people bred together to bring out their best qualities. See Hillbillies.

20
##### The Lounge / Re: .99999 does not equal 1
« on: August 14, 2008, 02:57:15 PM »
Umm - you don't need to go into calculus to prove .999999... = 1

Just go back to conversion of decimals to fraction in elementary school.

0.999999999999... * 10 = 9.999999999...

9.999999999999... - 0.999999999... = 9 = 9* 0.999999999999999

9/9 = (9*0.99999999....)/9 = 1

You can do the same thing to convert any repeating decimal to it's fractional expression. Taking at random 0.12345 ...

0.12345... * 100,000 = 12345.12345...

12,345.12345...-0.12345... = 12,345 = 0.12345.. * 99,999

thusly 0.12345... = 12,345/99,999 = 4,115/33,333.

CD. Or maybe in this case QED - <G>

CD

21
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Questions to add to the FAQ
« on: August 14, 2008, 02:39:33 PM »
On foxnews?  Really I didnt see it.

You can't get to the icewall.  Instant death by armed peguins.  OR you are erased by the government either way if you make it, your not coming back.  Some believe the earth is an infinite plane. Which would make the end all icewall very far away, as in infinitely far away so you could never get there...but if you can't ever reach the edge then does it really exist in the first place.

The icewall is high enough so that no atmosphere escapes.

Remember - it's an *Invisible* 80 mile high icewall that keeps the atmosphere in. Or else you would be able to see it from the tip of South America.

CD

22
##### Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Clarification on Gravity
« on: August 14, 2008, 02:31:27 PM »
Of course you're right - it merely proves that there is a universal attractive force that exists between objects that increases linearly according to their mass and decreases according to the square of their distance from one another.
Nope, it does not prove that either.  There is no force between the objects.  The only forces in the system are in the torsion and tension of the string.
Now, let me ask you this:  How can your version of gravity affect light?

Quote
Nothing to do with gravity - silly to even think so, I was referring to some OTHER universal attractive force that exists between objects that increases linearly according to their mass and decreases according to the square of their distance from one another.
Which, again, does not exist.

Quote
Nope, not gravity, don't know how that even entered the conversation.
It entered the conversation because you think you know more than you actually do.

Right. Before the other mass was added to the system, there *was* no torsion and tension in the string. After it was, there was torsion and tension in the string.

Fortunately there's no such thing as "Conservation of Mass and Energy", or you would be forced to conclude that the torsion introduced into the system had to do with a measurable attractive force following a precise mathematically predictable relationship to a known mass introduced into the system at the same time.

Which brings to mind the question - Didn't you *do* this test in high school? Mine was a poor high school, but we had a great Physics teacher that actually constructed this test and made us do it ourselves, do the math, et al. I have often been jealous of friends of mine that went to more highly funded high schools, but maybe I'm overestimating how much difference the money would have made.

CD

23
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Line of sight
« on: August 14, 2008, 02:19:04 PM »
Sadly, however, they were in vain.

Oh I know - in the grand scheme of things I'm kind of enjoying this board for the sake of remembering that there *are* stupid belief systems that don't hurt anybody - it's not like say, intelligent design, where they can't think rationally *and* want to insure no one else can either - <G>.

More like some kid that reads the D&D 'Manual of the Planes' and takes it seriously. Fun to think about and play with, has no more link to reality than trying to create an internally consistent RPG.

Fun though. - CD

24
##### Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Clarification on Gravity
« on: August 13, 2008, 09:10:47 PM »
If that were the case please explain the results of the Cavendish experiment.
The Cavendish Experiment has absolutely zero to do with proving the existence of the force of gravity.

Of course you're right - it merely proves that there is a universal attractive force that exists between objects that increases linearly according to their mass and decreases according to the square of their distance from one another.

Nothing to do with gravity - silly to even think so, I was referring to some OTHER universal attractive force that exists between objects that increases linearly according to their mass and decreases according to the square of their distance from one another.

Nope, not gravity, don't know how that even entered the conversation.

25
##### Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Clarification on Gravity
« on: August 13, 2008, 08:46:08 PM »
Gravity does not exist.  It is a fictitious force that arises due to the transformation of a non inertial frame of reference into an inertial one.

If that were the case please explain the results of the Cavendish experiment. As my Science class personally performed said experiment, conspiracy is not acceptable - <G>. Nor will I accept any 'special' masses.

Not liking the fact that there is a universal attractive force between any two has amazingly little to do with the fact that the existence of said force can be proven, it precise effects measured, calculated for any two objects to any degree of precision one chooses, and thereafter verified experimentally.

CD

26
##### Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Clarification on Gravity
« on: August 13, 2008, 08:23:40 PM »
Gravity does not exist, and you appear to have completely missed the point of this thread.  lurk moar.

It appears so. He either didn't read the first post very well or didn't read it at all.

Ah the "He thinks the first post shows ignorance of basic logic and mathematics so he must not have read it!" Defense.

Given your capacity to post "Lurk Moar", I have no qualms translating that as "We have no answers but wish you'd shut the hell up and quit pointing out that fact.". Nope - having too much fun reading basically ignorant attempt to reconcile a blatantly illogical belief system and posting the all too obvious rejoinders.

CD

27
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Line of sight
« on: August 13, 2008, 08:05:13 PM »
Finally, bringing us all the way back around to the first, silliest unfounded assumption  -
Quote
Government

Q: "Why do the all the world Governments say the Earth is round?"

A: It's a conspiracy

Q: "What about NASA? Don't they have photos to prove that the Earth is round?"

A: NASA is part of the conspiracy too. The photos are faked.

Q: "Why has no-one taken a photo of the Earth that proves it is flat?"

A: The government prevents people from getting close enough to the Ice Wall to take a picture.

Q: "How did NASA create these images with the computer technology available at the time?"

A: Since NASA did not send rockets into space, they instead spent the money on developing advanced computers and imaging software instead

It's silly to make a conspiracy requiring data to be suppressed by a vast international conspiracy of Scientists, Politicians, Ham Radio operators, Ships Navigators, and a cast of thousands . . . to hide information that is in plain sight.  In fact, for this flat earth theory to be valid, the 'round earth conspiracy' would have to be able to do impossible things, launch 'pseudo satellites' on a regular basis, create false images in 1969 that surpass any made in the 40 years since, speed between locations on routes that are shorter than the 'shortest routes' on the flat topology - the "Round Earth Theory" matches up with (Or actively predicts) each and every one of the items listed here, pulled from the site FAQ, the Flat Earth Theory has to add extra dynamics to explain each and every one of them.

(Which would be BTW, perfectly fine, if there were no simpler theory to explain it - Maxwell Planck devised Planck's constant as just such a patch over the discrepancy between a continuous spectrum and one that emitted light in 'packets', a fact that ended up being a fore-runner to Quantum Physics. He didn't understand why it should be that way, but it matched with the experiments and was a workable solution until something better came along - and as it happened that bit of pragmatism set the stage for quantum physics which in turn found out that he had hit the nail on the head.

But that was because the experiments deviated from the simple theory - if the experiments don't deviate from the simple theory, it's silly to make a more complicated theory. )

So gee, who am I gonna believe - you guys or my lyin' eyes? Or, more to the point, you guys, or my lyin' eyes, thousands of pilots, navigators, scientists, astronomers, cosmonauts, politicians, historical data, the laws of physics, the laws of trigonometry, navigators, Erastophenes, Magellan, the East Indian Tea Company, slave ship logs, satellites, shuttle captains, science experiments . . .

Give me a simple experiment that shows a different outcome between a simple spherical rotating planet and a flat earth, then you have a case.
Give me repeatable, objectively measurable outcomes, and you have a case.

But without any experimental results that deviate from the simple rotating sphere theory, there's no need for a more complicated theory. It doesn't matter how many ways you managed to shoehorn in an additional force here or duct tape the heavens together there to prove that you *can* have a flat earth that looks just like a rotating sphere to any given experiment - because what you *want* is a flat earth that in some way does *not* look like a rotating sphere. Once you have that necessity, you can breed entities to your hearts content (Well, to the minimum amount that explains the discrepancy) in the chase to create a *new* simplest theory.

But you have to have a valid, reproducible experiment that has mathematically measurable outcomes that differ between the simple model and the flat earth model. Then you get your license to breed entities, not before.

CD

28
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Line of sight
« on: August 13, 2008, 08:04:37 PM »
All these are explained far more simply by a spherical earth. You can 'explain' it only by invoking mysterious forces that leave no other sign than the particular phenomena you need explained, bending light in particular ways, having a mysterious linear acceleration without fuel, placing the sun on a path not explainable by gravity, ignoring what seems to me to be a fairly obvious thought experiment, ignoring the training given to artillery officers, and in general ignoring the simple theory in favor of a universe built by an incompetent deity that uses duct tape to hold the heavens together.

That's ah - not an explanation. If your theory requires more undetectable buy highly important forces working behind the scenes that a season of 'Lost' - then the onus is upon you to prove those force exist.

I don't believe in invisible pink unicorns.

CD

It's all about how you interpret the data.  The only reason why RE looks like the better theory right now is that it has been built in as an assumption with all of our major scientific discoveries for centuries, it is something ingrained in everybody's mind from a very young age (much like religion), and it's assumed by some that so-called "pictures from space" somehow prove that the earth is round.  However, it's impossible for some to ignore the evidence that the earth is flat.  That's what this website is all about: breaking free of the accepted dogma and actually considering something that makes sense for a change.

I don't believe in invisible pink unicorns either.

RtT

Um - no, it's not.

It's all in the question of whether you accept common scientific principles;
"entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity" - if a number of observations can be explained by the explanation that the earth is subject to the same gravitational forces that have been observed in the universe, thus rounding it into a  (roughly) spherical shape, or alternatively

You explain the same observations by postulating other forces that have no mathematical formulation but by odd result in the same observational data;
Requiring that the sun and moon give out light over a mysterious 'Arc', ignoring the fact that this would *still* requires them to be within the same visual range at all times, even if outside the immediate arc of their 'Beam', thusly ignoring the fact that you can observe each of them rising over the horizon, even in the most 'flat' of the plains states.
Quote
Per the FAQ - "Q: "Please explain sunrises/sunsets. : A: It's a perspective effect.  Really, the sun is just getting farther away; it looks like it disappears because everything gets smaller and eventually disappears as it gets farther away."
Except - no, the sun on the horizon *doesn't* look further away, it looks like it's . . . disappearing below the horizon. Which is interesting and useful since, using a 'Round Earth Theory', one can simply posit that it is in fact . . . . disappearing below the horizon.
Quote
Q: "Why are other celestial bodies round but not the Earth?" A: The Earth is not one of the other planets.  The Earth is special and unlike the other bodies in numerous ways.
"The Earth is Special" is an argument not notable for it's coherence, and without further support violates the  fundamental principle of science that the basic laws of physics are not mutable over time or space.
Quote
Q: "What about satellites? How do they orbit the Earth?" A: Since sustained spaceflight is not possible, satellites can't orbit the Earth.  The signals we supposedly receive from them are either broadcast from towers or any number of possible pseudolites.
Again, this posits a "Special" set of laws for some objects - notably the Sun and the Moon, which quite obviously *are* capable of maintaining a consistent 'orbit-like' frame, albeit with no mathematical model explaining it. Regardless, if the Sun and Moon can maintain the path, why not 'artificial' satellites? Presumably becase Sol and Luna are again . . . 'Special'

Quote
Q: "What about gravity?" A: The Earth is accelerating upwards at 1g (9.8m/s^2) along with every star, sun and moon in the universe. This produces the same effect as gravity.
This requires straight line acceleration which requires energy - fantastical amounts of it in fact. There is no evidence, other than the effects of gravity, for this energy. Also, this theory ignores other constraints of the theory it draws from - notably, if the earth is itself massless, then it cannot 'accelerate' at all - objects without mass are constrained under relativity to move at the speed of light - c, no more, no less. Also, although there is no theoretical method of distinguishing acceleration induced 'gravity' from the gravity generated by a mass, as a practical matter acceleration induced gravity is constant through out the system, whereas mass produced gravity creates a 'gradient' - the weight of items on mountain tops are in fact measurably lighter in weight than the same mass weighed at the base of the mountain.
These all "multiply entities without necessity", as we already have a functional theory of gravity that can be mathematically formulated for simple, non relativistic systems as F=G((m1m2)/(r^2)), or for the greater extremes under Einstein's theory of relativity, both of which can be tested with ease.
Quote
Q: "Why does gravity vary with altitude?" A: The moon and stars have a slight gravitational pull.
Q:  Follow-up to previous question:  How is it that the Earth does not have a gravitational pull, but stars and the moon do? A:  This argument is a non sequitur.  You might as well ask, "How is it that snakes do not have legs, but dogs and cats do?"  Snakes are not dogs or cats.  The Earth is not a star or the moon.  It doesn't follow that each must have exactly the properties of the others, and no more.
Non-sequitor - it does not follow . . .
Except, actually, it does follow and is a valid question, as the bad example actually provides - "How is it that snakes do not have legs, but dogs and cats do?"  Snakes are not dogs or cats - except that is not the answer provided by science. The *correct* answer is that genetics and fossil records indicate that snakes diverged from the main line of lizards approximately 150 million years ago during the cretaceous period - Cats and Dogs, being mammals, are, like other mammals, descended from the main line of lizards, retaining the characteristics of two fore and hind legs. Actually, vestigial remnant of those legs can be found  in snake skeletons.

The fundamental problem is that Non-Sequitor does not apply to questions - it applies to answers, as is obvious by the translation "It does not follow"; a question is first, an answer second. "Snakes are not dogs and cats" is a Non-sequitor, it does not answer the question "How is it that snakes do not have legs, but dogs and cats do?"

The question "How is it that the Earth does not have a gravitational pull, but stars and the moon do?" is a valid question, which the FAQ prefers to ignore rather than attempt to answer - "We Don't Know, yet" is a valid answer to a question in science, "It Just IS" never qualifies.

Quote
Q: Do you have a map?

A: See this one, created by one of our members.  There is also this map attributed to a person named Wilbur Voliva, and another by Heinrich Scherer.
Also, there is Cosmas Indicopleustes' world picture, 6 th century in the Christian Topography.
There is a necessary and measurable distortion when mapping a three dimensional object onto a two dimensional plane, a distortion that navigators, pilots, captains, surveyors and a hundred other professions are forced to account for when dealing with large areas. The long and the short of it is that this distortion would be remarkable by its absence on any two-dimensional map that actually gave exactly correct distances.

By the same token, there would be tremendous distortion involved in mapping a two dimensional surface onto a three dimensional globe, with minor distortion in the north pole become huge (Literally Infinite) Distortion on the south pole. These are not 'subtle' distortions, nor are they distortions that would affect only the distances between continents - the internal structure of the continents would be completely, massively different than the shapes that show on the globes, particularly on South America and Africa - evidence for this would show up in everything from the logs of the slave trade and the West Indies Teas Company, to modern efforts to fight Farc, columbian drug trade, oil exploration, radio traffic, the ways time zones are allocated, fuel efficiency, the permutations are infinite.

One of Tom Clancy's Characters once said "The chance for a secret to be divulged is equal to the square of the number of people that know it." - this wouldn't requires thousands - it would require millions of people to be aware of it, including oddly enough myself.

A 'conspiracy' that involves everyone except the conspiracy theorist to be aware of it isn't a conspiracy - it's psychotic paranoia.

Quote
Q: "What about tides?"

A: The tides exist due to a slight see-saw effect on the earth. As it goes back and forth, the water rushes to the side that is lower. Note, this is a very slight wobble. Remember, these wobbles are created by very minor earthquakes. They keep the tides in check. Notice that large earthquakes result in large tides or "tsunami".
Tides of this sort would propagate in measurably different ways than those known, measurable effects of tides, one of which is always towards the moon, and  one of which is 'released' opposing the moons gravitational influence due to the gravitational gradient of the moons gravity.

Round earth theory accounts for this second tide automatically by it's construction, FET accounts for it in no way whatsoever. Nor does the primary tide show the characteristics of a body 3,000 miles away, which would have completely different characteristics.

Quote
Q: "What about time zones?"

A: The sun is a spotlight which shines light on a concentrated area, so not everywhere on Earth will be lit at once. Times zones exist so that everyone's clock will be at 12:00 around the time the sun is approximately directly overhead.
That doesn't even make sense - for there to be any possibility for that to make sense, you would have to be able to see the sun during the period when you weren't in the spotlight. Think of a spotlight, and think of a spot light turning away from you - you, uh, still see the spot light. It doesn't mystically disappear behind the nearest object, drop below the horizon, or show any other weird characteristics at all. You see it drop below the horizon.

Quote
Q: "How come the travel time by air from South America to New Zealand, via the polar route, is SHORTER than the travel time going North first and then South again?"
A: (Presumed answer: The airline pilots are misled by their GPS, or are deliberately conspiring to make it appear that the flights take different times)
Now -*this* is a nonsequitor, an answer that doesn't follow the question. Piloting from South America to New Zealand has a physically shortest route, regardless of what topology you're using. For a pilot to cut off time from one route to another, they have to actually traverse less distance or take advantage of the rotation of the earth, or both.

This is predicted under the Round Earth model. It is impossible under the flat earth model - indeed, as proposed, *all* routes in these areas are longer and require more time speed and fuel than can be accounted for under a Flat Earth model - yet match exactly with earth as a sphere.

Quote
Q: "When traveling in a straight direction, you will always reach the same point on the globe from where you started. How can this happen if the world is flat?"

A: You need to have evidence for this to be true. Also, define "straight." Remember, the northern point on the compass is, under most circumstances (unless near the centre or deep in the ice wall), pointing toward the centre of the Earth. Therefore, if you follow your compass due east or due west, ending up at the same point you started from, you've just gone around the world in a circle.
As with a number of 'Un-disprovable' things in the FAQ, I almost ignored this one, till I caught the minor detail it completly ignores . . . .

Magnets have two poles - a compass does not 'point' towards the north pole - it aligns itself along the dominant magnetic lines of force that go from the north pole to the south pole of the closest magnet, as can be determined in any grade school science lab.

Umm - Where is the south pole? We had a south pole on the spherical earth, I had it here somewhere, and it disappeared somewhere on the flat earth. It's not on the 'bottom' of the earth - the magnetic lines would be perpendicular to the earths surface then, it's not a some arbitary point near the edge, the  magnetic lines would range all sorts of places.

Umm - you guy's lost the south pole. We need it back.

Quote
Q: How come when I flush my toilet in the northern hemisphere it goes counterclockwise but I have this friend in Australia and when he flushes it goes clockwise?

You're mistaken.  On a round Earth, the Coriolis effect adds at most one (counter)clockwise rotation per day; fewer as you get closer to the equator.  The water in your toilet/sink/bathtub/funnel spins much faster than that (probably at least once per minute, or 1440 times per day) so the additional/lost rotation from the Coriolis effect wouldn't be noticed.
Okay - the Coriolis force as applied to a toilet is a myth, but this 'explanation' completely misapplies the way it works; it has to do with the fact that the higher speed of the equator adds a 'torque' to the weather patterns on a the large scale, that increases the larger the weather pattern is.

So - The Coriolis force as applied to massive hurricanes, weather patterns, et al, is not a myth - on the large scale of ocean current and such, it dominates, and weather patterns, water currents, et al below the equator very consistently and verifiably rotate in the opposing direction to their partners in the northern hemisphere, a fact that is completely inconsistent with a flat topology, yet predicted quite easily from a rotating spherical topology.

Note for the record - on a flat surface there is nothing 'special' about the 'equator' - the line separating the inner and outer half of, say, a record player - rotational velocity will increase as you move from the center to the edge, but there's no actual shifts - it's simply a mathematically predictable effect.

The rotation of a *sphere* will however create a coriolis force, again in a mathematically predictable model, with the equator being the dividing line between the clockwise and counterclockwise forces.

Quote
Q: How do seasons work?

The radius of the sun's orbit around the Earth's axis symmetry varies throughout the year, being smallest when summer is in the northern annulus and largest when it is summer in the southern annulus.

Here are some very good diagrams of seasons on the flat Earth.  The first is by thedigitalnomad:

This has so many scientific impossibilities built into it's assumptions that it's kinda included here for just the humor value.

The Sun is 3,000 miles away, and 32 miles across, and 'orbits' a non-physical axis without the use of either gravity or physical link, of which there is no observable sign, in a variable but predictable pattern that happens to have the exact same effect as if the earth was a rotating sphere. Not close, not slightly off, but the exact Spirograph orbit around this invisible center as to reproduce the effect of the rotation of a slightly tilted sphere.

That's not multiplying entities without necessity - that's a geometric progression of entities without necessity.

29
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Line of sight
« on: August 12, 2008, 09:40:07 PM »
Sorry no, simple physics has numerous tests to verify a rounded earth quite nicely.

Fascinating.  Like what?

Easiest one? Stick a pole in the ground on a date when it leave no shadow at noon. Then stick a pole in the ground 500 miles away. Measure the shadow left by that pole on that date.

The rest is easy math. And, well, hiring camel drivers to pace out the 500 miles, but it worked for Eratosthenes.

Eratosthenes didn't prove that the earth was round.  He merely calculated the circumference of the earth, assuming it to be round.

Quote
Plus you can see different constellations in the sky depending on your latitude, longitude, and the time.

No contradiction with FET here.

Quote
Plus you can actually see satellites overhead at night. With a low powered telescope, you can actually - y'know, *SEE* them.

You're seeing something.  We just dispute that what you're seeing is orbiting the earth, because that is impossible.

Quote
Plus the field artillery has to take into account the curvature of the earths surface in order to hit it's targets.

I'm not the least convinced of this.

Quote
Plus you can actually measure the curvature of the earth when measuring peak to peak heights on mountains.

You can quite easily verify the flatness of the surface by performing Rowbotham's experiments.

Quote
Plus the distance of the horizon would be determined only by atmospheric density in a flat earth - and the horizon would always seem to be at exactly eye level no matter what your altitude - see level or mountain top (Do the thought experiment on this one).

Ooh, a thought experiment.  That proves everything!

Quote
Plus if you went 'around the world' on a flat earth you would neither lose nor gain a day.

Wrong.  FE has timezones too.

Quote
Also, by extension, Jet Lag would be an impossibility.

See above.

Quote
Atomic Clocks on a flat earth would *not* show any difference in time measurement because of altitude - but do.

Ooh, you finally bring something up related to physics (I thought there were several ways to prove a round earth using physics?).  I don't necessarily agree with the reliability of these experiments.

All these are explained far more simply by a spherical earth. You can 'explain' it only by invoking mysterious forces that leave no other sign than the particular phenomena you need explained, bending light in particular ways, having a mysterious linear acceleration without fuel, placing the sun on a path not explainable by gravity, ignoring what seems to me to be a fairly obvious thought experiment, ignoring the training given to artillery officers, and in general ignoring the simple theory in favor of a universe built by an incompetent deity that uses duct tape to hold the heavens together.

That's ah - not an explanation. If your theory requires more undetectable buy highly important forces working behind the scenes that a season of 'Lost' - then the onus is upon you to prove those force exist.

I don't believe in invisible pink unicorns.

CD

30
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Line of sight
« on: August 12, 2008, 09:29:54 PM »
Eratosthenes interpreted his data on his assumption that the earth was round.  The data might be evidence that the angle of the sun is different in different places.  This also agrees with Flat Earth Theory.

Roundy, you beat me to it.

Ah, no, not at a range of 3000 miles it doesn't.  Just eyeballing it, the angles don't even come close.

CD

Pages: [1] 2