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 - Mohnzh

Pages: [1] 2
1
Flat Earth Debate / Re: still no proof
« on: August 22, 2008, 10:50:27 AM »
i have yet to see proof that the earth is flat. i searched all over this forum but all i see are off-the-wall theories, but no proof. i see proof that the world is round.
i can understand your theories and that it may be possible, but what im looking for is the why and how.. not the what.

ps, if you say lurk more, ill dismiss that answer as "you are an idiot and dont know".

You may see evidence, but there is no proof.

2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Metaphor for Flat Earth / Round Earth debate
« on: August 22, 2008, 10:49:38 AM »
i actually agree with saddam on this one.. (i cant believe i said that). this argument would be more of a metaphore for intelligent design verses evolution. however, its similar in that one is proven and the other is a fairy tale.

Question: Of intelligent design and creationism, which one is proven and which one is a fairy tale? I missed that finding...
sorry, that was a typo. i meant ID and evolution. corrected in the OP

Well now you are comparing apples and oranges. ID deals with Origins, evolution deals with genetic change. These are completely incomparable. And if you are thinking of Common Descent rather than evolution, to those of us in the field of biochemistry (who actually study genetic change, etc.) Common Descent is also a fairy tale. We don't buy into any Origin theories because they are all very implausible. There are none worth discussing, so we don't bother.

3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Metaphor for Flat Earth / Round Earth debate
« on: August 21, 2008, 11:46:31 AM »
Since when are ID and creationism not the same thing?

That's kind of the point I'm making...

4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Metaphor for Flat Earth / Round Earth debate
« on: August 21, 2008, 11:22:26 AM »
i actually agree with saddam on this one.. (i cant believe i said that). this argument would be more of a metaphore for intelligent design verses creationism. however, its similar in that one is proven and the other is a fairy tale.

Question: Of intelligent design and creationism, which one is proven and which one is a fairy tale? I missed that finding...

5
I have a solar filter for my telescope allowing me to shoot images of the sun.

To disprove the Sun projection theory and receding Sun theory I propose taking telescopic images of the Sun as it sets over the horizon. I can shoot images at high speed through my D70s with the normal 70mm lens. I can also image horizon shots with my 300mm lens without damaging it.

This will show a setting sun through a telescope remains a full sized disc as it sets below the horizon.

Any input?
I would do it pretty much like you said except I would also take pictures of the sun at noon when it is directly overhead as a comparison to show that the suns size remains constant

This would be insufficient and has been covered in other threads. As light goes through a thicker medium, its apparent size increases. Thus as the sun-spotlight recedes on the horizon, it must go through more atmodisc giving it the larger appearance (nearly the same size as the sun at noon) until it has receded to the point that it vanishes. A simple example of this effect is a streetlight during a clear night and the same streetlight on a foggy night. Alternately, city lights in a distance. They appear as one very large light from far away, but as you approach and there is less medium between you and the city, the lights shrink until they become visible as distinct points.

6
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Iranian Space Program
« on: August 21, 2008, 10:53:53 AM »
The Iranians are attempting to build a space program, but do not yet have one. They'll figure it out soon enough. But right now, how would they know whether or not the earth was round? They will either have to join the conspiracy soon, or blow the whistle on the rest of us.

Then again, who knows if they will even be able to build a space program? Most of their claims seems to be unsubstantiatedable ( ;) ). They will most likely inadvertently join the conspiracy by making claims they have been to space, producing doctored images similar to those in circulation by other major governments in an attempt to convince everyone that they do have a space program. They will create their own conspiracy, separate from everyone else's, while the true major governments laugh at their naivete and their unwitting assistance in convincing the people of the world that it is round.

7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why bother
« on: August 19, 2008, 04:09:01 PM »
Demanding that what you believe to be true is true does not make it true. If that were logical, the earth is both flat and round and shaped like a pigeon (my assertion). If you wish to debate, Hammond, then debate. Right now you are doing nothing but making REers look foolish. I would categorize you and Interstellarsphere as the Tom Bishop's of RET.
It's Hammod by the way, and only because Odin and Thor were taken. I agree, demanding something to be true doesn't make it true. The fact that it is true makes it true.

My apologies for misspelling your name. Your reasoning is stating the trivial? You are asserting something to be true/fact. You may be convinced by the evidence you have seen (or believe you have seen), but others are not yet convinced. You saying they are wrong does not make them wrong. Why was Galileo excommunicated? Because he said he didn't by the geocentric model of the universe, directly at odds with the idea that God created the universe for man, thus man must always be at the center. According to REers, this is incorrect. Not only is the earth not the center of the solar system, the solar system isn't even the center of the universe. All RE evidence supports Galileo, yet the large group said that he was wrong because he didn't accept what was "known to be true". How is it that facts change? They don't. Our knowledge of facts change. Just because you believe something to be true, does not make it true. Fairly soon, the evidence will arise (that is more compelling than either RE or FE evidence) that the earth is in fact shaped like a pigeon (PET). Does my saying this is true make it true? No, the fact that it is true makes it true. If you disagree with me, you have just discarded your own argument and must concede that you are making no headway with your line of thinking or debating.
So to say that the earth is anything other than round would refute the pictures from space, the fact that the curvature of the earth is visible to the naked eye, the fact that all predictions on distance fit a round earth. When flying in a jet you can see a round earth. etc. etc. etc.

I have never once seen a pigean shaped planet - if you have perhaps you should leave off the LSD for a while

It's "pigeon", by the way  ;).

I've never seen a dinosaur, either. I guess they never existed. I've never seen you, I guess you don't exist. I've seen Mickey Mouse at Disneyworld, I guess he is real. Perceiving something does not necesarily make it true. Otherwise, you would not even make the LSD reference. How do you know that your perceptions are fact? You can't. You can only know that you are. If you want refutations to your suggestions as to why the earth must be round, see the FAQ.

I do not try to convince you that the earth is flat, only that your arguments are very poor. If you cannot out-debate "a bunch of morons", what does that make you?

8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why bother
« on: August 19, 2008, 03:42:51 PM »
Demanding that what you believe to be true is true does not make it true. If that were logical, the earth is both flat and round and shaped like a pigeon (my assertion). If you wish to debate, Hammond, then debate. Right now you are doing nothing but making REers look foolish. I would categorize you and Interstellarsphere as the Tom Bishop's of RET.
It's Hammod by the way, and only because Odin and Thor were taken. I agree, demanding something to be true doesn't make it true. The fact that it is true makes it true.

My apologies for misspelling your name. Your reasoning is stating the trivial? You are asserting something to be true/fact. You may be convinced by the evidence you have seen (or believe you have seen), but others are not yet convinced. You saying they are wrong does not make them wrong. Why was Galileo excommunicated? Because he said he didn't by the geocentric model of the universe, directly at odds with the idea that God created the universe for man, thus man must always be at the center. According to REers, this is incorrect. Not only is the earth not the center of the solar system, the solar system isn't even the center of the universe. All RE evidence supports Galileo, yet the large group said that he was wrong because he didn't accept what was "known to be true". How is it that facts change? They don't. Our knowledge of facts change. Just because you believe something to be true, does not make it true. Fairly soon, the evidence will arise (that is more compelling than either RE or FE evidence) that the earth is in fact shaped like a pigeon (PET). Does my saying this is true make it true? No, the fact that it is true makes it true. If you disagree with me, you have just discarded your own argument and must concede that you are making no headway with your line of thinking or debating.

9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why bother
« on: August 19, 2008, 03:33:12 PM »
Demanding that what you believe to be true is true does not make it true. If that were logical, the earth is both flat and round and shaped like a pigeon (my assertion). If you wish to debate, Hammond, then debate. Right now you are doing nothing but making REers look foolish. I would categorize you and Interstellarsphere as the Tom Bishop's of RET.

10
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How does satellite T.V. work?
« on: August 19, 2008, 03:06:21 PM »
Ok, let's try to keep this civil. Most artificial satellites orbit the earth at a low enough orbit that they "move" across the sky relative to a ground observer. If you wait until about an hour after sunset, once the sky is dark and the stars are visible, you can see many of these lazily travelling across the sky (since the sun hasn't set for them yet, because of their altitude). These satellites orbit the earth many times per day, and GPS and Spy satellites are two examples of these.

But if you increase your orbital altitude, based on the law of gravity, you will reach a point where "one orbit" around the planet is 24 hours. If you're careful with your launch vectors and burn times, you can "insert" a satellite into Geostationary orbit, also called geosyncronous, because it "keeps the same time" as the earth's rotation. By definition, these orbits lie in the plane of the equator, which is why everyone's dishes are pointed south, in the northern hemisphere. TV (like DirecTV), Radio (like XM and Sirius), and Weather satellites are examples of these.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_orbit
http://www.sea-launch.com/past_launches.htm

It uses a lot less fuel (which means you can launch a bigger payload), if you can launch from the Equator, which is exactly what the SeaLaunch platform does. They took a converted oil drilling platform and built a rocket launchpad, and they've launched a bunch of satellites from sea.

Years ago, the only geosyncronous satellites that everyday citizens cared about were various telecommunications satellites operated by TV and Cable networks (that's how they get their signal from one side of the country to the other, since copper wire is too slow and TV and Radio waves are too weak). So people installed large satellite dishes on their homes (it was pretty expensive), and these dishes had to be aimable, since they needed to pick up signals from any of a number of different networks' satellites.

But now that we have DirecTV and the Dish Network (to name two here in the US), the whole point is to broadcast a signal to consumers, so the dish is carefully aimed only once, then bolted in place. The dish is also much smaller since the signal is stronger. These tiny dishes, even if they were equipped with transmitters, would be unable to send much of a signal.

Satellite radio, being that it's the most modern of the technologies discussed here, broadcasts to small omnidirectional antennas which people mount on their cars and such. Stereo radio has much smaller bandwidth than a TV broadcast, which makes such a tiny receiver antenna possible.

All of this is neatly explained because we live on a globe, and gravity exists so we can have satellites orbit it. Any evidence the the contrary, other than a few links to pseudosatellites (ground-based radio repeaters) and stratellites (high-altitude balloons, still in the prototype phase)?

At least that's what They say.

11
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Striking another bow against FE
« on: August 19, 2008, 03:05:22 PM »
That seems like a pretty level-headed argument, although for the sake of precision it's a good idea to lay out some ground rules on what we all mean by certain terms.  How about for the purposes of debate we set the following definitions:

Proven - something that is supported by evidence to the point where it can be considered true to beyond a reasonable doubt. A 'reasonable doubt' is a rational (ie - evidence-based) argument against an idea or hypothesis.

Evidence - observed data or theoretical arguments that provide circumstantial support to an idea or hypothesis.

Something can be considered to be 'proven' only if it satisfies rational argument beyond a reasonable doubt. If something cannot be discussed rationally then people should be clear on that point before they start clawing each other's eyes out.

Sound reasonable?

PS - Robo, lol

"Reasonable doubt" is to subjective, thus leading me to my stance on the nature of "proven". Beyond reasonable doubt is clearly insufficient for many, and is a level insignificant in science. Very little can be proven, even the existence of another person typing in responses to threads rather than automatic responses generated by some Artificial Intelligence. We may use your definition, but recognize that what constitutes "beyond reasonable doubt" will differ from person to person (vastly, in a forum such as this).

12
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Bendy light: The maths
« on: August 19, 2008, 02:41:14 PM »
Congratulations on your first concession (at least that I have ever witnessed). As to the more pronounced effect, that seems intuitively correct, but I seem to recall that one of the nifty features of a fiberoptic cable is that it would actually average out so that the amount of time it takes light to travel a severely coiled fiberoptic cable (or any random pattern) is exactly the same as light traveling another cable of the exact same length (worked out mathematically, not experimentally). I cannot remember the details, as I am nearly certain the phrae "averaging out" conveys the wrong concept. I did this research about 4 years ago while preparing a patent. I was considering the use of fiberoptic cable in the design of an instrument. The design was abandoned for something that put the light source and detector in nearly direct contact with the sample, eliminating the need for fiberoptics, so my study of fiberoptics was only tangential to my work and not done with vigor.

I see. Well, if this is true, then the experiment would certainly work. Is there anyone here with more experience dealing with optic fibre?

I second that call. I am by no means an expert and only have understanding of some of the foundational elements of the technology.

13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Striking another bow against FE
« on: August 19, 2008, 02:38:59 PM »
I never accepted such. The density of the sun is known outside of your FEG foolishness.

If the FE sun is made of the same materials and is at roughly the same temperature as the RE sun, should it not have the same density?
No.
If density is equal to mass divided by volume,
a 32 mile in diameter sun will have significantly less mass and volume then the Huge RE (and true) sun.
Furthermore, hypothetically speaking if by some scientific fluke  of rareness a 32 mile diamter sun could sustain nuclear fusion (which it cant) it wouldnt have enough nuclear fuel to generate as much heat as the RE sun does

also, Monhz, Im still waiting for you to give me a better source on word questions then dictionaries and thesauruses.

That would be simple. Find a different dictionary and a different thesaurus. All of a sudden their definitions are tweaked. There is no universal definition. A dictionary is not an authority on the English language, it is a catalog of it. That is why definitions change from one version to the next. It accommodates new uses of the word and remarks when certain definitions become archaic. The goal of any language is to communicate. We all are the greatest authority of the word. In this case, you are using definitions that no one else is agreeing to. You could either see how we use the word and facilitate communication, or continue to make tedious arguments over semantics. If you desire to communicate with a group of people, you must first assimilate their language.

Here, evidence is something that suggests that a certain idea could be true. Proof is something that is undeniably true. To some, undeniably true means that a sufficient amount of evidence has been accumulated. To others (such as myself and the whole field of science), nothing can be proven other than somethings own existence - and even that is debatable (see John Locke for further analysis).

We each are our own greatest authority of the language which we use. We group those of us who speak similarly into a large group called English speakers, even though there are numerous variations from person to person. We can all generally understand each other. Rather than demanding that your definition is the only correct definition (since the perfectly valid counterargument is "no it isn't"), learn other peoples use of the word so that you can communicate and understand what he is attempting to say. Hear what is being said, not what you want to hear.

14
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why bother
« on: August 19, 2008, 02:30:57 PM »
Who said I was trying to convince anyone the earth is flat? I am not even trying to convince anyone the earth even exists. It could be flat, spherical, or even shaped like a pigeon winging through space. You have completely missed the point of my last post. Instead of trying to find some way to counter what I say, why not try to understand what I am attempting to say and see if it is not logical.

15
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Bendy light: The maths
« on: August 19, 2008, 02:21:19 PM »
It is only theoretically possible for a photon to enter a fiberoptic cable in perfect parallel to the cable (or perfectly orthogonal to the beginning of the cable). Because it is not practically possible, all light will zigzag inside of a fiberoptic cable - even a perfectly straight one. Suppose, however, that you do manage to get a photon to do this. It would be undetectable in relation to the numerous photons that will follow the "zigzag" pattern. The next argument would be LASER light, as all the photons should propagate parallel to each other. However, we do not have the technology to ensure perfectly ideal orthogonality. As such, even the LASER photons would be refracted, even if only slightly, upon entering the optic cable. Even supposing you managed a test where you did get perfect orthogonality, it would be virtually impossible to repeat. You simply cannot achieve such perfect conditions that this could work. Even vibrations of the earth or a single dust particle or even a handful of large molecules would cause light scattering so that perfect orthogonality could not be achieved. This would occur even if the LASER was in contact with the cable inside of the best vacuum achievable with our technology. Not to mention the variance in the synchronization of the LASER or tolerance level for non-simultaneous emission.

Okay, fair point. Still, the zigzag effect would be more pronounced in a curved optical fibre than a straight one.

Congratulations on your first concession (at least that I have ever witnessed). As to the more pronounced effect, that seems intuitively correct, but I seem to recall that one of the nifty features of a fiberoptic cable is that it would actually average out so that the amount of time it takes light to travel a severely coiled fiberoptic cable (or any random pattern) is exactly the same as light traveling another cable of the exact same length (worked out mathematically, not experimentally). I cannot remember the details, as I am nearly certain the phrae "averaging out" conveys the wrong concept. I did this research about 4 years ago while preparing a patent. I was considering the use of fiberoptic cable in the design of an instrument. The design was abandoned for something that put the light source and detector in nearly direct contact with the sample, eliminating the need for fiberoptics, so my study of fiberoptics was only tangential to my work and not done with vigor.

16
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why bother
« on: August 19, 2008, 02:13:14 PM »
I'm sorry, I meant to say that "Burden of Proof is a curse word around here". That was left out mistakenly. Unfortunately, you do fall in the category of those who care more about believing they are right than actually being right. Otherwise, you would not demand that burden of proof be on anyone but yourself, nor would you care if proof was profitable for anyone else. Proof for your sake is sufficient, and others need not support their own beliefs. You would desire correction over desiring to correct others. You would seek Truth rather than force your version of it on others. After all, you cannot be certain that your parents are even who they claim to be and that you were not kidnapped as an infant. This is not meant to be inflammatory, it is only an example of something you cannot prove conclusively. You must decide for yourself how much evidence is sufficient for you to be convinced. As it is, you are convinced that the earth is round, yet it is quite possible that it did not even exist until you read the fourth line of this post. If it did not exist and all the evidence you recall hearing or observing only just randomly came into existence as electrons causing the firing of neurons in your brain and that the earth will cease to exist two lines from here, how can you be certain that for this minute and a half the earth is in existence that it is not flat, or cubed, or even a torus? The suggestion may seem ludicrous (as most argument ad absurdum do), but it is only to indicate that the threshold of evidence required for convincing can be different for different people. My best recommendation is to allow all possibilities to exist while giving preference to some over others and behaving as if certain ones were true. To feel as though you must convince others to behave similarly is a sign of weakness in your convictions.

17
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Bendy light: The maths
« on: August 19, 2008, 01:58:43 PM »
Umm...the concept of fiberoptic cables is that the difference in refractive index between the cable and the medium is such that light will bounce off the edges of the inside of the cable as it travels down. All light in fiberoptic cables travels in a zigzag fashion. In fact, if light were to bend, long-distance fiberoptic cables could not work as eventually the light would be too angled to continue reflecting. It would reach a point where its vector relative to the edge of the fiber is so direct that it would not reflect. Thank goodness light doesn't bend. Otherwise we wouldn't have fiberoptic technology.

You misunderstand the EA, and you fail to acknowledge that in a perfectly straight optical fibre light (if it travels in a straight line) would not need to zigzag to get to the other end.

It is only theoretically possible for a photon to enter a fiberoptic cable in perfect parallel to the cable (or perfectly orthogonal to the beginning of the cable). Because it is not practically possible, all light will zigzag inside of a fiberoptic cable - even a perfectly straight one. Suppose, however, that you do manage to get a photon to do this. It would be undetectable in relation to the numerous photons that will follow the "zigzag" pattern. The next argument would be LASER light, as all the photons should propagate parallel to each other. However, we do not have the technology to ensure perfectly ideal orthogonality. As such, even the LASER photons would be refracted, even if only slightly, upon entering the optic cable. Even supposing you managed a test where you did get perfect orthogonality, it would be virtually impossible to repeat. You simply cannot achieve such perfect conditions that this could work. Even vibrations of the earth or a single dust particle or even a handful of large molecules would cause light scattering so that perfect orthogonality could not be achieved. This would occur even if the LASER was in contact with the cable inside of the best vacuum achievable with our technology. Not to mention the variance in the synchronization of the LASER or tolerance level for non-simultaneous emission.

18
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Bendy light: The maths
« on: August 19, 2008, 01:42:18 PM »
OK, I've come up with a way to test EAT theory, but it requires a fair bit of equipment.



A and B are fibre optic cables. A is arranged so that it would be straight (but appear curved) on a FE with EAT. B is arranged so that it would be straight on a RE (and appear straight on a FE + EAT, but not actually be straight).

Simply split laser light to travel down both fibres. At the other end, the beams are combined in an inferometer. This allows you to see which beam arrived first.

FE+EAT predicts A will arrive first. RET predicts B will arrive first.

I don't think this will work. If FE+EAT is correct, then the light in A will keep getting bent upwards and reflected back down away from the edge of the optic fibre. This will result in a path that zigzags through the fibre optic. Of course, the same effect will be observed if RET is true and the light tries to follow a straight line through a curved optic fibre. This zigzag effect will probably be of greater significance to the time it takes the light to go from one end to the other than will the shape of the Earth.

Umm...the concept of fiberoptic cables is that the difference in refractive index between the cable and the medium is such that light will bounce off the edges of the inside of the cable as it travels down. All light in fiberoptic cables travels in a zigzag fashion. In fact, if light were to bend, long-distance fiberoptic cables could not work as eventually the light would be too angled to continue reflecting. It would reach a point where its vector relative to the edge of the fiber is so direct that it would not reflect. Thank goodness light doesn't bend. Otherwise we wouldn't have fiberoptic technology.

19
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why bother
« on: August 19, 2008, 01:30:00 PM »
Burden of Proof is the equivalent of a curse word, with no one agreeing to the definition. Someone who truly seeks knowledge will always place the BoP on themselves - not to prove something to someone else, but to discover Truth. The more common mindset of both FEers and REers here, however is: "I would rather BELIEVE I am right rather than actually BE right."

20
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Striking another bow against FE
« on: August 19, 2008, 01:27:50 PM »
The distance to the sun and the moon can be calculated simply using radar/perspective from two or more points/infra red heat measurements etc. Universities all over the world frequently conduct experiments to find the distance to the moon. Neither of these two distances should be up for debate. Yes they change marginally from time to time, but only a small amount due to an elliptical orbit.
From these distances the size of each can be found using a pinhole camera at home.

Unless you provide the protocol for these experiments, no one here has the initiative to research it themselves. Even given the protocols, most would rather spend more time debating and arguing why it would be pointless to attempt than the small amount of time necessary to perform the experiment themselves. The assumption is that because it argues an RE model, it must either be unscientific/inaccurate or you are lying. Either way, the research would be a waste of time. Legwork is anathema here.

21
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How does satellite T.V. work?
« on: August 19, 2008, 12:44:43 PM »
They are on top of everyone's roof. It's the same concept that truckers used to use with their CV. If there were enough truckers on the freeway, they could chain the CV range and talk to truckers across country. When you are installing a "satellite dish", it serves as both transmitter and receiver. They are just broadcasting the initial signal through the old UHF towers, and through advances in technology made the signal much stronger and sharper, using the satellites installed on our homes to transmit the signal globally. Eventually, "satellite" TV will be so well established that it will take at most 2 UHF towers to broadcast to the entire world. This whole "digital" crossover coming up is to deepen the cover-up. Supposedly, UHF stations were all analog. With the switch to digital, all the remaining UHF stations will be forced to close, allowing the "satellite" companies to take over the towers to ensure complete global coverage until the network of dishes is thorough enough. European countries already are working on a single tower. My guess is that they will keep it to one tower per country than try to do one tower for the whole globe. That way they can broadcast only the stations in the languages they want.
CV? heh. You dont even know what its called.

No, I don't. Sorry. I know you read my other post so you are aware that I am a biochemist, not a trucker.

Are you telling me that you have someone on your roof repositioning your dish constantly to track the satellite? As far as I can tell, most dishes are immobilized. That seems to confirm this possibility. Why is it that satellite dishes do not have to move if satellites are constantly moving and the dishes need to be pointed directly at them?


That has to be the dumbest post I've ever read in any forum ever. +5 funny

Thanks  ;D

22
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Striking another bow against FE
« on: August 19, 2008, 12:43:10 PM »
In simple terms, the most common usage is as follows:

Proofs require a premise and an objective.

In a mathematical proof, the equations and logic process are used as evidence for the proof.
In a court, pieces of information and things collected are evidence used to prove the premise.

In short, proof is a culmination of evidence. They are separate and distinct terms.

Wrong again. Evidence also requires a premise and objective:
Ie: Evidence that he committed murder. It is evidence to the murder
same thing as "proof he committed murder"
look people, the ultimate authority on english language, dictionaries and thesuarus says your wrong.
Proof and evidence are the same thing , they have the same definition as per the links posted and are sited in each others lst on the thesaurus.

Yeah, yeah. You sound like an FEer. "Everybody else is wrong. I have my source. It doesn't matter that you provide contradictory evidence. I can provide evidence to back my claim. Even though your account can explain my evidence, I reject it as conspiracy."

It's simple. You are blinding yourself. Your arguments would be much stronger if you would concede this point. FEers have evidence the earth is flat. That is a fact. There evidence most frequently can be explained by the RE model. So if evidence is the same is proof, then we have actually proven that the earth is both flat and round simultaneously! Your misuse of the English language is causing fallacious thinking.

23
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Antarctica Cup International Yacht Race
« on: August 19, 2008, 12:38:15 PM »
I was pointing out that you referred "him" to the FAQ, and that was the number listed.  Based on the FAQ, the lines are correctly labeled and of the correct scale.

Now the accuracy of the information, as you would say, is a different story.

My reference to the FAQ was in regards to his ignorance of the curved travels of ships and planes.

I don't understand... If the ships are traveling a curved path on a FE, that would make the distance they experience between Cape Horn and South Africa even longer than the speculative distance according to the FE map provided. I don't see how curving aids your argument.

And one further thing, when routes are plotted as curved on an RE map, they are not, in fact curved. When you project a spherical object onto a flat surface, the only straight line that actually appears straight is the center horizontal and center vertical. Take a basketball. It has two straight lines. But if you take a snapshot (Polaroid) and do not put the intersection of the two straight lines directly in the center of the picture with one line straight up, then the two straight lines will appear curved in the picture. Yes, on the assumption that RE maps are wrong and the earth is flat, planes and ships travel in a curved line. Yet why is it that the curved line is actually shorter (and very significantly so) than the straight line would be if the FE model was assumed? Travel distances are something that the current FE model has yet to explain. Curved travel lines only support RE right now.

24
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How does satellite T.V. work?
« on: August 19, 2008, 11:59:07 AM »
They are on top of everyone's roof. It's the same concept that truckers used to use with their CV. If there were enough truckers on the freeway, they could chain the CV range and talk to truckers across country. When you are installing a "satellite dish", it serves as both transmitter and receiver. They are just broadcasting the initial signal through the old UHF towers, and through advances in technology made the signal much stronger and sharper, using the satellites installed on our homes to transmit the signal globally. Eventually, "satellite" TV will be so well established that it will take at most 2 UHF towers to broadcast to the entire world. This whole "digital" crossover coming up is to deepen the cover-up. Supposedly, UHF stations were all analog. With the switch to digital, all the remaining UHF stations will be forced to close, allowing the "satellite" companies to take over the towers to ensure complete global coverage until the network of dishes is thorough enough. European countries already are working on a single tower. My guess is that they will keep it to one tower per country than try to do one tower for the whole globe. That way they can broadcast only the stations in the languages they want.


And why do satellite dishes only receive a signal when pointed in the direction of the satellite? 



Are you telling me that you have someone on your roof repositioning your dish constantly to track the satellite? As far as I can tell, most dishes are immobilized. That seems to confirm this possibility. Why is it that satellite dishes do not have to move if satellites are constantly moving and the dishes need to be pointed directly at them?

25
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How does satellite T.V. work?
« on: August 19, 2008, 10:53:00 AM »
They are on top of everyone's roof. It's the same concept that truckers used to use with their CV. If there were enough truckers on the freeway, they could chain the CV range and talk to truckers across country. When you are installing a "satellite dish", it serves as both transmitter and receiver. They are just broadcasting the initial signal through the old UHF towers, and through advances in technology made the signal much stronger and sharper, using the satellites installed on our homes to transmit the signal globally. Eventually, "satellite" TV will be so well established that it will take at most 2 UHF towers to broadcast to the entire world. This whole "digital" crossover coming up is to deepen the cover-up. Supposedly, UHF stations were all analog. With the switch to digital, all the remaining UHF stations will be forced to close, allowing the "satellite" companies to take over the towers to ensure complete global coverage until the network of dishes is thorough enough. European countries already are working on a single tower. My guess is that they will keep it to one tower per country than try to do one tower for the whole globe. That way they can broadcast only the stations in the languages they want.

26
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Plenty of tall buildings
« on: August 19, 2008, 10:41:37 AM »
Now I see it...only the x is not red on my screen. It's very unassuming. To make sure I am seeing correctly, of the four stickied threads, only the top thread is not locked. Correct?

27
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Plenty of tall buildings
« on: August 19, 2008, 10:38:17 AM »
Then I have another question. How do you know a thread is locked other than the absence of a reply button. Can you tell before you enter the thread?

28
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Plenty of tall buildings
« on: August 19, 2008, 10:36:12 AM »
Why do you want to be in before the lock? Do you really care about post counts??

(n b4 t3h lok)

29
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Striking another bow against FE
« on: August 19, 2008, 10:25:57 AM »

Fixed.  You're confusing your RETs and FETs again.

You are quite right. Thank you for fixing that. I must correct yours, however. I have not been posting long enough for the word "again" to be used. This could be marked up as my first confusion  :P.

Actually, your first confusion was in thinking that your post would change any body's mind.   ;)

No confusion there. You must be confused in thinking that I thought that  ;).

Interstellarsphere, having some cases where proof and evidence can mean the same thing does not make them invariably interchangeable. Synonyms are words that can have the same meaning, but if they meant exactly the same all the time, there would be no point in having both words. Be my guest, ask any English teacher (as you suggest). Synonyms are not always interchangeable.

In my field of study (biochemistry) as in any field of science, the first thing that incoming students must be broken of is that proof and evidence are quite distinct. They may commonly be used interchangeably, but it is fallacy to do so. You cannot prove hardly anything in science. You cannot prove that yesterday even existed, despite the overwhelming evidence that it does. For all we know, all the particles of the universe cam together precisely so that the electrons firing in our brain contain the same memories of those that shared them with us, as well as randomly creating everything that we remember doing. Remembering doing something does not prove it happened. Otherwise all those people in asylums should be released, as they truly are George Washington and Joan of Arc - after all, they remember having always had that name. No, proof and evidence are quite distinct, as all REers and FEers have agreed against you.

As a side, I find it interesting that you referred to me as an FEer. In other threads I've been referred to as an REer. Can you not tell which it is?

30
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Striking another bow against FE
« on: August 18, 2008, 02:36:58 PM »
RobotSteve is correct. Evidence is not the same thing as proof, even if they are synonyms. The only thing evidence proves is that evidence exists. Many things constitute as evidence, few constitute proof. However, RS did say something quite incorrect. He claimed that FET is much newer than RET, so they haven't had the time to work things out. In fact, FET is the original theory about the earth (not including all the details of spotlight and upward acceleration and all the other "newer" explanations). However, FET was abandoned over time due to mathematical calculations concerning distance/size of the sun, similar calculations involving stars and planets, and even calculations concerning horizons and distances to objects on the horizon. Those [ancient] calculations could not jive with a flat earth. But even those calculations coming from societies [Greek, Aztec] that did not yet consider a round earth regarded the sun as much more distant and massive than the description of FEers today. I'm sorry I do not have time to give you the "exact" derivations, but I am curious. How many of you truly desire the Truth? Would you seek out information that might disprove your current theories so that you can adjust your stance to be in line with Truth? In other words, what is more important: to BE right, or BELIEVE you are right? If it is more important for you to BE right, then you do not need me to provide the exact equations because you will gladly seek them out yourself.

Fixed.  You're confusing your RETs and FETs again.

You are quite right. Thank you for fixing that. I must correct yours, however. I have not been posting long enough for the word "again" to be used. This could be marked up as my first confusion  :P.

Pages: [1] 2