1411
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proof of RE using the FE map.
« on: April 09, 2007, 05:24:03 PM »
I agree, but you are convincing nonetheless. But you forget that compasses are conspiracy-manufactured deception-o-meters.
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.
1412
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Magnetosphere
« on: April 09, 2007, 05:22:01 PM »
Yeah but (s)he has a picture. A good one. It's what round earthers call 'photographic evidence' and flat earthers call 'conspiracy nonsense'. I don't see flat earthers posting shiny pictures like that.
1413
Flat Earth Debate / Re: FE-ERS refuse to see beyond their own reality.
« on: April 09, 2007, 05:19:50 PM »
I just stumbled across this forum, and as I'm trying to improve my debating skills I thought I'd have a go at this one, the biggest head-against-the-wall-er there is! Yes I know I get a bit...involved....but that's just because I'm exasperated. I should work on that I think. It's great fun though! More fun to play than to watch just like....basketball....or sex!
1414
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Which way is up again?
« on: April 09, 2007, 05:17:10 PM »
The question is, what is up with that glaring logical inconsistency in your argument I posted a couple of posts up? And by what is up with it I mean explain it or fix it...cos it's just not right!
1415
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Let's go down the list of evidence against a Flat Earth!
« on: April 09, 2007, 05:15:51 PM »
Narcberry, you didn't condone them, but you pretended that they were something to do with your 'theory'. I didn't say you were equivalent to Stalin or Hitler or anyone, I just think its disrespectful to use their deaths as further evidence for your 'conspiracy', especially as theres nothing to suggest it was at all linked. Of course if you have evidence to suggest a link....didn't think so.
And the flat earth model does little to explain anything, and even if it does, its explanation is bizarre and complex compared to the relatively few simple premises of round earth theory. Yes there are things round earthers can't explain, but while we are trying to explain the origins of the universe and how to unify micro-scale and macro-scale physics or find dark matter, you guys are still struggling with an accurate map or explain how the sun sets in an accurate and reasonable way (if it is moving further away, why does it appear to get bigger? optical illusion? what is the nature of that illusion? If the sun is a spotlight why can we see it and then suddenly it drops below apparent ground level...?).
And the flat earth model does little to explain anything, and even if it does, its explanation is bizarre and complex compared to the relatively few simple premises of round earth theory. Yes there are things round earthers can't explain, but while we are trying to explain the origins of the universe and how to unify micro-scale and macro-scale physics or find dark matter, you guys are still struggling with an accurate map or explain how the sun sets in an accurate and reasonable way (if it is moving further away, why does it appear to get bigger? optical illusion? what is the nature of that illusion? If the sun is a spotlight why can we see it and then suddenly it drops below apparent ground level...?).
1416
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proof of RE using the FE map.
« on: April 09, 2007, 05:04:11 PM »
I always forget to realise that, no wonder when we went walking in the country I got lost for 2 years and had to live as an animal amongst the beasts of the forest....stupid north-pointing compass...
1417
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Which way is up again?
« on: April 09, 2007, 05:02:29 PM »
Question dodger.....answer my question! In your own time of course, I'm not impatient, but don't think I'll forget if you leave it til later!
1418
Flat Earth Debate / Re: FE-ERS refuse to see beyond their own reality.
« on: April 09, 2007, 04:46:44 PM »
Conjecture and no proof. Conjecture and no proof. Conjecture and no proof.
In fact, not one single piece of evidence in sight.
Saying how it might be true doesn't make it true. Just possible. Or not.
In fact, not one single piece of evidence in sight.
Saying how it might be true doesn't make it true. Just possible. Or not.
1419
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Let's go down the list of evidence against a Flat Earth!
« on: April 09, 2007, 04:42:13 PM »
Narcberry, you are shameless. Not only do you continue to protest that Round Earth and Flat Earth theories are somehow 'competing', when anyone with half a scientific brain can see that there is no competition and that the sieve-like evidence for Flat Earth is based on as much conjecture and as little fact as is linguistically possible. But I think the reference to Tiananmen square overstepped your mark. The Chinese Red cross estimated between 2,000 and 6,000 dead, and you use these as figures to back up your ridiculously foolhardy conspiracy theory when anyone with any sense would read up on it and see that it was absolutely nothing to do with a Flat Earth. Not at all. Tiananmen was probably the greatest single tragedy of the last 50 years, and you think it fitting to toss it on your pile of outdated references and conjecture as 'evidence'. Shame on you.
1420
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Which way is up again?
« on: April 09, 2007, 04:32:25 PM »
I'm sure you agree that 'up' is the opposite of 'down' and that all things fall 'down'. What you seem to (quite amazingly) be missing is that on a Real Round Earth the terms up and down are relative not absolute. We are quite aware that in FE up is an absolute term, but to use that fact as a prove of flat Earth means you are saying:
1. If the Earth is flat, 'up' is an absolute direction.
2. Bubbles should always go 'up'
3. Bubbles do always rise from the ground, going apparently 'up'
4. This 'up' is absolute, and therefore the same direction everywhere.
5. On a Round Earth this would lead to bubbles going into the ground.
6. Bubbles don't go into the ground.
7. Round earth is false.
But your fault is in point 4, where you have assumed what you are trying to prove, reducing your 'proof' to:
"The Earth is flat, therefore the Earth is flat."
Compelling in its simplicity, but a sad logical fallacy.
Edit: That last line has become my new poem about Flat Earth. It's called 'Narcproof'.
1. If the Earth is flat, 'up' is an absolute direction.
2. Bubbles should always go 'up'
3. Bubbles do always rise from the ground, going apparently 'up'
4. This 'up' is absolute, and therefore the same direction everywhere.
5. On a Round Earth this would lead to bubbles going into the ground.
6. Bubbles don't go into the ground.
7. Round earth is false.
But your fault is in point 4, where you have assumed what you are trying to prove, reducing your 'proof' to:
"The Earth is flat, therefore the Earth is flat."
Compelling in its simplicity, but a sad logical fallacy.
Edit: That last line has become my new poem about Flat Earth. It's called 'Narcproof'.
1421
Flat Earth Debate / Re: FE-ERS refuse to see beyond their own reality.
« on: April 09, 2007, 09:48:02 AM »
Tom, your answers to the above reasonable questions are unreasonably vague at best and totally inadequate at worst. For example, were i to take four points on a sphere at a hypothetical north pole, south pole and then on the extreme east and west, i would find that a plane cuts through all of these. As to your experiment, how do you measure the angle between London, Madrid and New York when in London you can't (due to the Earth's curvature or, if you insist, 'air density') even see Madrid....or Spain....or the English channel....let alone New York which is much further away.
Oh and the Chinese space agency and all commercial satellite operators (providing television and communication) would have to be in on it. NASA and the RSA aren't the only people to go up there. What about Richard Branson and Virgin Galactic?
By the way, if the Earth was flat the time it took a signal, for example an internet signal travelling close to the speed of light, to get from London to Sydeny would be much faster than it is (straight line = quicker than big round curve, you can test the response times using your PC to 'pinp' australian servers). So all the major ISPs are in on it, intentionally slowing our signals down to provide the appropriate round Earth response times....
Oh and the Chinese space agency and all commercial satellite operators (providing television and communication) would have to be in on it. NASA and the RSA aren't the only people to go up there. What about Richard Branson and Virgin Galactic?
By the way, if the Earth was flat the time it took a signal, for example an internet signal travelling close to the speed of light, to get from London to Sydeny would be much faster than it is (straight line = quicker than big round curve, you can test the response times using your PC to 'pinp' australian servers). So all the major ISPs are in on it, intentionally slowing our signals down to provide the appropriate round Earth response times....
1422
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Shadow Object
« on: April 09, 2007, 09:34:49 AM »Don't worry. I copied the screen and saved the images, as well as his link. This won't disappear anytime soon.
Did you read the caption on that picture? It clearly says "Lunar Eclipse."
The images were taken by the 'Waning Moon Observatory' in New Orleans.
http://www.waningmoonii.com/
Oh and how do you explain the redness of the moon during totality? I can......can YOU?
1423
Flat Earth Debate / Re: proof earth is rounded
« on: April 09, 2007, 09:23:21 AM »
Those drawings are awesome. Any flat earthers want to have a go at some? Come on Tom, I know you're an artist inside!
1424
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity proven false
« on: April 09, 2007, 09:18:22 AM »
You can't actually 'touch' your TV, neither can you touch any other object in the sense of a zero distance between you. The reason you can press against its surface without passing through it is because the electrons that orbit the atoms in your hand and the TV are negatively charged, and when they get near each other the electromagnetic force (which is at that scale many many times stronger than gravity) causes the like charges to repel each other. Atoms are made of mostly space, so without this effect you would find it quite easy to walk through walls, but then of course your body and everything in the universe would fall apart also...Your gravity equation proof falls apart because of this very small, but nonetheless significant distance between all atoms in the universe.
Incidentally, where the electrons are not present to provide this useful service, or example in neutron stars, gravitational attraction is indeed almost infinite causing the star to collapse into an ultra dense ball a few kilometres across but containing the mass of an entire star. A pinhead of this material would weigh over 500,000 tonnes.
Incidentally, where the electrons are not present to provide this useful service, or example in neutron stars, gravitational attraction is indeed almost infinite causing the star to collapse into an ultra dense ball a few kilometres across but containing the mass of an entire star. A pinhead of this material would weigh over 500,000 tonnes.
1425
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Which way is up again?
« on: April 09, 2007, 09:07:46 AM »
I have to agree. Bubbles don't go 'up', they move away from the centre of the Earth, i.e. from it's centre of gravitation. Just because 'up is up is up' doesn't mean that all bubbles go the same way. Left is left is left, but if we are facing opposite ways to start with, when we turn left we will be facing in different directions...(even on a Flat Earth!).
1426
Flat Earth Debate / Re: 'Proof'
« on: April 07, 2007, 12:37:04 PM »
But any flat earther will tell you it isn't proof. Besides, even if you saw the Earth from space with your own eyes, could you just e imagining it? As the evidence builds up, the likelihood of your theory being true increases, but its always at least possible that it's incorrect. Trying to prove one way or the other could go on forever, but selecting a model based on its usefulness might actually lead you somewhere. If you imagine an atom having protons, neutrons and tiny orbiting electrons you can form useful predictions about its behaviour, even though we know now that atoms arent really like that, and electrons are less particles than 'clouds of electron-ness'...any physicist will tell you all theories are approximations somewhere, just some are good ones and some arent.
1427
Flat Earth Debate / Re: 'Proof'
« on: April 06, 2007, 08:07:51 PM »
I vote that we be subjected to a full length audio tape of The FAQ and Earth: Not A Globe read by Tom himself. Salvation lies within!
(Audio tape $10.99, Double Disc CD feat. Franc T $16.99 from all good record stores)
(Audio tape $10.99, Double Disc CD feat. Franc T $16.99 from all good record stores)
1428
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Shadow Object
« on: April 06, 2007, 07:50:42 PM »
What you see there is a perfectly round shadow cast on the moon, which appears irregular because the surface of the moon isnt an even tone...just look at the 'seas' on its surface that make the shadow appear lumpy or irregular. If you watch it happening in real life (we had a beautiful lunar eclipse a month or so ago) it's much clearer that that is the case.
Edit: you should also consider the fact that the shadow of the Earth is bigger than the moon at that distance, and so the appearance of an oval-looking shadow is not impossible as we are looking at the edge of it only....
Edit: you should also consider the fact that the shadow of the Earth is bigger than the moon at that distance, and so the appearance of an oval-looking shadow is not impossible as we are looking at the edge of it only....
1429
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Shadow Object
« on: April 06, 2007, 07:45:20 PM »
A frisbee shaped object could sometimes project an oval shadow, or indeed a very thin line-shaped one. Try it with a plate.....or a frisbee!
1430
Flat Earth Debate / Re: 'Proof'
« on: April 06, 2007, 07:11:36 PM »
I read them (well, most of Not A Globe....it's preeeetty long) but it doesn't really answer on the usefulness front. A lot of it is mostly concerned with 'how could it be true' rather than 'what does it do for us'....
Edit: *Reads Akira - Round Earth Proponent*
*Thinks*
*Slaps self on head*
Edit: *Reads Akira - Round Earth Proponent*
*Thinks*
*Slaps self on head*
1431
Flat Earth Debate / 'Proof'
« on: April 06, 2007, 05:47:29 PM »
You can't prove the Earth is flat. Neither can you prove it is round. In fact, no self respecting scientist would ever claim to have 'proved' anything. All you can do in the real world (i.e. not the world of pure mathematics etc) is show that something is somewhere on the scale between possible and very very likely. But how is this important to a flat or round earth theory?
Well you could argue that what makes a good scientific theory (and Flat Earth and Round Earth both claim to be scientific) is one that is useful in some way, for example theories of voltage, current etc giving rise to modern electronics and its sister disciplines. The theory of gravity is useful because we can use it along with some classical mechanics to predict the behaviour of heavy objects in structural engineering and the forces experienced by aircraft. These theories are (relatively) simple, and give us accurate and useful predictions about what might happen in an as yet untested theoretical situation, like if we built a building with no supporting structure on one of the walls (gravity decrees: crashshhhhhh).
The point of this thread is just to ask, as a scientist whose round earth/flat earth alignment is irrelevant, which, if either, of the two proposed theories are of use to us? If we have two models that both explain current events, which is better in terms of fewest axiomatic assumptions and fewest unknown quantities? (Occam's Razor slices again!)
Btw sorry for the long longness but I have just invented an exciting new theory about particles I call conspiratons. They are invisible, immeasurable and have no mass, but they account for all unknown things in the universe due to their strange properties...but wait, how does it help that I know that?
Well you could argue that what makes a good scientific theory (and Flat Earth and Round Earth both claim to be scientific) is one that is useful in some way, for example theories of voltage, current etc giving rise to modern electronics and its sister disciplines. The theory of gravity is useful because we can use it along with some classical mechanics to predict the behaviour of heavy objects in structural engineering and the forces experienced by aircraft. These theories are (relatively) simple, and give us accurate and useful predictions about what might happen in an as yet untested theoretical situation, like if we built a building with no supporting structure on one of the walls (gravity decrees: crashshhhhhh).
The point of this thread is just to ask, as a scientist whose round earth/flat earth alignment is irrelevant, which, if either, of the two proposed theories are of use to us? If we have two models that both explain current events, which is better in terms of fewest axiomatic assumptions and fewest unknown quantities? (Occam's Razor slices again!)
Btw sorry for the long longness but I have just invented an exciting new theory about particles I call conspiratons. They are invisible, immeasurable and have no mass, but they account for all unknown things in the universe due to their strange properties...but wait, how does it help that I know that?