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 - fathomak

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7]
Flat Earth Q&A / Axioms behind the FE theory?
« on: October 27, 2006, 02:15:26 PM »
Scientific theories are informal -- they are sets of statements that we just sorta picked because they seem to work out nicely.

The reason we have the scientific principles and beliefs we have is because they match beautifully with what is observed in nature.  In science, experimental data is always taken above theoretical information.  If something we observe is in contradiction with something we initially believe to be true, does that mean our eyes have suddenly decided to lie to us or perhaps our theories are wrong?  If experiments differ from what we expect, we work to develop a new theory consistent with what we observe rather than blindly sticking to our course.

From my experience flat-earthers throw out "conspiracy theories" on the basis that the experimental information contradicts what they believe; however, support for the conspiracy theories comes in the form of more theories which seem just as arbitrary as the conspiracies were in the first place.

A captain is sailing through the arctic.  The first mate runs up and says to him, "captain, there is an iceberg dead ahead.  What should we do?"  The captain looks at his map and says, "there's no iceberg here!  Keep going!"

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Fusion
« on: October 27, 2006, 01:48:25 PM »
No, that isn't right.  Heat is just a measure of energy present in a region.  "Hot" and "cold" are not references to two different things, just the relative amounts of heat present compared with regular earth temperatures.  Something that we would call "cold" still contains "heat," even if it isn't "hot."  It just doesn't have as much heat energy as something we would say is hot.

Flat Earth Q&A / Fist of all..
« on: May 08, 2006, 02:52:42 PM »
I've realized that you none of you will accept a proof taken from belief.

Well, that makes sense.  Proof can not be given from belief, unless the belief is backed by scientific evidence, and this is only because nothing is proof unless it can be verified as false.  For example, if someone told me "cows only exist in fairy tales," I could easily show them a cow, and thus falsify that statement.  That would be proof that cows don't exist only in fairy tales.

As far as I can see, the only difference is that science is the belief of someone called a scientist.  So tell me, or else I won't be able to post anything.

And, by the way, don't just write something like "belief is religion". Give me a real answer

I think what you're asking is what is the difference between scientific evidence and evidence given on faith?  I wouldn't say "belief," since belief can be based on science and not faith.  Anyway, I would classify something as scientific if it is something that can be falsified, such as the cow thing (as stupid as it sounds) in the previous paragraph.  Faith (although I don't like calling it "faith" either), however, is not based on anything that is verifiably false but instead on logic and intuition.  Let's look at theology.  Unlike the cow, I cannot prove or disprove the existence of any kind of deity or higher being, as humans have no way of measuring anything which would support one theory over another.  Instead, in the case of theology, logic and reason must be used not to prove one position or another, but to support it.

How is that a similar fallacy?

Well I don't see what's so difficult.  You agree that 500 meters plus 500 meters equals one kilometer?  Then 500+500=1.  By the same logic, 1 raindrop plus 1 raindrop equals one raindrop, right?  No.  The problem is that the units are not the same on each side of the equation.  500+500=1 is absurd, but it works because I've expressed the left side in terms of meters and the right side in terms of kilometers, and refused to label them as such.  In the same way, 1+1=1 is completely absurd unless you take into account the units on each side.  On the left side, the units are "raindrops," and on the right side, the units should be "bigger raindrops," however bullhorn made no mention of this.  In order to add any scalar quantities that have units, the units MUST BE THE SAME.  If we assume the two raindrops at the start to be identical, then the resulting raindrop CANNOT be identical to the first, and so even though we say we have raindrops on both sides, the raindrops on the left are not the same as the one on the right.

Essentially what I've done is taken two smaller quantities, added them, and expressed them on a different scale.  Both sides are expressed as distances, but not the same units of distance.  Does that make any sense?

There is of course a circumstance that occurs in nature that shows why sometimes 1 + 1 does not equal 2. If one was to go outside during a rainy day and observe raindrops interacting with one and another, something interesting happens. When you have one raindrop beside another, for some reason when they touch each other, they join up and become a single raindrop. According to the education system 1 raindrop and another raindrop should be 2, but according to “real world science” one raindrop and another raindrop touching equals one raindrop. Some of you may say but there are 2 raindrops they are just together. What I would say to that is “As I am observing the raindrop I observe one raindrop not 2” To summaries according to the educational system that most round earth theorists refer to 1 + 1 + 2 and according to “real world science” that us flat earth theorists go by 1 + 1 = 1 and 1 + 1 = 2 (It depends on the situation) In all reality we flat earth theorists are open minded and can understand that sometimes the taught base education is wrong and this has been shown wrong in the above explanation.

Ok, let's consider something (it's been noted, but lets consider it anyway).  When you add one raindrop to another raindrop, you get one raindrop.  Therefore, 1+1=1 should be true.  Except that the separate raindrops you started out with ARE NOT THE SAME as the raindrop you end up with.  Let's say V1 is the volume of the first raindrop, V2 is the volume of the second, and V3 is the volume of the final raindrop.  Assuming that V1=V2, we can say V1+V2=2V1.  Then, 2V1=V3, however by the above logic there is no consideration of this.  In the above logic, V1=V2=V3.

What would be a similar fallacy?  500+500=1.  500 meters plus 500 meters equals one kilometer.  Now this is clearly true, however I could argue 500+500=1 by conventional mathematics and not point out that I have different units on each side of the equation.  This is all the above really does.

Flat Earth Q&A / An Ice Wall Cannot Exist
« on: May 07, 2006, 03:22:36 PM »
And I recall one of you FE's saying that it froze under pressure, the wall couldn't freeze under pressure unless was in the core of the earth (which has a lot of pressure)

I'm a RE'er, but I don't think water would freeze under pressure.  Water has a higher density than ice.

Flat Earth Q&A / Moon issues...
« on: May 07, 2006, 03:19:06 PM »
I'm not saying the flat moon wouldn't be round, I'm saying it would be distorted.  Look at the link in my first post.

Flat Earth Q&A / Photo of earth's edge?
« on: May 02, 2006, 07:41:28 PM »
I'm a RE'er by the way.

Flat Earth Q&A / Just a note...
« on: May 02, 2006, 07:26:02 PM »
no, when we jump, the force that is pushing the Earth upwards (assuming the sun and starts and stuff are like a dome covering Earth or something, which would explain why the ice wall is so short yet we still have an atmosphere), is no longer acting on us, this, coupled with the air friction would cause us to fall back to Earth.

So when our feet leave the ground this force stops acting on us?  That still changes the laws depending on what you're looking at.  And I'll tell you, air friction alone sure couldn't do it, otherwise when I throw a baseball I'd expect it to stop 3 inches from my hand and fall to the ground.

Flat Earth Q&A / Just a note...
« on: May 02, 2006, 07:18:02 PM »
The laws of physics are the same for everything in the round earth model.

In the flat earth model, the earth, sun, moon, stars, etc. are all accelerating upwards by some mysterious force, while objects on the surface are not (hence why we return to the surface when we jump).  The gravitational model doesn't work either (the earth is a huge cylinder), unless the sun, moon, stars etc. don't respond to the gravity, or are suspended from a ceiling by strings, or something along those lines.

Flat Earth Q&A / You can't deny this proof.
« on: May 02, 2006, 06:03:41 PM »
If websites and people just started dissappearing without an explanation, would not people get suspicious?

No?  Have you ever read 1984?  I think it would be much easier for the governments to silence FE supporters so the rest of us wouldn't have a second thought about the issue.  The government could then put much less work into covering up the truth, since nobody would bother to question it.

Flat Earth Q&A / Seasons
« on: May 02, 2006, 05:55:40 PM »
I love the way you wrote that.

Flat Earth Q&A / Moon issues...
« on: May 02, 2006, 05:49:43 PM »
Why were all of the posts deleted?

Flat Earth Q&A / Proof for a flat earth is all around us
« on: May 02, 2006, 05:40:03 PM »
At least flat-earthers place their beliefs on evidence and THEIR OWN OBSERVATIONS.

Conspiracies and illusions?  Need I say more?

Flat Earth Q&A / Sun, moon, optical illusions?
« on: May 02, 2006, 05:10:36 PM »
Q: "What about the stars, sun and moon and other planets? Are they flat too? What are they made of?"

A: The sun and moon, each 32 miles in diameter, circle Earth at a height of 3000 miles at its equator, located midway between the North Pole and the ice wall. Each functions as a "spotlight," with the sun radiating "hot light," the moon "cold light." As they are spotlights, they only give light out over a certain are which explains why some parts of the Earth are dark when others are light. Their apparent rising and setting are caused by optical illusions.

Could someone please explain how this optical illusion works?  I don't quite understand the physics of magic.

Flat Earth Q&A / Photo of earth's edge?
« on: May 01, 2006, 11:11:17 PM »

There's clearly something behind that wall.  Probably more ice, but how thick is this thing supposed to be?  Judging from the water though, that's not 150 feet high.

Flat Earth Q&A / Moon issues...
« on: May 01, 2006, 05:10:11 PM »
I suppose the same would go for the sun.  You'll have to link to the picture to see what I've done, as there are a lot of diagrams that are needed to help explain what is being done.  Please forgive the crudeness and size of the image; I went through it very quickly (though it still took a while).  You'll probably notice the text got smaller as I went along.

This is basically taking note of the apparent sizes of the moon as viewed from two different perspectives on the flat earth, and how they conflict with what is actually observed.  I've read the FAQ, and I understand (at least I think I do) the optical illusion thing, but please read anyway, and feel free to ask any questions, as some of what I did may seem weird or vague.

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7]