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 - NTheGreat

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 34
31
Flat Earth Debate / Re: satellite dishes and the conspiracy theory
« on: September 25, 2011, 04:02:32 PM »
You would, indeed, need several of them. Fortunately, while building a stratellite and payload costs about 20 million dollars, allegedly simply launching a satellite can cost 120 million, not including the cost of the actual satellite.

While the costs of launching a stratellite are (predicted to be) a sixth of the cost of launching a satellite, the area covered by a stratellite is about a 50th of the area covered by a satellite. The cost of using stratellites is more overall.

There's also the problem of how much of that 120 million is available for turning into stratellites. The payload and rocket are still built and the rocket is still launched. After covering the cost of faking the launch, what money would be left over to pay for the array of stratellites?

32
Now, we will increase the distances to 600 km, 1000 km, and even 7000 km.

...

This is the way to prove the Earth is flat; serious, heavy-duty research, with scientific, provable facts to go along; the official, main FAQ is a sham, answering none of the issues the round earth supporters present here in these threads...

This is quite a post...

I suppose I see two main problems reading though it.
  • The events all happening in Europe all seem to be referring to a continuous glow, not an explosion. One of them even mentions it lasting to daybreak. It hardly seems these reports refer to the sudden explosion that occurred over Tunguska
  • Why was this only observed around Europe? If the Earth was flat, shouldn't there be reports of this event coming in from thousands of kilometers away in all directions?

33
Flat Earth Debate / Re: A Common Language for the Forum
« on: September 21, 2011, 10:04:27 AM »
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/experiment

ex·per·i·ment
[n. ik-sper-uh-muhnt; v. ek-sper-uh-ment]
noun

1.
a test, trial, or tentative procedure; an act or operation for the purpose of discovering something unknown or of testing a principle, supposition, etc.

2.
the conducting of such operations; experimentation: a product that is the result of long experiment.

3.
Obsolete . experience.

I guess you are referring to 'an act or operation for the purpose of discovering something unknown'. I think the issue then is what is the unknown thing discovered by a simulation? No actual proteins are folded by the simulation, so we aren't learning anything new about proteins. You could suggest that the act of calculating things is an experiment, but then computer is constantly experimenting. The definition becomes rather pointless.

34
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The flat earth theory is complete hogwash, proof 4
« on: September 21, 2011, 07:14:38 AM »
Please look up relativity. Nobody really disputes it.

This is something I've always found strange, as there's essentially no evidence for it when you assume a flat Earth model.

35
Flat Earth Debate / Re: A Common Language for the Forum
« on: September 21, 2011, 06:57:36 AM »

The goal of the folding at home project is to simulate all possible folds for a protein. They want to see what works, what sort of works, and what doesn't work.

The purpose is not to prove any one protein fold combination or any particular hypothesis true.

I think I see now. Is your definition of an experiment doing something then observing the result?

36
Flat Earth Debate / Re: A Common Language for the Forum
« on: September 20, 2011, 05:07:46 PM »
A simulation is an experiment.

When I perform a set of trials to see what objects are and are not flammable in Minecraft, I am performing an experiment, despite that Minecraft is a survival simulation.

You keep mentioning this example. The face you are performing an experiment in a simulation does not then mean the simulation has also become an experiment.

37
Flat Earth Debate / Re: A Common Language for the Forum
« on: September 17, 2011, 03:26:43 PM »
@home project is a simulation, not an experiment.

What? No. The Folding at Home project is an experiment, just as a computer crunching numbers until it found the answer to an obscure unsolvable mathematical problem would be an experiment. Just because it's digital doesn't make it not an experiment.

It's not an experiment. If it was an experiment, they would be folding the actual proteins to test how they behave. What they are actually doing is using our current theories on how proteins behave to fold a number of virtual molecules, in the hope of encountering something that, according to our current theories, might be beneficial.


Quote
Scientists make up unfalsifiable crap all the time. Gravitons. Dark Matter. Dark Energy. You name it.

And? They have to come up with some new ideas, otherwise we're never going to progress. They make it clear that these things are currently little more than ideas by saying that they are hypothetical answers to the observed phenomena.

38
You will notice from the picture I posted the water looks almost flat in the upper one. The power of even small waves to mask low objects is powerful. But your pictures are demonstrating the exact same thing. You are just hi-lighting imperfections in the general swell. It is the swell that covers the bottom of the boat.

Do you have any evidence that wave consistently rise high enough and frequently enough to mask the lower section of a boat while appearing as a almost perfectly flat surface? Or it it just 'I think this happens this way because it's the only way to explain what we see assuming a flat Earth'?

39
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Gravity?
« on: September 17, 2011, 12:52:44 PM »
it works mathematically in terms of gravity and the local environment, but has a fair degree of problem fitting in with modern cosmology.  Also, it still doesn't explain the inability to fit the actual map onto a flat surface.

Indeed, but the UA model of a flat Earth also has these problems. I was merely pointing out that the hypothesis was just as good as what the majority of FEers put forward currently, not worse.

40
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Gravity?
« on: September 17, 2011, 09:08:18 AM »
A flat earth can be stable with gravity if instead of having a small disc roughly 40,000 kilometers across, you have an endless sheet of rock. It's an idea that explains their observation of matter and the planet being pulled together as well as the UA model that most FEers hold.

41
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Someone debate me
« on: September 16, 2011, 05:33:46 AM »
Having the flat Earth as a solid slab of rock has it's own problems. It doesn't explain volcanoes, it doesn't explain earthquakes, it doesn't explain geothermal energy and without surface tension what is there to hold together such a huge mass of fractured rock?

Having it as a molten mass with a thin solid crust also has it's own issue. The raindrop analogy works wonderfully here. In both cases you have mass of fluid with something applying a force to one side (in the case of a raindrop it's air resistance, in the case of the flat Earth it's the universal accelerator). Such a situation causes a section of the surface of the liquid to flatten, which seems to fit wonderfully with the FE model. This is until you realise that the flattened surface faces into the direction that the force is being applied from, which would mean that underside of the FE would be flat, with us living on the curved surface.

42
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why is an icewall necessary
« on: September 15, 2011, 09:45:42 AM »
If you pour out the egg from its shell before boiling, you can make it flat.

If you did that, you would just end up with a poached egg, which is more a round, blobby shape. Not flat.

43
We all agree with John that earth is flat. But gravity has not shown itself to be superior to UA as a theory. It is because I believe it to be inferior, that I do not subscribe to it.

RErs are stuck with gravity. I got to choose. Gravity seems silly. It lost.

So it's just a matter of opinion?

44
The John Davis model? The model John Davis supports and all the other FErs don't? Why is he correct and the rest all wrong?

Why are all the rest correct and he is wrong?

45
Flat Earth Debate / Re: A Common Language for the Forum
« on: September 15, 2011, 05:38:30 AM »
...

In Search of a Method
Now, how can we reach our goal, that is, to find the set of theories that are correct?

First we need to define what a correct theory is.  A correct theory is one whose predictions match the corresponding observations FOR ALL OBSERVATIONS THAT ARE POSSIBLE.  If you disagree with that definition, then share your revised definition.

...

I would add to this definition. The problem is any hypothesis can be made correct. Add enough extra forces and effects, and any model could be made to fit with a set of observations. I feel there needs to be another criteria for defining the 'correctness' of a hypothesis. Perhaps something like how easy it is to calculate predictions from, or how many things it needs to assume exist to work.

46
Flat Earth Debate / Re: A Common Language for the Forum
« on: September 14, 2011, 07:21:38 AM »
Cast your eyes into the pages of history if you wish to see the difference between globular reasoning at work, and true science at work...

...


...Now who is more likely, in these two examples, to be accurately describing the state of affairs: Newton, who will defend his original bold claim no matter if it is true or false, and will go to any lengths to substantiate it with whatever bizarre lies he can fathom and fancy, so as to avoid humiliation; or Rowbotham, who did not make any bold claim in the first place, and will simply describe what he sees before him by his own eyes, and which I see with mine own eyes, and you with your own eyes?

This is a key thing I don't understand about this whole zetetic thing. Why is an otherwise undetectable force that attracts things together considered nonsense, but an otherwise undetectable force that pushes the underside of the planet up, along with an otherwise undetectable force that pushes the Sun, Moon and superior planets in circles, along with an otherwise undetectable force that holds Mercury and Venus close to the Sun, along with an otherwise undetectable force that holds the moons of Jupiter in orbit around it, along with an otherwise undetectable force that causes the superior planets to go in the opposite direction for a short period of time are all considered perfectly fine?

It seems to be much the same as 'globular reasoning', with the exception that you simply hold that the Earth being flat is an absolute truth.

47
Flat Earth Debate / Re: A Common Language for the Forum
« on: September 13, 2011, 05:09:51 PM »
Globularist scientists that change their theories only do so because they couldn't find any evidence. See what is wrong here? They hold a belief about how the world works before they even have evidence for it, and they only discard is once it is decided none can be found, or it is too bothersome to find it.

Zeticists on the other hand formulate their ideas from what we know.

Scientists change their theories when evidence arises that suggests their theories are wrong.

Also, I'm not sure what's wrong with forming new ideas about how the world works before you've had a chance to test them. If you don't try coming up with new ideas then you're never going to improve your models.

Plus there's still the point that Zeticists have come to the conclusion that the Sun and Moon orbit in a circle above us, which seems to have nothing to do with what they know about the path across the sky of these two objects.

48
Flat Earth Debate / Re: A Common Language for the Forum
« on: September 13, 2011, 12:56:14 PM »
The scientific method is essentially, "I have an idea about how something works, now I am going to use whatever I can to support it."

Calling the scientific method cherry picking is a bit off...


Quote
This is working backwards. The Zetetic method we first make our observations and collect our data and THEN derive conclusions from it.

But there are still things in the flat Earth model that aren't derived this way. Nobody has taken something like a time lapse photo of the Sun or Moon showing them going around above us in a circle. Despite this, flat Earthers still hold that this is what happens.

49
Flat Earth Debate / Re: A Common Language for the Forum
« on: September 13, 2011, 10:36:48 AM »
Thanks for suggesting that we use globularist methods to test our anti-globularist findings. However, we already have our own system of science, called Zeteticism, which was outlined by the great Doctor Samuel Birley Rowbotham in the first chapter of the seminal text of modern science, Earth Not a Globe.

Globular/theoreticist science is an outmoded hangover from the so-called Enlightenment period. We 21st century scientists use significantly improved methods.

So how does Zeteticism differ from the scientific method? The main differences I see are you make an initial observation (The Earth appears flat) which you assume is true when composing all later hypotheses, and there's little care for the hypotheses you generate needing to be able to predict anything.

50
Flat Earth Debate / Re: A Common Language for the Forum
« on: September 13, 2011, 09:08:14 AM »
Incorrect.

Please read Chapter 1 of Earth Not a Globe "Zetetic and Theoretic Defined and Compared" -

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za04.htm#page_1

What the book says at the start is rather different to how I see it played out. For example, the Sun and Moon on a FE model should vary considerably in their size and take a far different path across the sky. There's things like the glare caused by the atmosphere and bendy light and other such stuff proposed to explain it. The problem is the only reason to think these things are occurring in a way that solves the issues is that they have to be happening to explain what we're seeing assuming the Earth is flat. There's nothing suggesting that celestial gears exist to explain similar constellations in the southern hemisphere, beyond 'it's the only way to explain what we see if the Earth were flat'.

The initial observation is made, and then all other phenomena are explained using the assumption that the initial observation is true.

51
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Is Earth the only flat object?
« on: September 13, 2011, 08:47:22 AM »
Clearly, there is something in front of the moon in this image:

If you look at the Moon when only a thin crescent is lit, you can still see the dark half. There's nothing in front of the Moon, it's just the contrast between the light and dark areas is normally too high to see with our eyes.

52
Flat Earth Debate / Re: A Common Language for the Forum
« on: September 13, 2011, 08:37:28 AM »
Personally I would include use the word hypothesis rather than theory. You create a hypothesis, not a theory, based off of observations. You then search for observations that disprove it. If you can't find any, then the hypothesis can be regarded as a theory.

Although as previously mentioned, the FEers on this site tend to use a zetetic method. As far as I can tell, this involves making a single observation with your eyes (the world appears flat) and then setting this as an axiom and try to explain everything else under the assumption your initial observation is true.

I've never understood why they use this method, personally. Perhaps there's something about it I'm not getting, but I've yet to see it explained in a way that makes it seem much use.

53
It's clear to see that both models have areas where there are multiple hypothesis present that explain what's going on.

The question I have is: what work are FE proponents doing to find out which FE hypothesis are incorrect?

54
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Easy way to prove the earth is indeed flat
« on: September 09, 2011, 04:45:23 PM »
The fact the ice-wall cannot be circumvented tells you a great deal about earth's shape and nobody said the ice-shelf was thousands of feet high. I often think most people have no intention of listening to any of the evidence put forward, no matter how compelling. No wonder you all think the earth is round.

I'm not sure how you derive the shape of the Earth from about 500 miles of ice. The ice shelf is not thousands of feet high, but most flat Earth models have the ice wall as some huge structure holding back the atmosphere. That's why I think the quote refers to an ice shelf, not the FE ice wall.

The reason nobody is listening to your evidence is because apparently it's not very reliable. Using made up figures such as the speed 22.6 knots, or claiming search parties were sent out to find Ross and that is opinions were dismissed while presenting nothing suggesting these things are true doesn't do much good to your credibility.

55
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Easy way to prove the earth is indeed flat
« on: September 09, 2011, 03:39:45 PM »
Please stop making up your own versions of events. He did voice his opinions. The Powers that be dismissed them and claimed he was lost. They even sent out search parties when he didn't arrive back within RE deadlines.

What? I can't see anything about search parties being sent out to search for him.

A nice passage about the ice-wall

I throught the FE ice wall was a monstrous thing rising tens of kilometers into the sky, not something a couple of hundred feet high. I suspect he's talking about the Ross ice shelf, which doesn't really tell us much about the shape of the planet either way.

56
We have a proper map. ???

But that's exactly the same map as the one in the FAQ. You just said that the FAQ is rubbish.

57
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Easy way to prove the earth is indeed flat
« on: September 09, 2011, 02:10:32 PM »
It should have been 14600 miles on a round earth. 60,000 miles matches Rowbowtham and Voliva's estimates instead.

I still don't fully understand. Why should his journey only be 14,600 miles on a round Earth? Looking at the maps of his voyage, Ross easily covered more that that just going from Australia to South America when plotted on a round Earth. I still see no reason why the whole journey should be significantly less than 60,000 miles.

58
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Easy way to prove the earth is indeed flat
« on: September 09, 2011, 10:53:39 AM »
What measurements made during Ross's 1839-43 expedition make the RE model seem wrong? How long should the journey have been instead under a RE model?

59
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Easy way to prove the earth is indeed flat
« on: September 09, 2011, 06:57:57 AM »
Where is this figure of 22.6 knots coming from? As far as I can see, the figure was a guess at the speed needed to circumnavigate the flat Earth using the circumference of the flat earth and the race time. Now it seems it's being used with the race time to justify the circumference of the flat Earth!

I had a look through the log poster earlier in the thread, and the only mention of the boat speed I can find in it is here:
Quote
Day 25: Position - 52° 43’S 160° 28’E
“Massive waves still threaten, but I have increased sail area to keep in rhythm with the waves. These are not normal waves, but small hills with white foamy crests. Each wave is 100m from the next – perfect for surfing on this 24m surf board. If I catch the waves right, we are running down them at 15-16 knots.”

There we have a speed well shy of the 22.6 knots suggested elsewhere in this thread, even when riding down the side of a wave.

60
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Comets
« on: September 08, 2011, 12:03:00 PM »
Now you are just nodding along to the Conspiracy propaganda again. I already provided a link showing it is not possible.

I've no idea what the conspiracy has to do with an approximate solution to the N-body problem.

We know that there's currently no perfect formulae for dealing with more than three bodies. This doesn't mean we can't predict where the comet is going using a RE model. We also still have no explanation as to what's happening in a FE model.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 34