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 - zarg

Pages: 1 ... 36 37 [38]
1111
I'm not the FAQ/Tom Bishop.

Is Tom Bishop wrong? Yes or no. If you believed he was, why even argue in this thread at all? Why was your first reply not something to the effect of, "Why yes, LinearPlane, you have a point there; Tom's theory is quite flawed. Here is mine..." If, on the other hand, you don't dispute Tom, then this "I'm not Tom" statement is exactly the evasive waste of time it appears to be.

By the way, your link doesn't work.

Please see the post I already linked to. Your claim that the visible stars are at 3100 miles yet others are farther away is easily refutable. If this were true, the closer stars would noticeably appear to be at different angles compared to the distant stars when viewed from a different location.


And you still haven't responded to this:

If you are willing to accept that some stars are not attached to Earth's field, and may in fact be very distant, why not accept that the visible ones are also distant and large, as is accepted by every credible scientist? Why shoot yourselves in the foot by claiming that thousands of our stars are small objects mysteriously floating around in the atmosphere if such a claim isn't necessarily part of FET?

And, just a heads up: either way, you're screwed. If you choose to claim that the closest stars are at only 3100 miles and held within Earth's so-called "dark energy field", while others are distant, you're wrong because there is no visible parallax effect. On the other hand, if you accept that all stars are distant, you no longer have an explanation for why we see different stars in the north and south.

Quite a pickle you've got yourself into there.

1112
Flat Earth General / Re: CubeSat
« on: December 08, 2011, 05:54:43 PM »
Why not start a thread to discuss that question with your fellow society members?

1113
And again, I'm willing to concede that the non-visible stars might be on different levels.

Nope, sorry, that doesn't work either. See my post. Remember UA. If the distant stars were beyond Earth's influence, they would appear to be accelerating toward us.

UA doesn't 'stop' a couple thousand miles past Earth. It keeps going.

Then why does your FAQ / Tom Bishop say they are held in place by dark energy? Without even getting into the problems this new claim presents, again I have to wonder why you made the former claims in the first place. If you are willing to accept that some stars are not attached to Earth's field, and may in fact be very distant, why not accept that the visible ones are also distant and large, as is accepted by every credible scientist? Why shoot yourselves in the foot by claiming that thousands of our stars are small objects mysteriously floating around in the atmosphere if such a claim isn't necessarily part of FET?

1114
Flat Earth General / Re: CubeSat
« on: December 08, 2011, 05:32:36 PM »
Oh yes, well pardon me.

Again I ask, why doesn't the Flat Earth Society invest in one and demonstrate first-hand that satellites are frauds, and publically give credence to your claim that gravity doesn't exist and there is a conspiracy.

You are living in a world where everyone is brainwashed except for you. It's up to you to save the world. Are you seriously telling me that is not worth a $100,000 fundraiser?

1115
Flat Earth General / Re: CubeSat
« on: December 08, 2011, 05:25:30 PM »
Also, those satellites are not for 'civilians', unless the average civilian is able to spend 100,000 dollars on toys. They're for scientists, and they're used to conduct low-gravity experiments. They're compatible with FET.

Wrong on all counts.

They are for civilians. Did you not notice the heading, "Citizen Satellites"? $10,000 is not a big deal for a hobbyist. Countless computer and audiovisual enthusiasts have spent that much and more on their toys.

Even if they were only "for scientists" (and again I emphasize they are not), surely you are not saying every scientist is part of the conspiracy.

And they're for space missions, not mere atmospheric. They go into orbit, which is a direct contradiction of FET. They are in no way compatible.

1116
Flat Earth General / Re: CubeSat
« on: December 08, 2011, 04:46:04 PM »
This thread is being derailed again. Let's go back to the issue at hand:

this chunk of metal disproves FET, unless it's a hoax. Now, why don't one of you flatters invest in one and then prove it's a hoax? Surely $100,000 is worth a step toward global enlightenment, yes?

1117
Flat Earth General / Re: Why is RET rejected by FEers
« on: December 08, 2011, 04:42:43 PM »
It is quite simple really.  Many people throughout the earth have discovered that it is flat, therefore, what not everythin we know about science and physics is correct.

It is quite simple really. Many people throughout the earth have discovered science and physics, therefore, not everything we believe about the earth being flat is correct.

1118
They're also making assumptions about the amount of galaxies.

Your point? The same thing applies. Their estimations would need to be ridiculously far off. The range of uncertainty is not wide enough for 3100-Mile Theory to be plausible.

Counting stars is like guessing how many candies are in a filled jar:

Bob guesses 400.
Jim guesses 500.
Steve guesses 450.
Tom Bishop guesses two.

I'm not saying Bob and Jim and Steve are definitely right. But Tom is definitely wrong.


And again, I'm willing to concede that the non-visible stars might be on different levels.

Nope, sorry, that doesn't work either. See my post. Remember UA. If the distant stars were beyond Earth's influence, they would appear to be accelerating toward us.

Funny how you suddenly changed your tune from "the star count is wrong" to "the stars are on different levels" after the first was challenged. If the second is your claim, and the star count doesn't refute it, why expend so much energy trying to discount the star count in the first place?

1119
If there was any certainty in this count, it would have more than one significant figure.

See my above post.

1120
It's actually pretty funny how many "might"s, "may"s, "maybe"s, and "could"s can be found in that one, single article.  Scientists do love hedging their bets when it comes to playing their guessing games, don't they?

First of all, doesn't that cast doubt upon your claims more than it does theirs? After all, I thought the whole point of these "fake discoveries" was to give the public a sense of certainty. It wouldn't have served them well to say, "we might have gone to the moon," now, would it have?

Anyway, what's your point? Are you suggesting that uncertainty about the number 100 sextillion means that the actual number might be something that could possibly be reconciled with the 3100-mile claim? Consider: The difference between 100 and 300 sextillion is considered unusually enormous enough to be newsworthy. That's a difference of a factor of 3. In order for the 3100-mile claim to even approach plausibility, they'd need to be off by a factor of about a quadrillion. Try again.

1121
Flat Earth General / Re: CubeSat
« on: December 08, 2011, 01:22:42 PM »
You forget relativity.

Um, no, YOU forget relativity. Or, to be precise, you willfully deny it. In order for indefinite, constant acceleration (UA) to be possible, the theory of relativity must be false. The theory of relativity is an evil Round Earth conspiracy. Don't you remember?

1122
Flat Earth General / Re: CubeSat
« on: December 08, 2011, 01:18:21 PM »
Roundy the Truthinessist just successfully used a distraction technique, whether it was intentional or not.

Other types of orbit are irrelevant. We are talking about celestial orbit, not atomic orbit. Celestial orbit is impossible in FET. Satellites prove celestial orbit and thus disprove FET. The existence of hobbyist satellites disprove the claim that satellites are lies concocted by The Conspiracy. Thus CubeSat disproves FET.

You must address this problem instead of derailing the thread toward a discussion about atoms.

Unless you now claim that Earth is an atom.  ;D

1123
Flat Earth General / Re: CubeSat
« on: December 07, 2011, 09:31:32 PM »
the faqqers will tell you "sustained" spaceflight is impossible.
"orbit" is very possible.
the sun does it, the moon does it, the stars do it.
why cant a chuck of metal?

No, orbit is impossible in FET, because orbit depends on gravity, which cannot exist in FET because it would cause Earth to form itself into a sphere. The "orbit" of the sun and moon is an illusion caused by the way they move around above Flat Earth. They do this for unexplained reasons, which is fine because they are "mysteries".

A chunk of metal is not a "mystery".

Therefore, this chunk of metal disproves FET, unless it's a hoax. Now, why don't one of you flatters invest in one and then prove it's a hoax? Surely $100,000 is worth a step toward global enlightenment, yes?

edit: Excuse me, I suppose I mean planar enlightenment. Silly brainwashed me, didn't mean to let that slip out.

1124
Even if we grant your bullshit claim that NASA is 100% in charge of all technology that can possibly be used to count stars, and the entirety of our knowledge on the subject is based on unsubstantiated claims coming directly from NASA, it makes absolutely no sense. What does NASA gain from having people believe this? To discredit FET? Hadn't they achieved that already?


Here:

http://www.space.com/9625-discovery-triple-number-stars-universe.html

Scan this article for the words "NASA" or "Hubble". You will find zero instances. Stop making shit up.

1125
I think the real issue is that you're applying RE science to FE. The amount of stars in the universe, in the RE model, is an estimation based on how many we can see in a certain area.

Now THIS is ironic. You just applied FE science to RE. Only on a flat Earth would all the visible stars be "in a certain area". Only in FET would the number of stars (including the "invisible" ones "underneath" Earth) be an estimation. Only FET claims that all visible stars are within one area at a uniform height. If anything, your FET-science estimation of the total number of stars should be MORE, not less.

But in RET, we assume that we can see the stars IN EVERY DIRECTION. 300 sextillion isn't an estimation of how many stars there MIGHT be if we could see more. No, this is the number of stars in the observable universe.  And don't say "that's just according to RET". No, the only difference is that RET assumes the stars are at greater distances and that they are distributed 3 dimensionally around Earth. The same number of stars can be observed by a person no matter what shape he believes Earth is.

FET's claim means that all the "distant" stars we observe are actually increasingly smaller stars at the same distance. The sizes necessary for this to be true are ludicrous; physically impossible. To an honest scientist, this would lead him to believe that his hypothesis was wrong. To you, you respond by denying reality.

1126
The only thing known about the celestial bodies is their distance from the earth.

Why, Tom? Why can't we determine their size? Just tell me one thing, Tom: Are there any stars smaller than than a helium atom? What's your opinion, at least?

1127
Just making sure no one misses this hilarious Tom Bishop quote:

Our answers are based on evidence, not hypothesis.


1128
I fail to see why it would be different between RET and FET.

??? Did you even read this thread?

There's a huge difference because FET says all the stars are held in place by dark energy 3100 miles above the surface of Earth.

If they are all at the same height then they must all fit inside a 2-dimensional area equal to the surface area of Earth. Basic division and common sense proves that this would require stars to be impossibly small objects. See the problem?

1129
I sincerely hope you're joking.

1130
Yes, they are too numerous to all simultaneously exist at a singular height of 3100 miles above a relatively stationary flat plane the size of Earth's surface.

And if some stars can be seen without the aid of a telescope, that means they are relatively enormous and all the other ones need to greatly be even smaller than the figure I posted in order to preserve the overall average.

Not only that, but we can observe that there are great distances between the stars as well.

What Tom Bishop and your FAQ are claiming is that most stars are absurdly small objects, many many times smaller than the smallest element ever discovered.

1131
I already posted the math that shows how small one 300-septillionth the size of Earth is. You don't need another formula to tell you that that is far too small to be seen -- from ANY distance.

1132
They're obviously pretty small.

Obviously. LOL. That completely explains everything.

So now the stars are the sizes of atoms?

Clearly not. They appear much larger than that in the night sky.

And there's the problem, of course. If they are large enough to be visible 3100 miles away, there isn't enough room. Take the surface area of Earth, 510 million square kilometers, divide it by 300 sextillion, you get 1.7 picometers: the necessary average surface area of a star. The smallest atom is helium and has a diameter of 62 picometers.

1133
the faq should read 3100 Miles and beyond...

No, the stars HAVE to be at almost the same distance from each other in FET otherwise travelling 1000 miles would result in differing angular distances between them, which does not noticeably happen.

Graphical aid for the above:

If the stars are that close to Earth, yet also "beyond", this effect would be visible. It's not.

Also, the FAQ claims that the stars are being "held" above Earth. Are you (iwanttobelieve) suggesting that "hold" extends infinitely "beyond"? If not, the farther stars would be constantly moving relatively closer, which they are not.

1134
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« on: December 04, 2011, 10:30:15 PM »
Quote
You just ignored most of what I said. Please read it again and try to comprehend. I never said you would be expected to prove the absence of ghosts.

Well that's the topic you were replying to. The burden of proof is solely on the ghost claimant. If the ghost claimant presents some kind of evidence for the existence of ghosts it's the skeptic's duty to challenge it, just as I have been challenging the Apollo mission photographs here.
It's not on the ghost claimant if he has provided evidence and you have failed to provide a valid counter-argument. You haven't countered any of the vast amounts of evidence that the moon expedition did take place; instead you have a paltry amount of contrary evidence that has already been countered over and over throughout the years with no follow-up arguments. It's your move, but you choose to keep winding the game back to the first move as if the previous ones never happened.


Quote
The Lunar Module is not the Lunar Rover.

How embarrassing.

Indeed, that fact is embarrassing, for you -- because the rover is even smaller and lighter than the module and the tires have a much wider surface area than the feet, meaning the explanation about the module is even more applicable to the rover. Or did you even bother to read the explanation to see if it answered your question? I thought not. Laziness.

1135
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« on: December 04, 2011, 09:56:32 PM »
The ghost believer would need to prove that ghosts exist. If that's all he has, then fine. The burden is on him to prove the existence of ghosts, not anyone to prove that ghosts don't exist.

Asking someone to prove that ghosts don't exist is ridiculous. No one is ever burdened with proving a negative.

You just ignored most of what I said. Please read it again and try to comprehend. I never said you would be expected to prove the absence of ghosts.


But if you are so adamant that it has been debunked before, please find documents which debunk the images in the below link:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/wiki/index.php/Apollo_Moonbuggy_Problems

Honestly, do you really want to pursue this? Are you suggesting that such debunking is nonexistent? Please. All you're doing is embarrassing yourself and proving your own laziness.

The answer you're looking for is already right here in this thread, in the link Zhark posted after searching for mere moments, if you had actually bothered to at least skim it:

Quote
The Lunar Module weighed about 17 tons, yet the astronauts' feet seem to have made a deeper impression in the lunar dust.

The hoax advocates often quote the weight of the Lunar Module as 16 to 18 tons (weights varied mission to mission). This was the LM's Earth weight when fully fueled and included about 9 tons of descent stage propellant. By the time the LM reached the surface, its weight in lunar gravity was only about 2,700 lbs. With four 37-inch diameter footpads, the load on the surface was about 90 lbs/ft2. Neil Armstrong's fully suited weight on the Moon was 58 lbs. His boots covered an area of about one square foot, giving a load of 58 lbs/ft2. In Armstrong's own words "the LM footpads are only depressed in the surface about 1 or 2 inches". On the other hand, the footprints of the astronauts were depressed only a fraction of an inch, although people often exaggerate their depth.
http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm

1136
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« on: December 04, 2011, 05:02:03 PM »
Zarg: "The burden is always on the person making a new claim"
Markjo: "if the "skeptic" makes a negative claim, then that counts as a claim and the skeptic does incur a burden of proof for that negative claim."
Tom Bishop: "The burden of proof is always on the claimants and never on the skeptics."
Irushwithcvs: "However, when you make the more ridiculous assumption, in the science community, the burden of proof would be on me, not you "

See? several contradictory angles. However, what really clouds the issue is the nature of what is defined as a "claim".

My prediction has been validated:
Quote from: zarg
Judging by what I've seen in this thread, your solution now will be to redefine "burden of proof" such that your position becomes correct; just as you questionably redefine observable physics to fit your preconceived model.

You seem to be under the impression that the fact that you dispute the definitions of terms means that the entire subject is impossible and pointless to discuss, thus conveniently nullifying anyone's responsibility to deal with it.

Unfortunately for you, words do have actual definitions. Has it never occurred to you to check a source other than your own wiki?

And those statements are not contradictory. No one is denying that if you were merely skeptics, you would not hold the burden of proof that the claim is wrong. However as I already pointed out, you are not the "skeptics" here. Not only do you deny existent contrary proof, you hold your very own claims -- indeed, you even freely call it a "theory" -- and refuse to accept the responsibility to prove it!


Quote from: Tom Bishop
Negative claims don't have to be proven. I don't have to prove that ghosts "don't" exist in a discussion on the existence of ghosts.

Even to look at evidence and say "this is not evidence" is an assertion that you need to back up. For instance, following your ghost analogy: Ghost-believer says: "Ghosts exist because I felt something brush past me in an empty room." He has made an assertion and provided evidence; he's good so far. Only after you dispute his evidence with a valid counter-argument (such as demonstrating that wind could have created the same effect) is Ghost-believer once again obligated to provide more evidence.


But, I'm sure that when markjo says "negative", he means "opposing", not just simple denial. And a conspiracy theory is an opposing hypothesis. Your claims about light are opposing hypotheses. And so forth.


Quote from: Tom Bishop
Funny how in the face of indisputable evidence that NASA is a fraud

I don't think you understand what that word, "indisputable", means. There are documents that do exactly that: dispute your cited evidence, point by point. Nothing in your sources (which, again, is yourself!) is new, I've seen it before and it has all been thoroughly shot down years ago. It no longer has any value outside of cheap sensationalist TV programs. This information takes no time at all to find if you are simply honest enough to allow yourself to look at both sides and stop being lazy.

1137
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« on: December 04, 2011, 09:15:41 AM »
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=44564.msg1105763#msg1105763

I think this is quite a good summary of the burden of proof debate.

That post is all handwavey bullshit. The burden of proof "debate"? There is no "debate" about what BOP is. It's not some philosophical mystery. The definition is simple and clear: The burden is always on the person making a new claim. Period.

That Earth is a sphere may have been a new claim hundreds of years ago, but it is far from it today. Those purporting that belief already had their turn bearing the burden, and their proof has long been demonstrated. Now it's your turn. You are now putting forth new laws of physics, making accusations of conspiracy, and so forth. These are new claims.

If you expect your side to ever have any credence whatsoever, you will need to accept the fact that at this point you do carry the burden of proof, and act accordingly. You could start with a map.

1138
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« on: December 03, 2011, 04:39:27 PM »
The burden of proof is always on the claimants and never on the skeptics.

See: http://theflatearthsociety.net/wiki/index.php/Burden_of_Proof

Thank you, but I'm already perfectly aware of what burden of proof is. Otherwise I wouldn't have pointed it out. Ironically, as per the wording of your own wiki article that you posted, this discussion is certainly one of the most clear-cut examples wherein your claims are the ones where the burden of proof lies:

Quote
If two people are having a debate, should the burden of proof rest on the shoulders of the person who make the most complicated claim, or should the burden of proof rest on the shoulders of the person who makes the simplest and easily observable claim?

The subject that you are "skeptics" on is, essentially, observation itself. While you wouldn't say it in so many words, you do freely admit that "the most easily observable" perception is one of curvature, and you explain this by making claims about how light distorts our "naive" observations. Thus it's up to you to back up those claims.

Judging by what I've seen in this thread, your solution now will be to redefine "burden of proof" such that your position becomes correct; just as you questionably redefine observable physics to fit your preconceived model. Perhaps you should update your wiki article?

1139
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« on: December 03, 2011, 02:31:00 PM »
Its a question of validated theory endorsed by billions vs. questionable ideas.

FET has everything to prove.
lol, argumentum ad populum.

I don't need to prove it, because it's popular!
No, not quite, Pizza.

The applicable fallacy (on your part, of course) is burden of proof.

Note: I restored Zhark's original quote, undoing your subtle deception (quoting only the phrase "endorsed by millions", ignoring the more damning "validated" vs. "questionable" part).

Pages: 1 ... 36 37 [38]