1

Flat Earth Debate / Re: ABSOLUTELY IRREFUTABLE ARGUMENT AGAINST THE FLATNESS OF THE EARTH

« on: September 24, 2015, 06:50:40 AM »

Ok,  here is the challenge for flat earthers.  If the earth is in fact flat,  then there must be an edge.   

We know that it's not at the South Pole,  so it must be somewhere else?   

Where is the edge?

A map showing the location would be acceptable,   pictures would be better.

Hi, and welcome to the forum.
Its obvious you are new here as your question has been answered many times in the past.
To help you on your journey I suggest researching posts by chap who calls himself sceptimatic. I remember some time back he helped a fellow by the name of ausGeoff understand how it works and once Geoff understood he has had no need to return to this forum. Shame really Geoff seemed like a nice fellow.
Anyhow hope you hang around a while, cheers.

Don't bother with this. I remember sceptimatic telling me no one could ever reach the edge because you would run out of air and die. I suggested a pressurized tank with oxygen, like a submersible would be only on ground. He then procceded to bury himself by suggesting a motor cannot run in a non oxygen environment. Another notch on the long list of fails for flat earthers.

2

Flat Earth Debate / Earth upwards acceleration and skydiving/flight.

« on: August 02, 2015, 10:16:31 AM »

  According to the flat earth wiki, the earth is accelerating upward at a rate of 9.81 m/s^2.

   Now an average skydiver will freefall for approximately 65 seconds at 14000 feet. Wouldn't that duration decrease over time as the Earth is supposed to be accelerating upwards? How do airplanes get airborne fast enough for that matter?

3

Flat Earth Debate / Re: In a flat earth what obscures the sun during the sunset??

« on: April 14, 2015, 08:13:21 AM »

FET also does not take into account the solar terminator. If the sun was a spotlight it would illuminate a circular area at all times. This is not the case. The night and day cycle looks something like this:

 

It can, and has been measured. I would like to know a FET explanation for this.

4

Flat Earth Debate / Re: doing away with the conspiracy

« on: April 14, 2015, 04:48:32 AM »

Consider this picture



Doesn't exactly agree with your dual earth model. Shouldn't Africa be cut at the equator?

I don't think your ideas can survive without an actual conspiracy. There are just too many photos out there for you to explain how they were somehow distorted.

5

Flat Earth Debate / Re: EVA GoPro footage

« on: April 10, 2015, 01:08:14 PM »

Earth seems pretty round to me. Also a lot of floating around for quite a long time, a heck of a lot longer that what is possible on low G sim airplanes.

6

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Is the Earth really flat?

« on: April 10, 2015, 08:30:40 AM »

I voted cylindrical beacause how great would that be? 

7

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Occam's Razor argument

« on: April 09, 2015, 04:59:49 PM »

Well, there are truly no ideal conditions, but if you had access to a climate controlled lab with vacuum chambers, and dust controls (clean room) much like the labs they use to develop semiconductor chips.  With that you would probably be as close to ideal for environmental conditions as humanly possible.  But you want to test circuits in the environment that they will be used.  This is one of the ways circuit design and testing is different than physics experimentation.
As for the Tamarack Mines, it would be very difficult, even with today's technology, to implement control measures. 
I guess if we could theoretically make a large tube that could be set vertically and be miles long, but strong enough to withstand a virtual vacuum on the inside of it, and a way to accurately measure the difference in distance between the top and bottom.  Also you would have to take the rotation of the Earth into account.  Now i know many people here do not believe in this though.  I would have to think about it a bit more to see if the same experiment could be used to prove or disprove the rotation.  I mean if it can cause an effect on the experiment, then you could use the experiment to prove it.  The length of the tube would have to be pretty long to have enough divergence to accurately measure, which would increase the effects of the rotation on it too.

So if those experimenting on a new controlled Tamarack mines experiment adjusted their results by taking into account the rotation of the Earth it would quickly be dismissed by flat earthers. Seems like a win-win situation for the flat earthers to me.

8

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Occam's Razor argument

« on: April 09, 2015, 04:09:28 PM »

The distance between the bobs was not measured because there are only bobs at the bottom, yet, the lines can be measured both at the bottom and the top.  Are you sure you are some kind of physicist? 

First, i am not a physicist.  I saw where it said in a couple of the articles about it that the only direct measurement was at the top of the mine and the bottom was not directly measured.  bobs or lines at the bottom of the mine.  I am not stating this to be fact, as it doesn't go into detail about how they actually measured the distance between the bobs, sorry the bottom two ends, at the bottom of the shaft.  I do see lots of things like air currents sometimes the measurements were not diverged, sometimes they were converged, and sometimes essentially parallel.  The majority of the measurements were however diverged. 
Now I said I was not a physicist, but I am an engineer and I have performed many experiments.  If the results from those experiments vary by much at all, you must recheck your experiment setup.  Which they did and did not find one but many possible variables for the discrepancies.  They also were not able to place control mechanisms to counteract all the variables that could be causing the errors.   For anyone who does experiments, if the results continuously change by a wide enough margin (actually very very small margin for error before its too wide to accept the results) the results are not accepted. 
If I am designing a circuit that I wanted to test to see if I could use multiple NOT gates to give a random answer and during testing i keep getting patterns, I would recheck my circuit for anomalies.  If I cannot find any physical anomalies and I find that the temperature or humidity of the room may be the cause the errors, I would try to insulate the circuit from the contributing factors(control measures), If I could not i would have to redesign the entire circuit or abandon it.  Now this isn't exactly the same thing but the same practices are used to ensure accuracy.

What are the ideal control measures or conditions to test a circuit? I also wonder if this might be possible to achieve for the Tamarack mines experiment. Perhaps it would be possible to reproduce the experiment in a more controlled environment where more accurate and consistent results could be obtained.

9

Flat Earth Debate / Re: standards

« on: April 08, 2015, 08:28:28 AM »

JRowe, you cannot invoke Occam's Razor when FET or DET relies on the most ridiculously intricate conspiracy cover ups imaginable. That is hardly making the least assumptions.

the conspiracy is a conclusion. it is not an assumption.

There exists no evidence for the cover up, therefore it is an assumption. Just like aether and its properties.

There is however evidence of a round earth. The tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of photos clearly showing a spherical earth taken from not only Nasa but from the amateur astronomer to the professionnal one. Photos taken from hundreds of space agencies worldwide, both private and public. This is where I again stress that the conspiracy is the weakest link in FET or DET. There is not one iota of evidence for this cover up. Not one FE-er is able to conclusively disprove any image of the spherical earth. Yet without this conspiracy, your denpressure, aether, bendy light or whatnot vanishes.  You cannot conclude there is a conspiracy simply because ou believe in aether.

circular argument. really?
"we know the earth's round, because there's no cover-up, because they say the earth is round!"
genius.

No, we know there is no cover up because of Occam's Razor. You know, the principle to pretend to use to troll us?

I've never in my life seen Occam's Razor more misapplied and misunderstood than by round-earthers on this forum.  They seem to think it states, "Whatever personally makes the most sense to you is the iron-clad, set-in-stone, immovable law of the universe."

Occom's Razor is a handy little trick to help battle confirmation bias.  It's a reminder to help keep a person grounded.  If Occom's Razor were applied like people use it here then Quantum Physics would never have gotten off a chalk board.  It's a wonderfully puzzling wing of physics that is ridiculously counter-intuitive and not at all what's "most likely."

"Sir, this wave function collapses when observed, as if it somehow knows it's being observed."
"You're fired Johnson, we don't contradict Occom's Razor round these parts."

Are you honestly implying that there are no flat earthers that absolutely swear by Occam's Razor?

10

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Occam's Razor argument

« on: April 08, 2015, 08:23:03 AM »

Occam's razor is simple and easy common sense look at what is put before a person, so they can make a logical assumption about what serves best in a situation, based on fewer and less complicated ways to gain a solution or potential solution to a problem.

To put it into context, it's like globalists arguing occams razor due to full on indoctrinated beliefs/faith and believing that their answers give out fewer assumptions and less complicated answers, against a flat Earth view starting with simplicity in itself, as in, look out of your window and see the movement of things in the atmosphere. Then look out to sea and see a nice straight horizon. Use a spirit level. You know, various simple and easy experiments that use the basics and fewer complicated answers.

Occam's razor does not compute to a person shouting, " the sun is 93 million miles away and we spin around it - work the angles and what not, then you will see."

Why does the water stay on Earth? what could the logical reason be.
Occam's razor cannot be used to state an unknown force holding it to a ball, all around.
It can be used to simply say that it is inside a bowl with land around it, on a flat Earth or flatish Earth.
This is logical and requires few assumptions, none of which have to be complicated to understand.

Why do people abandon this?

INDOCTRINATION

That one word renders logic extinct in the willing learner's mind - who sticks to mass opinion - which actually renders occam's razor as extinct to them, also.

You do realize that for 6+ billion people to be indoctrinated or kept from the truth require tons of assumptions. If you read the OP I mentionned that Occam's Razor argument cannot work in FET or DET because of the conspiracy aspect which holds countless assumptions. Therefore I simply ask that flat earthers and dual earthers please stop using that silly Occam's Razor argument, that's all.

Occam's razor does work overall. It may not be a fool proof assumption but it does reduce the odds massively by logical thought on it's working's.

It has nothing to do with 6 plus billion people. That is not occam's razor in action. 6 plus billion people can waddle along on blind faith without the use of Occam's razor, as long as their minds are saturated enough, for long enough to make their minds accept nonsense as a logical cause and effect for whatever was schooled into them.

Occam's razor work's as simple as this.

If you push a boat over a continuous curve of water, you can expect that boat to eventually fall down a water fall. We can assume this because we know that water cannot curve continuously to allow a boat to sail around it. It's basic common sense and seen in everyday life.

So now we can assume that if we push a boat around a body of water to not only stay on that body of water but to also sail back to the start - it's fair to assume that we have sailed around a water filled bowl of some description that holds the water in, all around, as a flat body of liquid, allowing us to sail upright.

Ther easiest and most logical answer is there. If you think the first answer is wrong then you have to abandon occam's razor to add in some force that negates logical thought. Gravity negates it if you allow yourself to use it; because you have just taken leave of your logical senses and replaced them with indoctrinated schooling by mass opinion.

FET and DET both require a conspiracy for their theory to hold up. This conspiracy is ridiculously intricate and is an assumption itself composed of multiple assumptions. Round Earth theory requires no such sillyness therefore RET wins.

11

Flat Earth Debate / Re: standards

« on: April 08, 2015, 08:17:05 AM »

purposefully trying to irritate me with dishonesty, and failing to add anything to the discussion.
how you can think yourself as intelligent is beyond me.

Dishonesty? Your affirming the consequent of something you cannot even prove.

well you're lying about who i am, for once. i tried ignoring it, now it's just grown tiresome. i do ot like having my theories attributed to someone else, i put a great deal of work into them. ask the moderators to compare ip addresses, if you want evidence. i have made that challenge before. clearly no one is interested in truth.
you have also ignored basic, logical and observational evidence which i have pointed out before. you seem to think ignoring evidence makes you clever.

   Your op is about standards and you now know that the same standards apply to you than anyone else.

   

  You cannot do 1, 2 and 3 then jump directly to develop theories and expect everyone to take your word for it. Furthermore "the world looks flat ouside my window therefore aether and global conspiracy" is hardly the type of logic that people will take seriously.

12

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Occam's Razor argument

« on: April 08, 2015, 06:44:20 AM »

Occam's razor is simple and easy common sense look at what is put before a person, so they can make a logical assumption about what serves best in a situation, based on fewer and less complicated ways to gain a solution or potential solution to a problem.

To put it into context, it's like globalists arguing occams razor due to full on indoctrinated beliefs/faith and believing that their answers give out fewer assumptions and less complicated answers, against a flat Earth view starting with simplicity in itself, as in, look out of your window and see the movement of things in the atmosphere. Then look out to sea and see a nice straight horizon. Use a spirit level. You know, various simple and easy experiments that use the basics and fewer complicated answers.

Occam's razor does not compute to a person shouting, " the sun is 93 million miles away and we spin around it - work the angles and what not, then you will see."

Why does the water stay on Earth? what could the logical reason be.
Occam's razor cannot be used to state an unknown force holding it to a ball, all around.
It can be used to simply say that it is inside a bowl with land around it, on a flat Earth or flatish Earth.
This is logical and requires few assumptions, none of which have to be complicated to understand.

Why do people abandon this?

INDOCTRINATION

That one word renders logic extinct in the willing learner's mind - who sticks to mass opinion - which actually renders occam's razor as extinct to them, also.

You do realize that for 6+ billion people to be indoctrinated or kept from the truth require tons of assumptions. If you read the OP I mentionned that Occam's Razor argument cannot work in FET or DET because of the conspiracy aspect which holds countless assumptions. Therefore I simply ask that flat earthers and dual earthers please stop using that silly Occam's Razor argument, that's all.

13

Flat Earth Debate / Re: standards

« on: April 08, 2015, 06:08:41 AM »

purposefully trying to irritate me with dishonesty, and failing to add anything to the discussion.
how you can think yourself as intelligent is beyond me.

Dishonesty? Your affirming the consequent of something you cannot even prove.

14

Flat Earth Debate / Re: standards

« on: April 08, 2015, 04:37:51 AM »

I observed a rainbow therefore I conclude leprechauns exist.

Scepti logic

15

Flat Earth Debate / Re: standards

« on: April 07, 2015, 11:24:42 AM »

Still debating with this troll ? Don't feed him, he already showed you he has less clue in physics and astronomy than a 6 grader.

Entertainment purposes. The day at the office can be longer than usual.

16

Flat Earth Debate / Re: standards

« on: April 07, 2015, 10:39:07 AM »

the conspiracy is a conclusion. it is not an assumption.

A conclusion requires evidence.

there is plenty of it if you accept dual earth theory (space travel would be impossible, the moon would be too hot to land on, people claim to have done both), and you should accept dual earth theory because it explains observations without unnecessary assumptions and only logical deduction

By unnecessary assumptions do you mean our rediculous ideas that 99.99999999% of the world's population is not in on a masive global conspiracy and that not literally everything we are told is a lie?  What a crazy assumption.

[/sarcasm]

considering that no one has ever proposed that, i agree that would be an unecessary assumption.
to say that companies do not want to turn a profit, or that just because someone is rich means they are incapable of lying, that is an unnecessary assumption.

if you want to use statistics though, a large percentage of the world agree the moon landings were faked. or does consensus only mean something when you get to appeal to it?

What is this large percentage? Who did the survey and compilation of this statistic?

17

Flat Earth Debate / Re: standards

« on: April 07, 2015, 10:35:05 AM »

JRowe, you cannot invoke Occam's Razor when FET or DET relies on the most ridiculously intricate conspiracy cover ups imaginable. That is hardly making the least assumptions.

the conspiracy is a conclusion. it is not an assumption.

There exists no evidence for the cover up, therefore it is an assumption. Just like aether and its properties.

There is however evidence of a round earth. The tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of photos clearly showing a spherical earth taken from not only Nasa but from the amateur astronomer to the professionnal one. Photos taken from hundreds of space agencies worldwide, both private and public. This is where I again stress that the conspiracy is the weakest link in FET or DET. There is not one iota of evidence for this cover up. Not one FE-er is able to conclusively disprove any image of the spherical earth. Yet without this conspiracy, your denpressure, aether, bendy light or whatnot vanishes.  You cannot conclude there is a conspiracy simply because ou believe in aether.

18

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Occam's Razor argument

« on: April 07, 2015, 07:51:34 AM »

Exactly why their use of Occam's Razor to argue their ideas is ridiculous.

19

Flat Earth Debate / The Occam's Razor argument

« on: April 07, 2015, 07:22:38 AM »

Can flat earthers and dual earthers please stop using Occam's Razor when arguing their ideas? It is not only old, it is ridiculous to use such an argument when your "theories" rely on the most intricate and long lasting conspiracy cover ups imaginable. The hundreds of thousands of photos from space are assumed to be fake. NASA is assumed to be covering up the real shape of the Earth. Satellites are assumed to not exist. All the governments throughout all the ages are "assumed" to be in on it and so on. Hardly the least amount of assumptions. In fact, the conspiracy aspect of these "theories" make them have the most amount of assumptions needed to survive. So please, stop with Occam's Razor.

20

Flat Earth Debate / Re: standards

« on: April 07, 2015, 06:41:21 AM »

JRowe, you cannot invoke Occam's Razor when FET or DET relies on the most ridiculously intricate conspiracy cover ups imaginable. That is hardly making the least assumptions.

21

Flat Earth Debate / Re: standards

« on: April 04, 2015, 11:53:13 AM »

amazing isn't it? you happily talk about how round earth theory took centuries and experts and so many resources to reach the detail it currently has today, and yet you expect every single flat earther to manage all of that in the hours between you asking a question and their posting a response. (and don't deny it, i've seen the impatience with which you hound every flat earther).
hypocritical, really.

if there are holes in my idea, i am happy to hear them: none have been provided, unless you count straw men. what i am not happy to hear is people asking for more than even they would be willing to provide.

All things considered, I am sure you understand that the burden of proof is hard to shift when the physics of a round Earth have been well established since the antiquities. You make it sound like people are asking you for all your data, evidence and formulas right this instant, they are not. But the longer you beat around the bush and provide nothing but what you said you "observed", then don't be surprised if your theory is not taken seriously.

22

Flat Earth Debate / Re: standards

« on: April 04, 2015, 08:31:05 AM »

Well first, if you want to disprove something you have to come up with at least the same amount of contradictory evidence for it, supported by mathematical proofs, and testable data just like they have done.  How is saying oh yeah you are wrong after they spent years developing their theories, experiments, shown these results, backed up their theories with mathematical proofs, had independent verification by their peers, and then being accepted into an accepted theory that many have tried to disprove since then even remotely fair to them? 
It's like if I showed you all the work I did on computer controlled wall avoidance, flew the thing for you to show it working, and showed you the code I used, only to have you say I'm lying and I have some invisible person pushing the thing away from the wall at just the right moment.  The only reason you would give for claiming I was lying was that you didn't understand C code or that embedded systems can't work because they don't have a keyboard attached all the time.
Also many REs do not just go Google something, they actually understand physics, they may have college degrees (some may even be in the science and technology field).  Going to Goolge is something everyone does.  It is an information repository.  Also why do we have to add to the accepted facts of gravity, space flight, etc.?  We are not trying to disprove long held theories.  Honestly, complaining about us showing you where you may be wrong is kind of petty.  For anyone who is serious about developing a theory, they want someone there asking questions, giving them ideas, getting a better understanding of what they need to do to support their ideas. 
I had hope for you, I tried to give you pointers, but you are trying to shortcut to the end now.  You refuse to provide data, by saying it is too hard.  You refuse to accept holes in your idea, because you say we don't understand.  You refuse to see the obvious contradictions in your theory, and will not provide mathematical proofs to show where they may not be contradictions.  You have effectively stopped working on your theory.  You put it out there and said, here ya go, ask me questions, and then got mad about the questions being asked. 
You are not being held to different standards, you are trying to disprove something that has already went through a hell of allot more than we are asking you to do for your ideas at this time.  Those previous theories that you want to replace went through worse to get where they are.

Nice read. I would also like to add that all true scientists do not complain about being held to high standards because they hold themselves to high standards. True scientists are not about winning arguments but achieving the end result. Whatever that may drive them be it money, fame or a shot at a Nobel prize, a true scientist is unfazed by the task at hand, unfazed by all the problems that lay before them, however numerous or big. If you look at the who's who in scientific history, they all share these traits and level of perseverance. Like you said, round earth did its homework, FE has yet to do theirs.

23

Flat Earth Debate / Re: A Few Valid Points

« on: April 03, 2015, 01:28:47 PM »

There is the flat earth wiki which can address some of your questions but the flat earthers seriously need to scrap it and make a new one. Most of its theories have yet to be proven and several of them are easily debunked. Furthermore, many non-round earthers (there are different kinds of them, really) do not all agree on the same points.

24

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Lunar Eclipse on April 4, 2015. Flat earther explanation, please.

« on: April 03, 2015, 09:31:12 AM »

This just shows once again that the FAQ needs to be scrapped. It doesn't explain how an eclipse can be total in one area and partial in another.

 The shadow object is just another absurdity in this flat earth wiki and it is yet to be explained how we can observe planets that are millions of miles away but we cannot observe a shadow object orbiting the sun that is allegedly only 3000 miles away.

25

Flat Earth Debate / Re: [Video] Moon landing faked? Not possible.

« on: April 01, 2015, 11:04:22 AM »

More silence. Truth hurts when something kills your theory.

26

Flat Earth Debate / Re: If the Earth were flat then why doesn't the Sun rise in the north-east?

« on: April 01, 2015, 10:58:53 AM »

I had a similar question not to long ago about the solar terminator and how it should be curved if the sun was a spotlight hovering above a flat disk. I didn't get any answers either. It is to be expected when FE-ers are stumped

27

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Just look how everything goes perfectly according to plan

« on: March 31, 2015, 10:09:47 AM »

Flat earth, dual flat earth, aether, bendy light, fairies and whale men all exist in the multiverse theory, just not in our reality.

28

Flat Earth Debate / Re: A massive hole in dual earth theory (literally)

« on: March 26, 2015, 11:06:43 AM »

I can personally vouch for Dual Earth Theory. I live on the equator and sometimes I can feel that one half of my body is on the upper Earth while the other half is on the lower Earth.

Is you house right on the equator? Do you teleport yourself from the tv to the kitchen for a snack? Does the food taste different after passing the aether into the living room?

29

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why are we able to see the Moon?

« on: March 26, 2015, 09:44:41 AM »

Sadly it has come to this. Magical aether has every known property and can affect all things so that the world we live in is absolutely a dual earth. Anything that questions it, AETHER! I win!

30

Flat Earth Debate / Re: A massive hole in dual earth theory (literally)

« on: March 26, 2015, 09:34:55 AM »

I still don't get it.  Are you saying that a force, like say, magnetism, is somehow blocked by water?  Have you ever taken a physics class?

I thought aether was matter, or space.