Earths curve

Something that is probable, means that it's percentage is high. You said because it's possible, it's probable. That is not true.

By probable, I meant that a probability exists. Although I believe you misinterpreted my statement, it's possible that I did not word it correctly. Kiss and make up? ;)

By probable, I meant that a probability exists. Although I believe you misinterpreted my statement, it's possible that I did not word it correctly. Kiss and make up?

That's fine. A probability exists for everything really. That's where plausibility comes in.

Quote from: Link2086 on September 17, 2007, 02:39:20 PM

By probable, I meant that a probability exists. Although I believe you misinterpreted my statement, it's possible that I did not word it correctly. Kiss and make up? ;)

That's fine. A probability exists for everything really. That's where plausibility comes in.

Which was my point to begin with, which you apparently didn't agree on. :\

Also, I'm supporting my previous argument with this scientific chart.

Which was my point to begin with, which you apparently didn't agree on. :\

You invoked Occam, and I said we aren't arguing probabilities. Both RE and FE have probabilities. RE is more probable than FE, clearly. But we still aren't arguing the probabilities of them. If anything, we are discussing under what conditions the FE would be true.

Quote from: Link2086 on September 17, 2007, 02:41:48 PM

Which was my point to begin with, which you apparently didn't agree on. :\

You invoked Occam, and I said we aren't arguing probabilities. Both RE and FE have probabilities. RE is more probable than FE, clearly. But we still aren't arguing the probabilities of them. If anything, we are discussing under what conditions the FE would be true.

However, Occam's Razor applies to burden of proof. It is the job of FE theorists to provide proof for their theory; not for RE theorists to disprove the FE theory. The Razor was just another example to try and clarify this.

However, Occam's Razor applies to burden of proof. It is the job of FE theorists to provide proof for their theory; not for RE theorists to disprove the FE theory. The Razor was just another example to try and clarify this.

Well, that will only bring about philosophical debate. In the end, neither side can actually be victorious. The burden of proof is on the FE, definitely, but nothing will come of it.

Quote from: divito on September 17, 2007, 02:46:56 PM

Quote from: Link2086 on September 17, 2007, 02:41:48 PM

Which was my point to begin with, which you apparently didn't agree on. :\

You invoked Occam, and I said we aren't arguing probabilities. Both RE and FE have probabilities. RE is more probable than FE, clearly. But we still aren't arguing the probabilities of them. If anything, we are discussing under what conditions the FE would be true.

However, Occam's Razor applies to burden of proof. It is the job of FE theorists to provide proof for their theory; not for RE theorists to disprove the FE theory. The Razor was just another example to try and clarify this.

Well, one, Occam's Razor is nice and all, but really it means nothing.  Its just a principle that can be ignored - its really has no basis other than it sounds good and is useful because it makes things easier - not necessarily more correct.

Quote from: The Yattering on September 16, 2007, 11:17:07 PM

You can from a strattelite.

hahahahahaha

Now I know why you spam instead of post in legitimate topics.   

 

You're my hero, sokarul.  <3

Quote from: sokarul on September 17, 2007, 09:53:01 AM

Quote from: The Yattering on September 16, 2007, 11:17:07 PM

You can from a strattelite.

hahahahahaha

Now I know why you spam instead of post in legitimate topics.   

 

You're my hero, sokarul.  <3

That post was a joke right?  I mean a stratellite can't even come close tot he distance away needed.

Yes, sokarul, the post was a joke.

Well, that will only bring about philosophical debate. In the end, neither side can actually be victorious. The burden of proof is on the FE, definitely, but nothing will come of it.

Every single person on earth sees a Flat Earth every day of their life.

Ergo, the burden of proof is on the Round Earthers to prove their hypothetical model of the earth.

Well, that will only bring about philosophical debate. In the end, neither side can actually be victorious. The burden of proof is on the FE, definitely, but nothing will come of it.

Every single person on earth sees a Flat Earth every day of their life.

Ergo, the burden of proof is on the Round Earthers to prove their hypothetical model of the earth.

Burden met: Read The RE Primer. Experiment #0001 shows that seeing the small section of the Earth's surface as relatively flat is consistent with RE.

Every single person on earth sees a Flat Earth every day of their life.

That's all one is capable of seeing. The Earth is so big that from standing on the ground looking out at it, you only see flat. Anyone with an open mind would of course know that just because you SEE it as flat doesn't mean it is. A different perspective can change everything. We should fly you to the moon.

The "FLY TOM TO THE MOON FOUNDATION". It should only cost about 29,000,000 dollars, depending on going rates. I think we should ask Diego or whatever his name is for a generous donation. He seems to be very wealthy considering he has plans to dig through the Earth.

I'm making this my wallpaper.

That manatee is the greatest thing to ever grace the interwebs.

That manatee is the greatest thing to ever grace the interwebs.

How you can't prefer the moon is baffling.

As the official flat earth society spokesman, I am obliged to inform you all that that map is an incorrect depiction of the flat earth model.

As the official flat earth society spokesman, I am obliged to inform you all that that map is an incorrect depiction of the flat earth model.

Yeah, Mephistopheles should be in the upper-left corner.

How come when you look out to sea on a clear day you can clearly sea the curve of the earth?.

did this get answered somewhere and I missed it? Just checking...

Quote from: jonathan41 on August 10, 2007, 07:08:54 AM

How come when you look out to sea on a clear day you can clearly sea the curve of the earth?.

did this get answered somewhere and I missed it? Just checking...

Yes, you cannot see the curve of the earth below 60,000 feet.

Quote from: Brain Hertz on September 19, 2007, 01:33:05 PM

Quote from: jonathan41 on August 10, 2007, 07:08:54 AM

How come when you look out to sea on a clear day you can clearly sea the curve of the earth?.

did this get answered somewhere and I missed it? Just checking...

Yes, you cannot see the curve of the earth below 60,000 feet.

Sure you can. Suppose you're in a boat in the middle of the Pacific, looking out all around you. What is it that you see?

A giant plane that fades off in the distance.

A giant plane that fades off in the distance.

You don't see a horizon?

<crickets>

... I see a flat horizon. Please provide a picture demonstrating the curve of the earth's horizon at that altitude.

... I see a flat horizon. Please provide a picture demonstrating the curve of the earth's horizon at that altitude.

I wasn't suggesting that you would see anything other than a flat horizon. It is precisely that horizon which show the curvature of the Earth. Why else would you see a horizon at all?

You're seeing a planar conic, how does that translate to a spherical conic?

You're seeing a planar conic, how does that translate to a spherical conic?

If the surface is flat, why does there exist a point at a finite distance beyond which I cannot see the surface (or another boat sitting on it)? The existence of a horizon necessarily implies curvature of the surface on an axis directed from the observer towards the horizon.