"Conspiracy" is not a valid argument

Allow me to explain myself, messierhunter.

Of course, FE'ers would have to come up with some sort of explanation for your observations, but the thing is they have an ultra-powerful conspiracy to rely on.  We do not know the technological lengths such a conspiracy would go to to fool the world.  An explanation would be very hard to come by, but I don't see how it would be impossible, as divito has pointed out.  And besides, FE has a lot more unknowns to rely on as well, like mysterious aether eddies which might keep spacecraft aloft.
 
On the other hand, directly measuring the curvature of the earth is the best way we can confirm RE or FE.  There's almost no way the opposing theory could squirm its way out if contradicting evidence was found.  As an RE'er, that's why I find the canal experiments so troubling.  And naturally, FE'ers feel this is their strongest piece of evidence.

Let's just look at it like this.  Let's say you went out to the river and measured out a six mile stretch, put a flag on one end and your telescope on the other.  To your surprise, you found you could see the flag perfectly within view with your telescope.  Now, wouldn't this piece of evidence very convincingly show you that the earth might be flat?  Wouldn't this trump any contrary evidence which might have been put up by a nefarious conspiracy?

Allow me to explain myself, messierhunter.

Of course, FE'ers would have to come up with some sort of explanation for your observations, but the thing is they have an ultra-powerful conspiracy to rely on.  We do not know the technological lengths such a conspiracy would go to to fool the world.  An explanation would be very hard to come by, but I don't see how it would be impossible, as divito has pointed out.  And besides, FE has a lot more unknowns to rely on as well, like mysterious aether eddies which might keep spacecraft aloft.

Once again, relying on a slothful induction does not degrade the weight or true reliability of the evidence.  The "mysterious aether eddies" might as well be magic - it's not something you can study or prove and it sure doesn't suggest a mechanism that would allow a comet impact mission to be conducted with the precision required.  There is no technological explanation one can cite that would allow a fake satellite to appear in the correct location in the sky precisely because location is a key variable of the equation. 

 
On the other hand, directly measuring the curvature of the earth is the best way we can confirm RE or FE.  There's almost no way the opposing theory could squirm its way out if contradicting evidence was found.  As an RE'er, that's why I find the canal experiments so troubling.  And naturally, FE'ers feel this is their strongest piece of evidence.

For an RE'er, you sound suspiciously like an FE'er sock puppet.  There's always a way for the opposing theory to squirm out if contradicting direct measurements are made using the bedford technique.  Because it never occurs in a vacuum, the opposing side can always claim atmospheric refraction.  There's nothing troubling about the claims of FE'ers regarding the canal experiments.  I've done a similar test myself and found the earth's curvature to be present.  I still give far more weight to my satellite measurements though as it's much easier to repeat many times and unanticipated atmospheric refraction effects would cause me to conclude in favor of FE, not RE.

Let's just look at it like this.  Let's say you went out to the river and measured out a six mile stretch, put a flag on one end and your telescope on the other.  To your surprise, you found you could see the flag perfectly within view with your telescope.  Now, wouldn't this piece of evidence very convincingly show you that the earth might be flat? 

Not really, a simple superior mirage could cause the flag to appear.  Likewise, an inferior mirage could cause the flag to disappear.  By definition, there will always be a time when either observation is possible from just about every location, therefore, neither is proof of anything.  The setup you described doesn't even eliminate the possibility of local topography offsetting any effect of curvature.  Satellite measurement is a much more demanding and rigorous proof of RE.  I've conducted what you basically described over about a 5-10 mile stretch of river and it "proved RE," but I still find it to be far less rigorous by nature.

Wouldn't this trump any contrary evidence which might have been put up by a nefarious conspiracy?

No, because there's no valid method by which the "nefarious conspiracy" could have faked satellite appearances, let alone comet impacts without RE being real.  If FE was true then I must have lied about them, as did everyone else ever claiming to have seen or photographed the Tempel 1 impact and/or satellites in orbit where they're supposed to be.

I don't understand how going straight to the conspiracy to watch their show is better evidence than direct measurements?

David Copperfield tells me he is going to make the Statue of Liberty disappear.  If I want the truth, should I go watch the show on the boat he hired, or go directly to the statue of liberty to see if it is there?

I don't understand how going straight to the conspiracy to watch their show is better evidence than direct measurements?

David Copperfield tells me he is going to make the Statue of Liberty disappear.  If I want the truth, should I go watch the show on the boat he hired, or go directly to the statue of liberty to see if it is there?

All of the proof that messier has shown has been from amatuer astronomers not from NASA.

You fail



again

Quote from: lived_eht_asan on June 16, 2008, 02:44:38 PM

I don't understand how going straight to the conspiracy to watch their show is better evidence than direct measurements?

David Copperfield tells me he is going to make the Statue of Liberty disappear.  If I want the truth, should I go watch the show on the boat he hired, or go directly to the statue of liberty to see if it is there?

All of the proof that messier has shown has been from amatuer astronomers not from NASA.

You fail



again

Nope.  The amateur astronomers are the ones who attended the magic show, so to speak.  Copperfield says, hey look in the sky, and they looked.  Difficult to explain?  100%.  The best evidence, trumping any and all direct measurements?  Hardly.

For an RE'er, you sound suspiciously like an FE'er sock puppet. 

Wow.  Who knew?  Honestly, I'm just trying to get you to think like an FE'er.  I think what you have presented on these forums is very valuable and compelling toward the RE case, but it would serve you well to open your mind to others' way of thinking.

I don't understand how going straight to the conspiracy to watch their show is better evidence than direct measurements?

David Copperfield tells me he is going to make the Statue of Liberty disappear.  If I want the truth, should I go watch the show on the boat he hired, or go directly to the statue of liberty to see if it is there?

Actually, I think this analogy is quite valid.  Direct measurement trumps all other kinds of evidence, hands down.  Until a suitable explanation is provided which debunks the FE canal experiments (I think there exist many actually, but you'll have to convince them of that), they have every reason to distrust the validity of observations of spacecraft which conform to the RE model.

Direct measurement trumps all other kinds of evidence,

Except when messier is the one doing it. Then his relative observations > empirical measurements.

I don't understand how going straight to the conspiracy to watch their show is better evidence than direct measurements?

That's because you don't understand the principles behind observational astronomy and orbital mechanics.  I explained it quite simply for you.  "Direct measurements" made on the ground of the earth's shape are far more susceptible to unintentional, uncontrollable "deceptive" factors than direct measurements of satellites are to any form of deception.

Quote

For an RE'er, you sound suspiciously like an FE'er sock puppet. 

Wow.  Who knew? 

I don't know if you're a sock puppet, an FE'er disguised as an RE'er, or just a really crappy RE'er, and frankly it doesn't matter which is true.

Actually, I think this analogy is quite valid.  Direct measurement trumps all other kinds of evidence, hands down.

It's valid, but not in the way you two have interpreted it; copperfield is in complete control of the environment he performs his tricks in.  He can only fool the audience members sitting in the auditorium under his control.  As even nasa devil pointed out, by leaving his audience and going somewhere esle to watch the statue you can disprove the reality of the trick.  Being NASA's audience is watching the launches and landings at Kennedy - they control that environment and can put on a show that is somewhat inconclusive to the reality of spaceflight.  By observing their spacecraft away from their facilities, in random locations all over the world, you take the "performance" out of the equation.  They do not control where or when you observe it from, and there is no way they can fake it for every possible point of view.  In fact, any attempt at fakery would be immediately obvious to all but a single small location at most.

Your refusal to accept the very simple reasons why "direct measurements" are less reliable than detecting space travel shows that you're not what you claim to be, or are very poor at being what you claim to be.  It's not hard to grasp, temperature inversions can offset the effect of earth's curvature, and the opposite mirage could hypothetically offset the effect of earth's proposed flatness.  Direct measurements are therefore inconclusive because of a well-understood phenomenon, not because of mindless speculation which can't even produce a plausible alternative.

  Until a suitable explanation is provided which debunks the FE canal experiments (I think there exist many actually, but you'll have to convince them of that),

I just provided you an entirely valid reason to distrust any canal experiment measurements of the earth's surface, regardless of what model the results indicate.  Your refusal to see how it makes that experiment less reliable than spacecraft positional measurement is astounding for someone who claims to be an RE'er.

they have every reason to distrust the validity of observations of spacecraft which conform to the RE model.

No, they don't, they don't even have an explanation for the measurements that confirm the orbits of spacecraft, let alone confirmation of comet impacts.  The only suitable explanation is that RE is real and their measurements are unreliable for reasons detailed above.

By observing their spacecraft away from their facilities, in random locations all over the world, you take the "performance" out of the equation.  They do not control where or when you observe it from, and there is no way they can fake it for every possible point of view.  In fact, any attempt at fakery would be immediately obvious to all but a single small location at most.

Which is precisely why it's not obvious. Why are you on such a simple and old point?

Your refusal to accept the very simple reasons why "direct measurements" are less reliable than detecting space travel shows that you're not what you claim to be, or are very poor at being what you claim to be.  It's not hard to grasp, temperature inversions can offset the effect of earth's curvature, and the opposite mirage could hypothetically offset the effect of earth's proposed flatness.  Direct measurements are therefore inconclusive because of a well-understood phenomenon, not because of mindless speculation which can't even produce a plausible alternative.

I'd be curious how many scientists would take your "observation over math" stance.

They do not control where or when you observe it from, and there is no way they can fake it for every possible point of view.  In fact, any attempt at fakery would be immediately obvious to all but a single small location at most.

What about street magicians?  You don't have much skepticism when it comes to magic shows.  Which is good, it makes you very gullible.  Wanna play 3 card monty?  Or come to my place for a round of blackjack or poker.

We do not need to propose a "mechanism" for the trick.  Who knows, maybe NASA can project images?  The basic rule is don't trust the magician when they are making the show.

Thousands of people have studied the Indian Rope Trick.  No satisfactory "mechanism" has been proposed.  And that was done by street performers in poverty- what could NASA do with trillions of $$'s?  I certainly would be disappointed if I figured the trick out with a few minutes thought...

Quote from: messierhunter on June 17, 2008, 06:38:05 AM

They do not control where or when you observe it from, and there is no way they can fake it for every possible point of view.  In fact, any attempt at fakery would be immediately obvious to all but a single small location at most.

What about street magicians?

There is no comparing "street magicians" and direct measurements of satellites.

  You don't have much skepticism when it comes to magic shows.

You don't have much insight when it comes to astronomy.

  Which is good, it makes you very gullible. 

You have yet to present a good reason why I should distrust my own measurements.  There's a difference between being skeptical and being unneccessarily dismissive.  You are the latter.  You have made the claim that it's a trick, the burden of proof is on you to show how.

We do not need to propose a "mechanism" for the trick. 

Yes, you do.  You've made the claim of a trick, it is up to you to prove it.

Who knows, maybe NASA can project images? 

Violates the laws of physics.  There's nothing in space to project onto, unless you're saying they're secretly orbiting movie screens.  In that case, how did they orbit the secret screen?  You're just pushing the question back instead of answering it.

The basic rule is don't trust the magician when they are making the show.

The burden of proof is on you to show that it's a show. They do not control my location, so they do not have control over the show.

Thousands of people have studied the Indian Rope Trick.   

Handwaving to unrelated "tricks."  The failure of others to properly speculate a method for an admitted trick is not an excuse to throw off your own burden of proof for dismissing evidence you don't like.  There'd be nothing to stop you from doing the same damn thing if an RE'er performed the canal observation and came back with proof of RE.  You could just as easily propose that the conspirators "projected an image" of the target being hidden by the earth and therefore it does not disprove FE.  Incidently, this would be infinitely more plausible than your claim that they're projecting 3d spacecraft images into space that magically reflect off of nothing. 

All you're attempting to do is circumvent your burden of proof.  If you were halfway decent at being a conspiracy nutjob you'd focus on speculating plausible mechanisms by which the "trick" occurs and sell videos describing it.  You aren't even that good at being a nutjob and it's really quite disappointing.

Quote from: messierhunter on June 17, 2008, 06:38:05 AM

By observing their spacecraft away from their facilities, in random locations all over the world, you take the "performance" out of the equation.  They do not control where or when you observe it from, and there is no way they can fake it for every possible point of view.  In fact, any attempt at fakery would be immediately obvious to all but a single small location at most.

Which is precisely why it's not obvious.

Ok, you haven't demonstrated why it's not obvious here.  Oh, and before I forget, it's completely impossible to fake the Tempel 1 impact.

Why are you on such a simple and old point?

Because no one has yet refuted it.

I'd be curious how many scientists would take your "observation over math" stance.

I'd be curious to know why measuring the location of satellites and confirming it against the predicted location doesn't count as math.  I'd also be curious to know how the canal experiment doesn't count as observation.  Both examples are examples of both.

I'd be curious to know why measuring the location of satellites and confirming it against the predicted location doesn't count as math.

Measuring the location is math. But you said observations are more trustworthy than math. Which is it Gulliver?

Quote from: messierhunter on June 17, 2008, 08:35:19 AM

I'd be curious to know why measuring the location of satellites and confirming it against the predicted location doesn't count as math.

Measuring the location is math. But you said observations are more trustworthy than math. Which is it Gulliver?

I didn't say that, I clearly said measuring the location of satellites is much more reliable than attempting to directly measure the earth's curvature.

"a simple superior mirage could cause the flag to appear.  Likewise, an inferior mirage could cause the flag to disappear...  There's always a way for the opposing theory to squirm out if contradicting direct measurements are made using the bedford technique.  Because it never occurs in a vacuum, the opposing side can always claim atmospheric refraction.... I still give far more weight to my satellite measurements though as it's much easier to repeat many times and unanticipated atmospheric refraction effects would cause me to conclude in favor of FE, not RE...  The setup you described doesn't even eliminate the possibility of local topography offsetting any effect of curvature.  Satellite measurement is a much more demanding and rigorous proof of RE.  I've conducted what you basically described over about a 5-10 mile stretch of river and it "proved RE," but I still find it to be far less rigorous by nature.
"

You said observations of objects appearing over a long stretch of water are more trustworthy than math.  I'm sure there aren't many scientists who'd agree with your unwavering support of the infallibility of the canal test.

How did this epic thread get all the way to the third page?

Not on my watch!!!!!!!!!!!

How did this thread get labeled "epic" by a guy that's been here twice?

How does this forum exist after the world has already been proven to be round through multiple means?

Opposite shoreline - where is the shorline above?

Could be a swell in the water, and it could also be a faked image.

Could be a swell in the water, and it could also be a faked image.

A swell?  You've got to be kidding me.  A swell?  Why wasn't my side of the shore flooded then?  In fact, florida's currently in a drought. 

Considering I sat there for about 4 freaking hours waiting for a launch and this is what I saw with my own eyes the whole time, I can safely conclude that it was not a momentary "swell."  Considering the area was even deeper in drought at the time, it sure wasn't a sustained flood either.

And since I know I didn't fake the image I guess I can know for myself with 100% certainty that the earth is round.  If you're going to accuse me of forgery though I'd like to see your evidence that I'm a liar.

How far were you from the shore?

But all this is based on what you are telling me. Consider:



"It's the ice wall. I was there. You calling me a liar? Prove it."

Now lets pretend I didn't just google 'ice wall', go to images and copy/past the link I thought most pleasing to the eye. How would my argument be any different from yours?

How far were you from the shore?

Amost 5 miles.  Damn this 30 second timer, I can't respond to everyone fast enough.

But all this is based on what you are telling me. Consider:



"It's the ice wall. I was there. You calling me a liar? Prove it."

Now lets pretend I didn't just google 'ice wall', go to images and copy/past the link I thought most pleasing to the eye. How would my argument be any different from yours?

Broken link?  And yeah, considering the url, I'm doubting you took the picture.  I can provide the original exif-containing image.  Can you?

These should explain it.

Broken link?  And yeah, considering the url, I'm doubting you took the picture.  I can provide the original exif-containing image.  Can you?

It works for me. And obviously I didn't take it; I said as much. But I'm sure that were I bothered, I could provide as much proof as you can regarding the veracity of a given image. Would you really go that far to prove your point? Would anyone? Of course not. It's the internet.

Quote from: messierhunter on June 25, 2008, 01:28:40 PM

Broken link?  And yeah, considering the url, I'm doubting you took the picture.  I can provide the original exif-containing image.  Can you?

It works for me. And obviously I didn't take it; I said as much. But I'm sure that were I bothered, I could provide as much proof as you can regarding the veracity of a given image. Would you really go that far to prove your point? Would anyone? Of course not. It's the internet.

Well if no one would go that far and I end up going that far to prove its veracity then... where does that leave us?  Better yet, I could just as easily show this effect to anyone in person through the telescope.  How would that not be incontrovertable proof?

But would you? This is all hypothetical. I live in Ireland, and frankly I can't afford to go anywhere to see your original image. Will you come here and show it to me? I'd be glad to take a look.

These should explain it.

Dude, in the future would you please use jpgs instead of bmps?  That took nearly an eternity to load.  And what does a cut up tire, weird game picture, and a broken tree and swingset have to do with anything?  Troll overload?

But would you? This is all hypothetical. I live in Ireland, and frankly I can't afford to go anywhere to see your original image. Will you come here and show it to me? I'd be glad to take a look.

Next time you're at a shuttle launch look me up and I'll show you.