Burden of Proof

  • 204 Replies
  • 30816 Views
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #180 on: September 27, 2008, 04:07:56 PM »
then how could you say that i am offending myself?

 seriously it was really ment as a nice response to a mean post, please dont be offended  :)

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #181 on: September 27, 2008, 04:56:28 PM »
i'm guessing you refferring to what you see outside? actually given hills and the size of the earth both theories say it should appear flat outside. your taking an extra step in these conspiracies unless i'm mistaken.

No. One theory says that it should appear flat because it is flat. Another theory says that it appears flat because it's an illusion.

Looks like you don't understand the concept of local linearity.   ::)
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #182 on: September 27, 2008, 04:58:42 PM »
Looks like you don't understand the concept of local linearity.   ::)

No, we don't. Could you please explain it to us in lamer's terms.
Your mother.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #183 on: September 27, 2008, 05:01:01 PM »
Looks like you don't understand the concept of local linearity.   ::)

No, we don't. Could you please explain it to us in lamer's terms.
Learn to Google.
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36115
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #184 on: September 27, 2008, 08:52:47 PM »
Please stop posting nonsense in Debate and Discussion.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #185 on: September 27, 2008, 08:53:14 PM »
What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100,000 tons of matter straight up at 7 miles per second, and that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis, explore the cosmos, and constantly wow the nation by landing a man on the moon and sending robots to mars; or is the simplest explanation that they really can't do all of that stuff?

No, you're absolutely right, the simplest explanation is as follows: the Earth formed as a magical flying pizza, complete with the oh-so-convenient crust (which keeps all of its pizza contents in place), it constantly accelerates upwards (what upwards is we have no idea) at 1g (where it gets this energy we cannot explain) and it's got a natural spotlight that keeps it lit up as it wobbles through space.

Quote
You're the one making the claim here. You're the one claiming that these technologies exist and that NASA can explore space. All of your claims are beyond human experience.

Oh, we're terribly sorry that NASA cannot send you to outer space. After all, that's not such an enormous favor to ask, is it?

Quote
The burden is on YOU and YOU alone to prove that these technologies exist and that NASA can reach orbit, blast past escape velocity, and explore the moons and planets. It's not our responsibility to disprove any of that stuff. It's impossible to prove a negative.

Really? It's on us? How about the erroneous claims that the FE community makes? Are they immune to having to answer questions using some logic? No one side of this debate has more of a responsibility than the other. But one side of this debate sure as heck has a better case than the other.

Quote
You're the one making all of these claims. You're the one claiming that satellites exist, government contractors can send 100,000 tons of matter straight upwards at 7 miles a second, that we can do all of these amazing never before done things.

"Never before done" does not equate to "it must not be true". The burden of proof may be on NASA, but most people seem to agree that they have met their expectations. Again, I'm sorry that we can't send you to the moon.

Quote
The burden of you is to prove these things to us. You're the one making the claim. We're not. The simplest explanation is that NASA really can't do all of that stuff.

The simplest explanation is as follows: you're an oddball that wants to question something without having to think or answer any questions yourself.

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?

Let's see, what's simple and easily observable about the following:

The Earth is accelerating upwards at 1g (9.8m/s^2) along with every star, sun and moon in the universe; the sun and moon, each 32 miles in diameter, circle Earth at a height of 3000 miles at its equator, located midway between the North Pole and the ice wall. Each functions similar to a "spotlight," with the sun radiating "hot light," the moon "cold light." As they are spotlights, they only give light out over a certain are which explains why some parts of the Earth are dark when others are light; etc.

Please, don't be such a buffoon. Your outrageous claims about the Earth really being flat do require proof, whether you'd like to believe so or not.

For someone that cites "human experience" as much as you do, it's ironic that the theory that you've chosen to follow relies heavily on the "optical illusion" argument to explain many of its shortcomings. In other words, you're completely confident in your ability to see that the world is flat, but you won't trust your vision when it comes to sunrises/sunsets.  Your logic is severely flawed.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2008, 11:00:58 PM by streetwaves »

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36115
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #186 on: September 27, 2008, 08:56:13 PM »
Please stop posting nonsense in Debate and Discussion.

Who are you referring to?

You and Singularity.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #187 on: September 28, 2008, 12:26:23 AM »
i'm guessing you refferring to what you see outside? actually given hills and the size of the earth both theories say it should appear flat outside. your taking an extra step in these conspiracies unless i'm mistaken.

No. One theory says that it should appear flat because it is flat. Another theory says that it appears flat because it's an illusion.

Well actually it is the opposite. The fe theory claims that horizon is a illusion caused by pending light. The re theorys explanation requires about as much illusion as the fact that you can't you can't see through walls. This has been explained to you many times, but you refuse to reply because you know that your proof of the fe would not stand a five minutes debate.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #188 on: September 28, 2008, 12:33:29 AM »
Quote
Well actually it is the opposite. The fe theory claims that horizon is a illusion caused by pending light. The re theorys explanation requires about as much illusion as the fact that you can't you can't see through walls. This has been explained to you many times, but you refuse to reply because you know that your proof of the fe would not stand a five minutes debate.

Pending light? I don't know what that is.

The horizon in FE is caused by air density.

Atoms and molecules are not transparent and so distant objects will be faded with distance. For example, notice how these distant mountains tend to fade out and become discolored with distance. That's because the atmosphere is not perfectly transparent. When you look through the atmosphere you are looking through a fog of atoms and molecules. If the earth had no atmosphere those distant mountains would be as clear and sharp as the foreground.

Viewing distance into the horizon is directly correlated with pressure, gas constant, temperature, humidity, and pollution. At sea level the average air density is 1.2250 kg/m3. This sort of density will allow a viewing distance of around 25 miles across the horizon. In New York pollution and humidity are at such high levels that viewing distance is limited to 15 miles.

At higher altitudes the air density drops sharply, allowing the viewer to see far away lands before they are obscured by a blue-white sky. It is for this reason that an observer standing on Mt. Everest can see other mountains hundreds of miles away. Such pristine conditions are rare on the earth, however, only existing at high altitudes and in fidged environments.

Its easy to see bodies fade out as they recede into the distance. The RE horizon, however, is caused by something one cannot see, one cannot test, and which one must be taken on blind faith alone.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2008, 02:19:06 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #189 on: September 28, 2008, 01:02:33 AM »
Pending light? I don't know what that is.

Then you have different explantion for the horizon than the other fe theorists.

The horizon in FE is caused by air density.

Atoms and molecules are not transparent and so distant objects will be faded with distance. For example, notice how these distant mountains tend to fade out and become discolored with distance. That's because the atmosphere is not perfectly transparent. When you look through the atmosphere you are looking through a fog of atoms and molecules. If the earth had no atmosphere those distant mountains would be as clear and sharp as the foreground.

Viewing distance into the horizon is directly correlated with pressure, gas constant, temperature, humidity, and pollution. At sea level the average air density is 1.2250 kg/m3. This sort of density will allow a viewing distance of around 25 miles across the horizon. In New York pollution and humidity are at such high levels that viewing distance is limited to 15 miles.

At higher altitudes the air density drops sharply, allowing the viewer to see far away lands before they are obscured by a blue-white sky. It is for this reason that an observer standing on Mt. Everest can see other mountains hundreds of miles away. Such pristine conditions are rare on the earth, however, only existing at high altitudes and in fidged environments.

You are right that often visibility is limited by impurities in he air. But that does not explain why on clear weather when we look at tall objects at a distance they look like they are emerging from the horizon or for example we see the mast of a sailing ship behind the horizon  before  the ship itself. Roundnes of earth can also be easily measured for example on lake only a few miles long. The fe theorys bending light explains these phenomenons but you said you don't know what that is.


Its easy to see bodies fade out as they recede into the distance. The RE horizon, however, is cause by something one cannot see, one cannot test, and which one must be taken on blind faith alone.

And how is that different from the fe theory?

Roundnes of the earth can be easily tested but but you just claim that all the testers are part of an conpiracy of which you have no proof. In other words there is evidence for re but not for fe.

« Last Edit: September 28, 2008, 01:13:19 AM by jargo »

Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #190 on: September 28, 2008, 01:18:35 AM »
...only existing at high altitudes and in fidged environments.

What is a "fidged environment?"


Quote
Its easy to see bodies fade out as they recede into the distance.

No, actually they are usually quite clear until they go below the horizon.  At least at sea.


Quote
The RE horizon, however, is cause by something one cannot see, one cannot test, and which one must be taken on blind faith alone.

That statement makes no sense at all.  The RE horizon is caused by the curvature of the Earth, which can be seen and tested.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #191 on: September 28, 2008, 02:21:52 AM »
Quote
You are right that often visibility is limited by impurities in he air. But that does not explain why on clear weather when we look at tall objects at a distance they look like they are emerging from the horizon or for example we see the mast of a sailing ship behind the horizon  before  the ship itself.

Nope. The sinking ship is a known perspective effect. It has been found that a good telescope with sufficient zoom will change the observer's perspective and bring the ship's hull back in full view. This is not possible if the ship were really behind a "hill of water." Hence, the effect which is usually thought to prove the earth as a globe really proves it to be a plane.

It's one of the first and primary proofs of a Flat Earth. The fact that a telescope can restore a half-sunken ship demonstrates that the ship is not traveling behind a convex sea.

From Zetetic Cosmogony by Thomas Winship we read the following accounts of half-sunken ships which have been restored with a telescope:

http://www.earthnotaglobe.com/ships/index.html

There have also been experiments on Lake Michigan where the hulls of half-sunken ships have been restored by looking at them through a telescope:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/cc/cc21.htm

The above accounts of restored hulls prove that the hulls are not really behind "hills of water" and act as evidence that the disappearance of the hull is not due to any curvature to the earth, but due to the angular limits of the human eye.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2008, 02:26:30 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #192 on: September 28, 2008, 02:25:18 AM »
Quote
Roundnes of the earth can be easily tested

Really? Who has tested the roundness of the earth? I have many dozens if not hundreds of accounts described in the literature referenced my signature link which have found zero curvature to the earth's surface. I myself have tested the earth's curvature and found none.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2008, 02:28:55 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #193 on: September 28, 2008, 04:42:38 AM »
Quote
You are right that often visibility is limited by impurities in he air. But that does not explain why on clear weather when we look at tall objects at a distance they look like they are emerging from the horizon or for example we see the mast of a sailing ship behind the horizon  before  the ship itself.

Nope. The sinking ship is a known perspective effect. It has been found that a good telescope with sufficient zoom will change the observer's perspective and bring the ship's hull back in full view. This is not possible if the ship were really behind a "hill of water." Hence, the effect which is usually thought to prove the earth as a globe really proves it to be a plane.

It's one of the first and primary proofs of a Flat Earth. The fact that a telescope can restore a half-sunken ship demonstrates that the ship is not traveling behind a convex sea.

From Zetetic Cosmogony by Thomas Winship we read the following accounts of half-sunken ships which have been restored with a telescope:

http://www.earthnotaglobe.com/ships/index.html

There have also been experiments on Lake Michigan where the hulls of half-sunken ships have been restored by looking at them through a telescope:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/cc/cc21.htm

The above accounts of restored hulls prove that the hulls are not really behind "hills of water" and act as evidence that the disappearance of the hull is not due to any curvature to the earth, but due to the angular limits of the human eye.

And yet the pictures above don't show that effect.

Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #194 on: September 28, 2008, 05:50:58 AM »
Really? Who has tested the roundness of the earth? I have many dozens if not hundreds of accounts described in the literature referenced my signature link which have found zero curvature to the earth's surface.

Any one of them under 50 years old?

Edit. Anyone of them under 50 years old that aren't actually mocking the flat earth theory.

I myself have tested the earth's curvature and found none.

How did you test it? It can be measured quite easily with simple optical instruments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Geodesic_Mission
« Last Edit: September 28, 2008, 06:06:10 AM by jargo »

Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #195 on: September 28, 2008, 06:04:52 AM »
Quote
You are right that often visibility is limited by impurities in he air. But that does not explain why on clear weather when we look at tall objects at a distance they look like they are emerging from the horizon or for example we see the mast of a sailing ship behind the horizon  before  the ship itself.

Nope. The sinking ship is a known perspective effect. It has been found that a good telescope with sufficient zoom will change the observer's perspective and bring the ship's hull back in full view. This is not possible if the ship were really behind a "hill of water." Hence, the effect which is usually thought to prove the earth as a globe really proves it to be a plane.

It's one of the first and primary proofs of a Flat Earth. The fact that a telescope can restore a half-sunken ship demonstrates that the ship is not traveling behind a convex sea.

From Zetetic Cosmogony by Thomas Winship we read the following accounts of half-sunken ships which have been restored with a telescope:

http://www.earthnotaglobe.com/ships/index.html

There have also been experiments on Lake Michigan where the hulls of half-sunken ships have been restored by looking at them through a telescope:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/cc/cc21.htm

The above accounts of restored hulls prove that the hulls are not really behind "hills of water" and act as evidence that the disappearance of the hull is not due to any curvature to the earth, but due to the angular limits of the human eye.

Funny I tested that on my 150 zoom telescope and saw no such effect.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2008, 06:07:20 AM by jargo »

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #196 on: September 28, 2008, 07:32:29 PM »
Please stop posting nonsense in Debate and Discussion.
What was nonsensical? I was sarcastic when I confronted Tom's term of illusion with the mathematical concept, and I spent no energy on the troll.  ???
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36115
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #197 on: September 28, 2008, 07:33:33 PM »
Please stop posting nonsense in Debate and Discussion.
What was nonsensical? I was sarcastic when I confronted Tom's term of illusion with the mathematical concept, and I spent no energy on the troll.  ???

Oh, it was just that it was tending towards general derailment. John Jackson made another post before I posted that that he now seems to have deleted.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #198 on: September 28, 2008, 07:41:54 PM »
Oh, it was just that it was tending towards general derailment.
ah. I've given up on anyone answering the OP for a while now. I've been posting refreshers for how ever many pages and I feel rather confident that my theory was confirmed by lack of a response.

Quote
John Jackson made another post before I posted that that he now seems to have deleted.
Yeah the 'Gogol' one I saw while I was at school.
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

?

PeopleOnBehalfOfLogic

  • 130
  • RE'er (for now)
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #199 on: September 29, 2008, 10:12:43 AM »
Nice try singularaty, congrats.

By the way, can you answer the sinking ship response with scientific material? Please?
Just noticed my name is actually pretty insulting. Apologies.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #200 on: September 29, 2008, 10:28:35 AM »
Nice try singularaty, congrats.

By the way, can you answer the sinking ship response with scientific material? Please?
Uh I have no idea what your referring to. Please use quote boxes.

Despite the fact that I fail to see how this is relevant... ask and ye shall receive:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=18286.msg326520#msg326520
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #201 on: September 29, 2008, 10:36:12 AM »
Beneath your picture it says you are an RE'er too. I think you got the threads or people mixed up here..  :P
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

?

PeopleOnBehalfOfLogic

  • 130
  • RE'er (for now)
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #202 on: October 05, 2008, 03:54:00 AM »
When I asked for sinking ship data I was kinda directing at at an Fe'er. Thanks anyway (moves off via link, never to be seen again....)
Just noticed my name is actually pretty insulting. Apologies.

Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #203 on: November 07, 2008, 12:03:25 AM »
Nope. The sinking ship is a known perspective effect. It has been found that a good telescope with sufficient zoom will change the observer's perspective and bring the ship's hull back in full view. This is not possible if the ship were really behind a "hill of water." Hence, the effect which is usually thought to prove the earth as a globe really proves it to be a plane.

Interesting... I've actually done the old telescope experiment myself, and didn't get such miraculous results.  I must have been using a conspiracy scope!

Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #204 on: November 08, 2008, 04:24:21 AM »
Nope. The sinking ship is a known perspective effect. It has been found that a good telescope with sufficient zoom will change the observer's perspective and bring the ship's hull back in full view. This is not possible if the ship were really behind a "hill of water." Hence, the effect which is usually thought to prove the earth as a globe really proves it to be a plane.

What defines a "good telescope?"  I have never seen this effect, even to a limited degree.  Every ship disappears hull first, no matter what the weather conditions are.  Whether they are viewed through binoculars or with the naked eye.


Quote
It's one of the first and primary proofs of a Flat Earth. The fact that a telescope can restore a half-sunken ship demonstrates that the ship is not traveling behind a convex sea.

From Zetetic Cosmogony by Thomas Winship we read the following accounts of half-sunken ships which have been restored with a telescope:

http://www.earthnotaglobe.com/ships/index.html

There have also been experiments on Lake Michigan where the hulls of half-sunken ships have been restored by looking at them through a telescope:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/cc/cc21.htm

How does Winship bring back ship's hulls when Rowbotham says that it should be impossible?

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm



Quote
The above accounts of restored hulls prove that the hulls are not really behind "hills of water" and act as evidence that the disappearance of the hull is not due to any curvature to the earth, but due to the angular limits of the human eye.

Then it wouldn't take much magnification to increase the angular size of an image.  Simple binoculars increase the size of an image to a size that can be discerned by the human eye, but still no restoration is observed.  As these pictures show, the angular size of the object being viewed is increased, but there is no restoration.




You still can not see the legs of the platform that is 16 miles away.  You can't even see the air gap between the platform and the sea.  I am still waiting for you to post an image where the hull of a ship is restored through the use of magnification.