« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7   Go Down

Burden of Proof

  • 204 Replies
  • 61648 Views
*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • 9054
  • +0/-0
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #150 on: September 22, 2008, 06:49:59 AM »
Quote from: divito the truthist on September 22, 2008, 06:48:22 AM
Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on September 22, 2008, 06:42:15 AM
Keep in mind, seeing the curvature requires a very wide angle view, especially when close to the ground.
And seeing it proves what?
Probability of RE.
Logged
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.
*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6901
  • +0/-0
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #151 on: September 22, 2008, 06:51:24 AM »
It proves probability?
Logged
Quote from: Proleg on April 22, 2009, 08:50:08 AM
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #152 on: September 22, 2008, 06:51:45 AM »
Quote
I mean 100,000 feet+, like this.  (and I think you knew this also, Tom).

I don't see the earth curving. I just see the camera looking down upon the distinct circular area of the sun's light.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2008, 06:53:33 AM by Tom Bishop »
Logged
*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • 9054
  • +0/-0
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #153 on: September 22, 2008, 06:52:54 AM »
Quote from: divito the truthist on September 22, 2008, 06:51:24 AM
It proves probability?
I never meant to claim it proves anything, only that it adds to the likelihood of RE. I was trying to be concise in my answer.
Logged
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.
*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6901
  • +0/-0
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #154 on: September 22, 2008, 06:54:48 AM »
Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on September 22, 2008, 06:52:54 AM
I never meant to claim it proves anything, only that it adds to the likelihood of RE. I was trying to be concise in my answer.

In a sense, it does make the RE explanation more likely. But the only thing that can be garnered from an observation of a curved horizon, as has been said many times before, is that the horizon appears curved.
Logged
Quote from: Proleg on April 22, 2009, 08:50:08 AM
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good
*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • 9054
  • +0/-0
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #155 on: September 22, 2008, 06:59:57 AM »
Quote from: divito the truthist on September 22, 2008, 06:54:48 AM
Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on September 22, 2008, 06:52:54 AM
I never meant to claim it proves anything, only that it adds to the likelihood of RE. I was trying to be concise in my answer.

In a sense, it does make the RE explanation more likely. But the only thing that can be garnered from an observation of a curved horizon, as has been said many times before, is that the horizon appears curved.

Welcome to make a point.
Logged
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.
*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6901
  • +0/-0
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #156 on: September 22, 2008, 07:01:40 AM »
Point was already made.
Logged
Quote from: Proleg on April 22, 2009, 08:50:08 AM
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good
*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • 9054
  • +0/-0
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #157 on: September 22, 2008, 07:03:19 AM »
Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on September 09, 2008, 07:47:02 AM
Quote from: divito the truthist on September 09, 2008, 06:17:20 AM
Someone of your name should know that appearance of curvature doesn't actually mean it's curved.
What makes you think I don't?
Logged
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.
?

jargo

  • 161
  • +0/-0
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #158 on: September 22, 2008, 07:07:42 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 22, 2008, 06:51:45 AM
Quote
I mean 100,000 feet+, like this.  (and I think you knew this also, Tom).

I don't see the earth curving. I just see the camera looking down upon the distinct circular area of the sun's light.

Did I understood you correctly. Are you saying that the dark area at top of that picture is actually ground that looks black because sun is not shining on it?
Logged
*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • 9054
  • +0/-0
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #159 on: September 22, 2008, 07:14:19 AM »
That reminds me of this thread:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=23109.msg483368#msg483368

Sadly, ideal evidence is ignored these days.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2008, 07:17:21 AM by ﮎingulaЯiτy »
Logged
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.
*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6901
  • +0/-0
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #160 on: September 22, 2008, 07:19:54 AM »
Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on September 22, 2008, 07:03:19 AM
What makes you think I don't?

It still is part of the discussion with no additional evidence.
Logged
Quote from: Proleg on April 22, 2009, 08:50:08 AM
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good
*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • 9054
  • +0/-0
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #161 on: September 22, 2008, 07:26:38 AM »
It was a reply to Tom's 'evidence' against RE, and was not intended as presenting my own evidence.

In any case, I thought you already agreed that it is evidence supporting RE...?

Quote from: divito the truthist on September 22, 2008, 06:54:48 AM
It does make the RE explanation more likely.
Quote from: divito the truthist on September 22, 2008, 06:59:36 AM
Seeing the Earth in its entirety would be a good start to establishing the likelihood that it's actually spherical.
Logged
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.
*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6901
  • +0/-0
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #162 on: September 22, 2008, 09:05:08 AM »
I'll clarify:

A curved horizon is as convincing as a Criss Angel trick (hence my usage of him so often); seeing the Earth in its entirety (in person) would be a far better piece of evidence and increase the probability that much more.
Logged
Quote from: Proleg on April 22, 2009, 08:50:08 AM
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good
*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • 9054
  • +0/-0
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #163 on: September 22, 2008, 09:11:53 AM »
The first quote was a direct result of a discussion in which I was able to detect a degree of curvature on the horizon firsthand in favorable circumstances. Is this still not evidence, or lesser evidence? If it is lesser, than what was the point of your initial posts?
Logged
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.
*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6901
  • +0/-0
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #164 on: September 22, 2008, 09:13:54 AM »
Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on September 22, 2008, 09:11:53 AM
The first quote was a direct result of a discussion in which I was able to detect a degree of curvature on the horizon firsthand in favorable circumstances. Is this still not evidence, or lesser evidence? If it is lesser, than what was the point of your initial posts?

It is evidence, but lesser evidence than other options.

My posts only arrive from the incorrect stance that curvature of the Earth means anything by itself. Other than that, I don't have any other substantial qualms.
Logged
Quote from: Proleg on April 22, 2009, 08:50:08 AM
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good
*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • 9054
  • +0/-0
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #165 on: September 22, 2008, 09:23:28 AM »
Quote from: divito the truthist on September 22, 2008, 09:13:54 AM
It is evidence, but lesser evidence than other options.

My posts only arrive from the incorrect stance that curvature of the Earth means anything by itself. Other than that, I don't have any other substantial qualms.
I assuming you meant "...stance that the appearance of curvature of the Earth..."
And, I don't believe I made that stance in this thread.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2008, 12:27:53 PM by ﮎingulaЯiτy »
Logged
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.
*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • +0/-0
  • Ding dong!
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #166 on: September 22, 2008, 10:22:31 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 22, 2008, 06:51:45 AM
Quote
I mean 100,000 feet+, like this.  (and I think you knew this also, Tom).

I don't see the earth curving. I just see the camera looking down upon the distinct circular area of the sun's light.

OK, lets forget about the causes of curves and look at some curvy maths.  From Wikipedia the article on Horizon has the following formula for estimating the apparent curvature of the horizon:


"A curvature of 1 appears as a circle of an angular radius of 45° corresponding to an altitude of approximately 2640 km above the Earth's surface. At an altitude of 10 km (33,000 ft, the typical cruising altitude of an airliner) the mathematical curvature of the horizon is about 0.056, the same curvature of the rim of circle with a radius of 10 metres that is viewed from 56 centimetres."

So, from a height of 10 meters above the earth's surface (assuming R is 6,378,000m) the visual curvature (κ) will be κ=0.0018.
Compare this to a balloon at a height of 3000 meters: κ=0.031

So... What does this all mean?   If the curvature of the earth is right at the limit of perception from an airliner (κ=.056), then it is very unlikely to be visible from sea-level (0.0018 -> κ is 30 times smaller for sea-level).

Therefore the window test is not reliable experiment to determine if the earth is flat or round.


Logged
Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 01, 2012, 01:00:09 PM
I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.
*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • 9054
  • +0/-0
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #167 on: September 26, 2008, 11:54:48 AM »
Refresher:

Point 1: It is illogical to arrive at a conclusion without evidence to support the conclusion.
Point 2: You have come to a conclusion of a Flat Earth.
Point 3: If you use logic and reasoning you must have evidence.

Please tell me why you FE'ers believe in FE.
Logged
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.
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #168 on: September 26, 2008, 02:48:24 PM »
Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on September 26, 2008, 11:54:48 AM
Refresher:

Point 1: It is illogical to arrive at a conclusion without evidence to support the conclusion.
Point 2: You have come to a conclusion of a Flat Earth.
Point 3: If you use logic and reasoning you must have evidence.

Please tell me why you FE'ers believe in FE.

I see plenty of evidence every day suggesting that the earth exists as a plane.

None that the earth exists as a globe.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2008, 03:02:34 PM by Tom Bishop »
Logged
?

zamadatix

  • 77
  • +0/-0
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #169 on: September 26, 2008, 05:02:01 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.
Logged
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #170 on: September 26, 2008, 05:09:26 PM »
Quote from: zamadatix on September 26, 2008, 05:02:01 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.
Logged
?

zamadatix

  • 77
  • +0/-0
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #171 on: September 26, 2008, 05:21:47 PM »
illusion, i guess you could call it that, but you look at optical illusions and they are true (some not the ones meant to be impossible like the never ending stairs) for example: http://images.google.com/url?q=http://www.merlinsilk.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/optical-illusion.jpg&usg=AFQjCNHV8PalVBLoM7BU0sKSTimZ_2UoAA

so if both ways are valid ways of looking at the horizon i am getting the result of the 3 points that there is extra assumptive conspiracy ideas in order for FE to work.
Logged
*

Sean O'Grady

  • 625
  • +0/-0
  • Flat Earth Theorist
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #172 on: September 26, 2008, 05:32:42 PM »
Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on September 26, 2008, 11:54:48 AM
Refresher:

Point 1: It is illogical to arrive at a conclusion without evidence to support the conclusion.
Point 2: You have come to a conclusion of a Flat Earth.
Point 3: If you use logic and reasoning you must have evidence.

Please tell me why you FE'ers believe in FE.

If somebody posted the evidence that convinced them that the earth was flat you would think they were probably trying to deceive you or a lunatic. You would insist they post evidence of this evidence and failing to do that you would say that the evidence doesn't exist. You would then go on to bump this thread despite the fact that a flat earther's belief could very well be based on evidence. Therefore...

Hitler and the Nazis believed in Round Earth Theory therefore if you believe in Round Earth Theory you are just as bad as Hitler and the Nazis.

[/thread]
Logged
?

zamadatix

  • 77
  • +0/-0
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #173 on: September 26, 2008, 05:37:38 PM »
well darn, Hitler and the Nazis believed in breathing in and out we are all as bad as the Nazis!

of course the exact same logic could be used to say evry bad person BEFORe the earth was thought as round reflects on Fe beleivers, which is obviously not true dont post something like that.
Logged
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45130
  • +90/-135
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #174 on: September 26, 2008, 06:29:14 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 26, 2008, 02:48:24 PM
Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on September 26, 2008, 11:54:48 AM
Refresher:

Point 1: It is illogical to arrive at a conclusion without evidence to support the conclusion.
Point 2: You have come to a conclusion of a Flat Earth.
Point 3: If you use logic and reasoning you must have evidence.

Please tell me why you FE'ers believe in FE.

I see plenty of evidence every day suggesting that the earth exists as a plane.

I refuse to acknowledge any evidence that the earth exists as a globe.

Fixed that for you.
Logged
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.
?

Rig Navigator

  • 808
  • +0/-0
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #175 on: September 27, 2008, 01:46:25 AM »
Quote from: Sean O'Grady on September 26, 2008, 05:32:42 PM
If somebody posted the evidence that convinced them that the earth was flat you would think they were probably trying to deceive you or a lunatic. You would insist they post evidence of this evidence and failing to do that you would say that the evidence doesn't exist. You would then go on to bump this thread despite the fact that a flat earther's belief could very well be based on evidence. Therefore...

That evidence would have to be able to stand against the evidence that RE has.  That is a standard that FE has not been able to achieve.  Right now, most of the FE claims rely on an international conspiracy to explain away pictures, videos and personal observations that support RE.  FE has to say that no accurate map can exist because of a lack of funding.  FE has to make contradictory claims about the mechanisms for observed phenomenon.  Look at the claims that light bending is the reason that ship's hulls are not visible, regardless of the fact that this invalidates the observations that this isn't necessary because a good telescope can always restore objects that are invisible due to distance.


Quote
Hitler and the Nazis believed in Round Earth Theory therefore if you believe in Round Earth Theory you are just as bad as Hitler and the Nazis.

So because I believe in RE, I am as bad as the Nazis?  That seems like a rather rude comparison to make.
Logged
?

zamadatix

  • 77
  • +0/-0
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #176 on: September 27, 2008, 05:59:14 AM »
Quote
Hitler and the Nazis believed in Round Earth Theory therefore if you believe in Round Earth Theory you are just as bad as Hitler and the Nazis.

So because I believe in RE, I am as bad as the Nazis?  That seems like a rather rude comparison to make.
[/quote]

no no lol, an fe person said because Hitler believed in a round earth we re believers are Nazis, so i said Hitler believed in breathing so i guess we all are, was meant to have sarcasm  ;D
Logged
?

Rig Navigator

  • 808
  • +0/-0
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #177 on: September 27, 2008, 06:34:30 AM »
I did not see any indication that there was sarcasm involved in the original statement and found it rude and offensive.
Logged
?

zamadatix

  • 77
  • +0/-0
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #178 on: September 27, 2008, 06:43:03 AM »
... first do you believe in RE or Fe, and no the original statement made by an Fe'er was not sarcastic the one i made was. (i'm obviously RE)
Logged
?

Rig Navigator

  • 808
  • +0/-0
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #179 on: September 27, 2008, 07:00:39 AM »
Quote from: zamadatix on September 27, 2008, 06:43:03 AM
... first do you believe in RE or Fe,

Not that it matters, but RE.


Quote
and no the original statement made by an Fe'er was not sarcastic the one i made was. (i'm obviously RE)

You need to be careful making comparisons between anyone and the Nazis.  Whether they are sarcastic or not, it is easy for people to find them offensive.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7   Go Up
« previous next »