Another attempt at explaining satellites.

  • 288 Replies
  • 65239 Views
?

Edtharan

  • 687
  • +0/-0
Re: Another attempt at explaining satellites.
« Reply #270 on: December 13, 2008, 05:24:23 AM »
What I am saying is that no matter what the predictive power of RET is, it may still be completely flawed and hence worthless.


I believe that the best way to judge a theory is theory is in terms of what can be derived based on direct sensory observations (rather than mathematical abstractions, which, as shown by Newton, are no indicator of truth), and how plausible it is. In my opinion, FET satisfies those criteria far better than RET.
I agree that direct observation is important. But predicting what is to be observed is also important.

I predict that tomorrow the surface of the earth will still appear flat.  I will keep you posted on whether or not the prediction ends up matching observation.
But that really doesn't solve the issue does it. It is actually a pathetic attempt at a Strawman.

Yes, predictive power is important, but so is making predictions that differentiate between two models, because only then can you be certain if one of them is wrong.

Hre is a prediction: According to Geometry, if you measure the Geodesics for the Surface of the Earth, then under FET, the Geodesics will specify a Flat Plane. If the Surface of the Earth is curved, then the Geodesics will specify a curved surface.

Guess what: I have done this measurement and it give a result that the Geodesics Specify a Round Earth. Therefore Flat Earth can not be true, and the Earth is really Round.

I have provided data, and provided the method. The data was reje3cted for no valid reason (jsut that it disproved FET), the method was never rejected, and I even offered (Several times) to organise anybody that the FEers wanted to independently verify this data. But guess what, no FEer took it up. Why? No reason was given.

Conclusion: FEers are not interested in doing anything that might cause them to abandon their beliefs. Me, I did these measurements because I was willing to change my beliefs if it indicated a flat Earth.

Where's your data?
As I have said, I did this years ago, so I don't have the data any more. However as the data matched the data form the maps. You can use that data as it is equivalent to mine (it is just that it will be slightly more accurate than mine).

So, my data is all the stuff that you seem to reject. I say I have independent conformation (myself) that it is correct. If you want to make the claim that my data is incorrect, then it is up to you to supply that data. Until you do, I will be of the opinion that my data is correct and therefore RET is correct.
Everyday household experimentation.

?

NTheGreat

  • 1019
  • +0/-0
Re: Another attempt at explaining satellites.
« Reply #271 on: December 13, 2008, 06:27:58 AM »
Quote
Those are not necessary assumptions.

As far as I can see, all of those are necessary for the FE model to function as observed.

*

Johannes

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2755
  • +0/-0
Re: Another attempt at explaining satellites.
« Reply #272 on: December 13, 2008, 10:06:57 AM »
Edtharan has no idea what he is talking about when he talks about physics. Just ignore him.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • +0/-0
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Another attempt at explaining satellites.
« Reply #273 on: December 13, 2008, 04:40:38 PM »
What I am saying is that no matter what the predictive power of RET is, it may still be completely flawed and hence worthless.


I believe that the best way to judge a theory is theory is in terms of what can be derived based on direct sensory observations (rather than mathematical abstractions, which, as shown by Newton, are no indicator of truth), and how plausible it is. In my opinion, FET satisfies those criteria far better than RET.
I agree that direct observation is important. But predicting what is to be observed is also important.

I predict that tomorrow the surface of the earth will still appear flat.  I will keep you posted on whether or not the prediction ends up matching observation.
But that really doesn't solve the issue does it. It is actually a pathetic attempt at a Strawman.

Yes, predictive power is important, but so is making predictions that differentiate between two models, because only then can you be certain if one of them is wrong.

Hre is a prediction: According to Geometry, if you measure the Geodesics for the Surface of the Earth, then under FET, the Geodesics will specify a Flat Plane. If the Surface of the Earth is curved, then the Geodesics will specify a curved surface.

Guess what: I have done this measurement and it give a result that the Geodesics Specify a Round Earth. Therefore Flat Earth can not be true, and the Earth is really Round.

I have provided data, and provided the method. The data was reje3cted for no valid reason (jsut that it disproved FET), the method was never rejected, and I even offered (Several times) to organise anybody that the FEers wanted to independently verify this data. But guess what, no FEer took it up. Why? No reason was given.

Conclusion: FEers are not interested in doing anything that might cause them to abandon their beliefs. Me, I did these measurements because I was willing to change my beliefs if it indicated a flat Earth.

Where's your data?
As I have said, I did this years ago, so I don't have the data any more. However as the data matched the data form the maps. You can use that data as it is equivalent to mine (it is just that it will be slightly more accurate than mine).

So, my data is all the stuff that you seem to reject. I say I have independent conformation (myself) that it is correct. If you want to make the claim that my data is incorrect, then it is up to you to supply that data. Until you do, I will be of the opinion that my data is correct and therefore RET is correct.

How can we judge the legitimacy of your results if you can't provide the data?

By the way, the earth was flat again today.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18029
  • +2/-4
Re: Another attempt at explaining satellites.
« Reply #274 on: December 13, 2008, 05:04:43 PM »
Quote
As I have said, I did this years ago, so I don't have the data any more. However as the data matched the data form the maps. You can use that data as it is equivalent to mine (it is just that it will be slightly more accurate than mine).

So, my data is all the stuff that you seem to reject. I say I have independent conformation (myself) that it is correct. If you want to make the claim that my data is incorrect, then it is up to you to supply that data. Until you do, I will be of the opinion that my data is correct and therefore RET is correct.

No. "Prove me wrong" is not a valid debate tactic. You need to provide your own data and prove your own self right.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2008, 05:09:58 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

Cheryl Wiesbaden

  • 603
  • +0/-0
  • Zeteticist, Moralist, Feminist
Re: Another attempt at explaining satellites.
« Reply #275 on: December 13, 2008, 05:05:53 PM »
All of his data has been conveniently "misplaced". ::)

?

Edtharan

  • 687
  • +0/-0
Re: Another attempt at explaining satellites.
« Reply #276 on: December 13, 2008, 05:19:07 PM »
What I am saying is that no matter what the predictive power of RET is, it may still be completely flawed and hence worthless.


I believe that the best way to judge a theory is theory is in terms of what can be derived based on direct sensory observations (rather than mathematical abstractions, which, as shown by Newton, are no indicator of truth), and how plausible it is. In my opinion, FET satisfies those criteria far better than RET.

I agree that direct observation is important. But predicting what is to be observed is also important.

I predict that tomorrow the surface of the earth will still appear flat.  I will keep you posted on whether or not the prediction ends up matching observation.
But that really doesn't solve the issue does it. It is actually a pathetic attempt at a Strawman.

Yes, predictive power is important, but so is making predictions that differentiate between two models, because only then can you be certain if one of them is wrong.

Hre is a prediction: According to Geometry, if you measure the Geodesics for the Surface of the Earth, then under FET, the Geodesics will specify a Flat Plane. If the Surface of the Earth is curved, then the Geodesics will specify a curved surface.

Guess what: I have done this measurement and it give a result that the Geodesics Specify a Round Earth. Therefore Flat Earth can not be true, and the Earth is really Round.

I have provided data, and provided the method. The data was reje3cted for no valid reason (jsut that it disproved FET), the method was never rejected, and I even offered (Several times) to organise anybody that the FEers wanted to independently verify this data. But guess what, no FEer took it up. Why? No reason was given.

Conclusion: FEers are not interested in doing anything that might cause them to abandon their beliefs. Me, I did these measurements because I was willing to change my beliefs if it indicated a flat Earth.

Where's your data?
As I have said, I did this years ago, so I don't have the data any more. However as the data matched the data form the maps. You can use that data as it is equivalent to mine (it is just that it will be slightly more accurate than mine).

So, my data is all the stuff that you seem to reject. I say I have independent conformation (myself) that it is correct. If you want to make the claim that my data is incorrect, then it is up to you to supply that data. Until you do, I will be of the opinion that my data is correct and therefore RET is correct.

How can we judge the legitimacy of your results if you can't provide the data?

By the way, the earth was flat again today.
The data was gathered over 15 years ago. DO you ahve most of the pieces of paper you owned 15 years ago still lying around? I doubt it.

As I said the data I gathered matched that given out by NASA and the Governments. As this data is the same as mine you can use this data as my data. If I were to locate my data (very unlikely), then it would just be less precise versions of the Data put out be NASA and the Governments.

So I provide the Data: Points to Government and NASA sites.
Everyday household experimentation.

?

Cheryl Wiesbaden

  • 603
  • +0/-0
  • Zeteticist, Moralist, Feminist
Re: Another attempt at explaining satellites.
« Reply #277 on: December 13, 2008, 05:20:21 PM »
Right. So we'll just take your word on that... ::)

?

Cinlef

  • The Elder Ones
  • 969
  • +0/-0
  • The Earth is a Sphere
Re: Another attempt at explaining satellites.
« Reply #278 on: December 13, 2008, 05:21:25 PM »
Right. So we'll just take your word on that... ::)

Whereas if he posted his data I'm sure you'd take it on faith and instantly abandon the FET

A sarcastic
Cinlef
Truth is great and will prevail-Thomas Jefferson

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Cinlef is the bestest!

Melior est sapientia quam vires-Wisdom

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18029
  • +2/-4
Re: Another attempt at explaining satellites.
« Reply #279 on: December 13, 2008, 05:23:22 PM »
Right. So we'll just take your word on that... ::)

Whereas if he posted his data I'm sure you'd take it on faith and instantly abandon the FET

A sarcastic
Cinlef

We get people claiming to be astronauts and NASA Administrators all the time.

Should we just take their word for it and assume that anyone who comes here claiming something is telling the truth?
« Last Edit: December 13, 2008, 05:25:35 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • +0/-0
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Another attempt at explaining satellites.
« Reply #280 on: December 13, 2008, 05:23:46 PM »
The data was gathered over 15 years ago. DO you ahve most of the pieces of paper you owned 15 years ago still lying around? I doubt it.

How can we judge the legitimacy of your results if you can't provide the data?
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

Cheryl Wiesbaden

  • 603
  • +0/-0
  • Zeteticist, Moralist, Feminist
Re: Another attempt at explaining satellites.
« Reply #281 on: December 13, 2008, 05:25:08 PM »
Right. So we'll just take your word on that... ::)

Whereas if he posted his data I'm sure you'd take it on faith and instantly abandon the FET

A sarcastic
Cinlef
I would certainly be interested in the specifics and personal procedure. Simply pointing "to Government and Nasa sites" gets us nowhere.

?

Cinlef

  • The Elder Ones
  • 969
  • +0/-0
  • The Earth is a Sphere
Re: Another attempt at explaining satellites.
« Reply #282 on: December 13, 2008, 05:26:08 PM »
Right. So we'll just take your word on that... ::)

Whereas if he posted his data I'm sure you'd take it on faith and instantly abandon the FET

A sarcastic
Cinlef

We get people claiming to be astronauts and NASA Administrators here all the time.

Should we just take their word for it and assume that anyone who comes here claiming something is telling the truth?

No you shouldn't, which I why I find it odd your asking to see his data since it will not sway you one way or another

An explanatory
Cinlef
Truth is great and will prevail-Thomas Jefferson

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Cinlef is the bestest!

Melior est sapientia quam vires-Wisdom

?

Edtharan

  • 687
  • +0/-0
Re: Another attempt at explaining satellites.
« Reply #283 on: December 13, 2008, 05:33:41 PM »
Right. So we'll just take your word on that... ::)
No, I have given methods by which you can verify the data yourself, so I am not relying on my word alone. But I can't help it if you choose not to do so.

I am saying that the data I gathered matches what is put out by the Governments and NASA. I gave methods by which you can check that data (admittedly in other threads - but you should be able to search for it).

The methods are not that hard to find. They are use in Cartography.

Simply by first measuring out a base line of known length, then applying geometry (trigonometry) to this and taking measurements of distant landmarks and applying geometry to these distances, you can map out a network of points, the distances to them and the angles between them.

It takes a bit of Time, patience and attention to detail, but it is not all that difficult to do if you are really willing to try it. The governments have already even placed objects (called Trig Stations - or Triangulation Stations in the US), so that you can independently verify their data.

As all these object are, are just poles in the ground where you can easily see them on top of landmarks, then you can be assured that there is no aspect of the conspiracy that could be influencing your measurements (as you could have just used a tree or a rock instead of that pole, they just make it easy for you).

Which is another thing, if they Governments and NASA were trying to cover up and fake the data, why would they go to all the trouble to place objects that can be used to prove they are lying?
Everyday household experimentation.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
  • +0/-1
Re: Another attempt at explaining satellites.
« Reply #284 on: December 13, 2008, 05:33:50 PM »
No you shouldn't, which I why I find it odd your asking to see his data since it will not sway you one way or another

An explanatory
Cinlef

The assumption that FE'ers are not interested in the truth is an excuse commonly used by RE'ers to avoid providing the evidence they claim to have in abundance.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

?

Cinlef

  • The Elder Ones
  • 969
  • +0/-0
  • The Earth is a Sphere
Re: Another attempt at explaining satellites.
« Reply #285 on: December 13, 2008, 05:40:57 PM »
No you shouldn't, which I why I find it odd your asking to see his data since it will not sway you one way or another

An explanatory
Cinlef

The assumption that FE'ers are not interested in the truth is an excuse commonly used by RE'ers to avoid providing the evidence they claim to have in abundance.

Not assuming you are not interested in the truth, I'm just puzzled that the request was for his data but not the method to obtain the data and the method/calculation/reasoning he used to go from that data to a proof of the RE model, since the data alone would not be accepted by any of us and for good reason

A clarifying
Cinlef
Truth is great and will prevail-Thomas Jefferson

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Cinlef is the bestest!

Melior est sapientia quam vires-Wisdom

?

Cheryl Wiesbaden

  • 603
  • +0/-0
  • Zeteticist, Moralist, Feminist
Re: Another attempt at explaining satellites.
« Reply #286 on: December 13, 2008, 05:45:36 PM »
No you shouldn't, which I why I find it odd your asking to see his data since it will not sway you one way or another

An explanatory
Cinlef

The assumption that FE'ers are not interested in the truth is an excuse commonly used by RE'ers to avoid providing the evidence they claim to have in abundance.

Not assuming you are not interested in the truth, I'm just puzzled that the request was for his data but not the method to obtain the data and the method/calculation/reasoning he used to go from that data to a proof of the RE model, since the data alone would not be accepted by any of us and for good reason

A clarifying
Cinlef
As usual, Cinlef, we seem to have simply misunderstood you. I think we all expected his method/calculation/reasoning in addition to the data without saying. That was the point of asking him in the first place.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
  • +0/-1
Re: Another attempt at explaining satellites.
« Reply #287 on: December 13, 2008, 05:50:05 PM »
No you shouldn't, which I why I find it odd your asking to see his data since it will not sway you one way or another

An explanatory
Cinlef

The assumption that FE'ers are not interested in the truth is an excuse commonly used by RE'ers to avoid providing the evidence they claim to have in abundance.

Not assuming you are not interested in the truth, I'm just puzzled that the request was for his data but not the method to obtain the data and the method/calculation/reasoning he used to go from that data to a proof of the RE model, since the data alone would not be accepted by any of us and for good reason

A clarifying
Cinlef
As usual, Cinlef, we seem to have simply misunderstood you. I think we all expected his method/calculation/reasoning in addition to the data without saying. That was the point of asking him in the first place.

Precisely. The data alone is not what we are looking for, but rather the complete package.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 43270
  • +11/-12
Re: Another attempt at explaining satellites.
« Reply #288 on: December 13, 2008, 07:37:36 PM »
Right. So we'll just take your word on that... ::)

Whereas if he posted his data I'm sure you'd take it on faith and instantly abandon the FET

A sarcastic
Cinlef

We get people claiming to be astronauts and NASA Administrators all the time.

Should we just take their word for it and assume that anyone who comes here claiming something is telling the truth?

Just like when you say that you have performed all of Rowbotham's experiments, we should take your word for it, right Tom?
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.