What evidence would convince you that the Earth was not flat?

Can you name evidence that would convince you that the Earth was in fact not flat? Is there some specific experiment that if it were conducted and had a certain result you would agree that the Earth was not flat?

If NASA were to allow skeptics to peer review their claims, research, and materials it would go a long way to giving them a modicum of credibility. Peer review is a fundamental tenant of modern science.

If NASA's work is not peer reviewed by an unconnected party it's not science. It's a story.

If NASA were to allow skeptics to peer review their claims, research, and materials it would go a long way to giving them a modicum of credibility. Peer review is a fundamental tenant of modern science.

If NASA's work is not peer reviewed by an unconnected party it's not science. It's a story.

Two questions. First, can you clarify in more detail what you mean by peer review?

Second, this isn't quite what I asked about. I inquired if there was any experiment that would convince you. Can you name a specific experiment that if you did it with a group of people you would be convinced that the Earth was not flat?

can you clarify in more detail what you mean by peer review?

Presumably this.

Quote from: JoshuaZ on February 11, 2009, 02:52:34 PM

can you clarify in more detail what you mean by peer review?

Presumably this.

I don't think that's what Tom means since the vast majority of work has been peer reviewed by the standard definitions. I'm therefore curious what Tom means by peer review.

Second, this isn't quite what I asked about. I inquired if there was any experiment that would convince you. Can you name a specific experiment that if you did it with a group of people you would be convinced that the Earth was not flat?

No one experiment is enough to convince anyone of anything. But the third party peer review of an experiment is.

I don't think that's what Tom means since the vast majority of work has been peer reviewed by the standard definitions.

So what unconnected third party peer reviewed NASA's missions to the moon and mars?

No one experiment is enough to convince anyone of anything. But a peer review of that experiment is.

Not true but we'll go with that. What series of experiments would convince you then?

So who peer reviewed NASA's Apollo missions?

Again, what do you mean by peer review? Which parts? The details of the plans for the rockets are publicly available. Rocks brought back were analyzed in papers that went into peer reviewed journals. What do you want them to have done differently?

Edited for formatting of quotes

Again, what do you mean by peer review? Which parts? The details of the plans for the rockets are publicly available. Rocks brought back were analyzed in papers that went into peer reviewed journals. What do you want them to have done differently?

Playing devil's advocate, I suspect he'd want you to provide links to those plans and journals if on the web, or details of how to find the details if they aren't.

Playing devil's advocate, I suspect he'd want you to provide links to those plans and journals if on the web, or details of how to find the details if they aren't.

That's not difficult. The most obvious pointer would be to "Lunar Samples" by Papike et al. which    is a 1998 paper in  Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry  which summarizes all the work with references to the various original papers. All of which can be easily found in any major university library.  But this really isn't that interesting because of the possible conspiracy issues. That's why I'm trying to focus on what experiments could be performed with Tom that would convince him.

Tom doesn't perform any experiments. He just sits on his fat, sweaty and pimply ass all day waiting for you to show some evidence and bring it to the table. He has been given many chances to perform certain experiments and to conduct his own peer reviews of Robotham's, but never has. Thus, why he has a fat, sweaty and pimply ass.

If NASA were to allow skeptics to peer review their claims, research, and materials it would go a long way to giving them a modicum of credibility. Peer review is a fundamental tenant of modern science.

If NASA's work is not peer reviewed by an unconnected party it's not science. It's a story.

What would stop you from believing the stuff that they show you from being faked/photoshopped/whatever?

If NASA were to allow skeptics to peer review their claims, research, and materials it would go a long way to giving them a modicum of credibility. Peer review is a fundamental tenant of modern science.

If NASA's work is not peer reviewed by an unconnected party it's not science. It's a story.

Tom, what makes you think that NASA's work is not peer reviewed? 

Not true but we'll go with that. What series of experiments would convince you then?

If the Apollo/Galileo/Pathfinder/Viking missions were independently reproduced by an unconnected party it might lend NASA some credibility.

Again, what do you mean by peer review? Which parts? The details of the plans for the rockets are publicly available. Rocks brought back were analyzed in papers that went into peer reviewed journals. What do you want them to have done differently?

What do some rocks have to do with a peer review of NASA's space missions?

Tom, what makes you think that NASA's work is not peer reviewed?

The fact that NASA's work is not peer reviewed by an unconnected third party.

Quote

Tom, what makes you think that NASA's work is not peer reviewed?

The fact that NASA's work is not peer reviewed by an unconnected third party.

What makes you think that since NASA is not peer reviewed that NASA is not peer reviewed? (obviously sarcastic)

It would be helpful to talk about a specific instance NASA has gone unpeer reviewed. That makes the argument less abstract.

Quote

Tom, what makes you think that NASA's work is not peer reviewed?

The fact that NASA's work is not peer reviewed by an unconnected third party.

What unconnected third parties are qualified to peer review NASA's work?

The fact that NASA has over 200,000 people working for them, a good deal of which being Astronomers, Scientists, etc., you'd think at least ONE of them would've actually known about this, anonymously report NASA, especially for the "horrible motives" that you claim NASA has.

Unless you're telling me NASA has FOOLED 200,000+ people, a good deal being highly educated astronomers, scientists, etc?

NASA is serious business, guys. It's definitely not the company that fools around. The majority of the workers, if not all, have good ambitions. And that's to contribute in the world's overall knowledge of the universe. Not to make money. The government has PLENTY of other ways to make money.

What unconnected third parties are qualified to peer review NASA's work?

There are plenty.

Unless you're telling me NASA has FOOLED 200,000+ people, a good deal being highly educated astronomers, scientists, etc?

NASA fools a lot of people. And I doubt that those paper pushers and article monkeys are in a position to see all of the puzzle pieces of what goes on at NASA.

NASA is serious business, guys. It's definitely not the company that fools around. The majority of the workers, if not all, have good ambitions. And that's to contribute in the world's overall knowledge of the universe. Not to make money. The government has PLENTY of other ways to make money.

So NASA's employees aren't working there to make money? 

Quote from: markjo on February 13, 2009, 06:36:14 PM

What unconnected third parties are qualified to peer review NASA's work?

There are plenty.

Would you please name a few?

What do some rocks have to do with a peer review of NASA's space missions?

Um, that should be pretty obvious. The rocks are consistent with being formed as one would expect. For example, they've been exposed to vacuums for extended periods of time. There's no way to fake that.

I still haven't heard explained what you mean by peer review. You haven't stated what you mean, given that all of the technical specs for the NASA missions are freely available.

But this is all really besides the point and bringing us off the original question which I still haven't heard an answer to. What experiments would if they were carried out with your oversight convince you that the Earth was not flat?

Quite simply, there would be no experiment that could convince Tom. If you flew him up into space and showed him the spherical Earth, he would somehow convince himself that it was an illusion/fake image/hologram/whatever.

Can you name evidence that would convince you that the Earth was in fact not flat? Is there some specific experiment that if it were conducted and had a certain result you would agree that the Earth was not flat?

You must slay Tom Bishop and bring me his head on a platter. Doing this will prove you are more cunning than he. If you slay Tom, I will accept anything you say as wise. Yet, I don't think you are able. Many have tried and all have failed. Do you have the courage and skill?

If FET's work is not peer reviewed by an unconnected party it's not science. It's a story.

 

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 11, 2009, 02:44:27 PM

If FET's work is not peer reviewed by an unconnected party it's not science. It's a story.

 

The Flat Earth Literature has been peer reviewed and reproduced many times by unconnected third parties.

NASA's work has not.

The Flat Earth Literature has been peer reviewed and reproduced many times by unconnected third parties.

NASA's work has not.

Tom, that's false as already explained. But again, it is terribly irrelevant to the question at hand. I didn't ask about NASA at all. The question is what experiments could be done that would convince you the Earth was not flat?

Tom, that's false as already explained.

Wrong.

The question is what experiments could be done that would convince you the Earth was not flat?

Already answered on page one. A peer review of NASA's work and space missions by an unconnected third party.

You know, applying the same standards in science to NASA. Only once that is complete can NASA's work be considered valid as evidence.

Quote

Tom, that's false as already explained.

Wrong.

That's not an argument. What for example is wrong with the peer review of the work involving samples brought back from the Moon?

The question is what experiments could be done that would convince you the Earth was not flat?

Already answered on page one. A peer review of NASA's work and space missions by an unconnected third party.

You know, applying the same standards in science to NASA. Only once that is complete can NASA's work be considered valid as evidence.
[/quote]

Let's put this NASA obsession aside for a moment. What experiments, not involving NASA might convince you that the Earth was not flat?

Quote from: Vladtheimpaler on February 18, 2009, 02:28:21 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 11, 2009, 02:44:27 PM

If FET's work is not peer reviewed by an unconnected party it's not science. It's a story.

 

The Flat Earth Literature has been peer reviewed and reproduced many times by unconnected third parties.

NASA's work has not.

Link? Who reproduced rowboat's tests?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 18, 2009, 02:32:45 PM

Quote from: Vladtheimpaler on February 18, 2009, 02:28:21 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 11, 2009, 02:44:27 PM

If FET's work is not peer reviewed by an unconnected party it's not science. It's a story.

 

The Flat Earth Literature has been peer reviewed and reproduced many times by unconnected third parties.

NASA's work has not.

Link? Who reproduced rowboat's tests?

Tom Bishop himself has apparently reproduced them... although it seems like he does not want to prove his claims by sharing his result/data.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=26814.20

Let's put this NASA obsession aside for a moment. What experiments, not involving NASA might convince you that the Earth was not flat?

No one experiment is enough to convince anyone of anything, but the peer review of an experiment is.

Link? Who reproduced rowboat's tests?

Plenty of people. There's a whole library of reproductions, verifications, and peer reviews referenced in my signature link.

Tom Bishop himself has apparently reproduced them... although it seems like he does not want to prove his claims by sharing his result/data.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=26814.20

I've already shared the results. The earth is flat.