Proofs-thread

These pictures come from different bodies from all around the world.

Ah, silly me.  I didn't realize that a world wide conspiracy would fail to provide pictures from all around the world.

Tell ya what, if they are that good, why are you guys so bad.

Is this a question or a statement?  I can't tell...

Surely, shouldn't you guys have raised some cash to take some more photos to proove your theory.

We are chronically underfunded, and working against a conspiracy that works endlessly against us and has nearly infinite resources, so no, we don't have the cash.

I impose no limits on myself, my understanding, my perception. I remain open minded to possibilities. Who are you to say my resume is "limited"?

I define a resume as a summarization of accomplishments and qualifications; in your case and pertaining to the physical sciences, your accomplishments are limited to some university physics and a couple chemistry and biology classes.

I made a point of saying that, even with that relatively short list, you are far more learned than the average poster who argues on behalf of RE.

So if you're the cream, imagine the rest of the crop.

Is this a question or a statement?  I can't tell...

OK, you made your point. I've been getting lazy on the question marks. It's a question.

We are chronically underfunded, and working against a conspiracy that works endlessly against us and has nearly infinite resources, so no, we don't have the cash.

I'm willing to guess that is because you do not have the following of the RE's. Why do you think that is? Actually, don't answer that, I know what your answer will be..... I know, I know, It's a Conspiracy!! Once again, how convenient.

Did you guys ever stop to think that maybe there is no conspiracy? Maybe you're just wrong.

Did you guys ever stop to think that maybe there is no conspiracy? Maybe you're just wrong.

I did, once, but then I went for a walk in Manitoba and realized that the earth is flat.

Did you guys ever stop to think that maybe there is no conspiracy? Maybe you're just wrong.

you see telling them they're wrong will convince no one, instead you should try to use concrete math and scientific evidence to back your points.

There have been countless amounts of factual mathematical and scientific evidence given on this forum, not to mention the physical evidence in the way of photos and personal encounters. They still refuse to accept this. That's the point. It doesn't matter what you present, the FE's will not believe it. You could take them up in a rocket and show them for themselves and they would probably make up some crap like "the windows are shaped to make it look that way" or "we really must have flown into a studio, not into space".

They are convinced that they are right and NOTHING will change their mind, regardless how compelling and obvious.

There have been countless amounts of factual mathematical and scientific evidence given on this forum, not to mention the physical evidence in the way of photos and personal encounters. They still refuse to accept this. That's the point. It doesn't matter what you present, the FE's will not believe it. You could take them up in a rocket and show them for themselves and they would probably make up some crap like "the windows are shaped to make it look that way" or "we really must have flown into a studio, not into space".

They are convinced that they are right and NOTHING will change their mind, regardless how compelling and obvious.

that's why it's fun, to see how much accepted science and math they can acutally refute before it becomes pointless to argue.  

The interesting thing is that very, very few discussions ever get to the "accepted science and math refutation" stage. I would say 90% of threads involve an RE'er making an unsubstantial claim and immediately declaring victory. Sometimes they even skip the unsubstantial claim phase and go straight to declaring victory, claiming that, if they did bother to make a claim, the FE response would be unsatisfactory, so it is more efficient to just skip the discussion part altogether and skip straight to the "I'm right you're wrong."

If some of the RE posters spent half as much time coming up with evidence to support RE as they did patting themselves on the back, they might have more reason to pat themselves on the back.

that's why it's fun, to see how much accepted science and math they can acutally refute before it becomes pointless to argue.  

I won't argue with that!!!

No, what's funny is that you fail to realise that when a minority group is against the majority, it is up to them to proove the majority wrong, not the other way around.

I define a resume as a summarization of accomplishments and qualifications; in your case and pertaining to the physical sciences, your accomplishments are limited to some university physics and a couple chemistry and biology classes.

I made a point of saying that, even with that relatively short list, you are far more learned than the average poster who argues on behalf of RE.

So if you're the cream, imagine the rest of the crop.

you have to consider the type of people that find this site, it was linked on places like fark and somethingawful, those websites' userbases consist of largely idiots with herd mentallity. Another point; Since more people believe the Earth is round, naturally there will be a larger cut of idiotic individuals in the group.

you have to consider the type of people that find this site, it was linked on places like fark and somethingawful, those websites' userbases consist of largely idiots with herd mentallity. Another point; Since more people believe the Earth is round, naturally there will be a larger cut of idiotic individuals in the group.

I couldn't agree more.

No, what's funny is that you fail to realise that when a minority group is against the majority, it is up to them to proove the majority wrong, not the other way around.

If this were a round earth forum that would be true. If we marched on city hall claiming the earth was flat, then you're right, the burden of proof woulc be on the flat earth'ers. That, however, is not the case; you came to our forum, so if you want to challenge our beliefs, the burden of proof is on you.

After all, we're not out to disprove RE, only to prove FE.

Quote from: "Desu"

you have to consider the type of people that find this site, it was linked on places like fark and somethingawful, those websites' userbases consist of largely idiots with herd mentallity. Another point; Since more people believe the Earth is round, naturally there will be a larger cut of idiotic individuals in the group.

I couldn't agree more.

Quote

No, what's funny is that you fail to realise that when a minority group is against the majority, it is up to them to proove the majority wrong, not the other way around.

If this were a round earth forum that would be true. If we marched on city hall claiming the earth was flat, then you're right, the burden of proof woulc be on the flat earth'ers. That, however, is not the case; you came to our forum, so if you want to challenge our beliefs, the burden of proof is on you.

After all, we're not out to disprove RE, only to prove FE.

And fail to prove it you do... and spectacularly. I've put in many observations just today that demonstrate how stunningly wrong your FE model is... and yet they're ignored. It's starting to become clear that the primary motivations for your FE model are religious rather than scientific.

After all, we're not out to disprove RE, only to prove FE.

So do it!

Quote from: "Unimportant"

After all, we're not out to disprove RE, only to prove FE.

So do it!

I think he meant "only to defend FE". Seeing as to how nothing can actually be proven. Things can only be not disproven.

It's starting to become clear that the primary motivations for your FE model are religious rather than scientific.

Explain where on this forum you find religious motivation.

And indeed, I meant to say "to prove the plausability of a flat earth model". I said as much in another thread, but it slipped my mind here.

Quote from: "jiffy"

Quote from: "Unimportant"

After all, we're not out to disprove RE, only to prove FE.

So do it!

I think he meant "only to defend FE". Seeing as to how nothing can actually be proven. Things can only be not disproven.

I'm sure he did, but as you said, you can only disprove. In order to disprove, you need to apply various "proofs" (eg. facts). If these facts are not accepted, your disproof and therefore, proof is null and void.

Moral: Neither will accept eachothers facts, so the discussion has no point other than entertainment value.

Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"

Quote from: "jiffy"

Quote from: "Unimportant"

After all, we're not out to disprove RE, only to prove FE.

So do it!

I think he meant "only to defend FE". Seeing as to how nothing can actually be proven. Things can only be not disproven.

I'm sure he did, but as you said, you can only disprove. In order to disprove, you need to apply various "proofs" (eg. facts). If these facts are not accepted, your disproof and therefore, proof is null and void.

Moral: Neither will accept eachothers facts, so the discussion has no point other than entertainment value.

Yep.

He did say, "Not disprove", though. It's actually pretty commonly accepted that no hypothesis can ever be disproven, only proven unlikely. That's what you RE'ers are (usually) here to do; try your best to prove FE unlikely.

Quote from: "RenaissanceMan"

It's starting to become clear that the primary motivations for your FE model are religious rather than scientific.

Explain where on this forum you find religious motivation.

And indeed, I meant to say "to prove the plausability of a flat earth model". I said as much in another thread, but it slipped my mind here.

You're kidding right? Go down to the "Other Alternative Science" or "Flat Earth Believers" and read that stuff... the religious motivations are off the hook.

Not that I think YOU are using religion as a motivation. I don't believe you believe in a flat earth at all. Why you would defend or argue for that position is a mystery.

prove whatever is TRUE.

Things can only be not disproven.

That's a stupid statement. You mean, as long as something cannot be proven wrong, then it could as well be true. Reality is different.

prove whatever is TRUE.

Edit: You come up with a theory, then proves it. That's what makes science. Science is not coming up with a theory, and claim it to be a 100% correct without any evidence or proof (no, the Bible does not count), with the only argument that it "Can't be disproven".

I'm glad to see you all read the article.  Rowbotham gives a detailed account of the geographical features of the river on which he's doing the experiment, as opposed to the lake or ocean.

As for the body being too small -- look at the numbers.  He did it over six miles of river.

you do realise that a river effects the slope of the surrounding landscape?

you do realise that a river effects the slope of the surrounding landscape?

Sure.  I also recognize that it affects the economy of the surrounding region.  In what relevant way does it affect the slope?

Science is not coming up with a theory, and claim it to be a 100% correct without any evidence or proof

Yes, thanks for getting us back on topic.  I've provided a proof.  Do you have any particular criticism you'd like to make of it?

Quote from: "Xargo"

Science is not coming up with a theory, and claim it to be a 100% correct without any evidence or proof

Yes, thanks for getting us back on topic.  I've provided a proof.  Do you have any particular criticism you'd like to make of it?

You mean Rowbotham's 'research'? That is your proof?

This guy's theories were so bad he had to throw away the scientific method and invent a new system... the "Zetetic Astronomy" where he postulated that the Sun and Moon were only 32 miles in dameter and 'orbited' the Earth at the equator at an altitude of 3000 feet. Sound familiar?

What he COULD do was debate. He was able to use his mastery of the english language to crush people in a verbal challenge. Tragically, debate skills don't define science.... and his lunacy was discarded in favor of REAL science...

So, no. I don't accept anything he did without peer review and repeated results.

This guy's theories were so bad he had to throw away the scientific method and invent a new system...

Yeah, your opinions about the badness of his theories are interesting, if a little bit off-topic.

I know I've asked this before, but do you have some specific complaint about the particular set of experiments I made reference to?

Quote from: "RenaissanceMan"

This guy's theories were so bad he had to throw away the scientific method and invent a new system...

Yeah, your opinions about the badness of his theories are interesting, if a little bit off-topic.

I know I've asked this before, but do you have some specific complaint about the particular set of experiments I made reference to?

Other than they sound unreasonable and were postulated by a guy whose only scientific ability was to out talk people?

Sure! His experiments ... just... look... fake.... WHERE have you ever seen a river with two bridges 6 miles apart where you had a perfect line of sight between them? I don't know about you? But except on the great salt lake in Utah, I don't think I've ever seen even 3 miles across 'flat' land... water or no water. Heck, not even in KANSAS can you see that far. There is always something in the way.

I need to see COLLABORATING research to even start to believe this guy... Oh! YOu guys believel him! The burden of proof is on YOU to repeat this guy's 'experiments' and verify his data. That's how science works. Now ... if this guy had peer reviews and his findings were independantly verified? I'd think differently.

Get to it!

Other than they sound unreasonable and were postulated by a guy whose only scientific ability was to out talk people?

I'm not sure but I'm guessing you didn't check his CV before making that claim.

Sure! His experiments ... just... look... fake....

.... that's all you've got?

WHERE have you ever seen a river with two bridges 6 miles apart where you had a perfect line of sight between them?

Well there's this place in England where they built this canal.  Some guy named Samuel Rowbotham did some experiments on it, IIRC.

I don't think I've ever seen even 3 miles across 'flat' land... water or no water.

On a round Earth, barring obstacles, from an elevation of two meters above sea level you should be able to see 10 km of ground.

The burden of proof is on YOU to repeat this guy's 'experiments' and verify his data.

I don't see what the point is, since you can't find any flaws in his results.  And no, that's not how science works.  People try to refute each other's hypotheses all the time.

Quote from: "RenaissanceMan"

Other than they sound unreasonable and were postulated by a guy whose only scientific ability was to out talk people?

I'm not sure but I'm guessing you didn't check his CV before making that claim.

Quote

Sure! His experiments ... just... look... fake....

.... that's all you've got?

Quote

WHERE have you ever seen a river with two bridges 6 miles apart where you had a perfect line of sight between them?

Well there's this place in England where they built this canal.  Some guy named Samuel Rowbotham did some experiments on it, IIRC.

Quote

I don't think I've ever seen even 3 miles across 'flat' land... water or no water.

On a round Earth, barring obstacles, from an elevation of two meters above sea level you should be able to see 10 km of ground.

Quote

The burden of proof is on YOU to repeat this guy's 'experiments' and verify his data.

I don't see what the point is, since you can't find any flaws in his results.  And no, that's not how science works.  People try to refute each other's hypotheses all the time.

LOL, yes... I know what a CV is. Nice try. His problem wasn't education... it was religion. His adherence to biblical dogma superceded his scientific impartiality.

And that IS how science works, you need peer review and independant verification. If you're so sure his findings are accurate... go there yourself and repeat his experiments.