An astronomy picture taken from a common camera

  • 242 Replies
  • 55040 Views
Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #120 on: March 23, 2009, 05:02:50 PM »
You're going to invoke correlation implies causation and accuse me of a fallacy?  Interesting.

Correlation does not always imply causation. Yet, correlation is required for causation to be true.

Nobody's been able to bring up an example yet.  Please be more specific.

Why read when you can post?

*sigh*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_reactor

Quote
The largest current experiment is the Joint European Torus (JET). In 1997, JET produced a peak of 16.1 MW of fusion power (65% of input power), with fusion power of over 10 MW sustained for over 0.5 sec. In June 2005, the construction of the experimental reactor ITER, designed to produce several times more fusion power than the power put into the plasma over many minutes, was announced. They are currently preparing the site (Sep 2008). The production of net electrical power from fusion is planned for DEMO, the next generation experiment after ITER. Additionally, the High Power laser Energy Research facility (HiPER) is undergoing preliminary design for possible construction in the European Union starting around 2010.

The definition of sustainable may be open to debate, but as far as stars go the reaction inside is ultimately unsustainable yet sustained for millions of years. Stars eventually burn up and swell to red giants before going supernova. Nonetheless, this reaction is where starlight comes from.

Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #121 on: March 23, 2009, 06:39:35 PM »
Let us return to the picture. It is very nice, by the way; however, I would like to make three points:

(1) there are some weak points in the image. For example:

(i) according the legend, a foreground oak tree (I presume, on the right side) is briefly illuminated during the 5-hr exposure sequence, but the trees in the centre and on the left were apparently not illuminated. Illumination would explain why the image of the oak tree on the right is sharp. However, there is no explanation why the images of the non-illuminated trees are sharp, too. "this dramatic 5 hour long exposure was made on February 24" and February is normally quite a windy month, but what we actually see is that the brunches of the trees are as sharp or even sharper than the structures in the observatory building on the left.

(ii) quite a few "star trails", even not the brightest, look as if they were located in front of the branches of the trees and one of "trails" - even before the observatory dome on the right.

(iii) the building of the observatory on the left and the tree to the left of it show a remarkable angle, quite different from 90 degrees. It looks like the picture was taken by a special lens that brought considerable distortions to the image. Thus, the discussion about poles, parallel lines etc. makes no sense. The photo itself is apparently distorted. 

(2) the picture, even if it was authentic, does not demonstrate that the Earth is round;

(3) the very demonstration of the picture is a complete absurd. The fundamental principle of the RE theory, if I am not mistaken, is that we see the Earth flat not because it is actually flat, but because the Earth is round. In other words, the main postulate of the RE theory implies that our eyes are deceiving us and we must not believe our senses. It proclaims that when I see that the Earth is flat, I am wrong and I should not believe my eyes.

Therefore, no photos, no pictures and no evidences at all are credible. However, AFTER that, they show us pictures in support of the RE theory. Sorry, but according to the RE we must not trust our eyes. So, the RE theory can not produce a single plausible evidence in its own support and, hence, is completely destroyed. For if we are supposed not to believe our own eyes, why we should believe cameras etc.?
"It is not necessary that hypotheses should be true, or even probable; it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculation".
Copernicus

?

hi

  • 302
  • Love the debate, hate the stupidity!
Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #122 on: March 23, 2009, 07:08:26 PM »

Therefore, no photos, no pictures and no evidences at all are credible. However, AFTER that, they show us pictures in support of the RE theory. Sorry, but according to the RE we must not trust our eyes. So, the RE theory can not produce a single plausible evidence in its own support and, hence, is completely destroyed. For if we are supposed not to believe our own eyes, why we should believe cameras etc.?

What do you mean that in the RE theory we can't trust our eyes?
In the FE model they have bendy light (I know not all FE'ers believe in this) that makes objects look as if they "disappear" over the horizon, along with other theories they state, so technically the FE theory states that we shouldn't trust our eyes more than the RE theory.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #123 on: March 23, 2009, 07:19:49 PM »
You're going to invoke correlation implies causation and accuse me of a fallacy?  Interesting.

Correlation does not always imply causation. Yet, correlation is required for causation to be true.

Nobody's been able to bring up an example yet.  Please be more specific.

Why read when you can post?

*sigh*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_reactor

Quote
The largest current experiment is the Joint European Torus (JET). In 1997, JET produced a peak of 16.1 MW of fusion power (65% of input power), with fusion power of over 10 MW sustained for over 0.5 sec. In June 2005, the construction of the experimental reactor ITER, designed to produce several times more fusion power than the power put into the plasma over many minutes, was announced. They are currently preparing the site (Sep 2008). The production of net electrical power from fusion is planned for DEMO, the next generation experiment after ITER. Additionally, the High Power laser Energy Research facility (HiPER) is undergoing preliminary design for possible construction in the European Union starting around 2010.

Oh wow, a whole 0.5 seconds. ::)
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #124 on: March 23, 2009, 07:51:57 PM »
"What do you mean that in the RE theory we can't trust our eyes?"

I mean the following:

(1) I look outside (or around if I am already outside) and see the flat Earth. It is not round. It is flat. I see it flat, therefore it is flat.

(2) the RE guys explain that it is but an illusion and the Earth is actually round. I see it flat, but the Earth is round. What I see is some kind of illusion, because of ... blah blah blah. So, my eyes are deceiving me. I should not trust my eyes when I see that the Earth is flat.

(3) This is the first and very fundamental step for accepting the RE theory. Either you trust your eyes - and the Earth is flat, or you do not - and the Earth is not flat. Thus, without admitting that your senses are deceiving you (and, therefore, giving away your right and freedom of making your own conclusions), you can not accept the RE theory.

(4) What's truly funny is that AFTER you admitted that your you should not trust your EYES, the RE guys are showing you PICTURES, PHOTOS, MOVIES etc. supporting their theory. But you are already not supposed to believe your eyes. You know that your eyes deceive you and you accepted it as an axiom, otherwise you would not become a RE-er. What if all those pictures are also some kind of illusion? Why you should believe them?


"that makes objects look as if they "disappear" over the horizon,"
If I am not mistaken, they call it "refraction" and, in RE theory, use for explanation why we see the Sun rising earlier and setting later than it should do according to the calculations of the RE theory, for explanations of distortions of the Sun, the Moon etc. If the RE theory is using that, why it is forbidden for the FET?

Let's be positive and do not use double standards. Either you believe your senses or not. If RET can use the refraction and atmospheric distortions to explain something, then the FET can do that, too.  That seems fair.

However, for me that seems a bit too far away. I am not a specialist in atmospheric optics. Besides, I am not going to give away my freedom and right of making my own conclusion. I believe my eyes. I see that the Earth is flat. Therefore, it is flat.
"It is not necessary that hypotheses should be true, or even probable; it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculation".
Copernicus

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42683
Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #125 on: March 23, 2009, 07:57:50 PM »
You're going to invoke correlation implies causation and accuse me of a fallacy?  Interesting.

Correlation does not always imply causation. Yet, correlation is required for causation to be true.

Nobody's been able to bring up an example yet.  Please be more specific.

Why read when you can post?

*sigh*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_reactor

Quote
The largest current experiment is the Joint European Torus (JET). In 1997, JET produced a peak of 16.1 MW of fusion power (65% of input power), with fusion power of over 10 MW sustained for over 0.5 sec. In June 2005, the construction of the experimental reactor ITER, designed to produce several times more fusion power than the power put into the plasma over many minutes, was announced. They are currently preparing the site (Sep 2008). The production of net electrical power from fusion is planned for DEMO, the next generation experiment after ITER. Additionally, the High Power laser Energy Research facility (HiPER) is undergoing preliminary design for possible construction in the European Union starting around 2010.

Oh wow, a whole 0.5 seconds. ::)

Quote from: http://www.jet.efda.org/pages/faqs/faq3.html#2002
Q: How long is the longest sustained fusion reaction achieved by JET and elsewhere?
A: JET is the only operational machine to observe fusion from D-T (Deuterium-Tritium) reactions. Such fusion reactions have been maintained on JET for around five seconds.

I also found a claim that the French have achieved a 6 minute reaction, but I am currently unable to find confirmation.
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.

Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #126 on: March 23, 2009, 08:07:37 PM »
"What do you mean that in the RE theory we can't trust our eyes?"

I mean the following:

(1) I look outside (or around if I am already outside) and see the flat Earth. It is not round. It is flat. I see it flat, therefore it is flat.

...
Let's just concentrate on this one, repeatedly refuted, FET agrument.

First, of all, you lie. You do not see it flat. Even standing on the Bonneville Salt Flats, you'll see distant mountains.

Second, you err by extrapolating. Even if at your locale the Earth were perfectly flat for a radius of hundreds of miles, you should not conclude that your locale's characteristics apply to the entire Earth.

Third, you fail to adequately test the differences in the theories. RET predicts an ever-so-slight curvature as not to be discernible to you in your experiment. That you see 'flat' does not falsify RET or validate FET. Both theories predict the same sight.

May I suggest that you SEARCH for the thread that have answered your other questions on your own? Stop back if you don't understand the refutation REers have already provided, repeatedly.

Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #127 on: March 23, 2009, 08:12:14 PM »
"First, of all, you lie."

I think you should look for someone who would tolerate your rudeness. I won't.
"It is not necessary that hypotheses should be true, or even probable; it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculation".
Copernicus

?

hi

  • 302
  • Love the debate, hate the stupidity!
Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #128 on: March 23, 2009, 08:16:52 PM »
"What do you mean that in the RE theory we can't trust our eyes?"

I mean the following:

(1) I look outside (or around if I am already outside) and see the flat Earth. It is not round. It is flat. I see it flat, therefore it is flat.

Why take what you see for granted? Do you ever question what you see?

Quote
(2) the RE guys explain that it is but an illusion and the Earth is actually round. I see it flat, but the Earth is round. What I see is some kind of illusion, because of ... blah blah blah. So, my eyes are deceiving me. I should not trust my eyes when I see that the Earth is flat.
Where's a quote stating that we RE'ers don't trust our eyes?

Quote
(3) This is the first and very fundamental step for accepting the RE theory. Either you trust your eyes - and the Earth is flat, or you do not - and the Earth is not flat. Thus, without admitting that your senses are deceiving you (and, therefore, giving away your right and freedom of making your own conclusions), you can not accept the RE theory.
I know that I shouldn't be using this example but: what about when an object dissapears over the horizon? Do you FE'ers trust your eyes that the Earth is round then?

Quote
(4) What's truly funny is that AFTER you admitted that your you should not trust your EYES, the RE guys are showing you PICTURES, PHOTOS, MOVIES etc. supporting their theory. But you are already not supposed to believe your eyes. You know that your eyes deceive you and you accepted it as an axiom, otherwise you would not become a RE-er. What if all those pictures are also some kind of illusion? Why you should believe them?
I'm not the one doing that, it's mostly the noobs here.

Quote
"that makes objects look as if they "disappear" over the horizon,"
If I am not mistaken, they call it "refraction" and, in RE theory, use for explanation why we see the Sun rising earlier and setting later than it should do according to the calculations of the RE theory, for explanations of distortions of the Sun, the Moon etc. If the RE theory is using that, why it is forbidden for the FET?
The FE theory states it as being called bendy light and applies new properties to the way light functions, not refraction (if I'me mistaken FE'ers please correct me)

Quote
Let's be positive and do not use double standards. Either you believe your senses or not. If RET can use the refraction and atmospheric distortions to explain something, then the FET can do that, too.  That seems fair.
I agree with you that both sides should stop setting double standards.

Quote
However, for me that seems a bit too far away. I am not a specialist in atmospheric optics. Besides, I am not going to give away my freedom and right of making my own conclusion. I believe my eyes. I see that the Earth is flat. Therefore, it is flat.
I respect your opinion and of going against a popular popular beliefe system, even if I don't agree with the theory, I still like to support the underdog (as long as they don't commit anything violent or show hatred to others)

Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #129 on: March 23, 2009, 08:37:08 PM »
"First, of all, you lie."

I think you should look for someone who would tolerate your rudeness. I won't.
If the Truth finds you lacking, look within.

Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #130 on: March 23, 2009, 09:22:17 PM »
"Why take what you see for granted? Do you ever question what you see?"

Excellent and very deep question. That is the whole point. To me, this is a true boundary between FET and RET. Either you believe your senses or you believe someone else, who is deciding for you what you see: a flat Earth or a part of an immense globe. This is a bit different from taking what I see for granted. As a human being, I can make mistakes, I may not know how to interpret my observations etc. Nevertheless, there seems to be a big difference between rectifying mistakes and learning by trusting my feelings and making my own conclusions - and unconditional acceptance of a weird idea that is neither obvious nor verifiable. Say, if I doubted that the Earth is flat, I can go to the prairies or make observations from the plane to make sure that the horizon is perfectly clear and straight. All I see again and again is that the Earth is flat. Why should I accept it's not flat and the Earth is sphere? Why not a cube? Prism? Pyramid? Because of the Apollo "photos"? I do not believe them, for they are apparently falsified, and I have already discussed it here.

Even if both theories, RET and FET, were explaining equally well why I see flat Earth, I should have embraced the FET according to the principles of science.


"Where's a quote stating that we RE'ers don't trust our eyes?"

I am not sure what do you mean. Let me try to explain it again. If I see that the Earth is flat, should I trust my eyes? Yes or no.


"what about when an object dissapears over the horizon? Do you FE'ers trust your eyes that the Earth is round then?"

I saw that phenomenon myself but, to my opinion, it does not necessarily mean that the Earth is round. I watched such an object (a high tower) closely, and there was a certain gap between the object and the horizon. My opinion is that it might be explained by some kind of refraction, for the layer of air just above the Earth apparently has some peculiar optical properties. To me it seems reasonable, but I am not competent enough to provide a detailed explanation. It's just my personal opinion.


"The FE theory states it as being called bendy light and applies new properties to the way light functions"

Sorry, again I am not competent in that.


"I respect your opinion and of going against a popular popular beliefe system, even if I don't agree with the theory, I still like to support the underdog"

Thanks, but I must say that in a long-term historical prospect the situation is exactly opposite: RET was the underdog almost all the history, many thousands years except the last 500 years or so. It seems that the RET is just an unusual and temporary deviation, which is both illogical and scientifically inconsistent (as I tried to briefly illustrate) and, in addition, many of its "proofs" are apparently falsified (of which "Apollo" mission is probably the most notorious). So it looks likely that with time it will simply disappear by itself.

For example, look at the photo we are discussing at this thread: "An astronomy picture taken from a common camera". Is it normal for a common camera to produce a photo in which a building stands at about 70 degrees to the ground? Should I accept this picture and explanations based on it, in this case, too? It is not even a question of science, but rather that of dignity. Sorry to say that, but my impression is that whoever called this picture "taken from a common camera" might think his audience consists of idiots. I am just trying to explain that such an attitude is totally unacceptable. However if someone thinks it's fine for him/her, I would not mind, for I respect their opinion. What I know for sure it does not suit me.
"It is not necessary that hypotheses should be true, or even probable; it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculation".
Copernicus

Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #131 on: March 23, 2009, 09:37:17 PM »
"Why take what you see for granted? Do you ever question what you see?"

Excellent and very deep question. That is the whole point. To me, this is a true boundary between FET and RET. Either you believe your senses or you believe someone else, who is deciding for you what you see: a flat Earth or a part of an immense globe. This is a bit different from taking what I see for granted. As a human being, I can make mistakes, I may not know how to interpret my observations etc. Nevertheless, there seems to be a big difference between rectifying mistakes and learning by trusting my feelings and making my own conclusions - and unconditional acceptance of a weird idea that is neither obvious nor verifiable. Say, if I doubted that the Earth is flat, I can go to the prairies or make observations from the plane to make sure that the horizon is perfectly clear and straight. All I see again and again is that the Earth is flat. Why should I accept it's not flat and the Earth is sphere? Why not a cube? Prism? Pyramid? Because of the Apollo "photos"? I do not believe them, for they are apparently falsified, and I have already discussed it here.

Even if both theories, RET and FET, were explaining equally well why I see flat Earth, I should have embraced the FET according to the principles of science.


"Where's a quote stating that we RE'ers don't trust our eyes?"

I am not sure what do you mean. Let me try to explain it again. If I see that the Earth is flat, should I trust my eyes? Yes or no.


"what about when an object dissapears over the horizon? Do you FE'ers trust your eyes that the Earth is round then?"

I saw that phenomenon myself but, to my opinion, it does not necessarily mean that the Earth is round. I watched such an object (a high tower) closely, and there was a certain gap between the object and the horizon. My opinion is that it might be explained by some kind of refraction, for the layer of air just above the Earth apparently has some peculiar optical properties. To me it seems reasonable, but I am not competent enough to provide a detailed explanation. It's just my personal opinion.


"The FE theory states it as being called bendy light and applies new properties to the way light functions"

Sorry, again I am not competent in that.


"I respect your opinion and of going against a popular popular beliefe system, even if I don't agree with the theory, I still like to support the underdog"

Thanks, but I must say that in a long-term historical prospect the situation is exactly opposite: RET was the underdog almost all the history, many thousands years except the last 500 years or so. It seems that the RET is just an unusual and temporary deviation, which is both illogical and scientifically inconsistent (as I tried to briefly illustrate) and, in addition, many of its "proofs" are apparently falsified (of which "Apollo" mission is probably the most notorious). So it looks likely that with time it will simply disappear by itself.

For example, look at the photo we are discussing at this thread: "An astronomy picture taken from a common camera". Is it normal for a common camera to produce a photo in which a building stands at about 70 degrees to the ground? Should I accept this picture and explanations based on it, in this case, too? It is not even a question of science, but rather that of dignity. Sorry to say that, but my impression is that whoever called this picture "taken from a common camera" might think his audience consists of idiots. I am just trying to explain that such an attitude is totally unacceptable. However if someone thinks it's fine for him/her, I would not mind, for I respect their opinion. What I know for sure it does not suit me.
Overall, a very poor post. The post fails to be even self-consistent.

You speak of dignity and then lie to us about seeing the Earth as flat. You can't make up your mind whether to believe your senses. You argue both for and against in the same post, very fickle.

You speak of using science to select the better theory and then ignore evidence without rationale, stating "such an altitude is totally unacceptable".

You offer your opinion that what you see is not what is, having no scientific basis to refute it. But when you look at the Earth you erroneously claim that you see it's flat and given that error you know that it is. You are quite capricious when selecting what to believe, aren't you?

Do work at posting better, especially more consistent, arguments.

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #132 on: March 24, 2009, 12:43:55 AM »
Okay, so what am I missing?  How have they proven that stars generate their energy through sustained nuclear fusion?  And if their picture of what is happening is so good why can't they replicate the process in a laboratory?
  I guess the earth is too little for a lab where you can fit the sun. And your life is too short to observe the lifetime of the sun. And we always don't have technology/materials to make happen that which we know happens. It's not just making sun on earth, we also must have some materials/equipment which can contain the sun if we make it here. Otherwise we make it and next second is boom and there is no earth.
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #133 on: March 24, 2009, 01:05:53 AM »
"What do you mean that in the RE theory we can't trust our eyes?"
I mean the following:
(1) I look outside (or around if I am already outside) and see the flat Earth. It is not round. It is flat. I see it flat, therefore it is flat.
  Poor you, you must be really confused when you change your surroundings. In the town you see big houses - therefore all earth must be covered with big houses. In forest you see many trees - therefore earth must be covered with trees. In the sea you see only water around you - therefore earth must be made of water. In desert you see only sand around you - therefore earth must be made of sand. What it is then, from what the earth is made? Houses, trees, water, sand?
« Last Edit: March 24, 2009, 01:51:13 AM by zork »
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #134 on: March 24, 2009, 01:26:03 AM »
"What do you mean that in the RE theory we can't trust our eyes?"
I mean the following:
(1) I look outside (or around if I am already outside) and see the flat Earth. It is not round. It is flat. I see it flat, therefore it is flat.
  Poor you, you must be really confused when you change your surroundings. In the town you see big houses - therefore all earth must be covered with big houses. In forest you see many trees - therefore earth must be covered with trees. In the sea you see only water around you - therefore earth mus be made of water. In desert you see only sand around you - therefore earth must be made of sand. What it is then, from what the earth is made? Houses, trees, water, sand?
Yeah. That. (Great Post)

Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #135 on: March 24, 2009, 07:17:09 AM »
I really want to know where all the FEers go to look at the Earth. I've never been able to see that the planet is a 40,000 km wide flat disc, even if I go down to the coast and look out over the sea.

Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #136 on: March 24, 2009, 08:24:18 AM »
"What do you mean that in the RE theory we can't trust our eyes?"

I mean the following:

(1) I look outside (or around if I am already outside) and see the flat Earth. It is not round. It is flat. I see it flat, therefore it is flat.

(2) the RE guys explain that it is but an illusion and the Earth is actually round. I see it flat, but the Earth is round. What I see is some kind of illusion, because of ... blah blah blah. So, my eyes are deceiving me. I should not trust my eyes when I see that the Earth is flat.

(3) This is the first and very fundamental step for accepting the RE theory. Either you trust your eyes - and the Earth is flat, or you do not - and the Earth is not flat. Thus, without admitting that your senses are deceiving you (and, therefore, giving away your right and freedom of making your own conclusions), you can not accept the RE theory.

(4) What's truly funny is that AFTER you admitted that your you should not trust your EYES, the RE guys are showing you PICTURES, PHOTOS, MOVIES etc. supporting their theory. But you are already not supposed to believe your eyes. You know that your eyes deceive you and you accepted it as an axiom, otherwise you would not become a RE-er. What if all those pictures are also some kind of illusion? Why you should believe them?


"that makes objects look as if they "disappear" over the horizon,"
If I am not mistaken, they call it "refraction" and, in RE theory, use for explanation why we see the Sun rising earlier and setting later than it should do according to the calculations of the RE theory, for explanations of distortions of the Sun, the Moon etc. If the RE theory is using that, why it is forbidden for the FET?

Let's be positive and do not use double standards. Either you believe your senses or not. If RET can use the refraction and atmospheric distortions to explain something, then the FET can do that, too.  That seems fair.

However, for me that seems a bit too far away. I am not a specialist in atmospheric optics. Besides, I am not going to give away my freedom and right of making my own conclusion. I believe my eyes. I see that the Earth is flat. Therefore, it is flat.
It is actually very easy to prove that one can not trust their senses at face value. Just take any optical illusion (there are now illusions for other senses too, not just vision).

So it is absolutely proven that we can not just trust our senses.

This also means that if we look out our window and see that the Earth looks flat, we can not trust that wither.

The only conclusion is, is that we can not just do a simple examination and trust that the results are what we think they look like.

But as you tried to say, what can we do about it? How can we resolve this dilemma?

It is easy. It is only superficial examinations that lead us to mistake illusion for reality. When we examin these situations more carefully, we can show that what we think we are seeing is really an illusion.

take for example this illusion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Caf%C3%A9_wall.svg (if you don't want to just click on a link, you can search for the Cafe wall illusion on wikipeida).

At first glance, you would say that the lines are slopped (narrower at one end and thicker at the other).

But, if you go beyond just superficial examination, you can actually determine that the lines are actually straight. It is a simple matter of holding a ruler up to the screen and checking the lines. And you can check that the rule is really straight by using simple geometry: A straight line is the shortest path between two points (so two pins and a piece of string stretched between them would enable you to check the ruler's straightness).

Actually, this is why, in science, that the method used to acquire the data is so important (actually more important then the data itself). Because in science, it is always assumed that the data could be wrong, but if the procedure is given, then this can be checked without encountering illusionary data. If the procedure can be show to be valid, then the results of that procedure can be trusted.

As it has been shown, superficial examination, as a procedure, is flawed. Therefore we can not rely on a flawed method to supply us with the data we need. So just looking out your window and not seeing obvious curvature to the Earth is just superficial examination and therefore is flawed and not admissible as evidence (for either side).
Everyday household experimentation.

Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #137 on: March 24, 2009, 12:57:15 PM »
"Why take what you see for granted? Do you ever question what you see?"

Excellent and very deep question. That is the whole point. To me, this is a true boundary between FET and RET. Either you believe your senses or you believe someone else, who is deciding for you what you see: a flat Earth or a part of an immense globe. This is a bit different from taking what I see for granted. As a human being, I can make mistakes, I may not know how to interpret my observations etc. Nevertheless, there seems to be a big difference between rectifying mistakes and learning by trusting my feelings and making my own conclusions - and unconditional acceptance of a weird idea that is neither obvious nor verifiable. Say, if I doubted that the Earth is flat, I can go to the prairies or make observations from the plane to make sure that the horizon is perfectly clear and straight. All I see again and again is that the Earth is flat. Why should I accept it's not flat and the Earth is sphere? Why not a cube? Prism? Pyramid? Because of the Apollo "photos"? I do not believe them, for they are apparently falsified, and I have already discussed it here.

Even if both theories, RET and FET, were explaining equally well why I see flat Earth, I should have embraced the FET according to the principles of science.


"Where's a quote stating that we RE'ers don't trust our eyes?"

I am not sure what do you mean. Let me try to explain it again. If I see that the Earth is flat, should I trust my eyes? Yes or no.


"what about when an object dissapears over the horizon? Do you FE'ers trust your eyes that the Earth is round then?"

I saw that phenomenon myself but, to my opinion, it does not necessarily mean that the Earth is round. I watched such an object (a high tower) closely, and there was a certain gap between the object and the horizon. My opinion is that it might be explained by some kind of refraction, for the layer of air just above the Earth apparently has some peculiar optical properties. To me it seems reasonable, but I am not competent enough to provide a detailed explanation. It's just my personal opinion.


"The FE theory states it as being called bendy light and applies new properties to the way light functions"

Sorry, again I am not competent in that.


"I respect your opinion and of going against a popular popular beliefe system, even if I don't agree with the theory, I still like to support the underdog"

Thanks, but I must say that in a long-term historical prospect the situation is exactly opposite: RET was the underdog almost all the history, many thousands years except the last 500 years or so. It seems that the RET is just an unusual and temporary deviation, which is both illogical and scientifically inconsistent (as I tried to briefly illustrate) and, in addition, many of its "proofs" are apparently falsified (of which "Apollo" mission is probably the most notorious). So it looks likely that with time it will simply disappear by itself.

For example, look at the photo we are discussing at this thread: "An astronomy picture taken from a common camera". Is it normal for a common camera to produce a photo in which a building stands at about 70 degrees to the ground? Should I accept this picture and explanations based on it, in this case, too? It is not even a question of science, but rather that of dignity. Sorry to say that, but my impression is that whoever called this picture "taken from a common camera" might think his audience consists of idiots. I am just trying to explain that such an attitude is totally unacceptable. However if someone thinks it's fine for him/her, I would not mind, for I respect their opinion. What I know for sure it does not suit me.
Overall, a very poor post. The post fails to be even self-consistent.

You speak of dignity and then lie to us about seeing the Earth as flat. You can't make up your mind whether to believe your senses. You argue both for and against in the same post, very fickle.

You speak of using science to select the better theory and then ignore evidence without rationale, stating "such an altitude is totally unacceptable".

You offer your opinion that what you see is not what is, having no scientific basis to refute it. But when you look at the Earth you erroneously claim that you see it's flat and given that error you know that it is. You are quite capricious when selecting what to believe, aren't you?

Do work at posting better, especially more consistent, arguments.


Dear MayTheBetterModelWin,

I am truly sorry to say that, but, as I have already told you, I do not wish to speak to you. Leave me alone and save your breath for someone else who would appreciate it.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2009, 01:00:34 PM by Humble_Scientist »
"It is not necessary that hypotheses should be true, or even probable; it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculation".
Copernicus

Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #138 on: March 24, 2009, 01:25:49 PM »
"What do you mean that in the RE theory we can't trust our eyes?"
I mean the following:
(1) I look outside (or around if I am already outside) and see the flat Earth. It is not round. It is flat. I see it flat, therefore it is flat.
  Poor you, you must be really confused when you change your surroundings. In the town you see big houses - therefore all earth must be covered with big houses. In forest you see many trees - therefore earth must be covered with trees. In the sea you see only water around you - therefore earth must be made of water. In desert you see only sand around you - therefore earth must be made of sand. What it is then, from what the earth is made? Houses, trees, water, sand?

Dear zork,

What makes you think I am poor or "must be really confused when you change your surroundings" (whatever you mean by that)? The only explanation I can propose is that you might have some serious problems and, possibly, are mentioning them whenever you think a proper occasion happens. If so, please rest assured that you have my moral support during that difficult period in your life.

The rest of your message puzzled me. Why do you think "all earth must be covered with big houses", "earth must be covered with trees",   "earth must be made of water",  "earth must be made of sand" if you see "big houses" etc.? Why are you asking "from what the earth is made? Houses, trees, water, sand?" and why do you think it is relevant to the picture discussed here?

I just wrote a few words about the picture etc. and you are asking me: 

"What it is then, from what the earth is made? Houses, trees, water, sand?"

What do you mean by that?
"It is not necessary that hypotheses should be true, or even probable; it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculation".
Copernicus

Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #139 on: March 24, 2009, 01:31:48 PM »
Dear MayTheBetterModelWin,

I am truly sorry to say that, but, as I have already told you, I do not wish to speak to you. Leave me alone and save your breath for someone else who would appreciate it.
If you think such a lame post will save you from ridicule when you're dishonest, you're sadly mistaken. Count on me to be there to challenge every lie.

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #140 on: March 24, 2009, 01:33:52 PM »
I just wrote a few words about the picture etc. and you are asking me: 
"What it is then, from what the earth is made? Houses, trees, water, sand?"
What do you mean by that?
You got yourself a nick with scientist in it and you don't get the hint. Point was that you can't say anything about whole if you observe only the tiny piece of it. My message was following your logic exactly. You said - I see from window that earth is flat, therefore it is flat. So, following that logic you look out from the boat on sea and you see only water - therefore earth is made from water. I guess that trying to make something out from simple analogy is too hard for you.
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #141 on: March 24, 2009, 02:14:20 PM »
"What do you mean that in the RE theory we can't trust our eyes?"

I mean the following:

(1) I look outside (or around if I am already outside) and see the flat Earth. It is not round. It is flat. I see it flat, therefore it is flat.

(2) the RE guys explain that it is but an illusion and the Earth is actually round. I see it flat, but the Earth is round. What I see is some kind of illusion, because of ... blah blah blah. So, my eyes are deceiving me. I should not trust my eyes when I see that the Earth is flat.

(3) This is the first and very fundamental step for accepting the RE theory. Either you trust your eyes - and the Earth is flat, or you do not - and the Earth is not flat. Thus, without admitting that your senses are deceiving you (and, therefore, giving away your right and freedom of making your own conclusions), you can not accept the RE theory.

(4) What's truly funny is that AFTER you admitted that your you should not trust your EYES, the RE guys are showing you PICTURES, PHOTOS, MOVIES etc. supporting their theory. But you are already not supposed to believe your eyes. You know that your eyes deceive you and you accepted it as an axiom, otherwise you would not become a RE-er. What if all those pictures are also some kind of illusion? Why you should believe them?


"that makes objects look as if they "disappear" over the horizon,"
If I am not mistaken, they call it "refraction" and, in RE theory, use for explanation why we see the Sun rising earlier and setting later than it should do according to the calculations of the RE theory, for explanations of distortions of the Sun, the Moon etc. If the RE theory is using that, why it is forbidden for the FET?

Let's be positive and do not use double standards. Either you believe your senses or not. If RET can use the refraction and atmospheric distortions to explain something, then the FET can do that, too.  That seems fair.

However, for me that seems a bit too far away. I am not a specialist in atmospheric optics. Besides, I am not going to give away my freedom and right of making my own conclusion. I believe my eyes. I see that the Earth is flat. Therefore, it is flat.
It is actually very easy to prove that one can not trust their senses at face value. Just take any optical illusion (there are now illusions for other senses too, not just vision).

So it is absolutely proven that we can not just trust our senses.

This also means that if we look out our window and see that the Earth looks flat, we can not trust that wither.

The only conclusion is, is that we can not just do a simple examination and trust that the results are what we think they look like.

But as you tried to say, what can we do about it? How can we resolve this dilemma?

It is easy. It is only superficial examinations that lead us to mistake illusion for reality. When we examin these situations more carefully, we can show that what we think we are seeing is really an illusion.

take for example this illusion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Caf%C3%A9_wall.svg (if you don't want to just click on a link, you can search for the Cafe wall illusion on wikipeida).

At first glance, you would say that the lines are slopped (narrower at one end and thicker at the other).

But, if you go beyond just superficial examination, you can actually determine that the lines are actually straight. It is a simple matter of holding a ruler up to the screen and checking the lines. And you can check that the rule is really straight by using simple geometry: A straight line is the shortest path between two points (so two pins and a piece of string stretched between them would enable you to check the ruler's straightness).

Actually, this is why, in science, that the method used to acquire the data is so important (actually more important then the data itself). Because in science, it is always assumed that the data could be wrong, but if the procedure is given, then this can be checked without encountering illusionary data. If the procedure can be show to be valid, then the results of that procedure can be trusted.

As it has been shown, superficial examination, as a procedure, is flawed. Therefore we can not rely on a flawed method to supply us with the data we need. So just looking out your window and not seeing obvious curvature to the Earth is just superficial examination and therefore is flawed and not admissible as evidence (for either side).


Dear Edtharan,

Thanks for your interesting reply.

"Just take any optical illusion (there are now illusions for other senses too, not just vision).

So it is absolutely proven that we can not just trust our senses."

Do you mean that the existence of illusions constitutes an absolute proof that we can not trust our senses? by the way, what is the difference between  "trust our senses" and "just trust our senses" or "trust senses at face value"?

My opinion is that either you trust your senses (understanding, of course, that illusions may happen) or you do not trust your senses.

"This also means that if we look out our window and see that the Earth looks flat, we can not trust that wither."

It does not, unless you presume that the world around you is a huge optical illusion. This is actually a very good point. So, it seems we both can agree that, according to RET, what one sees is an illusion, not a reality and we can not trust our senses. According to FET, as far as I understand, what one sees is a reality, though illusions may happen.


"As it has been shown, superficial examination, as a procedure, is flawed."
You have not shown that, just declared: "It is only superficial examinations that lead us to mistake illusion for reality."
You can not start from the point you are going to prove.


"So just looking out your window"...
It is called "observation", a very important procedure in science, by the way. 

... "and not seeing obvious curvature to the Earth"
If it is obvious, why we can not see it?

"is just superficial examination"
What is the difference between observation and "superficial examination"?

"and therefore is flawed"


If "superficial examination" is flawed by your definition and

"looking out your window... is just superficial examination and therefore is flawed and not admissible as evidence"

how can you trust PICTURES of the sky that you can see through a telescope or a camera lens? How can you trust the photo we are discussing? Do you presume that "looking out your window" produces an illusion, but looking through a telescope gives you a real picture? If not - you have just proved my point. If yes - please explain why.

In other words, if "looking out your window... is flawed and not admissible as evidence (for either side)", then looking through a telescope should not be "admissible as evidence (for either side)". Agreed?

"It is not necessary that hypotheses should be true, or even probable; it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculation".
Copernicus

Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #142 on: March 24, 2009, 02:26:16 PM »
I just wrote a few words about the picture etc. and you are asking me: 
"What it is then, from what the earth is made? Houses, trees, water, sand?"
What do you mean by that?
You got yourself a nick with scientist in it and you don't get the hint. Point was that you can't say anything about whole if you observe only the tiny piece of it. My message was following your logic exactly. You said - I see from window that earth is flat, therefore it is flat. So, following that logic you look out from the boat on sea and you see only water - therefore earth is made from water. I guess that trying to make something out from simple analogy is too hard for you.

Dear zork,

My message was following your logic exactly

No, it was not. Let me explain that to you:

"You said - I see from window that earth is flat, therefore it is flat."
Correct.

"So, following that logic you look out from the boat on sea and you see only water - therefore earth is made from water."

Not correct. Your mistake is that you mixed two statements. If I see only water, I see only water. If I see the Earth is flat, what I see is that the Earth is flat. I can not say that if I "see only water - therefore earth is made from water."

"You got yourself a nick with scientist"

I am a scientist, zork.
"It is not necessary that hypotheses should be true, or even probable; it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculation".
Copernicus

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #143 on: March 24, 2009, 02:35:57 PM »
Not correct. Your mistake is that you mixed two statements. If I see only water, I see only water. If I see the Earth is flat, what I see is that the Earth is flat. I can not say that if I "see only water - therefore earth is made from water."
Sorry, it doesn't make difference if you say - earth is made of water - or - there is nothing else on earth than water. I wonder, what makes you think that there may be something else besides of water if you see only water? Your situation and logic is still exactly same. You see flat - therefore it is flat. You see water - therefore there is only water.  How is the logic between the two different?

"You got yourself a nick with scientist"
I am a scientist, zork.
I have a reason for doubt. All the things you have written here don't point the way of some physical or even philosophical science. More like ... dentist or ... whatever else which quite don't need the logical reasoning.
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #144 on: March 24, 2009, 03:16:38 PM »
Not correct. Your mistake is that you mixed two statements. If I see only water, I see only water. If I see the Earth is flat, what I see is that the Earth is flat. I can not say that if I "see only water - therefore earth is made from water."
Sorry, it doesn't make difference if you say - earth is made of water - or - there is nothing else on earth than water.

I did not say "earth is made of water" or "there is nothing else on earth than water". I have no idea what you are talking about. Read again:

"If I see only water, I see only water. If I see the Earth is flat, what I see is that the Earth is flat. I can not say that if I "see only water - therefore earth is made from water.""

That is what I said.

"I wonder, what makes you think that there may be something else besides of water if you see only water?"

Nothing. If I see only water, I see only water, nothing else.

"Your situation and logic is still exactly same. You see flat - therefore it is flat. You see water - therefore there is only water.  How is the logic between the two different?"

What are you trying to say?

"You got yourself a nick with scientist"
I am a scientist, zork.
I have a reason for doubt. All the things you have written here don't point the way of some physical or even philosophical science. More like ... dentist or ... whatever else which quite don't need the logical reasoning.

You know, I expected some kind of rudeness like that.  I am not quite sure about the reason... I do not suggest you are a total loser, but, may be, you are simply trying to compensate real failures by virtual victories. Just a guess, I am not a psychiatrist. About logical reasoning - so far you failed to produce any. Houses, trees, water, sand... LOL

Anyway, do you have something to tell about the picture we are discussing?
"It is not necessary that hypotheses should be true, or even probable; it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculation".
Copernicus

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #145 on: March 24, 2009, 03:34:07 PM »
Quote
Your situation and logic is still exactly same. You see flat - therefore it is flat. You see water - therefore there is only water.  How is the logic between the two different?
What are you trying to say?
How can you say that earth if flat when you see flat earth in front of you. But you can't say that all there is on earth is water when you see only water in front of you? You see, in first situation you make conclusion about whole earth just looking at a little piece of it. On second situation you still look at the small piece of it but you don't make the conclusion about whole earth. What makes the second situation different from first? In both cases you look at the small piece of earth but you don't do same conclusions in both cases. Why? (Must I really do it so big and paint it red to you to understand simple logical question..?)

You know, I expected some kind of rudeness like that.  I am not quite sure about the reason...
Rudeness, where? I simply stated my observations about your posts which point out quite clearly that you don't seem to have ability to reason. And if we are going to compare rudeness level in posts here then you win.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2009, 04:02:08 PM by zork »
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #146 on: March 24, 2009, 04:12:35 PM »
Quote
Your situation and logic is still exactly same. You see flat - therefore it is flat. You see water - therefore there is only water.  How is the logic between the two different?
What are you trying to say?
How can you say that earth if flat when you see flat earth in font of you.

Why not?

But you can't say that all there is on earth is water when you see only water in front of you?

Once again. If I see only water, I see only water. By your definition, all I see is water and I can not see anything else. Therefore I have no idea about Earth and can make no conclusion about it.

However, you are probably mixing things again. Here what you wrote earlier:

"you look out from the boat on sea and you see only water - therefore earth is made from water."

Compare to: "If I see only water, I see only water."

Do you see the difference?


"You see, in first situation you make conclusion about whole earth just looking at a little piece of it."

You are constantly changing the subject. Earlier, you were speaking about "earth":

"You said - I see from window that earth is flat, therefore it is flat."

 Now, you introduced "whole earth".

How I can see the whole earth from my window?



"On second situation you still look at the small piece of it"

What is "it"? Water? How I can see only water, nothing but water, and draw conclusions about earth? If I am looking at water only, my conclusion will be about water.

"but you don't make the conclusion about whole earth. "

"Whole earth" again.

"What makes the second situation different from first?"

Two reasons: you substituted the subject and in the second case I was looking at water.

"In both cases you look at the small piece of earth but you don't do same conclusions in both cases. Why?"

Because in second case it was water, not earth.


"(Must I really do it so big and paint it red to you to understand simple logical question..?)"

First try to understand what you are talking about.
"It is not necessary that hypotheses should be true, or even probable; it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculation".
Copernicus

Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #147 on: March 24, 2009, 05:54:43 PM »
I look out from a spot where the horizon is unobstructed and see that I am unable to view the entire planet at one time. Therefore, I assume that the planet is a shape that prevents me seeing it all at any one time. A sphere fits this shape, a flat disc does not.

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #148 on: March 24, 2009, 11:25:46 PM »
First try to understand what you are talking about.
I understand what I am talking about but you seem to play with semantics only. You clearly said - I see the flat Earth. Therefore it is flat.
If you don't specify - I see the flat earth and therefore the earth is flat in my near vicinity - then all other people are going to assume that you talk about whole Earth. So, please don't play with semantics here. And better yet, don't even argue here if you don't talk about whole earth. This thing here is about whole earth, not about piece of it.
 And you must explain to me, what did you exactly mean when you said - therefore it(the Earth) is flat. What is flat - the piece of land near you or the whole earth. If you clarify this point then maybe we can talk further.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2009, 11:34:56 PM by zork »
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #149 on: March 25, 2009, 12:48:20 PM »
I look out from a spot where the horizon is unobstructed and see that I am unable to view the entire planet at one time. Therefore, I assume that the planet is a shape that prevents me seeing it all at any one time. A sphere fits this shape, a flat disc does not.

Just a guess... if you are a REer what you see is probably an illusion. If you are a FEer, which planet are you looking at?
"It is not necessary that hypotheses should be true, or even probable; it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculation".
Copernicus