Constellations?

When did I say that you saw an illusion.?  When I look out my window, I see a hill.  How does RET claim that it's an illusion?  

If you saw a hill then you saw a hill. Was that hill on a plane, or was it on a globe? From human experience everything exists upon a plane. If you are speculating on massive globe "illusions" it's your responsibility to provide empirical evidence for those assertions.

Whether "an illusion did it" or "magic made it happen," the burden of proof is on the fantasizer.

Quote from: markjo on June 13, 2009, 10:36:24 PM

When did I say that you saw an illusion.?  When I look out my window, I see a hill.  How does RET claim that it's an illusion? 

If you saw a hill then you saw a hill. Was that hill on a plane, or was it on a globe? From my experience everything exists upon a plane. If you are speculating on massive globe "illusions" it's your responsibility to provide empirical evidence for those assertions.

Tom, I have never asserted that looking out my window was evidence for a RE or an illusion of any sort.  If anything, I have asserted that looking out your window is inconclusive for determining the shape of the earth due to the limited view.  RET claims that the surface area of the RE is 510,072,000 km?.  Unless you're looking out of a window on the ISS or an extremely high flying aircraft (50,000 feet or more), then odds are that you aren't high enough to see enough of the earth to determine its shape just by looking out that window.

Quote from: markjo on June 13, 2009, 10:36:24 PM

When did I say that you saw an illusion.?  When I look out my window, I see a hill.  How does RET claim that it's an illusion?  

If you saw a hill then you saw a hill. Was that hill on a plane, or was it on a globe? From human experience everything exists upon a plane. If you are speculating on massive globe "illusions" it's your responsibility to provide empirical evidence for those assertions.

Whether "an illusion did it" or "magic made it happen," the burden of proof is on the fantasizer.

Tom, the "fantasizer" is the one who says he can tell us the shape of the earth from grown level appearances.

Your "human experience" argument is nothing more than a diversion away from what is an laughably invalid test.

The burden is on the ground level viewer (experimenter) to provide evidence that is senses are good enough so as to reach such an outlandish conclusion.

Tom, I have never asserted that looking out my window was evidence for a RE or an illusion of any sort.

I didn't say that you had evidence. If you were following along I have specifically been saying that you don't have evidence. You guys never do.

If anything, I have asserted that looking out your window is inconclusive for determining the shape of the earth due to the limited view RET claims that the surface area of the RE is 510,072,000 km?.  Unless you're looking out of a window on the ISS or an extremely high flying aircraft (50,000 feet or more), then odds are that you aren't high enough to see enough of the earth to determine its shape just by looking out that window.

Yeah right, there you go about your "illusions" again. If you're going to be speculating about illusions about a giant globe or banana shaped earth or whatever the responsibility is on you to provide evidence for those illusions. The only thing you guys seem able to do is incessantly mumble about optical illusions.

"The stars appear to move North-South over the year, but they're really not because of an illusion."

"The earth appears flat, but it's not. It's just an optical illusion."

"The sun appears to move across the sky, but it's really just an illusion."

"The stars appear small. But really... just another illusion."

"We don't know what keeps us pinned to the earth, but lets just assume that it's yet another illusion caused by gravitons or the bending of space-time."

"The universe appears to be accelerating away from itself? Oh just an illusion caused by the metric expansion of space or something. Don't bother asking for evidence."

"We can't use gravity to explain or predict anything about the universe, so lets just assume that observed occurrences are illusions caused by undetected 'dark matter' and 'quintessence'."

The whole of Round Earth theory is one illusion after the next, mumbled off in rapid succession. No evidence is ever given. It's sufficient that "an illusion did it" covers everything.

Tom, the "fantasizer" is the one who says he can tell us the shape of the earth from grown level appearances.

Your "human experience" argument is nothing more than a diversion away from what is an laughably invalid test.

The burden is on the ground level viewer (experimenter) to provide evidence that is senses are good enough so as to reach such an outlandish conclusion.

Actually the burden of proof is on the person rambling on about elaborate "illusions".

So where's your proof?

Quote

Tom, I have never asserted that looking out my window was evidence for a RE or an illusion of any sort.

I didn't say that you had evidence. If you were following along I have specifically been saying that you don't have evidence. You guys never do.

Quote

If anything, I have asserted that looking out your window is inconclusive for determining the shape of the earth due to the limited view RET claims that the surface area of the RE is 510,072,000 km?.  Unless you're looking out of a window on the ISS or an extremely high flying aircraft (50,000 feet or more), then odds are that you aren't high enough to see enough of the earth to determine its shape just by looking out that window.

Yeah right, there you go about your "illusions" again. If you're going to be speculating about illusions about a giant globe or banana shaped earth or whatever the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence for those illusions. The only thing you guys seem able to do is incessantly mumble about optical illusions.

Where did I say illusion in that paragraph?

"The stars appear to move North-South over the year, but they're really not because of an illusion"

Not an illusion, just a matter of frame of reference.

"The earth appears flat, but it's not. It's just an optical illusion"

How much curvature should be visible when viewing a 7900 mile diameter sphere from an eye level of 6 feet?

"The sun appears to move across the sky, but it's really just an illusion"

Again, frame of reference.

"The stars appear small. But really... just another illusion"

Or perspective.

"We don't know what keeps us pinned to the earth, but lets just assume that it's yet another illusion caused by gravitons or the bending of space-time."

"The universe appears to be accelerating away from itself? Oh just an illusion caused by the metric expansion of space or something. Don't bother asking for evidence."

If you want evidence, grab a telescope and look for yourself.

"We can't use gravity to explain or predict anything about the universe, so lets just assume that observed occurrences are illusions caused by undetected "dark matter" and "quintessence".

You have a funny idea of what "can't explain or predict anything" means.

The whole of Round Earth theory is one illusion after the next, mumbled off in rapid succession. No evidence is ever given. It's sufficient that "an illusion did it" covers everything.

I'm sorry Tom, I must have missed those pictures that you posted of kids splashing on the beach on the other side of the bay.  Do you have a link to them?  Or pictures of a ship's hull being restored by magnification only?  Or to the details of your reenactment of the Bedford Level experiment.  Have you even posted a photograph of the view out your window?  Have you ever posted any documentation of any of the other countless FE experiments that you have conducted (other than stepping off a chair)?

Quote from: Moon squirter on June 13, 2009, 11:31:46 PM

Tom, the "fantasizer" is the one who says he can tell us the shape of the earth from grown level appearances.

Your "human experience" argument is nothing more than a diversion away from what is an laughably invalid test.

The burden is on the ground level viewer (experimenter) to provide evidence that is senses are good enough so as to reach such an outlandish conclusion.

Actually the burden of proof is on the person rambling on about elaborate "illusions".

So where's your proof?

What "illusion"?   You need to demonstrate that your sense are good enough to be able to discern the shape of the earth from ground level.

There's no "illusion", just a question of accuracy and sensitivity.

8. Pseudoscience always avoids putting its claims to a meaningful test.

In this case, using diversionary statements such as "human experience" and "illusion".

Quote

Who's Southward?

Whoever is seeing it.

And once again, how is such a thing possible if south is a different angle depending on your position on the outer rim?

Well, that clears it up for me.  Pens are in on it too.  Or glasses of water.

Wait, which side am I supporting again?

Where did I say illusion in that paragraph?

Right when you implied that the earth is a great big ball, but we don't know it because what we experience is an "illusion".

Not an illusion, just a matter of frame of reference.

"It's a cosmic illusion". Yeah right.

How much curvature should be visible when viewing a 7900 mile diameter sphere from an eye level of 6 feet?

The problem is speculating that the earth is a sphere in the first place. You haven't done anything to provide evidence for those speculations. When you do provide evidence for something we can discuss the matter further.

Again, frame of reference.

So it was caused by an "illusion" then.

Or perspective.

"Illusion did it," got it.

I'm sorry Tom, I must have missed those pictures that you posted of kids splashing on the beach on the other side of the bay.  Do you have a link to them?  Or pictures of a ship's hull being restored by magnification only?  Or to the details of your reenactment of the Bedford Level experiment.  Have you even posted a photograph of the view out your window?  Have you ever posted any documentation of any of the other countless FE experiments that you have conducted (other than stepping off a chair)?

All of that is well documented. Pictures aren't necessary for an experimental report to be true. If you want first hand accounts and documented evidence for the Sinking Ship Restore and Bedford Canal trials, you are welcome to peruse the links in my signature. There are numerous accounts from independent researchers.

There's no "illusion", just a question of accuracy and sensitivity.

Oh right, I know this argument. "The fairies are just too small..."

And once again, how is such a thing possible if south is a different angle depending on your position on the outer rim?

It's my contention that the tips of South America, Africa, and Australia are all pointing in the same general direction, arranged in a manner something like this: http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=544.0

Other members of the FES may have different thoughts, however.

Oh right, I know this argument. "The fairies are just too small..."

That's what we call "ad-hoc reasoning", fyi.

I think that its safe to say that observing the earth with our eyes and seeing that it looks like a plane gives NO information on its shape. From our point of view on earth, it could be a plane, it could be a geodesic sphere, heck it could be a cube. Here's the pseudo-scientific thing about flat earth arguments: you're contradicting a well-established and widely accepted scientific belief. In order to do something to that caliber, you need to give evidence that the belief that you're contradicting is FALSE, not evidence that the new one is true. Case in point: you've all been giving arguments showing that flat earth may be true, but no evidence that round earth may be false.

Quote

Where did I say illusion in that paragraph?

Right when you implied that the earth is a great big ball, but we don't know it because what we experience is an "illusion".

Apparently you're having trouble telling the words "illusion" and "inconclusive" apart.  I suggest that you invest in a dictionary.

Quote

Not an illusion, just a matter of frame of reference.

"It's a cosmic illusion". Yeah right.

So your frame of reference doesn't matter in your flat world, eh?  Interesting.

Quote

How much curvature should be visible when viewing a 7900 mile diameter sphere from an eye level of 6 feet?

The problem is speculating that the earth is a sphere in the first place. You haven't done anything to provide evidence for those speculations. When you do provide evidence for something we can discuss the matter further.

You didn't answer my question and I didn't speculate on anything.  I merely asked how much curvature should be visible.  If no visible curvature is predicted, then the observation is inconclusive for distinguishing the models and the test is irrelevant.

Quote

Again, frame of reference.

So it was caused by an "illusion" then.

Frame of reference still doesn't matter, does it?

Quote

Or perspective.

"Illusion did it," got it.

So now perspective is an illusion? 

BTW, nice job of removing the context of my replies.

Quote

I'm sorry Tom, I must have missed those pictures that you posted of kids splashing on the beach on the other side of the bay.  Do you have a link to them?  Or pictures of a ship's hull being restored by magnification only?  Or to the details of your reenactment of the Bedford Level experiment.  Have you even posted a photograph of the view out your window?  Have you ever posted any documentation of any of the other countless FE experiments that you have conducted (other than stepping off a chair)?

All of that is well documented. Pictures aren't necessary for an experimental report to be true. If you want first hand accounts and documented evidence for the Sinking Ship Restore and Bedford Canal trials, you are welcome to peruse the links in my signature. There are numerous accounts from independent researchers.

Tom, I don't care about the accounts of others.  I'm asking for documentation from your experiments.

Quote from: Moon squirter on June 14, 2009, 12:43:05 AM

There's no "illusion", just a question of accuracy and sensitivity.

Oh right, I know this argument. "The fairies are just too small..."

Very wide of the mark.  I am inviting you to justify (in simple terms) why looking at the horizon at ground level is valid evidence for a flat earth.

Once again, I don't have to dig too deep to find incoherence, misdirection and flawed logic.  All the traits of a PSEUDO....

4. Pseudoscience is indifferent to criteria of valid evidence.

That's what we call "ad-hoc reasoning", fyi.

I think that its safe to say that observing the earth with our eyes and seeing that it looks like a plane gives NO information on its shape. From our point of view on earth, it could be a plane, it could be a geodesic sphere, heck it could be a cube. Here's the pseudo-scientific thing about flat earth arguments: you're contradicting a well-established and widely accepted scientific belief. In order to do something to that caliber, you need to give evidence that the belief that you're contradicting is FALSE, not evidence that the new one is true. Case in point: you've all been giving arguments showing that flat earth may be true, but no evidence that round earth may be false.

If the earth is a ball great enough that we have no idea of its shape, appearing as a plane, that's called an "illusion". You are invoking an "illusion" without evidence, telling us that everything we experience is "all an illusion". Invoking "an illusion did it" with no evidence to support that notion is called "fantasy".

You didn't answer my question and I didn't speculate on anything.  I merely asked how much curvature should be visible.  If no visible curvature is predicted, then the observation is inconclusive for distinguishing the models and the test is irrelevant.

You have done nothing to support the idea that the earth is a ball. There is no reason to consider "illusion" or any other fantasy. You have not provided a single piece of evidence for why we should consider your "illusion". Your stance is that we should consider illusions because they "might" be possible. No evidence what-so-ever is given. You have not provided one single piece of evidence for why we should reject reality and consider "illusion".

Tom, I don't care about the accounts of others.  I'm asking for documentation from your experiments.

My experiments are all documented on this forum. If you want confirmation of those experiments by other researchers, in addition to a wealth of other types of experiments all demonstrating the flatness of the earth you are welcome to browse through the resources in my signature link.

Very wide of the mark.  I am inviting you to justify (in simple terms) why looking at the horizon at ground level is valid evidence for a flat earth.

Once again, I don't have to dig too deep to find incoherence, misdirection and flawed logic.  All the traits of a PSEUDO....

Quote from: frostee on June 09, 2009, 03:09:00 AM

4. Pseudoscience is indifferent to criteria of valid evidence.

There is no reason to consider "illusion" because you have not provided valid evidence. You are correct in quoting that pseudoscience is indifferent to criteria of valid evidence. RE'ers have no valid evidence, choosing to reject the need for evidence entirely, instead describing reality with a plethora of unjustified "illusions". That makes it pseudoscience.

When questioned about your fairies all we hear is the mumbling of "the fairies are too small to see". This is not an answer. You need to provide support for your fundamental speculation that fairies exist in the first place. If you cannot do that then your science is absolutely and completely bunk, an utterly pathetic demonstration of man's capacity for self delusion.

Quote from: Rjinswand on June 14, 2009, 01:42:45 AM

And once again, how is such a thing possible if south is a different angle depending on your position on the outer rim?

It's my contention that the tips of South America, Africa, and Australia are all pointing in the same general direction, arranged in a manner something like this: http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=544.0

Other members of the FES may have different thoughts, however.

But that doesn't make sense. it doesn't matter what way your country is pointing, it's about your actual position on the surface of the flat earth. The only way your assertion could be true is if all us southern hemisphere (outer rim) countries were stretched along the same line of longitude. See if you can rearrange your map THAT way.

Quote from: Moon squirter on June 14, 2009, 12:07:43 PM

Very wide of the mark.  I am inviting you to justify (in simple terms) why looking at the horizon at ground level is valid evidence for a flat earth.

Once again, I don't have to dig too deep to find incoherence, misdirection and flawed logic.  All the traits of a PSEUDO....

Quote from: frostee on June 09, 2009, 03:09:00 AM

4. Pseudoscience is indifferent to criteria of valid evidence.

There is no reason to consider "illusion" because you have not provided valid evidence. You are correct in quoting that pseudoscience is indifferent to criteria of valid evidence. RE'ers have no valid evidence, choosing to reject the need for evidence entirely, instead describing reality with a plethora of unjustified "illusions". That makes it pseudoscience.

When questioned about your fairies all we hear is the mumbling of "the fairies are too small to see". This is not an answer. You need to provide support for your fundamental speculation that fairies exist in the first place. If you cannot do that then your science is absolutely and completely bunk, an utterly pathetic demonstration of man's capacity for self delusion.

How can you reliably tell the shape of the earth by looking at the horizon?    Still waiting for a sensible answer (which doesn't involve fairies or other personal baggage).

If you cannot justify the piece of "key" evidence (in your mind), you've lost (again).

How can you reliably tell the shape of the earth by looking at the horizon?    Still waiting for a sensible answer (which doesn't involve fairies or other personal baggage).

The plane of the earth upon which we live is reality. Unjustified "illusion" is fantasy. One has direct observational evidence available for all to see and experience, while the other exists only in fiction and hypothesis. You've given no evidence for your fantasies. Not a smidge. No evidence what-so-ever has been given to suggests that the earth exists and anything except a plane.

The evidence for your "alternate reality" fantasies do not exist. There is zero reason to consider that we live on a fantasy world full of illusions everywhere we look. Your ideas are without merit and without foundation. You have done nothing to demonstrate your illusions to be true and reality to be false. Therefore, there is no reason to consider anything outside of experience unless evidence has been provided.

When you provide some actual evidence, only then can we start considering your "alternate reality" fantasy models. As it is they exist in fiction and will remain that way.

Quote from: Moon squirter on June 15, 2009, 02:37:30 AM

How can you reliably tell the shape of the earth by looking at the horizon?    Still waiting for a sensible answer (which doesn't involve fairies or other personal baggage).

The plane of the earth upon which we live is reality. Unjustified "illusion" is fantasy. One has direct observational evidence available for all to see and experience, while the other exists only in fiction and hypothesis. You've given no evidence for your fantasies. Not a smidge. No evidence what-so-ever has been given to suggests that the earth exists and anything except a plane.

The evidence for your "alternate reality" fantasies do not exist. There is no reason to consider that we live on a fantasy world full of illusions everywhere we look. Your ideas are without merit and without foundation. You have done nothing to demonstrate your illusions to be true and reality to be false. Therefore, there is no reason to consider anything outside of experience unless evidence has been provided.

When you provide some actual evidence, only then can we start considering your "alternate reality" fantasy models. As it is they exist in fiction and will remain that way.

You can't then.

Cheery-bye.

When you have some evidence to bring to the table let us know so we can look at your fantasies and see whether they have any merit.

When you have some evidence to bring to the table let us know so we can look at your fantasies and see whether they have any merit.

When you have some evidence to bring to the table let us know so we can look at your fantasies incredible eyesight and see whether it has any merit.

More "the fairies are too small to see" mumblings?

Once you have some evidence for the existence of fairies, come back and we can continue this discussion.

There is plenty of evidence that the earth being flat is an illusion. Look at all the evidence that there is for a round earth. I know that you've probably heard and rejected all of this before (for one irrational reason or another), but let me just refresh your memory:

1. The existence of a horizon.
2. The fact that astronauts have gone to outer space and seen that it is spherical.
3. The existence of seasons.
4. The currently accepted theories for how planets are formed implies that it is impossible for a planet not to be round (or close to it).
5. When one goes around the entire globe, he/she will end up in the same spot.

And that's just a small sample. There's plenty more.

More "the fairies are too small to see" mumblings?

Once you have some evidence for the existence of fairies, come back and we can continue this discussion.

http://veimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/2429/globe_west_2048.jpg

Try discounting this evidence without evoking fantasies of elaborate conspiracies. We have no reason to believe in fairies or conspiracies until you can provide evidence.

Good to see my pseudoscience thread can be incorporated into any argument

Tom you accuse RE of being pseudo. You used ONE point which is not enough. Valid evidence is presented, FE ignores it. Another trait of pseudo
Also pseudoscience is contradicting common knowledge. RE is common knowledge so dont be dumb

1. The existence of a horizon.

The horizon can exist on a Flat Earth. The horizon defines the Vanishing Point.

2. The fact that astronauts have gone to outer space and seen that it is spherical.

I haven't seen any evidence that astronauts have gone to "outer space".

3. The existence of seasons.

Seasons happen in FET. Please read the FAQ.

4. The currently accepted theories for how planets are formed implies that it is impossible for a planet not to be round (or close to it).

The earth is not a planet.

5. When one goes around the entire globe, he/she will end up in the same spot.

Circumnavigation is possible on a Flat Earth. East and West are always at a right angle to North. Traveling Eastwards takes you in a circle around the Northern Hub.

Also pseudoscience is contradicting common knowledge. RE is common knowledge so dont be dumb

So anything that ever contradicts common knowedge is pseudoscience? Do you understand the implications of what you're saying? That is a massive logical fallacy, the very thing you accuse FE'ers of in your pseudoscience rants. That's nothing more than 'Argumentum ad Populum', i.e. an appeal to numbers.

Quote from: markjo on June 14, 2009, 10:08:47 AM

You didn't answer my question and I didn't speculate on anything.  I merely asked how much curvature should be visible.  If no visible curvature is predicted, then the observation is inconclusive for distinguishing the models and the test is irrelevant.

You have done nothing to support the idea that the earth is a ball. There is no reason to consider "illusion" or any other fantasy. You have not provided a single piece of evidence for why we should consider your "illusion". Your stance is that we should consider illusions because they "might" be possible. No evidence what-so-ever is given. You have not provided one single piece of evidence for why we should reject reality and consider "illusion".

Tom, are you really this dense?  I'm asking you a simple question.  From an eye level of six feet, standing on top a of a 7900 mile diameter sphere, how much curvature should be visible to the naked eye.  Notice that I am not claiming that that the earth is a sphere, I'm only asking how much curvature should be visible if you were standing on a very large sphere.  It's called a hypothetical scenario.  Now, would you please answer the question? 

Quote

Tom, I don't care about the accounts of others.  I'm asking for documentation from your experiments.

My experiments are all documented on this forum.

Then would you please provide links to them?  I've looked and I can't seem to find any proper documentation.