Proof

Where is your proof, FET supporters?

Yes, RET supporters need proof, also, but the lack of proof for either side doesn't prove anybody correct.

The fact this entire website exists in the year 2009 is mindbogling.  In which case I am reading over replies to my posts and planning never to waste my time here again. 

The fact that all of the pilots who have posted here have not seen the curvature of Earth seems to prove (to some people) that no pilots see the curvature of the earth is very funny.

Can I get some statistical background?

Scientific proof is needed to explain... in which case they have none. There is a lot of 'theory' and guesswork and half the time FEarthers can't even decide on the basic geography of the earth because any way they try to explain it does not explain with such perfection the way the round earth works with the seasons and relation to the planets and so forth... a lot of the arguments sound like people you encounter in high school who are really bad at trying to explain how you can prove god exists.

But the biggest point of all is that large masses floating through space which are millions of years old cannot be a flat shape because force and energy moulds everything into a ball.... I'm crap at explaining but all you need to do is read a book. 

There is evidence all over ths site for FET; use the search function and you will find it. I would also suggest reading some Flat Earth literature (click), much of which is available freely online.

great idea, is there a book supporting the theory that is approved of by the majority of world scientists and academics? 

No! Well i never!

great idea, is there a book supporting the theory that is approved of by the majority of world scientists and academics? 

No! Well i never!

Please, this is no place for logical fallacies. Take your argumentum ad verecundiam/populum elsewhere.

i happen to be a latin scholar

i happen to be a latin scholar

Whether you're a latin scholar or a google graduate is beside the point. An appeal to authority is not an argument.

Quote from: Prof. J. R. Pennyfeather on July 21, 2009, 05:21:18 AM

i happen to be a latin scholar

Whether you're a latin scholar or a google graduate is beside the point. An appeal to authority is not an argument.

Appeal to authority is not a fallacy when that authority is recognized to be an expert in the field being discussed.

Where is your proof, FET supporters?

Yes, RET supporters need proof, also, but the lack of proof for either side doesn't prove anybody correct.

You're the one claiming that NASA can send men to the moon, robots to mars, and space ships into the solar system. We're not claiming those things.

You're the one making all of these claims. You're the one claiming that satellites exist, government contractors can send 100,000 tons of matter straight upwards at 7 miles a second, that we can do all of these amazing never before done things.

The burden of you is to prove these things to us. You're the one making the claim. The simplest explanation is that NASA really can't do all of that stuff.

If two people are having a debate, should the burden of proof rest on the shoulders of the person who make the most complicated claim, or should the burden of proof rest on the shoulders of the person who makes the simplest and easily observable claim?

In a discussion on the existence of ghosts should the burden of proof be on the group mumbling "just because you can't see something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist," or should the burden of proof be on everyone else to prove that ghosts *don't* exist?

Another example - A company called Mollar International claims to have invented a flying car with safety comparable to a land vehicle, an outstanding performance of a 400 mile range, and sophisticated never before seen computer control. They claim that the Sky Car is ready to be mass produced if only they got a few more big investments. They've released a few videos of it hovering a short distance off the ground in test flights. Should the burden of proof be on the Moller proponents who are absolutely certain that all of Moller's claims are true, or should the burden of proof be on everyone else to prove that Moller's claims are *not* true?

The burden of proof is always on the claimant. The burden of proof is on you.

Another example - A company called Mollar International claims to have invented a flying car...

Tom, if you're going to keep using the same old debunked copypasta, the least you could do is fix the spelling.  It's Moller International, not Mollar. 

Tom, if you're going to keep using the same old debunked copypasta, the least you could do is fix the spelling.  It's Moller International, not Mollar.  

There's nothing debunked about it. The burden of proof is always on the claimant, whether it be about ghosts or "amazing" new technologies.

If two people are having a debate, should the burden of proof rest on the shoulders of the person who make the most complicated claim, or should the burden of proof rest on the shoulders of the person who makes the simplest and easily observable claim?

For cry out loud. This is not a criminal court, Tom.

In science, your "burden of proof" rests with anyone who makes a claim (hypothese);  Simple or complex*.

That includes YOU, Tom.

   _{*Complexity is unknown in the case of FET}

The burden of proof is always on the claimant, whether it be about ghosts or "amazing" new technologies.

So, you claim the earth is flat.

Prove it.

Quote from: markjo on July 21, 2009, 06:39:20 AM

Tom, if you're going to keep using the same old debunked copypasta, the least you could do is fix the spelling.  It's Moller International, not Mollar. 

There's nothing debunked about it. The burden of proof is always on the claimant, whether it be about ghosts or "amazing" new technologies.

You're the one making all of these claims. You're the one claiming that satellites exist, government contractors can send 100,000 tons of matter straight upwards at 7 miles a second, that we can do all of these amazing never before done things.

Who claimed to have sent 100,000 tons of matter 7 miles per second straight up?  Surely not NASA.  Almost any rocket launched into space begins a roll maneuver almost as soon as it clears the launch tower.  Even deep space probes go into Earth orbit first.  Oh, and the Saturn V weighed all of about 3000 or so tons fully loaded.

Another example - A company called Mollar International claims to have invented a flying car with safety comparable to a land vehicle, an outstanding performance of a 400 mile range, and sophisticated never before seen computer control. They claim that the Sky Car is ready to be mass produced if only they got a few more big investments. They've released a few videos of it hovering a short distance off the ground in test flights. Should the burden of proof be on the Moller proponents who are absolutely certain that all of Moller's claims are true, or should the burden of proof be on everyone else to prove that Moller's claims are *not* true?

The burden of proof is always on the claimant. The burden of proof is on you.

When did Moller claim that their flying car is ready to mass produce?  According to their web site, they are still several years away from FAA certification and production.

4.1. When will the M400 be available?

Limited numbers are expected to be available within the next three years. These will be used for marketing demonstrators, special sales, and military applications. A FAA certified model is more than four years away. We already have over 100 reservations for the FAA certified models. The timing of the models available to the public will depend on the speed of the government in certifying the vehicle as airworthy. Moller has little or no control in this process.

BTW, Moller International is a publicly traded company.  If you think that the shareholders are being swindled, then I'm sure that the SEC would like to hear your evidence.

I still ask for scientific proof. So far all of what has been said has no actual scientific back ground. It's all theory that can be placed among philosophy such as that of Plato and Aristotle. You guys seem to think that pulling out a few long words and saying it is scientific will pull everyone over to your side. Until evidence of many of your theories is shown, i.e. photographic, scientific data, film ect ect then it remains an unproven hypothesis, to which there is much more evidence against.

As for the Tom guy. You keep using the same thing for every argument. Even when someone argues validly against you in another thread and you can't argue back you simply try the same thing in a different thread, for instance your insistence on that pilot quote. Yet you have no proof that any quote from a pilot here is indeed actually a pilot. They could simply say they are. So until there is conclusive evidence for quoting other people on this forum, it cannot be included in an argument. Your debating skills suck royally.

Until evidence of many of your theories is shown, i.e. photographic, scientific data, film ect ect then it remains an unproven hypothesis, to which there is much more evidence against.

Photographs and film generally isn't considered scientific. However, clearly the flat Earth idea is unproven. I don't think anyone on this site has ever tried to communicate otherwise.

Then again, that's really not the point of this site and it's unfortunate that many people don't get it.

Quote from: Overdriven on July 21, 2009, 10:31:21 AM

Until evidence of many of your theories is shown, i.e. photographic, scientific data, film ect ect then it remains an unproven hypothesis, to which there is much more evidence against.

Photographs and film generally isn't considered scientific. However, clearly the flat Earth idea is unproven. I don't think anyone on this site has ever tried to communicate otherwise.

Then again, that's really not the point of this site and it's unfortunate that many people don't get it.

That's why i separated the two. I said photos, film and scientific data. But then photos can still be used as a large basis for evidence. In any scientific, geological or geographical study you take photos to record observations so you can keep coming back to them without trying to rely on the memory.

This is providing me enough laughs for the month.

I stumble upon a forum where there are people claiming the Earth is flat.  There is no evidence for this.  Perhaps I should believe in a god without proof of its existence.

This is just like the bible -- a bunch of words don't make something true!  So, in the words of Squat:

So, you claim the earth is flat.

Prove it.

Quote from: Overdriven on July 21, 2009, 10:31:21 AM

Until evidence of many of your theories is shown, i.e. photographic, scientific data, film ect ect then it remains an unproven hypothesis, to which there is much more evidence against.

Photographs and film generally isn't considered scientific. However, clearly the flat Earth idea is unproven. I don't think anyone on this site has ever tried to communicate otherwise.

Then again, that's really not the point of this site and it's unfortunate that many people don't get it.

1. "Photographs and film generally isn't considered scientific."  Yes, they can be.  It depends on the reliability of the photographs and film.  All evidence is fakable, and its reliability has to be considered.

2. "Clearly the flat Earth idea is unproven. I don't think anyone on this site has ever tried to communicate otherwise.".  Have to tried saying "unproven" to Bishop/Dogplatter/Username?

3, "that's really not the point of this site and it's unfortunate that many people don't get it.".  Yes, there is a "don't believe everything people tell you" message to this site.  However, there is also a small core of FEers who would like you to believe.  I want to be convinced; It's an earth-shattering concept, but alias the mobile heavens tell me the earth is round.

You're the one claiming that NASA can send men to the moon, robots to mars, and space ships into the solar system. We're not claiming those things.

The burden of you is to prove these things to us. You're the one making the claim. The simplest explanation is that NASA really can't do all of that stuff.

Because it's more believable that there's a global conspiracy that has been going on for 40 years to make us think that NASA landed on the moon (something that nearly everyone was expecting to eventually happen back in the 60's) and that the Earth is -unlike every other known planet- flat;  and no one was able to uncover the truth (not even the USSR, the people who would have been the happiest to prove the moon landing to be a hoax) or leak evidence of the hoax?

And you're telling me that for NASA and/or the USA government to pay people and countries from all over the world to help the conspiracy and fool everyone into believing that NASA landed man on the moon and the earth is round, is cheaper than actually landing some men on the moon?

If you're being serious, then you and whoever knows you in real life have my sympathy.

This is providing me enough laughs for the month.

I stumble upon a forum where there are people claiming the Earth is flat.  There is no evidence for this.  Perhaps I should believe in a god without proof of its existence.

This is just like the bible -- a bunch of words don't make something true!  So, in the words of Squat:

Quote from: Squat on July 21, 2009, 08:46:21 AM

So, you claim the earth is flat.

Prove it.

You're awesome. 

If you're being serious, then you and whoever knows in real life have my sympathy.

So are you.

The simplest explanation is that NASA really can't do all of that stuff.

How do you know?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 21, 2009, 06:31:57 AM

The simplest explanation is that NASA really can't do all of that stuff.

How do you know?

Because the earth is flat.  Duh. 

I went to the science museum in London today and they have a Foucault pendulum which tells the time and shows how the earth spins (globe-wise obviously) and also uses gravity. Have a look at the wikipedia entry.

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

In the northern hemisphere it moves in the opposite direction to the southern hemishere.

"The experimental apparatus consists of a tall pendulum free to oscillate in any vertical plane. The direction along which the pendulum swings rotates with time because of Earth's daily rotation. The first public exhibition of a Foucault pendulum took place in February 1851 in the Meridian Room of the Paris Observatory. A few weeks later, Foucault made his most famous pendulum when he suspended a 28-kg bob with a 67-metre wire from the dome of the Panth?on in Paris. The plane of the pendulum's swing rotated clockwise 11? per hour, making a full circle in 32.7 hours.

In 1851 it was well known that Earth rotated: observational evidence included Earth's measured polar flattening and equatorial bulge. However, Foucault's pendulum was the first dynamic proof of the rotation in an easy-to-see experiment, and it created a sensation in the academic world and society at large".

Interesting reading. 

You're the one making all of these claims. You're the one claiming that satellites exist, government contractors can send 100,000 tons of matter straight upwards at 7 miles a second, that we can do all of these amazing never before done things.

It's not that amazing now.

Know what else used to be amazing?  Curing a disease.  The idea of a car.  A television.  Flying.  Yet nobody's crazy enough to claim those are fake.  Know what idea isn't crazy anymore?  Sending a rocket into space.  Really.  You think that wording it convultedly can make it sound nutso, but no.  The idea of a bunch of force sending a rocket up into space isn't weird at all.  It's like an airplane, but stronger.  I don't see you claiming airplanes are actually faked.

You're the one making all of these claims. You're the one claiming that satellites exist, government contractors can send 100,000 tons of matter straight upwards at 7 miles a second, that we can do all of these amazing never before done things.

We're not just making a baseless claim; there's plenty of video and observational evidence that thousands of tons of matter can be propelled upward into the heavens. And they don't have to send matter "straight upwards at 7 miles a second;" they just need to produce at least a constant 1 g of force upward and then a horizontal acceleration until they reach a speed of 8 km/sec or so. This is difficult in the atmosphere, but as we know, as it thins out and becomes a vacuum, it's conceivable that those gigantic fuel sources attached to the shuttle can provide such an acceleration.

Plus, people have seen the rocket being blasted off into space.  It's been broadcast live, damnit.  Saying a rocket hasn't been fired into space is ludicrous.