Questions

Most broadcasting towers tend to be built on top of mountains and hills for good reason.

So how come when i walked to the lookout of Mt Warning which (a local mountain bushwalk) leads you up to a point whch is 1156m (3793feet) high i can not see every radio tower in my country let alone my state when i am significantly higher then any other geographical point for hundreds of kilometres? Also, if the earth was flat and the towers where and should already be placed in appropriate positions to make clear transmission, why do we need so many towers to reciver signals, they have fibre optic cabling running under the ocean thicker with a diametre that of a car, nearly al the towers would become redundant if the earth were flat? Also, if satellites do not exist and there is nothing up in the sky to bounce signals back to the towers, why are satellite dishes shaped parabolically (they will only recieve a transmission from a specific point) and face towards they sky instead of the concavity being faced towards other towers? Well if it is because these "other" towers are a lot taller (hence the direction of the face of the dish) well why cant we see these towers from just about anypoint on earth?

For all you know, the moon may simply be following you around. Could you find direct sensorial information indicating it doesn't?

As earth rotates the relationship between the moon and the horizon changes regardless of my position on the surface, the distance between the moon and me varies while my position remains constant.  If it is following me it isn't doing a very good job.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 21, 2009, 10:18:49 AM

For all you know, the moon may simply be following you around. Could you find direct sensorial information indicating it doesn't?

As earth rotates the relationship between the moon and the horizon changes regardless of my position on the surface, the distance between the moon and me varies while my position remains constant.  If it is following me it isn't doing a very good job.

This statement is fraught with assumptions that lack a direct sensorial basis.

This statement is fraught with assumptions that lack a direct sensorial basis.

Sometimes direct sensory input is not an option.  Sometimes indirect sensory input is better.  Get over it.

Quote from: Its a Sphere on November 22, 2009, 08:43:54 AM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 21, 2009, 10:18:49 AM

For all you know, the moon may simply be following you around. Could you find direct sensorial information indicating it doesn't?

As earth rotates the relationship between the moon and the horizon changes regardless of my position on the surface, the distance between the moon and me varies while my position remains constant.  If it is following me it isn't doing a very good job.

This statement is fraught with assumptions that lack a direct sensorial basis.

So....you must never talk to anyone on the telephone then huh? Not that they have a lot of phones in Munster, lol.

Quote from: Its a Sphere on November 22, 2009, 08:43:54 AM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 21, 2009, 10:18:49 AM

For all you know, the moon may simply be following you around. Could you find direct sensorial information indicating it doesn't?

As earth rotates the relationship between the moon and the horizon changes regardless of my position on the surface, the distance between the moon and me varies while my position remains constant.  If it is following me it isn't doing a very good job.

This statement is fraught with assumptions that lack a direct sensorial basis.

1)relationship between the moon and the horizon changes regardless of my position on the surface: I have been in two distinct locations and confirmed this as the moon arcs across the sky.
2)the distance between the moon and me varies while my position remains constant:The moon is in different locations across the sky, month to month, while I reamin located at my house.
3)If it is following me it isn't doing a very good job.  See 1) and 2)

I assume your douchebaggery is with: As earth rotates

Most broadcasting towers tend to be built on top of mountains and hills for good reason.

Yes. To give good coverage.

"Remarkable tall" in the context of emulating satellite coverage area would be thousands of kilometres.

So....you must never talk to anyone on the telephone then huh?

Seriously, are you dense? Let me say it again:

You couldn't realistically live without [using non-sensorial information]. As I have been at pains to stress, I'm not 'against' indirect sensorial information. I just don't believe we can trust it on a philosophic level. After all, even when I look in the mirror to check out my hair, it inverts the entire world and tells me that the left side of my face is on the right and vice versa.

www.rif.org

www.hop.com

Not that they have a lot of phones in Munster, lol.

You know, maybe these kind of jibes make a big splash among your fellow pre-pubescents, but given that I'm obviously on the internet right now, it just comes across as, well, dumb.

Quote from: EireEngineer on November 23, 2009, 07:03:09 AM

So....you must never talk to anyone on the telephone then huh?

Seriously, are you dense? Let me say it again:

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 18, 2009, 07:20:15 AM

You couldn't realistically live without [using non-sensorial information]. As I have been at pains to stress, I'm not 'against' indirect sensorial information. I just don't believe we can trust it on a philosophic level. After all, even when I look in the mirror to check out my hair, it inverts the entire world and tells me that the left side of my face is on the right and vice versa.

www.rif.org

www.hop.com

Quote from: EireEngineer on November 23, 2009, 07:03:09 AM

Not that they have a lot of phones in Munster, lol.

You know, maybe these kind of jibes make a big splash among your fellow pre-pubescents, but given that I'm obviously on the internet right now, it just comes across as, well, dumb.

LOL. Sensitive boy arent you? I was just wondering why you would believe that what you hear on the phone is accurate, but would dismiss anything that you saw through a microscope. Seems to me to be a bit of a disconnect there.  As someone who spends hours manipulating things under a microscope, I can tell you that they faithfully depict what is actually going on under them, and I have no reason to doubt their big brother the Telescope either.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 18, 2009, 07:20:15 AM

You couldn't realistically live without [using non-sensorial information]. As I have been at pains to stress, I'm not 'against' indirect sensorial information. I just don't believe we can trust it on a philosophic level. After all, even when I look in the mirror to check out my hair, it inverts the entire world and tells me that the left side of my face is on the right and vice versa.

No one is suggesting you trust a mirror on a philosophical level. Just trust it on an electromagnetic level.

Since you use a mirror to comb your hair I'm guessing you do.

Look, I'm not being 'sensitive', it's just that I've made that statement and repeated it twice already, and then you go and ask the same sort of question. Read the thread, plain and simple.


Unless the 'sensitive' thing was directed at my response to your phone 'joke', in which case sorry, but it was pretty retarded. =/

No one is suggesting you trust a mirror on a philosophical level. Just trust it on an electromagnetic level.

Since you use a mirror to comb your hair I'm guessing you do.

Here's the first line of my original post, back on page 1:

Philosophically, it makes perfect sense to assume that the Earth is flat based on its appearance.

If you're not suggesting I trust it on a philosophical level, then what exactly have you been challenging all this time?

Look, I'm not being 'sensitive', it's just that I've made that statement and repeated it twice already, and then you go and ask the same sort of question. Read the thread, plain and simple.


Unless the 'sensitive' thing was directed at my response to your phone 'joke', in which case sorry, but it was pretty retarded. =/

Quote from: Crustinator on November 23, 2009, 07:40:03 AM

No one is suggesting you trust a mirror on a philosophical level. Just trust it on an electromagnetic level.

Since you use a mirror to comb your hair I'm guessing you do.

Here's the first line of my original post, back on page 1:

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 13, 2009, 03:59:21 AM

Philosophically, it makes perfect sense to assume that the Earth is flat based on its appearance.

If you're not suggesting I trust it on a philosophical level, then what exactly have you been challenging all this time?

So, in summary:
Philosophically trust nothing I am told. Scientifically I can trust things I am told.
Philosophically trust no pictures you are shown. Scientifically I can trust pictures I am shown.
Philosophically trust nothing you read in a book.  Scientifically I can trust factual information in a book.
Philosophically I can't trust that the moon in the telescope view hole is the same moon that is in the sky.  Scientifically I can trust that the moon in the    tescope view hole is the same moon that is in the sky. 
Philosophically the internet does not exist.  Scientifically it does.
Philosophically the entirety of the earth at this moment must consist of cubicle walls surrounded at their perimeter by tinted glass which is surrounded by roads other buildings and a few trees.  Scientifically I know that it isn't.

Philosophically the earth must be flat.  Scientifically the earth is spherical.

Which one should I choose?


Philosophically is like the band at a college football game of science.  Yeah they can make some noise when their team scores or makes a big play, and when the football teams are taking a break they provide some entertianment while nothing else is going on.  They are not as good to look at as the cheerleaders and in all reality could be substituted with a PA system as the bulk of the crowd is there for football.

Here's the first line of my original post, back on page 1:

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 13, 2009, 03:59:21 AM

Philosophically, it makes perfect sense to assume that the Earth is flat based on its appearance.

If you're not suggesting I trust it on a philosophical level, then what exactly have you been challenging all this time?

Because you don't need to trust the earth being flat on a philosophical level. It's nonsense.

If you wish to ignore the senses completely then you have no idea what shape the earth is, or even if you are on one.

If you wish to recognise the senses then you must recognise that the earth is observed as spherical (with or without mirrors or telescopes, which you seem remarkably wary of for a westerner.)

It's largely a dead end to base ones belief towards the shape of the earth on "philosophy", since the earth is a material place.

The whole point of it being that Wilmore is using "philosophy" as a dodge whenever he is presented with evidence that does not conform to his worldview.  Philosophy is inherently the "science" of the unprovable after all.

The whole point of it being that Wilmore is using "philosophy" as a dodge whenever he is presented with evidence that does not conform to his worldview.  Philosophy is inherently the "science" of the unprovable after all.

Most would say philosophy is the science (without quotes BTW) of the unobservable. 

Quote from: EireEngineer on November 23, 2009, 10:56:28 AM

The whole point of it being that Wilmore is using "philosophy" as a dodge whenever he is presented with evidence that does not conform to his worldview.  Philosophy is inherently the "science" of the unprovable after all.

Most would say philosophy is the science (without quotes BTW) of the unobservable. 

And therefore illogical to apply it to things that are observable.

Quote from: EireEngineer on November 23, 2009, 10:56:28 AM

The whole point of it being that Wilmore is using "philosophy" as a dodge whenever he is presented with evidence that does not conform to his worldview.  Philosophy is inherently the "science" of the unprovable after all.

Most would say philosophy is the science (without quotes BTW) of the unobservable. 

If philosophy is the "science of the unobservable", then why is Wilmore so hung up on only believing what can be directly observed with the senses?

Quote from: Mrs. Peach on November 23, 2009, 11:12:48 AM

Quote from: EireEngineer on November 23, 2009, 10:56:28 AM

The whole point of it being that Wilmore is using "philosophy" as a dodge whenever he is presented with evidence that does not conform to his worldview.  Philosophy is inherently the "science" of the unprovable after all.

Most would say philosophy is the science (without quotes BTW) of the unobservable. 

If philosophy is the "science of the unobservable", then why is Wilmore so hung up on only believing what can be directly observed with the senses?

I think Wilmore should answer for himself.  However, my answer would be that you've confused the word 'believe' with 'know.' 

If philosophy is the "science of the unobservable", then why is Wilmore so hung up on only believing what can be directly observed with the senses?

I think Wilmore should answer for himself.  However, my answer would be that you've confused the word 'believe' with 'know.' 
[/quote]


Exactly. Not that they have any excuse for it; I've made it very clear, many times, that I use indirect sensory information on a regular basis, and regard it as essential to do so. The very fact that I am posting on this site is proof of that.

It's largely a dead end to base ones belief towards the shape of the earth on "philosophy", since the earth is a material place.

The scientific method is in essence the philosophical system on which modern science is based. Science is simply applied philosophy, and that is something which modern scientists have forgotten. The great scientists and mathematicians of history (even those who I disagree with) knew their philosophy, from Descartes to Einstein. Modern scientists do not. They no longer even think to question the methods they have inherited.

I've made it very clear, many times, that I use indirect sensory information on a regular basis, and regard it as essential to do so.

So it's just the telescopes you have a problem with?

The scientific method is in essence the philosophical system on which modern science is based. Science is simply applied philosophy, and that is something which modern scientists have forgotten. The great scientists and mathematicians of history (even those who I disagree with) knew their philosophy, from Descartes to Einstein. Modern scientists do not. They no longer even think to question the methods they have inherited.

Most people don't even know that the word for "science" was originally "philosophy".

Mmmmm......sort of at best. Both have Greek origins from the same time period, where philosophy meant seeking wisdom, whereas science sought fact and knowledge.  The Platonic idea of being able to pries out the secrets of the universe through pure though has been long discredited.

Mmmmm......sort of at best. Both have Greek origins from the same time period, where philosophy meant seeking wisdom, whereas science sought fact and knowledge.  The Platonic idea of being able to pries out the secrets of the universe through pure though has been long discredited.

How do you think Round Earth theorists went from the observable, e.g. the red shift of distant galaxies, to the unobservable, i.e. The Big Bang Theory?  They used Logic and that's Philosophy.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 23, 2009, 01:12:42 PM

The scientific method is in essence the philosophical system on which modern science is based. Science is simply applied philosophy, and that is something which modern scientists have forgotten. The great scientists and mathematicians of history (even those who I disagree with) knew their philosophy, from Descartes to Einstein. Modern scientists do not. They no longer even think to question the methods they have inherited.

Most people don't even know that the word for "science" was originally "philosophy".

Words can change meaning over the years.  Get used to it.

So how come when i walked to the lookout of Mt Warning which (a local mountain bushwalk) leads you up to a point whch is 1156m (3793feet) high i can not see every radio tower in my country let alone my state when i am significantly higher then any other geographical point for hundreds of kilometres? Also, if the earth was flat and the towers where and should already be placed in appropriate positions to make clear transmission, why do we need so many towers to reciver signals, they have fibre optic cabling running under the ocean thicker  that of a car, nearly all the towers would become redundant if the earth were flat? Also, if satellites do not exist and there is nothing up in the sky to bounce signals back to the towers, why are satellite dishes shaped parabolically (they will only recieve a transmission from a specific point) and face towards they sky instead of the concavity being faced towards other towers? Well if it is because these "other" towers are a lot taller (hence the direction of the face of the dish) well why cant we see these towers from just about anypoint on earth?

well seeing that wilmore re-posts the same comments over and over, i odnt see why i cant re-post this one. use your philosophy to answer this please. everyone please try and stay on track, the philosophy speak is not relevant here.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 23, 2009, 01:12:42 PM

I've made it very clear, many times, that I use indirect sensory information on a regular basis, and regard it as essential to do so.

So it's just the telescopes you have a problem with?

I've used telescopes. I just don't believe that I can come to any any definite conclusions based on what I see through them.

Wilmore forget about telescopes, i started this whole post thingy and am yet to get a real response. all you are doing is dodging the question and being side tracked. dont worry if these other people cant understand your philosophy, just try and answer my question. ill rephrase in short for you.

why cant i see these seemingly massive radio towers from wherever i am on the planet?
if you wanna speak philosophy go to the appropriate forum and if you want to discuss the integrity of a telescope go to a store which sells them and chat to the owner. please answer my question. unless you cant answer, which would just imply that i am right.

Wilmore forget about telescopes, i started this whole post thingy and am yet to get a real response. all you are doing is dodging the question and being side tracked. dont worry if these other people cant understand your philosophy, just try and answer my question. ill rephrase in short for you.

Your first question was answered by John way back on page 1. His post is the one immediately after yours. Your question haveing been answered, the discussion progessed.

why cant i see these seemingly massive radio towers from wherever i am on the planet?
if you wanna speak philosophy go to the appropriate forum and if you want to discuss the integrity of a telescope go to a store which sells them and chat to the owner. please answer my question. unless you cant answer, which would just imply that i am right.

Why are you under the impression that your queries and questions are more important than anyone elses? You didn't ask this new question until page 5 of the topic, nearly two weeks after your original question was answered. You cannot dictate what this thread is about, especially when your new question is just as off-topic as the discussion on philosophy. So please, quit memberating.


However, because I'm nice, I'm going to answer your question. You cannot see these towers because light bends due to electromagnetic acceleration. That said, some FE'ers believe it is just a perspective effect. That information is all contained in the FAQ, so before you ask further questions, you should read it.

I've used telescopes. I just don't believe that I can come to any any definite conclusions based on what I see through them.

Then why bother?