'Proven' @ Thermal Detonator

  • 88 Replies
  • 18201 Views
*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
'Proven' @ Thermal Detonator
« on: January 28, 2010, 07:59:41 AM »
Katie: ignore any drivel you may hear from Lord Wilmore. He is of the opinion that "probable" means the same as "proven" and refuses to address the issue of how there can be two celestial poles moving in sync with each other, clear evidence for a non-flat earth. Plus his avatar is crosseyed.


If 'proven' implies the removal of all doubt, then it becomes a meaningless word when applied to the 'real world', as nothing, repeat nothing can be said about it which is beyond all doubt. So either:


a) Proven generally means that something has been shown to an extremely high degree of probability

or

b) Proven means demonstrated beyond all doubt, in which case you have used it incorrectly countless times on this very forum


Pick your poison.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

Re: 'Proven' @ Thermal Detonator
« Reply #1 on: January 28, 2010, 08:02:32 AM »
I am alive. I can prove this.

There is no doubt about this fact, and no probability whatsoever that i am incorrect.

Dry your eyes and move on

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: 'Proven' @ Thermal Detonator
« Reply #2 on: January 28, 2010, 08:03:41 AM »
I am alive. I can prove this.


I doubt it, but you're more than welcome to try:


http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=36055.0


I'll be waiting.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

Re: 'Proven' @ Thermal Detonator
« Reply #3 on: January 28, 2010, 08:04:58 AM »
Wilmore: Descartes would disagree.

That being said at least now you are admitting that you have doubts about Flat Earth Theory.
There is evidence for a NASA conspiracy. Please search.

Re: 'Proven' @ Thermal Detonator
« Reply #4 on: January 28, 2010, 08:07:43 AM »
Since I exist in the reality that I perceive, I am absolutely sure that I do.  I am also sure that the world around me that I perceive exists as well as it tends to carry on without my presence.


We're asking if the world as we perceive it exists, and hence whether whether our perception of ourselves is in accordance with reality. To say that 'I know my perception of myself is in accordance with reality, because I am in the reality I perceive', is begging the question.


That's a different question. I never said i could prove i existed, or that anything exists. I said i can prove i am alive. This is very simple.

Can you disprove me? Or do you have any possibly reason to doubt this fact?

Or are you just arguing for arguments sake, because you're wrong? Again.


*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: 'Proven' @ Thermal Detonator
« Reply #5 on: January 28, 2010, 08:10:52 AM »
Wilmore: Descartes would disagree.


Descartes was wrong. He relied on the existence God to make the claims he did about the world existing, and his arguments still don't hold up to scrutiny. Even the Cogito has since been somewhat undermined (I recommend you visit the thread on solipsism too).


Can you disprove me? Or do you have any possibly reason to doubt this fact?


Yes, I can. However, I'm not going to do so in here, as that's a philosophical discussion. Respond in the thread I linked, and I will happily discuss it with you there.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

Re: 'Proven' @ Thermal Detonator
« Reply #6 on: January 28, 2010, 08:18:52 AM »
No, you absolutely can't. What a stupid thing to say.

And no, i'm not going to post in the other thread, there is no point in discussing it with you, you are clearly wrong, and you know it, you just can never admit it.


*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: 'Proven' @ Thermal Detonator
« Reply #7 on: January 28, 2010, 08:34:43 AM »
No, you absolutely can't. What a stupid thing to say.

And no, i'm not going to post in the other thread, there is no point in discussing it with you, you are clearly wrong, and you know it, you just can never admit it.


How can you prove you're alive, if you can't prove you exist? ???


Honestly, if you're not willing to have a discussion about it, then stop sounding so sure of yourself.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

Re: 'Proven' @ Thermal Detonator
« Reply #8 on: January 28, 2010, 09:23:21 AM »
No, you absolutely can't. What a stupid thing to say.

And no, i'm not going to post in the other thread, there is no point in discussing it with you, you are clearly wrong, and you know it, you just can never admit it.


How can you prove you're alive, if you can't prove you exist? ???


Honestly, if you're not willing to have a discussion about it, then stop sounding so sure of yourself.

Why would i need to discuss it? It's a fact.

You asked if the world as we percieve it, exists.

That's a philosophical question (and not the point i made in my original post), and by it's nature, is impossible to prove by fact. I don't deal with philosophy, i deal with fact.

Stop trying to alter my argument so you can shoot it down. It's pathetic.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: 'Proven' @ Thermal Detonator
« Reply #9 on: January 28, 2010, 09:25:24 AM »
Katie: ignore any drivel you may hear from Lord Wilmore. He is of the opinion that "probable" means the same as "proven" and refuses to address the issue of how there can be two celestial poles moving in sync with each other, clear evidence for a non-flat earth. Plus his avatar is crosseyed.


If 'proven' implies the removal of all doubt, then it becomes a meaningless word when applied to the 'real world', as nothing, repeat nothing can be said about it which is beyond all doubt. So either:


a) Proven generally means that something has been shown to an extremely high degree of probability

or

b) Proven means demonstrated beyond all doubt, in which case you have used it incorrectly countless times on this very forum


Pick your poison.

As I've said before, this goes back to the level of burden of proof.  Unless FE'ers are willing to settle on an appropriate level of burden (beyond all doubt, reasonable doubt, preponderance of evidence, etc.) and stick with it, then we RE'ers will never be able to know what it takes to convince you guys of the earth's roundness.
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.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: 'Proven' @ Thermal Detonator
« Reply #10 on: January 28, 2010, 09:57:40 AM »
As I've said before, this goes back to the level of burden of proof.  Unless FE'ers are willing to settle on an appropriate level of burden (beyond all doubt, reasonable doubt, preponderance of evidence, etc.) and stick with it, then we RE'ers will never be able to know what it takes to convince you guys of the earth's roundness.

We keep asking you for your own evidence that the earth is a sphere. But you guys keep providing none.

Re: 'Proven' @ Thermal Detonator
« Reply #11 on: January 28, 2010, 10:40:12 AM »
As I've said before, this goes back to the level of burden of proof.  Unless FE'ers are willing to settle on an appropriate level of burden (beyond all doubt, reasonable doubt, preponderance of evidence, etc.) and stick with it, then we RE'ers will never be able to know what it takes to convince you guys of the earth's roundness.

We keep asking you for your own evidence that the earth is a sphere. But you guys keep providing none.

Massive fail Tom. Massive fail.
There is evidence for a NASA conspiracy. Please search.

Re: 'Proven' @ Thermal Detonator
« Reply #12 on: January 28, 2010, 11:24:07 AM »
If 'proven' implies the removal of all doubt, then it becomes a meaningless word when applied to the 'real world', as nothing, repeat nothing can be said about it which is beyond all doubt.

WUT?

Things are proven within a frame of set pre conditions or axioms.

"So long as this is true, this will also always be true."

Epic fail Wilmore.

Re: 'Proven' @ Thermal Detonator
« Reply #13 on: January 28, 2010, 11:52:04 AM »
Wilmore: Descartes would disagree.


Descartes was wrong. He relied on the existence God to make the claims he did about the world existing, and his arguments still don't hold up to scrutiny. Even the Cogito has since been somewhat undermined (I recommend you visit the thread on solipsism too).
[/quote]

I believe in God. Descartes ideas make perfect sense from my frame of reference.
There is evidence for a NASA conspiracy. Please search.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: 'Proven' @ Thermal Detonator
« Reply #14 on: January 28, 2010, 12:27:04 PM »
As I've said before, this goes back to the level of burden of proof.  Unless FE'ers are willing to settle on an appropriate level of burden (beyond all doubt, reasonable doubt, preponderance of evidence, etc.) and stick with it, then we RE'ers will never be able to know what it takes to convince you guys of the earth's roundness.

We keep asking you for your own evidence that the earth is a sphere. But you guys keep providing none.

Massive fail Tom. Massive fail.

No. The fact that you RE'ers keep neglecting to provide us with your evidence that the earth is a globe is a "massive fail".
« Last Edit: January 28, 2010, 12:34:43 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

SupahLovah

  • 5167
  • Santasaurus Rex!
Re: 'Proven' @ Thermal Detonator
« Reply #15 on: January 28, 2010, 12:43:31 PM »
As I've said before, this goes back to the level of burden of proof.  Unless FE'ers are willing to settle on an appropriate level of burden (beyond all doubt, reasonable doubt, preponderance of evidence, etc.) and stick with it, then we RE'ers will never be able to know what it takes to convince you guys of the earth's roundness.

We keep asking you for your own evidence that the earth is a sphere. But you guys keep providing none.

Massive fail Tom. Massive fail.

No. The fact that you RE'ers keep neglecting to provide us with your evidence that the earth is a globe is a "massive fail".
The fact that you say our evidence is fake and when provided with anything, and you won't tell us what you accept as proof is a massive fail, Tom.
"Study Gravitation; It's a field with a lot of potential!"

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: 'Proven' @ Thermal Detonator
« Reply #16 on: January 28, 2010, 01:00:10 PM »
The fact that you say our evidence is fake and when provided with anything, and you won't tell us what you accept as proof is a massive fail, Tom.

NASA's evidence isn't your evidence. We're asking for your evidence.

*

Skeleton

  • 956
  • Frankly, I have better things to do with my time.
Re: 'Proven' @ Thermal Detonator
« Reply #17 on: January 28, 2010, 01:06:04 PM »
As I've said before, this goes back to the level of burden of proof.  Unless FE'ers are willing to settle on an appropriate level of burden (beyond all doubt, reasonable doubt, preponderance of evidence, etc.) and stick with it, then we RE'ers will never be able to know what it takes to convince you guys of the earth's roundness.

We keep asking you for your own evidence that the earth is a sphere. But you guys keep providing none.

Massive fail Tom. Massive fail.

No. The fact that you RE'ers keep neglecting to provide us with your evidence that the earth is a globe is a "massive fail".

Tom, if we provide you with evidence that you can't explain you say its fake. We are in a no-win situation. Theoretically any piece of evidence no matter how convincing, could be accused by you of being fake. If we supplied more evidence to show it wasn't fake, you would just call the backup evidence fake too. And so on ad infinitum. You have done this with lots of things already.
If the ultimate objective is to kill Skeleton, we should just do that next.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: 'Proven' @ Thermal Detonator
« Reply #18 on: January 28, 2010, 01:07:13 PM »
Tom, if we provide you with evidence that you can't explain you say its fake. We are in a no-win situation. Theoretically any piece of evidence no matter how convincing, could be accused by you of being fake. If we supplied more evidence to show it wasn't fake, you would just call the backup evidence fake too. And so on ad infinitum. You have done this with lots of things already.

Actually we just say that NASA's evidence is fake, due to evidence demonstrating that it is.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2010, 01:08:44 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: 'Proven' @ Thermal Detonator
« Reply #19 on: January 28, 2010, 01:49:51 PM »
Go explain the magnetic field tom.

How does the flat earth have two massive rotating spheres of magnetic metal but they aren't attracted. There are more problems but I will let you have this one first.


How do you explain underwater cables. There is a 10,000km cable from CA to Tokyo. It works. However there should be no possible way that works on the current FE maps. You can't and have not made any maps that explain all flight times and undersea cable lengths.

Have fun Tom.

?

ERTW

  • 611
  • Always fall back to common sense
Re: 'Proven' @ Thermal Detonator
« Reply #20 on: January 28, 2010, 02:42:07 PM »
The fact that you say our evidence is fake and when provided with anything, and you won't tell us what you accept as proof is a massive fail, Tom.

NASA's evidence isn't your evidence. We're asking for your evidence.
Wow Tom, way to totally ignore dyno's serious attempt to fulfill your request:
Time of day ~10am Western Australia Time (GMT+8)?
Temp ~ 19celcius
Ground height ~ 1.5 metres including the beach and scope.
Elevation ~ I guess around 4m maybe 6
edit: Target is Rottnest Island from Scarborough Beach. Closest point ~18000m
Ships are unknown

Equipment setup





Showing the elevated roadway


Tanker at ground


Tanker at elevation


Lighthouse at ground


Lighthouse at elevation


Wind generator at ground


Wind generator at elevation


Yacht


Comms tower at ground


Comms tower at elevation


Ship 2 at ground


Ship 2 at elevation



Please discuss. I'd be interested in people's opinions.

Ski, I'd like to hear from you in particular.

I have some more shots of the same things as well. I took enough images to make a stitched mosaic of the island as well i think.
Oh and all the images are available in 3008x2000 pixel RAW format as well if you want them. I don't know where I can upload them though.

EDIT:
cropped image of ships taken with the D70s at 70mm. I didn't have my 300mm lens so it was this then up to the telescope


cropped image of the island

Don't diss physics until you try it!

?

ERTW

  • 611
  • Always fall back to common sense
Re: 'Proven' @ Thermal Detonator
« Reply #21 on: January 28, 2010, 02:44:49 PM »
The fact that you say our evidence is fake and when provided with anything, and you won't tell us what you accept as proof is a massive fail, Tom.

NASA's evidence isn't your evidence. We're asking for your evidence.
And how about my pretty neutrinos? I haven't seen you in the Neutrino threads attacking that evidence either.


Does that downward angle make you feel all warm and fuzzy?
Don't diss physics until you try it!

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: 'Proven' @ Thermal Detonator
« Reply #22 on: January 28, 2010, 03:10:40 PM »
As I've said before, this goes back to the level of burden of proof.  Unless FE'ers are willing to settle on an appropriate level of burden (beyond all doubt, reasonable doubt, preponderance of evidence, etc.) and stick with it, then we RE'ers will never be able to know what it takes to convince you guys of the earth's roundness.

We keep asking you for your own evidence that the earth is a sphere. But you guys keep providing none.

And we keep asking you for your documentation of your Monterey Bay observations.  But you keep providing none.  Oh, and where is your evidence that the sun is 3000 miles above the FE?  As I recall, that was merely a calculation.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2010, 03:19:40 PM by markjo »
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.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: 'Proven' @ Thermal Detonator
« Reply #23 on: January 28, 2010, 03:19:43 PM »
Why would i need to discuss it? It's a fact.


What's a fact? How can something be a fact if you can't prove it? ???


Things are proven within a frame of set pre conditions or axioms.

"So long as this is true, this will also always be true."

Epic fail Wilmore.


Please read, it helps:


it becomes a meaningless word when applied to the 'real world'


By 'real world' I mean the world as we perceive or believe it to exist.


I believe in God. Descartes ideas make perfect sense from my frame of reference.


Even if you believe in God, that doesn't change the fact that his argument for the existence of God is flawed.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: 'Proven' @ Thermal Detonator
« Reply #24 on: January 28, 2010, 03:31:26 PM »
Quote
Wow Tom, way to totally ignore dyno's serious attempt to fulfill your request:

The sinking ship effect isn't at odds with FET.

Read Earth Not a Globe.

Re: 'Proven' @ Thermal Detonator
« Reply #25 on: January 28, 2010, 03:35:29 PM »
Quote
Wow Tom, way to totally ignore dyno's serious attempt to fulfill your request:

The sinking ship effect isn't at odds with FET.

Read Earth Not a Globe.
That experiment's evidence doesn't agree with FET.
Poor grammar is the internet equivalent of body odor.
My site.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: 'Proven' @ Thermal Detonator
« Reply #26 on: January 28, 2010, 03:35:48 PM »
Go explain the magnetic field tom.

How does the flat earth have two massive rotating spheres of magnetic metal but they aren't attracted. There are more problems but I will let you have this one first.


How do you explain underwater cables. There is a 10,000km cable from CA to Tokyo. It works. However there should be no possible way that works on the current FE maps. You can't and have not made any maps that explain all flight times and undersea cable lengths.

Have fun Tom.

You haven't provided any data to argue against. First you need to show something that supports your model. Then we can debate against it.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: 'Proven' @ Thermal Detonator
« Reply #27 on: January 28, 2010, 03:37:10 PM »
Quote
Wow Tom, way to totally ignore dyno's serious attempt to fulfill your request:

The sinking ship effect isn't at odds with FET.

Read Earth Not a Globe.
That experiment's evidence doesn't agree with FET.

FET also says that the ship will sink slightly as it recedes.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Ships+appear+to+sink+as+they+recede+past+the+horizon
« Last Edit: January 28, 2010, 03:38:43 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: 'Proven' @ Thermal Detonator
« Reply #28 on: January 28, 2010, 03:41:32 PM »
Things are proven within a frame of set pre conditions or axioms.

"So long as this is true, this will also always be true."

Epic fail Wilmore.

Please read, it helps:

Doesn't make any difference. We're perfectly capable of setting the conditions for proof to apply within the real world. In fact we do.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: 'Proven' @ Thermal Detonator
« Reply #29 on: January 28, 2010, 03:45:35 PM »
FET also says that the ship will sink slightly as it recedes.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Ships+appear+to+sink+as+they+recede+past+the+horizon

And where is your evidence that a sufficiently powerful telescope will restore the hull as you have claimed oh so many times?
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.