More konspirasee?

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on March 21, 2010, 02:11:51 PM

Yes, the bit where I say that the Earth is flat because it looks flat.

You're still not picking a case.

Is the earth flat because it looks flat, or is the earth flat because it looks round?

Uh, neither?

Here's an SEM image of the surface of a sea urchin.

It looks flat, right?

But sea urchins are round.

It's a matter of perspective. We're so small compared to the Earth, than on it it looks flat to us.

Here's one of a cuttlefish:



link to where I got the SEMs from: http://www.flickr.com/photos/73912558@N00/

I don't beleive I can afford the materials for this experiment.

If two bacteria were having a debate on the back of the cuttlefish the burden of proof would be on the one claiming that they were living on a cuttlefish.

If two bacteria were having a debate on the back of the cuttlefish the burden of proof would be on the one claiming that they were living on a cuttlefish.

That's not the point. We're not arguing if we're living on Earth. We're arguing the shape. If you lived on the sea urchin or cuttlefish and you were microscopic so those pictures were your surroundings, you'd say your world was flat. But it's not, it's just your perspective.

I don't beleive I can afford the materials for this experiment.

It's not as expensive as you might think: http://cgi.ebay.com/Cambridge-StereoScan-150-Electron-Microscope-SEM_W0QQitemZ370237719090QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item5633e34232

If two bacteria were having a debate on the back of the cuttlefish the burden of proof would be on the one claiming that they were living on a cuttlefish.

What about the other one claiming they're living on the back of a sting ray?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 22, 2010, 02:07:05 PM

If two bacteria were having a debate on the back of the cuttlefish the burden of proof would be on the one claiming that they were living on a cuttlefish.

That's not the point. We're not arguing if we're living on Earth. We're arguing the shape. If you lived on the sea urchin or cuttlefish and you were microscopic so those pictures were your surroundings, you'd say your world was flat. But it's not, it's just your perspective.

Perspective is the assumption until proven otherwise.

Quote from: bloojax on March 22, 2010, 02:17:04 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 22, 2010, 02:07:05 PM

If two bacteria were having a debate on the back of the cuttlefish the burden of proof would be on the one claiming that they were living on a cuttlefish.

That's not the point. We're not arguing if we're living on Earth. We're arguing the shape. If you lived on the sea urchin or cuttlefish and you were microscopic so those pictures were your surroundings, you'd say your world was flat. But it's not, it's just your perspective.

Perspective is the assumption until proven otherwise.

So are you saying that as I watch a plane take off and get smaller and smaller as it gets farther away from me, I can't say that's perspective? I don't understand what you're saying.

If two bacteria were having a debate on the back of the cuttlefish the burden of proof would be on the one claiming that they were living on a cuttlefish.

What if one bacteria creates a submarine and travels away from the cuttlefish, takes photos for the other bacterium to see, then comes back to show them.


Will they say they are part of a conspiracy, or will they say they are watermarked? (lololpun)

Quote from: bloojax on March 22, 2010, 02:17:04 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 22, 2010, 02:07:05 PM

If two bacteria were having a debate on the back of the cuttlefish the burden of proof would be on the one claiming that they were living on a cuttlefish.

That's not the point. We're not arguing if we're living on Earth. We're arguing the shape. If you lived on the sea urchin or cuttlefish and you were microscopic so those pictures were your surroundings, you'd say your world was flat. But it's not, it's just your perspective.

Perspective is the assumption until proven otherwise.

That kinda blows away all of Flat Earth doesn't it?  I mean, the entire hypothesis (I refuse to call it a Theory in the scientific terms) requires two things to be facts.
1. NASA and all other space agencies, Communication agencies, and anyone who has launched something into orbit to be part of a conspiracy.
2. All EM radiation must bend to simulate a heliocentric, round earth perspective but is really a geocentric flat earth view.

And since no one can prove a conspiracy exists (if you know about it, how can it be a secret?) and I haven't read anything about bendy light tests being done (except the guy trying to invent one), then I submit that both are assumptions.  
In fact, the concept of bendy light makes it impossible to test without invalidating a Flat Earth.  AND... the one experiment quoted "the old bedlam canal" experiment contradicts bendy light in favor of saying that light travels straight and the Earth is Flat.

Here's an SEM image of the surface of a sea urchin.

It looks flat, right?

But sea urchins are round.

It's a matter of perspective. We're so small compared to the Earth, than on it it looks flat to us.

Here's one of a cuttlefish:

link to where I got the SEMs from: http://www.flickr.com/photos/73912558@N00/

Sea Urchins look round from a distance as the result of bendy light.

I thought that Zetetics were meant to trust their senses. It looks round to me. (Yes, I know, look out of your window. But all I can see is a few houses and fences, and that tells me nothing about the shape of the earth.)

I don't know what Zetetics were meant to do, but someone who suggests that the Earth is flat after viewing a picture depicting some degree of curvature such as that is probably using his intellect to make conclusions based on the data that his senses give. That someone would still be trusting the data given by his senses. Whether or not that person is using his intellect correctly, I'm sure you will still debate.

Quote from: bloojax on March 22, 2010, 02:17:04 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 22, 2010, 02:07:05 PM

If two bacteria were having a debate on the back of the cuttlefish the burden of proof would be on the one claiming that they were living on a cuttlefish.

That's not the point. We're not arguing if we're living on Earth. We're arguing the shape. If you lived on the sea urchin or cuttlefish and you were microscopic so those pictures were your surroundings, you'd say your world was flat. But it's not, it's just your perspective.

Perspective is the assumption until proven otherwise.

Yes, perspective is assumed to be correct until proven otherwise.  So far, you haven't.

So are you saying that as I watch a plane take off and get smaller and smaller as it gets farther away from me, I can't say that's perspective? I don't understand what you're saying.

Obviously if we know what it looks like up close, we know its size while in the air.

But what about something like the sun, which no one has seen up close? 30 miles in diameter? 300? 3,000? 30,000? Who's to say?

What if one bacteria creates a submarine and travels away from the cuttlefish, takes photos for the other bacterium to see, then comes back to show them.

That would depend how trustworthy the bacteria in the submarine is.

Has it been shown that the bacteria is faking its missions in a studio?

Has it been shown that the bacteria is falsifying records and deleting archival data?

Has it been shown that the bacteria is silencing critics and whistle blowers?

Has it been shown that the bacteria is going around giving fake moon rocks to heads of states?

If so, then the bacteria can't really be considered a reliable source.

Quote from: 2fst4u on March 19, 2010, 09:57:03 PM

Of course it matters if it looks round. If it goddamn looks round, then it has to be fricken round. Bendy light doesn't cause the earth to 'appear' to wrap around on itself.

But the fact that our everyday observation of the Earth shows it to be flat doesn't matter at all?  That old ugly RE double standard rears its head again.

But the shape of the earth has no bearing on the way the earth appears to the observer standing in the middle of the field. We have all acknowledged that a flat earth and a round earth would appear the same from everyday observation.

However, when you start to move away and see the curvature of the Earth, it suddenly become more probable that it is flat?

Quote from: bloojax on March 22, 2010, 06:51:41 PM

So are you saying that as I watch a plane take off and get smaller and smaller as it gets farther away from me, I can't say that's perspective? I don't understand what you're saying.

Obviously if we know what it looks like up close, we know its size while in the air.

But what about something like the sun, which no one has seen up close? 30 miles in diameter? 300? 3,000? 30,000? Who's to say?

Quote

What if one bacteria creates a submarine and travels away from the cuttlefish, takes photos for the other bacterium to see, then comes back to show them.

That would depend how trustworthy the bacteria in the submarine is.

Has it been shown that the bacteria is faking its missions in a studio?

Has it been shown that the bacteria is falsifying records and deleting archival data?

Has it been shown that the bacteria is silencing its critics?

Has it been shown that the bacteria is going around giving fake moon rocks to heads of states?

If so, then the bacteria can't really be considered a reliable source.

What if none of those things are true? Could it then be considered a reliable source?

Quote

What if one bacteria creates a submarine and travels away from the cuttlefish, takes photos for the other bacterium to see, then comes back to show them.

That would depend how trustworthy the bacteria in the submarine is.


List

Actually, it would depend on how skeptical the other bacterium are of this bacterias mission, nothing else.

They cannot prove that he hasn't done those things, all they can do is be skeptical and point out possible flaws.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 23, 2010, 07:41:03 AM

Quote

What if one bacteria creates a submarine and travels away from the cuttlefish, takes photos for the other bacterium to see, then comes back to show them.

That would depend how trustworthy the bacteria in the submarine is.


List

Actually, it would depend on how skeptical the other bacterium are of this bacterias mission, nothing else.

They cannot prove that he hasn't done those things, all they can do is be skeptical and point out possible flaws.

If I was the bacteria, I would multiply and get the majority

I'm getting a bit paranoid about cuttlefish flu now. If the viruses are advanced enough to build submarines and use cameras, we won't have any defences that can stop them.

Quote from: spanner34.5 on March 20, 2010, 02:36:23 AM

Launching such a craft would be highly irresponsible. It would be a danger to passing aircraft.

You are entirely correct, which is why it is stated in 14CFR (Federal Aviation Regulations) 101.37 that prior notice must be given to the nearest ATC facility so that it may be distributed to local Flight Service Stations.

Endangering an aircraft is a serious offence. have these children been reported?

Quote from: bloojax on March 22, 2010, 06:51:41 PM

So are you saying that as I watch a plane take off and get smaller and smaller as it gets farther away from me, I can't say that's perspective? I don't understand what you're saying.

Obviously if we know what it looks like up close, we know its size while in the air.

But what about something like the sun, which no one has seen up close? 30 miles in diameter? 300? 3,000? 30,000? Who's to say?

Quote

What if one bacteria creates a submarine and travels away from the cuttlefish, takes photos for the other bacterium to see, then comes back to show them.

That would depend how trustworthy the bacteria in the submarine is.

Has it been shown that the bacteria is faking its missions in a studio?

Has it been shown that the bacteria is falsifying records and deleting archival data?

Has it been shown that the bacteria is silencing critics and whistle blowers?

Has it been shown that the bacteria is going around giving fake moon rocks to heads of states?

If so, then the bacteria can't really be considered a reliable source.

most of the answers to those questions are assumed.

Also, the bacteria can look at other bodies and see that they are round too, and have similar materials found on their object of choice, be it a submarine or a cuttlefish.  They dont have reason to believe that the object they are on is different.  

However our situation is quite different from this, and i dont find it a good example.  For example, there are bacteria on other objects.

That would depend how trustworthy the bacteria in the submarine is.

Has it been shown that the bacteria is faking its missions in a studio?

Has it been shown that the bacteria is falsifying records and deleting archival data?

Has it been shown that the bacteria is silencing critics and whistle blowers?

Has it been shown that the bacteria is going around giving fake moon rocks to heads of states?

If so, then the bacteria can't really be considered a reliable source.

Oh how i hate you. I hate you so much it gives me energy! I have to get up early every morning because there isn't enough time in the day in which to hate you.

where did that come from jim?

Quote from: 2fst4u on March 19, 2010, 09:49:44 PM

http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2010/03/look_its_jersey_in_space.html

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jabella/tags/balloonlaunch/

Easy enough to do in your own backyard? Launch a weather ballon and take photos.

http://blog.makezine.com/upload/2010/03/more_balloons_in_space/islandLabsLaunch_1.jpg
http://blog.makezine.com/upload/2010/03/more_balloons_in_space/islandLabsLaunch_2.jpg
http://blog.makezine.com/upload/2010/03/more_balloons_in_space/islandLabsLaunch_3.jpg

I can see curvature. I'm not posting this in 'proof' of a round earth, but to point you in the right direction to prove/disprove it yourself. If you simply wave this experiment off as fake, your are an ignorant prick. Do it yourself them come back and tell us it's fake.

At the edge of space one is looking at the distant edges of the sun's circular spot of light upon the earth.

However, in that particular photo I believe a barrel effect is occurring to show slightly more curvature than what actually appears.

How does a perfectly circular lit section of the earth explain time zones, tom?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 19, 2010, 11:34:05 PM

Quote from: 2fst4u on March 19, 2010, 09:49:44 PM

http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2010/03/look_its_jersey_in_space.html

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jabella/tags/balloonlaunch/

Easy enough to do in your own backyard? Launch a weather ballon and take photos.

http://blog.makezine.com/upload/2010/03/more_balloons_in_space/islandLabsLaunch_1.jpg
http://blog.makezine.com/upload/2010/03/more_balloons_in_space/islandLabsLaunch_2.jpg
http://blog.makezine.com/upload/2010/03/more_balloons_in_space/islandLabsLaunch_3.jpg

I can see curvature. I'm not posting this in 'proof' of a round earth, but to point you in the right direction to prove/disprove it yourself. If you simply wave this experiment off as fake, your are an ignorant prick. Do it yourself them come back and tell us it's fake.

At the edge of space one is looking at the distant edges of the sun's circular spot of light upon the earth.

However, in that particular photo I believe a barrel effect is occurring to show slightly more curvature than what actually appears.

How does a perfectly circular lit section of the earth explain time zones, tom?

The sun's spotlight would have to be deformed into a sort of pie-slice shape, and there's no way bendy light can explain that.

Quote from: SupahLovah on March 24, 2010, 10:18:18 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 19, 2010, 11:34:05 PM

Quote from: 2fst4u on March 19, 2010, 09:49:44 PM

http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2010/03/look_its_jersey_in_space.html

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jabella/tags/balloonlaunch/

Easy enough to do in your own backyard? Launch a weather ballon and take photos.

http://blog.makezine.com/upload/2010/03/more_balloons_in_space/islandLabsLaunch_1.jpg
http://blog.makezine.com/upload/2010/03/more_balloons_in_space/islandLabsLaunch_2.jpg
http://blog.makezine.com/upload/2010/03/more_balloons_in_space/islandLabsLaunch_3.jpg

I can see curvature. I'm not posting this in 'proof' of a round earth, but to point you in the right direction to prove/disprove it yourself. If you simply wave this experiment off as fake, your are an ignorant prick. Do it yourself them come back and tell us it's fake.

At the edge of space one is looking at the distant edges of the sun's circular spot of light upon the earth.

However, in that particular photo I believe a barrel effect is occurring to show slightly more curvature than what actually appears.

How does a perfectly circular lit section of the earth explain time zones, tom?

The sun's spotlight would have to be deformed into a sort of pie-slice shape, and there's no way bendy light can explain that.

That's why Bendy Light was invented.

Quote from: SupahLovah on March 24, 2010, 10:18:18 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 19, 2010, 11:34:05 PM

Quote from: 2fst4u on March 19, 2010, 09:49:44 PM

http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2010/03/look_its_jersey_in_space.html

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jabella/tags/balloonlaunch/

Easy enough to do in your own backyard? Launch a weather ballon and take photos.

http://blog.makezine.com/upload/2010/03/more_balloons_in_space/islandLabsLaunch_1.jpg
http://blog.makezine.com/upload/2010/03/more_balloons_in_space/islandLabsLaunch_2.jpg
http://blog.makezine.com/upload/2010/03/more_balloons_in_space/islandLabsLaunch_3.jpg

I can see curvature. I'm not posting this in 'proof' of a round earth, but to point you in the right direction to prove/disprove it yourself. If you simply wave this experiment off as fake, your are an ignorant prick. Do it yourself them come back and tell us it's fake.

At the edge of space one is looking at the distant edges of the sun's circular spot of light upon the earth.

However, in that particular photo I believe a barrel effect is occurring to show slightly more curvature than what actually appears.

How does a perfectly circular lit section of the earth explain time zones, tom?

The sun's spotlight would have to be deformed into a sort of pie-slice shape, and there's no way bendy light can explain that.

Maybe if there is bendy light on the sun as well and if it rotates and if... hmmm.. nah I don't know either.. maybe earth is simply round

where did that come from jim?

It's a Dylan Moran quote.

Quote from: brathearon on March 24, 2010, 10:11:41 AM

where did that come from jim?

It's a Dylan Moran quote.

Haha another fan