Space for £1000

Cause we don't have the time, knowledge and resources to build properly working rockets with camera's in them.
And from our POV, your point is as valid as ours because your information gets fed to you by the illuminati.

Cause we don't have the time, knowledge and resources to build properly working rockets with camera's in them.
And from our POV, your point is as valid as ours because your information gets fed to you by the illuminati.

Quote

Quote:
Quote:
You're the one trying to prove to us the earth is round. Why don't you give me £1000, and we'll go from there?


Your same circular logic turned around. You're the one trying to prove the earth is flat. Why dont you give us £1000, and we can go together.

What makes you think I care about proving the earth is flat? I know it's the truth, I don't care much what you think.

If an RE'er asks a question about the FE model, I'm happy to oblige. I, however, have no desire to push my beliefs on anyone else. This is where I differ from the common REer.

There is a difference between informing someone of the details of the FE model, and trying to convince them the FE model is representative of the "real" earth.


There are two things wrong with this.

First, you do want to put your opinion onto others. If you did not, why then did you post in a thread that is about the discussion of is earth flat or not if you did not wish to share your opinion?

Secondly, most of the FE model's I have seen on this forum are computer graphics, which means they could be made to look like anything. So why don't you provide some proof of the flat earth theory?

Quote from: "VJ"

Quote from: "Unimportant"

Or there's two cameras.

Quote

So get £1000, and try it yourself.

Why in God's name would I spend £1000 to confirm for myself something I already know to be true?

And your empirical, peer-reviewed evidence of this is where?

What kind of warped reality do you live in where someone needs empirical, peer-reviewed evidence for their beliefs?

That's just crazy talk.

I need empiricle, peer-reviewed evidence to convince YOU.

But I'm not trying to convince you.

So I don't.

Quote from: "soggycrouton"

Quote

...or that the earth is round. Except my explanation isn't stupid.

Or your's is.

Occam's razor would suggest that the earth is round, not that a group of unknown people, formed a secret society to control the knowledge of a flat earth, with an unkown motive, and no evidence.

He said he *KNOWS* it to be true, he can't know it without empirical, peer-reviewed evidence; he can believe what he likes.

Did someone use the term "Occams Razor" on a recent medical drama or something? In the months I've been here I don't think the term has ever been used - mainly because it has no relevence to the discussion - and all of the sudden people are throwing it around like it's the new "conspiracy". I can never keep track of the trendy language devices.

Quote

He said he *KNOWS* it to be true, he can't know it without empirical, peer-reviewed evidence; he can believe what he likes.

That's an entirely semantic argument. Ask the Pope if he knows God exists and he'll say "Hell yes!"

Merriam says that to know is to be convinced or certain; Webster agrees.

Iv'e used the term for years; I don't watch medical dramas, and it has a huge impact on the debate. Taking everything I can see with my own eyes, and measure with my own hands; nothing fed to me by anyone else; Occam's razor would suggest that the earth was a globe, not flat.

I don't want to get into semantics, but I would contend that there is a difference between belief and knoledge; for example I believe it will rain tommow, I don't know it however. With your example of god: personally I believe in god, I'm not presumtious enough to say that I know she exists, because that would imply others are wrong in their beliefs. My belief is founded on my experience, and others on theirs; neither belief is more valid than the other.

Quote from: "VJ"

Iv'e used the term for years; I don't watch medical dramas, and it has a huge impact on the debate. Taking everything I can see with my own eyes, and measure with my own hands; nothing fed to me by anyone else; Occam's razor would suggest that the earth was a globe, not flat.

But the discussion doesn't involve which is more likely, only how valid the FE model is.

It was a trick question, by the way, since I was well aware that there was an episode of 'House M.D" titled Occam's Razor from season 2.

Still, it's rise in prominance on this forum has me confused.

Quote from: "Unimportant"

Quote from: "VJ"

Iv'e used the term for years; I don't watch medical dramas, and it has a huge impact on the debate. Taking everything I can see with my own eyes, and measure with my own hands; nothing fed to me by anyone else; Occam's razor would suggest that the earth was a globe, not flat.

But the discussion doesn't involve which is more likely, only how valid the FE model is.

But the two are so interlinked, that if we can say that RE is much more likely, the likelyhood of FE goes down. As i said Occam's razor suggests that RE is more likely, therefore reducing the likelyhood of a flat earth. If it's unlikely that there's a flat earth and very likely that there's a round earth, why should most people believe that the earth is flat; especially since there is no empirical evidence for a flat earth; I can disprove it with just my own eyes. Either by looking out of the docks, or during a lunar eclipse.

Quote

It was a trick question, by the way, since I was well aware that there was an episode of 'House M.D" titled Occam's Razor from season 2.

Still, it's rise in prominance on this forum has me confused.

I've only ever watched an episode or two of "House", so I wouldn't know; but the reasons for the rise of the use of the phrase is obvious. Occam's razor more or less proves that a RE is true; if a RE is true, a FE can't be.

I disagree here. Obviously most people on this forum accept the RE model is an accurate description of the earth we live on. I doubt even the true FE'ers will deny that the RE model does well in describing most everyday events; the goal of FE advocates isn't to prove the RE model is wrong. What FE advocates do want, however, is to prove that the FE model also does well in describing the Earth we live on.

Yes, it's true, the earth cannot be round and flat. But for most of us - myself included - the goal of the discussion is to prove that a flat earth could produce all the phenomenon we observe in everyday life, and so we can't know personally that the earth is not flat.

In the discussion regarding the validity of the FE model versus the validity of the RE model, the two are not mutually exclusive. Both can be valid, and the liklihood that one is the actual case is entirely irrelevent.

Did someone use the term "Occams Razor" on a recent medical drama or something? In the months I've been here I don't think the term has ever been used - mainly because it has no relevence to the discussion - and all of the sudden people are throwing it around like it's the new "conspiracy". I can never keep track of the trendy language devices.

It was a trick question, by the way, since I was well aware that there was an episode of 'House M.D" titled Occam's Razor from season 2.

Actually, it was episode three from season 1. Were in season 3 now, so your suggestion that it was on recently is wrong.

Fascinating point. Of course, you didn't respond to anything else.

However, this rule only works a)if the evidence for the simpler one is not worse than the evidence for the more complex one (there's tons of evidence for the circulatory, but nothing to suggest magic even exists). b)only works if the two explanations are ACTUALLY explanations. "Magic" is not an explanation. If it was, you'd have to explain how THAT worked, making it complicated again.

The RE model may in fact be simpler, but I would contend that is only because we are indoctrinated with that model and, as a whole, understand it better; a species born with 5 fingers would find our base 10 counting system needlessly complicated, and would surely think the base 5 system easier. We 10 fingered fellows would likely disagree.

And of course, you haven't read my previous few posts.

My goal is to prove the validity of the FE model, not prove it is the case with our earth. The RE model may in fact be simpler, but I would contend that is only because we are indoctrinated with that model and, as a whole, understand it better; a species born with 5 fingers would find our base 10 counting system needlessly complicated, and would surely think the base 5 system easier. We 10 fingered fellows would likely disagree.

But given that the RE model is, in fact, simpler, and thus more likely, this liklihood has no bearing on the validity of the FE model.

To prove the validity, you'll have to give good explinations for the photos in the link in post 1

Look, I know Occam's Razor is not a undeniable, all encompassing law. But it is a fact of reality that the simpler explanation is better and more likely.

Quote

To prove the validity, you'll have to give good explinations for the photos in the link in post 1

Fake.

Why in God's name would I spend £1000 to confirm for myself something I already know to be true?

If you have ever heard of the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) or the Randi prize?

In short, it is a one million dollar prize awarded to the first person who can provide, under proper observing conditions, any evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power event or ability.

Let me rephrase that, unless you can explain the curvature of the earth seen in the pictures in post 1 or prove them to be fake; then FE teory is invalid.

Just saying "fake" dosn't make them fake, why would students go to the length of launching a camera into the atmosphere, just to fake the pictures;

show me some flaws in those pictures, that would indicate that they have been forged.

Quote from: "Max Fagin"

it would be naiive to assume a foundation capable of liquidating $1,000,000 for prize money would be outside the influence of the conspiracy.

Rubbish. £1,000,000 isn't much over £500,000; my dad's house now costs about that; he could obviously liquidadte that in a matter of weeks (at most). Why any one else couldn't arange a prize of £1,000,000 I don't know. I'm sure that the foundation has invested it's startup money well, and has well over £1,000,000 in assets.