Space for £1000

Unimportant,

With all due respect, I don't think you are in a position to pass judgment on what the JREF will and will not accept for its application.

While I am not an employee of the JREF, I have been an active supporter for several years.  I have conducted tests on potential candidates for the million-dollar prize, and Randi has cited an article that I wrote about it on his commentary.  While I am not the ultimate authority on the JREF, I do have at least some idea how they work.  And I am firmly convinced that they would accept the idea of a Flat Earth for the 1 million dollar challenge.

Believing the earth to be flat requires you to abandon some of the most strongly validated laws of science.  The JREF will test perpetual motion machines because of their violation of Newton's Laws of motion, why would they not test the idea of a constantly accelerating FE owing to it's violation of Newton's First Law, and the resulting invalidation of the Law of Universal Gravitation?

Even if they won't test the theory as a whole, there are smaller parts of it that they will test.

  i. The idea of perpetual acceleration.

  ii.  The apparent violation of the laws of optics that cause the FE atmosphere to have the impossible effects ascribed to it.

Besides, what have you got to loose by filling out an application?  It's quick, and it doesn't cost anything.  Go on.  If you're so convinced that they will turn your application down, prove it and put me in my place.

The very first sentence of th application agreemant states:

I, James Randi, through the JREF, will pay US$1,000,000 to any person who can demonstrate any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability under satisfactory observing conditions. Such demonstration must take place under these rules and limitations...

The key word being "ability". I really don't understand how this can be misunderstood; the challenge is regarding some personal ability or power, of paranormal nature. Unless I'm the one pushing the earth with my mind, the assertion that the earth is flat isn't even in the same ballpark.

Read over the entire website, Unimportant.

James Randi makes it clear that he will pay the 1,000,000 dollars to anyone who can demonstrate under proper observing conditions, the existence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult ability, power or event.

Obviously the JREF tests for things beyond paranormal powers.  There are records of applicants in the archive (http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=43) That describe the testing of Perpetual Motion machines, the White Noise phenomenon, and Karelian Photography.

What have you got to loose by filling out an application?  If you are so sure it will get rejected, prove it!

Besides my time? The FAQ states that the application process takes a minimum of 1-6 months, including including the potential for required testimonials by people who have seen the ability. Hell, I have to sign my application in the presence of a certified public notary. Certainly not worth the effort.

James Randi makes it clear that he will pay the 1,000,000 dollars to anyone who can demonstrate under proper observing conditions, the existence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult ability, power or event.

Is there any way you could provide a quote or a link to where you keep coming up with this? Becuase I thought Mr. Randi made it more clear when he says "I, James Randi, through the JREF, will pay US$1,000,000 to any person who can demonstrate any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability[/b] under satisfactory observing conditions."

While I recognize that JREF investigates other phenomenon - such as occult activity and hoaxes - the only information I have seen with regards to the $1,000,000 challange require the demonstration of a paranormal ability, like remote viewing or telekinesis. In fact, the FAQ makes a point of saying observational claims - like UFO's, bigfoot, and crop circles - are expressly not allowed for consideration, and this seems to be the category that a flat earth claim would fall into.

Despite the fact that everything I find related to the challange refers to the demonstration of some ability, I did find this nugget of joy on the JREF forums.

Firstly, the Challenge requires of you an actual demonstration of paranormal phenomenon, in a controlled setting. Photographs are not acceptable, as they do not provide acceptable evidence.

So JREF agrees with out stance on photography, which is what this thread was about way back when, and so they would certainly dismiss your suggested "photographs of a flat earth" based claim.

( http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=30b6f5a1b6edd51ca9dfd788f9a3e1e0&t=51776 )

Despite the fact that everything I find related to the challange refers to the demonstration of some ability, I did find this nugget of joy on the JREF forums.

Quote

Firstly, the Challenge requires of you an actual demonstration of paranormal phenomenon, in a controlled setting. Photographs are not acceptable, as they do not provide acceptable evidence.

So JREF agrees with out stance on photography, which is what this thread was about way back when, and so they would certainly dismiss your suggested "photographs of a flat earth" based claim.

( http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=30b6f5a1b6edd51ca9dfd788f9a3e1e0&t=51776 )

I doubt photos on their own would, but the launching of a rocket, with camera (after inspection of equipment), with photos as observational evidence would probably suffice as proof to many people; you could chane the world, and shake modern science to it's very core; but it appears you would appear to believe a hypotisis without any proof for no diseranable reason.

I doubt photos on their own would, but the launching of a rocket, with camera (after inspection of equipment), with photos as observational evidence would probably suffice as proof to many people; you could chane the world, and shake modern science to it's very core;

No, not even close.

I might get a handful of people to go through the effort of typing "fake" with the possibility of some punctuation on the end if they're really going all out. 5 characters of criticism for $1000? No, thanks.

REers like to talk about how gullable FEers are for believing in the FE model, but you're the ones who keep saying "Post a picture and we'll believe you!!" Now of course I don't believe for a nanosecond that what you're saying is actually true, and I know for a fact a single picture (or even a collection of pictures) wouldn't change your mind, but you can't play the gullable chump at the same time you're accusing someone else of the same. It's silly.

I see what your saying Unimportant, the JREF does not want photographs submitted with the application, but there is no reason they could not constitue part of the experiment.  If you built a device to take the camera high enough to see the curvature of the Earth, and none was observed, and JREF could confirm you were not cheating, I bleive the would accept your application.

As for testing events, I point you again to the fact that despite what the challenge rules say, the JREF will accepted applicants who are trying to demonstrate some breakdown in the laws of physics.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=29206

That is how I'm suggesting you build your application.  Obviously, the Law of Universal Gravitation breaks down in the FE model.  And depending what you belive, so does Newtons third law.

Simple question.

IF you performed that very experiment and you built the camera yourself to make sure no conspirators doctored it. And you retrieved the images, and the earth was unmistakably spherical, would you dismiss them at once? Would you immediatly design an conveniant theory as to why it LOOKS round?

 If so, why?

The same reason you would immediately dismiss photographs that came back looking flat.

It is contrary to what you "know" to be true, and so there must be some othe explanation for it.

You cannot make the blind see.

The same reason you would immediately dismiss photographs that came back looking flat.

It is contrary to what you "know" to be true, and so there must be some othe explanation for it.

Yes but we KNOW Flat Earth Theory is screaming batshit insane. Stop being CKJ's Bitc.h

Who is CKJ?

The same reason you would immediately dismiss photographs that came back looking flat.

It is contrary to what you "know" to be true, and so there must be some othe explanation for it.

If I saw the photos, and they were flat, I would seriously reconsider my view of the earth being round. But only if they were high up enough.

After all, if the photos are taken too close, they show no curvature in any model. So if you showed me photos of a flat earth, it would be likely they were just taken from too close. There's nothing you can say like that for photos that show a round earth.

Quote from: "Unimportant"

The same reason you would immediately dismiss photographs that came back looking flat.

It is contrary to what you "know" to be true, and so there must be some othe explanation for it.

If I saw the photos, and they were flat, I would seriously reconsider my view of the earth being round. But only if they were high up enough.

Well then you are, in my opinion, a little too gullable. I know that I would not consider for a second the possibility of the earth being flat if I was given just a handful of photographs, no matter how realistic they appeared to be.

I would have to see something a lot more convincing than a few amateur photogrpahs.

Hey, you think your name is John? Give me £1000 and I'll let you see your birth certificate! Then you'll know for sure!

You might, I think, be more inclined to pay if there were 6 million people telling you your name was Jim.

*edit*  Silly quote button

Quote from: "soggycrouton"

Quote from: "Unimportant"

The same reason you would immediately dismiss photographs that came back looking flat.

It is contrary to what you "know" to be true, and so there must be some othe explanation for it.

If I saw the photos, and they were flat, I would seriously reconsider my view of the earth being round. But only if they were high up enough.

Well then you are, in my opinion, a little too gullable. I know that I would not consider for a second the possibility of the earth being flat if I was given just a handful of photographs, no matter how realistic they appeared to be.

I would have to see something a lot more convincing than a few amateur photogrpahs.

I was under the impression that in this situation, the photos were taken by me (or my camera in my balloon).

Bump.

OK, all insults and speculations on "camera distortion" aside and back to the case of the pictures....

I don't see anything in any of those pictures that shows the earth as being a sphere. I do see a curve produced by a round earth, but even in FE theory, the earth is a round disc. Taking a picture of the edge of a disc at an angle to it would produce the same striking curve effect that you see in those photos. When I have time tomorrow, I'd be glad to get a flat dinner plate and take some pictures of it that 'prove' it's spherical.

The exact 'edge' of the 'sphere' that REers claim to see in this photo is obscured by cloud cover.


On another note, some of the pictures seem to show a significant white protrusion along the edges of the world, especially in these three photos:
http://www.srcf.ucam.org/%7Ecuspaceflight/nova1selected/target58.html
http://www.srcf.ucam.org/%7Ecuspaceflight/nova1selected/target60.html
http://www.srcf.ucam.org/%7Ecuspaceflight/nova1selected/target62.html
I'm certain that REers will put them down to cloud cover, but they could just as easily be images of the Ice Wall distorted by the atmoshere between it and the lens as a result of the distance and angle at which the pictures were taken.



Edit:
The following picture gives a good example for the other argument I was making in another thread that the line of sight that obscures the flatness of the earth being a result of atmospheric distortion and visibility limitations:
http://www.srcf.ucam.org/%7Ecuspaceflight/nova1selected/target35.html
It shows that as long as there is atmosphere between the observer and the object being observed, there will be discoloration, fading, and the apparent 'merging' with the ground or 'sinking over the horizon.'


The other thing this experiment proves is that it is possible for the "orbiting satellites" and things claimed to be in space are actually lighter than air craft designed to appear farther away than they really are.

On another note, some of the pictures seem to show a significant white protrusion along the edges of the world, especially in these three photos:
http://www.srcf.ucam.org/%7Ecuspaceflight/nova1selected/target58.html
http://www.srcf.ucam.org/%7Ecuspaceflight/nova1selected/target60.html
http://www.srcf.ucam.org/%7Ecuspaceflight/nova1selected/target62.html
I'm certain that REers will put them down to cloud cover, but they could just as easily be images of the Ice Wall distorted by the atmoshere between it and the lens as a result of the distance and angle at which the pictures were taken.



Edit:
The following picture gives a good example for the other argument I was making in another thread that the line of sight that obscures the flatness of the earth being a result of atmospheric distortion and visibility limitations:
http://www.srcf.ucam.org/%7Ecuspaceflight/nova1selected/target35.html
It shows that as long as there is atmosphere between the observer and the object being observed, there will be discoloration, fading, and the apparent 'merging' with the ground or 'sinking over the horizon.'


The other thing this experiment proves is that it is possible for the "orbiting satellites" and things claimed to be in space are actually lighter than air craft designed to appear farther away than they really are.

but then they would have launched from the middle of the earth ( north-pole )? cuz in the 3 pictures it appears that all the "edges" are at the same distance.

... When I have time tomorrow, I'd be glad to get a flat dinner plate and take some pictures of it that 'prove' it's spherical.
...

Unless the pictures are taken from the center of the platter, the edge will be an elongated curve.  To get a true rounded curve from all points, you need to take the picture from the surface of a sphere.  

In other words, it isn't that a flat earth wouldn't have a curve, it's that the curve would be different from different points.  Whereas in the "RE" the spherical nature of the earth predicts that the horizon's curve would be the same when looking out over any relatively smooth surface, such as the ocean.

For atmospheric distortion to be the primary factor, than air density, humidity, and temperature would have to be factored in to calculating the distance to the horizon.  Altitude is the primary factor, and the variation of air pressure due to the relatively small altitude changes involved are insignificant.

Just conducted the experiment and have concluded that the story is part of the conspiracy. The photos I got back were of a flat earth with an Ice Wall.

I suggest that everybody conduct this experiment and you'll be surprised with the results. When doing this it is easy to see that the earth is flat and that there is an Ice Wall at the edge of the world.

Finally, I cheap experiment that REers can do so they get real photos - not ones postulated by the Cabal.

Just conducted the experiment and have concluded that the story is part of the conspiracy. The photos I got back were of a flat earth with an Ice Wall.

I suggest that everybody conduct this experiment and you'll be surprised with the results. When doing this it is easy to see that the earth is flat and that there is an Ice Wall at the edge of the world.

Finally, I cheap experiment that REers can do so they get real photos - not ones postulated by the Cabal.

These students took the photograph themselves, douchemaster, they were not part of your nonexistant CONSPIRASY!

I conducted the same results and got true photos of a flat earth. Therefore the photos and that whole story about students is just propaganda from the Conspiracy.

How stupid are you?

I conducted the same results and got true photos of a flat earth. Therefore the photos and that whole story about students is just propaganda from the Conspiracy.

How stupid are you?

1. Show us these photos.

2. Enough to think that you can comprehend basic science.

Oh dear, cant back up proof with evidence? Tsk tsk.

Here's the best photo that came back:

Okay, I posted an actual photo! I don't know how it turned into that picture but that's not what I posted.

...must be the Conspiracy!!!

:lol:  I'm SO convinced.

 *crashing in background*

Wife screaming, 'What the heck are you doing with my globe?!?!"

OK, all insults and speculations on "camera distortion" aside and back to the case of the pictures....

I don't see anything in any of those pictures that shows the earth as being a sphere. I do see a curve produced by a round earth, but even in FE theory, the earth is a round disc. Taking a picture of the edge of a disc at an angle to it would produce the same striking curve effect that you see in those photos. When I have time tomorrow, I'd be glad to get a flat dinner plate and take some pictures of it that 'prove' it's spherical.

The exact 'edge' of the 'sphere' that REers claim to see in this photo is obscured by cloud cover.


On another note, some of the pictures seem to show a significant white protrusion along the edges of the world, especially in these three photos:
http://www.srcf.ucam.org/%7Ecuspaceflight/nova1selected/target58.html
http://www.srcf.ucam.org/%7Ecuspaceflight/nova1selected/target60.html
http://www.srcf.ucam.org/%7Ecuspaceflight/nova1selected/target62.html
I'm certain that REers will put them down to cloud cover, but they could just as easily be images of the Ice Wall distorted by the atmoshere between it and the lens as a result of the distance and angle at which the pictures were the pictures were taken

the "white protrusion" could be
a) Antarctica, look at the other land closer to the camera in the first pic, the white thing could easily be the same thing (a land mass) just farther away and covered in snow, hence the white apperance.
B)It could be clouds, before you dismiss this, look at the third picture, there are other clouds in the picture, so that could just as easily be one.