"Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory."?

  • 71 Replies
  • 16707 Views
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39101
Re: "Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory."?
« Reply #30 on: July 11, 2013, 04:35:10 PM »
In the model with Antarctica as a continent the sun "switches gears" every 6 months between the Southern Hemisphere and the Northern Hemisphere.
How is flat earth with a sun that "switches gears" simpler than a round earth that orbits the sun?
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.

Re: "Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory."?
« Reply #31 on: July 12, 2013, 03:02:06 AM »
aaaaand this is the point from whereon Tom pretends this thread never happened?

Re: "Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory."?
« Reply #32 on: July 12, 2013, 04:13:57 AM »
In the model with Antarctica as a continent the sun "switches gears" every 6 months between the Southern Hemisphere and the Northern Hemisphere.
How is flat earth with a sun that "switches gears" simpler than a round earth that orbits the sun?

A two dimensional flat earth is less complicated than a three dimensional round earth. How could you not understand that? It's pretty obvious.

Re: "Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory."?
« Reply #33 on: July 12, 2013, 04:30:58 AM »
A 2d earth ceases to be less complicated when you start trying to explain stuff with it, this gear-switching business here for an example. Flat earth is less complicated and the more intuitively obvious scenario only as long as you limit yourself to looking out your window to see what shape the earth is.

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: "Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory."?
« Reply #34 on: July 12, 2013, 06:10:58 AM »
A two dimensional flat earth is less complicated than a three dimensional round earth. How could you not understand that? It's pretty obvious.

Until, as neimoka pointed out, you try to explain things like sunsets, celestial poles, seasons, etc, etc...

For a round earth, the explanations are pretty simple: "it's round" and "gravity keeps us from flying off into space". For a flat earth? Well, I've yet to see an explanation that actually works...
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

Re: "Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory."?
« Reply #35 on: July 12, 2013, 08:18:22 AM »
aaaaand this is the point from whereon Tom pretends this thread never happened?

Probably, but muggsybogus1 is here, so I'm sure we're in for some high-quality, well-thought-out debates!

*

Junker

  • 3753
Re: "Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory."?
« Reply #36 on: July 12, 2013, 08:24:48 AM »
aaaaand this is the point from whereon Tom pretends this thread never happened?

Probably, but muggsybogus1 is here, so I'm sure we're in for some high-quality, well-thought-out debates!


Keep low-content posts out of the upper fora.  This is not your playground.  If you have nothing to add, then don't post.  Consider this a warning.

Re: "Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory."?
« Reply #37 on: July 12, 2013, 08:47:31 AM »
In the model with Antarctica as a continent the sun "switches gears" every 6 months between the Southern Hemisphere and the Northern Hemisphere. There are not two suns.

Okay, I did some calculations, and according to your theory, on the winter solstice (shortest day of the year), I (at 45.5 N) should see the sun rise about 21 degrees east of due south and set about 21 degrees west of due south.

Instead I've observed it rise about 60 degrees east of due south and set about 60 degrees west of due south.

While this isn't as bad as when I was in the Falkland Islands (discrepancy of about 90 degrees), 40 degrees isn't something to shake a stick at. How does the light from an object make it appear as though it rises and sets 40 on either side?

And that is the difference between someone like you and the FES. You actually care to provide proof, while FES never does. Still the people from FES fail to grasp the proof stacked against their theory.

Hello!

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17521
Re: "Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory."?
« Reply #38 on: July 12, 2013, 01:12:03 PM »
Your example is irrelevant.

Wrong, it's absolutely relevant. Being able to make a prediction so far into the future with such precision after observing the object in question for only a brief time depends on a very well formed theory.

No, it doesn't. This argument based on prediction is the worst argument you marbles post on this forum. I can predict that the lights will turn on when I flip my light switch. But this repeatable prediction doesn't mean that my personal theories regarding the nature of electricity are correct.
Quote
There are two Flat Earth models, with different sun movements.

Both have been pretty thoroughly debunked, and neither explain how the sun can be seen to rise in the Southeast and set in the Southwest from a position South of the Tropic of Capricorn.

Incorrect. In the Antarctica as a Continent model the  sun can be seen to rise in the Southeast and set in the Southwest from a position South of the Tropic of Capricorn.

Quote
If you watch a typical sunset closely you will see that it is actually disappearing into an inversion layer above the earth.

Still does not explain how the sun gets down to the horizon from ~27 above it.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=The_Setting_of_the_Sun

Quote
In previous discussions we've shown pictures of the day-light lunar eclipse, which contradicts Round Earth Theory.

No, it doesn't, for reasons quite thoroughly explained elsewhere.

The thorough explanation given for both the sun and moon appearing in the sky when they should be below the horizon was that "refraction did it".

Quote
Sometimes the sun just seems to fade out to the opacity of the atmosphere, without even hitting the horizon, suggesting that the disappearance of the sun is more too do with the atmosphere's thickness, and less on the horizon.

The key word there being "sometimes". Your explanation lacks the consistency required to be credible. Besides, can't you see the fog in the provided image?

The images suggest that the sun is disappearing into a fog near the surface of the earth, and its apparent dipping beneath the horizon is a refraction effect.

Quote
If the earth is round the celestial objects are far away. If the earth is flat the celestial bodies are close. This assumption affects the meaning of the observations in the triangulation.

As has been pointed out in the past, this only effects the results if only two measurements are taken. If more than two are taken, we are faced with the fact that only those assuming a round earth give consistent distances; those assuming a flat earth give inconsistent results. For example, the sun: when measured from 45 North and 45 South and assuming a flat earth, the resulting distance is 3,000 miles. When measured from 30 North and South, and still assuming a flat earth, you get 3,464 miles. At 10, it's 11,343 miles. See the problem with assuming a flat earth?

How do you know the results are inconsistent? Have you measured and checked?
Quote
Quote
  • Observations made by millions of regular people are fictitious, holographic, or mis-understandings of what is really seen

What observations?

Path of the sun, satellites, path of celestial objects, the ISS, just to name a few.

I see the sun pass over me every day. What about that proves that the earth is a globe?

Quote
Quote
  • Competitive shipping and transportation companies agree to use less-efficient routes at the cost of millions, if not billions of dollars

Under what model?

Any flat earth model.

Lets see the ship logs then, to tell us what kind of distances they are experiencing.

Please provide shipping logs for all routes on earth, as to collect enough data to demonstrate that the earth can only be a globe, and without distortion anywhere.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17521
Re: "Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory."?
« Reply #39 on: July 12, 2013, 01:12:48 PM »
Quote
Who said math was wrong?  ???

It must be, for all the calculations ever done to indicate a round earth with a 93 million mile distant sun.

The math isn't wrong. The equations predict a sun 93 million miles away presuming the observer is on a globe, and a few thousand miles away presuming the observer is on a plane.

Quote
The doppler effect indicates neither speed or position.

Also, it's impossible to tell the speed of a distant object just by looking at it, without any background reference points. You require observations from multiple points and complex trigonometry, or some sort of radar detector.

That made me laugh! How do you think police radar guns work Tom? They use the Doppler effect to measure speed.

The Doppler Effect alone cannot measure speed. I would suggest looking up some equations for using the Doppler Effect to find speed. You will find that knowledge of the objects velocity is required, and represented as v in the equations.

Quote
I have done an experiment using the mountains near where I live, details can be found here, and results here. The results indicated a round earth.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Sinking_Ship_Effect

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17521
Re: "Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory."?
« Reply #40 on: July 12, 2013, 01:17:08 PM »
Not true. If it's emitting some kind of signal at a known frequency, a deviation of the observed frequency would be due to the speed of the object. You've dismissed the doppler effect, but this is exactly how such measurements are used. If your satellite, say, Sputnik, were emitting a frequency of, say, 20.0050 MHz and you were registering a signal of 20.0055 MHz, you could calculate that this satellite is moving roughly 8 kilometers per second toward you. If you registered a signal of 20.0045 MHz, it's going 8 kilometers per second away from you.

What if we don't know what frequency it is emitting, or the range it will deviate with velocity?

Quote
So NASA's proud that they've taken suck a kick-ass picture. So what?

Since we know that NASA is a fraud, this picture is discredited.

Quote
We all know that even if some private company got into space ... wait, didn't SpaceX do that already?

Who do you think paid them?

Quote
Thus, we reach this point: you will accept pictorial evidence of a round earth. Any photograph taken of a round earth is faked. Thus, you will not accept any pictorial evidence of a round earth.

Why would we accept pictures paid for by NASA, a known fraud?
« Last Edit: July 12, 2013, 01:39:08 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17521
Re: "Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory."?
« Reply #41 on: July 12, 2013, 01:38:12 PM »
In the model with Antarctica as a continent the sun "switches gears" every 6 months between the Southern Hemisphere and the Northern Hemisphere. There are not two suns.

Interesting theory. I shall get back to you with calculations to see if this agrees with what I presently observe in the Pacific Northwest. Out of curiosity, this means that the Tropic of Capricorn is the same distance from the South Pole as the Tropic of Cancer is from the North?

Yes.

Quote
Quote
Why is China a bad example? Because you have no rebuttal to the blatant fakery?

Because China is working hard to become an extremely powerful nation, and part of that is having a space program. After all, all the cool kids are doing it! (Japan, Canada, USA, Russia, Europe ...) They have extreme incentive to attempt to prove to the world they have people in orbit before they have people in orbit. It's the same incentive the SU and the US would've had to fake their own manned missions into space. But now that Europe, Japan, and Canada have joined, and we're actually all working together as friends (see International Space Station), there's no reason to fake anything. Hence, you have not (and will not) find evidence of fakery in any of the many hours of released spacewalk footage.

So you accept that China is running a fake space agency, but still maintain that NASA and the ESA are not?

Then how does it work when a fake space agency is working together in space with real space agencies?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Star_Mission

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fobos-Grunt


Quote
Quote
The Cavendish Experiment is a known scam.

http://i.space.com/images/i/000/029/545/original/dnews-mars-rat.jpg?1370026881

... You do know that's a picture of Mars, and not the Cavendish Experiment, right?

Here is the correct link: http://milesmathis.com/caven.html

Quote
Quote
How can you tell that GPS Satellites are orbiting around a planet when you look at your GPS unit?

Okay, so the conspiracy includes the GPS manufacturers? I mean, they program the GPSs to look for where they think the satellites will be, so either a) that's all a lie and my GPS unit is programmed to pretend to guess where the satellites are based on the time, day, and previous location (you can set your own if you move a long ways!), or b) NASA et al. is really good at directing the GPS balloons to be where orbital mechanics say the satellites would be.

GPS units don't "look" for GPS satellites in specific locations.

Quote
Quote
Distant mountains do vanish into a haze. It is rare that they appear to be cut half way into the horizon. If they are, it only means that the lands ascend to higher than line of sight at some point between you and the mountain.

Okay. By my observations, I could see maybe the top kilometer of the mountain. Maybe. Which means there'd have to be a mountain taller than Mt. St. Helens between me and Rainier. A mountain, I might add, without snow (the upper kilometer of Helens certainly was covered in it, at the time!) and without a peak (the horizon was about as flat as you could expect--only a few bumps here and there). Next time I'll go I'll take a picture.
[/quote]

It does not follow that the land must extend as big as the object it is obscuring behind it.

After all, any child can obscure an elephant with a penny.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17521
Re: "Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory."?
« Reply #42 on: July 12, 2013, 01:49:26 PM »
In the model with Antarctica as a continent the sun "switches gears" every 6 months between the Southern Hemisphere and the Northern Hemisphere.
How is flat earth with a sun that "switches gears" simpler than a round earth that orbits the sun?

At the equator for six months out of the year the sun rises from the North West and Sets into the North East. Then for the remaining six months the sun rises from the South West and sets into the South East. The simplest explanation is that the sun is simply switching into another orbital pattern, as observed.

No one observes a round earth rotating around a sun, a tilted axis or an elliptical orbit.

?

Pyrolizard

  • 699
  • The Militant Skeptic
Re: "Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory."?
« Reply #43 on: July 12, 2013, 01:50:24 PM »
Quote
So NASA's proud that they've taken suck a kick-ass picture. So what?

Since we know that NASA is a fraud, this picture is discredited.

Quote
Thus, we reach this point: you will accept pictorial evidence of a round earth. Any photograph taken of a round earth is faked. Thus, you will not accept any pictorial evidence of a round earth.

Why would we accept pictures paid for by NASA, a known fraud?

The reason you should accept pictures from who you claim is a known fraud?  Well, the fact that there's no evidence of tampering in the pictures beside the NASA watermark helps. 

Here, some pictures by a random guy with a balloon and a camera, his name is Robert Harrison.  He has no incentive to prove a round earth if it had turned up flat.




To compliment them, a collection of video by the same apparatus and belonging to the same man as the camera floats into the upper atmosphere.  They're not in the highest quality, but I'd imagine you wouldn't send your most expensive and probably quite heavy camera up into space on a whim.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/30721501@N05/sets/72157608267950423/
Quote from: Shmeggley
Wherever someone is wrong on the internet, Pyrolizard will be there!

Quote from: Excelsior John
I dont care about the majority I care about Obama.
Let it always be known that Excelsior John is against democracy.

Re: "Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory."?
« Reply #44 on: July 12, 2013, 01:51:17 PM »
The Doppler Effect alone cannot measure speed. I would suggest looking up some equations for using the Doppler Effect to find speed. You will find that knowledge of the objects velocity is required, and represented as v in the equations.
Incorrect. Delta f is proportional to the transmitted frequency and object velocity, not distance. Let's see your formula for calculating speed that requires distance. Yeah, let's.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17521
Re: "Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory."?
« Reply #45 on: July 12, 2013, 01:54:07 PM »
Here, some pictures by a random guy with a balloon and a camera, his name is Robert Harrison.  He has no incentive to prove a round earth if it had turned up flat.
http://reinhardkargl.com/iBlog/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/4340514598_db7d5065d7_b.jpg

http://reinhardkargl.com/iBlog/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/2961118445_de06c0ea79_b.jpg

To compliment them, a collection of video by the same apparatus and belonging to the same man as the camera floats into the upper atmosphere.  They're not in the highest quality, but I'd imagine you wouldn't send your most expensive and probably quite heavy camera up into space on a whim.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/30721501@N05/sets/72157608267950423/

In FET when you are significantly above the surface of the earth you are looking down at a circle.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39101
Re: "Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory."?
« Reply #46 on: July 12, 2013, 02:07:28 PM »
No, it doesn't. This argument based on prediction is the worst argument you marbles post on this forum. I can predict that the lights will turn on when I flip my light switch. But this repeatable prediction doesn't mean that my personal theories regarding the nature of electricity are correct.
The value of the prediction is based on the accuracy of the model used to make that prediction.  Right now, there is not enough accurate data to create a FE model that can be used to make any useful predictions.  On the other hand, there are quite a few RE models that can, and do, make invaluable predictions on a regular basis.
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.

Re: "Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory."?
« Reply #47 on: July 12, 2013, 02:17:25 PM »
Here, some pictures by a random guy with a balloon and a camera, his name is Robert Harrison.  He has no incentive to prove a round earth if it had turned up flat.
http://reinhardkargl.com/iBlog/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/4340514598_db7d5065d7_b.jpg

http://reinhardkargl.com/iBlog/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/2961118445_de06c0ea79_b.jpg

To compliment them, a collection of video by the same apparatus and belonging to the same man as the camera floats into the upper atmosphere.  They're not in the highest quality, but I'd imagine you wouldn't send your most expensive and probably quite heavy camera up into space on a whim.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/30721501@N05/sets/72157608267950423/

In FET when you are significantly above the surface of the earth you are looking down at a circle.

You're looking down to a circle in the same fashion you look at the moon. Except that circle has all the characteristics of a sphere. You will never ever be able to see the other side of the earth from your location, no matter how high you would go. There is always a part not visible. If you look down at Mexico, you won't see India, etc. These cameras sent up high in the amtosphere however never show a flat earth. Everytime they show you a curved earth, one which matches a sphere. How hard could it be to comprehend? And if you dispute their footage, redo the experiment yourself. Untill then, any comment on this just shows the lack of common sense.
Hello!

?

Pyrolizard

  • 699
  • The Militant Skeptic
Re: "Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory."?
« Reply #48 on: July 12, 2013, 02:19:19 PM »
Here, some pictures by a random guy with a balloon and a camera, his name is Robert Harrison.  He has no incentive to prove a round earth if it had turned up flat.
http://reinhardkargl.com/iBlog/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/4340514598_db7d5065d7_b.jpg

http://reinhardkargl.com/iBlog/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/2961118445_de06c0ea79_b.jpg

To compliment them, a collection of video by the same apparatus and belonging to the same man as the camera floats into the upper atmosphere.  They're not in the highest quality, but I'd imagine you wouldn't send your most expensive and probably quite heavy camera up into space on a whim.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/30721501@N05/sets/72157608267950423/

In FET when you are significantly above the surface of the earth you are looking down at a circle.

I'm sorry, point?  Assuming you're so high as to see an edge to the earth with a readily apparent curve, wouldn't you be able to see the portions of the earth which weren't illuminated by the sun?  Why, when from Earth there is no curve to the surface because it is planar, is there a readily apparent curve from high above?  These are, although of lower quality, the exact same proof as given by the NASA photograph, and none have been given a proper counterpoint.  If you'd like to explain how this happens, and why this is only observable at such high altitudes, please do.  You're usually much more thorough with your explanations, rather than just an assertion.
Quote from: Shmeggley
Wherever someone is wrong on the internet, Pyrolizard will be there!

Quote from: Excelsior John
I dont care about the majority I care about Obama.
Let it always be known that Excelsior John is against democracy.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17521
Re: "Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory."?
« Reply #49 on: July 12, 2013, 02:29:40 PM »
No, it doesn't. This argument based on prediction is the worst argument you marbles post on this forum. I can predict that the lights will turn on when I flip my light switch. But this repeatable prediction doesn't mean that my personal theories regarding the nature of electricity are correct.
The value of the prediction is based on the accuracy of the model used to make that prediction.  Right now, there is not enough accurate data to create a FE model that can be used to make any useful predictions.  On the other hand, there are quite a few RE models that can, and do, make invaluable predictions on a regular basis.

There are ancient civilizations who believed that the earth was flat, such as the Ancient Babylonians, who could predict the the position of the planets and eclipses of the moon, thousands of years into the future.

I'm sorry, point?  Assuming you're so high as to see an edge to the earth with a readily apparent curve, wouldn't you be able to see the portions of the earth which weren't illuminated by the sun?

How can you see something which is not illuminated and surrounded by high contrast?

Quote
Why, when from Earth there is no curve to the surface because it is planar, is there a readily apparent curve from high above?

Because you are looking down at a circle of light. When you are looking at a penny edge on you see flatness, when you look at it from above you see roundness.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2013, 02:34:32 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

Pyrolizard

  • 699
  • The Militant Skeptic
Re: "Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory."?
« Reply #50 on: July 12, 2013, 02:39:12 PM »
Quote
Why, when from Earth there is no curve to the surface because it is planar, is there a readily apparent curve from high above?

Because you are looking down at a circle of light. When you are looking at a penny edge on you see flatness, when you look at it from above you see roundness.

Once again, this explanation is lacking.  We are either not looking at the entirety of the earth, at which point this falls apart because a portion of a plane of any shape which isn't the edge doesn't reflect the shape of the plane as a whole, or we're looking at the entirety of the earth while the observable landmasses, or lack thereof, don't match up with FE models.
Quote from: Shmeggley
Wherever someone is wrong on the internet, Pyrolizard will be there!

Quote from: Excelsior John
I dont care about the majority I care about Obama.
Let it always be known that Excelsior John is against democracy.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17521
Re: "Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory."?
« Reply #51 on: July 12, 2013, 02:44:23 PM »
Quote
Why, when from Earth there is no curve to the surface because it is planar, is there a readily apparent curve from high above?

Because you are looking down at a circle of light. When you are looking at a penny edge on you see flatness, when you look at it from above you see roundness.

Once again, this explanation is lacking.  We are either not looking at the entirety of the earth, at which point this falls apart because a portion of a plane of any shape which isn't the edge doesn't reflect the shape of the plane as a whole, or we're looking at the entirety of the earth while the observable landmasses, or lack thereof, don't match up with FE models.

I don't see what's so hard to understand. The earth in its entirety is not illuminated, as the sun does not shine on it all at once. At high altitudes near the edge of space you are looking down at a circle of light, and will therefore see some curvature to the horizon.

Any distant landmasses are shrunk by perspective and indescernable in the distance by the opacity of the atmosphere.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2013, 02:50:42 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

Pyrolizard

  • 699
  • The Militant Skeptic
Re: "Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory."?
« Reply #52 on: July 12, 2013, 02:58:48 PM »
Quote
Why, when from Earth there is no curve to the surface because it is planar, is there a readily apparent curve from high above?

Because you are looking down at a circle of light. When you are looking at a penny edge on you see flatness, when you look at it from above you see roundness.

Once again, this explanation is lacking.  We are either not looking at the entirety of the earth, at which point this falls apart because a portion of a plane of any shape which isn't the edge doesn't reflect the shape of the plane as a whole, or we're looking at the entirety of the earth while the observable landmasses, or lack thereof, don't match up with FE models.

I don't see what's so hard to understand. At high altitudes near the edge of space you are looking down at a circle of light, and will therefore see some curvature to the horizon.

Ah, I see what you're saying.  It's pitch black outside of the circle of light, and so you can't see past it.  You still haven't said why most landmasses can't be seen.  Assuming that we are just looking down upon a circle of light, where's Africa?  It should be visible from a camera so high above the UK, considering they're lit at about the same time of day.  If the curvature is the result of the end of the light reflecting off of Earth's surface, we should still be able to see Africa and England, as well as continental Europe and parts of Asia.
Quote from: Shmeggley
Wherever someone is wrong on the internet, Pyrolizard will be there!

Quote from: Excelsior John
I dont care about the majority I care about Obama.
Let it always be known that Excelsior John is against democracy.

Re: "Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory."?
« Reply #53 on: July 12, 2013, 03:00:33 PM »
Quote
Why, when from Earth there is no curve to the surface because it is planar, is there a readily apparent curve from high above?

Because you are looking down at a circle of light. When you are looking at a penny edge on you see flatness, when you look at it from above you see roundness.

Once again, this explanation is lacking.  We are either not looking at the entirety of the earth, at which point this falls apart because a portion of a plane of any shape which isn't the edge doesn't reflect the shape of the plane as a whole, or we're looking at the entirety of the earth while the observable landmasses, or lack thereof, don't match up with FE models.

I don't see what's so hard to understand. The earth in its entirety is not illuminated, as the sun does not shine on it all at once. At high altitudes near the edge of space you are looking down at a circle of light, and will therefore see some curvature to the horizon.

Any distant landmasses are shrunk by perspective and indescernable in the distance by the opacity of the atmosphere.

Tom Bishop! Give me a break, will ya?
These pictures show a curvature. Something you would never, ever should expect when the earth is flat. NEVER

So all these other excuses you're trying to find do not explain the curvature! Even the excuses you'll give are perfectly refutable.
But I will not give you any lead to stray away from the fact that there is a curvature...
Hello!

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17521
Re: "Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory."?
« Reply #54 on: July 12, 2013, 03:01:15 PM »
Ah, I see what you're saying.  It's pitch black outside of the circle of light, and so you can't see past it.  You still haven't said why most landmasses can't be seen.  Assuming that we are just looking down upon a circle of light, where's Africa?  It should be visible from a camera so high above the UK, considering they're lit at about the same time of day.  If the curvature is the result of the end of the light reflecting off of Earth's surface, we should still be able to see Africa and England, as well as continental Europe and parts of Asia.

Scroll up to the near-space pictures which were posted and try to make out the distant land features. Everything is faded by the atmosphere and shrunken by perspective. It's impossible to make out anything.

Tom Bishop! Give me a break, will ya?
These pictures show a curvature. Something you would never, ever should expect when the earth is flat. NEVER

So all these other excuses you're trying to find do not explain the curvature! Even the excuses you'll give are perfectly refutable.
But I will not give you any lead to stray away from the fact that there is a curvature...

Are you denying that a penny has curvature?
« Last Edit: July 12, 2013, 03:04:09 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: "Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory."?
« Reply #55 on: July 12, 2013, 03:11:51 PM »
Ah, I see what you're saying.  It's pitch black outside of the circle of light, and so you can't see past it.  You still haven't said why most landmasses can't be seen.  Assuming that we are just looking down upon a circle of light, where's Africa?  It should be visible from a camera so high above the UK, considering they're lit at about the same time of day.  If the curvature is the result of the end of the light reflecting off of Earth's surface, we should still be able to see Africa and England, as well as continental Europe and parts of Asia.

Scroll up to the near-space pictures which were posted and try to make out the distant land features. Everything is faded by the atmosphere and shrunken by perspective. It's impossible to make out anything.

There wouldn't be a hard line, like we see in these pictures. If the opacity would play a role, the transition from light to darkness would be much more gradual.
Hello!

Re: "Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory."?
« Reply #56 on: July 12, 2013, 03:29:51 PM »
Are you denying that a penny has curvature?

That penny, the size of the earth would look like an oval. Ever wondered why the road marks are stretched, why 3d street art always look stretched if you are not looking at it from the right direction? #" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Street 3D Art

Only when these images were taken from the Flat earth's northpole, it would show up equally on all sides. Dallas is not the centre, so I got the FET busted right there....again.
Hello!

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17521
Re: "Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory."?
« Reply #57 on: July 12, 2013, 03:33:58 PM »
There wouldn't be a hard line, like we see in these pictures. If the opacity would play a role, the transition from light to darkness would be much more gradual.

In the far distance, near the horizon, hundreds of miles takes up a single pixel of the screen. Why would the fading be gradual?

Are you denying that a penny has curvature?

That penny, the size of the earth would look like an oval. Ever wondered why the road marks are stretched, why 3d street art always look stretched if you are not looking at it from the right direction? #" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Street 3D Art

Only when these images were taken from the Flat earth's northpole, it would show up equally on all sides. Dallas is not the centre, so I got the FET busted right there....again.

I can't tell that the curvature displayed in the images shows up is an arc of a circle rather than an ellipse. Please demonstrate that the curvature shown is an arc of a circle and not an elliptical.

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: "Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory."?
« Reply #58 on: July 12, 2013, 03:35:54 PM »
Quote
There are two Flat Earth models, with different sun movements.

Both have been pretty thoroughly debunked, and neither explain how the sun can be seen to rise in the Southeast and set in the Southwest from a position South of the Tropic of Capricorn.

Incorrect. In the Antarctica as a Continent model the  sun can be seen to rise in the Southeast and set in the Southwest from a position South of the Tropic of Capricorn.

And how does this model give us morning in Australia at the same time as afternoon in the USA?

Quote
If you watch a typical sunset closely you will see that it is actually disappearing into an inversion layer above the earth.

Still does not explain how the sun gets down to the horizon from ~27 above it.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=The_Setting_of_the_Sun

The perspective explanation again? Really? How many times does it have to be pointed out that this is completely inaccurate? Still does not explain how the sun gets down to the horizon from ~27 above it.

Quote
In previous discussions we've shown pictures of the day-light lunar eclipse, which contradicts Round Earth Theory.

No, it doesn't, for reasons quite thoroughly explained elsewhere.

The thorough explanation given for both the sun and moon appearing in the sky when they should be below the horizon was that "refraction did it".

Do you not know how refraction works? This is a perfectly reasonable explanation, with scientific evidence to back it up, unlike the FE explanation (or complete lack thereof).

Quote
Sometimes the sun just seems to fade out to the opacity of the atmosphere, without even hitting the horizon, suggesting that the disappearance of the sun is more too do with the atmosphere's thickness, and less on the horizon.

The key word there being "sometimes". Your explanation lacks the consistency required to be credible. Besides, can't you see the fog in the provided image?

The images suggest that the sun is disappearing into a fog near the surface of the earth, and its apparent dipping beneath the horizon is a refraction effect.

Didn't you just try to discredit refraction as an explanation of things? My point still stands.

Quote
If the earth is round the celestial objects are far away. If the earth is flat the celestial bodies are close. This assumption affects the meaning of the observations in the triangulation.

As has been pointed out in the past, this only effects the results if only two measurements are taken. If more than two are taken, we are faced with the fact that only those assuming a round earth give consistent distances; those assuming a flat earth give inconsistent results. For example, the sun: when measured from 45 North and 45 South and assuming a flat earth, the resulting distance is 3,000 miles. When measured from 30 North and South, and still assuming a flat earth, you get 3,464 miles. At 10, it's 11,343 miles. See the problem with assuming a flat earth?

How do you know the results are inconsistent? Have you measured and checked?

Yes. I have also taken historical measurements, and the FES's own wiki, which all show inconsistency when a flat earth is assumed.

Quote
Quote
  • Observations made by millions of regular people are fictitious, holographic, or mis-understandings of what is really seen

What observations?

Path of the sun, satellites, path of celestial objects, the ISS, just to name a few.

I see the sun pass over me every day. What about that proves that the earth is a globe?

The shape of the path it takes, and the consistent rate at which it traverses this path (15 per hour). Actually, this is the best and most easily viewed proof of a round earth. I have actually tried to create a credible flat earth theory of my own (why not? every FE'er on here seems to have their own theory), but one sticking point (of many) has always been the sun's movement. There is just no way to get it to fit a flat earth model, and believe me, I've tried!
« Last Edit: July 12, 2013, 03:53:32 PM by Scintific Method »
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

Re: "Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory."?
« Reply #59 on: July 12, 2013, 03:42:52 PM »
There wouldn't be a hard line, like we see in these pictures. If the opacity would play a role, the transition from light to darkness would be much more gradual.

In the far distance, near the horizon, hundreds of miles takes up a single pixel of the screen. Why would the fading be gradual?
Because, if I follow your reasoning, the opacity does not suddenly become too thick. It is gradual. Like you see in this picture. The ground near the photographer is clearer, but as the opacity decreases, the ground fades away in the mist.




Are you denying that a penny has curvature?

That penny, the size of the earth would look like an oval. Ever wondered why the road marks are stretched, why 3d street art always look stretched if you are not looking at it from the right direction? #" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Street 3D Art

Only when these images were taken from the Flat earth's northpole, it would show up equally on all sides. Dallas is not the centre, so I got the FET busted right there....again.

I can't tell that the curvature displayed in the images shows up is an arc of a circle rather than an ellipse. Please demonstrate that the curvature shown is an arc of a circle and not an elliptical.
[/quote]

If you would have watched the videos, provided in the link, you'd know. The camera spins around. Not one particular side stands out from the rest, it is the same horizon everywhere. Also the photos of the horizon. It shows the same incline, not one part of the horizon is more stretched than the other.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2013, 03:45:08 PM by Lolflatdisc »
Hello!