What would it take to change your mind?

I am not just talking to flat earther or round earthers, I am talking to everyone.  What would it take for you to believe in the other model?

For me, it would require the ability to make better predictions then the roubd Earth model, because the ability to make good predictions is the definition of a good theory

I'd believe in a round earth if it could only explain the lack of the Zigzag Effect 

I'd believe in a round earth if it could only explain the lack of the Zigzag Effect 

I have already explained this multiple times...

Quote from: Weatherwax on March 30, 2015, 02:40:10 PM

I don't believe the world is flat, but it can't be round because we don't see the zigzag effect. Nobody can explain that.

I can explain that, the zig zag argument is simply false.



This is an animation I made where the camera never moves relative to the Earth and it rotates clockwise once per day.  The Earth is rotating counterclockwise as normal and yet the Sun spears to be in the center of the frame the entire time meaning that it appears to be rotating clockwise around the Earth at a constant rate, which is what we observe.

The midnight Sun also happens in the Antarctic circle, yet according to FET that's impossible.

Do you still believe that the Earth is not round now?

Are you still a flat earther now?

I'm fairly sure Weatherwax never was 
Unless their name's accurate, in which case they live on the back of four elephants and a giant turtle, and don't live on Earth, in which case they're allowed to be a Flat Earther.

I'd change my mind if there was an actual reason (bonus points if it comes from someone who's more qualified than conspiracy theorists with a few minutes free and internet access) to believe in the multiple assumptions FEers make (conspiracy, aether), and a working Flat Earth model.
Well, that'd make FET and RET equally tenable, they'd just need to be something small to tip the balance. Evidence of the assumptions would probably count, though.

I'm fairly sure Weatherwax never was 
Unless their name's accurate, in which case they live on the back of four elephants and a giant turtle, and don't live on Earth, in which case they're allowed to be a Flat Earther.

Thanks for pointing that out, I fixed my post.

Quote from: mikeman7918 on March 31, 2015, 10:45:09 AM

Are you still a flat earther now?

I'm fairly sure Weatherwax never was 
Unless their name's accurate, in which case they live on the back of four elephants and a giant turtle, and don't live on Earth, in which case they're allowed to be a Flat Earther.

I'd change my mind if there was an actual reason (bonus points if it comes from someone who's more qualified than conspiracy theorists with a few minutes free and internet access) to believe in the multiple assumptions FEers make (conspiracy, aether), and a working Flat Earth model.
Well, that'd make FET and RET equally tenable, they'd just need to be something small to tip the balance. Evidence of the assumptions would probably count, though.

Actually the four elephants and a giant turtle model is more valid than any other flat earth model I've seen here. It's been described in great detail, it's been mapped and it works. It just isn't earth.

If this goes away:

“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.”

― Michael Crichton

...my mind could be changed.

In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results.

As scientists reproduce the results they end up agreeing with the first scientist. Eventually more and more agree with him because they tested his theory and got the same results... building... a consensus...

He is (amazingly enough) wording this poorly. He should have said scientists that agree with a consensus without testing and verifying the results of said consensus are bad. Not that a consensus in itself is bad.

For the records, millions of experiments have proven the Earth to be round and to orbit the sun at 93m miles, while zero repeatable experiments with reproducible results have been demonstrated for a flat earth or an earth centric solar system.

It would take Burt Bacharach  singing his best only to me in the middle of a Japanese rose garden during lunar eclipse.

It would take Burt Bacharach  singing his best only to me in the middle of a Japanese rose garden during lunar eclipse.

that sounds gay as. Lol

I am not just talking to flat earther or round earthers, I am talking to everyone.  What would it take for you to believe in the other model?

For me, it would require the ability to make better predictions then the roubd Earth model, because the ability to make good predictions is the definition of a good theory

If I could see New York from the coast of Portugal, that would definitely sway me. If I saw a photograph taken high above the Earth that clearly showed all the Earth's land masses lying in a plane, that would probably clinch it for me.

It's not that there is disputable evidence for the Earth being flat, there is no evidence for the Earth being flat.

For the records, millions of experiments have proven the Earth to be round and to orbit the sun at 93m miles,

Millions?
Bullshit.

In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results.

As scientists reproduce the results they end up agreeing with the first scientist. Eventually more and more agree with him because they tested his theory and got the same results... building... a consensus...

He is (amazingly enough) wording this poorly. He should have said scientists that agree with a consensus without testing and verifying the results of said consensus are bad. Not that a consensus in itself is bad.

For the records, millions of experiments have proven the Earth to be round and to orbit the sun at 93m miles, while zero repeatable experiments with reproducible results have been demonstrated for a flat earth or an earth centric solar system.

build the 1 mile long level trough & show the world  your curviture. Whats  one more simple experiment  amoungst  millions  just for consensus.

build the 1 mile long level trough... simple experiment...

You have an interesting definition of 'simple'.

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on April 01, 2015, 05:19:50 PM

In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results.

As scientists reproduce the results they end up agreeing with the first scientist. Eventually more and more agree with him because they tested his theory and got the same results... building... a consensus...

He is (amazingly enough) wording this poorly. He should have said scientists that agree with a consensus without testing and verifying the results of said consensus are bad. Not that a consensus in itself is bad.

For the records, millions of experiments have proven the Earth to be round and to orbit the sun at 93m miles, while zero repeatable experiments with reproducible results have been demonstrated for a flat earth or an earth centric solar system.

build the 1 mile long level trough & show the world  your curviture. Whats  one more simple experiment  amoungst  millions  just for consensus.

You think there isn't a consensus that the earth is round? Nobody is going to spend money on an experiment because a few Internet cranks refuse to believe the obvious.

Quote from: charles bloomington on April 02, 2015, 03:14:25 AM

build the 1 mile long level trough... simple experiment...

You have an interesting definition of 'simple'.

it wouldn't cost much more then what it would   costs to lay  a mile of railway track.
By the way how ya been keeping there  girlfriend ? 💔Filtering  your water I hope ?

Quote from: BiJane on April 02, 2015, 04:05:03 AM

Quote from: charles bloomington on April 02, 2015, 03:14:25 AM

build the 1 mile long level trough... simple experiment...

You have an interesting definition of 'simple'.

it wouldn't cost much more then what it would   costs to lay  a mile of railway track.
By the way how ya been keeping there  girlfriend ? 💔Filtering  your water I hope ?

1 mile long level trough would cost an extortionate amount of money. It would need to be perfectly level over the length of a mile. Any idea how much bracing and support it would require. It would be akin to building a suspension or cantilever bridge, not a mile of rail.

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on April 01, 2015, 05:19:50 PM

In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results.

As scientists reproduce the results they end up agreeing with the first scientist. Eventually more and more agree with him because they tested his theory and got the same results... building... a consensus...

He is (amazingly enough) wording this poorly. He should have said scientists that agree with a consensus without testing and verifying the results of said consensus are bad. Not that a consensus in itself is bad.

For the records, millions of experiments have proven the Earth to be round and to orbit the sun at 93m miles, while zero repeatable experiments with reproducible results have been demonstrated for a flat earth or an earth centric solar system.

build the 1 mile long level trough & show the world  your curviture. Whats  one more simple experiment  amoungst  millions  just for consensus.

Or as someone with any level of intelligence would know, I could use a couple sticks, trig and the sun to prove curvature. Save a few hundred million dollars and all that.

Quote from: BiJane on April 02, 2015, 04:05:03 AM

Quote from: charles bloomington on April 02, 2015, 03:14:25 AM

build the 1 mile long level trough... simple experiment...

You have an interesting definition of 'simple'.

it wouldn't cost much more then what it would   costs to lay  a mile of railway track.
By the way how ya been keeping there  girlfriend ? 💔Filtering  your water I hope ?

That's already been done.

The linear accelerator in the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory is 2 miles long and it needs to be actually straight and not follow the curvature of the earth, otherwise the electrons will hit into the walls and the whole thing won't work. Since the Earth curves approximately 8 inches a mile,  the center of the accelerator is in fact closer to the Earth's center than the edges by about 8 inches.

This is also true for J-PARC (Japan Proton Accelerator Complex). Here's some documents on how curvature does matter while building that facility:

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/econf/C06092511/presents/TU004_PPT.PDF
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/econf/C04100411/papers/010.PDF




Looking forward to seeing you change your mind

For the records, millions of experiments have proven the Earth to be round and to orbit the sun at 93m miles, while zero repeatable experiments with reproducible results have been demonstrated for a flat earth or an earth centric solar system.

True science is observational evidence. 

Do you know that by a simple observation of the timed movement of the sun that you can determine that either the sun is not 865,000 miles in diameter or the sun is not 93,000,000 miles from earth? 

Using 93,000,000 mile distance of the sun from the earth the sun diameter comes out to be 3,333 miles, given that the sun moves a distance of its diameter in 3 minutes?

Personally I believe that the sun is much smaller and closer to the earth. 

"True Science" is not making one stupid observation and then plugging your ears. It's actually experimenting. I have no tolerance for people like you.

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on April 01, 2015, 05:19:50 PM

For the records, millions of experiments have proven the Earth to be round and to orbit the sun at 93m miles, while zero repeatable experiments with reproducible results have been demonstrated for a flat earth or an earth centric solar system.

True science is observational evidence. 

Do you know that by a simple observation of the timed movement of the sun that you can determine that either the sun is not 865,000 miles in diameter or the sun is not 93,000,000 miles from earth? 

Using 93,000,000 mile distance of the sun from the earth the sun diameter comes out to be 3,333 miles, given that the sun moves a distance of its diameter in 3 minutes?

Personally I believe that the sun is much smaller and closer to the earth.

I would love to see your math behind this one.

"True Science" is not making one stupid observation and then plugging your ears. It's actually experimenting. I have no tolerance for people like you.

I have no tolerance for ignoramus' like yourself who shove your religion down our throats at tax payers expense.   If people want to teach evolution and big bang theory then teach it in a private school.

I see that you didn't ask for my evidence.  So who is plugging their ears?

Quote from: tradosaurus on April 04, 2015, 09:19:39 AM

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on April 01, 2015, 05:19:50 PM

For the records, millions of experiments have proven the Earth to be round and to orbit the sun at 93m miles, while zero repeatable experiments with reproducible results have been demonstrated for a flat earth or an earth centric solar system.

True science is observational evidence. 

Do you know that by a simple observation of the timed movement of the sun that you can determine that either the sun is not 865,000 miles in diameter or the sun is not 93,000,000 miles from earth? 

Using 93,000,000 mile distance of the sun from the earth the sun diameter comes out to be 3,333 miles, given that the sun moves a distance of its diameter in 3 minutes?

Personally I believe that the sun is much smaller and closer to the earth.

I would love to see your math behind this one.

I just drew a large circle around the sun. 93,000,000 miles is the radius of the circle. Circumference = 2*pi*radius. Earth supposedly travels 365 days around circumference of sun. 365 days = 526,000 minutes. From this earth travels 1,111 miles/min around circumference of circle. 3 minutes for sun to travel its diameter = 3,333 miles for diameter. 

If you are going to duplicate this experiment (true science) then do it early in the morning with a reference point to see the sun move the distance of its diameter in 3 minutes. 

By the way I believe in a geocentric universe as it is easier to believe than the preposterous speeds in the heliocentric universe that the planets are traveling around the sun and the solar system is traveling around the universe.

By the way I believe in a geocentric universe as it is easier to believe than the preposterous speeds in the heliocentric universe that the planets are traveling around the sun and the solar system is traveling around the universe.

Please explain why a slow speed is more believable than a fast one. Use logic in your answer.

Quote from: BJ1234 on April 04, 2015, 09:25:12 AM

Quote from: tradosaurus on April 04, 2015, 09:19:39 AM

Quote from: Lemmiwinks on April 01, 2015, 05:19:50 PM

For the records, millions of experiments have proven the Earth to be round and to orbit the sun at 93m miles, while zero repeatable experiments with reproducible results have been demonstrated for a flat earth or an earth centric solar system.

True science is observational evidence. 

Do you know that by a simple observation of the timed movement of the sun that you can determine that either the sun is not 865,000 miles in diameter or the sun is not 93,000,000 miles from earth? 

Using 93,000,000 mile distance of the sun from the earth the sun diameter comes out to be 3,333 miles, given that the sun moves a distance of its diameter in 3 minutes?

Personally I believe that the sun is much smaller and closer to the earth.

I would love to see your math behind this one.

I just drew a large circle around the sun. 93,000,000 miles is the radius of the circle. Circumference = 2*pi*radius. Earth supposedly travels 365 days around circumference of sun. 365 days = 526,000 minutes. From this earth travels 1,111 miles/min around circumference of circle. 3 minutes for sun to travel its diameter = 3,333 miles for diameter. 

If you are going to duplicate this experiment (true science) then do it early in the morning with a reference point to see the sun move the distance of its diameter in 3 minutes. 

By the way I believe in a geocentric universe as it is easier to believe than the preposterous speeds in the heliocentric universe that the planets are traveling around the sun and the solar system is traveling around the universe.

But...you know the difference between a day and a year, do you... ?

Quote from: tradosaurus on April 04, 2015, 10:45:10 AM

By the way I believe in a geocentric universe as it is easier to believe than the preposterous speeds in the heliocentric universe that the planets are traveling around the sun and the solar system is traveling around the universe.

Please explain why a slow speed is more believable than a fast one. Use logic in your answer.

The Geocentric universe has a medium called aether that permeates all objects and is what is spinning around the earth which is immobile.  According to Ernst Mach and Lense-Thirring, supported by Einstein himself, the gravitational effects of a rotating star system around a stationary earth are exactly the same as the gravitational effects of a rotating earth in a stationary star system.

The stars don’t have to travel huge speeds themselves as would be required in the heliocentric universe, rather, they are carried in an aether medium that satisfies almost all the speed demands.  It is the aether that moves and carries the planets and stars.

This means that the sun, relative to the aether, is not moving at 24 million miles per hour, but is hardly moving at all. The independent movement the sun makes relative to the aether, however, will allow it to transcribe a path through the zodiac each year. Hence, as the aether rotates once per day around the earth, the sun rotates with it, and the sun will come back to almost the same position each day, except that it will be 1/365th ahead of where it was the day before. As for the rest of the stars, they also rotate with the aether, and thus they are not moving at exorbitant speeds, rather, the aether is rotating. Since the aether is at Planck dimensions, it can withstand such speeds.

However, the heliocentric system demands that the sun move around the galaxy at a half million miles per hour, and that the Milky Way galaxy move about 100 times faster than the sun around clusters of other galaxies, and that the outer most galaxies are moving faster than the speed of light. Now that’s getting into the science fiction realm!  Thus the heliocentric system DEMANDS these impossible speeds for the stars. 

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on April 04, 2015, 10:58:03 AM

Quote from: tradosaurus on April 04, 2015, 10:45:10 AM

By the way I believe in a geocentric universe as it is easier to believe than the preposterous speeds in the heliocentric universe that the planets are traveling around the sun and the solar system is traveling around the universe.

Please explain why a slow speed is more believable than a fast one. Use logic in your answer.

The Geocentric universe has a medium called aether that permeates all objects and is what is spinning around the earth which is immobile.  According to Ernst Mach and Lense-Thirring, supported by Einstein himself, the gravitational effects of a rotating star system around a stationary earth are exactly the same as the gravitational effects of a rotating earth in a stationary star system.

The stars don’t have to travel huge speeds themselves as would be required in the heliocentric universe, rather, they are carried in an aether medium that satisfies almost all the speed demands.  It is the aether that moves and carries the planets and stars.

This means that the sun, relative to the aether, is not moving at 24 million miles per hour, but is hardly moving at all. The independent movement the sun makes relative to the aether, however, will allow it to transcribe a path through the zodiac each year. Hence, as the aether rotates once per day around the earth, the sun rotates with it, and the sun will come back to almost the same position each day, except that it will be 1/365th ahead of where it was the day before. As for the rest of the stars, they also rotate with the aether, and thus they are not moving at exorbitant speeds, rather, the aether is rotating. Since the aether is at Planck dimensions, it can withstand such speeds.

However, the heliocentric system demands that the sun move around the galaxy at a half million miles per hour, and that the Milky Way galaxy move about 100 times faster than the sun around clusters of other galaxies, and that the outer most galaxies are moving faster than the speed of light. Now that’s getting into the science fiction realm!  Thus the heliocentric system DEMANDS these impossible speeds for the stars.

You have not explained why a faster speed is "more preposterous" than a slow one.
You have not used logic in your answer, other than the circular kind, because you take geocentricity as a starting premise rather than as a conclusion drawn from the greater likelihood of slower speeds.
In summary: you can't answer my question.

Quote from: tradosaurus on April 04, 2015, 11:28:59 AM

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on April 04, 2015, 10:58:03 AM

Quote from: tradosaurus on April 04, 2015, 10:45:10 AM

By the way I believe in a geocentric universe as it is easier to believe than the preposterous speeds in the heliocentric universe that the planets are traveling around the sun and the solar system is traveling around the universe.

Please explain why a slow speed is more believable than a fast one. Use logic in your answer.

The Geocentric universe has a medium called aether that permeates all objects and is what is spinning around the earth which is immobile.  According to Ernst Mach and Lense-Thirring, supported by Einstein himself, the gravitational effects of a rotating star system around a stationary earth are exactly the same as the gravitational effects of a rotating earth in a stationary star system.

The stars don’t have to travel huge speeds themselves as would be required in the heliocentric universe, rather, they are carried in an aether medium that satisfies almost all the speed demands.  It is the aether that moves and carries the planets and stars.

This means that the sun, relative to the aether, is not moving at 24 million miles per hour, but is hardly moving at all. The independent movement the sun makes relative to the aether, however, will allow it to transcribe a path through the zodiac each year. Hence, as the aether rotates once per day around the earth, the sun rotates with it, and the sun will come back to almost the same position each day, except that it will be 1/365th ahead of where it was the day before. As for the rest of the stars, they also rotate with the aether, and thus they are not moving at exorbitant speeds, rather, the aether is rotating. Since the aether is at Planck dimensions, it can withstand such speeds.

However, the heliocentric system demands that the sun move around the galaxy at a half million miles per hour, and that the Milky Way galaxy move about 100 times faster than the sun around clusters of other galaxies, and that the outer most galaxies are moving faster than the speed of light. Now that’s getting into the science fiction realm!  Thus the heliocentric system DEMANDS these impossible speeds for the stars.

You have not explained why a faster speed is "more preposterous" than a slow one.
You have not used logic in your answer, other than the circular kind, because you take geocentricity as a starting premise rather than as a conclusion drawn from the greater likelihood of slower speeds.
In summary: you can't answer my question.

In summary you won't listen.     
The earth is not moving at all nor is it rotating.  In the fictitious heliocentric universe we are moving millions of miles per hour.  What's hard to comprehend?

The earth is not moving at all nor is it rotating.