New member, possibly old questions

Okay, I've read the FAQ, I've read some of the forums, and I'm ready to ask a couple questions (maybe already addressed, but I couldn't find them):
-What's the point?  Why should the governments of the world fake a round Earth, a moon landing, and stars and planets more than a few hundred kilometers away?  What's in it for them?
-What about Occam's Razor?  With two explanations, one requiring a lot of explanations and no evidence that can be verified(all photos are faked, etc), and one rather simple explanation that needs no elaboration, you choose the simpler one.  Why choose the flat earth?

-What's the point?  Why should the governments of the world fake a round Earth, a moon landing, and stars and planets more than a few hundred kilometers away?  What's in it for them?

Sometimes people act irrationally, sometimes their reasoning is secret.

Simply because you or I cannot think of a good reason for someone to have done something, does not mean they have not done it.

Simply because you or I cannot think of a good reason for someone to have done something, does not mean they have not done it.

That doesn't explain why people would believe in something that they have no reason to believe in.

That doesn't explain why people would believe in something that they have no reason to believe in.

People believe the Earth is flat because it looks flat.

People believe the Earth is flat because it looks flat.

That is false since the earth doesn't look flat. You can observe its curvature if you look to the horizon from an open-space (for example, if you look towards the sea/ocean from a wide beach).

atmospheric distortion.

That is false since the earth doesn't look flat. You can observe its curvature if you look to the horizon from an open-space (for example, if you look towards the sea/ocean from a wide beach).

Not true. This is a complete myth.

Quote from: "bibicul"

That is false since the earth doesn't look flat. You can observe its curvature if you look to the horizon from an open-space (for example, if you look towards the sea/ocean from a wide beach).

Not true. This is a complete myth.

Agreed.  The difference bettween the apparent height of the horizon and the apparent height of a flat plane touching the Earth where a person is standing, from that person's perspective, is smaller than the finest details the human eye can resolve.

I would refer doubters to this post:

Hm.  Human eyes can resolve objects 0.93 mm wide at a distance of 1 mm (sic) (Wikipedia article on visual acuity); that's an angular resolution of just over 0.053°.  The horizon dip sitting on your porch (2 meters high?) is about 0.045° below level -- less than the minimum size of objects the human eye can see:



r is the radius of the Earth, h is your height above see level, and a is the angle that the horizon dips below level.  a = arcsec((r + h) / r).

Quote from: "bibicul"

That doesn't explain why people would believe in something that they have no reason to believe in.

People believe the Earth is flat because it looks flat.

From a certain view point it may.


I still can't get over the whole concept of "Global Cooling" which yoor theory has just plucked out of the air. There is such a thing as Global Dimming but it isnt enough to mask the effect of Global Warming. "global dimming have masked the effect of global warming to some extent" (Wikipedia). But if it was to completely mask global warming then we would have a massive acid rain problem (which would be harmful to your 'ice wall')


Could you also provide us with the information on how to make helicopter pads 'float' in the air, as your FAQ also links us to a forum post explaining how the 'ice wall' is guarded.

Could you also provide us with the information on how to make helicopter pads 'float' in the air

No one claimed that helicopter pads float in the air.

atmospheric distortion.

At ground level you wouldn't be able to see far enough for the atmosphere to get in the way. The atmosphere only starts to get in the way if you are at a high altitude.

Here's a better explanation of visible curvature:  In the olden days of masted ships, one could watch the masts of a ship disappear over the horizon as the ship sailed away.  With good enough telescopes, one could see all the other cities on Earth if the Earth was flat.  Why can't we?
Okay, here's another one:  How did the flat Earth form?  There are no physical processes that would result in the formation of a flat Earth.  Hydrostatic equilibrium governs the shape of the Earth (which is albeit a little flatter at the poles due to rotation).  It would be unlikely that a disc shaped Earth would even form in the first place.

I would refer doubters to this post:

Quote from: "I"

Hm.  Human eyes can resolve objects 0.93 mm wide at a distance of 1 mm (sic) (Wikipedia article on visual acuity); that's an angular resolution of just over 0.053°.  The horizon dip sitting on your porch (2 meters high?) is about 0.045° below level -- less than the minimum size of objects the human eye can see:



r is the radius of the Earth, h is your height above see level, and a is the angle that the horizon dips below level.  a = arcsec((r + h) / r).

I would refer you to this image:

As you can see, the curved horizon is observable and not an illusion. But then again, we all knew this from the beach.

I would refer you to this image:
*snip*
As you can see, the curved horizon is observable and not an illusion. But then again, we all knew this from the beach.

That looks like lens distortion to me. I could use a similarly distorted image to prove that the earth is bowl-shaped:

Of course, the distortion in this image is much greater, but there is distortion in both - lenses often distort, and the wider the scene they attempt to capture, the more they distort the image. As Erasmus's linked post showed, the curve of the earth is completely invisible to the eye on ground-level.

As Erasmus's linked post showed, the curve of the earth is completely invisible to the eye on ground-level.

I fully disagree. Einstein argued that explanations of phenomena must be based on real-life observations; my picture is "real-life" and it confirms what I see at the beach with the naked eye.

Therefore, your argument doesn't stand.

The distorted photo submitted to supposedly show that the Earth could be shown to be bowl shaped was to prove his point that photos can be faked.  But by doing this the poster undercuts his own theory by showing that anything can be shown to be true; therefore his theory is only a personal belief and not a scientifically valid explanation of observed phenomena.
If one observes the shoreline photo, you can see no other objects in the frame are "distorted", as the horizon supposedly is.  However, one cannot say the same about the "bowl" photo, which is quite obviously distorted.  Look at every object in both frames.  Using the same technique in both photos would yield the same results.
So the person who posted the horizon photo must be a government agent with computer graphics imaging at their fingertips?  Your theory that all photos are faked needs more explanation, or needs to be stricken as evidence of a flat Earth.

Quote from: "jparenti"

-What's the point?  Why should the governments of the world fake a round Earth, a moon landing, and stars and planets more than a few hundred kilometers away?  What's in it for them?

Sometimes people act irrationally, sometimes their reasoning is secret.

Simply because you or I cannot think of a good reason for someone to have done something, does not mean they have not done it.

I can argue there's no good reason.  You can argue there's no way of me knowing their reason.  You argue that there's no way to prove me right... but by doing so, you also prove that I cannot be disproved.  This is an illogical way of arguing your point.  Where's your real evidence?  What proves to you, personally, that this is all true and that the world is flat?

Both great posts jparenti.

Quote from: "Jake"

Could you also provide us with the information on how to make helicopter pads 'float' in the air

No one claimed that helicopter pads float in the air.

Strategically locate some helicopter pads (on the wall or floating)

I am going to use the words of a FE'er, thedigitalnomad.

Read the fucking FAQ.

LOL good job Jake!  :lol:

You argue that there's no way to prove me right... but by doing so, you also prove that I cannot be disproved.

That's correct.  The "why would they do that" question does not advance or retard the argument.

This is an illogical way of arguing your point.

It only argues against your point, and to that extent advances mine.  Aside from being a valid argument against your argument, it has no value.

The "why would they do that" question does not advance or retard the argument.

Sure it does. It makes you a fanatic since you believe in something for absolutely no reason.

Quote from: "jparenti"

This is an illogical way of arguing your point.

It only argues against your point, and to that extent advances mine.  Aside from being a valid argument against your argument, it has no value.

That makes no sense. An argument becomes valid in the context of a theory, not just against another argument. What you imply is synonimous to me telling you that your eyes are square-shaped simply because you stated they were oval-shaped. As you can see, this is a "valid" argument against yours (based on your definition), but it makes no sense in the overall context of human anatomy, as obviously human eyes are not square-shaped.

What you imply is synonimous to me telling you that your eyes are square-shaped simply because you stated they were oval-shaped.

It's pointing out that no one has advanced their argument.  That no one had put forward a valid argument in respect of the shape of my eyes proves only that no one had put forward a valid argument in respect of the shape of my eyes.

The question, "why would I misrepresent the shape of my eyes," tells you nothing about the shape of my eyes.  Hence, "why would NASA misrepresent the shape of the Earth," tells us nothing about the shape of the Earth.

Quote from: "bibicul"

What you imply is synonimous to me telling you that your eyes are square-shaped simply because you stated they were oval-shaped.

It's pointing out that no one has advanced their argument.  That no one had put forward a valid argument in respect of the shape of my eyes proves only that no one had put forward a valid argument in respect of the shape of my eyes.

The question, "why would I misrepresent the shape of my eyes," tells you nothing about the shape of my eyes.  Hence, "why would NASA misrepresent the shape of the Earth," tells us nothing about the shape of the Earth.

Precisely. And since all accepted evidence currently points to the earth being round AND there is no reason as to why governments would mislead anyone, why would you believe that it was flat? Now, while "why would NASA misinterpret the shape of the earth" tells us nothing about the shape of the earth, proving the existence of such a misinterpretation would indeed drive some to believe that the earth COULD be flat. As of now, you have absolutely no reason to believe that. Therefore, as I've stated above, you just make yourself seem fanatical.

People, please learn the definition of validity, especially in the context of argument.
A deductive argument is valid IF the conclusion follows from the premises.  All A are B.  All B are C.  Therefore All A are C.  That is a valid argument.
Validity has nothing to do with the truth value of the claims, or the truth value of the conclusion.  Nor does it have anything to do with it being a well-spoken argument.  It only has to do with the FORM.
Besides, few arguments on here are even deductive.  Most are inductive.  We've got another word for an inductive argument with proper form.  "Cogent."
If you want to say the argument has a high level of truth or is well-said, please just use the word "sound".  Hell, you can even use the value judgement of "good", though "well" usually works better when complimenting an arguer's statements.  The opposite of "well" is "poor" by the way.  Not "bad".

Well said DragonXero.

Well, it was partially directed at you as well.  I'm playing FE agnostic on the forums because it's fun to play with ideas.  Just like it's fun to play with the hollow earth theory.
Just, please, everyone, be more mindful of your word usage.

Well said DragonXero.

The post was directed at you. It has nothing to do with my method of arguing or what I was saying.

Quote from: "TheEngineer"

Quote from: "Jake"

Could you also provide us with the information on how to make helicopter pads 'float' in the air

No one claimed that helicopter pads float in the air.

Quote

Strategically locate some helicopter pads (on the wall or floating)

I am going to use the words of a FE'er, thedigitalnomad.

Read the fucking FAQ.

Sigh...Floating at sea, not in the air.  Some of you RE'ers...

I would refer you to this image:

As you can see, the curved horizon is observable and not an illusion. But then again, we all knew this from the beach.

Sigh.  I thought REers had finally realized the futility of this line of argument when they stopped brining it up months ago.  I guess it needs to be in the FAQ as well!

If I stand on a very large round table, its edge will appear curved to me.  That does not mean that the table is a sphere.  In order to infer sphericity from curvature, we need to see the ground getting "lower" as it gets farther away.  In other words, the curvature needs to be in a vertical plane (containing the viewer and the horizon point straight ahead), not a horizontal one (containing the viewer and the entire horizon).  That picture that you linked, if genuine, shows curvature in the horizontal plane, which is totally irrelevant to a debate about the flatness vs. sphericity of the Earth.