« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Down

Give your top ten proofs for a globe.

  • 119 Replies
  • 17001 Views
*

CaptainMagpie

  • 331
  • Aristibird of Knowledge
Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
« Reply #60 on: December 22, 2015, 08:44:57 AM »
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 22, 2015, 03:02:30 AM
Quote from: CaptainMagpie on December 21, 2015, 05:37:16 PM
Can you address what has been said outside of DEF since that is not an accepted model? If not you can leave.
FET isn't an 'accepted model,' you don't get to ignore a working model just because you're too lazy to learn it.
I'm not ignoring a working model because yours doesn't work. It can't even tell you where you are on the model so why would anyone think it "works"?
Logged
Quote from: jroa on December 18, 2015, 04:42:02 PM
fuck off penguin.  I'll take my ban to tell you to go fuck your self.  Ban please.   I am waiting.
*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
« Reply #61 on: December 22, 2015, 08:47:45 AM »
Quote from: CaptainMagpie on December 22, 2015, 08:44:57 AM
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 22, 2015, 03:02:30 AM
Quote from: CaptainMagpie on December 21, 2015, 05:37:16 PM
Can you address what has been said outside of DEF since that is not an accepted model? If not you can leave.
FET isn't an 'accepted model,' you don't get to ignore a working model just because you're too lazy to learn it.
I'm not ignoring a working model because yours doesn't work. It can't even tell you where you are on the model so why would anyone think it "works"?
What the fuck are you on about now? Are you just copying Jadyyn's incoherencies?
"It can't even tell you where you are on the model." What the fuck is that meant to mean?!

How about justifying your claims that DET doesn't work for once in your miserable life. STOP WASTING MY TIME. You were just managing a few vaguely substantive discussions, and now you're back to inexplicable trolling. Great.
Logged
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.
*

CaptainMagpie

  • 331
  • Aristibird of Knowledge
Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
« Reply #62 on: December 22, 2015, 08:53:06 AM »
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 22, 2015, 08:47:45 AM
Quote from: CaptainMagpie on December 22, 2015, 08:44:57 AM
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 22, 2015, 03:02:30 AM
Quote from: CaptainMagpie on December 21, 2015, 05:37:16 PM
Can you address what has been said outside of DEF since that is not an accepted model? If not you can leave.
FET isn't an 'accepted model,' you don't get to ignore a working model just because you're too lazy to learn it.
I'm not ignoring a working model because yours doesn't work. It can't even tell you where you are on the model so why would anyone think it "works"?
What the fuck are you on about now? Are you just copying Jadyyn's incoherencies?
"It can't even tell you where you are on the model." What the fuck is that meant to mean?!

How about justifying your claims that DET doesn't work for once in your miserable life. STOP WASTING MY TIME. You were just managing a few vaguely substantive discussions, and now you're back to inexplicable trolling. Great.
Lol, how hard is it to understand if you can't use the equivalent of a "landmark" and using mathematical calculations based on where your model would say things are, then you cannot verify anything in the model?
Logged
Quote from: jroa on December 18, 2015, 04:42:02 PM
fuck off penguin.  I'll take my ban to tell you to go fuck your self.  Ban please.   I am waiting.
?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
« Reply #63 on: December 22, 2015, 09:09:36 AM »
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 22, 2015, 08:47:45 AM
Quote from: CaptainMagpie on December 22, 2015, 08:44:57 AM
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 22, 2015, 03:02:30 AM
Quote from: CaptainMagpie on December 21, 2015, 05:37:16 PM
Can you address what has been said outside of DEF since that is not an accepted model? If not you can leave.
FET isn't an 'accepted model,' you don't get to ignore a working model just because you're too lazy to learn it.
I'm not ignoring a working model because yours doesn't work. It can't even tell you where you are on the model so why would anyone think it "works"?
What the fuck are you on about now? Are you just copying Jadyyn's incoherencies?
"It can't even tell you where you are on the model." What the fuck is that meant to mean?!

How about justifying your claims that DET doesn't work for once in your miserable life. STOP WASTING MY TIME. You were just managing a few vaguely substantive discussions, and now you're back to inexplicable trolling. Great.
BTW, I just went to your new DEF site and it is basically the same as before with the same problems.

Since, I have said this LOTS of times, if there is no map, you can't tell where anything is in DEF except the poles and equators. Therefore, you can not tell distances or what anyone/anything observes and therefore can not make predictions either. This is particularly important aligning telescopes. You have never provided angles or how they are calculated in DEF because you don't know where the telescopes are or how high the NCP and SCP are.

For you saying you do not understand the questions is BS.
Logged
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
*

CaptainMagpie

  • 331
  • Aristibird of Knowledge
Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
« Reply #64 on: December 22, 2015, 09:11:51 AM »
Quote from: Jadyyn on December 22, 2015, 09:09:36 AM
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 22, 2015, 08:47:45 AM
Quote from: CaptainMagpie on December 22, 2015, 08:44:57 AM
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 22, 2015, 03:02:30 AM
Quote from: CaptainMagpie on December 21, 2015, 05:37:16 PM
Can you address what has been said outside of DEF since that is not an accepted model? If not you can leave.
FET isn't an 'accepted model,' you don't get to ignore a working model just because you're too lazy to learn it.
I'm not ignoring a working model because yours doesn't work. It can't even tell you where you are on the model so why would anyone think it "works"?
What the fuck are you on about now? Are you just copying Jadyyn's incoherencies?
"It can't even tell you where you are on the model." What the fuck is that meant to mean?!

How about justifying your claims that DET doesn't work for once in your miserable life. STOP WASTING MY TIME. You were just managing a few vaguely substantive discussions, and now you're back to inexplicable trolling. Great.
BTW, I just went to your new DEF site and it is basically the same as before with the same problems.

Since, I have said this LOTS of times, if there is no map, you can't tell where anything is in DEF except the poles and equators. Therefore, you can not tell distances or what anyone/anything observes and therefore can not make predictions either. This is particularly important aligning telescopes. You have never provided angles or how they are calculated in DEF because you don't know where the telescopes are or how high the NCP and SCP are.

For you saying you do not understand the questions is BS.
Agreed.
Logged
Quote from: jroa on December 18, 2015, 04:42:02 PM
fuck off penguin.  I'll take my ban to tell you to go fuck your self.  Ban please.   I am waiting.
*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
« Reply #65 on: December 22, 2015, 09:51:29 AM »
Quote from: CaptainMagpie on December 22, 2015, 08:53:06 AM
Lol, how hard is it to understand if you can't use the equivalent of a "landmark" and using mathematical calculations based on where your model would say things are, then you cannot verify anything in the model?
It's not hard to understand: it's very simple to understand. it's also very clearly bullshit. You don't need to know the exact speed of a bus to know not to run in front of it, and you don't need to know your exact geographical position to know what direction another place is. Observations of circumpolar stars, for example, make sense only with each hemiplane defined.
You're wasting time, and that's all. When you have actual substance, let me know.
Logged
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.
?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
« Reply #66 on: December 22, 2015, 10:14:42 AM »
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 22, 2015, 09:51:29 AM
Quote from: CaptainMagpie on December 22, 2015, 08:53:06 AM
Lol, how hard is it to understand if you can't use the equivalent of a "landmark" and using mathematical calculations based on where your model would say things are, then you cannot verify anything in the model?
It's not hard to understand: it's very simple to understand. it's also very clearly bullshit. You don't need to know the exact speed of a bus to know not to run in front of it, and you don't need to know your exact geographical position to know what direction another place is. Observations of circumpolar stars, for example, make sense only with each hemiplane defined.
You're wasting time, and that's all. When you have actual substance, let me know.
Yep, this is what he is telling amateur astronomers, TV dish installers, planes, ships and everyone else who actually needs to know where they are to do something in the REAL world. In the DE fantasy world, who cares? There are no real people except JRowe on it anyways, sitting in his chair theorizing and insulting people.
Logged
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
*

CaptainMagpie

  • 331
  • Aristibird of Knowledge
Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
« Reply #67 on: December 22, 2015, 10:30:50 AM »
Quote from: Jadyyn on December 22, 2015, 10:14:42 AM
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 22, 2015, 09:51:29 AM
Quote from: CaptainMagpie on December 22, 2015, 08:53:06 AM
Lol, how hard is it to understand if you can't use the equivalent of a "landmark" and using mathematical calculations based on where your model would say things are, then you cannot verify anything in the model?
It's not hard to understand: it's very simple to understand. it's also very clearly bullshit. You don't need to know the exact speed of a bus to know not to run in front of it, and you don't need to know your exact geographical position to know what direction another place is. Observations of circumpolar stars, for example, make sense only with each hemiplane defined.
You're wasting time, and that's all. When you have actual substance, let me know.
Yep, this is what he is telling amateur astronomers, TV dish installers, planes, ships and everyone else who actually needs to know where they are to do something in the REAL world. In the DE fantasy world, who cares? There are no real people except JRowe on it anyways, sitting in his chair theorizing and insulting people.
All he does is beat around the bush to dodge the question and then try to get you to justify something instead without ever justifying his own claims other then saying it is in the model, (that he made up all by himself).
Logged
Quote from: jroa on December 18, 2015, 04:42:02 PM
fuck off penguin.  I'll take my ban to tell you to go fuck your self.  Ban please.   I am waiting.
*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
« Reply #68 on: December 22, 2015, 10:44:24 AM »
Quote from: CaptainMagpie on December 22, 2015, 10:30:50 AM
Quote from: Jadyyn on December 22, 2015, 10:14:42 AM
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 22, 2015, 09:51:29 AM
Quote from: CaptainMagpie on December 22, 2015, 08:53:06 AM
Lol, how hard is it to understand if you can't use the equivalent of a "landmark" and using mathematical calculations based on where your model would say things are, then you cannot verify anything in the model?
It's not hard to understand: it's very simple to understand. it's also very clearly bullshit. You don't need to know the exact speed of a bus to know not to run in front of it, and you don't need to know your exact geographical position to know what direction another place is. Observations of circumpolar stars, for example, make sense only with each hemiplane defined.
You're wasting time, and that's all. When you have actual substance, let me know.
Yep, this is what he is telling amateur astronomers, TV dish installers, planes, ships and everyone else who actually needs to know where they are to do something in the REAL world. In the DE fantasy world, who cares? There are no real people except JRowe on it anyways, sitting in his chair theorizing and insulting people.
All he does is beat around the bush to dodge the question and then try to get you to justify something instead without ever justifying his own claims other then saying it is in the model, (that he made up all by himself).

So, ignoring every single thing I have said to you seems the best you have. Ok then. Do you feel able to make an actual argument.
I justify everything I say as far as it needs justifying. When all I claim is possibility, I will not go any further than that. When you claim a fact, you should justify that.
Logged
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.
*

CaptainMagpie

  • 331
  • Aristibird of Knowledge
Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
« Reply #69 on: December 22, 2015, 10:58:52 AM »
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 22, 2015, 10:44:24 AM
Quote from: CaptainMagpie on December 22, 2015, 10:30:50 AM
Quote from: Jadyyn on December 22, 2015, 10:14:42 AM
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 22, 2015, 09:51:29 AM
Quote from: CaptainMagpie on December 22, 2015, 08:53:06 AM
Lol, how hard is it to understand if you can't use the equivalent of a "landmark" and using mathematical calculations based on where your model would say things are, then you cannot verify anything in the model?
It's not hard to understand: it's very simple to understand. it's also very clearly bullshit. You don't need to know the exact speed of a bus to know not to run in front of it, and you don't need to know your exact geographical position to know what direction another place is. Observations of circumpolar stars, for example, make sense only with each hemiplane defined.
You're wasting time, and that's all. When you have actual substance, let me know.
Yep, this is what he is telling amateur astronomers, TV dish installers, planes, ships and everyone else who actually needs to know where they are to do something in the REAL world. In the DE fantasy world, who cares? There are no real people except JRowe on it anyways, sitting in his chair theorizing and insulting people.
All he does is beat around the bush to dodge the question and then try to get you to justify something instead without ever justifying his own claims other then saying it is in the model, (that he made up all by himself).

So, ignoring every single thing I have said to you seems the best you have. Ok then. Do you feel able to make an actual argument.
I justify everything I say as far as it needs justifying. When all I claim is possibility, I will not go any further than that. When you claim a fact, you should justify that.
Pretty sure 1000's of years of science has already done that. But I guess every scientist throughout time and multiple countries all conspired to lie to the world  ::)
Logged
Quote from: jroa on December 18, 2015, 04:42:02 PM
fuck off penguin.  I'll take my ban to tell you to go fuck your self.  Ban please.   I am waiting.
*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
« Reply #70 on: December 22, 2015, 12:33:30 PM »
So, argument from tradition, and majority. Fallacies still. Plus a dash of a straw man
Logged
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.
*

CaptainMagpie

  • 331
  • Aristibird of Knowledge
Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
« Reply #71 on: December 22, 2015, 01:30:40 PM »
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 22, 2015, 12:33:30 PM
So, argument from tradition, and majority. Fallacies still. Plus a dash of a straw man
Wow, all lies. I'm talking about the same science you used to build your DEF. So if you are saying that is is not reliable then neither is your model.
Logged
Quote from: jroa on December 18, 2015, 04:42:02 PM
fuck off penguin.  I'll take my ban to tell you to go fuck your self.  Ban please.   I am waiting.
*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
« Reply #72 on: December 22, 2015, 01:35:15 PM »
Quote from: CaptainMagpie on December 22, 2015, 01:30:40 PM
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 22, 2015, 12:33:30 PM
So, argument from tradition, and majority. Fallacies still. Plus a dash of a straw man
Wow, all lies. I'm talking about the same science you used to build your DEF. So if you are saying that is is not reliable then neither is your model.
Wow, straw man. Get a life.

I work from the evidence. You work from presupposing an interpretation and refusing to justify it or address any alternative.
Logged
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.
*

CaptainMagpie

  • 331
  • Aristibird of Knowledge
Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
« Reply #73 on: December 22, 2015, 01:47:53 PM »
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 22, 2015, 01:35:15 PM
Quote from: CaptainMagpie on December 22, 2015, 01:30:40 PM
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 22, 2015, 12:33:30 PM
So, argument from tradition, and majority. Fallacies still. Plus a dash of a straw man
Wow, all lies. I'm talking about the same science you used to build your DEF. So if you are saying that is is not reliable then neither is your model.
Wow, straw man. Get a life.

I work from the evidence. You work from presupposing an interpretation and refusing to justify it or address any alternative.
Pretty sure I work from evidence. Logical deduction is not evidence though so where is yours?
Logged
Quote from: jroa on December 18, 2015, 04:42:02 PM
fuck off penguin.  I'll take my ban to tell you to go fuck your self.  Ban please.   I am waiting.
?

inquisitive

  • 5108
Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
« Reply #74 on: December 22, 2015, 01:51:22 PM »
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 22, 2015, 01:35:15 PM
Quote from: CaptainMagpie on December 22, 2015, 01:30:40 PM
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 22, 2015, 12:33:30 PM
So, argument from tradition, and majority. Fallacies still. Plus a dash of a straw man
Wow, all lies. I'm talking about the same science you used to build your DEF. So if you are saying that is is not reliable then neither is your model.
Wow, straw man. Get a life.

I work from the evidence. You work from presupposing an interpretation and refusing to justify it or address any alternative.
Please provide one piece of your evidence here that we can discuss.
Logged
*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
« Reply #75 on: December 22, 2015, 01:52:37 PM »
Quote from: CaptainMagpie on December 22, 2015, 01:47:53 PM
Pretty sure I work from evidence. Logical deduction is not evidence though so where is yours?
STOP IGNROING EVERY FUCKING WORD I SAY YOU MORONIC penguin. STOP SPAMMING THE FORUM WITH YOUR BULLSHIT.

YOU CAN'T JUST IGNORE EVERY WORD I SAY AND THEN ACT LIKE THAT'S AN ARGUMENT
Logged
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.
*

CaptainMagpie

  • 331
  • Aristibird of Knowledge
Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
« Reply #76 on: December 22, 2015, 01:57:12 PM »
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 22, 2015, 01:52:37 PM
Quote from: CaptainMagpie on December 22, 2015, 01:47:53 PM
Pretty sure I work from evidence. Logical deduction is not evidence though so where is yours?
STOP IGNROING EVERY FUCKING WORD I SAY YOU MORONIC penguin. STOP SPAMMING THE FORUM WITH YOUR BULLSHIT.

YOU CAN'T JUST IGNORE EVERY WORD I SAY AND THEN ACT LIKE THAT'S AN ARGUMENT
Even if that is what I was doing, why not? That is all you have done.
Logged
Quote from: jroa on December 18, 2015, 04:42:02 PM
fuck off penguin.  I'll take my ban to tell you to go fuck your self.  Ban please.   I am waiting.
*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
« Reply #77 on: December 22, 2015, 01:57:49 PM »
Quote from: CaptainMagpie on December 22, 2015, 01:57:12 PM
Even if that is what I was doing, why not? That is all you have done.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 22, 2015, 01:52:37 PM
STOP IGNROING EVERY FUCKING WORD I SAY YOU MORONIC penguin. STOP SPAMMING THE FORUM WITH YOUR BULLSHIT.

YOU CAN'T JUST IGNORE EVERY WORD I SAY AND THEN ACT LIKE THAT'S AN ARGUMENT
Logged
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.
*

CaptainMagpie

  • 331
  • Aristibird of Knowledge
Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
« Reply #78 on: December 22, 2015, 02:35:50 PM »
And back to Ad Hominem again...
Logged
Quote from: jroa on December 18, 2015, 04:42:02 PM
fuck off penguin.  I'll take my ban to tell you to go fuck your self.  Ban please.   I am waiting.
*

Kirk Johnson

  • 582
Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
« Reply #79 on: December 22, 2015, 05:33:58 PM »
Quote from: CaptainMagpie on December 22, 2015, 02:35:50 PM
And back to Ad Hominem again...

You really didn't knew this was going to happen when you signed up? Then you must be smart as a flat earther  ;D
Logged
?

Brouwer

  • 830
Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
« Reply #80 on: December 22, 2015, 11:58:09 PM »
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 22, 2015, 08:39:33 AM
Quote from: Brouwer on December 22, 2015, 08:24:53 AM
To prove something, only one proof is sufficient. Giving distinct proofs makes the fact stronger and less reliable on possible mistakes.

You can prove your DET but it relies on the existance of aether. Some FE proofs I have just presented do not even need a gravity or other assumptions. Just pure geometry.
Pure geometry reliant on certain assumptions about what's observed.
Expect it does not need to. The geometry can be used not only to describe the known shape, but to figure out what kind of shape are we dealing with. If you are able to create a triangle with >180o angles in total, then you are not definitely on a plane.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 22, 2015, 08:39:33 AM
If you would care to address what I actually said:
Quote
If observations explained under both FET and RET are accepted as proof, I can happily give plenty.
This thread is about globe.
Logged
*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
« Reply #81 on: December 23, 2015, 03:37:33 AM »
Quote from: Brouwer on December 22, 2015, 11:58:09 PM
Expect it does not need to. The geometry can be used not only to describe the known shape, but to figure out what kind of shape are we dealing with. If you are able to create a triangle with >180o angles in total, then you are not definitely on a plane.
True, but it tells you no more than that: and that's hardly a feasible experiment.


Quote
Quote
If observations explained under both FET and RET are accepted as proof, I can happily give plenty.

This thread is about globe.
True, but the point itself stands. What is it that you accept as proof?
Logged
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.
?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
« Reply #82 on: December 23, 2015, 06:33:15 AM »
Quote from: Brouwer on December 22, 2015, 11:58:09 PM
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 22, 2015, 08:39:33 AM
Quote from: Brouwer on December 22, 2015, 08:24:53 AM
To prove something, only one proof is sufficient. Giving distinct proofs makes the fact stronger and less reliable on possible mistakes.

You can prove your DET but it relies on the existance of aether. Some FE proofs I have just presented do not even need a gravity or other assumptions. Just pure geometry.
Pure geometry reliant on certain assumptions about what's observed.
Expect it does not need to. The geometry can be used not only to describe the known shape, but to figure out what kind of shape are we dealing with. If you are able to create a triangle with >180o angles in total, then you are not definitely on a plane.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 22, 2015, 08:39:33 AM
If you would care to address what I actually said:
Quote
If observations explained under both FET and RET are accepted as proof, I can happily give plenty.
This thread is about globe.
Actually, you are correct about geometry, hence aligning telescopes:
  • If people align telescopes that match their latitudes, there is only one shape based on geometry (spherical) that can do this. Unless a different shape, specifically a FLAT shape, has this property, ALL models based on a FLAT shape fail.
  • To track the sky with 1 motor (the 530 ton, 200" Mt Palomar telescope used a 1/12 hp motor continuously for ~65 yrs), the alignment must be parallel to the axis of sky rotation. On all FLAT models, this is vertical by geometry. The only place REAL telescopes are aligned vertically is at the poles, everywhere else they are not (observer's latitude). Therefore, ALL FLAT models fail.
This is pure 100% geometry and its properties. No amount of BS or hand-waving will change these geometric properties and reality.
Logged
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
« Reply #83 on: December 23, 2015, 06:46:22 AM »
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 23, 2015, 03:37:33 AM
Quote from: Brouwer on December 22, 2015, 11:58:09 PM
Expect it does not need to. The geometry can be used not only to describe the known shape, but to figure out what kind of shape are we dealing with. If you are able to create a triangle with >180o angles in total, then you are not definitely on a plane.
True, but it tells you no more than that: and that's hardly a feasible experiment.
I proposed a different, "easy" experiment that was blown off:

The Sun (metal heated white-hot by friction encased in a rock shell) inside the Earth causes heat. This is enough heat to make magma from under the poles to the equator without burning up people at the equator somehow. It also somehow distributes the heat properly on the Earth.

The Moon is the same. Besides the obvious question of why the rocky part of the Moon doesn't melt or glow like magma, the Moon, being white-hot metal should also produce heat. Can we get some thermal equipment looking at the Moon in the sky and see if it, like the Sun, is hot?
« Last Edit: December 23, 2015, 06:50:03 AM by Jadyyn »
Logged
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
?

Brouwer

  • 830
Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
« Reply #84 on: December 23, 2015, 09:24:52 AM »
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 23, 2015, 03:37:33 AM
Quote from: Brouwer on December 22, 2015, 11:58:09 PM
Expect it does not need to. The geometry can be used not only to describe the known shape, but to figure out what kind of shape are we dealing with. If you are able to create a triangle with >180o angles in total, then you are not definitely on a plane.
True, but it tells you no more than that: and that's hardly a feasible experiment.
Well, that is your opinion. The statement is still valid for the Earth and one can confirm spherical geometry of it with sufficient resources. You do not need to assume anything. You just need to measure few things. Or use the website that provides flight distances between various cities to quickly find that the flat Earth case makes those distances impossible.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 23, 2015, 03:37:33 AM
Quote
Quote
If observations explained under both FET and RET are accepted as proof, I can happily give plenty.

This thread is about globe.
True, but the point itself stands. What is it that you accept as proof?
A precise and valid proof = a logic sequence of statements following from basic rules of logic, respecting existing facts, not contradicting already existing things and following rules of scientific research.
Logged
*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
« Reply #85 on: December 23, 2015, 09:32:02 AM »
Quote from: Brouwer on December 23, 2015, 09:24:52 AM
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 23, 2015, 03:37:33 AM
Quote from: Brouwer on December 22, 2015, 11:58:09 PM
Expect it does not need to. The geometry can be used not only to describe the known shape, but to figure out what kind of shape are we dealing with. If you are able to create a triangle with >180o angles in total, then you are not definitely on a plane.
True, but it tells you no more than that: and that's hardly a feasible experiment.
Well, that is your opinion. The statement is still valid for the Earth and one can confirm spherical geometry of it with sufficient resources. You do not need to assume anything. You just need to measure few things. Or use the website that provides flight distances between various cities to quickly find that the flat Earth case makes those distances impossible.
Only if you assume distance is the only variable at play, which it clearly wouldn't be. All even the classical FE model needs is to justify the existence of, say, air currents, especially on the outer half, and the flight times argument fails.
The DE model doesn't share that flaw with classical FET, but even so the illustration stands. The argument relies on certain assumptions, whether you notice them or not. Simply because some conceivable experiments could confirm an Earth shape (if that were possible) means nothing until said experiments are reliably performed.

Quote
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 23, 2015, 03:37:33 AM
Quote
Quote
If observations explained under both FET and RET are accepted as proof, I can happily give plenty.

This thread is about globe.
True, but the point itself stands. What is it that you accept as proof?
A precise and valid proof = a logic sequence of statements following from basic rules of logic, respecting existing facts, not contradicting already existing things and following rules of scientific research.
Technically accurate, practically useless.
Take an observation that is explained by RET, and that contradicts some FE models, but is nonetheless accepted and explained by other FE models. Would that observation be counted as proof of RET, by your definition?
Logged
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.
?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
« Reply #86 on: December 23, 2015, 09:57:28 AM »
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 23, 2015, 09:32:02 AM
Quote from: Brouwer on December 23, 2015, 09:24:52 AM
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 23, 2015, 03:37:33 AM
Quote from: Brouwer on December 22, 2015, 11:58:09 PM
Expect it does not need to. The geometry can be used not only to describe the known shape, but to figure out what kind of shape are we dealing with. If you are able to create a triangle with >180o angles in total, then you are not definitely on a plane.
True, but it tells you no more than that: and that's hardly a feasible experiment.
Well, that is your opinion. The statement is still valid for the Earth and one can confirm spherical geometry of it with sufficient resources. You do not need to assume anything. You just need to measure few things. Or use the website that provides flight distances between various cities to quickly find that the flat Earth case makes those distances impossible.
Only if you assume distance is the only variable at play, which it clearly wouldn't be. All even the classical FE model needs is to justify the existence of, say, air currents, especially on the outer half, and the flight times argument fails.
The DE model doesn't share that flaw with classical FET, but even so the illustration stands. The argument relies on certain assumptions, whether you notice them or not. Simply because some conceivable experiments could confirm an Earth shape (if that were possible) means nothing until said experiments are reliably performed.

Quote
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 23, 2015, 03:37:33 AM
Quote
Quote
If observations explained under both FET and RET are accepted as proof, I can happily give plenty.

This thread is about globe.
True, but the point itself stands. What is it that you accept as proof?
A precise and valid proof = a logic sequence of statements following from basic rules of logic, respecting existing facts, not contradicting already existing things and following rules of scientific research.
Technically accurate, practically useless.
Take an observation that is explained by RET, and that contradicts some FE models, but is nonetheless accepted and explained by other FE models. Would that observation be counted as proof of RET, by your definition?
As pointed out in the "telescope alignment" thread, thousands of equatorially mounted telescopes are aligned to the axis of rotation of the sky that match the observer's latitudes. This is THOUSANDS of experiments, many done daily/nightly, accurate to minutes or seconds of arc, that demonstrate the Earth is spherical (the Eratosthenes Experiment in reverse). JRowe does not want to believe it (it disproves DEF and ALL FLAT models in general). So he ignores this (and me).

BTW, these ARE reliably performed as evidenced by the pictures taken through the telescopes (e.g. 200" Mt Palomar telescope).

I find it funny that DEF hasn't actually performed ANY experiment and JRowe questions astronomers performing the "experiments" daily to a high degree of accuracy.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2015, 10:00:51 AM by Jadyyn »
Logged
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
?

EternalHoid

  • 176
Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
« Reply #87 on: December 23, 2015, 02:06:54 PM »
This list is a list of points that disprove normal flat earth theory,
1. Measurable variations in gravity would tear the disk apart if there was a universal accelerator, since if different parts of the disk were accelerating at different rates.
2. Foucault pendulum.
3. The corolise effect, visible in hurricanes.
4. The sun should change shape as it moves across the sky, and it shouldn't cross the horizon.
If you can't disprove all four points then FET is wrong.
As a bonus, reasons why RET is better.
1. We have working maps.
2. We can work out the paths of the planets in advance.
3. We can predict eclipse.
4. We can predict the motion of the stars.
Mainly it can make accurate mathematical predictions, something none of the other models do, and don’t start saying “We have no resources”, learn geometry and make a few working equations to find the motion of any planet or star, problem is this can’t happen because your models don’t work.
Logged
?

Brouwer

  • 830
Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
« Reply #88 on: December 23, 2015, 10:57:36 PM »
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 23, 2015, 09:32:02 AM
Only if you assume distance is the only variable at play, which it clearly wouldn't be. All even the classical FE model needs is to justify the existence of, say, air currents, especially on the outer half, and the flight times argument fails.
The DE model doesn't share that flaw with classical FET, but even so the illustration stands. The argument relies on certain assumptions, whether you notice them or not. Simply because some conceivable experiments could confirm an Earth shape (if that were possible) means nothing until said experiments are reliably performed.
That sounds a bit ridiculous. You do not need to fly in 100% straight line. Even with small deviation you can easily notice significat problems. Also, 100 years of aviation and development in science and it would not be possible? Why do you need any experiment when there are thousands made each day? Flight routes and their distances are your experiments. But it is up to you whether you think they are reliable or not. As I stated, small errors will not change the final result.

Also, your DE model is obviously flawed in that manner. Two flat or very slightly curved discs can be proven wrong using simple geometry. But you resist to understand this.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 23, 2015, 09:32:02 AM
Technically accurate, practically useless.
Speak for yourself.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 23, 2015, 09:32:02 AM
Take an observation that is explained by RET, and that contradicts some FE models, but is nonetheless accepted and explained by other FE models. Would that observation be counted as proof of RET, by your definition?
If you rely on RET as an explaination, then you have a circluar argument. Please restate your qeuestion.
Logged
*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.
« Reply #89 on: December 24, 2015, 04:54:48 AM »
Quote
That sounds a bit ridiculous. You do not need to fly in 100% straight line. Even with small deviation you can easily notice significat problems. Also, 100 years of aviation and development in science and it would not be possible? Why do you need any experiment when there are thousands made each day? Flight routes and their distances are your experiments. But it is up to you whether you think they are reliable or not. As I stated, small errors will not change the final result.
Only if they are indeed small changes.

Quote
Also, your DE model is obviously flawed in that manner. Two flat or very slightly curved discs can be proven wrong using simple geometry. But you resist to understand this.
There is nothing to understand. If "Oh, it's impossible because of an argument I refuse to give or an experiment that hasn't been performed," is the sole substance of the argument you're giving, I understand it just fine: it's assertion, no more.

Quote
If you rely on RET as an explaination, then you have a circluar argument. Please restate your qeuestion.
What needs restating? Pretty much all that's been provided in this thread as evidence for RET, are observations explained also by FE models. Circular arguments, by your own admission.

Quote
This list is a list of points that disprove normal flat earth theory,
By 'normal' I assume you mean 'drastic oversimplification favored by REers too lazy to learn or use the search function, and trolls.'

Quote
Mainly it can make accurate mathematical predictions, something none of the other models do, and don’t start saying “We have no resources”, learn geometry and make a few working equations to find the motion of any planet or star, problem is this can’t happen because your models don’t work.
Not wanting me to say it won't alter the fact it's relevant. Inevitably, the model with dramatically better funding and manpower is going to provide more details. What is your point?
Logged
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up
« previous next »