Dinosaurs: Made In China

You can see that the sun stays basically the same size throughout the day and then dips below the horizon, not shrinking into the distance.

The fact that the suns size changes at all is one of the firmest proofs of flat earth. If it truly was 93 million miles away it would never change in size.

Quote from: Badxtoss on February 02, 2017, 11:02:24 AM

You can see that the sun stays basically the same size throughout the day and then dips below the horizon, not shrinking into the distance.

The fact that the suns size changes at all is one of the firmest proofs of flat earth. If it truly was 93 million miles away it would never change in size.

It changes very slightly, to slight to actually because of some refraction, I believe.  The fact that it does not shrink into the distance is proof the earth is not flat.

Quote from: Badxtoss on February 02, 2017, 11:02:24 AM

You can see that the sun stays basically the same size throughout the day and then dips below the horizon, not shrinking into the distance.

The fact that the suns size changes at all is one of the firmest proofs of flat earth. If it truly was 93 million miles away it would never change in size.

Not at all Mr Arealhumanbeing, think again! The sun's size should change quite drastically if it was as close as claimed on the flat earth.

But,

• What on earth has this to do with the topic, "Dinosaurs: Made In China"?
  
  
• on your flat earth the sun could be, so we are told, as close as 3,000 miles away when directly overhead and over 9,000 miles away when setting. In my book it should gradually reduce to one third it's maximum size by the time it reaches the horizon.
  
  But in reality we get this:
  Quote from: rabinoz on January 24, 2017, 08:29:22 PM

  Quote from: MaxPen on January 24, 2017, 02:00:23 PM

  Apart from minute variations the size of the suns disc does not change, because it's 93 million miles away.
  

  Try this for some evidence that the size of the sun does not change during the day.
  The Constancy of the Angular size of the Sun « on: August 25, 2016, 02:12:47 PM »
  
  Here is a bit of that post:
  Now on Youtube there is a video made by a the Flat Earther, Matrix Decode with very good photos of the sun through a filter (an arc welder's glass) showing the sun at a number of times of day from 9:30 AM to 7:00 PM on 9/March/2016 in Malaga, Spain.
  
  The following screen shots from his video does an excellent job of proving that the sun size does not change!
  
  

  

  
  Do I need to say more? Our kind Flat Earther, Matrix Decode, has said it all!
  
  

  The "sun does not appear to change it size until just before sunset" - a then only a little in height!

  Yes, when the sun is almost on the horizon it can appear a little squashed due to the refraction increasing rapidly at the horizon
  
  

The fact that the sun's size does not change during the day is a firm proof that the sun is not only 3,000 miles away, but is extremely far away.

Just how many times does this well known and easily verified fact have to be repeated?

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on February 02, 2017, 11:10:24 AM

Gleason's map a a projection of a globe.  Gleason himself said:

Quote

The map is not so extorted as to lose the relative latitude and longitude of any places on the land or sea, but retains all latitudes and longitudes of places agreeing with other recognized authors; and as the proper relations of continents and countries all stand in their relative position to each other, they are thus impressed upon the mind of the student. The extorsion of the map from that of a globe consists, mainly in the straightening out of the meridian lines allowing each to retain their original value from Greenwich, the equator to the two poles.

Another win for RE!

Where does he say that?

In his patent application

Another win for RE!

Quote from: totallackey on February 02, 2017, 11:12:50 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on February 02, 2017, 11:10:24 AM

Gleason's map a a projection of a globe.  Gleason himself said:

Quote

The map is not so extorted as to lose the relative latitude and longitude of any places on the land or sea, but retains all latitudes and longitudes of places agreeing with other recognized authors; and as the proper relations of continents and countries all stand in their relative position to each other, they are thus impressed upon the mind of the student. The extorsion of the map from that of a globe consists, mainly in the straightening out of the meridian lines allowing each to retain their original value from Greenwich, the equator to the two poles.

Another win for RE!

Where does he say that?

In his patent application

Another win for RE!

Where does that say an extorsion equals a projection?

Yes, when the sun is almost on the horizon it can appear a little squashed due to the refraction increasing rapidly at the horizon

 The fact that the sun's size does not change during the day is a firm proof that the sun is not only 3,000 miles away, but is extremely far away.

"The suns size changes, but it does not change" - Rab the Deceiver.

Seriously, Earth is flat.

Quote from: rabinoz on February 03, 2017, 02:25:47 AM

Yes, when the sun is almost on the horizon it can appear a little squashed due to the refraction increasing rapidly at the horizon

 The fact that the sun's size does not change during the day is a firm proof that the sun is not only 3,000 miles away, but is extremely far away.

"The suns size changes, but it does not change" - Rab the Deceiver.

Seriously, Earth is flat.

Stop lying, he didn't say that and you know it. Which makes you the one deceiving. Seriously, stop lying. Earth is not flat.

Quote from: rabinoz on February 03, 2017, 02:25:47 AM

Yes, when the sun is almost on the horizon it can appear a little squashed due to the refraction increasing rapidly at the horizon

 The fact that the sun's size does not change during the day is a firm proof that the sun is not only 3,000 miles away, but is extremely far away.

"The suns size changes, but it does not change" - Rab the Deceiver.

Seriously, Earth is flat.

Can you read "Yes, when the sun is almost on the horizon it can appear a little squashed due to the refraction increasing rapidly at the horizon"
And
"on your flat earth the sun could be, so we are told, as close as 3,000 miles away when directly overhead and over 9,000 miles away when setting. In my book it should
It looks as though you can't read and can't even get information from photographs!

I notice that you don't even deign to comment!

I stopped responding to this thread because it has become increasingly off topic. There are plenty of threads here already refuting your claims that the suns size stays the same throughout the day.

I also grew tired of repeated claims that my proof of giants was fraudulent and anything of that nature was similarly fake. The first dinosaur lacked a skull and the majority of its bone set.

I stopped responding to this thread because it has become increasingly off topic. There are plenty of threads here already refuting your claims that the suns size stays the same throughout the day.

I also grew tired of repeated claims that my proof of giants was fraudulent and anything of that nature was similarly fake. The first dinosaur lacked a skull and the majority of its bone set.

True as I pointed out myself, "this thread because it has become increasingly off topic".
Yet you seemed to be quite happy to claim I was wrong with this post:

Quote from: rabinoz on February 03, 2017, 02:25:47 AM

Yes, when the sun is almost on the horizon it can appear a little squashed due to the refraction increasing rapidly at the horizon

 The fact that the sun's size does not change during the day is a firm proof that the sun is not only 3,000 miles away, but is extremely far away.

"The suns size changes, but it does not change" - Rab the Deceiver.

Seriously, Earth is flat.

Now would you be so kind as to give some links to "plenty of threads here already refuting your claims that the suns size stays the same throughout the day."
So it seems still the case that you have no evidence and no valid reasons for the assertion, but you still claim the "Earth is flat".

Plato would have been proud of you! He thought that the earth was a sphere simply because "a sphere was  a cool  shape"!
Whereas Aristotle actually gave logical reasons for his belief in the Globe.

Quote

Elephants have to eat around 18 hours a day. The brontosaurus, supposedly at least 5 times larger would have to eat for an impossible 90 hours a day! Given they can eat 90 hours a day, or somehow much faster, they would have depleted their food sources. At over 10 tons, a Mamenchisaurus would have to eat over 1000lbs of vegetation each day. This would destroy the ecosystem - unless you then invent a phantom ecosystem that would cover the entire surface of the earth up to the highest mountains to help bolster this silly dragon myth.

I didn't know that about elephants, but it appears you are right about that:

http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2016/02/02/video-how-much-food-does-a-thai-elephant-eat-in-a-day/
http://www.nationalelephantcenter.org/learn/
https://seaworld.org/en/animal-info/animal-infobooks/elephants/diet-and-eating-habits
http://www.elephant-world.com/elephant-feeding/
http://www.macroevolution.net/what-do-elephants-eat.html

Still I don't think it's fair to compare a warm-blooded mammal with a cold-blooded reptile.

Snakes and crocodiles can eat and not eat for a long time afterwards. They are carnivores, so a comparison with herbivore as brontosaurus wouldn't been fair either. Today we don't have huge reptiles that are herbivores. The Galapagos turtle comes closest.

But the claim that "they would destroy their ecosystem" is not how ecosystems work. They work down-top. The amount of grass defines the amount of rabbits defining the amount of weasles defining the amount of foxes, to make a comparison.

So if that brontosaurus lived, it would be only BECAUSE there was enough plant food available. Not the other way around.

We have no record or evidence of such plant food being available. By your logic, should we now not assume that the brontosaurus did not live, as there was supposedly not enough plant food available?

Quote

Unless of course, many mountains were once trees - evidenced also by historical record across all parts of the world talking of a 'world tree'. This is the only saving grace, but unfortunately I know of no round earthers that believe in such a thing leaving it an argument held by none.

"Mountains were trees"? First time I hear about this idea. Mountains are formed by tectonics, and the formations were once covered by trees if exposed, so far I understand it. But I don't think you mean that?

This is a popular, though not popularly supported, conjecture that floats around in the youtube flat earth community. The idea is that certain rock formations that appear to be cellular are indeed this. If you youtube flat earth there are no trees, you might find it.

Quote

The claim regarding bone stress is true or false whether or not I have studied the dinosaur bones. Obviously, I would have no part of paleontology and weigh my opinion on studies done by peers. I believe BoB is fond of that point.

You have no right to impose standards upon what is or is not suited for serious discussion; perhaps you are right that scientific discussion should not include talks of God and such, but scientific discussion is only one of many traditions that successfully build towards truth. It is tyrannical and against our currently knowledge and many historical cases regarding scientific method. I can list of pages and pages of research I've done into various religiously fueled scientific advances - and most are quite notable. Additionally, God could certainly have a lot to do with geology, should he exist.

With scientific I mean the philosophy of science. Forming a hypothesis, doing experiments/making observations and formulating a theory. Testing that. I do not mean scientific in the sense of relying on others per sé. There is nothing "tyrannical" about getting from observations to ideas and theories. Only if you propose that it defies armwaiving. But then so be it.

For any particular part of the scientific method, one can show that our development would have been seriously halted if said part or rule was not ignored or actively broken. For more on this, Paul Feyerabend talks of it in depth in Against Method. Galileo is one of his prime examples. The idea that there is one 'method', or tradition, that leads to 'knowledge' is not only tyrannical - as it cannot tolerate another tradition - it is against historical record. It is the same attitude that the dogmatic christian scientist often takes - views that are discordant are thrown out as what Charles Fort would call 'damned facts.'

Thomas Kuhn, famous expert in philosophy of science, also points out that scientific revolutions come about not due to scientific method, but in actuality scientific method failing and having to be abandoned. Most revolutions, like Galileo, are not supported by an empirical basis or even a methodological one. Instead, they are born out of the essential conflict that exists between an incorrect model attempting to describe reality and eventually coming to a toppling point allowing a much younger and less valid theories ( in a strict and methodological sense ) getting their time of day.

Compare this situation to both the resurgences of the flat earth society, and ponder.

Quote

Again, all bones need not be hoaxes; many are misidentified and classified due to the whimsy of those who choose to believe in nonsense. One of the first dinos found which was first stitched together from a crocodile and some plant eater teeth that experts repeatedly verified were from other animals. It is also of no doubt that money can and was made by the creation of dinosaurs. Also, it is amusing you say my arguments hinge on creationist agendas, when the dinosaurs themselves were invented by Sir Richard Owen.

To make the claim that "Dinosaurs are a hoax", ALL bones, skulls, eggs and anything else needs to be:
- faked
- misidentified and actually belonging to another kind of animal
- a combination of the first two

If you claim that ALL dinosaurs are fake, then it would be useful to at least make the case for a certain amount of bones, eggs and skulls. What you show is that various dinosaur bones have been faked, but that doesn't mean ALL are fake. You haven't made the case for the dinosaur bones and skulls and eggs that were "misidentified". What animals did they belong to? How did they fit in the ecosystem? What did they eat? Etc.

They belonged to the other less fantastical creatures we know existed at the time.

Quote

Yes yes, we've heard the excuse for your lack of evidence many times. They certainly didn't have issues in Alberta. Likewise, the aforementioned fellows who first discovered these dinosaur remains didn't seem to have much issue - finding it in their backyard or quarry.

This isn't an excuse, it's a fact of geology; thus of Nature. It's not the fault of the geologist that the Earth is dynamic and reworks sediments, fossils, formations, etc. Tectonics is not the fault of a geologist. It's the Earth. You cannot hold an investigator of a murder case (essentially the job of a geologist) responsible for having just 2 hairs and 3 blood traces to work with. It's an effect of the case itself/the murderer who erased his traces, etc.

You admit ignorance due to sheer geological necessity, and yet still claim knowledge in spite of this admitted ignorance.

Quote

As above, Are we supposed to believe there were no quarries before the 1800s? Or that we as a species collectively ignored the giant bones lying around everywhere, especially near water where we are known to prefer to build cities? No, this is patently ridiculous.

Of course there were quarries. But not as many as later. The world population was modest, many buildings were made of wood, The first and easiest accessible rocks were quarried. People may even have destroyed dinosaur fossils without knowing they did.

Your claim "lying around everywhere" is obviously not true. Dinosaur fossils, or non-marine fossils in general, are rare. We find them now in bigger quantities because we know where to look for them. Fossilisation in subaereal conditions is much harder than in marine conditions.

We find them in larger quantities because we've gotten better at finding dead animals, I agree. However, even today, many 'discoveries' of dinosaurs happen to be just 'lying around'. I believe earlier in the thread, an example is brought up concerning a farmer who dug up a pile of bones and turned it into a big payday saving his farm from bankruptcy and family from starvation. Earlier, we see two being pulled out quarries to be put on display in ones greeting room. Then we see two assholes running about and pulling dinosaurs out of every single piece of dirt they ever found. Some, like I mention, near locations where civilizations would have frequented.

Quote

So we are to invent and assume the impossible simply to support an already questionable theory? No, sir. I'm not going to assume dinosaurs bones were filled with air to support their supposed ridiculous size, their circulatory systems worked like nothing else on earth to stop their heart from exploding due to their neck size (Holden), or that for some magic reason gravity changed. I'm always amazed at the lengths gravity will be used to support untenable theories.

"Invent"? No. "Assume the impossible"? What makes you claim it's impossible that CO2 and O2 levels vary over geological time? I didn't say that dinosaur bones were "filled with air". The environmental characteristics ultimately define the species, see above with the ecosystem. It's hard to estimate the circulatory system of those animals, as those don't fossilise and present-day we have no huge reptiles that can serve as analogues. You might call that "excuses" again, but it's just a result of evolution, again not the fault of the observer (the geologist/paleontologist).

The reason used to justify dinosaur's large size and food intake within paleontology is that their bones were, yes, filled with air. You want me to believe these giant dragons existed, because you don't have enough information to explain away all the impossible characteristics they hold! I'm not sure you have much of a leg to stand on here. Now, to me, gravity magically changing to match what would be needed to explain away just one part of their ridiculous tail is almost a taller tale than dragons running about in the first place.

Quote

1: Yes, they are blind and stupified by this silly myth. Many, some quoted earlier in the thread, have left the profession recognizing it as bunk and have become vocal opponents of the myth. They were taught what they were taught, and like everybody else they believe it to the point that you could never convince them they were wrong. It is very easy to show a man who knows nothing; a man who thinks he knows though? Impossible.
1b. Giants.
2 Yes, many times fossils are found together and mis-identified.
3 Unlike the dinofaux enthusiasts, I'm happy to claim ignorance here. To expect to have this kind of knowledge will just lead one to the invention of silly myths. Its no better than having a god create your universe.
4 Unfortunately they are incorrect.

1: that is quite an accusation. The paleontologists I know are a bit nerdy serious researchers, not the typical type to promote clear hoaxes. To assume they are all in the game is not founded in reality. To assume they are all so stupid that they cannot recognise a faked fossil also doesn't make sense. I am not a paleontologist, but if someone presents me a fossil, I can tell if it's a fake or not.
Scientists in general are not so docile as you describe them. A number of them, sure, but ALL of them? No way.

Yes, many have passion and fight in them. However, these fights happen within the subject area; if one strays too far out of the subject area they are labelled a quack and their career might as well be over with all their facts damned. 

"Many have left the profession and are vocal opponents now"?? Where are they?? Where are AALLL the paleontologists who oppose the idea of dinosaurs? For the Global Warming hoax there are many. For the Apollo Hoax I am here. I haven't seen any non-creationist paleontologist who studied dinosaur bones or other remains and now is a vocal opponent.

Like I said, they were mentioned earlier in the thread.  I'm sorry you are having trouble finding your true scotsman :/.

1b: "Giants"? Giant what? Humans? How can humans have existed from 200 to 66 million years ago, then got extinct and again appeared in the last millions of years? And if they were "giant humans", how do you maintain your first point that they would need "90 hours a day to eat"? Where are the skulls? What are the dinosaur skulls, definitely not human-looking? ALL fake? Then everyone studying skulls is part of The Grand Conspiracy again. Is there any evidence for that? No. And dinosaur bones are very variable. There were small dinos, big dinos, theropods, sauropods, ichtyosaurs, plesiosaurs, etc. etc. How do you make the case they were all "giants", "giant whats"?

Many of these questions are answered earlier in the thread.

2 - Without having seen any fossil and claiming they are "misidentified", also without any background in studying anatomy or biology or paleontology is a bit bold, don't you think?

It is not hard to find examples of this happening. Surely, not all such instances are caught, recorded, or even noticed as well. The bold thing would be to take these frankly ludicrous to start with claims of dinofauxs as serious. Some nights I just laugh. Out there, right now, there are people that still believe in dragons. Their strongest evidence is that the evidence that would support their wild theories could never possibly have existed. That one never fails to tickle me.

3 - You keep using the word "inventing". Analysing geological formations and formulating possible ecosystems, environments, etc. is not "inventing" and certainly not similar to "creationism". It is using data. It's not based on nothing.

Are you making the bold claim that creationism is 'based on nothing' as opposed to 'data'?

It seems like in actuality this magic ecosystem works 'top-down' from the dinosaurs. Everything in it exists for the sole necessity of keeping these magical beasts alive in our minds. And yet, no evidence of all this, aside of course, that dinosaurs existed. Can't deny that one, no - in the globularist mind it holds a special place. Unassailable to logic, or reason, or anything.

They are so wide eyed at the thought of these silly creatures, that we are willing to accept anything to keep the damned bastards alive.

Eloquently put, but hypocritical at best.

You seem to be a little wide eyed yourself with your unsubstantiated belief in giants.

On to the size of the sun changing throughout the day:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za28.htm

Eloquently put, but hypocritical at best.

You seem to be a little wide eyed yourself with your unsubstantiated belief in giants.

And so your argument seems to hinge on a type of tu quoque? My hypocrisy does nothing to affect the logical or empirical validity of the above argument. I fully accept my conjecture about giants may be in err, and will gladly dismiss it before filling their bones with air, giving them impossible circulatory systems, creating an entire biosystem to support them, or changing gravity to suit their existence.

On to the size of the sun changing throughout the day:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za28.htm

It would be helpful if you indicated who you were replying to!

But as for Rowbotham, I'm confused, "CHAPTER XIV" of "Earth Not a Globe" on "WHY A SHIP'S HULL DISAPPEARS BEFORE THE MAST-HEAD" he gives quite a reasonable treatment of "apparent size" and "angle subtended at the eye".
Yet in the section you refer to, it's quite clear that he seems to have no idea of finding the visual size of a distant object.

He gives this diagram Then claims that

It is evident that when he(the sun) is in the position 1, the disc of light projected upon the atmosphere at 6, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . is considerably larger than the disc projected from the forenoon position, 2, upon the atmosphere at 7; and the disc at 7 is larger than that formed at 8, when the sun, at 3, is on the meridian;

For a start the "the disc of light" is not "projected upon the atmosphere" anywhere. The only significance of the ellipse at "6" is that it where the lines of sight from the observer's eye to the extremities of the sun intersect his imagined top of the atmosphere.
And of course the apparent size of that ellipse is exactly the apparent size of the sun.

The angular size of the sun is near enough to the (distance to the sun)/(diameter of the sun) expressed in radians
The atmosphere doesn't enter into it, other than to cause a small amount of refraction - raising the apparent position of the sun roughly 0.5° when right on the horizon.

So scaling Rowbotham's own diagram shows that the angular size of the sun is reduced to about 3 tenths of its size when overhead.
And whatever happened to this explanation in the Wiki?

Magnification of the Sun at Sunset
Q. If the sun is disappearing to perspective, shouldn't it get smaller as it recedes?
A. The sun remains the same size as it recedes into the distance due to a known magnification effect caused by the intense rays of light passing through the strata of the atmosphere.

The two explanations seem completely inconsistent with other!

Wait, I'm a tad confused; are you scaling a diagram not done to scale?

And yes, as you know, there are multiple models of the flat earth, and some are not coherent with others. This is also true of the globe earth.

Wait, I'm a tad confused; are you scaling a diagram not done to scale?

And yes, as you know, there are multiple models of the flat earth, and some are not coherent with others. This is also true of the globe earth.

You are? Well the sun height and distance to the sun are about right for the setting sun on your flat earth, so why not?
And it seems a bit rich, have you complain about that, then in another post suggest a migrating bird analogy for the setting sun.

Yes, there certainly "are multiple models of the flat earth, and some are not coherent with others."

But would you please enumerate all these multiple models of the globe earth.

And I will not accept differing hypotheses relating to cosmology as differing globe models.
Nor even differing hypotheses on the ultimate cause of gravitation. On both of these no-one denies that there are unknowns.
Let's restrict things to a region where reasonably accurate observation can be made.

As to the basic heliocentric globe there is essentially no debate.

Some claim that Einstein proved Newton wrong, but that was not the way Einstein looked at his work.
He looked at it more as extending the range of validity of Newton's work. As far as I know all physical "Laws" have limited ranges of validity.
And to cap it off Newton's Laws are the ones used in almost all scientific and engineering calculations, SR and GR are only used where really necessary, and then often as corrections.

Quote from: John Davis on February 04, 2017, 10:12:17 PM

Wait, I'm a tad confused; are you scaling a diagram not done to scale?

And yes, as you know, there are multiple models of the flat earth, and some are not coherent with others. This is also true of the globe earth.

You are? Well the sun height and distance to the sun are about right for the setting sun on your flat earth, so why not?

Maybe you would be kind enough to correct my rough figures.

And it seems a bit rich, have you complain about that, then in another post suggest a migrating bird analogy for the setting sun.

Yes, there certainly "are multiple models of the flat earth, and some are not coherent with others."

But would you please enumerate all these multiple models of the globe earth.

And I will not accept differing hypotheses relating to cosmology as differing globe models.
Nor even differing hypotheses on the ultimate cause of gravitation. On both of these no-one denies that there are unknowns.
Let's restrict things to a region where reasonably accurate observation can be made.

As to the basic heliocentric globe there is essentially no debate.

Some claim that Einstein proved Newton wrong, but that was not the way Einstein looked at his work.
He looked at it more as extending the range of validity of Newton's work. As far as I know all physical "Laws" have limited ranges of validity.
And to cap it off Newton's Laws are the ones used in almost all scientific and engineering calculations, SR and GR are only used where really necessary, and then often as corrections.

You ask me to enumerate every globe model; you give very specific dimensions of a true scotsman. Now, what if I should agree to this fool's errand. Would I then include the model where California was once an island? Or Atlantis? Or even the Garden of Eden? Or that the continents did not drift, or drifted slightly differently? What of those that describe different formations of the earth? These likely won't fit the bill.

And so we march onward. What of the creationists and their multiple models - are they fair game? Expanding Earth? Hollow Earth? Charle's Forts? No, these are too dirty for the table of the academic. You must be interested in only the truest scotsman.

Perhaps we shall then turn to those that are popular; we can easily throw out the remainder dismissing them as fringe. The Buddhist belief in mount Meru, the Shinto belief in the mountains and sea, and the Hindu creation mythologies - all stand greatly at odds and have their own differences from the standard globe. But that's all just religious hogwash viewing the true globe through spotty glasses, right? And so we now need a scotsman that is not only true - but has excellent vision.

So, let us do some enumeration instead - as it would tire my hand far less - of the groups of evidence you are willing to disallow as being different. When we are done, surely it will be have a framework to answer this question within.

We cannot talk of differences to the globe that fall in these categories, including my own additions:
[ol]

• Cosmology - the primary field at hand mind you
• Gravity - easily the most relevant difference in many models
• The Physics of the Globe
• Relativity, you know, just because
• Ideas that are not popular
• That are no longer held
• Religiously fueled differences
• Fringe Differences

[/ol]

To me, then I would have to argue - this discounts most notable differences in models that have led to advance again and again.

You ask me to enumerate every globe model; you give very specific dimensions of a true scotsman. Now, what if I should agree to this fool's errand. Would I then include the model where California was once an island? Or Atlantis? Or even the Garden of Eden? Or that the continents did not drift, or drifted slightly differently? What of those that describe different formations of the earth? These likely won't fit the bill.

Stop being patently ridiculous! These things are not "models of the Globe"!

• "California was once an island" - that is probably no more than an early surveying oversight.
• "Atlantis" is not a part of a "model" - and it seems dragged up more by flat-earthers anyway.
• "Garden of Eden" - is connected with no earth model, flat, spherical, hollow or whatever you like.
• Continental Drift - how does this relate to a basic model of what we have now?
• "different formations of the earth" - how is this connected with an earth model?

How the earth was formed has nothing to do with deciding what we have now!

<< quite irrelevant to the basic globe model >>
We cannot talk of differences to the globe that fall in these categories, including my own additions:
Cosmology - the primary field at hand mind you.

I would class cosmology loosely as the study of the heavens far removed fro our own solar system.
So, how does cosmology come into deciding what we have here and now? In fact it is more looking into the distant past.

So yes, I would argue that cosmology (outside the solar system) has nothing to do with deciding the present model of the earth.
The solar system, as at least the sun and moon really has to come into it, but that's hardly cosmology!

I am no cosmologist and don't intend becoming one.
I read up on it with passing interest only, but since the flat earth does not seem to have a cosmology (other that "little lights in the sky"), so I fail to see why you are bothering about it.

Gravity - easily the most relevant difference in many models

Yes, gravity is as essential to the Globe model as it is to your own.

As far as I am concerned there is no question of the reality of gravitation, essentially as presented by Newton and "updated" by GR.
The ultimate cause is a completely different matter, but nobody doubts the reality of electromagnetic forces, nor how they behave.
But could you describe the ultimate cause of electromagnetic forces?
Electromagnetic forces do fit into the current quantum theory, so we say we know the ultimate cause of electromagnetic forces,
but have we not just pushed "ultimate cause" back one more step? Why is quantum theory correct?

There are some clues on gravitation in that there are a lot of parallels between it and electromagnetic theory.
One of the massive difficulties of researching gravitation is that it seems such an incredibly weak force, making the hypothesised graviton of such low energy that many have questioned ever having the ability to "measure it" as we can do with photons.

But, I would think that the reality of gravity and its behaviour are certainly part of the Globe model.

The Physics of the Globe

If you can show that it affects the basic heliocentric globe model, sure drag it in!

Relativity, you know, just because

I never suggested excluding relativity, but it does not affect the heliocentric globe model one little bit. Some like to drag in the precession of Mercury's orbit and say "looky look, Newton's wrong", yes, Newtonian gravitation was out by "43 seconds of arc per century" out of a total precession of "5600 seconds of arc per century".
Honestly I'd say old Isaac didn't do too badly for someone working around "the summer of 1665".

Precession of the perihelion of Mercury
As seen from Earth the precession of Mercury's orbit is measured to be 5600 seconds of arc per century (one second of arc=1/3600 degrees). Newton's equations, taking into account all the effects from the other planets (as well as a very slight deformation of the sun due to its rotation) and the fact that the Earth is not an inertial frame of reference, predicts a precession of 5557 seconds of arc per century. There is a discrepancy of 43 seconds of arc per century.

UCR, Physics, Precession of the perihelion of Mercury

So, sure relativity is important, but I fail to see it making any fundamental changes to the Heliocentric Globe model.

• Ideas that are not popular
• That are no longer held
• Religiously fueled differences
• Fringe Differences

To me, then I would have to argue - this discounts most notable differences in models that have led to advance again and again.

That's all irrelevant to any Globe model.

So many of these things involve accurate measurement. When has the Flat Earth "movement" ever measured anything?
Oh yes, old Samuel Birley Rowbotham "measured" the height of the the sun and claimed that  it could not be over 700 statute miles high  . Maybe he should have called a surveyor in, but he did not like surveyors - they proved him wrong!

So please try again!

Everywhere you look. If things were as coherent as you claim, there would be little room to progress, would there not?

Everywhere you look. If things were as coherent as you claim, there would be little room to progress, would there not?

There is little room to progress in regards to the value of 2+2. Coming up with convoluted reasons why 2+2 should equal anything other than 4 is not creating room for progress. It's regression.

It appears that the room to progress is as infinite as the universe. There is much about the astronomically big that we don't understand as well as the infinitesimally small. Building on what we know to further our understanding is progress.

Everywhere you look. If things were as coherent as you claim, there would be little room to progress, would there not?

Who are you talking to?

Quote from: John Davis on February 05, 2017, 09:47:29 PM

Everywhere you look. If things were as coherent as you claim, there would be little room to progress, would there not?

There is little room to progress in regards to the value of 2+2. Coming up with convoluted reasons why 2+2 should equal anything other than 4 is not creating room for progress. It's regression.

It appears that the room to progress is as infinite as the universe. There is much about the astronomically big that we don't understand as well as the infinitesimally small. Building on what we know to further our understanding is progress.

I'd say the statement "2+2=5" was very progressive. Ignoring progression outside of the system immediately at hand, which you may mean, do you not think the invention of ring based or modular numbering systems discounts your claim that there is little progress in regards to the value of 2+2?

Let us dive even deeper here. Wittgenstein, in Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics, talks of a very similar scenario. I disagree with his end argument, but the argument itself here is pertinent. Let us take a student. We ask him to continue the series +2, starting at 2.

2, 4, 6, 8, and so on. Now, how can we say that this is the correct answer and not, for example,
2, 5, 9, and so on. 

We can answer this simply - we are using the set of cardinal numbers. Well, this may seem well enough until one realizes that this simply defines the answer for us, it does not give the answer any real validity. It would be the same as if I said "Produce a series of letters based on the string 'a string' in order. This shows us that it is equally correct, if we so wish, to instead state the series +1 (rather than +2 as before) as 1, 2, 0, 1, 2, 0, 1, 2... and thus +2 being 2(1,2,0,1,2,0). We can even define a useful relation to the real world here. Take ring networks of order 3. Numbering the first node as 0, we see adding to any node bring it to the next node until we end up looping back to the start. Thus, we find a useful advance to 2+2; 2+2 = 1.

Wittgenstein then goes on to say it is sufficient to say that it is in use, and so it is correct as we use it as a tool. As a nominalist, you can see my reservations in taking such a position - however, I have already shown a use satisfying his worries as well as the original argument. Advance can be made on 2+2, shown first through literature, and secondly through philosophy of mathematics.

There are also arguments, obviously, about the validity of our use of integers in general. These attacks will also support the view that there is advance to be found in 2+2.

Quote from: John Davis on February 05, 2017, 09:01:33 AM

You ask me to enumerate every globe model; you give very specific dimensions of a true scotsman. Now, what if I should agree to this fool's errand. Would I then include the model where California was once an island? Or Atlantis? Or even the Garden of Eden? Or that the continents did not drift, or drifted slightly differently? What of those that describe different formations of the earth? These likely won't fit the bill.

Stop being patently ridiculous! These things are not "models of the Globe"!

• "California was once an island" - that is probably no more than an early surveying oversight.
• "Atlantis" is not a part of a "model" - and it seems dragged up more by flat-earthers anyway.
• "Garden of Eden" - is connected with no earth model, flat, spherical, hollow or whatever you like.
• Continental Drift - how does this relate to a basic model of what we have now?
• "different formations of the earth" - how is this connected with an earth model?

How the earth was formed has nothing to do with deciding what we have now!

It is self evident the the formation of a body determines its shape.

California being an island or being Atlantis or being the Garden of Eden are all past details to models of the globe. Continental drift - we have several competing views here, again in the details.

Quote from: John Davis

<< quite irrelevant to the basic globe model >>
We cannot talk of differences to the globe that fall in these categories, including my own additions:
Cosmology - the primary field at hand mind you.

I would class cosmology loosely as the study of the heavens far removed fro our own solar system.
So, how does cosmology come into deciding what we have here and now? In fact it is more looking into the distant past.

I would define it, with others, as the science of the origin, traits, and development of the universe. We are within the universe, and the origin and development of a globe, and its habitat, is certainly pertinent. A globe can only be defined as such due to its context. In a different universe, a globe may well be an impossible shape.

So yes, I would argue that cosmology (outside the solar system) has nothing to do with deciding the present model of the earth.

And in the search for the truest scotsman we see the goal posts grow legs of their own! No longer is it cosmology that should be ignored, but instead cosmology outside the solar system! You must have trained for a long time to perform such mental aerobatics!

The solar system, as at least the sun and moon really has to come into it, but that's hardly cosmology!

Except that it is. This is also ignoring our definition of space, which by its very nature defines what a globe even is.

I am no cosmologist and don't intend becoming one.
I read up on it with passing interest only, but since the flat earth does not seem to have a cosmology (other that "little lights in the sky"), so I fail to see why you are bothering about it.

You must be unfamiliar with Zetetic Cosmology by Samuel Rowbotham.

Yes, gravity is as essential to the Globe model as it is to your own.

As far as I am concerned there is no question of the reality of gravitation, essentially as presented by Newton and "updated" by GR.
The ultimate cause is a completely different matter, but nobody doubts the reality of electromagnetic forces, nor how they behave.

Many do.

But, I would think that the reality of gravity and its behaviour are certainly part of the Globe model.

I'm overwhelmed to hear this good news; before I act too hastily I must ask for clarification. As a certain part of the globe model, any differences on gravity and its behavior would fit the bill for your truly different globe model?

If you can show that it affects the basic heliocentric globe model, sure drag it in!

Kepler, for one, had a globe model that was not heliocentric. He made reasoned, and correct, arguments against Galileo and his nonsense globe. Even today, geocentrists exist that believe in a round earth.

Quote from: John Davis

Relativity, you know, just because

I never suggested excluding relativity,

"Nor even differing hypotheses on the ultimate cause of gravitation."

So, sure relativity is important, but I fail to see it making any fundamental changes to the Heliocentric Globe model.

Except that relativity is not a heliocentric globe model.

Quote from: John Davis

• Ideas that are not popular
• That are no longer held
• Religiously fueled differences
• Fringe Differences

To me, then I would have to argue - this discounts most notable differences in models that have led to advance again and again.

That's all irrelevant to any Globe model.

Incorrect. For example, a vertical cosmology in a religion will drastically affect the model at hand. To say that the model of a globe that has space outside of it is the same as the one that has heaven outside of it is silly, and more than that patently incorrect.

I've already brought up views that are no longer held that hold notable differences ranging from Kepler to California.

So many of these things involve accurate measurement. When has the Flat Earth "movement" ever measured anything?
Oh yes, old Samuel Birley Rowbotham "measured" the height of the the sun and claimed that  it could not be over 700 statute miles high  . Maybe he should have called a surveyor in, but he did not like surveyors - they proved him wrong!

Rowbotham, actually, loved surveyors and had a repertoire with quite a few of them.

So please try again!

Where are all these conflicting globe models?

No thank you. The point of my message of course is not to enumerate all of the uncountable various world-views we have on this planet, many held against other globular views as well, but to point out that there are uncountable examples. These should be clear to any educated reader of this thread. To think that no differing opinions on the idea of a globe exist is hogwash.

Additionally, I wanted to point out that no matter what differing globe model I bring to the table, you will dismiss it out of hand! I think I have succeeded at this and will rest my case on this matter.

Let us examine a similar dialog instead relating to the matter at hand - dinosaurs.

Bertrand: "There is no evidence against dinosaurs"
Joe: "What of their impossible traits?"
"They have none."
Joe: "Circulatory systems that would explode, food sources, weight and size concerns, etc."
"Oh, those aren't real concerns - we just can't answer them because it happened a long time ago."
Joe: "So, what you are saying is that the evidence for dinosaurs is not readily available, is admittedly at times incorrect, and is inconsistent due to its age?"
"Yes, unfortunately its all we have to work with."
Joe: "Is it not foolhardy to ignore such obvious and real concerns in the face of readily available evidence, instead using evidence that is admittedly incorrect, and inconsistent due to its age ?"
"No. There are no differing views on dinosaurs and its the academic consensus. Nobody believes anything different about dinosaurs and there's only one dinosaur model"
Joe: "What of the whole 'birds are dinosaurs' fiasco?"
"Oh, those are now discounted and shouldn't be included. They were mostly born of Chinese replicas"
Joe: "Does not the ease and willingness of introducing hypotheses that can't be backed up by evidence concern you?"
"No, we are doing the best we can."
Joe: "By CREATING impossible beasts to explain a few bones and a pile of fakes?"
"But I've seen a leaf in a piece of coal."
Joe: "Surely this says nothing about dinosaurs..."
And so on.

More dinosaur propaganda:


Open the door, get on the floor. Everybody kill the dinosaur.

Quote from: Boots on February 05, 2017, 10:12:15 PM

Quote from: John Davis on February 05, 2017, 09:47:29 PM

Everywhere you look. If things were as coherent as you claim, there would be little room to progress, would there not?

There is little room to progress in regards to the value of 2+2. Coming up with convoluted reasons why 2+2 should equal anything other than 4 is not creating room for progress. It's regression.

It appears that the room to progress is as infinite as the universe. There is much about the astronomically big that we don't understand as well as the infinitesimally small. Building on what we know to further our understanding is progress.

I'd say the statement "2+2=5" was very progressive. Ignoring progression outside of the system immediately at hand, which you may mean, do you not think the invention of ring based or modular numbering systems discounts your claim that there is little progress in regards to the value of 2+2?

Let us dive even deeper here. Wittgenstein, in Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics, talks of a very similar scenario. I disagree with his end argument, but the argument itself here is pertinent. Let us take a student. We ask him to continue the series +2, starting at 2.

2, 4, 6, 8, and so on. Now, how can we say that this is the correct answer and not, for example,
2, 5, 9, and so on. 

We can answer this simply - we are using the set of cardinal numbers. Well, this may seem well enough until one realizes that this simply defines the answer for us, it does not give the answer any real validity. It would be the same as if I said "Produce a series of letters based on the string 'a string' in order. This shows us that it is equally correct, if we so wish, to instead state the series +1 (rather than +2 as before) as 1, 2, 0, 1, 2, 0, 1, 2... and thus +2 being 2(1,2,0,1,2,0). We can even define a useful relation to the real world here. Take ring networks of order 3. Numbering the first node as 0, we see adding to any node bring it to the next node until we end up looping back to the start. Thus, we find a useful advance to 2+2; 2+2 = 1.

Wittgenstein then goes on to say it is sufficient to say that it is in use, and so it is correct as we use it as a tool. As a nominalist, you can see my reservations in taking such a position - however, I have already shown a use satisfying his worries as well as the original argument. Advance can be made on 2+2, shown first through literature, and secondly through philosophy of mathematics.

There are also arguments, obviously, about the validity of our use of integers in general. These attacks will also support the view that there is advance to be found in 2+2.

Coming up with convoluted reasons why 2+2 should equal anything other than 4 is not creating room for progress. It's regression.

Obviously you can use different symbols and systems to represent the real world. But none of these systems change the fact that if you have two items and you add two more, you will have four. I can draw pictures for you if that would help but I would hope that you've progressed beyond that point.

Yes, please draw pictures.

Everybody kill the dinosaur.

That hardly seems fair. 

I think anyone who believes in dinosaurs over the age of 13 has to have serious mental issues.

We are expected to believe that thousands of bones have been found from hundreds of millions of years ago.

We are also expected to believe in the missing links of human evolution even though nothing has ever been found even though there are billions of people on the Earth.

I have found this theory /hypothesis contradictory from a very early age and as such have always struggled to believe in evolution and his-story.