Scientific data

  • 23 Replies
  • 772 Views
*

gg1gamer

  • 554
  • time enjoyed wasting is not wasted
Scientific data
« on: January 05, 2017, 10:45:17 AM »
So here i was feeling like reading a scientific study (yes i know it's weird, engineers are weird people so).  So i went to the homepage of theflatearthsociety and tried to open the wiki.  No luck, it's still hacked for me.  So i went to the FAQ, there i read:

Quote
What Is Some Of The Evidence You Have?

There are several readily apparent proofs of the planets flatness.
(...)
Our Library also has a great selection of books that further detail proof of the planar Earth.

So i went to the library and looked at those books.  To my disappointment not a single one contains a scientific study.  I don't know where else i could find a scientific study so:

Could someone post a link of a scientific study (in favour of FE)?

*

hoppy

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 9901
Re: Scientific data
« Reply #1 on: January 05, 2017, 01:13:10 PM »
So here i was feeling like reading a scientific study (yes i know it's weird, engineers are weird people so).  So i went to the homepage of theflatearthsociety and tried to open the wiki.  No luck, it's still hacked for me.  So i went to the FAQ, there i read:

Quote
What Is Some Of The Evidence You Have?

There are several readily apparent proofs of the planets flatness.
(...)
Our Library also has a great selection of books that further detail proof of the planar Earth.

So i went to the library and looked at those books.  To my disappointment not a single one contains a scientific study.  I don't know where else i could find a scientific study so:

Could someone post a link of a scientific study (in favour of FE)?
This free book is loaded with evidence.

http://sacred-texts.com/earth/za/index.htm
God is real.                                         
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9665708/Flat-Earth-Bible-02-of-10-The-Flat-Earth

*

gg1gamer

  • 554
  • time enjoyed wasting is not wasted
Re: Scientific data
« Reply #2 on: January 05, 2017, 01:50:53 PM »
This free book is loaded with evidence.

http://sacred-texts.com/earth/za/index.htm

You're kidding right? 

The first 7 experiments are basically the same and they make the exact same mistaken in their conclusion. The other 8 are also flawed.

Besides these so called 'experiments' aren't experiments.  At best they are hypothesis.  They do no actual comparison as they claim to be doing. 

Basically that book is just complete BS.  Don't you guys have an actual SCIENTIFIC STUDY that proves that the earth is flat?

*

rabinoz

  • 8493
Re: Scientific data
« Reply #3 on: January 06, 2017, 02:44:20 AM »
So here i was feeling like reading a scientific study (yes i know it's weird, engineers are weird people so).  So i went to the homepage of theflatearthsociety and tried to open the wiki.  No luck, it's still hacked for me.  So i went to the FAQ, there i read:

Quote
What Is Some Of The Evidence You Have?

There are several readily apparent proofs of the planets flatness.
(...)
Our Library also has a great selection of books that further detail proof of the planar Earth.

So i went to the library and looked at those books.  To my disappointment not a single one contains a scientific study.  I don't know where else i could find a scientific study so:

Could someone post a link of a scientific study (in favour of FE)?
You could try  :P SEA-EARTH GLOBE, And Its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions; OR Modern Theoretical Astronomy, by Zetetes.  :P
Best of "luck".
Tom Bishop of TFES.org referred me to that. You'll just love the "bendy light" described in the diagram on p 30 of Sea-Earth Globe and the "explanation" on pp 32,33?

*

gg1gamer

  • 554
  • time enjoyed wasting is not wasted
Re: Scientific data
« Reply #4 on: January 06, 2017, 03:05:04 AM »
Euhm, i only see 22 pages.

And also, this book is a collection of hypotheses at best.  I don't see any kind of observations or a source from where they got observations.  In fact i don't see a single source.  I even feel that it reeds more as a tale than as a scientific study.

*

rabinoz

  • 8493
Re: Scientific data
« Reply #5 on: January 06, 2017, 04:50:09 AM »
Euhm, i only see 22 pages.

And also, this book is a collection of hypotheses at best.  I don't see any kind of observations or a source from where they got observations.  In fact i don't see a single source.  I even feel that it reeds more as a tale than as a scientific study.
Agreed, but many Flat Earthers put a lot of store in those books.

*

gg1gamer

  • 554
  • time enjoyed wasting is not wasted
Re: Scientific data
« Reply #6 on: January 07, 2017, 12:30:14 AM »
Well i didn't expect every FEer to jump on this.  But i did expect, no wait, I did hoped at least 1 FEer came forward with at least 1 scientific study.  Can i conclude that there doesn't exist a single scientific study in favour of FE?

*

FalseProphet

  • 2327
  • Life is just a tale
Re: Scientific data
« Reply #7 on: January 07, 2017, 05:01:29 AM »
Well i didn't expect every FEer to jump on this.  But i did expect, no wait, I did hoped at least 1 FEer came forward with at least 1 scientific study.  Can i conclude that there doesn't exist a single scientific study in favour of FE?

Yet interestingly there are scientific studies proposing that the whole universe is 2-dimensional.

*

RocksEverywhere

  • 1040
  • Literally everywhere.
Re: Scientific data
« Reply #8 on: January 07, 2017, 05:19:20 AM »
Well i didn't expect every FEer to jump on this.  But i did expect, no wait, I did hoped at least 1 FEer came forward with at least 1 scientific study.  Can i conclude that there doesn't exist a single scientific study in favour of FE?
The only thing that comes even remotely close is sandokhan's pile of shiny things.
AMA: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=68045.0

Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it's not real.

*

gg1gamer

  • 554
  • time enjoyed wasting is not wasted
Re: Scientific data
« Reply #9 on: January 07, 2017, 02:02:31 PM »
Yet interestingly there are scientific studies proposing that the whole universe is 2-dimensional.
Feel free to post a link.

The only thing that comes even remotely close is sandokhan's pile of shiny things.

Well i haven't looked at them all but most seem like hypothesis with sometimes something that resembles a general explanation.  But never a full scientific explanation.

?

Woody

  • 1144
Re: Scientific data
« Reply #10 on: January 07, 2017, 07:35:58 PM »
I think you need to realize the definition and standards for things like scientific study, evidence and experiment is different for FE's.

That is why they refer you to what they have.

What I find amusing is the Bishop experiment.  One of the only things I could verify certain things myself, especially since I have been to the area the observations were made.

First thing that I noticed when reading was the distance was off by 10 miles.  Since I sailed and anchored there I was pretty sure the distance given was wrong.   I checked on google maps and charts I had of the area and my memory proved correct.

Then Tom must have access to some pretty amazing optics to see the details he claimed to see at 33 miles, which is actually 23 miles.  Having served in the military in long range surveillance and scout units optics were an very important part of my job.  We did not have anything close to the capabilities of Tom's telescope.

He also claimed to be able to see the beach with the naked eye.  Something I was unable to do when there.  I was able to see the high ground behind the beach, but not the beach itself. 

Then the area he said to make the observation from does not allow for the telescope to be placed 20 inches above the water as he claimed.  It has a vertical rocky drop off of about 4 feet. He claimed he was laying down. I guess he could have been in the water or made a platform and just never mentioned it.

This experiment is called conclusive proof or something similar in the wiki.  It is a good example of the standards they have.  If it is something saying the Earth is flat it gets accepted without scrutiny.

*

Boots

  • 2756
  • - Cogito, ergo sum. - -Descartes
Re: Scientific data
« Reply #11 on: January 07, 2017, 07:52:08 PM »
Is there a standard for what qualifies as a quality zetetistical study?
ďBut I donít want to go among mad people," Alice remarked.
"Oh, you canít help that," said the Cat: "weíre all mad here. Iím mad. Youíre mad."
"How do you know Iím mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, "or you wouldnít have come here.Ē
:D :D :D

?

Woody

  • 1144
Re: Scientific data
« Reply #12 on: January 07, 2017, 08:27:37 PM »
Is there a standard for what qualifies as a quality zetetistical study?

Yes.  The conclusion needs to be the Earth is flat.

*

rabinoz

  • 8493
Re: Scientific data
« Reply #13 on: January 07, 2017, 09:33:36 PM »
Well i didn't expect every FEer to jump on this.  But i did expect, no wait, I did hoped at least 1 FEer came forward with at least 1 scientific study.  Can i conclude that there doesn't exist a single scientific study in favour of FE?

Yet interestingly there are scientific studies proposing that the whole universe is 2-dimensional.
Any person making a claim like that should at least post links to the relevant studies, or admit the whole idea is a fabrication.

?

Woody

  • 1144
Re: Scientific data
« Reply #14 on: January 07, 2017, 10:09:59 PM »
Well i didn't expect every FEer to jump on this.  But i did expect, no wait, I did hoped at least 1 FEer came forward with at least 1 scientific study.  Can i conclude that there doesn't exist a single scientific study in favour of FE?

Yet interestingly there are scientific studies proposing that the whole universe is 2-dimensional.
Any person making a claim like that should at least post links to the relevant studies, or admit the whole idea is a fabrication.

Look up,"The Holographic Principle".

Basically similar to how a hologram picture can look 3d the universe looks 3d to us.


*

gg1gamer

  • 554
  • time enjoyed wasting is not wasted
Re: Scientific data
« Reply #15 on: January 08, 2017, 04:59:53 AM »
So is the flatearth-theory purely based upon assumptions, arguing against a round earth, hypothesis without actual research, ...   Or is somebody going to post a f*cking link to an actual scientific study?

?

Woody

  • 1144
Re: Scientific data
« Reply #16 on: January 08, 2017, 06:07:21 AM »
So is the flatearth-theory purely based upon assumptions, arguing against a round earth, hypothesis without actual research, ...   Or is somebody going to post a f*cking link to an actual scientific study?

You are asking for something that does not exist.  I gave you an example of one FE experiment and you have been referred to FE reference material.  That is what humanity has accomplished in an attempt to prove the Earth is flat since man first started contemplating this type of stuff.

The Earth is an oblate spheroid what do you expect they could provide?

*

FalseProphet

  • 2327
  • Life is just a tale
Re: Scientific data
« Reply #17 on: January 08, 2017, 06:27:21 AM »
So is the flatearth-theory purely based upon assumptions, arguing against a round earth, hypothesis without actual research, ...   Or is somebody going to post a f*cking link to an actual scientific study?

In the 20s a mathematician named Ernst Barthel tried to show that earth is actually a "total plane", the "equator plane of the cosmos" in a non-Euclidian space. His argument was that the concept of infinity is self-contradictory and thus has to be rejected. In Barthel's time there was this debate between the Intuitionists and the Axiomists (Hilbert), and Barthel understood his work as a 3rd, "objective", position against the subjective approach of contemporary mathematics.

That's the best I can come up with.

*

rabinoz

  • 8493
Re: Scientific data
« Reply #18 on: January 08, 2017, 05:40:13 PM »
So is the flatearth-theory purely based upon assumptions, arguing against a round earth, hypothesis without actual research, ...   Or is somebody going to post a f*cking link to an actual scientific study?

In the 20s a mathematician named Ernst Barthel tried to show that earth is actually a "total plane", the "equator plane of the cosmos" in a non-Euclidian space. His argument was that the concept of infinity is self-contradictory and thus has to be rejected. In Barthel's time there was this debate between the Intuitionists and the Axiomists (Hilbert), and Barthel understood his work as a 3rd, "objective", position against the subjective approach of contemporary mathematics.

That's the best I can come up with.
I don't know about the "concept of infinity is self-contradictory and thus has to be rejected" but it's certainly is "here-be-dragons territory".

I imagine John Davis knows Barthel well.

*

FalseProphet

  • 2327
  • Life is just a tale
Re: Scientific data
« Reply #19 on: January 08, 2017, 05:57:17 PM »
I don't know about the "concept of infinity is self-contradictory and thus has to be rejected"

Can infinite lines exist in the physical universe?

Re: Scientific data
« Reply #20 on: January 10, 2017, 01:37:22 PM »
I don't know about the "concept of infinity is self-contradictory and thus has to be rejected"

Can infinite lines exist in the physical universe?

A line itself cannot exist in the physical universe, let alone an infinite line. A line is simply an abstract mathematical idea.

*

FalseProphet

  • 2327
  • Life is just a tale
Re: Scientific data
« Reply #21 on: January 10, 2017, 02:15:59 PM »
I don't know about the "concept of infinity is self-contradictory and thus has to be rejected"



Can infinite lines exist in the physical universe?

A line itself cannot exist in the physical universe, let alone an infinite line. A line is simply an abstract mathematical idea.

Can infinite amounts exist?
« Last Edit: January 11, 2017, 07:34:41 AM by FalseProphet »

*

rabinoz

  • 8493
Re: Scientific data
« Reply #22 on: January 11, 2017, 04:11:00 AM »
I don't know about the "concept of infinity is self-contradictory and thus has to be rejected"

Can infinite lines exist in the physical universe?
I said nothing about "lines", "infinite" or otherwise. All I said was
I don't know about the "concept of infinity is self-contradictory and thus has to be rejected" but it's certainly is "here-be-dragons territory".

I was meaning that the study of infinity is a deep one. Can one infinity be bigger than another?

There are
    an infinite number of positive integers, say infinity1, and there are
    an infinite number of real numbers lying between 0 and 1, say infinity2, hence there are
          << and here-be-dragons territory >>
    infinity1 times infinity2 real numbers greater than zero, say infinity3.

So order the different "infinities", infinity1, infinity2 and infinity3.

I'm no mathematician, so by now I'm thoroughly confused. I'll stick to counting 0,1,2,3,4 . . . . . . .

Re: Scientific data
« Reply #23 on: January 11, 2017, 01:45:57 PM »
I don't know about the "concept of infinity is self-contradictory and thus has to be rejected"



Can infinite lines exist in the physical universe?

A line itself cannot exist in the physical universe, let alone an infinite line. A line is simply an abstract mathematical idea.

Can infinite amounts exist?

Possibly an infinite amount of nothingness, but even that is difficult to imagine.