Flat Earth "Leader" Gets His Best 5 Points Ruined!!

  • 67 Replies
  • 6678 Views
Re: Flat Earth "Leader" Gets His Best 5 Points Ruined!!
« Reply #60 on: October 09, 2018, 09:13:54 PM »
Tausami claims two key points:

Youtubers are fake just out there to make money.

He cant evaluate the FET due to lack of funding.

Anyone see a problem?

Re: Flat Earth "Leader" Gets His Best 5 Points Ruined!!
« Reply #61 on: October 09, 2018, 09:14:42 PM »
Or should i say solotion

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Flat Earth "Leader" Gets His Best 5 Points Ruined!!
« Reply #62 on: October 10, 2018, 07:05:42 PM »
I'm not saying the YouTubers are in it for the money, I'm saying they're in it to satisfy their personal neuroses

The Eric Dubay types, I'm saying are being paid by NASA and co to imitate FET in "safe" way and dilute and discredit the real FET. Kinda like how the CIA infiltrated the Black Panther Movement to make them look like violent criminals

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Flat Earth "Leader" Gets His Best 5 Points Ruined!!
« Reply #63 on: October 10, 2018, 07:20:54 PM »
We're the only real flat earthers. Those weird YouTube cultists are just looking for a conspiracy theory to make their lives seem less meaningless.
Tell that to Mark Sargent, Rob Skiba, Eric Dubay, Jeran Campanela and many more i could easily chase up!

You're a fan of the "going in circles until your opponent gets bored" theory of debate, aren't you?

Quote
Quote from: Tausami
We have no consistent model for two reasons:

1) In the absence of any opportunity to perform rigorous scientific analysis, we are limited to acting as mere theoreticians. And as any globularist (shill) physicist will tell you, no two theoreticians will agree.
Really? I believe that you are confusing "theories" with "hypotheses". If you are "limited to acting as mere theoreticians" how did you first come to believe that the earth is flat?

Read the FAQ, and look up the definition of the term "theoretician". It's a scientist who thinks really hard and does a lot of math instead of doing experiments. Theoretics are about coming up with models that fit available evidence, and finding falsifiable predictions made by that model that others can one day test.

Quote
Did you just look at the horizon and see that it looks flat and so decide, as many have done, that the earth must be flat?
Well, tough luck! The horizon on our Globe should look as flat as anyone could determine with a straight edge.

Read the FAQ. You have too many posts to be a noob

Quote
Quote from: Tausami
There's just more than one way to explain an observation, and without the opportunity to experiment we can only conjecture. Multiple possible theories, each with elements of the truth, will be more useful to the experimenters who come after us than a single, coherent, and mostly incorrect theory would be.
Possibly, but all I see are flat earth hypotheses with no theoretical or supporting evidence.

See above

Quote
Quote from: Tausami
We true Flat Earthers are playing a long game. We are keeping the flame alive until a time when society has advanced to the degree that the true nature of the world can be seriously reevaluated. It won't likely happen in our lifetimes. We're like the parabolic old man planting the tree.
The "long game"?
The idea of the earth being Globe started before 500 BC though more for philosophical reasons than based on evidence - Pythagoras and Plato thought perfectly round thing were cool!
Then Aristotle came along and by then there was some observational evidence that the earth was not flat and that the sun and moon were a great distance from there.

But your flat earth ideas did not start till the 1800s as a reaction to the perceived dangers of Darwinism.

This is all accurate, and also has no bearing on the relative accuracy of the two theories. RET has been assumed for most of human civilization. Philosophers like Aristotle came up with post-hoc justifications for the idea, but RET is largely an organic phenomenon that became too entrenched to question. There was no experimental evidence supporting the claim that the Earth is round until the mid 20th century, when NASA fabricated it to cover up their inability to compete in the space race (against the Soviets who, separately, we're also fabricating evidence to cover up their inability to compete with the Americans. There's no reason to believe either side knew the other was also lying, at least in the beginning)

Quote
Quote from: Tausami
2) Any serious flat Earth model is based on a rigorous foundation of Zeteticism, which precludes the consideration of others' theories when adopting one's own worldview.
That's seems be a bit odd when most flat earthers claim that the earth has a shape like the UN flag or the North Polar AEP map.
Quote
United Nations flag
The most recent world model propagated by the Flat Earth Society holds that humans live on a disc, with the North Pole at its center and a 150-foot (45 m) high wall of ice at the outer edge. The resulting map resembles the symbol of the United Nations, which Johnson used as evidence for his position.

I can't speak for ol' Johnson's ideas. As you pointed out, early modern FET did have ties to purveyors of antiscience who had some weird ideas.

Quote
Quote from: Tausami
Allowing oneself to be biased by those ideas which have come before one is simply a way of ignoring the truth that is right before one's eyes.
Agreed! And I see contrary evidence to any flat earth model every time I see the sun rise or the moon rise from behind the horizon and stay the same apparent size even when right overhead.

Flat-earthers are just as much indoctrinated by YouTube videos and the writings of people like Rowbotham (Parallax) and Albert Smith (Zetetes) as any Globe supporters might be.

But, in the opinion of some, modern education is a bit akin to indoctrinated, where the students are taught facts, such as "the earth is a Globe . . " and not how to inquire for themselves why the earth might be a Globe or any other shape.

I'm not sure I agree, but I see where you're coming from

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Flat Earth "Leader" Gets His Best 5 Points Ruined!!
« Reply #64 on: October 11, 2018, 12:12:54 AM »
Rather than get into a long drawn out discussion about who's the "only true flat earthers" etc, I'll ignore all that stuff.
Quote from: Tausami
We true Flat Earthers are playing a long game. We are keeping the flame alive until a time when society has advanced to the degree that the true nature of the world can be seriously reevaluated. It won't likely happen in our lifetimes. We're like the parabolic old man planting the tree.
The "long game"?
The idea of the earth being Globe started before 500 BC though more for philosophical reasons than based on evidence - Pythagoras and Plato thought perfectly round thing were cool!
Then Aristotle came along and by then there was some observational evidence that the earth was not flat and that the sun and moon were a great distance from there.

But your flat earth ideas did not start till the 1800s as a reaction to the perceived dangers of Darwinism.

This is all accurate, and also has no bearing on the relative accuracy of the two theories. RET has been assumed for most of human civilization. Philosophers like Aristotle came up with post-hoc justifications for the idea, but RET is largely an organic phenomenon that became too entrenched to question.
So you ignore all the observations and measurements of:
Eratosthenes, Hipparchus, Aristarchus of Samos, Al-Biruni, Galileo, Tycho Brahe, Isaac Newton and many more.
These people made numerous observations and measurement consistent only with the earth's being a Globe with a distant sun and moon.

Quote from: Tausami
There was no experimental evidence supporting the claim that the Earth is round until the mid 20th century,
That is a total fabrication and if you wish to make a thread where that might be properly debated, be my guest!

Quote from: Tausami
when NASA fabricated it to cover up their inability to compete in the space race (against the Soviets who, separately, we're also fabricating evidence to cover up their inability to compete with the Americans. There's no reason to believe either side knew the other was also lying, at least in the beginning)
Again that is a total fabrication and the onus is on you to present evidence to back those claims.
The only reason you have to claim that the photos from space are fabricated is that they do not fit into your "worldview".

So if those photos are fabricated, prove it!

Quote from: Tausami
I can't speak for ol' Johnson's ideas. As you pointed out, early modern FET did have ties to purveyors of antiscience who had some weird ideas.
But "modern" flat-earthers don't seem to have improved on the "map" (better called a continental layout) that "ol' Johnson" used.
And it is still the one that most flat-earthers seem to "fall back on" and it is the only continental layout in the FAQ in Flat Earth General.
Quote
Here is picture of a proposed, but certainly not definitive, flat earth:
And aircraft routes are planned on maps that are projections of the Globe and distances are calculated from the spherical earth.
For long distance aircraft routes those distances have to be close to reality for the planning of fuel load.
It is easy to show that all of that distances cannot fit any existing "flat earth map".
I know first hand that the East-West distances on AEP map are grossly exaggerated in Australia!

Quote from: Tausami
Quote from: rabinoz
Quote from: Tausami
Allowing oneself to be biased by those ideas which have come before one is simply a way of ignoring the truth that is right before one's eyes.
Agreed! And I see contrary evidence to any flat earth model every time I see the sun rise or the moon rise from behind the horizon and stay the same apparent size even when right overhead.

Flat-earthers are just as much indoctrinated by YouTube videos and the writings of people like Rowbotham (Parallax) and Albert Smith (Zetetes) as any Globe supporters might be.

But, in the opinion of some, modern education is a bit akin to indoctrinated, where the students are taught facts, such as "the earth is a Globe . . " and not how to inquire for themselves why the earth might be a Globe or any other shape.
I'm not sure I agree, but I see where you're coming from
Where I am coming from is that the growth of so many pseudo-scientific ideas, like flat-earthism, that show up on YouTube and on the Internet, in general, can be largely blamed on an education system that teaches facts and not how to reason.

That coupled with a poor understanding of even that most basic aspects of physics, such as Newton's "Laws" leads people easily sway by and false ideas and conspiracy going.

And no-one can deny that belief in a flat earth demands belief in a massive conspiracy to "cover up" all contrary evidence.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Flat Earth "Leader" Gets His Best 5 Points Ruined!!
« Reply #65 on: October 12, 2018, 05:14:24 AM »
Rather than get into a long drawn out discussion about who's the "only true flat earthers" etc, I'll ignore all that stuff.
Quote from: Tausami
We true Flat Earthers are playing a long game. We are keeping the flame alive until a time when society has advanced to the degree that the true nature of the world can be seriously reevaluated. It won't likely happen in our lifetimes. We're like the parabolic old man planting the tree.
The "long game"?
The idea of the earth being Globe started before 500 BC though more for philosophical reasons than based on evidence - Pythagoras and Plato thought perfectly round thing were cool!
Then Aristotle came along and by then there was some observational evidence that the earth was not flat and that the sun and moon were a great distance from there.

But your flat earth ideas did not start till the 1800s as a reaction to the perceived dangers of Darwinism.

This is all accurate, and also has no bearing on the relative accuracy of the two theories. RET has been assumed for most of human civilization. Philosophers like Aristotle came up with post-hoc justifications for the idea, but RET is largely an organic phenomenon that became too entrenched to question.
So you ignore all the observations and measurements of:
Eratosthenes, Hipparchus, Aristarchus of Samos, Al-Biruni, Galileo, Tycho Brahe, Isaac Newton and many more.
These people made numerous observations and measurement consistent only with the earth's being a Globe with a distant sun and moon.

See, this is the basic conceit of globularism. What they actually did is take observations and analyze their data from the starting assumption of a round Earth. Take Eratosthenes, for instance. His work is widely cited by scandalized globularists as a top reason why we're obligated to take them seriously. But all he did was calculate the curvature of the earth, should it be round. The same data, starting from the assumption that the Earth is flat, give us the distance to the sun.

Re: Flat Earth "Leader" Gets His Best 5 Points Ruined!!
« Reply #66 on: October 12, 2018, 05:34:09 AM »
Rather than get into a long drawn out discussion about who's the "only true flat earthers" etc, I'll ignore all that stuff.
Quote from: Tausami
We true Flat Earthers are playing a long game. We are keeping the flame alive until a time when society has advanced to the degree that the true nature of the world can be seriously reevaluated. It won't likely happen in our lifetimes. We're like the parabolic old man planting the tree.
The "long game"?
The idea of the earth being Globe started before 500 BC though more for philosophical reasons than based on evidence - Pythagoras and Plato thought perfectly round thing were cool!
Then Aristotle came along and by then there was some observational evidence that the earth was not flat and that the sun and moon were a great distance from there.

But your flat earth ideas did not start till the 1800s as a reaction to the perceived dangers of Darwinism.

This is all accurate, and also has no bearing on the relative accuracy of the two theories. RET has been assumed for most of human civilization. Philosophers like Aristotle came up with post-hoc justifications for the idea, but RET is largely an organic phenomenon that became too entrenched to question.
So you ignore all the observations and measurements of:
Eratosthenes, Hipparchus, Aristarchus of Samos, Al-Biruni, Galileo, Tycho Brahe, Isaac Newton and many more.
These people made numerous observations and measurement consistent only with the earth's being a Globe with a distant sun and moon.

See, this is the basic conceit of globularism. What they actually did is take observations and analyze their data from the starting assumption of a round Earth. Take Eratosthenes, for instance. His work is widely cited by scandalized globularists as a top reason why we're obligated to take them seriously. But all he did was calculate the curvature of the earth, should it be round. The same data, starting from the assumption that the Earth is flat, give us the distance to the sun.
You are isolating 1 observation to prove your point. This is the basic conceit of Flatardism.

I challenge you to take all observations and measurements mentioned by Rab, put them in the same bowl AND distill a working planar world model.
Be gentle

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Flat Earth "Leader" Gets His Best 5 Points Ruined!!
« Reply #67 on: October 12, 2018, 06:00:30 AM »

So you ignore all the observations and measurements of:
Eratosthenes, Hipparchus, Aristarchus of Samos, Al-Biruni, Galileo, Tycho Brahe, Isaac Newton and many more.
These people made numerous observations and measurement consistent only with the earth's being a Globe with a distant sun and moon.

See, this is the basic conceit of globulars. What they actually did is take observations and analyze their data from the starting assumption of a round Earth. Take Eratosthenes, for instance. His work is widely cited by scandalized globularists as a top reason why we're obligated to take them seriously.
Oh. come on! There's no way Eratosthenes is taken as "a top reason why we're obligated to take them seriously". It's just one step on the way.

Quote from: Tausami
But all he did was calculate the curvature of the earth, should it be round. The same data, starting from the assumption that the Earth is flat, give us the distance to the sun.
There's a lot more to it than that.
But if we start off with what you claim and use Eratosthenes' data (at least the modern values) of about 800 km from Alexandria to Syene (Aswan) and an angle 7.2 from vertical in Alexandria and vertical in Syene
These values make "the distance to the sun" 800/tan(7.2) = 6333 km hardly the claimed 5000 km.
But suppose the distance is taken as 3000 miles (5000 km is more accurate) and the angle as 7.2 as in:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Thomas Winship, author of Zetetic Cosmogony, provides a calculation demonstrating that the sun can be computed to be relatively close to the earth's surface if one assumes that the earth is flat --
Quote
On March 21-22 the sun is directly overhead at the equator and appears 45 degrees above the horizon at 45 degrees north and south latitude. As the angle of sun above the earth at the equator is 90 degrees while it is 45 degrees at 45 degrees north or south latitude, it follows that the angle at the sun between the vertical from the horizon and the line from the observers at 45 degrees north and south must also be 45 degrees. The result is two right angled triangles with legs of equal length. The distance between the equator and the points at 45 degrees north or south is approximately 3,000 miles. Ergo, the sun would be an equal distance above the equator.
This is illustrated in this diagram from Modern Mechanics - Oct, 1931:

Voliva's Flat Earth Sun Distance.
This is also shown in the Wiki under Distance to the Sun under the section Sun's Distance - Modern Mechanics.
We get the distance to the sun as 3000 miles (again 5000 km is more accurate), the figure quoted in the FE Wiki.
But why stop there?
If we use larger "base-lines", say:
          67.5 the sun height comes out at 3112 km or 1934 miles or
          90 the sun height comes out at 0 km or 0 miles.
From this are we to deduce that the height of the sun on the flat earth is 6333 km, 5000 km, 3112 km or ZERO? You tell me!

But Eratosthenes did not have to assume that the earth was a Globe in any case:
Even then the sun was known to be a great distance from earth.
This was reasoned from the fact that the sun's apparent size does not change as it moves across the sky.
The exact distance is totally irrelevant.

Hence the sun's rays will arrive at all locations on earth from almost precisely the same direction and this is all Eratosthenes needed to justify his calculations.

So no whatever you modern flat-earthers claim, Eratosthenes did not have to assume that the earth was a Globe.