Vagueness in FE

Karen Douglas, a psychologist who studies FE, says that the vagueness of FE is part of its appeal.

https://www.livescience.com/24310-flat-earth-belief.html

This makes sense to me, since I always want to pin things down. When I have everything pinned down and it matches, it is right (to me, some go by gut feel or match those around them, or whatever). This accounts for some of the bad feeling here, I am trying to pin down while FEs like it vague.

I have been told many times by FEs things like:

"We don't know yet", "Could be several things", "different FEs have different theories on that", etc.

I would like to pin down the conspiracies. I think a conspiracy big enough to fool everyone about RE and furnish things like GPS that work AND appear to use "false" RE explanations would be detectable and describable. FEs will not pursue that with me.

I ask what is the FE position on maps, I get no one map, no map with a scale in km or mi, just "could be whatever". ANd no concern from FEs that they can't make a map. When it comes to maps, vague is a bad thing if you want to go somewhere. Vague is a good thing if you want your position to not be revealed as false.

FE will not be pinned down. RE is totally pinned down, one definitive position.

For FE to become accepted and useful, it must stop being vague. If you like it vague, you don't want it to conclude anything. Enjoying endless speculation may entertain you, but it is the opposite of science, acceptance and usefulness.

RE just romps over FE daily, we win so big every day, a couple of web sites with lots of name calling and ignorance versus the actual facts used to do things like make container ships show up with goods for you and me and pretty much all educated modern people.

If you want to play with the big boys, you need peer reviewed experiments, facts useful to enfineers, a pinned down and consistent system. Even if you pick at RE all day, it is a spoonful out of the ocean of facts interconnected that support RE.

FE is vague, and therefor not useful. Can some FE give me some definite info on any part of FE? If so, why does that person not convince all FEs?

RE is not vague, many have investigated, and using the info has helped to pin it down. For instance, In 1500, people needed accurate navigation and did not have it. Over hundreds of years, people pinned down RE in a consistent way, and now we have consistent facts useful to navigate precisely based on information increasingly pinned down and correlated with other things.

FE has none of this and won't because it would have to pin things down, and that process could never work without pinning things down.

FE can't pin down, because the process would reveal that FE is false, and RE is true, and that is why FEs won't go there.

Okay, you like to be pinned down.

That's not what I meant, I meant I like to pin down facts. FEs, including you, do not like to pin down facts.

Let's see you pin down a FE map. You can't, because there isn't one. The best you can do to defend FE is to keep it vague.

"There are multiple maps presented", "we haven't finished yet", "maybe it's this or that".

FE will never post "Here is a flat map of the entire earth with all distances correct", that would be pinned down.

It will always say "Well, blah blah blah" because it can't be pinned down because it isn't true.

Show me a FE map with a scale. That would be pinning down the distances. FE will not do that, won't be pinned down, can't be pinned down because it isn't true.

I used to think the most important question was true or false. I now see the important question as vague or specific. Indeed, not vague is required to get to true/false. Seems to me something vague can't be true or false, just vague.

Case in point, until someone produces a FE map ---- WITH A SCALE !!!! ----, FE map is vague. Not true or false, just vague.

If you came to FES looking for true/false, prepare to receive vague from FEs. REs will be quite consistent and specific.

There will be a few specific FEs, they are good for the most entertaining in the Rube Goldberg tradition.

As long as FE stays vague, can't disprove it.

Once again, learn to hit reply.

I used to think the most important question was true or false. I now see the important question as vague or specific. Indeed, not vague is required to get to true/false. Seems to me something vague can't be true or false, just vague.

Case in point, until someone produces a FE map ---- WITH A SCALE !!!! ----, FE map is vague. Not true or false, just vague.

If you came to FES looking for true/false, prepare to receive vague from FEs. REs will be quite consistent and specific.

There will be a few specific FEs, they are good for the most entertaining in the Rube Goldberg tradition.

As long as FE stays vague, can't disprove it.

In other words "The Flat Earth Theory" can never be falsified because there is no single "Flat Earth Theory".

This seems to be both John Davis and Jane's main technique in any debate.
As soon as someone debunks some aspect of "Flat Earth Theory", such as southern hemisphere distances:
      Jane might respond that there might be some FE map, as yet undiscovered, that might have the correct distances and
      John Davis might respond either that "there is no standard FE map" or that his (poorly defined) "non-Euclidean Flat Earth Theory^[1]" explains all.
In other words, any debate ends with a very inconclusive "But it might be so-and-so!"

There are many similar examples relating to things like sunrise appearance and direction and the sun's remaining the same size, etc.

Basically, the FE tactic seems to be that if is there is no well defined "Flat Earth Theory" the FE can never be debunked.


[1] Of course, it could be claimed that John Davis's "non-Euclidean Flat Earth Theory" is nothing more than admitting that the surface of the Globe is a 2-D non-Euclidean object .
     In other words he, and I suspect many others, know that the earth simply cannot be flat but are afraid to admit it to avoid "loss of face" or for some other reason.

I seek some information, facts, or about FE that not vague nor ridiculous and requires no conspiracy.

not vague
not ridiculous
no conspiracy

Please describe specific details of proof point or other FE profundity

RE is specific
RE works without changing the laws of physics
RE requires no conspiracy (the effort to teach RE is not secret, therefor not a conspiracy)

Perhaps there is no FE thing to be said that is specific, consistent with proven laws of physics, and is not explained by conspiracy? Not even one littlle thing? RE has many.

Thank you in advance.

My new quest is to get you to stop spamming new topics that are all the same fricking topic.

My new quest is to get you to stop spamming new topics that are all the same fricking topic.

Just maybe if Jimster got any FE answers we might see fewer new topics.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on February 01, 2019, 02:54:16 PM

My new quest is to get you to stop spamming new topics that are all the same fricking topic.

Just maybe if Jimster got any FE answers we might see fewer new topics.

I know your knee jerk reaction is to defend all RE, no matter how retarted they are, but have a look at this thread. It is several threads merged together. There's no FE topic. There aren't any FE questions. He just moans about flat earthers all the time.

Do you automatically defend FE, or is your reaction to all RE statements to immediately defend FE? As I have posted, if a person with ability to do rational analysis and logic but had no knowledge or opinion on FE/RE saw wolfie6020 videos and jeranism videos, would they conclude RE or FE?

It is true my knee jerk reaction is to defend RE. A knee jerk reaction you don't know about but will approve of is that the first thing I do with each FE idea is assume it is true. Then I think about all the implications and connections to other known facts. So far, every time that leads to a conflict with known facts. I really try to make it work in my mind. I see the enjoymnent in coming up with an alternative model, but I see the harm in promoting it, too.

Example: Suppose the sun does a circle above disk earth as in the most popular FE model as shown in the FAQ. Then it would never come close to the horizon. So it conflicts with a known fact. So the original statement can't be true.

If you come up with some explanation that requires bending light or , then I will assume that is true and look for conflicts with that.

What I want in these threads is to stay on topic through all FE explanations to see the conflict with known facts with each one.

EVERY TIME I SEE AN FE CLAIM, I ASSUME IT IS TRUE.

Okay, you like to be pinned down.

People who work in the real world like to be pinned down........to facts !

I find globularists have a psychological need to be pinned down. 

If you ask why the universe is (apparently) increasing its rate of expansion, they are quick to spout off about "Dark Energy!" with authority and unmatched zeal as though the term meant anything or the question was answered. The mysteries aren't mysterious anymore because the priests at the pulpit gave it a name.

The average globularist is incapable of doubt or indecision because he isn't capable of reflection. He could do with a bit more honesty and reflection; vagueness, if you prefer. He cannot bear to say, "I don't know". His ego will not allow it. Further his religion (and Wikipedia, its holy writ) has already given him the answers-- though the answers are empty, he takes comfort in them.  How touchingly naive the whole drama is. It must be comforting to have such faith, though the thought repulses me. Pinned down to "Dark Energy", clutching it like child with a teddy bear because "I don't know" and "could be different things" is too vague and unnerving. To run to wikipedia with life's questions, copy and pasting it as though it were Scripture.

I find globularists have a psychological need to be pinned down. 

If you ask why the universe is (apparently) increasing its rate of expansion, they are quick to spout off about "Dark Energy!" with authority and unmatched zeal as though the term meant anything or the question was answered. The mysteries aren't mysterious anymore because the priests at the pulpit gave it a name.

The average globularist is incapable of doubt or indecision because he isn't capable of reflection. He could do with a bit more honesty and reflection; vagueness, if you prefer. He cannot bear to say, "I don't know". His ego will not allow it. Further his religion (and Wikipedia, its holu writ) has already given him the answers-- though the answers are empty, he takes comfort in them.  How touchingly naive the whole drama is. It must be comforting to have such faith, though the thought repulses me. Pinned down to "Dark Energy", clutching it like child with a teddy bear because "I don't know" and "could be different things" is too vague and unnerving. To run to wikipedia with life's questions, copy and pasting it as though it were Scripture.

Yet they are capable of determining the shape and size of an object, confiming it every day.

I find globularists have a psychological need to be pinned down. 

If you ask why the universe is (apparently) increasing its rate of expansion, they are quick to spout off about "Dark Energy!" with authority and unmatched zeal as though the term meant anything or the question was answered. The mysteries aren't mysterious anymore because the priests at the pulpit gave it a name.

The average globularist is incapable of doubt or indecision because he isn't capable of reflection. He could do with a bit more honesty and reflection; vagueness, if you prefer. He cannot bear to say, "I don't know". His ego will not allow it. Further his religion (and Wikipedia, its holu writ) has already given him the answers-- though the answers are empty, he takes comfort in them.  How touchingly naive the whole drama is. It must be comforting to have such faith, though the thought repulses me. Pinned down to "Dark Energy", clutching it like child with a teddy bear because "I don't know" and "could be different things" is too vague and unnerving. To run to wikipedia with life's questions, copy and pasting it as though it were Scripture.

That is not only total rubbish but is totally irrelevant!
This is The Flat Earth Society not the Geocentric Society (at The Geocentric Society on Facebook or The Geocentric Society on YouTube if you are interested) so why go haring off immediately into "modern cosmology".

But John Davis comes out with this sort of thing to simply ridicule the Globe:

Its not spinning around the heavens twirling and bobbing like a child on a merry-go-round.

Sure beats Oblate Spheroid (Finite Closed Space) in Non-Euclidean curved space where everything is whizzing about in straight lines at magnitude equal to c while simultaneously twirling and bobbing around the sun in some sort of ridiculous celestial race.

And so many others make the same sort of appeal to the ridiculous when, in reality, it is totally irrelevant to the Flat Earth vs Globe earth debate.

Sort out the shape of the earth first and then worry about what happens far away (within the solar system) and then far away (the rest if the cosmos).

Since nothing you say is relevant to the topic "Vagueness in FE" nor even the Flat Earth versus Globe debate I'll not bother saying more.

I'll not bother saying more.

If only this were true.

Quote from: rabinoz on February 03, 2019, 12:30:20 PM

I'll not bother saying more.

If only this were true.

The topic is "Vagueness in FE" and both you and Ski seem to at pains to point out the truth of that.
It's funny how Flat Earthers don't like simple facts being pointed out.

I have no quarrel with facts. I love facts. Even when the fact is "I don't know".

Can I create a world map of a high degree of accuracy? No more than you? Do I know the true precise distances between continents? Again, I do not know. Neither do you, were you honest. You simply believe what you've been told.

How does universal expansion (if true) accelerate, Rab?
Why do observed galaxy rotation rates diverge from the expected under GR?
How does a young earth sustain liquid oceans if modern theories of stellar evolution hold true?
How old is the earth/sun anyway?


Go on. Quote some scripture for us.

I have no quarrel with facts. I love facts. Even when the fact is "I don't know".

Can I create a world map of a high degree of accuracy? No more than you? Do I know the true precise distances between continents? Again, I do not know. Neither do you, were you honest. You simply believe what you've been told.

And part of the reason that I "simply believe what I've been told" is that it fits with my own (imprecisely) measured distances on land and fits with the claimed times of airline flights around the world.

So, unless the spacing between longitudes (at the same latitude) differs around the earth the distances on land should extrapolate to distances over oceans and all international airlines are intentionally trying to deceive us.

How does universal expansion (if true) accelerate, Rab?

You are again verifying my original claim.
Why would I even bother about answering "How does universal expansion (if true) accelerate?" That is totally irrelevant to the Solar Syatem.
Even cosmologists there is no expansion of the Universe closer than millions of light years from here.

Why do observed galaxy rotation rates diverge from the expected under GR?

Why would I bother answering that too?
Even cosmologists claim that "observed galaxy rotation rates" are totally irrelevant to even the Geocentric vs. Heliocentric Solar System let alone the Flat vs Globe issue.

Go on. Quote some scripture for us.

Why " Quote some scripture for us" for something quite irrelevant to the Flat Earth vs Globe Earth question?

I'm concerned here primarily with the Flat vs Globe and secondarily with the Geocentric vs. Heliocentric Solar System question.

Let the cosmologists handle cosmology.

Quote from: Ski

Can I create a world map of a high degree of accuracy? No more than you? Do I know the true precise distances between continents? Again, I do not know. Neither do you, were you honest. You simply believe what you've been told.

And part of the reason that I "simply believe what I've been told" is that it fits with my own (imprecisely) measured distances on land and fits with the claimed times of airline flights around the world.

How do you measure world-wide distances re: continental placement by measuring a small portion of land for yourself?

Can you, Rab, produce an independent map or tell us all the distances between continents or not?

Why would I even bother about answering

I ask myself that same question everytime I see a mindless parroting response...

Quote from: rabinoz

Quote from: Ski

Can I create a world map of a high degree of accuracy? No more than you? Do I know the true precise distances between continents? Again, I do not know. Neither do you, were you honest. You simply believe what you've been told.

And part of the reason that I "simply believe what I've been told" is that it fits with my own (imprecisely) measured distances on land and fits with the claimed times of airline flights around the world.

How do you measure world-wide distances re: continental placement by measuring a small portion of land for yourself?

Can you, Rab, produce an independent map or tell us all the distances between continents or not?

Quote from: rabinoz

Why would I even bother about answering

I ask myself that same question everytime I see a mindless parroting response...

Which aspect of the WGS84 model do you disagree with?  This 'have you done it?' scheme does not work, we learn and understand. 

Is there another version of the map of the earth, does anyone claim distances are wrong?

Basically, the FE tactic seems to be that if is there is no well defined "Flat Earth Theory" the FE can never be debunked.

You act like that matters. Science tends not to give a flying duckdodgers about debunking. The death knell in science is not 'debunked,' it's 'lacks evidence.' The sooner you get your head around that, the sooner you'll hopefully stop this tediousness.

You are under no obligation to attempt debunks. The moment you attempt to, you should be doing it out of interest in what a model has to say, not the pursuit of a likely impossible disproof. Acting as though something needs to be disproven is how pseudoscience gets propagated. Thought you were against that?

Rabinoz is the epitome of superficial internet knowledge.
What pops up at the very first page of a Google search is his truth.
Wiki, Quora and other familiar mainstream sources found on the first two pages.

And he also presents what he copy paste’s without hesitance as the end of all discussions.
And he is proud of it too...

Quote from: rabinoz

Quote from: Ski

Can I create a world map of a high degree of accuracy? No more than you? Do I know the true precise distances between continents? Again, I do not know. Neither do you, were you honest. You simply believe what you've been told.

And part of the reason that I "simply believe what I've been told" is that it fits with my own (imprecisely) measured distances on land and fits with the claimed times of airline flights around the world.

How do you measure world-wide distances re: continental placement by measuring a small portion of land for yourself?

Can you, Rab, produce an independent map or tell us all the distances between continents or not?

I said that I could produce an approximate map but why bother when the maps we have allow airlines to accurately predict the distances and flight paths between continents.
And these directions and distances fit no flat-earth map I have seen so far.

If they were far out the aircraft would have insufficient range for a number of routes and be flying in the wrong direction.

The topic is "Vagueness in FE" and I've said quite enough so what about you posting something relevant to that?

Rabinoz is the epitome of superficial internet knowledge.

And dutchy is the epitome in total ignorance of the earth be it flat or a Globe.

I find globularists have a psychological need to be pinned down. 

If you ask why the universe is (apparently) increasing its rate of expansion, they are quick to spout off about "Dark Energy!" with authority and unmatched zeal as though the term meant anything or the question was answered. The mysteries aren't mysterious anymore because the priests at the pulpit gave it a name.

The average globularist is incapable of doubt or indecision because he isn't capable of reflection. He could do with a bit more honesty and reflection; vagueness, if you prefer. He cannot bear to say, "I don't know". His ego will not allow it. Further his religion (and Wikipedia, its holy writ) has already given him the answers-- though the answers are empty, he takes comfort in them.  How touchingly naive the whole drama is. It must be comforting to have such faith, though the thought repulses me. Pinned down to "Dark Energy", clutching it like child with a teddy bear because "I don't know" and "could be different things" is too vague and unnerving. To run to wikipedia with life's questions, copy and pasting it as though it were Scripture.

just a thought:
It's almost as though they have denied any sense of mystery around us in everyday life and pushed it all off to the remotest reaches of space , observable only to those manning the most expensive scientific apparatus.

Quote from: Ski on February 03, 2019, 02:21:50 PM

Quote from: rabinoz

Quote from: Ski

Can I create a world map of a high degree of accuracy? No more than you? Do I know the true precise distances between continents? Again, I do not know. Neither do you, were you honest. You simply believe what you've been told.

And part of the reason that I "simply believe what I've been told" is that it fits with my own (imprecisely) measured distances on land ...

How do you measure world-wide distances re: continental placement by measuring a small portion of land for yourself?

Can you, Rab, produce an independent map or tell us all the distances between continents or not?

I said that I could produce an approximate map

I

How do you propose to independently produce an approximate map of continental distribution based on your having measured a given distance on land?     You keep saying you can. By what means are you accomplishing this?

I find globularists have a psychological need to be pinned down. 

If you ask why the universe is (apparently) increasing its rate of expansion, they are quick to spout off about "Dark Energy!" with authority and unmatched zeal as though the term meant anything or the question was answered. The mysteries aren't mysterious anymore because the priests at the pulpit gave it a name.

The average globularist is incapable of doubt or indecision because he isn't capable of reflection. He could do with a bit more honesty and reflection; vagueness, if you prefer. He cannot bear to say, "I don't know". His ego will not allow it. Further his religion (and Wikipedia, its holy writ) has already given him the answers-- though the answers are empty, he takes comfort in them.  How touchingly naive the whole drama is. It must be comforting to have such faith, though the thought repulses me. Pinned down to "Dark Energy", clutching it like child with a teddy bear because "I don't know" and "could be different things" is too vague and unnerving. To run to wikipedia with life's questions, copy and pasting it as though it were Scripture.

You say in a later post you love facts, well that’s at least one thing we can agree on. Picking on dark energy is a bit of a red herring as no one is sure what it is and if it really exists. Why not let’s stick to things that are more based in known fact. The original question is to do with how vague FE believers can be and case in point is something closer to home that we all see every day, clouds permitting, the sun.
The FE belief surrounding the sun is truly bewildering and is at odds with so many facts. For example what is it that powers the FE sun? You say you love facts, so why not provide some that go some way to supporting your belief in a small near sun.
I look forward to your facts.

Quote from: rabinoz

Quote from: Ski

Can I create a world map of a high degree of accuracy? No more than you? Do I know the true precise distances between continents? Again, I do not know. Neither do you, were you honest. You simply believe what you've been told.

And part of the reason that I "simply believe what I've been told" is that it fits with my own (imprecisely) measured distances on land and fits with the claimed times of airline flights around the world.

How do you measure world-wide distances re: continental placement by measuring a small portion of land for yourself?

Can you, Rab, produce an independent map or tell us all the distances between continents or not?

Quote from: rabinoz

Why would I even bother about answering

I ask myself that same question everytime I see a mindless parroting response...

Where do you personally draw your line on self verification of facts?  You say you love facts, where do you get your facts from, and how do you verify them? You pick on an example that is, while nor impossible, is pretty difficult for the individual to do, measure distances between continents. However millions of people embark on journeys every day along routes of known length on road and rail links. Railways and roads are fixed and are of known length and often span continents. Flights between continents, Europe and the W USA, have a known length. The distances between the continental plates are monitored and accurately known almost to the cm. We don’t all need to individually measure every distance before accepting convential wisdom, that would just be silly. If you yourself drive from city A to city B, a journey you’ve never done, do you not trust the information provided by the published maps?
Your argument is a bit of a red herring, are you only saying only self verified facts can be put forward and trusted?  How are self verified facts any more credible than those taught in schools and universities? Please explain. There are people on this forum who claim all sorts of self derived ‘facts’ everything from perpetual motion to denpressure, through to all history before 1780 was faked! Are these so called facts more credible than those taught as part of a curriculum.
What fact is inescapable is that things work, cars, computers, aircraft, bridges, medical scanners etc. I hope you get the idea. All these things works based on a variety of established principles. No one needs to establish the principles of the internal combustion before they can drive a car, the fact it works is proof enough. The same can be said of much of science, we see proof that it works, therefore the underlying principles must be sound.

Quote from: rabinoz on February 01, 2019, 03:45:04 PM

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on February 01, 2019, 02:54:16 PM

My new quest is to get you to stop spamming new topics that are all the same fricking topic.

Just maybe if Jimster got any FE answers we might see fewer new topics.

I know your knee jerk reaction is to defend all RE, no matter how retarted they are, but have a look at this thread. It is several threads merged together. There's no FE topic. There aren't any FE questions. He just moans about flat earthers all the time.

  You should learn to spell the word "retarded" before calling people by that name.