Why are you debating on complex theories?

  • 48 Replies
  • 4029 Views
*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: Why are you debating on complex theories?
« Reply #30 on: August 23, 2019, 03:10:28 PM »
Why are you accusing me of lying, I'm simply stating a fact. If you think any of your flat earth ideas are based on being informed please share and let's examine the evidence. Disagreeing with someone is not the same as lying. That's twice in this answer you have resorted to being personal...if you really want to get personal then do it in Angry Ranting.
Misrepresenting them so blatantly on the other hand very much is. This is just tiresome. If you don't give a damn about what someone has to say, why do you even pretend to engage with them?

Once again: I am not a FEer. I am not saying FET is accurate. I am not asking you to believe in or accept the slightest aspect of FET.
I am however vainly trying to have you stop embarrassing yourself when you straw man yourself into oblivion like this. Insist FE arguments are wrong all you want, but if all you do is ignore them rather than put in the effort required to actually address and so refute them, all you do is lend credence to the idea that RET is on its last legs. It isn't. Stop acting like it is.

There you go again resorting to personal attacks.....why do you keep doing that? This is supposedly a debate, why not use sensible well constructed arguments rather than getting tetchy?

No Strawmen around here. I’ve simply asked you to hit me with some strong arguments that will convince me..........looks like you’re not up for that.
You are not an argument, you are a human being. Probably. Don't worry, criticising your god-awful arguments isn't a personal attack.
No, I'm not interested in convincing you. How many times is it going to need repeating that I am not a FEer nor do I want to convince anyone else of FET? If you could stretch yourself to acknowledging or responding to a single word I actually said, that'd be great. Otherwise, eh, bored now.

Re: Why are you debating on complex theories?
« Reply #31 on: August 23, 2019, 03:16:30 PM »
Why are you accusing me of lying, I'm simply stating a fact. If you think any of your flat earth ideas are based on being informed please share and let's examine the evidence. Disagreeing with someone is not the same as lying. That's twice in this answer you have resorted to being personal...if you really want to get personal then do it in Angry Ranting.
Misrepresenting them so blatantly on the other hand very much is. This is just tiresome. If you don't give a damn about what someone has to say, why do you even pretend to engage with them?

Once again: I am not a FEer. I am not saying FET is accurate. I am not asking you to believe in or accept the slightest aspect of FET.
I am however vainly trying to have you stop embarrassing yourself when you straw man yourself into oblivion like this. Insist FE arguments are wrong all you want, but if all you do is ignore them rather than put in the effort required to actually address and so refute them, all you do is lend credence to the idea that RET is on its last legs. It isn't. Stop acting like it is.

There you go again resorting to personal attacks.....why do you keep doing that? This is supposedly a debate, why not use sensible well constructed arguments rather than getting tetchy?

No Strawmen around here. I’ve simply asked you to hit me with some strong arguments that will convince me..........looks like you’re not up for that.
You are not an argument, you are a human being. Probably. Don't worry, criticising your god-awful arguments isn't a personal attack.
No, I'm not interested in convincing you. How many times is it going to need repeating that I am not a FEer nor do I want to convince anyone else of FET? If you could stretch yourself to acknowledging or responding to a single word I actually said, that'd be great. Otherwise, eh, bored now.

I take from your answer you’re not for doing the convincing thing then!

Tell me one thing you would like me to respond to and I’ll try my best.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: Why are you debating on complex theories?
« Reply #32 on: August 23, 2019, 03:26:03 PM »
I take from your answer you’re not for doing the convincing thing then!

Tell me one thing you would like me to respond to and I’ll try my best.
Why in the hell would I want you to convince you of something even I don't believe?! Repeating that is really getting tedious.

Let's start with the basics then.
if you're trying to find the holes in a model, knowing what that model contains very much helps
True or false?

Re: Why are you debating on complex theories?
« Reply #33 on: August 23, 2019, 03:27:17 PM »
I take from your answer you’re not for doing the convincing thing then!

Tell me one thing you would like me to respond to and I’ll try my best.
Why in the hell would I want you to convince you of something even I don't believe?! Repeating that is really getting tedious.

Let's start with the basics then.
if you're trying to find the holes in a model, knowing what that model contains very much helps
True or false?

Indeed.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16851
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Why are you debating on complex theories?
« Reply #34 on: August 23, 2019, 03:43:07 PM »
All simple observable experiments point to a flat earth. Our library contains hundreds of them that have yet to be falsified by the round earth community. Their mind tends towards making things more complex than they are, heaping fiction upon fiction to sustain their ludicrous world-view. As such, discussions tend that way once they have been thoroughly trampled year after year on the simple easily self-observable evidences that the earth is not a globe.
Quantum Ab Hoc

Re: Why are you debating on complex theories?
« Reply #35 on: August 23, 2019, 11:03:46 PM »
All simple observable experiments point to a flat earth. Our library contains hundreds of them that have yet to be falsified by the round earth community. Their mind tends towards making things more complex than they are, heaping fiction upon fiction to sustain their ludicrous world-view. As such, discussions tend that way once they have been thoroughly trampled year after year on the simple easily self-observable evidences that the earth is not a globe.

If I understand you correctly you are stating that you have hundreds of experiments that prove the earth is flat that science has been unable to refute?

Could you give a more exact number as hundreds is rather vague.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Why are you debating on complex theories?
« Reply #36 on: August 24, 2019, 03:38:24 AM »
All simple observable experiments point to a flat earth. Our library contains hundreds of them that have yet to be falsified by the round earth community.
Their mind tends towards making things more complex than they are, heaping fiction upon fiction to sustain their ludicrous world-view.
Really? To me it seems that it's flat earthers making things complex.
To me a sunrise or sunset is very good evidence that the earth cannot be flat.
But Tom Bishop turns up and makes such a simple observation unbelievably complex with his "bendy light hypothesis" (AKA Electromagnetic Accelerator Theory) ::).

Then there are numerous photos and videos of ships, at least one lighthouse, buildings and mountains being hidden by the curve of the earth but some flat earther (including Tom!) turns up and makes it complex.

Quote from: John Davis
As such, discussions tend that way once they have been thoroughly trampled year after year on the simple easily self-observable evidences that the earth is not a globe.
Would you then care to post or link to some of these "simple easily self-observable evidences that the earth is not a globe"?

And they need to be vastly better than your impossible "The Candle Experiment"!
And better than the so-called "proofs" in Evidences Of The Flat Earth (On Going @142).

*

Bullwinkle

  • The Elder Ones
  • 20047
  • Standard Idiot
Re: Why are you debating on complex theories?
« Reply #37 on: August 24, 2019, 04:02:43 AM »

Would you then care to post or link to some of these "simple easily self-observable evidences that the earth is not a globe"?

. . . stop pretending like you have not already seen them all.   ::)

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Why are you debating on complex theories?
« Reply #38 on: August 24, 2019, 04:17:32 AM »

Would you then care to post or link to some of these "simple easily self-observable evidences that the earth is not a globe"?
. . . stop pretending like you have not already seen them all.   ::)
How could I know if I "have not already seen them all"? John Davis just came out with a new one, the The Candle Experiment, today.

I have seen these, but most are meaningless, statements with no evidence or are easily refuted.
The fact is I'm embarrassed with the riches of evidence that the Earth is not a Planet. This list is intended as an ongoing account of reasons and evidences I've read, heard, or otherwise have been related to me for belief in the Flat Earth.

THE MYTHICAL CURVE
  • Find the curve! You can't. Every experience we have says it's flat - from the beach to Mount Everest to a plane.
  • Lack of Curvature in Planes
  • Curvature has not been seen at heights of 38,000 ft+
  • The only evidence showing curvature is from Big Science.
  • Weather balloons routinely show a  flat earth unless distorted by the lens - often we'll see this happen as it appears concave/convex/ and flat alternating.  There is no law of optics that would allow a body to appear flat if it was indeed round.
  • You can see Rotspitze, Collalto, GroBglockner, Rote Spitze, Sass De Putia and Sass Rigais from the same spot with no curvature. Also Rauchkofel.
  • Shots of Blue Origin from space and from earth show that curvature is seen at ground level the same as from low earth orbit. This proves curvature seen from space is determined by how it was filmed.
  • We are too small to see curvature yet boats can be seen to dip below a hill of water?!
WATER IS LEVEL
  • Water has been determined experimentally to be level. If the earth was round, and spun, water would not be level.
  • The Bedford Level Experiment (Rowbotham, Shenton, Blount, et al)
  • No distortion in reflections in ocean curvature.
  • Lake Quinsigamond is level. "The writer, with a first-class mechanic and a well-known up-to-date photographer, made a trip to Lake Quinsigamond on the 2nd day of June, 1908, and tried the same experiment in practically the same way, and took a photograph of the scene, which proved beyond any doubt in the minds of those present, that the water in that lake was level on the surface, and so acknowledged by the photographer who still believes the Earth is a Globe."  Charles William Morse (author of Unpopular Truth...)
ARCHITECTURE AND RAILROADS
  • No consideration is made in architecture of large constructions for curvature of earth.
  • No consideration is made in the construction of the Suez Canal - it forms a straight and level surface of water (Carpenter)
  • Danyang-Kunshan Grand Bridge, China. 102.4 Mile long bridge does not compensate properly for the curvature of the earth
  • The walls of tall buildings can be found to be parallel.
  • Lake Pontchartrain Causeway, Metairie, LA - 23.87 miles long with 380 Feet of missing curvature.
  • The locks at Gatun lake would be impossible on a globe.
  • Curvature not allowed for in construction of railways. The London and North Western Railway between London and Liverpool  forms a line of 180 miles. The highest point, midway, as at Birmingham station, which is 240 feet above the leve of the sea at london and Liverpool. On a globe the chord of the arc between London and Liverpool would be at Birmingham 5,400  feet above sealevel at london and Liverpool added to which the actual height of the station between of 240 feet and we have 5,640 ft. Not one inch was allowed for. (Terra Firma 126)
  • . The Great Canal of China, 700 miles in length, was made without regard to any allowance for curvature as the Chinese rightfully believed the Earth to be flat and stationary.  (Carpenter)
  • Likewise for the North Sea Canal.(TF 134)
  • Likewise for the Manchester Ship Canal. (TF 134)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FLIGHT AND SEA TRAVEL
  • No pilot, ever, has adjusted for the Coriolis effect in any stage of flight. The Earth spins at 1040 miles per hour.

*

Bullwinkle

  • The Elder Ones
  • 20047
  • Standard Idiot
Re: Why are you debating on complex theories?
« Reply #39 on: August 24, 2019, 05:03:45 AM »

How could I know if I "have not already seen them all"?

You have seen them all at least twice.   ::)

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Why are you debating on complex theories?
« Reply #40 on: August 24, 2019, 05:46:20 AM »

How could I know if I "have not already seen them all"?
You have seen them all at least twice.   ::)
I have no idea whether those I have seen are "all". I know that there are:
     One Hundred Proofs that the Earth is not a Globe by William Carpenter

     200 Proofs Earth Is Not a Spinning Ball by Eric Dubay

And there are the "evidences of John Davis" but:
  • Most are just rehashes of "the same old. . . " and
  • are they all the so-called "proofs"?

Re: Why are you debating on complex theories?
« Reply #41 on: August 24, 2019, 07:17:13 AM »
I remember you telling me on several occasions that my arguments should be based on what flat earthers consider valid evidence.  Which is certainly skirting what Lonegranger said.
...It's also how debates work. If a FEer tried to convince you by appealing to laevorotatory subquarks without providing any reason to accept them, would that contribute anything to a discussion?

Is it?  It can be, if one side decides to be super accommodating and restrict themselves to arguments the other side finds convenient.

But it doesn’t have to be.  Certainly not if you consider this a scientific debate (which you allude to later).

No real scientific theory to my knowledge has ever been advanced by ignoring established evidence or dismissing it as fake.  Not even a little bit, let alone entire fields of science, engineering, etc.

Quote
If you think something should be accepted as evidence, like space travel, which FEers object to, don't just assert that it's accurate. Give some actual reason for it, and bonus points if it's not the same basic things from the same discussion that's been rehashed a hundred times.

As far as I’m aware, my posts are usually relevant to the topic or a particular point that’s been made.

Also it’s not my problem if something has been asked a hundred times and still hasn’t been properly addressed.

Quote
You are the one who chooses to argue against it. You don't have to do that. No one has to.

Sure, I don’t have to be here.  Neither do any of us.

Quote
If you want to reject FET, and justify your rejection, all you need to do is point to the lack of supporting evidence. That's it.

That would be pretty boring though, wouldn’t it?  I thought you were up for debate?

Quote
When you decide that's not enough, when you decide that actually you want to go further and show that it can't function (something which most of science just doesn't bother with, for the record) then yes, you have to engage with FET on its terms, not on yours.

This again depends on the context of the conversation.  Plenty of topics start with flat earthers incorrectly stating how things should work on a globe, and trying to use that as evidence for a flat earth.  Very often, threads have arguments from each direction.  So, no.  I don’t always have to engage on flat earthers terms.  It’s entirely situationally dependent.

Quote
Otherwise you aren't showing anything about FET, you're just saying that it's incompatible with RET. That's not news.

What are you even talking about here?  A point I’ve made? How I debate in general?  “Round earthers” in general?

Quote
You don't have to ignore science, you don't have to change your point of view... You just need to learn how science actually works, and how dependent on context and underpinning theory it is.

Just for fun, I’m going to address this one on “FET terms” and point out that The Godfather of modern flat eartherism, Samuel Rowbotham didn’t want to use the scientific method at all, proposing the “zetetic method” instead.

But that seems pedantic, so I’ll answer normally-

The whole flat earth topic is well outside the bounds of normal scientific debate.  The real scientific response to all this would be “summit your work for peer review and see if anything sticks”.  But we both know that will never happen, so it’s kind of pointless.

As you pointed out earlier, I don’t need to be here to defend anything, as this fringe idea doesn’t come close to credible science.  I’m here because I’m interested in how flat earthers could have come to their conclusions, to see if they are capable of addressing the enormous holes, come up with new ideas and try to match their ideas to real world observations.

What’s most frustrating about talking to you, is I think you would be capable and perhaps interested in working through the issues, but your default position is to just say its all been covered before (without linking to anything apart from your own thread).

Quote
Science isn't a list of facts, science is a process by which we determine those facts. The process is what matters, not the conclusion. That's what I mean when I talk about religiously clinging to something; if all you care about is the statements of fact, that's when it becomes religion. Science is the means by which we actually find out the truth. Expecting you to actually be able to justify your claims is science.


You are partly right, but you’ve skipped the part about how science progresses.

It’s a process of building on the work of others (Hence Newton’s quote about standing on the shoulders of giants).  So rather than everyone trying to constantly reinvent the wheel, there comes a point where scientists can generally agree something is a scientific fact and move on to next step.  It is of course possible to overturn scientific facts, but not the way flat earthers are going about it.

This is all irrelevant though, as I don’t think I rely on quoting facts without justification anyway. If I wanted to take that route, I’d just say the basic shape of the earth is a scientific fact, which it is.  Wouldn’t be much to talk about then though.

Quote
Object FEers don't justify theirs all you want, that's fine, but that's also no excuse for you to not do the same when you are the one who starts making claims. Again, reject FET based on lack of evidence, sure, but that is not the same as taking the utterly unnecessary step of choosing to argue against it. All you do when you refuse to do that, especially when you have centuries of knowledge to draw upon just a google away, is give the impression REers need to lie and use cheap tactics to defend their position. Nothing I say is for the benefit of FET, it's for the benefit of your bloody credibility. Don't blame me for the fact you apparently don't care about that.

But I make no claims. Or at least my only claims are that I understand the relevant details.  This may not always be true.  I’ve been corrected before, and I’ve actually learned some things here, which is all good.

It’s the flat earthers trying to overturn established science with their ideas.  They are the ones making claims, not me.

Quote
Quote
Why do you bother?
Because this is a forum with other people on. It should be vaguely enjoyable rather than any remotely interesting discussion getting steamrollered by users that just come across as mind-numbingly insecure and utterly tedious.

Can I suggest (again) linking to some of the detailed flat earth models you claim to have seen.  Your compendium, btw, would be a thousand times more useful if you said where any of it actually came from.

I’d be more than happy to look into something more substantial than what we usually get.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2019, 08:03:36 AM by Unconvinced »

Re: Why are you debating on complex theories?
« Reply #42 on: August 24, 2019, 10:32:13 AM »
All simple observable experiments point to a flat earth. Our library contains hundreds of them that have yet to be falsified by the round earth community. Their mind tends towards making things more complex than they are, heaping fiction upon fiction to sustain their ludicrous world-view. As such, discussions tend that way once they have been thoroughly trampled year after year on the simple easily self-observable evidences that the earth is not a globe.

It's really funny and strange at the same time as you say you have hundreds of experiments that appear to prove your point...... I have billions of everyday occurrences that disprove your hundreds of unsubstantiated undocumented and somewhat historical experiemnts.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: Why are you debating on complex theories?
« Reply #43 on: August 24, 2019, 11:13:31 AM »
I remember you telling me on several occasions that my arguments should be based on what flat earthers consider valid evidence.  Which is certainly skirting what Lonegranger said.
...It's also how debates work. If a FEer tried to convince you by appealing to laevorotatory subquarks without providing any reason to accept them, would that contribute anything to a discussion?

Is it?  It can be, if one side decides to be super accommodating and restrict themselves to arguments the other side finds convenient.
It's not 'convenience.' If it's inconvenient to you, that's your problem, it's still how logic works. Like, let's just run a quick thought experiment.
A FEer makes an argument where all the implications from reason to conclusion hold, demonstrating that the Earth is flat. It's just based on the premise that gravity is not exerted by all masses.
A REer makes an argument where all the implications from reason to conclusion hold, demonstrating that the Earth is round. It's just based on the premise that space travel is genuine.

If that is all that's provided, how do you sort between them? That kind of thing is basically the format of most discussions on this site, and if the discussion is reduced to those parameters then you're at a stalemate. What stops it being a stalemate would be external evidence, bringing in evidence for one premise or the other and comparing quality, seeing what happens. It's not 'being accomodating,' you need to show that your premises are more valid than those of the other person's. You don't do that by ignoring said premises. RET is strong, not because of some inherent trait, but because of the evidence that can be provided.
If the evidence you provide runs afoul of the other party's premises, then you haven't provided evidence, you've just asserted that you're right and they're wrong. If they rely on conspiracy, follow it back to its roots, see how far it stretches, make a debate from that. When premises clash, you either need to provide evidence of yours without just assuming they're wrong, or they need to provide evidence of theirs without just assuming you're wrong.
It's only 'inconvenient' when you choose to take the unnecessary and so naturally stricter step of claiming impossibility. Again, that's your decision, don't complain when you have to do what's required by it.


Quote
As you pointed out earlier, I don’t need to be here to defend anything, as this fringe idea doesn’t come close to credible science.  I’m here because I’m interested in how flat earthers could have come to their conclusions, to see if they are capable of addressing the enormous holes, come up with new ideas and try to match their ideas to real world observations.

What’s most frustrating about talking to you, is I think you would be capable and perhaps interested in working through the issues, but your default position is to just say its all been covered before (without linking to anything apart from your own thread).
Then don't come at it from the perspective of trying to debate or disprove, as you've seemed to in every discussion I remember having with you. As soon as you do that, of course you're going to be held to standards of debate. Work through the issues all you want, but expecting the handful of users that stick around on this site to repeat the same posts for the hundredth time and have the same back-and-forth over and over with various users, most of which are just plain unpleasant to deal with, is just not realistic. The compendium's meant to act as a jumping on point; it gets you past the first dozen or so posts of any discussion, depending on topic, so you can hopefully talk about something fresher. If you want to target an enormous hole, then at least do the legwork of knowing what FET actually predicts rather than the first impression people can have.
To address something you mention later, the source of the compendium is just years of lurking on the site. There's no one place where it's all stored, that's the precise reason I needed to make it. Sandokhan's thread is in Believers, JRowe had his own site at one point for DET, a couple of other points are on threads regular users can't see, denpressure you can probably find if you look for the post-2016 threads where I talked to sceptimatic over several threads, but there's no one source. I'm not trying to explain the ultimate origins or history of anything, just what it is people believe in the hope of making debate more feasible. There are probably dozens of 'but why are YOU a FEer' threads out there by now if you want to search on those grounds.

Quote
It’s the flat earthers trying to overturn established science with their ideas.  They are the ones making claims, not me.
That's not how burden of proof works. Yes, when they claim FET is true, lack of evidence is sufficient to reject it as we've gone into. You found that boring, fine.
But when you decide that the way to make it interesting is to claim FET is not just scientifically unsound, but impossible, that's a claim all its own, and a scientific one to boot. Science doesn't care about which side is 'established' when deciding which is sound, that's a textbook appeal to tradition fallacy, it's just that the side that's established already has a mountain of evidence behind it when it reaches that point. Providing that evidence and, if necessary, justifying why that evidence is reliable shouldn't be too much to ask.

Re: Why are you debating on complex theories?
« Reply #44 on: August 26, 2019, 10:42:41 AM »
I remember you telling me on several occasions that my arguments should be based on what flat earthers consider valid evidence.  Which is certainly skirting what Lonegranger said.
...It's also how debates work. If a FEer tried to convince you by appealing to laevorotatory subquarks without providing any reason to accept them, would that contribute anything to a discussion?

Is it?  It can be, if one side decides to be super accommodating and restrict themselves to arguments the other side finds convenient.
It's not 'convenience.' If it's inconvenient to you, that's your problem, it's still how logic works. Like, let's just run a quick thought experiment.
A FEer makes an argument where all the implications from reason to conclusion hold, demonstrating that the Earth is flat. It's just based on the premise that gravity is not exerted by all masses.
A REer makes an argument where all the implications from reason to conclusion hold, demonstrating that the Earth is round. It's just based on the premise that space travel is genuine.

If that is all that's provided, how do you sort between them?

With evidence, obviously.

Quote
That kind of thing is basically the format of most discussions on this site, and if the discussion is reduced to those parameters then you're at a stalemate.

So your “thought experiment” has now changed into what you think is actually happening? 

Clearly not the case, because flat earthers are really far from showing that “all implications from reason to conclusion hold”.

Quote
What stops it being a stalemate would be external evidence, bringing in evidence for one premise or the other and comparing quality, seeing what happens. It's not 'being accomodating,' you need to show that your premises are more valid than those of the other person's. You don't do that by ignoring said premises. RET is strong, not because of some inherent trait, but because of the evidence that can be provided.

Yeah, that’s what I’m saying.  All relevant, credible evidence needs to be accounted for in any model.

Quote
If the evidence you provide runs afoul of the other party's premises, then you haven't provided evidence, you've just asserted that you're right and they're wrong.

Now you’ve just rolled back on what you just said.

If the evidence “runs afoul” of a model, then it’s up to those proposing the model to address it.

No special pleading.

Quote
If they rely on conspiracy, follow it back to its roots, see how far it stretches, make a debate from that. When premises clash, you either need to provide evidence of yours without just assuming they're wrong, or they need to provide evidence of theirs without just assuming you're wrong.

I’ve had numerous lengthy discussions on the plausibility of the conspiracy, thank you.

Although again, it really should be up to the conspiracy theorists to provide evidence of a conspiracy.

Quote
It's only 'inconvenient' when you choose to take the unnecessary and so naturally stricter step of claiming impossibility. Again, that's your decision, don't complain when you have to do what's required by it.

Well, I don’t use the word “impossible”.  So your point is moot.


Quote
Quote
As you pointed out earlier, I don’t need to be here to defend anything, as this fringe idea doesn’t come close to credible science.  I’m here because I’m interested in how flat earthers could have come to their conclusions, to see if they are capable of addressing the enormous holes, come up with new ideas and try to match their ideas to real world observations.

What’s most frustrating about talking to you, is I think you would be capable and perhaps interested in working through the issues, but your default position is to just say its all been covered before (without linking to anything apart from your own thread).
Then don't come at it from the perspective of trying to debate or disprove, as you've seemed to in every discussion I remember having with you. As soon as you do that, of course you're going to be held to standards of debate.

In an informal debate, the closest we have to standards is trying to avoid the use of logical fallacies.

Point out when I do so if you like, or address points I make. 

Quote
Work through the issues all you want, but expecting the handful of users that stick around on this site to repeat the same posts for the hundredth time and have the same back-and-forth over and over with various users, most of which are just plain unpleasant to deal with, is just not realistic.

I don’t expect anything anymore.

If flat earthers don’t want to address any evidence or criticisms I present, that’s up to them.  I’m used to it now.  When I joined here, I thought there might be some genuinely interested in working through the issues, but apparently not.

It not my place to try to find ways to make it work.  I merely point out what needs to be addressed.

Quote
The compendium's meant to act as a jumping on point; it gets you past the first dozen or so posts of any discussion, depending on topic, so you can hopefully talk about something fresher.

If you want to target an enormous hole, then at least do the legwork of knowing what FET actually predicts rather than the first impression people can have.
To address something you mention later, the source of the compendium is just years of lurking on the site. There's no one place where it's all stored, that's the precise reason I needed to make it. Sandokhan's thread is in Believers, JRowe had his own site at one point for DET, a couple of other points are on threads regular users can't see, denpressure you can probably find if you look for the post-2016 threads where I talked to sceptimatic over several threads, but there's no one source. I'm not trying to explain the ultimate origins or history of anything, just what it is people believe in the hope of making debate more feasible.

Yeah, I managed to work out that much.  I only object to this being linked under the guise of “this has all been adequately answered”, when as far as I can tell, many of these ideas lack any detail.

Quote
There are probably dozens of 'but why are YOU a FEer' threads out there by now if you want to search on those grounds.

Sure, I’ve read some.  But hearing someone’s stock response isn’t nearly as interesting as seeing how they react to having their preconceptions challenged.

Quote
Quote
It’s the flat earthers trying to overturn established science with their ideas.  They are the ones making claims, not me.
That's not how burden of proof works. Yes, when they claim FET is true, lack of evidence is sufficient to reject it as we've gone into. You found that boring, fine.
But when you decide that the way to make it interesting is to claim FET is not just scientifically unsound, but impossible, that's a claim all its own, and a scientific one to boot. Science doesn't care about which side is 'established' when deciding which is sound, that's a textbook appeal to tradition fallacy, it's just that the side that's established already has a mountain of evidence behind it when it reaches that point. Providing that evidence and, if necessary, justifying why that evidence is reliable shouldn't be too much to ask.

Well now you are totally contracting yourself.

Established science is established because of the mountains of evidence.  That’s not an appeal to tradition, but to the mountains of evidence.

You say that flat earth ideas can be rejected due to lack of supporting evidence, but what do we fall back on then, if not established science?

And again, you try to put the word “impossible” into my mouth.

?

dutchy

  • 2366
Re: Why are you debating on complex theories?
« Reply #45 on: August 26, 2019, 11:16:39 AM »
Yes, they only fit the Globe, but ::):
I've tried and some, like Tom Bishop, invent magical bendy light that somehow (magic ???) bends the light to match exactly that observed on the Globe - they've get powerful
But, ... but that is what you do all the time  ::)

A moon scenery during Apollo that exactly matches a studio on earth with multiple lightsources, film slomo, hotspots, studio props and more.....
The real Apollo footage is 100% indistinguishable from studio fakery due to special ‘moon conditions’ .... so the fanboys claim...

And of course extremely convenient levels of radiation, cosmic particles , solar radiation that is precisely within the scope of being a modest threat to human tissue, film, batteries and other spartan 1969 technologies.... contrary to all previous findings.
Bendy light that matches the globe is well within the same league of argument i’d say !

You are such a well trained specimen of the evil rulers of this current world.....


*

sokarul

  • 18795
  • Extra Racist
Re: Why are you debating on complex theories?
« Reply #46 on: August 26, 2019, 11:22:38 AM »
Parrot, it's not just a bird.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

Re: Why are you debating on complex theories?
« Reply #47 on: August 26, 2019, 11:46:56 AM »
Yes, they only fit the Globe, but ::):
I've tried and some, like Tom Bishop, invent magical bendy light that somehow (magic ???) bends the light to match exactly that observed on the Globe - they've get powerful
But, ... but that is what you do all the time  ::)

A moon scenery during Apollo that exactly matches a studio on earth with multiple lightsources, film slomo, hotspots, studio props and more.....
The real Apollo footage is 100% indistinguishable from studio fakery due to special ‘moon conditions’ .... so the fanboys claim...

And of course extremely convenient levels of radiation, cosmic particles , solar radiation that is precisely within the scope of being a modest threat to human tissue, film, batteries and other spartan 1969 technologies.... contrary to all previous findings.
Bendy light that matches the globe is well within the same league of argument i’d say !

You are such a well trained specimen of the evil rulers of this current world.....

No.

“Bendy light” is an excuse for the sun (amongst other things) being observed 45 degrees and more out of position from where flat earth models say it should be, differing massively for people in different locations.

Counter arguments to studio lighting claims do not rely on any such unexplained phenomena.  Regardless of how much you like them.


Re: Why are you debating on complex theories?
« Reply #48 on: August 26, 2019, 12:45:50 PM »
Yes, they only fit the Globe, but ::):
I've tried and some, like Tom Bishop, invent magical bendy light that somehow (magic ???) bends the light to match exactly that observed on the Globe - they've get powerful
But, ... but that is what you do all the time  ::)

A moon scenery during Apollo that exactly matches a studio on earth with multiple lightsources, film slomo, hotspots, studio props and more.....
The real Apollo footage is 100% indistinguishable from studio fakery due to special ‘moon conditions’ .... so the fanboys claim...

And of course extremely convenient levels of radiation, cosmic particles , solar radiation that is precisely within the scope of being a modest threat to human tissue, film, batteries and other spartan 1969 technologies.... contrary to all previous findings.
Bendy light that matches the globe is well within the same league of argument i’d say !

You are such a well trained specimen of the evil rulers of this current world.....
And what a difference of Studio sets of 2001, and the real thing, as we went to the moon, why is there such a difference, we had the sets?
The the universe has no obligation to makes sense to you.
The earth is a globe.