What Makes the Flat Earth Hypothesis Believable in the First Place?

  • 643 Replies
  • 31800 Views
*

Timeisup

  • 3554
  • You still think that. You cannot be serious ?
Re: What Makes the Flat Earth Hypothesis Believable in the First Place?
« Reply #270 on: November 29, 2022, 03:26:48 AM »
Scientists can have a scientific model even if it is "wrong".

I don't think anyone is doubting that. Being right or eventually being found to be wrong is not the criteria.

The point is any scientific theory that turned out to be wrong was no doubt built on some credible scientifically based ideas, just like with the aether you previously mentioned. In its time with what was know there was some scientific justification for what it put forward as it was based on the best possible SCIENTIFIC evidence that was available at the time.

The significant difference with FE belief is that it has NO, ZERO, NIL, science that underpins it. None of what they put forward can remotely be claimed to be scientific. Its ironic that you refer to a past scientific theory. Why no alleged flat earth theory to prove the point your trying to make? Strange is it not?

Why have you not, Like your friend Mr Blockhead,  put forward some alleged Flat Earth examples? again strange!

My challenge to you if you think. like Mr Blockhead, that, and I quote:-

“Flat earth has “PLENTY REAL FLAT EARTH DATA” and  “There can be a scientific FE model"

At least have the honesty to present them and see how they stack up to reality.

What you and your Blockhead friend keep forgetting is that flat earth belief is NOT scientific in that it is NOT based on any science, rather its based on a belief wrapped in fantasy atop a conspiracy with no science to be found. If you think Im wrong then present your alleged “  “PLENTY REAL FLAT EARTH DATA” and these alleged and mysterious, yet to be seen "FLAT EARTH SCIENTIFIC MODELS" that you and your Blockhead friend imagine exist.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2022, 03:42:25 AM by Timeisup »
Really…..what a laugh!!!

*

Timeisup

  • 3554
  • You still think that. You cannot be serious ?
Re: What Makes the Flat Earth Hypothesis Believable in the First Place?
« Reply #271 on: November 29, 2022, 03:41:14 AM »
There is a universe of difference between scientists around 150 years ago putting forward a theory based on best available evidence, as in the case of the aether, and a group of fantasy driven flat earth clowns proposing something so preposterous and obviously unscientific.
There is no comparison between the two. To say there is is madness in itself.
To say there is no comparison is madness itself.

As soon as more evidence came available science moved on as it is driven by the best facts and evidence available.
No it didn't.
Plenty clung to the aether, even after it needed so many insane things, and there was evidence showing it doesn't work.

But the most important part of the comparison is still valid.
In these cases, data existed which lead to the creation of a model which doesn't match reality.

i.e. being wrong is not enough to preclude the possibility of data existing which can be used to construct a model, it doesn't preclude the possibility of a model existing.

What this shows is you have not the slightest understanding of anything being totally blinded by your own bigotry and your  ‘I have to be right and to hell with the truth’ way of non thinking.
The fact that you have been obviously  wrong on everything you have been claiming shines a bright light on your dishonesty and inability to accept the truth.
You sure do love your projection don't you?


You say:-
“The images have no bearing on the argument.”
That’s a lie only you believe!
No, that is not a lie.
The argument is not if Earth is flat or round.
The argument is about if there can be a FE model.
Showing that Earth is flat does not preclude the possibility of a FE model.
Just like demonstrating that Bohr's model of the atom is wrong doesn't preclude the possibility of it being a model.
Just like demonstrating that the aether doesn't exist doesn't preclude the possibility of scientific models existing which use aether.

As such, this has no bearing on the argument.

If I was claiming that Earth is flat, rather than just objecting to your BS claim that there can't be FE models, then it would have bearing. But that is not the case.
If instead you were claiming that a model must be true, and all these outdated beliefs from science are not models because they aren't true, then it would have bearing. But that is not the case either.

It reveals no strawman
You are blatantly lying when you claim I am rejecting the truth, with your dishonest implication that I think Earth is flat.
You are setting up a strawman, where you pretend I think Earth is flat, for you to defeat by providing evidence that Earth isn't flat.

But that has never been my claim or my argument.

You continue to claim:-

“Flat earth has “PLENTY REAL FLAT EARTH DATA” and  “There can be a scientific FE model"
And you know what the evidence is, you are unable to show a single fault with it, nor can you actually justify the BS you have spouted which lead to those statements.

Instead you just deflect, setting up pathetic strawmen to knock down.

I have challenged you on numerous occasions to present YOUR PLENTY REAL FLAT EARTH DATA” and YOU HAVE FAILED TO PRODUCE A SINGLE SHRED!
And I presented it numerous times, and you just ignored it, repeatedly, and instead just continue to spout this pathetic lie.

I have challenged you
And given that I had met your challenge to provide the data, and you just dishoenstly pretend it doesn't exist, I see no reason to try performing any more tricks for you.
Deal with the challenged which have already been met before demanding more.

Conversely, you have been challenged to provide a coherent, consistent set of requirements something must meet in order to be deemed a model, which can then be applied to the products of the idols you worship; and you have continually deflecting, never providing this because you know it will defeat you by exposing your dishonest double standard.
Either the prodcuts of your idols will fail which you can never allow, or the FE can pass, which you can never allow.

The simple fact that you call a lie is that the world has been known to be a sphere for 2000 years. True or false?
FALSE!
If you wish to claim such pure BS, then provide a direct quote to justify it.

And regardless, yet again, this is a pathetic deflection and a strawman.

Try sticking to the topic.

Instead of focusing on if Earth is flat or round, instead focus on if there can be FE models.

If you think this lie is a truth then present the evidence. Whats stopping you?
I have. If you think I haven't, then explain why, making sure you are responding to what I have said, rather than your pathetic lie that it doesn't exist.

Stop the continual lying and distortions and back up your claim with evidence.
And more pathteic projection.
How about you follow your own advice, and provide a coherent, consistent set of requirements for something to meet to be deemed a model which can then be applied to the products of those you worship.

Either way, stop lying by falsely claiming that I have indicated Earth is flat.
Stop lying by falsely claiming I reject science.
Stop lying by falsely claiming I haven't provided data.

All that does is show your dishonesty and show how pathetic your position is.

Like your pal your Blockhead refuses to accept the reality of the situation, the reality being this:-

All past credible scientific theories wheather they were right or wrong all, if they were scientific, had genuine legitimacy, in that they were based on the scientific knowledge and understanding of their time.

To be termed a scientific model it needs to based on science irrespective if it eventually is proven to be wrong in its assumptions.

The insurmountable problem surrounding FLAT EARTH BELIEF is that it has NO,ZERO,NIL science. It is NOT based on science, as I keep saying. It is based on a belief wrapped in a fantasy atop a conspiracy.

IF you still firmly believe in this:-

“Flat earth has “PLENTY REAL FLAT EARTH DATA” and  “There can be a scientific FE model"

Then at least have the decency to provide some proof for what you say by :-

Presenting some real flat earth scientific data.

To date you have failed to do so, as is your want, when painted into a corner.

The question is WHY have you not done so? What do you keep avoiding backing up your claim.?

In Science there can be a range of opinions and theories based on the know science.

As regards the shape of the earth, there is no difference of opinion, there is no question or debate surrounding it. Science knows the answer which is not in any scientific doubt.  Any belief in this instance that differers is not scientific.. how can it be when it just contradicts reality. its just a fantasy and fiction. That is the truth that you fail to see. Thats why Flat Earth belief has its conspiracy so it can dismiss science and everything it stands for. Just as you are doing. No kittens, not cult, no strawmen, only the truth.

So how about presenting some example of an alleged real Flat Earth Scientific model?....and the REAL FLAT EARTH DATA  to go with it!
« Last Edit: November 29, 2022, 09:27:08 AM by Timeisup »
Really…..what a laugh!!!

*

Timeisup

  • 3554
  • You still think that. You cannot be serious ?
Re: What Makes the Flat Earth Hypothesis Believable in the First Place?
« Reply #272 on: November 29, 2022, 09:34:55 AM »
What opinions do  outside agencies have in this matter? Ok it’s Wikipedia. But this is what ‘it’ says:-

Modern flat Earth beliefs are promoted by organizations and individuals which make claims that the Earth is flat while denying the Earth's sphericity, contrary to over two millennia of scientific consensus.[3] Flat Earth beliefs are pseudoscience; the hypotheses and assertions are not based on scientific knowledge. Flat Earth advocates are classified by experts in philosophy and physics as science deniers.[4][5]

There you have it.

Me 1   Mr Blockhead 0
Really…..what a laugh!!!

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: What Makes the Flat Earth Hypothesis Believable in the First Place?
« Reply #273 on: November 29, 2022, 11:32:39 AM »
The point is any scientific theory that turned out to be wrong was no doubt built on some credible scientifically based ideas, just like with the aether you previously mentioned. In its time with what was know there was some scientific justification for what it put forward as it was based on the best possible SCIENTIFIC evidence that was available at the time.

There are bonafide scientists who still adhere to aether theory and perform experiments and gather data in support of said theory.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: What Makes the Flat Earth Hypothesis Believable in the First Place?
« Reply #274 on: November 29, 2022, 12:44:31 PM »
Scientists can have a scientific model even if it is "wrong".
I don't think anyone is doubting that.
That is the primary basis for your rejection of the possibility of FE models.

As a reminder of what you said:
The whole idea of a flat earth is a fiction, it has no chance or possibility as suddenly revealing itself to be real and that is an indisputable fact. With that said the notion of a flat earth can neither support a model nor a hypothesis as there is zero evidence on which to base either.
That is you indicating that because Earth isn't flat, you cannot have FE models.
That is you pretending that because a FE model is wrong, it can't be a model.
But the same can be said for anything in science, with it being equally valid.

Being right or eventually being found to be wrong is not the criteria.
Then what is the criteria? Why do you continually refuse to provide a coherent, consistent set of criteria that can be applied to the idols you worship?

In its time with what was know there was some scientific justification for what it put forward as it was based on the best possible SCIENTIFIC evidence that was available at the time.
So that rules out the Bohr model, which contradicted the best possible scientific evidence that was available at the time.
It also contradicts the aether model for long period of time, while it was still being promoted.

The significant difference with FE belief is that it has NO, ZERO, NIL, science that underpins it. None of what they put forward can remotely be claimed to be scientific.
You mean it can have science underpinning it, but you hate that it can, act like it is heresy, and continually spout this BS which just helps support FEers claim that the RE belief is a religion.

Why have you not, Like your friend Mr Blockhead,  put forward some alleged Flat Earth examples? again strange!
You mean I have put forward examples, examples you continually ignore because they show you to be wrong, however you Mr Moron, refuses to put forward any evidence to support your delusional BS, instead propping up strawmen.

At least have the honesty to present them and see how they stack up to reality.
Mr moron, at least have the honesty to admit that it has been presented and you just don't like it.

Like your pal your Blockhead refuses to accept the reality of the situation, the reality being this:
No, I fully accept the reality of the situation. You are the one clinging to religious fantasy here.

The reality of the situation is that a model does not need to be correct to be a model.
Likewise, models do not even need to use all the available evidence to be a model (again, the Bohr model was contradicted by evidence which existed prior to its formation, it was known that it was not an accurate model, and that it would only work for hydrogen when it was made).
That there are plenty of observations, including observations which can be conducted in a scientific manner, which cannot distinguish between a FE and a RE.
That such observations/evidence/data can lead to the formation of a model of Earth in which Earth is flat.
Other evidence indicating Earth is not flat does not mean there cannot be a FE model.

IF you still firmly believe in this:-
“Flat earth has “PLENTY REAL FLAT EARTH DATA” and  “There can be a scientific FE model"
Yes, I do still fimly believe this, as you are yet to show any fault with what has been provided to you.
The fact that you instead need to repeatedly lie to pretend that I haven't provided examples and justification for my claims just further supports this belief and shows how pathetic your position is.

At least have the decency to stop repeating the same pathetic lies.

If you still firmly believe that the models of your idols are real scientific models, rather than fictional fantasies, while FE can never produce models, then why don't you provide a coherent, consistent set of requirements something must meet in order to be deemed a model, which can then be applied to the idols you worship?

To date you have failed to do so, as is your want, when painted into a corner.

The question is WHY have you not done so? What do you keep avoiding backing up your claim.?

Is it because you know you can't provide such a set which would allow the models you accept as models, while rejecting the FE models? That isntead you would either accept the FE models, or you would reject at least some of the models of those you worship?

Any belief in this instance that differers is not scientific.. how can it be when it just contradicts reality.
This kind of thinking is entirely unscientific.
It is religious.
If applied in the past, we would still be blindly believing in BS like the aether.
Because any belief that a wave could propagate without a material medium is not scientific, how can it be when it just contradicts reality?

You not liking actual scientific processes, and the overall methodology of science, because it doesn't support your cult, doesn't magically mean science has to change to match your cult.

What opinions do  outside agencies have in this matter? Ok it’s Wikipedia. But this is what ‘it’ says:
And another pathetic distraction which in no way helps support your delusional BS.

But also notice how it cites MODERN FE beliefs.
This is one thing you have been overlooking this entire time.
People believed Earth was flat before they had sufficient evidence to conclude it was round.
Does that mean they could have produced FE models back then?
And thus there could have been FE models?

But as you appear to want to deflect to external sources, how about we go further down the page:
Quote
The Flat Earth Society's most recent planet model is that humanity lives on a disc
Quote
In this model, the Sun and Moon are each 32 miles (51 km) in diameter.
Quote
which in his disc model would be much further apart than they are on the globe. He claimed to see no such flights, and took this as evidence for the disc model.
Sure sounds like they accept that there are FE models.


You even have wonderful things like this:
https://gulfnews.com/opinion/op-eds/phd-thesis-the-earth-is-flat-1.2009202
A PhD student submitted a thesis declaring Earth to be flat.
This is a thesis from a science student, working with a professor.
They even published a paper on it.

There you have it.

Me 100   Mr Moron -100

*

Timeisup

  • 3554
  • You still think that. You cannot be serious ?
Re: What Makes the Flat Earth Hypothesis Believable in the First Place?
« Reply #275 on: November 29, 2022, 11:11:04 PM »
The point is any scientific theory that turned out to be wrong was no doubt built on some credible scientifically based ideas, just like with the aether you previously mentioned. In its time with what was know there was some scientific justification for what it put forward as it was based on the best possible SCIENTIFIC evidence that was available at the time.

There are bonafide scientists who still adhere to aether theory and perform experiments and gather data in support of said theory.

That is true, but so what?

I see like Blockhead you fail to produce any ‘PLENTY REAL FLAT EARTH DATA’

Why not use some FE examples?

Really…..what a laugh!!!

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: What Makes the Flat Earth Hypothesis Believable in the First Place?
« Reply #276 on: November 29, 2022, 11:30:55 PM »
That is true, but so what?
So some scientists are still trying to use models with aether, even though most would say the aether is a fictional fantasy.

I see like Blockhead you fail to produce any ‘PLENTY REAL FLAT EARTH DATA’
You mean we all see that the moron is clinging to lies and denying reality, because the moron can't refute the data that can be used to make a FE model.

Why not use some FE examples?
That has already been explained.
You just pretend FE examples don't exist, or look for pathetic excuses to reject them.
So we use examples that fail the standard you want to use for FE models, to expose your double standard.

*

Timeisup

  • 3554
  • You still think that. You cannot be serious ?
Re: What Makes the Flat Earth Hypothesis Believable in the First Place?
« Reply #277 on: November 29, 2022, 11:48:29 PM »
Scientists can have a scientific model even if it is "wrong".
I don't think anyone is doubting that.
That is the primary basis for your rejection of the possibility of FE models.

As a reminder of what you said:
The whole idea of a flat earth is a fiction, it has no chance or possibility as suddenly revealing itself to be real and that is an indisputable fact. With that said the notion of a flat earth can neither support a model nor a hypothesis as there is zero evidence on which to base either.
That is you indicating that because Earth isn't flat, you cannot have FE models.
That is you pretending that because a FE model is wrong, it can't be a model.
But the same can be said for anything in science, with it being equally valid.

Being right or eventually being found to be wrong is not the criteria.
Then what is the criteria? Why do you continually refuse to provide a coherent, consistent set of criteria that can be applied to the idols you worship?

In its time with what was know there was some scientific justification for what it put forward as it was based on the best possible SCIENTIFIC evidence that was available at the time.
So that rules out the Bohr model, which contradicted the best possible scientific evidence that was available at the time.
It also contradicts the aether model for long period of time, while it was still being promoted.

The significant difference with FE belief is that it has NO, ZERO, NIL, science that underpins it. None of what they put forward can remotely be claimed to be scientific.
You mean it can have science underpinning it, but you hate that it can, act like it is heresy, and continually spout this BS which just helps support FEers claim that the RE belief is a religion.

Why have you not, Like your friend Mr Blockhead,  put forward some alleged Flat Earth examples? again strange!
You mean I have put forward examples, examples you continually ignore because they show you to be wrong, however you Mr Moron, refuses to put forward any evidence to support your delusional BS, instead propping up strawmen.

At least have the honesty to present them and see how they stack up to reality.
Mr moron, at least have the honesty to admit that it has been presented and you just don't like it.

Like your pal your Blockhead refuses to accept the reality of the situation, the reality being this:
No, I fully accept the reality of the situation. You are the one clinging to religious fantasy here.

The reality of the situation is that a model does not need to be correct to be a model.
Likewise, models do not even need to use all the available evidence to be a model (again, the Bohr model was contradicted by evidence which existed prior to its formation, it was known that it was not an accurate model, and that it would only work for hydrogen when it was made).
That there are plenty of observations, including observations which can be conducted in a scientific manner, which cannot distinguish between a FE and a RE.
That such observations/evidence/data can lead to the formation of a model of Earth in which Earth is flat.
Other evidence indicating Earth is not flat does not mean there cannot be a FE model.

IF you still firmly believe in this:-
“Flat earth has “PLENTY REAL FLAT EARTH DATA” and  “There can be a scientific FE model"
Yes, I do still fimly believe this, as you are yet to show any fault with what has been provided to you.
The fact that you instead need to repeatedly lie to pretend that I haven't provided examples and justification for my claims just further supports this belief and shows how pathetic your position is.

At least have the decency to stop repeating the same pathetic lies.

If you still firmly believe that the models of your idols are real scientific models, rather than fictional fantasies, while FE can never produce models, then why don't you provide a coherent, consistent set of requirements something must meet in order to be deemed a model, which can then be applied to the idols you worship?

To date you have failed to do so, as is your want, when painted into a corner.

The question is WHY have you not done so? What do you keep avoiding backing up your claim.?

Is it because you know you can't provide such a set which would allow the models you accept as models, while rejecting the FE models? That isntead you would either accept the FE models, or you would reject at least some of the models of those you worship?

Any belief in this instance that differers is not scientific.. how can it be when it just contradicts reality.
This kind of thinking is entirely unscientific.
It is religious.
If applied in the past, we would still be blindly believing in BS like the aether.
Because any belief that a wave could propagate without a material medium is not scientific, how can it be when it just contradicts reality?

You not liking actual scientific processes, and the overall methodology of science, because it doesn't support your cult, doesn't magically mean science has to change to match your cult.

What opinions do  outside agencies have in this matter? Ok it’s Wikipedia. But this is what ‘it’ says:
And another pathetic distraction which in no way helps support your delusional BS.

But also notice how it cites MODERN FE beliefs.
This is one thing you have been overlooking this entire time.
People believed Earth was flat before they had sufficient evidence to conclude it was round.
Does that mean they could have produced FE models back then?
And thus there could have been FE models?

But as you appear to want to deflect to external sources, how about we go further down the page:
Quote
The Flat Earth Society's most recent planet model is that humanity lives on a disc
Quote
In this model, the Sun and Moon are each 32 miles (51 km) in diameter.
Quote
which in his disc model would be much further apart than they are on the globe. He claimed to see no such flights, and took this as evidence for the disc model.
Sure sounds like they accept that there are FE models.


You even have wonderful things like this:
https://gulfnews.com/opinion/op-eds/phd-thesis-the-earth-is-flat-1.2009202
A PhD student submitted a thesis declaring Earth to be flat.
This is a thesis from a science student, working with a professor.
They even published a paper on it.

There you have it.

Me 100   Mr Moron -100


Firstly you have never ever produced any :

PLENTY REAL FLAT EARTH SCIENTIFIC DATA’

Not once. That is just one of your many lies.

Not once have you presented any:

‘PLENTY REAL FLAT EARTH ALEGED SCIENTIFIC MODELS’

You keep banging on about how these alleged flat earth scientific models  are real so where are they?

The  mystery is why you keep avoiding presenting them!

You also keep avoiding presenting any of this alleged Flat Earth science on which these alleged flat earth models are built.

How about the alleged flat earth scientific model that can prove how a flat planet could form. Surely  that must help form the core of this alleged FE science you say exists.

Or how about the alleged flat earth scientific model that demonstrates how the solar system would function with all the maths neatly worked out explaining how their replacement for gravity, whatever it is, functions and how it could be responsible for both planetary and galaxy formation. That must be a good one.

Or how about their model that explains how their small near sun actually works and has burned away for approaching 5bn years What is it that keeps it going? It must be amazing! How does it keep the solar system together it being so tiny and smaller than the earth? Being so near what stops it crashing into us? So many questions, so that model must be a really good one. How about you present that one?

Or how about all the alleged flat earth scientific data that points to there being an ice wall and a dome. For sure they must have lots and lots of plenty real flat earth data for that.

The funny thing is while I can get any number of books and journals on very specific areas of real science…… I can’t find a single volume or any book on alternative alleged flat earth science! Strange that. One would have thought with all that ‘PLENTY TEAL FLAT EARTH DATA’ that you CLAIM exists there would be PLENTY REAL FLAT EARTH ALTERNATIVE SCIENCE BOOKS.

Where  are all these flat earth scientists who are collecting all this PLENTY REAL FLAT EARTH SCIENTIFIC DATA? And cresting all these alleged Scientific models?

Where do they hang out?

Where do they publish all this stuff you claim exists?

If you believe so strongly in it present some. Come on Blockhead give with all that amazing alleged flat earth science you claim exists.

Of course you won’t. Why? Because you can’t.

The fact that you can’t means once more you loose.

If you make a claim, let me remind you:-

“Flat earth has “PLENTY REAL FLAT EARTH DATA” and  “There can be a scientific FE model"

SO BACK IT UP BLOCKHEAD AND STOP WITH THE DEFLECTIONS.
Really…..what a laugh!!!

*

Timeisup

  • 3554
  • You still think that. You cannot be serious ?
Re: What Makes the Flat Earth Hypothesis Believable in the First Place?
« Reply #278 on: November 30, 2022, 12:02:58 AM »
Now Mr. Blockhead says this:-


“You just pretend FE examples don't exist, or look for pathetic excuses to reject them.
So we use examples that fail the standard you want to use for FE models, to expose your double standard.”

I don’t pretend they don’t exist as they don’t exist.

It you claim they exist why dont you present them.

What’s stopping you Mr Blockhead remember you said:-

“Flat earth has “PLENTY REAL FLAT EARTH DATA” and  “There can be a scientific FE model"

Plenty means lots, so GIVE GIVE GIVE.

OR

YOU COULD JUST GIVE UP!

PS

Your arguments using past examples of real scientific models are red herrings.

Why?

The ideas that formed them, wrong thought they turned out to be were still founded on PLENTY REAL SCIENTIFIC DATA and reasoning.

That is the crucial difference. There was a scientific logic for each that was documented and presented for scrutiny by others. Each had a foundation of scientific legitimacy.

THE SCIENCE BEHIND THESE PAST SCIENTIFIC MODELS EXISTED.

WHILE:-

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS FLAT EARTH SCIENCE. IT DOES NOT EXIST.

If you disagree you are at liberty to produce sone!

 
Really…..what a laugh!!!

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: What Makes the Flat Earth Hypothesis Believable in the First Place?
« Reply #279 on: November 30, 2022, 12:23:29 AM »
Firstly you have never ever produced any :
PLENTY REAL FLAT EARTH SCIENTIFIC DATA’
I notice you yet again change the text.
This is what you said before:
IF you still firmly believe in this:-
“Flat earth has “PLENTY REAL FLAT EARTH DATA” and  “There can be a scientific FE model"
Trying to move the goalposts again are we?

If you need to change the words to change the meaning then that is YOUR lie, not mine.
If you think they are equivalent, then you have already accepted that I have provided it by acknowledging the red text.
So either way, it is YOUR lie, not mine.
It is a lie you need to keep on repeating because you can't permit such heresy.

The  mystery is why you keep avoiding presenting them!
Again, the "mystery" is why you need to keep on repeating your pathetic lies, rather than providing a coherent consisten set of requirements for something to meet to be deemed a model, which can then be applied to the product of those you worship.
The "mystery" is why you keep on deflecting rather than even attempting to defend your BS.

But we both know why this is, and it isn't a mystery at all; you can't defend your BS and it would be heresy to admit you were wrong.

One would have thought with all that ‘PLENTY TEAL FLAT EARTH DATA’ that you CLAIM exists there would be PLENTY REAL FLAT EARTH ALTERNATIVE SCIENCE BOOKS.
Why should one think that?
Not everyone is as foolish as you.

The fact that you can’t means once more you loose.
If you make a claim, let me remind you:-
“Flat earth has “PLENTY REAL FLAT EARTH DATA” and  “There can be a scientific FE model"
SO BACK IT UP BLOCKHEAD AND STOP WITH THE DEFLECTIONS.
I have backed up my claims moron, and you have refused to refute that justification. Instead you just ignored them, and then eventually falsely claimed that there is no uncertainty in scientific measurements.

Conversely, you entirely refuse to justify your delusional BS at all.
So moron, how about you follow that advice, stop with the pathetic deflections and try justifying your BS?
Provide a coherent, consistent set of requirements which something must meet in order to be deemed a model.
Once you have done that, we can apply it to the products of your idols.

Now Mr. Blockhead says this:
You mean now Mr. Moron pretends that something that has been pointed out and explained several times is new to them, and will yet again entirely ignore it.

I don’t pretend they don’t exist as they don’t exist.
Yes, you do.
Every time you lie by claiming I have not provided data you are pretending they don't exist.

It you claim they exist why dont you present them.
Like I said, you just lie and pretend it doesn't exist, or look for pathetic excuses to dismiss.
So instead, we need to focus on what you accept as models and data, to establish a set of requirements of what makes a model.

But you will never provide, because you know that once you have, either the products of your idols wont meet it, or there is nothing to prevent a FE from meeting it.

What's stopping you Mr Moron?

Plenty means lots, so GIVE GIVE GIVE.
Well, technically plenty means:
a large or sufficient amount or quantity; more than enough.
It doesn't need to be lots, just sufficient.

And I have provided it, many many times, until finally making it red in order for you to acknowledge its existence.

YOU COULD JUST GIVE UP!
While you have no interest in accepting the truth and giving up your cult; I have no interest in letting you spout your delusional BS unchallenged.
I will continue to object to your BS.

But if you really don't want to admit you are wrong, you could just give up, especially considering as you have no interest in demonstrating you aren't wrong.

Your arguments using past examples of real scientific models are red herrings.
No, they aren't.
They are clear demonstrations that a model does not need to be correct to be a model.
They are clear demonstrations that Earth not being flat does not mean you can't have a FE model.
They are clear demonstrations that you can follow a scientific approach and produce an incorrect model.

The ideas that formed them, wrong thought they turned out to be were still founded on PLENTY REAL SCIENTIFIC DATA and reasoning.
Do you mean like the Bohr model, with sufficient evidence to show it was wrong before the model was made?

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS FLAT EARTH SCIENCE. IT DOES NOT EXIST.
Which is just making your argument circular.
If you wish to assert such things to try and justify your claim, prove it.

And don't just prove that it doesn't exist, prove that it can't exist.

*

Timeisup

  • 3554
  • You still think that. You cannot be serious ?
Re: What Makes the Flat Earth Hypothesis Believable in the First Place?
« Reply #280 on: November 30, 2022, 03:03:36 AM »
Its not difficult to grasp for those with an open mind.

The example of real science you keep attempting to use an excuses for flat earth nonsense does not wash. Neither do your attempts to somehow discredit Bhor and his work that if I can remind you led to a Nobel Prize for Physics. And you have the sheer cheek to criticise such a scientific giant, what with you being a scientific nobody.

“In 1922, Niels Bohr received the Nobel Prize in Physics for “his services in the investigation of the structure of atoms and the radiation emanating from them”

He received a Nobel prize for work that you sneer at. Where is your Nobel Mr. Blockhead?

He was latterly proved to be mistaken but that is how science works.  Even Einstein was wrong on several things, but thats how science works. The fact that you keep failing to understand is that he was working on what was then the cutting edge of science where the correct answer was unknown. I suppose it still is. He published his work that was based on what ‘HE THOUGHT” was the best scientific evidence at that time. His work was based on meticulous research. Go read the books that describe it.

The fact that YOU, Mr. Blockhead attempt to use the past work of a Nobel Prize winner and greatest scientist of the C20th  is beyond a joke.

As to the aether even Maxwell had good reasons at the time for thinking such a thing was required, again because these men and the few women who were around at the time were at the limits of what was know making , as in the case of Maxwell, ground breaking science changing discoveries. Like Bohr that was was a genius.

What has the Flat Earth got?

No scientists

No science

And no, despite what you say, :-

“Flat earth has “PLENTY REAL FLAT EARTH DATA” and  “There can be a scientific FE model"

You say you have presented both FE scientific Data and examples of FE scientific models, but I have seen none. I think they are, like your claim, part of your Blockhead imagination.

How can something like the Flat Earth Belief that is inherently unscientific and  anti-science produce any data let alone models that can be scientific? Please explain…..thought you won’t attempt it will you?

Show me the FE scientific books
Show me the FE scientific research
Show me the FE scientific data….you say they have plenty so show ‘PLENTY’
Show me the alleged FE science behind their small near sun.
Show me the  alleged FE science behind their belief in an ice wall and an Antartica that rigs the earth!
Show me the  alleged FE science behind  their rejection of gravity and how their alternative works
Show me the  alleged FE proof behind their assertions that all astronomy is pseudoscience.


Let me remind you should you produce an alleged FE scientific model out your Blockhead hat the criteria for one:-

based on reliable observations.
able to explain the characteristics of the observations used to formulate it.
predictive.
able to explain phenomena that were not used to develop the model.
able to be refined when new, credible, conflicting observations arise.


It is of course an impossibility just as the notion of a workable flat earth map an impossibility. They are both impossibilities as the whole flat earth belief system is built on a fantasy wrapped in a fiction sitting atop a conspiracy with not a whiff of science in sight.
Really…..what a laugh!!!

*

Timeisup

  • 3554
  • You still think that. You cannot be serious ?
Re: What Makes the Flat Earth Hypothesis Believable in the First Place?
« Reply #281 on: November 30, 2022, 03:08:51 AM »
Firstly you have never ever produced any :
PLENTY REAL FLAT EARTH SCIENTIFIC DATA’
I notice you yet again change the text.
This is what you said before:
IF you still firmly believe in this:-
“Flat earth has “PLENTY REAL FLAT EARTH DATA” and  “There can be a scientific FE model"
Trying to move the goalposts again are we?

If you need to change the words to change the meaning then that is YOUR lie, not mine.
If you think they are equivalent, then you have already accepted that I have provided it by acknowledging the red text.
So either way, it is YOUR lie, not mine.
It is a lie you need to keep on repeating because you can't permit such heresy.

The  mystery is why you keep avoiding presenting them!
Again, the "mystery" is why you need to keep on repeating your pathetic lies, rather than providing a coherent consisten set of requirements for something to meet to be deemed a model, which can then be applied to the product of those you worship.
The "mystery" is why you keep on deflecting rather than even attempting to defend your BS.

But we both know why this is, and it isn't a mystery at all; you can't defend your BS and it would be heresy to admit you were wrong.

One would have thought with all that ‘PLENTY TEAL FLAT EARTH DATA’ that you CLAIM exists there would be PLENTY REAL FLAT EARTH ALTERNATIVE SCIENCE BOOKS.
Why should one think that?
Not everyone is as foolish as you.

The fact that you can’t means once more you loose.
If you make a claim, let me remind you:-
“Flat earth has “PLENTY REAL FLAT EARTH DATA” and  “There can be a scientific FE model"
SO BACK IT UP BLOCKHEAD AND STOP WITH THE DEFLECTIONS.
I have backed up my claims moron, and you have refused to refute that justification. Instead you just ignored them, and then eventually falsely claimed that there is no uncertainty in scientific measurements.

Conversely, you entirely refuse to justify your delusional BS at all.
So moron, how about you follow that advice, stop with the pathetic deflections and try justifying your BS?
Provide a coherent, consistent set of requirements which something must meet in order to be deemed a model.
Once you have done that, we can apply it to the products of your idols.

Now Mr. Blockhead says this:
You mean now Mr. Moron pretends that something that has been pointed out and explained several times is new to them, and will yet again entirely ignore it.

I don’t pretend they don’t exist as they don’t exist.
Yes, you do.
Every time you lie by claiming I have not provided data you are pretending they don't exist.

It you claim they exist why dont you present them.
Like I said, you just lie and pretend it doesn't exist, or look for pathetic excuses to dismiss.
So instead, we need to focus on what you accept as models and data, to establish a set of requirements of what makes a model.

But you will never provide, because you know that once you have, either the products of your idols wont meet it, or there is nothing to prevent a FE from meeting it.

What's stopping you Mr Moron?

Plenty means lots, so GIVE GIVE GIVE.
Well, technically plenty means:
a large or sufficient amount or quantity; more than enough.
It doesn't need to be lots, just sufficient.

And I have provided it, many many times, until finally making it red in order for you to acknowledge its existence.

YOU COULD JUST GIVE UP!
While you have no interest in accepting the truth and giving up your cult; I have no interest in letting you spout your delusional BS unchallenged.
I will continue to object to your BS.

But if you really don't want to admit you are wrong, you could just give up, especially considering as you have no interest in demonstrating you aren't wrong.

Your arguments using past examples of real scientific models are red herrings.
No, they aren't.
They are clear demonstrations that a model does not need to be correct to be a model.
They are clear demonstrations that Earth not being flat does not mean you can't have a FE model.
They are clear demonstrations that you can follow a scientific approach and produce an incorrect model.

The ideas that formed them, wrong thought they turned out to be were still founded on PLENTY REAL SCIENTIFIC DATA and reasoning.
Do you mean like the Bohr model, with sufficient evidence to show it was wrong before the model was made?

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS FLAT EARTH SCIENCE. IT DOES NOT EXIST.
Which is just making your argument circular.
If you wish to assert such things to try and justify your claim, prove it.

And don't just prove that it doesn't exist, prove that it can't exist.


YOU JUST HAVE TO LAUGH!

Changing the goalpost I think not, thats just you squirming.

You are correct, in that this is what you originally said:-

"Flat earth has “PLENTY REAL FLAT EARTH DATA” and  “There can be a scientific FE model"

Are you trying to CLAIM  while squirming that non scientific data can be used to construct a scientific model? Now that would be odd, dont you think!

Because let me remind you this is the basis of your claim as you said :-

  “There can be a scientific FE model"

Which leads one to believe that there has to be alleged FE SCIENTIFIC DATA TO GO INTO THEIR ALLEGED SCIENTIFIC MODELS , that you claim exist.!

Make your mind up Mr. Blockhead.

Yet More smelly red herrings

YOU KEEP SAYING IN ANSWER TO YOU RED HERRINGS-

"No, they aren't.
They are clear demonstrations that a model does not need to be correct to be a model.
They are clear demonstrations that Earth not being flat does not mean you can't have a FE model.
They are clear demonstrations that you can follow a scientific approach and produce an incorrect model.

I agree a scientific model does not need to be correct to be valid! Ive said that time and time again so why repeat it? It just has to be SCIENTIFIC and FE has no science therefore it cant have any scientific data nor scientific model.

You have presented no FE scientific examples and you lie when you said you have. Prove me wrong by presenting some.....of course you won't you will just keep lying.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2022, 05:16:39 AM by Timeisup »
Really…..what a laugh!!!

*

Mikey T.

  • 3545
Re: What Makes the Flat Earth Hypothesis Believable in the First Place?
« Reply #282 on: November 30, 2022, 05:50:40 AM »
Firstly you have never ever produced any :
PLENTY REAL FLAT EARTH SCIENTIFIC DATA’
I notice you yet again change the text.
This is what you said before:
IF you still firmly believe in this:-
“Flat earth has “PLENTY REAL FLAT EARTH DATA” and  “There can be a scientific FE model"
Trying to move the goalposts again are we?

If you need to change the words to change the meaning then that is YOUR lie, not mine.
If you think they are equivalent, then you have already accepted that I have provided it by acknowledging the red text.
So either way, it is YOUR lie, not mine.
It is a lie you need to keep on repeating because you can't permit such heresy.

The  mystery is why you keep avoiding presenting them!
Again, the "mystery" is why you need to keep on repeating your pathetic lies, rather than providing a coherent consisten set of requirements for something to meet to be deemed a model, which can then be applied to the product of those you worship.
The "mystery" is why you keep on deflecting rather than even attempting to defend your BS.

But we both know why this is, and it isn't a mystery at all; you can't defend your BS and it would be heresy to admit you were wrong.

One would have thought with all that ‘PLENTY TEAL FLAT EARTH DATA’ that you CLAIM exists there would be PLENTY REAL FLAT EARTH ALTERNATIVE SCIENCE BOOKS.
Why should one think that?
Not everyone is as foolish as you.

The fact that you can’t means once more you loose.
If you make a claim, let me remind you:-
“Flat earth has “PLENTY REAL FLAT EARTH DATA” and  “There can be a scientific FE model"
SO BACK IT UP BLOCKHEAD AND STOP WITH THE DEFLECTIONS.
I have backed up my claims moron, and you have refused to refute that justification. Instead you just ignored them, and then eventually falsely claimed that there is no uncertainty in scientific measurements.

Conversely, you entirely refuse to justify your delusional BS at all.
So moron, how about you follow that advice, stop with the pathetic deflections and try justifying your BS?
Provide a coherent, consistent set of requirements which something must meet in order to be deemed a model.
Once you have done that, we can apply it to the products of your idols.

Now Mr. Blockhead says this:
You mean now Mr. Moron pretends that something that has been pointed out and explained several times is new to them, and will yet again entirely ignore it.

I don’t pretend they don’t exist as they don’t exist.
Yes, you do.
Every time you lie by claiming I have not provided data you are pretending they don't exist.

It you claim they exist why dont you present them.
Like I said, you just lie and pretend it doesn't exist, or look for pathetic excuses to dismiss.
So instead, we need to focus on what you accept as models and data, to establish a set of requirements of what makes a model.

But you will never provide, because you know that once you have, either the products of your idols wont meet it, or there is nothing to prevent a FE from meeting it.

What's stopping you Mr Moron?

Plenty means lots, so GIVE GIVE GIVE.
Well, technically plenty means:
a large or sufficient amount or quantity; more than enough.
It doesn't need to be lots, just sufficient.

And I have provided it, many many times, until finally making it red in order for you to acknowledge its existence.

YOU COULD JUST GIVE UP!
While you have no interest in accepting the truth and giving up your cult; I have no interest in letting you spout your delusional BS unchallenged.
I will continue to object to your BS.

But if you really don't want to admit you are wrong, you could just give up, especially considering as you have no interest in demonstrating you aren't wrong.

Your arguments using past examples of real scientific models are red herrings.
No, they aren't.
They are clear demonstrations that a model does not need to be correct to be a model.
They are clear demonstrations that Earth not being flat does not mean you can't have a FE model.
They are clear demonstrations that you can follow a scientific approach and produce an incorrect model.

The ideas that formed them, wrong thought they turned out to be were still founded on PLENTY REAL SCIENTIFIC DATA and reasoning.
Do you mean like the Bohr model, with sufficient evidence to show it was wrong before the model was made?

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS FLAT EARTH SCIENCE. IT DOES NOT EXIST.
Which is just making your argument circular.
If you wish to assert such things to try and justify your claim, prove it.

And don't just prove that it doesn't exist, prove that it can't exist.


YOU JUST HAVE TO LAUGH!

Changing the goalpost I think not, thats just you squirming.

You are correct, in that this is what you originally said:-

"Flat earth has “PLENTY REAL FLAT EARTH DATA” and  “There can be a scientific FE model"

Are you trying to CLAIM  while squirming that non scientific data can be used to construct a scientific model? Now that would be odd, dont you think!

Because let me remind you this is the basis of your claim as you said :-

  “There can be a scientific FE model"

Which leads one to believe that there has to be alleged FE SCIENTIFIC DATA TO GO INTO THEIR ALLEGED SCIENTIFIC MODELS , that you claim exist.!

Make your mind up Mr. Blockhead.

Yet More smelly red herrings

YOU KEEP SAYING IN ANSWER TO YOU RED HERRINGS-

"No, they aren't.
They are clear demonstrations that a model does not need to be correct to be a model.
They are clear demonstrations that Earth not being flat does not mean you can't have a FE model.
They are clear demonstrations that you can follow a scientific approach and produce an incorrect model.

I agree a scientific model does not need to be correct to be valid! Ive said that time and time again so why repeat it? It just has to be SCIENTIFIC and FE has no science therefore it cant have any scientific data nor scientific model.

You have presented no FE scientific examples and you lie when you said you have. Prove me wrong by presenting some.....of course you won't you will just keep lying.
Please define SCIENCE, SCIENTIFIC, and model.  In a way that could be used to apply said definitions to this idiotic argument.

*

Mikey T.

  • 3545
Re: What Makes the Flat Earth Hypothesis Believable in the First Place?
« Reply #283 on: November 30, 2022, 05:56:02 AM »

If you still firmly believe that the models of your idols are real scientific models, rather than fictional fantasies, while FE can never produce models, then why don't you provide a coherent, consistent set of requirements something must meet in order to be deemed a model, which can then be applied to the idols you worship?

Please explain what constitutes acceptable requirements.  Timmy did answer me a few days ago with, paraphrasing from memory since I'm on my phone, based on scientific data that can make predictions.  Not sure what his definition of scientific is though.


*

Timeisup

  • 3554
  • You still think that. You cannot be serious ?
Re: What Makes the Flat Earth Hypothesis Believable in the First Place?
« Reply #284 on: November 30, 2022, 09:41:28 AM »
Firstly you have never ever produced any :
PLENTY REAL FLAT EARTH SCIENTIFIC DATA’
I notice you yet again change the text.
This is what you said before:
IF you still firmly believe in this:-
“Flat earth has “PLENTY REAL FLAT EARTH DATA” and  “There can be a scientific FE model"
Trying to move the goalposts again are we?

If you need to change the words to change the meaning then that is YOUR lie, not mine.
If you think they are equivalent, then you have already accepted that I have provided it by acknowledging the red text.
So either way, it is YOUR lie, not mine.
It is a lie you need to keep on repeating because you can't permit such heresy.

The  mystery is why you keep avoiding presenting them!
Again, the "mystery" is why you need to keep on repeating your pathetic lies, rather than providing a coherent consisten set of requirements for something to meet to be deemed a model, which can then be applied to the product of those you worship.
The "mystery" is why you keep on deflecting rather than even attempting to defend your BS.

But we both know why this is, and it isn't a mystery at all; you can't defend your BS and it would be heresy to admit you were wrong.

One would have thought with all that ‘PLENTY TEAL FLAT EARTH DATA’ that you CLAIM exists there would be PLENTY REAL FLAT EARTH ALTERNATIVE SCIENCE BOOKS.
Why should one think that?
Not everyone is as foolish as you.

The fact that you can’t means once more you loose.
If you make a claim, let me remind you:-
“Flat earth has “PLENTY REAL FLAT EARTH DATA” and  “There can be a scientific FE model"
SO BACK IT UP BLOCKHEAD AND STOP WITH THE DEFLECTIONS.
I have backed up my claims moron, and you have refused to refute that justification. Instead you just ignored them, and then eventually falsely claimed that there is no uncertainty in scientific measurements.

Conversely, you entirely refuse to justify your delusional BS at all.
So moron, how about you follow that advice, stop with the pathetic deflections and try justifying your BS?
Provide a coherent, consistent set of requirements which something must meet in order to be deemed a model.
Once you have done that, we can apply it to the products of your idols.

Now Mr. Blockhead says this:
You mean now Mr. Moron pretends that something that has been pointed out and explained several times is new to them, and will yet again entirely ignore it.

I don’t pretend they don’t exist as they don’t exist.
Yes, you do.
Every time you lie by claiming I have not provided data you are pretending they don't exist.

It you claim they exist why dont you present them.
Like I said, you just lie and pretend it doesn't exist, or look for pathetic excuses to dismiss.
So instead, we need to focus on what you accept as models and data, to establish a set of requirements of what makes a model.

But you will never provide, because you know that once you have, either the products of your idols wont meet it, or there is nothing to prevent a FE from meeting it.

What's stopping you Mr Moron?

Plenty means lots, so GIVE GIVE GIVE.
Well, technically plenty means:
a large or sufficient amount or quantity; more than enough.
It doesn't need to be lots, just sufficient.

And I have provided it, many many times, until finally making it red in order for you to acknowledge its existence.

YOU COULD JUST GIVE UP!
While you have no interest in accepting the truth and giving up your cult; I have no interest in letting you spout your delusional BS unchallenged.
I will continue to object to your BS.

But if you really don't want to admit you are wrong, you could just give up, especially considering as you have no interest in demonstrating you aren't wrong.

Your arguments using past examples of real scientific models are red herrings.
No, they aren't.
They are clear demonstrations that a model does not need to be correct to be a model.
They are clear demonstrations that Earth not being flat does not mean you can't have a FE model.
They are clear demonstrations that you can follow a scientific approach and produce an incorrect model.

The ideas that formed them, wrong thought they turned out to be were still founded on PLENTY REAL SCIENTIFIC DATA and reasoning.
Do you mean like the Bohr model, with sufficient evidence to show it was wrong before the model was made?

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS FLAT EARTH SCIENCE. IT DOES NOT EXIST.
Which is just making your argument circular.
If you wish to assert such things to try and justify your claim, prove it.

And don't just prove that it doesn't exist, prove that it can't exist.


YOU JUST HAVE TO LAUGH!

Changing the goalpost I think not, thats just you squirming.

You are correct, in that this is what you originally said:-

"Flat earth has “PLENTY REAL FLAT EARTH DATA” and  “There can be a scientific FE model"

Are you trying to CLAIM  while squirming that non scientific data can be used to construct a scientific model? Now that would be odd, dont you think!

Because let me remind you this is the basis of your claim as you said :-

  “There can be a scientific FE model"

Which leads one to believe that there has to be alleged FE SCIENTIFIC DATA TO GO INTO THEIR ALLEGED SCIENTIFIC MODELS , that you claim exist.!

Make your mind up Mr. Blockhead.

Yet More smelly red herrings

YOU KEEP SAYING IN ANSWER TO YOU RED HERRINGS-

"No, they aren't.
They are clear demonstrations that a model does not need to be correct to be a model.
They are clear demonstrations that Earth not being flat does not mean you can't have a FE model.
They are clear demonstrations that you can follow a scientific approach and produce an incorrect model.

I agree a scientific model does not need to be correct to be valid! Ive said that time and time again so why repeat it? It just has to be SCIENTIFIC and FE has no science therefore it cant have any scientific data nor scientific model.

You have presented no FE scientific examples and you lie when you said you have. Prove me wrong by presenting some.....of course you won't you will just keep lying.
Please define SCIENCE, SCIENTIFIC, and model.  In a way that could be used to apply said definitions to this idiotic argument.

These definitions have been given and are well known and are easily found and confirmed by a simple online search. They are no secret unlike Mr Blockheads mystery alleged FE data and alleged scientific models. The definitions are not mine but are ones recognised by the scientific world
Happy searching.
Really…..what a laugh!!!

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: What Makes the Flat Earth Hypothesis Believable in the First Place?
« Reply #285 on: November 30, 2022, 01:16:18 PM »
Its not difficult to grasp for those with an open mind.
That's right. For those with an open mind, it is quite easy to understand that even thought Earth is round, there can be data which can be scientific which can be used to support a FE model.

Only those close minded cultists would suggest otherwise and continually cling to their religious beliefs regardless of how many times it has been demonstrated to be wrong.

Neither do your attempts to somehow discredit Bhor
I'm not discrediting Bohr. You are.
Your attempts at trying to justify why there can't be FE models apply to Bohr.
I object to that BS, so I object to your attempt to discredit Bohr.
I use Bohr as an example to demonstrate how if we accept your BS, that means the products of your idols would not be models.

I'm not criticising him, I am criticising you.

But sure, yet again go ahead and entirely deflect from the point, and try to set up a pathetic strawman.

Instead of trying to prop up Bohr against this strawman of yours, how about you deal with the issue at hand?

Provide a coherent, consistent set of requirements for something to be deemed a model, and then apply it to the work of Bohr.
See if your attempt to exclude FE models has also excluded the work of Bohr.

He was latterly proved to be mistaken but that is how science works.
No, he wasn't proven to be mistaken later.
It was known that his model did not work for any element other than hydrogen when it was made. And it was shown later to not even work for hydrogen.

The fact that YOU, Mr. Blockhead attempt to use the past work of a Nobel Prize winner and greatest scientist of the C20th  is beyond a joke.
No, the fact that YOU, Mr Moron, continually deflect from the exposure of your pathetic dishonest double standard is beyond a joke.
It is truly pathetic, and shows just how pathetic and desperate your position is.

And no, despite what you say, :
“Flat earth has “PLENTY REAL FLAT EARTH DATA” and  “There can be a scientific FE model"
Then why do you continually refuse to address the data I have provided?
Is it because you know you can't?
Why do you need to keep on repeating this pathetic lie of yours?

How can something like the Flat Earth Belief that is inherently unscientific and  anti-science produce any data let alone models that can be scientific?
I already have explained how something like the FE can have data to support it and can create models, and used the models of those you worship to demonstrate why.

Once more, if your delusional BS was true, then it would mean if something is false, it cannot have data collected to support it or be used to make a model for it.
That means all the outdated models of the atoms could have no data to support it and could not be models.

But you know that is BS.
You know that something being wrong doesn't mean you cannot obtain data which supports it, nor create a model based upon it.

For a lot of observations/measurements you cannot tell the difference between a FE and a RE.
This means such data can be collected scientifically and be used to create a FE model.

Show me
NO!
Stop trying to setup pathetic strawmen, and stop trying to shift the burden of proof, and stop repeating the same pathetic lies.

You claim there cannot be FE models, and there is no data which could be used to construct one.
The burden is on you to justify that BS of yours.
Especially as I have provided examples of data which can be used to construct a FE model, which you could only respond with by repeatedly ignoring it and continuing to lie by falsely claiming I haven't provided it.

Let me remind you should you produce an alleged FE scientific model out your Blockhead hat the criteria for one:
And let me remind you Mr Moron, that that is not a set of criteria to be a scientific model. That is a set of criteria used to judge how good a model it is.

But lets look at your criteria:
able to explain phenomena that were not used to develop the model.
The Bohr model was able to explain the phenomena that was used to develop the model, the frequencies of light emitted/absorbed by a hydrogen atom.
However, it couldn't explain phenomena that was not used to develop it, e.g. the frequencies of light emitted by any other atom.
As such, it fails this criteria.
So by the criteria you have presented, the Bohr model of the atom cannot be considered a scientific model.

Do you believe that the Bohr model is not a scientific model, or do you accept that your criteria is wrong?

It is of course an impossibility just as the notion of a workable flat earth map an impossibility. They are both impossibilities as the whole flat earth belief system is built on a fantasy wrapped in a fiction sitting atop a conspiracy with not a whiff of science in sight.
Baselessly asserting that it is an impossibility, does not make it so.


Changing the goalpost I think not, thats just you squirming.
No, you changing the goalposts is you squirming.

Because let me remind you this is the basis of your claim as you said :-
“There can be a scientific FE model"
No, that came after the claim that there is plenty of data.
The claim regarding the scientific data was slightly different, where I pointed out the data I provided can be obtained in a scientific manner.

You are trying to use semantics to pretend I am lying, and in doing so just lying yourself.

I have provided examples of data. This data can be obtained scientifically.
This allows the construction of a scientific FE model.

Given how you have responded to the data I have provided, I see no reason to bother providing you with any more.

Make your mind up Mr. Blockhead.
I have made up my mind Mr Moron.
How about you try addressing what I have actually said, rather than propping up pathetic strawmen to try and knock down.

Yet More smelly red herrings
Again, the one providing red herrings here is you.
With your entirely useless attempts at demonstrating Earth is round.

Discussion of models which are wrong, which you still accept as models is quite relevant to the discussion as it exposes your dishonest double standard.
You continually ignoring that and instead just repeatedly dismissing them as red herrings just further demonstrates your dishonesty and desperation.

Please explain what constitutes acceptable requirements.  Timmy did answer me a few days ago with, paraphrasing from memory since I'm on my phone, based on scientific data that can make predictions.  Not sure what his definition of scientific is though.
Requirement that both sides can agree to, which can be applied to the outdated scientific models which both accept as being models to show that these models meet the requirements.
As opposed to what he has provided before, which are requirements that Timmy only wants to apply to FE models, as at least some models that he accepts as models (like the Bohr model) fail to meet the criteria.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: What Makes the Flat Earth Hypothesis Believable in the First Place?
« Reply #286 on: November 30, 2022, 01:20:16 PM »
These definitions have been given and are well known and are easily found and confirmed by a simple online search. They are no secret unlike Mr Blockheads mystery alleged FE data and alleged scientific models. The definitions are not mine but are ones recognised by the scientific world
Happy searching.
And those simple definitions do not exclude a FE.
Science:
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Scientific:
based on or characterized by the methods and principles of science.
systematic; methodical.

model:
a simplified description, especially a mathematical one, of a system or process, to assist calculations and predictions.

None of that precludes the possibility of a scientific model.
None of that requires accepting the current body of scientific knowledge as indisputable, or otherwise that can't be contradicted.
None of that precludes the possibility of someone not agreeing with the claim that Earth is round, and instead carrying out systematic, methodical measurements of Earth which do not detect any curvature and using that to create a model of Earth in which Earth is flat.

Unlike Mr morons requirements for a model, my data is no secret and has been provided countless times.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: What Makes the Flat Earth Hypothesis Believable in the First Place?
« Reply #287 on: November 30, 2022, 01:31:36 PM »
These definitions have been given and are well known and are easily found and confirmed by a simple online search. They are no secret unlike Mr Blockheads mystery alleged FE data and alleged scientific models. The definitions are not mine but are ones recognised by the scientific world
Happy searching.

I have the same question.

Experiment:
- I go out to the Bonnaville Salt Flats
- I set up some 3 foot high poles 8 miles down the length of the flats away from me and my camera on the smooth surface of the salt
- I know the calculations and the results of earth curvature, drop, for the distance resulting in approx 16 feet hidden
- I look through my camera and record what I can see and not see over the course of several hours.

Is this an experiment that would meet your criteria of "scientific"?

*

Timeisup

  • 3554
  • You still think that. You cannot be serious ?
Re: What Makes the Flat Earth Hypothesis Believable in the First Place?
« Reply #288 on: November 30, 2022, 01:50:06 PM »
These definitions have been given and are well known and are easily found and confirmed by a simple online search. They are no secret unlike Mr Blockheads mystery alleged FE data and alleged scientific models. The definitions are not mine but are ones recognised by the scientific world
Happy searching.

I have the same question.

Experiment:
- I go out to the Bonnaville Salt Flats
- I set up some 3 foot high poles 8 miles down the length of the flats away from me and my camera on the smooth surface of the salt
- I know the calculations and the results of earth curvature, drop, for the distance resulting in approx 16 feet hidden
- I look through my camera and record what I can see and not see over the course of several hours.

Is this an experiment that would meet your criteria of "scientific"?

It’s not MY criteria.

The other point is I don’t give a crap what you do or don’t do with your car and camera. Why don’t you ask your pal Capt. Blockhead as he thinks glancing out a window is plenty scientific!

“I know the calculations”

Well good for you!





Really…..what a laugh!!!

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: What Makes the Flat Earth Hypothesis Believable in the First Place?
« Reply #289 on: November 30, 2022, 01:58:37 PM »
These definitions have been given and are well known and are easily found and confirmed by a simple online search. They are no secret unlike Mr Blockheads mystery alleged FE data and alleged scientific models. The definitions are not mine but are ones recognised by the scientific world
Happy searching.

I have the same question.

Experiment:
- I go out to the Bonnaville Salt Flats
- I set up some 3 foot high poles 8 miles down the length of the flats away from me and my camera on the smooth surface of the salt
- I know the calculations and the results of earth curvature, drop, for the distance resulting in approx 16 feet hidden
- I look through my camera and record what I can see and not see over the course of several hours.

Is this an experiment that would meet your criteria of "scientific"?

It’s not MY criteria.

The other point is I don’t give a crap what you do or don’t do with your car and camera. Why don’t you ask your pal Capt. Blockhead as he thinks glancing out a window is plenty scientific!

“I know the calculations”

Well good for you!

Based upon your infinite knowledge of scientific criteria, is the experiment "scientific" or not? Just answer the question, don't deflect and get all hyperbolic.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: What Makes the Flat Earth Hypothesis Believable in the First Place?
« Reply #290 on: November 30, 2022, 02:22:37 PM »
It’s not MY criteria.
Great job deflecting.

You are the one objecting to the possibility of scientific data collection to produce a scientific FE model, so why not answer if such observations/measurements would qualify as scientific for you?

Or do you need to know the outcome first, where if they don't show the curve it is unscientific but if they do show the curve then it is scientific?

The other point is I don’t give a crap what you do or don’t do with your car and camera. Why don’t you ask your pal Capt. Blockhead as he thinks glancing out a window is plenty scientific!
You sure do love spouting pure BS don't you?
I don't think glancing out a window is scientific, and gave plenty of examples that were no where near that simple.

Re: What Makes the Flat Earth Hypothesis Believable in the First Place?
« Reply #291 on: November 30, 2022, 04:44:09 PM »
The point is any scientific theory that turned out to be wrong was no doubt built on some credible scientifically based ideas, just like with the aether you previously mentioned. In its time with what was know there was some scientific justification for what it put forward as it was based on the best possible SCIENTIFIC evidence that was available at the time.

There are bonafide scientists who still adhere to aether theory and perform experiments and gather data in support of said theory.

So what, Stash? The difference is the shape of planet earth is no longer a theory, it's a scientifically proven globe.

Oh, and that crappy experiment doesn't follow the five basic steps of the scientific method, so it isn't scientific.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2022, 06:30:34 PM by Smoke Machine »

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: What Makes the Flat Earth Hypothesis Believable in the First Place?
« Reply #292 on: November 30, 2022, 06:22:03 PM »
The point is any scientific theory that turned out to be wrong was no doubt built on some credible scientifically based ideas, just like with the aether you previously mentioned. In its time with what was know there was some scientific justification for what it put forward as it was based on the best possible SCIENTIFIC evidence that was available at the time.

There are bonafide scientists who still adhere to aether theory and perform experiments and gather data in support of said theory.

So what, Stash? The difference is the shape of planet earth is no longer a theory, it's a scientifically proven globe.

The what is can there be a scientific model of a flat earth? Just as there can be a scientific model of aether, why can't there be a scientific model of a flat earth? In essence, do scientific models have to be correct? There are probably a lot that aren't as in competing models. One must be right and the other must be wrong, or, perhaps neither are right. But they are scientific models nonetheless.

I don't understand why that is such a big problem for some people.

Re: What Makes the Flat Earth Hypothesis Believable in the First Place?
« Reply #293 on: November 30, 2022, 06:41:03 PM »
The point is any scientific theory that turned out to be wrong was no doubt built on some credible scientifically based ideas, just like with the aether you previously mentioned. In its time with what was know there was some scientific justification for what it put forward as it was based on the best possible SCIENTIFIC evidence that was available at the time.

There are bonafide scientists who still adhere to aether theory and perform experiments and gather data in support of said theory.

So what, Stash? The difference is the shape of planet earth is no longer a theory, it's a scientifically proven globe.

The what is can there be a scientific model of a flat earth? Just as there can be a scientific model of aether, why can't there be a scientific model of a flat earth? In essence, do scientific models have to be correct? There are probably a lot that aren't as in competing models. One must be right and the other must be wrong, or, perhaps neither are right. But they are scientific models nonetheless.

I don't understand why that is such a big problem for some people.

It's a big problem because it goes against common sense.

The flat Earth idea is straight up science denial. So, how can you have a scientific model of a flat earth, which by it's very existence, must exclude any and all science? When you exclude all science, you have nothing to even begin creating a scientific model of a flat Earth, in any interpretation of the word, "model".

A scientific flat earth model, is an oxymoron.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2022, 07:13:51 PM by Smoke Machine »

Re: What Makes the Flat Earth Hypothesis Believable in the First Place?
« Reply #294 on: November 30, 2022, 10:32:56 PM »
Jock, maybe you'd feel more at home on the football field, throwing your football around, than engaging in intellectual discussions?
Moron, maybe you'd feel more at home in a pre-school, for special needs children, eating paint, than engaging in intellectual discussions?

A playful twist of your name, a nickname even, or a pet name, does not equate to calling someone, a derrogatory name like "moron".
So you think calling someone "blockhead" or "JockBlock" isn't derrogatory?
It would be one thing if you stopped at Jock, but you didn't.
So don't try and take the high ground.

So, define "inaccurately" in JockBlock world? I already said the atom models represented the components only.
Which fails to represent the entire atom.
So why should a FE model have to represent the entire FE?

I have plenty of ground to say there cannot be flat earth models - from a number of directions. Remember, flat earth models represent the entirety of the earth, not just the square metre under your feet.
No, they don't need to represent the entirety of Earth, just like RE models don't need to.
Again, why apply a double standard?
You are no better than the religious claiming a god must exist because everything needs a creator, but then saying their god doesn't.

If you want to go down this path, we could not have had RE models until quite recently, if at all.

On that last point, care to provide just one piece of data a flat earther can put to immediate good use to begin creating his very own flat earth model?
I already have.
It has been in my posts plenty of times.
As you are just attempting to shift the burden of proof, ignoring data that has been provided, and continually insulting, how about no.

The difference between a sphere and an unknown or infinite, or boundary-less flat plane, is a sphere is a closed three dimensional object. That's why our ancestors could literally just fill in the gaps and continue to hone and define the surface of the globe earth model, and then later what's going on inside it.
The gaps could be filled in with anything. Why should they have accepted it is a sphere?

It could be square, triangular, circular, rectangular, or an infinite number of shapes. It needs to be mapped.
Just like if you know that a portion of an object is a spherical cap, the entire object could be an infinite number of shapes.
It needs to be mapped.

There is no data to even start a flat earth model, Jock. Zero.
Ignoring the data doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

But, feel free to prove me wrong.
That isn't how the burden of proof works.
If you make a delusional claim, the burden is on you to justify it.
Again, you are acting the religious people that claim a god exists, and then demand others prove it doesn't.

JackBlack is supporting FE
Not in the slightest.
I am supporting reality and rational thought, but objecting to delusional BS; BS which is attempting to justify FE belief by pretending the belief in a RE is religious, where you just accept whatever experts say and reject anything which is consistent with a FE, where cultists of this religion spout delusional BS indicating you should always be able to distinguish between a RE and a FE; supporting Turbo with his claim that Earth can't be round because he can't measure it with a laser level, and skepties because he can't measure it in a sink, and that you just believe Earth is round because that is what you are told.

It's not my fault you and Timmy don't think before spouting such BS which supports the FE.

From how I said it, it is quite clear that I wasn't supporting a FE, as I made it clear that there is plenty of evidence to refute those models.
And if you knew anything about FEers, a lot of them try to avoid making actual models with actual testable properties, because as soon as they do that, you can show the model doesn't work.

Its not Tiemeups fault that Jack doesn't think before he types, and digs himself into ever deeper holes that he has to try and lie his way out of.
I do think before I type, and it most certainly is Timmy's fault that he keeps digging himself into even deeper holes that he has to try and lie his way out of.

Jack, I have never called you “blockhead” no matter how much the shoe may fit. That’s Tiemeup’s pet name for you. Are you picking up what I’m putting down, pet? But do you hear me now accusing you of being dishonest? No, ofcourse not, because I accept it’s just another one of your many oversights.

You ask, why should a flat earth model have to represent the entire flat earth? Simple. This argument is all about physical shape – curvature versus flat. If a model of Earth isn't representing the entire earth in respect to it's overall shape, what part of the Earth are you suggesting it should represent?

In 240BC, the Greek philosopher, Eratosthenes who was fascinated with geography, decided he wanted to make a map of the entire world and realised he needed to know the size of the earth to do so. He then devised a method and accurately calculated the size of the Earth. He did this by making a number of assumptions, being the Earth is round, the sun’s rays are parallel, and at noon on June 21 every year, the entire bottom of a well in Seyene is illuminated with no shadows, indicating the well is directly facing the sun at that time and the sun’s rays are at an angle of 90 degrees there. All he did then, was measure the angle of a shadow cast by a stick at 90 degrees to the ground in Alexandria, at noon on yhr 31st of June, with the result being 7.2 degrees. After obtaining an accurate distance between Syene and Alexandria, he was able to use the 7.2 degrees to accurately calculate the curvature, circumference, and hence size, of the Earth.

Why the history lesson? Eratosthenes was relying on Earth curvature and that curvature being consistent across the globe to make his calculations. A flat Earther has nothing to calculate the size of the earth.

If there were really a dome in existence, yes, the flat earther would just need to know the distance from landmarks to the dome where it meets the earth, or between the ground and the dome ceiling. But there isn’t, so the poor flat earther can’t make that measurement and can’t calculate size.

That’s a massive difference between round Earth and flat Earth, don’t you agree, Jack?

Timeisup asks you to produce one piece of scientific flat Earth data a flat Earther can use to create a flat Earth model, every single post, and you can’t do it. You say pompously, that you have already produced this scientific flat earth data. But do you hear me now accusing you of being dishonest?
   
I’ve told you I make models, haven’t I? Models of real places, using scale. So let’s imagine I wake up tomorrow and decide I’m now a Flat Earther and I’m going to make an accurate flat earth model in my lounge room using all that flat Earth data Jack Black talks about. But there is no such data to be found. Where the hell would I start my model making??? I can’t begin a model from a “It’s flaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat observation made by Jeran, Mark Sargent, or Turbonium. Those observations don’t mean Jack shit. (Correction, in this case, maybe they do mean “Jack” shit)
 
There is no flat earth data to inform me of the size of this flat Earth, is there? There is no flat earth data to inform me of correct flat shapes of Earth’s continents and countries. There is no flat earth data to inform me of the overall flat shape of this flat earth. There is no flat earth data to inform me of the depth of this flat earth, let alone length and Width. There is no flat earth data to inform of the height of the dome nor it’s coverage.  There is no scientific flat earth data.

As a model maker, I have absolutely nothing to apply scale to, because I have absolutely no data to work with. If I am solely relying on your scientific flat earth data to make a flat earth model, Jack, it cannot be done. There is nowhere for a model maker to begin to make a flat entire earth model.

Jack, you already concede that many flat earthers avoid making flat earth models with actual testable properties because when they do, you can show them it doesn’t work. You keep saying model, when you should be saying flat earth experiments. But I am telling you, there is nothing for a flat earther to make a model with in the first place. Flat Earth is born in “flat” observations and dies in those same “flat” observations. It can never get to the model stage. Flat Earth science is an oxymoron.

As a flat entire Earth model cannot be made from flat earth data (because it doesn’t exist) it is impossible to make an informed flat earth model (which is of the entire earth), and any model promoted as being so, has to be fictional from the outset.
 
Keep stomping your feet, JackBlack. If you were to narrow your definition of the word “model” and it’s usage, instead of throwing "model" out there like it's you’re cheap whore, you would agree with me.

Unfortunately, you’ve dug yourself a hole to the centre of the Earth and beyond, and popped up somewhere in China on this one, with all your flat earth scientific data nonsense. Good to see you've found an ally in Stash though! If only Stash had a stash of flat earth scientific data to bring to the party, ay?  ;D
« Last Edit: November 30, 2022, 11:04:56 PM by Smoke Machine »

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: What Makes the Flat Earth Hypothesis Believable in the First Place?
« Reply #295 on: November 30, 2022, 10:38:05 PM »
The point is any scientific theory that turned out to be wrong was no doubt built on some credible scientifically based ideas, just like with the aether you previously mentioned. In its time with what was know there was some scientific justification for what it put forward as it was based on the best possible SCIENTIFIC evidence that was available at the time.

There are bonafide scientists who still adhere to aether theory and perform experiments and gather data in support of said theory.

So what, Stash? The difference is the shape of planet earth is no longer a theory, it's a scientifically proven globe.

The what is can there be a scientific model of a flat earth? Just as there can be a scientific model of aether, why can't there be a scientific model of a flat earth? In essence, do scientific models have to be correct? There are probably a lot that aren't as in competing models. One must be right and the other must be wrong, or, perhaps neither are right. But they are scientific models nonetheless.

I don't understand why that is such a big problem for some people.

It's a big problem because it goes against common sense.

The flat Earth idea is straight up science denial. So, how can you have a scientific model of a flat earth, which by it's very existence, must exclude any and all science? When you exclude all science, you have nothing to even begin creating a scientific model of a flat Earth, in any interpretation of the word, "model".

A scientific flat earth model, is an oxymoron.

Excluding all science? I guess one would have to say that aether theory/model excludes all science as well. Though there are actual scientists/physicists that still adhere to that model and many who still reject relativity.

I just don't get why there can't be competing scientific models, though deeply flawed as they may be.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: What Makes the Flat Earth Hypothesis Believable in the First Place?
« Reply #296 on: November 30, 2022, 11:18:44 PM »
So what, Stash?
So a scientific model does not need to be correct to be a model. You can have an incorrect model.

The difference is the shape of planet earth is no longer a theory, it's a scientifically proven globe.
Just like the aether was "scientifically proven"? A scientific theory doesn't get promoted to something else, and very few people in science refer to things as "scientifically proven", and if they do, it is not in the sense that there is no chance for it to be wrong.

Oh, and that crappy experiment doesn't follow the five basic steps of the scientific method, so it isn't scientific.
Care to outline what you think the 5 steps are, and highlight the step the experiment is missing?

The flat Earth idea is straight up science denial.
Importantly, they reject the claims of science, not necessarily the method.
It is more paranoia than science denial.

So, how can you have a scientific model of a flat earth, which by it's very existence, must exclude any and all science?
Well for starters, the scientific method does not require you to accept that everything discovered by science is true.
It allows you to question and test.
It even allows you to start from scratch.

That means you can ignore the science you don't trust, take some measurements, and make a model.

Jack, I have never called you “blockhead” no matter how much the shoe may fit. That’s Tiemeup’s pet name for you. Are you picking up what I’m putting down, pet? But do you hear me now accusing you of being dishonest? No, ofcourse not, because I accept it’s just another one of your many oversights.
You may have never called me blockhead and it may have just been Timmy calling me that, but you have certainly called me jockblock, which I don't see as just a playful twist on a name, and instead see as appealing to that same insult.

You ask, why should a flat earth model have to represent the entire flat earth? Simple. This argument is all about physical shape – curvature versus flat. If a model of Earth isn't representing the entire earth in respect to it's overall shape, what part of the Earth are you suggesting it should represent?
Whatever part you want to represent.
If Earth was infinite, would you want an infinite model?

If you were going to make a model of a Minecraft world, would you do all 64 million blocks wide?

Why the history lesson? Eratosthenes was relying on Earth curvature and that curvature being consistent across the globe to make his calculations.
And how did he know the curvature was consistent (remember, it isn't)?
How did he know it wasn't a hemisphere?

Timeisup asks you to produce one piece of scientific flat Earth data a flat Earther can use to create a flat Earth model, every single post, and you can’t do it.
So you wish to cling to the same lies as him?
I provided data for him, and he just ignored it repeatedly.
He was unable to show a fault with it, nor was he able to explain why it couldn't be gathered scientifically?

I’ve told you I make models, haven’t I? Models of real places, using scale
Yes, simple physical models, as in:
a three-dimensional representation of a person or thing or of a proposed structure, typically on a smaller scale than the original.

That is not the only type of model.

Try it with Eratosthenes. You have a sphere, with most of it having no idea what is there.
Why is that any better?
Because you have a specific size?

As a model maker, I have absolutely nothing to apply scale to, because I have absolutely no data to work with.
So start collecting it.
If you wish to claim a model can't be made, the burden is on you to show it can't be, not just appealing to people not giving you all the data.

If you were to narrow your definition of the word “model” and it’s usage, instead of throwing "model" out there like it's you’re cheap whore, you would agree with me.
And in doing so I would disagree with your implication that we have had RE models for thousands of years, and reject so many scientific models as not models.

*

Timeisup

  • 3554
  • You still think that. You cannot be serious ?
Re: What Makes the Flat Earth Hypothesis Believable in the First Place?
« Reply #297 on: December 01, 2022, 12:09:16 AM »
Anyone caring to read the outpourings of Mr. Blockhead will soon understand that he firmly believes that Flat Earth thinking is ALL based on empirical science! I say that’s total hog wash.

He says this:-

“None of that precludes the possibility of someone not agreeing with the claim that Earth is round, and instead carrying out systematic, methodical measurements of Earth which do not detect any curvature and using that to create a model of Earth in which Earth is flat.”

Firstly notice that Mr Blockhead is saying ‘the possibility’ where as before he was claiming it was a done deal and that this alleged PLENTY REAL FLAT EARTH SCIENTIFIC DATA actually existed! It then follows that experiments must have been carried out, so what were they?

Firstly consider what SCIENTIFIC  experiment carried out in a systematic, methodical manner could, or according to Mr. Blockhead HAS been done ! If carried out in such a manner would it not yield a true and correct result pointing to a the world not being flat.

Mr Blockhead is now treading on dangerous ground of the advocation and legitimising of the creation of ‘ALTERNATIVE FACTS’ He is basically saying it’s a free for all and anyone can invent their own ‘reality’ and call it science. This of course has been the mainstay of all snake oil salesmen and quacks, and now Mr. Blockhead.

I have a meter stick that has been calibrated in Paris using the length of the path travelled by light in a vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second. This being the standard to which the meter is determined. I wish to determine its length by myself. According to Mr Blockhead the answer could be anything you like and still be ‘scientific’ In reality does another scientific answer actually exist? According to Mr Blockhead it does!

What Mr. Blockhead  had been saying all along there has been PLENTY alleged scientific experiments that have recorded PLENTY REAL DATA that proves the earth is flat! The Sun is small and near and goodness knows what else as he has never given any details, but HE, Mr Blockhead maintains they are all scientific! Was he there while these alleged experiments were carried out? How does he know? I smell a rat!

Has Mr Blockhead provided details of these alleged alternative scientific experiments?

NO he’s has not.

Has he provided any of this alleged PLENTY REAL FLAT EARTH DATA?

NO he’s has not.

Has he said who did these alleged scientific experiments?

No he has not.

Has he given details on how they were done?

No he has not

Do I think he is telling the truth.

Are you joking…Not one bit!

Everything he has said about there being ‘PLENTY REAL FLAT EARTH DATA’ is just a big fictional fat lie.

Do I think he is spewing pure BS.

Most certainly.

Now he’s saying it’s only a possibility! I just wish he would make up his mind. Now he’s flying off into the realms of fantasy and the hypothetical.

Mr Blockheads whole argument rest on   the ridiculous premise that EVERYTHING is open to question which in his BLOCKHEAD mind includes the shape of the earth. Size of the sun. Size of the moon, and the length of a calibrated meter stick.

I for one think that MrBlockhead is a blockhead and has been spouting 100% pure BS.



Really…..what a laugh!!!

*

Timeisup

  • 3554
  • You still think that. You cannot be serious ?
Re: What Makes the Flat Earth Hypothesis Believable in the First Place?
« Reply #298 on: December 01, 2022, 12:11:54 AM »
These definitions have been given and are well known and are easily found and confirmed by a simple online search. They are no secret unlike Mr Blockheads mystery alleged FE data and alleged scientific models. The definitions are not mine but are ones recognised by the scientific world
Happy searching.

I have the same question.

Experiment:
- I go out to the Bonnaville Salt Flats
- I set up some 3 foot high poles 8 miles down the length of the flats away from me and my camera on the smooth surface of the salt
- I know the calculations and the results of earth curvature, drop, for the distance resulting in approx 16 feet hidden
- I look through my camera and record what I can see and not see over the course of several hours.

Is this an experiment that would meet your criteria of "scientific"?

It’s not MY criteria.

The other point is I don’t give a crap what you do or don’t do with your car and camera. Why don’t you ask your pal Capt. Blockhead as he thinks glancing out a window is plenty scientific!

“I know the calculations”

Well good for you!

Based upon your infinite knowledge of scientific criteria, is the experiment "scientific" or not? Just answer the question, don't deflect and get all hyperbolic.

Tell you what.

You take yourself, car and camera off to those flat salt lakes.

Do your thing

Write it up.

Present it here

Then who knows!

Off you go brmmm brmmm
Really…..what a laugh!!!

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: What Makes the Flat Earth Hypothesis Believable in the First Place?
« Reply #299 on: December 01, 2022, 02:09:34 AM »
Anyone caring to read the outpourings of Mr. Blockhead will soon understand that he firmly believes that Flat Earth thinking is ALL based on empirical science! I say that’s total hog wash.
Anyone caring to read the religious BS of Mr Moron will soon understand that his position is so desperate and pathetic, that they need to repeatedly lie about what others say, lying to create pathetic strawmen such that Mr Moron can pretend to achieve victory.

What a shame that is an entirely hollow victory where they just defeat themselves.
Truly pathetic.

No where have I indicated that FE thinking is all based upon empirical science.
I have made it clear that I think it is primarily motivated by paranoia.
If you would like more motivation it would be religious BS (with the same kind of attitude as your religious BS).

Firstly notice that Mr Blockhead is saying ‘the possibility’ where as before he was claiming it was a done deal and that this alleged PLENTY REAL FLAT EARTH SCIENTIFIC DATA actually existed! It then follows that experiments must have been carried out, so what were they?
Firstly notice that Mr Moron is yet again being incredibly dishonest. They play games of semantics and shifting the goalposts, while lying about what I have said.
In response to me saying there is plenty of data FEers could use to make a model, and that this can be collected in a scientific manner, they instead shift the goalposts, creating a strawman where they pretend I claimed that there is plenty of real FE scientific data, to then object to the scientific part.

Again, truly pathetic, and truly dishonest.

Firstly consider what SCIENTIFIC  experiment carried out in a systematic, methodical manner could, or according to Mr. Blockhead HAS been done!
Secondly, notice how Mr Moron again says firstly, raising the question of which is first?
But yet again, Mr Moron repeat the same pathetic lies and refuses to provide a direct quote, as they know no such quote exists, as they are making up what us been said.

They also ignore that such experiments (at least 1 by me, taken from Turbo) has been provided.
They could never accept it, because it would destroy their faith. They could never permit such heresy.

If carried out in such a manner would it not yield a true and correct result pointing to a the world not being flat.
And yet again Mr Moron has made the same delusional claims as FEers, firmly helping Sceptic in his claim that Earth must be flat because they cannot measure the curvature in their sink, and supporting Turbo in his claims that Earth must be flat because he cannot measure the curvature with a laser level.

Yet again, they want to pretend that there is no uncertainty in scientific measurements, and that no matter how small the difference is between 2 options, you will ALWAYS be able to see it.
They appear to think that if you carefully measure a level surface over a distance of 1 m, they will be able to measure a variation on the order of nm. Where they intend to find such a smooth level surface? I have no idea.

But the most pathetic part of this, is that Mr Moron fails to realise that the kind of thinking they are promoting is the exact kind of delusional BS FEers cling to to pretend Earth must be flat, by claiming that they can't measure the curvature.

When alleged REers like Mr Moron makes such claims, and otherwise acts like RE is a religion which must just be accepted without questioning or thinking; is it at all surprising that some people would reject it?

Mr Blockhead is now treading on dangerous ground of the advocation and legitimising of the creation of ‘ALTERNATIVE FACTS’
And now Mr Moron yet again tries to intentionally misrepresent people, while also deflecting from the issue at hand.
Because they can't refute me, they need to invent all sorts of lies to try and pretend they are correct.
And they even appear to yet again wish to cling to that pathetic false dichotomy they so desperately crave.

Again, truly pathetic.

Has Mr Blockhead provided details of these alleged alternative scientific experiments?
Mr Blockhead, whoever that is, may not have, but I certainly have.

Has he provided any of this alleged PLENTY REAL FLAT EARTH DATA?
Once more, I certainly have.

Can Mr Moron deal with those examples that have been provided? No.
Instead they can only lie to pretend that nothing has been provided, so they can stay comfortable, in their religious delusion.

Again, truly pathetic.

How about a better question to avoid all your pathetic deflections:
Has Mr Moron provided a coherent, consistent set of requirements to use to determine if something is a scientific model, which the products of their idols live up to to be called a model?

NO he’s has not.

The best they have been able to do is provide a set of requirements that the models of his idols fail, meaning they can't be models.
But when pressed on this fact, they just flee and deflect.

Again, truly pathetic.

Tell you what.

You take yourself, car and camera off to those flat salt lakes.

Do your thing

Write it up.

Present it here

Then who knows!
So like I suspected, you want to know the results before you decide.
That isn't how science works.
That is how religion works, where you happily accept whatever BS supports you, while denying anything which shows you are wrong.

Why waste their time without you committing?
Why wouldn't you commit to the requirements for what would make it a scientific test to collect scientific data which could be used to make a scientific model?

Is it because deep down you know you can collect scientific data and use that to construct a FE model?

Again, care to provide a coherent, consistent set of requirements that something must meet to be deemed a scientific model; or if you think you already have, then care to claim that the Bohr model of the atom is not a scientific model, or defend it failing the criteria you have provided?