Can someone explain this visual or lens phenomena?

[pegelli]

Of course. But in regard to this thread, have "they" or anyone else even suggested that? Has anyone even suggested using faith as evidence here? It seems to me that I have automatically been lumped together with whoever "they" are just because I suggested that science cannot disprove God. Which is really all I ever did. Again, I went back and checked. I haven't brought faith into the fray and I never claimed that God created the universe. These have been attributed to me, it seems, due to stereotyping....maybe.
 
I get that. But in the end someone "is right".

No need to feel attacked or threatened. Nothing personal against you or any other poster here. I asked a neutral question to (rhetorically) make the observation that while some scientists have sometimes lumped "faith" as unproven hogwash but that the other side is that officials of the "faith institutions" have disregarded scientific results for no other reason then not being aligned with their beliefs.

So for me it's just a case of the famous pot and kettle, where I think most reasonable people will accept scientific results as well as a spiritual (unproven) faith.

On some cases it's not needed that someone is "right", I think that way of thinking has caused many senseless wars and fights for no other reason then "power" while being advertised as: we're right and we're fighting to save the others from following the "wrong" faith.

[N80]

No need to feel attacked or threatened. Nothing personal against you or any other poster here.

No worries. This is not an emotional issue for me (in this context). And for the record, I have not made any statement, that I recall, about my own belief structure. I'm just making an observation about how easily we go from considering the rationality of believing in a creator to citing examples of the worst sort of religious based anti-intellectualism.

And I may be at fault for the converse of this. I believe that using science to deny a creator God is among the worst sort of pseudo-intellectualism.

I can only state that I do not share the views of religious anti-intellectuals and that I try to avoid pseudo-intellectualism couched in science. Maybe I have not done a good job at either one.

And at this point I'll interpret the lack of reply from those in the middle of this portion of the discussion due to being exasperated with me or simply bored with the topic, and not that they are conceding anything. But again, I extend the offer to discuss it privately with anyone who is interested.

[Telecaster]

A "specific claim" could be that belief that God created the universe is warranted and rational. That is different from the second claim. It is what I am claiming. I feel like I can support it but the nature of this claim is philosophical, not empiric.

Yes, philosophical. The scientific process can and IMO should be informed by philosophy—and vice versa too—but it isn't itself philosophy. There are even philosophers of science who aim to keep the two in touch with each other. This is good. But in the end science and philosophy are different realms with different methodologies. I personally feel it's extremely important to recognize and respect those differences.

-Dave-

[Telecaster]

But in the end someone "is right".

I personally take very seriously the possibility that we all are wrong. Which isn't to say "no-one can really know anything" but rather to admit that we are limited creatures.

-Dave-

[Phil Indeblanc]

I personally take very seriously the possibility that we all are wrong. Which isn't to say "no-one can really know anything" but rather to admit that we are limited creatures.

-Dave-

Not far from my thoughts. We can all be right as well, within our perspective. There is a point of a departure from the common ground at some point. And that is usually interpretation, or someone elses that we have accepted as "truth".
Collectively I think wisdom can be reached. But if we keep trying to solve problems from the excepted and original perspective, the outcome will be trash, no matter how well and deep you are in the understanding of what you know.
Your ignorance can only be ignorant of your ignorance.

[N80]

Yes, philosophical. The scientific process can and IMO should be informed by philosophy—and vice versa too—but it isn't itself philosophy. There are even philosophers of science who aim to keep the two in touch with each other. This is good. But in the end science and philosophy are different realms with different methodologies. I personally feel it's extremely important to recognize and respect those differences.

-Dave-

Agreed. But I don't think one is lesser or greater either.

[N80]

I personally take very seriously the possibility that we all are wrong. Which isn't to say "no-one can really know anything" but rather to admit that we are limited creatures.

-Dave-

I agree with that as well.

And of course the idea that "no-one can really know anything" (Hume?) is self defeating because if we can't know anything then we can't know that we can't know anything.

[Ray]

And of course the idea that "no-one can really know anything" (Hume?) is self defeating because if we can't know anything then we can't know that we can't know anything.

This is an issue of language and semantics. I think the situation can be clarified by making a distinction between 'knowing' and 'being aware'. We can be aware that we don't really know anything, provided we define knowing as a complete understanding.

If we define 'knowing' in a partial and incomplete sense, which it has to be, because no-one has a complete understanding of anything, then it's clear that we can't know that we can't know, but perhaps we can be aware that we can't know, or be aware that we can't have a complete understanding of anything. In other words, if knowing is defined as a 'partial understanding', then knowing that we can't know anything, translates as having a partial understanding that we can't have a partial understanding of anything, which, I suggest, is not true. 

There are lots of oddities in human language. One of my favourites, as an Australian, would be the following statement, "All Australians are liars". Since I'm an Australian, such a statement cannot be true, therefore the statement "All Australians are liars", must be a lie. 

[jeremyrh]

But the typo does manage to make the thread harder to find in a search on keywords. Surely that's a bonus?

Cheers,
Bart

A further bonus is that it gives a good idea as to the mentality of the thread originator, so the casual reader knows not to proceed except in search on comedy.

[Phil Indeblanc]

A further bonus is that it gives a good idea as to the mentality of the thread originator, so the casual reader knows not to proceed except in search on comedy.

It was originally a typo. Since the thread went to the moon and back, I renamed it "....Phenomania".
It also makes it less intimidating for the number of people that are just watching to join in on the posts.

Please share what specific part you find funny so others can join in on the fun.

[Phil Indeblanc]

A further bonus is that it gives a good idea as to the mentality of the thread originator, so the casual reader knows not to proceed except in search on comedy.

If you want comedy, THIS  IS COMEDY....
https://youtu.be/E9sblb7GfUs

And this....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVUIgKXjS3Y&t=626s

[Phil Indeblanc]

Any feedback on the last 2 videos?

[Telecaster]

Not comedy but a comic:

http://smbc-comics.com/comic/the-talk-4

-Dave-

[Phil Indeblanc]

That was long, with a twisted form of humor :-)

Watching this(same) is still a bit more funny to me...

https://youtu.be/E9sblb7GfUs

[Phil Indeblanc]

Plenty of tests around, e.g. this. And even in the flawed test in the last video link you posted, at 20 minutes, the 'bottom' of the boat started disappearing as it got further away than 5 km, i.e. it was hidden by the lake's curvature.

Cheers,
Bart

This test is a fraud.

If you look at the calculations, they come out correct ONLY if you were looking at the math from sea level.
Do the math with the 2.5-3 feet of the tripod height and you have a FALSE FRAUD LIE of a video.

They do this on BOTH tests. They just fail to use the tripod height.

What does this say? They already had a calculation of the outcome and adapted an experiment that would fit their preset calculation.
Except they forgot to adjust the calculation to the viewing height.

OPS!

Does this prove anything?

Well it certainly proves that Steven Hawkins didn't do jack all in doing this experiment. Or he maybe losing it.
It proves that they took all this time and production to make sure the outcome was to SHUT everyone up.  But, they did screw up. The test is FALSE, Steven Hawkins or not.

[Jeremy Roussak]

Well it certainly proves that Steven Hawkins didn't do jack all in doing this experiment. Or he maybe losing it.
It proves that they took all this time and production to make sure the outcome was to SHUT everyone up.  But, they did screw up. The test is FALSE, Steven Hawkins or not.

1. His name is Hawking.
2. "didn't do jack all"?
3. Why do you imagine that BLOCK CAPITALS do other than discredit such argument as you might have?

Jeremy

[pegelli]

They do this on BOTH tests. They just fail to use the tripod height.

Care to share your math?
And even with the "wrong math" (which you claim) there's no way these experiments can lead to a conclusion that the earth is flat.
So I don't think it's a fraud.

[N80]

Wait a minute. Are we seriously talking about a flat earth here? I haven't been following and typically don't click on links to videos (if you have something to say, say it).

At the risk of getting in the proverbial wrestling match with a pig, why is there a discussion about MATH when it comes to the earth being round (ish). I'll repeat what I've said before....average people have flown AROUND it. Above average people fly around it every few minutes in orbit. End of discussion right? As if.

Merry Christmas.

[Phil Indeblanc]

Its a test that is supposed to prove that the earth is a sphere and that this is provable by the 8" per mile squared. Which is what they did. But that formula only works if you are calculating from sea level.
They ended up with the formulated answer WITHOUT doing the correction from the raised camera angle.  Looks like a Fail.

This has nothing to do with flat anything. Yes videos do end up with a bunch of that stuff. But the point is to simple measure the curvature like we are supposed to be able to.

So I got into reading about this, and I though, I have a few nice zoom lenses, it shouldn't be so hard to go to a calm body of water like a lake, or very calm day at ocean shore, and take the steps to confirm to myself that these folks are a bunch of bible friendly folks that don't care for science.(Not that there is anything wrong with that for some folks).

So far there are MANY documentations of the test. with overwhelming number of them not getting a curve outcome in the calculation as they are able to see what is supposed to be below the horizon.
Some are testing it wrong, some not calculating it right, and some in poor conditions. with some false readings of a curve due to reflection.

But so far I asked for some simple advise in how to best conduct the test so I would have it done as correct as possible.... and it has been a lot of pages of people just trying to be smarter than the other by telling one another what they know.

I don't know why anyone would jump from a sphere to flat.
Why wouldn't you simple first prove that it is not flat?
We have these days excellent knowledge base and communication. advanced tools from 700 or what ever years ago it was first tested to be a sphere (they had crap tools then).
Why redefine the shape flat? No reason.

So. we are standing on the damn thing, it should be the most logical way to know for one self that the size is correct, or the shape is not a sphere like we see in the pictures we are provided.

[pegelli]

Its a test that is supposed to prove that the earth is a sphere and that this is provable by the 8" per mile squared. Which is what they did. But that formula only works if you are calculating from sea level.
They ended up with the formulated answer WITHOUT doing the correction from the raised camera angle.  Looks like a Fail.

OK, you're already toned down from "fraud" to "fail", that's certainly a step in the good direction

Given the way they measure (on the boat with choppy waves and looking at the difference in height between the two spots of the laser) and the helicopter (what's the "level" there, the skids, the middle of the cabin or the rotor?) the 2-3 feet tripod height above the water level of the lake (not the sea level) is unimportant for the first point and overall not all that significant in the overall accuracy of the measurement of the second point.

Also any refraction through the air mass (temperature/humidity differences) will have a significant influence on the accuracy of the outcome.

So I don't think they got a false result, just an inaccurate result.

But the tests do very well prove the earth is not flat, it's just a question of how much it's curved.