# Can White Swans exist?

Status
Not open for further replies.
This is the best illustration I've ever seen of what happens with refraction. Looking out at a featureless expanse of ocean is a terrible way to try to understand it, because there is nothing to point at that tells you where the horizon is. But looking across a lake at a fixed and immobile shoreline and seeing how its appearance is definitely changing gives a much clearer explanation of the effect.

Agree here!

I know, there are undoubtedly FE people who would come up with "reasons", but no honest observer could fail to acknowledge the changes.
To me, "honest" observation implies the use of quantitative measurements, to mitigate subjective bias, supported by a mathematical framework for analysis of the observations. It is clear to me that Flat Earthers *do not* do this; if they did they would extremely quickly realize their model fails to reproduce reality. They have a pre-ordained conclusion to reach and use whatever logic they can concoct to support that. *Avoiding* quantitative mathematical analysis is part and parcel to their modus operandi.

To me, "honest" observation implies the use of quantitative measurements, to mitigate subjective bias, supported by a mathematical framework for analysis of the observations.
I'm not so sure about that. Not everyone has the skills in mathematics that are needed for a technical analysis. A good clear analog demonstration, though, should be within the comprehension skills of anyone who wants to know. Not everyone does, of course, but those are the people upon which any explanation is wasted.

I'm not so sure about that. Not everyone has the skills in mathematics that are needed for a technical analysis. A good clear analog demonstration, though, should be within the comprehension skills of anyone who wants to know. Not everyone does, of course, but those are the people upon which any explanation is wasted.
Basic middle school level geometry is all that is needed to analyze the flat earth model and see it fail. Even just being able to roughly measure the azimuth of the sun from east or west is enough. The necessary mathematical skill is a very low bar.

It's really not.
But it doesn't even need the geometry it uses to be correct. Obviously it's the craziest part of the statement to doubt as to why horizon doesn't have to be where the maths dictates but shouldn't the ultimate sceptic even doubt the geometry? And, despite how impossible it is to imagine, that ultimate sceptic spends a day on google and proves that geometry doesn't work, it's wrong. Cos r ain't surviving that.

Maybe there's a name for an argument where every part of it is a claim the opponent has to defend, any one of them being wrong beats the opponent and them all being right beats the opponent.

I doubt it's modus tollens.

That seems to be Oakley's style. And if the evidence can't be defeated then it leads to questions like "have you personally measured/seen it" or "but how do you know what stars are anyway?"

I think he's just playing games for the income stream.

"have you personally measured/seen it"
Exactly. Such as the distance to the oil rigs.

But it needs a (true) flat earther to question and cast doubt on the distance to the oil rigs in the statement because a glober has to accept the measurement taken from google, has absolutely no issue with the distance being correct, and knows it's correct.

But there are no true flat earthers.

But it needs a (true) flat earther to question and cast doubt on the distance to the oil rigs in the statement because a glober has to accept the measurement taken from google, has absolutely no issue with the distance being correct, and knows it's correct.
nah.

the flat earther takes everything from mainstream science, points at one bit that doesn't make sense to them, and then claims "the mainstream is wrong" while rejecting any and all explanations. (If they have to concede an explanation, they trot out something else.)

standard conspiracy theorist procedure, btw
UFOs: "you can't explain this, therefore extraterrestrials exist"
in case of 9/11, "looked like demolition" is more than enough to close their ears and feel they're privy to a secret that the "sheeple" aren't

that is, btw, also standard con man procedure
they will let you in on a (usually slightly illegal) secret that you can profit from, you trust them because they trust you, up until they walk away with your money

Last edited:
nah.

the flat earther takes everything from mainstream science, points at one bit that doesn't make sense to them, and then claims "the mainstream is wrong" while rejecting any and all explanations. (If they have to concede an explanation, they trot out something else.)

standard conspiracy theorist procedure, btw
in case of 9/11, "looked like demolition" is more than enough to close their ears and feel they're privy to a secret that the "sheeple" aren't

that is, btw, also standard con man procedure
they will let you in on a (usually slightly illegal) secret that you can profit from, you trust them because they trust you, up until they walk away with your money
That's a globe denier as far as I'm concerned.

A true flat earther is interested in actually investigating the shape of the earth. Like that Bob Knodel was with his gyroscope. A true flat earther will always end up as a glober. Unfortunately Bob didn't know that at the time and so decided to become a globe denier instead.

Flat earthers are dying out because it's hard to argue a flat earth mainly due to it leads to claims that have to be defended.

Globe deniers are growing because it's far easier to just attack the globe, sit back and bask in the attention.

A true flat earther is interested in actually investigating the shape of the earth. Like that Bob Knodel was with his gyroscope.
Bob Knodel was just on the mailing list, the actual experiment was done by another Robert, I believe Rick Zimmerman. I might still have the emails somewhere group chat log.

Last edited:
Maybe I can put my reasons for QE's modus tollens being incorrect better from different groups points of view.

For a glober, the modus tollens is wrong because it ignores refraction and globers are well aware that (geometric) horizons can be at many different distances depending on atmospheric conditions. It's NEVER Q.

For a (true) flat earther, the modus tollens is wrong because a (true) flat earther should question the distance used because it was not measured during the observation and is just taken from Google. I have already discussed how the horizon could be 1.22 miles away in the photograph if the oil rigs are closer than 1.22 miles. That's after the true flat earther has confirmed geometry to themselves. A (true) flat earther who holds that Q is bulletproof would have to consider the possibility of moving physical objects attached to the earth until further investigation.

For a globe denier, it's as good as perfect because not a single claim in the argument is their own and they don't even need any of it to be correct.

Last edited:
Bob Knodel was just on the mailing list, the actual experiment was done by another Robert, I believe. I might still have the emails somewhere.
Knodel has referred to things like "We" did so-and-so. We bought the gyroscope, we shielded it, we tried it, we got a 15° per hour drift, things are not looking good for us, etc. That leaves his actual involvement unclear, yet I think it must be more than "just on the mailing list" as he has ended up as the face of that failed experiment.

"Thanks, Bob."

he has ended up as the face of that failed experiment.
that's due to the "Behind the Curve" documentary

Rick Zimmerman was the actual experimenter.

Excerpts:
External Quote:

1. [14/08/2017 23:54:54] *** Bob Knodel added Cami Knodel, GLOBEBUSTERS, Rick Zimmerman, Richard Blades, Robert Durham ***
2. [14/08/2017 23:56:01] Bob Knodel: Hello Everyone and welcome to the FOG Discussion Group.
External Quote:

1. [16/08/2017 11:37:34] Rick Zimmerman: The evidence I have observed point to the angle, direction and intensity of the earth's magnetic field being the cause of the FOG's "earth rate" behavior. This was Sean McCrary's contention from the start, and all evidence I have gathered support this. The ZGC test will easily prove this, one way or the other.
2. [16/08/2017 11:38:23] Rick Zimmerman: There is no programming to do or needed with the FOG I have in hand.
3. [16/08/2017 11:52:21] Rick Zimmerman: I wish to do some mobile tests with inexpensive MEMS, both with and without magnetometers in the sensor fusion. I am gearing up for those tests. The FOG I have does not do mobile tests. At this point I do not know how to proceed, exactly what gear or programming is needed...and do not wish to waste huge funds or the programmers time and efforts. When things are more clear, I will be happy to commit the funds and reach out to the programmer.
External Quote:

1. [16/08/2017 22:01:38] Bob Knodel: Yes Adam, I agree. Rick will be running FOG experiments during the eclipse. The idea is that if the Sun is actually a highly charged orb in the sky then it should have quite an influence in the behavior of the dielectric field. When it is eclipsed, there should be some very anomalous behavior in that field which in turn we think might influence the FOG. Just a theory but I definitely think it is worth investigating.
2. [16/08/2017 22:03:29] Bob Knodel: This could also explain the anomalous behavior in the Foucault's Pendulum during eclipses and significant celestial alignments.
3. [16/08/2017 22:04:12] Adam Carter: FOG is a new one for me, I'm checking it out as we speak and it seems pretty straightforward; I'll be interested to see what Rick does with it during the eclipse.
4. [16/08/2017 22:08:54] Adam Carter: It's interesting that a number of people have zeroed in on the links between the eclipse and how it coincides with a number of things on the ground.
5. [16/08/2017 22:11:56] Bob Knodel: Yeah we thought it was pretty straightforward too and I for one never expected the FOG to pick up a rotational reading roughly commensurate with the rotation of the Earth. Fortunately, Richard saw it coming and correctly predicted that rotation would indeed be registered. After we all got our stomachs out of our throats, we started thinking of ways to negate or influence the dielectric rotational field and that led to Richard suggesting we encase the FOG in casted Bismuth. From there Rick went to work with a Helmholtz coil. The variac he ordered was intended for use in changing the field intensity generated by that coil. I think that sums it up but I am sure that Rick, Richard, or Rob will add in if I forgot or misinterpreted anything.
External Quote:

1. [17/08/2017 02:06:42] Rick Zimmerman: The relative permeability of bismuth is very close to air. The relative permeability of bismuth is 0.99983 and the relative permeability of air is 1. The relative permeability of Mumetal is 100,000.
2. [17/08/2017 02:11:29] Rick Zimmerman: The purpose of the variac is to power the degauss coil in the zero gauss chamber when you are degaussing it. The variac produces AC voltage to degauss the zero gauss chamber. The Helmholtz coil is powered by DC Voltage to produce a directional field.
3. [17/08/2017 02:16:25] Rick Zimmerman: I do not know what the dielectric field is or the dielectric rotational field. I don't know how it is measured or quantified. I don't know how bismuth differs from air, other than to provide a solid "spacer" of sorts.
4. [17/08/2017 02:30:20] Rick Zimmerman: Since a magnetic field cannot be blocked...the high permeability mumetal zero gauss chamber is used to attract the magnetic flux lines and route them around an object and create a zero gauss space inside the chamber. This is the test I will be doing. The earth's magnetic field is measurable and quantifiable. Magnetic fields have a known (Faraday) effect on laser gyros. The ZGC will remove the influence of the earth's magnetic field from the gyro by a factor of 1000 to 1500 times in order to test the output of the gyro during its absence.
5. [17/08/2017 02:33:53] Rick Zimmerman: I have already proven that by opposing the direction of the earth's magnetic field with an artificial Helmholtz field, I can reverse the direction of yaw rotation registered by the gyro.
6. [17/08/2017 02:39:56] Rick Zimmerman: I welcome Karen and Adam to this skype group...thank you so very much for your interest in these experiments. Sorry I wasn't online earlier...I was in bed as I've been whipped by my day job, which unfortunately takes too much time and energy from my more important pursuits.
7. [17/08/2017 03:06:47] Rick Zimmerman: A little Ohio history...the Michelson-Morely experiment, I was surprised to find out, was performed in Cleveland OH...about 70 miles from here. It was done at what is Case Western Reserve University. The FOG I have demonstrated can measure earth rotation rate. I've spun it on a 24 hour rotor and it can measure 15° per hour with ease. If the stationary gyro can be nulled out (or its output significantly altered) while inside the ZGC, it will be shown that the gyro's "earth rate" rotation is actually induced by the earth's magnetic field and is not true spinning globe rotation being registered by the gyro. The next step will be to rotate the gyro while inside the zero gauss chamber and show that it can register true rotation while in that condition.
8. [17/08/2017 03:07:27 | Edited 03:28:47] Bob Knodel: Hi Rick! Well, I guess it would help if we were on the same page. Sometimes we can have different concepts of something which make us look at the same thing in totally different ways. Allow me to explain. A dielectric field is sort of an antithesis of a magnetic field or the electrostatic. This counterspatial field exists within the ether. Here is a clip from Eric Dollard that may help you with the concept. I have time indexed it at the 'introductory part' but after you watch it for a while, go back and watch the 39 minutes preceding it for a little better overall context.
Source: https://youtu.be/cCJcU7INwnU?t=39m2s
After you see this I will try to relate it to what I believe is a dielectric field emanating from the stars and why Bismuth may be helpful in shielding it. Also, here is another source on Bismuth's diamagnetic properties that may help you. Please check out the 'Notable Diamagnetic Materials' chart. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamagnetism
9. [17/08/2017 03:13:13] Rick Zimmerman: Thank you for trying to help me understand what you are talking about...I will look at this material. I was just this weekend viewing a Dollard lecture...
10. [17/08/2017 03:21:17] Bob Knodel: No problem Rick. This is not generally taught as mainstream knowledge because the mainstream is pushing the false Einstein model of the universe. Special Relativity called for the abolition of the ether so clearly it is not taken seriously by most educational institutions. The reality is that Heaviside, Maxwell, Thompson, Tesla, etc. were all very much behind the existence of the ether and I believe they were correct and Einstein was just a disinformation puppet. I find it almost comical that your FOG as well as RLG's operate on the Sagnac effect. Anyway, I will do my best to introduce you to the 'conspiratorial' side of electrical engineering perpetrated by Tesla and his notorious gang of heretics. ;-)

External Quote:
[10/09/2017 23:50:48] Rick Zimmerman: When I put the gyro upside down...it registered a slightly higher rate of rotation than when right side up.
But both rates were close to the latitude formula and they actually closely straddled the formula rate.
Right side up registered counterclockwise rotation and upside down registered clockwise rotation.
From [13/09/2017 00:03:36] on Rick Zimmerman shares observation data.

Last edited:
I realize you're very well-versed in FE CT @Mendel. Useful stuff, thanks for sharing. A totally strange world to me. In your experience, have you ever seen a FEer renounce their position as a result of a rational discussion with a 'glober'?

In your experience, have you ever seen a FEer renounce their position as a result of a rational discussion with a 'glober'?
Not addressed to me but I only know of Ranty Flat Earth, who became Flerfspective, who became Auditing The Absurd.

It was a Blackpool photograph that did it for him and the position of the mountains in relation to foreground objects.

Ranty did try to help other flat earthers. I did a thread discussing some of the video for it and you can find the video in there -> https://www.metabunk.org/threads/even-if-you-think-the-worlds-flat-your-brain-knows-different.12267/

Ranty was a true flat earther. Respect for that.

About a year before Ranty changed his mind (maybe longer) he and I had some discussion over a similar photo to the Blackpool one (one of mountains in Oregon and Washington). He was very, very adamant that my assertion that it demonstrated a globe and disproved a flat earth was incorrect, and forcefully so over quite a large number of emails (and maybe some videos).

I don't think it got through to him at all, and probably didn't play any part in him changing his mind. But it was cool (and surprising) to see that he eventually did.

Maybe what it required was something a little closer to home.

Maybe what it required was something a little closer to home.
didn't he also talk about his life circumstances changing, in his conversion video?
it's also notable that Ranty went out and took lots of photographs himself; he was no armchair flat earther.

i've always maintained that it takes more than words from a stranger to change a deeply held belief; we're hoping to reach those eyeing the entrance to that rabbit hole.

@Rory , do you remember a guy (Tony?) who renounced FE after he tried to make a map and it didn't work? I think it was slightly before my time.

didn't he also talk about his life circumstances changing, in his conversion video?
it's also notable that Ranty went out and took lots of photographs himself; he was no armchair flat earther.

i've always maintained that it takes more than words from a stranger to change a deeply held belief; we're hoping to reach those eyeing the entrance to that rabbit hole.

@Rory , do you remember a guy (Tony?) who renounced FE after he tried to make a map and it didn't work? I think it was slightly before my time.

Maybe you mean TigerDan925? He was one of the most famous early FE YouTubers. JonahTheScientist also managed to pay attention to him: https://www.flatearthlunacy.com/index.php/2-uncategorised/691-tigerdan925

In early 2016, TigerDan925 shocked his 26,000 followers by criticizing Gleason's map. https://www.theguardian.com/science...iracy-theorists?CMP=fb_a-science_b-gdnscience.

He measured the distances between several airports around the globe. Well, he didn't measure them himself with a tape measure, but used known distances (which e.g. GoogleMaps gives). He did not immediately accept them, but compared the distances to the actual flight times. When he was thus sure of the distances, he tried to place them on a plane map.

TigerDan published his research in six videos. In them, he states that the task is impossible. He, for example, found out that he needed two Australias in order for the map to work. Even at this stage, he didn't completely give up on FE idea, but only stated that the AE map doesn't work. https://www.quora.com/How-do-former-Flat-Earthers-feel-about-their-previous-belief-in-a-flat-Earth.

TigerDan soon became the target of the wrath of the FE community. He was told that he was a lying NASA agent, etc. Soon he turned his back on the whole FE idea and presented a rather harsh assessment of the FE movement in his last video.

Unfortunately, TigerDan deleted his entire YouTube channel when he left, so we will no longer be able to follow his return to the ball. Fortunately, one of the harshest critics "TheMorgile2" has captured TigerDan's thoughts in his own video: "TigerDan - Lying Slanderous Shill",

So I might be that ultimate sceptic cos any geometry I throw at the black swan photograph, it doesn't work. But don't just take my word for it. Chuck some numbers at it. I dare you. Geometry busted. It's not even P folks!

But isn't the geometry of everything in the photo a problem for QE's modus tollens? It'll all have changed.

I know I said it doesn't even require geometry to work to win and defeat r but the overall point is more how the geometry of observation doesn't have to match the math. I'm not aware of any glober who ever claimed it does. That's actually a globe denier's claim in there.

But if someone wants to use the geometry derived from the black swan, all power to them.

Maybe you mean TigerDan925?
Yes, thank you for that nice write-up! (I must've had Tony the Tiger in my head...)

Note from that example and from the FOG test that the modus tollens never affects FEers: the FE map not working, and the Earth's rotation being measurable as predicted should be "Black Swans" against a flat, unmoving Earth, but they don't get interpreted as such.

Here are some quotes from your sources:
External Quote:

Listed below are several posts that debunk flat Earth claims made by TigerDan925 on his YouTube channel...
In early 2016, TigerDan925 shocked his 26,000 followers by criticizing Gleason's map. https://www.theguardian.com/science...iracy-theorists?CMP=fb_a-science_b-gdnscience.
External Quote:
YouTube user TigerDan925 shocked his 26,000 followers recently by conceding a shocking point: Antarctica is a continent. It's not, as he previously thought, an ice wall that encircles the flat disc of land and water we call earth.

[...] That being said, TigerDan925's admission was not a concession that the world is shaped like the globe. He merely said flat-Earthers need a new map.
External Quote:

TigerDan925 has an interesting story. I have no doubt he was a Flat Earther and genuinely believed it. I also admire his methodology, he took the known distances between airports (cross checking it against flight times, because The Conspiracy could be posting false distances, but would have a hard job faking the flight times as well) and used that data to triangulate the positions international airports relative to each other and documented his work over six videos

I think the best moment was part5 when he realized that he would need two Australia's to make the model work (because Americans fly west to get to OZ and British fly East via Dubai)… nevertheless he carried on trying out a Antarctica centred map (which didn't work out).
He then came to the conclusion that he could not make any consistent Flat Earth maps and also a bit upset to discover you could book holidays and fly over Antarctica

The strange thing is that he still believes in a Flat Earth but also that they don't have a map so they don't have a case.
I really feel for the guy, he is getting a lot of grief from his subscribers and is/was in the middle of a crisis of faith (he dropped off YouTube in Jan 2016).

Dan may not be a typical flat earther, up to early 2015 he believed in the Ball Earth however in Bible Prophecy at 260s he talks about how Psalm 19:6 proves the Sun goes round the earth and that "We are being lied to". Some time after that he fell down the rabbit hole. Interesting even after he deprogrammed himself I think he still thinks it's all geocentric.
That quora thread also has some other anecdotal conversion accounts.

I know I said it doesn't even require geometry to work to win and defeat r but the overall point is more how the geometry of observation doesn't have to match the math. I'm not aware of any glober who ever claimed it does. That's actually a globe denier's claim in there.
I think I said this part wrong. I think this could probably be interpreted as me saying what I say globers don't say. I'd hate to be the glober that gets quoted as saying geometry doesn't work. We're back to having to be very careful with words and knowing the EXACT definition of every one. Personally I'm uncomfortable with how I use the word "geometry" and dunno if other connotations can be made with my use of it. I'd rather just go with "math" but I'm gonna use "geometry" instead so if I've used it wrong anywhere then please help me out and point it out.

It's not about the geometry of observation not having to match the math because no doubt I could go outside, take a photograph and find that all the geometry in the photograph matches the math.

It is distinctly long distance observation that we are dealing with here. That's all there is in the photograph. If there were closer details in the photograph then you could possibly say well, the geometry works on these close things but fails on the far things. Why? What are we missing? (hint, refraction). But there's nothing close in the photograph to study.

Not that any globe denier would have any interest in doing any geometry themselves if it threatened to raise uncomfortable questions.

But the (true) flat earther might look at the photograph and remember some hidden height maths wizardry that exists and plugs 1 foot and 9 miles into it and finds that doesn't match the observation either. At least some of the rig should be hidden but there is it as bold as brass and pretty much looks like the whole thing's there in the observation.

A quick google and we find the oil rig is 90' high.

And this one's for LilWabbit who doesn't like moving oil rigs... Using the figures and the geometry of the modus tollens (1' observer height, earth of radius 3959 miles), how close must an object of 90' be for me to see 90' of it?

If oil rigs don't/can't/didn't move then (this) geometry doesn't work. Note I have complete and utter faith in the observer height.

Now I don't know about anyone else, but isn't geometry not working a bit of a bigger deal than a horizon not being in the correct place? The globe deniers have a photograph on their hands that busts maths but haven't realised? Maybe they've been paid off by NASA to not reveal that to the world. OMG, am I in danger for outing this!

Although you could also take the position that if none of the geometry works then you can't rely on the geometry used in the modus tollens in the first place.

And every piece of geometry you do on the photograph, maybe, just maybe, there's something being overlooked that would bring it all together????? (hint, there is)

Last edited:
Why do I get the feeling we're beating a dead horse here. On the bright side, at least it's no longer a dead bird. The dead swan has been veritably beaten to a pulp on this thread. The raven is also close to hitting the bucket.

If oil rigs don't/can't/didn't move then (this) geometry doesn't work.

Even if oil rigs moved (which, by the way, they do), nothing moves in a still photograph. The glober geometry doesn't work well for any object or feature in any photograph since we're deliberately ignoring refraction. We're ignoring refraction only because you wanted to explore that option in order to entertain a hypothetical argument between the opposing parties. In such a scenario, every object and feature in a photograph is a black horse... swan for the glober and thereby supports the FEer's argument.

In terms of the geometry of any feature in a photograph, it's totally irrelevant whether the object actually moves or not. By the time we analyze the picture, nothing's moving and the calculations are based on their still position.

Now I don't know about anyone else, but isn't geometry not working a bit of a bigger deal than a horizon not being in the correct place?

Once more (I am starting to hear the eerie whinnying of a dead zombie horse), if we ignore refraction and the fact that earth is not a geometrically perfect sphere, nothing in any photograph is geometrically consistent with the glober's position -- horizon, rig, bird, turd, pick one. Anyone.

Last edited:
The glober geometry doesn't work well for any object or feature in any photograph since we're deliberately ignoring refraction.
That's not correct. Although it is.

Haven't you got to be far enough away for refraction to have a noticeable effect?

Sure, you could argue that refraction is effecting an object 10cm in front of my camera if you wanted to be that pedantic about it, but given the accuracy of the instruments at my disposal the geometry of that object in the photograph would check out, wouldn't it?

This is just about trying to put things in a way that EVERYONE can understand, which considering we seem to be agreeing but you come across as a bit antagonistic I can only assume I'm not doing that good a job so forgive me while I continue to vaporise this horse.

That's not correct. Although it is.

Haven't you got to be far enough away for refraction to have a noticeable effect?

Sure, you could argue that refraction is effecting an object 10cm in front of my camera if you wanted to be that pedantic about it, but given the accuracy of the instruments at my disposal the geometry of that object in the photograph would check out, wouldn't it?

This is just about trying to put things in a way that EVERYONE can understand, which considering we seem to be agreeing but you come across as a bit antagonistic I can only assume I'm not doing that good a job so forgive me while I continue to vaporise this horse.
I think you are trolling us, but you also have to have a far enough and large object for the curve of the earth to have a noticeable/measurable effect.

So once you are in the territory of practical demonstrations using objects on the Earths surface to demonstrate the curve you are well into the realm of refraction also having a noticeable effect.

I think you are trolling us, but you also have to have a far enough and large object for the curve of the earth to have a noticeable/measurable effect.

Depends on the accuracy of the meter we're using. Even at closer distances refraction will always have at least a tiny effect.

Also the spheroid variable remains. Unless the photograph is taken roughly at the latitude falling at the midpoint between the equator and the poles where the earth's radius corresponds to the geometric average of 3,959 miles, all the other photographs feature horizons that are either between 3,959-3,963 miles (3,963 miles being the equatorial radius) or between 3,950-3,959 miles (3,950 miles being the polar radius), and thereby being also 'black swans' for the glober while supporting Oakley's ridiculous modus tollens.

you are well into the realm of refraction also having a noticeable effect.
Are you of the opinion that I don't know, or don't accept this?

All I'm trying to get at is that you don't need to invoke refraction to fight the modus tollens. And I'm trying to do it with just that one photograph. No other photographs of the oil rigs in different positions.

The trick of the modus tollens is to only look at the geometry of one item in the photograph. And I doubt it's a coincidence they picked the horizon.

If you look at the geometry of more than one object then the geometry fails every time.

There are a number of ways you could run with that. A flat earther and a globe denier might first think that must mean geometry is bunk. But however you run with it, if you can't trust any geometry then how can you trust the geometry done in Q? It's not not Q because the horizon is in the wrong place, it's not Q because the geometry doesn't work.

Now you, me (honest, not that it matters what I say) know that the geometry doesn't work because it doesn't include refraction. Maybe the (true) flat earther would investigate further as to why the geometry doesn't work and discover that including refraction makes all the geometry work.

But the geometry of Q cannot be trusted because it doesn't apply to anything in the photograph. That's all. No geometry (without refraction) of anything in the photograph working must surely be accepted by globers, flat earthers and globe deniers?

If the globe denier wants to run with geometry not working then there is no Q.

Last edited:
Are you of the opinion that I don't know, or don't accept this?

All I'm trying to get at is that you don't need to invoke refraction to fight the modus tollens. And I'm trying to do it with just that one photograph. No other photographs of the oil rigs in different positions.

The trick of the modus tollens is to only look at the geometry of one item in the photograph. And I doubt it's a coincidence they picked the horizon.

If you look at the geometry of more than one object then the geometry fails every time.

There are a number of ways you could run with that. A flat earther and a globe denier might first think that must mean geometry is bunk. But however you run with it, if you can't trust any geometry then how can you trust the geometry done in Q? It's not not Q because the horizon is in the wrong place, it's not Q because the geometry doesn't work.

Now you, me (honest, not that it matters what I say) know that the geometry doesn't work because it doesn't include refraction. Maybe the (true) flat earther would investigate further as to why the geometry doesn't work and discover that including refraction makes all the geometry work.

But the geometry of Q cannot be trusted because it doesn't apply to anything in the photograph. That's all. No geometry (without refraction) of anything in the photograph working must surely be accepted by globers, flat earthers and globe deniers?

If the globe denier wants to run with geometry not working then there is no Q.

The dead horse just died again.

And so to summarise...
• The globe deniers have a photo they think is a 'killer' for the globe
• It isn't, because they ignore refraction
• Case closed
Is there anything more to add?

• It isn't, because they ignore refraction
Maybe it's you guys trolling me.

Yes, that's why the modus tollens has been wrong since day one. But when has a globe denier or flat earther accepted refraction as to the cause?

I could be a troll and bamboozle you with Dylan Saccoccio's reasons as to why it's not refraction and until you can refute that TO MY SATISFACTION I will maintain it's not refraction. But I won't do that.

Is it really that difficult to see there IS a difference between "the geometry is wrong" and "you're ignoring refraction"? It must be.

Is it really that difficult to see there IS a difference between "the geometry is wrong" and "you're ignoring refraction"? It must be.

"The geometry is wrong" only if "you're ignoring refraction". Otherwise Oakley's geometrical 'modus tollens' argument is by and large correct. So why give him any excuse to be right by accepting falsity (that is, by ignoring refraction and spheroid).

"The geometry is wrong" only if "you're ignoring refraction". Otherwise Oakley's geometrical 'modus tollens' argument is by and large correct. So why give him any excuse to be right by accepting falsity (that is, by ignoring refraction and spheroid).
Why ask me to flog the horse more?

The geometry could be wrong because of the yet to be discovered properties of flerfspective. I'm giving them that.

Why ask me to flog the horse more?

Unless you can explain clearly what it is that you think we're missing. Maybe you have some valid additional insight but your vague and peculiar vocabulary has thus far only thrown us off and added to the confusion. Please don't take this the wrong way. No ill-will intended.

The geometry could be wrong because of the yet to be discovered properties of flerfspective. I'm giving them that.

A case in point in vague and peculiar vocabulary that instead of clarifying your point makes it even less legible.

At least some of the rig should be hidden but there is it as bold as brass and pretty much looks like the whole thing's there in the observation.
except it is heavily distorted
the "black swan" oil rig picture is a counterexample to both a geometric and a standard refraction prediction; however, the oil rigs are so strongly distorted that it's obvious "standard" conditions do not exist in that picture, which invalidates the prediction it's supposed to be a counterexample of

standard conditions (swan)

nonstandard conditions (duck)

look at the crane sticking out the left side of Platform Habitat

whatever geometric transformation produced this warped crane from the straight crane shown on the left is not regular, you can't explain it with straight-line optics or any single coefficient of refraction

you can explain the image with maths, but you need a refraction simulator (which is nothing more than lots of maths and a visualisation) and set it up correctly.

this explanation is in line with all known principles of physics, including what we know about the optical density of gases

the flat earth "explanation" is not

Last edited:
except it is heavily distorted
I put "pretty much looks like the whole thing" to try and not get bogged down in the minute details of the observation (I believe that some of the rig is still hidden by a horizon), but nope, still not good enough.

I dunno, I try and explain as best I can and it's "vague and peculiar language", I miss out the tiniest details and it seems like I don't understand what I'm talking about.

Hard work but at least horse flogging is fun.

Yes, that's why the modus tollens has been wrong since day one. But when has a globe denier or flat earther accepted refraction as to the cause?

I don't know. Does it matter that they don't do that?

I could be a troll and bamboozle you with Dylan Saccoccio's reasons as to why it's not refraction

It would be interesting to read that, if you can post the whole section.

Is it really that difficult to see there IS a difference between "the geometry is wrong" and "you're ignoring refraction"?

I see a difference. "The geometry is wrong" is what a globe denier would say, and they would be mistaken. "You're ignoring refraction" is what someone would say to a globe denier, and they would be correct.

I put "pretty much looks like the whole thing" to try and not get bogged down in the minute details of the observation (I believe that some of the rig is still hidden by a horizon), but nope, still not good enough.

I dunno, I try and explain as best I can and it's "vague and peculiar language", I miss out the tiniest details and it seems like I don't understand what I'm talking about.

Hard work but at least horse flogging is fun.
the point I am getting at is that maths and geometry are tools

much like a hammer is a tool, it can be the wrong tool for the job, or be used incorrectly

to use maths/geometry, you need to make a model of reality. If you're buying apples, you might count them to get the number you want; a grocer might weigh them and arrive at a different number, because the grocer's model has a different purpose (to sell apples by weight).

so you need to choose a mathematical/geometric model that is appropriate to the situation and the purpose. (this also applies to physics!)

my point is that even a cursory examination of that "Black Swan" picture reveals that a simple geometric model won't do

and that is not a fault of the tool, but of the workman

however, Flat Earth has no tools at all that work for it

Does it matter that they don't do that?
To me, yes. I've been kind of trying to find an argument that could work against flat earthers and globe deniers this whole thread.
"The geometry is wrong" is what a globe denier would say
No, "The geometry is wrong" is what every group involved would say.

A globe denier would probably get giddy at that.

The glober is comfortable sitting behind the "the". They know if you change the geometry to include refraction then that geometry is correct.

By looking at more than one object in the photograph you can show that THE geometry is wrong. If THE geometry is wrong then it's not Q before it's even got to the distance to the horizon.

All groups are free to investigate why THE geometry is wrong (or even make stuff up), although globers don't need to because they know it's refraction.

To me, yes. I've been kind of trying to find an argument that could work against flat earthers and globe deniers this whole thread.

No, "The geometry is wrong" is what every group involved would say.

Incorrect. Geometry is a mathematical tool which, amongst other things, can be used to model reality as Mendel aptly put it.

Oakley's geometry is not mathematically wrong, nor is the globers'. It's the geometric model x, y or z's match with the physical reality that can be wrong or limited as is the case with Oakley's simplistic model ignoring the variables of refraction and spheroid.

'Geometry' is a great example of why we must clarify terms and agree on a common usage before discussing them at any length. Otherwise we keep missing each other by a mile.

We're mainly having a communication issue here. Nothing more serious.

Last edited:
To me, yes. I've been kind of trying to find an argument that could work against flat earthers and globe deniers this whole thread.

Ah, it's good to know where you're coming from.

I don't personally think there is an argument that could work, so my answer to that question would be "it doesn't matter if they do that [refuse to accept refraction as part of the equation]".

If they can't respond sensibly to "you're missing refraction" then I don't think there's much point in conversing with someone.

The glober is comfortable sitting behind the "the". They know if you change the geometry to include refraction then that geometry is correct.

The geometry (better: mathematics) has to include refraction. Otherwise it's an incomplete picture.

By looking at more than one object in the photograph you can show that THE geometry is wrong. If THE geometry is wrong then it's not Q before it's even got to the distance to the horizon.

All groups are free to investigate why THE geometry is wrong (or even make stuff up), although globers don't need to because they know it's refraction.

The geometry isn't wrong. Just look at Mick's refraction simulator: it's built on numbers, geometry, mathematics and it can recreate pictures like this, if you have all the data to input.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Replies
103
Views
8K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
217
Views
9K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K