Can White Swans exist?

Status
Not open for further replies.

MyMatesBrainwashed

Active Member
most of the other "see too far" pictures are about how much of a distant object is hidden
So why not this one? Those oil rigs look pretty ripe for some maths. And we'd get more concrete numbers instead of a vague greater than 9. Or do we not like numbers now? Then why's the premise about the numbers?

Is this black purely because it's maths on the horizon instead of maths on a building?

If I was a flat earther then this is some weak sauce. Numbers aren't my jam for starters. And I've loads of black swans already unless I'm supposed to be bamboozled that all the black swans I've already got, where the horizon is further than it should be, are different to this picture that has a horizon further than it should be. If I was a flat earther then this swan isn't the black one I was hoping for.
 

MyMatesBrainwashed

Active Member
For ANOTHER way of looking at it.

What you guys want me to believe is that a flat earther tunes into the latest hot goss on the flat earth circuit, they hear...
It is asserted we have a geometric sphere beneath our feet and that sphere has physicality, which therefore has physical limitations. Now, that assertion is analogous to a white swan. Most photographs presented look like they take place on a sphere. Then you have a demonstration of something that says to your average village idiot, or somebody who hasn't experienced much of the world, a black swan, something that wasn't considered to be the norm, presumed not to exist at all. Obviously the earth's a sphere and has its physical limitations based on its geometry. So as soon as you show something beyond that physical constraint of geometry, you have what we call a black swan.
... and this is supposed to be telling them that a horizon greater than 9 at 1 foot is the death of the globe?

Something that I don't think can be ignored is that the quote above is directed to flat earthers. I think QE's modus tollens is this exact same premise but is meant to be directed at the debunkers.

Oakley's paraphrased quote IS the premise. QE's modus tollens is that same premise but made to divert the debunker. I don't think the numbers were added to give it more authority, which is how it first appears. The numbers are there so that the debunker (incorrectly) infers that the premise is all about refraction.

The fact we are dealing with arguers, not scientists, shouldn't be ignored.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
So why not this one?
Because the oil rigs are not hidden.
Is this black purely because it's maths on the horizon instead of maths on a building?
No need for maths. The FE claim is, the horizon shouldn't be that far away, and no glober can contradict it—all we can do is explain it. As a FE follower, you don't need to understand any maths to get that.
If I was a flat earther then this is some weak sauce. Numbers aren't my jam for starters. And I've loads of black swans already unless I'm supposed to be bamboozled that all the black swans I've already got,
yes, but the other "proves FE" pictures all involve numbers
where the horizon is further than it should be, are different to this picture that has a horizon further than it should be.
they're really different
typically they are "I can see some peak on the other side of the sea", and half of them don't even account for observer height.
 

MyMatesBrainwashed

Active Member
Because the oil rigs are not hidden.
Say what?

Isn't the key of hidden height arguments that objects aren't as hidden as they should be?

1 foot, 9 miles away, I could tell you how much of the oil rigs should be hidden.

If that number's more than 0 then this picture confirms what so many have before it.

To a simple mind, seeing ALL of something that should have loads of it hidden behind a horizon could be more of a black swan instead of a few feet poking out like other examples.

No need for maths. The FE claim is, the horizon shouldn't be that far away, and no glober can contradict it—all we can do is explain it. As a FE follower, you don't need to understand any maths to get that.
So if that's not why it's black, why is this swan black?

Can anyone tell me what a flat earth black swan is?

At the very start of this thread I say...
If a photograph of a refracted horizon is a "black swan" then surely every photograph ever taken is a "black swan".
... but is there a single flat earther out there who ever thought that that was their black swan? I doubt it now.
 
Last edited:

MyMatesBrainwashed

Active Member
Considering how stupid you personally think the average flat earther is...

... would that flat earther be more impressed with 122 miles (Mt. San Jacinto) or 9+ miles (oil rigs)?

Why would that flat earther think that 9+ miles was the black swan?

Someone well versed in the world of flat earth saw this photo and exclaimed "THE BLACK SWAN!!!!!".... because they could see further than 9 miles. Did that really happen?
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
I'm pretty sure there's some miscommunication going on, please re-read?

Say what?

Isn't the key of hidden height arguments that objects aren't as hidden as they should be?
yes, but typically some part of them is still hidden anyway
1 foot, 9 miles away, I could tell you how much of the oil rigs should be hidden.

If that number's more than 0 then this picture confirms what so many have before it.
not quite
because the many others usually don't have 0
To a simple mind, seeing ALL of something that should have loads of it hidden behind a horizon could be more of a black swan instead of a few feet poking out like other examples.
exactly
So if that's not why it's black, why is this swan black?
i am saying that this is why it's black
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
Considering how stupid you personally think the average flat earther is...

... would that flat earther be more impressed with 122 miles (Mt. San Jacinto) or 9+ miles (oil rigs)?

Because the earth radius black swan calculation needs a true horizon. The oil rig in front of it helps establishing the true horizon is further than 9 miles.

We're starting again to beat the dead horse. I'm opting out. Enuff said. Now it's time to re-read what's been written rather than regurgitate these themes till the cows come home.

I moved into bovines. Cheers.

P.S. @Mendel, you take over.
 

MyMatesBrainwashed

Active Member
i am saying that this is why it's black
Ah, your no maths needed threw me off considering the whole of QE's premise is maths.

And "no maths needed" is where I'm heading with thinking Oakley's premise is the real one.

Considering the miscommunication that might be happening would you mind writing out what you think makes this swan the black one instead of me inferring it and annoying you by getting it wrong?

And maybe I'm getting this wrong, but your "exactly" comment only enforces the problem of why not use the rigs to make the point instead of the horizon instead of supporting the use of the horizon?
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Ah, your no maths needed threw me off considering the whole of QE's premise is maths.
QE enjoys prominence in FE because he looks like he can do science
but the typical FEer just takes this on trust (as do most globers, I'm sure)
for an argument to be compelling to FEers, it has to have no maths required
and "these rigs should be behind the horizon, but they're in front of it" does that
it's as obvious as an actual black swan would be
And maybe I'm getting this wrong, but your "exactly" comment only enforces the problem of why not use the rigs to make the point instead of the horizon instead of supporting the use of the horizon?
I don't understand what point could be made ignoring the horizon?
 

MyMatesBrainwashed

Active Member
Trying to see how flat earth is playing this, attempting to form a picture from how it's sold seems like a viable strategy. I'm not willing to sit through hours of videos of words for a dingleberry (yet. Kill me now) but at least youtube subtitles are searchable and make looking for clues a bit more be bearable.

I dunno the proper word for quoting an ai that's paraphrasing but I'm doing that to whoever it was that "said"...
at the end of the day there's an objective truth and the objective truth is that the horizon must be geometric on their model even when it's subject to refraction it still needs to have a geometric base to it and it doesn't have one because you could never ascertain whether it is one or not
Taken from -> https://www.yousubtitles.com/Flat-Earth-Debate-1364-Uncut-Tangent-Show-id-3615810

Without getting distracted by the implications of accepting refraction to the premise, it doesn't sound like refraction's a problem for this swan and, holy crap, how can "geometric base" NOT mean edge?

Its like they're not allowed to say it. They gotta try and get their point across without saying it. Why not's a great question.

I, am going to say it. I could be putting myself in danger for all I know.

The black swan is a photograph missing a horizon.

we only need one black swan non-geometric horizon to demonstrate that the horizon is not geometric
Non-geometric isn't saying the line can't be in a different place, it's saying the line can't be.

They only need one photo of a horizon that doesn't exist to demonstrate that horizons don't exist.

To be fair, getting from that to the modus tollens is no mean feat.
 

MyMatesBrainwashed

Active Member
QE's mathsy sciency version even says the horizon doesn't exist. It only knows it can't be closer than the second oil rig, that's 9.41 miles btw, because it can see all of it and geometry (even refraction agrees with that? ), but it can't be any more accurate because it doesn't exist.

No one else wondered why the weird numbers considering the premise? It says the calc, says the numbers, can't do the calc cos it doesn't exist.
 

Rory

Closed Account
I'm supposed to be bamboozled that all the black swans I've already got, where the horizon is further than it should be, are different to this picture that has a horizon further than it should be.

I'm confused why you're still writing sentences like "the horizon is further than it should be". The horizon isn't further than it should be.

Have you tried playing with Mick's refraction simulator? You might be a able to simulate the oil rig photo by moving some numbers around.
 
Last edited:

MyMatesBrainwashed

Active Member
"putting myself in danger" is a tired old conspiracy trope
it has always sounded like kids playing make-believe to me
Twas only a light hearted joke on how secretive this information seems to be.

do you believe something stops existing when it's out of view?
Really? Come on!

You wanna tell me a flat earther couldn't?!?!?!

All I'm saying is that THAT is flat earth's black swan. That's what THEY believe they have. That's what any talk of refraction bounces off when arguing the black swan with a flat earther.

In fact that's what any evidence for a globe is bouncing off when arguing with a flat earther. All they needed to prove a flat earth was their black swan.

I wouldn't be surprised if it's sold as debunkers have nothing to defeat the black swan and debunkers just keep trying to use refraction to try and distract that they have nothing to defeat it. The reasons to keep it secret keep piling up. It's fascinating.

To anyone who does argue with flat earthers, just be aware that THAT'S what you are really arguing against. Not that they'll ever tell you. They're more than happy to sit back and laugh at you as you drone on explaining why refraction can't make a horizon not exist (note I know no one's arguing refraction for that but that's what a flat earther is hearing, hopefully that's clear).

What if we dressed it up as an attack on their oh so precious r? Mwahahaaa.

That's a flat earther move!

Still not sunk in?

I dunno, why are people so unwilling to accept that this is what's happened? I'm confident enough not to bother with a "might" in that sentence.
 
Last edited:

MyMatesBrainwashed

Active Member
Not too sure what you are getting at, but if you wanna argue a premise that includes flat earther's being honest and you still want to argue that things can't be presented in a way that people infer the incorrect message as a means to protect the argument then sure, let's do this.
 

MyMatesBrainwashed

Active Member
I have no idea where this goes from here.

For me, I'm kinda satisfied. I came here for a better idea of swans and finally feel that I know what colour swans are when I'm looking at them. From both sides of the fence.

I wanted to know if white swans existed and finally I think I can answer that for how this black swan is actually presented by flat earthers. If a black swan is a horizon that doesn't exist then a white swan is a horizon that does exist. Horizons do exist so white swans exist. Job done.

There's possible scope in a greatest troll of flat earth exposé but I might just wait for the netflix special. I'm definitely not inclined to start a youtube channel to create hours of content debunking horizons not existing. I'll leave that up to the professionals.

Even if I've not helped one other person understand why "black swan lol" still pops up in the youtube discussions it doesn't really matter because at least I get it now. That's the only thing I wanted out of this and I've got it.

To the globers, I say you're welcome.

To the debunkers, I say good luck.

To the flat earthers, I can't help but tip my hat at you. Well played.
 
Last edited:

jarlrmai

Senior Member
There's possible scope in a greatest troll of flat earth exposé but I might just wait for the netflix special. I'm definitely not inclined to start a youtube channel to create hours of content debunking horizons not existing. I'll leave that up to the professionals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behind_the_Curve

Behind the Curve is a 2018 documentary film about flat Earth believers in the United States. Directed by Daniel J. Clark, the film was released in the United States on November 15, 2018, and for wide release on Netflix in February 2019.[1]
 

MyMatesBrainwashed

Active Member
So I can't help pondering on what appears to be an interesting situation.

Anyone who wants to argue that the black swan is about refraction and isn't about the existence of horizons runs the risk of looking complicit in the hiding the secret.

Could go full conspiracy and see that both sides benefit from the secret staying hidden. Globers can get a heck of a lot more content from refraction than horizons existing or not. Maybe the whole industry is in on it. I love it.

What I'm kinda digging is the only way to prove that flat earth's black swan isn't...
We only need one photo of a horizon that doesn't exist to demonstrate that horizons don't exist
... would be to have a flat earther, particularly the ones who proposed this black swan, say that this isn't the flat earth black swan.

That's a flat earth glober move!
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
So I can't help pondering on what appears to be an interesting situation.

Anyone who wants to argue that the black swan is about refraction and isn't about the existence of horizons runs the risk of looking complicit in the hiding the secret.

(I had to comment since there's no end to this confusion.)

The black swan is neither. At least not according to the author cited by @Rory in this post on the second page of this thread. It's that author who is the one invoking the modus tollens scheme of "John" a.k.a. Quantum Eraser and that author only that I've been commenting on when discussing the 'black swan' invoked by the FEer against the glober.

According to that author the black swan is about the horizon in the oil rig photo being too far for globe to be true. To that author the black swan is not about whether the horizon exists at all nor is it about refraction. I have no clue nor interest in what other black swans other FEers invoke to disprove globe.

And once more: The main issue in QE's calculation -- which we've revisited until nothing but mouldering bones are left of the dead horse -- is that it deals with a geometric horizon while the oil rig photograph invoked as proof of the too-distant horizon demonstrates strong refraction for everyone to see and is, therefore, evidently for any sensible person an apparent horizon (read: heavily refracted horizon, further away) rather than a geometric one (read: non-refracted which would have to be closer). If the oil rig photo in actual fact shows the geometric horizon, the modus tollens argument of QE would be valid and the black swan thereby demonstrated.

And of course, the hardline FEer would never accept refraction as a factor. Because if he would and if it were included in the QE's calculation of the distance of the horizon, he'd be calculating the distance of the apparent horizon which would indeed be far away and would match globe geometry just fine. Neither will the hardcore FEer ever admit that the oil rig picture contains clear evidence of refraction that would explain both the heavy distortions on specific features of the photograph and the significant distance of the horizon behind the oil rig.

I hope we can settle this once and for all.
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
v1.jpg


From Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon:
v2.jpg

Quantum Eraser uses the formula 3, which is about the same as formula 1. Formula 1 gives the distance of the horizon when atmospheric refraction is ignored. So Quantum Eraser chooses to ignore it too. Formula 2 is the distance with standard refraction.

Mick West says at his Metabunk curve calculator:
"Standard Refraction" is an approximation of the refraction expected under average or Standard Atmospheric conditions. Actual atmospheric conditions can vary greatly, and the resultant refraction can be complex, especially close to the horizon."
Refracted Horizon values are also given with a warning "Note: Not accurate for observations over water very close to the horizon (unless the temperature and vertical temperature gradient are accurate)"

So one foot observation height and exceptionally strong refraction can push horizon very far from the standard. For more analyse see for example Bob the Science Guy's YouTube-video "Final Analysis of the Black Swan Still a GLOBE".


Yes, it really is. The claim "EVERY horizon distance measurement MUST BE NO MORE THAN 1.225 x square root of observer's height in feet" does not follow from the fact that "the Earth is a sphere with the radius 3,959 miles". No one with the slightest knowledge of physics would say such a thing.

Or logic.

Just wanted to tag your excellent post from page #2 once more for @MyMatesBrainwashed to carefully read and digest in case I'm too unclear.
 

MyMatesBrainwashed

Active Member
I have no clue nor interest in what other black swans other FEers invoke to disprove globe.
That's cool, but I do.

Fair enough, you've busted your black swan. Be happy. Will it help if I agree that you've busted your black swan?

I'm just telling everyone that as far as a flat earther is concerned, no one's busted nothing. You may not care, that's cool too.

It seems like it's not sunk in yet. And guess what, that's cool. I can just shift you over to the appears overly eager to keep the secret hidden pile.

Quote whatever you want from the thread, it all approaches it from the wrong angle (I can try and help point out why if you want, but there's obviously not much point if you're just here to protect the secret so don't hold your breath). I don't mind any mistake I've made up to this point, it's quite interesting to see where and why I was drawing the wrong conclusions. I can see it now.

Just to confirm, there is no confusion from my viewpoint. Absolutely none at all now. There's definitely a seeing clearly and horizon pun in there.
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
That's cool, but I do.

Fair enough, you've busted your black swan. Be happy. Will it help if I agree that you've busted your black swan?

I'm just telling everyone that as far as a flat earther is concerned, no one's busted nothing. You may not care, that's cool too.

It seems like it's not sunk in yet. And guess what, that's cool. I can just shift you over to the appears overly eager to keep the secret hidden pile.

Quote whatever you want from the thread, it all approaches it from the wrong angle (I can try and help point out why if you want, but there's obviously not much point if you're just here to protect the secret so don't hold your breath). I don't mind any mistake I've made up to this point, it's quite interesting to see where and why I was drawing the wrong conclusions. I can see it now.

Just to confirm, there is no confusion from my viewpoint. Absolutely none at all now. There's definitely a seeing clearly and horizon pun in there.

Your latest confusion was thinking the black swan is about horizons not existing whereas the black swan I just quoted from this thread -- and which me and others were discussing -- has nothing to do with horizons not existing. Maybe you had moved onto rambling about other black swans. If so, your digression was far from clear to us as has been the way you articulate matters.

Suggestion: Don't ramble and work on your articulation of reasoned points. It's not a very fruitful discussion strategy to keep expanding the discussion into whatever crosses your mind at any given point without properly closing earlier themes.

In the minimum, it's extremely confusing for the rest of us even if everything's in your head as clear as a day.

P.S. I'm sorry if this comes across offensive but I'm just bluntly stating my observation. No ill-will intended. This doesn't mean you're stupid in the slightest. Just very unique in the way you express otherwise reasoned points.
 

MyMatesBrainwashed

Active Member
Your latest confusion was thinking the black swan is about horizons not existing whereas the black swan I just quoted from this thread -- and which me and others were discussing -- has nothing to do with horizons not existing.
That's YOUR confusion.

Why I'm still trying to help you here, I'm not sure.

I've already explained how QE's modus tollens numbers "hides" that it REALLY IS saying the horizon doesn't exist.

I've pointed out that the crazy black swan argument that's hiding beneath all of this was formed into QE's modus tollens as an attack on r.

We could go further into those, or I do have more that I've not bothered sharing yet, but bloomin' 'eck, if you don't get it now then it's hard to believe you aren't complicit in trying to keep this secret.
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
That's YOUR confusion.

There's no confusion whatsoever that the explicit argument of QE has nothing to do with horizons not existing.

If you think there's an implicit argument about there being no horizon, you're more than free to engage in a soliloquy on that or any other implicit belief of the FEers.

However, usually the MO of MB is to address specific claims of evidence, explicitly stated. Not assumptions of what person x or conspiracy theorist y might be saying in between the lines.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top