An astronomy picture taken from a common camera

You're going to invoke correlation implies causation and accuse me of a fallacy?  Interesting.

Nobody's been able to bring up an example yet.  Please be more specific.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_reactor

Quote

The largest current experiment is the Joint European Torus (JET). In 1997, JET produced a peak of 16.1 MW of fusion power (65% of input power), with fusion power of over 10 MW sustained for over 0.5 sec. In June 2005, the construction of the experimental reactor ITER, designed to produce several times more fusion power than the power put into the plasma over many minutes, was announced. They are currently preparing the site (Sep 2008). The production of net electrical power from fusion is planned for DEMO, the next generation experiment after ITER. Additionally, the High Power laser Energy Research facility (HiPER) is undergoing preliminary design for possible construction in the European Union starting around 2010.

The definition of sustainable may be open to debate, but as far as stars go the reaction inside is ultimately unsustainable yet sustained for millions of years. Stars eventually burn up and swell to red giants before going supernova. Nonetheless, this reaction is where starlight comes from.

Therefore, no photos, no pictures and no evidences at all are credible. However, AFTER that, they show us pictures in support of the RE theory. Sorry, but according to the RE we must not trust our eyes. So, the RE theory can not produce a single plausible evidence in its own support and, hence, is completely destroyed. For if we are supposed not to believe our own eyes, why we should believe cameras etc.?

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 23, 2009, 04:46:58 PM

You're going to invoke correlation implies causation and accuse me of a fallacy?  Interesting.

Correlation does not always imply causation. Yet, correlation is required for causation to be true.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 23, 2009, 03:30:29 PM

Nobody's been able to bring up an example yet.  Please be more specific.

Why read when you can post?

*sigh*

Quote from: thevelcrokid on March 22, 2009, 10:53:09 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_reactor

Quote

The largest current experiment is the Joint European Torus (JET). In 1997, JET produced a peak of 16.1 MW of fusion power (65% of input power), with fusion power of over 10 MW sustained for over 0.5 sec. In June 2005, the construction of the experimental reactor ITER, designed to produce several times more fusion power than the power put into the plasma over many minutes, was announced. They are currently preparing the site (Sep 2008). The production of net electrical power from fusion is planned for DEMO, the next generation experiment after ITER. Additionally, the High Power laser Energy Research facility (HiPER) is undergoing preliminary design for possible construction in the European Union starting around 2010.

Oh wow, a whole 0.5 seconds.

Quote from: thevelcrokid on March 23, 2009, 05:02:50 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 23, 2009, 04:46:58 PM

You're going to invoke correlation implies causation and accuse me of a fallacy?  Interesting.

Correlation does not always imply causation. Yet, correlation is required for causation to be true.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 23, 2009, 03:30:29 PM

Nobody's been able to bring up an example yet.  Please be more specific.

Why read when you can post?

*sigh*

Quote from: thevelcrokid on March 22, 2009, 10:53:09 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_reactor

Quote

The largest current experiment is the Joint European Torus (JET). In 1997, JET produced a peak of 16.1 MW of fusion power (65% of input power), with fusion power of over 10 MW sustained for over 0.5 sec. In June 2005, the construction of the experimental reactor ITER, designed to produce several times more fusion power than the power put into the plasma over many minutes, was announced. They are currently preparing the site (Sep 2008). The production of net electrical power from fusion is planned for DEMO, the next generation experiment after ITER. Additionally, the High Power laser Energy Research facility (HiPER) is undergoing preliminary design for possible construction in the European Union starting around 2010.

Quote from: Robosteve on March 22, 2009, 10:59:45 AM

Oh wow, a whole 0.5 seconds.

Q: How long is the longest sustained fusion reaction achieved by JET and elsewhere?
A: JET is the only operational machine to observe fusion from D-T (Deuterium-Tritium) reactions. Such fusion reactions have been maintained on JET for around five seconds.

"What do you mean that in the RE theory we can't trust our eyes?"

I mean the following:

(1) I look outside (or around if I am already outside) and see the flat Earth. It is not round. It is flat. I see it flat, therefore it is flat.

...

"What do you mean that in the RE theory we can't trust our eyes?"

I mean the following:

(1) I look outside (or around if I am already outside) and see the flat Earth. It is not round. It is flat. I see it flat, therefore it is flat.

(2) the RE guys explain that it is but an illusion and the Earth is actually round. I see it flat, but the Earth is round. What I see is some kind of illusion, because of ... blah blah blah. So, my eyes are deceiving me. I should not trust my eyes when I see that the Earth is flat.

(3) This is the first and very fundamental step for accepting the RE theory. Either you trust your eyes - and the Earth is flat, or you do not - and the Earth is not flat. Thus, without admitting that your senses are deceiving you (and, therefore, giving away your right and freedom of making your own conclusions), you can not accept the RE theory.

(4) What's truly funny is that AFTER you admitted that your you should not trust your EYES, the RE guys are showing you PICTURES, PHOTOS, MOVIES etc. supporting their theory. But you are already not supposed to believe your eyes. You know that your eyes deceive you and you accepted it as an axiom, otherwise you would not become a RE-er. What if all those pictures are also some kind of illusion? Why you should believe them?

"that makes objects look as if they "disappear" over the horizon,"
If I am not mistaken, they call it "refraction" and, in RE theory, use for explanation why we see the Sun rising earlier and setting later than it should do according to the calculations of the RE theory, for explanations of distortions of the Sun, the Moon etc. If the RE theory is using that, why it is forbidden for the FET?

Let's be positive and do not use double standards. Either you believe your senses or not. If RET can use the refraction and atmospheric distortions to explain something, then the FET can do that, too.  That seems fair.

However, for me that seems a bit too far away. I am not a specialist in atmospheric optics. Besides, I am not going to give away my freedom and right of making my own conclusion. I believe my eyes. I see that the Earth is flat. Therefore, it is flat.

"First, of all, you lie."

I think you should look for someone who would tolerate your rudeness. I won't.

"Why take what you see for granted? Do you ever question what you see?"

Excellent and very deep question. That is the whole point. To me, this is a true boundary between FET and RET. Either you believe your senses or you believe someone else, who is deciding for you what you see: a flat Earth or a part of an immense globe. This is a bit different from taking what I see for granted. As a human being, I can make mistakes, I may not know how to interpret my observations etc. Nevertheless, there seems to be a big difference between rectifying mistakes and learning by trusting my feelings and making my own conclusions - and unconditional acceptance of a weird idea that is neither obvious nor verifiable. Say, if I doubted that the Earth is flat, I can go to the prairies or make observations from the plane to make sure that the horizon is perfectly clear and straight. All I see again and again is that the Earth is flat. Why should I accept it's not flat and the Earth is sphere? Why not a cube? Prism? Pyramid? Because of the Apollo "photos"? I do not believe them, for they are apparently falsified, and I have already discussed it here.

Even if both theories, RET and FET, were explaining equally well why I see flat Earth, I should have embraced the FET according to the principles of science.


"Where's a quote stating that we RE'ers don't trust our eyes?"

I am not sure what do you mean. Let me try to explain it again. If I see that the Earth is flat, should I trust my eyes? Yes or no.


"what about when an object dissapears over the horizon? Do you FE'ers trust your eyes that the Earth is round then?"

I saw that phenomenon myself but, to my opinion, it does not necessarily mean that the Earth is round. I watched such an object (a high tower) closely, and there was a certain gap between the object and the horizon. My opinion is that it might be explained by some kind of refraction, for the layer of air just above the Earth apparently has some peculiar optical properties. To me it seems reasonable, but I am not competent enough to provide a detailed explanation. It's just my personal opinion.


"The FE theory states it as being called bendy light and applies new properties to the way light functions"

Sorry, again I am not competent in that.


"I respect your opinion and of going against a popular popular beliefe system, even if I don't agree with the theory, I still like to support the underdog"

Thanks, but I must say that in a long-term historical prospect the situation is exactly opposite: RET was the underdog almost all the history, many thousands years except the last 500 years or so. It seems that the RET is just an unusual and temporary deviation, which is both illogical and scientifically inconsistent (as I tried to briefly illustrate) and, in addition, many of its "proofs" are apparently falsified (of which "Apollo" mission is probably the most notorious). So it looks likely that with time it will simply disappear by itself.

For example, look at the photo we are discussing at this thread: "An astronomy picture taken from a common camera". Is it normal for a common camera to produce a photo in which a building stands at about 70 degrees to the ground? Should I accept this picture and explanations based on it, in this case, too? It is not even a question of science, but rather that of dignity. Sorry to say that, but my impression is that whoever called this picture "taken from a common camera" might think his audience consists of idiots. I am just trying to explain that such an attitude is totally unacceptable. However if someone thinks it's fine for him/her, I would not mind, for I respect their opinion. What I know for sure it does not suit me.

Okay, so what am I missing?  How have they proven that stars generate their energy through sustained nuclear fusion?  And if their picture of what is happening is so good why can't they replicate the process in a laboratory?

"What do you mean that in the RE theory we can't trust our eyes?"
I mean the following:
(1) I look outside (or around if I am already outside) and see the flat Earth. It is not round. It is flat. I see it flat, therefore it is flat.

Quote from: Humble_Scientist on March 23, 2009, 07:51:57 PM

"What do you mean that in the RE theory we can't trust our eyes?"
I mean the following:
(1) I look outside (or around if I am already outside) and see the flat Earth. It is not round. It is flat. I see it flat, therefore it is flat.

  Poor you, you must be really confused when you change your surroundings. In the town you see big houses - therefore all earth must be covered with big houses. In forest you see many trees - therefore earth must be covered with trees. In the sea you see only water around you - therefore earth mus be made of water. In desert you see only sand around you - therefore earth must be made of sand. What it is then, from what the earth is made? Houses, trees, water, sand?

"What do you mean that in the RE theory we can't trust our eyes?"

I mean the following:

(1) I look outside (or around if I am already outside) and see the flat Earth. It is not round. It is flat. I see it flat, therefore it is flat.

(2) the RE guys explain that it is but an illusion and the Earth is actually round. I see it flat, but the Earth is round. What I see is some kind of illusion, because of ... blah blah blah. So, my eyes are deceiving me. I should not trust my eyes when I see that the Earth is flat.

(3) This is the first and very fundamental step for accepting the RE theory. Either you trust your eyes - and the Earth is flat, or you do not - and the Earth is not flat. Thus, without admitting that your senses are deceiving you (and, therefore, giving away your right and freedom of making your own conclusions), you can not accept the RE theory.

(4) What's truly funny is that AFTER you admitted that your you should not trust your EYES, the RE guys are showing you PICTURES, PHOTOS, MOVIES etc. supporting their theory. But you are already not supposed to believe your eyes. You know that your eyes deceive you and you accepted it as an axiom, otherwise you would not become a RE-er. What if all those pictures are also some kind of illusion? Why you should believe them?


"that makes objects look as if they "disappear" over the horizon,"
If I am not mistaken, they call it "refraction" and, in RE theory, use for explanation why we see the Sun rising earlier and setting later than it should do according to the calculations of the RE theory, for explanations of distortions of the Sun, the Moon etc. If the RE theory is using that, why it is forbidden for the FET?

Let's be positive and do not use double standards. Either you believe your senses or not. If RET can use the refraction and atmospheric distortions to explain something, then the FET can do that, too.  That seems fair.

However, for me that seems a bit too far away. I am not a specialist in atmospheric optics. Besides, I am not going to give away my freedom and right of making my own conclusion. I believe my eyes. I see that the Earth is flat. Therefore, it is flat.

Quote from: Humble_Scientist on March 23, 2009, 09:22:17 PM

"Why take what you see for granted? Do you ever question what you see?"

Excellent and very deep question. That is the whole point. To me, this is a true boundary between FET and RET. Either you believe your senses or you believe someone else, who is deciding for you what you see: a flat Earth or a part of an immense globe. This is a bit different from taking what I see for granted. As a human being, I can make mistakes, I may not know how to interpret my observations etc. Nevertheless, there seems to be a big difference between rectifying mistakes and learning by trusting my feelings and making my own conclusions - and unconditional acceptance of a weird idea that is neither obvious nor verifiable. Say, if I doubted that the Earth is flat, I can go to the prairies or make observations from the plane to make sure that the horizon is perfectly clear and straight. All I see again and again is that the Earth is flat. Why should I accept it's not flat and the Earth is sphere? Why not a cube? Prism? Pyramid? Because of the Apollo "photos"? I do not believe them, for they are apparently falsified, and I have already discussed it here.

Even if both theories, RET and FET, were explaining equally well why I see flat Earth, I should have embraced the FET according to the principles of science.


"Where's a quote stating that we RE'ers don't trust our eyes?"

I am not sure what do you mean. Let me try to explain it again. If I see that the Earth is flat, should I trust my eyes? Yes or no.


"what about when an object dissapears over the horizon? Do you FE'ers trust your eyes that the Earth is round then?"

I saw that phenomenon myself but, to my opinion, it does not necessarily mean that the Earth is round. I watched such an object (a high tower) closely, and there was a certain gap between the object and the horizon. My opinion is that it might be explained by some kind of refraction, for the layer of air just above the Earth apparently has some peculiar optical properties. To me it seems reasonable, but I am not competent enough to provide a detailed explanation. It's just my personal opinion.


"The FE theory states it as being called bendy light and applies new properties to the way light functions"

Sorry, again I am not competent in that.


"I respect your opinion and of going against a popular popular beliefe system, even if I don't agree with the theory, I still like to support the underdog"

Thanks, but I must say that in a long-term historical prospect the situation is exactly opposite: RET was the underdog almost all the history, many thousands years except the last 500 years or so. It seems that the RET is just an unusual and temporary deviation, which is both illogical and scientifically inconsistent (as I tried to briefly illustrate) and, in addition, many of its "proofs" are apparently falsified (of which "Apollo" mission is probably the most notorious). So it looks likely that with time it will simply disappear by itself.

For example, look at the photo we are discussing at this thread: "An astronomy picture taken from a common camera". Is it normal for a common camera to produce a photo in which a building stands at about 70 degrees to the ground? Should I accept this picture and explanations based on it, in this case, too? It is not even a question of science, but rather that of dignity. Sorry to say that, but my impression is that whoever called this picture "taken from a common camera" might think his audience consists of idiots. I am just trying to explain that such an attitude is totally unacceptable. However if someone thinks it's fine for him/her, I would not mind, for I respect their opinion. What I know for sure it does not suit me.

Overall, a very poor post. The post fails to be even self-consistent.

You speak of dignity and then lie to us about seeing the Earth as flat. You can't make up your mind whether to believe your senses. You argue both for and against in the same post, very fickle.

You speak of using science to select the better theory and then ignore evidence without rationale, stating "such an altitude is totally unacceptable".

You offer your opinion that what you see is not what is, having no scientific basis to refute it. But when you look at the Earth you erroneously claim that you see it's flat and given that error you know that it is. You are quite capricious when selecting what to believe, aren't you?

Do work at posting better, especially more consistent, arguments.

Quote from: Humble_Scientist on March 23, 2009, 07:51:57 PM

"What do you mean that in the RE theory we can't trust our eyes?"
I mean the following:
(1) I look outside (or around if I am already outside) and see the flat Earth. It is not round. It is flat. I see it flat, therefore it is flat.

  Poor you, you must be really confused when you change your surroundings. In the town you see big houses - therefore all earth must be covered with big houses. In forest you see many trees - therefore earth must be covered with trees. In the sea you see only water around you - therefore earth must be made of water. In desert you see only sand around you - therefore earth must be made of sand. What it is then, from what the earth is made? Houses, trees, water, sand?

Dear MayTheBetterModelWin,

I am truly sorry to say that, but, as I have already told you, I do not wish to speak to you. Leave me alone and save your breath for someone else who would appreciate it.

I just wrote a few words about the picture etc. and you are asking me: 
"What it is then, from what the earth is made? Houses, trees, water, sand?"
What do you mean by that?

Quote from: Humble_Scientist on March 23, 2009, 07:51:57 PM

"What do you mean that in the RE theory we can't trust our eyes?"

I mean the following:

(1) I look outside (or around if I am already outside) and see the flat Earth. It is not round. It is flat. I see it flat, therefore it is flat.

(2) the RE guys explain that it is but an illusion and the Earth is actually round. I see it flat, but the Earth is round. What I see is some kind of illusion, because of ... blah blah blah. So, my eyes are deceiving me. I should not trust my eyes when I see that the Earth is flat.

(3) This is the first and very fundamental step for accepting the RE theory. Either you trust your eyes - and the Earth is flat, or you do not - and the Earth is not flat. Thus, without admitting that your senses are deceiving you (and, therefore, giving away your right and freedom of making your own conclusions), you can not accept the RE theory.

(4) What's truly funny is that AFTER you admitted that your you should not trust your EYES, the RE guys are showing you PICTURES, PHOTOS, MOVIES etc. supporting their theory. But you are already not supposed to believe your eyes. You know that your eyes deceive you and you accepted it as an axiom, otherwise you would not become a RE-er. What if all those pictures are also some kind of illusion? Why you should believe them?


"that makes objects look as if they "disappear" over the horizon,"
If I am not mistaken, they call it "refraction" and, in RE theory, use for explanation why we see the Sun rising earlier and setting later than it should do according to the calculations of the RE theory, for explanations of distortions of the Sun, the Moon etc. If the RE theory is using that, why it is forbidden for the FET?

Let's be positive and do not use double standards. Either you believe your senses or not. If RET can use the refraction and atmospheric distortions to explain something, then the FET can do that, too.  That seems fair.

However, for me that seems a bit too far away. I am not a specialist in atmospheric optics. Besides, I am not going to give away my freedom and right of making my own conclusion. I believe my eyes. I see that the Earth is flat. Therefore, it is flat.

It is actually very easy to prove that one can not trust their senses at face value. Just take any optical illusion (there are now illusions for other senses too, not just vision).

So it is absolutely proven that we can not just trust our senses.

This also means that if we look out our window and see that the Earth looks flat, we can not trust that wither.

The only conclusion is, is that we can not just do a simple examination and trust that the results are what we think they look like.

But as you tried to say, what can we do about it? How can we resolve this dilemma?

It is easy. It is only superficial examinations that lead us to mistake illusion for reality. When we examin these situations more carefully, we can show that what we think we are seeing is really an illusion.

take for example this illusion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Caf%C3%A9_wall.svg (if you don't want to just click on a link, you can search for the Cafe wall illusion on wikipeida).

At first glance, you would say that the lines are slopped (narrower at one end and thicker at the other).

But, if you go beyond just superficial examination, you can actually determine that the lines are actually straight. It is a simple matter of holding a ruler up to the screen and checking the lines. And you can check that the rule is really straight by using simple geometry: A straight line is the shortest path between two points (so two pins and a piece of string stretched between them would enable you to check the ruler's straightness).

Actually, this is why, in science, that the method used to acquire the data is so important (actually more important then the data itself). Because in science, it is always assumed that the data could be wrong, but if the procedure is given, then this can be checked without encountering illusionary data. If the procedure can be show to be valid, then the results of that procedure can be trusted.

As it has been shown, superficial examination, as a procedure, is flawed. Therefore we can not rely on a flawed method to supply us with the data we need. So just looking out your window and not seeing obvious curvature to the Earth is just superficial examination and therefore is flawed and not admissible as evidence (for either side).

Quote from: Humble_Scientist on March 24, 2009, 01:25:49 PM

I just wrote a few words about the picture etc. and you are asking me: 
"What it is then, from what the earth is made? Houses, trees, water, sand?"
What do you mean by that?

You got yourself a nick with scientist in it and you don't get the hint. Point was that you can't say anything about whole if you observe only the tiny piece of it. My message was following your logic exactly. You said - I see from window that earth is flat, therefore it is flat. So, following that logic you look out from the boat on sea and you see only water - therefore earth is made from water. I guess that trying to make something out from simple analogy is too hard for you.

Not correct. Your mistake is that you mixed two statements. If I see only water, I see only water. If I see the Earth is flat, what I see is that the Earth is flat. I can not say that if I "see only water - therefore earth is made from water."

"You got yourself a nick with scientist"
I am a scientist, zork.

Quote from: Humble_Scientist on March 24, 2009, 02:26:16 PM

Not correct. Your mistake is that you mixed two statements. If I see only water, I see only water. If I see the Earth is flat, what I see is that the Earth is flat. I can not say that if I "see only water - therefore earth is made from water."

Sorry, it doesn't make difference if you say - earth is made of water - or - there is nothing else on earth than water.

I did not say "earth is made of water" or "there is nothing else on earth than water". I have no idea what you are talking about. Read again:

"If I see only water, I see only water. If I see the Earth is flat, what I see is that the Earth is flat. I can not say that if I "see only water - therefore earth is made from water.""

That is what I said.

"I wonder, what makes you think that there may be something else besides of water if you see only water?"

Nothing. If I see only water, I see only water, nothing else.

"Your situation and logic is still exactly same. You see flat - therefore it is flat. You see water - therefore there is only water.  How is the logic between the two different?"

What are you trying to say?

Quote from: Humble_Scientist on March 24, 2009, 02:26:16 PM

"You got yourself a nick with scientist"
I am a scientist, zork.

I have a reason for doubt. All the things you have written here don't point the way of some physical or even philosophical science. More like ... dentist or ... whatever else which quite don't need the logical reasoning.

Quote

Your situation and logic is still exactly same. You see flat - therefore it is flat. You see water - therefore there is only water.  How is the logic between the two different?

What are you trying to say?

You know, I expected some kind of rudeness like that.  I am not quite sure about the reason...

Quote from: Humble_Scientist on March 24, 2009, 03:16:38 PM

Quote

Your situation and logic is still exactly same. You see flat - therefore it is flat. You see water - therefore there is only water.  How is the logic between the two different?

What are you trying to say?

How can you say that earth if flat when you see flat earth in font of you.

Why not?

But you can't say that all there is on earth is water when you see only water in front of you?

Once again. If I see only water, I see only water. By your definition, all I see is water and I can not see anything else. Therefore I have no idea about Earth and can make no conclusion about it.

However, you are probably mixing things again. Here what you wrote earlier:

"you look out from the boat on sea and you see only water - therefore earth is made from water."

Compare to: "If I see only water, I see only water."

Do you see the difference?


"You see, in first situation you make conclusion about whole earth just looking at a little piece of it."

You are constantly changing the subject. Earlier, you were speaking about "earth":

"You said - I see from window that earth is flat, therefore it is flat."

 Now, you introduced "whole earth".

How I can see the whole earth from my window?



"On second situation you still look at the small piece of it"

What is "it"? Water? How I can see only water, nothing but water, and draw conclusions about earth? If I am looking at water only, my conclusion will be about water.

"but you don't make the conclusion about whole earth. "

"Whole earth" again.

"What makes the second situation different from first?"

Two reasons: you substituted the subject and in the second case I was looking at water.

"In both cases you look at the small piece of earth but you don't do same conclusions in both cases. Why?"

Because in second case it was water, not earth.


"(Must I really do it so big and paint it red to you to understand simple logical question..?)"

First try to understand what you are talking about.

First try to understand what you are talking about.

I look out from a spot where the horizon is unobstructed and see that I am unable to view the entire planet at one time. Therefore, I assume that the planet is a shape that prevents me seeing it all at any one time. A sphere fits this shape, a flat disc does not.