[Woody]

Tom is either willfully ignorant, dishonest or FE is just like a religion to him.  Probably a combination of all 3.

He demonstrates willful ignorance by refusing do any experiment that will offer evidence he is wrong.  Like tracking satellites by taking advantage of doppler shift or simply buying a telescope to observe the ISS.  Will not research anything like wave propagation to learn more about a subject that says he could be wrong.

The dishonest part is demonstrated in the errors he will change in the distances stated in his experiment.  Both the distance to the beach from his observation point and the height of the telescope above the water.

Then there is more dishonesty here:

http://www.fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=93430
Claims he went to Harvard and acquired a masters in sociology and minor in history. Anyone who has a masters degree will notice what is wrong with that statement.  Also Harvard does not offer a Master in Sociology.

I also read somewhere I can not find right now where he claimed to have went to college in California.

The religious aspect is demonstrated throughout the forums on this site.  Simply refusing to accept anything saying his beliefs could be wrong.

[Tom Bishop]

It is far more accurate to say "that perspective causes the surface appear to ascend in height until the horizon appears to be almost at eye level to the observer."
When standing
on the seashore with the eye-level about 5' above sea-level, the horizon is about 3.2 miles away and about 10' below eye-level, but 10' in 3.2 miles is only about 2' of arc.
but when on a 1000' mountain,  the horizon is about 45 miles away and about 10' below eye-level, now 2,000' in 45 miles is only about 29' of arc, not noticeable, but quite measurable.

An yes, this "dip angle to the horizon" is real, and quite easily measured. Al Biruni measured the radius by measuring the dip angle to the horizon as in Al-Biruni's Classic Experiment: How to Calculate the Radius of the Earth?

I gave an extract from that site in Re: Total area of Earth, but it would be better to read the original.
This reference gives a critical review of Al Biruni's work, including putting realistic estimates on his methods and accuracy in the light of modern knowledge:

AL BASAIR ISLAMIC MEDIA, AL BIRUNI’S MEASUREMENT ON THE EARTH

This video shows measurements of the dip angle to the horizon up as far as 30,000 ft. I would prefer better equipment, but at 30,000 ft it is quite substantial.

https://youtu.be/2-vRzQ_GDV0
Flat Earth Debunked: The Horizon Always at Eye Level

Simply claiming, without evidence, "that the line of the horizon is always at eye level with the observer." is not correct.

But, even if it was. It has nothing to do with the case. At sunset, the eye is at near enough to the same level as the horizon, give or take a few feet, but the sun is still 3,200 miles about your horizon!

According to Rowbotham's Law of Perspective that 3,200 miles subtends an angle at the eye of around 20° (depending on where the observer is).[/i

Samuel Birley Rowbotham talks about Theodolite experiments in the chapter Tangential Horizon. It was found that using devices with lenses changes the true position of the horizon. The Tangential Horizon chapter invalidates your Thodolite experiments and Youtube video of a man who is using a device with lenses to determine the angle of the horizon.

Furthermore, in the video, the man is apparently using a free-to-download Theodolite app on his iPhone, so the results of his experiment are questionable. How does the phone know that it is spatially positioned exactly vertical and horizontal, for example? Are we expected to believe that iPhones are known for their great accuracy in surveying? Not very encouraging.

Rowbotham provides a more practical experiment without the imprecision of lenses which showed that there was no dip to the horizon:

In the following diagram, fig. 96:---



 FIG. 96.
FIG. 96.

Let A, B, represent a plane surface--say several miles over the sea, from the shore, and E, an observer's eye. It is evident that on looking directly downwards, as from E to A, the real and the apparent position of the water-surface will be the same. But if a transparent screen or a plate of glass be erected at some distance from the eye, as at C, D, and the sight be directed over the water to the distance W, the line of sight will cut the screen C, D, at the point 1, and the surface of the water will appear at 3, equal to the altitude of 1. If the sight

p. 274

is now directed to the point X, the line of sight, E, X, will cut the screen C, D, at the point 2, and the surface of the water will appear to be elevated to the point 4. It is evident, then, that the line of sight may be directed further and further over the water beyond X, and each further line of sight would cut the screen nearer to the line E, C, H, but could never become perfectly parallel with it. In the same way the surface of the water would appear nearer and nearer to the line E, H, at H, but could never come in actual contact with it: the angle H, E, X, becomes more and more acute as the distance increases; but, mathematically, the lines E, X, E, H, might be prolonged ad infinitum, the angle C, E, 2, infinitely acute, and the space H, 4, between the surface of the wafer and the line E, H, immeasurably small, but actual contact is mathematically impossible. Although there is always, at great distances, a minute space between the line of sight and the surface of the water at the horizon, still, for all practical purposes, and to the naked eye, there is no dip required.

[Tom Bishop]

The above experiment is only applicable if the water is standing or frozen, and shows that the horizon is at eye level. However, if there are waves, Rowbotham shows that the calm or rough nature of the waves affects when the sun rises:

The above remarks are made considering the water to be water to be still, as if it were frozen; but as the water of the sea is always in a state of undulation, it is evident that a line of sight passing over a sea horizon cannot possibly continue mathematically parallel to the plane of the water, but must have a minute inclination upwards in the direction of the zenith. Hence it is that often, when the sun is setting over a stormy or heavily swelling sea, the phenomenon of sunset begins at a point on the horizon sensibly less than 90° from the zenith. The same phenomenon may be observed at sunrise, from any eminence over the sea in an easterly direction, as from the summit

p. 275

of the Hill of Howth, and the rock called "Ireland's Eye," near Dublin, looking to the east over Liverpool Bay, in the direction of the coast of Lancashire. This is illustrated by diagram 97:----


FIG. 97.

A, D, B, represents the horizontal surface of the sea, and D 1, and D 2, the optical or apparent ascent of the water towards the eye-lines O 1, and O 2; O, D, the observer; Z, the zenith; H, H, the horizon; and S, S, the morning and evening sun. It is obvious from this diagram that if the water had a fixed character, as when frozen, the angle Z, O 1, or Z, O 2, would be one of 90 °; but on account of the waves and breakers at the horizon H, H, mounting half their altitudes above the lines O 1, and O 2, the line of sight meets the sun .at S, which appears to rise or set on the elevated horizon H, the angle Z, O, S, being less than 90°.

This is evidently the cause of the sun setting and rising at sea, later when the water is calm, and earlier when it is greatly disturbed--a fact well known to observant sea-going travellers and residents on eastern or western shores. It is also the cause of the sun rising later and setting earlier than it would over a smooth plane of earth, or over absolutely still water, or than it ought to do mathematically for its known altitude.

[andruszkow]

Tom is either willfully ignorant, dishonest or FE is just like a religion to him.  Probably a combination of all 3.

He demonstrates willful ignorance by refusing do any experiment that will offer evidence he is wrong.  Like tracking satellites by taking advantage of doppler shift or simply buying a telescope to observe the ISS.  Will not research anything like wave propagation to learn more about a subject that says he could be wrong.

The dishonest part is demonstrated in the errors he will change in the distances stated in his experiment.  Both the distance to the beach from his observation point and the height of the telescope above the water.

Then there is more dishonesty here:

http://www.fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=93430
Claims he went to Harvard and acquired a masters in sociology and minor in history. Anyone who has a masters degree will notice what is wrong with that statement.  Also Harvard does not offer a Master in Sociology.

I also read somewhere I can not find right now where he claimed to have went to college in California.

The religious aspect is demonstrated throughout the forums on this site.  Simply refusing to accept anything saying his beliefs could be wrong.

1o1 psychology would establish that he would never give in for evidence. There's simply too much at stake. Like, in his own words, how his ex-wife is a "sheep" and the marriage probably ended because of his newfound "religion".

Giving in to reason on this topic would require also admitting that the issues in the marriage was caused by him.

Great find though, was a good read!

[rabinoz]

The above experiment is only applicable if the water is standing or frozen, and shows that the horizon is at eye level. However, if there are waves, Rowbotham shows that the calm or rough nature of the waves affects when the sun rises:

The above remarks are made considering the water to be water to be still, as if it were frozen; but as the water of the sea is always in a state of undulation, it is evident that a line of sight passing over a sea horizon cannot possibly continue mathematically parallel to the plane of the water, but must have a minute inclination upwards in the direction of the zenith. Hence it is that often, when the sun is setting over a stormy or heavily swelling sea, the phenomenon of sunset begins at a point on the horizon sensibly less than 90° from the zenith. The same phenomenon may be observed at sunrise, from any eminence over the sea in an easterly direction, as from the summit

p. 275

of the Hill of Howth, and the rock called "Ireland's Eye," near Dublin, looking to the east over Liverpool Bay, in the direction of the coast of Lancashire. This is illustrated by diagram 97:----


FIG. 97.

A, D, B, represents the horizontal surface of the sea, and D 1, and D 2, the optical or apparent ascent of the water towards the eye-lines O 1, and O 2; O, D, the observer; Z, the zenith; H, H, the horizon; and S, S, the morning and evening sun. It is obvious from this diagram that if the water had a fixed character, as when frozen, the angle Z, O 1, or Z, O 2, would be one of 90 °; but on account of the waves and breakers at the horizon H, H, mounting half their altitudes above the lines O 1, and O 2, the line of sight meets the sun .at S, which appears to rise or set on the elevated horizon H, the angle Z, O, S, being less than 90°.

This is evidently the cause of the sun setting and rising at sea, later when the water is calm, and earlier when it is greatly disturbed--a fact well known to observant sea-going travellers and residents on eastern or western shores. It is also the cause of the sun rising later and setting earlier than it would over a smooth plane of earth, or over absolutely still water, or than it ought to do mathematically for its known altitude.

I have to disagree completely with Rowbotham's Fig 97:

The ocean simply does not "rise up to eye-level", though perspective might make it appear to.

Then, there is no way that "huge waves" can explain sunset at sea. For a start the biggest argument against must be that the time of sunset over the ocean is highly predictable. It hardly varies more than a couple of minutes and that is due to the unpredictable refraction near the horizon. If you think about it, the horizon distance might vary from 3 to 6 miles, depending on the observer's height. Now, I know that under storm conditions we can have very high heights, under normal conditions wave heights are more like 1.5 to 2 m (5' to 7'). The sunset photo I showed recently were taken from a beach at Weipa on the Gulf of Carpenteria, where 1.5 m wave are unusual. Now even a 7' wave 6 miles away has quite a negligible effect on the angle of the sun at sunset. And you not yet shown how it is even faintly realistic to claim that perspective can make the 3,200 mile high sun to appear to be partly hidden by the horizon. And, to me at least the sun in the photos on the seems to end up hidden behind the horizon. How could perspective cut off the lower edge of the sun.

08-Weipa Sunset

13-Weipa Sunset

Still, being a mere mortal I can never hope to compete with the Sacred Texts!

[Tom Bishop]

Tom is either willfully ignorant, dishonest or FE is just like a religion to him.  Probably a combination of all 3.

He demonstrates willful ignorance by refusing do any experiment that will offer evidence he is wrong.  Like tracking satellites by taking advantage of doppler shift or simply buying a telescope to observe the ISS.  Will not research anything like wave propagation to learn more about a subject that says he could be wrong.

The dishonest part is demonstrated in the errors he will change in the distances stated in his experiment.  Both the distance to the beach from his observation point and the height of the telescope above the water.

Then there is more dishonesty here:

http://www.fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=93430
Claims he went to Harvard and acquired a masters in sociology and minor in history. Anyone who has a masters degree will notice what is wrong with that statement.  Also Harvard does not offer a Master in Sociology.

I also read somewhere I can not find right now where he claimed to have went to college in California.

The religious aspect is demonstrated throughout the forums on this site.  Simply refusing to accept anything saying his beliefs could be wrong.

An obvious parody account.

http://forum.nationstates.net/search.php?author_id=91975&sr=posts

[Woody]

Tom is either willfully ignorant, dishonest or FE is just like a religion to him.  Probably a combination of all 3.

He demonstrates willful ignorance by refusing do any experiment that will offer evidence he is wrong.  Like tracking satellites by taking advantage of doppler shift or simply buying a telescope to observe the ISS.  Will not research anything like wave propagation to learn more about a subject that says he could be wrong.

The dishonest part is demonstrated in the errors he will change in the distances stated in his experiment.  Both the distance to the beach from his observation point and the height of the telescope above the water.

Then there is more dishonesty here:

http://www.fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=93430
Claims he went to Harvard and acquired a masters in sociology and minor in history. Anyone who has a masters degree will notice what is wrong with that statement.  Also Harvard does not offer a Master in Sociology.

I also read somewhere I can not find right now where he claimed to have went to college in California.

The religious aspect is demonstrated throughout the forums on this site.  Simply refusing to accept anything saying his beliefs could be wrong.

An obvious parody account.

http://forum.nationstates.net/search.php?author_id=91975&sr=posts

How is it obvious?  The posts are about the Earth being flat and a conspiracy.

Decided to spend a couple of minutes searching for this:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=12552.msg179175#msg179175

I would prefer to keep these topics in their respective threads so that we do not repeat ourselves.

Basically the Flat Earth has Gravitation but not Gravity. This Gravitation is what keeps the atmosphere on the Flat Earth.

As we know, the Flat Earth is accelerating upwards at 9.8m/s2. According to Einstein's Equivalence Principle an accelerating frame of reference is exactly mathematically equivalent to a gravitational field at all points around an accelerating mass. This produces the same effect of Gravity, but without the need for a hypothetical undiscovered particle with zero energy and zero mass called the Graviton.

This point is confusing to most people, but the act of being pushed into an accelerating object and being drawn into an object with a gravitational field is EXACTLY the same thing. There is no difference. What you know as acceleration is really the bending of space-time around the accelerating object.

The Flat Earth does not only exert a gravitational field on the top of its surface, but it also exerts a gravitational field on it's sides and underside. In essence, it does not matter in which direction the Flat Earth is accelerating because it will create a uniform gravitational field as long as it is uniformly accelerating. The Flat Earth could be accelerating downwards and we would still be held to her surface by a gravitational pull.

Einstein's "acceleration = gravitation" conclusion may be hard to believe, but it a main tenant of General Relativity. Without the Equivalence Principle Einstein's theory on General Relativity falls apart.

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=102854

Awhile back, I approached this forum firmly beleiving I could convince the community that our dear Earth was indeed flat. I'm back.

Here is a basic explanation of how the Flat Earth works:

Basically the Flat Earth has Gravitation but not Gravity. This Gravitation is what keeps the atmosphere on the Flat Earth.

As we know, the Flat Earth is accelerating upwards at 9.8m/s2. According to Einstein's Equivalence Principle an accelerating frame of reference is exactly mathematically equivalent to a gravitational field at all points around an accelerating mass. This produces the same effect of Gravity, but without the need for a hypothetical undiscovered particle with zero energy and zero mass called the Graviton. This point is confusing to most people, but the act of being pushed into an accelerating object and being drawn into an object with a gravitational field is EXACTLY the same thing. There is no difference. What you know as acceleration is really the bending of space-time around the accelerating object.

The Flat Earth does not only exert a gravitational field on the top of its surface, but it also exerts a gravitational field on it's sides and underside. In essence, it does not matter in which direction the Flat Earth is accelerating because it will create a uniform gravitational field as long as it is uniformly accelerating. Th e Flat Earth could be accelerating downwards and we would still be held to her surface by a gravitational pull. Einstein's "acceleration = gravitation" conclusion may be hard to believe, but it a main tenant of General Relativity. Without the Equivalence Principle Einstein's theory on General Relativity falls apart.

Now, The Flat Earth is walled up by an Ice Wall to keep the contents in. This wall is guarded by an organization formed by a majority of nations on our planet. The Ice Wall does not melt for it also contains rock. and one more thing. BENDY LIGHT, look it up before bothering.

Getting off topic, cocaine was founded at Kennedy space center. If NASA were a real space agency they would be hiring straight and narrow engineers and scientists instead of these lowlife cocaine addicts who sit around building fake space ships out of cardboard paper, scotch tape, and assorted junk yard parts.

So if it was not you it was someone copying and pasting your stuff from  here or other site. It could also be you are copying them.

You continue to prove you are dishonest.

[Tom Bishop]

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=139159&p=7086690#p7086690

You filly fool, who said the Illuminati would ever do that? They already have all the sheep in line. Completely induced into thinking our world is round.

They feed you lobster!

When have I said anything like that?

[Woody]

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=139159&p=7086690#p7086690

You filly fool, who said the Illuminati would ever do that? They already have all the sheep in line. Completely induced into thinking our world is round.

They feed you lobster!

When have I said anything like that?

"Those billionaire space tourists were simply tricked into believing they were on a rocket flight to space. They flushed their money down the toilet and the Conspiracy took it gladly."

"If you blindly and dogmatically follow the opinions and beliefs of others, then you are the fool. Sorry to say."

"That guy didn't fork out 25 million dollars for a rocket flight into space. That guy paid 25 million dollars to be injected with a variety of psychotropic drugs, led through a maze and into a space simulator amusement ride. He was so 'spaced out' during the trip that his imaginations made the experience seem real."

Seems you were pushing the conspiracy angle more often back when you were posting on NationStates forum.  Those quotes are from the other flat Earth site from about the same time period.

"Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham has been the only man in history who has conducted serious inquery into the shape of the earth."

You also post some rather stupid stuff, just like what is posted under your name on the Nation states forum.

If you think there is a big difference from what you post here and there I would review it again.  Even used the exact same wording on posts here, the other FE site and there.

[Tom Bishop]

I post about a Conspiracy, yes, that is the premise of this society, but not about the Illuminati, and mainly the "filthy fool" and "They feed you lobster!" parts gives it away that it is a non-serious parody account.

Feeding rich tourists drugs to enhance their trip is very possible.

I said that Rowbotham is the only man in history to have conducted a serious inquiry into the shape of the world, and still maintain that today. We've spent a lot of time looking at studies in history and the only scientists we can find who argue over the shape of the world or actively look for evidence are the Ancient Greeks, who don't really conduct thorough studies. Aristotle gives three proofs that the earth is a globe. They are three casual observations, and not serious studies. It appears that from that point on Western civilization assumes that the earth is a globe. The East holds out for a bit longer, but eventually adopts the views of the West without explanation.

[andruszkow]

I post about a Conspiracy, yes, that is the premise of this society, but not about the Illuminati, and mainly the "filthy fool" and "They feed you lobster!" parts gives it away that it is a non-serious parody account.

Feeding rich tourists drugs to enhance their trip is very possible.

I said that Rowbotham is the only man in history to have conducted a serious inquiry into the shape of the world, and still maintain that today. We've spent a lot of time looking at studies in history and the only scientists we can find who argue over the shape of the world or actively look for evidence are the Ancient Greeks, who don't really conduct thorough studies. Aristotle gives three proofs that the earth is a globe. They are three casual observations, and not serious studies. It appears that from that point on Western civilization assumes that the earth is a globe. The East holds out for a bit longer, but eventually adopts the views of the West without explanation.

I honestly feel sorry for you.

[Woody]

I post about a Conspiracy, yes, that is the premise of this society, but not about the Illuminati, and mainly the "filthy fool" and "They feed you lobster!" parts gives it away that it is a non-serious parody account.

Feeding rich tourists drugs to enhance their trip is very possible.

I said that Rowbotham is the only man in history to have conducted a serious inquiry into the shape of the world, and still maintain that today. We've spent a lot of time looking at studies in history and the only scientists we can find who argue over the shape of the world or actively look for evidence are the Ancient Greeks, who don't really conduct thorough studies. Aristotle gives three proofs that the earth is a globe. They are three casual observations, and not serious studies. It appears that from that point on Western civilization assumes that the earth is a globe. The East holds out for a bit longer, but eventually adopts the views of the West without explanation.

 

I hold a Masters in Geology from Berkley.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=12652.msg182796#msg182796

Is that statement true?

[Woody]

I post about a Conspiracy, yes, that is the premise of this society, but not about the Illuminati, and mainly the "filthy fool" and "They feed you lobster!" parts gives it away that it is a non-serious parody account.

Feeding rich tourists drugs to enhance their trip is very possible.

I said that Rowbotham is the only man in history to have conducted a serious inquiry into the shape of the world, and still maintain that today. We've spent a lot of time looking at studies in history and the only scientists we can find who argue over the shape of the world or actively look for evidence are the Ancient Greeks, who don't really conduct thorough studies. Aristotle gives three proofs that the earth is a globe. They are three casual observations, and not serious studies. It appears that from that point on Western civilization assumes that the earth is a globe. The East holds out for a bit longer, but eventually adopts the views of the West without explanation.

So after the Greeks nobody like geodetic surveyors did anything like measuring distances and curvature?

How about celestial navigation that the math involved assumes a round Earth?

If you have a geology degree you must know about the many people now and throughout history whose research and work involve the shape of the Earth.  An error about the shape would result in errors throughout many fields. If they are wrong about the shape things would not fit together and there would be holes like there is with the flat Earth hypothesis.

[rabinoz]

I post about a Conspiracy, yes, that is the premise of this society, but not about the Illuminati, and mainly the "filthy fool" and "They feed you lobster!" parts gives it away that it is a non-serious parody account.

Feeding rich tourists drugs to enhance their trip is very possible.

I said that Rowbotham is the only man in history to have conducted a serious inquiry into the shape of the world, and still maintain that today. We've spent a lot of time looking at studies in history and the only scientists we can find who argue over the shape of the world or actively look for evidence are the Ancient Greeks, who don't really conduct thorough studies. Aristotle gives three proofs that the earth is a globe. They are three casual observations, and not serious studies. It appears that from that point on Western civilization assumes that the earth is a globe. The East holds out for a bit longer, but eventually adopts the views of the West without explanation.

Feeding rich tourists drugs to enhance their trip is very possible.

Did you really say that? If you are serious then you really have some serious problems facing reality!

So, anyone flying from Sydney to/from Santiago or Johannesburg is a "rich tourist" and possibly being drugged in flight!

So how is it possible for the flights to actually take the specified real time! I dare you to do some honest research into this topic!

Even flight from say Sydney to Dubai (a very common route) is about 16,700 km on the Flat Earth map, but only 12,048 km in reality.
Flight times (Emirates or QANTAS) Sydney to Dubai, about 14h 25m duration.
Flight times (Emirates or QANTAS) Dubai to Sydney, about 13h 50m duration.

Stop dreaming and face reality!

[Tom Bishop]

Is that statement true?

Yes.

So after the Greeks nobody like geodetic surveyors did anything like measuring distances and curvature?

Geodetic surveyors tend to take measurements and assume that the earth is a globe. No one is questioning the shape of the earth anymore.

And if anyone does detect a Flat Earth over long distances, it's explained by an illusion like "Atmospheric Ducting," which is ridiculous explanation that em waves can bounce between the ground and the sky to reach far off locations they shouldn't.

How about celestial navigation that the math involved assumes a round Earth?

Actually Celestial Navigation mainly involves finding the North Star and basing your Eastwards or Westwards travel on that.

If you have a geology degree you must know about the many people now and throughout history whose research and work involve the shape of the Earth.  An error about the shape would result in errors throughout many fields. If they are wrong about the shape things would not fit together and there would be holes like there is with the flat Earth hypothesis.

As I said, no one is studying whether the earth is round or flat. They are studying a Round Earth. If they happen to not see a Round Earth, they make up a phenomenon to explain it.

[Rounder]

How about celestial navigation that the math involved assumes a round Earth?

Actually Celestial Navigation mainly involves finding the North Star and basing your Eastwards or Westwards travel on that.

Again with the Northern Hemisphere chauvinism! 
Plenty of celestial navigation takes place in the Southern Hemisphere, beyond sight of the North Star.  I've been there, at sea, for months at a time, and I can tell you: You cannot see (or navigate from) the North Star from the Southern Hemisphere.

[Woody]

Is that statement true?

Yes.

So after the Greeks nobody like geodetic surveyors did anything like measuring distances and curvature?

Geodetic surveyors tend to take measurements and assume that the earth is a globe. No one is questioning the shape of the earth anymore.

And if anyone does detect a Flat Earth over long distances, it's explained by an illusion like "Atmospheric Ducting," which is ridiculous explanation that em waves can bounce between the ground and the sky to reach far off locations they shouldn't.

How about celestial navigation that the math involved assumes a round Earth?

Actually Celestial Navigation mainly involves finding the North Star and basing your Eastwards or Westwards travel on that.

If you have a geology degree you must know about the many people now and throughout history whose research and work involve the shape of the Earth.  An error about the shape would result in errors throughout many fields. If they are wrong about the shape things would not fit together and there would be holes like there is with the flat Earth hypothesis.

As I said, no one is studying whether the earth is round or flat. They are studying a Round Earth. If they happen to not see a Round Earth, they make up a phenomenon to explain it.

So I can assume you have a Master in Geology?

Celestial navigation uses math that assumes the Earth is round.  It does not work for a flat surface.

Geodetetic surveyors now are just refining measurements and not trying to prove the shape of the Earth.  Not true when we go back in time.  It was geodetic surveyors that found more evidence of the Earth shape.  Astronomers also were very interested in the shape.  People in your claimed field also study the shape.  Most people involved in the Earth sciences make predictions based on the Earth being round.  Those predictions use calculation assuming the Earth is round and are reliable and accurate.

If the Earth was flat errors would resonate through many different fields.  Your belief is these errors would go unnoticed.  If you recall I showed you paper where scientist were looking for the cause of 3-5mm errors for predictions.  This was for only one part of the globe and involved models for tectonic plates, tidal loading, earth tide, gravity, satellite signal delay, and others I can not think of right now.  If the Earth was flat these models would not work together and used to make fairly accurate predictions that are only 3-5mm off just for a part of the world.

I will tell you again I have communicated with people in North Carolina from Afghanistan and Iraq using a HF radio.  If I was capable of doing this it depended on atmospheric conditions, the antenna, time of day and skip zones.  Skip zones being the area between where the wave is either traveling up or down. 

Your post shows a very limited understanding of wave propagation.  I suggest you it if you are going to use it in the search for the true shape of the Earth.

[Tom Bishop]

How about celestial navigation that the math involved assumes a round Earth?

Actually Celestial Navigation mainly involves finding the North Star and basing your Eastwards or Westwards travel on that.

Again with the Northern Hemisphere chauvinism! 
Plenty of celestial navigation takes place in the Southern Hemisphere, beyond sight of the North Star.  I've been there, at sea, for months at a time, and I can tell you: You cannot see (or navigate from) the North Star from the Southern Hemisphere.

Only 10% of the human population lives in the Southern Hemiplane, which is why I said "mainly" above. In the Southern Hemiplane navigation occurs by looking at the South Pole star, Sigma Octantis, or the stars that point to it, and basing your Eastwards or Westwards or Northwards or Southwards travel on that.

[Tom Bishop]

Celestial navigation uses math that assumes the Earth is round.  It does not work for a flat surface.

Actually, there is no math necessary:

https://sextantbook.wordpress.com/2014/04/03/how-celestial-navigation-works-in-easy-steps-1/

You may well think celestial navigation is a dark science that calls for a lot of complex mathematics.  In a way that’s perfectly true because it took the work of many brilliant mathematicians to perfect the techniques mariners use to fix their position on the open sea.

But to practice the art of celestial navigation today you really don’t need much mathematical skill.  In fact you only have to be able to add and subtract – and maybe not even that now that we all have access to computers.

To explain the basic principles of celestial navigation let’s start with a crucial concept – the ‘geographical position’ of a heavenly body.

At any given moment every heavenly body is vertically above a precisely defined spot on the surface of the Earth.  So if you imagine a straight line drawn from the centre of the Earth to a star, someone standing where that line passes through the surface of the Earth would see that star directly overhead – or in their zenith.  That person will then be standing at the star’s geographical position (GP).  Its GP can be defined by its latitude (degrees north or south of the equator) and its longitude (degrees east or west of the Greenwich meridian, a line joining the North and South Geographical Poles that happens to pass through the observatory at Greenwich).

Now if the Earth did not rotate about its axis all the stars (though not the sun, moon or planets) would appear to stand still in the sky.  That would of course also mean that their GPs were fixed.  So a very simple way of navigating would be to identify the star whose GP was closest to your goal and then sail (or walk, or fly – or whatever) until that particular star was overhead.

You may say that won’t work because the Earth actually does turn.  But wait.  There are two special places on the Earth’s surface that actually do remain stationary in relation to the sky immediately above them: the North and South Geographical Poles.  So if you want to find your way to either Pole you only need to identify the star whose GP is closest to it and travel until it’s overhead.

[Tom Bishop]

Geodetetic surveyors now are just refining measurements and not trying to prove the shape of the Earth.  Not true when we go back in time.  It was geodetic surveyors that found more evidence of the Earth shape.  Astronomers also were very interested in the shape.  People in your claimed field also study the shape.  Most people involved in the Earth sciences make predictions based on the Earth being round.  Those predictions use calculation assuming the Earth is round and are reliable and accurate.

They are only interested in the shape so much as "these slight variations in g must mean that the earth is not perfectly round". They are not interested in the earth's true shape.

If the Earth was flat errors would resonate through many different fields.  Your belief is these errors would go unnoticed.

They do go noticed. Only that it's explained away by an assortment of illusions. There have been times when the sun and moon have been above the surface of the earth during a lunar eclipse and it was called a refraction illusion.

If you recall I showed you paper where scientist were looking for the cause of 3-5mm errors for predictions.  This was for only one part of the globe and involved models for tectonic plates, tidal loading, earth tide, gravity, satellite signal delay, and others I can not think of right now.  If the Earth was flat these models would not work together and used to make fairly accurate predictions that are only 3-5mm off just for a part of the world.

Actually, a lot of prediction models for things like the tides and the appearance and path of celestial bodies are created by looking at historical records of past events and predicting when the next one will occur.

I will tell you again I have communicated with people in North Carolina from Afghanistan and Iraq using a HF radio.  If I was capable of doing this it depended on atmospheric conditions, the antenna, time of day and skip zones.  Skip zones being the area between where the wave is either traveling up or down. 

I was able to communicate with people on the other end of the world with my home phone under the assumption of a Flat Earth and the pseuodolite technologies involved. Where's my medal?