[Tom Bishop]

Tom CLEARLY still doesn't understand what qualifies something as scientific. https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/astronomy.htm

The Mises Institute agrees that Astronomy is not a science:

https://mises.org/library/misess-non-trivial-insight

Austrians have argued that the method of the natural sciences "wouldn't work" in social affairs for two reasons. First, there are no underlying constants in human behavior, unlike the natural constants (such as the charge on an electron) that can be observed in, say, physics. Second, there is no way to conduct a truly controlled experiment in the social sciences. For example, two economists can't test rival theories of taxation on "the same" population, because the very occurrence of the first experiment (say, an increase in taxes) will change the initial starting point for the next experiment. The most obvious difficulty for this approach is that the subjects of the experiment—the people in the economy—are aware of the experiments and react accordingly. There is no way to hold their ideas "fixed" from one test to the next.

Against these arguments, I have seen positivists argue (rightly, I believe) that such observations would also "prove" that meteorology or astronomy is not a science. After all, the charge of an electron is still a constant, whether the electron is in a tornado or a consumer's brain. Moreover, two astronomers obviously can't settle their dispute over a binary star system by resort to a controlled experiment, yet the Austrians presumably wouldn't object to the method of the natural sciences in astronomy. Thus the positivist could argue that his approach would work just as well in economics as it does in astronomy or meteorology.

Beyond some disproved uncontrolled experiment from 100+ years ago, what experiments have confirmed the flatness of Earth?

Have you looked at Youtube lately? They are reproducing the water convexity experiments.

Seriously, buy a freaking decent camera, a weather balloon, some helium, and some tracking equipment and SHOCK the world with your discovery. It can be done for a few grand. Stop prattling on like someone's kooky grandpa and finally put your money where your mouth is if this means so much to you. Crowd source it if you can't fund it. The flat Earth is there to be seen be anyone with a little initiative. I want to see a little sun and a little moon spinning around a flat plane. If you're really ambitious, how about a map so you don't get lost on road trips. LOL, this is such a joke.

You seem to be under the impression that the sun is in the atmosphere, or that the atmosphere extends to a very great height. That is incorrect.

Regardless, we do not discount any such experiments. They show that we are looking down at a circle.

[StinkyOne]

You found one guy. Good on you, Tom. You've completely changed my mind on the topic. LMAO....

The canal experiment was disproved and youtube videos can be faked. If you're not there verifying their setup, how can you possibly believe what you're seeing. Think for yourself, Tom.

No, they don't. There are plenty that show the edge of the Earth. Crisp and sharp. A FE would have a gradient fading to darkness. Where I live, evening lasts at least an hour. Sometimes more depending on the time of year.

[garygreen]

If you are trying to contradict Earth Not a Globe you need to read the source material to know what you need to contradict.

this cuts both ways.  you're right that a necessary component of any criticism is a demonstration that you fully understand the position you are criticizing; and, you consistently demonstrate that you do not understand what astronomer claim to know, how they claim to know it, and the assumptions they make in the process.  your descriptions are wildly inaccurate.

as an example, astronomers do not assume all stars are the same; they assume stars are made of atoms.  everything else follows from that.

[xenotolerance]

That wiki page is wrong in nearly everything it says

for one, the continents are not "tens of thousands of miles away horizontally," because the Earth is about ~8000 miles across

for two, the area lit by the sun is not a circle on any flat Earth model, so the wiki is here once more contradicting itself ... further, curvature appears even in high altitude photography taken at night, so the page's explanation fails twice.

e.g.

[Tom Bishop]

That wiki page is wrong in nearly everything it says

for one, the continents are not "tens of thousands of miles away horizontally," because the Earth is about ~8000 miles across for two, the area lit by the sun is not a circle on any flat Earth model, so the wiki is here once more contradicting itself ...

Where are you getting 8000 from? The Erathostenes experiment interpreted on a Flat Earth tells us that the earth has a diameter of about 25,000 miles.

further, curvature appears even in high altitude photography taken at night, so the page's explanation fails twice.

e.g.

High contrast light of the sun blends into the earth: https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1oZyNrUqyAfcY2EXYBXIaEyuZetCnbRCcQx0xZ7rYnp4/edit

[xenotolerance]

8000 miles is the Earth's diameter.

Also, throwing out some optics buzzwords does not prove your point at all. In fact, drawing some lines on there was extremely helpful. It shows the curvature goes the other way - if the circle of the sun's light was the source of curvature in high altitude photos, then the bright light should have a clear curve away from the sun, not concave into it like the video shows.

good job shooting yourself in the foot, again, for the hundredth time

[3DGeek]

Where are you getting 8000 from? The Erathostenes experiment interpreted on a Flat Earth tells us that the earth has a diameter of about 25,000 miles.

Ah, you're mistaken.  No it doesn't.

Eratosthenes (and you REALLY need to learn to spell his name properly - it's wrong in the Wiki too)  did an experiment which can have two possible conclusions.

EITHER:

1) The Earth is round and has a radius of around 3,500 to 4,000 miles - and the sun is very much further away than that - at least millions of miles.

...OR...

2) The Earth is flat, and the sun is 3,500 to 4,000 miles away.

But you don't get to use BOTH interpretations - pick one or the other.

Eratosthenes could only knew the radius of the earth because he assumed it to be round.   If you take away his round-earth assumption - and replace it with a flat-earth assumption - then he would have had no idea how big the Earth was.   How could he possibly have known?   Heck, even you Flat Earthers don't know.

In fact, there is a third possible interpretation that NOBODY likes:

3) That the Earth is round - but it's radius is larger than 4,000 miles - and the sun is not all that far away, but it's beyond 4,000 miles.

...this one sucks because you can't measure either the Earth's radius or the Sun's distance unless you assume that either one or the other is essentially infinite.

[Rushy]

8000 miles is the Earth's diameter.

This is assuming the Earth is round (and thus the diameter is of a spheroid). The actual diameter of the Earth's disc is 24,901 miles measured at the equator.

[Tom Bishop]

8000 miles is the Earth's diameter.

Well, there is your problem. You are assuming a RE. See Rushy's message above.

Also, throwing out some optics buzzwords does not prove your point at all. In fact, drawing some lines on there was extremely helpful. It shows the curvature goes the other way - if the circle of the sun's light was the source of curvature in high altitude photos, then the bright light should have a clear curve away from the sun, not concave into it like the video shows.

The foreground picture clearly shows the bright light of the sun blending into the earth to create an inconsistent horizon.

[Tom Bishop]

Eratosthenes (and you REALLY need to learn to spell his name properly - it's wrong in the Wiki too)

Are you claiming to be smarter than Encyclopedia Britannica?

Eratosthenes could only knew the radius of the earth because he assumed it to be round.   If you take away his round-earth assumption - and replace it with a flat-earth assumption - then he would have had no idea how big the Earth was.   How could he possibly have known?   Heck, even you Flat Earthers don't know.

No one said that he would have known. The example just shows that his work can be interpreted differently.

[xenotolerance]

To take a page from y'all... who measured that 25000 mile figure, exactly? Did Rowbotham sail from Antarctica to ... more of Antarctica ... with a tape measure? Was it Eratosthenes? No, see 3DGeek's post just now. You actually have no idea how big your flat Earth model is. Because you suck. And NASA rules. And once more, for the people in the back: the spheroidal diameter of the Earth is 8000 miles.



Also : the foreground picture clearly shows sunrise on a round planet. There isn't an inconsistent horizon at all. Some of it is bright, that's not 'inconsistent.' You're oblivious, openly lying, engaged in wishful thinking, and mayhaps too proud.

[xenotolerance]

Eratosthenes (and you REALLY need to learn to spell his name properly - it's wrong in the Wiki too)

Are you claiming to be smarter than Encyclopedia Britannica?

yo

3D and EB spell the Greek dude's name the same way. you spell it wrong. you linked EB and waved it around like it proves you're hot shit, but it's flashing a big arrow at you saying, this dude can't read

are you stupid?

[Tom Bishop]

Eratosthenes (and you REALLY need to learn to spell his name properly - it's wrong in the Wiki too)

Are you claiming to be smarter than Encyclopedia Britannica?

yo

3D and EB spell the Greek dude's name the same way. you spell it wrong. you linked EB and waved it around like it proves you're hot shit, but it's flashing a big arrow at you saying, this dude can't read

are you stupid?

It is spelled both ways:

Erathostenes

https://books.google.com/books?id=T1_oCAAAQBAJ&lpg=PA93&ots=M2lfUTnmkY&dq=%22Erathostenes%22&pg=PA93#v=onepage&q=%22Erathostenes%22&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=1dZQAAAAMAAJ&q=%22Erathostenes%22&dq=%22Erathostenes%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi6itKSoYjXAhXD7iYKHdmoCOUQ6AEISTAG

https://books.google.com/books?id=OxXwkbYucWwC&lpg=PA84&dq=%22Erathostenes%22&pg=PA84#v=onepage&q=%22Erathostenes%22&f=false

Eratosthenes

https://books.google.com/books?id=hWv-WUOHfSIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22Eratosthenes%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjQhYbQoYjXAhWFRyYKHWotB9sQ6AEILjAB#v=onepage&q=%22Eratosthenes%22&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=4Sp8CaA5HI0C&lpg=PP1&dq=%22Eratosthenes%22&pg=PA17#v=onepage&q=%22Eratosthenes%22&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=vCtYnEuW7TIC&lpg=PA19&dq=%22Eratosthenes%22&pg=PA19#v=onepage&q=%22Eratosthenes%22&f=false

[Rushy]

To take a page from y'all... who measured that 25000 mile figure, exactly? Did Rowbotham sail from Antarctica to ... more of Antarctica ... with a tape measure? Was it Eratosthenes? No, see 3DGeek's post just now. You actually have no idea how big your flat Earth model is. Because you suck. And NASA rules. And once more, for the people in the back: the spheroidal diameter of the Earth is 8000 miles.

It's the diameter of the Earth as measured on the equator, and it also happens to be exactly the same in both FET and RET. I also highly suggest not placing "you suck!" in your posts when you're unaware of what your own model states, much less what other models state.

[xenotolerance]

I'm happy for you that you managed to find a book that spells it your way. I think your action linking to Britannica speaks for itself. Regardless, it's spelled Eratosthenes. It's a translated name, so we understand some people are going to spell it one way or another, especially when referring to older sources, but there is still a most correct way to spell the name.

BACK ON TOPIC

Science rules, flat Earth drools. We've got people measuring gravitational waves, meanwhile Rushy thinks gravity isn't real, meanwhile PizzaPlanet thinks gravity is real from an infinite plane, meanwhile Junker thinks it's UA. Meanwhile, the Earth is round.

[xenotolerance]

you suck

...spheroidal diameter

It's the diameter of the Earth as measured on the equator, and it also happens to be exactly the same in both FET and RET. I also highly suggest not placing "you suck!" in your posts when you're unaware of what your own model states, much less what other models state.

Don't misquote me, I obviously did not use an exclamation point. That would be crass, and rude.

Also, I am clearly referring to the diameter within the sphere - the radius, as in distance from the center of the globe to its surface, times two. The circumference is the great circle distance around the outside. This is not the same thing as diameter. Here:

"The average diameter of the reference spheroid is 12,742 kilometres (7,918 mi)."

[garygreen]

https://mises.org/library/misess-non-trivial-insight

btw this article has a ton of super interesting shit to say, and one of them is right on point:

This stands in sharp contrast to the method of the positivists, a camp that includes most of today's practicing economists. In their opinion, economics can only be "scientific" if it adopts the procedures used by the natural scientists. Roughly, the positivists feel that economists should form hypotheses with testable implications, and then collect data to measure the accuracy of their predictions. Those tendencies that enjoy the most success in this sense are then deemed to be better "laws" than conjectures that do not fit the data so well.

laboratories are not required by the scientific method.

[Rama Set]

There is a chapter, Perspective on the Sea, which SPECIFICALLY says that the water convexity test does not work on the ocean (which includes the great lakes which are really inland seas) due to the waves and swells and tidal forces on those bodies of water.

So what?  There are books which SPECIFICALLY state that the Earth was created in six days.  Fortunately the truth does not depend on whether or not it is written down.

If you are trying to contradict Earth Not a Globe you need to read the source material to know what you need to contradict.

I have. Not only were you making an appeal to an authority, which is a nonsense argument, your authority's argument is nonsense.

They are assuming:

That all stars are the same

Incorrect.  They are not assuming, they actually observe the stars to be different.  It is these differences that has lead to modern theories of stellar bodies.

Astronomers assume that average stars represents a medium middle aged star and the differences seen in other stars tell us the age of the stars and their lifecycles.

Source? What does "average star" even mean in this context?  Considering your history I doubt you actually understand the topic, so I would appreciate some more substance.

That all galaxies are the same

Incorrect.  Galaxies are not assumed to be the same, Galaxies are observed to be different, which has lead to numerous different hypotheses on galactic formation and has shown that some scientific theories are incomplete because they cannot adequately explain their behavior.

Galaxies are assumed to be the same in that they all operate with the same mechanisms, rather than by entirely different mechanisms.

Yes one of the underpinnings of empirical thought is that the universe operates in intelligible ways. This is a necessary assumption to make an intelligible investigation of the universe.

That the stars and galaxies are far away

Because they are, as has been measured by multiple methods thousands, if not millions of times.  This is an empiric fact.

Who measured the distance to a galaxy? 

Astronomers, for hundreds of years. You didn't know this and yet you presume to comment on their work? 

That the galaxies are operating under the same physics as the physics on earth (see the galaxy spin problems)

The spin rates of galaxies are indeed unexplained.  It would be much stranger to assume that the laws of physics suddenly did not apply to galaxies spinning where they appear to everywhere else that to assume that there is a phenomena at work that we do not yet understand.

The laws of physics do not apply to the very small (see: Quantum Theory).  Assuming that the galaxies are extremely large, what reasoning is there that physics should scale infinitely upwards if it does not scale infinitely downwards?

This is wrong. The most accurate and robust scientific theories ever put together deal with Quantum Mechanics. What are you even talking about?

That stars undergo stellar fusion, despite that those chemical reactions have never been reproduced in a lab
etc.

Small but important fact: fusion is a nuclear reaction, not a chemical reaction.  That being said, stellar fusion reactions have been recreated in a laboratory.

http://news.sky.com/story/scientists-recreate-the-nuclear-fusion-reactions-found-inside-stars-10979047

Actually, despite the sensational headline of Sky News, if you read the article it does not describe that Stellar Fusion was achieved.

"Powerful lasers are used to create the high temperatures and pressures found inside stars 40 times more massive than the Sun."

"The experiments are the first thermonuclear measurements of nuclear reaction cross-sections — a quantity that describes the probability that reactants will undergo a fusion reaction — in high-energy-density plasma conditions that are equivalent to the burning cores of giant stars, i.e., 10-40 times more massive than the sun."

A nuclear reaction cross-section is a way of quantifying a nuclear reaction. Now I know you thought fusion was a chemical reaction, so I am glad we can clear this up. Fusion is a nuclear reaction that would be accurately described by a nuclear reaction cross-section. All nuclear reactions are probabilistic and what they did is recreate the environment of a stellar core where the probabilities of an individual particle undergoing fusion was the same as in their laboratory.

Astronomy is COMPLETELY hypothetical.

All experiments entail an observation, but an observation alone is not an experiment. An experiment involves experimenting with variables to produce an outcome, in order to determine a fundamental truth about the scenario you modified. Have you never done an experiment in elementary school?

Astronomers take many readings and establish a baseline amount of data noise.  What they are interested in is the variations from this baseline.  This is another way of constraining sources of experimental error.

Astronomers cannot put the universe under controlled conditions to come to the truth of a matter like a chemist can do with his subject matter. An Astronomer can only observe and interpret. That is not science. That does not follow the Scientific Method.

Saying again and again that your conceptualization of what an experiment is is the only possible interpretation is not making it any more convincing. Engage with the counter argument or concede. After all, geology, biology, medical science and many other sciences also do research that does not use laboratory controlled experiments. Face it, your way is not the only way.

[3DGeek]

Eratosthenes (and you REALLY need to learn to spell his name properly - it's wrong in the Wiki too)

Are you claiming to be smarter than Encyclopedia Britannica?

Eh?  The Britannica and I (and Wikipedia and Google and...) all agree that it's spelled "Eratosthenes"...you (and the Wiki) are the ones spelling it incorrectly.

Eratosthenes could only knew the radius of the earth because he assumed it to be round.   If you take away his round-earth assumption - and replace it with a flat-earth assumption - then he would have had no idea how big the Earth was.   How could he possibly have known?   Heck, even you Flat Earthers don't know.

No one said that he would have known. The example just shows that his work can be interpreted differently.

Yes, you can interpret his results differently - but when you do that, you can no longer claim (as you did, earlier) that his result tells you the size of the flat earth.  He did not and could not have done that if the Earth was flat.

His results tell you EITHER the distance to the Sun under a Flat Earth assumption OR the radius of the Earth under a Round Earth assumption.   If you assume a flat earth, you can't use his results (or any others that I'm aware of) to determine it's size.   In fact, you cannot possibly know the size of your flat earth...you don't have a workable map...so you can't use circumnavigation distances - you deny that we know the speeds of airliners and you claim that GPS is faked.   You have NO CLUE how far apart the continents are - or (in truth) how large they are.

So why did you claim to know the size of the Earth?   On what basis was this determined?

[markjo]

Astronomy is COMPLETELY hypothetical.

Incorrect.

All experiments entail an observation, but an observation alone is not an experiment. An experiment involves experimenting with variables to produce an outcome, in order to determine a fundamental truth about the scenario you modified. Have you never done an experiment in elementary school?

Astronomers take many readings and establish a baseline amount of data noise.  What they are interested in is the variations from this baseline.  This is another way of constraining sources of experimental error.

Astronomers cannot put the universe under controlled conditions to come to the truth of a matter like a chemist can do with his subject matter. An Astronomer can only observe and interpret. That is not science. That does not follow the Scientific Method.

Who put the Bedford Levels under controlled conditions during the water convexity experiments?  What controls were changed between observations?