The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: devils advocate on September 22, 2017, 07:45:19 AM
-
Hi all
I was wondering if any scrutiny of the FE experiments had been done on here? My science is not up to it but I would love to hear the thoughts of you more scientifically equipped.
Specifically the Bishop experiment https://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence#The_Bishop_Experiment (https://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence#The_Bishop_Experiment)
-
Hi all
I was wondering if any scrutiny of the FE experiments had been done on here? My science is not up to it but I would love to hear the thoughts of you more scientifically equipped.
Specifically the Bishop experiment https://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence#The_Bishop_Experiment (https://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence#The_Bishop_Experiment)
Considering there is not a single picture to back it up... no, it's not valid.
-
Hi all
I was wondering if any scrutiny of the FE experiments had been done on here? My science is not up to it but I would love to hear the thoughts of you more scientifically equipped.
Specifically the Bishop experiment https://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence#The_Bishop_Experiment (https://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence#The_Bishop_Experiment)
Considering there is not a single picture to back it up... no, it's not valid.
Actually there's a handful of images around for it in one of the old threads. I recall reading it, don't remember the thread though unfortunately. I don't recall any consensus being reached as there was much argument/disagreement over what his height actually was compared to what he claimed it was.
-
Scientific validity requires repeatability. Despite repeated requests (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5431.msg112178#msg112178), Tom has never identified the specific beach from which he conducted the observations, so we cannot repeat it.
-
You have to realize what the great circle route is in the first place. Please look this up before posting something like this. The shortest route on a globe is a straight line if you can grasp this common concept. To debunk the Flat Earth theory, you can just use Sydney to Santiago, Chile, Quantas flight 27, 7000 miles. 12 hour flight. This flight would be impossible on the Flat Earth model, requiring the plane to travel at twice the speed of sound.
It's funny you can't post maps of the earth here so I'll give you the web address;
https://www.metabunk.org/flat-earth-theory-debunked-by-short-flights-qf27-qf28-from-australia-to-south-america.t6483/
This continuous claim without scientific backing gets old really fast. Why do you persist in this craziness. Don't put up YouTube videos that I can shoot holes through in the first 10 seconds. Don't give me any off the wall comments from someone who doesn't know what he/she is talking about. I was a reactor operator on a nuclear submarine in the United States Navy defending people like you who give no thought to those who would have died if you're supposed truth had been accurate. We would not have the air force, navy, marines, army or coast guard if what you believed was true because we could never sail around the world to get to the trouble spots that need us. Besides common sense what are you folks laking. Education or friends or both. I feel sorry for all of you. If you're here because you think it's just a joke, remember there are people who believe this and need someone with an education to dissuade these poor soles. If Shak believes the earth is flat he has just had the biggest joke pulled on him. I don't care what percent he shot. He is no better than those who perpetuate this lie.
-
You have to realize what the great circle route is in the first place. Please look this up before posting something like this. The shortest route on a globe is a straight line if you can grasp this common concept. To debunk the Flat Earth theory, you can just use Sydney to Santiago, Chile, Quantas flight 27, 7000 miles. 12 hour flight. This flight would be impossible on the Flat Earth model, requiring the plane to travel at twice the speed of sound.
It's funny you can't post maps of the earth here so I'll give you the web address;
https://www.metabunk.org/flat-earth-theory-debunked-by-short-flights-qf27-qf28-from-australia-to-south-america.t6483/
This continuous claim without scientific backing gets old really fast. Why do you persist in this craziness. Don't put up YouTube videos that I can shoot holes through in the first 10 seconds. Don't give me any off the wall comments from someone who doesn't know what he/she is talking about. I was a reactor operator on a nuclear submarine in the United States Navy defending people like you who give no thought to those who would have died if you're supposed truth had been accurate. We would not have the air force, navy, marines, army or coast guard if what you believed was true because we could never sail around the world to get to the trouble spots that need us. Besides common sense what are you folks laking. Education or friends or both. I feel sorry for all of you. If you're here because you think it's just a joke, remember there are people who believe this and need someone with an education to dissuade these poor soles. If Shak believes the earth is flat he has just had the biggest joke pulled on him. I don't care what percent he shot. He is no better than those who perpetuate this lie.
UzZIBIKeR:
What the hell are you jabbering on about??? I asked a question because I don't know the answer so how would I know to look up the great circle route?? Thats the point of Forums and Questions.....I could draw you a diagram if you would lend me your crayons.
And as for "why do you persist in this craziness"? What craziness am I persisting in?
I get that you were the big man in the Navy but you did nothing to protect me, I'm not American, and in my country the Army are where the tough guys work not the navy-See the video for the song "In the Navy" and you'll get the idea....
You tube vids-I have never posted any.
By the way, your "proof" of flight times etc would get shot down the FE on here as they don't believe in the distances you quoted so I suggest it is you big man who needs to research before posting......(Note my use of the word "they".......)
Now get back to on your Sub and sink.........
-
Hi all
I was wondering if any scrutiny of the FE experiments had been done on here? My science is not up to it but I would love to hear the thoughts of you more scientifically equipped.
Specifically the Bishop experiment https://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence#The_Bishop_Experiment (https://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence#The_Bishop_Experiment)
Considering there is not a single picture to back it up... no, it's not valid.
Actually there's a handful of images around for it in one of the old threads. I recall reading it, don't remember the thread though unfortunately. I don't recall any consensus being reached as there was much argument/disagreement over what his height actually was compared to what he claimed it was.
It should be pretty easy to set up on a tripod where you could see the beach right in front of you and then take a series of zoomed shots all the way to the magic beach on the other side. Perspective would make it easy to spot a fake.
-
Just anecdotally, I have found that Brighton Beach in NYC (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Coney+Island+Beach+%26+Boardwalk/@40.5061831,-74.1093779,11z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x89c244359eeaa7af:0xac009374f15c26f4!8m2!3d40.5727715!4d-73.9785057) is a good place to test visibility over bodies of water. There are lots of ships and distant landmasses to be seen or not seen.
This is a picture from Sandy Hook looking towards Brighton Beach:
(http://i.imgur.com/jVBHTmH.jpg)
They're 7-8 miles apart, a distance with a curvature of about 40 feet. It's consistent imo: You can't see the beach or the people on it, even with refraction, but you can see the beachfront apartment buildings and most of the famous Parachute Jump tower, which is 250 feet tall.
-
Scientific validity requires repeatability. Despite repeated requests (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5431.msg112178#msg112178), Tom has never identified the specific beach from which he conducted the observations, so we cannot repeat it.
I managed to get "500x" out of him regarding the specs of the telescope.
-
i've always felt that the problem is that a five or ten mile stretch of land actually is very flat.
8 inches per mile is a gradient of 0.01%. of course the earth looks pretty flat over a ten mile stretch. it basically is.
-
Cheers folks, so the 8 inches per mile is agreed upon?
-
8"/miles2.
-
Cheers folks, so the 8 inches per mile is agreed upon?
No - it most certainly is not! It is complete and utter bullshit.
8 inches per mile SQUARED is the rule used by some FE'ers in an effort to disprove the RET...and it exhibits their usual pathetic knowledge of math and geometry (Yes, we're talking about YOU Rowbotham!).
As any kid who is doing high school math should know: An equation of the form "Y equals a constant times X-squared" is a parabola - not a circle.
As far as I can tell, this was a rough rule-of-thumb given to naval artillery officers during the Napoleonic wars...it's sufficiently accurate over the range of a smooth-bore cannon to be useful...but not so much anyplace else.
So do feel free to ignore/debunk any and all claims that people make using this ridiculous piece of arithmetic.
-
Here's the graph:
(https://s26.postimg.org/6adby0mmh/Earthgraph.png)
-
Here's the graph:
(https://s26.postimg.org/6adby0mmh/Earthgraph.png)
You conveniently ended the graph before it became obvious that it's not a circle! Very clever of you!
Let's see the plot from -8,000 to +8,000. Thanks!
-
Here's the graph:
(https://s26.postimg.org/6adby0mmh/Earthgraph.png)
You conveniently ended the graph before it became obvious that it's not a circle! Very clever of you!
Let's see the plot from -8,000 to +8,000. Thanks!
The earth isn't 16000 Miles across so how would that be relevant?
-
8" per mile^2 is a fine approximation for such a short distance.
-
Here's the graph:
(https://s26.postimg.org/6adby0mmh/Earthgraph.png)
You conveniently ended the graph before it became obvious that it's not a circle! Very clever of you!
Let's see the plot from -8,000 to +8,000. Thanks!
The earth isn't 16000 Miles across so how would that be relevant?
I just wondered what you thought would happen compared to what actually happens...but plot it from -3,959 to +3,959 if it helps you somehow.
-
Here...let me save you some time...
(https://renaissanceinnovations.com/EightInchesPerMileSquared.png)
The green circle is the correct result...your "eight inches per mile squared" is in red - both axes are in miles.
Like I said, it's the WRONG equation. Kinda-sorta-maybe-vaguely-right for VERY short distances...but not definitive.
The error doesn't look much on this graph - but bear in mind - the vertical scale is 500 *miles* to each grid square - and we're arguing about 10's of feet.
It's typical of an FE'er to CAREFULLY trim the graph so that his horrible error is just off the edges - and to hope that the rest of us are too stupid not to know the correct answer. Honestly...you must have peeked another 1000 miles off the the side...seen your problem...hoped none of us would call you on it.
Well, guess what Boots? We're not as dumb as you think we are!
-
i'll save you both some time. it doesn't make any difference at the lengths you're talking about. no one is doing any bedford-style experiments over 100+ mile distances. visibility affects your measurements long before the errors accumulate.
-
Scientific validity requires repeatability. Despite repeated requests (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5431.msg112178#msg112178), Tom has never identified the specific beach from which he conducted the observations, so we cannot repeat it.
I managed to get "500x" out of him regarding the specs of the telescope.
This tells me he was using a department store telescope. To get true 500x magnification, he would have to be using a scope with ~10" aperture to get a clear picture.
-
i'll save you both some time. it doesn't make any difference at the lengths you're talking about. no one is doing any bedford-style experiments over 100+ mile distances. visibility affects your measurements long before the errors accumulate.
How about just use the right equation?
-
Here...let me save you some time...
(https://renaissanceinnovations.com/EightInchesPerMileSquared.png)
The green circle is the correct result...your "eight inches per mile squared" is in red - both axes are in miles.
Like I said, it's the WRONG equation. Kinda-sorta-maybe-vaguely-right for VERY short distances...but not definitive.
The error doesn't look much on this graph - but bear in mind - the vertical scale is 500 *miles* to each grid square - and we're arguing about 10's of feet.
It's typical of an FE'er to CAREFULLY trim the graph so that his horrible error is just off the edges - and to hope that the rest of us are too stupid not to know the correct answer. Honestly...you must have peeked another 1000 miles off the the side...seen your problem...hoped none of us would call you on it.
Well, guess what Boots? We're not as dumb as you think we are!
Thank you 3D, I thought you'd be the one to make it make sense :-) so basically Tom has fudged his figures (again) and his experiment proves only his lack of knowledge......Come on Tom Bishop, this one's got your name on it!.....
-
Here...let me save you some time...
(https://renaissanceinnovations.com/EightInchesPerMileSquared.png)
The green circle is the correct result...your "eight inches per mile squared" is in red - both axes are in miles.
Like I said, it's the WRONG equation. Kinda-sorta-maybe-vaguely-right for VERY short distances...but not definitive.
The error doesn't look much on this graph - but bear in mind - the vertical scale is 500 *miles* to each grid square - and we're arguing about 10's of feet.
It's typical of an FE'er to CAREFULLY trim the graph so that his horrible error is just off the edges - and to hope that the rest of us are too stupid not to know the correct answer. Honestly...you must have peeked another 1000 miles off the the side...seen your problem...hoped none of us would call you on it.
Well, guess what Boots? We're not as dumb as you think we are!
Thank you 3D, I thought you'd be the one to make it make sense :-) so basically Tom has fudged his figures (again) and his experiment proves only his lack of knowledge......Come on Tom Bishop, this one's got your name on it!.....
I've seen this 8 inches per mile-squared number before - not even in relation to Flat Earthism - it was mentioned in a research paper on flight simulation a decade or so ago. I was doing a peer review on it and had to insist that the equation be fixed for publication.
I knew it had to be inaccurate over longer distances - so I researched where it comes from.
It was actually published in a Napoleonic Wars era manual for British naval artillery battery commanders. Since their weapons only ranged out to 3,200 meters (about 2 miles) - the rule implies an impact point 32" *above* what you'd expect due to Earth curvature - but its hard to see why this rule-of-thumb was even important compared to the 'fall of shot' due to gravity. But that's the first reference to this approximation I could find.
-
I haven't dug into the math behind it, but there is a calculator online at https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc (https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc)
It's open source, so anyone can review it.
Just doing a couple of test calculations on it, it does give the results that match the 8 inches/mile2.
But I see a very basic thing that people quoting the 8 inch do wrong. They don't understand that there are two inputs to the equation. The distance of course, but also the the viewing height. They imagine standing on the beach and looking at something ten miles away. 10 miles squared * 8 inches = 66.6867 feet obscured. But by doing the calculation that way, they have implicitly set the viewing height to zero.
Say you're standing on a parking lot at the beach, maybe your eye level is 15 feet above Earth/sea level. The same calculation then results in 18.4317 feet obscured. A significant difference.
-
i'll save you both some time. it doesn't make any difference at the lengths you're talking about. no one is doing any bedford-style experiments over 100+ mile distances. visibility affects your measurements long before the errors accumulate.
How about just use the right equation?
lol how about learn2backoftheenvelope. the answer is the same at the distances we're talking about, and i can't do sqrt(3959^2 + 6^2) - 3959 in my head.
also sigfigs are going to cut off your errors anyway. first order approximations are 🔥🔥🔥💯😂👍👍👌👌👍💯💯🔥💯 bro.
-
Scientific validity requires repeatability. Despite repeated requests (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5431.msg112178#msg112178), Tom has never identified the specific beach from which he conducted the observations, so we cannot repeat it.
I managed to get "500x" out of him regarding the specs of the telescope.
This tells me he was using a department store telescope. To get true 500x magnification, he would have to be using a scope with ~10" aperture to get a clear picture.
Yeah, that's a pretty big telescope. I did the calculation for my reflector, and if I get a 2xbarlow, I can get 480x I think. It's a Meade 4501, 4 or 4.5" mirror. I'll have to double check all that.
-
Here...let me save you some time...
(https://renaissanceinnovations.com/EightInchesPerMileSquared.png)
The green circle is the correct result...your "eight inches per mile squared" is in red - both axes are in miles.
Like I said, it's the WRONG equation. Kinda-sorta-maybe-vaguely-right for VERY short distances...but not definitive.
The error doesn't look much on this graph - but bear in mind - the vertical scale is 500 *miles* to each grid square - and we're arguing about 10's of feet.
It's typical of an FE'er to CAREFULLY trim the graph so that his horrible error is just off the edges - and to hope that the rest of us are too stupid not to know the correct answer. Honestly...you must have peeked another 1000 miles off the the side...seen your problem...hoped none of us would call you on it.
Well, guess what Boots? We're not as dumb as you think we are!
I'm not sure what you're on about. Of course it's a quadratic equation and will graph as a parabola. And of course it gets less and less accurate as the distance increases. I have never thought otherwise or tried to convince anyone otherwise. But it's a fine approximation over short distances. What are you all in a wad about? I bet you think I'm an FEer too. Maybe that's what's got you all riled up. I suggest you calm down. Life's not as serious as you think it is!
-
I haven't dug into the math behind it, but there is a calculator online at https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc (https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc)
It's open source, so anyone can review it.
Just doing a couple of test calculations on it, it does give the results that match the 8 inches/mile2.
But I see a very basic thing that people quoting the 8 inch do wrong. They don't understand that there are two inputs to the equation. The distance of course, but also the the viewing height. They imagine standing on the beach and looking at something ten miles away. 10 miles squared * 8 inches = 66.6867 feet obscured. But by doing the calculation that way, they have implicitly set the viewing height to zero.
Say you're standing on a parking lot at the beach, maybe your eye level is 15 feet above Earth/sea level. The same calculation then results in 18.4317 feet obscured. A significant difference.
Yes - we were having a hard time convincing Tom of this in a couple of other threads too.
The answer (using the CORRECT equation) is extremely sensitive to eye height over the first 100 or so feet.
So when people on either side of the fence say "I just took this photo of the far shore of a lake/bay and you can see XYZ" - then unless the eye height above the water is known very exactly, the result tells you almost nothing - and the whole "eight inches per mile-squared" thing is junk...it's not even approximately right unless eye height is zero. We'd know if your eye height was exactly zero because half of the camera lens would be underwater...and that close to the ground/ocean, even an inch of error makes a massive difference.
Worse still, people use even the "correct" equation incorrectly by discussing distant objects that are above ground level - and that adds a THIRD input - and yet a different equation again.
What convinces Tom that the Earth is flat is that he's taking a photo from the lake-shore 10' to 15' above sea level - and looking at some target that's probably 50' above sea level.
Add in the effects of grazing angle refraction with temperature and humidity "inversion" layers, tides and waves (all of which are critical because even a foot of difference matters) and you have results that are going to be junk 99% of the time.
This is why I don't use view-over-water experiments to debunk (or prove) FET. The math is *SO* sensitive to the smallest error that it's impossible to verify anyone's results.
Just look at the mess that was the Bedford Level Experiment and the efforts to reproduce its' results...two said "Flat", three or four said "Spherical" and one person said "Concave".
To some extent, the fault here lies with naive Round Earthers who repeatedly say: "Look how ship hulls disappear over the horizon!" - thereby enabling Flat Earthers to convince themselves that they are right all over again.
It's much better to call this one an inconclusive result and talk about sunsets instead.