7561

Flat Earth Community / Re: Scientists Make First Detection of Neutron Star Collision

« on: October 23, 2017, 11:20:51 PM »

Why do you PERSISTANTLY ignore all of the other tests that DIDN'T produce the same result - and the one test that actually proved the OPPOSITE result (the earth is concave).

Every disproof I have ever seen is a demonstration of the effect on the ocean. The experimenter is neglectful in his readings of Earth Not a Globe. 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.

The perspective lines merge at a finite distance and any little disturbance on the ocean surface near the horizon can cause even more distant bodies to be obscured; much like how a dime can obscure an elephant.

Every single time you mention it - you happily ignore about 80% of the evidence in favor of the one time the test actually worked.

I am not ignoring it. I am saying that it confirms our results. Please read Earth Not a Globe!

That's not science - that's "cherry picking your results".

Those results confirm what Samuel Birley Rowbotham determined over 150 years ago. So I would say that it is a win.

7562

Flat Earth Community / Re: Scientists Make First Detection of Neutron Star Collision

« on: October 23, 2017, 11:07:16 PM »

But how do we know the air was really air?   How do we know there wasn't marsh-gas floating on top?  How do we know there wasn't a gigantic downward wind blowing a hollow patch in the water?

Well firstly, the experiments were repeated with the same result, so that answers your assertion.

But more importantly it is possible for the water convexity experiment test to be controlled; as it is an experiment which takes place on earth at all points.

Astronomers looking at space phenomena is not controllable. The experimenter can only observe. He cannot experiment with variables of the scenario, make direct samples, or conduct tests elsewhere, to come to the truth of a matter. Astronomy is said to be an "observing science," which is really just an admission that it is not a science at all.

Sure - these are all stupid criticisms - but no worse than you transporting my thought experiment about water temperatures to an alien world so you could pour scorn on it.

Rowbotham did his experiment - and he made one TERRIBLE mistake.  He put his eyepoint really close to the water level - which maximised the humidity and temperature gradient and thereby created just enough refractive index change over that LONG distance to bend the light beam.

When the experiment was repeated with the eyepoint high enough above the water to eliminate that mistake - Rowbotham's effect vanished and the result was a clear demonstration of Earth curvature.

In Earth Not  a Globe Rowbotham calculates the maximum refractive index and shows that it is not enough to account for what was seen.

Since all of this takes place on earth it is possible for us to know and test the phenomena of refractive indexes. The earth is not alien and refractive tests can show the limits to how light can behave within the atmosphere. Rowbotham references his sources for his determination of maximum refractive index. This is one control that is applied.

Another control is the fact that these water convexity experiments were conducted in several different ways, my multiple observers, over a period of many years.

Your assertion that each of these repeated experiments are affected by a chance phenomena which makes the earth appear to be exactly flat, no more and no less, when it is really a globe, and this despite that known refraction cannot account for what is seen, is absurd.

7563

Flat Earth Community / Re: How Hard is it to Realize Earth is Round?

« on: October 23, 2017, 10:48:58 PM »

If you take a philosophy of pure empiricism you will find that the earth is flat and that it is the burden of the authority to conclusively prove its case.

Those of us who have assessed their evidence have found the evidence presented to be lacking and questionable, hence our existence.

7564

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is the flat earth position?

« on: October 19, 2017, 07:52:20 PM »

Does it give the right information for your location?

Maybe it does. I have not really checked.

Perfectly timed example Tom! You criticize the scientific method for trying to prove it's own hypothesis and hold your Zetetic method in high regard (which claims to evaluate EVERY POSSIBILITY to thus ensure that the TRUTH is found) and yet here you are offered something that may challenge your hypothesis and you avoid it! Same detail in another thread when they were asking you to do something with a piece of string to check the angles of the moon and you responded something akin to" why would I conduct your experiments?". Not the actions of a real truth seeker I think, more like someone who is exactly trying to prove only their own hypothesis and shying from any test that may challenge it!

He makes a fair point about it potentially being possible to predict sunrise/set times with pattern-based software. Looking at things here: http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/RS_OneYear.php they don't appear to vary too much for the same day year to year. I have a suspicion a pattern could be there, but have neither the time nor the tools to attempt to find out. I'm not sure the timing of sunrise/set are all that amazing of a proof for RE anyway without conclusive proof they're found using the movement of the planets. I personally feel it's been provided elsewhere, but that's neither here nor there. The fact it happens at all is far greater evidence against FE in my opinion. I do hope Tom can find the time to get back to the most recent perspective thread though. I'm so very curious about his reply.

Except I went through the documentation provided by the developer of SOFA and showed that there was zero evidence of this pattern-based stuff Tom made up. In fact, all of the relevant functions I looked at were using trig to calculate positions and times down to the microsecond. But hey, who needs facts on this board when we have Zetetecists and their thorough method? 

Oh I agree. As I said "...conclusive proof they're found using the movement of the planets. I personally feel it's been provided elsewhere..." It's just the information has relatively small variance, and I suspect it's POSSIBLE there could in fact be a pattern of some form to it. I just don't have the ability to go dredging through years worth of data points to try and see if there is one. That doesn't mean the suggestion that timeanddate.com (which as Tom mentioned DID refuse to give us what they use) could potentially be using it has no merit. Just that we have other sources that clearly show an equation based upon planetary motion and it's answers match all other sources we have that just give that info.

Sorry, this wasn't directed at you so much as I was using it as a jumping off point to remind Tom that I already showed him that it wasn't pattern based.

As I recall you were going to look further into the SOFA math and then disappeared from the thread.

7565

Flat Earth Community / Re: Scientists Make First Detection of Neutron Star Collision

« on: October 18, 2017, 10:24:35 PM »

Tom appears to worship at the temple of the Bedford Levels Experiment...er...Observation - blindly ignoring the total lack of controls done in that case.

This isn't just a double standard...this is a quadruple standard!

Everything is controllable, and had been controlled, about the water convexity experiments. The experiments were performed repeatedly under a variety of atmospheric conditions, modifications were made to put marker bodies along the light path to the end to see how they behave, and tools such as barometers have been used to assess pressure. More recent youtube water convexity experiments have involved lasers.

The water convexity scenario is controllable; whereas space is not controllable and must be guessed at.

7566

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is the flat earth position?

« on: October 18, 2017, 02:43:18 PM »

Does it give the right information for your location?

Maybe it does. I have not really checked. But the sun has made the same patterns across the sky for many years. Why do you think it is impossible to predict that pattern?

7567

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is the flat earth position?

« on: October 18, 2017, 01:55:35 PM »

My views of a bi-polar model may not be the majority, but they are not out of bounds. Both monopole and bi-polar models of the earth are represented in the historic Flat Earth Society Literature.

In fact, if you read the literature, after the South Pole was discovered in the early 1900's, the Society led by Lady Blount admitted that the monopole model was a mistake and the official Flat Earth model was updated to have two poles. Read their books and journals from around that time period.

The problem seems to be that people tend to stop reading after Earth Not a Globe and tend to see the Bi-Polar model as new and fringe, when it is actually rather old and from the time period when the society was a scientific research organization with a budget (mid 1800's - 1930's).

All this while we know the earth is round.

Did you check dateandtime.com?

Yes. We checked their website and even wrote to them and they refused to provide a source for their data or tell us anything about the model they are using, whether it was pattern or geometric-based, citing proprietary data.

7568

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is the flat earth position?

« on: October 18, 2017, 05:21:14 AM »

My views of a bi-polar model may not be the majority, but they are not out of bounds. Both monopole and bi-polar models of the earth are represented in the historic Flat Earth Society Literature.

In fact, if you read the literature, after the South Pole was discovered in the early 1900's, the Society led by Lady Blount admitted that the monopole model was a mistake and the official Flat Earth model was updated to have two poles. Read their books and journals from around that time period.

The problem seems to be that people tend to stop reading after Earth Not a Globe and tend to see the Bi-Polar model as new and fringe, when it is actually rather old and from the time period when the society was a scientific research organization with a budget (mid 1800's - 1930's).

7569

Flat Earth Community / Re: Scientists Make First Detection of Neutron Star Collision

« on: October 18, 2017, 12:28:25 AM »

I am not sure what sort of reaching metaphor you are trying to make.

I am referencing 3D's description of the experiment.

but there is nothing alien about light and gravity

Unless you can put all aspects of celestial phenomena under controlled conditions, observation alone does not cut it.

Astronomy does not follow the Scientific Method. Observe --> Interpret are the steps used in pseudosciences such as Astrology. It is not science.

7570

Flat Earth Community / Re: Scientists Make First Detection of Neutron Star Collision

« on: October 17, 2017, 11:50:20 PM »

So if, instead of boiling the water myself, I'd gone to some natural hot-springs and used my thermometer to measure the temperature of the boiling water that I found there - would Tom accuse me of "Junk science"?

Yes, that is junk science. There are no controls in that observation. If you walked around an alien planet and found something that looked like boiling water you do not know that it is boiling, and you do not know that it is water.

It is too bad you are having trouble reading because you literally just had some of the controls explained to you. If you need clarification, perhaps try asking a well-worded question.

Dipping four thermometers into the bubbling alien liquid does not constitute a controlled experiment.

7571

Flat Earth Community / Re: Scientists Make First Detection of Neutron Star Collision

« on: October 17, 2017, 10:42:50 PM »

So if, instead of boiling the water myself, I'd gone to some natural hot-springs and used my thermometer to measure the temperature of the boiling water that I found there - would Tom accuse me of "Junk science"?

Yes, that is junk science. There are no controls in that observation. If you walked around an alien planet and found something that looked like boiling water you do not know that it is boiling, and you do not know that it is water.

7572

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Relativity Model

« on: October 17, 2017, 04:35:41 AM »

The assumption that the Earth is round has existed for too long to be wrong with every single measurement since that proved to be successful.

Unfortunately this is incorrect.

7573

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The vanishing point

« on: October 17, 2017, 04:22:10 AM »

you have just stated that the earth literally raises. If the sun is 3000 miles high, how the heck do the photon leave at ground level? What is emitting them? Do you understand that you are saying that the sun is literally burning a hole in the ground?

EDIT: Btw, these two diagrams are mutually exclusive! In the top one the angle of the path is positive, with respect to the ground, and in the bottom one it's negative. It's a paradox!

EDIT2: if these are to scale, the tree in the top diagram is 3000 miles high

Perspective changes the orientation of bodies around you. Perspective has has oriented the man to be 90 degrees from zenith for the sun. A photon leaving the sun at 90 degrees is pointed at the man, and that is the straight line path it will take.

7574

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The vanishing point

« on: October 17, 2017, 04:14:41 AM »

Why does the sun appear the same size all through sunset/sunrise, even though perspective states it should be getting smaller/bigger if it is moving away?

For this query see the wiki article on that topic.

Viewed through a welder's mask or dark UV filter, the sun still remains the same size.

The explanation is describing a projection upon the atmosphere. A welder's mask would make as much difference as wearing sunglasses in a movie theater to block out the movie.

I showed you how the math allows your railroad tracks to meet using human perception limits (perspective) just up above. The math doesn't allow them to meet (as they don't)

Your math is just that -- math. Where in reality is there an example of perspective lines never touching each other for infinity?

You've also never shown anywhere that the model actually breaks down, only your repeated claims that it must because it 'doesn't represent reality'. But the reality you are referring to are conditions that you are claiming exist.

Your model must reflect things which occur in reality, not the mind of an ancient person who believed that perspective lines would approach each other for infinity. Where is the evidence that would happen?

IF the Earth is flat, the math is indeed wrong (and you now need to show where the math is measurably wrong using things that do not depend upon a flat Earth). If the math is correct, the Earth cannot be flat.

No. You need to show that the math is based on SOMETHING in reality. You must demonstrate reason for us to believe that the nature of perspective lines act in the ways you describe.

"Prove me wrong" is a terrible debating strategy. You are claiming that perspective lines will approach each other for infinity, and that is your claim to demonstrate in some way.

So you REQUIRE basic geometry to fall apart at some indeterminate distance.

That geometry for perspective lines and long distances has never been demonstrated to be based on anything in reality. It is your duty to provide evidence for it.

If no evidence can be provided, why should we assume it to be true?

7575

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The vanishing point

« on: October 16, 2017, 09:01:26 PM »

Why does the sun appear the same size all through sunset/sunrise, even though perspective states it should be getting smaller/bigger if it is moving away?

For this query see the wiki article on that topic.

7576

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The vanishing point

« on: October 16, 2017, 08:57:26 PM »

yo but land does not ascend to the horizon though

How did the lands get up to the horizon if they did not ascend to it with perspective?

homie the model he is using is YOUR MODEL! it is YOUR MODEL that is a series of questionable assumptions that have never been observed

3DGeek is using Ancient Greek math which theorizes under a continuous universe that it would be impossible for perspective lines to ever meet, which makes it impossible for railroad tracks or any other object to meet the horizon. Since bodies do meet the horizon, in REALITY, he must design his Flat Earth model around what is actually observed, not what was theorized thousands of years ago.

7577

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The vanishing point

« on: October 16, 2017, 08:30:24 PM »

Tom's language is too vague to interpret. Ask him to be specific. Tiny waves? How do you draw that? What are these tiny waves? Where do they come from?
Your point cannot be taken seriously until you validate it.

have a look at the various threads on perspective. He tends to disappear whenever the paradox in his views is pointed out.

Point is, the dimensions and angles involved are so big, that not even a tsunami could cause the sunset, unless it was already on your face.
The FE sun is ~20° above the horizon at sunset. Unless photons start behaving differently at a distance.

The sun can only get to ~20 degrees above the horizon if you use a model which does not accurately account for perspective. Under the model you are referencing the horizon could not exist at all. It would be impossible for anything to get to the horizon line. Railroad tracks could never get to the horizon. However, we know that railroad tracks and other bodies DO get to the horizon in reality. This means that your model, based on an Ancient Greek continuous universe theory, is wrong.

Perspective places the horizon line at eye level. Therefore any slight increase in altitude at the horizon can block out things beyond it, much like a dime can obscure an elephant. Take a dime and hold it at arms length in front of an elephant, and the elephant is obscured. This is how the horizon can obscure things.

What you're saying is only true in FET...and indeed, we RE'ers are saying that the horizon cannot exist in a flat earth.   So you are "assuming the consequent".

HOWEVER:  The photons that make up the light from the elephant travel in a straight line towards your eye and hit the dime instead.  This happens because there is a straight line between elephant, dime and eye.  Hence you cannot see the elephant.

But the sun, the horizon and your eye DON'T lie in a straight line...so sunrises and sunsets don't work in FET.

This is PRECISELY why I keep asking you to fulfil your offer to explain how the photons are travelling.   Nothing else makes for a clear explanation of what you THINK is going on here.   The fact that you have been ducking this explanation for over a month now (and 16 days after saying that you WOULD answer it) suggests that you don't have an answer.

Here is a helpful diagram.



Photons travelling in a straight line would take the blue path and miss the tree that's on the horizon.
Photons that WOULD hit the tree would have to take the pink path - but then they aren't travelling in a straight line but cleverly steering themselves to make it look like the sun is behind the tree.  Sadly, this isn't what happens because (we all know) light travels in a straight line.

The physics in your scene are entirely wrong. You are using a model in which it is impossible for a horizon to exist. It is impossible for railroad tracks to touch a horizon in that model. Railroad tracks touch the horizon at a finite distance away, not an infinite distance away.

The path the photons travel is STRAIGHT. The observer sees the sun at the horizon and, from the sun's perspective, the sun sees the observer at its horizon. Therefore the photons leave at a 90 degree angle from zenith and arrive at a 90 degree angle from zenith.



At sunset we see the sun at 90 degrees and the sun also sees us at 90 degrees. A laser pointer held by the observer or by the sun would be pointed at 90 degrees to hit the target.

The model you have provided is untested over long distances, makes several assumptions about perspective and infinity which have not been proven, and are contradictory to empirical reality. Your model of an infinite-distant and impossible-to-reach horizon is entirely theoretical and based on an ancient concept of a continuous universe. There is nothing to say that your model would hold up in reality.

Our experience is that the distance to the horizon is finite, that the perspective lines intersect a finite distance away. Rail road tracks travel a finite distance before meeting the horizon -- not an infinite distance as predicted by your model. Your Flat Earth model must follow reality; not make a series questionable assumptions about the nature of reality and perspective which have never been observed.

7578

Flat Earth Community / Re: Scientists Make First Detection of Neutron Star Collision

« on: October 16, 2017, 06:15:16 PM »

Astronomers merely observe and interpret. They do not conduct controlled experiments on the cosmos to come to the truth of a matter. Astronomy is not a real science. Astronomers are fake scientists. Astronomy does not even follow the Scientific Method. The Scientific Method instructs the investigator to conduct a controlled experiment before publishing conclusions. Astronomers are not putting the universe under controlled conditions and conducting experiments. Astronomy is no better than Astrology. Trash.

Your insane insistence that the Scientific Method requires controlled experiments is very tired as is your absurd comparison of astronomers to astrologers.  You simply do not have the knowledge of their methods or techniques necessary to level these criticisms. Please surprise everyone and stop wasting people's time with baseless objections.

Here is a refresher on the Scientific Method:



Now please tell me what experiments Stephen Hawking did on the universe before publishing his theories on the metric expansion of space.

7579

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The vanishing point

« on: October 16, 2017, 05:51:50 PM »

Tom's language is too vague to interpret. Ask him to be specific. Tiny waves? How do you draw that? What are these tiny waves? Where do they come from?
Your point cannot be taken seriously until you validate it.

have a look at the various threads on perspective. He tends to disappear whenever the paradox in his views is pointed out.

Point is, the dimensions and angles involved are so big, that not even a tsunami could cause the sunset, unless it was already on your face.
The FE sun is ~20° above the horizon at sunset. Unless photons start behaving differently at a distance.

The sun can only get to ~20 degrees above the horizon if you use a model which does not accurately account for perspective. Under the model you are referencing the horizon could not exist at all. It would be impossible for anything to get to the horizon line. Railroad tracks could never get to the horizon. However, we know that railroad tracks and other bodies DO get to the horizon in reality. This means that your model, based on an Ancient Greek continuous universe theory, is wrong.

Perspective places the horizon line at eye level. Therefore any slight increase in altitude at the horizon can block out things beyond it, much like a dime can obscure an elephant. Take a dime and hold it at arms length in front of an elephant, and the elephant is obscured. This is how the horizon can obscure things.

7580

Flat Earth Community / Re: Scientists Make First Detection of Neutron Star Collision

« on: October 16, 2017, 05:44:04 PM »

Astronomers merely observe and interpret. They do not conduct controlled experiments on the cosmos to come to the truth of a matter. Astronomy is not a real science. Astronomers are fake scientists. Astronomy does not even follow the Scientific Method. The Scientific Method instructs the investigator to conduct a controlled experiment before publishing conclusions. Astronomers are not putting the universe under controlled conditions and conducting experiments. Astronomy is no better than Astrology. Trash.