9081

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Membership

« on: May 20, 2015, 09:02:28 PM »

Are there any objections to a kickstarter-type method of membership packages?

9082

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Strange article: The Bedford Canal experiment

« on: May 19, 2015, 10:34:32 PM »

Besides, what are the chances of a mirage projecting the image of a shoreline to the exact distance into the air, no higher or lower so that it is not sunken or floating, whereby it looks to a distant observer that the earth is flat, and this happens every time the experiment is performed, and that this effect adjusts itself accounting for the observer's distance from the shore in accordance to round earth curvature?

Since there is no documentation available for every instance that this experiment was performed, it's impossible to say.  In fact, we have no documentation saying that the same results occurred every time this experiment was performed.

Samuel Birley Rowbotham performed the experiment over many years. A replication of the experiment was published by The English Mechanic. Lady Blount spent significant time peer reviewing the Earth Not a Globe Experiments in Earth Not a Globe Review. The effect is reported in Zetetic Cosmogony by Thomas Winship. Samuel Shenton and Charkes K Johnson reported the effect. Even Daniel on the .org forum reported the effect.

Tom, you say that there was no observable bending of light over a 6 mile distance, yet in another thread you would have us believe that there is a significant bending of light from the sun that accounts for sunrises and sunsets.  It's a real shame that there is no workable formula to describe this conveniently conditional bending of light that you like to go on about.

6 miles is quite a different number than 3000 miles.

9083

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Strange article: The Bedford Canal experiment

« on: May 19, 2015, 03:21:59 PM »

What about atmospheric conditions inbetween the two points of measurement? What about mirages?

If the atmosphere only differed in the middle of the lake to cause light to curve upwards the photons from the opposite shoreline would cross the lake towards the observer and be curved upwards into the air and lost. All light would curve upwards in the middle of the lake and the observer would be seeing the lake's surface suspended in the air instead of the opposite shoreline that was seen in the experiment.

Can you specify a mathematical formula describing refraction of light in air?

The values for refraction are given in Experiment 9:

"The only modification which can be made in the above calculations is the allowance for refraction, which is generally considered by surveyors to amount to one-twelfth the altitude of the object observed. If we make this allowance, it will reduce the various quotients so little that the whole will be substantially the same."

Also, I have not heard a rebuttal for this comment:

Besides, what are the chances of a mirage projecting the image of a shoreline to the exact distance into the air, no higher or lower so that it is not sunken or floating, whereby it looks to a distant observer that the earth is flat, and this happens every time the experiment is performed, and that this effect adjusts itself accounting for the observer's distance from the shore in accordance to round earth curvature?

9084

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Strange article: The Bedford Canal experiment

« on: May 19, 2015, 02:22:33 PM »

What about mirages you can see on hot days on a street or road? Isn't that the effect of light bending traveling through air with considerable temperature differences?

Experiments to test the temperature, humidity, pressure, and altitude was done at the two locations in the experiment and were found to be nearly identical.

Besides, what are the chances of a mirage projecting the image of a shoreline to the exact distance into the air, no higher or lower so that it is not sunken or floating, whereby it looks to a distant observer that the earth is flat, and this happens every time the experiment is performed, and that this effect adjusts itself accounting for the observer's distance from the shore in accordance to round earth curvature?

9085

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Strange article: The Bedford Canal experiment

« on: May 19, 2015, 02:11:27 PM »

No significant bending of light, or of the earth, was observed at that distance.

9086

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Strange article: The Bedford Canal experiment

« on: May 19, 2015, 01:32:21 PM »

In Earth Not a Globe the author Samul Birley Rowbotham takes terrestrial refraction into account in his experiments. See Experiment 9, for instance:

...

The only modification which can be made in the above calculations is the allowance for refraction, which is generally considered by surveyors to amount to one-twelfth the altitude. of the object observed. If we make this allowance, it will reduce the various quotients so little that the whole will be substantially the same. Take the last case as an instance. The altitude of the light on Cape Bonavista, Newfoundland, is 150 feet, which, divided by 12, gives 13 feet as the amount to be deducted from 491 feet, making instead 478 feet, as the degree of declination.

Many have urged that refraction would account for much of the elevation of objects seen at the distance of several miles. Indeed, attempts have been made to show that the large flag at the end of six miles of the Bedford Canal (Experiment 1, fig. 2, p. 13) has been brought into the line of sight entirely by refraction. That the line of sight was not a right line, but curved over the convex surface of the water; and the well-known appearance of an object in a basin of water, has been referred to in illustration. A very little reflection, however, will show that the cases are not parallel; for instance, if the object (a shilling or other coin) is placed in a basin without water there is no refraction. Being surrounded with atmospheric air only, and the observer being in the same medium, there is no bending or refraction of the eye line. Nor would there be any refraction if the object and the observer were both surrounded with water. Refraction can only exist when the medium surrounding the observer is different to that in which the object is placed. As long as the shilling in the basin is surrounded with air, and the observer is in the same air, there is no refraction; but whilst the observer remains in the air, and the shilling is placed in water, refraction exists. This illustration does not apply to the experiments made on the Bedford Canal, because the flag and the boats were in the same medium as the observer--both were in the air. To make the cases parallel, the flag or the boat should have been in the water, and the observer in the air; as it was not so, the illustration fails. There is no doubt, however, that it is possible for the atmosphere to have different temperature and density at two stations six miles apart; and some degree of refraction would thence result; but on several occasions the following steps were taken to ascertain whether any such differences existed. Two barometers, two thermometers, and two hygrometers, were obtained, each two being of the same make, and reading exactly alike. On a given day, at twelve o'clock, all the instruments were carefully examined, and both of each kind were found to stand at the same point or figure: the two, barometers showed the same density; the two thermometers the same temperature; and the two hygrometers the same degree of moisture in the air. One of each kind was then taken to the opposite station, and at three o'clock each instrument was carefully examined, and the readings recorded, and the observation to the flag, &c., then immediately taken. In a short time afterwards the two sets of observers met each other about midway on the northern bank of the canal, when the notes were compared, and found to be precisely alike--the temperature, density, and moisture of the air did not differ at the two stations at the time the experiment with the telescope and flag-staff was made. Hence it was concluded that refraction had not played any part in the observation, and could not be allowed for, nor permitted to influence, in any way whatever, the general result.

In may, the author delivered a course of lectures in the Mechanics' Institute, and afterwards at the Rotunda, in Dublin, when great interest was manifested by large audiences; and he was challenged to a repetition of some of his experiments--to be carried out in the neighbourhood. Among others, the following was made, across the Bay of Dublin. On the pier, at Kingstown Harbour, a good theodolite was fixed, at a given altitude, and directed to a flag which, earlier in the day, had been fixed at the base of the Hill of Howth, on the northern side of the bay. An observation was made at a given hour, and arrangements had been made for thermometers, barometers, and hygrometers--two of each--which had been previously compared, to be read simultaneously, one at each station. On the persons in charge of the instruments afterwards meeting, and comparing notes, it was found that the temperature, pressure, and moisture of the air had been alike at the two points, at the time the observation was made from Kingstown Pier. It had also been found by the observers that the point observed on the Hill of Howth had precisely the same altitude as that of the theodolite on the pier, and that, therefore, there was no curvature or convexity in the water across Dublin Bay. It was, of course, inadmissible that the similarity of altitude at the two places was the result of refraction, because there was no difference in the condition of the atmosphere at the moment of observation.

9087

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The results of my experiment to prove the shape of the Earth

« on: May 18, 2015, 06:29:53 PM »

I believe that under the Electromagnetic Accelerator theory, in which light is universally bending upwards, the effect would have a side effect of the sun shining its same face over the entirety of the earth's surface. Extreme angles of the sun would be bent away from the observer and never seen.

9088

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Size of the Inner Hemiplane

« on: May 18, 2015, 12:59:17 AM »

But we don't deny what angles the shadows will measure to, we dispute what they mean.

9089

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Size of the Inner Hemiplane

« on: May 17, 2015, 11:42:07 PM »

Well, let's do the math for a flat earth and a spherical earth and see which angles we get? Wouldn't that say something towards determining which is correct?

If the sun is 150,000 or 150,000,000 km away we should be able to tell by the angles of shadows. No?

Under a flat earth model the Eratosthenes shadow experiment predicts a sun that is much closer to the earth.

See our article in our wiki on this subject: http://wiki.tfes.org/Distance_to_the_Sun

9090

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Size of the Inner Hemiplane

« on: May 17, 2015, 11:06:11 PM »

Think about it. The stick-shadow experiment will only tell you about the circumference of a round earth if it is assumed the earth is a sphere. If it is assumed that the earth is flat the shadow experiment tells you about the area of land the light of the sun affects on a flat earth. We use that shadow experiment to get our diameter.

9091

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What keeps the sun & moon from falling?

« on: May 17, 2015, 06:08:20 PM »

Unknown.

9092

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Membership

« on: May 14, 2015, 08:54:01 PM »

What CMS system is the front page of the site using? Maybe we can find a wordpress plugin for it for membership signups.

9093

Technology & Information / Re: cool fun programming stuff

« on: May 09, 2015, 04:28:02 PM »

Okay, so I downloaded vpython for win32, and pasted the code into the vpython editor, but can't seem to run it. I selected my base python 27 wpython.exe when the program ran. This is what happens when I press F5:

9094

Technology & Information / Re: cool fun programming stuff

« on: May 09, 2015, 04:06:13 PM »

How do we get the visual module?

PS C:\Users\tbishop\python> python .\spoon.py
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File ".\spoon.py", line 2, in <module>
    from visual import *
ImportError: No module named visual
PS C:\Users\tbishop\python>

9095

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Membership

« on: April 29, 2015, 09:59:10 PM »

I know this is quite obviously not my area of expertise, but perhaps the person who donates more gets higher on this list? I mean, if someone pays $150 to say "you suck", would you care too much?

I see where you're coming from, but I'd be against that. We're not for profit, and I'd hate to be pressuring people to give more

Perhaps we could offer a free membership level, and then offer some membership packages with an increasing amount of swag and perks at higher price points with some built-in profit. It could be like a kickstarter.

What would we do with the money?

It likely won't be a lot of money. We can use it to fund equipment costs for any telescope, laser or high altitude air balloon experiments we want to try through the year. Maybe we can print and pass out educational materials about the flat earth to school children, inciting the media to do a news story over the controversy. There are a lot of things we can do if we had a small equipment and materials income.

9096

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Membership

« on: April 29, 2015, 08:26:52 PM »

I know this is quite obviously not my area of expertise, but perhaps the person who donates more gets higher on this list? I mean, if someone pays $150 to say "you suck", would you care too much?

I see where you're coming from, but I'd be against that. We're not for profit, and I'd hate to be pressuring people to give more

Perhaps we could offer a free membership level, and then offer some membership packages with an increasing amount of swag and perks at higher price points with some built-in profit. It could be like a kickstarter.

9097

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Membership

« on: April 28, 2015, 08:09:15 PM »

Do we have to have names at all. Can't we have '3402 members and counting'? If we allow people to put in names of any sort we are going to end up with "you are all idiots" and "It's flat morans" etc.

the national trust have members but I can't view their membership list.
https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/membership/

Just because Daniel made a list, doesn't mean we have to follow suit by making ours publically available. Let's just fill membership with as many free perks as possible so you feel like a member. I think that should include a quarterly newsletter/eshot every now and again, but of course it does mean someone has to write one. Could be an issue but would remind people to come back and visit us.

After some thought, I agree. We don't need a list. We can just have a count for now.

9098

Flat Earth Theory / Re: are the sun and moon the same size?

« on: April 25, 2015, 02:44:49 PM »

My point addressed the question of how two things can be the same size. Is there a rebuttal?

No, not really.  You said something about sand dunes reaching some maximum size determined by the wind.  What about all of the smaller sand dunes?

The smaller sand dunes come in various smaller sizes, just like the planets and celestial bodies come in.

How are sand dunes like the sun and moon?

My example illustrates a simple physical process that can result in entities ending up the same maximum size. Some examples from the previous thread on this topic:

Air-borne particles. Particulate matter floating in the air can only get so massive before it falls to the ground. The particulate matter in the air can be composed of a vast array of different materials, but only the particulate matter of a certain mass and size can stay airborne. Therefore the largest particulate matter which is airborne for a long period of time is of similar mass and size.

Rain drops. When drops are formed, they can only become so small else they are whisked and flitted away away into the air and evaporate. They can also only get so large before they break up into multiple drops by air friction. Therefore we have rain drops which can only exist in a narrow size range. The largest of the raindrops are all the same size and the smallest of the rain drops are all the same size.

Examples of forces in nature which compel bodies to be of similar sizes are seen all around us in nature, and is no coincidence.

What has yet to be explained, however, is the incredible coincidence where the sun and moon under RET have a difference in size by over four million times yet appear to be the same size in the sky. 

9099

Flat Earth Theory / Re: are the sun and moon the same size?

« on: April 25, 2015, 02:12:45 AM »

Is it a coincidence that the biggest sand dunes on the monterey bay are about the same size, just below which can be sustained in the winds in that area?

The real coincidence is how the sun and the moon appear the be the same size in the sky, 0.5 degrees, despite the sun being 400 times as far and millions of times larger.

The OP is asking about the sizes of the FET sun and moon.  The RET sun and moon are irrelevant and off topic.

The FET sun and moon was addressed with my first sentence, of which I have yet to hear a reply.

Are the sun and moon sand dunes on your FE model? 

My point addressed the question of how two things can be the same size. Is there a rebuttal?

9100

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Membership

« on: April 24, 2015, 08:56:01 PM »

We can do a zero cost membership with an option to get the physical products mailed for a fee. I dont see any problem with that.

For the public roster, users should at least have to make their user name public. I don't like the long list of 'Anonymous' members on the other site. Can we compromise on public user names?