The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: dichotomy on September 05, 2019, 05:06:11 PM

Title: Modern experiments
Post by: dichotomy on September 05, 2019, 05:06:11 PM
Looking through the Wiki, all the entries under Flat Earth Literature/Physical evidence seem to be quite old and historical. So I was wondering whether have been any more recent (mid to late 20th century at least) accounts or experiments that indicate compelling evidence for a flat Earth.
Title: Re: Modern experiments
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 05, 2019, 05:27:28 PM
This seems like a strange question - do "old" experiments have an expiry date in your mind?

But, to answer your question more directly: the Bishop Experiment is rather recent, and easily reproducible.
Title: Re: Modern experiments
Post by: dichotomy on September 05, 2019, 07:42:35 PM
I'm sorry if you think that what I asked was strange. What I meant simply is that most of the observations/experiments that are listed under the Literature and Physical Evidence sections of the Wiki don't seem to take into account the many improvements and refinements that have occurred in science and technology during the last 50 years or so.

I cannot find any refrences online to The Bishop Experiment outside of flat Earth websites. There must be a reason for that.  While I'm sure it can be reproduced easily, it doesn't in any way provide any compelling evidence that that the Earth is flat, any more than the Bedford Level Experiment does. You can do many experiments as often as you like and massage the results of those experiments to suit your preferred outcome.  The atmosphere is a source of many potential errors with any experiment that uses light above the surface of the Earth. Variations in air temperature, pressure, density and stability can have dramatic effects on how far (or not) you can see across land.  So having a direct view of another landmark which is tens or in some cases a hundred or more miles away does not provide evidence that the Earths surface itself is flat.

If the Bedford experiment could be repeated on the Moon, in an airless environment what would the result be?
Title: Re: Modern experiments
Post by: AATW on September 05, 2019, 07:49:02 PM
I cannot find any refrences online to The Bishop Experiment outside of flat Earth websites. There must be a reason for that.  While I'm sure it can be reproduced easily, it doesn't in any way provide any compelling evidence that that the Earth is flat
Unfortunately the account of this experiment on the Wiki here is just a claim that he did something and saw something.
There are no details on here about the equipment used and no evidence of the results he claims.
 
There was a member on here a while back who did reproduce the Bishop Experiment and documented the method he used and results well.
His findings are here:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=11933.0

He wasn't able to reproduce Tom Bishop's results.
Title: Re: Modern experiments
Post by: dichotomy on September 05, 2019, 08:46:22 PM
So would it be in any way presumptuous of me to suggest that someone who is a devout flat Earth believer would claim an outcome of an experiment that makes it seem as if it supports his own beliefs?

The fact is that you could perform that experiment 10 times, or any number of times you wish and each time the results would be different.   A the risk of repeating myself the reason for that is that the atmospheric conditions would be different and air state can have a big influence on how far or not you can see across land. Often light can be refracted around a curved surface so that you can 'see' things that are far off and actually below the horizon. Naturally FE theorists have their own version of why that happens but those versions have yet to be independently verified.
Title: Re: Modern experiments
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 05, 2019, 08:49:51 PM
So would it be in any way presumptuous of me to suggest that someone who is a devout flat Earth believer would claim an outcome of an experiment that makes it seem as if it supports his own beliefs?
It wouldn't. It would also not be presumptuous of you to assume that someone like AATW and Bobby would claim the inverse for similar reasons, with the former being known to lie to people's faces when it's convenient, and the latter just being a bit confused about most things and largely unable to comprehend simple instructions.

Your best bet is to conduct the experiment yourself (as I and many others have) and draw your own conclusions.
Title: Re: Modern experiments
Post by: dichotomy on September 05, 2019, 09:00:23 PM
I would love to but I don't see myself passing through that part of the world any time soon. In any case whatever the outcome of the experiment it wouldn't provide any evidence that the Earth is flat would it.

Quote
(as I and many others have)

And what were your conclusions then Pete and what equipment did you use?  What were the atmospheric conditions at the time and what sources for possible errors did you record as part of your experiment?

To sum up my earlier point I want to know what modern experiments using modern scientific grade equipment have been carried out to provide evidence that the Earth is flat.
Title: Re: Modern experiments
Post by: AATW on September 05, 2019, 09:26:11 PM
So would it be in any way presumptuous of me to suggest that someone who is a devout flat Earth believer would claim an outcome of an experiment that makes it seem as if it supports his own beliefs?
Certainly possible and in threads I've seen where Tom has been pressed on this "experiment", he has remained vague about the details.
Meanwhile Bobby carefully documented the location of his experiment, the equipment used and has shown photographic evidence of his findings.
I find someone who documents their methods and results more credible than someone who has been so evasive about his, especially given how regularly Tom has shown himself not to understand the RE model. This gives me very little faith in his ability to form experiments well, while Bobby did several other experiments - the ones on horizon dip were particularly impressive and in response to those Tom bent over backwards to try and find fault in them while refusing to do any experiments of his own.
Title: Re: Modern experiments
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 05, 2019, 10:08:18 PM
Bobby saw exactly what Rowbotham predicted in Earth Not a Globe. Rowbotham says that the sinking ship effect often occurs on the open sea.

Dr. William Jackson Humphreys also says (https://books.google.com/books?id=KBUBAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA449#v=onepage&q&f=false) that the sinking effect is most frequently observed at sea:

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/d/dc/Refraction-sinking.png)

The sinking ship effect occurs frequently on the open ocean. Bobby verified what is written in ENAG, and his observations stands as verification of Rowbotham's work, especially since the amount of sinking changed every day he made his observations.
Title: Re: Modern experiments
Post by: dichotomy on September 05, 2019, 10:22:10 PM
Fair enough, so what are the possible causes of what Rowbotham predicted then Tom? Sure in his case he was using that observation as evidence to support his belief that the Earth surface is flat. But what other reasons could there be as to why Rowbotham saw what he did?
Title: Re: Modern experiments
Post by: stack on September 05, 2019, 11:48:04 PM
So would it be in any way presumptuous of me to suggest that someone who is a devout flat Earth believer would claim an outcome of an experiment that makes it seem as if it supports his own beliefs?
It wouldn't. It would also not be presumptuous of you to assume that someone like AATW and Bobby would claim the inverse for similar reasons, with the former being known to lie to people's faces when it's convenient, and the latter just being a bit confused about most things and largely unable to comprehend simple instructions.

Your best bet is to conduct the experiment yourself (as I and many others have) and draw your own conclusions.

How was "the latter just being a bit confused about most things and largely unable to comprehend simple instructions," in regard to recreating the Bishop experiment?
Title: Re: Modern experiments
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 06, 2019, 09:01:58 AM
How was "the latter just being a bit confused about most things and largely unable to comprehend simple instructions," in regard to recreating the Bishop experiment?
I'll let you read through the threads in your own time.

I would love to but I don't see myself passing through that part of the world any time soon.
Presumably, California is not the only part of the world with a large body of water.

In any case whatever the outcome of the experiment it wouldn't provide any evidence that the Earth is flat would it.
It might. It might also provide evidence pointing to the Earth being an oblate spheroid, and it might give you an indication of its size. Is it as large as advertised by the zealots? Larger? Smaller? The power to find out is yours!

And what were your conclusions then Pete and what equipment did you use?  What were the atmospheric conditions at the time and what sources for possible errors did you record as part of your experiment?
You appear to have completely missed the point of "doing it yourself". Once you choose to perform the experiment, you'll be able to adjust for all of these factors, and ones you have not yet anticipated, to your satisfaction. I do realise that those who prefer the scientific method over the Zetetic method expect us to write our experiments up in great detail to save them the hassle of having to actually experience the world for themselves, but I'm simply not interested in appeasing your desires here.

To sum up my earlier point I want to know what modern experiments using modern scientific grade equipment have been carried out to provide evidence that the Earth is flat.
It sounds like your MO is to look at every experiment and create a new criterion for why you dislike it. That seems very counter-productive. Since you're looking for your own satisfaction and yours alone, you'd be better off designing and performing an experiment yourself.
Title: Re: Modern experiments
Post by: AATW on September 06, 2019, 11:16:06 AM
I do realise that those who prefer the scientific method over the Zetetic method expect us to write our experiments up in great detail to save them the hassle of having to actually experience the world for themselves
Actually, no. The reason we want you to do that is the same reason that in a maths exam they expect you to show your workings.
If you're going to get full marks in a maths exam it's not enough to get the right answer, you have to show how you got there. Otherwise how do I know you didn't make mistakes? You might have just guessed the right answer or you might have make a couple of mistakes which, luckily for you, cancelled themselves out. So you got the right answer but more by luck than judgement. Or maybe you got the wrong answer. By showing your working the teacher can see where you went wrong and can correct you so you learn.

When you do science at school they don't just tell you that light bends through glass, you do an experiment (well, I did) where you use pins, look through a glass block and plot the path of the light. Science and "checking things out for yourself" are not contradictory. But part of checking things out for yourself is understanding how other people came to certain conclusions. You came to the conclusion that the earth is flat because you did your own tests. Well, maybe you suck at doing them. Maybe you made an error. I can do my own tests but maybe I suck at doing experiments, maybe I'll make an error.

I want you to publish your results not to save me doing anything for myself but in order that I can understand how you came to your conclusions.
The problem with the philosophy of each person doing their own tests and coming to their own conclusion in isolation is what if two people get different results? They can't both be right. (They could both be wrong of course). If I think one is right, how do I know which? OK, I could do my own tests but what if I get a 3rd result, different from both the first 2?

The whole point of people publishing their results in science is so other people can look at what they did, think about whether the experiment was well designed, suggest changes to the method if they feel there has been a mistake or if not repeat the experiment to see if they get the same results. If they do get the same results then it builds confidence in the result. That's how progress is made.
Title: Re: Modern experiments
Post by: ChrisTP on September 06, 2019, 11:20:22 AM
But Pete, surely saying you did the experiment and henceforth believe the world is flat, then not telling people your experiment results is counterproductive? If you don't want to show your evidence yet claim the earth is flat, it looks a little suspicious. In little school, someone told me they had a 20ft christmas tree in their frontroom, but when I asked to see it they said no because they "don't have to show me anything" and "it's not my problem if you dont believe me". They told me to go look at a 20ft tree as proof that one exists, which is supposed to be proof that their tree is 20ft. All the while not wanting to show me that tree of theirs.

To literally everyone, the 20ft tree is an obvious fib and no one will go out of their way to prove otherwise if the person isn't willing to show a picture of their tree or invite them in to see it. You could say you did this experiment and it shows the world is flat, but unless you show your findings I don't think anyone will waste their time going out of their way to do an experiment when they're confident the earth is a spheroid.

You presumably care about FES gaining traction and want the truth to come out for all to see, but IMO it won't gain traction saying "I did this thing and it showed me the earth was flat, but I'm not showing you!" I get the whole wanting people to find out for themselves but if a society doesn't work together on findings, you'd never really know if anyone was lying, seeing errors without realising, outright trolling, wasting peoples time etc.

I'd be really interested in seeing yours and Toms results on the experiment and if it does seem to show results that suggest the earth is flat and not spheroid then I'd be more inclined to go out and try it myself. Maybe it's just in my nature to question results that go against what I think, but until those results are shown I'm just going to keep on thinking you're wrong, which most of the world will do.

Give people something to question I guess, give something that challenges the globe and gets people thinking "hey, they might be on to something here!". Give us some actual results.
Title: Re: Modern experiments
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 06, 2019, 01:34:51 PM
But Pete, surely saying you did the experiment and henceforth believe the world is flat, then not telling people your experiment results is counterproductive?
That depends on what you consider "productive", or, more accurately, it depends on what I consider "productive". In the past, you've made the mistake of thinking that I'm here to convince people that the Earth is flat. As I previously explained, I'm not.

If you don't want to show your evidence yet claim the earth is flat, it looks a little suspicious.
Indeed. As I've said many times before, I don't want you to believe random blokes on the Internet, and that includes me. I want you to distrust me, and to investigate the matter to your own satisfaction. I'm happy to help with resources that will set you on the right path, but walking the walk for you is something I'm explicitly avoiding. If you find that suspicious - good.
Title: Re: Modern experiments
Post by: dichotomy on September 06, 2019, 05:10:09 PM
Quote
Presumably, California is not the only part of the world with a large body of water.
I'm sure you are quite right there Pete but I believe in making an experiment a fair test, That means matching like for like as many factors in the experiment as possible.  How could I compare my results with Toms directly if I used a different location?
Quote
You appear to have completely missed the point of "doing it yourself". Once you choose to perform the experiment, you'll be able to adjust for all of these factors, and ones you have not yet anticipated, to your satisfaction. I do realise that those who prefer the scientific method over the Zetetic method expect us to write our experiments up in great detail to save them the hassle of having to actually experience the world for themselves, but I'm simply not interested in appeasing your desires here.
So does that mean the zetetic approach is to accept as true the world simply from the way things appear to be? If so then you must think the Sun and Moon really are the same size?   
Quote
It sounds like your MO is to look at every experiment and create a new criterion for why you dislike it. That seems very counter-productive. Since you're looking for your own satisfaction and yours alone, you'd be better off designing and performing an experiment yourself.
No, my 'MO' as you put it is simply to look at every experiment and make as impartial judgement as I can on the likelihood that the results obtained from it are genuine and true. It seems to be your MO to dismiss everything that REs say which point out weaknesses in FE theory.

You say you have performed the Bedford Experiment yourself but you don't feel that you need to explain how you did it. In that case what was the point in mentioning it in the first place?




Title: Re: Modern experiments
Post by: stack on September 06, 2019, 07:13:06 PM
How was "the latter just being a bit confused about most things and largely unable to comprehend simple instructions," in regard to recreating the Bishop experiment?
I'll let you read through the threads in your own time.

I did and have. There was no confusion on his part, quite clear headed in the approach.  And the comprehension of instructions or lack thereof had to do with where the experiments and findings were posted and how they were conveyed. It had nothing to do with experiments themselves which your statement tries to allude to. Which, in my mind, is a disingenuous way of trying to discredit the work performed. To be expected really.
Title: Re: Modern experiments
Post by: Adrenoch on September 06, 2019, 07:36:43 PM
I do realise that those who prefer the scientific method over the Zetetic method expect us to write our experiments up in great detail to save them the hassle of having to actually experience the world for themselves, but I'm simply not interested in appeasing your desires here.

Writing up a scientific experiment in detail is part of the scientific method specifically so that others can do the experiments for themselves. When other people replicate your experiment (which they can do because you carefully documented everything about how you performed it), their results will either confirm yours or cast doubt, opening new avenues for investigation.

Likewise, when you publish your experiment, others can repeat your experiment with variables changed to narrow down the exact cause of your results. Subsequent experiments take all results into account, and little by little you begin to chip away at the explanations that aren't possible, leaving the ones that are.

It's the reason the scientific method is so successful. It's a meticulous checking, rechecking, cross-checking, and cumulative method of accumulating knowledge. It's certainly not a way to keep people from performing their own experiments.
Title: Re: Modern experiments
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 06, 2019, 07:53:48 PM
How could I compare my results with Toms directly if I used a different location?
Sounds like an excuse to me. The properties of water are largely universal, and California water does not have magical anti-curvature properties.

So does that mean the zetetic approach is to accept as true the world simply from the way things appear to be?
No, that does not follow in the slightest.

If so then you must think the Sun and Moon really are the same size?
Coincidentally, that happens to be true in the FE model.

No, my 'MO' as you put it is simply to look at every experiment and make as impartial judgement as I can on the likelihood that the results obtained from it are genuine and true.
Excellent. Conduct experiments. It's your best chance of ascertaining the outcome of said experiments.

It seems to be your MO to dismiss everything that REs say which point out weaknesses in FE theory.
You have yet to highlight any weakness in FET. You're just complaining about me not serving you information on a silver platter. I have no obligation to do so, nor do I have any interest in doing so.

You say you have performed the Bedford Experiment yourself but you don't feel that you need to explain how you did it. In that case what was the point in mentioning it in the first place?
You are fixating on an off-hand interjection in the middle of a sentence. Recall the phrase in context: Your best bet is to conduct the experiment yourself (as I and many others have) and draw your own conclusions. Your decision to isolate a few words (coincidentally, the least important ones of the bunch) from my statement and acting as if they existed in a vacuum does not particularly inspire me to spend my time deliberating this.

I did and have. There was no confusion on his part
If you're going to simply deny his repeated leaps of logic (which ultimately caused him to curl his tail between his legs and leave this forum), then there really is no point in further discussion - we both have better things to do with our time, I presume.

It's the reason the scientific method is so successful.
You and I have drastically different concepts of success. That's fine, I guess. To me, the philosophy responsible for anti-vaccine movements, an impending climate change catastrophe, extreme wealth disparity across the Earth's population, and overall misery is not "successful".
Title: Re: Modern experiments
Post by: iamcpc on September 06, 2019, 07:56:22 PM
Writing up a scientific experiment in detail is part of the scientific method specifically so that others can do the experiments for themselves. When other people replicate your experiment (which they can do because you carefully documented everything about how you performed it), their results will either confirm yours or cast doubt, opening new avenues for investigation.


This argument goes both ways there are FE experiments which don't have an encyclopedia of documentation. There are also RE experiments which many RE proponents stand up and proudly say EARTH ROUND when many variables are undocumented.

Here's an example:
Look these shadows are a different length the earth is round! But shadow A was 90 degrees and 80% humidity with a high pollen count and shadow B was 80 degrees , 70% humidity and a low pollen count.  You're not comparing apples to apples here. You have not even made the slightest attempt to determine how refraction and chaotic atmospheric conditions are affecting the length of the shadows.

Title: Re: Modern experiments
Post by: dichotomy on September 06, 2019, 09:15:59 PM
To go back to my original question, all I want to know (nothing more nothing less) is what is the most scientific way in which the FE theory has been investigated.  What experiments have been carried out, what equipment did they use and what were the results?

Quote
You appear to have completely missed the point of "doing it yourself". Once you choose to perform the experiment, you'll be able to adjust for all of these factors, and ones you have not yet anticipated, to your satisfaction. I do realise that those who prefer the scientific method over the Zetetic method expect us to write our experiments up in great detail to save them the hassle of having to actually experience the world for themselves, but I'm simply not interested in appeasing your desires here.

So if I'm reading this right you are encouraging people to do their own research and their own experiments and reach their own conclusions but you are not interested in anyone documenting their experiments or conclusions on these forums?   So what then is the point of these forums?

Title: Re: Modern experiments
Post by: AATW on September 07, 2019, 08:29:13 AM
You and I have drastically different concepts of success. That's fine, I guess. To me, the philosophy responsible for anti-vaccine movements, an impending climate change catastrophe, extreme wealth disparity across the Earth's population, and overall misery is not "successful".

Science is just about understanding stuff.
It seeks to understand how things work, it tries to build models which can explain and predict observations.
Those models can be used for various things but in terms of building models it’s undeniably been a success. Our entire modern way of life depends on those models.
Obviously scientific understanding can be used for good or ill. It’s brought us nuclear power and atom bombs, the industrial revolution and smog. Rockets have brought us technologies like GPS and got us to the moon but we have ICBMs.
But in terms of science bringing us an understanding of how the universe works it’s really hard to argue that it hasn’t been successful. The proof of that is in the fact these technologies work. Diseases have been wiped out, my phone can give me directions to places, we can argue about stuff on sites like this. Debatable whether the last of those is a good thing but it demonstrably works.

Meanwhile, the philosophy of everyone checking things out for themselves and creating their own model of reality has led to the mess of competing and conflicting FE models we see on here and other sites, none of which have gained any mainstream acceptance because they are all so obviously wrong to anyone with a reasonable understanding of science.
Title: Re: Modern experiments
Post by: dichotomy on September 07, 2019, 03:43:12 PM
Zeteticists seem to take on the view that if you can see it with your own eyes then it is true and accepted. If you can't see it directly with your own eyes then it is must be proved before it is accepted as true. But in that sense at what stage has something been proved?

Flat Earth theory, if it is based entirely on the 'zetetic method' is then doomed to fail because not everything we directly see can be taken literally. Visual illusions are everywhere in nature.  Pete points out that because the Sun and Moon look the same size in the sky then according to the zetetic method, it follows that they must physically be the same size. Yet various scientific methods have been used to measure the distance to the Sun and Moon and those consistently show the Moon to be 400 times nearer and 400 times smaller.

So all the evidence and descriptions of how these figures have been reached are simply dismissed as faked, lied about or hoaxed. Why? Because that is the easiest way to dismiss any evidence that doesn't support ones beliefs.

The real evidence that the Earth is a sphere was presented to us directly as soon as spaceflight became possible. (I can hear the collective sighs of all the FEers out there saying yeah, yeah heard that one before...) But over the last 50/60 years countless images of the round Earth have been collected and shared from many, many independent sources. But none of those count as far as zeteticists are concerned because of the reason I mentioned in the first sentence. I cannot recall a single photo however of a flat Earth taken from space. Zeteticists respond with same old 'get out of jail' excuse that no one has ever actually been into space so how could anyone get such a photo? Fair enough.. whatever you say guys.  The same excuse conveniently gives them a reason to dismiss all the round Earth photos from space as being faked.

Rowbotham was apparently one of the leading zeteticists of his day (mid 1800s?). His publications that are linked to in FE Wiki describe several of his experiments in detail. Unfortunately for various reasons his conclusions are wrong - but good effort nonetheless. Why then are modern zeteticists far less willing to share details of their own experiments now that far better and more accurate equipment is available to them? 

 
Title: Re: Modern experiments
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 07, 2019, 05:18:52 PM
Science is just about understanding stuff.
A convenient way of making yourself able to sleep at night, I'm sure.

So if I'm reading this right you are encouraging people to do their own research and their own experiments and reach their own conclusions but you are not interested in anyone documenting their experiments or conclusions on these forums?
No, they're welcome to document them if they'd like to, and so are you. I'd be interested to read about anyone's findings. But if you come here and demand that others do work for you, or act as if they were obliged to do so, it's only right to put you in your place. This is a discussion forum, not a freelance work site.

So what then is the point of these forums?
Quote from: https://www.tfes.org/
This is the home of the world-famous Flat Earth Society, a place for free thinkers and the intellectual exchange of ideas. This website hosts information and serves as an archive for Flat Earth Theory. It also offers an opportunity to discuss this with the Flat Earth community on our forums.

Zeteticists seem to take on the view that if you can see it with your own eyes then it is true and accepted.
I already explained to you this is not the case, so using this premise for further deliberations is a firm waste of everyone's time.

Pete points out that because the Sun and Moon look the same size in the sky then according to the zetetic method, it follows that they must physically be the same size
No - you said that. I told you you were wrong, and that coincidentally those two bodies happen to be of roughly the same size. If you can't form your argument without lying about what others said, perhaps this is not a good place for you?
Title: Re: Modern experiments
Post by: dichotomy on September 07, 2019, 05:43:46 PM
I didn't ask you to do any work for me as you put it. You said you had done the Bedford Experiment yourself so I was simply asking you to explain how you did it and what equipment you used. So far you seem unwilling to tell us.
Title: Re: Modern experiments
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 07, 2019, 06:25:51 PM
So far you seem unwilling to tell us.
I don't "seem" to be unwilling - I was very explicit in it (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=15320.msg199202#msg199202), and I explained my reasoning. What do you hope to achieve by (poorly) restating that simple fact?
Title: Re: Modern experiments
Post by: dichotomy on September 07, 2019, 06:47:51 PM
What is explicit about that comment Pete. Simply telling us you (like many others) have reproduced the Bedford Level Experiment is not exactly being explicit about anything.  Explicit means "stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt."  As you said

Quote
I'd be interested to read about anyone's findings

Equally so I am interested to read about yours.  If asking FE believers about the findings of their experiments is not allowed then just say so and I will move on. 

Title: Re: Modern experiments
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 07, 2019, 07:39:19 PM
What is explicit about that comment Pete. Simply telling us you (like many others) have reproduced the Bedford Level Experiment is not exactly being explicit about anything.
Did you even read the post I linked you to? It doesn't state I reproduced the Bedford Level Experiment.
Title: Re: Modern experiments
Post by: dichotomy on September 07, 2019, 07:58:57 PM
Quote
Your best bet is to conduct the experiment yourself (as I and many others have) and draw your own conclusions.

I was referring to this Pete.  I'm interested to read your findings from when you conducted the experiment.  Usually if you conduct experiments you draw conclusions from it.  So what were yours and how did you do it?

BTW I seem to have suddenly started referring to the Bedford experiment rather than the Bishop experiment in one or two posts. In which case please ignore references to Bedford as I meant Bishop.

The description of the Bishop experiment given in the Wiki page is detailed and contains lots of numbers, some of which are correct, others not. However as has been shown on many occasions you can make numbers provide whatever result you want them to. If conditions are right you can see a lot further than the distances quoted in the experiment owing to refractive properties of light.
Title: Re: Modern experiments
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 08, 2019, 04:03:40 PM
I didn't even notice the Bedford/Bishop mix-up, and even replicated the mistake in my reply. We both meant the Bishop Experiment, it's all good.

I was referring to this Pete.  I'm interested to read your findings from when you conducted the experiment.  Usually if you conduct experiments you draw conclusions from it.  So what were yours and how did you do it?
I already told you I wouldn't be sharing this, and explained why. You're completely within your rights to dislike my reasoning, or even be suspicious of it (which I explicitly recommended), but asking repeatedly will not change my position.

However as has been shown on many occasions you can make numbers provide whatever result you want them to.
This is precisely why I recommend you do your own experiments and see the world for yourself. All of this back-and-forth rhetoric is just a useless exercise in seeing whether you can out-philosophise me. It won't get us anywhere that's actually useful. Get going with doing useful stuff instead.
Title: Re: Modern experiments
Post by: dichotomy on September 08, 2019, 07:06:48 PM
I has never been my intention to 'out-philosophise' you or anyone else on here for that matter. And that is the first time I have ever used that word I think!  Listening to your YouTube interviews you sound like a perfectly decent guy and I agree entirely with you about the back and forth rhetoric. These verbal tennis matches never achieve anything.  I see these forums as a discussion portal not a competition.

So on that note lets move on and see what if anything comes from other members on this discussion.
Title: Re: Modern experiments
Post by: Adrenoch on September 09, 2019, 02:47:59 PM
Writing up a scientific experiment in detail is part of the scientific method specifically so that others can do the experiments for themselves. When other people replicate your experiment (which they can do because you carefully documented everything about how you performed it), their results will either confirm yours or cast doubt, opening new avenues for investigation.

This argument goes both ways there are FE experiments which don't have an encyclopedia of documentation. There are also RE experiments which many RE proponents stand up and proudly say EARTH ROUND when many variables are undocumented.

Here's an example:
Look these shadows are a different length the earth is round! But shadow A was 90 degrees and 80% humidity with a high pollen count and shadow B was 80 degrees , 70% humidity and a low pollen count.  You're not comparing apples to apples here. You have not even made the slightest attempt to determine how refraction and chaotic atmospheric conditions are affecting the length of the shadows.

You're exactly right. In your example, the first experiment did one thing. The conclusion would be that maybe the Earth is round. Fortunately, the experimenters did a terrific job of documenting everything so others can replicate and falsify. One experiment can be strong evidence, but it's not enough to draw a conclusion.

Others repeat the test, and get different results. They explain why they think they might have gotten different results, like maybe pollen has an effect. Others create a new experiment that would take differing levels of pollen into account. They get the same readings regardless of the pollen count, which strongly suggests pollen isn't a factor. They write up that experiment and results. Maybe five different groups design pollen experiments in different ways. If they all agree that pollen doesn't seem to have an effect, that's fairly strong evidence.

It goes on and on as different researchers devise different experiments to account for all known factors, and even expose unknown factors. All that works starts to chip away at the the things that are inconsistent to reveal the things that are consistent. Mechanisms are proposed and methods to test those mechanisms are attempted.

Science isn't done with one experiment and a conclusion announced. You probably wouldn't believe the amount of work that goes on to reach a silly little consensus like how variables in the atmosphere bend light.
Title: Re: Modern experiments
Post by: AATW on September 10, 2019, 09:43:23 AM
Exactly this. The entire point of publishing your method and results is so other people can reproduce your experiment and check your work.
Pete's stance of not saying what he did because he wants other people to question things and test things for themselves is counter productive.
If he had compelling evidence of a flat earth and published it then it would make people want to investigate further. Otherwise we're back to the kid at school claiming he has a 20 foot high Christmas Tree in his house when all knowledge about most domestic dwellings tells you that he can't have.
Now, I guess it's possible that his parents are very wealthy and they do have a house big enough to have a big hall with ceilings high enough to make that possible. But if he refuses to let you see the tree or show any photos of it then the reaction is "he's lying or deluded" not "I must investigate this matter further".

And of course the matter is further compounded when people do their own experiments and the results are hand-waved away as Tom has done with Bobby's experiments and with the Turning Torso video - neither of those experiments are on the "open ocean"
The area Bobby did his test in is across a bay which has small waves.
The most over the last week (at the time of writing) are 2-4 feet:

https://magicseaweed.com/Solana-Beach-Surf-Report/294/Historic/

And Bobby's observation was from a height of 25 feet so waves can't have been blocking his view of anything. The Turning Torso video is from a narrow channel, not the open sea. You can see on the videos there are no waves to speak of. Only experiments which seem to back up a FE agenda are accepted, it's pretty disingenuous.

Progress in science had been made by people doing experiments, publishing their method and results and other people checking their work and correcting it if necessary. The idea of everyone building their own model of reality based on their own experiences and tests is why the FE world is such a mess of conflicting models.
I'll never understand the mindset of someone who does an experiment which seems to indicate a flat earth and thinks
"Holy shit, we've all been lied to, the earth is flat!" rather than
"Hmm, I must suck at doing experiments or not understand physics very well".
Title: Re: Modern experiments
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 10, 2019, 07:13:37 PM
Both the Turning Torso Tower pictures and Bobby's photos had curvature which changed with every shot. Pretty poor effort if you guys think that a sinking effect which changes by the hour is proof of your ball world.

"No, no, no... That was the curvature of the earth +/- refraction"  ::)
Title: Re: Modern experiments
Post by: iamcpc on September 10, 2019, 08:12:45 PM
Both the Turning Torso Tower pictures and Bobby's photos had curvature which changed with every shot. Pretty poor effort if you guys think that a sinking effect which changes by the hour is proof of your ball world.

"No, no, no... That was the curvature of the earth +/- refraction"  ::)


Tom,

There have been other experiments too. I forgot the link, but even Bobby acknowledged that flashing mirror experiment demonstrated that the idea that view distance predicts that the Earth is a sphere or oblate spheroid is, at the very least, in this example incorrect. The results were similar to your bishop experiment where they were able to see something, at sea level, from much further than what is predicted possible in the RE model.
Title: Re: Modern experiments
Post by: AATW on September 10, 2019, 08:28:10 PM
Both the Turning Torso Tower pictures and Bobby's photos had curvature which changed with every shot. Pretty poor effort if you guys think that a sinking effect which changes by the hour is proof of your ball world.

"No, no, no... That was the curvature of the earth +/- refraction"  ::)
Nope. In the Turning Torso observations the amount of the building hidden behind the curve of the earth increases as the observation distance does.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdClBtYiKcc

Exactly as you’d expect on a globe earth.
And it’s a narrow channel, not the open ocean. You can see there’s no significant waves. So what’s your excuse now?
Title: Re: Modern experiments
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 10, 2019, 09:01:57 PM
Receding from curving light rays also results in greater curvature with distance.

Refer to the thread on that topic. Your hero Bobby Shafto shows that the amount hidden did not match the Globe Earth curvature. The amount offset from the calculated Globe Earth curvature changed with every shot.

This is a graphic the video author constructed:
(http://oi68.tinypic.com/2uzs7so.jpg)

And here is something I've made to offer a first suggestion as to elevation heights where each image appears to be "cut-off."

(updated to correct significant errors)
(http://oi65.tinypic.com/34t1y60.jpg)

 If anything looks out of whack, please chime in.

~

(https://i.imgur.com/kRvflcR.jpg)

The curvature of the earth is constantly changing.

You guys point us to what is demonstrably an illusion to claim that the earth is curved.
Title: Re: Modern experiments
Post by: stack on September 10, 2019, 09:34:51 PM
Receding from curving light rays also results in greater curvature with distance.

Refer to the thread on that topic. Your hero Bobby Shafto shows that the amount hidden did not match the Globe Earth curvature. The amount offset from the calculated Globe Earth curvature changed with every shot.

This is a graphic the video author constructed:
(http://oi68.tinypic.com/2uzs7so.jpg)

And here is something I've made to offer a first suggestion as to elevation heights where each image appears to be "cut-off."

(updated to correct significant errors)
(http://oi65.tinypic.com/34t1y60.jpg)

 If anything looks out of whack, please chime in.

~

(https://i.imgur.com/kRvflcR.jpg)

The curvature of the earth is constantly changing.

You guys point us to what is demonstrably an illusion to claim that the earth is curved.

Why did you cut half of the image off, specifically removing the Flat Earth Height Hidden table?

(http://oi66.tinypic.com/2yos4n6.jpg)

FE needs to explain why they are so far off, way more than GE. What's the illusion that is hiding all of that elevation on FE?
Title: Re: Modern experiments
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 10, 2019, 09:49:45 PM
The sinking doesn't match a Flat Earth? Our minds are blown, assuredly.

The matter is demonstrated to be an illusion. The mechanism which causes it is irrelevant. Since it is an illusion it cannot be used as evidence for a Globe Earth. Aristotile's sinking ship proof is inconsistent.  An inconsistent proof is not proof of a globe.
Title: Re: Modern experiments
Post by: iamcpc on September 10, 2019, 10:08:38 PM

Why did you cut half of the image off, specifically removing the Flat Earth Height Hidden table?


It's a moot point. the RE predictions for observations made in a vacuum didn't match the observations we see. In addition the FE predictions for observations made in a vacuum didn't match the observations we see.

To me the take away is that you can't see a ship sinking over the ocean and promptly claim the shape of the earth is ___________. You must at least attempt to factor in chaotic atmospheric and optical variables which have been demonstrated, over and over again, to have a significant impact on what our human brains perceive.



The sinking doesn't match a Flat Earth? Our minds are blown, assuredly.

The matter is demonstrated to be an illusion. The mechanism which causes it is irrelevant. Since it is an illusion it cannot be used as evidence for a Globe Earth. Aristotile's sinking ship proof is inconsistent.  An inconsistent proof is not proof of a globe.

Another question I have is when the FE predictions are made what FE model or FE system is being used to calculate those predictions? Maybe there is a more accurate FE prediction system out there?
Title: Re: Modern experiments
Post by: stack on September 10, 2019, 10:24:06 PM
The sinking doesn't match a Flat Earth? Our minds are blown, assuredly.

The matter is demonstrated to be an illusion. The mechanism which causes it is irrelevant. Since it is an illusion it cannot be used as evidence for a Globe Earth. Aristotile's sinking ship proof is inconsistent.  An inconsistent proof is not proof of a globe.

GE can use the illusion of refraction to pull the numbers in line in this example:

(https://i.imgur.com/Dg1EcoJ.png)

For FE it's not just that the sinking doesn't match a flat earth, it's way way off; ex., there's a 321' wall of water in front of a skyscraper with no explanation. Where did that Tsunami come from?
Title: Re: Modern experiments
Post by: stack on September 10, 2019, 10:34:03 PM

Why did you cut half of the image off, specifically removing the Flat Earth Height Hidden table?

It's a moot point. the RE predictions for observations made in a vacuum didn't match the observations we see. In addition the FE predictions for observations made in a vacuum didn't match the observations we see.

To me the take away is that you can't see a ship sinking over the ocean and promptly claim the shape of the earth is ___________. You must at least attempt to factor in chaotic atmospheric and optical variables which have been demonstrated, over and over again, to have a significant impact on what our human brains perceive.

First off, the two tables, one for curved hidden and one for flat hidden, was a single image file. Tom, in order to try and make his point, deliberately cropped out the second table from the image. Shady, at best.

For two, there is a great disparity between the FE and GE observations in this example. FE is way off. And we did factor in atmospheric conditions on the GE side as seen in the table above. But there is no FE explanation for 100's of feet to be obscured.
Title: Re: Modern experiments
Post by: AATW on September 11, 2019, 09:00:07 AM
Receding from curving light rays also results in greater curvature with distance.

But I'm confused. From 21.6 miles away in that video a third of the building was hidden. Not far from 200 feet. And yet you claim

Quote
it is possible to see people at the waters edge on the adjacent beach 23 miles away near the lighthouse. The entire beach is visible down to the water splashing upon the shore. Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore and teenagers merrily throwing Frisbees to one another. I can see runners jogging along the water's edge with their dogs. From my vantage point the entire beach is visible.

So you were further away. And your observation height was lower. Why were curving light rays not a problem for you?
And it can't just have been conditions on the day because you claim you can repeat this any time you want:

Quote
"Whenever I have doubts about the shape of the earth I simply walk outside my home, down to the beach, and perform this simple test. Provided that there is no fog and the day is clear and calm, the same result comes up over and over throughout the year."

It's a shame that all the times you have done this you have never actually documented the observation. Are we supposed to just take your word for it? As someone once said:
Quote
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.


Quote
Refer to the thread on that topic. Your hero Bobby Shafto shows that the amount hidden did not match the Globe Earth curvature. The amount offset from the calculated Globe Earth curvature changed with every shot.

Yes. That tells us the atmosphere is complicated and can cause effects which mean observations don't match a perfect spherical earth with no atmosphere. That is well known.
But what did his observations never do? It never matched the observation you claim. Not once.

Quote
You guys point us to what is demonstrably an illusion to claim that the earth is curved.

And you are claiming that the illusion doesn't exist at all when you take observations. Observations you have no evidence for.
Title: Re: Modern experiments
Post by: iamcpc on September 11, 2019, 07:06:59 PM
Receding from curving light rays also results in greater curvature with distance.

But I'm confused. From 21.6 miles away in that video a third of the building was hidden. Not far from 200 feet. And yet you claim

Quote
it is possible to see people at the waters edge on the adjacent beach 23 miles away near the lighthouse. The entire beach is visible down to the water splashing upon the shore. Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore and teenagers merrily throwing Frisbees to one another. I can see runners jogging along the water's edge with their dogs. From my vantage point the entire beach is visible.

So you were further away. And your observation height was lower. Why were curving light rays not a problem for you?
And it can't just have been conditions on the day because you claim you can repeat this any time you want:

Quote
"Whenever I have doubts about the shape of the earth I simply walk outside my home, down to the beach, and perform this simple test. Provided that there is no fog and the day is clear and calm, the same result comes up over and over throughout the year."

It's a shame that all the times you have done this you have never actually documented the observation. Are we supposed to just take your word for it? As someone once said:
Quote
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Here's another example of the "Bishop Experiment" Light from sea level being visible from a distance which should be "impossible" based on the RE model.

https://youtu.be/r8TsCPMCR_s


If he was further away and saw a different observation it was under different atmospheric and optical conditions which affected the observation.

Title: Re: Modern experiments
Post by: AATW on September 11, 2019, 07:28:05 PM
Yes. That’s the experiment which Bobby conceded could be evidence for a FE.
But he tried to reproduce the result and couldn’t. So now what?

Tom’s general tactic is to call any experiment which doesn’t confirm his world view fake, or try and explain it away somehow. To Bobby’s credit, he didn’t do that with the above, he did his own tests. And that is why while Tom’s snide comment about him being my hero is incorrect, I was certainly impressed by the time and effort Bobby spent to perform and document his own tests.

But this is how progress is made in science. People do tests, other people try and reproduce those tests. If the other people get the same results then that builds confidence in them. In this case Bobby didn’t get the same results, so I guess more testing is needed.
Title: Re: Modern experiments
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 12, 2019, 05:52:11 AM
I guess more testing is needed.
You should make up your mind. You were only just done telling us how unproductive it is to expect people to perform more experiments.
Title: Re: Modern experiments
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 12, 2019, 05:56:19 AM

Why did you cut half of the image off, specifically removing the Flat Earth Height Hidden table?

It's a moot point. the RE predictions for observations made in a vacuum didn't match the observations we see. In addition the FE predictions for observations made in a vacuum didn't match the observations we see.

To me the take away is that you can't see a ship sinking over the ocean and promptly claim the shape of the earth is ___________. You must at least attempt to factor in chaotic atmospheric and optical variables which have been demonstrated, over and over again, to have a significant impact on what our human brains perceive.

First off, the two tables, one for curved hidden and one for flat hidden, was a single image file. Tom, in order to try and make his point, deliberately cropped out the second table from the image. Shady, at best.

The second table was a lame attempt at claiming that the sinking didn't match an FE. Was someone here under the impression that FE predicted sinking in a vaccum?

It appears to me that there is only one side here attempting deception; deliberately ignoring the fact that the curvature keeps changing, which invalidates the argument of a ball earth since it is demonstrated that an illusion is occuring in the images, choosing instead an attempt of deflection of "wall of water!! How does FE explain??"

You want us to explain images which demonstrably involves an illusion? A weak defense, IMO.

Tom’s general tactic is to call any experiment which doesn’t confirm his world view fake

Actually, that's more your tactic:

Are we supposed to just take your word for it?
Title: Re: Modern experiments
Post by: AATW on September 12, 2019, 07:20:55 AM
I guess more testing is needed.
You should make up your mind. You were only just done telling us how unproductive it is to expect people to perform more experiments.
No. I was saying how unproductive it is is to expect people to perform more experiments if you won’t show the results of your own tests.

Its unproductive to claim a result without giving details of how you conducted the test or documenting and showing the result.
Especially when the result is potentially so revolutionary for our understanding of the world we live in.

If someone in the middle of nowhere claims they got abducted by aliens, were taken to the aliens’ home world for dinner and then returned to Earth then I’ll smile and nod but I’m not interested in investigating their claims other than maybe asking a few sarcastic questions. My initial reaction, based on my understanding of the world, is they must be lying or deluded.
If the person presents some good evidence backing up their claim then while I’d remain sceptical I’d be more likely to investigate more seriously.

If you’re claiming the earth is flat because of “tests you’ve done” then there are two possibilities. One is that you have discovered something so revolutionary that congratulations on your Nobel prize. The other is you haven’t because you suck at doing experiments, you don’t understand things as well as you think you do or you’re lying or deluded.
I lean towards the latter, especially as you refuse to give details of what tests you did or show your results.

Again, the whole point of people publishing their experiment method and results is so other people can repeat their experiments. That is how consensus has been reached and progress made. The idea of everyone doing their own tests and forming their own model of reality based on those results is why there is such a mess of competing FE models.

Yes, it’s good for people to test things for themselves - although people have to understand there are limits to this in terms of their skills and the equipment they need.
But people should also share their methods and results so others can check their work and try and repeat their tests to see if they get the same results to build confidence in them, or not as the case may be.
Title: Re: Modern experiments
Post by: AATW on September 12, 2019, 09:48:31 AM
It appears to me that you are the person here attempting deception; deliberately ignoring the fact that the curvature keeps changing, which invalidates the argument of a ball earth since it is demonstrated that an illusion is occuring in the image

No one is ignoring that. No one is disputing that there are atmospheric effects which mean a simplistic model of a perfectly spherical earth in a vacuum isn't going to match observations.
Refraction will occur, particularly over water. So yes, that will affect results. But no, that doesn't invalidate the argument of a ball earth, it invalidates the argument of a perfectly spherical earth in a vacuum. An argument no-one is making.
The relevant question is not whether observations perfectly match a simplified model of the earth's curve and refraction, atmospheric effects change from day to day so you wouldn't necessarily expect that.
The question is does it match that model better than a FE model? In a FE model what's the building hiding behind? Why is any of it hidden? Why can't you see "all the way down to the shoreline"? You claim you could, why can't anyone else?

You want us to explain images which demonstrably involves an illusion?

I want you to explain why the images fit better with a globe earth model than a FE one, and why the illusion only happens when other people do tests. It never seems to be an issue for you:

Quote
"Whenever I have doubts about the shape of the earth I simply walk outside my home, down to the beach, and perform this simple test. Provided that there is no fog and the day is clear and calm, the same result comes up over and over throughout the year."

Are we supposed to just take your word for it?

The point being made here, fairly obviously, is that your account, while evidence, is not as compelling evidence as when someone carefully documents their experiment and shows their results.
Yours is just a claim. Anyone can make a claim. Which is more compelling:
1) A child claiming they have a 20 foot high tree in their house but refusing to show you any pictures of it or their home.
2) A child claiming they have a 20 foot high tree in their house, showing photos of said tree with them and their family, showing photos of the big house they live in and some proof of address.

I'm going with 2. It doesn't prove it of course, they could have taken the photo while at a visit to some mansion open to the public, they could have doctored the proof of address. But it takes a lot more effort to fake all that. It takes no effort at all to make a claim. As a wise man once said:

Quote
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Maybe next time you walk outside your home, down to the beach, and perform this simple test you could take some photos, show them to us and tell us the location you took them from, the direction your camera was pointing and your viewer height. Then we can investigate further.
Title: Re: Modern experiments
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 12, 2019, 01:01:41 PM
No. I was saying how unproductive it is is to expect people to perform more experiments if you won’t show the results of your own tests.
Then it's a good thing I didn't do that.

Its unproductive to claim a result without giving details of how you conducted the test or documenting and showing the result.
I didn't claim a result - I invited others to reach their own. Remember what I told you about lying, and how silly it makes you look?
Title: Re: Modern experiments
Post by: AATW on September 12, 2019, 01:52:13 PM
But, to answer your question more directly: the Bishop Experiment is rather recent, and easily reproducible.

Your best bet is to conduct the experiment yourself (as I and many others have) and draw your own conclusions.

You don't claim a result in this thread but in your chat with McToon you cite being able to "see too low" as the best evidence of a flat earth.
A fairly reasonable assumption that you state that because of the results of your experiments.

But in any case the "you" is plural. Maybe I should have said "one".
Title: Re: Modern experiments
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 12, 2019, 02:12:14 PM
You don't claim a result in this thread
And yet you claimed that my approach in this thread is unproductive (while proposing exactly the same approach yourself), and justified that by claiming I did claim a result. Perhaps you should take that comment back.

A fairly reasonable assumption that you state that because of the results of your experiments.
Acting as the arbiter of your own assumptions is in poor form. Since the best criticism you have of me is an assumption about something I didn't even say, I'm sure you understand that it doesn't belong here.
Title: Re: Modern experiments
Post by: AATW on September 12, 2019, 04:04:37 PM
You claim to have reproduced the Bishop experiment.
You don't explicitly say what your result was but a combination of your comments on McToon's video and the fact you are a flat earther led me to assume what your results were. They clearly led you to believe that the earth is flat, or are part of why you believe that. That is surely a fairly reasonable assumption. If you got any other result then why would you be a flat earther? If my assumption is incorrect then please correct me.

It's pretty reasonable to believe people should check things out for themselves.
Up to a point - and that point being people realising their limits, not everyone has the skill or understanding to check everything out for themselves. You only have to look at some of the FE idiots on YouTube to see that - I'll admit that the level of understanding of things on here is generally higher.

The thing I really take issue with is you saying:

those who prefer the scientific method over the Zetetic method expect us to write our experiments up in great detail to save them the hassle of having to actually experience the world for themselves

No!
The whole point of someone writing up the result of their experiments, and the method they used to obtain them, is so other people can try it for themselves.

It allows other people to check your result and method. Maybe you made a mistake somewhere which led you to a wrong conclusion. How do I know unless I know what you did? How do you know if you made a mistake, come to think of it.
Sure, I can do my own tests but if I get different results, then what? Maybe I made a mistake but how will you (again, or I) know unless I've documented things so other people can check?
How do we move towards consensus unless we have both documented our methods and results so we can try and understand between us why we got different results?
That is how progress is made.

The attitude that comes across is
"I believe the earth to be flat because of tests I've done, but I'm not going to show you the results of those tests, you should do your own".

The first part of that, your conclusion, is so revolutionary that my immediate reaction is you must have made a mistake. It doesn't make me want to do my own tests, it makes me want to understand more about what you did that led you to that conclusion.

I believe it's counter-productive to want people to do their own tests if you're not going to document your own. Partly because your claim is so extraordinary - most people's reaction is going to be that you are mistaken. And partly for the reasons I've mentioned, progress is made by people cross-checking each other's work.

I have no criticism of you. I just disagree with the notion that you publishing your results will make others less likely to want to do their own tests, my view is it would make people more likely to.
Title: Re: Modern experiments
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 12, 2019, 04:27:56 PM
I have no criticism of you.
Then please refrain from voicing one in the future. I don't even ask for basic courtesy, merely internal consistency.

It's pretty reasonable to believe people should check things out for themselves.
That concession will do for now.

The thing I really take issue with is you saying:

those who prefer the scientific method over the Zetetic method expect us to write our experiments up in great detail to save them the hassle of having to actually experience the world for themselves
I stand by what I said, provided that we consider it in context. dichotomy is inventing excuses not to perform experiments himself - he's not in California, and other bodies of water might not be a fair comparison, and it wouldn't provide him with the evidence he wanted anyway, etc. etc. He, and many like him, is trying to get others to do work him, only using scientific inquiry as a lazy excuse.

Title: Re: Modern experiments
Post by: dichotomy on September 12, 2019, 06:34:26 PM
Quote
He, and many like him, is trying to get others to do work him, only using scientific inquiry as a lazy excuse.

Please don't make claims about what you think I am trying to do Pete.  I am especially not asking you to be a spokesman for me. I can speak for myself thanks very much. If you don't like what I say then fair enough but that is not a reason to belittle what I say just because I have an opinion that you don't agree with.

I am simply asking people who claim they have done experiments already, and therefore already done work for themselves to explain what their conclusions were from those experiments. Nothing more nothing less.

If you can provide me with evidence that supports your flat Earth belief then present it and I will give it due consideration. Based entirely on its merits and not what I believe or don't believe.
Title: Re: Modern experiments
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 13, 2019, 06:19:32 AM
Please don't make claims about what you think I am trying to do Pete.  I am especially not asking you to be a spokesman for me. I can speak for myself thanks very much.
Sorry, that's not how accusations work - I'm not a spokesperson for you, but against you - as you astutely observed, speaking for yourself is your own job. Asking me to stop accusing you of something I provided evidence for will not change my position.

This is also not a matter of "disagreeing" with you. I'm making an argument that's independent of your opinions. It also has nothing to do with whether or not I "like" you or what you're saying - it's a simple analysis of your actions.
Title: Re: Modern experiments
Post by: obiba on September 13, 2019, 04:57:53 PM
One experiment to be done is to go and film the sun in Antarctica during south hemisphere summer and you have your best proof ever, and not so expensive
Title: Re: Modern experiments
Post by: Midnightsun on September 13, 2019, 09:02:12 PM
Sure... and take some FE believers with you so they can see the Sun and film it with their own eyes. Because that seems to be the only way they believe something; if they actually see it.