Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Topics - Tontogary

Pages: [1]
1
Suggestions & Concerns / Mods on this forum are biased and rubbish
« on: June 04, 2018, 02:57:03 AM »

So i have had a run in with the Mods, Again.

A few days back, Pete sent me a PM saying i should not call anyone an Idiot, (I think Tom had thrown his toys out of the pram, (buggy/stroller) but no names were mentioned. In fact i think I only suggested Tom was an idiot, and cannot recall doing it to anyone else)

Anyway Junker was obviously having a bout of PMT, so called someone an idiot yesterday, so instead of calling him out in the forum, I reported the post.

Queue another message from Pete saying that Junker might not have been right, but I was still wrong............

I thought mods set the tone of these debates, and when you get told not to do something, which is then directly done by a Mod, it is rather galling.

So ranting here I am, and fully expect to get another nice PM, telling me I cant criticise Mods................

It’s like debating with one hand tied behind your back. FEers can post low content shit posts (think Baby Thork) pretty much with impunity, whilst if I comment on low content posts of a Mod, I get warned. Also warned for replying to a thread because I copied something Tom had written????? (Still cant my head round that one)

Of course I understand that people who ask difficult questions need to be put in their place, after all what audacity we have for questioning the FE Hypotheses of others, but to unfairly use the Mods authority to allow one side free range over dissent is not doing this site any favours.

2
On a different thread i looked at EnaG claims to calculate the distance of the sun, but the thread took a slightly different direction, so i am starting a new one here to look at the claims of the calculation of the suns distance.
He writes below;

“The distance from London Bridge to the sea-coast at Brighton, in a straight line, is 50 statute miles. On a given day, at 12 o'clock, the altitude of the sun, from near the water at London Bridge, was found to be 61 degrees of an arc; and at the same moment of time the altitude from the sea-coast at Brighton was observed to be 64 degrees of an arc, as shown in fig. 58. The base-line from L to B, 50 measured statute miles; the angle at L, 61 degrees; and the angle at B, 64 degrees. In addition to the method by calculation, the distance of the under edge of the sun may be ascertained from these elements by the method called "construction." The diagram, fig. 58, is the above case "constructed;" that is, the base-line from L to B represents 50 statute miles; and the line L, S, is drawn at an angle of 61 degrees, and the line B, S, at an angle of 64 degrees.”

Further in the chapter he gives the date used as July 13th 1870.

Looking at NOAA website
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/solcalc/azel.html
It is possible to determine the Declination of the sun at that date. At Noon in the Uk the declination would have been 21 degrees 50’ north or 21.83333

The lattitude of London Bridge is 51 degrees 30’ North and Brighton pier (coast) is 50 degrees 48’N

Latitude on the earth is calculated using the suns apparent altitude and the suns known declination to determine the observers latitude.

In the Northern hemisphere with a North declination the calculation can be transposed to show what the apparent altitude measured should be.

The calculation will be 90 degrees-observers latitude, plus the suns declination.

Knowing the declination and the latitude it is possible to calculate the altitudes that should have been measured.
For London Bridge;
90.0- 51.5+21.8333. = 60.3333 or 60 degrees 20 minutes.

For Brighton
90.0- 50.8 + 21.833333. = 61.033333 or 61 degrees and 02 minutes

Now EnaG maintains the altitudes measured were 61 degrees and 64 degrees, so as can be seen the error on the measurements are 40 minutes of arc at london and a whole 3 degrees at Brighton

The angular distance between them is actually 42 arc minutes, not 3 degrees.

His distance from London to Brighton is an oft quoted distance of 50 miles, but london is a bloody big place, and looking at the Lat/Long of London Bridge and of Brighton pier (on the coast) the distance in a straight line is 48 miles (statute) so another error there.

In summary his angle measurements to the nearest whole degree is incorrect,
Both of his altitudes are incorrect, by some margin,
his figure for the angle between the 2 measurements is grossly in error
His baseline measurement is in error.
Consequently;
His conclusion is in error,

And there is no verification of his results. He says that the sun will be overhead that day 400 miles to the south of london, which would give a declination of about 46N, a figure never attained, and easily verifiable.

Does anyone think this is the work of a real scientist?

3
Ok here i am going to try to hold a discussion and debate the claims made in EnaG regarding the horizon always rising to eye level.

I am not trying to derail any other threads, there is an excellent experiment underway to try obtain a photographic proof of this or not, but this thread is about examining EnaGs claims, and looking at the chapters where he makes the claims and looking at the different ways he attempt to Prove it.

The hypothesis is a cornerstone of many of the claims made in EnaG, and is used as a proof of something, ie “X must be true as the horizon always rises to eye level” or “Y is proven as the horizon must rise to eye level”

To start with I will list down the chapters and experiments that are used to prove this hypothesis, and then examine them in a bit more detail, and trying to see if they stand up to scrutiny.

The following are the chapters and experiments that deal with showing how it works, or proving the claim,

Chapter II
Experiments 10, 11, 15.

Chapter XIV
Tangential Horizon


These are the chapters and experiments that he uses to explain the hypothesis, and where he makes studies and measurements as such.
Only in Ch II experiment 11 and 15 does he use instruments to back up the claims, Whilst elsewhere he uses newspaper articles and line drawings as evidence.

Whilst there are other parts of EnaG that use the hypothesis as a proof, they do not advance or forward the knowledge of why that is, other than to state that is has been shown to be so.

I will take each experiment or chapter and deal with it separately.


4
Flat Earth Community / What Makes conspiracy Theorists believe.
« on: May 08, 2018, 06:22:32 AM »
Just found this on BBC, rather interesting, and certainly tries to explain why some are rather entrenched in their beliefs of TFE and the bconspiracy.

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20180124-the-enduring-appeal-of-conspiracy-theories

5
Flat Earth Theory / Sunset. Please explain the pictures.
« on: April 21, 2018, 03:19:57 AM »
Last night was a fantastic sunset.

I watched it and took pictures, Unfortunately not with a filter, so the glare was a bit distracting, however it is clearly seen in the pictures that the sun is going down.

I dont get how the sun gets below the horizon, perspective does not explain it, as the observable diameter of the sun horizontally does not decrease to less than what the eye can discriminate.

Refraction follows the curve of the earth, so when actually seeing it, technically the sun had set.

If the perspective were in effect, the horizontal size of the sun would get smaller and smaller, and eventually disappear. It does not.
It clearly sinks below the horizon, it does not merge into the horizon.

The wiki does not really explain it, and neither does EnaG.

I have proved in another thread that the horizon does not rise up to meet the observers eye, and if the sun was above the horizon, then it would get smaller and smaller, which it does not, as I already proved in yet another thread. All in all it should not get cut in half.

6
I have just thought of a pretty foolproof way of measuring angular distance to the horizon.

We use sextant on board my ship, and these cam measure an arc up to 130 degrees.

So an easy way to MEASURE the angle from one horizon to the next is to take an altitude of the sun or other body that is above 60 degrees from the horizon is to measure the suns lower limb on the closest horizon, and then use the same limb on the opposite horizon. This will give us the total distance from one horizon to the next, through the Zenith.

The remaining part will be the earth below us.

If the Measured arcs add up to more than 180 degrees, the remaining part, ie the earth MUST be be less than 180 degrees, PROVING the horizon does not rise to meet the eye level.

If the sun is high enough today i will give it a go. Should be interesting.

7
Another “Proof” needs examination, and looking at in the context of being a “proof”

EnaG describes his version of what happens here;

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za48.htm

However it is telling that his personal observations are from the Uk only, and he has had “Reliable friends” tell him what happens in the Southern Hemisphere.! It appears second and third hand accounts at best to describe what is the most important part of the chapter, as most of what he says in the northern hemisphere is not in dispute, however it is only in the Southern Hemisphere that the theory of the flat earth falls apart.

So vehement is he in his conclusions that he completely rejects any notion of dissent, or observations that do not agree with his third hand accounts.
Hardly a Zetetic approach is it!?

“4th--The southern region of the earth is not central, but circumferential; and therefore there is no southern pole, no south pole star, and no southern circumpolar constellations; all statements to the contrary are doubtful, inconsistent with known facts, and therefore not admissible as evidence.


Anyway in another thread I have been describing what I have observed, myself, personally, over the last week or so, whilst travelling from the northern hemisphere, past the equator to the southern.

I will copy them in my next post, and you can read for yourself if my description contradicts EnaG, which you will most likely see that it does.

In that case it will be seen that the earth CANNOT be plane, and can ONLY be a globe.

If there are any observers here who are able to contradict my statements, either through their own observations, or even by recognised peer reviewed work  I would love to hear from you.

8
OK lets explore this one shall we?

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za28.htm

Tries to suggest that the sun is bigger when rising and setting than at noonday.

Let me show you why that statement is in error. It is the same size.

Today, 13th April 2018 my vessels position was about 15 degrees North lattitude, and the suns declination was about 9 degrees north, meaning that at noon time the sun was very high in the sky, over 80 apparent altitude.

I measured, with a sextant the diameter of the sun, placing the upper limb onto the lower limb and vica versa. This is a way we use to measure any instrument error, but can also be cross checked with the semi diameter of the sun on any given day.

The readings i obtained were 31.0’ off the arc, and 33.0’ on the arc.
Now this told me 2 things, that my sextant has a slight permanent correction to be applied when taking sights, but also that 2 diameters of the sun add up to 1 degree and 4 minutes.

From the nautical almanac it is seen that todays semi diameter of the sun is 16.0’

Therefore my calculations can be verified, as i measured 2 diameters, and obtained 64’ then taking the semi diameter of the sun multiplied by 4 gives me the same measurement that i took, meaning my method, and calculation, as well as my observation was correct.

Later this afternoon i took another set of observations, and got identical readings, this time with the apparent altitude at 45degrees, at about 15:00.

Finally i took another reading at 16:50 or thereabouts and had exactly the same readings, 31.0’ off the arc, and 33.0’ on the arc.

All three observations show that the suns diameter remained the same, and did not change. I am guessing this rebuts Enag Chapter x?



9
Flat Earth Theory / Navigation using celestial bodies
« on: April 13, 2018, 03:20:31 AM »
Ok another crack at trying to get to the bottom of this flat earth thing.

For the last 30+ years i have been navigating the oceans for over half of the year. I would say i am relatively experienced, and may know a bit about it. I recon i have spent a good 18 years solid (when my vacation months are subtracted from my years at sea) performing navigation day in day out.

I have taken literally thousands of sights of stars, sun, moon etc, and used those to calculate the position of my ship on a globe earth. I have made calculation errors, errors of transposition, but not errors of principle, (apart from when I was training). I believe I have a wealth of Empirical evidence,  observable, and verifiable experiences, all of which should be trump cards to a Zetetic.

Rather than writing it all down, there is a relatively basic description of it here;

http://navsoft.com/Celestial_Navigation_Tutorial.pdf

Please can anyone explain where i am going wrong? With actual evidence? Other than EnaG proves it wrong! As even in that document there is a heavy reliance on geographic positions being “verified by accurate astronomical observations”
How are they verified if all of the calculations are based on SPHERICAL trigonometry?

I dont expect everyone to understand what is written in the link, but believe me, it is copied in literally thousands of text books, taught to millions of people, and there are countless millions, if not billions, of people who have used them and found that the method works. It will not work for a FE.

Please enlighten me, and i will revolutionise navigation, and sing the praises of the TFES until the day i die (a rich man)

10
Flat Earth Theory / EnaG Chapter IV, How the world is circumnavigated
« on: April 11, 2018, 11:12:52 PM »
Charlatan Rowbotham did not present accurate facts to back up his crackpot theories.

Take the explanation of his attempt to explain why a compass needle is horizontal on about the equator.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za35.htm#page_227

He proudly boasts that on a round earth there can no way be a compass needle aligned horizontal with the earths surface, if the surface were a globe.
He also says and does not argue that the angle of dip of the needle increases in the north lattitude as well as the south, and in fact uses that as an observation that is not denied.

Now on that page is a diagram where he asserts that if the earth were round, then the compass needle will point to north, along a straight line represented by C-N. And makes the jump to the conclusion that it proves that the earth cannot be round.

There is a major flaw with his argument.
The compass needle does not point to a pole directly, lies parallel to the lines of magnetic flux, or force

The lines of magnetic force are represented on the attached picture, but dont believe me, get a magnet and iron filings, and a piece of paper. Zero cost if you have them, and do the experiment yourself.

On the other attached picture is shown the earths round shape and the magnetic field.

Now take this quote from EnaG

“and that the two facts that the compass always points towards the pole and yet on the equator lies without dip, cannot possibly co-exist on a globe. They do co-exist in nature, and are well ascertained and easily proved to do so, therefore the earth cannot possibly be a globe. They can co-exist on a plane with a northern or central region: they do beyond doubt co-exist, therefore, beyond doubt the earth is a plane.”

Taking his first statement, that a compass needle points towards the pole, is correct in a way, but the compass needle lies parallel to the lines of force, so will point north along the lines of longitude, (more or less) but the horizontal angle will be parallel to the lines of flux, and it is seen at the equator will be Horizontal, and dip increases in the north and south latitudes, which Charlatan Rowbotham says are “well ascertained and easily proved to do so” then this actually proves the earth is a globe, and debunks his theory.

This is a classic example of him getting a basic principle wrong, then using it to “prove” his theory, when in fact using the correct principle completely debunks his ideas.

The observation that the needle dips in the north and south equator is accepted and stated as a truth by him, but when you see the lines of force with the round earth placed on it, it is very evident that it does. More interestingly superimpose those lines of force on a plane surface and you cannot ever get the needle to do what it does, and that in fact disproves the flat earth theory!

So having debunked his methods on the first attempt, i can do so on most of his other flawed experiments.

11
Charlatan Rowbotham did not present accurate facts to back up his crackpot theories.

Take the explanation of his attempt to explain why a compass needle is horizontal on about the equator.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za35.htm#page_227

He proudly boasts that on a round earth there can no way be a compass needle aligned horizontal with the earths surface, if the surface were a globe.
He also says and does not argue that the angle of dip of the needle increases in the north lattitude as well as the south, and in fact uses that as an observation that is not denied.

Now on that page is a diagram where he asserts that if the earth were round, then the compass needle will point to north, along a straight line represented by C-N. And makes the jump to the conclusion that it proves that the earth cannot be round.

There is a major flaw with his argument.
The compass needle does not point to a pole directly, lies parallel to the lines of magnetic flux, or force

The lines of magnetic force are represented on the attached picture, but dont believe me, get a magnet and iron filings, and a piece of paper. Zero cost if you have them, and do the experiment yourself.

On the other attached picture is shown the earths round shape and the magnetic field.

Now take this quote from EnaG

“and that the two facts that the compass always points towards the pole and yet on the equator lies without dip, cannot possibly co-exist on a globe. They do co-exist in nature, and are well ascertained and easily proved to do so, therefore the earth cannot possibly be a globe. They can co-exist on a plane with a northern or central region: they do beyond doubt co-exist, therefore, beyond doubt the earth is a plane.”

Taking his first statement, that a compass needle points towards the pole, is correct in a way, but the compass needle lies parallel to the lines of force, so will point north along the lines of longitude, (more or less) but the horizontal angle will be parallel to the lines of flux, and it is seen at the equator will be Horizontal, and dip increases in the north and south latitudes, which Charlatan Rowbotham says are “well ascertained and easily proved to do so” then this actually proves the earth is a globe, and debunks his theory.

This is a classic example of him getting a basic principle wrong, then using it to “prove” his theory, when in fact using the correct principle completely debunks his ideas.

The observation that the needle dips in the north and south equator is accepted and stated as a truth by him, but when you see the lines of force with the round earth placed on it, it is very evident that it does. More interestingly superimpose those lines of force on a plane surface and you cannot ever get the needle to do what it does, and that in fact disproves the flat earth theory!

So having debunked his methods on the first attempt, i can do so on most of his other flawed experiments.

12
Flat Earth Theory / Flat earth Chart,
« on: April 03, 2018, 12:33:54 AM »
Can any Flat Earthers please provide me a link to a chart of the world? If you dare.

I would be very interested to see what they think is the North Pole, lines of longitude and latitude, and relative positions of the continents.

It will help me understand your claims better, and try to resolve where i have been misled all my adult life regarding Navigation.

13
Flat Earth Theory / Earths magnetic field discussion
« on: April 01, 2018, 03:20:17 AM »
So if there is an ice wall at the southern extremities of the world, how are the Antarctic explorers explained away?
If someone is following a compass south, they get to the ice wall, or Antarctica, they then keep walking south to the South Pole (magnetic and geographic poles differ) where the dip of the compas needle is 90 degrees to the plane of the surface. Then keep on walking away from that point, they “appear” on the opposite side of the world.
If as is claimed the earths magnetic field is similar to a radial magnet, there MUST be a North Pole, which no one disputes, but also there MUST be a South Pole, which is seen to be beyond this ice wall, which we call Antarctica.
North of the magnetic equator, which runs around the earth at the same latitude as Singapore, a north seeking compass needle will dip below the horizontal, at a steadily increasing angle to the plane of the earth, until at the pole it will be vertical at 90 degrees down.
When passing south of the magnetic equator, the same needle points above the horizontal in line with the earths magnetic field, steadily increasing until at some point it will point 90 degrees to the plane of the surface. This is the other pole, or South Pole. If the earth has a radial magnetism (similar to a loudspeaker etc) then standing at that point you will be either on the underside of the world, or on the bottom of a sphere.

Would any flat earth era be able to claim how this is possible? Ie to stand on the underside of the world?

Also when people have crossed Antarctica, they take a course south to the South Pole, then when they reach there, North and appear on the other side of the “flat” world. To do so with the flat world they must circumnavigate the edge of the world going either east or west, which none of them do.

Pages: [1]