8041

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment

« on: April 09, 2017, 12:30:34 AM »

An assertion made many times by Flat Earth Theorists trying to explain the discrepancy of map projections with observed facts. The encouragement to leave the country was more a general one to get you to see that your assertions do not apply to the part of the world ignored by most Flat Earth theorists: the Southern Hemisphere.

Does this look like a Southern Hemisphere thread?

And while we are at it, yes the curvature of bodies of water is different at different latitudes - and geophysicist will tell you that the curvature of the earth is different at the equator than nearer the poles. The fact remains that you need a larger sample size and a larger scale experiment to verify your claims.

It doesn't matter what shape the land is. Even if 1/5th of the earth were sliced away like an orange, the water, if there were enough of it, would spill over and form the rest of the sphere due to gravity.

That doesn't answer the fact that the distance of the horizon doesn't fade out like it would if its disappearance were attributable to the atmosphere's opacity. You haven't answered the questions - just restated your original assertion with more words.

And before you start saying this isn't relevant, it very much is because for your experiment to be true, it should be able to be scaled up to any size and you will receive the exact same result.

Does the atmosphere have molecules in it or not?

One walked away with definitive proof of the earth's curvature which was presented to scholars at Cambridge and subsequently used as a model for explaining the Earth's curvature for nearly a century, adhering to mathematical and empirical proof, and the other walked away with a sore ego and battered reputation which motivated him to threaten the successful scientist with murder.

As has been demonstrated by any real scientist who has ever deigned to address this topic, the sacred text of the Flat Earth Society stands on an incredibly shaky ground of flawed mathematics and physical theories that do not stand up to the rigours of scientific experimentation. Any argument made in said book is performed from a preconception that the Earth must be flat and a blatant disregard for objectivity.

It was not a legitimate experiment. It was a WAGER for a year's worth of pay. Don't you see the issue with that? Yet despite it being clearly a totally invalid experiment on grounds that significant sums of money was involved, and that both men claimed that they had won, it somehow supports your side.

8042

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment

« on: April 08, 2017, 10:57:39 PM »

"other landmass" - try leaving the country and repeating this from, say, Patagonia or Indonesia or Australia. Your examination of one tiny section of the earth is not enough to make grand statements about its entirety.

According to Round Earth Theory gravity is pulling water into a sphere, and every section of water must exhibit curvature. The experiment has been conducted in multiple locations, but really only one is needed to contradict the model which is claimed.

Are you claiming that gravity works differently as claimed in the Round Earth model in that multiple locations are needed?

The Atmospheric Transparency defense is bunk - even on the clearest of days we should see the horizon fade slowly to a vanishing point at eye level. What we actually see is a sharp cut-off where the sky meats the land/ocean with objects "sinking" behind it like - you guessed it - objects going over a curve. There is no amount of perspective jiggerypokery or claims of atmospheric transparency that can refute this.

The atmosphere has things like atoms and molecules in it which build up over distance. It should not be expected that one can see forever through it.

Though one of the main proponents of the experiment, a man named Hampden, threatened to murder the man who proved the experiment wrong, Alfred Russel Wallace.

Wallace's version of the experiment, which showed Rowbotham's experiment returned a false result, was replicated for nearly a century as an illustration of the curvature of the Earth and, by the end of the ensuing legal battle, Hampden was left disgraced and bankrupt.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/rosetta-stones/wallace-8217-s-woeful-wager-how-a-founder-of-modern-biology-got-suckered-by-flat-earthers/
http://people.wku.edu/charles.smith/wallace/S162-163.htm

This three pole experiment was subject to some flaws. There is a chapter on that in Earth Not a Globe:  http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za45.htm

Also, this experiment was actually a wager between two men for a years worth of pay and both men walked away from it claiming that they had won.

8043

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: April 08, 2017, 10:10:20 PM »

I think he's criticizing Trump making taking steps towards warfare when people didn't like Hillary cause they thought she was a warmonger.

Hillary firing missiles bad.
Trump firing missiles good.

So, if Syria decides again to commit genocide against innocents, Trump shouldn't stop them because it makes him a warmonger and hypocritical because he criticized other people for engaging in or supporting warfare in the past? 

Those arguments appear to be defending genocide.

8044

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: It's legal to kill across country borders...

« on: April 08, 2017, 09:50:05 PM »

You would also be shot if you and your friends ganged up on a lone police officer and assaulted him with rocks. Where is the issue?

8045

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: April 08, 2017, 09:39:47 PM »

The more I see of Trump the more I think that every criticism he spoke of on Hillary is exactly what he's doing.

Trump supporters voted for their version of Hillary.

Are you really shedding tears over the bombing of an airfield that was used to conduct chemical warfare?

That's... not even close to what he said.

If you are criticizing Trump for bombing this airfield that is exactly what you are doing.

8046

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment

« on: April 08, 2017, 09:35:01 PM »

So when simply validating someone else's experiment from two centuries ago, it is no longer necessary to "isolate, prepare, and manipulate things in hopes of producing epistemically useful evidence"? And how did Robotham "isolate, prepare, and manipulate things in hopes of producing epistemically useful evidence" (again your own words from above)? And does repeating someone else's experiment absolve you of any need to actually document the experiment in a way that still others could reproduce it, and thereby discover if it was indeed correct or if there were errors in the methodology

The water convexity experiment has been conducted by multiple people under different atmospheric conditions and water conditions. This constituted rigorous repetition. My experiment was just one more to the pile.

How was your experiment or Rowbotham's any different from the mere observations recorded by Astronomers

Rowbotham brought tools like barometers between the start and ends of the experiment to determine air pressure. When has an Astronomer ever gone to a star to keep his experiment controlled?

8047

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment

« on: April 08, 2017, 09:31:58 PM »

It's a simple validation and repeition of Rowbotham's convexity experiments, which did account for refraction and waves and all of those things. It's not my original experiment. I will suggest that you read Earth Not a Globe.

I thought "appeals to authority" weren't allowed in these arguments. Rowbotham asserted that he had been to the ice wall, beside the fact that he stated this wasn't possible

It was James Clark Ross who went to the Ice Wall, not Rowbotham.

- he hasn't been able to give any accurate figures for the size of the earth, the wall, weather, atmospheric pressure the motion of the sun or moon or any other planets, the existence of a second pole star or the nature of eclipses with any evidence that remotely resembles observable fact.

Rowbotham doesn't suggest figures for much of that.

None of his experiments can be repeated with his results - whenever attempted, even when he was still alive, he would jump up and down and proclaim that telescopes are the instruments of the devil.

This is not true at all.

Now, since your results can't be replicated on any other landmass that should support your claims (i. e. anywhere else) with your results, I suggest you do what any sensible scientist would do and concede that your method was insufficient to demonstrate any kind of scientific rigour and repeat it somewhere else - anywhere else!

I did claim that I repeated it.

I suggest starting with Australia  since, given the models proposed by your own society, the Ice wall should be visible from there - since this is a fixed point in your cosmology and you should be able to see its entirety from anywhere on the Australian continent, your results should be easily replicatable.

The Ice Wall is only 150 feet high in the monopole model and the atmosphere is not perfectly transparent.

8048

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: April 08, 2017, 09:25:47 PM »

The more I see of Trump the more I think that every criticism he spoke of on Hillary is exactly what he's doing.

Trump supporters voted for their version of Hillary.

Are you really shedding tears over the bombing of an airfield that was used to conduct chemical warfare?

8049

Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon and Sun Angles Don't Line Up

« on: April 08, 2017, 04:38:18 PM »

Tom, the sun doesn't look lower.  The angle between them just appear to not converge.  Tom, did you try the string like the rest of us?

What are you talking about? Does a plane not look lower when it is over head than when it is off in the distance?

That's a perspective effect. You are claiming that the 93 million mile distant sun is lowered due to a perspective effect. The hallway example, the ceiling example, those are perspective effects, something you are attributing this event to.

8050

Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon and Sun Angles Don't Line Up

« on: April 08, 2017, 04:08:40 PM »

Nice try, but Round Earth Theory can't claim that this is some kind of perspective effect that makes the sun significantly lower than it actually is. We are told here all the time that there are Sunrise and Sunset calculators that will predict the time of the sunrise and sunset in RET down to the minute.

The apparent​ angle difference has nothing to do with sunrise and sunset calculators.  The string is brilliant because it shows that the angles are actually congruent.

You can't claim that there is a perspective, or whatever, effect that is making the sun much lower to the ground than it actually is. This contradicts the claims that we can compute the position of the sun with Round Earth orbital models very easily.

Perspective isn't making the sun appear lower than it is.  Perspective makes it appear like the angles don't align.  Once you put a string between the two you see that the sting bisects each just like it should.  The same thing happens in a long hallway.  The ceiling appears to rise up when looking down each end.  I reality it is straight.

You just said that it's a perspective effect with the hallway analogy. Like the sun is just down the hallway!

This actually suggests that the sun is much closer to the earth to be affected so severely by perspective, but I digress:

You cannot claim that the sun is lowered so severely by perspective because we have Round Earth orbital models which can easily and precisely compute the sun's position in the sky. How does that work?

8051

Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon and Sun Angles Don't Line Up

« on: April 08, 2017, 04:05:10 PM »

Nice try, but Round Earth Theory can't claim that this is some kind of perspective effect that makes the sun significantly lower than it actually is. We are told here all the time that there are Sunrise and Sunset calculators that will predict the time of the sunrise and sunset in RET down to the minute.

The apparent​ angle difference has nothing to do with sunrise and sunset calculators.  The string is brilliant because it shows that the angles are actually congruent.

You can't claim that there is a perspective effect, or a whatever effect, that is making the sun much lower to the ground than it actually is. This contradicts the claims that we can compute the position of the sun with Round Earth orbital models very easily.

8052

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment

« on: April 08, 2017, 03:55:31 PM »

It's a simple validation and repeition of Rowbotham's convexity experiments, which did account for refraction and waves and all of those things. It's not my original experiment. I will suggest that you read Earth Not a Globe.

8053

Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon and Sun Angles Don't Line Up

« on: April 08, 2017, 03:51:00 PM »

Nice try, but Round Earth Theory can't claim that this is some kind of perspective effect that makes the sun significantly lower than it actually is. We are told here all the time that there are Sunrise and Sunset calculators that will predict the time of the sunrise and sunset in down to the minute under RET.

8054

Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon and Sun Angles Don't Line Up

« on: April 06, 2017, 09:40:30 PM »

So you admit you don’t see what we’re saying (10th dan in missing the point), you won’t do the simple experiment that Gary and others have offered as you don’t know when the moon will be in the daytime sky, well the “children’s” moon is often in the sky,
 •  Look within a week or so of the date of full moon.
•  Before full moon, look for the daytime moon in the afternoon.
•  After full moon, look for the daytime moon in the morning
(waxing gibbous tonight 6th April so you are on, although being near the equinox the discrepancy won't be profound).

A full moon with the sun in the sky isn't supposed to ever happen in the Round Earth model. You want me to perform an experiment that cannot happen?

Incorrect. At 66.5 latitude you can see both simultaneously because the moon is not directly on the ecliptic.

Why do I need to perform some kind of experiment to confirm someone else's argument? If you are making a claim that an experiment will confirm your argument, YOU need to do the experiment.

Because you only value first hand experience?

Where have I ever said that? Don't you see me quoting Rowbotham all the time?

If you have an experiment for us that will confirm something you believe to be in your favor, it is your responsibility to perform the experiment. Telling us to go here, wait this long, and do this and that to perform some experiment which you blindly assume will produce a result favorable to your argument doesn't fly. Your claim, your burden.

8055

Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon and Sun Angles Don't Line Up

« on: April 06, 2017, 08:33:30 PM »

So you admit you don’t see what we’re saying (10th dan in missing the point), you won’t do the simple experiment that Gary and others have offered as you don’t know when the moon will be in the daytime sky, well the “children’s” moon is often in the sky,
 •  Look within a week or so of the date of full moon.
•  Before full moon, look for the daytime moon in the afternoon.
•  After full moon, look for the daytime moon in the morning
(waxing gibbous tonight 6th April so you are on, although being near the equinox the discrepancy won't be profound).

A full moon with the sun in the sky isn't supposed to ever happen in the Round Earth model. You want me to perform an experiment that cannot happen?

Why do I need to perform some kind of experiment to confirm someone else's argument? If you are making a claim that a certain experiment will confirm your argument, YOU need to do the experiment.

In the meantime answer Nirmala and my earlier point, does your model explain the problem you see with the angles?

I would say that the effect is a confirmation of the long-postulated Flat Earth mechanism which places the sun lower than it actually is over a Flat Earth. There are several mechanisms which have been proposed over the years. Mechanisms have been proposed ranging from an atmospheric effect, to the Electromagnetic Accelerator which bend light rays, to a perspective effect, and further analysis and consideration would need to be conducted to say which effect this observation most strongly supports. The video in the OP shows that the sun actually does appear lower than where the moon thinks it is. If this mechanism did not exist, the sun would at all times be above the surface of the earth and night and day could not exist.

8056

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Conspiracy theories and Occam's Razor

« on: April 06, 2017, 08:06:07 PM »

Very in depth answer... hahaha.
"Occam's Razor asks us which explanation makes the least number of assumptions."
Literally everything you say about a flat earth is an assumption because there is no actual evidence...

Don't expect much from these people, they do after all think the earth is flat.

It's empirical that the earth is flat. It takes spacious ancient Greek reasoning and appeals to authority to justify a round one.

8057

Earth Not a Globe Workshop / Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes

« on: April 06, 2017, 04:33:35 PM »

Since all experiments depend on an observer to report the results, your criticism of Astronomy applies to any and all experiments by any kind of researcher employing any kind of method. Practitioners of any method are ultimately observing and interpreting their experiences. It is all subjective, so using that as a criticism is not valid.

Since all experiments depend on an observer to report the results, your criticism of Astronomy applies to any and all experiments by any kind of researcher employing any kind of method. Practitioners of any method are ultimately observing and interpreting their experiences. It is all subjective, so using that as a criticism is not valid.

The Chemist can put his subject matter under controlled experimental conditions to come to a truth. The Astronomer cannot. This is why Chemistry is a science and why Astronomy is not.

Your argument about both "observing the results" is not a good one. The Chemist can clearly do a lot more testing on his subject matter than the Astronomer can. There is a huge difference. The Astronomer is not doing testing or experimentation at all before coming up with theories.

8058

Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon and Sun Angles Don't Line Up

« on: April 06, 2017, 06:14:01 AM »

honestly, i don't think you're really trying to understand what i'm saying, and you definitely haven't read the sources i posted with any care at all.  the paper in particular explains all of this and gives real-world examples of the phenomena that you can verify on your own.  see: section 3.  again, testing this yourself costs nothing but time and twine.  you don't have to take anyone's word for anything here.  do the experiment.

What am I supposed to do in this experiment? Here is the quote again:

“...the line connecting the horns of the moon, between its first quarter and full moon,
for instance, does not appear to be at all perpendicular to the direction from sun to
moon; we apparently think of this direction as being a curved line. Fix this direction
by stretching a piece of string taut in front of your eye; however unlikely it may have
to you at first you will now perceive that the condition of perpendicularity is satisfied”

Perhaps you can rephrase what we are supposed to do in this experiment. We hold up the string and align the ends with the moon and sun and pull it taught in front of our eyes? That would just create a straight line path between the sun and the moon.

i'm not saying there's a literal surface on which everything is embedded.  i agree that the earth, moon, and sun, inhabit euclidean space.  i'm saying that the night sky is a geometric surface on which images of the sun, moon, and stars we see are projected.

Why is there a geometric surface on which the images of the sun, moon, and stars are projected? You are just saying that it happens because it happens, without any real explanation.

If you create a scene in Maya or another 3D modeling program and place little balls all around your camera, are we looking at something projected on a "celestial sphere" when we pan around and look at those balls? Would it really make a difference if those balls are 1000 units away or 100,000,000 units away?

think about a planetarium, which in this case is literally projecting light onto a physical surface.  why do they choose to project it onto a spherical surface?  why aren't planetariums cube-shaped?  or pyramid-shaped?  why always a spherical surface?

A planetarium is just a movie on a curved screen. When we look up at the universe we are not looking at a movie on a screen. Can't you see that there is a difference?

so forget for a second about surfaces and projections and everything else, and let's just talk about how the night sky appears to you.  does it have any depth?  is the night sky 3-dimensional?  when you look at stars and the moon and all that, can you tell how far away they are by looking at them?

No, you cannot tell how far away they are.

suppose you wanted to make a coordinate system for the night sky to be able to mark the location of everything you can see in it.  let's say you want to map the night sky or something.  how many parameters would you need to describe the location of a star in the sky/on the map?  would you need to specify depth in any way to find a star?

again, to be clear, i'm asking about the way things appear in the sky.  of course the stars are not painted onto anything.

The stars would just be around you in euclidean space -- like in the 3D model example I mentioned above where you have some balls surrounding you. You look up, and you see some balls. You look right, and you see some more balls. If two of those objects were arrows pointing at each other, you would see them pointing at each other; you would not see them pointing away from each other. I don't see where the celestial sphere is a necessary consequence of this.

8059

Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon and Sun Angles Don't Line Up

« on: April 06, 2017, 05:57:53 AM »

Don't assume then.  Go ahead and try it.

It is night right now and I would need to find a time when the moon and sun are both in the sky together. By the time this happens I will probably have forgotten all about your experiment. It is really up to you to perform your own proposed experiments if you are trying to prove something that might help your argument, not ask your opponent to.

8060

Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon and Sun Angles Don't Line Up

« on: April 06, 2017, 04:04:27 AM »

Nirmala,

I read your message but, I am sorry, I don't really understand what you are trying to say at all, except that the large distances involved somehow make angles not work.

You are going to have to be a little more clear in why angles don't work on big scales.

model 29,

Why should we assume that the results of that experiment would be how you wish them to be?