The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: CriticalThinker on August 30, 2017, 12:29:59 AM
-
In the debate forums RE debators are routinely asked to supply heavily restricted empirical evidence to support any claim. So I'm curious, what empirical data was used to create the currently accepted Flat Earth Model?
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
-
In the debate forums RE debators are routinely asked to supply heavily restricted empirical evidence to support any claim. So I'm curious, what empirical data was used to create the currently accepted Flat Earth Model?
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
Inb4 "look at the wiki"
I suspect, that what they can offer is the following: https://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence
To call that "empirical data" might be a stretch.
To call that "the most recent news from the frontiers on scientific research" is definitely a stretch ;D
-
In the debate forums RE debators are routinely asked to supply heavily restricted empirical evidence to support any claim. So I'm curious, what empirical data was used to create the currently accepted Flat Earth Model?
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
Inb4 "look at the wiki"
I suspect, that what they can offer is the following: https://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence
To call that "empirical data" might be a stretch.
To call that "the most recent news from the frontiers on scientific research" is definitely a stretch ;D
It is funny that they cite the Bedford experiment as "evidence". It was shown to be light refraction that caused the effect. A follow up experiment confirmed the expected curvature.
-
In the debate forums RE debators are routinely asked to supply heavily restricted empirical evidence to support any claim. So I'm curious, what empirical data was used to create the currently accepted Flat Earth Model?
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
Inb4 "look at the wiki"
I suspect, that what they can offer is the following: https://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence
To call that "empirical data" might be a stretch.
To call that "the most recent news from the frontiers on scientific research" is definitely a stretch ;D
It is funny that they cite the Bedford experiment as "evidence". It was shown to be light refraction that caused the effect. A follow up experiment confirmed the expected curvature.
That's why I'm asking. Other than the Bedford Level Experiment and the Bishop Experiment I couldn't find any other actual test data in the Wiki. Just rhetorical questions and statements of assertion without any physical data collection.
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
-
In the debate forums RE debators are routinely asked to supply heavily restricted empirical evidence to support any claim. So I'm curious, what empirical data was used to create the currently accepted Flat Earth Model?
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
Inb4 "look at the wiki"
I suspect, that what they can offer is the following: https://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence
To call that "empirical data" might be a stretch.
To call that "the most recent news from the frontiers on scientific research" is definitely a stretch ;D
It is funny that they cite the Bedford experiment as "evidence". It was shown to be light refraction that caused the effect. A follow up experiment confirmed the expected curvature.
Yes - it's a sad state of affairs really. The original Rowbotham experiment produced a result that was seemingly contrary to known science. The "Scientific Method" says that the next step should be for someone to independently try to reproduce the experiment - and when that was done by Wallace and then again by Oldham, the expected curvature of the Earth was clearly demonstrated. Subsequently, Blount made another test and found agreement with Robotham. And after that two other experiments, published in "English Mechanic" refuted Rowbothams results - and one more confirmed it. Morrow did the same experiment on a different body of water and concluded that the Earth is concave.
At this point, with wildly contradictory results - one should step back and examine possible causes for the discrepencies - and at least two possible explanations have been found (refraction due to a surface temperature inversion and the effect of incoming water from the tides at the end of the river).
To my mind, the experiment done by Stratton is the key here. He took a much more scientific approach - shutting the lock gates at either end of the river to prevent tidal influences - and measuring the sightline at intervals from 2" above the water to several feet. What he found was that the water only appeared flat when the eyepoint was very close to the water (as it was for both Robotham and Blount...and that the expected Earth curvature was found at heights of several feet above the water.
At no point should a serious scientific study conclude a strongly surprising result without serious and in-depth study of other possible causes.
In this case, that was only done somewhat sketchily - not with modern rigor - but despite that, it's very clear that AT BEST this is an inconclusive result and shouldn't factor into forward thinking...and in truth, the more careful work by Stratton has explained Rowbotham's findings and conclusively rejected them.
The only sensible conclusion to all of these efforts is that the idea of using sightlines over water is a terrible way to decide the issue.
As I have shown (repeatedly) in these forums, there are MANY simpler, unambiguous proofs that the world is round...and these sight-over-water experiments are pretty much useless.
-
In the debate forums RE debators are routinely asked to supply heavily restricted empirical evidence to support any claim. So I'm curious, what empirical data was used to create the currently accepted Flat Earth Model?
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
Inb4 "look at the wiki"
I suspect, that what they can offer is the following: https://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence
To call that "empirical data" might be a stretch.
To call that "the most recent news from the frontiers on scientific research" is definitely a stretch ;D
It is funny that they cite the Bedford experiment as "evidence". It was shown to be light refraction that caused the effect. A follow up experiment confirmed the expected curvature.
If you read Earth Not a Globe you will find that refraction is accounted for in the experiments.
-
In the debate forums RE debators are routinely asked to supply heavily restricted empirical evidence to support any claim. So I'm curious, what empirical data was used to create the currently accepted Flat Earth Model?
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
Inb4 "look at the wiki"
I suspect, that what they can offer is the following: https://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence
To call that "empirical data" might be a stretch.
To call that "the most recent news from the frontiers on scientific research" is definitely a stretch ;D
It is funny that they cite the Bedford experiment as "evidence". It was shown to be light refraction that caused the effect. A follow up experiment confirmed the expected curvature.
If you read Earth Not a Globe you will find that refraction is accounted for in the experiments.
I've read through the pamphlet. I can find no point in the document where his calculations or methods show how he controls for the effects refraction. I can't even see a remark about refraction during his very limited documentation of the experiment. Please point me to the specific page where he shows his control methodologies. Why did his experiments fail to be accurate at greater heights when tested by Wallace, Oldham & Stratton? Wallace even had his measurements verified and the confirmation sketches done by FE supporters when retesting the Bedford level experiment. If the earth truly is flat and all other variables remain constant, the results should remain consistent for increased elevation along the same line of sight. Why then does his experiment fail a mere 12 feet 4 inches higher?
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
-
In the debate forums RE debators are routinely asked to supply heavily restricted empirical evidence to support any claim. So I'm curious, what empirical data was used to create the currently accepted Flat Earth Model?
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
Inb4 "look at the wiki"
I suspect, that what they can offer is the following: https://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence
To call that "empirical data" might be a stretch.
To call that "the most recent news from the frontiers on scientific research" is definitely a stretch ;D
It is funny that they cite the Bedford experiment as "evidence". It was shown to be light refraction that caused the effect. A follow up experiment confirmed the expected curvature.
If you read Earth Not a Globe you will find that refraction is accounted for in the experiments.
I've read through the pamphlet. I can find no point in the document where his calculations or methods show how he controls for the effects refraction. I can't even see a remark about refraction during his very limited documentation of the experiment. Please point me to the specific page where he shows his control methodologies. Why did his experiments fail to be accurate at greater heights when tested by Wallace, Oldham & Stratton? Wallace even had his measurements verified and the confirmation sketches done by FE supporters when retesting the Bedford level experiment. If the earth truly is flat and all other variables remain constant, the results should remain consistent for increased elevation along the same line of sight. Why then does his experiment fail a mere 12 feet 4 inches higher?
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
In the second edition, there is a brief comment about accounting for refraction...on a different experiment.
Article below details the events of a follow up experiment with a wager attached that showed the Earth was, in fact, curved. The most interesting thing is that when the flat Earther was shown proof of the curved Earth, he refused to accept the results. I guess some things never change.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/rosetta-stones/wallace-8217-s-woeful-wager-how-a-founder-of-modern-biology-got-suckered-by-flat-earthers/ (https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/rosetta-stones/wallace-8217-s-woeful-wager-how-a-founder-of-modern-biology-got-suckered-by-flat-earthers/)
-
In the debate forums RE debators are routinely asked to supply heavily restricted empirical evidence to support any claim. So I'm curious, what empirical data was used to create the currently accepted Flat Earth Model?
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
Inb4 "look at the wiki"
I suspect, that what they can offer is the following: https://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence
To call that "empirical data" might be a stretch.
To call that "the most recent news from the frontiers on scientific research" is definitely a stretch ;D
It is funny that they cite the Bedford experiment as "evidence". It was shown to be light refraction that caused the effect. A follow up experiment confirmed the expected curvature.
If you read Earth Not a Globe you will find that refraction is accounted for in the experiments.
I've read through the pamphlet. I can find no point in the document where his calculations or methods show how he controls for the effects refraction. I can't even see a remark about refraction during his very limited documentation of the experiment. Please point me to the specific page where he shows his control methodologies. Why did his experiments fail to be accurate at greater heights when tested by Wallace, Oldham & Stratton? Wallace even had his measurements verified and the confirmation sketches done by FE supporters when retesting the Bedford level experiment. If the earth truly is flat and all other variables remain constant, the results should remain consistent for increased elevation along the same line of sight. Why then does his experiment fail a mere 12 feet 4 inches higher?
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
In the second edition, there is a brief comment about accounting for refraction...on a different experiment.
Article below details the events of a follow up experiment with a wager attached that showed the Earth was, in fact, curved. The most interesting thing is that when the flat Earther was shown proof of the curved Earth, he refused to accept the results. I guess some things never change.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/rosetta-stones/wallace-8217-s-woeful-wager-how-a-founder-of-modern-biology-got-suckered-by-flat-earthers/ (https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/rosetta-stones/wallace-8217-s-woeful-wager-how-a-founder-of-modern-biology-got-suckered-by-flat-earthers/)
That would be the Wallace experiment that I was referring to. His methods and results were publicly recorded on the day by a FE supporter as well as an independent observer tied to neither party and failed to reproduce the results at 13 feet of elevation instead of 8 inches of elevation. All other distances were controlled for and the experiment took place in the exact same body of water. If the earth truly is flat, why did the FE supporter's diagram not confirm the results of the Bedford Level Experiment at the higher test height?
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
-
I've read through the pamphlet. I can find no point in the document where his calculations or methods show how he controls for the effects refraction. I can't even see a remark about refraction during his very limited documentation of the experiment. Please point me to the specific page where he shows his control methodologies.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za14.htm
That would be the Wallace experiment that I was referring to. His methods and results were publicly recorded on the day by a FE supporter as well as an independent observer tied to neither party and failed to reproduce the results at 13 feet of elevation instead of 8 inches of elevation. All other distances were controlled for and the experiment took place in the exact same body of water. If the earth truly is flat, why did the FE supporter's diagram not confirm the results of the Bedford Level Experiment at the higher test height?
Wallace did walk away from that wager claiming that he had won. It was a wager for a year's pay and both sides walked away claiming that they were the winner. Why do you think that a wager for a large sum of money is credible as an experiment that proves the shape of the earth?
-
I've read through the pamphlet. I can find no point in the document where his calculations or methods show how he controls for the effects refraction. I can't even see a remark about refraction during his very limited documentation of the experiment. Please point me to the specific page where he shows his control methodologies.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za14.htm
That would be the Wallace experiment that I was referring to. His methods and results were publicly recorded on the day by a FE supporter as well as an independent observer tied to neither party and failed to reproduce the results at 13 feet of elevation instead of 8 inches of elevation. All other distances were controlled for and the experiment took place in the exact same body of water. If the earth truly is flat, why did the FE supporter's diagram not confirm the results of the Bedford Level Experiment at the higher test height?
Wallace did walk away from that wager claiming that he had won. It was a wager for a year's pay and both sides walked away claiming that they were the winner. Why do you think that a wager for a large sum of money is credible as an experiment that proves the shape of the earth?
Different experiment Tom. Please provide evidence that Rowbotham accounted for atmospheric refraction during the Bedford Level Experiment itself. Do you expect me to believe that he did correct for it if he didn't document how he did it?
In the Wallace experiment William Carpenter, a FE supporter, personally verified each of the steps in setting up the experiment for accuracy in length, height and levelness. He even looked in the telescope personally and signed his name to the sketches done by himself and another that represented that they saw at the far point of the canal. They showed that the standardized heights did not line up as they would on a flat earth. John Hampden placed the wager against Wallace. William Carpenter personally drew out an image that demonstrated the curvature of the earth himself, after verifying every step of the setup and signed his own name to it as to its authenticity. Please explain why the personally drawn and signed images made by William Carpenter showing that the Bedford Canal is convex should be dismissed? Neither of the two men who made the wager drew either image.
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
-
Different experiment Tom. Please provide evidence that Rowbotham accounted for atmospheric refraction during the Bedford Level Experiment itself.
The Bedford Canal is mentioned four times in that article, and describes how refraction does not contradict the results. You should read it.
In the Wallace experiment William Carpenter, a FE supporter, personally verified each of the steps in setting up the experiment for accuracy in length, height and levelness. He even looked in the telescope personally and signed his name to the sketches done by himself and another that represented that they saw at the far point of the canal. They showed that the standardized heights did not line up as they would on a flat earth. John Hampden placed the wager against Wallace. William Carpenter personally drew out an image that demonstrated the curvature of the earth himself, after verifying every step of the setup and signed his own name to it as to its authenticity. Please explain why the personally drawn and signed images made by William Carpenter showing that the Bedford Canal is convex should be dismissed? Neither of the two men who made the wager drew either image.
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
Both sides walked away claiming that they had won. They didn't walk away agreeing that the earth was round. If there was consensus on the outcome of the wager why would there be continued conflict and the exchanging of threats?
-
Different experiment Tom. Please provide evidence that Rowbotham accounted for atmospheric refraction during the Bedford Level Experiment itself.
The Bedford Canal is mentioned four times in that article, and describes how refraction does not contradict the results. You should read it.
In the Wallace experiment William Carpenter, a FE supporter, personally verified each of the steps in setting up the experiment for accuracy in length, height and levelness. He even looked in the telescope personally and signed his name to the sketches done by himself and another that represented that they saw at the far point of the canal. They showed that the standardized heights did not line up as they would on a flat earth. John Hampden placed the wager against Wallace. William Carpenter personally drew out an image that demonstrated the curvature of the earth himself, after verifying every step of the setup and signed his own name to it as to its authenticity. Please explain why the personally drawn and signed images made by William Carpenter showing that the Bedford Canal is convex should be dismissed? Neither of the two men who made the wager drew either image.
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
Both sides walked away claiming that they had won. They didn't walk away agreeing that the earth was round. If there was consensus on the outcome of the wager why would there be continued conflict and the exchanging of threats?
LMAO - go look at the images the men drew. It CLEARLY showed the curvature. They refused to believe it because they couldn't accept the implications. They were Biblical literalists who thought the Bible said the Earth was flat. Admitting otherwise would be refuting God's word to them. They denied reality to preserve their fantasy. I urge you to look at the images.
-
LMAO - go look at the images the men drew. It CLEARLY showed the curvature. They refused to believe it because they couldn't accept the implications. They were Biblical literalists who thought the Bible said the Earth was flat. Admitting otherwise would be refuting God's word to them. They denied reality to preserve their fantasy. I urge you to look at the images.
The issues with the Wallage wager experiment is described in Earth Not a Globe: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za45.htm
-
LMAO - go look at the images the men drew. It CLEARLY showed the curvature. They refused to believe it because they couldn't accept the implications. They were Biblical literalists who thought the Bible said the Earth was flat. Admitting otherwise would be refuting God's word to them. They denied reality to preserve their fantasy. I urge you to look at the images.
The issues with the Wallage wager experiment is described in Earth Not a Globe: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za45.htm
There were "issues" on both sides. From a formal scientific perspective - the efforts to reproduce the original experiment failed - the results are contradictory in every possible way. There are explanations and counter-explanations.
Bottom line is that this is not solid evidence EITHER WAY. I would not accept Wallace's results as proof of a round earth and I do not accept Rowbotham's results as proof of a flat earth - nor yet Morrow's results as proof that the Earth is concave.
The results of the experiments show that this is a terrible way to decide what shape the Earth is because there are so many confounding factors.
There are MUCH better way to decide this matter - and continually waving the Rowbotham nonsense at everyone just says "Desperation". By continuing to quote such a screwed up mess of experimental work - you're simply clutching at straws.
1) Go look at the moon in both hemispheres.
2) Check airplane schedules over lots of long distance routes.
3) Think about how magnets and pole stars must work in order for celestial and compass navigation to work.
4) Clear your mind about "alternative perspective" - draw some clear, concise diagrams about how the rays of light travel during an FE sunset.
...all of those things (and I'm sure a few more that I've forgotten) clearly and unambiguously demonstrate that the Earth cannot be flat.
Right now, you have failed to explain (1) - your denial of (2) rests on insane claims that manufacturers of airliners do not know that their planes can (sometimes) fly at Mach II - you're not making any sense whatever in your explanation for (3) and as for (4) - you're seemingly unable to discount the simplest possible explanations requiring only the laws of similar triangles.
Instead, you continue to repeatedly wave this really flakey "Bedford Level" experimental finding at us...when it's been re-tested and re-re-tested and no conclusive proof (either way) has ever come from it.
-
Bottom line is that this is not solid evidence EITHER WAY.
Then why do you guys constantly bring it up?
-
LMAO - go look at the images the men drew. It CLEARLY showed the curvature. They refused to believe it because they couldn't accept the implications. They were Biblical literalists who thought the Bible said the Earth was flat. Admitting otherwise would be refuting God's word to them. They denied reality to preserve their fantasy. I urge you to look at the images.
The issues with the Wallage wager experiment is described in Earth Not a Globe: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za45.htm
That only applies if the target is not also above the horizon by the same height as the theodolite. Of course if the telescope is 13 feet in the air and pointed down at the horizon 6 miles away, it would not be level. It wasn't pointed down in the Wallace experiment. It's level was verified by Mr. Carpenter himself and the center marker wasn't off by inches. The lower disk on the center pole was 4 feet lower and it was above the black band at the far end. The vertical deviation of the center pole demonstrated a ~5 foot difference. This would be consistent with a convexity and still not explained by the reasons stated in your evidence.
According to our old friend Pythagoras, even if the Wallace telescope had been 13 feet 4 inches above the horizon pointed directly down at the horizon, it would have been off level by 0.0241°. That could not account for vertical deviation of the center marker by 5 feet.
The Rowbotham Experiment has less documentation than the Wallace experiment, Oldham experiment and Stratton experiment. No stated controls for atmospheric refraction during the Bedford experiment have been supplied thus far. You believe that I should accept a non-repeated experiment with almost no documentation over the multiple independently verified experiments that contradict it? Please explain why the Bedford Level Experiment should be accepted as 100% accurate when it was conducted at a lower level of control? This appears to be an exception to your usually highly stringent demands for precision data.
Thank You,
CriticalThinker
-
Bottom line is that this is not solid evidence EITHER WAY.
Then why do you guys constantly bring it up?
I asked for the empirical evidence that the FE model was based on and so far this is the only evidence supplied. I would happily examine other empirical data that you have amassed to support the FE model. Please direct me to it. The experiments described in the hundred proofs for example don't supply one point of data, just statements. No description of measurement devices or methods. Much of the Wiki hinges on the Bedford Level Experiment or some variation on it. I even had a great time evaluating the Kansas Flatter Than a Pancake Proof. I'ts really quite amazing, but all I need to do is look at some mountains to see clear evidence of convexity and lake bottoms to see clear evidence of concavity. None of that actually proves that the other variations don't exist or that the whole earth is shaped thus.
Please direct me to actual quantitative data that the earth is flat that isn't a direct variation on the Bedford Level Experiment (sight over water) and I'll very quickly move on.
ThankYou,
CriticalThinker
-
Different experiment Tom. Please provide evidence that Rowbotham accounted for atmospheric refraction during the Bedford Level Experiment itself.
The Bedford Canal is mentioned four times in that article, and describes how refraction does not contradict the results. You should read it.
In the Wallace experiment William Carpenter, a FE supporter, personally verified each of the steps in setting up the experiment for accuracy in length, height and levelness. He even looked in the telescope personally and signed his name to the sketches done by himself and another that represented that they saw at the far point of the canal. They showed that the standardized heights did not line up as they would on a flat earth. John Hampden placed the wager against Wallace. William Carpenter personally drew out an image that demonstrated the curvature of the earth himself, after verifying every step of the setup and signed his own name to it as to its authenticity. Please explain why the personally drawn and signed images made by William Carpenter showing that the Bedford Canal is convex should be dismissed? Neither of the two men who made the wager drew either image.
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
Both sides walked away claiming that they had won. They didn't walk away agreeing that the earth was round. If there was consensus on the outcome of the wager why would there be continued conflict and the exchanging of threats?
I did read it. It dismisses the influence of it without actually testing it. All I have to do to find a simple to observe visual evidence of atmospheric refraction is to look along the roof of my car on a hot day and observe the distortions. He dismissed them as trivial instead of testing them. Again, not very high standards of control and no empirical data produced.
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
-
Bottom line is that this is not solid evidence EITHER WAY.
Then why do you guys constantly bring it up?
I don't...I NEVER use Rowbotham, Wallace, Oldham, Stratton, Blount or Morrow results as proof or disproof of FET/RET.
You, however, constantly bring it up...so it's necessary to repeatedly point out that (at best) this is bad science and should be ignored.
We know that refraction and the effects of tides and water flow in the canal could each have had an effect on the results. I actually believe that Stratton was the only experiment that came close to scientific rigor - and he said that the result was in favor of Round Earth...but because this is a seriously screwed up mess - I'm more than happy to say that ALL of the results (Rowbotham's included) cannot be accepted as evidence either way.
On my recent vacation in the UK, we actually drove through Mepal and over a bridge that spans the Old Bedford River (which is where all of these things happened). We didn't have time to stop - but as we crossed the bridge, I have to say that this is an amazingly long, straight, flat stretch of water - and I could see it curved away from us with the naked eye from the height of the bridge.
But that's not science either.
So when you bring the Rowbotham experiment up AGAIN (as I'm quite sure you will) - you can expect me to AGAIN point out that it's not a scientifically valid experiment - and it was not confirmed through subsequent efforts to duplicate the results.
-
Bottom line is that this is not solid evidence EITHER WAY.
Then why do you guys constantly bring it up?
I don't...I NEVER use Rowbotham, Wallace, Oldham, Stratton, Blount or Morrow results as proof or disproof of FET/RET.
You, however, constantly bring it up...so it's necessary to repeatedly point out that (at best) this is bad science and should be ignored.
We know that refraction and the effects of tides and water flow in the canal could each have had an effect on the results. I actually believe that Stratton was the only experiment that came close to scientific rigor - and he said that the result was in favor of Round Earth...but because this is a seriously screwed up mess - I'm more than happy to say that ALL of the results (Rowbotham's included) cannot be accepted as evidence either way.
On my recent vacation in the UK, we actually drove through Mepal and over a bridge that spans the Old Bedford River (which is where all of these things happened). We didn't have time to stop - but as we crossed the bridge, I have to say that this is an amazingly long, straight, flat stretch of water - and I could see it curved away from us with the naked eye from the height of the bridge.
But that's not science either.
So when you bring the Rowbotham experiment up AGAIN (as I'm quite sure you will) - you can expect me to AGAIN point out that it's not a scientifically valid experiment - and it was not confirmed through subsequent efforts to duplicate the results.
So far as I can find on the Wiki, it is the only type of experiment that involves any measurement that specifically concludes that the earth is flat. The Kansas experiment does not conclude that the entire earth is flat, only Kansas. That one is easy to explain through topography.
By the way. Tom, in the Bishop experiment, how did you physically measure the distance between your two points?
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
-
Bottom line is that this is not solid evidence EITHER WAY.
Then why do you guys constantly bring it up?
I don't...I NEVER use Rowbotham, Wallace, Oldham, Stratton, Blount or Morrow results as proof or disproof of FET/RET.
You, however, constantly bring it up...so it's necessary to repeatedly point out that (at best) this is bad science and should be ignored.
We know that refraction and the effects of tides and water flow in the canal could each have had an effect on the results. I actually believe that Stratton was the only experiment that came close to scientific rigor - and he said that the result was in favor of Round Earth...but because this is a seriously screwed up mess - I'm more than happy to say that ALL of the results (Rowbotham's included) cannot be accepted as evidence either way.
On my recent vacation in the UK, we actually drove through Mepal and over a bridge that spans the Old Bedford River (which is where all of these things happened). We didn't have time to stop - but as we crossed the bridge, I have to say that this is an amazingly long, straight, flat stretch of water - and I could see it curved away from us with the naked eye from the height of the bridge.
But that's not science either.
So when you bring the Rowbotham experiment up AGAIN (as I'm quite sure you will) - you can expect me to AGAIN point out that it's not a scientifically valid experiment - and it was not confirmed through subsequent efforts to duplicate the results.
So far as I can find on the Wiki, it is the only type of experiment that involves any measurement that specifically concludes that the earth is flat. The Kansas experiment does not conclude that the entire earth is flat, only Kansas. That one is easy to explain through topography.
By the way. Tom, in the Bishop experiment, how did you physically measure the distance between your two points?
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
Why is there no photographic evidence of the Bishop Experiment? Seems sketchy to me or as the kids like to say... "pictures or it didn't happen".
-
Bottom line is that this is not solid evidence EITHER WAY.
Then why do you guys constantly bring it up?
I don't...I NEVER use Rowbotham, Wallace, Oldham, Stratton, Blount or Morrow results as proof or disproof of FET/RET.
You, however, constantly bring it up...so it's necessary to repeatedly point out that (at best) this is bad science and should be ignored.
We know that refraction and the effects of tides and water flow in the canal could each have had an effect on the results. I actually believe that Stratton was the only experiment that came close to scientific rigor - and he said that the result was in favor of Round Earth...but because this is a seriously screwed up mess - I'm more than happy to say that ALL of the results (Rowbotham's included) cannot be accepted as evidence either way.
On my recent vacation in the UK, we actually drove through Mepal and over a bridge that spans the Old Bedford River (which is where all of these things happened). We didn't have time to stop - but as we crossed the bridge, I have to say that this is an amazingly long, straight, flat stretch of water - and I could see it curved away from us with the naked eye from the height of the bridge.
But that's not science either.
So when you bring the Rowbotham experiment up AGAIN (as I'm quite sure you will) - you can expect me to AGAIN point out that it's not a scientifically valid experiment - and it was not confirmed through subsequent efforts to duplicate the results.
We are talking about the Wallace experiment, not Rowbotham's. If you agreed that it should not be brought up up then you should have just agreed that it should not be brought up and refrained from wasting our time with your rants about other experiments.
-
Why is there no photographic evidence of the Bishop Experiment? Seems sketchy to me or as the kids like to say... "pictures or it didn't happen".
There is photographic evidence. You can see the Santa Cruz beach from Monterey with the naked eye. Someone posted naked eye pictures from a previous thread on the matter:
The point behind the picture I linked is that the beaches are easily seen on the opposite coast. It is a lighter colored line against the dark blue ocean. I never said that it was a picture of Santa Cruz. It is not carelessness or any mistake on my part. The sentence I wrote clearly says that it's an example of easily seen beaches on the opposite coast.
Here is my picture again:
(http://oi7.tinypic.com/6bmicgg.jpg)
Here is the picture of Santa Cruz posted earlier in this thread:
(http://i.imgur.com/R5iKcMP.png)
It might not pop out at you right away, but the pixels just above the water's surface in the Santa Cruz picture are lighter than the dark hills above it. If you look closely there is a light tan line in there, it is not dark on dark.
If you were looking at the whole scene in person starting from the closer coastline (the first image) and followed it into the distance to Santa Cruz (the second image), it would be easier to follow the light line of the beach.
-
Tom,
How was distance measured for the Bishop experiment?
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
-
Why is there no photographic evidence of the Bishop Experiment? Seems sketchy to me or as the kids like to say... "pictures or it didn't happen".
There is photographic evidence. You can see the Santa Cruz beach from Monterey with the naked eye. Someone posted naked eye pictures from a previous thread on the matter:
The point behind the picture I linked is that the beaches are easily seen on the opposite coast. It is a lighter colored line against the dark blue ocean. I never said that it was a picture of Santa Cruz. It is not carelessness or any mistake on my part. The sentence I wrote clearly says that it's an example of easily seen beaches on the opposite coast.
Here is my picture again:
(http://oi7.tinypic.com/6bmicgg.jpg)
Here is the picture of Santa Cruz posted earlier in this thread:
(http://i.imgur.com/R5iKcMP.png)
It might not pop out at you right away, but the pixels just above the water's surface in the Santa Cruz picture are lighter than the dark hills above it. If you look closely there is a light tan line in there, it is not dark on dark.
If you were looking at the whole scene in person starting from the closer coastline (the first image) and followed it into the distance to Santa Cruz (the second image), it would be easier to follow the light line of the beach.
Please provide evidence that the pictures are what you claim.
-
Why is there no photographic evidence of the Bishop Experiment? Seems sketchy to me or as the kids like to say... "pictures or it didn't happen".
There is photographic evidence. You can see the Santa Cruz beach from Monterey with the naked eye. Someone posted naked eye pictures from a previous thread on the matter:
The point behind the picture I linked is that the beaches are easily seen on the opposite coast. It is a lighter colored line against the dark blue ocean. I never said that it was a picture of Santa Cruz. It is not carelessness or any mistake on my part. The sentence I wrote clearly says that it's an example of easily seen beaches on the opposite coast.
Here is my picture again:
(http://oi7.tinypic.com/6bmicgg.jpg)
Here is the picture of Santa Cruz posted earlier in this thread:
(http://i.imgur.com/R5iKcMP.png)
It might not pop out at you right away, but the pixels just above the water's surface in the Santa Cruz picture are lighter than the dark hills above it. If you look closely there is a light tan line in there, it is not dark on dark.
If you were looking at the whole scene in person starting from the closer coastline (the first image) and followed it into the distance to Santa Cruz (the second image), it would be easier to follow the light line of the beach.
Please provide evidence that the pictures are what you claim.
They look photoshopped to me. I've never seen the horizon break at such a sharp angle before. Please provide details of the camera used, the date and time of the photo, the elevation of the camera, the distance to the horizon measured with a mechanical measurement device and the ambient air temperature along the entire line of sight.
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
-
Tom,
How was distance measured for the Bishop experiment?
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
It was measured with Google Earth. Is there something wrong with using your Round Earth distances to show that the predicted Round Earth curvature is incorrect?
They look photoshopped to me. I've never seen the horizon break at such a sharp angle before. Please provide details of the camera used, the date and time of the photo, the elevation of the camera, the distance to the horizon measured with a mechanical measurement device and the ambient air temperature along the entire line of sight.
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
The sources of the picture are provided in that thread. The panorama (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Lovers+Point+Park/@36.6267139,-121.9162178,3a,75y,13.63h,90.48t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1s-4xN1EIWbil0%2FVDQrY31CKMI%2FAAAAAAAB0Z8%2FeOmLstl_oGwNJFsM4B_hAs4t5W4iT6LTgCLIB!2e4!3e11!6s%2F%2Flh6.googleusercontent.com%2F-4xN1EIWbil0%2FVDQrY31CKMI%2FAAAAAAAB0Z8%2FeOmLstl_oGwNJFsM4B_hAs4t5W4iT6LTgCLIB%2Fw203-h100-k-no-pi-0-ya102.55952-ro0-fo100%2F!7i6656!8i3328!4m5!3m4!1s0x808de145db4dcb25:0x48028ef2b9b860bb!8m2!3d36.6261619!4d-121.9163682?hl=en) shows that the photograph was taken from a rock near sea level at the water's edge.
-
Tom,
How was distance measured for the Bishop experiment?
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
It was measured with Google Earth. Is there something wrong with using your Round Earth distances to show that the predicted Round Earth curvature is incorrect?
They look photoshopped to me. I've never seen the horizon break at such a sharp angle before. Please provide details of the camera used, the date and time of the photo, the elevation of the camera, the distance to the horizon measured with a mechanical measurement device and the ambient air temperature along the entire line of sight.
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
The sources of the picture are provided in that thread. The panorama (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Lovers+Point+Park/@36.6267139,-121.9162178,3a,75y,13.63h,90.48t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1s-4xN1EIWbil0%2FVDQrY31CKMI%2FAAAAAAAB0Z8%2FeOmLstl_oGwNJFsM4B_hAs4t5W4iT6LTgCLIB!2e4!3e11!6s%2F%2Flh6.googleusercontent.com%2F-4xN1EIWbil0%2FVDQrY31CKMI%2FAAAAAAAB0Z8%2FeOmLstl_oGwNJFsM4B_hAs4t5W4iT6LTgCLIB%2Fw203-h100-k-no-pi-0-ya102.55952-ro0-fo100%2F!7i6656!8i3328!4m5!3m4!1s0x808de145db4dcb25:0x48028ef2b9b860bb!8m2!3d36.6261619!4d-121.9163682?hl=en) shows that the photograph was taken from a rock near sea level at the water's edge.
Did they account for refraction because that is what is happening in this pic.
Take a close look at the photo with the Gull and the kayaker. If you look at image, you'll notice there appears to be gaps near the water line. Now look at the image below for a more stark example. What they are seeing is a mirage. When you put a spoon in a glass of water do you think the spoon suddenly changes shape or do you understand that light passing through different densities bends?
(https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-c4427d63eff96f5c8f62a4c43901cb20.webp)
-
Tom,
How was distance measured for the Bishop experiment?
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
It was measured with Google Earth. Is there something wrong with using your Round Earth distances to show that the predicted Round Earth curvature is incorrect?
They look photoshopped to me. I've never seen the horizon break at such a sharp angle before. Please provide details of the camera used, the date and time of the photo, the elevation of the camera, the distance to the horizon measured with a mechanical measurement device and the ambient air temperature along the entire line of sight.
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
The sources of the picture are provided in that thread. The panorama (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Lovers+Point+Park/@36.6267139,-121.9162178,3a,75y,13.63h,90.48t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1s-4xN1EIWbil0%2FVDQrY31CKMI%2FAAAAAAAB0Z8%2FeOmLstl_oGwNJFsM4B_hAs4t5W4iT6LTgCLIB!2e4!3e11!6s%2F%2Flh6.googleusercontent.com%2F-4xN1EIWbil0%2FVDQrY31CKMI%2FAAAAAAAB0Z8%2FeOmLstl_oGwNJFsM4B_hAs4t5W4iT6LTgCLIB%2Fw203-h100-k-no-pi-0-ya102.55952-ro0-fo100%2F!7i6656!8i3328!4m5!3m4!1s0x808de145db4dcb25:0x48028ef2b9b860bb!8m2!3d36.6261619!4d-121.9163682?hl=en) shows that the photograph was taken from a rock near sea level at the water's edge.
I am so glad to hear you say that you used google earth to measure distance for your experiment as google earth uses Lat/long to calculate distance.
Please provide proof that your distance measurements are consistent on both a flat earth and round earth. You either invalidate distance for your own experiment or validate it for the geology proof in the Airline data thread. I'm ok with either.
Honestly, I thought you would have seen this coming. You're usually more careful than this.
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
-
Please provide proof that your distance measurements are consistent on both a flat earth and round earth. You either invalidate distance for your own experiment or validate it for the geology proof in the Airline data thread. I'm ok with either.
Neither of these needs to happen. The Bishop Experiment is a sound disproof of the Round Earth Theory (which can, but doesn't have to, serve as evidence of the Flat Earth Theory). Effectively, it's a reductio ad absurdum - you take Round Earth assumptions (distances, extent of curvature) for granted, combine it with observational evidence (you can clearly see something that should be obscured by the curvature, if the assumptions were true), and you arrive at an absurd conclusion. Therefore, either the assumptions or the observation was incorrect. Since Google Earth's images support the observation, we know it was the assumptions that failed.
So no, assuming RE distances for this experiment has no weigh on your qualms with how distances work on FE. That is completely off-topic for this subject.
-
Please provide proof that your distance measurements are consistent on both a flat earth and round earth. You either invalidate distance for your own experiment or validate it for the geology proof in the Airline data thread. I'm ok with either.
Neither of these needs to happen. The Bishop Experiment is a sound disproof of the Round Earth Theory (which can, but doesn't have to, serve as evidence of the Flat Earth Theory). Effectively, it's a reductio ad absurdum - you take Round Earth assumptions (distances, extent of curvature) for granted, combine it with observational evidence (you can clearly see something that should be obscured by the curvature, if the assumptions were true), and you arrive at an absurd conclusion. Therefore, either the assumptions or the observation was incorrect. Since Google Earth's images support the observation, we know it was the assumptions that failed.
So no, assuming RE distances for this experiment has no weigh on your qualms with how distances work on FE. That is completely off-topic for this subject.
The problem with the Bishop Experiment (and other like it) is the assumption is wrong, and they aren't taking proper variables into account. His writings on the matter also leave questions that his pictures don't answer, not to mention the issue of his pictures not being conclusive evidence anyway. The claim is there is a thin white line that is the beach in his photos. But he claims to have been able to see people upon the beach, which the picture provides no evidence for. In fact, the claim is there's no possible way that he should be able to see what's seen in the photo on a RE. But without knowing numbers that are not provided, it's impossible to verify or disprove that claim, and the photographic evidence isn't particularly clear on exactly what's seen to boot. Not to mention a single experiment isn't enough anyway.
I do agree that the distances he uses have no bearing on any other discussion though. FE or RE distances, the idea being tested against uses RE, so that's what should be used.
-
Please provide proof that your distance measurements are consistent on both a flat earth and round earth. You either invalidate distance for your own experiment or validate it for the geology proof in the Airline data thread. I'm ok with either.
Neither of these needs to happen. The Bishop Experiment is a sound disproof of the Round Earth Theory (which can, but doesn't have to, serve as evidence of the Flat Earth Theory). Effectively, it's a reductio ad absurdum - you take Round Earth assumptions (distances, extent of curvature) for granted, combine it with observational evidence (you can clearly see something that should be obscured by the curvature, if the assumptions were true), and you arrive at an absurd conclusion. Therefore, either the assumptions or the observation was incorrect. Since Google Earth's images support the observation, we know it was the assumptions that failed.
So no, assuming RE distances for this experiment has no weigh on your qualms with how distances work on FE. That is completely off-topic for this subject.
The data points, calculations and conclusions only work in the Bishop experiment in the event that the earth is flat and Tom has repeatedly insisted that Lat/Long can't be accepted as accurate on a flat earth. This negates the accuracy of one of the only measurements taken during his experiment.
On a round earth, atmospheric refraction can very easily explain one of the methodological issues in the Bishop experiment yet they were not measured in any way. Secondly, the Bishop experiment confuses drop off with central bulge height and in the event that the earth really is round, fails to use a centrally located vertical to measure against two known height uprights at both terminal locations to check for a convexity. He then further confounds his empirical evidence by failing to make the same observation in both directions. On a round earth, the experiment is incapable of accurately detecting a convexity over distance under the conditions described and as such doesn't work in a reductio ad absurdum proof either. It fails to reduce out multiple variables that would still be present under a round earth assumption.
I do believe that this falls under the initial point of my discussion as I requested empirical evidence to support FE theory. Calling the validity of one of the proofs into question should still be on topic. However, I did have to reference other assertions made by the author of the proof in other works to provide proper frame of reference. How can I trust measurements taken by an observer that doesn't actually think the tool used is accurate?
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
-
There is photographic evidence. You can see the Santa Cruz beach from Monterey with the naked eye. Someone posted naked eye pictures from a previous thread on the matter:
The point behind the picture I linked is that the beaches are easily seen on the opposite coast. It is a lighter colored line against the dark blue ocean. I never said that it was a picture of Santa Cruz. It is not carelessness or any mistake on my part. The sentence I wrote clearly says that it's an example of easily seen beaches on the opposite coast.
Here is my picture again:
(http://oi7.tinypic.com/6bmicgg.jpg)
The trouble with this photo is that we don't know how high the eyepoint is above sea level.
I see evidence of a wall in front of the camera there - and it looks like the photographer was standing up at some number of feet above normal eye height.
The distance you can see in RET is *CRITICALLY* dependent on eye height - even a small variation in height makes an enormous difference in the horizon distance.
Check out: http://www.ringbell.co.uk/info/hdist.htm
At a "normal" eye height of 5 feet - the horizon is 2.7 miles away. But at just 10 feet, it's 3.9 miles away. At 20 feet, it's 5.5 miles away.
Worse than that...seeing objects beyond the horizon depends not just on eye height - but also on the height of the object you're looking at. I see no evidence in the photo above that we're seeing the base of the hills (or whatever they are) out there...and that effect is similar to the observer height.
When you have both an observer who is higher than expected above the ocean AND a target that's way above sea level - you can see for MUCH larger distances than you'd otherwise expect.
Then you also have to allow for wave height since anything other than calm water has complicated geometry that's hard to allow for...and again, these view distances are incredibly sensitive to small errors in that assumption.
So without good, verifiable, data on these those three measurements - any kind of photograph (or eyewitness testimony) like this is useless.
But even with good data - there is this same thorny problem of grazing-angle refraction over the water - which is notoriously hard to allow for - and very likely the cause of the issues with the various Bedford Levels experiments.
So again - this is neither proof nor disproof...it's simply useless.
To avoid these annoying and confounding issues - we need to look at the skies and other similar observations where the vast distances (even in FE terms) are sufficient to make these small errors unimportant. The sun set's pretty much the same whether you're on the ground or standing on a step ladder.
-
The point behind the picture I linked is that the beaches are easily seen on the opposite coast. It is a lighter colored line against the dark blue ocean. I never said that it was a picture of Santa Cruz. It is not carelessness or any mistake on my part. The sentence I wrote clearly says that it's an example of easily seen beaches on the opposite coast.
Here is my picture again:
(http://oi7.tinypic.com/6bmicgg.jpg)
The trouble with this photo is that we don't know how high the eyepoint is above sea level.
I see evidence of a wall in front of the camera there - and it looks like the photographer was standing up at some number of feet above normal eye height.
The distance you can see in RET is *CRITICALLY* dependent on eye height - even a small variation in height makes an enormous difference in the horizon distance.
Check out: http://www.ringbell.co.uk/info/hdist.htm
At a "normal" eye height of 5 feet - the horizon is 2.7 miles away. But at just 10 feet, it's 3.9 miles away. At 20 feet, it's 5.5 miles away.
Worse than that...seeing objects beyond the horizon depends not just on eye height - but also on the height of the object you're looking at. I see no evidence in the photo above that we're seeing the base of the hills (or whatever they are) out there...and that effect is similar to the observer height.
When you have both an observer who is higher than expected above the ocean AND a target that's way above sea level - you can see for MUCH larger distances than you'd otherwise expect.
Then you also have to allow for wave height since anything other than calm water has complicated geometry that's hard to allow for...and again, these view distances are incredibly sensitive to small errors in that assumption.
So without good, verifiable, data on these those three measurements - any kind of photograph (or eyewitness testimony) like this is useless.
But even with good data - there is this same thorny problem of grazing-angle refraction over the water - which is notoriously hard to allow for - and very likely the cause of the issues with the various Bedford Levels experiments.
So again - this is neither proof nor disproof...it's simply useless.
To avoid these annoying and confounding issues - we need to look at the skies and other similar observations where the vast distances (even in FE terms) are sufficient to make these small errors unimportant. The sun set's pretty much the same whether you're on the ground or standing on a step ladder.
The trouble with your interpretation is that the first picture is not a picture of Santa Cruz. You obviously didn't even read about what you were posting. It does not matter what the height it is in that picture. The second panorama shot you clipped out is of Santa Cruz, and we know from the panorama source that is taken from atop a rock near the ocean's surface.
-
we know from the panorama source that is taken from atop a rock near the ocean's surface.
20-25 feet above the ocean's surface. That puts the horizon 5.5-6 miles away.
-
we know from the panorama source that is taken from atop a rock near the ocean's surface.
20-25 feet above the ocean's surface. That puts the horizon 5.5-6 miles away.
How did you estimate that this panorama (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Lovers+Point+Park/@36.6267139,-121.9162178,3a,75y,351.68h,44.63t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1s-4xN1EIWbil0%2FVDQrY31CKMI%2FAAAAAAAB0Z8%2FeOmLstl_oGwNJFsM4B_hAs4t5W4iT6LTgCLIB!2e4!3e11!6s%2F%2Flh6.googleusercontent.com%2F-4xN1EIWbil0%2FVDQrY31CKMI%2FAAAAAAAB0Z8%2FeOmLstl_oGwNJFsM4B_hAs4t5W4iT6LTgCLIB%2Fw203-h100-k-no-pi-0-ya102.55952-ro0-fo100%2F!7i6656!8i3328!4m5!3m4!1s0x808de145db4dcb25:0x48028ef2b9b860bb!8m2!3d36.6261619!4d-121.9163682?hl=en) is taken 20-25 feet above the ocean surface?
-
By clicking on the very conveniently placed link you provided to the source image, panning the 360 degree panoramic image around, noting the size of the kayaker, the woman walking in the direction of the photographer and the drop to the water, and then looking at the same spot on google earth and noting the elevation of the pathway and rock outcrop.
-
20-25 feet above the ocean's surface. That puts the horizon 5.5-6 miles away.
And, just to confirm Round Earthers didn't re-invent mathematics yet: 6 is considerably less than 30, yes?
-
I disagree with the height estimate. But more importantly, how was the distance to the horizon computed?
-
I disagree with the height estimate. But more importantly, how was the distance to the horizon computed?
I agree, the height seems off. Doesn't matter though. Here is a panorama looking due north at Santa Cruz from Monterey and nothing is visible on the horizon. Has the location and heading of the original picture ever been confirmed? There are beaches that would be visible from Monterey if the picture was taken facing more towards the east. (I do still think this is an example of refraction though due to evidence in the photo, regardless of where it was taken)
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.6377069,-121.9346321,3a,15y,356.57h,95.02t/data=!3m11!1e1!3m9!1sAF1QipN42t6rRRqMqngsGNh6hMeVdYluVUJu2Ij2lFTg!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipN42t6rRRqMqngsGNh6hMeVdYluVUJu2Ij2lFTg%3Dw203-h100-k-no-pi-0-ya35.150703-ro-0-fo100!7i8704!8i4352!9m2!1b1!2i65 (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.6377069,-121.9346321,3a,15y,356.57h,95.02t/data=!3m11!1e1!3m9!1sAF1QipN42t6rRRqMqngsGNh6hMeVdYluVUJu2Ij2lFTg!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipN42t6rRRqMqngsGNh6hMeVdYluVUJu2Ij2lFTg%3Dw203-h100-k-no-pi-0-ya35.150703-ro-0-fo100!7i8704!8i4352!9m2!1b1!2i65)
-
we know from the panorama source that is taken from atop a rock near the ocean's surface.
20-25 feet above the ocean's surface. That puts the horizon 5.5-6 miles away.
How did you estimate that this panorama (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Lovers+Point+Park/@36.6267139,-121.9162178,3a,75y,351.68h,44.63t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1s-4xN1EIWbil0%2FVDQrY31CKMI%2FAAAAAAAB0Z8%2FeOmLstl_oGwNJFsM4B_hAs4t5W4iT6LTgCLIB!2e4!3e11!6s%2F%2Flh6.googleusercontent.com%2F-4xN1EIWbil0%2FVDQrY31CKMI%2FAAAAAAAB0Z8%2FeOmLstl_oGwNJFsM4B_hAs4t5W4iT6LTgCLIB%2Fw203-h100-k-no-pi-0-ya102.55952-ro0-fo100%2F!7i6656!8i3328!4m5!3m4!1s0x808de145db4dcb25:0x48028ef2b9b860bb!8m2!3d36.6261619!4d-121.9163682?hl=en) is taken 20-25 feet above the ocean surface?
This "rock" is clearly not of zero height. It looks (guessing) to be a good 10' if not 20' above the water. Even one foot of height difference make a significant difference to the distance you can see in a Round Earth model.
So unless you have MEASURED (with PROOF) that the camera was a specific height above the water - your results are entirely useless.
Measure how high the camera was above the water surface - provide evidence of that - otherwise this is junk.
-
The more important point is how you are computing the distance to the horizon in your rebuttal. By assuming that the earth is round?
-
Honestly, I have been to the area during a road trip. That day, we started our journey in Santa Cruz and drove all the way to LA through the CA-1 road. He had clear skies all day, with some overcast here and there.
I've been to the wharfs of both Santa Cruz and Monterey, as well as to Lovers Point Park, the place these photos were taken from.
Unfortunately, I didn't take a photo of the view I had in Lovers Point Park. Well, I never thought people would argue about the Earth's shape based on that specific point. From Lovers Point Park, I wasn't able to see Santa Cruz's beach that day. The mountains behind it we're visible, though.
My experience may not convince anyone, due to the lack of evidence, but in no way one can convince me Santa Cruz is visible from Monterey, because I was there and it was not visible. Of course, I wasn't there for science, so I had no controls related to refraction or the like. But the Bishop experiment does not seem to have it either.
-
The more important point is how you are computing the distance to the horizon in your rebuttal. By assuming that the earth is round?
You used RE distances for how far it was to the beach, why would that not be used? Setting that aside for the moment, does this mean you have an equation for how far the 'horizon' is on a FE? Would love to see such a thing, especially if it explains how you can see further when you go up higher.
-
My experience may not convince anyone, due to the lack of evidence, but in no way one can convince me Santa Cruz is visible from Monterey, because I was there and it was not visible. Of course, I wasn't there for science, so I had no controls related to refraction or the like. But the Bishop experiment does not seem to have it either.
A picture was posted where it was visible. Therefore your argument that it is never visible is incorrect.
The more important point is how you are computing the distance to the horizon in your rebuttal. By assuming that the earth is round?
You used RE distances for how far it was to the beach, why would that not be used? Setting that aside for the moment, does this mean you have an equation for how far the 'horizon' is on a FE? Would love to see such a thing, especially if it explains how you can see further when you go up higher.
Why would it mean that? Are you trying to divert attention away from your fallacious argument?
In fact, if the distance to the horizon is only 5.5-6 miles miles away on a Round Earth that means the opposite coast should NOT be visible under your RET. You are arguing against your own model!
-
The more important point is how you are computing the distance to the horizon in your rebuttal. By assuming that the earth is round?
You used RE distances for how far it was to the beach, why would that not be used? Setting that aside for the moment, does this mean you have an equation for how far the 'horizon' is on a FE? Would love to see such a thing, especially if it explains how you can see further when you go up higher.
Why would it mean that? Are you trying to divert attention away from your fallacious argument?
In fact, if the distance to the horizon is only 5.5-6 miles miles away on a Round Earth that means the opposite coast should NOT be visible under your RET. You are arguing against your own model!
What fallacious argument? You asked how he was computing distance to the horizon. I was hoping that might mean you had a method to do that other than the one proposed under RE. Your image is also not very clear cut evidence the coast is visible either. You claim there's a 'white line' that you can follow and it's the coast. This line is barely visible at best, and quite possibly an artifact of the camera or similar. But your experiment claims you are able to 'see people on the water's edge' which is definitely not true of that photograph. Lastly, as has been explained, looking over water can have problematic effects for these types of observations and experiments.
Properly document and catalogue everything, along with the date and time of day. Preferably repeat it multiple times. Then we can have a proper discussion about what's being seen.
-
A picture was posted where it was visible. Therefore your argument that it is never visible is incorrect.
Honestly, in the picture you posted I could not see a thing related to Santa Cruz, only the mountains behind it. You claim a thin brighter pixel line of Santa Cruz's Beach is visible. Sorry, I don't think this claim convinces anyone.
Besides that, if Santa Cruz was indeed visible in the picture you posted, your claim would still be invalid, because Santa Cruz is not always visible. And your argument is as incorrect as mine.
I have lived in Chicago for two months in 2016, and I traveled around the region. I could not believe my eyes when I clearly saw the city's skyscrapers from the opposite lake shore, in Michigan City, more than 50 miles away! That's actually the day I discovered some people still believes the Earth is flat.
The sight of Chicago's buildings from there is so rare, that pictures of the phenomenon was shown in local news broadcast.
Unfortunately, I couldn't see a grasp of Chicago the other two days I stayed in Indiana/Michigan. So, the fact I saw Chicago once more than 50 miles away rising above Lake Michigan, proves that the Earth is flat?
By the way, you can google for images of the phenomenon. I saw it with my bare eyes, but the picture I took with my phone shows only water.
-
My experience may not convince anyone, due to the lack of evidence, but in no way one can convince me Santa Cruz is visible from Monterey, because I was there and it was not visible. Of course, I wasn't there for science, so I had no controls related to refraction or the like. But the Bishop experiment does not seem to have it either.
A picture was posted where it was visible. Therefore your argument that it is never visible is incorrect.
The more important point is how you are computing the distance to the horizon in your rebuttal. By assuming that the earth is round?
You used RE distances for how far it was to the beach, why would that not be used? Setting that aside for the moment, does this mean you have an equation for how far the 'horizon' is on a FE? Would love to see such a thing, especially if it explains how you can see further when you go up higher.
Why would it mean that? Are you trying to divert attention away from your fallacious argument?
In fact, if the distance to the horizon is only 5.5-6 miles miles away on a Round Earth that means the opposite coast should NOT be visible under your RET. You are arguing against your own model!
Tom, I posted a link that shows Santa Cruz is not visible from Monterey. You conveniently ignored that. It may be visible on SOME days due to humidity levels and light refraction, but it is not directly visible.
-
In fact, if the distance to the horizon is only 5.5-6 miles miles away on a Round Earth that means the opposite coast should NOT be visible under your RET. You are arguing against your own model!
Tom - the distance to the RET horizon is SENSITIVELY dependent on the height of the camera above the ocean AND to the height of the object you're looking at.
Eye Height Horizon distance
1' 1.2 miles
5' 2.7 miles
7.5' 3.4 miles
10' 3.9 miles
15' 4.7 miles
20' 5.5 miles
100' 12.3 miles
500' 27.4 miles
1,000' 38.7 miles
10,000' 122.5 miles
40,000' 245.2 miles
...add to that that when you're viewing the top of some distant object, you can see it at a distance equal to the sum of the horizon distance from your camera/eye height and the horizon distance from the height at the top of the object you're looking at.
So if your camera is 5' above sea level - the RET horizon is indeed only 2.7 miles away - but if you're looking at the tops of 500' cliffs (say) then it's visible at up to 2.7 miles PLUS 27.4 miles - so over 30 miles away.
Notice that the difference between putting the camera to your eye while standing at the water's edge (5' height) and holding the camera at arm's length above your head (7.5' perhaps) is to increase the horizon distance from 2.7 miles to 3.4 miles.
So using the "I can see XXX miles - so RET is busted" is meaningless unless you have carefully measured both camera height and the height of the thing you're seeing above the horizon. Even small errors in those measurements will produce wildly incorrect results.
This (coupled with the weird refraction effects that happen as the light ray grazes the horizon) render these kinds of experiments entirely useless.
HENCE when people here ask how high was the camera above sea level - and you really don't know accurate to within a foot or so, your predicted RET horizon distances could be ANYTHING...and even if you can provide us with proof of your camera and target heights - the effects of refraction will make your results (at best) unreliable.
Since you fail to provide even the most basic camera height information - you can't use your photos to disprove the Round Earth.
-
I have lived in Chicago for two months in 2016, and I traveled around the region. I could not believe my eyes when I clearly saw the city's skyscrapers from the opposite lake shore, in Michigan City, more than 50 miles away! That's actually the day I discovered some people still believes the Earth is flat.
There are at least 50 buildings in the Chicago skyline that are over 500 feet tall.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Chicago
...so the tops of them will be visible more than 27 miles BEYOND the horizon.
If you're not literally standing on the water's edge, your eye height can easily be 10' to 20' above the water - and that's going to put the horizon about another 4 to 5.5 miles away. So 35 miles is a conservative number. Add in refraction - and the range can be much longer.
Google maps seems to put Michigan City well within 35 miles of some parts of Chicago...so there is no credible proof that you shouldn't be able to see them in RET...and (to be fair) no credible evidence that you should (given the heights of waves at the horizon, etc).
The point is not that I can prove that all of this works - it's that the FE'ers can't prove that it DOESN'T work...and this is their evidence.
IMHO, all of this line-of-sight-over-water stuff is useless as either proof or disproof of the shape of the Earth. There are far too many unknowns - and the mathematics of the situation are SUPER-sensitive to the height over the water of camera and target - and NOBODY collects that data with enough precision. Add in refraction - which we can't calculate without knowing air and water temperature gradients close to the surface over the entire distance between camera and target - and you have a set of data that is completely useless.
So please stop arguing about this stuff...it doesn't help either side of the debate.
-
I have lived in Chicago for two months in 2016, and I traveled around the region. I could not believe my eyes when I clearly saw the city's skyscrapers from the opposite lake shore, in Michigan City, more than 50 miles away! That's actually the day I discovered some people still believes the Earth is flat.
There are at least 50 buildings in the Chicago skyline that are over 500 feet tall.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Chicago
...so the tops of them will be visible more than 27 miles BEYOND the horizon.
If you're not literally standing on the water's edge, your eye height can easily be 10' to 20' above the water - and that's going to put the horizon about another 4 to 5.5 miles away. So 35 miles is a conservative number. Add in refraction - and the range can be much longer.
Google maps seems to put Michigan City well within 35 miles of some parts of Chicago...so there is no credible proof that you shouldn't be able to see them in RET...and (to be fair) no credible evidence that you should (given the heights of waves at the horizon, etc).
The point is not that I can prove that all of this works - it's that the FE'ers can't prove that it DOESN'T work...and this is their evidence.
IMHO, all of this line-of-sight-over-water stuff is useless as either proof or disproof of the shape of the Earth. There are far too many unknowns - and the mathematics of the situation are SUPER-sensitive to the height over the water of camera and target - and NOBODY collects that data with enough precision. Add in refraction - which we can't calculate without knowing air and water temperature gradients close to the surface over the entire distance between camera and target - and you have a set of data that is completely useless.
So please stop arguing about this stuff...it doesn't help either side of the debate.
Just to make things clear, there was some unusual atmospherical conditions that day, and refraction allowed Chicago to be seen much further away than usually. And, to be honest, I was trying to explain Tom that even though I had a "better evidence than what he's provided", it doesn't prove absolutely anything.
-
I have lived in Chicago for two months in 2016, and I traveled around the region. I could not believe my eyes when I clearly saw the city's skyscrapers from the opposite lake shore, in Michigan City, more than 50 miles away! That's actually the day I discovered some people still believes the Earth is flat.
There are at least 50 buildings in the Chicago skyline that are over 500 feet tall.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Chicago
...so the tops of them will be visible more than 27 miles BEYOND the horizon.
If you're not literally standing on the water's edge, your eye height can easily be 10' to 20' above the water - and that's going to put the horizon about another 4 to 5.5 miles away. So 35 miles is a conservative number. Add in refraction - and the range can be much longer.
Google maps seems to put Michigan City well within 35 miles of some parts of Chicago...so there is no credible proof that you shouldn't be able to see them in RET...and (to be fair) no credible evidence that you should (given the heights of waves at the horizon, etc).
The point is not that I can prove that all of this works - it's that the FE'ers can't prove that it DOESN'T work...and this is their evidence.
IMHO, all of this line-of-sight-over-water stuff is useless as either proof or disproof of the shape of the Earth. There are far too many unknowns - and the mathematics of the situation are SUPER-sensitive to the height over the water of camera and target - and NOBODY collects that data with enough precision. Add in refraction - which we can't calculate without knowing air and water temperature gradients close to the surface over the entire distance between camera and target - and you have a set of data that is completely useless.
So please stop arguing about this stuff...it doesn't help either side of the debate.
Just to make things clear, there was atmospherical conditions that day, and refraction allowed Chicago to be seen much further away than usually.
Yep - I understand.
I'm just pointing out that when FE'ers say things like: "In fact, if the distance to the horizon is only 5.5-6 miles miles away on a Round Earth that means the opposite coast should NOT be visible under your RET."...this is an entirely meaningless statement without including the relevant camera and target heights above sea level.
Even given we have that data - you're right that refraction at grazing angles to the horizon introduces another problematic matter - but you can't even begin to enter into that discussion if you don't know the camera and target heights.
-
20-25 feet above the ocean's surface. That puts the horizon 5.5-6 miles away.
And, just to confirm Round Earthers didn't re-invent mathematics yet: 6 is considerably less than 30, yes?
Indeed. What does '30' have to do with this though?
I disagree with the height estimate. But more importantly, how was the distance to the horizon computed?
One of many calculators. I think there is also a table in ENaG that matches.
A picture was posted where it was visible.
What is visible? Hills?
In fact, if the distance to the horizon is only 5.5-6 miles miles away on a Round Earth that means the opposite coast should NOT be visible under your RET. You are arguing against your own model!
No, only around 190-200 ft. A layer of cooler air directly above the water can result in a superior mirage though.
-
So, no rebuttal to my previous methodological issues with the Bishop experiment or general lack of evidence for a flat earth? Any long distance 2 point visual exercise in attempting to see drop off can be dismissed as flawed experiments because they don't measure several variables if the initial assumption is truly that the earth is round. In order to address confounding factors many data points would have to be collected but they just aren't in any of these experiments. The 100 proofs are utter verbal nonsense and a wordy rebuttal could be made for every one of them.
Here's an example. In the 100 proofs comes this little pearl of wisdom "If the Earth were a globe, a small model globe would be the very best - because the truest - thing for the. navigator to take to sea with him. But such a thing as that is not known: with such a toy as a guide, the mariner would wreck his ship, of a certainty!, This is a proof that Earth is not a globe." Let me sum up the ignorance of this proof. You need a scale to measure accurately and the scale would be far too small for a toy globe to be practical for anything. That is why a ship carried multiple map of differing scales so that detail could be seen and measured.
Here's my rebuttal: If the earth were a flat plane, there would be no distortion when mapped out on a flat piece of paper. But such a thing is has never been seen and no navigator of any vessel would be foolish enough to travel using the FE map models in the wiki. That ios proof that the earth cannot be flat.
There you go. The FE model lacks any empirical evidence of any kind. Unless there is something missing from your wiki that has real experiments then the FE model is based on pure fantasy.
Thank you,
Critical Thinker
-
Here's an example. In the 100 proofs comes this little pearl of wisdom "If the Earth were a globe, a small model globe would be the very best - because the truest - thing for the. navigator to take to sea with him. But such a thing as that is not known: with such a toy as a guide, the mariner would wreck his ship, of a certainty!, This is a proof that Earth is not a globe." Let me sum up the ignorance of this proof. You need a scale to measure accurately and the scale would be far too small for a toy globe to be practical for anything. That is why a ship carried multiple map of differing scales so that detail could be seen and measured.
Here's my rebuttal: If the earth were a flat plane, there would be no distortion when mapped out on a flat piece of paper. But such a thing is has never been seen and no navigator of any vessel would be foolish enough to travel using the FE map models in the wiki. That ios proof that the earth cannot be flat.
Yeah - the "100 proofs" thing is a joke. I was thinking of writing a piece debunking every one of them and calling it "100 debunks" - but my fingers are getting a little arthritic after 40 years of sitting in front of a computer typing - and it just didn't seem worth the pain involved!
If mariners were using flat maps to navigate by because they were more accurate than a globe - then how come we can't just use their maps to establish, once and for all, the map of the Flat Earth - something that Tom Bishop insists is completely unknown to them.
The reason that mariners DON'T take a globe along is that they need 1:1,000 scale maps - and keeping an 8 meter (26') diameter ball in the captains cabin of a small sailing ship is just a teensy bit less convenient than a drawer full of flat bits of paper.
Whoever wrote the 100 disproofs document was clearly a complete idiot and had never in his entire life even so much as glanced at a maritime navigation map. Such maps go to great pains to explain what map projection they are using to get from a sphere to a flat map - and to point out the distortions that arise from that. These AREN'T maps that assume that the earth is flat...they are drawn on the assumption that it's round.
If the idea that ship's captains don't use a sphere to navigate by is a "proof" of Flat Earthism - then I'm afraid I have to say that the fact that they use maps that are "projected" from a sphere is clear proof that the Earth ISN'T flat.
If you've ever looked at such large scale navigation maps (my father had a collection of all of the aviation maps of East Africa from when he flew for the Flying Doctor service there) - the first thing you notice is that if you try to line up their edges to make one big map - they don't fit together properly...and that's because each one is a flat projection of a sphere and the only way to put them together so that the edges match is to glue them onto a 24' diameter ball!
The 100 proofs thing is an embarrassment - and even the most ardent FE'ers should be able to admit that at least half of it's ridiculous criticisms are junk...they don't even agree with current FE theories.
-
Here's an example. In the 100 proofs comes this little pearl of wisdom "If the Earth were a globe, a small model globe would be the very best - because the truest - thing for the. navigator to take to sea with him. But such a thing as that is not known: with such a toy as a guide, the mariner would wreck his ship, of a certainty!, This is a proof that Earth is not a globe." Let me sum up the ignorance of this proof. You need a scale to measure accurately and the scale would be far too small for a toy globe to be practical for anything. That is why a ship carried multiple map of differing scales so that detail could be seen and measured.
Here's my rebuttal: If the earth were a flat plane, there would be no distortion when mapped out on a flat piece of paper. But such a thing is has never been seen and no navigator of any vessel would be foolish enough to travel using the FE map models in the wiki. That ios proof that the earth cannot be flat.
Yeah - the "100 proofs" thing is a joke. I was thinking of writing a piece debunking every one of them and calling it "100 debunks" - but my fingers are getting a little arthritic after 40 years of sitting in front of a computer typing - and it just didn't seem worth the pain involved!
If mariners were using flat maps to navigate by because they were more accurate than a globe - then how come we can't just use their maps to establish, once and for all, the map of the Flat Earth - something that Tom Bishop insists is completely unknown to them.
The reason that mariners DON'T take a globe along is that they need 1:1,000 scale maps - and keeping an 8 meter (26') diameter ball in the captains cabin of a small sailing ship is just a teensy bit less convenient than a drawer full of flat bits of paper.
Whoever wrote the 100 disproofs document was clearly a complete idiot and had never in his entire life even so much as glanced at a maritime navigation map. Such maps go to great pains to explain what map projection they are using to get from a sphere to a flat map - and to point out the distortions that arise from that. These AREN'T maps that assume that the earth is flat...they are drawn on the assumption that it's round.
If the idea that ship's captains don't use a sphere to navigate by is a "proof" of Flat Earthism - then I'm afraid I have to say that the fact that they use maps that are "projected" from a sphere is clear proof that the Earth ISN'T flat.
If you've ever looked at such large scale navigation maps (my father had a collection of all of the aviation maps of East Africa from when he flew for the Flying Doctor service there) - the first thing you notice is that if you try to line up their edges to make one big map - they don't fit together properly...and that's because each one is a flat projection of a sphere and the only way to put them together so that the edges match is to glue them onto a 24' diameter ball!
The 100 proofs thing is an embarrassment - and even the most ardent FE'ers should be able to admit that at least half of it's ridiculous criticisms are junk...they don't even agree with current FE theories.
I think that the underlying problem here is that the FE model isn't based in any science at all. The claim that it can be demonstrated empirically through experimentation has produced nothing substantial. It only works in the context of religion or literary fantasy, both I'm ok with as long as the FE community drops the science facade. There is no empirical flat earth evidence, just assertion. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. It's like having an argument over who has the better imaginary friend.
If there is actual empirical evidence that is missing from the wiki that supports the FE model, please point me to it.
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
-
Here's an example. In the 100 proofs comes this little pearl of wisdom "If the Earth were a globe, a small model globe would be the very best - because the truest - thing for the. navigator to take to sea with him. But such a thing as that is not known: with such a toy as a guide, the mariner would wreck his ship, of a certainty!, This is a proof that Earth is not a globe." Let me sum up the ignorance of this proof. You need a scale to measure accurately and the scale would be far too small for a toy globe to be practical for anything. That is why a ship carried multiple map of differing scales so that detail could be seen and measured.
Here's my rebuttal: If the earth were a flat plane, there would be no distortion when mapped out on a flat piece of paper. But such a thing is has never been seen and no navigator of any vessel would be foolish enough to travel using the FE map models in the wiki. That ios proof that the earth cannot be flat.
Yeah - the "100 proofs" thing is a joke. I was thinking of writing a piece debunking every one of them and calling it "100 debunks" - but my fingers are getting a little arthritic after 40 years of sitting in front of a computer typing - and it just didn't seem worth the pain involved!
If mariners were using flat maps to navigate by because they were more accurate than a globe - then how come we can't just use their maps to establish, once and for all, the map of the Flat Earth - something that Tom Bishop insists is completely unknown to them.
The reason that mariners DON'T take a globe along is that they need 1:1,000 scale maps - and keeping an 8 meter (26') diameter ball in the captains cabin of a small sailing ship is just a teensy bit less convenient than a drawer full of flat bits of paper.
Whoever wrote the 100 disproofs document was clearly a complete idiot and had never in his entire life even so much as glanced at a maritime navigation map. Such maps go to great pains to explain what map projection they are using to get from a sphere to a flat map - and to point out the distortions that arise from that. These AREN'T maps that assume that the earth is flat...they are drawn on the assumption that it's round.
If the idea that ship's captains don't use a sphere to navigate by is a "proof" of Flat Earthism - then I'm afraid I have to say that the fact that they use maps that are "projected" from a sphere is clear proof that the Earth ISN'T flat.
If you've ever looked at such large scale navigation maps (my father had a collection of all of the aviation maps of East Africa from when he flew for the Flying Doctor service there) - the first thing you notice is that if you try to line up their edges to make one big map - they don't fit together properly...and that's because each one is a flat projection of a sphere and the only way to put them together so that the edges match is to glue them onto a 24' diameter ball!
The 100 proofs thing is an embarrassment - and even the most ardent FE'ers should be able to admit that at least half of it's ridiculous criticisms are junk...they don't even agree with current FE theories.
I think that the underlying problem here is that the FE model isn't based in any science at all. The claim that it can be demonstrated empirically through experimentation has produced nothing substantial. It only works in the context of religion or literary fantasy, both I'm ok with as long as the FE community drops the science facade. There is no empirical flat earth evidence, just assertion. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. It's like having an argument over who has the better imaginary friend.
If there is actual empirical evidence that is missing from the wiki that supports the FE model, please point me to it.
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
It seems that when you ask for that - you get the Rowbotham canal experiment shoved in your face - and all of the *MANY* attempts to verify it that found contradictory evidence will be discounted...for what reason, is unclear.