[StinkyOne]

I am not sure what sort of reaching metaphor you are trying to make.

I am referencing 3D's description of the experiment.

but there is nothing alien about light and gravity

Unless you can put all aspects of celestial phenomena under controlled conditions, observation alone does not cut it.

Astronomy does not follow the Scientific Method. Observe --> Interpret are the steps used in pseudosciences such as Astrology. It is not science.

So, what you're also saying is that there is zero science behind FET. What experiments have been performed under controlled conditions to prove your world view? We can stick with things like "celestial" gravity or the motion of the Sun, moon, and stars if you like. Surely that has to be one intrepid scientist out there looking to make a name for themselves. Most of the great scientists from history have challenged conventional thought, so there is certainly a chance to make history.

For the record, LIGO is a controlled environment, but you've never let facts get in the way of your comments before. No reason to start now.

[3DGeek]

I am not sure what sort of reaching metaphor you are trying to make.

I am referencing 3D's description of the experiment.

but there is nothing alien about light and gravity

Unless you can put all aspects of celestial phenomena under controlled conditions, observation alone does not cut it.

Astronomy does not follow the Scientific Method. Observe --> Interpret are the steps used in pseudosciences such as Astrology. It is not science.

To quote from the Wiki:

"Zeteticism is a system of scientific inquiry. The word is derived from the Greek verb ζητέω (zeteo), which means "I seek; I examine; I strive for". A zeteticist is a person who practises zeteticism.

Zeteticism differs from the usual scientific method in that using zeteticism one bases his conclusions on experimentation and observation rather than on an initial theory that is to be proved or disproved. A zetetic forms the question then immediately sets to work making observations and performing experiments to answer that question, rather than speculating on what the answer might be then testing that out."

And let's quote Tom again:  "Observe --> Interpret are the steps used in pseudosciences such as Astrology. It is not science."
And the Wiki again: "using zeteticism one bases his conclusions on experimentation and observation".

I'll let you draw your own conclusions from that.  :-)

The thing that's most annoying about this "zeteticism" thing is that it would be very useful here - but as far as I can tell, not a SINGLE experiment of ANY kind had been done by the FE'ers in the last 100 years.   When real experiments are done (eg by flying a man to the moon and having him take an actual photograph of the Earth) it's ignored.

Tom appears to worship at the temple of the Bedford Levels Experiment...er...Observation - blindly ignoring the total lack of controls done in that case.

This isn't just a double standard...this is a quadruple standard!

[Tom Bishop]

Tom appears to worship at the temple of the Bedford Levels Experiment...er...Observation - blindly ignoring the total lack of controls done in that case.

This isn't just a double standard...this is a quadruple standard!

Everything is controllable, and had been controlled, about the water convexity experiments. The experiments were performed repeatedly under a variety of atmospheric conditions, modifications were made to put marker bodies along the light path to the end to see how they behave, and tools such as barometers have been used to assess pressure. More recent youtube water convexity experiments have involved lasers.

The water convexity scenario is controllable; whereas space is not controllable and must be guessed at.

[Revel]

The water convexity scenario is controllable; whereas space is not controllable and must be guessed at.

Oh, come off it! "space...must be guessed at." Are you kidding me? You call them guesses, of all words? Did we "guess" that the neutron collision occurred some hundreds of millions of years ago? Was Galileo some flat Earther that got lucky enough to make a telescope and record the motion of stars and our planets? Theories developed through astronomy aren't even mere speculations. They're solid inferences. The reason that the Big Bang theory is widely accepted, despite appropriate controversy, is through inductive reasoning, which may, arguably, serve as grounds for general notions, but still allows scientists to better understand the universe. We don't make up conjectures based on what is guessed. Replication is not the sole method necessary for something to be considered true, to validate.

[3DGeek]

Tom appears to worship at the temple of the Bedford Levels Experiment...er...Observation - blindly ignoring the total lack of controls done in that case.

This isn't just a double standard...this is a quadruple standard!

Everything is controllable, and had been controlled, about the water convexity experiments. The experiments were performed repeatedly under a variety of atmospheric conditions, modifications were made to put marker bodies along the light path to the end to see how they behave, and tools such as barometers have been used to assess pressure. More recent youtube water convexity experiments have involved lasers.

The water convexity scenario is controllable; whereas space is not controllable and must be guessed at.

But how do we know the air was really air?   How do we know there wasn't marsh-gas floating on top?  How do we know there wasn't a gigantic downward wind blowing a hollow patch in the water?

Sure - these are all stupid criticisms - but no worse than you transporting my thought experiment about water temperatures to an alien world so you could pour scorn on it.

Rowbotham did his experiment - and he made one TERRIBLE mistake.  He put his eyepoint really close to the water level - which maximised the humidity and temperature gradient and thereby created just enough refractive index change over that LONG distance to bend the light beam.

When the experiment was repeated with the eyepoint high enough above the water to eliminate that mistake - Rowbotham's effect vanished and the result was a clear demonstration of Earth curvature.

THAT is a controlled experiment.   Try it with eye at water level, try it again at three feet above the water - compare results.   Ooops...seems like the bizarre effect goes away when you control for humidity and temperature inversions.

It's a bad idea to continually parade the one and only experiment ever done that might maybe have supported your case in a situation where proper experimental hygiene destroys your result.

[Curious Squirrel]

The water convexity scenario is controllable.

No, it's not and you are being willfully ignorant if you believe it is. At a minimum to claim it's controllable means you have no ground to stand on to deny the Foucault pendulum effect. Which means you need to account for that now in your pet conjecture. But in truth you cannot control the air between point A and point B, nor measure all of it. The exact thing that will throw this experiment off, is the thing you cannot control. How is that a controllable experiment? People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

[StinkyOne]

So Tom thinks a guy playing scientist down by a canal is a controlled environment, but a 4km long laser interferometer housed in a vacuum isn't. Wait, did I mention that built two of them in different regions to reduce the possibility of spurious noise in the data. Yeah...are there any serious FEers out there?

[TomInAustin]

Is Archaeology a fake science as well? How does an archaeologist conduct a controlled experiment on past cultures? They only observe and interpret.

By Tom's lights, only chemistry and physics (but not astrophysics) are sciences.

And much of physics would fail Tom's test as well.  Einstein was not able to test a lot of the things he came up with yet most proved to be right on the money. 

[mtnman]

So Tom thinks a guy playing scientist down by a canal is a controlled environment, but a 4km long laser interferometer housed in a vacuum isn't. Wait, did I mention that built two of them in different regions to reduce the possibility of spurious noise in the data. Yeah...are there any serious FEers out there?

I really wish there was a "like" button here.

[Tom Bishop]

But how do we know the air was really air?   How do we know there wasn't marsh-gas floating on top?  How do we know there wasn't a gigantic downward wind blowing a hollow patch in the water?

Well firstly, the experiments were repeated with the same result, so that answers your assertion.

But more importantly it is possible for the water convexity experiment test to be controlled; as it is an experiment which takes place on earth at all points.

Astronomers looking at space phenomena is not controllable. The experimenter can only observe. He cannot experiment with variables of the scenario, make direct samples, or conduct tests elsewhere, to come to the truth of a matter. Astronomy is said to be an "observing science," which is really just an admission that it is not a science at all.

Sure - these are all stupid criticisms - but no worse than you transporting my thought experiment about water temperatures to an alien world so you could pour scorn on it.

Rowbotham did his experiment - and he made one TERRIBLE mistake.  He put his eyepoint really close to the water level - which maximised the humidity and temperature gradient and thereby created just enough refractive index change over that LONG distance to bend the light beam.

When the experiment was repeated with the eyepoint high enough above the water to eliminate that mistake - Rowbotham's effect vanished and the result was a clear demonstration of Earth curvature.

In Earth Not  a Globe Rowbotham calculates the maximum refractive index and shows that it is not enough to account for what was seen.

Since all of this takes place on earth it is possible for us to know and test the phenomena of refractive indexes. The earth is not alien and refractive tests can show the limits to how light can behave within the atmosphere. Rowbotham references his sources for his determination of maximum refractive index. This is one control that is applied.

Another control is the fact that these water convexity experiments were conducted in several different ways, my multiple observers, over a period of many years.

Your assertion that each of these repeated experiments are affected by a chance phenomena which makes the earth appear to be exactly flat, no more and no less, when it is really a globe, and this despite that known refraction cannot account for what is seen, is absurd.

[3DGeek]

But how do we know the air was really air?   How do we know there wasn't marsh-gas floating on top?  How do we know there wasn't a gigantic downward wind blowing a hollow patch in the water?

Well firstly, the experiments were repeated with the same result, so what answers your assertion.

Why do you PERSISTANTLY ignore all of the other tests that DIDN'T produce the same result - and the one test that actually proved the OPPOSITE result (the earth is concave).

Every single time you mention it - you happily ignore about 80% of the evidence in favor of the one time the test actually worked.

That's not science - that's "cherry picking your results".

But more importantly it is possible for the water convexity experiment test to be controlled; as it is an experiment which takes place on earth at all points.

Astronomers looking at space phenomena is not controllable. The experimenter can only observe. He cannot experiment with variables of the scenario, make direct samples, or conduct tests elsewhere, to come to the truth of a matter. Astronomy is said to be an "observing science," which is really just an admission that it is not a science at all.

You really should sit down with an actual astronomer and make those accusations!   Of COURSE they do more than just observe one time.   They'll observe something happening in one galaxy - come up with a hypothesis as to why it happens - then try to come up with other things they can look at that might either confirm or deny that hypothesis - then they'll schedule telescope time to go look at more galaxies and see if those observations agree.   This is an "experiment".

All experiments entail an observation - looking at the temperature - measuring a distance - all of those are observations.   What makes it an "experiment" is what you observe and why.

Again - go pick up a dictionary and look up the meaning of the word - or, alternatively, read the definition of Zeteticism in the Wiki on this actual website...which SAYS that observations are OK.

Sure - these are all stupid criticisms - but no worse than you transporting my thought experiment about water temperatures to an alien world so you could pour scorn on it.

Rowbotham did his experiment - and he made one TERRIBLE mistake.  He put his eyepoint really close to the water level - which maximised the humidity and temperature gradient and thereby created just enough refractive index change over that LONG distance to bend the light beam.

When the experiment was repeated with the eyepoint high enough above the water to eliminate that mistake - Rowbotham's effect vanished and the result was a clear demonstration of Earth curvature.

Funny that multiple other experiments confirmed those results then.

And (again) you ignore the multiple OTHER experiments that denied them.  (Wallace being the poster child for that).  Why do you keep doing that?

[Tom Bishop]

Why do you PERSISTANTLY ignore all of the other tests that DIDN'T produce the same result - and the one test that actually proved the OPPOSITE result (the earth is concave).

Every disproof I have ever seen is a demonstration of the effect on the ocean. The experimenter is neglectful in his readings of Earth Not a Globe. There is a chapter, Perspective on the Sea, which SPECIFICALLY says that the water convexity test does not work on the ocean (which includes the great lakes which are really inland seas) due to the waves and swells and tidal forces on those bodies of water.

The perspective lines merge at a finite distance and any little disturbance on the ocean surface near the horizon can cause even more distant bodies to be obscured; much like how a dime can obscure an elephant.

Every single time you mention it - you happily ignore about 80% of the evidence in favor of the one time the test actually worked.

I am not ignoring it. I am saying that it confirms our results. Please read Earth Not a Globe!

That's not science - that's "cherry picking your results".

Those results confirm what Samuel Birley Rowbotham determined over 150 years ago. So I would say that it is a win.

[3DGeek]

Why do you PERSISTANTLY ignore all of the other tests that DIDN'T produce the same result - and the one test that actually proved the OPPOSITE result (the earth is concave).

Every disproof I have ever seen is a demonstration of the effect on the ocean. The experimenter is neglectful in his readings of Earth Not a Globe. There is a chapter, Perspective on the Sea, which SPECIFICALLY says that the water convexity test does not work on the ocean (which includes the great lakes which are really inland seas) due to the waves and swells and tidal forces on those bodies of water.

The perspective lines merge at a finite distance and any little disturbance on the ocean surface near the horizon can cause even more distant bodies to be obscured; much like how a dime can obscure an elephant.

Every single time you mention it - you happily ignore about 80% of the evidence in favor of the one time the test actually worked.

I am not ignoring it. I am saying that it confirms our results. Please read Earth Not a Globe!

That's not science - that's "cherry picking your results".

Those results confirm what Samuel Birley Rowbotham determined over 150 years ago. So I would say that it is a win.

Oh good grief:  Please go read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment#Experiments

Note there the number of times it says that Rowbotham's results were NOT confirmed.  I count at least three.

[Tom Bishop]

You really should sit down with an actual astronomer and make those accusations!   Of COURSE they do more than just observe one time.   They'll observe something happening in one galaxy - come up with a hypothesis as to why it happens - then try to come up with other things they can look at that might either confirm or deny that hypothesis - then they'll schedule telescope time to go look at more galaxies and see if those observations agree.   This is an "experiment".

They are assuming:

That all stars are the same
That all galaxies are the same
That the stars and galaxies are far away
That the galaxies are operating under the same physics as the physics on earth (see the galaxy spin problems)
That stars undergo stellar fusion, despite that those chemical reactions have never been reproduced in a lab
etc.

Astronomy is COMPLETELY hypothetical.

All experiments entail an observation - looking at the temperature - measuring a distance - all of those are observations.   What makes it an "experiment" is what you observe and why.

All experiments entail an observation, but an observation alone is not an experiment. An experiment involves experimenting with variables to produce an outcome, in order to determine a fundamental truth about the scenario you modified. Have you never done an experiment in elementary school?

Again - go pick up a dictionary and look up the meaning of the word - or, alternatively, read the definition of Zeteticism in the Wiki on this actual website...which SAYS that observations are OK.

Actually it says experimentation and observation is involved, but you guys just ignored experimentation and bolded the word observation to make some kind of point. 

[Tom Bishop]

Oh good grief:  Please go read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment#Experiments

Note there the number of times it says that Rowbotham's results were NOT confirmed.  I count at least three.

There are a whole lot more than three experiments which confirm the experiments if you care to look through the many Flat Earth and journals published after Earth Not a Globe. Consult Youtube for more recent experiments. Way more than three.

You linked me to a wager for between two men for a year's worth of pay, where each man walked away from the experiment claiming that he had won, as a disproof of Earth Not a Globe? And another by a very vocal critic of Rowbotham, who called him immature names, and who had no witnesses for his experiment, whereas Rowbotham and Lady Blount had plenty. Solid proof there. We might as well close down this website. 

The article you linked also falsely states that refraction can account for what was seen. Rowbotham provides sources showing that it cannot account for what was seen.

[markjo]

When the experiment was repeated with the eyepoint high enough above the water to eliminate that mistake - Rowbotham's effect vanished and the result was a clear demonstration of Earth curvature.

In Earth Not  a Globe Rowbotham calculates the maximum refractive index and shows that it is not enough to account for what was seen.

Is Rowbotham's calculation for the maximum refractive index consistent with modern maximum refractive index calculations?

[Rama Set]

There is a chapter, Perspective on the Sea, which SPECIFICALLY says that the water convexity test does not work on the ocean (which includes the great lakes which are really inland seas) due to the waves and swells and tidal forces on those bodies of water.

So what?  There are books which SPECIFICALLY state that the Earth was created in six days.  Fortunately the truth does not depend on whether or not it is written down.

The perspective lines merge at a finite distance and any little disturbance on the ocean surface near the horizon can cause even more distant bodies to be obscured; much like how a dime can obscure an elephant.

Incorrect.

They are assuming:

That all stars are the same

Incorrect.  They are not assuming, they actually observe the stars to be different.  It is these differences that has lead to modern theories of stellar bodies.

That all galaxies are the same

Incorrect.  Galaxies are not assumed to be the same, Galaxies are observed to be different, which has lead to numerous different hypotheses on galactic formation and has shown that some scientific theories are incomplete because they cannot adequately explain their behavior.

That the stars and galaxies are far away

Because they are, as has been measured by multiple methods thousands, if not millions of times.  This is an empiric fact.

That the galaxies are operating under the same physics as the physics on earth (see the galaxy spin problems)

The spin rates of galaxies are indeed unexplained.  It would be much stranger to assume that the laws of physics suddenly did not apply to galaxies spinning where they appear to everywhere else that to assume that there is a phenomena at work that we do not yet understand.
 

That stars undergo stellar fusion, despite that those chemical reactions have never been reproduced in a lab
etc.

Small but important fact: fusion is a nuclear reaction, not a chemical reaction.  That being said, stellar fusion reactions have been recreated in a laboratory.

http://news.sky.com/story/scientists-recreate-the-nuclear-fusion-reactions-found-inside-stars-10979047

Astronomy is COMPLETELY hypothetical.

Incorrect.

All experiments entail an observation, but an observation alone is not an experiment. An experiment involves experimenting with variables to produce an outcome, in order to determine a fundamental truth about the scenario you modified. Have you never done an experiment in elementary school?

Astronomers take many readings and establish a baseline amount of data noise.  What they are interested in is the variations from this baseline.  This is another way of constraining sources of experimental error.

[xenotolerance]

Consult Youtube for more recent experiments. Way more than three.

Hmm, okay.









youtube science is AWESOME! can you imagine if we were still stuck with some of the dumb shit people were pulling 150 years ago? some douche tried to prove the Earth was flat because if you look at it, like, super hard, sometimes you can see a thing that's farther away than the horizon normally is. what a total mind blower, yowza

[Tom Bishop]

There is a chapter, Perspective on the Sea, which SPECIFICALLY says that the water convexity test does not work on the ocean (which includes the great lakes which are really inland seas) due to the waves and swells and tidal forces on those bodies of water.

So what?  There are books which SPECIFICALLY state that the Earth was created in six days.  Fortunately the truth does not depend on whether or not it is written down.

If you are trying to contradict Earth Not a Globe you need to read the source material to know what you need to contradict.

They are assuming:

That all stars are the same

Incorrect.  They are not assuming, they actually observe the stars to be different.  It is these differences that has lead to modern theories of stellar bodies.

Astronomers assume that average stars represents a medium middle aged star and the differences seen in other stars tell us the age of the stars and their lifecycles.

That all galaxies are the same

Incorrect.  Galaxies are not assumed to be the same, Galaxies are observed to be different, which has lead to numerous different hypotheses on galactic formation and has shown that some scientific theories are incomplete because they cannot adequately explain their behavior.

Galaxies are assumed to be the same in that they all operate with the same mechanisms, rather than by entirely different mechanisms.

That the stars and galaxies are far away

Because they are, as has been measured by multiple methods thousands, if not millions of times.  This is an empiric fact.

Who measured the distance to a galaxy? 

That the galaxies are operating under the same physics as the physics on earth (see the galaxy spin problems)

The spin rates of galaxies are indeed unexplained.  It would be much stranger to assume that the laws of physics suddenly did not apply to galaxies spinning where they appear to everywhere else that to assume that there is a phenomena at work that we do not yet understand.

The laws of physics do not apply to the very small (see: Quantum Theory). Assuming that the galaxies are extremely large, what reasoning is there that physics should scale infinitely upwards if it does not scale infinitely downwards?

That stars undergo stellar fusion, despite that those chemical reactions have never been reproduced in a lab
etc.

Small but important fact: fusion is a nuclear reaction, not a chemical reaction.  That being said, stellar fusion reactions have been recreated in a laboratory.

http://news.sky.com/story/scientists-recreate-the-nuclear-fusion-reactions-found-inside-stars-10979047

Actually, despite the sensational headline of Sky News, if you read the article it does not describe that Stellar Fusion was achieved.

"Powerful lasers are used to create the high temperatures and pressures found inside stars 40 times more massive than the Sun."

"The experiments are the first thermonuclear measurements of nuclear reaction cross-sections — a quantity that describes the probability that reactants will undergo a fusion reaction — in high-energy-density plasma conditions that are equivalent to the burning cores of giant stars, i.e., 10-40 times more massive than the sun."

Astronomy is COMPLETELY hypothetical.

Incorrect.

All experiments entail an observation, but an observation alone is not an experiment. An experiment involves experimenting with variables to produce an outcome, in order to determine a fundamental truth about the scenario you modified. Have you never done an experiment in elementary school?

Astronomers take many readings and establish a baseline amount of data noise.  What they are interested in is the variations from this baseline.  This is another way of constraining sources of experimental error.

Astronomers cannot put the universe under controlled conditions to come to the truth of a matter like a chemist can do with his subject matter. An Astronomer can only observe and interpret. That is not science. That does not follow the Scientific Method.

[StinkyOne]

You really should sit down with an actual astronomer and make those accusations!   Of COURSE they do more than just observe one time.   They'll observe something happening in one galaxy - come up with a hypothesis as to why it happens - then try to come up with other things they can look at that might either confirm or deny that hypothesis - then they'll schedule telescope time to go look at more galaxies and see if those observations agree.   This is an "experiment".

They are assuming:

That all stars are the same
That all galaxies are the same
That the stars and galaxies are far away
That the galaxies are operating under the same physics as the physics on earth (see the galaxy spin problems)
That stars undergo stellar fusion, despite that those chemical reactions have never been reproduced in a lab
etc.

Astronomy is COMPLETELY hypothetical.

All experiments entail an observation - looking at the temperature - measuring a distance - all of those are observations.   What makes it an "experiment" is what you observe and why.

All experiments entail an observation, but an observation alone is not an experiment. An experiment involves experimenting with variables to produce an outcome, in order to determine a fundamental truth about the scenario you modified. Have you never done an experiment in elementary school?

Again - go pick up a dictionary and look up the meaning of the word - or, alternatively, read the definition of Zeteticism in the Wiki on this actual website...which SAYS that observations are OK.

Actually it says experimentation and observation is involved, but you guys just ignored experimentation and bolded the word observation to make some kind of point. 

Tom CLEARLY still doesn't understand what qualifies something as scientific. https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/astronomy.htm

Beyond some disproved uncontrolled experiment from 100+ years ago, what experiments have confirmed the flatness of Earth? Seriously, buy a freaking decent camera, a weather balloon, some helium, and some tracking equipment and SHOCK the world with your discovery. It can be done for a few grand. Stop prattling on like someone's kooky grandpa and finally put your money where your mouth is if this means so much to you. Crowd source it if you can't fund it. The flat Earth is there to be seen be anyone with a little initiative. I want to see a little sun and a little moon spinning around a flat plane. If you're really ambitious, how about a map so you don't get lost on road trips. LOL, this is such a joke.