The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: JustSomeone on August 02, 2021, 01:37:26 PM
-
I don't mean to be rude to anyone here so I'm really sorry if it comes across that way. I'm a round earther myself, but I'm interested in learning more if I find it plausible. First of all, I just started watching the video (6 hr one?) and the first thing they said was it's weird we can't feel the earth spinning if it's moving so fast. I know everyone here has better arguments than that because even google knows the answer (I do realise that's not your main argument or anything, but if you see something that's not right, you may want to find out why before you use it as an argument. I'm sorry if this comes across in the wrong way because I know you do have better arguments. This post is kind of from someone young and new to the concept, so I may come across as sceptical but I just want to find out more.)
So, my question was, do any of you flat earthers want to go into space and see the earth for yourself? Please don't direct me to the FAQs because you can't seriously think space travel is a conspiracy- how would they be able to fake it??- and I'm sure most of you don't.
If you're sure earth isn't a globe and that the pictures are faked and photoshopped, don't you want to check for yourself? Maybe if you think astronauts are 'in on it', you could pretend you're a round earther and see space for yourself?
I'm really sorry, this does sound slightly rude and more than a little sceptical. I honestly want to know, so please bear with me and i apologize again.
Also... why do you think the other planets are round and not earth? Do you think it would form in a completely different way? Please don't say God made it because I thought you used science not religion, and if you do think that how did God make it flat?
Lastly, do you not believe in Antartica being a continent?
Sorry I had so many questions! I really wasn't trying to be rude and you all can say whatever you like back, I just genuinely want to know. Thanks!
-
Welcome!
do any of you flat earthers want to go into space and see the earth for yourself?
Many were (and remain) scifi fanboys, so - yes. Personally, I continue to see the allure of visiting a fictional place.
Please don't direct me to the FAQs because you can't seriously think space travel is a conspiracy- how would they be able to fake it??
Have you read the faq on this question? You really should! It may give you some other possibilities to noodle than the acute lack thereof you are currently suffering with. No conspiracy is required for humanity to be wrong. One possibility, outlined in the faq, is that any "conspiracy" that NASA et al represent is for military/nationalistic reason and not to do with the shape of the world.
If you're sure earth isn't a globe and that the pictures are faked and photoshopped, don't you want to check for yourself?
Of course! You really hit the nail on the head and highlighted a fundamental reason why independent researchers should not rely on NASA (et al) claims - they cannot EVER do precisely that; "check for yourself". To add insult to injury; the ability to check is itself so worshipped/idolized that only those select few with the "right stuff" could ever dare to hope to obtain it. Going to space becomes the "mecca" of the secular worldview - a pilgrimage for the (financially) righteous only.
why do you think the other planets are round and not earth?
Why do you think there are other planets and they would have any commonality with the world you know? This is a rhetorical question for you to consider; I know the answer already.
The short answer is there isn't much evidence to support the claim that there are other planets, or that they are like earth.
Do you think it would form in a completely different way? Please don't say God made it because I thought you used science not religion, and if you do think that how did God make it flat?
There is no reason that you can't bring your biased atheist/anti-creationist worldviews with you onto the flat world! You can still fervently believe that nothing randomly created everything over unfathomable amounts of time - it just did so in a flatter manner. No prob.
Lastly, do you not believe in Antartica being a continent?
Personally, I have little doubt as to the existence of the landmass of antarctica. Could it REALLY be a part of a ring that circles the known world - I suppose (and I think it would still be considered a continent in that case). Could it be just a normal hoth-like continent, also sure.
Sorry I had so many questions! I really wasn't trying to be rude and you all can say whatever you like back, I just genuinely want to know. Thanks!
This is a place for people who want to know! I'd be happy to answer most any questions you have if I can.
-
The short answer is there isn't much evidence to support the claim that there are other planets, or that they are like earth.
Can you elaborate on this point? I mean I totally get that just because Jupiter, for example, appears spherical and doesn't necessitate that Earth must be as well. But how do you mean, "...there isn't much evidence to support the claim that there are other planets..."?
-
No conspiracy is required for humanity to be wrong. One possibility, outlined in the faq, is that any "conspiracy" that NASA et al represent is for military/nationalistic reason and not to do with the shape of the world.
Wait, the claim is that the past 60 years or so of space exploration/industry is all fake. Yet the services offered actually work (the 4 different GPS system, broadcast TV, telecommunications (some still remains), landsat, weather sats, all the imagery (of the earth as well as the other planets and their moons) and so on). So for the real thing to be fake and for some other method to be provided for providing all that CORRECT (i.e. consistent with everything we know) data, it would take 10s, if not 100s of thousands of folks across many countries. How is that not a conspiracy? An impossible one I'd say (both due to fact that so many folks would not have any hope of keeping any secret so well and due to the need for some alternative to providing all the data).
The disk earth simply can not explain the universe we observe.
-
Wait, the claim is that the past 60 years or so of space exploration/industry is all fake.
That is a claim made and defended by many. However it is not required for the world to be a different shape than we are taught. What makes the faq perspective on "the conspiracy" novel, is that it is suggested the faking/hiding the shape of the earth is not the reason for any of that. The cold war is chock full of propaganda, of which "the space age" is only a part.
Yet the services offered actually work (the 4 different GPS system, broadcast TV, telecommunications (some still remains), landsat, weather sats, all the imagery (of the earth as well as the other planets and their moons) and so on). So for the real thing to be fake and for some other method to be provided for providing all that CORRECT (i.e. consistent with everything we know) data, it would take 10s, if not 100s of thousands of folks across many countries. How is that not a conspiracy?
However, the services are not related to space travel (they are intentionally conflated with it). They are demonstrably real. How they actually work/function may be misunderstood or otherwise wrong. It is extremely unlikely, but even something that appears to us as "orbit" may work in an entirely different manner than is currently thought. We have no trouble being wrong without help from "conspiracy"; we've been doing it since the dawn of time.
The presumed curvature of the world seen in photos is a good example. We expected to see a curve, so when we saw one from high altitude photography we all concluded "that's it, just what we expected!". Even today there are many who still erroneously believe the horizon curves at some altitude, because of this simple misunderstanding (of lenses/optics/photography) and misinterpretation of data - taught to generations of students. Many things we see and take photos of are not truly as they appear, and our interpretations of them are even more consistently incorrect.
An impossible one I'd say (both due to fact that so many folks would not have any hope of keeping any secret so well and due to the need for some alternative to providing all the data).
Keeping secrets is all too easy, especially if you include death in your recipe/procedure. In any case, most of the employees in the space industry have no secret to share - they are simply employees who do a job. If there were any sort of conspiracy it would be well beyond their pay grade. Very few people would need to keep any secret, and this is one of the major purposes of compartmentalization. Another, is to prevent any one employee/asset/soldier from seeing and understanding the larger strategy/motive/purpose employed.
The data you mention, by and large, is not fabricated - it is collected by some real means and then composites are created from it. Few, if anyone, suggests that the data is being made up wholesale.
The disk earth simply can not explain the universe we observe.
This is wrong, but I understand why you feel that way. The shape of the earth doesn't play a significant role in science or our understanding of the universe. Also, we by and large don't observe the universe - we observe the earth and only experience life thereon. The shape of the world is flat either because the world is flat or because it is effectively flat on the scale we live and practice science. A disc earth is not an insurmountable impediment to explaining anything.
-
So, my question was, do any of you flat earthers want to go into space and see the earth for yourself?
I'd like to know what shape the earth is so yes, I'd like to go into space. I don't know what the shape of the earth is for sure but as we can't rely on NASA to tell us the truth after all the lies they've already told us I'm beginning to believe that the earth isn't what they've led us to believe and could well be flat. The stuff we're supposed to believe is rather nonsensical when you get down to it.
-
I'd like to know what shape the earth is so yes, I'd like to go into space. I don't know what the shape of the earth is for sure but as we can't rely on NASA to tell us the truth after all the lies they've already told us ....
Why does the buck stop at NASA's door?
The first determinations of a circumference of the Earth, from the work of both Norwood and the French Geodesic Mission, were made in the 1600s and 1700s. Within reasonable bounds of error for the time, their results agreed, and further work since then has simply refined the figure.
NASA came along 400 years or so later. What's it to do with them?
-
The first determinations of a circumference of the Earth, from the work of both Norwood and the French Geodesic Mission, were made in the 1600s and 1700s. Within reasonable bounds of error for the time, their results agreed, and further work since then has simply refined the figure.
The Greek astronomer Eratosthenes calculated the size within 5% of todays value in ~200BC.
-
The first determinations of a circumference of the Earth, from the work of both Norwood and the French Geodesic Mission, were made in the 1600s and 1700s. Within reasonable bounds of error for the time, their results agreed, and further work since then has simply refined the figure.
The Greek astronomer Eratosthenes calculated the size within 5% of todays value in ~200BC.
BWHAHAHA!
The fact with all of these high falootin gadgets of today and some joker, that you have no objective evidence of actually existing, is magically within five percent of our most precise instruments speaks more to the reluctance of needing accuracy than it does the imagined rotundity of the earth.
-
The modern method is just the same method as Eratosthenes' method, and uses Eratosthenes' same assumptions.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Measuring-the-Earth-Modernized-1673316
In its modern form, the method requires the following elements: two stations on the same meridian of longitude, which play the same parts as Aswan and Alexandria in the method of Eratosthenes of Cyrene (c. 276–c. 194 BC); a precise determination of the angular height of a designated star at the same time from the two stations; and two perfectly level and accurately measured baselines a few kilometres long near each station. What was new 2,000 years after Eratosthenes was the accuracy of the stellar positions and the measured distance between the stations, accomplished through the use of the baselines.
It would be a better argument if it wasn't just the same thing done again.
-
The modern method is just the same method as Eratosthenes' method, and uses Eratosthenes' same assumptions.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Measuring-the-Earth-Modernized-1673316
In its modern form, the method requires the following elements: two stations on the same meridian of longitude, which play the same parts as Aswan and Alexandria in the method of Eratosthenes of Cyrene (c. 276–c. 194 BC); a precise determination of the angular height of a designated star at the same time from the two stations; and two perfectly level and accurately measured baselines a few kilometres long near each station. What was new 2,000 years after Eratosthenes was the accuracy of the stellar positions and the measured distance between the stations, accomplished through the use of the baselines.
It would be a better argument if it wasn't just the same thing done again.
On the contrary, its STILL a good argument (there are many others of course as well).
-
A variation on the Eratosthenes experiment:
"These are the results of a group project which took place during the September Equinox 2017. 23 participants in 9 different countries conducted a simple scientific experiment similar to that of Eratosthenes over 2000 years ago.
The test is simple. Using the Latitude of each participant (as Longitude will be either 180° or 0°) The sun's elevation angle was measured during Solar Noon. These angles were then placed across both a Flat Plane and a Sphere to see which model the angles correspond to.
Do I have to tell you the results?
Additionally, ALL ANGLES concurred with the angles displayed on:
timeanddate.com
suncalc.org
Stellarium"
https://youtu.be/V03eF0bcYno
The crux of the biscuit is at about the 7:30 mark. FE has line of sight angles varying, GE has them line up straight and perpendicular to a globe earth as predicted and observed.
-
The first determinations of a circumference of the Earth, from the work of both Norwood and the French Geodesic Mission, were made in the 1600s and 1700s. Within reasonable bounds of error for the time, their results agreed, and further work since then has simply refined the figure.
The Greek astronomer Eratosthenes calculated the size within 5% of todays value in ~200BC.
BWHAHAHA!
The fact with all of these high falootin gadgets of today and some joker, that you have no objective evidence of actually existing, is magically within five percent of our most precise instruments speaks more to the reluctance of needing accuracy than it does the imagined rotundity of the earth.
We do have objective evidence that Norwood existed. He wrote a book detailing his findings;
https://archive.org/details/norwood-1699-the-sea-man-s-practice
That's every bit as much evidence as we have that Rowbotham existed and did stuff.
- - -
-
It would be a better argument if it wasn't just the same thing done again.
Norwood and the French Geodesic used different methods, as I recall.
Norwood measured from London to York, the distance on the surface, accounting for hills and diversions, then used that, along with angular difference, to calculate degrees of arc he had covered.
The French triangulated between hilltops and used this network of triangles with angular difference.
And they arrived at the same figure, given reasonable bounds for error given their methods.
Want a different method?
Take the documented speed and height of the ISS to calculate a circumference based on its orbit radius. Confirm the orbital time corresponding to the speed by personal observation.
Deduct the height above the surface and recalculate to give a surface circumference, and you get the same figure as Norwood et al, within reasonable bounds of error.
-
It would be a better argument if it wasn't just the same thing done again.
If Rowbottom's Bedford Canal was done again with laser pointers instead of human line of sight, would that be "same thing done again", or would it be something new?
-
A variation on the Eratosthenes experiment:
"These are the results of a group project which took place during the September Equinox 2017. 23 participants in 9 different countries conducted a simple scientific experiment similar to that of Eratosthenes over 2000 years ago.
The test is simple. Using the Latitude of each participant (as Longitude will be either 180° or 0°) The sun's elevation angle was measured during Solar Noon. These angles were then placed across both a Flat Plane and a Sphere to see which model the angles correspond to.
Do I have to tell you the results?
Additionally, ALL ANGLES concurred with the angles displayed on:
timeanddate.com
suncalc.org
Stellarium"
https://youtu.be/V03eF0bcYno (https://youtu.be/V03eF0bcYno)
The crux of the biscuit is at about the 7:30 mark. FE has line of sight angles varying, GE has them line up straight and perpendicular to a globe earth as predicted and observed.
All invalidated by the possibility of EA. I would suggest actually directly rebutting the arguments directly rather than reposting old things.
-
I'd like to know what shape the earth is so yes, I'd like to go into space. I don't know what the shape of the earth is for sure but as we can't rely on NASA to tell us the truth after all the lies they've already told us ....
Why does the buck stop at NASA's door?
The first determinations of a circumference of the Earth, from the work of both Norwood and the French Geodesic Mission, were made in the 1600s and 1700s. Within reasonable bounds of error for the time, their results agreed, and further work since then has simply refined the figure.
NASA came along 400 years or so later. What's it to do with them?
To answer your question, I think it's because they are the most influential force out there today promoting the globe idea.
-
I'd like to know what shape the earth is so yes, I'd like to go into space. I don't know what the shape of the earth is for sure but as we can't rely on NASA to tell us the truth after all the lies they've already told us ....
Why does the buck stop at NASA's door?
The first determinations of a circumference of the Earth, from the work of both Norwood and the French Geodesic Mission, were made in the 1600s and 1700s. Within reasonable bounds of error for the time, their results agreed, and further work since then has simply refined the figure.
NASA came along 400 years or so later. What's it to do with them?
To answer your question, I think it's because they are the most influential force out there today promoting the globe idea.
I would argue that the most influential force out there today promoting space travel/exploration, at least in the popular culture, is probably Space X, Blue Origin, and Virgin Galactic. As a byproduct of space travel/exploration is the engineering for these and all of the other space institutions/corporations predicated on globe earth calculations and instruments and technology to make for successful events.
I'm unaware of any space institutions/corporations that use tech predicated on a flat earth belief. With the possible exception of 'Mad' Mike Hughes.
In short, I don't believe any of these space institutions or companies are in the business of "promoting" a globe earth. It's but a subset of what their overall business and exploration objectives are.
-
Of course you don't believe it, you're in too deep. The matrix has too much of a hold on you mate ;D
-
Of course you don't believe it, you're in too deep. The matrix has too much of a hold on you mate ;D
No model of a flat earth can explain the world we see (and that anyone can see if you just look, the path of the sun, the visible stars, the day/night line, no south pole ice wall every seen, and on and on).
FE proponents can not explain how space tech (GPS, sat phones, comm sats, earth monitoring sats) actualy function as claimed providing correct data.
FE proponents can not explain how the 10s or 100s of thousands of people involved in this conspiracy for the last 70 years or so have managed to keep it secret withou a single person spilling the beans.
And you claim others are "in too deep"? Look in the mirror.
-
Google's full of pictures of the ice wall, watchatalkinabout?
-
Google's full of pictures of the ice wall, watchatalkinabout?
It's also full of pictures showing a globe, taken from various sources.
-
Google's full of pictures of the ice wall, watchatalkinabout?
Yes, according to FE, apparently impenetrable. And we possess no such tech to get us above and over anything greater than 50 feet tall.
(https://i.imgur.com/bltXYsD.png)
Here's McMurdo Station from Observation Hill...
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/McMurdo_Station.jpg/2880px-McMurdo_Station.jpg)
Located right about here...
(https://i.imgur.com/wHNuUIH.png)
Here's a faked satellite image of McMurdo...
(https://i.imgur.com/LrhBNv5.jpg)
If you would like to work there, here's a good place to start your job search...
https://www.usap.gov/jobsandopportunities/?m=1
-
Yes, according to FE, apparently impenetrable.
Stack, you do this regularly, and my patience with you is wearing quite thin. You will stop lying about FET. If you have no confidence in your ability to represent it accurately, then you will not represent it at all. This is no longer a request - it's a simple statement.
The person who described the Ice Wall as impenetrable (or, more accurately, "an obstruction of such character as to leave no doubt in my mind as to our future proceedings, for we might as well sail through the cliffs of Dover as to penetrate such a mass") was Sir James Clark Ross. Notably not a Flat Earther, and notably not someone who would have been very familiar with helicopters. FET does not claim that the Ice Wall is impenetrable, and you are extremely well aware of this fact.
Considering just how many times you've deliberately misled newcomers like this, I'm drawing the line here. The next time you try to lie to a newcomer will be the last time you post here. I hope I've made myself clear.
-
I dont want to feed into the Cypher9 trollfest, but since it came up...
I, for one, would like to see the FE evidence that the Ice Wall exists, complete with the names and dates of who made the observations, which flights/voyages they were part of, what studies they were in the region to undertake, etc.
When was someone turned around at the ice wall, prevented by authorities from travelling further south?
The wiki cites famed explorer James Ross, who didnt venture inland, but then ignores subsequent trip logs from those who did. Why shouldnt we believe that recent trips to the south pole are really happening?
The wiki provides a video showing the ice wall, but the original footage was collected as part of a research expedition travelling in between research stations on the continent. What flight was it? Who was part of that expedition? Where else did they travel? What studies were they conducting?
The wiki states that only 5% of the coastline is rocky, the rest is ice, citing Drewry, 1983. This was a compilation of available data on Antarctica at the time. The wiki doesnt seem to dive into the fact that the Drewry 1983 numbers on shoreline composition rely heavily on airborne geophysical data (I.e. how do they know whether the shore is an ice shelf or an 'ice wall'? Ice-penetrating radar data). If these airborne geophysics are trusted for ice wall composition figures, what makes the rest of the hundreds of thousands of line-kilometers of data collected across the continent?
And if a compilation from 1983 is to be trusted, why arent the newer compilations, like BEDMAP, trustworthy?
-
I, for one, would like to see the FE evidence that the Ice Wall exists
To be clear, the Ice Wall is an antiquated term for Antarctica. I presume you do not dispute the existence of Antarctica, but rather its nature, but please correct me if your contention is actually with the Ice Wall's existence.
When was someone turned around at the ice wall, prevented by authorities from travelling further south?
You're mixing in beliefs of people who are largely absent from here. You're gonna have to take this one up with Eric Dubay and his FE-noveaux.
The wiki cites famed explorer James Ross, who didnt venture inland, but then ignores subsequent trip logs from those who did. Why shouldnt we believe that recent trips to the south pole are really happening?
In what way do we "ignore" them? I suppose they're not explicitly mentioned in the article, but that's simply because they're not relevant or interesting to the subject covered. I see no reason whatsoever why we "shouldn't believe" that they happened (or where you got the idea that we shouldn't), save for the mild disagreement on how reliable navigational instruments would be around that.
(I.e. how do they know whether the shore is an ice shelf or an 'ice wall'? Ice-penetrating radar data)
This, once again, seems to concern the nature of the Ice Wall, not its existence. If parts of the shore happen to be an "ice shelf", that's still part of the Ice Wall. You seem to assume that this is some grandiose term, when in fact it says little more than "hey, you know the south? lotsa ice."
And if a compilation from 1983 is to be trusted, why arent the newer compilations, like BEDMAP, trustworthy?
Presumably because they assert a physical impossibility. The question isn't one of trust, but of viability.
-
I, for one, would like to see the FE evidence that the Ice Wall exists
To be clear, the Ice Wall is an antiquated term for Antarctica. I presume you do not dispute the existence of Antarctica, but rather its nature, but please correct me if your contention is actually with the Ice Wall's existence.
Are you claiming that ice in Antartica implies an ice wall high enough to contain the atmosphere (so 50-60 miles high or so?). That is pretty
obviously different from an "ice shelf". Why has no one every seen this giant? Shouldn't we be able to see this, at least by using a telescope, from many places?
-
Are you claiming that ice in Antartica implies an ice wall high enough to contain the atmosphere (so 50-60 miles high or so?).
No, and it is rather unclear where you got such a ludicrous idea.
See, this is always the problem with RE zealots - they are oh-so-keen to disprove their own imagination of what FET is, in the absence of actually understanding what they're so confidently opposing. Imagine we did that with RET - oh, how easy it would be not to have to address the actual arguments leveraged by the other side!
Why has no one every seen this giant?
Presumably because it doesn't exist. We have no interest in defending your fantasies. You'd do well to (hehe) choose reality over your imagination.
-
Google's full of pictures of the ice wall, watchatalkinabout?
It's also full of pictures showing a globe, taken from various sources.
They're paintings. The ones of the wall are photos.
-
Google's full of pictures of the ice wall, watchatalkinabout?
Yes, according to FE, apparently impenetrable. And we possess no such tech to get us above and over anything greater than 50 feet tall.
(https://i.imgur.com/bltXYsD.png)
Here's McMurdo Station from Observation Hill...
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/McMurdo_Station.jpg/2880px-McMurdo_Station.jpg)
Located right about here...
(https://i.imgur.com/wHNuUIH.png)
Here's a faked satellite image of McMurdo...
(https://i.imgur.com/LrhBNv5.jpg)
If you would like to work there, here's a good place to start your job search...
https://www.usap.gov/jobsandopportunities/?m=1
Yes, according to FE
What does that even mean? Is there some sort of FE bureau out there that decides what is and what isn't FE do you think?
-
I dont want to feed into the Cypher9 trollfest, but since it came up...
I, for one, would like to see the FE evidence that the Ice Wall exists, complete with the names and dates of who made the observations, which flights/voyages they were part of, what studies they were in the region to undertake, etc.
When was someone turned around at the ice wall, prevented by authorities from travelling further south?
The wiki cites famed explorer James Ross, who didnt venture inland, but then ignores subsequent trip logs from those who did. Why shouldnt we believe that recent trips to the south pole are really happening?
The wiki provides a video showing the ice wall, but the original footage was collected as part of a research expedition travelling in between research stations on the continent. What flight was it? Who was part of that expedition? Where else did they travel? What studies were they conducting?
The wiki states that only 5% of the coastline is rocky, the rest is ice, citing Drewry, 1983. This was a compilation of available data on Antarctica at the time. The wiki doesnt seem to dive into the fact that the Drewry 1983 numbers on shoreline composition rely heavily on airborne geophysical data (I.e. how do they know whether the shore is an ice shelf or an 'ice wall'? Ice-penetrating radar data). If these airborne geophysics are trusted for ice wall composition figures, what makes the rest of the hundreds of thousands of line-kilometers of data collected across the continent?
And if a compilation from 1983 is to be trusted, why arent the newer compilations, like BEDMAP, trustworthy?
Stack just posted a picture of it.
-
They're paintings. The ones of the wall are photos.
Not a painting;
(https://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/DatabaseImages/ISD/highres/AS08/AS08-14-2383.JPG)
Nor this;
(https://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/DatabaseImages/ISD/highres/AS17/AS17-134-20387.JPG)
Nor this;
(https://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/DatabaseImages/ISD/highres/AS17/AS17-134-20471.JPG)
There's thousands more from various angles at
https://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/
-
Are you claiming that ice in Antartica implies an ice wall high enough to contain the atmosphere (so 50-60 miles high or so?).
No, and it is rather unclear where you got such a ludicrous idea.
See, this is always the problem with RE zealots - they are oh-so-keen to disprove their own imagination of what FET is, in the absence of actually understanding what they're so confidently opposing. Imagine we did that with RET - oh, how easy it would be not to have to address the actual arguments leveraged by the other side!
relax man. just a simple "no" would suffice.
Why has no one every seen this giant?
Presumably because it doesn't exist. We have no interest in defending your fantasies. You'd do well to (hehe) choose reality over your imagination.
Ok, so what keeps the atmosphere from spilling over the edge?
-
See, this is always the problem with RE zealots - they are oh-so-keen to disprove their own imagination of what FET is, in the absence of actually understanding what they're so confidently opposing.
Rebuttal;
In this very thread, we have the FE-er who repeats the tired old line of NASA pictures being "paintings". Straight out of the Eric Dubay/Beyond the Imaginary Curve/Flatzoid FE (FE Nouveaux?) script of stock YouTuber responses.
NASA guy says that some of their work is composites, with a full images assembled from component photographs, and this is somehow conflated to all NASA images being "paintings". There's some over-active imagining here, too....
-
See, this is always the problem with RE zealots - they are oh-so-keen to disprove their own imagination of what FET is, in the absence of actually understanding what they're so confidently opposing.
Rebuttal;
In this very thread, we have the FE-er who repeats the tired old line of NASA pictures being "paintings". Straight out of the Eric Dubay/Beyond the Imaginary Curve/Flatzoid FE (FE Nouveaux?) script of stock YouTuber responses.
NASA guy says that some of their work is composites, with a full images assembled from component photographs, and this is somehow conflated to all NASA images being "paintings". There's some over-active imagining here, too....
Pictures aren't proof as they can be manipulated. You can believe they are but you're really just kidding yourself. NASA's pictures are clearly paintings as they depict things which are impossible. Sorry.
-
NASA's pictures are clearly paintings as they depict things which are impossible. Sorry.
Just NASA's?
What about Roscosmos, ESA, JAXA, and all the others?
SpaceX, Astra .... even Red Bull.
-
NASA's pictures are clearly paintings as they depict things which are impossible. Sorry.
Just NASA's?
What about Roscosmos, ESA, JAXA, and all the others?
SpaceX, Astra .... even Red Bull.
No, not just NASA. There's a lot of creeps out there grifting their asses off.
-
No, not just NASA. There's a lot of creeps out there grifting their asses off.
Are you going to provide any proof of this, or are we expected to just take your word for it?
-
To be clear, the Ice Wall is an antiquated term for Antarctica. I presume you do not dispute the existence of Antarctica, but rather its nature, but please correct me if your contention is actually with the Ice Wall's existence.
Right, I absolutely dont dispute Antarctica's existence, but am looking for discussion as to the nature of the continent. In this sense though, I think it's fair to ask what the evidence for the Ice Wall (or the entire Antarctic continent's) existence actually is. If we use the quotes, videos and sources provided in the wiki, there is then a baseline of agreed upon lines of evidence/observations for both sides to work from an even playing field
You're mixing in beliefs of people who are largely absent from here. You're gonna have to take this one up with Eric Dubay and his FE-noveaux.
A fair point of clarification. Few people here at tres.org have espoused the view that the world ends at the ice wall, so that question doesnt need to be followed
In what way do we "ignore" them? I suppose they're not explicitly mentioned in the article, but that's simply because they're not relevant or interesting to the subject covered. I see no reason whatsoever why we "shouldn't believe" that they happened (or where you got the idea that we shouldn't), save for the mild disagreement on how reliable navigational instruments would be around that.
I guess I'll have to dig through old threads on this one. I was thinking of numerous examples from past discussions on the ice wall/Antarctica where members simply reject the notion of transantarctic expeditions. On the same line though, it seems odd for the wiki to mention one shipbound explorer's account, but then ignore recent explorers or researchers/entire research stations, like the Amundsen-Scott Station at the south pole. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amundsen%E2%80%93Scott_South_Pole_Station
This, once again, seems to concern the nature of the Ice Wall, not its existence. If parts of the shore happen to be an "ice shelf", that's still part of the Ice Wall. You seem to assume that this is some grandiose term, when in fact it says little more than "hey, you know the south? lotsa ice."
Here though, discussion the data that is used to discern the nature of the ice wall is important, because it speaks again to where we can find common ground based on observations to then form an argument as to the nature of things further inland. The wiki provides data from Drewry's compilation, which, in order to differentiate ice shelf from ice wall, relies on airborne geophysical data. So that data appears to be valid...what about the rest of the airborne geophysics provided within the Drewry compilation, which covered a huge portion of the continent, and was a major factor in delineating ice streams - features critical to the Antarctic ice sheet's function, but horrendously described (and no sources are provided) in the wiki. Ice streams are what create the ice walls - forming grounded and floating margins, depending on total ice thickness and local water depths. See Reviews by Bennett (2002) and Livingstone et al (2012).
Presumably because they assert a physical impossibility. The question isn't one of trust, but of viability.
What is it about recent data sets that assert a physical impossibility? What makes the data or maps non viable?
-
On the same line though, it seems odd for the wiki to mention one shipbound explorer's account, but then ignore recent explorers or researchers/entire research stations, like the Amundsen-Scott Station at the south pole.
The Wiki is a collaborative effort. You're absolutely welcome to suggest additions, or even make them yourself - I'd be happy to set you up with edit access, since I wholly trust you wouldn't misuse it.
-
On the same line though, it seems odd for the wiki to mention one shipbound explorer's account, but then ignore recent explorers or researchers/entire research stations, like the Amundsen-Scott Station at the south pole.
The Wiki is a collaborative effort. You're absolutely welcome to suggest additions, or even make them yourself - I'd be happy to set you up with edit access, since I wholly trust you wouldn't misuse it.
Even though I wouldnt try to write things in a negative light, I undoubtedly would. All sarcasm aside though, that was an honest suggestion for improving the wiki page on the ice wall. Anyone who's seriously looking into things should probably wonder about some of the elephants in the room that aren't being covered there.
I dont know what happened after 1983 that suddenly shifted things towards researchers pushing a physical impossibility...
-
I know it was a serious suggestion, but I don't understand it - you call it the "elephant in the room", but you haven't explained why these additions would be relevant to describing the Ice Wall, and I'm personally not immediately seeing it.
If you're not confident with making the edits yourself, I'd suggest you make a thread in Flat Earth Projects (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?board=19.0) and explain exactly what you're after. You could also provide any proposed text there as a starting point, without having to worry about it being "accidentally negative".
-
To be clear, the Ice Wall is an antiquated term for Antarctica.
Ok, no ice wall just Antarctica. Excellent. So what does the FE model claim is "past" the south pole and whatever that is why did
the south pole overflights not find it?
-
Ok, no ice wall just Antarctica. Excellent.
Sorry, I don't speak... whatever this was.
So what does the FE model claim is "past" the south pole and whatever that is why did
the south pole overflights not find it?
You are expected to familiarise yourself with FET before posting here. Do so.
-
Have you read the faq on this question? You really should! It may give you some other possibilities to noodle than the acute lack thereof you are currently suffering with. No conspiracy is required for humanity to be wrong. One possibility, outlined in the faq, is that any "conspiracy" that NASA et al represent is for military/nationalistic reason and not to do with the shape of the world.
Even if NASA and US organizations try to mislead because of military/nationalistic reasons: why would all other countries, enemy countries of the US, like Russia, China, Pakistan go along with this?
And also: space programs are not just missions like going to the moon, basically every launch of a satellite would only make sense if the Earth is round. These launches are carried out around in many countries, often by private companies. Are they all trying to mislead? And how, if not by actual satellites in orbit, do they then provide the services (satellite TV, GPS, satelite phone, satellite telecommunication) for which millions of customers pay because they work?
-
Even if NASA and US organizations try to mislead because of military/nationalistic reasons: why would all other countries, enemy countries of the US, like Russia, China, Pakistan go along with this?
I'm sure you could imagine a few plausible reasons if you put your mind to it! In general, the nations do what the other nations do.
And also: space programs are not just missions like going to the moon, basically every launch of a satellite would only make sense if the Earth is round.
What if they didn't stay up by "orbit" but by another means? Or what if the satellite based services are really a combination of terrestrial and aircraft?
These launches are carried out around in many countries, often by private companies. Are they all trying to mislead?
Possibly, that is a common profit motive. I think it is probably closer to a "trade secret" in the minds of the few "in the know". They sell a service, the customer need not know precisely how the service is delivered (and that is proprietary besides).
And how, if not by actual satellites in orbit, do they then provide the services (satellite TV, GPS, satelite phone, satellite telecommunication) for which millions of customers pay because they work?
I do not preclude the reality of satellites - they are actually built and huge sums of money are seemingly spent on them. However I do preclude the reality of orbit as we are taught it.
Presumably it is a combination of balloons, aircraft, and terrestrial radio sources which comprise the "satellite" services you mentioned.
In any case, the reasons that corporations, governments, and militaries lie to the people that depend on them are too numerous to list. What precisely they are lying about and why is mostly irrelevant to the shape of the world and to determining it with certainty.
-
I do not preclude the reality of satellites - they are actually built and huge sums of money are seemingly spent on them. However I do preclude the reality of orbit as we are taught it.
Presumably it is a combination of balloons, aircraft, and terrestrial radio sources which comprise the "satellite" services you mentioned.
I don't think this is possible, let alone actually plausible.
GPS works by the receiver measuring the time it takes to get a signal from a (ever changing) set of satellites.
The proper time differences for those signals could be faked and sent from a plane for example and be correct for a receiver at one location but not for another location even just 100 ft away and both receivers could be equal distant from this fake source so that can not be used. Or to put it another way, the system works by the distance to the satellites actually being different for different receivers even if only a couple 100 ft apart. But these fakes stations could not deliver different signals to different receives and the fake sources do not have the distance variation from the receivers that the satellites do.
If you have sat TV you can go to the maintenance/setup screen and see the signal strength and then point the dish around and see the resulting drop in signal strength. So clearly the source is on a line from you out to the claimed geosynchronous orbit position (22,000 miles high or so). A fake source just a few (or a few 10s of) miles high but on that same line can be imagined for your location, but what about a location 100 miles to the east or west of you? For them if they point at the fake source you see the position will be wrong for them and the cat will be out of the bag so to speak. If you have so many such fakes (many thousands) that any spot in the coverage area has a fake on roughly the right sight line for them, then many would get good reception from multiple sources. We do not observe that so those sources do not exist. Thus even if some way the titanic cost of maintaining all of that and that the 10s of thousands of folks involved could keep it secret, the technology just doesn't work.
Some satellite resources like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GRACE_and_GRACE-FO#GRACE_Follow-On (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GRACE_and_GRACE-FO#GRACE_Follow-On) while not as well known as GPS and Sat TV are even more obviously unable to be faked with other sources.
Satellites are real and really are in orbit. The earth is clearly a globe, no other model works for what we observe.
-
I don't think this is possible, let alone actually plausible.
Good edit :) I think it is possible, but I'm not sure how plausible it is that satellites would be flatly non-real.
But these fakes stations could not deliver different signals to different receives and the fake sources do not have the distance variation from the receivers that the satellites do.
All of it is fakable. I agree that it would be an AWFUL lot of trouble though - perhaps boggling the mind.
When considering GPS i usually conclude that there are gps satelites in motion above our heads - as it appears. That does not mean that it is impossible that there aren't.
Thus even if some way the titanic cost of maintaining all of that and that the 10s of thousands of folks involved could keep it secret, the technology just doesn't work.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that the satelite service companies are selling a service that doesn't work and paying their employers and/or customers to keep quiet about it.
Satellite services exist, and they work.
Satellites are real and really are in orbit.
I think it is concievable they are really up there, but I more or less deny the premise and possibility of "orbit" due to further study of the concept and its origins. If they are up there, they are not up there the way we think they are.
The earth is clearly a globe
If the earth were clearly a globe, we wouldn't have to educate people out of their experienced reality from childhood to learn that AND we wouldn't be having this conversation :)
no other model works for what we observe.
This is essentially never the case (and evidence of strong bias). There is virtually no situation in which no other model can satisfy observations.
In any case, let's assume that were true - What do you expect that would prove about reality? Models do not contain reality nor explainations therof.
If I contrived an alternate model that did work for what we observe, would that really prove the world a pyramid, or flat, or any other shape i might fancy? Of course not! Models are meta-scientific tools built for specific provisional purpose. None are built to determine the shape of the world - so trying to use them to do so is silly!
-
I don't think this is possible, let alone actually plausible.
Good edit :) I think it is possible, but I'm not sure how plausible it is that satellites would be flatly non-real.
But I clearly explained why I think it is NOT possible. You have not said anything about HOW it would be faked.
But these fakes stations could not deliver different signals to different receives and the fake sources do not have the distance variation from the receivers that the satellites do.
All of it is fakable.
Explain HOW. I don't think you understand how GPS works. Or explain how the GRACE experiment produced correct data (i.e. lead us to find underground water that did not know about).
Satellites are real and really are in orbit.
I think it is concievable they are really up there, but I more or less deny the premise and possibility of "orbit" due to further study of the concept and its origins. If they are up there, they are not up there the way we think they are.
So they are tracking around in the expected orbital paths and are launched into that path based on the globe model and newtonian mechanics (though relativity does come into time adjustments for their clocks) but are not in orbit. ? What does that mean?
The earth is clearly a globe
If the earth were clearly a globe, we wouldn't have to educate people out of their experienced reality from childhood to learn that AND we wouldn't be having this conversation :)
We're having this conversation only as I wanted to understand how anyone could believe this nonsense.
The globe earth IS the default from very far back, this has been known for a couple of thousand years.
no other model works for what we observe.
This is essentially never the case (and evidence of strong bias). There is virtually no situation in which no other model can satisfy observations.
What? FE doesn't even HAVE a full model (i.e. theory). Please generate a table of sunrise, sunset, location data based on FE math.
Please explain how roughly half the earth is in daylight and half in darkness if the FE model with the spot light sun tracking around were the case.
Please explain how the stars appear the same no matter your east-west postiion, but slowly rotate over you as you go north or south
If the globe earth were true the observations we see for daylight/night, sunrise, sunset, our view of the stars, etc all are exactly what we would expect.
Testing theories based on observation via Baysean reasoning is how science works.
In any case, let's assume that were true - What do you expect that would prove about reality? Models do not contain reality nor explainations therof.
If I contrived an alternate model that did work for what we observe, would that really prove the world a pyramid, or flat, or any other shape i might fancy? Of course not! Models are meta-scientific tools built for specific provisional purpose. None are built to determine the shape of the world - so trying to use them to do so is silly!
You do not understand science. We have two theories. One that the earth is a globe and one that it is a flat disk. ALL the observation we have is exactly what we would expect to see if the globe theory were true. None of the observations we make are what we would expect if the earth was flat (particularly not ever finding the edge).
So bayesian reasoning says the globe theory is the correct one.
Why don't you get this? Explain that to me if you would.
-
why would all other countries, enemy countries of the US, like Russia, China, Pakistan go along with this?
LOL! "enemy countries"
Truly amazing anyone actually believes this in this day and age!
-
You have not said anything about HOW it would be faked.
That's true. I rarely speculate on such things, and I doubt it would do much good in this case. Lets imagine I've done all that already, and just presented you a possible (I think we've both agreed, not very plausible) explanation for how it is faked.
Would that prove/demonstrate anything? Would that serve as some sort of compelling evidence for you? If so, why?
Or explain how the GRACE experiment produced correct data (i.e. lead us to find underground water that did not know about).
Assuming there are GRACE satellites - they presumably use them to indirectly measure such things from high altitude. Otherwise it is probably composite data from other real sources. Of course there are many other possibilities.
So they are tracking around in the expected orbital paths and are launched into that path based on the globe model and newtonian mechanics (though relativity does come into time adjustments for their clocks) but are not in orbit. ? What does that mean?
I think this is particularly unlikely, however perhaps not impossible. Just because we believe we know how things work, and can demonstrably use those things, doesn't prove that belief true.
I think it is more likely, that if they are up there and moving as we expect they are - they are riding a current of some kind. The earth is most likely stationary, and the sky rotates above us. They would still require large balloons or other means to remain aloft until that system inevitably fails.
Some speculate that the satellites are entirely fictional, and this is the reason there are so few photos of them and virtually no photos of them in orbit. They conclude that the things we see in the sky are not satellites and point to the apparent sizes of such objects (such as the iss) being inconsistent with their supposed distances as an evidence.
The globe earth IS the default from very far back, this has been known for a couple of thousand years.
Well, that's a big part of the problem. For virtually all that time the speculation that the world was spherical was taught disingenuously/erroneously as "knowledge"/"fact" when it wasn't.
Many people mention eratosthenes or columbus when discussing "proving" the world spherical - but what they misunderstand is that both of those people already KNEW the world was round for the same reason we do today; we are taught it as fact from childhood, just like they were.
FE doesn't even HAVE a full model (i.e. theory).
Models are not theories. However - in general, flat earth researchers do not spend their time producing either, so in a way you are right. There is the globe model, and then there is no model (yet). Models of the entire world take significant time and investment to create. Expecting them to already exist is foolish.
Please generate a table of sunrise, sunset, location data based on FE math.
That would be tricky considering we lack the verified and verifiable data to do so. In any case, the lights in the sky may move and shine where they please - the shape of the world doesn't enter into that. Looking up to study what is down beneath your feet, is both foolish and unscientific.
If the globe earth were true the observations we see for daylight/night, sunrise, sunset, our view of the stars, etc all are exactly what we would expect.
It's slightly less amazing when you realize that the presupposed interpretation of those phenomena has been conditioned through education for millennia.
Testing theories based on observation via Baysean reasoning is how science works.
The scientific method does not involve "baysean reasoning" nor does it allow mere observation to EVER test a theory/hypothesis.
You do not understand science.
Believe me, the reverse is the case - but that will take time to establish/recognize.
We have two theories.
I hate to be a stickler meseeks, but I must for the purposes of our discussion. The colloquial definitions that most everyone learn for scientific vernacular are wrong. For example, your use of the word "theory". In science, speculations on the cause of a natural phenomenon are called hypotheses. Theories are not speculations at all (ideally).
One that the earth is a globe and one that it is a flat disk.
Those are just statements that various believers make. They aren't even hypotheses.
ALL the observation we have is exactly what we would expect to see if the globe theory were true.
Except for all the observations that contradict it, sure.
None of the observations we make are what we would expect if the earth was flat (particularly not ever finding the edge).
Actually, the vast majority of observations support the world being flat (but that doesn't make it flat!).
As for the "edge" - no one is completely certain there is one. Biblicalists cite "the four corners" of the world mentioned. Some speculate the earth to be an infinite plane with no edge.
So bayesian reasoning says the globe theory is the correct one.
And you think that makes it correct? If we pretended that the two "theories" were, in fact, just that - applying occams razor would favor the flat world (perhaps not a "wafer disc") because it requires less assumptions; But that doesn't make it correct!
Why don't you get this? Explain that to me if you would.
I'm working on it! Communication takes time.
-
You have not said anything about HOW it would be faked.
That's true. I rarely speculate on such things, and I doubt it would do much good in this case. Lets imagine I've done all that already, and just presented you a possible (I think we've both agreed, not very plausible) explanation for how it is faked.
Would that prove/demonstrate anything? Would that serve as some sort of compelling evidence for you? If so, why?
It would server as compelling evidence that it COULD be faked. I have provided a clear explanation for why it can not be. You want to wave that away by imagining you have a countered that
explanation. You have not.
Or explain how the GRACE experiment produced correct data (i.e. lead us to find underground water that did not know about).
Assuming there are GRACE satellites - they presumably use them to indirectly measure such things from high altitude. Otherwise it is probably composite data from other real sources. Of course there are many other possibilities.
Again your argument is just hand waving. The entire experiment depends on the two satellites being in a very well known orbit and watching how that orbit is altered by flying over more or less mass.
So they are tracking around in the expected orbital paths and are launched into that path based on the globe model and newtonian mechanics (though relativity does come into time adjustments for their clocks) but are not in orbit. ? What does that mean?
I think this is particularly unlikely, however perhaps not impossible. Just because we believe we know how things work, and can demonstrably use those things, doesn't prove that belief true.
I think it is more likely, that if they are up there and moving as we expect they are - they are riding a current of some kind. The earth is most likely stationary, and the sky rotates above us. They would still require large balloons or other means to remain aloft until that system inevitably fails.
Some speculate that the satellites are entirely fictional, and this is the reason there are so few photos of them and virtually no photos of them in orbit. They conclude that the things we see in the sky are not satellites and point to the apparent sizes of such objects (such as the iss) being inconsistent with their supposed distances as an evidence.
We have well developed thrones of mass, its impact on space and time, orbital mechanics, etc. When we use that to do experiments (like launch satttelites) we observe their behavior is exactly as our theory predicts. Yet you want to say all that means nothing and maybe they are "riding currents".
The globe earth IS the default from very far back, this has been known for a couple of thousand years.
Many people mention eratosthenes or columbus when discussing "proving" the world spherical - but what they misunderstand is that both of those people already KNEW the world was round for the same reason we do today; we are taught it as fact from childhood, just like they were.
Eratosthenes MEASURED the size of the earth, assuming it was round. And the number he got is very close to the number we know today using vastly different measurement techniques. If the earth is not round, how did he get that result?
FE doesn't even HAVE a full model (i.e. theory).
Models are not theories. However - in general, flat earth researchers do not spend their time producing either, so in a way you are right. There is the globe model, and then there is no model (yet). Models of the entire world take significant time and investment to create. Expecting them to already exist is foolish.
Yes so much easier to just wave your hands and make silly claims. I get it.
Please generate a table of sunrise, sunset, location data based on FE math.
That would be tricky considering we lack the verified and verifiable data to do so. In any case, the lights in the sky may move and shine where they please - the shape of the world doesn't enter into that. Looking up to study what is down beneath your feet, is booth foolish and unscientific.
The lights in the sky "shine where they please"? Are you attributing free will to such things?
Further the shape of the world has a great deal to do with how light strikes objects and casts shadows etc. The FE model can not even explain how roughly half the earth is dark and half light. Why don't you start with that?
If the globe earth were true the observations we see for daylight/night, sunrise, sunset, our view of the stars, etc all are exactly what we would expect.
It's slightly less amazing when you realize that the presupposed interpretation of those phenomena has been conditioned through education for millennia.
If the observations are not as the global earth model predicts, then please point out those descrepeneces.
Testing theories based on observation via Baysean reasoning is how science works.
The scientific method does not involve "baysean reasoning" nor does it allow mere observation to EVER test a theory/hypothesis.
So geology, cosmology, oceanography, ecology, most of biology, anything about the actual world as opposed to a lab experiment is not science in your view. You're wrong.
You do not understand science.
Believe me, the reverse is the case - but that will take time to establish/recognize.
Read Sean Carol's The Big Picture, it happens to have an excellent explanation of the role of Bayesian reasoning in science.
We have two theories.
I hate to be a stickler meseeks, but I must for the purposes of our discussion. The colloquial definitions that most everyone learn for scientific vernacular are wrong. For example, your use of the word "theory". In science, speculations on the cause of a natural phenomenon are called hypotheses. Theories are not speculations at all (ideally).
Now you are just playing word games. If this were a technical discussion among scientists then yes we would need to be careful about such things. But it is far from that and I think you clearly gleaned my meaning.
One that the earth is a globe and one that it is a flat disk.
ALL the observation we have is exactly what we would expect to see if the globe theory were true.
Except for all the observations that contradict it, sure.
Perhpas you can list out some of those contradictory observations?
None of the observations we make are what we would expect if the earth was flat (particularly not ever finding the edge).
Actually, the vast majority of observations support the world being flat (but that doesn't make it flat!).
As for the "edge" - no one is completely certain there is one. Biblicalists cite "the four corners" of the world mentioned. Some speculate the earth to be an infinite plane with no edge.
Again you play games. No observation has ever been made of the edge, OR of a vast infinite plane. But your reference to the Bible is perhaps informative. Is all this just part of you religions belief?
So bayesian reasoning says the globe theory is the correct one.
And you think that makes it correct? If we pretended that the two "theories" were, in fact, just that - applying occams razor would favor the flat world (perhaps not a "wafer disc") because it requires less assumptions; But that doesn't make it correct!
I think that makes it the theory that has the most (in this case actually overwhelming) support and thus is the best we can achieve about what is so in the world. We could all be brains in jars of course but so far we have no evidence of that. Further Occams Razor would clearly favor a single model that explained all the movements of the stellar phenomena that we see (other planets their moons, the path of our own planet, our moon, asteroids, etc) and not some wildly complex setup with either a dome over the disk earth or an INFINTE plane, and all the complex movements we observe in the cosmos being specified for each body. The RE is hugely simpler than the FE.
Why don't you get this? Explain that to me if you would.
I'm working on it! Communication takes time.
I can't say that you have even begun.
-
Eratosthenes MEASURED the size of the earth, assuming it was round. And the number he got is very close to the number we know today using vastly different measurement techniques. If the earth is not round, how did he get that result?
Incorrect. The modern method is just the same method as Eratosthenes' method, and uses Eratosthenes' same assumptions.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Measuring-the-Earth-Modernized-1673316
In its modern form, the method requires the following elements: two stations on the same meridian of longitude, which play the same parts as Aswan and Alexandria in the method of Eratosthenes of Cyrene (c. 276–c. 194 BC); a precise determination of the angular height of a designated star at the same time from the two stations; and two perfectly level and accurately measured baselines a few kilometres long near each station. What was new 2,000 years after Eratosthenes was the accuracy of the stellar positions and the measured distance between the stations, accomplished through the use of the baselines.
-
Incorrect. The modern method is just the same method as Eratosthenes' method, and uses Eratosthenes' same assumptions.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Measuring-the-Earth-Modernized-1673316
In its modern form, the method requires the following elements: two stations on the same meridian of longitude, which play the same parts as Aswan and Alexandria in the method of Eratosthenes of Cyrene (c. 276–c. 194 BC); a precise determination of the angular height of a designated star at the same time from the two stations; and two perfectly level and accurately measured baselines a few kilometres long near each station. What was new 2,000 years after Eratosthenes was the accuracy of the stellar positions and the measured distance between the stations, accomplished through the use of the baselines.
Wouldn't EA change the apparent elevation angle of the sun in all positions other than those directly overhead the viewer, thereby changing the calculated size fo the earth?
-
Eratosthenes MEASURED the size of the earth, assuming it was round. And the number he got is very close to the number we know today using vastly different measurement techniques. If the earth is not round, how did he get that result?
Incorrect. The modern method is just the same method as Eratosthenes' method, and uses Eratosthenes' same assumptions.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Measuring-the-Earth-Modernized-1673316
In its modern form ...
Read you own link Tom. "in its modern form". This is the modern form of the ancient method, it says nothing about that being the only method. Today we also have the massive point data of GPS showing us that the surface of the earth is in fact a globe and how big it is. You can also make a decent approximation by just using a good stopwatch and measuring the time difference between seeing the sunrise (or set or moon rise or set, or any distant star rise or set) from two heights (even standing vs lying down).
-
Read you own link Tom. "in its modern form". This is the modern form of the ancient method, it says nothing about that being the only method.
It's the only official method Britannica knows of, in its article called "Measuring the Earth, Modernized"
Today we also have the massive point data of GPS showing us that the surface of the earth is in fact a globe and how big it is. You can also make a decent approximation by just using a good stopwatch and measuring the time difference between seeing the sunrise (or set or moon rise or set, or any distant star rise or set) from two heights (even standing vs lying down).
Britannica doesn't explain that there is any other way the earth's circumference is officially calculated. If it is calculated with another method then that should be documented as the way the circumference is calculated for textbooks.
This professor of physics seems to think that it's the modern way too:
https://www.wired.com/2012/02/a-modern-measurement-of-the-radius-of-the-earth/
The Modern Way
You might think the modern way to measure the radius of the Earth is to just look it up. Not so fast. Really, the fun isn't in knowing the answer; the fun is in getting the answer. So, using modern technology we essentially repeat the Greek experiment. Here is what we will do.
...
Rhett Allain is an associate professor of physics at Southeastern Louisiana University. He enjoys teaching and talking about physics. Sometimes he takes things apart and can't put them back together.
-
Read you own link Tom. "in its modern form". This is the modern form of the ancient method, it says nothing about that being the only method.
It's the only official method Britannica knows of, in its article called "Measuring the Earth, Modernized"
Again even by the title its the modern version of this method. Indeed it could well be the "official method" whatever that means exactly. But
that does not mean it is the only method, does it?
-
Read you own link Tom. "in its modern form". This is the modern form of the ancient method, it says nothing about that being the only method.
It's the only official method Britannica knows of, in its article called "Measuring the Earth, Modernized"
Again even by the title its the modern version of this method. Indeed it could well be the "official method" whatever that means exactly. But
that does not mean it is the only method, does it?
We want the official method for the published Earth circumference when comparing how correct Eratosthenes was. If the official method for getting the Earth's circumference for published values is just repeating the same experiment, then it puts the experiment into question. You are using the same experiment to verify itself.
The GPS method appears just to be Eratosthenes' method, but using GPS to get your position:
http://tolhurstj.faculty.gocolumbia.edu/ESGIS/Geographic_Information_Systems/CCTIS_59_GIS_GPS/Activities/Earth_Circumference_with_GPS/measuring_earth_circumference_with_gps.pdf
The stopwatch method says at the bottom of this paper "Results typically are within 15% for a regular class, within 10% for an Honors or AP class.", which is way off:
http://www.darylscience.com/downloads/DblSunset.pdf
-
Another source on these alternate methods:
How to Measure the Size of the Earth with Only a Foot Rule or a Stopwatch - http://miriam-english.org/files/size-of-earth/How_to_Measure_the_Size_of_the_Earth.html
In addition to random errors in the observations several systematic errors figure in the results. One error involves the bending of light rays that skim the horizon, slightly raising it in your field of view. This refractive effect of the atmosphere makes Gerver's computed radius too large by about 20 percent.
Rawlins next approximated the height added to the ocean horizon by the distant waves as being .6 meter. This number was subtracted from both of his observation heights, which then became 1.12 and 8.35 meters. To get the effective height difference needed for the calculation he computed the square root of both of these numbers, found the difference between them and squared the result. The answer was 3.35 meters.
Squaring the time, dividing the result into the proportionality constant of 3.78 X 105 and then multiplying by the effective height difference of 3.35 meters gave Rawlins 3,300 kilometers (2,100 miles) as the radius of the earth. That was about 48 percent too low, but the factors involving the date, the latitude and the refraction were still to be taken into account.
Interpolating from the tables, Rawlins found that April 5 has an A factor of .988. The B factor for his latitude was approximately .295. A minus B was .693, which he divided into the previous result to get a radius of 4,800 kilometers (3,000 miles), a result about 25 percent too low. To take refraction into account he multiplied this result by 1.2 to get his final value for the radius: 5,700 kilometers (3,500 miles). This is about 10 percent less than the official value.
Pretty big range of differences.
The modification of using tables to get from -48% to -25% seems to be based on nautical tables. It isn't clear that nautical tables are actually based on a vanilla RE rather than a pattern made from historical observations.
Precise tables of the sun's declination can be found in The American Ephemeris and Nautical Almanac, which is published yearly by the Government Printing Office. You can probably find your approximate latitude in an atlas. With this latitude and the date of your observations you can then take the associated factors A and B from the the table in Figure 7. To use these corrective factors subtract B from A and then divide the result into Rawlins' basic equation.
That, plus refraction. So with Rawlins' method we have to make a ton of assumptions to get to -10%.
-
We want the official method for the published Earth circumference when comparing how correct Eratosthenes was. If the official method for getting the Earth's circumference for published values is just repeating the same experiment, then it puts the experiment into question. You are using the same experiment to verify itself.
Both methods use just basic geometry given that the earth is a globe. Any such measurement anywhere on the planet (I recall yeas ago Jacob Bruowski did it with a rental truck that he drove down aver staring N/S road in the middle of the US and put tape on the side to sight on a star). If no matter where you do it, or what the distance between your points, it all comes out to about the same that is pretty good evidence that the technique works. If the earth were not a globe why would it work?
The GPS method appears just to be Eratosthenes' method, but using GPS to get your position:
No. GPS measures position and altitude by computing the distance to at least 4 satellites from your current position. It works anywhere on the planet (and now there are 5 such systems I think). The calculation includes complete knowledge of the orbits so the receiver knows where they are so after solving for how far away each is an establishing the position of the receiver relative to that set of satellites in knows where you are by knowing where they are. And its always right (barring things like signal reflections in cities) so its model of the orbits is correct. The sum total of all those postions paints a picture of a round earth.
The stopwatch method says at the bottom of this paper "Results typically are within 15% for a regular class, within 10% for an Honors or AP class.", which is way off:
Sure, but that test is only over about 6 ft (standing to lying down). Do it with two people with synchronized stop watches in the top and bottom of a tall building or tower and you'll get much greater accuracy.
If you'll forgive the topic stray (just thought of this)
How does the FE model account for eclipses? I guess you could conjure up the moon getting in front of the sun for a solar ecplise but how do you explain a lunar eclipse?
-
If you'll forgive the topic stray (just thought of this)
How does the FE model account for eclipses? I guess you could conjure up the moon getting in front of the sun for a solar ecplise but how do you explain a lunar eclipse?
https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration
Scroll down to the lunar eclipse section.
-
If you'll forgive the topic stray (just thought of this)
How does the FE model account for eclipses? I guess you could conjure up the moon getting in front of the sun for a solar ecplise but how do you explain a lunar eclipse?
https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration
Scroll down to the lunar eclipse section.
But Tom…again, if EA is real then taking geometric sightings of celestial bodies to calculate the size of the earth wouldn’t work without correcting for the distortion, would it?
-
If you'll forgive the topic stray (just thought of this)
How does the FE model account for eclipses? I guess you could conjure up the moon getting in front of the sun for a solar ecplise but how do you explain a lunar eclipse?
https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration
Scroll down to the lunar eclipse section.
Thanks, I'll grant that the EA pages don't lack for imagination. The notion that all light curves "upward" presumably that is relative to the surface of the earth, is a rather geocentric point of view, but it also has major problems for things like the laser retroreflector/range finders left on the moon. If this curving were happening the path the beam takes when the moon is at a lower position would be greater than when it is more overhead, but all observatories get the same distance (with in about 6 inches). Oh but wait the moon landings never happened and all the astronomers that have used the reflectors are part of the conspiracy, right?
If EA was happening you would get the maximum signal strength on your SAT TV when pointing your dish lower than the satellite's actual position, but that is not what is experienced.
But back to the lunar eclipse, the claim is that it's not the earth's shadow but "The Lunar Eclipse occurs when the Moon moves beyond the Sun's light". This would be a very gradual light to dark transition but what we see is a sharp transition with all the subtle characteristics of a shadow.
-
It would server as compelling evidence that it COULD be faked.
In potentia/imagination maybe, but i think you agree that just because we can imagine it doesn't make it achievable/reasonable nor actual.
You want to wave that away by imagining you have a countered that
explanation. You have not.
I am not countering your explanation, but I am humbly asking YOU to imagine along with me!
The purpose of this hypothetical imagining is not to hand wave, but to try and evaluate/anticipate what impact it would have in our conversation and on our perspectives.
Supposing you had just been given an alternative explanation for gps function, that you accepted as at least potentially possible. I think the absolute MOST this could do is convince you to soften your wording in the future - "No other way possible" merely becomes "No other way remotely plausible" or something.
It's a long walk for a very short drink of water if you know what I mean.
Again your argument is just hand waving.
I'm not discussing arguments, I'm discussing possibilities.
The entire experiment depends on the two satellites being in a very well known orbit and watching how that orbit is altered by flying over more or less mass.
True. That is what is claimed. The major trouble, and a chief reason other possibilities are considerable, is that the claim is not validateable/verifiable. It depends on abject appeal to authority in order to believe.
We have well developed thrones of mass, its impact on space and time, orbital mechanics, etc.
We have many models for such things, most of them contradictory. None of them were ever correct before (historically), and there is good reason to recognize they are still not correct now.
When we use that to do experiments (like launch satttelites) we observe their behavior is exactly as our theory predicts.
As I said, this is particularly unlikely. I'm just not certain it is impossible, because far wilder things have happened before.
Yet you want to say all that means nothing and maybe they are "riding currents".
Not at all! Many of those incorrect conceptions/models I mentioned above remain useful and in use to this day.
Regarding the currents, this is purely speculation but it isn't baseless. There are several observations that support our shared experiential reality of "stationary and at rest". When you recognize the earth is motionless, you also recognize that the sky is in motion. The currents are deduced from these observations, however they are still speculations.
It is conceivable that the motion the satellites have in the sky is due to another means of propulsion entirely, regardless of the existence of said currents.
Eratosthenes MEASURED the size of the earth, assuming it was round.
Ooo, so close! Eratosthenes measured a (singular) shadow and CALCULATED the circumference of the earth assuming it was round, that sunlight is always parallel "globally", and a slew of other unvalidated assumptions.
And the number he got is very close to the number we know today using vastly different measurement techniques.
I'll let tom field this one. The bottom line is that when you have the same assumptions (world views) and follow similar approaches, you ought to tend towards similar results. We inherited MANY of those assumptions (that lead to such things as the radius and circumference of an assumed spherical world) and procedures/approaches from those very ancient greeks themselves!
Yes so much easier to just wave your hands and make silly claims. I get it.
Apparently. But you can stop anytime you want to!
You may be under the misimpression that you are arguing against me or vice versa. I engage in rational discourse, and am not here to make silly claims nor hand wave.
The lights in the sky "shine where they please"? Are you attributing free will to such things?
Poetic license!
The FE model can not even explain how roughly half the earth is dark and half light. Why don't you start with that?
I can tell you from experience that this bit will likely be particularly hard for you to grasp/swallow.
One reason we don't start with that, is because we don't want to inadvertently practice mythology. It's frightfully easy to imagine why things happen and then teach it to people as fact. Another is that, if the world is not the shape we were taught it is, there may well be more land than what we are aware of. Lack of validated and validatable data, is essentially the reason you end up dabbling in mythology when you don't mean to.
If the observations are not as the global earth model predicts, then please point out those descrepeneces.
There are many such observations which we can discuss, but that was not my point. The point was that we experience a flat world. We only interpret a handful of observations and conclude "globe" due to conditioning through rote under the guise of education from childhood (contrary to that experiential flat reality)
So geology, cosmology, oceanography, ecology, most of biology, anything about the actual world as opposed to a lab experiment is not science in your view. You're wrong.
Most all of us learn and use incorrect colloquial definitions of scientific vernacular. Your scientifically incorrect use of the word theory is a very common example.
One cannot hope to evaluate or even discuss science (let alone practice it!) if one doesn't know the proper definitions. How could you ever hope to discern between what was scientific and what wasn't if your definition of science was wrong?!
Let's start simple by defining science :
Science is what rigorously adheres to the scientific method and colloquially to the body of knowledge that method produces. The one exception is natural/scientific law which is established purely through rigorous and repeated observation/measurement alone.
Do you agree, disagree, and/or have anything to add/change?
Read Sean Carol's The Big Picture, it happens to have an excellent explanation of the role of Bayesian reasoning in science.
I may check that out. I didn't say bayesian reasoning (and other statistical analysis) wasn't employed by scientists, I said it wasn't part of the scientific method.
Now you are just playing word games.
I appreciate that it might appear that way to you, but I assure you that is not the case.
If this were a technical discussion among scientists then yes we would need to be careful about such things.
I'm glad you recognize and appreciate that what I said was correct. This is a scientific discussion, and we should be careful to keep that in mind and use the proper vernacular so we avoid misunderstanding (and unintentional equivocation fallacy).
But it is far from that and I think you clearly gleaned my meaning.
I did! My point in response was that because they aren't theories in any scientific context - they can't be evaluated/compared using meta-scientific methodology (like bayesian, or occam). They are simply two statements of "fact"/belief made by various people.
Perhaps you can list out some of those contradictory observations?
Absolutely. The demonstrable behavior of water's surface at rest (as established as law in hydrostatics), "seeing too far", and frozen lake observations to name a few.
Again you play games.
I'm just answering your questions!
No observation has ever been made of the edge
Right, so why do you think one exists?
OR of a vast infinite plane.
Right, so that means that there can't be one?
Is all this just part of you religions belief?
I endeavor to eschew and excise all belief where it does not belong. Belief has no place in knowledge/fact (least of all scientific) and is directly across purposes to objective study of any kind. If you believe the world is spherical, flat, or any other shape - you have FAITH, not fact.
Many do succumb to the poison of belief however, and that bias prevents them from being able to critically evaluate their own positions. Globe believers and flat earth believers alike are a major problem. One of the most important skills to build engaging in flat earth research is discerning the difference between knowledge and belief masquerading as it (both externally, and perhaps more importantly - internally, in your own heart and mind)
I think that makes it the theory that has the most (in this case actually overwhelming) support and thus is the best we can achieve about what is so in the world.
The trouble being, it isn't a theory :( and all the support in the universe couldn't make it one. There is more support for the world being not spherical - but that doesn't (and never could, and should never be allowed to) prove the world one shape or another.
We could all be brains in jars of course but so far we have no evidence of that.
There is no more intellectually vapid waste of time than simulationism. It is the drain where philosophy goes to die.
The RE is hugely simpler than the FE.
That is completely wrong, and on some level you know it. The list of assumptions (the vast majority unvalidated, and learned as presumptive "fact") required for the RE is embarrassingly long. Again, occam is for comparing scientific theories/hypotheses - of which the presumed/believed shape of the world is neither.
I can't say that you have even begun.
It's a two way street! We both must "begun" together.
-
It would server as compelling evidence that it COULD be faked.
In potentia/imagination maybe, but i think you agree that just because we can imagine it doesn't make it achievable/reasonable nor actual.
The point is that if it can not be faked, imagining otherwise is pointless. You obviously know that, why else all the evasion?
The entire experiment depends on the two satellites being in a very well known orbit and watching how that orbit is altered by flying over more or less mass.
True. That is what is claimed. The major trouble, and a chief reason other possibilities are considerable, is that the claim is not validateable/verifiable. It depends on abject appeal to authority in order to believe.
The structures (usually bodies of underground water) that the system finds, and that no one know of before, actually exist. Or are you saying that since you did not personally see all of this and witness the launch, travel to space yourself to see the satellites are there, and all of the related technology etc you do not believe it?
We have well developed thrones of mass, its impact on space and time, orbital mechanics, etc.
We have many models for such things, most of them contradictory. None of them were ever correct before (historically), and there is good reason to recognize they are still not correct now.
Again you make wild claims but do not back up a single one. This is your theme. You did not answer a single question I asked.
You're an articulate troll, but a troll none the less. I'm done with you. It is highly unlikely that you actually believe anything you have posted. So I'm not going to allow you to waste any more of my time.
-
The point is that if it can not be faked, imagining otherwise is pointless. You obviously know that, why else all the evasion?
The reason for discussing the hypothetical is to get you to recognize how meaningless such a potential explaination would be to you. It was merely to try and save time.
Or are you saying that since you did not personally see all of this and witness the launch, travel to space yourself to see the satellites are there, and all of the related technology etc you do not believe it?
No, I am saying that because there can be no space of any kind (outside of fiction) - i find technology that supposedly resides there and depends on its unique and unatural characteristics (orbit, vacuum, etc.) to be highly suspicious.
The technologies that infer underground mapping (even frommhigh altitude) actually exist, and I presume such technologies were employed to capture the data that further, presumed satellite derived, composites were comprised of.
Again you make wild claims but do not back up a single one.
What claim do you require "backing up" and what would suffice to "back it up" in your view? The majority of our discussion is not my claims - we are merely discussing possibilities.
You're an articulate troll, but a troll none the less.
... I'm not going to allow you to waste any more of my time.
I assure you, I am earnest and no troll (though I might as well admit to NOT beating my wife while I'm at it, for all the good it will do). You can only confirm my earnest sincerity by continued interaction over time.
Unfortunatley, if you avoid such interactions it is highly unlikely that you will be understood and perhaps even less likely that you will understand this subject. I'm happy to answer any and all questions you might have if I can!