61

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Revisiting Bedford Level Experiment

« on: January 07, 2020, 11:58:44 PM »

But you do have two problems otherwise.
1.   In the Wiki, it is stated that one of the reasons that ships vanish below the horizon, which is the same thing as this Bedford experiment, is refraction.  You can have it both ways; either refraction interferes with the path of light in the flat earth model or it doesn’t.

Based on the wiki, the sinking ship effect may have many causes. I don't know if FEs consider one to be the most frequent, but in that case, I believe it would be the FE theory of Optical Resolution, which places the vanishing point of perspective at no more than 7 miles in front of you.

2.   Whenever I have seen these “Rowbotham effects” demonstrated, it is pretty clear that the experimenter always puts the observation point and the target very close to the ground. (including Rowbotham).  The reason seems pretty obvious when you are close to the ground, the thermal gradient is the highest and therefore the refraction is the highest and you get the illusion that the earth is curved more than it is.  If you see others experiment, they always make sure to do it well above the surface, which minimises refraction and shows that the earth is curved.

The primary sin of these experiments is that they are visual. So considering that refraction creates optical illusions, they both don't prove anything either way. The OP stated we'd need a vacuum tube and laser, and I think he's right.

62

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: January 07, 2020, 06:56:49 PM »

Does anyone really doubt Trump represents his voters? I mean, given that there's not much to discuss about.

63

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Revisiting Bedford Level Experiment

« on: January 06, 2020, 01:24:14 PM »

Then lead away , I am interested to see the logical steps .

Let me try that:
 
Fact 1: Atmo-something refraction due to temperature gradient exists, proof: mirages as in the following figure:



Fact 2: Atmo-something refraction can indeed be modeled with Math formulas (we may not agree on the exact formulas, but those formulas do exist).

Fact 3: In a FE temperature gradient would go upwards in layers that are horizontal, but in a RE they would be concentric spherical shells.

Fact 4: Given the Math formulas believed by REs, and assuming Fact 3, and a temperature gradient, from the RET point of view the Bedford Level experiment would give the same exact results both on FE and RE.

Conclusion: Rowbotham concluded FE from an observation that was enough for him, but not enough for those using a certain set of Math formulas (aka REs). For the latters, temperature gradient should have been taken into account. Now somerled you don't trust REs Math formulas, but this doesn't disprove Fact 1 and also doesn't exempt FE experimenters to not consider the possibility that visual results on land survey could be due to atmo-something refraction.

64

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Revisiting Bedford Level Experiment

« on: December 28, 2019, 10:45:44 AM »

Rowbotham does reference some tests with barometers in Experiment 9.

There he writes that

Refraction can only exist when the medium surrounding the observer is different to that in which the object is placed. As long as the shilling in the basin is surrounded with air, and the observer is in the same air, there is no refraction; but whilst the observer remains in the air, and the shilling is placed in water, refraction exists

and that being moisture equal at the two ends of the bank,

In a short time afterwards the two sets of observers met each other about midway on the northern bank of the canal, when the notes were compared, and found to be precisely alike--the temperature, density, and moisture of the air did not differ at the two stations at the time the experiment with the telescope and flag-staff was made. Hence it was concluded that refraction had not played any part in the observation, and could not be allowed for, nor permitted to influence, in any way whatever, the general result.

refraction *should* not have played (in his view) a role, because source and observer are in the same medium. But this is obvious and Rowbotham doesn't mention the other refraction due to gradual changes of the air in height (as the OP) and this happens to be exactly the explaination given to the Bedford Experiment by REs. So there you have from two different theories of how a round-earth-with-atmosphere should work two different conclusions deriving from the same experiment.

It would be a pretty big refraction coincidence to put the top of the poles in a line like that. The top of the first flag would have to have been projected 8 inches into the air, the second flag 2.67 feet, the third flag 6 feet, the fourth flag 10.6 feet, the fifth flag 14.29 feet, and the sixth flag 24.01 feet into the air, when the later flags should be below the horizon.

Earth curve calculator (https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=6&h0=5&unit=imperial) gives me a smaller number. Anyway refraction makes it look like a curved surface is straight, so everything in between looks like on the same line.

65

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Revisiting Bedford Level Experiment

« on: December 23, 2019, 12:09:58 AM »

It is well-known that the measurements in surveying over distances of some miles can be affected by atmospheric refraction due to the change in index of refraction of air with height.

Is that because they see an earth which doesn't match up with theory?

Tom your observation is unfair as Rowbotham himself keeps referring to a supposed "round earth theory" in his ENAG. For example, in https://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za07.htm he states:

If the earth is a globe, the series of flags in the last experiment would have had the form and produced the results represented in the diagram, Fig. 5

but we don't know what kind of globe he was referring to. He observes that his experiment didn't match his own expectation of the globe, but this doesn't prove the globe wrong if his expectation of how a globe would work were wrong in the first place. I think Rowbotham interprets how light would travel in a globe in a purely geometrical way, ignoring any possible effect of refraction or any other of the many effects we now know exist on earth independently to its shape. And let me add that yes, afaik if the Bedford level experiment was conducted on a ideal world where light travels in perfect vacuum without being refracted or modified in any possible way, that would be just simple logic that earth was flat, light being a placeholder of a quite long horizontal level.  But why Rowbotham never consider the possibility of refraction? Wasn't he aware of the existence of that?

66

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare

« on: December 22, 2019, 11:42:17 PM »

I don't care about your opinions about the government to be clear, just the physical theories.

You first chose to put forward the "trust your government" point.

And if this us the wrong approach, explain what would be a right one.

When you prepare a talk the first thing you do is assessing your audience. If you address someone who created an entire wiki on flat earth, would you expect to just pass by, shout a low quality argument, and then to just shrug at everyone because they don't understand? You're an engineer, so I ask you to self-evaluate the effect of your post in terms of results and time to reward ratio.

67

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare

« on: December 18, 2019, 12:28:00 AM »

You're taking the wrong approach, anyway:

FE is a proven theory and FEs do understand that if governments are lying, is because there's a good reason for that. Perspective denies seeing what you mention. Cities are highly illuminated and that's a possible reason for the effect that you mention (but that you don't prove or provide evidence)

68

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Zeteticism

« on: December 15, 2019, 07:56:16 PM »

Second, I wanted to ask some FE'rs who believe things like Universal Acceleration while claiming to follow the zetetic method, how do these beliefs not conflict with each other?

Has Zeteticism ever been criticized by some philosopher?

How is that related?

Your question could have been discussed by Philosophers of Science whose work is to criticize epistemological beliefs and contradictions. I'm not aware of anyone criticizing Rowbotham's Zeteticism in two hundred years, but it would be really nice!

69

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Zeteticism

« on: December 11, 2019, 06:28:40 PM »

Second, I wanted to ask some FE'rs who believe things like Universal Acceleration while claiming to follow the zetetic method, how do these beliefs not conflict with each other?

Has Zeteticism ever been criticized by some philosopher?

70

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I need help answering theese questions

« on: November 25, 2019, 10:37:02 PM »

Hi, people often ask me theese questions and i could not find a good answer.
I hope some of you could help me.
Please be considerate with my spelling, English is not my first language

Questions
*What is on the other side of the disk
*Is the disc rotating in any direction
*How thick is the atmosphere (mol/dm3)
*Is the atmosphere thickening or dissapering as we travel thru space.
* I live in sweden and during the winter our days end at 3pm, how is this explained?

*difficult to know
*can you feel any movement?
*how's that related?
*again, how's that related?
*there are many models for this, please check the wiki

71

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Distance to the Sun - Rowbothams investigation

« on: November 16, 2019, 10:12:38 PM »

Actually that link says that it works just fine on FE if light bends upwards.

What is your evidence for that effect? Because during the Bishop experiment you claim that:

Pretty obvious proof: during sunset shadows climbs buildings from below to above, and since the Sun behaves as a lamp, you must have bending light rays.

And also, the possibility that light bends is not surprising at all.

All lengthening shadows is proof of is that the angle of the light changes over time. That could be explained by a close sun and EA but it is not the only possible explanation and thus not in itself proof of that.

There are many theories about the Sun's distance, Rowbotham showed one with actual evidence. What do you have instead?

72

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Distance to the Sun - Rowbothams investigation

« on: November 13, 2019, 09:32:44 PM »

Actually that link says that it works just fine on FE if light bends upwards.

What is your evidence for that effect? Because during the Bishop experiment you claim that:

Pretty obvious proof: during sunset shadows climbs buildings from below to above, and since the Sun behaves as a lamp, you must have bending light rays.

And also, the possibility that light bends is not surprising at all.

73

Flat Earth Theory / Fixed illumination of the Moon explaination?

« on: October 11, 2019, 08:03:39 AM »

In the flat earth models where the Sun is hovering over the earth the Moon is presumed to be lit because it is about at the same height of the Sun, but how do these models explain the fact that during the night the illumination does not change as the Sun moves?

74

Flat Earth Theory / Re: When rockets launch....

« on: July 23, 2019, 08:23:56 AM »

QUESTION 1
When the Space Shuttle program used to be active, it would launch and then the Orbiter would return a few days or a few weeks later.

If Flat Earthers believe that space travel is not possible / is a hoax, where does a Flat Earther believe that the Orbiter goes for the few days or weeks after it launches before it then re-appears and glides in for a landing? Does the shuttle launch/ glide to a secret undisclosed location without radar detection/ and then NASA somehow launches it again in secret or a clone of it so that it can re-appear and land?

I would be curious to get feedback from a Flat Earth believer on how they believe this hoax to work.

Has someone replied to this?

75

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Clarifications on UA

« on: July 17, 2019, 10:13:22 PM »

I'm somehow curious about the Power Source causing UA.

That source should be quite stable through the whole Earth, otherwise if there was a slight instability we could start flipping like a coin?

Also, that source would be knowledgable of how mass is moved on the surface, so to change the power accordingly on the new location. In saying so I imagine a disk flying through space with a rocket, and stuff over it in a sort of stable way.

And it has been running since a lot of time, that will be a huge energy consumption, probably superior to REs estimates of the Big Bang. Where does that energy continuosly come from?

76

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How to make a FE map, step one.

« on: July 17, 2019, 11:28:20 AM »

Before even starting to discuss distances which will be heavily disputed (with each individual accepting the distances which support their own model while rejecting distances which weaken their own model) why don't we just start with the continents and their locations. For example North America is North of South America. China and Russia are in Asia. Etc.

I do like iamcpc's approach. Maybe a more fruitful topic would be "How to make FEs come together and agree on some point of references for a map"? But for that I'd hope that FEs would really like to be a united community, even though I often find they prefer to point fingers at each other and split at atomic levels.

77

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Lunar eclipses...

« on: July 05, 2019, 07:51:59 AM »

What makes you think that the Nibiru community aren't using coronagraphs to try and find Nibiru?

https://youtu.be/Si8dEhjKa2w

https://youtu.be/vgg-EYhJQ00

https://youtu.be/llU2UJJqZy4

Many more on YouTube

Tom,

Please be sure to go back and refresh yourself with Pete's article on the Home Page entitled: "It's true, I saw it on the Internet".

Posting videos from YouTube tend to fall in this category.

Thanks.

Tom you have an incredible capability for understanding how the Moon rotates in the RE model and, at the same time, to propose youtube videos where some smoke making shapes is a hint of existence of something.

78

Flat Earth Community / Re: I'd like to consult you about something

« on: June 25, 2019, 08:15:48 AM »

<<<<<<I can give you an example to help you understand why a cube looks like a circle from a distance.
All you have to do is look at a distant cube from a mountaintop,or somewhere else. in proportion to the size of the cube I gave you.
If what you see is not a circle, or it may not be as big as the sun or moon you see on the ground.then I am happy to admit that I am wrong and you are right.
The cube has length, width and height of 51, or 49.Look at it at a distance of 42,000.According to this ratio.

Proponent I think it isn't so difficult to reproduce what you're saying at home (or in your garden). If you could also do a small showcase of the perspective of shadows, it would be really really great. REs are boring people and lazy asses, so unfortunately it's up to you to put forward the experiments. But those being good, I'm sure they'll be included in the wiki.

79

Flat Earth Community / Re: REs netiquette

« on: June 17, 2019, 10:10:18 PM »

A second netiquette point would be to warn new REs of the futility of asking for non-contradictory explainations.

It's a fair thing to ask though? If your answers are contradicting your other answers then why would you even give one of the answers in the first place? either one or none are correct, don't contradict yourself if you wanna be taken seriously. For example you have tomB calling out and mocking people for saying mirages exist in a round earth and thus our round earth is an illusion then in his next breath saying earth can only be flat with illusions and mirages, Tom contradicts himself constantly and he's the one writing the FE wiki most of the time. Why shouldn't people ask for non-contradicting answers? There is zero point in giving a contradicting answer.

The scientific unfairness is pointless when contradictions abound in FET and they don't care. Empirically, it's a waste of opportunity to ask something else. What if FET is not a scientific endeavour but a psychological trick? What's the REs path of least resistance? I'm just trying to find an empirical ground, because right now the asymmetry of information is in huge favor of FEs.

80

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Compiling Objections

« on: June 16, 2019, 10:48:20 PM »

Nice idea. Here's what comes up to my mind:

Sun
- Clouds lit from below at sunset
- Shadows climb buildings during sunset.
- Mountains cast shadows from below under the clouds at sunset.
- Sun getting red at sunset, that is predicted in RE by inclination of Sun rays w.r.t. atmosphere scattering
- Reflection of the Sun on the sea has an edge on the horizon.
- In some pictures it is possible to see that sun rays are parallel. Example, shadows of clouds are as big as the clouds.
- The horizon is a crisp clear line, as if ocean is frontally curving down. On flat earth there should be a brownish band of confused far landscape.
- Equinox has the Sun coming straight in the sky, no way it's hovering around us.

Geometry
- Spherical geometry of distance (maybe it's already there, but afaik this is the most uncontroversial one, that FEs dodge simply by refusing to take... distances.)
- Horizon dipping with altitude, that can be checked simply using a bottle of water on a plane.
- Pictures of distant mountain tops, where tops of background mountains are much lower than what perspective would predict.
- Travelling East on the Equator going in a perfect straight line
- Visibility of Polaris, its altitude being your latitude
- Radio transmissions cannot go very far

Miscellanea
- Foucalt's Pendulum/Laser gyroscope expertiment
- Pontchartrain pictures
- Gravity varying with altitude