*

Offline Iceman

  • *
  • Posts: 1356
  • where there's smoke there's wires
    • View Profile
Re: I'm new here! A bunch of generic questions?
« Reply #40 on: August 10, 2021, 12:48:47 PM »
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...

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 13676
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: I'm new here! A bunch of generic questions?
« Reply #41 on: August 11, 2021, 01:19:13 PM »
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 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".
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Re: I'm new here! A bunch of generic questions?
« Reply #42 on: August 12, 2021, 12:03:27 AM »
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?

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 13676
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: I'm new here! A bunch of generic questions?
« Reply #43 on: August 12, 2021, 10:44:32 PM »
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.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Offline JS

  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: I'm new here! A bunch of generic questions?
« Reply #44 on: August 29, 2021, 12:00:06 PM »
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?

Re: I'm new here! A bunch of generic questions?
« Reply #45 on: August 29, 2021, 02:08:59 PM »
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
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).

Quote
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.

Re: I'm new here! A bunch of generic questions?
« Reply #46 on: August 29, 2021, 07:11:25 PM »

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 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.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2021, 04:24:42 PM by ichoosereality »

Re: I'm new here! A bunch of generic questions?
« Reply #47 on: August 30, 2021, 10:27:07 PM »
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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 :)

Quote
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!

Re: I'm new here! A bunch of generic questions?
« Reply #48 on: August 31, 2021, 02:14:05 AM »
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.

Quote
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).

Quote
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?

Quote
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. 

Quote
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.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 1119
    • View Profile
Re: I'm new here! A bunch of generic questions?
« Reply #49 on: August 31, 2021, 10:32:04 AM »
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!

Re: I'm new here! A bunch of generic questions?
« Reply #50 on: August 31, 2021, 07:20:02 PM »
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?

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
You do not understand science.
 

Believe me, the reverse is the case - but that will take time to establish/recognize.

Quote
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).

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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!

Quote
Why don't you get this?  Explain that to me if you would.

I'm working on it! Communication takes time.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2021, 02:00:45 AM by jack44556677 »

Re: I'm new here! A bunch of generic questions?
« Reply #51 on: August 31, 2021, 08:31:51 PM »
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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".

Quote
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?

Quote
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
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?

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 9097
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: I'm new here! A bunch of generic questions?
« Reply #52 on: August 31, 2021, 08:34:42 PM »
Quote from: ichoosereality
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

Quote
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.

Online SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 518
    • View Profile
Re: I'm new here! A bunch of generic questions?
« Reply #53 on: August 31, 2021, 09:36:36 PM »

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

Quote
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?

Re: I'm new here! A bunch of generic questions?
« Reply #54 on: August 31, 2021, 10:39:04 PM »
Quote from: ichoosereality
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

Quote
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). 

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 9097
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: I'm new here! A bunch of generic questions?
« Reply #55 on: September 01, 2021, 12:37:21 AM »
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"

Quote
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/

Quote
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.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2021, 01:10:45 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: I'm new here! A bunch of generic questions?
« Reply #56 on: September 01, 2021, 01:02:51 AM »
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?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 9097
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: I'm new here! A bunch of generic questions?
« Reply #57 on: September 01, 2021, 01:24:56 AM »
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
« Last Edit: September 01, 2021, 01:27:41 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 9097
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: I'm new here! A bunch of generic questions?
« Reply #58 on: September 01, 2021, 01:50:54 AM »
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

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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%.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2021, 04:07:32 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: I'm new here! A bunch of generic questions?
« Reply #59 on: September 01, 2021, 02:08:12 AM »
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?