A hundred proofs the Earth is not a globeSo it might be worth finding out what a "Geodetic Surveyor" does that is different from the job a "Plane Surveyor: does.
Surveyors' operations in the construction of railroads, tunnels, or canals are conducted without the slightest "allowance" being made for "curvature," although it is taught that this so-called allowance is absolutely necessary! This is a cutting proof that Earth is not a globe.
That poor surveyor, spent his whole career futily measuring angles. He has no idea that the Honorable Samuel Rowbotham teaches us that geometry and trigonometry don't really work. ;)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vz4mEq2bX_o
That poor surveyor, spent his whole career futily measuring angles. He has no idea that the Honorable Samuel Rowbotham teaches us that geometry and trigonometry don't really work. ;)
Can someone write to J. Kozlowski?This is that wonderful Flat Earth that has Australia more than twice as wide as it is on the Real Earth, or have you got a new model where the measured dimensions (that's what Geodetic Surveyors measure) of the Real Earth actually fit.
Let him come here and have the audacity to debate FET with me: in less than five minutes, I will make a FE believer out of him.
Can someone write to J. Kozlowski?
Let him come here and have the audacity to debate FET with me: in less than five minutes, I will make a FE believer out of him.
That poor surveyor, spent his whole career futily measuring angles. He has no idea that the Honorable Samuel Rowbotham teaches us that geometry and trigonometry don't really work. ;)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vz4mEq2bX_o
That's like saying the bible is true because it's written down.
A couple of quotes of his:
"There are rivers that flow for hundreds of miles towards the level of the sea without falling more than a few feet — notably, the Nile, which, in a thousand miles, falls but a foot. A level expanse of this extent is quite incompatible with the idea of the Earth's convexity. It is, therefore, a reasonable proof that Earth is not a globe."
By this logic the fact that there are mountains proves that the Earth is round because the highest of the rises to 29,000 feet over a very short span.
"If the Earth were a globe, a small model globe would be the very best - because the truest - thing for the navigator to take to sea with him. But such a thing as that is not known: with such a toy as a guide, the mariner would wreck his ship, of a certainty!, This is a proof that Earth is not a globe."
Such a thing as a model globe is not known? The earliest globe known of dates from the same period of time in which the Earth was established as a sphere. Was he just no looking in the right places to find this magical thing or was it one of the things he chose to ignore to bolster his claim?
He mentioned lake Ontario during the video.
There is no curvature whatsoever across a distance of 55 km over lake Ontario:
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3838.msg80842#msg80842
Each and every one of the photographs I provide is carefully documented: we know exactly where it was taken, we can estimate the maximum altitude, everything is clear.
Each of those photographs provided shows and demonstrates that there is no 59 meter curvature across lake Ontario.
Any photograph showing a partial skyline must provide the following information:
altitude of photographer
distance involved
Let us remember that I have been involved in these kinds of debates many times (involving not only lake Ontario but also the Chicago skyline) and I have won them each and every time.
Your question is useless without providing the original link, the estimated altitude of the photographer, and the exact distance involved.
How many times do you think I have been through these kinds of debates?
You have forgotten that I have at my disposal the photograph taken in St. Catharines, extremely carefully documented, showing the roof top of the Sky Dome, a fact impossible on a round earth.
That's like saying the bible is true because it's written down.
A couple of quotes of his:
"There are rivers that flow for hundreds of miles towards the level of the sea without falling more than a few feet — notably, the Nile, which, in a thousand miles, falls but a foot. A level expanse of this extent is quite incompatible with the idea of the Earth's convexity. It is, therefore, a reasonable proof that Earth is not a globe."
By this logic the fact that there are mountains proves that the Earth is round because the highest of the rises to 29,000 feet over a very short span.
"If the Earth were a globe, a small model globe would be the very best - because the truest - thing for the navigator to take to sea with him. But such a thing as that is not known: with such a toy as a guide, the mariner would wreck his ship, of a certainty!, This is a proof that Earth is not a globe."
Such a thing as a model globe is not known? The earliest globe known of dates from the same period of time in which the Earth was established as a sphere. Was he just no looking in the right places to find this magical thing or was it one of the things he chose to ignore to bolster his claim?
You obviously completely misinterpreted Rowbothams points there.
A mountain has no bearing on a river. A river has a high point and flows towards sea level. If a river goes across a thousand miles it would inevitably have to conquer the convexity in the form of a hill at some point (flowing up and over)
As far as the globe, what he was saying was that no navigator uses a model globe to travel at sea. They use maps, and celestial methods to do it, if the globe were a true representation they would only need a model globe to navigate.
If that is a representation of your take away from 100 proofs then you clearly have a hard time understanding it at all.
That's like saying the bible is true because it's written down.
A couple of quotes of his:
"There are rivers that flow for hundreds of miles towards the level of the sea without falling more than a few feet — notably, the Nile, which, in a thousand miles, falls but a foot. A level expanse of this extent is quite incompatible with the idea of the Earth's convexity. It is, therefore, a reasonable proof that Earth is not a globe."
By this logic the fact that there are mountains proves that the Earth is round because the highest of the rises to 29,000 feet over a very short span.
"If the Earth were a globe, a small model globe would be the very best - because the truest - thing for the navigator to take to sea with him. But such a thing as that is not known: with such a toy as a guide, the mariner would wreck his ship, of a certainty!, This is a proof that Earth is not a globe."
Such a thing as a model globe is not known? The earliest globe known of dates from the same period of time in which the Earth was established as a sphere. Was he just no looking in the right places to find this magical thing or was it one of the things he chose to ignore to bolster his claim?
You obviously completely misinterpreted Rowbothams points there.
A mountain has no bearing on a river. A river has a high point and flows towards sea level. If a river goes across a thousand miles it would inevitably have to conquer the convexity in the form of a hill at some point (flowing up and over)
As far as the globe, what he was saying was that no navigator uses a model globe to travel at sea. They use maps, and celestial methods to do it, if the globe were a true representation they would only need a model globe to navigate.
If that is a representation of your take away from 100 proofs then you clearly have a hard time understanding it at all.
Each and every one of the photographs I provide is carefully documented: we know exactly where it was taken, we can estimate the maximum altitude, everything is clear.
Each of those photographs provided shows and demonstrates that there is no 59 meter curvature across lake Ontario.
Any photograph showing a partial skyline must provide the following information:
altitude of photographer
distance involved
Let us remember that I have been involved in these kinds of debates many times (involving not only lake Ontario but also the Chicago skyline) and I have won them each and every time.
That's like saying the bible is true because it's written down.
A couple of quotes of his:
"There are rivers that flow for hundreds of miles towards the level of the sea without falling more than a few feet — notably, the Nile, which, in a thousand miles, falls but a foot. A level expanse of this extent is quite incompatible with the idea of the Earth's convexity. It is, therefore, a reasonable proof that Earth is not a globe."
By this logic the fact that there are mountains proves that the Earth is round because the highest of the rises to 29,000 feet over a very short span.
"If the Earth were a globe, a small model globe would be the very best - because the truest - thing for the navigator to take to sea with him. But such a thing as that is not known: with such a toy as a guide, the mariner would wreck his ship, of a certainty!, This is a proof that Earth is not a globe."
Such a thing as a model globe is not known? The earliest globe known of dates from the same period of time in which the Earth was established as a sphere. Was he just no looking in the right places to find this magical thing or was it one of the things he chose to ignore to bolster his claim?
You obviously completely misinterpreted Rowbothams points there.
A mountain has no bearing on a river. A river has a high point and flows towards sea level. If a river goes across a thousand miles it would inevitably have to conquer the convexity in the form of a hill at some point (flowing up and over)
As far as the globe, what he was saying was that no navigator uses a model globe to travel at sea. They use maps, and celestial methods to do it, if the globe were a true representation they would only need a model globe to navigate.
If that is a representation of your take away from 100 proofs then you clearly have a hard time understanding it at all.
A mountain has as much bearing on the topic at hand as a river. It's a matter of following logic. If the perceived flatness of a river proves a flat earth, the perceive rise of a mountain proves a round earth.
Regarding a globe representation, keeping in mind the limited space available on ships (today and especially in the past):
1. Globes are a scaled representation of the earth.
2. Most globes represent thousands of miles in mere inches.
3. A globe can be scaled to represent those thousands of miles in a usable way but it would have to be extremely large, probably on the order of a ten foot diameter (possibly quite larger to accommodate resolution of oceanic features), to be truly useful which would necessitate an independent, specialized room in each and every ship to accommodate it.
1. Maps are scaled representations of the earth.
2. Maps also represent thousands of miles (typical world map) in mere inches but their resolution is easily changed to give a more accurate representation (typical topo grid map).
3. Maps take up very little space. Even if every ship was required to have 100 maps of differing resolutions and areas the space they take up is a matter of feet (a cabinet not much larger than a typical office desk).
Do you honestly believe that ship builders, navies and naval merchants are or were going to build their ships around a useable globe representation when maps served the purpose just as well? Do you honestly believe that any of them would give up valuable space to a useable globe representation when a smaller, viable option was/is available?
Prior to the advent of GPS maps were the only available source for navigation (from nation scale to community scale). Try to imagine how large a globe representation would have to be to give useable navigation information on a national scale and even more so on a community scale.
The fact that maps are used is, in no way, proof of a flat earth.
Interesting though, that a paper map has high enough resolution because of a typographical grid that apparently doesn't work on a globe. Also interesting most modern ships don't have anywhere near enough room for a 10 foot globe.Whatever do you mean by "a paper map has high enough resolution because of a typographical grid that apparently doesn't work on a globe"?
https://www.google.com/search?q=allure+of+the+seas+lobby&biw=1600&bih=765&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwixjsqD-rLLAhXIdD4KHRbAC48Q_AUIBigB
That's like saying the bible is true because it's written down.
A couple of quotes of his:
"There are rivers that flow for hundreds of miles towards the level of the sea without falling more than a few feet — notably, the Nile, which, in a thousand miles, falls but a foot. A level expanse of this extent is quite incompatible with the idea of the Earth's convexity. It is, therefore, a reasonable proof that Earth is not a globe."
By this logic the fact that there are mountains proves that the Earth is round because the highest of the rises to 29,000 feet over a very short span.
"If the Earth were a globe, a small model globe would be the very best - because the truest - thing for the navigator to take to sea with him. But such a thing as that is not known: with such a toy as a guide, the mariner would wreck his ship, of a certainty!, This is a proof that Earth is not a globe."
Such a thing as a model globe is not known? The earliest globe known of dates from the same period of time in which the Earth was established as a sphere. Was he just no looking in the right places to find this magical thing or was it one of the things he chose to ignore to bolster his claim?
You obviously completely misinterpreted Rowbothams points there.
A mountain has no bearing on a river. A river has a high point and flows towards sea level. If a river goes across a thousand miles it would inevitably have to conquer the convexity in the form of a hill at some point (flowing up and over)
As far as the globe, what he was saying was that no navigator uses a model globe to travel at sea. They use maps, and celestial methods to do it, if the globe were a true representation they would only need a model globe to navigate.
If that is a representation of your take away from 100 proofs then you clearly have a hard time understanding it at all.
A mountain has as much bearing on the topic at hand as a river. It's a matter of following logic. If the perceived flatness of a river proves a flat earth, the perceive rise of a mountain proves a round earth.
Regarding a globe representation, keeping in mind the limited space available on ships (today and especially in the past):
1. Globes are a scaled representation of the earth.
2. Most globes represent thousands of miles in mere inches.
3. A globe can be scaled to represent those thousands of miles in a usable way but it would have to be extremely large, probably on the order of a ten foot diameter (possibly quite larger to accommodate resolution of oceanic features), to be truly useful which would necessitate an independent, specialized room in each and every ship to accommodate it.
1. Maps are scaled representations of the earth.
2. Maps also represent thousands of miles (typical world map) in mere inches but their resolution is easily changed to give a more accurate representation (typical topo grid map).
3. Maps take up very little space. Even if every ship was required to have 100 maps of differing resolutions and areas the space they take up is a matter of feet (a cabinet not much larger than a typical office desk).
Do you honestly believe that ship builders, navies and naval merchants are or were going to build their ships around a useable globe representation when maps served the purpose just as well? Do you honestly believe that any of them would give up valuable space to a useable globe representation when a smaller, viable option was/is available?
Prior to the advent of GPS maps were the only available source for navigation (from nation scale to community scale). Try to imagine how large a globe representation would have to be to give useable navigation information on a national scale and even more so on a community scale.
The fact that maps are used is, in no way, proof of a flat earth.
Who said a river was flat? It's obvious they aren't, because they flow toward the lowest area, as fluids are known to do, in particular sea level. Which is what all water does. It flows from the higher elevation to lower elevation. But there is a vast ocean in which not only does this not happen, it actually bends and contorts and bulges to form a giant spherical surface.
Interesting though, that a paper map has high enough resolution because of a typographical grid that apparently doesn't work on a globe. Also interesting most modern ships don't have anywhere near enough room for a 10 foot globe.
https://www.google.com/search?q=allure+of+the+seas+lobby&biw=1600&bih=765&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwixjsqD-rLLAhXIdD4KHRbAC48Q_AUIBigB
That's like saying the bible is true because it's written down.
A couple of quotes of his:
"There are rivers that flow for hundreds of miles towards the level of the sea without falling more than a few feet — notably, the Nile, which, in a thousand miles, falls but a foot. A level expanse of this extent is quite incompatible with the idea of the Earth's convexity. It is, therefore, a reasonable proof that Earth is not a globe."
By this logic the fact that there are mountains proves that the Earth is round because the highest of the rises to 29,000 feet over a very short span.
"If the Earth were a globe, a small model globe would be the very best - because the truest - thing for the navigator to take to sea with him. But such a thing as that is not known: with such a toy as a guide, the mariner would wreck his ship, of a certainty!, This is a proof that Earth is not a globe."
Such a thing as a model globe is not known? The earliest globe known of dates from the same period of time in which the Earth was established as a sphere. Was he just no looking in the right places to find this magical thing or was it one of the things he chose to ignore to bolster his claim?
You obviously completely misinterpreted Rowbothams points there.
A mountain has no bearing on a river. A river has a high point and flows towards sea level. If a river goes across a thousand miles it would inevitably have to conquer the convexity in the form of a hill at some point (flowing up and over)
As far as the globe, what he was saying was that no navigator uses a model globe to travel at sea. They use maps, and celestial methods to do it, if the globe were a true representation they would only need a model globe to navigate.
If that is a representation of your take away from 100 proofs then you clearly have a hard time understanding it at all.
A mountain has as much bearing on the topic at hand as a river. It's a matter of following logic. If the perceived flatness of a river proves a flat earth, the perceive rise of a mountain proves a round earth.
Regarding a globe representation, keeping in mind the limited space available on ships (today and especially in the past):
1. Globes are a scaled representation of the earth.
2. Most globes represent thousands of miles in mere inches.
3. A globe can be scaled to represent those thousands of miles in a usable way but it would have to be extremely large, probably on the order of a ten foot diameter (possibly quite larger to accommodate resolution of oceanic features), to be truly useful which would necessitate an independent, specialized room in each and every ship to accommodate it.
1. Maps are scaled representations of the earth.
2. Maps also represent thousands of miles (typical world map) in mere inches but their resolution is easily changed to give a more accurate representation (typical topo grid map).
3. Maps take up very little space. Even if every ship was required to have 100 maps of differing resolutions and areas the space they take up is a matter of feet (a cabinet not much larger than a typical office desk).
Do you honestly believe that ship builders, navies and naval merchants are or were going to build their ships around a useable globe representation when maps served the purpose just as well? Do you honestly believe that any of them would give up valuable space to a useable globe representation when a smaller, viable option was/is available?
Prior to the advent of GPS maps were the only available source for navigation (from nation scale to community scale). Try to imagine how large a globe representation would have to be to give useable navigation information on a national scale and even more so on a community scale.
The fact that maps are used is, in no way, proof of a flat earth.
Who said a river was flat? It's obvious they aren't, because they flow toward the lowest area, as fluids are known to do, in particular sea level. Which is what all water does. It flows from the higher elevation to lower elevation. But there is a vast ocean in which not only does this not happen, it actually bends and contorts and bulges to form a giant spherical surface.
Interesting though, that a paper map has high enough resolution because of a typographical grid that apparently doesn't work on a globe. Also interesting most modern ships don't have anywhere near enough room for a 10 foot globe.
https://www.google.com/search?q=allure+of+the+seas+lobby&biw=1600&bih=765&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwixjsqD-rLLAhXIdD4KHRbAC48Q_AUIBigB
Well I guess most modern navigators would use GPS now instead of traditional maps or globes.
Of course you could have a "digital globe" as well at your discretion to help with your travels. However, the most popular projection for nautical travel apparently is the Mercator projection. Basically the same style of map Google, Bing, Yahoo, Mapquest use, which the digital file version doesn't conform to a spherical or elliptical projection (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Mercator), but it has gotten me where I need to go pretty accurately over the last few years.
Odd, that for digital GPS use the simplest projection seems to be the best way to calculate distances and times. Why didn't google program a geodetic calculus engine into their app to really get it right?
Well I guess most modern navigators would use GPS now instead of traditional maps or globes.You really need to look up UTM (Universal Transverse Mercator,) and WGS 84 (World Geodetic Survey 1984[1]). I think you will find that modern mapping has thought of these things long before you have. But there is much more to it than I could put here, even if I knew enough about it.
Of course you could have a "digital globe" as well at your discretion to help with your travels. However, the most popular projection for nautical travel apparently is the Mercator projection. Basically the same style of map Google, Bing, Yahoo, Mapquest use, which the digital file version doesn't conform to a spherical or elliptical projection (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Mercator), but it has gotten me where I need to go pretty accurately over the last few years.
Odd, that for digital GPS use the simplest projection seems to be the best way to calculate distances and times. Why didn't google program a geodetic calculus engine into their app to really get it right?
That person in the video needs to refute Earth Not a Globe, the authority on the subject, not some random youtuber. The author mentions Spherical Excess as a proof of the earth's rotundity, but has not refuted the Earth Not a Globe chapter on the topic (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za43.htm).
He mentioned lake Ontario during the video.
There is no curvature whatsoever across a distance of 55 km over lake Ontario:
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3838.msg80842#msg80842
One photo with insufficient context does not constitute evidence.
What about all the photos that do show skyscrapers with up to 50% of their height obscured? Or this photo from Niagara-on-the-Lake where you cannot see the Rogers Centre at all:
(http://christinedemerchant.inthebeach.com/files/niagara-falls/toronto-skyline-from-niagara-on-the-lake.jpg)
He mentioned lake Ontario during the video.
There is no curvature whatsoever across a distance of 55 km over lake Ontario:
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3838.msg80842#msg80842
One photo with insufficient context does not constitute evidence.
What about all the photos that do show skyscrapers with up to 50% of their height obscured? Or this photo from Niagara-on-the-Lake where you cannot see the Rogers Centre at all:
(http://christinedemerchant.inthebeach.com/files/niagara-falls/toronto-skyline-from-niagara-on-the-lake.jpg)
Rama, like Sandokan said, we need to know the altitude of the observer. If you get close to the sea then the bulges of the ocean build up in the distance and get in the way, providing a small area above eye level, no matter how small, where bodies can shrink behind, much like holding a dime out in front of you and obscuring an elephant in the distance. Samuel Birley Rowbotham spoke about this in Earth Not a Globe. That's why the experiment is done on canals and lakes in the book.
Other experiments
On 25 July 1896, Ulysses Grant Morrow, a newspaper editor, conducted a similar experiment on the Old Illinois Drainage Canal, Summit, Illinois. Unlike Rowbotham, he was seeking to demonstrate that the surface of the earth was curved: when he too found that his target marker, 18 inches (46 cm) above water level and five miles (8.0 km) distant, was clearly visible he concluded that the Earth's surface was concavely curved, in line with the expectations of his sponsors, the Koreshan Unity society. The findings were dismissed by critics as the result of atmospheric refraction.
Whenever possible, astronomers will schedule their observations around the time of culmination of an object when it is highest in the sky. Likewise sailors will never shoot a star which is not at least 20° or more above the horizon. If observations close to the horizon cannot be avoided, it is possible to equip a telescope with control systems to compensate for the shift caused by the refraction. If the dispersion is a problem too, (in case of broadband high-resolution observations) atmospheric refraction correctors can be employed as well (made from pairs of rotating glass prisms). But as the amount of atmospheric refraction is a function of the temperature gradient, the temperature, pressure, and humidity (the amount of water vapour is especially important at mid-infrared wavelengths) the amount of effort needed for a successful compensation can be prohibitive. Surveyors, on the other hand, will often schedule their observations in the afternoon when the magnitude of refraction is minimum.
Atmospheric refraction becomes more severe when there are strong temperature gradients, and refraction is not uniform when the atmosphere is inhomogeneous, as when there is turbulence in the air. This is the cause of twinkling of the stars and various deformations of the shape of the sun at sunset and sunrise.
;D Don't be ridiculous! Of course the earth is concave. ;DYou just have to look in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment):QuoteOther experiments
On 25 July 1896, Ulysses Grant Morrow, a newspaper editor, conducted a similar experiment on the Old Illinois Drainage Canal, Summit, Illinois. Unlike Rowbotham, he was seeking to demonstrate that the surface of the earth was curved: when he too found that his target marker, 18 inches (46 cm) above water level and five miles (8.0 km) distant, was clearly visible he concluded that the Earth's surface was concavely curved, in line with the expectations of his sponsors, the Koreshan Unity society. The findings were dismissed by critics as the result of atmospheric refraction.::) Now, who could doubt that? ::)
I know talking to you (of the 2 <= π <= 4 fame) is useless, but in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction) it does point out that"QuoteWhenever possible, astronomers will schedule their observations around the time of culmination of an object when it is highest in the sky. Likewise sailors will never shoot a star which is not at least 20° or more above the horizon. If observations close to the horizon cannot be avoided, it is possible to equip a telescope with control systems to compensate for the shift caused by the refraction. If the dispersion is a problem too, (in case of broadband high-resolution observations) atmospheric refraction correctors can be employed as well (made from pairs of rotating glass prisms). But as the amount of atmospheric refraction is a function of the temperature gradient, the temperature, pressure, and humidity (the amount of water vapour is especially important at mid-infrared wavelengths) the amount of effort needed for a successful compensation can be prohibitive. Surveyors, on the other hand, will often schedule their observations in the afternoon when the magnitude of refraction is minimum.
Atmospheric refraction becomes more severe when there are strong temperature gradients, and refraction is not uniform when the atmosphere is inhomogeneous, as when there is turbulence in the air. This is the cause of twinkling of the stars and various deformations of the shape of the sun at sunset and sunrise.
Many have urged that refraction would account for much of the elevation of objects seen at the distance of several miles. Indeed, attempts have been made to show that the large flag at the end of six miles of the Bedford Canal (Experiment 1, fig. 2, p. 13) has been brought into the line of sight entirely by refraction. That the line of sight was not a right line, but curved over the convex surface of the water; and the well-known appearance of an object in a basin of water, has been referred to in illustration. A very little reflection, however, will show that the cases are not parallel; for instance, if the object (a shilling or other coin) is placed in a basin without water there is no refraction. Being surrounded with atmospheric air only, and the observer being in the same medium, there is no bending or refraction of the eye line. Nor would there be any refraction if the object and the observer were both surrounded with water. 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. This illustration does not apply to the experiments made on the Bedford Canal, because the flag and the boats were in the same medium as the observer--both were in the air. To make the cases parallel, the flag or the boat should have been in the water, and the observer in the air; as it was not so, the illustration fails.
There is no doubt, however, that it is possible for the atmosphere to have different temperature and density at two stations six miles apart; and some degree of refraction would thence result; but on several occasions the following steps were taken to ascertain whether any such differences existed. Two barometers, two thermometers, and two hygrometers, were obtained, each two being of the same make, and reading exactly alike. On a given day, at twelve o'clock, all the instruments were carefully examined, and both of each kind were found to stand at the same point or figure: the two, barometers showed the same density; the two thermometers the same temperature; and the two hygrometers the same degree of moisture in the air. One of each kind was then taken to the opposite station, and at three o'clock each instrument was carefully examined, and the readings recorded, and the observation to the flag, &c., then immediately taken. 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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment)
Rowbotham repeated his experiments several times over the years but his claims received little attention until, in 1870, a supporter by the name of John Hampden offered a wager that he could show, by repeating Rowbotham's experiment, that the earth was flat. The noted naturalist and qualified surveyor Alfred Russel Wallace accepted the wager. Wallace, by virtue of his surveyor's training and knowledge of physics, avoided the errors of the preceding experiments and won the bet. The crucial step was to set a sight line 13 feet (4 m) above the water, and thereby avoid the effects of atmospheric refraction. Despite Hampden initially refusing to accept the demonstration, Wallace was awarded the bet by the referee, editor of The Field sports magazine. Hampden subsequently published a pamphlet alleging that Wallace had cheated and sued for his money. Several protracted court cases ensued, with the result that Hampden was imprisoned for threatening to kill Wallace and for libel. The same court ruled that the wager had been invalid because Hampden retracted the bet and required that Wallace return the money to Hampden./quote]
Yes Hampden "won" the money, but with a reputation in shatters!
Look you have "a snowflakes chance in hell" of any wide acceptance till you have a model with:
an accurate map that can be used for find distances and directions accurately,
a model that can explain observed phenomena, sunrises, sunset etc.
There is so much controversy over the "Bedford Canal" experiment and the fuss afterward that basing a whole movement on that is surely building on quicksand!Quotehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment)
Rowbotham repeated his experiments several times over the years but his claims received little attention until, in 1870, a supporter by the name of John Hampden offered a wager that he could show, by repeating Rowbotham's experiment, that the earth was flat. The noted naturalist and qualified surveyor Alfred Russel Wallace accepted the wager. Wallace, by virtue of his surveyor's training and knowledge of physics, avoided the errors of the preceding experiments and won the bet. The crucial step was to set a sight line 13 feet (4 m) above the water, and thereby avoid the effects of atmospheric refraction. Despite Hampden initially refusing to accept the demonstration, Wallace was awarded the bet by the referee, editor of The Field sports magazine. Hampden subsequently published a pamphlet alleging that Wallace had cheated and sued for his money. Several protracted court cases ensued, with the result that Hampden was imprisoned for threatening to kill Wallace and for libel. The same court ruled that the wager had been invalid because Hampden retracted the bet and required that Wallace return the money to Hampden./quote]
Yes Hampden "won" the money, but with a reputation in shatters!
Look you have "a snowflakes chance in hell" of any wide acceptance till you have a model with:
an accurate map that can be used for find distances and directions accurately,
a model that can explain observed phenomena, sunrises, sunset etc.
Wallace and Hampden made a wager for a very large amount, equivalent to a year's worth of pay at that time. The results and controversies of that wager are invalid for that reason alone. It makes sense that either man would be untruthful if a year's wager was on the line. Wallace was a struggling author, and we can't put it past him to cheat over something that would ruin him.
| But, putting all that aside, the topic is "Geodetic Surveyor Straightens Out The Flat Earth Reality" and Geodetic Surveyors have been measuring the shape of the earth (size of degrees at various locations and the dimensions of continents and countries) for centuries. What I find amazing is the consistency achieved with (apparently) primitive equipment. You must have read of the detailed work involved in measuring long distances before electronic distance measuring equipment started being used, for the early Tellurometer (I remember using one as shown on the right[1]) to laser DME etc. Most importantly, the sizes and shapes measured by these older Geodetic Surveyors has not significantly changed since GPS has been used for location. So I see no reason to doubt the sizes of countries (or the sizes of degrees) given on maps such as Google Maps, Google Earth or those used on GPS navigators. | (http://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/distance_tools/tellurometermra1_448.jpg) |
Wallace was a struggling author, and we can't put it past him to cheat over something that would ruin him.
It was a wager for money. The experiment is invalid for that reason alone. End of story.So you will now omit all reference to the Bedford Canal experiment!
It was a wager for money. The experiment is invalid for that reason alone. End of story.
It was a wager for money. The experiment is invalid for that reason alone. End of story.So you will now omit all reference to the Bedford Canal experiment!
You do realise that even an atmospheric refraction of 0.5° can make an object at sea-level visible at 30 miles.
The only way to check this sort of thing is to do repeated measurements at various times of the day.
The images in this reference show what can happen http://www.atoptics.co.uk/fz904.htm (http://www.atoptics.co.uk/fz904.htm).
It was a wager for money. The experiment is invalid for that reason alone. End of story.
Correlation does not equal causation, Tom. There were checks in place to deal with this source of bias.
It was a wager for money. The experiment is invalid for that reason alone. End of story.
Correlation does not equal causation, Tom. There were checks in place to deal with this source of bias.
Both Hampden and Wallace had referees. Their referees looked into the telescope and sided with their clients.
The experiment is out the window because it was a wager. It is not really permissible as evidence to either side of the argument.
It was a wager for money. The experiment is invalid for that reason alone. End of story.
Correlation does not equal causation, Tom. There were checks in place to deal with this source of bias.
Both Hampden and Wallace had referees. Their referees looked into the telescope and sided with their clients.
Actually Hampden's referee signed off on a picture demonstrating that the middle marker was higher than the outside markers, indicated the Earth is round.QuoteThe experiment is out the window because it was a wager. It is not really permissible as evidence to either side of the argument.
So then I assume you will amend the wiki to say as much, in the interest of completeness? Also, the wiki should be amended because it says that Wallace cheated, which is patently untrue. He was forced to give the winnings back because those types of wagers were not permitted and nothing to do with cheating.
That is not what I said at all! Objects can appear higher or lower than the curvature on a globe would predict.Quote from: rabinozYou do realise that even an atmospheric refraction of 0.5° can make an object at sea-level visible at 30 miles.
The only way to check this sort of thing is to do repeated measurements at various times of the day.
The images in this reference show what can happen http://www.atoptics.co.uk/fz904.htm (http://www.atoptics.co.uk/fz904.htm).
So this effect happens whenever the experiment is performed and places the object into the air at the exact height it would need to be, no higher and no lower, to simulate the experience of a Flat Earth?
That's amazing, if so.
RANGE ESTIMATION
Question CIC concerning the radar ranges to visual contacts and compare them
with your estimated range.The only readily available reference point you can use when estimating ranges is theFigure 5-5: Range – Height Table
RANGE TO HORIZON
horizon. Knowing your height above the waterline will help you estimate ranges because
the distance to the horizon varies with the height of the eye (Figure 5-5).
At a height of 50 feet, for example, the distance to the horizon is about 16,000 yards (8 miles); at a height of 100 feet, the distance is about 23,000 yards (11-1/2 miles). Practice estimating ranges to other vessels in company whose distances are known or can be easily determined.
It was a wager for money. The experiment is invalid for that reason alone. End of story.
Correlation does not equal causation, Tom. There were checks in place to deal with this source of bias.
Both Hampden and Wallace had referees. Their referees looked into the telescope and sided with their clients.
Actually Hampden's referee signed off on a picture demonstrating that the middle marker was higher than the outside markers, indicated the Earth is round.QuoteThe experiment is out the window because it was a wager. It is not really permissible as evidence to either side of the argument.
So then I assume you will amend the wiki to say as much, in the interest of completeness? Also, the wiki should be amended because it says that Wallace cheated, which is patently untrue. He was forced to give the winnings back because those types of wagers were not permitted and nothing to do with cheating.
Perhaps Pizza Planet or Thork will look over the subject matter. It's not an article I wrote or really have an interest in.It does seem interesting the neither you nor any other FE supporter will comment on things that seem to be evidence against a flat earth:
The Equivalence Principle
The phenomenon we observe everyday when falling is currently substantiated in modern physics by what is called "The Equivalence Principle".
This principle in physics states that in a relative frame of reference, it is not possible to locally discern whether the frame is accelerating upwards, or if the object inside the frame is affected by gravity.
Here are my comments I made in another thread about the video in the OP:You never explained why anyone should consider either Rowboham or ENaG to be an authority on surveying.That person in the video needs to refute Earth Not a Globe, the authority on the subject, not some random youtuber. The author mentions Spherical Excess as a proof of the earth's rotundity, but has not refuted the Earth Not a Globe chapter on the topic (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za43.htm).
Upon closer inspection, the bottom photo looks to be a series of buildings between Burlington and Oakville (area called Elizabeth Gardens), and are only about 12km away from the photographer's position which, as it turns out, is easily determined based on their other photos taken at that beach.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487755017/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487726854/in/photostream
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/198/487755017_df040421e8_o.jpg)
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/232/487726854_24a5c0559d_o.jpg)
(both photographs taken right on the beach, as can be seen in the captions, and in the rest of the photos)
DISTANCE: 65 KM
VISUAL OBSTACLE: OVER 200 METERS, YET THE OTHER SHORELINE IS IN PLAIN SIGHT
I could care less.Now let's take a look at this picture. The description on flickr states, "View of Toronto Skyline taken as we were coming in from Rochester NY." What does that mean exactly? A good portion of the distance between Rochester and Toronto is land, but if one looks at the photorealistic buildings on google earth while angling for a view as Toronto would appear from the direction of Rochester, the buildings don't match that picture. If one moves North from that line of sight, the buildings come to match what is seen in the photo. That combined with "coming in from" leads me to believe the picture was taken from a ferry that was running between the two cities at the time, which means the picture most likely was taken from somewhere along the ferry route and the distance would be a lot less than 150km.
You should, because now I will bring back the photograph taken in Rochester NY:
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/37/124639197_6d8031f5f0.jpg?v=0)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/davehuston/124639197/
It was a wager for money. The experiment is invalid for that reason alone. End of story.
Correlation does not equal causation, Tom. There were checks in place to deal with this source of bias.
Both Hampden and Wallace had referees. Their referees looked into the telescope and sided with their clients.
Actually Hampden's referee signed off on a picture demonstrating that the middle marker was higher than the outside markers, indicated the Earth is round.QuoteThe experiment is out the window because it was a wager. It is not really permissible as evidence to either side of the argument.
So then I assume you will amend the wiki to say as much, in the interest of completeness? Also, the wiki should be amended because it says that Wallace cheated, which is patently untrue. He was forced to give the winnings back because those types of wagers were not permitted and nothing to do with cheating.
Perhaps Pizza Planet or Thork will look over the subject matter. It's not an article I wrote or really have an interest in.
The bipolar map has made it through seven years of debate, using every conceivable distance (even Santiago de Chile to Juneau): it works very well, the only FE map that can be used.1: THE FAINT YOUNG SUN PARADOX has nothing to to do with whether the earth is flat or a globe.
By the way rabinoz... you still owe us an answer to the most basic argument which destroys RE once and for all:
THE FAINT YOUNG SUN PARADOX
So far you have refused to answer it: as I told you before, unless you can explain the faint young sun paradox, your words amount to nothing at all.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1707290#msg1707290
Add to the list of "Posts the FE crowd won't address":I have started a new topic How does a Full Moon appear Full for everyone? (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4898.0).
My contribution on infrared radiation from the sun (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4870.0)
My question about the sun's distance from the earth (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4868.0) as reportd by Rowbotham himself or the Wiki