I read it at the very start. Try something new instead of deflecting. Like pointing out the paragraph or sentence that you think means there has to be a distinction. Because the difference between calling something a sea or a lake is irrelevant. Waves are what matter in that chapter, and 'sea' or 'lake' have no waves behind their definitions, only size. An inland sea can even be a large lake, by the very definition of the word.
After reading the chapter a question pops up on how the explanation would apply to Lake Michigan, as it is a lake and not a sea. My point was to clarify that Lake Michigan is actually an inland sea.
Tom, your entire debate style thus far appears to consist of deflecting, and directing people to outside resources for things that should be relatively easy to put into your own words. We just had 6 posts where basically all you did was go "It's a sea, and that matters." without addressing a single point I brought up, or even explaining why it being a sea and not a lake mattered. Instead presuming referring to a chapter in a book would explain it.
The chapter explains how observations on a sea are different than observations on smaller standing bodies of water. Lake Michigan being a sea and not a lake is relevant to the chapter.
The size is all that's relevant. A sea can still be a lake. The words are largely interchangeable so long as it's landlocked. It's a matter of size. Which is all you had to say. Or was that so difficult? There's no question in my mind that it was the size of the body of water that was of relevance in that chapter, so calling it a sea or a lake is wholly irrelevant when it's easy to look and see the size. This is easily explained on my end as bias from growing up near them, and knowing they are all huge and not thinking anyone could think different. So that's on me. But all you had to do was state you were putting for 'sea' instead of lake to assist others in recognizing this was a vast body of water. You still seem to dislike explaining yourself. It's like pulling teeth.
The sinking ship effect, and the lunar eclipse proofs are both frequently brought up. But while the original experiments are old, they both have been repeated often since then. We even had a Navy submariner on recently that attested to the sinking ship effect at sea being seen with his own eyes, and how raising the heights of the periscope served to bring ships back into view, but zooming in did not. FE states lunar eclipses happen via an invisible untraceable object, yet we can pinpoint the time and date of a lunar eclipse with astounding accuracy, and have been for centuries. How do those two things work? I haven't seen a good answer to that one on here yet.
The Lunar Eclipse prediction is based on an analysis of historical tables of past lunar eclipse events and finding the pattern to predict when the next one will occur. This is how the Ancient Babylonians did it, this is how Aristotle did it, this is how post-enlightenment astronomers did it, and this is the method explained today on NASA's lunar eclipse prediction website.
You mean
here? Where they lay out two formulas they are using for future eclipse predictions, based on research from and theories constructed in 1988 and 1983? That use models of where the sun and moon exist in 3D space to create accurate predictions that account for changes happening in said orbits?
Still stepping around the sinking ship though hmm?
We haven't seen peer reviewed articles, that produced results that are repeatable, linked here.
There is a journal called The Earth Not a Globe Review (later renamed Earth), available in the libraries of this site and the .org site, which reviewed Rowbotham's original experiments.
Great, can you give a link to a good article on the topic from that journal? Shouldn't be hard I should think.
You refer over and over to Robowtham, as though he was the only one to produce these results in centuries of thinking the Earth was round. Then question why we want to see experiments done and thoroughly documented in the last few decades, since technology and more has advanced an incredible amount since he wrote?
Is there something wrong with your computer? Recent Flat Earth experiments are available on youtube. Off you go!
Which as I mentioned in another thread, are frequently not properly documented, and often have errors readily apparent in the video itself. Lastly though, simple visual experiments aren't exactly enough when the biggest problems are with sun and moon rise/set, and the phases of the moon. Like, it's great you've managed to see a laser light across a 4 mile bay. But I bet
this room looks the same size all the way across to you as well doesn't it? Vision is inherently flawed because of how our minds have grown to perceive the world. Geological surveying has tools and methods to account for a round Earth for just that reason.