Post by: rabinoz on April 15, 2016, 01:58:07 AM
Sun's Distance - Zetetic Cosmogony
Thomas Winship, author of Zetetic Cosmogony, provides a calculation demonstrating that the sun can be computed to be relatively close to the earth's surface if one assumes that the earth is flat --
Quote
On March 21-22 the sun is directly overhead at the equator and appears 45 degrees above the horizon at 45 degrees north and south latitude. As the angle of sun above the earth at the equator is 90 degrees while it is 45 degrees at 45 degrees north or south latitude, it follows that the angle at the sun between the vertical from the horizon and the line from the observers at 45 degrees north and south must also be 45 degrees. The result is two right angled triangles with legs of equal length. The distance between the equator and the points at 45 degrees north or south is approximately 3,000 miles. Ergo, the sun would be an equal distance above the equator.This is illustrated in this diagram from Modern Mechanics - Oct, 1931:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/c5vapwwha4j5fn4/Voliva%20Flat%20Earth%20Sun%20Distance.png?dl=1)
Voliva's Flat Earth Sun Distance.
This is also shown in the Wiki under Distance to the Sun (http://wiki.tfes.org/Distance_to_the_Sun) under the section Sun's Distance - Modern Mechanics.Voliva's Flat Earth Sun Distance.
But this calculates the height from only ONE location, Latitude 45°. In would seem that we would get a more accurate result by taking measurements from a number of different latitudes and averaging the result.
In Finding your Latitude and Longitude (http://wiki.tfes.org/Finding_your_Latitude_and_Longitude) the Wiki says:
Quote
Latitude
To locate your latitude on the Flat Earth, it's important to know the following fact: The degrees of the Earth's Latitude are based upon the angle of the sun in the sky at noon equinox.
That's why 0˚ N/S sits on the equator where the sun is directly overhead, and why 90˚ N/S sits at the poles where the sun is at a right angle to the observer. At 45 North or South from the equator, the sun will sit at an angle 45˚ in the sky. The angle of the sun past zenith is our latitude.
Knowing that as you recede North or South from the equator at equinox, the sun will descend at a pace of one degree per 69.5 miles, we can even derive our distance from the equator based upon the position of the sun in the sky.
So this quote from the Wiki tells how far we would be from the equator and what the sun's angle would be at any latitude.
This enables us calculate the sun's height from
h = d x tan(Θ), where "d" is the distance from the equator, d = 69.5 x Θ,
and the sun's elevation Θ = (90° - Latitude), as illustrated in:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/r42k93lhis3o8qu/Sun%20Height.png?dl=1)
The sun's height, calculated using this method for a number of latitudes is shown in the following table:Latitude | Sun Elevation, Θ | Distance from Equator, d | Sun Height, h |
7.2° N | 82.8° | 500 miles | 3,961 miles |
15° N | 75° | 1,043 miles | 3,891 miles |
45° N | 45° | 3,128 miles | 3,128 miles |
75° N | 15° | 5,213 miles | 1,397 miles |
85° N | 5° | 5,908 miles | 517 miles |
But, at all other latitudes we get quite different results ranging from 3,961 miles at 7.2° N from the equator to only 517 miles at 85° N.
All of the figures used have come from the Wiki, and the calculation is based on the method from the Wiki.
So can someone explain why these calculations (using the method from the Wiki) give such different figures for the sun's height?
I know the same point has been raise numerous times, but has never been given a reasonable answer.
Post by: brainsandgravy on April 15, 2016, 04:41:18 AM
The Wiki gives the sun height as the same as the distance from the equator to latitude 45° North at "approximately 3,000 miles" inThe only answer I got on this forum on a similar question (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4646.msg90133#msg90133) was:
Sun's Distance - Zetetic Cosmogony
Thomas Winship, author of Zetetic Cosmogony, provides a calculation demonstrating that the sun can be computed to be relatively close to the earth's surface if one assumes that the earth is flat --QuoteOn March 21-22 the sun is directly overhead at the equator and appears 45 degrees above the horizon at 45 degrees north and south latitude. As the angle of sun above the earth at the equator is 90 degrees while it is 45 degrees at 45 degrees north or south latitude, it follows that the angle at the sun between the vertical from the horizon and the line from the observers at 45 degrees north and south must also be 45 degrees. The result is two right angled triangles with legs of equal length. The distance between the equator and the points at 45 degrees north or south is approximately 3,000 miles. Ergo, the sun would be an equal distance above the equator.This is illustrated in this diagram from Modern Mechanics - Oct, 1931:(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Voliva%20Flat%20Earth%20Sun%20Distance_zpsm9wf9jag.png)This is also shown in the Wiki under Distance to the Sun (http://wiki.tfes.org/Distance_to_the_Sun) under the section Sun's Distance - Modern Mechanics.
Voliva's Flat Earth Sun Distance.
But this calculates the height from only ONE location, Latitude 45°. In would seem that we would get a more accurate result by taking measurements from a number of different latitudes and averaging the result.
In Finding your Latitude and Longitude (http://wiki.tfes.org/Finding_your_Latitude_and_Longitude) the Wiki says:QuoteLatitude
To locate your latitude on the Flat Earth, it's important to know the following fact: The degrees of the Earth's Latitude are based upon the angle of the sun in the sky at noon equinox.
That's why 0˚ N/S sits on the equator where the sun is directly overhead, and why 90˚ N/S sits at the poles where the sun is at a right angle to the observer. At 45 North or South from the equator, the sun will sit at an angle 45˚ in the sky. The angle of the sun past zenith is our latitude.
Knowing that as you recede North or South from the equator at equinox, the sun will descend at a pace of one degree per 69.5 miles, we can even derive our distance from the equator based upon the position of the sun in the sky.
So this quote from the Wiki tells how far we would be from the equator and what the sun's angle would be at any latitude.
This enables us calculate the sun's height from
h = d x tan(Θ), where "d" is the distance from the equator, d = 69.5 x Θ,
and the sun's elevation Θ = (90° - Latitude), as illustrated in:(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sun%20Height_zpshqoummcq.png)The sun's height, calculated using this method for a number of latitudes is shown in the following table:Here we see that at a latitude of 45° N (3,128 miles from the equator) the sun's height comes out to be 3,128 miles, more or less as expected.
But, at all other latitudes we get quite different results ranging from 3,961 miles at 7.2° N from the equator to only 517 miles at 85° N.
All of the figures used have come from the Wiki, and the calculation is based on the method from the Wiki.So can someone explain why these calculations (using the method from the Wiki) give such different figures for the sun's height?I know the same point has been raise numerous times, but has never been given a reasonable answer.
Why are you trying to use unverified ancient geometry/trigonometry as a proof of anything?
The Ancient Greeks did not verify that circles actually exist, and they did not verify that perspective lines actually stretch into infinity as they theorized.
You see, you're assuming that greek trigonometry is valid. You think that it works. But on a flat earth, it doesn't. Geometry is false on the flat earth.
Post by: Rounder on April 15, 2016, 05:18:41 AM
You see, you're assuming that greek trigonometry is valid. You think that it works. But on a flat earth, it doesn't. Geometry is false on the flat earth.
Why then did Rowbotham use the same technique (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za23.htm)?
Post by: brainsandgravy on April 15, 2016, 05:52:30 AM
That's a good question. I assume it's because geometry is valid when it supports the flat earth, but when it doesn't, then it's conveniently rendered "unverified".You see, you're assuming that greek trigonometry is valid. You think that it works. But on a flat earth, it doesn't. Geometry is false on the flat earth.
Why then did Rowbotham use the same technique (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za23.htm)?
Post by: rabinoz on April 15, 2016, 12:34:39 PM
That's a good question. I assume it's because geometry is valid when it supports the flat earth, but when it doesn't, then it's conveniently rendered "unverified".You see, you're assuming that greek trigonometry is valid. You think that it works. But on a flat earth, it doesn't. Geometry is false on the flat earth.
Why then did Rowbotham use the same technique (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za23.htm)?
Now you're getting the message!
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 16, 2016, 02:14:35 AM
Quote
The sun's height, calculated using this method for a number of latitudes is shown in the following table:
Are those real world observations, or hypothetical ones?
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on April 16, 2016, 07:13:59 AM
QuoteThe sun's height, calculated using this method for a number of latitudes is shown in the following table:
Are those real world observations, or hypothetical ones?
He is using angles of the sun from the horizon for various latitudes at noon on the equinoxes. These angles are well known, and easily observable. This is an easy to use website (http://ibis.geog.ubc.ca/courses/geob300/applets/sunpath/) that you can get this data from. Do you have reason to believe that any of this data is wrong? If so, feel free to present it...
The only thing that is reasonably controversial from a flat-earther's perspective is the distance from the equator that he gives (since flat-earthers can't agree on an actual map). Do you have reason to believe that the distances from the equator are wrong? If so, feel free to present it...
Post by: rabinoz on April 16, 2016, 12:44:13 PM
QuoteThe sun's height, calculated using this method for a number of latitudes is shown in the following table:
Are those real world observations, or hypothetical ones?
As real as Voliva's were!
My point is why did Voliva "happen" to chose 45˚ for his measurement andyou might have noticed that your Wiki contains"
Finding your Latitude and Longitude (http://wiki.tfes.org/Finding_your_Latitude_and_Longitude) the Wiki says:
Quote
Latitude
To locate your latitude on the Flat Earth, it's important to know the following fact: The degrees of the Earth's Latitude are based upon the angle of the sun in the sky at noon equinox.
That's why 0˚ N/S sits on the equator where the sun is directly overhead, and why 90˚ N/S sits at the poles where the sun is at a right angle to the observer. At 45 North or South from the equator, the sun will sit at an angle 45˚ in the sky. The angle of the sun past zenith is our latitude.
Knowing that as you recede North or South from the equator at equinox, the sun will descend at a pace of one degree per 69.5 miles, we can even derive our distance from the equator based upon the position of the sun in the sky.
So this quote from the Wiki tells how far we would be from the equator and what the sun's angle would be at any latitude.
If I took the measurements you would only doubt them, but surely you cannot doubt your own Wiki!
So please tell us, what IS the height of the sun?
Post by: Rounder on April 16, 2016, 04:53:40 PM
Are those real world observations, or hypothetical ones?
Rowbotham claims to have made real world observations. Quoting directly from the flat earth bible, Earth Not A Sphere, Chapter V The True Distance of the Sun (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za23.htm):
The distance from London Bridge to the sea-coast at Brighton, in a straight line, is 50 statute miles. On a given day, at 12 o'clock, the altitude of the sun, from near the water at London Bridge, was found to be 61 degrees of an arc; and at the same moment of time the altitude from the sea-coast at Brighton was observed to be 64 degrees of an arc, as shown in fig. 58. The base-line from L to B, 50 measured statute miles; the angle at L, 61 degrees; and the angle at B, 64 degrees. In addition to the method by calculation, the distance of the under edge of the sun may be ascertained from these elements by the method called "construction."
(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig58.jpg)
The diagram, fig. 58, is the above case "constructed;" that is, the base-line from L to B represents 50 statute miles; and the line L, S, is drawn at an angle of 61 degrees, and the line B, S, at an angle of 64 degrees. Both lines are produced until they bisect or cross each other at the point S. Then, with a pair of compasses, measure the length of the base-line B, L, and see how many times the same length may be found in the line L, S, or B, S. It will be found to be sixteen times, or sixteen times 50 miles, equal to 800 statute miles. Then measure in the same way the vertical line D, S, and it will be found to be 700 miles. Hence it is demonstrable that the distance of the sun over that part of the earth to which it is vertical is only 700 statute miles. By the same mode it may be ascertained that the distance from London of that part of the earth where the sun was vertical at the time (July 13th, 1870) the above observations were taken, was only 400 statute miles, as shown by dividing the base-line L, D, by the distance B, L. If any allowance is to be made for refraction--which, no doubt, exists where the sun's rays have to pass through a medium, the atmosphere, which gradually increases in density as it approaches the earth's surface--it will considerably diminish the above-named distance of the sun; so that it is perfectly safe to affirm that the under edge of the sun is considerably less than 700 statute miles above the earth.
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 16, 2016, 07:57:13 PM
QuoteThe sun's height, calculated using this method for a number of latitudes is shown in the following table:
Are those real world observations, or hypothetical ones?
He is using angles of the sun from the horizon for various latitudes at noon on the equinoxes. These angles are well known, and easily observable. This is an easy to use website (http://ibis.geog.ubc.ca/courses/geob300/applets/sunpath/) that you can get this data from. Do you have reason to believe that any of this data is wrong? If so, feel free to present it...
The only thing that is reasonably controversial from a flat-earther's perspective is the distance from the equator that he gives (since flat-earthers can't agree on an actual map). Do you have reason to believe that the distances from the equator are wrong? If so, feel free to present it...
The figures on that website do not claim to come from observations.
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 16, 2016, 07:59:29 PM
QuoteThe sun's height, calculated using this method for a number of latitudes is shown in the following table:
Are those real world observations, or hypothetical ones?As real as Voliva's were!
No one said Voliva was an unimpeachable god.
Quote
My point is why did Voliva "happen" to chose 45˚ for his measurement and
you might have noticed that your Wiki contains"
Finding your Latitude and Longitude (http://wiki.tfes.org/Finding_your_Latitude_and_Longitude) the Wiki says:QuoteLatitude
To locate your latitude on the Flat Earth, it's important to know the following fact: The degrees of the Earth's Latitude are based upon the angle of the sun in the sky at noon equinox.
That's why 0˚ N/S sits on the equator where the sun is directly overhead, and why 90˚ N/S sits at the poles where the sun is at a right angle to the observer. At 45 North or South from the equator, the sun will sit at an angle 45˚ in the sky. The angle of the sun past zenith is our latitude.
Knowing that as you recede North or South from the equator at equinox, the sun will descend at a pace of one degree per 69.5 miles, we can even derive our distance from the equator based upon the position of the sun in the sky.
So this quote from the Wiki tells how far we would be from the equator and what the sun's angle would be at any latitude.If I took the measurements you would only doubt them, but surely you cannot doubt your own Wiki!
Why can't we doubt the Wiki? Those writings come from a number of sources. It's a user editable online encyclopedia.
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 16, 2016, 08:03:30 PM
Are those real world observations, or hypothetical ones?
Rowbotham claims to have made real world observations. Quoting directly from the flat earth bible, Earth Not A Sphere, Chapter V The True Distance of the Sun (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za23.htm):
If so, then that makes Rowbotham's evidence stronger than the litany of hypothetical observations suggested by others.
Post by: Rama Set on April 16, 2016, 08:26:10 PM
Are those real world observations, or hypothetical ones?
Rowbotham claims to have made real world observations. Quoting directly from the flat earth bible, Earth Not A Sphere, Chapter V The True Distance of the Sun (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za23.htm):
If so, then that makes Rowbotham's evidence stronger than the litany of hypothetical observations suggested by others.
You don't know that Rowbotham's observations were real or hypothetical.
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 16, 2016, 08:28:49 PM
Are those real world observations, or hypothetical ones?
Rowbotham claims to have made real world observations. Quoting directly from the flat earth bible, Earth Not A Sphere, Chapter V The True Distance of the Sun (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za23.htm):
If so, then that makes Rowbotham's evidence stronger than the litany of hypothetical observations suggested by others.
You don't know that Rowbotham's observations were real or hypothetical.
It's certainly stronger than a hypothetical proposition. To make it even stronger we need to have peer review. I would be curious to see what the journal Earth Not a Globe Review found on this subject when they did their review of the work.
Post by: rabinoz on April 16, 2016, 09:11:36 PM
Are those real world observations, or hypothetical ones?
Rowbotham claims to have made real world observations. Quoting directly from the flat earth bible, Earth Not A Sphere, Chapter V The True Distance of the Sun (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za23.htm):
If so, then that makes Rowbotham's evidence stronger than the litany of hypothetical observations suggested by others.
I have read that long ago, and he says:
Quote from: Samuel Birley Rowbotham
The distance from London Bridge to the sea-coast at Brighton, in a straight line, is 50 statute miles. On a given day, at 12 o'clock, the altitude of the sun, from near the water at London Bridge, was found to be 61 degrees of an arc; and at the same moment of time the altitude from the sea-coast at Brighton was observed to be 64 degrees of an arc, as shown in fig. 58. The base-line from L to B, 50 measured statute miles; the angle at L, 61 degrees; and the angle at B, 64 degrees. In addition to the method by calculation, the distance of the under edge of the sun may be ascertained from these elements by the method called "construction." The diagram, fig. 58, is the above case "constructed;" that is, the base-line from L to B represents 50 statute miles; and the line L, S, is drawn at an angle of 61 degrees, and the line B, S, at an angle of 64 degrees. Both lines are produced until they bisect or cross each other at the point S. Then, with a pair of compasses, measure the length of the base-line B, L, and see how many times the same length may be found in the line L, S, or B, S. It will be found to be(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig58.jpg)sixteen times, or sixteen times 50 miles, equal to 800 statute miles. Then measure in the same way the vertical line D, S, and it will be found to be 700 miles. Hence it is demonstrable that the distance of the sun over that part of the earth to which it is vertical is only 700 statute miles. By the same mode it may be ascertained that the distance from London of that part of the earth where the sun was vertical at the time (July 13th, 1870) the above observations were taken, was only 400 statute miles, as shown by dividing the base-line L, D, by the distance B, L. If any allowance is to be made for refraction--which, no doubt, exists where the sun's rays have to pass through a medium, the atmosphere, which gradually increases in density as it approaches the earth's surface--it will considerably diminish the above-named distance of the sun; so that it is perfectly safe to affirm that the under edge of the sun is considerably less than 700 statute miles above the earth.
FIG. 58.
I do think that Samuel Birley Rowbotham conforms precisely what I claimed in my first post! Working from different baselines gives completely different answers![1]
As we used to add in our geometry (Euclidean I believe - though no-one said to) of many years ago: Quod Erat Demonstrandum
[1] Actually, there is more to it than that. I haven't time just now, but I'll find my earlier work and you might find his work not quite so "bad".
Post by: brainsandgravy on April 16, 2016, 09:50:34 PM
Rowbotham states, "The foregoing remarks and illustrations are, of course, not necessary to the mathematician; but may be useful to the general reader, showing him that plane trigonometry, carried out on the earth's plane or horizontal surface, permits of operations which are simple and perfect in principle, and in practice fully reliable and satisfactory."Are those real world observations, or hypothetical ones?
Rowbotham claims to have made real world observations. Quoting directly from the flat earth bible, Earth Not A Sphere, Chapter V The True Distance of the Sun (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za23.htm):
If so, then that makes Rowbotham's evidence stronger than the litany of hypothetical observations suggested by others.
Why do you think Rowbotham would be endorsing "that Ancient Greek nonsense math where things are continuous and divide or stretch into infinities?" (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4646.msg90144#msg90144) Was he not "assuming conclusions based on an Ancient Greek fantasy model where things are continuous, rather than an experience of the real world."? (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4646.msg90144#msg90144)
Post by: rabinoz on April 17, 2016, 02:48:56 AM
Actually, there is more to it than that. I haven't time just now, but I'll find my earlier work and you might find his work not quite so "bad".
Yes, I said "you might find his work not quite so 'bad'"!
Rowbotham has Brighton to London as 50 miles and a change in the sun's elevation of 61.0° to 64.0° or 3°. A little thought would show that 50 miles could never give a 3° change in latitude of sun's elevation (not if we accept "the Wiki's" 69.5 miles per degree).Checking these figures on Google Earth puts Brighton Pier (on the beach just west of the pier - yes, I've been there) at Lat 50.82° and London (just west of the north end of London Bridge - can't get near the water on the south end) at Lat 51.51°, putting these locations into Sun Earth Tools (http://www.sunearthtools.com/dp/tools/pos_sun.php?lang=en) for July 13th(1) we get the suns elevation in London as 60.33° and in Bright as 61.02°(2).
Now, using these figures, we get the sun's height as 3030 miles - much closer to the Flat Earth accepted figure!
But, no-one has yet given any justification for picking Lat 45° N as the one spot to calculate the sun's height, simply because there is none!
- I don't think the time is given, so I am guessing about 12 noon and can't go back as far as 1870, so used 2016.
- Why so different from Rowbotham? Simply that his measurements with "an instrument with a graduated arc" were not accurate enough for such small differences. I won't criticise him too much for that, but modern reviews have been very remiss it not correcting it.
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on April 17, 2016, 01:04:55 PM
QuoteThe sun's height, calculated using this method for a number of latitudes is shown in the following table:
Are those real world observations, or hypothetical ones?
He is using angles of the sun from the horizon for various latitudes at noon on the equinoxes. These angles are well known, and easily observable. This is an easy to use website (http://ibis.geog.ubc.ca/courses/geob300/applets/sunpath/) that you can get this data from. Do you have reason to believe that any of this data is wrong? If so, feel free to present it...
The only thing that is reasonably controversial from a flat-earther's perspective is the distance from the equator that he gives (since flat-earthers can't agree on an actual map). Do you have reason to believe that the distances from the equator are wrong? If so, feel free to present it...
The figures on that website do not claim to come from observations.
Of course not. They just made a fancy way of presenting already well-known data. The position of the sun in the sky has been measured for thousands of years using sun dials. You can get this data on hundreds of different websites and libraries around the world. If this data was wrong, millions of people would notice.
You can test it yourself if you want:
Angle = arctan(height of sundial / length of shadow)
Use this website (http://sunposition.info/sunposition/spc/locations.php) (Or one of a hundred others like it) to calculate the position of the sun for your specific location and time.
Don't claim that well-known, easily-testable, public-available data is fake unless you have personally tested it and found inconsistent results yourself.
Post by: Rounder on April 17, 2016, 07:26:34 PM
If so, then that makes Rowbotham's evidence stronger than the litany of hypothetical observations suggested by others.
Do you really want to defend his results? He calculated the sun to be a mere 700 miles up, and the subsolar point only 400 miles away. The Wiki, so beloved by FE proponents, has the sun over four times as high, and the nearest the subsolar point EVER gets to London is over the Tropic of Cancer, some two THOUSAND miles away, more than five times as far.
Post by: rabinoz on April 17, 2016, 11:33:37 PM
Then if you look at my previous post in The Sun's height from the method and distances in "the Wiki" « Reply #16 on: Today at 02:48:56 AM » (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4887.msg94601#msg94601) I show that Rowbotham had a ridiculous 3° difference in solar elevation from Brighton (near the Pier) to London (near water at N end)[1]. The difference in latitude is only 0.69° and as expected SunEarthtools (http://www.sunearthtools.com/dp/tools/pos_sun.php?lang=en) gives a difference in solar elevation of (guess what!) 0.69° at midday on that date.If so, then that makes Rowbotham's evidence stronger than the litany of hypothetical observations suggested by others.
Do you really want to defend his results? He calculated the sun to be a mere 700 miles up, and the subsolar point only 400 miles away. The Wiki, so beloved by FE proponents, has the sun over four times as high, and the nearest the subsolar point EVER gets to London is over the Tropic of Cancer, some two THOUSAND miles away, more than five times as far.
These figures put the sun at a height of 3030 miles. But, this does not get away from fact that the apparent sun height varies dramatically with the baseline -
and they simply will not address the problem!
[1] Rowbotham could have looked at a map - too simple!
Post by: CableDawg on April 18, 2016, 03:09:53 AM
Why can't we doubt the Wiki? Those writings come from a number of sources. It's a user editable online encyclopedia.
Why do so many (including yourself) point to it as the end all be all?
Does it come down to a matter of convenience? If it supports your argument it's fine and valid. If it doesn't it's questionable and invalid.
FE apologists and Christian apologists. Is there really any difference? Both groups rely on the same tactics and logic.
Of course the similarity is not surprising considering that FE ideas sprung, whole cloth, from the bible in the first place.
Post by: CableDawg on April 18, 2016, 03:15:33 AM
It's certainly stronger than a hypothetical proposition. To make it even stronger we need to have peer review. I would be curious to see what the journal Earth Not a Globe Review found on this subject when they did their review of the work.
FE supporters have insulated and protected themselves from peer review though.
They don't accept the scientific method as valid so they discount any results from a scientific background.
They can't even come to a consensus and build a peerage amongst themselves.
How can FE have any kind of peer review when they discount the majority of people who would be their peers and can't form a peerage amongst the minority left over?
Post by: rabinoz on April 18, 2016, 03:56:43 AM
The whole point we are all trying to make is that the method used by Voliva and Rowbotham (they are essentially the same) cannot ever give valid results.Are those real world observations, or hypothetical ones?
Rowbotham claims to have made real world observations. Quoting directly from the flat earth bible, Earth Not A Sphere, Chapter V The True Distance of the Sun (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za23.htm):
If so, then that makes Rowbotham's evidence stronger than the litany of hypothetical observations suggested by others.
You don't know that Rowbotham's observations were real or hypothetical.
It's certainly stronger than a hypothetical proposition. To make it even stronger we need to have peer review. I would be curious to see what the journal Earth Not a Globe Review found on this subject when they did their review of the work.
The height you get depends on the baseline used!
Whenever we ask the height of the sun, either we told it a bit over 3,000 miles or "Look up the Wiki!", we do that and clearly the answers are quite inconsistent.
Now, surely the sun must at one height. I know why the answers vary, but since the answer might cause you cognitive dissonance problems, I will refrain from pointing that out!
Over to you. What is the height of the Flat Earth sun?
Post by: CableDawg on April 18, 2016, 11:06:20 AM
[/quote]
The height of the FE sun will never be know for certain because it is relative to the speed of relativity which is of course relative to the relative asked for input factors.
Post by: rabinoz on April 18, 2016, 12:29:46 PM
Besides, you deleted a "{quote author=rabinoz}" (now fixed) which probably upset the generalness of the relativity, making it all special and hence not properly relative - get it?Quote from: rabinozOver to you. What is the height of the Flat Earth sun?
The height of the FE sun will never be know for certain because it is relative to the speed of relativity which is of course relative to the relative asked for input factors.
No, neither do I, but since I am not related (generally or specially), I have no idea what you (or I) are talking about!
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 19, 2016, 07:31:30 AM
Rowbotham states, "The foregoing remarks and illustrations are, of course, not necessary to the mathematician; but may be useful to the general reader, showing him that plane trigonometry, carried out on the earth's plane or horizontal surface, permits of operations which are simple and perfect in principle, and in practice fully reliable and satisfactory."Are those real world observations, or hypothetical ones?
Rowbotham claims to have made real world observations. Quoting directly from the flat earth bible, Earth Not A Sphere, Chapter V The True Distance of the Sun (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za23.htm):
If so, then that makes Rowbotham's evidence stronger than the litany of hypothetical observations suggested by others.
Why do you think Rowbotham would be endorsing "that Ancient Greek nonsense math where things are continuous and divide or stretch into infinities?" (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4646.msg90144#msg90144) Was he not "assuming conclusions based on an Ancient Greek fantasy model where things are continuous, rather than an experience of the real world."? (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4646.msg90144#msg90144)
Yes, Rowbotham is using Trigonomety. No, he didn't read my post written over 150 years later. In Earth Not a Globe Rowbotham does question some elements of trigonometry, however, specifically what happens at very long distances with perspective.
Why can't we doubt the Wiki? Those writings come from a number of sources. It's a user editable online encyclopedia.
Why do so many (including yourself) point to it as the end all be all?
Does it come down to a matter of convenience? If it supports your argument it's fine and valid. If it doesn't it's questionable and invalid.
FE apologists and Christian apologists. Is there really any difference? Both groups rely on the same tactics and logic.
Of course the similarity is not surprising considering that FE ideas sprung, whole cloth, from the bible in the first place.
I link to the Wiki because it would be tiring to write pages of text over and over again when someone asks a question. As a user contributed resource it's as right or wrong as any user who posts to this forum may be right or wrong.
If so, then that makes Rowbotham's evidence stronger than the litany of hypothetical observations suggested by others.
Do you really want to defend his results? He calculated the sun to be a mere 700 miles up, and the subsolar point only 400 miles away. The Wiki, so beloved by FE proponents, has the sun over four times as high, and the nearest the subsolar point EVER gets to London is over the Tropic of Cancer, some two THOUSAND miles away, more than five times as far.
Rowbotham may be ultimately incorrect, sure, but it is the only measurement backed up with explicit observations I've seen. That makes it the strongest claim for now.
As far as discrepancies go, your criticism is misplaced. On the earth's distance from the sun Copernicus computed it as 3,391,200 miles, Kepler contradicted him with an estimate of 12,376,800 miles, while Newton had asserted that it did not matter whether it was 28 million or 54 million miles 'for either will do as well'.
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 19, 2016, 07:33:28 AM
The whole point we are all trying to make is that the method used by Voliva and Rowbotham (they are essentially the same) cannot ever give valid results.Are those real world observations, or hypothetical ones?
Rowbotham claims to have made real world observations. Quoting directly from the flat earth bible, Earth Not A Sphere, Chapter V The True Distance of the Sun (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za23.htm):
If so, then that makes Rowbotham's evidence stronger than the litany of hypothetical observations suggested by others.
You don't know that Rowbotham's observations were real or hypothetical.
It's certainly stronger than a hypothetical proposition. To make it even stronger we need to have peer review. I would be curious to see what the journal Earth Not a Globe Review found on this subject when they did their review of the work.The height you get depends on the baseline used!
Whenever we ask the height of the sun, either we told it a bit over 3,000 miles or "Look up the Wiki!", we do that and clearly the answers are quite inconsistent.
Now, surely the sun must at one height. I know why the answers vary, but since the answer might cause you cognitive dissonance problems, I will refrain from pointing that out!
Over to you. What is the height of the Flat Earth sun?
I think the height of the sun changes over the course of the year, but I am unsure of what the heights might be.
Post by: rabinoz on April 19, 2016, 09:13:15 AM
The variations I was showing (using the same method used by Voliva and essentially the same as the Wiki) had nothing whatever to do with any possible variations over the course of a year, but measurements which can be taken at any one time.The whole point we are all trying to make is that the method used by Voliva and Rowbotham (they are essentially the same) cannot ever give valid results.Are those real world observations, or hypothetical ones?
Rowbotham claims to have made real world observations. Quoting directly from the flat earth bible, Earth Not A Sphere, Chapter V The True Distance of the Sun (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za23.htm):
If so, then that makes Rowbotham's evidence stronger than the litany of hypothetical observations suggested by others.
You don't know that Rowbotham's observations were real or hypothetical.
It's certainly stronger than a hypothetical proposition. To make it even stronger we need to have peer review. I would be curious to see what the journal Earth Not a Globe Review found on this subject when they did their review of the work.The height you get depends on the baseline used!
Whenever we ask the height of the sun, either we told it a bit over 3,000 miles or "Look up the Wiki!", we do that and clearly the answers are quite inconsistent.
Now, surely the sun must at one height. I know why the answers vary, but since the answer might cause you cognitive dissonance problems, I will refrain from pointing that out!
Over to you. What is the height of the Flat Earth sun?
I think the height of the sun changes over the course of the year, but I am unsure of what the heights might be.
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 19, 2016, 04:17:30 PM
The variations I was showing (using the same method used by Voliva and essentially the same as the Wiki) had nothing whatever to do with any possible variations over the course of a year, but measurements which can be taken at any one time.
Would that be the method of not actually observing the sun at these different places for your estimate of its position?
Post by: rabinoz on April 19, 2016, 10:59:20 PM
I really couldn't care less about the supposed height of the flat earth sun. I have seen no evidence that Voliva actually making any measurements to calculate the height of the sun. He may have. His writings give the sun height as 2,700 miles. The 3,000 miles comes from a Modern Mechanics - Oct, 1931 article referring to Voliva's "work".The variations I was showing (using the same method used by Voliva and essentially the same as the Wiki) had nothing whatever to do with any possible variations over the course of a year, but measurements which can be taken at any one time.
Would that be the method of not actually observing the sun at these different places for your estimate of its position?
Rowbotham did make measurements and his figure was 700 miles and I showed you where he went wrong.
So over to you again, I have pointed out the simple fact that TFES has no idea of the sun height.
There is another "minute problem".
You say that possibly the sun's height is higher, presumably during the southern summer. BUT, the sun's intensity during the southern summer is quite significantly higher than during the northern summer[1]. How does this higher sun fit with an almost 7% higher solar intensity? It is interesting that in the Globe Earth the sun's minimum and maximum distances are 91 and 94.5 million miles - allowing for the square law it fits pretty well! What a co-incidence.
And no, I did not measure these myself! I do, however, look carefully into these matters as we have Solar Power and I do monitor the output regularly.
But there are innumerable things in your model[2] neither you nor any TFES member have personally measured!
Sometimes I really think that you should shut up shop for a few years and sort all these gross inconsistencies out (including map), then re-open with a whole bright and shiny new model, not one dreamt up quickly to help counter Darwinism.
[1] The "Solar Constants" are 1.412 kW/m2 compared to 1.321 kW/m2)
[2] Sun height, UAcceleration rate, orbits of planets, distances to "stars", the refraction in the atmosphere making the sun look as though it sets behind the horizon, etc, etc.
Post by: rabinoz on August 07, 2016, 02:07:06 AM
| This is resurrecting an old thread, but it was my thread. You can look up the OP at: The Sun's height from the method and distances in "the Wiki". « on: April 15, 2016, 01:58:07 AM » (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4887.msg94442#msg94442) for a background. This time, I will present the sun elevations and azimuth from five locations all close to longitude 70°W. These are shown on the Google Earth map on the right. | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sun%20Height/20160605%20-%20Google%20earth%20for%20Sun%20Height_zps1jydbtkv.jpg) Locations for Sun Height Calculations |
The following table gives the data for each location. All sun elevation was obtained from Sun Earth Tools (http://www.sunearthtools.com/dp/tools/pos_sun.php) as close as possible to the local midday on the last equinox. The time was UTC 20/Mar/2016 16:48.
Location | Latitude | Longitude | Sun Elev | Dist from Vaupes | Flat Sun Ht | Angle from Vaupes | Calc Circum |
Kimmirut, NU X0A, Canada | 62.847° | -69.869° | 27.36° | 7,034 km | 3,609 km | 63.58° | 39,828 km |
Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic | 18.486° | -69.931° | 71.72° | 2,107 km | 6,077 km | 19.22° | 39,465 km |
Municipio de Taraira, Vaupes, Colombia | -0.565° | -69.634° | 89.06° | 0 km | ------ | ||
Chupa District, Peru | -15.109° | -69.998° | 74.69° | 1,610 km | 6,256 km | 14.37° | 40,334 km |
Punta Arenas, Chile | -53.164° | -70.917° | 36.63° | 5,830 km | 4,388 km | 52.43° | 40,031 km |
These locations and the directions to the sun on a flat earth are shown in the left hand diagram below:
Once we have the angles from two sites the height of the sun can be calculated from: h = d/(1/tan(A1) + 1/tan(A2)).
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sun%20Height/Sun%20Height%20on%20Flat%20Earth%20along%2070degW%20Long_zpsp8rlphyd.png) Sun Height on Flat Earth along 70°W Long | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sun%20Height/Sun%20Height%20on%20Globe%20Earth%20along%2070degW%20Long_zps3uvcculy.jpg) Sun Height on Globe Earth along 70°W Long |
Using this method to find the height of the sun on the Flat earth gives measurements from 3609 km (for Kimmirut and Vaupes) to 6256 km (for Chupa District to Vaupes) depending on the spacing of the measurement sites.
In other words, claiming that the Flat Earth sun is at about 5,000 km altitude has no foundation.
Now, if instead of using these measurements to determine the Flat Earth sun height, we use them as Eratosthenes did, assuming a distant sun and use this data to calculate the circumference of the earth. T
The circumference can be calculated from (distance from Vaupes) * 360°/(angle difference of sun from Vaupes)
This time we get far better consistency. The estimated figures for the circumference of the earth range from 39,465 km to 40,334 km.
Certainly these figures would indicate that the earth is a globe with a distant sun.
<< This is done in a bit of a hurry, will review when I get a chance - but it is pretty close >>
Post by: İntikam on August 08, 2016, 07:00:33 AM
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 08, 2016, 07:53:27 AM
Why do so many (including yourself) point to it as the end all be all?Who does that? I've never seen it be referred to as "the end all be all". If anything, it's pointed towards as a good starting place to answer common questions.
Another benefit of linking to the Wiki is that it can be edited post-factum. If you ask how, say, the day and night cycle works, and we link you to the Wiki, you get a link to a reasonably up-to-date representation of FE beliefs. If someone finds your question 5 years later, they can click on the same link and still find something that's reasonably up to date, assuming someone continued to work on it. It's simply the more appropriate resource for some purposes.
Does it come down to a matter of convenience? If it supports your argument it's fine and valid. If it doesn't it's questionable and invalid.Hopefully the above explains what's going on reasonably well. In general, I would recommend that you do not follow your questions by an immediate accusation of wrongdoing. It's a rhetorical device that seems very palatable at the time when it's used, but in retrospect it just makes you look closed-minded.
FE apologists and Christian apologists. Is there really any difference?Yes.
Both groups rely on the same tactics and logic.But then so do you - see my criticisms of your rhetoric above.
Of course the similarity is not surprising considering that FE ideas sprung, whole cloth, from the bible in the first place.The Flat Earth Theory predates the Bible by quite some time. If anything, the implications that the Earth might be flat contained in the Bible are an indication of the widespread belief of these time periods. I'm sure it helped perpetuate it, but FE ideas have most certainly not "sprung, whole cloth, from the bible in the first place".
Post by: rabinoz on August 08, 2016, 08:14:31 AM
oh wiki then okay. what a source .By "the Wiki" I mean the TFES Wiki! What better authority?
And I believe the method I used for the Flat Earth sun height is almost the same as the method you used.
If I read your post correctly, you got different answers (3594 km, 5067 km, 7270 km, 5456 km and 4984 km) for each pair of locations.
That is exactly what I claim is wrong with Flat Earth sun height calculations. You get a different answer for each different spacing of pairs of points.
But if we take the earth to be a globe we do get consistent answers.
Post by: İntikam on August 08, 2016, 12:38:00 PM
oh wiki then okay. what a source .By "the Wiki" I mean the TFES Wiki! What better authority?
And I believe the method I used for the Flat Earth sun height is almost the same as the method you used.
If I read your post correctly, you got different answers (3594 km, 5067 km, 7270 km, 5456 km and 4984 km) for each pair of locations.
That is exactly what I claim is wrong with Flat Earth sun height calculations. You get a different answer for each different spacing of pairs of points.
But if we take the earth to be a globe we do get consistent answers.
I got the shape as curve. If i get it as flat there is no contradiction.
Post by: Rounder on August 08, 2016, 04:17:52 PM
Another benefit of linking to the Wiki is that it can be edited post-factum...assuming someone continued to work on it.That WOULD be a good point, if only somebody would actually DO that. For quite a while now people have ponted out a glaringly basic factual error on the Bishop Experiment page:
Quote
The exact distance between the extremes of the Monterey Bay, Lovers Point in Pacific Grove and Lighthouse State Beach in Santa Cruz, is 33.4 statute miles.The true distance is closer to 23 miles, nowhere near 33.4 given by the wiki. If you're going to use the word "exact" right there in the sentence, and provide a number 'exact' enough to include tenths of a mile, you should maybe get an ACTUAL exact distance?
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 08, 2016, 05:07:31 PM
That WOULD be a good point, if only somebody would actually DO that.We do. Our resources are limited, and most of us don't read angry ramblings from the likes of you (for the same reason - limited resources mean we'd rather focus on someone worthwhile). Don't be surprised that your complaint was simply ignored in the sea of rants.
The true distance is closer to 23 miles, nowhere near 33.4 given by the wiki.Granted, this appears to be a clerical error - clearly it was meant to read "23.4" rather than "33.4". If your greatest worry (one that makes you CAPITALISE words SEEMINGLY at RANDOM) is that someone's finger slipped once a few years ago, I would recommend finding a hobby.
Of course, none of this matters since:
Unless, of course, you're suggesting that a 352-feet wall of water is not a problem here...
Post by: Rama Set on August 08, 2016, 05:34:06 PM
Granted, this appears to be a clerical error - clearly it was meant to read "23.4" rather than "33.4".
Clearly not, otherwise it would have been a) corrected or b) brought up as an explanation at some point before this.
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 08, 2016, 06:54:26 PM
a) correctedYeah, yeah, I'll sort it out when I have a moment, don't get your panties in a twist.
b) brought up as an explanation at some point before this.p. sure I've done that in the past now that you mention it...
Looking at the actual body of text, it also says "See this map" without providing any map at all. Clearly it could do with some copy-editing - I'm not sure why you find it so unbelievable that someone would hit a "3" instead of a "2" and then carry on with their calculations for this mistaken figure. And, again, it's not like it affects the validity of the experiment in any way.
Post by: Rama Set on August 08, 2016, 07:36:08 PM
Yeah, yeah, I'll sort it out when I have a moment, don't get your panties in a twist.
Can't wait, this error has been persistent for years.
p. sure I've done that in the past now that you mention it...
How sure? You are usually pretty speedy at providing sources, one would do well in this case.
Quote
Looking at the actual body of text, it also says "See this map" without providing any map at all. Clearly it could do with some copy-editing - I'm not sure why you find it so unbelievable that someone would hit a "3" instead of a "2" and then carry on with their calculations for this mistaken figure. And, again, it's not like it affects the validity of the experiment in any way.
An incident of sloppy editing in one case is not proof of sloppy editing elsewhere. Considering the source of the entry (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=18114.msg319626#msg319626), and that the entry in the wiki, continues the same error, it seems far more likely that there was no review of the experiment at all, and that it was take at face value for some reason.
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on August 08, 2016, 10:32:41 PM
Of course, none of this matters since:
Unless, of course, you're suggesting that a 352-feet wall of water is not a problem here...
First of all, your calculation doesn't take into account the height of the telescope or refraction. A better estimate is about
Second of all, I addressed Tom Bishop's experiment a week ago, in a thread you commented in. So I'll just copy it here since you seemed to miss it:
A bit more information about the Bishop experiment:
Right off the bat, Tom Bishop has his facts wrong. The actual distance across the bay is about 23 miles, not 33 miles as he claims. He has admitted to this elsewhere in the forums, but he seems to be in no hurry to correct his mistake. Redoing the math with this distance, and taking into account standard refraction, results in about100220 feet obscured by the horizon, as opposed to 600 feet claimed by Bishop.This makes it much more likely that a temperature inversion could cause enough refraction to allow the people on the beach to be seen.
Still, Bishop claims that he is able to repeat this experiment regardless of weather. If true, it would indeed be a significant find. However, in my interactions with Bishop on this forum, he has shown an absolutely (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5093.msg98656#msg98656) dismal (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5093.msg98691#msg98691) ability (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5093.msg98871#msg98871) to correctly interpret evidence (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5058.msg98246#msg98246), and there is no way I would trust just his word that he has conducted these experiments correctly. He needs to show well documented photographic evidence if he wants to be taken seriously. The 10 mile error in the reported distance should be a huge warning sign that his methods are sloppy, at best.
edit: 100 feet -> 220 feet. Unit conversions, ugh :(
edit edit: Conclusions on the effect of temperature inversion crossed out. I will look into it further when I have the time.
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 09, 2016, 01:52:02 PM
edit: 100 feet -> 220 feet. Unit conversions, ugh :(Well, at the very least you've provided a good example to support my suggestion that very significant mistakes happen, and I'm sure you wouldn't want for me to conclude from it that you are never to be trusted again, or that your entire train of thought must be invalid due to one mathematical error. Show the same courtesy to others.
Second of all, I addressed Tom Bishop's experiment a week ago, in a thread you commented in. So I'll just copy it here since you seemed to miss itYes, I and many others very quickly tune out of threads once the likes of Rounder jump in. If I wanted to read the smug drivel of "redpilled" RE'ers, I'd go somewhere else than the Flat Earth Society. For example, /r/atheism
First of all, your calculation doesn't take into account the height of the telescope or refraction. A better estimate is aboutEven then, that would still be a major obstacle. However, you should probably back your claim up. The thread you've linked me to only includes a blind statement of100220 feet.
Post by: Rama Set on August 09, 2016, 02:23:40 PM
edit: 100 feet -> 220 feet. Unit conversions, ugh :(Well, at the very least you've provided a good example to support my suggestion that very significant mistakes happen, and I'm sure you wouldn't want for me to conclude from it that you are never to be trusted again, or that your entire train of thought must be invalid due to one mathematical error. Show the same courtesy to others.
The difference being that Totes corrected his mistake, without prompting and admitted to it. Whereas, this wiki page has been referenced time and again with full awareness of its error and no disclosure of that error. It is extremely careless Furthermore, as I showed the 33.4 mile distance is what the distance has always been and does not appear to be a clerical error, but rather the thoughtless continuation of Tom Bishop's poor scholarship.
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 09, 2016, 04:27:43 PM
EDIT: I see I've missed a previous post of yours, so allow me to backtrack a little bit
How sure? You are usually pretty speedy at providing sources, one would do well in this case.I really don't feel like going back through the old forum to find one. I think you must be thinking of me back in the time when I wasn't working 12-hour days. I don't mind having a discussion, but I'm not going to let you drag me into endless search-fests.
An incident of sloppy editing in one case is not proof of sloppy editing elsewhere. Considering the source of the entry (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=18114.msg319626#msg319626), and that the entry in the wiki, continues the same error, it seems far more likely that there was no review of the experiment at all, and that it was take at face value for some reason.Sorry, what? No one is hiding the fact that the Wiki is mostly based off forum threads. If a clerical error snuck its way into a forum thread (and it clearly wasn't challenged at the time of publication - thank you for documenting this!), it would have made its way into the Wiki. Tom seems to be fairly clear about that himself. (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4520.msg88149#msg88149)
Why it wasn't fixed yet is not something I can answer (apparently Tom didn't have edit access to the Wiki back in February, but I know for sure that's no longer the case). I can tell you why I didn't fix it: When I previously encountered it, I saw it as an obvious clerical error, chalked it down as "whatever, will deal with that later", and then proceeded to not deal with it since other things took priority.
What baffles me more than anything else is: if you're so annoyed by an inconsequential typo (and a number of equations relying on it, granted), why haven't you asked me for edit access to the Wiki yet so you can correct it yourself? I even did the math for you.
If you're not happy to wait for me to fix it when I have the time, that sounds like a perfectly sensible option, doesn't it? This site operates as well as it does (determining whether this is a compliment or an insult is left as an exercise for the reader) because it lets people do stuff rather than complain about stuff.
Post by: Rama Set on August 09, 2016, 09:29:19 PM
Right, so now you're using your personal disapproval of Tom as a means to somehow dismiss the Wiki as a worthwhile effort. The mental gymnastics here are truly astounding. You people really need a better outlet for your free time.
Nice try.
Quote
EDIT: I see I've missed a previous post of yours, so allow me to backtrack a little bitHow sure? You are usually pretty speedy at providing sources, one would do well in this case.I really don't feel like going back through the old forum to find one. I think you must be thinking of me back in the time when I wasn't working 12-hour days. I don't mind having a discussion, but I'm not going to let you drag me into endless search-fests.
Yet here we go...
Quote
An incident of sloppy editing in one case is not proof of sloppy editing elsewhere. Considering the source of the entry (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=18114.msg319626#msg319626), and that the entry in the wiki, continues the same error, it seems far more likely that there was no review of the experiment at all, and that it was take at face value for some reason.Sorry, what? No one is hiding the fact that the Wiki is mostly based off forum threads. If a clerical error snuck its way into a forum thread (and it clearly wasn't challenged at the time of publication - thank you for documenting this!), it would have made its way into the Wiki. Tom seems to be fairly clear about that himself. (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4520.msg88149#msg88149)
How is this better? Or even relevant?
Quote
Why it wasn't fixed yet is not something I can answer (apparently Tom didn't have edit access to the Wiki back in February, but I know for sure that's no longer the case). I can tell you why I didn't fix it: When I previously encountered it, I saw it as an obvious clerical error, chalked it down as "whatever, will deal with that later", and then proceeded to not deal with it since other things took priority.
No one apparently has time.
Quote
What baffles me more than anything else is: if you're so annoyed by an inconsequential typo (and a number of equations relying on it, granted), why haven't you asked me for edit access to the Wiki yet so you can correct it yourself? I even did the math for you.
I'm annoyed? Oh cool. What am I feeling now?
Quote
If you're not happy to wait for me to fix it when I have the time, that sounds like a perfectly sensible option, doesn't it?
You probably could have fixed it instead of writing this post.
Quote
This site operates as well as it does (determining whether this is a compliment or an insult is left as an exercise for the reader) because it lets people do stuff rather than complain about stuff.
I am not the person to edit the wiki because then I would have to, purely out of intellectual and academic honesty have to erase the entire "Experimental Evidence for a Flat Earth Section". The only reasonably ethical thing I can do is help FEers remain consistent with their information.
Post by: Rounder on August 10, 2016, 05:19:04 AM
...wait for me to fix it when I have the time...Fix it, or don't fix it, makes no difference to me, as I believe the flaws in the Wik are much deeper than this one examle. (In my opinion the Wiki abandoned all hope of even a small amount of credibility when it began including material from Intikam (http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Full_Moon_is_Impossible_in_Round_Earth_Theory) in April.) I only brought it up at all in response to your bragging about the edit capability of the Wiki, which I show is not being used to good effect. Indeed, in the 36 hours since I brought it up, you've found the time for eight forum responses, in this thread and elsewhere (including acknowledging that the mistake exists) but have not found the time to change a "3" into a "2". You don't get credit for a capability if you don't exercise it; it's like a drunk telling me "I could quit any time I want to" while cracking open his next beer.
Yes, I and many others very quickly tune out of threads once the likes of Rounder jump in.Wow! And here I thought my RE Kung Fu only worked on Intikam! (Well, my RE Kung Fu and Rabinoz's and Woody's and Gecko's and CableDawg's and....)
Post by: Woody on August 10, 2016, 08:58:54 AM
Not only was there a 10 mile error the distance the telescope was above the water is highly questionable.
Here is where he stated he made the observations from:
(http://i.imgur.com/DJ2mczM.png)
That is two really important distances that is in error.
He did claim to know about the error. It is in the thread I made addressing the errors. His reply was he would not and could not change it.
Then this is going to be addressed and the wiki edited? You have to admit leaving it as is and having under supporting evidence in both wikis can be misleading to people who read the distances and take it at face value.
No, I will not be editing the Wiki. I do not even have write access to it. If I ever get access, I'll fix it.QuoteWhen I first reviewed the experiment I took the stated 33.4 mile as what the actual distance was into consideration while reading your conclusions. It was only when I looked at the linked map that it clicked for me that I was in the area before charted a course in that bay and realized the distance given maybe an error.
If it remains up as evidence in the wiki without at least noting the distance of about 23 miles then how can people trust the information in the wiki? It is being offered as evidence of the truth.
How is this different then NASA trying to mislead people by releasing fake images of the Earth?
Mistake != Lie
I beleive he now has access to the wiki. Not to mention it seems he made no real effort to contact someone who did to make the correction when he could not.
So it is no longer a mistake. It is an attempt to deceive people.
I also find it telling how many FE's responded in that thread. Tom and Junker. Junker's post was not addressing the topic of the thread, but to warn someone.
Then there is this link in the wiki as evidence:
http://www.improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume9/v9i3/kansas.html
Seems another attempt to mislead people. If someone is not familiar with math they may not understand the methodology used by the professor. The conclusion certainly was not Kansas is flat like I believe the person who put it in the wiki want people to believe.
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 10, 2016, 11:48:53 AM
Nice try.10/10 response. I'll take that as a concession and move on. You're welcome to amend your statement if that's not the outcome you were hoping for.
Yet here we go...Please try to be coherent.
How is this better? Or even relevant?I didn't claim for it to be "better" (and I don't know what it would be better than). What I said is that you're needlessly belligerent. You accuse people of malice where incompetence suffices.
No one apparently has time.Unsurprising, it's an extremely insignificant issue.
I'm annoyed? Oh cool. What am I feeling now?I don't know, but once you tell me, I'll be able to repeat it at you. So far, you've expressed annoyance and impatience throughout the thread. If you didn't mean to let us know, perhaps you shouldn't have said it.
You probably could have fixed it instead of writing this post.No, I couldn't. I can easily write a post from my phone while at work. I can't feasibly proofread a Wiki article that way without inevitably introducing more errors.
I am not the person to edit the wiki because then I would have to, purely out of intellectual and academic honesty have to erase the entire "Experimental Evidence for a Flat Earth Section". The only reasonably ethical thing I can do is help FEers remain consistent with their information.Then that's your prerogative, but if you're not going to be the change you want to see, don't be surprise if you end up not seeing it, or seeing it much later than you want.
So it is no longer a mistake. It is an attempt to deceive people.How is it deceiving? The evidence remains pretty much exactly as strong with the math corrected.
Post by: Rama Set on August 10, 2016, 12:13:22 PM
Nice try.10/10 response. I'll take that as a concession and move on. You're welcome to amend your statement if that's not the outcome you were hoping for.
Nice try again.
Quote
Yet here we go...Please try to be coherent.
Sorry, my comment went over your head. You claimed you wouldn't get in to posting links and then proceeded to do exactly that.
Quote
How is this better? Or even relevant?I didn't claim for it to be "better" (and I don't know what it would be better than). What I said is that you're needlessly belligerent. You accuse people of malice where incompetence suffices.
Malice? Nope. Laziness and incompetence.
Quote
No one apparently has time.Unsurprising, it's an extremely insignificant issue.
Indeed, why would a society devoted to the truth of the shape of the Earth want the wiki they direct people to for evidence of said truth to be truthful?
Quote
I'm annoyed? Oh cool. What am I feeling now?I don't know, but once you tell me, I'll be able to repeat it at you. So far, you've expressed annoyance and impatience throughout the thread. If you didn't mean to let us know, perhaps you shouldn't have said it.
I've done nothing of the sort, but please break out your next issue of Psychology Today and tell me more about me. It matters, it really does.
Quote
You probably could have fixed it instead of writing this post.No, I couldn't. I can easily write a post from my phone while at work. I can't feasibly proofread a Wiki article that way without inevitably introducing more errors.
It would take you how long to change 33.4 to 23.4?
Quote
I am not the person to edit the wiki because then I would have to, purely out of intellectual and academic honesty have to erase the entire "Experimental Evidence for a Flat Earth Section". The only reasonably ethical thing I can do is help FEers remain consistent with their information.Then that's your prerogative, but if you're not going to be the change you want to see, don't be surprise if you end up not seeing it, or seeing it much later than you want.
I actually do wish people to start being intellectually honest and responsible for correcting their own errors so...
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 10, 2016, 12:24:50 PM
Sorry, my comment went over your head. You claimed you wouldn't get in to posting links and then proceeded to do exactly that.No, I didn't. ???
I've done nothing of the sort, but [insults]Yes, you have:
Can't wait, this error has been persistent for years.
Sometimes I think you lose track of the things you say [more of that to come further in my post!]. How this should be interpreted is left as an exercise for the reader.
It would take you how long to change 33.4 to 23.4?Nice try xDDDDD
We already know that the resulting maths needs looking over, and that there are other errors in the article. We've talked about this, Rama. We've talked about it right in this thread.
I actually do wish people to start being intellectually honest and responsible for correcting their own errors so...So you're focusing on bashing me becaaaaaaause...
Post by: Rounder on August 10, 2016, 12:34:00 PM
You accuse people of malice where incompetence suffices.You said it, not us.
Unsurprising, it's an extremely insignificant issue.Except it isn't, not really. If the Wiki is meant to be credible, when factual errors are pointed out (and acknowledged), those errors should be corrected. This is most especially true in a section about experimental evidence, in my opinion.
I can't feasibly proofread a Wiki article that way without inevitably introducing more errors.Changing a single character is that risky?
Post by: Rama Set on August 10, 2016, 12:41:49 PM
I'm going to start stripping off personal attacks from your posts, just an FYI in case you were expecting more complete replies.
Good for you.
Quote
Sorry, my comment went over your head. You claimed you wouldn't get in to posting links and then proceeded to do exactly that.No, I didn't. ???
Oh cool so when you linked to Tom's clarification, you weren't linking to it. I get how this works now.
Quote
I've done nothing of the sort, but [insults]Yes, you have:Can't wait, this error has been persistent for years.
Sometimes I think you lose track of the things you say [more of that to come further in my post!]. How this should be interpreted is left as an exercise for the reader.
I'm so glad you think that. You know this more of a personal attack that just about everything I have said?
Quote
It would take you how long to change 33.4 to 23.4?Nice try xDDDDD
We already know that the resulting maths needs looking over, and that there are other errors in the article. We've talked about this, Rama. We've talked about it right in this thread.
I never asked for everything to be corrected. It should, but one step at a time. I mean the ten mile error has been there for years, so that would be progress.
Quote
I actually do wish people to start being intellectually honest and responsible for correcting their own errors so...So you're focusing on bashing me becaaaaaaause...
I'm not bashing you. The only part you could remotely construe as bashing you is when I sarcastically point out how ridiculous it is to tell me how I'm feeling based on some text.
Anyway, this has grown tiresome. Fix it, don't fix it, it's up to you guys. The lack of commitment to accurate renderings of supposed experimental proof is a problem for FEers. Now please, have the last word.
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 10, 2016, 01:17:32 PM
Instead, I'll go through the article when I have an appropriate amount of time and correct it to the best of my ability. You still won't like it - you think the Earth is round, so any argument for a flat Earth will be invalid to you; but the 23mi/33mi error will be sorted out soon enough.
Oh cool so when you linked to Tom's clarification, you weren't linking to it. I get how this works now.Just go back and read what I said already.
Telling you that you're losing track of what's been said isn't a personal attack, it's just an observation of fact. And you're doing a fantastic job at backing that up.
Post by: Woody on August 10, 2016, 07:41:57 PM
Here is the problem as I see it.
The Bishop experiment is highly visible when someone goes to experimental evidence in the wiki.
The distance error has been known for years.
Tom said he provided an addendum to correct it, but it apparently did not seem important enough for who ever had access to the wiki to post it.
It would take very little effort to just put a visible note that the distances are in error.
It would take a little more to put the correct distances and remove the calculations.
It would require less than an hour for Tom to redo the calculations with the correct distances and amend his conclusions if he felt it changed them.
TFES claims to be seeking and revealing the truth. It is the gist of the societies mission statement. How can a society dedicated to seeking and revealing the truth not feel it very important that the information they release is the truth.
My personal belief is it was not changed because it supports the FE hypothesis.
The Bishop Experiment is a good example as why the scientific method includes peer review and having experiments repeated before something is accepted and presented as evidence. Maybe TFES should look at adopting peer review before something is accepted as evidence the Earth is flat.
Forgot to add something I noticed after searching Google for, "Bishop Experiment" when I noticed this thread and checking to see if it was edited or the addendum added.
My thread on the other site about the errors is at the top. Which does give me some solace someone researching FE and looking at the evidence provided has a better chance to learn of the distance errors.
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 11, 2016, 08:18:09 AM
who ever had access to the wikiEveryone here has access to the wiki, including you. The only step necessary is to ask me for an account, and that's only to prevent vandalism and spambots.
My personal belief is it was not changed because it supports the FE hypothesis.And that's where your logic falls apart. I already demonstrated that the experiment supports FET after corrections.
Post by: Woody on August 11, 2016, 08:52:32 AM
who ever had access to the wikiEveryone here has access to the wiki, including you. The only step necessary is to ask me for an account, and that's only to prevent vandalism and spambots.My personal belief is it was not changed because it supports the FE hypothesis.And that's where your logic falls apart. I already demonstrated that the experiment supports FET after corrections.
You mean all I have to do is ask for access to edit the wiki?
My guess you misunderstood what I meant.
Tom claimed to have provided an addendum making corrections. I assume even though he did not say to who it was someone who could edit or add a link to the wiki.
The evidence suggests Tom did not make an concerted effort to have a correction made or the people/person who could edit the wiki felt it not important.
Also I have been in that area and sailed very close to that park. It is one of the reasons I was pretty sure as I read his account that the distances were off. That park is about 4-5 feet above the water. It has a steep drop off leading to the water. Not sure how he had the telescope only 20 inches above the water unless he built a platform to place the telescope on. This is another thing to points to possible dishonesty. Maybe in his eagerness to provide evidence of the Earth's flatness he allowed himself to fudge the numbers a bit.
The distance from where he observed to what he was observing was 10 miles off. The distance stated the telescope was above the water is highly questionable. So the two things we can verify were either found wrong or highly questionable of being right. There is nothing else we can personally verify about his experiment.
The stuff I pointed out in this post is what invalidates the experiment. We have to question the validity of what he claimed he observed. It is reasonable to do so.
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 11, 2016, 09:38:44 AM
You mean all I have to do is ask for access to edit the wiki?Yes. Of course whether or not you'd be able to keep that access for long depends hugely on what edits you'd make.
Post by: Rounder on August 11, 2016, 06:28:24 PM
Either you or an FE true believer might even want to remove the quote altogether, because it does not actually support the FE position. Both RE and FE should be able to agree that atmospheric refraction is a thing that really exists, and it does cause objects to appear to be located where they are not. The quote as given claims this effect can cause the apparent location of the sun to be higher in the sky than it truly is (or at least, the bottom of the sun moves higher). However, on the same page atmospheric refraction is claimed to push the sun's apparent position lower in the sky (by a huge amount) in an effort to explain sunset.
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on August 11, 2016, 06:45:34 PM
First of all, your calculation doesn't take into account the height of the telescope or refraction. A better estimate is aboutEven then, that would still be a major obstacle. However, you should probably back your claim up. The thread you've linked me to only includes a blind statement of100220 feet.100220 feet.
I'll actually revise this statement. I am not quite as confident that this statement is true after the correction, but I was in a hurry at the time. You are absolutely correct that a statement like this needs to be backed up with more than a hunch. I'll crunch some numbers when I have more time.
That being said, as Rama, Woody, and Rounder have pointed out, this just highlights the importance of repeating experiments, double checking, peer review, etc. My original point that we can not trust Bishop's account of his observations stands:
1. A history of poor interpretation of evidence. See the links I provided in my original post (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5224.msg101783#msg101783).
2. No photographic documentation. No duplication of the experiment. I wouldn't put much weight in such a poorly documented experiment done by anyone.
A single math/measurement error is not a big deal, especially if it is promptly corrected. However, he seems to put no priority on correcting his mistake, which just adds to the lack of trust that I have in his observations.
Likewise, there is a math error in Lady Blount's experiment (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5224.msg101885#msg101885). You should probably add a big asterisk next to that experiment as well.