The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Mark_1984 on November 20, 2017, 04:26:14 AM
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment
Why is it that the FEW doesn’t refer to Alfred Russel Wallace who repeated the experiment and demonstrated that the Earth is round, and that Rowbotham’s method was flawed.
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment
Why is it that the FEW doesn’t refer to Alfred Russel Wallace who repeated the experiment and demonstrated that the Earth is round, and that Rowbotham’s method was flawed.
It was a wager for a year's pay and both men walked away from the experiment claiming that they had won.
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment
Why is it that the FEW doesn’t refer to Alfred Russel Wallace who repeated the experiment and demonstrated that the Earth is round, and that Rowbotham’s method was flawed.
It was a wager for a year's pay and both men walked away from the experiment claiming that they had won.
And the independent observers proved the Earth wasn't flat. Wanna talk about Rowbotham being wrong on Plymouth beach before walking away claiming science was wrong?
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment
Why is it that the FEW doesn’t refer to Alfred Russel Wallace who repeated the experiment and demonstrated that the Earth is round, and that Rowbotham’s method was flawed.
It was a wager for a year's pay and both men walked away from the experiment claiming that they had won.
So why isn’t it discussed in the Wiki ?
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment
Why is it that the FEW doesn’t refer to Alfred Russel Wallace who repeated the experiment and demonstrated that the Earth is round, and that Rowbotham’s method was flawed.
It was a wager for a year's pay and both men walked away from the experiment claiming that they had won.
So why isn’t it discussed in the Wiki ?
Because you haven't written the article yet?
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment
Why is it that the FEW doesn’t refer to Alfred Russel Wallace who repeated the experiment and demonstrated that the Earth is round, and that Rowbotham’s method was flawed.
It was a wager for a year's pay and both men walked away from the experiment claiming that they had won.
So why isn’t it discussed in the Wiki ?
Because you haven't written the article yet?
But mere mortals can't edit the Wiki - so someone with appropriate privileges would have to change it. Whoever those people are, they are extremely unresponsive. I've tried to get the SIMPLEST change (to correct the spelling of Eratosthenes - to correct the photograph of an iceberg that's claimed to be a picture of the ice wall - to resolve some contradictions it has internally) and nobody paid any attention to any of those requests. It doesn't seem likely that anyone is going to accept large scale corrections to misstated history about the Bedford levels experiement.
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment
Why is it that the FEW doesn’t refer to Alfred Russel Wallace who repeated the experiment and demonstrated that the Earth is round, and that Rowbotham’s method was flawed.
It was a wager for a year's pay and both men walked away from the experiment claiming that they had won.
So why isn’t it discussed in the Wiki ?
Because you haven't written the article yet?
Hey Junker, where’s Tom’s low content warning ?
-
As 3D says, we don't have permission to edit the Wiki, and to be honest, I'm not sure I could resist temptation if I was given permission.
Back to the topic in hand. It was a wager certainly, but from there, your information is not quite correct. Hampden disputed the result, but there was a referee who confirmed Wallace's result and declared him the winner. Hampden later published a leaflet saying that Wallace cheated. Hamden was then jailed for libel, as well as death threats against Wallace.
Wallace didn't get off scott free though, he was ordered to repay the money as the same court ruled that the wager had been invalid because Hampden retracted the bet. Wallace was criticized by his peers for "his 'injudicious' involvement in a bet to 'decide' the most fundamental and established of scientific facts. (info from the real Wiki, references are available there)
However, what's more to the point is that Wallace repeated the experiment under slightly different conditions. I.e. He used three poles, and observed that the middle pole was raised compared to the ones at the end, thus proving the earth is in fact round.
So, my question is why do you believe Rowbotham and disregard Wallace ?
-
I can tell you that Tom thinks that because there was money on the outcome and Wallace was in tough financial straits, that the result is questionable on ethical grounds. He has never produced any evidence of anything untoward happening in the experiment though.
-
That would indeed be a typical diversionary tactic. However, I'm curious to hear from Tom what the scientific explanation for the variance of the different outcomes is ?
-
As 3D says, we don't have permission to edit the Wiki, and to be honest, I'm not sure I could resist temptation if I was given permission.
Back to the topic in hand. It was a wager certainly, but from there, your information is not quite correct. Hampden disputed the result, but there was a referee who confirmed Wallace's result and declared him the winner. Hampden later published a leaflet saying that Wallace cheated. Hamden was then jailed for libel, as well as death threats against Wallace.
Wallace didn't get off scott free though, he was ordered to repay the money as the same court ruled that the wager had been invalid because Hampden retracted the bet. Wallace was criticized by his peers for "his 'injudicious' involvement in a bet to 'decide' the most fundamental and established of scientific facts. (info from the real Wiki, references are available there)
However, what's more to the point is that Wallace repeated the experiment under slightly different conditions. I.e. He used three poles, and observed that the middle pole was raised compared to the ones at the end, thus proving the earth is in fact round.
So, my question is why do you believe Rowbotham and disregard Wallace ?
The story is much deeper even than that. Lady Blount repeated the experiment - and "confirmed" Rowbotham - but her description of how she did it is so vague that it's impossible to tell what the heck she measured. Another guy repeated it someplace else and found that the Earth is CONCAVE. DOZENS of other people repeated it in a series of letters to the Editor of "English Mechanic" over two or three YEARS and most found the Earth to be round...although a few did not.
What this PROVES...conclusively...is that this is a terrible experiment! Any experiment or observation that cannot be reliably reproduced has to be treated with profound skepticism.
I deny BOTH the Rowbotham AND Wallace results. Neither of them produced a result that we can confidently say was "Proof".
View-over-water experiments are all hard to do right (people stand 10' over the water and expect to see a horizon calculated for a 5'6" eye height...we don't know the effects of mirages, fata-morgana and other atmospheric distortion).
So ignore them all and move on.
Now...sunset evidence. That's the good one.
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment
Why is it that the FEW doesn’t refer to Alfred Russel Wallace who repeated the experiment and demonstrated that the Earth is round, and that Rowbotham’s method was flawed.
It was a wager for a year's pay and both men walked away from the experiment claiming that they had won.
So why isn’t it discussed in the Wiki ?
Because you haven't written the article yet?
Hey Junker, where’s Tom’s low content warning ?
I am not sure what you are trying to get at, but if you have an issue with a post, I would suggest you report it. The upper fora aren't for you to post about your feelings on moderation. You've already been warned three times for low-content and instead of adjusting your behavior, you continue doing the same thing that got you warned. Have a few days off to review the rules.
-
With the modern technology we have today, could we not set up Wallace's experiment with lasers? It should prove more concrete than "appearing" a certain way.
-
Hey, Junker, I'm sorry but I'm gonna have to call you out on this one. That's ridiculous. Mark calls you out for your clear and obvious double standard and hypocrisy of dishing out your warnings and whatnot on Round Earthers like it's chocolate on Halloween, but the second Mr Bishop comes in with a post that you would OBVIOUSLY flag up if it was a round-earth counterpart and you get called out for suddenly turning a blind eye, and you have the audacity to play innocent with your "I am not sure what you are trying to get at", and immediately throw down the ban hammer to make yourself feel better. He didn't even make a fuss! Just briefly, plainly and quietly made a point that you clearly aren't doing your job in a neutral and unbiased fashion, and you just ban him for almost no reason whatsoever. That's some of the most blatant abuse of moderation perms I have ever seen on a public forum and if that's how you're going to exercise your permissions then you absolutely shouldn't have them. Stop the bias and act from a neutral standpoint if you want to play Mr Justice.
I assume I'll be getting a ban for this, too, since I'm also calling you out. Or will this post finally make you stop and think a little?
Posts like this are poor form. PM the moderator in question and keep this stuff out of the threads please. Things like this derail threads quickly and can be settled in PM outside the public forum.
-
With the modern technology we have today, could we not set up Wallace's experiment with lasers? It should prove more concrete than "appearing" a certain way.
Not with cheap, safe, easily portable lasers.
A typical laser pointer would illuminate an area about 10 meters in diameter at the end of the Bedford levels...and as a consequence, it would be far too dim to see, even at night.
You'd need a class 3B or possibly a visible beam class 4 laser to do an experiment over that distance - and those things are heavily regulated. You couldn't just haul one off to a potentially populated area and start shining it down a canal without cordoning off the area, etc, etc.
But the result would be the same.
The problem is that the refractive index of air (which doesn't normally vary much) is significantly affected by temperature and humidity changes - so when the beam skirts close to the surface of the water (which it will if the Earth is round) then it's going to be diffracted downwards - making it look like the water is flatter than it really is.
This happens SPECIFICALLY in this kind of test because the temperature of air at a foot or so above the water and an inch or so above water are going to be quite different - and the humidity will change immensely over those very short distances too. So given the perfect conditions, you can make the beam follow the curvature of the Earth - or you can have it curve upwards (making the earth look more curved than it really is) - or more sharply downwards (making the Earth seem concave).
Using a laser doesn't change that.
To do the experiment right, you'd need to have control of the air temperature and humidity over ten to twenty feet above the water - and doing that outdoors is impractical.
So this experiment is a bust. You can make it come out any way you want by just trying it over and over again. If it just rained, there will be lots of humidity at all heights - so the beam will be straighter and the world will look more curved. If you do it after a long dry spell - then it'll come out flatter. If it's a cooler day, then straighter beam - if it's a warmer day then a more curved beam. Add in wind conditions to blow the humidity off to the side of a canal - things change again.
Just too many variables that are impossible to control for.
It's never going to resolve this argument...period.
-
Just too many variables that are impossible to control for.
Fair enough. Resolved.
-
With the modern technology we have today, could we not set up Wallace's experiment with lasers? It should prove more concrete than "appearing" a certain way.
Not with cheap, safe, easily portable lasers.
A typical laser pointer would illuminate an area about 10 meters in diameter at the end of the Bedford levels...and as a consequence, it would be far too dim to see, even at night.
You'd need a class 3B or possibly a visible beam class 4 laser to do an experiment over that distance - and those things are heavily regulated. You couldn't just haul one off to a potentially populated area and start shining it down a canal without cordoning off the area, etc, etc.
But the result would be the same.
The problem is that the refractive index of air (which doesn't normally vary much) is significantly affected by temperature and humidity changes - so when the beam skirts close to the surface of the water (which it will if the Earth is round) then it's going to be diffracted downwards - making it look like the water is flatter than it really is.
This happens SPECIFICALLY in this kind of test because the temperature of air at a foot or so above the water and an inch or so above water are going to be quite different - and the humidity will change immensely over those very short distances too. So given the perfect conditions, you can make the beam follow the curvature of the Earth - or you can have it curve upwards (making the earth look more curved than it really is) - or more sharply downwards (making the Earth seem concave).
Using a laser doesn't change that.
To do the experiment right, you'd need to have control of the air temperature and humidity over ten to twenty feet above the water - and doing that outdoors is impractical.
So this experiment is a bust. You can make it come out any way you want by just trying it over and over again. If it just rained, there will be lots of humidity at all heights - so the beam will be straighter and the world will look more curved. If you do it after a long dry spell - then it'll come out flatter. If it's a cooler day, then straighter beam - if it's a warmer day then a more curved beam. Add in wind conditions to blow the humidity off to the side of a canal - things change again.
Just too many variables that are impossible to control for.
It's never going to resolve this argument...period.
Wotcha 3D
Have you ever read any rebuttal from our FE friends of the problems you explained above?
Of course all evidence that disproves FE must be wrong and you are a NASA spy etc but I can't find any actual fact/science/zetetic argument against those points?!
Would seem to be (another) BIG problem for Tom and co as the whole water experiments seem to form the bedrock of the evidence of a flat earth.
-
Just too many variables that are impossible to control for.
Fair enough. Resolved.
I actually own a 100 watt class IV laser...but it's not visible light, it's infra-red. That thing is scary dangerous. Even the reflection of a reflection of the laser is enough to destroy your eyesight and the 30,000 volt power supply can produce 3" long sparks on a humid day! The idea of a bunch of people with a poor understanding of math and science aiming it down a canal is decidedly terrifying!
-
Hey, Junker, I'm sorry but I'm gonna have to call you out on this one. That's ridiculous. Mark calls you out for your clear and obvious double standard and hypocrisy of dishing out your warnings and whatnot on Round Earthers like it's chocolate on Halloween, but the second Mr Bishop comes in with a post that you would OBVIOUSLY flag up if it was a round-earth counterpart and you get called out for suddenly turning a blind eye, and you have the audacity to play innocent with your "I am not sure what you are trying to get at", and immediately throw down the ban hammer to make yourself feel better. He didn't even make a fuss! Just briefly, plainly and quietly made a point that you clearly aren't doing your job in a neutral and unbiased fashion, and you just ban him for almost no reason whatsoever. That's some of the most blatant abuse of moderation perms I have ever seen on a public forum and if that's how you're going to exercise your permissions then you absolutely shouldn't have them. Stop the bias and act from a neutral standpoint if you want to play Mr Justice.
I assume I'll be getting a ban for this, too, since I'm also calling you out. Or will this post finally make you stop and think a little?
I know reading can be tough for some of you, but as I mentioned before, the upper fora isn't the place for you to complain about moderation. If you have an issue, post it in S&C and someone will review it.
And the user wasn't banned for that single post, but rather repeated instances of low-content or off-topic posts in the upper fora. Three previous warnings before this instance, which resulted in a short ban, just like the rules say. So, no, you won't get banned for this post. But, you will get a warning for off-topic posting. Pretty simple, actually.
-
With the modern technology we have today, could we not set up Wallace's experiment with lasers? It should prove more concrete than "appearing" a certain way.
Not with cheap, safe, easily portable lasers.
A typical laser pointer would illuminate an area about 10 meters in diameter at the end of the Bedford levels...and as a consequence, it would be far too dim to see, even at night.
You'd need a class 3B or possibly a visible beam class 4 laser to do an experiment over that distance - and those things are heavily regulated. You couldn't just haul one off to a potentially populated area and start shining it down a canal without cordoning off the area, etc, etc.
But the result would be the same.
The problem is that the refractive index of air (which doesn't normally vary much) is significantly affected by temperature and humidity changes - so when the beam skirts close to the surface of the water (which it will if the Earth is round) then it's going to be diffracted downwards - making it look like the water is flatter than it really is.
This happens SPECIFICALLY in this kind of test because the temperature of air at a foot or so above the water and an inch or so above water are going to be quite different - and the humidity will change immensely over those very short distances too. So given the perfect conditions, you can make the beam follow the curvature of the Earth - or you can have it curve upwards (making the earth look more curved than it really is) - or more sharply downwards (making the Earth seem concave).
Using a laser doesn't change that.
To do the experiment right, you'd need to have control of the air temperature and humidity over ten to twenty feet above the water - and doing that outdoors is impractical.
So this experiment is a bust. You can make it come out any way you want by just trying it over and over again. If it just rained, there will be lots of humidity at all heights - so the beam will be straighter and the world will look more curved. If you do it after a long dry spell - then it'll come out flatter. If it's a cooler day, then straighter beam - if it's a warmer day then a more curved beam. Add in wind conditions to blow the humidity off to the side of a canal - things change again.
Just too many variables that are impossible to control for.
It's never going to resolve this argument...period.
All very interesting 3D, but face it. People that don't believe in satellites aren't going to believe anything you do with a laser anyway.
-
But mere mortals can't edit the Wiki - so someone with appropriate privileges would have to change it. Whoever those people are, they are extremely unresponsive.
Hi, you've found me. I can't say you've ever contacted me regarding anything to do with the Wiki. I had a quick look through the Suggestions & Concerns board, but found nothing there either. It's hard to be responsive to a lack of initial contact.
I've tried to get the SIMPLEST change (to correct the spelling of Eratosthenes
PM me with the location of the spelling mistake and I'll correct it.
I will not be changing the description of the Ice Wall to something more palatable to round earthers, because this is not a RE wiki. And yes, I know you disagree with us on that one, so spare us the essay.
So why isn’t it discussed in the Wiki ?
It is. (https://wiki.tfes.org/John_Hampden) I even got in touch with the Times to dig out the 1875 newspaper detailing Hampden's amusing insults and the resulting legal proceedings.
Finally, a quick statement on "mere mortal" edit access to the wiki. The current policy is that anyone can get edit access to the wiki if they are interested in improving the articles. However, that access will be revoked at the first sign of vandalism. For example, if 3DGeek asked for access, he'd get it. But the moment he started editing articles to parrot his RE perspective (or misrepresent FE positions as he frequently does in the forum), that would be revoked. So, as long as you want to join us in writing a resource for newcomers explaining the FE perspective on things, pop me a PM and I'll sort you out with an account.
Alternatively, if you do not need sustained edit access but want to see something changed, I am happy to consider requests. Since you're suggesting "large scale corrections to misstated history about the Bedford levels experiement", I would advise that you post a draft of your corrections in S&C for others to see.
I understand from the comments above that there is currently little clarity about how the Wiki is maintained. I'll do my best to improve that communication and provide more open avenues for making suggestions. I was sincerely under the impression that the current system works fine, but I am now realising this may not be the case.
-
I understand from the comments above that there is currently little clarity about how the Wiki is maintained. I'll do my best to improve that communication and provide more open avenues for making suggestions. I was sincerely under the impression that the current system works fine, but I am now realising this may not be the case.
Thanks Pete - it was not obvious who to contact in order to make changes. I've complained to various FE'ers about (for example) the spelling of Eratosthenes - and never once did anyone say "You need to talk to Pete Svarrior about that"...or "You need to post to this specific place on the forum to get it investigated".
So might I suggest that the first change to be made to the wiki be to prominently add a page "HOW TO MAKE CHANGES TO THIS WIKI" - that says to contact you to get permission to edit - and these are the acceptable boundaries for content. (eg: Do you want a section on common RET complaints about FET that you have good answers for - and a section for RET complaints that FET DOESN'T have good answers for?)
I will not be changing the description of the Ice Wall to something more palatable to round earthers, because this is not a RE wiki. And yes, I know you disagree with us on that one, so spare us the essay.
The problem is not with the description of the Ice Wall - the way it's described is (presumably) a good reflection on what FE'ers claim - so that's the right thing for the Wiki to have.
The problem is with the photograph. Which I've shown, conclusively, is a photograph of a large iceberg...there is zero doubt on that score.
I think it's fine to say "This is a photo of an iceberg - but it shows what the ice wall probably looks like" - but it's wrong to say (or even imply) that this is an actual photograph of the ice wall...because that's a flat out lie.
I understand your wish to present a clear statement of FET on the Wiki - but the BIGGEST cause of confusion here is that there clearly isn't one single FET. There are lots of disagreements between FE'ers on many of the points there. So I think it would be good if the Wiki clearly laid out the various viewpoints.
Many of the places where you and I have butted heads is when I've said "FET says this" when in fact, the truth is that "Some FE'ers say this"...and when you're not one of that group - you (understandably) get upset about it. I'm not making this mistake intentionally - it's just REALLY HARD to keep track of which FE'ers hold which theories.
The biggest SNAFU in the Wiki is about the FE map. There is hardly a mention of the "bipolar" map - and almost the entire Wiki is written from the perspective of a "unipolar" map. Tom says that the unipolar map was "replaced" in 1911 (!!) - and either he's wrong (only SOME FE'ers decided to change to the bipolar map) - or the Wiki and at least 60% of what is says is 100 years out of date.
I'm an experienced Wiki editor - I maintain three Wiki's (one for a local car club, another for my family and a third for my business) and I'm in the top 2000 editors of all time at Wikipedia. I'd be happy to do a bit of "WikiGnoming" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiGnome) - without making major content changes. It's clearly the case that the Wiki should represent the views of FE'ers - even if they are complete horseshit (which they are!) - so adding RET stuff into it would be inappropriate - unless it's in some specific "Common Unanswered Criticisms" kind of page.
-
If you refer back to those threads the spelling of Eratosthenes in the Wiki was shown to appear elsewhere in various Google Books literature, and the ice berg in question was shown to be part of the Antarctic coast at the time the picture was taken. Why do you repeat the same lies over and over again?
The Wiki is clear in that the unipolar and bipolar models are not definitive and that there is room for discussion.
Your constant rants like "the sun would need to warp from one side to the other" is unproductive, and does not encourage constructive debate. The logical followup question is that "can you show any evidence definitively that it would need to warp?" and the answer is almost always no, you are just assuming that the earth is a globe and the sun must match perfectly.
Simply asking for evidence defeats your "common criticisms". You should seek to gather actual evidence for your arguments rather than expecting to rely on appeal to popularity and appeal to authority fallacies.
-
If you refer back to those threads the spelling of Eratosthenes in the Wiki was shown to appear elsewhere in various Google Books literature, and the ice berg in question was shown to be part of the Antarctic coast at the time the picture was taken. Why do you repeat the same lies over and over again?
The Wiki is clear in that the unipolar and bipolar models are not definitive and that there is room for discussion.
Your constant rants like "the sun would need to warp from one side to the other" is unproductive, and does not encourage constructive debate. The logical followup question is that "can you show any evidence definitively that it would need to warp?" and the answer is almost always no, you are just assuming that the earth is a globe and the sun must match perfectly.
Simply asking for evidence defeats your "common criticisms". You should seek to gather actual evidence for your arguments rather than expecting to rely on appeal to popularity and appeal to authority fallacies.
Tom,
I do not believe that this answer is quite honest. Time and time again, 3D has provided evidence, gave examples, showed the math, and asked for the same to be done from you. With which the typical answer is from YOU that he needs to prove it. You are simply relying on that same statement over, and over.
Nothing you show gives actual math, proof, or some way for someone like myself to help me change my mind. Simple questions such as how the Sun works, or how do we know the position of anything without knowing what the Earth looks like. Empirical evidence is great, and hard to argue, but when that same evidence is shown, all you can say is prove it. Which, on a Forum like this, every photo is doctored, every math is wrong, and every proof is invalid.
Since my time here in the Forum, I have seen great answers from both sides, but I have also seen answers like giant balloons, 100 year old books, and every proof is invalid.
Now I ask from you, have you ever shot the angle of Polaris from earth and did the math to find latitude of your location. Have you ever looked for pictures of these balloons holding up the Space Station. OR, even better, how does light not travel in straight lines. Please show me the math and proofs. Please show me the balloons holding satellites in the sky, and please, please explain to me for once, how does the Sun actual heat the earth?
-
The Wiki is clear in that the unipolar and bipolar models are not definitive and that there is room for discussion.
Your constant rants like "the sun would need to warp from one side to the other" is unproductive, and does not encourage constructive debate. The logical followup question is that "can you show any evidence definitively that it would need to warp?" and the answer is almost always no, you are just assuming that the earth is a globe and the sun must match perfectly.
Where does the wiki show the orbital path of the sun on the bi-polar model? If it does not, then please explain so we can have a constructive debate (in a new thread if needed.)
-
I understand from the comments above that there is currently little clarity about how the Wiki is maintained. I'll do my best to improve that communication and provide more open avenues for making suggestions. I was sincerely under the impression that the current system works fine, but I am now realising this may not be the case.
Thanks Pete - it was not obvious who to contact in order to make changes. I've complained to various FE'ers about (for example) the spelling of Eratosthenes - and never once did anyone say "You need to talk to Pete Svarrior about that"...or "You need to post to this specific place on the forum to get it investigated".
So might I suggest that the first change to be made to the wiki be to prominently add a page "HOW TO MAKE CHANGES TO THIS WIKI" - that says to contact you to get permission to edit - and these are the acceptable boundaries for content. (eg: Do you want a section on common RET complaints about FET that you have good answers for - and a section for RET complaints that FET DOESN'T have good answers for?)
I will not be changing the description of the Ice Wall to something more palatable to round earthers, because this is not a RE wiki. And yes, I know you disagree with us on that one, so spare us the essay.
The problem is not with the description of the Ice Wall - the way it's described is (presumably) a good reflection on what FE'ers claim - so that's the right thing for the Wiki to have.
The problem is with the photograph. Which I've shown, conclusively, is a photograph of a large iceberg...there is zero doubt on that score.
I think it's fine to say "This is a photo of an iceberg - but it shows what the ice wall probably looks like" - but it's wrong to say (or even imply) that this is an actual photograph of the ice wall...because that's a flat out lie.
I understand your wish to present a clear statement of FET on the Wiki - but the BIGGEST cause of confusion here is that there clearly isn't one single FET. There are lots of disagreements between FE'ers on many of the points there. So I think it would be good if the Wiki clearly laid out the various viewpoints.
Many of the places where you and I have butted heads is when I've said "FET says this" when in fact, the truth is that "Some FE'ers say this"...and when you're not one of that group - you (understandably) get upset about it. I'm not making this mistake intentionally - it's just REALLY HARD to keep track of which FE'ers hold which theories.
The biggest SNAFU in the Wiki is about the FE map. There is hardly a mention of the "bipolar" map - and almost the entire Wiki is written from the perspective of a "unipolar" map. Tom says that the unipolar map was "replaced" in 1911 (!!) - and either he's wrong (only SOME FE'ers decided to change to the bipolar map) - or the Wiki and at least 60% of what is says is 100 years out of date.
I'm an experienced Wiki editor - I maintain three Wiki's (one for a local car club, another for my family and a third for my business) and I'm in the top 2000 editors of all time at Wikipedia. I'd be happy to do a bit of "WikiGnoming" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiGnome) - without making major content changes. It's clearly the case that the Wiki should represent the views of FE'ers - even if they are complete horseshit (which they are!) - so adding RET stuff into it would be inappropriate - unless it's in some specific "Common Unanswered Criticisms" kind of page.
The FAQ is the real weak link. As it's often correctly pointed out people come here and ask the same old questions. They are told to check the Wiki/FAQ and find no answers. It would be great if the FAQ was made up of actual FAQ's.
-
Simply asking for evidence defeats your "common criticisms". You should seek to gather actual evidence for your arguments rather than expecting to rely on appeal to popularity and appeal to authority fallacies.
Now, that's funny Tom. Irony meter off the charts. You are the one that constantly attempts to derail threads asking for evidence while providing none.
-
Simply asking for evidence defeats your "common criticisms". You should seek to gather actual evidence for your arguments rather than expecting to rely on appeal to popularity and appeal to authority fallacies.
Now, that's funny Tom. Irony meter off the charts. You are the one that constantly attempts to derail threads asking for evidence while providing none.
If you read carefully, I actually do provide evidence for my claims. My evidence takes the form of fundamental empirical experiences available to all.
It is the Round Earthers who need to rely on things that are typically beyond experience, and so it is harder for them to prove anything.
-
It was a wager for a year's pay and both men walked away from the experiment claiming that they had won.
If both could claim victory, that would seem to put the results in doubt. Either it isn't a valid experiment, or it wasn't performed properly. In either case, should your wiki FAQ page make this statement? Perhaps the best example of flat earth proof is the Bedford Level Experiment.
-
Simply asking for evidence defeats your "common criticisms". You should seek to gather actual evidence for your arguments rather than expecting to rely on appeal to popularity and appeal to authority fallacies.
Now, that's funny Tom. Irony meter off the charts. You are the one that constantly attempts to derail threads asking for evidence while providing none.
If you read carefully, I actually do provide evidence for my claims. My evidence takes the form of fundamental empirical experiences available to all.
It is the Round Earthers who need to rely on things that are typically beyond experience, and so it is harder for them to prove anything.
Much of it relies upon the unproven assumption that the Earth is already flat though, or that the Earth being flat is the only possible explanation (which is almost never the case), or that math doesn't work for unexplained reasons.
But this is all here nor there to the topic at hand. The Bedford Level and similar experiments all share the same problem with refraction over water. There's no way to account for all the variables, and the number of different results at Bedford heavily suggest it should be discarded as evidence for either camp, as it isn't very repeatable.
-
Simply asking for evidence defeats your "common criticisms". You should seek to gather actual evidence for your arguments rather than expecting to rely on appeal to popularity and appeal to authority fallacies.
Now, that's funny Tom. Irony meter off the charts. You are the one that constantly attempts to derail threads asking for evidence while providing none.
If you read carefully, I actually do provide evidence for my claims. My evidence takes the form of fundamental empirical experiences available to all.
It is the Round Earthers who need to rely on things that are typically beyond experience, and so it is harder for them to prove anything.
LOL, no Tom, just no. Your "empirical evidence" for UA was the "fact" that the floor rushes up to meet you when you step off a chair. That is not conclusive evidence of UA as it behaves exactly as gravity. Given that there are other, independent, repeatable experiments that prove gravitational attraction, combined with the fact that you have no working theory of UA beyond something is pushing us, points the preponderance of the evidence in the direction of gravity. You literally have nothing to stand on.
-
Simply asking for evidence defeats your "common criticisms". You should seek to gather actual evidence for your arguments rather than expecting to rely on appeal to popularity and appeal to authority fallacies.
Now, that's funny Tom. Irony meter off the charts. You are the one that constantly attempts to derail threads asking for evidence while providing none.
If you read carefully, I actually do provide evidence for my claims. My evidence takes the form of fundamental empirical experiences available to all.
It is the Round Earthers who need to rely on things that are typically beyond experience, and so it is harder for them to prove anything.
No, I speak of thing I experience as well, I have flown to Paris and I know how long it took. I use GPS every week and it always gets me where I am going.
-
Simply asking for evidence defeats your "common criticisms". You should seek to gather actual evidence for your arguments rather than expecting to rely on appeal to popularity and appeal to authority fallacies.
Now, that's funny Tom. Irony meter off the charts. You are the one that constantly attempts to derail threads asking for evidence while providing none.
If you read carefully, I actually do provide evidence for my claims. My evidence takes the form of fundamental empirical experiences available to all.
It is the Round Earthers who need to rely on things that are typically beyond experience, and so it is harder for them to prove anything.
LOL, no Tom, just no. Your "empirical evidence" for UA was the "fact" that the floor rushes up to meet you when you step off a chair.
When you get up onto a chair and walk off of the edge while watching the surface of the earth carefully we can actually see that the earth accelerates upwards up us.
That is far more empirical than the competing theory of gravity which involves puller particles and bending space.
That is not conclusive evidence of UA as it behaves exactly as gravity.
No one ever said anything about conclusive evidence.
An empirical experience only allow us to make an empirical conclusion about the world around us. When we weigh the evidence of something we can directly see against an invisible puller particle, the evidence is just heavily weighed in favor of the thing we can see and experience.
Given that there are other, independent, repeatable experiments that prove gravitational attraction,
The cavendish experiment is inconclusive (http://milesmathis.com/caven.html).
combined with the fact that you have no working theory of UA beyond something is pushing us, points the preponderance of the evidence in the direction of gravity.
There is nothing wrong with a mechanism for something to be unknown.
There would be nothing wrong with you saying that the mechanism for gravity is "unknown," either, but that is not what you guys are telling us. You are telling us that bendy space/invisible puller particles that no one has ever discovered are accelerating me to the earth.
Furthermore, even if you left it as "unknown," gravity requires an entirely new branch of physics to work, while the acceleration of objects can occur through known physics, putting UA into favor once again.
-
Simply asking for evidence defeats your "common criticisms". You should seek to gather actual evidence for your arguments rather than expecting to rely on appeal to popularity and appeal to authority fallacies.
Now, that's funny Tom. Irony meter off the charts. You are the one that constantly attempts to derail threads asking for evidence while providing none.
If you read carefully, I actually do provide evidence for my claims. My evidence takes the form of fundamental empirical experiences available to all.
It is the Round Earthers who need to rely on things that are typically beyond experience, and so it is harder for them to prove anything.
LOL, no Tom, just no. Your "empirical evidence" for UA was the "fact" that the floor rushes up to meet you when you step off a chair.
When you get up onto a chair and walk off of the edge while watching the surface of the earth carefully we can actually see that the earth accelerates upwards up us.
That is far more empirical than the competing theory of gravity which involves puller particles and bending space.
That is not conclusive evidence of UA as it behaves exactly as gravity.
No one ever said anything about conclusive evidence.
An empirical experience only allow us to make an empirical conclusion about the world around us. When we weigh the evidence of something we can directly see against an invisible puller particle, the evidence is just heavily weighed in favor of the thing we can see and experience.
Given that there are other, independent, repeatable experiments that prove gravitational attraction,
The cavendish experiment is inconclusive (http://milesmathis.com/caven.html).
combined with the fact that you have no working theory of UA beyond something is pushing us, points the preponderance of the evidence in the direction of gravity.
There is nothing wrong with a mechanism for something to be unknown.
There would be nothing wrong with you saying that the mechanism for gravity is "unknown," but that is not what you guys are telling us. You are telling us that bendy space/invisible puller particles that no one has ever discovered are accelerating me to the earth.
Furthermore, even if you left it as "unknown," gravity requires an entirely new branch of physics to work, while the acceleration of objects can occur through known physics, putting UA into favor once again.
So some limitless power source accelerating a huge mass for no reason isn't some new branch of physics? Please.
-
So some limitless power source accelerating a huge mass for no reason isn't some new branch of physics? Please.
Who said it was limitless? In such discussions we have asserted that at some point the energy will disperse and all life on earth will come to an end.
-
Simply asking for evidence defeats your "common criticisms". You should seek to gather actual evidence for your arguments rather than expecting to rely on appeal to popularity and appeal to authority fallacies.
Now, that's funny Tom. Irony meter off the charts. You are the one that constantly attempts to derail threads asking for evidence while providing none.
If you read carefully, I actually do provide evidence for my claims. My evidence takes the form of fundamental empirical experiences available to all.
It is the Round Earthers who need to rely on things that are typically beyond experience, and so it is harder for them to prove anything.
LOL, no Tom, just no. Your "empirical evidence" for UA was the "fact" that the floor rushes up to meet you when you step off a chair.
When you get up onto a chair and walk off of the edge while watching the surface of the earth carefully we can actually see that the earth accelerates upwards up us.
That is far more empirical than the competing theory of gravity which involves puller particles and bending space.
Yet anyone else watching would clearly see you falling to the floor. Or a ball you drop falls to the floor. I see lots more empirical evidence suggesting things fall to Earth rather than the Earth rises up to meet things. No need to get into the how at present, just what happens and that is that everything falls to Earth from any perspective but the single one you have cherry picked. Looks to me like empirical evidence suggests something is pulling (or pushing) things to the surface of the Earth, not that the Earth is moving towards those things.
-
So some limitless power source accelerating a huge mass for no reason isn't some new branch of physics? Please.
Who said it was limitless? In such discussions we have asserted that at some point the energy will disperse and all life on earth will come to an end.
Since this has never been shown in a laboratory experiment it should be dismissed, right? Your rules as I recall.
-
So some limitless power source accelerating a huge mass for no reason isn't some new branch of physics? Please.
Who said it was limitless? In such discussions we have asserted that at some point the energy will disperse and all life on earth will come to an end.
No 'we' just you.
-
So some limitless power source accelerating a huge mass for no reason isn't some new branch of physics? Please.
Who said it was limitless? In such discussions we have asserted that at some point the energy will disperse and all life on earth will come to an end.
No 'we' just you.
One has to wonder, will it slow down like a AA battery in flashight or just die all at once like an iPhone. Would be more fun if it was the former.
-
So might I suggest that the first change to be made to the wiki be to prominently add a page "HOW TO MAKE CHANGES TO THIS WIKI" - that says to contact you to get permission to edit - and these are the acceptable boundaries for content. (eg: Do you want a section on common RET complaints about FET that you have good answers for - and a section for RET complaints that FET DOESN'T have good answers for?)
I agree and I'll work on that ASAP. Today I have made a suggestion that we should revive our old sticky thread detailing who's in charge of what. I'm also thinking of other ways to make it easier to provide feedback, and a "how to suggest corrections" link is high up on the list of thoughts I've had so far.
I will disregard your comments about the Ice Wall photo. We disagree. We can discuss that elsewhere, but FE'ers largely agree that the Ross Ice Shelf is part of the Ice Wall.
The biggest SNAFU in the Wiki is about the FE map. There is hardly a mention of the "bipolar" map - and almost the entire Wiki is written from the perspective of a "unipolar" map. Tom says that the unipolar map was "replaced" in 1911 (!!) - and either he's wrong (only SOME FE'ers decided to change to the bipolar map) - or the Wiki and at least 60% of what is says is 100 years out of date.
I am convinced that Tom is in the minority. This is not to say that he's wrong (I don't want to make as bold a statement). However, while the unipolar map is not unequivocally supported, I am convinced that it is representative of the majority belief. If this situation changes, I hope people will be vocal about it so we can adjust accordingly.
Notably, Tom has edit access to the Wiki. Given the importance of his contributions to the movement, you can imagine I would think twice before pushing back against any changes he suggests (which is not to say I wouldn't question them at all - just that I'd be much more careful). I can only assume he agrees that our current depiction of the consensus is at least not extremely unfair.
It's clearly the case that the Wiki should represent the views of FE'ers - even if they are complete horseshit (which they are!) - so adding RET stuff into it would be inappropriate - unless it's in some specific "Common Unanswered Criticisms" kind of page.
I would be reluctant to create such a page - we get enough negative descriptions outside of the wiki. I don't think there's much need for more of that.
-
Yet anyone else watching would clearly see you falling to the floor. Or a ball you drop falls to the floor. I see lots more empirical evidence suggesting things fall to Earth rather than the Earth rises up to meet things.
If you bring another observer into it, that adds in more variables. Does he feel the earth pressing upwards against his feet while he is observing you? When you act an an observer and drop a ball, that also brings in more variables. Do you feel the earth pressing upwards against your feet when you drop a ball?
If someone is watching you fall to the floor, that is second hand evidence. When you step off the chair and observe the effect directly that is first hand evidence. First hand evidence is more empirical than second hand evidence for a number of reasons.
No need to get into the how at present, just what happens and that is that everything falls to Earth from any perspective but the single one you have cherry picked. Looks to me like empirical evidence suggests something is pulling (or pushing) things to the surface of the Earth, not that the Earth is moving towards those things.
There is no empirical evidence that any pushing or pulling of my body is going on when I step off of a chair and go into free fall. I am inert and the earth is observed to rise upwards to meet me.
So some limitless power source accelerating a huge mass for no reason isn't some new branch of physics? Please.
Who said it was limitless? In such discussions we have asserted that at some point the energy will disperse and all life on earth will come to an end.
Since this has never been shown in a laboratory experiment it should be dismissed, right? Your rules as I recall.
Experiments have shown that energy in any system is limited and not perpetual. I can reference a perpetual motion experiment if you wish.
-
Yet anyone else watching would clearly see you falling to the floor. Or a ball you drop falls to the floor. I see lots more empirical evidence suggesting things fall to Earth rather than the Earth rises up to meet things.
If you bring another observer into it, that adds in more variables. Does he feel the earth pressing upwards against his feet while he is observing you?
If someone is watching you fall to the floor, that is second hand evidence compared to your first hand evidence. First hand evidence is more empirical than second hand evidence for a number of reasons.
No need to get into the how at present, just what happens and that is that everything falls to Earth from any perspective but the single one you have cherry picked. Looks to me like empirical evidence suggests something is pulling (or pushing) things to the surface of the Earth, not that the Earth is moving towards those things.
There is no empirical evidence that any pushing or pulling of my body is going on when I step off of a chair and go into free fall. I am inert and the earth rises up to meet me.
So some limitless power source accelerating a huge mass for no reason isn't some new branch of physics? Please.
Who said it was limitless? In such discussions we have asserted that at some point the energy will disperse and all life on earth will come to an end.
Since this has never been shown in a laboratory experiment it should be dismissed, right? Your rules as I recall.
Experiments have shown that energy in any system is limited and not perpetual. I can reference a perpetual motion experiment if you wish.
But universal acceleration has not.
-
Yet anyone else watching would clearly see you falling to the floor. Or a ball you drop falls to the floor. I see lots more empirical evidence suggesting things fall to Earth rather than the Earth rises up to meet things.
If you bring another observer into it, that adds in more variables. Does he feel the earth pressing upwards against his feet while he is observing you? When you act an an observer and drop a ball, that also brings in more variables. Do you feel the earth pressing upwards against your feet when you drop a ball?
If someone is watching you fall to the floor, that is second hand evidence. When you step off the chair and observe the effect directly that is first hand evidence. First hand evidence is more empirical than second hand evidence for a number of reasons.
No need to get into the how at present, just what happens and that is that everything falls to Earth from any perspective but the single one you have cherry picked. Looks to me like empirical evidence suggests something is pulling (or pushing) things to the surface of the Earth, not that the Earth is moving towards those things.
There is no empirical evidence that any pushing or pulling of my body is going on when I step off of a chair and go into free fall. I am inert and the earth is observed to rise upwards to meet me.
So some limitless power source accelerating a huge mass for no reason isn't some new branch of physics? Please.
Who said it was limitless? In such discussions we have asserted that at some point the energy will disperse and all life on earth will come to an end.
Since this has never been shown in a laboratory experiment it should be dismissed, right? Your rules as I recall.
Experiments have shown that energy in any system is limited and not perpetual. I can reference a perpetual motion experiment if you wish.
Very clever writing. We observe relative to the ground, if I jump off a chair we say I go down, not the rest of the world goes up.
If I walk do I say everything is moving towards me?
-
I am inert and the earth is observed to rise upwards to meet me.
Has anyone in the world on seeing something dropped, had a first instinct to say, hey look at the Earth rising up to meet the dropped object? Lunacy.
What is the scope of the universal acceleration? I read mentions of it as the Earth constantly accelerating. But wouldn't everything we see in the sky have to be accelerating also? I assume UA isn't bringing us rapidly closer to the sun, moon, planets and stars. So you propose that something hidden from us below the disk Earth is accelerating us, and something between us and the objects in the sky that is invisible to us is accelerating them also?
If you want to make the case for something below the flat Earth, obviously it can't be seen. But if something is also accelerating the sun and moon, what visible and empirical evidence do you have for this force?
-
There is no empirical evidence that any pushing or pulling of my body is going on when I step off of a chair and go into free fall. I am inert and the earth is observed to rise upwards to meet me.
Bullsh*t!! Ever had the sensation of falling? That feeling in your stomach that makes roller coasters so fun? I have fallen a time or two, I am not inert. There is a definite sensation of falling.
-
There is no empirical evidence that any pushing or pulling of my body is going on when I step off of a chair and go into free fall. I am inert and the earth is observed to rise upwards to meet me.
Bullsh*t!! Ever had the sensation of falling? That feeling in your stomach that makes roller coasters so fun? I have fallen a time or two, I am not inert. There is a definite sensation of falling.
This is a good point. I'll go looking tomorrow, but as I recall this sensation is a product of inertia, where you begin to go down, but parts of your body essentially 'run into' the parts accelerating. Thus that slightly strange (and sometimes vomit inducing) sensation from being on a rollercoaster or jumping out of an airplane.
Not quite as definitive as I thought, but: http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2012/05/16/good-question-why-does-your-stomach-drop-on-a-roller-coaster
I also feel you're just making things up with your 'degrees of empirical' but again I must look more tomorrow. Both are interesting thoughts. Your answers also give an interesting look into your worldview, and I think I'm starting to get ideas.....
-
There is no empirical evidence that any pushing or pulling of my body is going on when I step off of a chair and go into free fall. I am inert and the earth is observed to rise upwards to meet me.
Bullsh*t!! Ever had the sensation of falling? That feeling in your stomach that makes roller coasters so fun? I have fallen a time or two, I am not inert. There is a definite sensation of falling.
This is a good point. I'll go looking tomorrow, but as I recall this sensation is a product of inertia, where you begin to go down, but parts of your body essentially 'run into' the parts accelerating. Thus that slightly strange (and sometimes vomit inducing) sensation from being on a rollercoaster or jumping out of an airplane.
Not quite as definitive as I thought, but: http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2012/05/16/good-question-why-does-your-stomach-drop-on-a-roller-coaster
I also feel you're just making things up with your 'degrees of empirical' but again I must look more tomorrow. Both are interesting thoughts. Your answers also give an interesting look into your worldview, and I think I'm starting to get ideas.....
Actually jumping out of an airplane does not give that feeling of falling. The airplane is moving 90+ mph (round earth MPH) and you transition to 120ish down in 9 seconds. A 30mph acceleration in 9 seconds is pretty tame. Now out of a helicopter or hot air balloon yes.
-
There is no empirical evidence that any pushing or pulling of my body is going on when I step off of a chair and go into free fall. I am inert and the earth is observed to rise upwards to meet me.
Bullsh*t!! Ever had the sensation of falling? That feeling in your stomach that makes roller coasters so fun? I have fallen a time or two, I am not inert. There is a definite sensation of falling.
This is a good point. I'll go looking tomorrow, but as I recall this sensation is a product of inertia, where you begin to go down, but parts of your body essentially 'run into' the parts accelerating. Thus that slightly strange (and sometimes vomit inducing) sensation from being on a rollercoaster or jumping out of an airplane.
Not quite as definitive as I thought, but: http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2012/05/16/good-question-why-does-your-stomach-drop-on-a-roller-coaster
I also feel you're just making things up with your 'degrees of empirical' but again I must look more tomorrow. Both are interesting thoughts. Your answers also give an interesting look into your worldview, and I think I'm starting to get ideas.....
Actually jumping out of an airplane does not give that feeling of falling. The airplane is moving 90+ mph (round earth MPH) and you transition to 120ish down in 9 seconds. A 30mph acceleration in 9 seconds is pretty tame. Now out of a helicopter or hot air balloon yes.
My apologies, I've never personally done any of those, but I had some buddies in college who did them all (well airplane and heli, I recall some odd difficulty in the hot air balloon attempt but don't remember what). My memory must have jumbled them all up some, so thank you for that.
If you bring another observer into it, that adds in more variables. Does he feel the earth pressing upwards against his feet while he is observing you? When you act an an observer and drop a ball, that also brings in more variables. Do you feel the earth pressing upwards against your feet when you drop a ball?
If someone is watching you fall to the floor, that is second hand evidence. When you step off the chair and observe the effect directly that is first hand evidence. First hand evidence is more empirical than second hand evidence for a number of reasons.
I'm not sure just what you're getting at in the first bit here still Tom. As for the second, you appear to be treading into Solipsism some. When you trip do you also say "The ground rose up to hit me"? Do you not fall, but instead "Wait for the ground to catch up"? When you go from your house to the water and look at your infamous beach, do you move the Earth around you with your steps? Just curious.
-
If someone is watching you fall to the floor, that is second hand evidence. When you step off the chair and observe the effect directly that is first hand evidence. First hand evidence is more empirical than second hand evidence for a number of reasons.
First hand evidence may be more empirical but that doesn't mean it is in ANY way a better representation of truth. If something hits you on your back and you turn around and see three similar objects on the floor you will not know if it was one of these that hit you and certainly not which one. If I am watching the event from behind you then my view of what happens to you is of much greater value in ascertaining the truth. In this example your empirical evidence is redundant whilst my second hand evidence is the best one to use.