61

Flat Earth Community / Re: If the sun was 93,000,000 miles away lol!

« on: January 17, 2016, 06:38:30 AM »

I plotted that equation,  and it shows light paths being bent away from the earth,  asymptotically towards Polaris.  So that from the North Pole you would see nothing at all since all the light is being bent away.    This is not what we observe at the north pole.

I also read the original thread here..  http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=27958.0#.Vps1r6iUdGE

First,  the mechanism proposed is the EA  Electromagnetic Accelerator,   and second, Euclid's formula is purely a empirical derivation.

The round earth explanation of the observed refraction is simpler and easily verified from multiple sources.   

62

Flat Earth Community / TFES Wiki says the earth's surface is curved.

« on: January 17, 2016, 04:43:16 AM »

I know this is an oversight,  or a misunderstanding,  but I congratulate the wiki authors on being honest enough to leave the reference as is.
I mentioned it  months ago  on the other forum,  but  never really got much traction.  It came up again when someone recently mentioned the Bedford Level Experiment,  which is well known for proving the earth is a globe,  and was the subject of much debate in the late 1800's..   Time to ask the question again.

Let's refer to the wiki...  The Bedford Level Experiment  http://wiki.tfes.org/Bedford_Level_Experiment

Where we find the following.

History
Diagrams explaining the experiment as documented in Earth Not a Globe by Rowbotham
The first investigation was carried out by Samuel Birley Rowbotham (1816-1884), the president of the Flat Earth Society, in the summer of 1838. He waded into the river and used a telescope held eight inches above the water to watch a boat with a five-foot mast row slowly away from him. He reported that the vessel remained constantly in his view for the full six miles to Welney bridge, whereas, had the water surface been curved with the accepted circumference of a spherical earth, the top of the mast should have been some eleven feet below his line of sight.
Rowbotham repeated his experiments several times over the years but his discoveries received little attention until, in 1870, a supporter by the name of John Hampden offered a wager that he could show, by repeating Rowbotham's experiment, that the earth was flat. The noted naturalist and qualified surveyor Alfred Russel Wallace accepted the wager. Wallace won the bet. Hampden, however, published a pamphlet alleging that Wallace had cheated and sued for his money. Several protracted court cases ensued, with the result that Hampden was imprisoned for libel, but the court also determined that Wallace had, indeed, cheated.

In 1901 Henry Yule Oldham, a geography reader at King's College, Cambridge, conducted the definitive experiment described above.

On 11 May 1904 Lady Anne Blount hired a commercial photographer to use a telephoto lens camera to take a picture from Welney of a large white sheet she had placed, touching the surface of the river, at Rowbotham's original position six miles away. The photographer, Edgar Clifton from Dallmeyer's studio, mounted his camera two feet above the water at Welney and was surprised to be able to obtain a picture of the target, which should have been invisible to him given the low mounting point of the camera. Lady Blount published the pictures far and wide and, apart from some hypothesising concerning refraction, and dark hints of collusion between Blount and Clifton, these have not been explained.


So the wiki says the definitive experiment was carried out by Henry Yule Oldham in 1901... 

In 1901 Oldham used a plate camera and theodolite for his careful observations along the length of the river and he presented his results at an illustrated lecture held at the British Association for the Advancement of Science.[5][6] His experiment, because of its photographic proof, is regarded as definitive and was taught in schools[7] until images taken from orbiting satellites became available.

Henry Yule Oldham published his results in the following paper..

Oldham, H. Yule (1901). "The experimental demonstration of the curvature of the Earth's surface". Annual Report (London: British Association for the Advancement of Science): 725–6.

I appreciate the honest reporting in the wiki,   can we now consider the Bedford Level Experiment as proving the earth is in fact a globe.

63

Flat Earth Community / Re: If the sun was 93,000,000 miles away lol!

« on: January 17, 2016, 03:23:23 AM »

[There's actually quite a bit of advanced maths involved. I'll have to assume going forward that since you make such baseless claims that you've spent no time researching and are just spouting off. It isn't a big deal, just another smug RE who really doesn't know as much as he thinks he does, regardless of earth's shape.

I'm interested in learning more about this advanced maths that can produce refraction of sight lines close to the horizon on a flat earth.   

I assert that it's not possible.  For light paths to refract there needs to be a change in refractive index,  which requires the sight line to traverse a change in air density.  The standard adiabatic lapse rate on a curved earth means the density varies with altitude,  that change in refractive index combined with the earth's curvature, causes sight lines to be refracted downwards.   If the sight lines are across water, then a temperature gradient of 0.11 degrees C per meter can refract sight lines downwards sufficiently to match the earth's curvature.   Again not possible on a flat earth.

While a flat earth may have the same lapse rate, it lacks the curvature for the sight lines to be refracted.

The bending of light is not exactly a new concept. Here is a sample from an old member on the "old" site:

Success!  I have derived an equation for the path of light from the north star in the north south direction that exhibits the above assumptions.

y(x) = h - x Cot[r/h] - (x^2 (3 h - 2 r Cot[r/h] - r Tan[Pi/2 (1 - r/R)]))/r^2 - (x^3 (-2 h + r Cot[r/h] + r Tan[Pi/2 (1 - r/R)]))/r^3

y is the height of the light beam as a function of x, the distance from the north pole.  h is the height of the Sun.  r is distance of a ground observer of the light beam from the north pole.  R is the distance from the equator to the north pole.

This is a cubic equation.  Further degrees of polynomials could be used up to an infinite Taylor series, but they would require more unknown parameters.  Perhaps a theory for cause of bendy light could provide values for these unknown parameters.  Quadratic and lower polynomials are unable to satisfy the assumptions.

Thanks for that,  I was half expecting a bendy light solution,  is there a theory for what is causing the light to bend.   

64

Flat Earth Community / Re: If the sun was 93,000,000 miles away lol!

« on: January 17, 2016, 03:02:27 AM »

[There's actually quite a bit of advanced maths involved. I'll have to assume going forward that since you make such baseless claims that you've spent no time researching and are just spouting off. It isn't a big deal, just another smug RE who really doesn't know as much as he thinks he does, regardless of earth's shape.

I'm interested in learning more about this advanced maths that can produce refraction of sight lines close to the horizon on a flat earth.   

I assert that it's not possible.  For light paths to refract there needs to be a change in refractive index,  which requires the sight line to traverse a change in air density.  The standard adiabatic lapse rate on a curved earth means the density varies with altitude,  that change in refractive index combined with the earth's curvature, causes sight lines to be refracted downwards.   If the sight lines are across water, then a temperature gradient of 0.11 degrees C per meter can refract sight lines downwards sufficiently to match the earth's curvature.   Again not possible on a flat earth.

While a flat earth may have the same lapse rate, it lacks the curvature for the sight lines to be refracted.

65

Flat Earth Community / Re: Zetetic method VS scientific method. A forum game.

« on: January 17, 2016, 02:20:04 AM »

Zetetic Method:

Flat Earth.   LOL!

66

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth scientists

« on: January 17, 2016, 02:16:22 AM »

You gotta get off that scientific method stuff.  The data was compiled hundreds of years ago and is readily available in books. There are pyramids dedicated to the Flat Earth.  Everything you know is wrong, including the accreditation and certification process that scientists have spent most of their lives working for. Best thing for you to do is format and defrag.  Start over...

Well,  if you are going to format you can skip the defrag.   

I'm intrigued by your comment,  "There are pyramids dedicated to the Flat Earth"   Can you explain what you mean in a bit more detail.

67

Flat Earth Community / Re: If the sun was 93,000,000 miles away lol!

« on: January 16, 2016, 05:58:04 AM »

Can you please give me a straight answer? Use either a "yes" or a "no".

Were you wrong when you claimed that it's caused by refraction?

I'm finding that this new batch of RErs don't know much beyond mental gymnastics, logical fallacies, and even intellectual dishonesty.

Amazing input.

I thought it was probably low content and irrelevant,  and then I realized he was probably referring to those newly arrived flat earth youtube bunnies.   The ones that think the sun is 4-5 times larger at sunset, and things getting bigger as they move away due to perspective.

Still waiting to see if anyone has picked up the point I'm making about the observed refraction of sight lines close to the horizon, not being possible on a flat earth,   but always occurs on a globe earth.

68

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth scientists

« on: January 16, 2016, 05:47:48 AM »

I'm curious about this Zetetic method, Can you give me an example of how the process works in detail, and a time it was used. 

Sure. Look up the Bedford Level Experiment. It's featured on our wiki.

What is the step process for the zetetic method?

I've adjusted what you posted so that it would be in line with the Zetetic method:

Ask a Question
◦Do Background Research
◦Construct a Hypothesis
◦Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
◦Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
◦Communicate Your Results

I hope that helps.

You picked the Bedford Level Experiment as a good example of the Zetetic method?   Are you aware that that particular experiment proved the Zetetic method to be flawed.

Refer to http://wiki.tfes.org/Bedford_Level_Experiment

Where it says the definitive experiment was carried out in 1901 by Henry Yule Oldham.    Guess what the results of his experiments were..   Here is an overview.

The Bedford Level experiment

In 1838 Samuel Rowbotham of the Flat Earth Society had demonstrated that a six-mile length of the Old Bedford River, Cambridgeshire, had a flat surface and not, as would be expected if the earth were a sphere, a curved one. In 1870 on the same spot the noted explorer Alfred Russel Wallace, a trained surveyor, soundly disproved the observation, but the mystery was not allowed to rest and Rowbotham's supporters continued to argue their case with great vigour in the courts, in scientific journals and in pamphlets.

In 1901 Oldham used a plate camera and theodolite for his careful observations along the length of the river and he presented his results at an illustrated lecture held at the British Association for the Advancement of Science.[5][6] His experiment, because of its photographic proof, is regarded as definitive and was taught in schools[7] until images taken from orbiting satellites became available.


So,  the Bedford Level Experiment is an experiment which finally proved to be a complete failure of Rowbotham's Zetetic method, and a definitive refutation of the flat earth theory.   As to why the TFES Wiki still refers to Henry Yule Oldham, is probably an editing oversight,  they usually like to cherry pick their facts.  Intellectual dishonesty at it's most corrosive.

It's a pity flat earthers don't bother to learn about refraction.

PS.  Here is the title of the report regarded by the TFES wiki as being the definitive Bedford Level Experiment. 

Oldham, H. Yule (1901). "The experimental demonstration of the curvature of the Earth's surface". Annual Report (London: British Association for the Advancement of Science): 725–6.

Sorry I don't have a copy of the paper,  but I would be interested if anyone can dig out a copy.

69

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth scientists

« on: January 15, 2016, 06:24:10 AM »

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

The so-called "scientific method" involves making wild assumptions about the world and "substantiating" them through cognitive bias. This is how you reach conclusions that are totally cray, like the Earth being a globe.

The Zetetic method skips the suspect hypothesizing phase and moves immediately on to what can be directly observed and determined via experimentation. If you're interested in experiencing some good, solid, Zetetic literature, I recommend you try Earth Not A Globe by Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham.

ENAG doesn't really address the Zetetic method  or philosophy in any depth,   "good solid"  it's not.   misleading,  deliberate obfustication  and severely lacking is closer to the mark.
 
There must be a  good reference on the Zetetic method somewhere.   

70

Flat Earth Community / Re: Antarctica

« on: January 15, 2016, 12:18:32 AM »

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=flat+earth+map

None of those are flat earth maps,  they are  projections of the globe map.

Look up "azimuthal equidistant projection"     As far as I'm aware there is no accepted flat earth map.    ( For obvious reasons )

71

Flat Earth Community / Re: Deleted videos

« on: January 15, 2016, 12:13:44 AM »

Could it be a html5 vs flash issue?

72

Flat Earth Community / Re: If the sun was 93,000,000 miles away lol!

« on: January 14, 2016, 11:43:38 PM »

Can you please give me a straight answer? Use either a "yes" or a "no".

Were you wrong when you claimed that it's caused by refraction?

No.

Let me repeat, the suns rays are refracted by the earth's curvature when the sun is close to the horizon,  this can cause the sun to appear distorted and magnified,   this effect cannot happen on a flat earth.

I thought you already partially agreed with me when you said.   

Of course. It's just entirely impossible for it to cause a magnification effect on the Sun, regardless of the Earth's shape.

Were you wrong when you suggested the sun was shrinking,  just a yes or no will suffice.

Very curious. How, exactly, do you propose that refraction is responsible for this apparent shrinking of the sun? Generally, the agreement among mainstream RE'ers appears to be that refraction can only explain the apparent anomalous displacement of the sun, and some of the observable turbulence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction

emphasis added.

73

Flat Earth Community / Re: If the sun was 93,000,000 miles away lol!

« on: January 14, 2016, 04:00:38 PM »

So, for clarity, you do agree that the issue mentioned in the OP would not be caused by refraction under the Round Earth model?

From what I've read, the general consensus is that it's an optical illusion,   the refraction doesn't make it bigger under normal circumstances,  but it does allow you to see the sun when it's slightly below the horizon. 

I was hoping you would address the flat earth refraction question.

74

Flat Earth Community / Re: If the sun was 93,000,000 miles away lol!

« on: January 14, 2016, 03:03:02 PM »

Perhaps you could clarify,  do you think there is refraction when looking close to the horizon?

Of course. It's just entirely impossible for it to cause a magnification effect on the Sun, regardless of the Earth's shape.

I was working towards understanding another issue,  not strictly related to the apparent size. 

The refraction of sight lines close to the horizon can't occur on a flat earth.   ( Excepting unusual ducting and temperature gradient effects ) 
The refraction of horizontal rays requires the curvature of the earth for the light path to go through air of different density. 

The flat earth answer I imagine is going to be along the lines of the sun is not on the horizon,  but somewhat elevated,  so the sight line is not horizontal, and angled through layers of different density and therefore can be refracted downwards.  Which would have the effect of making the sun appear higher in the sky, not lower.   So on a flat earth it's the wrong way around.

 

75

Flat Earth Community / Re: If the sun was 93,000,000 miles away lol!

« on: January 14, 2016, 09:34:01 AM »

If the sun was 93,000,000 miles from Earth, how is that at times - such as sunset - it appears sometimes 4-5 times larger than usual?  Are we 4-5 times closer at those times?  This is simple common sense that the sun is not as far away as we're told it is.  Use your eyes non believers.

Nice proof of a globe earth,  it's a refractive effect caused by the curvature of the earth's atmosphere.   On a flat earth the sun would get smaller as it approached the horizon.   

That's the cue for the bendy light brigade to ride to the rescue.

Use your eyes indeed.

No sorry, if the sun was that far away, so so far away, it would always look the same.  Our minuscule position across a vastness of 93,000,000 miles could never affect the visual appearance of the sun.  It's pure common sense.  However, on a flat earth, taking into account our perspective vision, it makes perfect sense that it appears larger at the horizon

So you think perspective makes things look bigger as they get further away?    Are you sure it's not an optical illusion?

76

Flat Earth Community / Re: If the sun was 93,000,000 miles away lol!

« on: January 14, 2016, 06:29:41 AM »

To clarify, are you taking this statement back?

Nice proof of a globe earth,  it's a refractive effect caused by the curvature of the earth's atmosphere.

[emphasis mine]

Perhaps you could clarify,  do you think there is refraction when looking close to the horizon?
 

77

Flat Earth Community / Re: If the sun was 93,000,000 miles away lol!

« on: January 14, 2016, 03:50:11 AM »

Uh, no it's magnified,  not shrunk.

You're clinging to my (admittedly debatable) choice of words rather than answering the question - for shame!

But sure, in my mind it was easier to imagine it as the sun "shrinking" from point A to point B. If you prefer to view it as it "growing" between points B and C, that's fine by me.

Ultimately, however, your link very explicitly states that it's not caused by refraction. Could resolve this seeming contradiction? In other words, could you please pick a stance and stick to it?

Ok,  let's make it simpler,  my stance is that the sun and moon are not especially closer to earth when close to the horizon, in spite of appearing larger.   If the earth was flat the and the sun was  close,  the sun should appear to get smaller as it moves further away.

The fact that it doesn't is more of an argument for a round earth than a flat earth.

78

Flat Earth Community / Re: If the sun was 93,000,000 miles away lol!

« on: January 14, 2016, 02:48:31 AM »

Nice proof of a globe earth,  it's a refractive effect caused by the curvature of the earth's atmosphere.

Very curious. How, exactly, do you propose that refraction is responsible for this apparent shrinking of the sun? Generally, the agreement among mainstream RE'ers appears to be that refraction can only explain the apparent anomalous displacement of the sun, and some of the observable turbulence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction

Are you proposing your own alternative Round Earth model here? I'm not necessarily disparaging against that given FET's track record, but I would appreciate your being upfront about it.

Uh, no it's magnified,  not shrunk.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/46-our-solar-system/the-moon/observing-the-moon/132-why-does-the-moon-look-big-on-the-horizon-intermediate

79

Flat Earth Community / Re: If the sun was 93,000,000 miles away lol!

« on: January 14, 2016, 02:08:09 AM »

If the sun was 93,000,000 miles from Earth, how is that at times - such as sunset - it appears sometimes 4-5 times larger than usual?  Are we 4-5 times closer at those times?  This is simple common sense that the sun is not as far away as we're told it is.  Use your eyes non believers.

Nice proof of a globe earth,  it's a refractive effect caused by the curvature of the earth's atmosphere.   On a flat earth the sun would get smaller as it approached the horizon.   

That's the cue for the bendy light brigade to ride to the rescue.

Use your eyes indeed.

80

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rotations of the stars?

« on: January 14, 2016, 01:58:03 AM »

Why does the stars in the night sky in the North hemisphere rotate counter-clockwise around Polaris, while stars in the South hemisphere rotate clockwise? Shouldn’t the stars rotate in the same direction no matter were you are on the flat Earth?

Imagine you are standing (near the equator middle on a mountain in Equador ) on a flat earth with the celestial sphere above,  and this celestial sphere with the fixed stars is rotating  if you look towards the north you will observe the stars rotating anticlockwise,  now turn around and look south,  you will observe the stars rotating clockwise. 

Of course this is mechanically equivalent to the stars being a long way away and the earth rotating,   and you'll  need to create lots of extra rotating spheres for planets and comets.   Look up Ptolemy for more details.

I'm in favour of the Copernican version.   It's equivalent and simpler.     

By the way,  I'm not a flat earther.   The earth is actually somewhat spherical.