Recent Posts

21
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Eratosthenes Experiment Duplicated
« Last post by Tom Bishop on March 25, 2019, 08:56:21 PM »
Now look up what a datum is and think about why that might be necessary for the flat state plane maps and the other globe models to interconnect and exchange data.
22
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« Last post by Fortuna on March 25, 2019, 08:36:25 PM »
The only possible explanation for this is that Russian bots interfered with Mueller's investigation. I'm literally shaking right now.
23
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Need clarification (time zones)
« Last post by stack on March 25, 2019, 08:30:55 PM »

So you still refuse to tell us what happens in the real world when you reach one edge and magically appear on the other edge with one set of continents?


Maybe it would help to think of traveling on an omnidirectional treadmill. If you walk far enough on a treadmill you arrive back at the same place you started. There is no magical teleportation edge. There is no infinite set of treadmills.

I'm stumped again. On the omnidirectional treadmill, I'm not 'traveling' anywhere. The earth below me is moving, I am not. As well, do we each have our own earth treadmill? Because what happens if you and I both jet from SF and you are going West and I am going East? How does that work?
24
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Eratosthenes Experiment Duplicated
« Last post by stack on March 25, 2019, 08:26:04 PM »
Feel free to look up what NAD84 is, which the article describes as providing more accurate distances. They are flat maps of the earth created through plane surveying.

Just for the record so we can dispense with the 'utah' article you periodically bring up because you find the title fetching, for one, it's NAD83. For two, maybe you should free to look up what NAD84 NAD83 is:

North American Datum of 1983
As satellite geodesy and remote sensing technology reached high precision and were made available for civilian applications, it became feasible to acquire information referred to a single global ellipsoid. This is because satellites naturally deal with Earth as a monolithic body. Therefore, the GRS 80 ellipsoid was developed for best approximating the Earth as a whole, and it became the foundation for the North American Datum of 1983.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Datum

What is North American Datum 1983 (NAD83)?
The North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83) is the most current datum being used in North America. It provides latitude and longitude and some height information using the reference ellipsoid GRS80.

https://gisgeography.com/geodetic-datums-nad27-nad83-wgs84/

Now, back to three-point Eratosthenes experiments.
25
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Eratosthenes Experiment Duplicated
« Last post by markjo on March 25, 2019, 08:18:15 PM »
Feel free to look up what NAD84 is, which the article describes as providing more accurate distances. They are flat maps of the earth created through plane surveying.
First off, there is no such thing as NAD84.  There are NAD83 and WGS84 which are geodetic datums.
Because the Earth is curved and in GIS we deal with flat map projections, we need to accommodate both the curved and flat views of the world. In surveying and geodesy, we accurately define these properties with geodetic datums.

We begin modelling the Earth with a sphere or ellipsoid. Over time, surveyors have gathered a massive collection of surface measurements to more reliably estimate the ellipsoid.

When you combine these measurements, we arrive at a geodetic datum. Datums precisely specify each location on Earth’s surface in latitude and longitude. For example, NAD27, NAD83 and WGS84 are geodetic datums.
26
Flat Earth Community / Re: Your Path to FE
« Last post by Adrenoch on March 25, 2019, 08:07:06 PM »
I just realized I answered you poorly, and in a much more long-winded way than necessary.

Goal: cause debate on the shape of the Earth through modern academia.

This should not be your goal. Your goal should be to discover something new, regardless of whether it agrees with your position or not. But regardless...

Current stage: a paper published on your curvature experiment, assuming it's believed, and accounting for all known objections. Modifications to RET were proposed to account for it and tested

So far, so good.

, by force of numbers some passed initial tests until one pulled through

There's no "by force of numbers." If you were to do the laser test and others confirmed your findings, then there would have to be a new hypothesis about why this experiment goes against expectations. New hypotheses would arise, and each of those would generate a prediction. You and/or others would then test those hypotheses. Most will be falsified. Some might shed light on other things we thought were pretty well known, and we'd have to re-examine those. Maybe you'd have discovered an entirely new phenomenon. Maybe it could be explained by a small adjustment of the current theory. Or maybe an entirely new theory would be required.

and is considered broadly speaking accurate.
What do I do now?

Rejoice in the fact that you just added to the sum of human knowledge for all eternity!

But you're actually asking, "If my observation can be fully explained by only a small addition to the current body of knowledge, how do I get people to rethink the global Earth?"

If your aim is to cause scientific debate about the global Earth, you would have to do another impeccable experiment. Maybe that breaks it wide open, or maybe it just adds to the general body of knowledge. But hey, at least you'd then have two really solid experiments that can also point toward a flat Earth. You do more experiments. Maybe sometimes you revisit an old experiment of yours and show that the new accepted explanation fails under your new experiment, and then everyone will scramble to put the pieces back together in a meaningful order. Eventually, you may get enough experiments that the most likely explanation for your observations and everyone else's is that the Earth must be flat.

But you must also be prepared for the possibility that your experiments may be completely incompatible with a Flat Earth model, and you'd have to be a big enough person to recognize when/if that happens.
27
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Eratosthenes Experiment Duplicated
« Last post by WellRoundedIndividual on March 25, 2019, 07:21:05 PM »
You can argue all you want about what the article is using as a reference for distances.  It still has nothing to do with the topic of multiple measurements that were taken by schools all over the earth and that verify that the earth is round.
28
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Question about logic.
« Last post by true usurper on March 25, 2019, 06:57:44 PM »
It clearly says concerns, sounds like he was concerned by peoples incorrect calculations, debate never works if speech if one side is censored, people are all searching for truth.
29
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Front Page Response to Behind the Curve
« Last post by true usurper on March 25, 2019, 06:53:12 PM »
I think a response just gives the doc more credence, when i do something that doesn't look cool or make sense I never mention it again so ppl can drop it.
30
Flat Earth Community / Re: Your Path to FE
« Last post by Adrenoch on March 25, 2019, 06:43:57 PM »
The problem here is the bias towards modifying theory X. It's easy for errors to snowball in this system because there will always be a modification.

You are stuck with modifying and praying the work of a few people centuries ago with far worse resources and understanding was accurate.

You seem to be suggesting that science builds on conclusions of the past, but never revisits or retests or re-evaluates those conclusions. That's patently false. Einstein and general relativity superseding Newton is a simple answer. Newton came up with the math that was incredibly accurate in predicting the motion of the planets. But Einstein came up with something completely different and it made a prediction about how certain orbits would act based on some extreme examples. When we checked those orbits, we realized Einstein's model was a lot closer than Newton's even though Einstein's makes far less intuitive sense. We had to reconstruct everything we thought we knew about what space and time are. It was a huge teardown.

This is the problem with how you're thinking about it. It's not a curvature experiment, it's a light experiment. This approach is basically scientific tunnel vision, which is the whole problem.

I don't follow. Normally, science proceeds by working meticulously with a very narrow focus to explain a single observation. Enough of them build up to force larger changes in theories. Are you saying you want to do something different?

But again, like you pointed out lofty speeches on the ideals of science are something we're apparently not going to agree on, that was why I tried to have a discussion on the practicalities. Walk through what actually happened with small steps that can't reasonably be questioned.
Goal: cause debate on the shape of the Earth through modern academia.
Current stage: a paper published on your curvature experiment, assuming it's believed, and accounting for all known objections. Modifications to RET were proposed to account for it and tested, by force of numbers some passed initial tests until one pulled through and is considered broadly speaking accurate.
What do I do now?

Maybe this is the crux of the whole issue. Why is your goal to cause debate on the shape of the Earth? Shouldn't it be to find the truth, regardless of whether it causes debate about the shape of the Earth?

And I still think you're under a misunderstanding about "force of numbers" as you put it. Any modification to a theory still has to accurately fit the 1,000 previous observations as well as the new one. It's not like just making up a new formula or something to get you out of a jam. The modification to the theory has to explain every other observation at least as well as the old theory did. If it doesn't, then it's time to do some tearing down.

You seem to be suggesting that science just sees new things and tries to shoehorn them into what's already known because that's just what's easiest. If it doesn't explain the observations, it's no good, and nobody wants to dedicate their life and career to something they know is fruitless and erroneous.

To use dark matter as an example: When we found galaxies were rotating fast enough that the gravity of the visible stars wouldn't have been enough to keep the galaxies together, the first thing everyone asked was is there something wrong with our understanding of gravity. But we have an exhaustive amount of data on gravity that checks out. We use our calculations to send probes across the solar system with tremendous precision based on gravity. We can see with minute precision how satellites act in orbit. We see gravitational lensing exactly the way Einstein predicted we would. Everything we knew about gravity checked out.

So if not gravity, maybe we were counting the stars wrong. So they had several teams do the counting. They all came up the same, using different methods. That checked out.

Maybe galaxies were much younger than we thought. But if that were the case, how come we could we see stars in those galaxies that were seriously old? If we got the age of stars wrong, then our grasp of physics must be wrong, but the physics checks out in extreme detail in 100,000 other observations, so it's not likely that we've got that wrong either.

It went on and on like that, until the most likely possibility was that we're not seeing a huge amount of mass in the universe. It wasn't a snap decision by any stretch, and dark matter is still only a hypothesis. But we re-examined everything that that one set of observations conflicted with - as you would say, we re-examined most of the pillar. So it absolutely does happen.

As I said before, either the scientific community is too biased because they're incompetent or dishonest, or the arguments FE'ers are putting forward are nowhere near as solid as they think they are. I don't think I can convince you of the former, but I'd be thrilled to be proven wrong on the latter.