*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6523
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Google Maps
« Reply #80 on: December 20, 2018, 07:37:20 PM »
So you agree that he was not a professional scientist and thus not qualified to try and refute the entirety of scientific knowledge.
The lack of scientific background wouldn't be so big a problem if any other serious scientists at the time or since had taken his ideas seriously.
But they haven't.
Because they have veracity and are so easily proven false. Bobby has very clearly shown the claim about horizon at eye level as false and he is an amateur, the fact you have refused to do your own tests about that is telling.

The images presented were what appeared to be images suggesting that the atmosphere affects the horizon. The horizon changes over time and with location and environment. Rowbotham never said that the atmosphere could not affect the horizon. ENAG doesn't really speak much about it. The error is that the Wiki doesn't speak of the atmosphere. Going onto a plane and seeing a foggy horizon, it is pretty obvious what is happening.

A rather weak point, to insist on.

And what university courses do you know Rowbotham participated in? What books did he read? What makes you think he knew nothing of astronomy? Rowbotham sources his knowledge in Earth Not a Globe. The majority of the book is nothing but references to credible sources of the era.

Quote
What did Copernicus do, exactly, to demonstrate his model?

I don't think most of the entire world had heard of him. He is quite rightly forgotten by history, I'd never heard of him till I came here.
And this question is ironic when you're claiming a massive global conspiracy about space travel and satellites and so on.
They seem to be getting away with it in the sense that only a tiny minority of scientific illiterates are claiming it's all a hoax.
Some people are just good conmen - watch "Catch Me If You Can", that dude actually got hired as a doctor and worked for some time in a hospital.

I'm not actually saying Rowbotham was a conman - well, he was, but he might well also have been a medical doctor. But I wouldn't expect a medical doctor to be qualified to write a book which revolutionises the scientific community, and he didn't.

If Flat Earth were demonstrated wrong, no one would be here. All the world tries, but none successful.

The problem is that the Round Earth Theory has not been demonstrated to be correct.

Demonstration is a must.

Should it matter that most people accept the word of their first grade teacher? Resting one's argument that most people and men of the scientific community believed and accepted the word their first grade teacher without question or that they laughed at an idea about a Flat Earth they had read is a pretty bad debating tactic. What did they do? What did they discover and show? "My first grade teacher told me so" is not an argument that is going to get you far in life.

Demonstrate. This is key. Until the matter can be demonstrated to conclusiveness the logical and philosophical arguments against are empirically weak.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2018, 03:07:58 AM by Tom Bishop »

ShootingStar

Re: Google Maps
« Reply #81 on: December 20, 2018, 07:49:00 PM »
This and many other threads all seem to end up in the same way with everyone disagreeing with each other all the time and basically achieving nothing. I am all for a good discussion and debate about these issues but we never seem to get anywhere. Where is this all heading? There are various links to videos and photos etc but as the FES often states itself, in this modern age of digital technology, such evidence is discredited due to the ease by which it can be processed to suite a particular point of view. 

And yes Tom, I concede to you this much... when I look out of my window and admire the landscape around me the world does indeed look flat. Had I lived a few centuries ago I might well have accepted that evidence alone to believe that the world is indeed flat. But I live in the 21st century and I know that seeing is not always believing.

There are a LOT of people out there who have gathered more than sufficient evidence to me to convince me that the world is in fact.... stand by for revelation....  ROUND!


Re: Google Maps
« Reply #82 on: December 20, 2018, 07:51:43 PM »
This thread seems to be getting more and more involved. Going back to my original post, I would have thought that an organisation such as Google would not have modeled their mapping system on a global system if they did not have reasonable grounds for doing so.

So I put the challenge to you Tom...please provide us with THE single best piece of evidence that convinces YOU that the Earth is flat? Precise, clear and to the point please.

There is no single piece of evidence. The evidence is cumulative.

First admit that you have no knowledge. Then look out your window. Then go on a journey to discover what the truth may be on your own, for your own self.
I look out of the window and see the path of the sun, as do many others. Compile these observations and they show a round earth.  Add satellite dish angles to help your answer.

Do you agree the published times of sunrise and sunset are correct?

Please describe the tests, observations and experiments you would use to determine the shape of the earth.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2018, 08:03:34 PM by inquisitive »

Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 659
    • View Profile
There isn't a map that the Flat Earth movement agrees on, clearly. See the rest of the sentence that you had quoted.

One may take a blank piece of paper and write "earth map" onto it. Is that the Flat Earth map, or a Flat Earth map? In, such discussions, would we talking be talking about "the" map, or "a" possible map?

I didn't ask for your commentary about plane paths. I'm not asking about the beliefs of the flat earth movement.  I asked for your commentary about your disbelief that there is map which represents the earth as a FLAT surface. Why are you unable to acknowledge that FLAT maps of the entire earth do exist after I have presented you with several?


In terms of the Flat earth movement agreeing as a whole this is the crux of the situation.

Some of the flat earth movement believe the earth is an infinite plane. (or an infinite repeating plane)
Some believe the earth has a dome and no ice wall.
Some believe the earth has an ice wall and no dome.
Some believe the earth has both a dome and an ice wall.
Some believe the earth has neither a dome nor an ice wall.

Based on this it is impossible to create a map that the flat earth movement agrees on. Any map that has an ice wall will alienate anyone who believes there is an ice wall and visa versa.

I have presented a map. Based on my independent investigation (by way of both national and international travels) this map is accurate among dozens of countries and multiple continents. The evidence suggests that is is likely accurate on a global scale.


Re: Google Maps
« Reply #84 on: December 20, 2018, 09:27:54 PM »
Bobby has shown some images suggesting that the atmosphere affects the horizon. Rowbotham never said that the atmosphere could not affect the horizon. ENAG doesn't really speak much about it. The error is that the Wiki doesn't speak of the atmosphere. Going onto a plane and seeing a foggy horizon, it is pretty obvious what is happening.
And this is where you invoke a "heads I win, tails you lose" argument.
Rowbotham's claim is that the horizon stays at eye level. His evidence for that is that it looks like it's at eye level.
Ridiculously, one of the experiments he cites as evidence is viewings from a hotel in Brighton, a building nowhere near tall enough to sensibly test the claim.
Bobby did some more controlled experiments at an altitude where the result of horizon dip can be seen clearly.
So now you are laughably claiming that the true horizon IS still at eye level, it's just that the sharp line in Bobby's photo isn't the true horizon. One of his photos was taken at sunset so it's pretty clear where the horizon is and it's clearly below eye level.
Even your own page quotes someone at an altitude saying it's "practically" at eye level, so your own page admits horizon dip.
Your argument basically boils down to:
"The horizon remains at eye level - the evidence for that is our observations which show it is at eye level"
And when you're shown observations which show the reverse then you just claim the observation is wrong and it isn't really the horizon.
Heads I win, tails you lose.

I don't know if you've heard about "black swans". It's the idea of an unexpected event. So to Europeans all swans are white. But not in Australia, there they have black swans. So if you have a theory that "all swans are white" and then you go to Australia and find that they have black swans then you have to amend your theory. That is the rational thing to do. You have new information which shows your original theory to be wrong. What you do is the equivalent of just saying those black swans aren't really swans so you can stick to your original theory. You need to learn a bit about cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias.
If you're going to claim to believe things based on observation then it's a bit rich to only admit observations which match your existing view.

Quote
And what university courses do you know Rowbotham participated in? What books did he read? What makes you think he knew nothing of astronomy?
I'm sure he had some scientific knowledge. I'm not a scientist by education (apart from school) or profession but I've learned enough and read enough to have a decent grasp of some things. But I'm not qualified to write a book claiming that all science is bunk. If I did and tried to get it published then I would be quite rightly laughed out of the room.
Someone who worked as a medical doctor does not shout "scientific revolutionary" at me.

Quote
Rowbotham sources his knowledge in Earth Not a Globe. The majority of the book is nothing but references to credible sources of the era.

If he's anything like you then he probably misrepresents or misunderstands them, but why is he using sources? I thought your and his approach was to question everything and do your own observations? And if these sources are so credible and he is representing them accurately then why have none of Rowbotham's ideas been taken seriously by anyone in the scientific community and why has he been basically forgotten by history?

Quote
If Flat Earth were demonstrated wrong, no one would be here. All the world tries, but none successful.

Not successful by your criteria, but that is only because you are so invested in FE. Pretty much everyone else is convinced.
I don't know if you've noticed, but most of the people here are globe earthers shaking their collective head in incredulity at some of the FE ideas posted on here. There are some flat earthers in the same way there are people who believe all kinds of crazy ideas. With the wonder of the internet it makes it easier for fringe views to be publicised. Just because some people believe something that doesn't mean that thing is right. As I've said before, you're just a person who doesn't believe in kangaroos

Tom: "Kangaroos don't exist"
Me: "What? Of course they do. A heard about someone who went to Australia and saw some"
Tom: "He's a liar, he's part of the great kangaroo conspiracy"
Me: "Right. Look, here's a photo of one"
Tom: "That's fake, have you not heard of Photoshop?"
Me: "OK. Here's a documentary with some film of one"
Tom: "Have you not seen Jurassic Park? You'll be telling me dinosaurs are real next"
Me: "Look. We're at the zoo. There's a kangaroo..."
Tom: "Looks like an animatronic."

Then on forum.kangaroosarefake.org you'd be posting things like
"If Kangaroos were demonstrated to exist, no one would be here. All the world tries, but none successful"

Now, obviously this is me being silly but it demonstrates a point. If you operate in the sceptical context then you can always cast doubt on something.

Quote
The problem is that the Round Earth Theory has not been demonstrated to be correct.

Well, there are photos of the globe earth taken by space agencies from multiple countries, hundreds of people have been to space and seen the globe earth, so it has.
Google Maps clearly uses a globe model and clearly works.
The global transport industry gets people and goods around using a globe model - I related my experience on a recent work trip above.
The globe model demonstrably works.

Quote
Demonstrate. This is key. Until the matter can be demonstrated to conclusiveness the logical and philosophical arguments against are empirically weak.
What have you demonstrated about flat earth?
Bobby demonstrated that the horizon dips below eye level (as predicted on the globe model). The photos are pretty conclusive. This is a good example of something which has been demonstrated and you just dismiss that demonstration because it doesn't fit your model. You demand demonstration but dismiss it when it is provided and provide no demonstrations of anything yourself.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

ShootingStar

Re: Google Maps
« Reply #85 on: December 20, 2018, 09:42:43 PM »
Quote
Demonstration is a must.

That demonstration is all around you Tom. We just have different interpretations of that demonstration.  I see the world in a certain way which seems to be shared by a lot of other people. You see it in a different way. That is up to you.

Let me put to you again the challenge I put to you earlier but in a slightly different way.  Is there a single 'demonstration' would alter your conviction that the Earth is flat? If so what is it? I am completely open minded and always have been. I registered on here so that I could explore the evidence presented by the FET. But so far I have seen no evidence or 'demonstration' that changes my position on things.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2018, 09:49:35 PM by ShootingStar »

Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 659
    • View Profile
Re: Google Maps
« Reply #86 on: December 20, 2018, 09:51:16 PM »
Quote
Demonstration is a must.

That demonstration is all around you Tom. We just have different interpretations of that demonstration.  I see the world in a certain way which seems to be shared by a lot of other people. You see it in a different way. That is up to you.

Let me put to you again the challenge I put to you earlier but in a slightly different way.  Is there a single 'demonstration' would alter your conviction that the Earth is flat? If so what is it?

Have you heard of the bishop experiment?

https://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence#The_Bishop_Experiment



Here's another version of the bishop experiment. With an adamant round earther admitting the evidence suggest that either the earth is flat or that it's not an oblate spheroid.

Now THIS is interesting.



I watched without sound so I don't know if there are other details narrated, but this is what 13+ miles across a shorter section of Monterey Bay looks like under magnification, and you can't see details on the distant beach.

But, they did what I want to do and use a mirror to reflect sunlight, and check the results! Unless they fudged their images and didn't really collect video with the camera and mirror where they showed them to be, this convincingly shows light traveling between two points that would be expected to be obscured on a globe.

The video claims "max refraction" which isn't true. He misinterprets standard refraction as maximum, but still. Credit for even acknowledging that refraction must be considered.

I checked the tide tables and also judging by where they've set up from the water level, the estimates of height above water are low, but even when I bump it up to 6-8', that still leaves mirror in the "shadow" of curvature by about 40-45 feet WITH standard atmospheric refraction.  To get the mirror flash visible, according to an earth curvature calculator, I had to bump the refractive index up to k=0.77, which is considered "severe." Another sighting on another day under different conditions might provide indication whether or not the structures/stacks in the background look that way normally or if looming/towering conditions were evident which could indicate strong super-refraction. But my gut tells me k=.77 is ridiculously extreme.

When I can reschedule this excursion, I'll add this sighting and see if I can duplicate it. It validates the signal mirror idea, which I think is a more convincing method of detection than trying to identify features at the shoreline of a distant shore. If this is what 13 miles across the bay looks like, 23 miles will be even worse.

Oh, and I know already that my kids have bought a Meade Infinity 90mm refractor for my birthday. (I discovered it accidentally and now I have to act surprised on the day; I suck at feigning.) It's not the one I would have chosen, but I'm tickled they thought to do that. Little do they know my main interest is terrestrial "digiscoping", and looking at the reviews it looks like it will be more than adequate for that purpose even if a little cumbersome.



Here is the round earther admitting that the experimental evidence suggests that the earth is not a globe

@bobby It sounds like you are saying the observation of the signal mirror in the video you posted is not consistent with a globe. Did I understand correctly?
You did; and yes that's what I'm saying. Unlike other video demos claiming they are showing a flat earth that I feel I can refute, this one I can't.

Maybe a surface duct for a part of that distance? I'd be most interested to see if it is repeatable. But as it stands now, I think that's "score 1" for flat earth.

Do you disagree?

ShootingStar

Re: Google Maps
« Reply #87 on: December 20, 2018, 09:53:28 PM »
Yes I have heard and read about the Bishop Experiment thanks.... and?

Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 659
    • View Profile
Re: Google Maps
« Reply #88 on: December 20, 2018, 09:54:54 PM »
Yes I have heard and read about the Bishop Experiment thanks.... and?

You are asking for something that suggests the earth is flat. I have provided you with over 200 examples of real life observations suggesting that the earth is flat.

ShootingStar

Re: Google Maps
« Reply #89 on: December 20, 2018, 10:01:47 PM »
Yes and imagery from space and many other sources suggest the world is not flat... The FES discredit any video evidence so how does your link help here?  The FES seem to ignore all the modern evidence that shows what shape the Earth is for no other reason that I can see than it contradicts their beliefs.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2018, 10:09:30 PM by ShootingStar »

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1079
    • View Profile
The evidence suggests that is is likely accurate on a global scale.
If it is accurate, then the earth is a globe. I have pointed this out to you many times.

Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 659
    • View Profile
The evidence suggests that is is likely accurate on a global scale.
If it is accurate, then the earth is a globe. I have pointed this out to you many times.

Thank you for correcting my wording. I meant to say that the evidence suggests that these maps are likely accurate on a planetary scale (regardless of the shape of said planet)



Yes and imagery from space and many other sources suggest the world is not flat... The FES discredit any video evidence so how does your link help here?  The FES seem to ignore all the modern evidence that shows what shape the Earth is for no other reason that I can see than it contradicts their beliefs.

I don't understand it either. Blindly dismissing evidence is something that round earthers can be equally dismissive of. Although I have seen several round earthers admit when evidence suggests the earth might not be an oblate spheroid.

I've never seen a flat earther see the episode of mythbusters where one of them went into a super high altitude plane and admitted that the evidence suggests the earth might not be flat.


Bobby, what appears to images suggesting that the atmosphere affects the horizon. The horizon changes over time. Rowbotham never said that the atmosphere could not affect the horizon. ENAG doesn't really speak much about it. The error is that the Wiki doesn't speak of the atmosphere. Going onto a plane and seeing a foggy horizon, it is pretty obvious what is happening.

Tom Bobby also said that altitude (in addition to atmospheric optical variables) changes the position of the horizon.  The higher the altitude the lower the horizon. I also am making that claim. Allow me to provide evidence:


This video was shot on the same day, at the same time, under the same atmospheric and optical conditions. Notice how as how the altitude of the drone increases the horizon decreases? You can use your mouse to mark the position of the high altitude horizon and clearly see that the position of the low altitude horizon is higher.

« Last Edit: December 20, 2018, 10:56:30 PM by iamcpc »

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1079
    • View Profile
Re: Google Maps
« Reply #92 on: December 20, 2018, 10:28:05 PM »
We are asking you, our users, for knowledge to explain, show and demonstrate the truth of all phenomena and mapping systems.
Science does not do 'demonstration'. Science collects all the evidence available, using the most accurate measuring instruments where available or necessary, then decides on the most economical explanation.

The test is then the simplicity and parsimony of the explanation. Example, the theory of gravity. We can't prove the theory as we would a mathematical proof. But it relies on very few assumptions. Of course acceleration downwards could be caused by pixie dust. It could be caused by anything at all. We could never know for certain. All we know is that the explanation given by science is simple and (so far) robust.

By contrast, the FE explanation of gravity has no consensus, and is highly complex. So science does not choose that explanation, whatever it is.



Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1079
    • View Profile
The evidence suggests that is is likely accurate on a global scale.
If it is accurate, then the earth is a globe. I have pointed this out to you many times.

Thank you for correcting my wording. I meant to say that the evidence suggests that these maps are likely accurate on a planetary scale (regardless of the shape of said planet)
No. As I keep pointing out, if they are likely accurate on a planetary scale, then the earth is likely a globe. This is very basic geometry.

[edit] I remember earlier I gave you the example of a tetrahedron. If we measure the six distances between the points using a tape measure, then we can 'map' the tetrahedron onto a flat surfaces. But the distances on the map will not reflect the measured distances. Try it.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2018, 10:32:26 PM by edby »

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 786
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: Google Maps
« Reply #94 on: December 21, 2018, 03:17:43 AM »
This was a very nice video that illustrates that the earth is a globe.  I have forgotten about the Lake Pontchartrain bridge, but I've personally driven across it a couple of times, but its been a while ago.  The first time across my wife was a little upset because it looks like the bridge just goes off into the lake.

The video was shot from Sunset Point Fishing Pier  at 30 degrees 21' 39''N  by 90 degrees 05' 20"W.  The building you see is the New Orleans Marriott Hotel at 3838N Causeway Blvd, Metairie, LA.  The coordinates there are 30 degrees 01' 06"N by 90 degrees 09' 20"W. 

Calculated distance between those two coordinates is right at 24 miles. 

You can take the drive yourself someday on a nice trip to New Orleans or you can just do the trip via Google Earth.  Either way you can get the effect of the earth's nice curvature.  I'm surprised that this site hasn't just said that this was all just a cgi effect.  Unfortunately, there are those that have taken the trip and seen the sights personally, the Zetetic way.
For FE no explanation is possible, for RE no explanation is necessary.

ShootingStar

Re: Google Maps
« Reply #95 on: December 21, 2018, 09:34:47 AM »
In the FAQ page it states and I quote


Quote
In general, we at the Flat Earth Society do not lend much credibility to photographic evidence. It is too easily manipulated and altered. Many of the videos posted here to "prove a round earth" by showing curvature will show no curvature or even concave curvature at parts. The sources are so inaccurate it's difficult to build an argument on them in either case. Furthermore, barrel distortion and other quirks of modern cameras will cause a picture to distort in ways which may not be immediately obvious or apparent, especially without references within the picture. Photographs are also prone to distortion when taken through the bent glass of a pressurized cabin as well as atmospheric conditions on the outside. With this litany of problems, it's easy to see why photographic evidence is not to be trusted.

Which seems to imply that the FES discredit any photographic or video evidence that proves a round Earth but no mention is made of whether such evidence that suggests a flat Earth is similarly discredited. Do I take it then that the FES do support any videos that are created to support the FE belief?  You cant cherry pick and have it both ways. Either you accept photo/video evidence or you don't.


*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1254
    • View Profile
Re: Google Maps
« Reply #96 on: December 21, 2018, 10:35:12 AM »
Getting back to the map business. Literally the only FE argument against the veracity of world maps, navigation, transport, which are all based upon spherical data/projections, great circles, globe earth, is that 'everyone is doing it wrong'. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. So until such time that FE can demonstrate how we're all doing it wrong, I'm afraid the Globe prevails. It's a cold, hard truth.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

ShootingStar

Re: Google Maps
« Reply #97 on: December 21, 2018, 10:38:22 AM »
Quite agree Stack.  FE people seem to be very good at dismissing all the evidence (or demonstrations to use Toms preferred terminology) for RE maps yet the one thing they all seem to agree about is that they cannot provide a single FE map that everyone on their side of the fence agrees with.  So they are essentially firing back with blanks.

If FE people don't accept Google Maps as it is then they are essentially dismissing the hard work and efforts of a lot of people who are experts in their field and should know their stuff. What better a demonstration could dear Tom want?


Before it is pointed out, the cameras they use to create the Street View are 360 degree cameras which do distort the true sense of scale to an extent. Buidings, mountains etc look further away from the camera and smaller than they actually are. I found that out very clearly when I visited the Swiss Alps recently. The Eiger looks a lot bigger and closer when you arrive at Grindlewald than the impression given on screen. However this purely a local effect and has no bearing or relevance on the current discussion.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2018, 10:47:39 AM by ShootingStar »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6523
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Google Maps
« Reply #98 on: December 22, 2018, 06:01:10 PM »
This video clearly illustrates the matter of Soundly's observations on that lake:


*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6523
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Google Maps
« Reply #99 on: December 22, 2018, 06:16:09 PM »
Getting back to the map business. Literally the only FE argument against the veracity of world maps, navigation, transport, which are all based upon spherical data/projections, great circles, globe earth, is that 'everyone is doing it wrong'. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. So until such time that FE can demonstrate how we're all doing it wrong, I'm afraid the Globe prevails. It's a cold, hard truth.

Again, the round guys came here claiming that this is based on spherical data, and are ignoring the evidence that it is not.

Where is your evidence that it is all based on spherical data?

You guys have provided no evidence. Only an assumption and a claim. Since you have provided a claim without evidence, that claim is therefore discarded without evidence. That is how truth works. Period. End of.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2018, 07:04:37 PM by Tom Bishop »