dichotomy

Modern experiments
« on: September 05, 2019, 05:06:11 PM »
Looking through the Wiki, all the entries under Flat Earth Literature/Physical evidence seem to be quite old and historical. So I was wondering whether have been any more recent (mid to late 20th century at least) accounts or experiments that indicate compelling evidence for a flat Earth.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9747
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Modern experiments
« Reply #1 on: September 05, 2019, 05:27:28 PM »
This seems like a strange question - do "old" experiments have an expiry date in your mind?

But, to answer your question more directly: the Bishop Experiment is rather recent, and easily reproducible.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

dichotomy

Re: Modern experiments
« Reply #2 on: September 05, 2019, 07:42:35 PM »
I'm sorry if you think that what I asked was strange. What I meant simply is that most of the observations/experiments that are listed under the Literature and Physical Evidence sections of the Wiki don't seem to take into account the many improvements and refinements that have occurred in science and technology during the last 50 years or so.

I cannot find any refrences online to The Bishop Experiment outside of flat Earth websites. There must be a reason for that.  While I'm sure it can be reproduced easily, it doesn't in any way provide any compelling evidence that that the Earth is flat, any more than the Bedford Level Experiment does. You can do many experiments as often as you like and massage the results of those experiments to suit your preferred outcome.  The atmosphere is a source of many potential errors with any experiment that uses light above the surface of the Earth. Variations in air temperature, pressure, density and stability can have dramatic effects on how far (or not) you can see across land.  So having a direct view of another landmark which is tens or in some cases a hundred or more miles away does not provide evidence that the Earths surface itself is flat.

If the Bedford experiment could be repeated on the Moon, in an airless environment what would the result be?
« Last Edit: September 05, 2019, 07:44:51 PM by dichotomy »

Re: Modern experiments
« Reply #3 on: September 05, 2019, 07:49:02 PM »
I cannot find any refrences online to The Bishop Experiment outside of flat Earth websites. There must be a reason for that.  While I'm sure it can be reproduced easily, it doesn't in any way provide any compelling evidence that that the Earth is flat
Unfortunately the account of this experiment on the Wiki here is just a claim that he did something and saw something.
There are no details on here about the equipment used and no evidence of the results he claims.
 
There was a member on here a while back who did reproduce the Bishop Experiment and documented the method he used and results well.
His findings are here:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=11933.0

He wasn't able to reproduce Tom Bishop's results.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

dichotomy

Re: Modern experiments
« Reply #4 on: September 05, 2019, 08:46:22 PM »
So would it be in any way presumptuous of me to suggest that someone who is a devout flat Earth believer would claim an outcome of an experiment that makes it seem as if it supports his own beliefs?

The fact is that you could perform that experiment 10 times, or any number of times you wish and each time the results would be different.   A the risk of repeating myself the reason for that is that the atmospheric conditions would be different and air state can have a big influence on how far or not you can see across land. Often light can be refracted around a curved surface so that you can 'see' things that are far off and actually below the horizon. Naturally FE theorists have their own version of why that happens but those versions have yet to be independently verified.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2019, 08:49:14 PM by dichotomy »

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9747
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Modern experiments
« Reply #5 on: September 05, 2019, 08:49:51 PM »
So would it be in any way presumptuous of me to suggest that someone who is a devout flat Earth believer would claim an outcome of an experiment that makes it seem as if it supports his own beliefs?
It wouldn't. It would also not be presumptuous of you to assume that someone like AATW and Bobby would claim the inverse for similar reasons, with the former being known to lie to people's faces when it's convenient, and the latter just being a bit confused about most things and largely unable to comprehend simple instructions.

Your best bet is to conduct the experiment yourself (as I and many others have) and draw your own conclusions.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2019, 08:52:00 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

dichotomy

Re: Modern experiments
« Reply #6 on: September 05, 2019, 09:00:23 PM »
I would love to but I don't see myself passing through that part of the world any time soon. In any case whatever the outcome of the experiment it wouldn't provide any evidence that the Earth is flat would it.

Quote
(as I and many others have)

And what were your conclusions then Pete and what equipment did you use?  What were the atmospheric conditions at the time and what sources for possible errors did you record as part of your experiment?

To sum up my earlier point I want to know what modern experiments using modern scientific grade equipment have been carried out to provide evidence that the Earth is flat.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2019, 09:19:01 PM by dichotomy »

Re: Modern experiments
« Reply #7 on: September 05, 2019, 09:26:11 PM »
So would it be in any way presumptuous of me to suggest that someone who is a devout flat Earth believer would claim an outcome of an experiment that makes it seem as if it supports his own beliefs?
Certainly possible and in threads I've seen where Tom has been pressed on this "experiment", he has remained vague about the details.
Meanwhile Bobby carefully documented the location of his experiment, the equipment used and has shown photographic evidence of his findings.
I find someone who documents their methods and results more credible than someone who has been so evasive about his, especially given how regularly Tom has shown himself not to understand the RE model. This gives me very little faith in his ability to form experiments well, while Bobby did several other experiments - the ones on horizon dip were particularly impressive and in response to those Tom bent over backwards to try and find fault in them while refusing to do any experiments of his own.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6472
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Modern experiments
« Reply #8 on: September 05, 2019, 10:08:18 PM »
Bobby saw exactly what Rowbotham predicted in Earth Not a Globe. Rowbotham says that the sinking ship effect often occurs on the open sea.

Dr. William Jackson Humphreys also says that the sinking effect is most frequently observed at sea:



The sinking ship effect occurs frequently on the open ocean. Bobby verified what is written in ENAG, and his observations stands as verification of Rowbotham's work, especially since the amount of sinking changed every day he made his observations.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2019, 11:19:41 PM by Tom Bishop »

dichotomy

Re: Modern experiments
« Reply #9 on: September 05, 2019, 10:22:10 PM »
Fair enough, so what are the possible causes of what Rowbotham predicted then Tom? Sure in his case he was using that observation as evidence to support his belief that the Earth surface is flat. But what other reasons could there be as to why Rowbotham saw what he did?

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1249
    • View Profile
Re: Modern experiments
« Reply #10 on: September 05, 2019, 11:48:04 PM »
So would it be in any way presumptuous of me to suggest that someone who is a devout flat Earth believer would claim an outcome of an experiment that makes it seem as if it supports his own beliefs?
It wouldn't. It would also not be presumptuous of you to assume that someone like AATW and Bobby would claim the inverse for similar reasons, with the former being known to lie to people's faces when it's convenient, and the latter just being a bit confused about most things and largely unable to comprehend simple instructions.

Your best bet is to conduct the experiment yourself (as I and many others have) and draw your own conclusions.

How was "the latter just being a bit confused about most things and largely unable to comprehend simple instructions," in regard to recreating the Bishop experiment?
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9747
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Modern experiments
« Reply #11 on: September 06, 2019, 09:01:58 AM »
How was "the latter just being a bit confused about most things and largely unable to comprehend simple instructions," in regard to recreating the Bishop experiment?
I'll let you read through the threads in your own time.

I would love to but I don't see myself passing through that part of the world any time soon.
Presumably, California is not the only part of the world with a large body of water.

In any case whatever the outcome of the experiment it wouldn't provide any evidence that the Earth is flat would it.
It might. It might also provide evidence pointing to the Earth being an oblate spheroid, and it might give you an indication of its size. Is it as large as advertised by the zealots? Larger? Smaller? The power to find out is yours!

And what were your conclusions then Pete and what equipment did you use?  What were the atmospheric conditions at the time and what sources for possible errors did you record as part of your experiment?
You appear to have completely missed the point of "doing it yourself". Once you choose to perform the experiment, you'll be able to adjust for all of these factors, and ones you have not yet anticipated, to your satisfaction. I do realise that those who prefer the scientific method over the Zetetic method expect us to write our experiments up in great detail to save them the hassle of having to actually experience the world for themselves, but I'm simply not interested in appeasing your desires here.

To sum up my earlier point I want to know what modern experiments using modern scientific grade equipment have been carried out to provide evidence that the Earth is flat.
It sounds like your MO is to look at every experiment and create a new criterion for why you dislike it. That seems very counter-productive. Since you're looking for your own satisfaction and yours alone, you'd be better off designing and performing an experiment yourself.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Re: Modern experiments
« Reply #12 on: September 06, 2019, 11:16:06 AM »
I do realise that those who prefer the scientific method over the Zetetic method expect us to write our experiments up in great detail to save them the hassle of having to actually experience the world for themselves
Actually, no. The reason we want you to do that is the same reason that in a maths exam they expect you to show your workings.
If you're going to get full marks in a maths exam it's not enough to get the right answer, you have to show how you got there. Otherwise how do I know you didn't make mistakes? You might have just guessed the right answer or you might have make a couple of mistakes which, luckily for you, cancelled themselves out. So you got the right answer but more by luck than judgement. Or maybe you got the wrong answer. By showing your working the teacher can see where you went wrong and can correct you so you learn.

When you do science at school they don't just tell you that light bends through glass, you do an experiment (well, I did) where you use pins, look through a glass block and plot the path of the light. Science and "checking things out for yourself" are not contradictory. But part of checking things out for yourself is understanding how other people came to certain conclusions. You came to the conclusion that the earth is flat because you did your own tests. Well, maybe you suck at doing them. Maybe you made an error. I can do my own tests but maybe I suck at doing experiments, maybe I'll make an error.

I want you to publish your results not to save me doing anything for myself but in order that I can understand how you came to your conclusions.
The problem with the philosophy of each person doing their own tests and coming to their own conclusion in isolation is what if two people get different results? They can't both be right. (They could both be wrong of course). If I think one is right, how do I know which? OK, I could do my own tests but what if I get a 3rd result, different from both the first 2?

The whole point of people publishing their results in science is so other people can look at what they did, think about whether the experiment was well designed, suggest changes to the method if they feel there has been a mistake or if not repeat the experiment to see if they get the same results. If they do get the same results then it builds confidence in the result. That's how progress is made.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Offline ChrisTP

  • *
  • Posts: 414
    • View Profile
Re: Modern experiments
« Reply #13 on: September 06, 2019, 11:20:22 AM »
But Pete, surely saying you did the experiment and henceforth believe the world is flat, then not telling people your experiment results is counterproductive? If you don't want to show your evidence yet claim the earth is flat, it looks a little suspicious. In little school, someone told me they had a 20ft christmas tree in their frontroom, but when I asked to see it they said no because they "don't have to show me anything" and "it's not my problem if you dont believe me". They told me to go look at a 20ft tree as proof that one exists, which is supposed to be proof that their tree is 20ft. All the while not wanting to show me that tree of theirs.

To literally everyone, the 20ft tree is an obvious fib and no one will go out of their way to prove otherwise if the person isn't willing to show a picture of their tree or invite them in to see it. You could say you did this experiment and it shows the world is flat, but unless you show your findings I don't think anyone will waste their time going out of their way to do an experiment when they're confident the earth is a spheroid.

You presumably care about FES gaining traction and want the truth to come out for all to see, but IMO it won't gain traction saying "I did this thing and it showed me the earth was flat, but I'm not showing you!" I get the whole wanting people to find out for themselves but if a society doesn't work together on findings, you'd never really know if anyone was lying, seeing errors without realising, outright trolling, wasting peoples time etc.

I'd be really interested in seeing yours and Toms results on the experiment and if it does seem to show results that suggest the earth is flat and not spheroid then I'd be more inclined to go out and try it myself. Maybe it's just in my nature to question results that go against what I think, but until those results are shown I'm just going to keep on thinking you're wrong, which most of the world will do.

Give people something to question I guess, give something that challenges the globe and gets people thinking "hey, they might be on to something here!". Give us some actual results.
Tom is wrong most of the time. Hardly big news, don't you think?

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9747
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Modern experiments
« Reply #14 on: September 06, 2019, 01:34:51 PM »
But Pete, surely saying you did the experiment and henceforth believe the world is flat, then not telling people your experiment results is counterproductive?
That depends on what you consider "productive", or, more accurately, it depends on what I consider "productive". In the past, you've made the mistake of thinking that I'm here to convince people that the Earth is flat. As I previously explained, I'm not.

If you don't want to show your evidence yet claim the earth is flat, it looks a little suspicious.
Indeed. As I've said many times before, I don't want you to believe random blokes on the Internet, and that includes me. I want you to distrust me, and to investigate the matter to your own satisfaction. I'm happy to help with resources that will set you on the right path, but walking the walk for you is something I'm explicitly avoiding. If you find that suspicious - good.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2019, 01:38:20 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

dichotomy

Re: Modern experiments
« Reply #15 on: September 06, 2019, 05:10:09 PM »
Quote
Presumably, California is not the only part of the world with a large body of water.
I'm sure you are quite right there Pete but I believe in making an experiment a fair test, That means matching like for like as many factors in the experiment as possible.  How could I compare my results with Toms directly if I used a different location?
Quote
You appear to have completely missed the point of "doing it yourself". Once you choose to perform the experiment, you'll be able to adjust for all of these factors, and ones you have not yet anticipated, to your satisfaction. I do realise that those who prefer the scientific method over the Zetetic method expect us to write our experiments up in great detail to save them the hassle of having to actually experience the world for themselves, but I'm simply not interested in appeasing your desires here.
So does that mean the zetetic approach is to accept as true the world simply from the way things appear to be? If so then you must think the Sun and Moon really are the same size?   
Quote
It sounds like your MO is to look at every experiment and create a new criterion for why you dislike it. That seems very counter-productive. Since you're looking for your own satisfaction and yours alone, you'd be better off designing and performing an experiment yourself.
No, my 'MO' as you put it is simply to look at every experiment and make as impartial judgement as I can on the likelihood that the results obtained from it are genuine and true. It seems to be your MO to dismiss everything that REs say which point out weaknesses in FE theory.

You say you have performed the Bedford Experiment yourself but you don't feel that you need to explain how you did it. In that case what was the point in mentioning it in the first place?




« Last Edit: September 06, 2019, 05:14:36 PM by dichotomy »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1249
    • View Profile
Re: Modern experiments
« Reply #16 on: September 06, 2019, 07:13:06 PM »
How was "the latter just being a bit confused about most things and largely unable to comprehend simple instructions," in regard to recreating the Bishop experiment?
I'll let you read through the threads in your own time.

I did and have. There was no confusion on his part, quite clear headed in the approach.  And the comprehension of instructions or lack thereof had to do with where the experiments and findings were posted and how they were conveyed. It had nothing to do with experiments themselves which your statement tries to allude to. Which, in my mind, is a disingenuous way of trying to discredit the work performed. To be expected really.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

Re: Modern experiments
« Reply #17 on: September 06, 2019, 07:36:43 PM »
I do realise that those who prefer the scientific method over the Zetetic method expect us to write our experiments up in great detail to save them the hassle of having to actually experience the world for themselves, but I'm simply not interested in appeasing your desires here.

Writing up a scientific experiment in detail is part of the scientific method specifically so that others can do the experiments for themselves. When other people replicate your experiment (which they can do because you carefully documented everything about how you performed it), their results will either confirm yours or cast doubt, opening new avenues for investigation.

Likewise, when you publish your experiment, others can repeat your experiment with variables changed to narrow down the exact cause of your results. Subsequent experiments take all results into account, and little by little you begin to chip away at the explanations that aren't possible, leaving the ones that are.

It's the reason the scientific method is so successful. It's a meticulous checking, rechecking, cross-checking, and cumulative method of accumulating knowledge. It's certainly not a way to keep people from performing their own experiments.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9747
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Modern experiments
« Reply #18 on: September 06, 2019, 07:53:48 PM »
How could I compare my results with Toms directly if I used a different location?
Sounds like an excuse to me. The properties of water are largely universal, and California water does not have magical anti-curvature properties.

So does that mean the zetetic approach is to accept as true the world simply from the way things appear to be?
No, that does not follow in the slightest.

If so then you must think the Sun and Moon really are the same size?
Coincidentally, that happens to be true in the FE model.

No, my 'MO' as you put it is simply to look at every experiment and make as impartial judgement as I can on the likelihood that the results obtained from it are genuine and true.
Excellent. Conduct experiments. It's your best chance of ascertaining the outcome of said experiments.

It seems to be your MO to dismiss everything that REs say which point out weaknesses in FE theory.
You have yet to highlight any weakness in FET. You're just complaining about me not serving you information on a silver platter. I have no obligation to do so, nor do I have any interest in doing so.

You say you have performed the Bedford Experiment yourself but you don't feel that you need to explain how you did it. In that case what was the point in mentioning it in the first place?
You are fixating on an off-hand interjection in the middle of a sentence. Recall the phrase in context: Your best bet is to conduct the experiment yourself (as I and many others have) and draw your own conclusions. Your decision to isolate a few words (coincidentally, the least important ones of the bunch) from my statement and acting as if they existed in a vacuum does not particularly inspire me to spend my time deliberating this.

I did and have. There was no confusion on his part
If you're going to simply deny his repeated leaps of logic (which ultimately caused him to curl his tail between his legs and leave this forum), then there really is no point in further discussion - we both have better things to do with our time, I presume.

It's the reason the scientific method is so successful.
You and I have drastically different concepts of success. That's fine, I guess. To me, the philosophy responsible for anti-vaccine movements, an impending climate change catastrophe, extreme wealth disparity across the Earth's population, and overall misery is not "successful".
« Last Edit: September 06, 2019, 07:58:58 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 651
    • View Profile
Re: Modern experiments
« Reply #19 on: September 06, 2019, 07:56:22 PM »
Writing up a scientific experiment in detail is part of the scientific method specifically so that others can do the experiments for themselves. When other people replicate your experiment (which they can do because you carefully documented everything about how you performed it), their results will either confirm yours or cast doubt, opening new avenues for investigation.


This argument goes both ways there are FE experiments which don't have an encyclopedia of documentation. There are also RE experiments which many RE proponents stand up and proudly say EARTH ROUND when many variables are undocumented.

Here's an example:
Look these shadows are a different length the earth is round! But shadow A was 90 degrees and 80% humidity with a high pollen count and shadow B was 80 degrees , 70% humidity and a low pollen count.  You're not comparing apples to apples here. You have not even made the slightest attempt to determine how refraction and chaotic atmospheric conditions are affecting the length of the shadows.