*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1254
    • View Profile
Re: Modern experiments
« Reply #40 on: September 10, 2019, 10:24:06 PM »
The sinking doesn't match a Flat Earth? Our minds are blown, assuredly.

The matter is demonstrated to be an illusion. The mechanism which causes it is irrelevant. Since it is an illusion it cannot be used as evidence for a Globe Earth. Aristotile's sinking ship proof is inconsistent.  An inconsistent proof is not proof of a globe.

GE can use the illusion of refraction to pull the numbers in line in this example:



For FE it's not just that the sinking doesn't match a flat earth, it's way way off; ex., there's a 321' wall of water in front of a skyscraper with no explanation. Where did that Tsunami come from?
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1254
    • View Profile
Re: Modern experiments
« Reply #41 on: September 10, 2019, 10:34:03 PM »

Why did you cut half of the image off, specifically removing the Flat Earth Height Hidden table?

It's a moot point. the RE predictions for observations made in a vacuum didn't match the observations we see. In addition the FE predictions for observations made in a vacuum didn't match the observations we see.

To me the take away is that you can't see a ship sinking over the ocean and promptly claim the shape of the earth is ___________. You must at least attempt to factor in chaotic atmospheric and optical variables which have been demonstrated, over and over again, to have a significant impact on what our human brains perceive.

First off, the two tables, one for curved hidden and one for flat hidden, was a single image file. Tom, in order to try and make his point, deliberately cropped out the second table from the image. Shady, at best.

For two, there is a great disparity between the FE and GE observations in this example. FE is way off. And we did factor in atmospheric conditions on the GE side as seen in the table above. But there is no FE explanation for 100's of feet to be obscured.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

Re: Modern experiments
« Reply #42 on: September 11, 2019, 09:00:07 AM »
Receding from curving light rays also results in greater curvature with distance.

But I'm confused. From 21.6 miles away in that video a third of the building was hidden. Not far from 200 feet. And yet you claim

Quote
it is possible to see people at the waters edge on the adjacent beach 23 miles away near the lighthouse. The entire beach is visible down to the water splashing upon the shore. Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore and teenagers merrily throwing Frisbees to one another. I can see runners jogging along the water's edge with their dogs. From my vantage point the entire beach is visible.

So you were further away. And your observation height was lower. Why were curving light rays not a problem for you?
And it can't just have been conditions on the day because you claim you can repeat this any time you want:

Quote
"Whenever I have doubts about the shape of the earth I simply walk outside my home, down to the beach, and perform this simple test. Provided that there is no fog and the day is clear and calm, the same result comes up over and over throughout the year."

It's a shame that all the times you have done this you have never actually documented the observation. Are we supposed to just take your word for it? As someone once said:
Quote
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.


Quote
Refer to the thread on that topic. Your hero Bobby Shafto shows that the amount hidden did not match the Globe Earth curvature. The amount offset from the calculated Globe Earth curvature changed with every shot.

Yes. That tells us the atmosphere is complicated and can cause effects which mean observations don't match a perfect spherical earth with no atmosphere. That is well known.
But what did his observations never do? It never matched the observation you claim. Not once.

Quote
You guys point us to what is demonstrably an illusion to claim that the earth is curved.

And you are claiming that the illusion doesn't exist at all when you take observations. Observations you have no evidence for.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 659
    • View Profile
Re: Modern experiments
« Reply #43 on: September 11, 2019, 07:06:59 PM »
Receding from curving light rays also results in greater curvature with distance.

But I'm confused. From 21.6 miles away in that video a third of the building was hidden. Not far from 200 feet. And yet you claim

Quote
it is possible to see people at the waters edge on the adjacent beach 23 miles away near the lighthouse. The entire beach is visible down to the water splashing upon the shore. Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore and teenagers merrily throwing Frisbees to one another. I can see runners jogging along the water's edge with their dogs. From my vantage point the entire beach is visible.

So you were further away. And your observation height was lower. Why were curving light rays not a problem for you?
And it can't just have been conditions on the day because you claim you can repeat this any time you want:

Quote
"Whenever I have doubts about the shape of the earth I simply walk outside my home, down to the beach, and perform this simple test. Provided that there is no fog and the day is clear and calm, the same result comes up over and over throughout the year."

It's a shame that all the times you have done this you have never actually documented the observation. Are we supposed to just take your word for it? As someone once said:
Quote
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Here's another example of the "Bishop Experiment" Light from sea level being visible from a distance which should be "impossible" based on the RE model.




If he was further away and saw a different observation it was under different atmospheric and optical conditions which affected the observation.


Re: Modern experiments
« Reply #44 on: September 11, 2019, 07:28:05 PM »
Yes. That’s the experiment which Bobby conceded could be evidence for a FE.
But he tried to reproduce the result and couldn’t. So now what?

Tom’s general tactic is to call any experiment which doesn’t confirm his world view fake, or try and explain it away somehow. To Bobby’s credit, he didn’t do that with the above, he did his own tests. And that is why while Tom’s snide comment about him being my hero is incorrect, I was certainly impressed by the time and effort Bobby spent to perform and document his own tests.

But this is how progress is made in science. People do tests, other people try and reproduce those tests. If the other people get the same results then that builds confidence in them. In this case Bobby didn’t get the same results, so I guess more testing is needed.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9914
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Modern experiments
« Reply #45 on: September 12, 2019, 05:52:11 AM »
I guess more testing is needed.
You should make up your mind. You were only just done telling us how unproductive it is to expect people to perform more experiments.
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 Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6519
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Modern experiments
« Reply #46 on: September 12, 2019, 05:56:19 AM »

Why did you cut half of the image off, specifically removing the Flat Earth Height Hidden table?

It's a moot point. the RE predictions for observations made in a vacuum didn't match the observations we see. In addition the FE predictions for observations made in a vacuum didn't match the observations we see.

To me the take away is that you can't see a ship sinking over the ocean and promptly claim the shape of the earth is ___________. You must at least attempt to factor in chaotic atmospheric and optical variables which have been demonstrated, over and over again, to have a significant impact on what our human brains perceive.

First off, the two tables, one for curved hidden and one for flat hidden, was a single image file. Tom, in order to try and make his point, deliberately cropped out the second table from the image. Shady, at best.

The second table was a lame attempt at claiming that the sinking didn't match an FE. Was someone here under the impression that FE predicted sinking in a vaccum?

It appears to me that there is only one side here attempting deception; deliberately ignoring the fact that the curvature keeps changing, which invalidates the argument of a ball earth since it is demonstrated that an illusion is occuring in the images, choosing instead an attempt of deflection of "wall of water!! How does FE explain??"

You want us to explain images which demonstrably involves an illusion? A weak defense, IMO.

Tom’s general tactic is to call any experiment which doesn’t confirm his world view fake

Actually, that's more your tactic:

Are we supposed to just take your word for it?
« Last Edit: September 12, 2019, 04:48:11 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Modern experiments
« Reply #47 on: September 12, 2019, 07:20:55 AM »
I guess more testing is needed.
You should make up your mind. You were only just done telling us how unproductive it is to expect people to perform more experiments.
No. I was saying how unproductive it is is to expect people to perform more experiments if you won’t show the results of your own tests.

Its unproductive to claim a result without giving details of how you conducted the test or documenting and showing the result.
Especially when the result is potentially so revolutionary for our understanding of the world we live in.

If someone in the middle of nowhere claims they got abducted by aliens, were taken to the aliens’ home world for dinner and then returned to Earth then I’ll smile and nod but I’m not interested in investigating their claims other than maybe asking a few sarcastic questions. My initial reaction, based on my understanding of the world, is they must be lying or deluded.
If the person presents some good evidence backing up their claim then while I’d remain sceptical I’d be more likely to investigate more seriously.

If you’re claiming the earth is flat because of “tests you’ve done” then there are two possibilities. One is that you have discovered something so revolutionary that congratulations on your Nobel prize. The other is you haven’t because you suck at doing experiments, you don’t understand things as well as you think you do or you’re lying or deluded.
I lean towards the latter, especially as you refuse to give details of what tests you did or show your results.

Again, the whole point of people publishing their experiment method and results is so other people can repeat their experiments. That is how consensus has been reached and progress made. The idea of everyone doing their own tests and forming their own model of reality based on those results is why there is such a mess of competing FE models.

Yes, it’s good for people to test things for themselves - although people have to understand there are limits to this in terms of their skills and the equipment they need.
But people should also share their methods and results so others can check their work and try and repeat their tests to see if they get the same results to build confidence in them, or not as the case may be.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2019, 12:06:41 PM by AllAroundTheWorld »
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Re: Modern experiments
« Reply #48 on: September 12, 2019, 09:48:31 AM »
It appears to me that you are the person here attempting deception; deliberately ignoring the fact that the curvature keeps changing, which invalidates the argument of a ball earth since it is demonstrated that an illusion is occuring in the image

No one is ignoring that. No one is disputing that there are atmospheric effects which mean a simplistic model of a perfectly spherical earth in a vacuum isn't going to match observations.
Refraction will occur, particularly over water. So yes, that will affect results. But no, that doesn't invalidate the argument of a ball earth, it invalidates the argument of a perfectly spherical earth in a vacuum. An argument no-one is making.
The relevant question is not whether observations perfectly match a simplified model of the earth's curve and refraction, atmospheric effects change from day to day so you wouldn't necessarily expect that.
The question is does it match that model better than a FE model? In a FE model what's the building hiding behind? Why is any of it hidden? Why can't you see "all the way down to the shoreline"? You claim you could, why can't anyone else?

You want us to explain images which demonstrably involves an illusion?

I want you to explain why the images fit better with a globe earth model than a FE one, and why the illusion only happens when other people do tests. It never seems to be an issue for you:

Quote
"Whenever I have doubts about the shape of the earth I simply walk outside my home, down to the beach, and perform this simple test. Provided that there is no fog and the day is clear and calm, the same result comes up over and over throughout the year."

Are we supposed to just take your word for it?

The point being made here, fairly obviously, is that your account, while evidence, is not as compelling evidence as when someone carefully documents their experiment and shows their results.
Yours is just a claim. Anyone can make a claim. Which is more compelling:
1) A child claiming they have a 20 foot high tree in their house but refusing to show you any pictures of it or their home.
2) A child claiming they have a 20 foot high tree in their house, showing photos of said tree with them and their family, showing photos of the big house they live in and some proof of address.

I'm going with 2. It doesn't prove it of course, they could have taken the photo while at a visit to some mansion open to the public, they could have doctored the proof of address. But it takes a lot more effort to fake all that. It takes no effort at all to make a claim. As a wise man once said:

Quote
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Maybe next time you walk outside your home, down to the beach, and perform this simple test you could take some photos, show them to us and tell us the location you took them from, the direction your camera was pointing and your viewer height. Then we can investigate further.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9914
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Modern experiments
« Reply #49 on: September 12, 2019, 01:01:41 PM »
No. I was saying how unproductive it is is to expect people to perform more experiments if you won’t show the results of your own tests.
Then it's a good thing I didn't do that.

Its unproductive to claim a result without giving details of how you conducted the test or documenting and showing the result.
I didn't claim a result - I invited others to reach their own. Remember what I told you about lying, and how silly it makes you look?
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 #50 on: September 12, 2019, 01:52:13 PM »
But, to answer your question more directly: the Bishop Experiment is rather recent, and easily reproducible.

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

You don't claim a result in this thread but in your chat with McToon you cite being able to "see too low" as the best evidence of a flat earth.
A fairly reasonable assumption that you state that because of the results of your experiments.

But in any case the "you" is plural. Maybe I should have said "one".
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9914
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Modern experiments
« Reply #51 on: September 12, 2019, 02:12:14 PM »
You don't claim a result in this thread
And yet you claimed that my approach in this thread is unproductive (while proposing exactly the same approach yourself), and justified that by claiming I did claim a result. Perhaps you should take that comment back.

A fairly reasonable assumption that you state that because of the results of your experiments.
Acting as the arbiter of your own assumptions is in poor form. Since the best criticism you have of me is an assumption about something I didn't even say, I'm sure you understand that it doesn't belong here.
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 #52 on: September 12, 2019, 04:04:37 PM »
You claim to have reproduced the Bishop experiment.
You don't explicitly say what your result was but a combination of your comments on McToon's video and the fact you are a flat earther led me to assume what your results were. They clearly led you to believe that the earth is flat, or are part of why you believe that. That is surely a fairly reasonable assumption. If you got any other result then why would you be a flat earther? If my assumption is incorrect then please correct me.

It's pretty reasonable to believe people should check things out for themselves.
Up to a point - and that point being people realising their limits, not everyone has the skill or understanding to check everything out for themselves. You only have to look at some of the FE idiots on YouTube to see that - I'll admit that the level of understanding of things on here is generally higher.

The thing I really take issue with is you saying:

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

No!
The whole point of someone writing up the result of their experiments, and the method they used to obtain them, is so other people can try it for themselves.

It allows other people to check your result and method. Maybe you made a mistake somewhere which led you to a wrong conclusion. How do I know unless I know what you did? How do you know if you made a mistake, come to think of it.
Sure, I can do my own tests but if I get different results, then what? Maybe I made a mistake but how will you (again, or I) know unless I've documented things so other people can check?
How do we move towards consensus unless we have both documented our methods and results so we can try and understand between us why we got different results?
That is how progress is made.

The attitude that comes across is
"I believe the earth to be flat because of tests I've done, but I'm not going to show you the results of those tests, you should do your own".

The first part of that, your conclusion, is so revolutionary that my immediate reaction is you must have made a mistake. It doesn't make me want to do my own tests, it makes me want to understand more about what you did that led you to that conclusion.

I believe it's counter-productive to want people to do their own tests if you're not going to document your own. Partly because your claim is so extraordinary - most people's reaction is going to be that you are mistaken. And partly for the reasons I've mentioned, progress is made by people cross-checking each other's work.

I have no criticism of you. I just disagree with the notion that you publishing your results will make others less likely to want to do their own tests, my view is it would make people more likely to.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9914
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Modern experiments
« Reply #53 on: September 12, 2019, 04:27:56 PM »
I have no criticism of you.
Then please refrain from voicing one in the future. I don't even ask for basic courtesy, merely internal consistency.

It's pretty reasonable to believe people should check things out for themselves.
That concession will do for now.

The thing I really take issue with is you saying:

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
I stand by what I said, provided that we consider it in context. dichotomy is inventing excuses not to perform experiments himself - he's not in California, and other bodies of water might not be a fair comparison, and it wouldn't provide him with the evidence he wanted anyway, etc. etc. He, and many like him, is trying to get others to do work him, only using scientific inquiry as a lazy excuse.

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 #54 on: September 12, 2019, 06:34:26 PM »
Quote
He, and many like him, is trying to get others to do work him, only using scientific inquiry as a lazy excuse.

Please don't make claims about what you think I am trying to do Pete.  I am especially not asking you to be a spokesman for me. I can speak for myself thanks very much. If you don't like what I say then fair enough but that is not a reason to belittle what I say just because I have an opinion that you don't agree with.

I am simply asking people who claim they have done experiments already, and therefore already done work for themselves to explain what their conclusions were from those experiments. Nothing more nothing less.

If you can provide me with evidence that supports your flat Earth belief then present it and I will give it due consideration. Based entirely on its merits and not what I believe or don't believe.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2019, 06:38:00 PM by dichotomy »

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9914
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Modern experiments
« Reply #55 on: September 13, 2019, 06:19:32 AM »
Please don't make claims about what you think I am trying to do Pete.  I am especially not asking you to be a spokesman for me. I can speak for myself thanks very much.
Sorry, that's not how accusations work - I'm not a spokesperson for you, but against you - as you astutely observed, speaking for yourself is your own job. Asking me to stop accusing you of something I provided evidence for will not change my position.

This is also not a matter of "disagreeing" with you. I'm making an argument that's independent of your opinions. It also has nothing to do with whether or not I "like" you or what you're saying - it's a simple analysis of your actions.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2019, 06:23:19 AM 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 obiba

  • *
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: Modern experiments
« Reply #56 on: September 13, 2019, 04:57:53 PM »
One experiment to be done is to go and film the sun in Antarctica during south hemisphere summer and you have your best proof ever, and not so expensive

Midnightsun

Re: Modern experiments
« Reply #57 on: September 13, 2019, 09:02:12 PM »
Sure... and take some FE believers with you so they can see the Sun and film it with their own eyes. Because that seems to be the only way they believe something; if they actually see it.