*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2257
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« Reply #60 on: March 23, 2017, 05:38:26 PM »
I already said that I performed the experiment a number of times on that peninsula, in different areas, 10 years ago. I don't know beach names.

Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« Reply #61 on: March 23, 2017, 05:40:05 PM »
I already said that I performed the experiment a number of times on that peninsula. I don't know beach names.

You don't need to know the name. Is this the beach? (Yes or no)

Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« Reply #62 on: March 23, 2017, 05:58:55 PM »
I already said that I performed the experiment a number of times on that peninsula, in different areas, 10 years ago. I don't know beach names.

Finally.

1. "I performed the experiment a number of times on that peninsula, in different areas." -- Tom Bishop
2. There is only one beach in that area that has line of sight to the Santa Cruz beach that you claimed to be able to see.

Therefore, you had to have been looking at the wrong beach in at least some of those experiments, indicating that you were unable to correctly identify the beach you claimed to be looking at. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that the experiment was performed correctly.

Your honor, I rest my case.


Panorama of relevant beach.


« Last Edit: March 23, 2017, 06:01:17 PM by TotesNotReptilian »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2257
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« Reply #63 on: March 23, 2017, 06:05:21 PM »
No, that isn't the whole peninsula, there are several places pointing towards santa cruz.

Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« Reply #64 on: March 23, 2017, 06:42:35 PM »
No, that isn't the whole peninsula, there are several places pointing towards santa cruz.

That is Lovers Point, which you specifically referred to by name as the location of your experiment.

*

Offline SexWarrior

  • e
  • *
  • Posts: 5772
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« Reply #65 on: March 23, 2017, 08:41:22 PM »
2. There is only one beach in that area that has line of sight to the Santa Cruz beach that you claimed to be able to see.
Why would you say something like that while simultaneously attaching a picture in which you, personally, circled several beaches that work within your blue oval?
<Parsifal> Jesus Christ
<Parsifal> Do I really have to write 6000-word sentences just to remove all ambiguity from everything I'm saying?

Where live, do the offer adult reading classes?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2257
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« Reply #66 on: March 23, 2017, 11:10:14 PM »
No, that isn't the whole peninsula, there are several places pointing towards santa cruz.

That is Lovers Point, which you specifically referred to by name as the location of your experiment.

The whole area of the peninsula is generally referred as Lover's Point. There are several things called Lovers Point in that area, such as the Lover's Point Marine Reserve.

Offline model 29

  • *
  • Posts: 302
    • View Profile
Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« Reply #67 on: March 25, 2017, 04:42:44 PM »
Was it a sandy beach, or was it gravel?
I take it there was not a lot of violent surf in that direction.

So a person hoping to re-create this experiment needs a fairly portable 500x telescope that can be set up 20 inches from the ground, and beach with a view in that direction that isn't looking through big waves/surf. 

Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« Reply #68 on: April 08, 2017, 04:32:40 AM »
On a thread about Zetetic Method versus Scientific Method (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3849.0), Tom Bishop posted this:

"The Chemist can put his subject matter under controlled experimental conditions to come to a truth. The Astronomer cannot. This is why Chemistry is a science and why Astronomy is not.

Your argument about both "observing the results" is not a good one. The Chemist can clearly do a lot more testing on his subject matter than the Astronomer can. There is a huge difference. The Astronomer is not doing testing or experimentation at all before coming up with theories."

I replied:

Doesn't your criticism then apply also to all flat earth theories? The earth, whether flat or round, is definitely not a controlled experiment. Last time I checked, the earth does not fit into a test tube...or even inside a laboratory. Aren't you in the same boat as the astronomers when you offer flat earth explanations? How would the Zetetic Method get around this fatal flaw in all flat earth models?

For example, let's say...oh I don't know....that you conduct an experiment where you view a distant beach through a telescope? Here are the variables that cannot be controlled or at least that should be factored into and well documented in any results reported:

1-Air temperature all along the line of sight (which affects the refractive properties of air)
2-Humidity
3-Angle of the sun (unless you repeat the experiment once a year at the exact same time)
4-Human error or miscalculation.....like maybe looking at the wrong beach?
5-Pollution levels
6-Wave size and direction, along with any spray being thrown up by the wind
7-Amount of cloud cover or fog
8-Acuity of eyesight of the observer
9-Condition of the telescope
10-Exact location and height and compass direction of the telescope
11- Height of the tides at both locations, and more variable effects like unusually high or low tides caused by wind and storm surges
12- Wind or other factors affecting the steadiness of the telescope
13- Acuity of any photographic equipment used to document the results (if someone actually thought to document their results with a camera)
14- Editing or photoshopping done to any of the resulting photographic or video-graphic evidence collected
15-Fudging of the data collected or reported to support a preconception of what should have been observed

Maybe you could start adjusting for some of these variables by carefully documenting your experiments (including with photographs) and convincing others to repeat it and carefully check your experimental method and results....or you could just post about such an experiment on a forum somewhere and claim it is proof of something without actually having even controlled or documented what you could, or asked anyone else to repeat it and report back to you first.

Would you consider that experiment an example of the Zetetic method in action without any effort at controls, documentation, or independent repetition of the experiment?

And what about all of the factors that are mentioned above that cannot be controlled? Doesn't that make this experiment subject to the inherent flaws you claim for Astronomy?

I also added this:

And how are the observations on the beach an experiment anyways under your definition (further up in the thread): "To experiment is to isolate, prepare, and manipulate things in hopes of producing epistemically useful evidence. It is entirely different than a mere observation."

All you did was look through a telescope. What did you isolate, prepare or manipulate on the beach during your observations?
« Last Edit: April 08, 2017, 04:35:20 AM by Nirmala »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2257
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« Reply #69 on: April 08, 2017, 03:55:31 PM »
It's a simple validation and repeition of Rowbotham's convexity experiments, which did account for refraction and waves and all of those things. It's not my original experiment. I will suggest that you read Earth Not a Globe.

Offline Novarus

  • *
  • Posts: 77
    • View Profile
Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« Reply #70 on: April 08, 2017, 07:58:30 PM »
It's a simple validation and repeition of Rowbotham's convexity experiments, which did account for refraction and waves and all of those things. It's not my original experiment. I will suggest that you read Earth Not a Globe.

I thought "appeals to authority" weren't allowed in these arguments. Rowbotham asserted that he had been to the ice wall, beside the fact that he stated this wasn't possible - he hasn't been able to give any accurate figures for the size of the earth, the wall, weather, atmospheric pressure the motion of the sun or moon or any other planets, the existence of a second pole star or the nature of eclipses with any evidence that remotely resembles observable fact.
My proof? Your bible - Earth: Not a Globe.
None of his experiments can be repeated with his results - whenever attempted, even when he was still alive, he would jump up and down and proclaim that telescopes are the instruments of the devil.

Now, since your results can't be replicated on any other landmass that should support your claims (i. e. anywhere else) with your results, I suggest you do what any sensible scientist would do and concede that your method was insufficient to demonstrate any kind of scientific rigour and repeat it somewhere else - anywhere else! I suggest starting with Australia  since, given the models proposed by your own society, the Ice wall should be visible from there - since this is a fixed point in your cosmology and you should be able to see its entirety from anywhere on the Australian continent, your results should be easily replicatable.

No cue the list of inconsequential and unrelated questions, dismissal of fact and a possible ban from the moderators - we call this the Bishop method.
Go ahead: I'll wait.

Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« Reply #71 on: April 08, 2017, 09:26:05 PM »
It's a simple validation and repeition of Rowbotham's convexity experiments, which did account for refraction and waves and all of those things. It's not my original experiment. I will suggest that you read Earth Not a Globe.

So when simply validating someone else's experiment from two centuries ago, is it no longer necessary to "isolate, prepare, and manipulate things in hopes of producing epistemically useful evidence"? And how did Robotham "isolate, prepare, and manipulate things in hopes of producing epistemically useful evidence" (again your own words from above) when he made some simple observations at the Bedford Canal? And does repeating someone else's experiment absolve you of any need to actually document the experiment in a way that still others could reproduce it, and thereby discover if it was indeed correct or if there were errors in the methodology?

How was your experiment or Rowbotham's any different from the mere observations recorded by Astronomers? Again, by your own definition, neither your "experiments" nor Robotham's actually qualify as experiments. Or maybe it is OK to just observe as long as you are doing it in service to your own pet theory?

For that matter, can you site any flat earth evidence that is actually the result of isolating, preparing, and manipulating things in hopes of producing epistemically useful evidence, or is it all based on simple observations that do not meet your own stated criteria to qualify as an experiment? It seems to me we can replace the word Astronomer in your earlier statement with the words Flat Earther as follows: The Flat Earther is not doing testing or experimentation at all before coming up with theories.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2017, 09:32:53 PM by Nirmala »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2257
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« Reply #72 on: April 08, 2017, 09:31:58 PM »
It's a simple validation and repeition of Rowbotham's convexity experiments, which did account for refraction and waves and all of those things. It's not my original experiment. I will suggest that you read Earth Not a Globe.

I thought "appeals to authority" weren't allowed in these arguments. Rowbotham asserted that he had been to the ice wall, beside the fact that he stated this wasn't possible

It was James Clark Ross who went to the Ice Wall, not Rowbotham.

Quote
Quote
- he hasn't been able to give any accurate figures for the size of the earth, the wall, weather, atmospheric pressure the motion of the sun or moon or any other planets, the existence of a second pole star or the nature of eclipses with any evidence that remotely resembles observable fact.

Rowbotham doesn't suggest figures for much of that.

Quote
None of his experiments can be repeated with his results - whenever attempted, even when he was still alive, he would jump up and down and proclaim that telescopes are the instruments of the devil.

This is not true at all.

Quote
Now, since your results can't be replicated on any other landmass that should support your claims (i. e. anywhere else) with your results, I suggest you do what any sensible scientist would do and concede that your method was insufficient to demonstrate any kind of scientific rigour and repeat it somewhere else - anywhere else!

I did claim that I repeated it.

Quote
I suggest starting with Australia  since, given the models proposed by your own society, the Ice wall should be visible from there - since this is a fixed point in your cosmology and you should be able to see its entirety from anywhere on the Australian continent, your results should be easily replicatable.

The Ice Wall is only 150 feet high in the monopole model and the atmosphere is not perfectly transparent.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2017, 09:36:05 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2257
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« Reply #73 on: April 08, 2017, 09:35:01 PM »
So when simply validating someone else's experiment from two centuries ago, it is no longer necessary to "isolate, prepare, and manipulate things in hopes of producing epistemically useful evidence"? And how did Robotham "isolate, prepare, and manipulate things in hopes of producing epistemically useful evidence" (again your own words from above)? And does repeating someone else's experiment absolve you of any need to actually document the experiment in a way that still others could reproduce it, and thereby discover if it was indeed correct or if there were errors in the methodology

The water convexity experiment has been conducted by multiple people under different atmospheric conditions and water conditions. This constituted rigorous repetition. My experiment was just one more to the pile.

Quote
How was your experiment or Rowbotham's any different from the mere observations recorded by Astronomers

Rowbotham brought tools like barometers between the start and ends of the experiment to determine air pressure. When has an Astronomer ever gone to a star to keep his experiment controlled?
« Last Edit: April 08, 2017, 09:37:06 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« Reply #74 on: April 08, 2017, 09:52:49 PM »
So are you saying measuring barometric pressure before and after an experiment qualifies as isolating, preparing, and manipulating things in hopes of producing epistemically useful evidence? Sounds  like just one more observation to me. And astronomers may not use a barometer, but they can make several different "observations" in the course of their work using lots of different instruments like different kinds of telescopes that measure different spectrums of electromagnetic radiation. How was Robotham's use of a barometer different than an astronomer's use of a radio telescope in addition to a light telescope?

And if an experiment has been repeated a lot of times, does that mean that it absolves anyone reporting their own results from accurately documenting their methods and results? Especially if they publish their results, shouldn't they observe the bare minimums of documentation and rigor that any form of science requires? But of course that assumes that this is actually a serious scientific forum, and your experiment does nothing to support that conclusion.

I will ask again:  Can you site any flat earth evidence that is actually the result of isolating, preparing, and manipulating things in hopes of producing epistemically useful evidence (similar to what a chemist does), or is it all based on simple observations that do not meet your own stated criteria to qualify as an experiment?
« Last Edit: April 08, 2017, 09:58:33 PM by Nirmala »

*

Offline SexWarrior

  • e
  • *
  • Posts: 5772
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« Reply #75 on: April 08, 2017, 10:00:36 PM »
1-Air temperature all along the line of sight (which affects the refractive properties of air)
2-Humidity
3-Angle of the sun (unless you repeat the experiment once a year at the exact same time)
4-Human error or miscalculation.....like maybe looking at the wrong beach?
5-Pollution levels
6-Wave size and direction, along with any spray being thrown up by the wind
7-Amount of cloud cover or fog
8-Acuity of eyesight of the observer
9-Condition of the telescope
10-Exact location and height and compass direction of the telescope
11- Height of the tides at both locations, and more variable effects like unusually high or low tides caused by wind and storm surges
12- Wind or other factors affecting the steadiness of the telescope
Are you claiming that adjusting any or all of the above 12 factors would make it possible for one to see across all of Monterey Bay with a telescope on a hypothetical Round Earth? If so, congratulations - you've just diverged from mainstream RE'ers so much that you pretty much can't be considered an RE'er - you're closer to one of us! If not, let us discard these and continue:

13- Acuity of any photographic equipment used to document the results (if someone actually thought to document their results with a camera)
14- Editing or photoshopping done to any of the resulting photographic or video-graphic evidence collected
We're not interested in photographic "evidence". So much of it is fabricated that it's not worth anyone's time. Reproducing Tom's experiment is trivial, and experiencing it is much more convincing that looking at totally-real pictures of Tatooine.

15-Fudging of the data collected or reported to support a preconception of what should have been observed
It would be a shame if the experiment were repeated a number of times with consistent results by different people...
<Parsifal> Jesus Christ
<Parsifal> Do I really have to write 6000-word sentences just to remove all ambiguity from everything I'm saying?

Where live, do the offer adult reading classes?

Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« Reply #76 on: April 08, 2017, 10:07:56 PM »
I claimed nothing about what is possible on a round earth. I was merely pointing out that Tom's experiment does not qualify as an experiment by his own stated criteria.

Have you repeated his experiment? If so, what is your evidence? And how did you know when and where to place the telescope and what direction to point it, when that data has not been shared with enough specificity to repeat his experiment correctly?

Offline Novarus

  • *
  • Posts: 77
    • View Profile
Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« Reply #77 on: April 08, 2017, 10:26:10 PM »

Quote
Now, since your results can't be replicated on any other landmass that should support your claims (i. e. anywhere else) with your results, I suggest you do what any sensible scientist would do and concede that your method was insufficient to demonstrate any kind of scientific rigour and repeat it somewhere else - anywhere else!

I did claim that I repeated it.

"other landmass" - try leaving the country and repeating this from, say, Patagonia or Indonesia or Australia. Your examination of one tiny section of the earth is not enough to make grand statements about its entirety.

Quote
I suggest starting with Australia  since, given the models proposed by your own society, the Ice wall should be visible from there - since this is a fixed point in your cosmology and you should be able to see its entirety from anywhere on the Australian continent, your results should be easily replicatable.

The Ice Wall is only 150 feet high in the monopole model and the atmosphere is not perfectly transparent.
[/quote]

The Atmospheric Transparency defense is bunk - even on the clearest of days we should see the horizon fade slowly to a vanishing point at eye level. What we actually see is a sharp cut-off where the sky meats the land/ocean with objects "sinking" behind it like - you guessed it - objects going over a curve. There is no amount of perspective jiggerypokery or claims of atmospheric transparency that can refute this.
Also can I point out your continued use of the word atmosphere?

And yes, I concede that the original conductors of the Bedford experiment didn't "jump up and down" - that was facetious of me, and I'm sorry.
Though one of the main proponents of the experiment, a man named Hampden, threatened to murder the man who proved the experiment wrong, Alfred Russel Wallace.
Wallace's version of the experiment, which showed Rowbotham's experiment returned a false result, was replicated for nearly a century as an illustration of the curvature of the Earth and, by the end of the ensuing legal battle, Hampden was left disgraced and bankrupt.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/rosetta-stones/wallace-8217-s-woeful-wager-how-a-founder-of-modern-biology-got-suckered-by-flat-earthers/
http://people.wku.edu/charles.smith/wallace/S162-163.htm


You need better equipment, more precise measurement and a far larger sample size to make any assertions about the Earth - concluding the Earth is flat because of your observations of one part of the Earth is like saying that my entire sock drawer is filled with stripy blue toesie socks because that happens to be what I pull out when I reach into exactly the same place every time.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2257
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« Reply #78 on: April 08, 2017, 10:57:39 PM »
"other landmass" - try leaving the country and repeating this from, say, Patagonia or Indonesia or Australia. Your examination of one tiny section of the earth is not enough to make grand statements about its entirety.

According to Round Earth Theory gravity is pulling water into a sphere, and every section of water must exhibit curvature. The experiment has been conducted in multiple locations, but really only one is needed to contradict the model which is claimed.

Are you claiming that gravity works differently as claimed in the Round Earth model in that multiple locations are needed?

Quote
The Atmospheric Transparency defense is bunk - even on the clearest of days we should see the horizon fade slowly to a vanishing point at eye level. What we actually see is a sharp cut-off where the sky meats the land/ocean with objects "sinking" behind it like - you guessed it - objects going over a curve. There is no amount of perspective jiggerypokery or claims of atmospheric transparency that can refute this.

The atmosphere has things like atoms and molecules in it which build up over distance. It should not be expected that one can see forever through it.

Quote
Though one of the main proponents of the experiment, a man named Hampden, threatened to murder the man who proved the experiment wrong, Alfred Russel Wallace.

Wallace's version of the experiment, which showed Rowbotham's experiment returned a false result, was replicated for nearly a century as an illustration of the curvature of the Earth and, by the end of the ensuing legal battle, Hampden was left disgraced and bankrupt.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/rosetta-stones/wallace-8217-s-woeful-wager-how-a-founder-of-modern-biology-got-suckered-by-flat-earthers/
http://people.wku.edu/charles.smith/wallace/S162-163.htm

This three pole experiment was subject to some flaws. There is a chapter on that in Earth Not a Globe:  http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za45.htm

Also, this experiment was actually a wager between two men for a years worth of pay and both men walked away from it claiming that they had won.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2017, 11:00:56 PM by Tom Bishop »

Offline Novarus

  • *
  • Posts: 77
    • View Profile
Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« Reply #79 on: April 08, 2017, 11:28:16 PM »
"other landmass" - try leaving the country and repeating this from, say, Patagonia or Indonesia or Australia. Your examination of one tiny section of the earth is not enough to make grand statements about its entirety.

According to Round Earth Theory gravity is pulling water into a sphere, and every section of water must exhibit curvature. The experiment has been conducted in multiple locations, but really only one is needed to contradict the model which is claimed.

Are you claiming that gravity works differently as claimed in the Round Earth model in that multiple locations are needed?

An assertion made many times by Flat Earth Theorists trying to explain the discrepancy of map projections with observed facts. The encouragement to leave the country was more a general one to get you to see that your assertions do not apply to the part of the world ignored by most Flat Earth theorists: the Southern Hemisphere.
And while we are at it, yes the curvature of bodies of water is different at different latitudes - and geophysicist will tell you that the curvature of the earth is different at the equator than nearer the poles. The fact remains that you need a larger sample size and a larger scale experiment to verify your claims.

Quote
Quote
The Atmospheric Transparency defense is bunk - even on the clearest of days we should see the horizon fade slowly to a vanishing point at eye level. What we actually see is a sharp cut-off where the sky meats the land/ocean with objects "sinking" behind it like - you guessed it - objects going over a curve. There is no amount of perspective jiggerypokery or claims of atmospheric transparency that can refute this.

The atmosphere has things like atoms and molecules in it which build up over distance. It should not be expected that one can see forever through it.


That doesn't answer the fact that the distance of the horizon doesn't fade out like it would if its disappearance were attributable to the atmosphere's opacity. You haven't answered the questions - just restated your original assertion with more words.
And before you start saying this isn't relevant, it very much is because for your experiment to be true, it should be able to be scaled up to any size and you will receive the exact same result.

Quote
Quote
Though one of the main proponents of the experiment, a man named Hampden, threatened to murder the man who proved the experiment wrong, Alfred Russel Wallace.

Wallace's version of the experiment, which showed Rowbotham's experiment returned a false result, was replicated for nearly a century as an illustration of the curvature of the Earth and, by the end of the ensuing legal battle, Hampden was left disgraced and bankrupt.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/rosetta-stones/wallace-8217-s-woeful-wager-how-a-founder-of-modern-biology-got-suckered-by-flat-earthers/
http://people.wku.edu/charles.smith/wallace/S162-163.htm

This three pole experiment was subject to some flaws. There is a chapter on that in Earth Not a Globe:  http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za45.htm

Also, this experiment was actually a wager between two men for a years worth of pay and both men walked away from it claiming that they had won.

One walked away with definitive proof of the earth's curvature which was presented to scholars at Cambridge and subsequently used as a model for explaining the Earth's curvature for nearly a century, adhering to mathematical and empirical proof, and the other walked away with a sore ego and battered reputation which motivated him to threaten the successful scientist with murder.
As has been demonstrated by any real scientist who has ever deigned to address this topic, the sacred text of the Flat Earth Society stands on an incredibly shaky ground of flawed mathematics and physical theories that do not stand up to the rigours of scientific experimentation. Any argument made in said book is performed from a preconception that the Earth must be flat and a blatant disregard for objectivity.

Thumping Earth: Not a Globe and invoking Rowbotham and then denying the ability of anyone else to call on Principia Mathematica and Newton is about as strong a stance as saying Finnegan's Wake by James Joyce hold the real paradigm for how English should be used and that the Dictionary is a pack of lies.