Offline Tontogary

  • *
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #40 on: April 29, 2018, 02:03:32 AM »
Water flows down hill. How do we know that water was perfectly leveled out at the point of the line ups?
:D

Wow. So you think that the water in the two connected tubes could be at different heights because "water flows down hill".
I think that's my new favourite Tom Bishop quote.

It does take some time for water to flow. It isn't instantaneously.

In the video you have provided, at the top of the mountain, he is just holding the water device in his hand, which appears to be wobbly, and a camera in his other hand.

The flow of the water is one concern. The other concern is that the camera is not perfectly level and that there is some room to where things appear "perfectly level".

In have dealt with this question and proved through measurements with a sextant (accurate and calibrated) that the arc of the sky is more than 180 degrees, by pretty much the same amount as is expected for the hieght of the observer.
What dont you understand about that Tom?
If the sky, from clear, sharp horizon, to the south, across the sky to a clear sharp horizon on the north is more than 180 degrees, then the bit below you is less, therefore the horizon is NOT rising to meet you.

I cannot really explain much clearer, and a young teenage child would likely understand that.

Surveying is always in error. Always. Every angle and vertical and position needs to be finely positioned. And even when it is to the best of our ability, it is still in error. There is also lens error, which is always present.

Also see Rowbotham's issues with measuring the horizon with devices that have lenses, as an example of device error.

An off-the-cuff or hand-held surveying demo is not going to cut it. The tolerances are extremely sensitive, and there are many ways it can be wrong. Slight angles and positions and incorrect device calibration will create different results.

Once you have something that is actually irrefutable to FET, let us know, so we can shut down this website.

Ok then lets deal with your above assumptions.

Let’s have a look at EnaG shall we?
If he asserts that all instruments with a lens are in error, then we can discount the experiments in chapter 2 almost in their entirety, he uses a telescope in experiments 1,2,5,and 12,  and a theodolite in experiments 3,4,8,11, and 14. Therefore hits chapter where he says he PROVES the earth is flat, can be pretty much discounted.
He uses sextant observations from 3rd hand accounts in other chapters, as well as theodolites and telescopes and other even cruder instruments such as plumb bobs with a set square attached and steel tubes so called mounted vertically. All very “Herath Robinson” esq you must admit, therefore the entire book and theory can be thrown out as in error, and not accurate!

As for my sextant observations, We use a modern instrument, which has been refined over hundreds of years (the optics etc are far superior to anything available in Victorian times) and i have shown how we calibrate for instrument error, using known objects and we can cross check and verify our instrument error, and apply it to our readings.
EnaG does not show any of that.

I am able to show that my readings are to within an accuracy of 0.1 minute of arc, i have a manufacturerers certificate to show that it can measure to that accuracy, and I can show my method, and i can verify my results to be within an acceptable margin of error.

The thing here is that Tom just says “all surveying is in error” but he wont tell you what the acceptable margin of error is!

Even if i could only measure to 1 minute of arc, then my previous experiment/observation to measure the arc of the sky from horizon to horizon gave an arc of 180 degrees and 32 minutes rounded up to the nearest minute, it still means that the arc below my feet measured 179 degrees and 28 minutes, (unless Tom can prove there are more than 360 degrees in a circle?)
Therefore the difference is more than a whole degree. If i couldn’t measure that accurately, there is no way i could fix a ships position, and i have done that thousands of times. My record of still being alive, and never having been on a ship when it went aground will testify to that.

So Tom what are you still doing trying to deny a measurement that proves the horizon does not rise to eye level by making general sweeping (misleading) statements to try to prop up your argument.

I guess if you did accept my Zetetic experiment, and observations, you would as you say, have to close down this site as it is clearly busted.



Also, if you haven't heard of bronies before, that reflects poorly on your understanding of the world that surrounds you. It's practically impossible not to know about them.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7665
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #41 on: April 29, 2018, 05:42:01 AM »
Ok then lets deal with your above assumptions.

Let’s have a look at EnaG shall we?
If he asserts that all instruments with a lens are in error, then we can discount the experiments in chapter 2 almost in their entirety, he uses a telescope in experiments 1,2,5,and 12,  and a theodolite in experiments 3,4,8,11, and 14. Therefore hits chapter where he says he PROVES the earth is flat, can be pretty much discounted.

The experiments are specifically designed so that the lens error that was described wouldn't matter.

Quote
As for my sextant observations, We use a modern instrument, which has been refined over hundreds of years (the optics etc are far superior to anything available in Victorian times) and i have shown how we calibrate for instrument error, using known objects and we can cross check and verify our instrument error, and apply it to our readings.
EnaG does not show any of that.

I am able to show that my readings are to within an accuracy of 0.1 minute of arc, i have a manufacturerers certificate to show that it can measure to that accuracy, and I can show my method, and i can verify my results to be within an acceptable margin of error.

The thing here is that Tom just says “all surveying is in error” but he wont tell you what the acceptable margin of error is!

Even if i could only measure to 1 minute of arc, then my previous experiment/observation to measure the arc of the sky from horizon to horizon gave an arc of 180 degrees and 32 minutes rounded up to the nearest minute, it still means that the arc below my feet measured 179 degrees and 28 minutes, (unless Tom can prove there are more than 360 degrees in a circle?)
Therefore the difference is more than a whole degree. If i couldn’t measure that accurately, there is no way i could fix a ships position, and i have done that thousands of times. My record of still being alive, and never having been on a ship when it went aground will testify to that.

So Tom what are you still doing trying to deny a measurement that proves the horizon does not rise to eye level by making general sweeping (misleading) statements to try to prop up your argument.

I guess if you did accept my Zetetic experiment, and observations, you would as you say, have to close down this site as it is clearly busted.

We have no idea about all of the details of your experiment. What brand of tools and what methods were done to ensure accuracy? What if the horizon was slightly hazy?

Come up with something that is truly irrefutable.
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

Offline Tontogary

  • *
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #42 on: April 29, 2018, 06:48:25 AM »
Ok then lets deal with your above assumptions.

Let’s have a look at EnaG shall we?
If he asserts that all instruments with a lens are in error, then we can discount the experiments in chapter 2 almost in their entirety, he uses a telescope in experiments 1,2,5,and 12,  and a theodolite in experiments 3,4,8,11, and 14. Therefore hits chapter where he says he PROVES the earth is flat, can be pretty much discounted.

The experiments are specifically designed so that the lens error that was described wouldn't matter.

What a load of rubbish.

Your claim please show where in his methodology he shows that lens error is excluded by the design of the experiments? You cant cos he didnt.

I on the other hand have the manufacturers certificate of the instrument to show there is no “lens” error as you call it, (which is not what its called, but then if you actually knew anything about the subject you would know that!)
I described my measurements in another thread, started by myself, and your only contribution was to say that surveying is in error!
Search “horizon rising to eye level and a foolproof way to measure it”
I clearly describe my method, and accuracy of the instrument, and the way the result is cross checked.

The horizon was clear, and certainly not in error by a suns diameter!
A slightly hazy horizon would make a potential .2 or .3 minute of arc error, not by half a degree or more.
Your rather amateurish comments shows your ignorance of the use of a sextant, or any other accurate measuring device.
The measurements were taken off shore in N.W australia, which if anyone who has been there will confirm is a very dry place, so humidity and other sources of haze were not a factor. As it was at mer pass, the horizon was well lit and sharp.


I have provided you with much more proof than EnaG ever did, where he just relies upon dodgy third hand reports, bits of string with a set square attached, and a “telescope” or “theodolite” with no manufacturer or accuracy or way of verifying his  (even if they were his own and most likely someone else’s) observations.

You are rapil]day running out of viable excuses Tom.



Also, if you haven't heard of bronies before, that reflects poorly on your understanding of the world that surrounds you. It's practically impossible not to know about them.

Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #43 on: April 29, 2018, 07:36:53 AM »
Come up with something that is truly irrefutable.
But that's a silly challenge.
Rowbowtham's "experiments" are him just saying "this is what I did and this is what I saw". Case closed, no further questions your honour!
But when you're shown 3 different experiments which all give the same results, two of which you've been provided video proof of the results, you dismiss them because they don't show what you want them to show.

So, rather than us wasting any more time doing experiments which we know you will dismiss in some way, you do an experiment.
You're an empiricist, right? You're writing a chapter on "the importance of empiricism".
Well go and take some empirical measurements for us to review.
We have shown theoretically that there should be horizon dip and proven it experimentally in 3 different ways which all give the same result.
Your claim is that the horizon always rises to eye level and that the experiments are in error.
OK. Do an experiment then and let's see your evidence.

Your best attempt so far is some YouTube video where some bloke is on the 7th story of a building near the shore which is far too close to sea level to see much dip.
You've been going on about calibration and you show us a video where there is no way of determining with any accuracy that the camera and building roof are at the same height. Are you serious?!

Maybe you are just here for a laugh and you just enjoy trying to defend the indefensible. FYI, it makes you look ridiculous.
But if you are serious about this then devise and do an experiment. The water tubes one is my suggestion because it's cheap equipment which can be taken to any altitude. But if you want to devise your own then that's fine too. I look forward to the results.
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...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
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2375
    • View Profile
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #44 on: April 29, 2018, 07:53:45 AM »
We have no idea about all of the details of your experiment. What brand of tools and what methods were done to ensure accuracy?

We have no idea about details of experiments, info on brand of tools and methods in ENaG, beyond the word 'clinometer'.
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

Macarios

Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #45 on: April 29, 2018, 07:37:04 PM »
An experiment of this sort is far better than one which relies on calibrating devices and careful leveling.

Yes, careful leveling water must be very delicate task. :)

Could you, please, tell us how static water "flows downhill"?

If "leveling water is so hard", how can FE movement rely on "water is always level"?
It is not something that I invented right now and we all know that.

Offline Westprog

  • *
  • Posts: 213
    • View Profile
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #46 on: April 29, 2018, 10:12:49 PM »
We have no idea about all of the details of your experiment. What brand of tools and what methods were done to ensure accuracy?

We have no idea about details of experiments, info on brand of tools and methods in ENaG, beyond the word 'clinometer'.

If I'm not mistaken, the measurements were taken from different floors of a building. No measurable difference could be expected.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7665
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #47 on: April 29, 2018, 10:16:52 PM »
Ok then lets deal with your above assumptions.

Let’s have a look at EnaG shall we?
If he asserts that all instruments with a lens are in error, then we can discount the experiments in chapter 2 almost in their entirety, he uses a telescope in experiments 1,2,5,and 12,  and a theodolite in experiments 3,4,8,11, and 14. Therefore hits chapter where he says he PROVES the earth is flat, can be pretty much discounted.

The experiments are specifically designed so that the lens error that was described wouldn't matter.

What a load of rubbish.

Your claim please show where in his methodology he shows that lens error is excluded by the design of the experiments? You cant cos he didnt.

In the Theodolite chapter (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za45.htm) Rowotham speaks about the Wallace-Hampden Wager experiment and points out the flaw, and further asserts that his experiments were designed so that the flaw did not matter.
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2375
    • View Profile
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #48 on: April 29, 2018, 10:22:56 PM »
In the Theodolite chapter (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za45.htm) Rowotham speaks about the Wallace-Hampden Wager experiment and points out the flaw, and further asserts that his experiments were designed so that the flaw did not matter.

Were you there to verify this, though?

(For you assert in another thread that anyone claiming SpaceX's footage to be genuine should provide witnesses below the flight path to witness the cloud patterns....)
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

Offline Tontogary

  • *
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #49 on: April 29, 2018, 10:31:15 PM »
Ok then lets deal with your above assumptions.

Let’s have a look at EnaG shall we?
If he asserts that all instruments with a lens are in error, then we can discount the experiments in chapter 2 almost in their entirety, he uses a telescope in experiments 1,2,5,and 12,  and a theodolite in experiments 3,4,8,11, and 14. Therefore hits chapter where he says he PROVES the earth is flat, can be pretty much discounted.

The experiments are specifically designed so that the lens error that was described wouldn't matter.

What a load of rubbish.

Your claim please show where in his methodology he shows that lens error is excluded by the design of the experiments? You cant cos he didnt.

In the Theodolite chapter (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za45.htm) Rowotham speaks about the Wallace-Hampden Wager experiment and points out the flaw, and further asserts that his experiments were designed so that the flaw did not matter.

No he does not show how his experiments using theodolites,  telescopes,  and clinometers were designed so that refraction, or “lens error” did not occur.
Sorry, your claim is still not proved.
YOUR claim, You prove it.

Also, if you haven't heard of bronies before, that reflects poorly on your understanding of the world that surrounds you. It's practically impossible not to know about them.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7665
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #50 on: April 29, 2018, 10:35:10 PM »
Ok then lets deal with your above assumptions.

Let’s have a look at EnaG shall we?
If he asserts that all instruments with a lens are in error, then we can discount the experiments in chapter 2 almost in their entirety, he uses a telescope in experiments 1,2,5,and 12,  and a theodolite in experiments 3,4,8,11, and 14. Therefore hits chapter where he says he PROVES the earth is flat, can be pretty much discounted.

The experiments are specifically designed so that the lens error that was described wouldn't matter.

What a load of rubbish.

Your claim please show where in his methodology he shows that lens error is excluded by the design of the experiments? You cant cos he didnt.

In the Theodolite chapter (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za45.htm) Rowotham speaks about the Wallace-Hampden Wager experiment and points out the flaw, and further asserts that his experiments were designed so that the flaw did not matter.

No he does not show how his experiments using theodolites,  telescopes,  and clinometers were designed so that refraction, or “lens error” did not occur.
Sorry, your claim is still not proved.
YOUR claim, You prove it.

Just look at his experiments. He's not trying to carefully level the theodolite or telescope with the center of a crosshair. He is merely using it as a magnification tool to see bodies that should be lined up when viewed, or is otherwise is just looking for the appearance or disappearance of boats and lighthouses into the horizon.
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2375
    • View Profile
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #51 on: April 29, 2018, 10:50:08 PM »
Just look at his experiments.

but elsewhere ...

If you are claiming something about lasers bounced off of satellites, you need to demonstrate that such a thing was done, and show the data showing that it lines up with what you believe a satellite to be. You need to show your work. A lot of it.
Show. Not tell. Not assume.
Your claim. Your burden.

"Just look at his experiments." doesn't cut it, Tom.

You need to demonstrate that such a thing was done, and show the data .... You need to show your work. A lot of it. Show. Not tell. Not assume. Your claim. Your burden.
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #52 on: April 29, 2018, 10:52:05 PM »
Just look at his experiments. He's not trying to carefully level the theodolite or telescope with the center of a crosshair. He is merely using it as a magnification tool to see bodies that should be lined up when viewed, or is otherwise is just looking for the appearance or disappearance of boats and lighthouses into the horizon.
Then there should be no objection to this set up for determining if the horizon always rises to the horizontal level of the eye:


Especially compared with Rowbotham's Experiment 15.

If you have any further details on Rowbotham's "well-constructed" clinometer or what method he used to ensure "level", let me know. My intent is not just to report that I used an instrument, leveled it, and was able to verify that the horizon does or doesn't always at eye-level. I hope to provide a visual artifact to record my results, and describe my method well enough so that anyone else could go out and either duplicate or refute my results.

I see no questioning of Rowbotham's anecdotal account. But I do see you challenging those attempting who've tried to observe what Rowbotham claims, but coming up with a contrary result. If criticisms of the contrary attempts are valid, then they're valid for Rowbotham as well.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2018, 10:55:05 PM by Bobby Shafto »

Offline Tontogary

  • *
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #53 on: April 29, 2018, 11:46:42 PM »
Ok then lets deal with your above assumptions.

Let’s have a look at EnaG shall we?
If he asserts that all instruments with a lens are in error, then we can discount the experiments in chapter 2 almost in their entirety, he uses a telescope in experiments 1,2,5,and 12,  and a theodolite in experiments 3,4,8,11, and 14. Therefore hits chapter where he says he PROVES the earth is flat, can be pretty much discounted.

The experiments are specifically designed so that the lens error that was described wouldn't matter.

What a load of rubbish.

Your claim please show where in his methodology he shows that lens error is excluded by the design of the experiments? You cant cos he didnt.

In the Theodolite chapter (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za45.htm) Rowotham speaks about the Wallace-Hampden Wager experiment and points out the flaw, and further asserts that his experiments were designed so that the flaw did not matter.

No he does not show how his experiments using theodolites,  telescopes,  and clinometers were designed so that refraction, or “lens error” did not occur.
Sorry, your claim is still not proved.
YOUR claim, You prove it.

Just look at his experiments. He's not trying to carefully level the theodolite or telescope with the center of a crosshair. He is merely using it as a magnification tool to see bodies that should be lined up when viewed, or is otherwise is just looking for the appearance or disappearance of boats and lighthouses into the horizon.

I have looked at his experiments, and almost none of them explain how the idea of refraction, or instrument error, or “lens error” are able to be discounted. Imperfections within a lens will make the image distorted. Levelling with a spirit level is the method used on many of his experiments, which is the very thing you are arguing against in the water tube experiment, claiming water flows down hill! A spirit level uses exactly the same principle as the water tube experiment, so you should have no objection.

Finally as to the accuracy of my equipment i attach 2 images, one the manufacturers certificate showing there are NO errors in the equipment across the range of use, and the other showing the serial number of the equipment.
I am sure you wont be satisfied, but it is a hell of a lot more than EnaG ever showed.

Also, if you haven't heard of bronies before, that reflects poorly on your understanding of the world that surrounds you. It's practically impossible not to know about them.

Offline Tontogary

  • *
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #54 on: April 29, 2018, 11:58:06 PM »
And more pics. A better one of the certificate, and one taken a few days ago, trying to see if i could take a picture of the image you see in the sextant, however as they are designed to be used for navigation, not teaching, then they dont have a Wi-fi link to a phone or other data device, so i cannot use it to show exactly how to use the instrument.

It should suffice though, that i have a sextant that has no errors, with the serial number printed on it, and the certificate to match.

I also have a professional qualification which PROVES i know how to use it.

Rowbotham never gave any credentials, or details of his instruments, or did he ever show he was qualified or trained in their use.

Also, if you haven't heard of bronies before, that reflects poorly on your understanding of the world that surrounds you. It's practically impossible not to know about them.

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #55 on: April 30, 2018, 04:55:00 AM »
Nice.

I'm going low tech.



1. 3 rebar staked in-line at some distance x apart (x yet to be determined)
2. Leveling rig of clamped to rebar, one reservoir on each stake (two for sighting and 1 additional for leveling camera)
3. Fill with dyed water with some dish soap added.
4. Run twin from each rebar at level line; (double check with hanging line level)
5. Set camera on tripod and align with level line and sight line.

Sharp contrast of the horizon is a prerequisite.

Recommendations? Critiques?

Offline Westprog

  • *
  • Posts: 213
    • View Profile
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #56 on: April 30, 2018, 10:03:08 AM »
Nice.

I'm going low tech.



1. 3 rebar staked in-line at some distance x apart (x yet to be determined)
2. Leveling rig of clamped to rebar, one reservoir on each stake (two for sighting and 1 additional for leveling camera)
3. Fill with dyed water with some dish soap added.
4. Run twin from each rebar at level line; (double check with hanging line level)
5. Set camera on tripod and align with level line and sight line.

Sharp contrast of the horizon is a prerequisite.

Recommendations? Critiques?

I assume that there will be a general welcome for this experiment from the FE community, because it offers the opportunity to have a major theory confirmed. Perhaps a representative could inspect the equipment and observe it taking place.

I'm kidding, of course. There's something in the back of the mind of most people holding irrational beliefs than knows that they shouldn't be exposed to rebuttal. This experiment will be derided in advance, in favour of Rowbotham's objectively bad experiment with inconclusive results from which conclusions were drawn.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2375
    • View Profile
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #57 on: April 30, 2018, 02:31:38 PM »
It strikes me that the more interconnected tubes there are, the more chances that an unfriendly Team Hoaxer will assert;

"The water's flowing too slowly"
"The tubes are restricting the water flow"

and such ...  so;

Take a clear plastic lid or tray, such as this one, turned other way up;



place on a reasonably flat surface, and fill with coloured water. The water will find its own level, and give a long edge to sight along. No issues/concerns over water flow.

Alternatively, take a clear plastic bag, part-fill with coloured water, and place on absolutely anything. The water, again, will find its own level, and a sighting can be taken along the top of the water's surface.





=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

Offline Tontogary

  • *
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #58 on: April 30, 2018, 03:05:19 PM »
Very good.

It strikes me that with the last container, if there were a few gentlemen around you would not need to carry any liquid up the hill either............

Also, if you haven't heard of bronies before, that reflects poorly on your understanding of the world that surrounds you. It's practically impossible not to know about them.

Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #59 on: April 30, 2018, 03:24:40 PM »
The fundamental problem here is the FE belief is not based on evidence, it is despite the evidence.
They say they rely on empirical measurements but they don't, or rather they dismiss any empirical evidence which doesn't fit with their world view.
Witness how Tom tried all kinds of things to discredit the laser and boat experiment before finally understanding it...and declaring it fraudulent anyway despite none of the objections standing up to scrutiny.
And now he's been shown 3 different ways of showing horizon dip which all give the same result - but it's a result he doesn't want so he dismisses all of them on spurious grounds.

The only solution is for him to do some experiments himself to demonstrate his claims. We can do them all day - and people have - and he will dismiss all of them if they don't show what he wants. He claims to be an empiricist but he refuses to do any empirical measurements. Funny that. The only hint of him doing anything along these lines is the "Bishop Experiment" which he has no documentation of and he's pretty clearly lying about.

The mindset is based on this Wiki page which has been deleted, I don't know why as it perfectly describes the prevailing FE mindset on here:

Quote
P1) If personally unverifiable evidence contradicts an obvious truth then the evidence is fabricated
P2) The Flat Earth is an obvious truth

(My emphasis). So we are wasting our time. Tom can't personally verify the results of our experiments and he refuses to do so himself.
Checkmate.
He demands "irrefutable evidence" but that doesn't exist. You can refute any evidence if you're bloody minded enough.
As I said some time ago, you can do this about anything:

"I don't believe kangaroos exist".
"What?! Here's a Wiki page about them."
"Cool. Here's a Wiki page about dragons, do they exist too?"
"Here's a video of a kangaroo!"
"That's fake. Have you heard of CGI?"
"Right. We're at a zoo. Look. There's a kangaroo!"
"Looks like animatronic to me..."

And so on. It's ridiculous, of course, but if you're only interested in sticking to your guns come what may then you can dismiss anything, even if the dismissals become increasingly stupid.

Which leaves me with the thought that he's just here for fun, enjoys trying to debate from indefensible positions and doesn't believe any of this.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2018, 06:27:56 PM by AllAroundTheWorld »
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...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
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis