Flat Earth not a theory

Quote

Irrelevant.

A peer review published in a respectable journal isn't irrelevant. Exactly the opposite, in fact.

You've managed to take two quotes out of context in just two posts. I made no claim that the journal was not peer reviewed, only that you didn't satisfy jimspade's post. Bravo.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 27, 2010, 02:24:24 AM

Quote from: jimspade on February 27, 2010, 02:21:13 AM

The bedford level experiment has shown a curved surface in most other replications of it. Rowbotham and Blout were lying or mistaken.

Lady Blount had witnesses who can attest to the results of her trials.

"The Flat Earth: another Bedford Canal experiment" (Bernard H.Watson, et al),
ENGLISH MECHANIC, 80:160, 1904

Bedford Canal, England. A repeat of the 1870 experiment.
"A train of empty turf-boats had just entered the Canal from the river Ouse, and
was about proceeding to Ramsey. I arranged with the captain to place the shallowest
boat last in the train, and to take me on to Welney Bridge, a distance of six
miles. A good telescope was then fixed on the lowest part of the stern of the last
boat. The sluice gate of the Old Bedford Bridge was 5ft. 8in. high, the turf-boat
moored there was 2ft. 6in. high, and the notice board was 6ft. 6in. from the water.
The sun was shining strongly upon them in the direction of the south-southwest; the
air was exceedingly still and clear, and the surface of the water smooth as a
molten mirror, so that everything was favourable for observation. At 1.15 p.m. the
train started for Welney. As the boats gradually receded, the sluice gate, the
turf-boat and the notice board continued to be visible to the naked eye for about
four miles. When the sluice gate and the turf-boat (being of a dark colour) became
somewhat indistinct, the notice board (which was white) was still plainly visible,
and remained so to the end of six miles. But on looking through the telescope all
the objects were distinctly visible throughout the whole distance. On reaching
Welney Bridge I made very careful and repeated observations, and finding several
men upon the banks of the canal, I called them to look through the telescope. They
all saw distinctly the white notice board, the sluice gate, and the black turf-boat
moored near them.

Now, as the telescope was 18in. above the water, The line of sight would touch the
horizon at one mile and a half away (if the surface were convex). The curvature of
the remaining four miles and a half would be 13ft. 6in. Hence the turf-boat should
have been 11ft., the top of the sluice gate 7ft. 10in., and the bottom of the
notice board 7ft. below the horizon.

My recent experiment affords undeniable proof of the Earth's unglobularity, because
it rests not on transitory vision; but my proof remains printed on the negative of
the photograph which Mr.Clifton took for me, and in my presence, on behalf of
J.H.Dallmeyer, Ltd.

A photograph can not 'imagine' nor lie!".

Irrelevant.

Quote from: jimspade on February 27, 2010, 02:21:13 AM

The bedford level experiment has shown a curved surface in most other replications of it. Rowbotham and Blout were lying or mistaken.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 27, 2010, 05:34:29 PM

Quote

Irrelevant.

A peer review published in a respectable journal isn't irrelevant. Exactly the opposite, in fact.

You've managed to take two quotes out of context in just two posts. I made no claim that the journal was not peer reviewed, only that you didn't satisfy jimspade's post. Bravo.

Please stop posting.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on February 27, 2010, 07:18:15 PM

Quote from: JBJosh on February 27, 2010, 07:08:52 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on February 27, 2010, 07:05:01 PM

Quote from: JBJosh on February 27, 2010, 07:04:06 PM

Wasn't your point that that the dictionary backs up Flat Earth Theory being a theory?

Yes.

So giving his reasoning to why Flat Earth Theory don't fit the definition is irrelevant how?

Because he's overlooking the relevant definition, of course.

Care to elaborate on what I overlooked? I responded to each of the six definitions given from your dictionary quote.

I think that there is some validity to the argument that the Flat Earth Idea is a theory, but an obsolete one. At one point it had an excepted model which has since been disproven but since there has not been an adequate model to replace the original, the current model cannot move beyond being a hypothesis. It is similar to spontaneous generation in that regard.

Quote from: Canadark on February 27, 2010, 10:23:23 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 27, 2010, 05:34:29 PM

Quote

Irrelevant.

A peer review published in a respectable journal isn't irrelevant. Exactly the opposite, in fact.

You've managed to take two quotes out of context in just two posts. I made no claim that the journal was not peer reviewed, only that you didn't satisfy jimspade's post. Bravo.

Please stop posting.

3 for 3. Go for the gold Tom.

Quote from: Canadark on February 27, 2010, 10:23:23 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 27, 2010, 05:34:29 PM

Quote

Irrelevant.

A peer review published in a respectable journal isn't irrelevant. Exactly the opposite, in fact.

You've managed to take two quotes out of context in just two posts. I made no claim that the journal was not peer reviewed, only that you didn't satisfy jimspade's post. Bravo.

Please stop posting.

Please stop backing everything you have with opinions and heresay. You twist and turn to avoid everything you can't explain. The majority of my posts to you have gone unanswered or derailed or deliberatly misinterpreted.

Please stop posting.

Reported for memberating.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on February 27, 2010, 07:18:15 PM

Quote from: JBJosh on February 27, 2010, 07:08:52 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on February 27, 2010, 07:05:01 PM

Quote from: JBJosh on February 27, 2010, 07:04:06 PM

Wasn't your point that that the dictionary backs up Flat Earth Theory being a theory?

Yes.

So giving his reasoning to why Flat Earth Theory don't fit the definition is irrelevant how?

Because he's overlooking the relevant definition, of course.

Care to elaborate on what I overlooked? I responded to each of the six definitions given from your dictionary quote.

Check out definition 6a, which you've been conveniently ignoring since I first posted the link.

Check out definition 6a, which you've been conveniently ignoring since I first posted the link.

You mean this one:

6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : conjecture c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

I addressed it here:

6: The Flat Earth hypothesis cannot be assumed true for the sake of argument in the debate forum since its validity is the topic of debate.

You seem to imply that we can assume FET is true in order to argue about it on these forums. If you want to argue about the finer points of UA or EA you must initially assume that the main points of FET are true, such as the conspiracy and the flatness of the Earth. However, when examining the fundamental premise of FET, "The Earth is roughly flat all over", this assumption is invalid because the very flatness on a large scale is in question.

The point is I have no problem with people referring to the idea of FET when arguing about UA, EA, or the Conspiracy for the sake of argument, but in any other context I think it is still a hypothesis. For example if one were to state that FET has better predictive power or is simpler than RET in regards to navigation, I think in that context FET cannot be assumed as true and is not really a theory. This is supported by the fact that there is no flat earth map, no useful way to apply the predictions of a flat Earth.

I addressed it here:

Quote from: ERTW on February 27, 2010, 06:45:30 PM

6: The Flat Earth hypothesis cannot be assumed true for the sake of argument in the debate forum since its validity is the topic of debate.

My mistake.  I forgot it because I dismissed it because it was still irrelevant to my point.  FET's validity is not the sole topic of debate on these forums, by any stretch.  The fact that it's difficult to find two FEers who agree on every point of the theory attests to that.  There's internal debate all over the place here.  

One can't search for answers if one hasn't already assumed the premise; and it's a worthy premise to assume, because it's the one our senses most readily identify.

You seem to imply that we can assume FET is true in order to argue about it on these forums.

Yes.

If you want to argue about the finer points of UA or EA you must initially assume that the main points of FET are true, such as the conspiracy and the flatness of the Earth.

I disagree with the first half of your statement.  I think there's room for UA and EA in a Conspiracy-free Earth, and I don't personally consider the Conspiracy to be a "main point".  The second half, however, seems fairly obvious to me and I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make.

However, when examining the fundamental premise of FET, "The Earth is roughly flat all over", this assumption is invalid because the very flatness on a large scale is in question.

This is a misstatement of the "fundamental premise" of FET.  The fundamental premise as far as I'm concerned is that the Earth appears to our senses to be flat in the places where the shape of the Earth can readily be examined.  All else issues from that simple fact.  It's why I say I must be provided with extraordinary evidence that the Earth is not flat to truly be convinced; I have not yet encountered that evidence.  

The point is I have no problem with people referring to the idea of FET when arguing about UA, EA, or the Conspiracy for the sake of argument, but in any other context I think it is still a hypothesis.

And my point is that based on the dictionary definition of the word, FET is a theory.

For example if one were to state that FET has better predictive power or is simpler than RET in regards to navigation, I think in that context FET cannot be assumed as true and is not really a theory.

I don't believe that claim has been made, so I fail to see its relevance to the discussion.

This is supported by the fact that there is no flat earth map, no useful way to apply the predictions of a flat Earth.

Unfortunately none of us are cartographers, nor do we possess the enormous resources necessary to internally map the entire Earth.  
[/quote]

I disagree with the first half of your statement.  I think there's room for UA and EA in a Conspiracy-free Earth, and I don't personally consider the Conspiracy to be a "main point".  

I agree that the UA and EA could possibly be examined outside of a flat earth, but the conspiracy is still required to explain the images of a round earth from space, which directly disprove both EA and UA if held true.

However, when examining the fundamental premise of FET, "The Earth is roughly flat all over", this assumption is invalid because the very flatness on a large scale is in question.

This is a misstatement of the "fundamental premise" of FET.  The fundamental premise as far as I'm concerned is that the Earth appears to our senses to be flat in the places where the shape of the Earth can readily be examined.  All else issues from that simple fact.  It's why I say I must be provided with extraordinary evidence that the Earth is not flat to truly be convinced; I have not yet encountered that evidence.  
[/quote]
If the fundamental premise of FET is that the earth appears flat near us, then FET is a very small idea that has few implications. To me meaningful FET needs to expand to attempt explain the various phenomena that RET explains. To even consider undertaking this task, the conspiracy must immediately enter the question from the very first step.

Unfortunately none of us are cartographers, nor do we possess the enormous resources necessary to internally map the entire Earth.  

See the Beam Neutrino thread. I don't claim T2K or MINOS map the entire Earth, but they provide clear evidence that it is not flat between the near and far detectors.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on February 28, 2010, 11:38:44 AM

I disagree with the first half of your statement.  I think there's room for UA and EA in a Conspiracy-free Earth, and I don't personally consider the Conspiracy to be a "main point".  

I agree that the UA and EA could possibly be examined outside of a flat earth, but the conspiracy is still required to explain the images of a round earth from space, which directly disprove both EA and UA if held true.

Actually, I believe they support it.  EAT predicts the appearance of curvature from high altitudes.

If the fundamental premise of FET is that the earth appears flat near us, then FET is a very small idea that has few implications. To me meaningful FET needs to expand to attempt explain the various phenomena that RET explains.

Of course, but the fundamental premise still stands.  The key word there was expand.  As in, expand on the fundamental premise.

To even consider undertaking this task, the conspiracy must immediately enter the question from the very first step.

Why?

Quote

Unfortunately none of us are cartographers, nor do we possess the enormous resources necessary to internally map the entire Earth.  

See the Beam Neutrino thread. I don't claim T2K or MINOS map the entire Earth, but they provide clear evidence that it is not flat between the near and far detectors.

I'm not wading through an entire thread for something that may or may not be relevant to this discussion.  Explain what any of that has to do with our total financial inability to map the Earth.


Also, explain to me how any of this is relevant to FET's status as a theory.  You've produced nothing to convince me that it's not. 

Quote from: ERTW on February 28, 2010, 01:09:37 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on February 28, 2010, 11:38:44 AM

I disagree with the first half of your statement.  I think there's room for UA and EA in a Conspiracy-free Earth, and I don't personally consider the Conspiracy to be a "main point".  

I agree that the UA and EA could possibly be examined outside of a flat earth, but the conspiracy is still required to explain the images of a round earth from space, which directly disprove both EA and UA if held true.

Actually, I believe they support it.  EAT predicts the appearance of curvature from high altitudes.

If EAT predicts the appearance of something, then there has to be a model from which these predictions come from.

The assumption "if light bends I predict that it must appear spherical from space" is not a prediction in the sense of the scientific method. Quantifiable phenomena, like the appearance of Earth from space, have to be coupled with quantifiable predictions. Otherwise, you just have light chit-chat to entertain boring reunions.

Today provided a unique way to get an insight into the geometry of the Earth. Using the facebook statuses /e-mails of 3 friends I managed to know the times that the tsunami from yesterdays earthquake arrived at New Zealand, Hawaii and Japan. The implications are interesting, particularly when the tsunami arrived at Australia and Japan, its turns out the conspirators have invested in a wave generator.

@Roundy the Truthinessist


Regarding the production of an accurate map of the Earth: Do you believe that the size, placement, and shapes of the continents and oceans on a globe (read:RET) are accurate except that they actually exist on a flat plane/disc?

@Roundy the Truthinessist


Regarding the production of an accurate map of the Earth: Do you believe that the size, placement, and shapes of the continents and oceans on a globe (read:RET) are accurate except that they actually exist on a flat plane/disc?

I have no idea.  Without a map I hesitate to even hazard a guess.

Quote from: Canadark on February 28, 2010, 08:37:41 PM

@Roundy the Truthinessist


Regarding the production of an accurate map of the Earth: Do you believe that the size, placement, and shapes of the continents and oceans on a globe (read:RET) are accurate except that they actually exist on a flat plane/disc?

I have no idea.  Without a map I hesitate to even hazard a guess.

I'm just talking about your average, run-of-the-mill globe like the kind your eighth grade geography teacher had on her front desk. Most globes that are produced today are almost indistinguishable in how they portray the shapes, placement, and sizes of the continents. If you are unsure, I would refer to Google Earth.

Do you believe that the shapes, placement, and sizes of the continents and oceans are accurate in how they are portrayed in Google Earth, or a modern day globe (minus the fact that they actually exist on a flat surface)?

Unfortunately none of us are cartographers, nor do we possess the enormous resources necessary to internally map the entire Earth. 

Quote from: ERTW

See the Beam Neutrino thread. I don't claim T2K or MINOS map the entire Earth, but they provide clear evidence that it is not flat between the near and far detectors.

I'm not wading through an entire thread for something that may or may not be relevant to this discussion.  Explain what any of that has to do with our total financial inability to map the Earth.

I was trying to point out that there are may ways to measure distance on a large scale. T2K, K2K, and MINOS are a great example of using the curvature of the Earth at a great distance (~750km for MINOS). Of course, you don't to be a cartographer to get on a train and travel across Australia, or fly in a plane from Australia to Argentina.

A photograph can not 'imagine' nor lie!".
[/list]

Unless of course it is one of the tens of thousands of photographs which show the Earth as a sphere.  You don't hesitate for one moment to claim that it is fake.  And of course you don't present one bit of evidence to back up those claims.

Unless of course it is one of the tens of thousands of photographs which show the Earth as a sphere.  You don't hesitate for one moment to claim that it is fake.  And of course you don't present one bit of evidence to back up those claims.

We've shown that NASA is untrustworthy. There's a Conspiracy section in the Wiki.

Quote from: Sir Mildred Pierce on March 02, 2010, 12:46:42 AM

Unless of course it is one of the tens of thousands of photographs which show the Earth as a sphere.  You don't hesitate for one moment to claim that it is fake.  And of course you don't present one bit of evidence to back up those claims.

We've shown that NASA is untrustworthy. There's a Conspiracy section in the Wiki.

Doesn't mean they fake everything

Doesn't mean they fake everything

If you want to make a thread which conclusively debunks everything in the Wiki, be my guest.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 01, 2010, 03:13:03 PM

Quote from: Canadark on February 28, 2010, 08:37:41 PM

@Roundy the Truthinessist


Regarding the production of an accurate map of the Earth: Do you believe that the size, placement, and shapes of the continents and oceans on a globe (read:RET) are accurate except that they actually exist on a flat plane/disc?

I have no idea.  Without a map I hesitate to even hazard a guess.

I'm just talking about your average, run-of-the-mill globe like the kind your eighth grade geography teacher had on her front desk. Most globes that are produced today are almost indistinguishable in how they portray the shapes, placement, and sizes of the continents. If you are unsure, I would refer to Google Earth.

Do you believe that the shapes, placement, and sizes of the continents and oceans are accurate in how they are portrayed in Google Earth, or a modern day globe (minus the fact that they actually exist on a flat surface)?

I just honestly don't know.  Sorry I can't do any better than that.  Actually as a zeteticist, the only way I'd truly be satisfied would be to map the distances myself, and I just don't see that happening.  All I can attest to is that in my region, in the western and northern hemiplanes, the distances appear to be accurate.

All I can attest to is that in my region, in the western and northern hemiplanes, the distances appear to be accurate.

In other words, the RE maps that you have used seem to be accurate, right?

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 02, 2010, 08:28:26 PM

All I can attest to is that in my region, in the western and northern hemiplanes, the distances appear to be accurate.

In other words, the RE maps that you have used seem to be accurate, right?

Is this going anywhere? 

Quote from: markjo on March 03, 2010, 09:34:47 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 02, 2010, 08:28:26 PM

All I can attest to is that in my region, in the western and northern hemiplanes, the distances appear to be accurate.

In other words, the RE maps that you have used seem to be accurate, right?

Is this going anywhere? 

That depends on how accurate your RE maps are.  We all know that FE maps are the only ones that can possibly be accurate, so the RE maps must be wrong, correct? 

GUYS BREAK IT UP! Flat earth isn't a theory, it's a fact.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 03, 2010, 11:04:16 PM

Quote from: markjo on March 03, 2010, 09:34:47 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 02, 2010, 08:28:26 PM

All I can attest to is that in my region, in the western and northern hemiplanes, the distances appear to be accurate.

In other words, the RE maps that you have used seem to be accurate, right?

Is this going anywhere? 

That depends on how accurate your RE maps are.  We all know that FE maps are the only ones that can possibly be accurate, so the RE maps must be wrong, correct? 

Actually last I checked in my part of the world there's at best a negligible difference between the two, and all I can really personally do with the unsophisticated equipment I have to work with is approximate.

Actually last I checked in my part of the world there's at best a negligible difference between the two, and all I can really personally do with the unsophisticated equipment I have to work with is approximate.

How did you come to the conclusion that there should be negligible differences between the two maps for your area?

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 04, 2010, 07:20:44 PM

Actually last I checked in my part of the world there's at best a negligible difference between the two, and all I can really personally do with the unsophisticated equipment I have to work with is approximate.

How did you come to the conclusion that there should be negligible differences between the two maps for your area?

Cuz they don't look that different.  Certainly not to any degree that I'd have the means to test meaningfully.

Quote from: markjo on March 04, 2010, 07:53:43 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 04, 2010, 07:20:44 PM

Actually last I checked in my part of the world there's at best a negligible difference between the two, and all I can really personally do with the unsophisticated equipment I have to work with is approximate.

How did you come to the conclusion that there should be negligible differences between the two maps for your area?

Cuz they don't look that different.  Certainly not to any degree that I'd have the means to test meaningfully.

  So where did you get the accurate FE map?  I've been looking for one for almost 2 years now and I haven't found one that was anywhere close to accurate yet.