The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: ERTW on February 26, 2010, 06:28:23 PM
-
I think an error was made in naming the idea this website supports Flat Earth Theory, or FET. I propose that the Flat Earth concept is more correctly a hypothesis (FEH). The main issue addressed by the FEH is the shape of the Earth on a large scale, outside of the easily observable human sight range. This idea has been supported by many other scientific ideas including: UA, Bendy Light, Sky Mirror, etc. This idea also requires the existence of the Conspiracy, a large organized attempt to hide the true shape of the Earth.
My argument is that without a testable model such as a large scale map, the idea of the Flat Earth remains a hypothesis, yet to be tested in the rigorous manner that science demands. Two attempts to test the FEH were made by Rowbotham and Lady Blout, but both are highly disputed and have not been reproduced by the modern FES (although Daniel attempted the BLE but in my opinion made a math error). Both of tests only look for local flatness, and have nothing to do with the real point of the FEH, the general shape of the Earth at large.
Until a testable model of the location of various major cities around the world is developed, I propose that idea of a Flat Earth remains a hypothesis. In this age with reliable wind speed measurements and relatively cheap access to commercial aviation, the ability of the FES to gather evidence has never been greater.
-
I second the motion.
-
Theory: a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory
-
My argument is that without a testable model such as a large scale map, the idea of the Flat Earth remains a hypothesis, yet to be tested in the rigorous manner that science demands. Two attempts to test the FEH were made by Rowbotham and Lady Blout, but both are highly disputed
If by disputed you mean offhandedly calling them liars, then sure, it's "disputed".
and have not been reproduced by the modern FES
Incorrect. I've reproduced the experiment. And I believe Charles K Johnson and Samuel Shenton reproduced it a number of times in their literature as well.
My argument is that without a testable model such as a large scale map, the idea of the Flat Earth remains a hypothesis, yet to be tested in the rigorous manner that science demands.
Check out the Flat Earth Literature link sometime. FET has been tested plenty of times.
-
My argument is that without a testable model such as a large scale map, the idea of the Flat Earth remains a hypothesis, yet to be tested in the rigorous manner that science demands. Two attempts to test the FEH were made by Rowbotham and Lady Blout, but both are highly disputed
If by disuputed you mean calling them liars, then sure, it's "disputed".
The bedford level experiment has shown a curved surface in most other replications of it. Rowbotham and Blout were lying or mistaken.
-
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!".
-
Why can't bodies of water be flat? Why can't the earth curve less at one area? Why can't they have fudged numbers?
-
Why can't bodies of water be flat? Why can't the earth curve less at one area? Why can't they have fudged numbers?
There are a number of factors that fudge the results of this experiment, and that is why the experiments have to be repeated several times or complemented with similar experiments.
The curvature of the Earth cannot be significantly different in some places compared with others. What can happen is that a canal will not have the surface of the water following exactly the curvature of the Earth, since friction is a very significant force when doing such a delicate experiment. Nobody makes canals where there is no flow of water, since the canal would have no use. And the shape of the surface of the water, in that case, depends on the friction the water encounters at each step of the way. Also, the refraction of light depends on the temperature of the air above the water, making the apparently easy experiment a lot harder than it seems.
The solution for all of the above is, obviously, to use a stretch of water much longer than 6 miles, so that the effects of refraction are smaller than the actual curvature of the Earth, and the use of lakes and the ocean (preferably lakes) so that the water flow is, on average, nil.
Nobody has ever even tried to replicate the experiments of Robotham and Lady Blouth on a larger scale, with better telescopes and experiment design, but examples of similar experiments abound, and the results are quite predictable.
-
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!".
[/list]
Magnification, please?
-
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.
The bedford level experiment has shown a curved surface in most other replications of it. Rowbotham and Blout were lying or mistaken.
-
I think an error was made in naming the idea this website supports Flat Earth Theory, or FET. I propose that the Flat Earth concept is more correctly a hypothesis (FEH).
I must respectfully disagree. It's not that I don't find your argument an amusing little trifle, it's simply that the dictionary itself suggests you are wrong.
Main Entry: the?o?ry
Pronunciation: \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural the?o?ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theōria, from theōrein
Date: 1592
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : speculation
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances ?often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
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>
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory
-
I think an error was made in naming the idea this website supports Flat Earth Theory, or FET. I propose that the Flat Earth concept is more correctly a hypothesis (FEH).
I must respectfully disagree. It's not that I don't find your argument an amusing little trifle, it's simply that the dictionary itself suggests you are wrong.
Main Entry: the?o?ry
Pronunciation: \?th?-?-r?, ?thir-?\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural the?o?ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek the?ria, from the?rein
Date: 1592
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : speculation
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances ?often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
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>
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory
So should it be regarded as an obsolete theory? I'm looking at definitions 5 and 6, and it seems to me that FET fails to do these since it is not "plausible" (see Occam's Razor) or "a scientifically acceptable general principle", given the contradictions within the system and the inability of the FE community to agree on a single model for the shape of the Earth and its place in the solar system.
-
So should it be regarded as an obsolete theory?
No. :-\
I'm looking at definitions 5 and 6
You looked in the right place but the parts you bolded were all wrong.
-
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.
...
The sluice gate of the Old Bedford Bridge was 5ft. 8in. high
the turf-boat moored there was 2ft. 6in. high
the notice board was 6ft. 6in. from the water
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.
...
This experiment is fails math at the outset. The author is using a quadratic approximation to determine the 'drop' behind the horizon, and hence estimates that the boat will be 7ft below the horizon. In fact, the 'bulge' of water over 6mi or about 9.6km is:
h=R(1-cos(S/R))
R=Radius
S=half the arclength between points
h=heigh of bulge
Run the math and you get about 1.4m. According to the story the notice board was 6ft. 6in or 2m above the water, so you should be able to see the notice board with a good telescope from 6mi away.
No problem here Tom, you got any other evidence?
I provide a more detailed diagram to go with the math in this thread:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=36101.40
The math used in the article in The English Mechanic is incorrect.
Lady Blout's test has no math, it requires us to believe that you can observe the difference between reflection of a white sheet on water and the sheet itself at a distance of 6mi.
-
So should it be regarded as an obsolete theory?
No. :-\
I'm looking at definitions 5 and 6
You looked in the right place but the parts you bolded were all wrong.
Canadark is right in that FET is not a generally accepted scientific explanation, and it never will be as long as it requires a massive conspiracy to be even remotely plausible.
-
Irrelevant.
A peer review published in a respectable journal isn't irrelevant. Exactly the opposite, in fact.
-
Irrelevant.
A peer review published in a respectable journal isn't irrelevant. Exactly the opposite, in fact.
It may be published in a respected journal, but its math is still wrong.
-
Irrelevant.
A peer review published in a respectable journal isn't irrelevant. Exactly the opposite, in fact.
It may be published in a respected journal, but its math is still wrong.
Actually, it's not.
-
My argument is that without a testable model such as a large scale map, the idea of the Flat Earth remains a hypothesis, yet to be tested in the rigorous manner that science demands. Two attempts to test the FEH were made by Rowbotham and Lady Blout, but both are highly disputed
If by disputed you mean offhandedly calling them liars, then sure, it's "disputed".
and have not been reproduced by the modern FES
Incorrect. I've reproduced the experiment. And I believe Charles K Johnson and Samuel Shenton reproduced it a number of times in their literature as well.
My argument is that without a testable model such as a large scale map, the idea of the Flat Earth remains a hypothesis, yet to be tested in the rigorous manner that science demands.
Check out the Flat Earth Literature link sometime. FET has been tested plenty of times.
Imagine that Rowbottom is John Glenn. Imagine that Blount is Alan Shepherd. Imagine that the witnesses of Blount's experiment are subsituted by the staff of tracking stations around the world and the guys in mission control. Imagine that Clifton's photos commissioned by Blount are those taken by other astronauts and cosmonauts.
Suddenly asking us to just accept what Rowbotham and Blount say makes you look a bit hypocritical, doesn't it?
;)
-
So should it be regarded as an obsolete theory?
No. :-\
I'm looking at definitions 5 and 6
You looked in the right place but the parts you bolded were all wrong.
There is more than one possible or accepted definition of the term theory. I might say the difference between a hypothesis and a theory is evidence, and that seems to be the consensus on the FES boards.
-
So should it be regarded as an obsolete theory?
No. :-\
I'm looking at definitions 5 and 6
You looked in the right place but the parts you bolded were all wrong.
Canadark is right in that FET is not a generally accepted scientific explanation, and it never will be as long as it requires a massive conspiracy to be even remotely plausible.
I'm not arguing over a faulty premise. The only thing that matters is that according to the dictionary, FET, as it exists on these forums, is a theory. It's bona fide.
-
I think an error was made in naming the idea this website supports Flat Earth Theory, or FET. I propose that the Flat Earth concept is more correctly a hypothesis (FEH).
I must respectfully disagree. It's not that I don't find your argument an amusing little trifle, it's simply that the dictionary itself suggests you are wrong.
Main Entry: the?o?ry
Pronunciation: \?th?-?-r?, ?thir-?\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural the?o?ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek the?ria, from the?rein
Date: 1592
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : speculation
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances ?often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
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>
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory
1,2,&3: Where is the analysis of facts? FET makes major predictions about the shape of the earth at large, but makes no attempts to form a model with predictive power. It provides speculative explanations, but without scientific peer review (I am talking about the current FES not Rowbotham).
4: Irrelevant to the proposed usage.
5: The idea is plausible, but no plausible model is proposed. There is no argument that FET is a scientifically acceptable general principle.
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.
-
I think an error was made in naming the idea this website supports Flat Earth Theory, or FET. I propose that the Flat Earth concept is more correctly a hypothesis (FEH).
I must respectfully disagree. It's not that I don't find your argument an amusing little trifle, it's simply that the dictionary itself suggests you are wrong.
Main Entry: the?o?ry
Pronunciation: \?th?-?-r?, ?thir-?\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural the?o?ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek the?ria, from the?rein
Date: 1592
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : speculation
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances ?often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
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>
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory
1,2,&3: Where is the analysis of facts? FET makes major predictions about the shape of the earth at large, but makes no attempts to form a model with predictive power. It provides speculative explanations, but without scientific peer review (I am talking about the current FES not Rowbotham).
4: Irrelevant to the proposed usage.
5: The idea is plausible, but no plausible model is proposed. There is no argument that FET is a scientifically acceptable general principle.
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.
All completely irrelevant to my point.
-
Seriously guys, if there's one thing this forum doesn't need more of it's yet another debate on the exact meaning of words. Is it a "theory"? Is it a "hypothesis"? Who cares?
-
I think an error was made in naming the idea this website supports Flat Earth Theory, or FET. I propose that the Flat Earth concept is more correctly a hypothesis (FEH).
I must respectfully disagree. It's not that I don't find your argument an amusing little trifle, it's simply that the dictionary itself suggests you are wrong.
Main Entry: the?o?ry
Pronunciation: \?th?-?-r?, ?thir-?\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural the?o?ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek the?ria, from the?rein
Date: 1592
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : speculation
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances ?often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
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>
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory
1,2,&3: Where is the analysis of facts? FET makes major predictions about the shape of the earth at large, but makes no attempts to form a model with predictive power. It provides speculative explanations, but without scientific peer review (I am talking about the current FES not Rowbotham).
4: Irrelevant to the proposed usage.
5: The idea is plausible, but no plausible model is proposed. There is no argument that FET is a scientifically acceptable general principle.
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.
All completely irrelevant to my point.
Wasn't your point that that the dictionary backs up Flat Earth Theory being a theory?
-
Wasn't your point that that the dictionary backs up Flat Earth Theory being a theory?
Yes.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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 an error was made in naming the idea this website supports Flat Earth Theory, or FET. I propose that the Flat Earth concept is more correctly a hypothesis (FEH).
I must respectfully disagree. It's not that I don't find your argument an amusing little trifle, it's simply that the dictionary itself suggests you are wrong.
Main Entry: the?o?ry
Pronunciation: \?th?-?-r?, ?thir-?\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural the?o?ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek the?ria, from the?rein
Date: 1592
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : speculation
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances ?often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
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>
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory
Definition 3 is used for scientific purposes. Just like the thoery of evolution is mostly considered fact.
-
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.
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.
The bedford level experiment has shown a curved surface in most other replications of it. Rowbotham and Blout were lying or mistaken.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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:
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.
-
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?
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.
-
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.
-
@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. :(
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.
-
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.
-
@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?
-
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? ???
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Have you personally tested this?
-
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.
??? What accurate FE map? I was referring to Chris's projection here, which is unfortunately all we have to go on.
-
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.
??? What accurate FE map? I was referring to Chris's projection here, which is unfortunately all we have to go on.
Ahh, so FE'ers are still relying on RE maps to get where they want to go. Carry on.
-
Have you personally tested this?
Anyone living in the Southern Hemisphere does this daily.
-
Have you personally tested this?
Anyone living in the Southern Hemisphere does this daily.
It's not the southern hemisphere, it's the lower left quadrant of earth. I believe we should keep FET and just change the T from Theory to Truth.
-
Have you personally tested this?
Anyone living in the Southern Hemisphere does this daily.
It's not the southern hemisphere, it's the lower left quadrant of earth. I believe we should keep FET and just change the T from Theory to Truth.
I laugh at your stupidity.
No. It is the southern hemisphere.
-
It's not the southern hemisphere, it's the lower left quadrant of earth. I believe we should keep FET and just change the T from Theory to Truth.
Go play devils advocate and troll somewhere that doesn't make you look stupid.
-
Have you personally tested this?
Anyone living in the Southern Hemisphere does this daily.
It's not the southern hemisphere, it's the lower left quadrant of earth. I believe we should keep FET and just change the T from Theory to Truth.
You're either a troll or you have IQ that would shame a glass of water.
-
the earth is round.
there is no, i repeat NO!! logic, that proves the earth is flat. If you believe otherwise youre a fool
-
the earth is round.
there is no, i repeat NO!! logic, that proves the earth is flat. If you believe otherwise youre a fool
Please keep low-content, off-topic posts out of the debate board.
-
Responding to the OP:
I believe this an entirely reasonable request. In my time here I have had no one tell me any valid experiments to validate FEH (I have already posted my critique of EnaG, and my main point went completely unchallenged even by the likes of Bishop), and so it should remain under that name until the requisite experimentation has been performed.
I know Lord Willmore often says that he believe in Flat Earth because of the observations he has made, which is completely sufficient for an hypothesis, but I believe that a variety of rigorous tests must occur before the evidence of an hypothesis can be integrated into a theory. Even if the experiments mentioned are to be considered valid, they are not nearly enough to make Flat Earth a legitimate theory, especially because I read none which investigated into such things a Bendy Light, the EA, the nature of Dark Matter, or any of the other vastly important tenets of the hypothesis.
In short, I agree that Flat Earth is a hypothesis, and that the FE'ers would do well to design and perform experiments not just to re-validate those already done but to discover the true nature of the many unobserved parts of the Flat Earth assembly.