How can you come to a conclusion without actually doing the experiment? ???Easily. I just use established facts, like you did in determining that at 45o latitude that the Sun's angle is 45o is your Wiki entry on the Sun's distance. It was good enough for you, right?
Have you performed this experiment yourself?Not directly, but once we agree that it's definitive, I will. Currently I rely on established facts as Tom Bishop does in his Wiki entry on the distance that the Sun is above the FE.
Oh, so your "simple proof" actually turns out to be unsubstantiated conjecture. What a surprise!I have substantiated my conjecture. Do you challenge that? If so, tell me what's wrong with Tom's Wiki page.
The only legitimate means for the substantiation of the result of an empirical experiment is the performance of that experiment. You have not performed this experiment, so the results you predict have not be adequately substantiated.False. There are many legitimate means for substantiating a conjecture.
As a zeteticist I clearly subscribe to higher standards of legitimacy than you. Your own epistemological laziness does not mitigate the inadequacy of your evidence.I see. Do tell us us what standard of legitimacy has your conjecture that the Moon is flat and lit by its own biomass met. It seems to me that you have a double-standard regarding legitimacy. For shame.
The only legitimate means for the substantiation of the result of an empirical experiment is the performance of that experiment. You have not performed this experiment, so the results you predict have not be adequately substantiated.Nice that you say that the FE is not adequately substantiated.
As a zeteticist I clearly subscribe to higher standards of legitimacy than you. Your own epistemological laziness does not mitigate the inadequacy of your evidence.
Isn't it great that whenever you definitively point out a FE contradiction, they just vanish?I guess that they don't want to face the truth.
Well, I guess this is becoming a Victory for...
Previously determined fact: EAT is false.
Actually, you did the experiment for us. We just take Rowbotham's word on the operation of the sextant and your entry in the Wiki and we have the three data points and the experiment is complete.Well, I guess this is becoming a Victory for...
Well, since no experimentation was done before coming to a conclusion...
Flat Earth
Prove your outlandish claim.Previously determined fact: EAT is false.
This is wrong. Therefore, all your remaining deductions is not correct.
Prove your outlandish claim.Previously determined fact: EAT is false.
This is wrong. Therefore, all your remaining deductions is not correct.
How can you come to a conclusion without actually doing the experiment? ???
Wrong. That's a non sequitur. You might as well say: Winds blows. Therefore, the Earth is round.Prove your outlandish claim.Previously determined fact: EAT is false.
This is wrong. Therefore, all your remaining deductions is not correct.
Light bends. Therefore, EAT is not false.
No, you may not. You not understanding it does not make it a non-sequitur.Wrong. That's a non sequitur. You might as well say: Winds blows. Therefore, the Earth is round.Prove your outlandish claim.Previously determined fact: EAT is false.
This is wrong. Therefore, all your remaining deductions is not correct.
Light bends. Therefore, EAT is not false.
I never said that my (Gerunds take the possessive.) not understanding did anything.No, you may not. You not understanding it does not make it a non-sequitur.Wrong. That's a non sequitur. You might as well say: Winds blows. Therefore, the Earth is round.Prove your outlandish claim.Previously determined fact: EAT is false.
This is wrong. Therefore, all your remaining deductions is not correct.
Light bends. Therefore, EAT is not false.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerund#Gerunds_in_English (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerund#Gerunds_in_English) Gerunds can be used in a clause that serves as a noun phrase.I never said that my (Gerunds take the possessive.) not understanding did anything.No, you may not. You not understanding it does not make it a non-sequitur.Wrong. That's a non sequitur. You might as well say: Winds blows. Therefore, the Earth is round.Prove your outlandish claim.Previously determined fact: EAT is false.
This is wrong. Therefore, all your remaining deductions is not correct.
Light bends. Therefore, EAT is not false.
Since they are nouns, they take adjectives. The pronoun form that modifies a noun is the possessive.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerund#Gerunds_in_English (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerund#Gerunds_in_English) Gerunds can be used in a clause that serves as a noun phrase.I never said that my (Gerunds take the possessive.) not understanding did anything.No, you may not. You not understanding it does not make it a non-sequitur.Wrong. That's a non sequitur. You might as well say: Winds blows. Therefore, the Earth is round.Prove your outlandish claim.Previously determined fact: EAT is false.
This is wrong. Therefore, all your remaining deductions is not correct.
Light bends. Therefore, EAT is not false.
But, seriously, your argument was wrong.
They are not nouns. It is the same form as the present participle of the verb. The clause was:Since they are nouns, they take adjectives. The pronoun form that modifies a noun is the possessive.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerund#Gerunds_in_English (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerund#Gerunds_in_English) Gerunds can be used in a clause that serves as a noun phrase.I never said that my (Gerunds take the possessive.) not understanding did anything.No, you may not. You not understanding it does not make it a non-sequitur.Wrong. That's a non sequitur. You might as well say: Winds blows. Therefore, the Earth is round.Prove your outlandish claim.Previously determined fact: EAT is false.
This is wrong. Therefore, all your remaining deductions is not correct.
Light bends. Therefore, EAT is not false.
But, seriously, your argument was wrong.
But, seriously, your argument was wrong.
You can't even quote the phrase correctly. What a failure you are. You used as a noun phrase "you not understanding".They are not nouns. It is the same form as the present participle of the verb. The clause was:Since they are nouns, they take adjectives. The pronoun form that modifies a noun is the possessive.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerund#Gerunds_in_English (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerund#Gerunds_in_English) Gerunds can be used in a clause that serves as a noun phrase.I never said that my (Gerunds take the possessive.) not understanding did anything.No, you may not. You not understanding it does not make it a non-sequitur.Wrong. That's a non sequitur. You might as well say: Winds blows. Therefore, the Earth is round.Prove your outlandish claim.Previously determined fact: EAT is false.
This is wrong. Therefore, all your remaining deductions is not correct.
Light bends. Therefore, EAT is not false.
But, seriously, your argument was wrong.
But, seriously, your argument was wrong.
'You are not understanding' and this is the subject of the main sentence that your lack of understanding does not make something a non-sequitur. When used as such, the auxiliary verb ('are' in this case) is omitted. Your sentence does not even make sense:
'your not understanding'
1. Earth is flat.A) Prove Premise 1.
2. Distant objects seem to sink below the horizon as they recede from us.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It must be that light does not follow straight lines (since we would never observe this effect on a flat surface with rectilinear propagation of light), i.e. it bends. Any theory that explains this phenomenon is fundamentally correct since it relies on observational evidence.
However, deriving Earth is round would be in direct violation to premise 1. Therefore, your argument has to be wrong. I pointed out the reason why this is so. You erroneously assumed a fundamentally correct theory to be invalid as a premise in your deductions.
a) Look out the window.a) Nothing I see out the windows proves that the Earth is flat.
b) Look at a sunset.
c) Read the definition of a theory.
Read what others have written more carefully. I did not say you assumed premise 1 to be invalid (if you had used that, you would be making a circular argument). I said you assumed the conclusion from premise 1 and premise 2, namely that light bends to be invalid.
1. Earth is flat.You can't take the unproven thing as a premise. You must show that the light bends without relying to the Earth shape. So, there are quite many experiments which show that the light travels in straight lines. Where is your experiment which shows that light bends?
2. Distant objects seem to sink below the horizon as they recede from us.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It must be that light does not follow straight lines (since we would never observe this effect on a flat surface with rectilinear propagation of light), i.e. it bends. Any theory that explains this phenomenon is fundamentally correct since it relies on observational evidence.
However, deriving Earth is round would be in direct violation to premise 1. Therefore, your argument has to be wrong. I pointed out the reason why this is so. You erroneously assumed a fundamentally correct theory to be invalid as a premise in your deductions.
a) Look out the window.a) Nothing I see out the windows proves that the Earth is flat.
b) Look at a sunset.
c) Read the definition of a theory.
Read what others have written more carefully. I did not say you assumed premise 1 to be invalid (if you had used that, you would be making a circular argument). I said you assumed the conclusion from premise 1 and premise 2, namely that light bends to be invalid.
b) I have. Nothing I see at sunset nothing that proves distant objects seem to sink below the horizon as they recede from us.
c) I have. Nothing in that definition matches what you claim.
d) You said nothing about premise 2, or any conclusion from it, in that paragraph. Clearly you fail yet again.
I don't have to have experiments to prove that light bends. I deduced it from the two premises.1. Earth is flat.You can't take the unproven thing as a premise. You must show that the light bends without relying to the Earth shape. So, there are quite many experiments which show that the light travels in straight lines. Where is your experiment which shows that light bends?
2. Distant objects seem to sink below the horizon as they recede from us.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It must be that light does not follow straight lines (since we would never observe this effect on a flat surface with rectilinear propagation of light), i.e. it bends. Any theory that explains this phenomenon is fundamentally correct since it relies on observational evidence.
However, deriving Earth is round would be in direct violation to premise 1. Therefore, your argument has to be wrong. I pointed out the reason why this is so. You erroneously assumed a fundamentally correct theory to be invalid as a premise in your deductions.
And how exactly you conclusively proved that the Earth is flat? And there may be other reasons why the ships disappear. Like they actually sink. Or water raises up between you and the ship. Your deduction is worthless until you devise some experiment which shows how the light actually bends.I don't have to have experiments to prove that light bends. I deduced it from the two premises.1. Earth is flat.You can't take the unproven thing as a premise. You must show that the light bends without relying to the Earth shape. So, there are quite many experiments which show that the light travels in straight lines. Where is your experiment which shows that light bends?
2. Distant objects seem to sink below the horizon as they recede from us.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It must be that light does not follow straight lines (since we would never observe this effect on a flat surface with rectilinear propagation of light), i.e. it bends. Any theory that explains this phenomenon is fundamentally correct since it relies on observational evidence.
However, deriving Earth is round would be in direct violation to premise 1. Therefore, your argument has to be wrong. I pointed out the reason why this is so. You erroneously assumed a fundamentally correct theory to be invalid as a premise in your deductions.
1. Earth is flat.
2. Distant objects seem to sink below the horizon as they recede from us.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It must be that light does not follow straight lines (since we would never observe this effect on a flat surface with rectilinear propagation of light), i.e. it bends. Any theory that explains this phenomenon is fundamentally correct since it relies on observational evidence.
However, deriving Earth is round would be in direct violation to premise 1. Therefore, your argument has to be wrong. I pointed out the reason why this is so. You erroneously assumed a fundamentally correct theory to be invalid as a premise in your deductions.
I don't have to have experiments to prove that light bends. I deduced it from the two premises.
1) Prove your claim now in red text above.a) Look out the window.a) Nothing I see out the windows proves that the Earth is flat.
b) Look at a sunset.
c) Read the definition of a theory.
Read what others have written more carefully. I did not say you assumed premise 1 to be invalid (if you had used that, you would be making a circular argument). I said you assumed the conclusion from premise 1 and premise 2, namely that light bends to be invalid.
b) I have. Nothing I see at sunset nothing that proves distant objects seem to sink below the horizon as they recede from us.
c) I have. Nothing in that definition matches what you claim.
d) You said nothing about premise 2, or any conclusion from it, in that paragraph. Clearly you fail yet again.
Remember that evidence can never prove a theory, but only support it. Does the observational evidence from your everyday experience contradict the Flat Earth assumption? If so, please state what evidence is that. Similarly, do you not agree that the bottom of the Sun first disappears from our view during a sunset? Same, do you not agree that for other observers to the West of your location the Sun looks overhead? Therefore, it cannot decrease in altitude, but actually recedes from you and approaches other observers, but always remains at the same height above Earth's surface. These sets of observational data are best modeled by a flat earth with light bending.
As far as d) is concerned, I think you are under the influence of some mind altering substance.
You can't even quote the phrase correctly. What a failure you are.
If this were true, it would mean that it is day and night at ALL points on the Earth at the same time. However, this is contrary to observational evidence.1. Earth is flat.Well - no - the simplest explanation is that sun merely travels underneath the earth and pops up in the East the next morning.
2. Distant objects seem to sink below the horizon as they recede from us.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It must be that light does not follow straight lines (since we would never observe this effect on a flat surface with rectilinear propagation of light), i.e. it bends. Any theory that explains this phenomenon is fundamentally correct since it relies on observational evidence.
However, deriving Earth is round would be in direct violation to premise 1. Therefore, your argument has to be wrong. I pointed out the reason why this is so. You erroneously assumed a fundamentally correct theory to be invalid as a premise in your deductions.
This requires no bendy light theories and falls in with the fact the world seems flat to you when you look out your window.
I don't understand what else could be deduced from those two premises.I don't have to have experiments to prove that light bends. I deduced it from the two premises.By that same train of thought anyone can deduce something different given the same two premises and have an equally valid proof.
I don't understand what else could be deduced from those two premises.
I don't understand what else could be deduced from those two premises.
That the premise 1 isn't true.
I think you've erred, again. After you fix this, please tell us the reason that you need to assume premise 1.I don't understand what else could be deduced from those two premises.
That the premise 1 isn't true.
So, assuming premise 1 and premise 2, you deduce premise 1 is correct. WOW! You are a genius.
Irrelevant, it is what I see out my window.If this were true, it would mean that it is day and night at ALL points on the Earth at the same time. However, this is contrary to observational evidence.1. Earth is flat.Well - no - the simplest explanation is that sun merely travels underneath the earth and pops up in the East the next morning.
2. Distant objects seem to sink below the horizon as they recede from us.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It must be that light does not follow straight lines (since we would never observe this effect on a flat surface with rectilinear propagation of light), i.e. it bends. Any theory that explains this phenomenon is fundamentally correct since it relies on observational evidence.
However, deriving Earth is round would be in direct violation to premise 1. Therefore, your argument has to be wrong. I pointed out the reason why this is so. You erroneously assumed a fundamentally correct theory to be invalid as a premise in your deductions.
This requires no bendy light theories and falls in with the fact the world seems flat to you when you look out your window.
a) Look out the window.
b) Look at a sunset.
The sun sinks below the horizon in the west and rises in the east. The only logical explanation is that it traveled under us.I don't understand what else could be deduced from those two premises.I don't have to have experiments to prove that light bends. I deduced it from the two premises.By that same train of thought anyone can deduce something different given the same two premises and have an equally valid proof.
I said it isn't true not that it is true. Can't you read? And of course. If you assume the premise 1 and premise 2 and got the result which contradicts the premise 1 then only thing to deduce is that the premise 1 isn't true.I don't understand what else could be deduced from those two premises.
That the premise 1 isn't true.
So, assuming premise 1 and premise 2, you deduce premise 1 is correct. WOW! You are a genius.
I said it isn't true not that it is true. Can't you read? And of course. If you assume the premise 1 and premise 2 and got the result which contradicts the premise 1 then only thing to deduce is that the premise 1 isn't true.I don't understand what else could be deduced from those two premises.
That the premise 1 isn't true.
So, assuming premise 1 and premise 2, you deduce premise 1 is correct. WOW! You are a genius.
I guess I said it incorrectly. I meant that if you take 1 and then you go and take 2 then you just realize that the 2 contradicts the 1 and therefore the 1 can't be true. Shortly, you can't put two arbitrary premises together and assume something from both of them when they just won't work together.
Because you can assume from that the round earth.I guess I said it incorrectly. I meant that if you take 1 and then you go and take 2 then you just realize that the 2 contradicts the 1 and therefore the 1 can't be true. Shortly, you can't put two arbitrary premises together and assume something from both of them when they just won't work together.
Ok, how do you think premise 2 contradict premise 1 in our particular case?
Wow, that's a large leap of faith.Because you can assume from that the round earth.I guess I said it incorrectly. I meant that if you take 1 and then you go and take 2 then you just realize that the 2 contradicts the 1 and therefore the 1 can't be true. Shortly, you can't put two arbitrary premises together and assume something from both of them when they just won't work together.
Ok, how do you think premise 2 contradict premise 1 in our particular case?
Wow, that's a large leap of faith.Because you can assume from that the round earth.I guess I said it incorrectly. I meant that if you take 1 and then you go and take 2 then you just realize that the 2 contradicts the 1 and therefore the 1 can't be true. Shortly, you can't put two arbitrary premises together and assume something from both of them when they just won't work together.
Ok, how do you think premise 2 contradict premise 1 in our particular case?
Considering the title of this thread, that wasn't much of a proof, was it?Quite the contrary, with Tom's wonderful support in the Wiki and Rowbotham's support about the sextant, it is a wonderful proof. And get this, any two FEers can at some time during the year repeat the experiment and convince themselves. No more excuses. Hurrah! Final and absolute victory for RE!
Considering the title of this thread, that wasn't much of a proof, was it?Quite the contrary, with Tom's wonderful support in the Wiki and Rowbotham's support about the sextant, it is a wonderful proof. And get this, any two FEers can at some time during the year repeat the experiment and convince themselves. No more excuses. Hurrah! Final and absolute victory for RE!
You know you really never had a chance there. I really thought there was a time that you could have made a case for EAT. I guess the math must have been too much for you, like Roundy and his grand unified theory for FET.Considering the title of this thread, that wasn't much of a proof, was it?Quite the contrary, with Tom's wonderful support in the Wiki and Rowbotham's support about the sextant, it is a wonderful proof. And get this, any two FEers can at some time during the year repeat the experiment and convince themselves. No more excuses. Hurrah! Final and absolute victory for RE!
pats 'ClockTower' on the shoulder... There there, don't get overexcited. Here, drink these pills.
You know you really never had a chance there. I really thought there was a time that you could have made a case for EAT. I guess the math must have been too much for you, like Roundy and his grand unified theory for FET.Considering the title of this thread, that wasn't much of a proof, was it?Quite the contrary, with Tom's wonderful support in the Wiki and Rowbotham's support about the sextant, it is a wonderful proof. And get this, any two FEers can at some time during the year repeat the experiment and convince themselves. No more excuses. Hurrah! Final and absolute victory for RE!
pats 'ClockTower' on the shoulder... There there, don't get overexcited. Here, drink these pills.
EAT is just not even making a decent appearance in these topics anymore. Really, you want to start from the "assumption" that the Earth is flat to prove EAT?
Oh, and you don't drink pills.
So do you have any decent statement of EAT or a way to test it yet? How much longer do you need, if not?You know you really never had a chance there. I really thought there was a time that you could have made a case for EAT. I guess the math must have been too much for you, like Roundy and his grand unified theory for FET.Considering the title of this thread, that wasn't much of a proof, was it?Quite the contrary, with Tom's wonderful support in the Wiki and Rowbotham's support about the sextant, it is a wonderful proof. And get this, any two FEers can at some time during the year repeat the experiment and convince themselves. No more excuses. Hurrah! Final and absolute victory for RE!
pats 'ClockTower' on the shoulder... There there, don't get overexcited. Here, drink these pills.
EAT is just not even making a decent appearance in these topics anymore. Really, you want to start from the "assumption" that the Earth is flat to prove EAT?
Oh, and you don't drink pills.
Keep telling that to yourself.
Yes.Please provide a link to this explanation of yours.
Why would I do that?Yes.Please provide a link to this explanation of yours.
To substantiate your claim, of course. Why would you ask? Come on. We're in the upper fora, so let's debate, not play games.Why would I do that?Yes.Please provide a link to this explanation of yours.
I am debating. What claims do I have to substantiate? Look at the title of the thread. If your idea of proof is challenging people to disprove you, then you are not doing a good job. It is called Burden of proof. By the way, since the person who verifies EAT will probably get the next Nobel Prize in Physics, I have no intention of revealing such groundbreaking material to someone else.To substantiate your claim, of course. Why would you ask? Come on. We're in the upper fora, so let's debate, not play games.Why would I do that?Yes.Please provide a link to this explanation of yours.
So you can't show that EAT even has an explanation? How typical of an FEer.I am debating. What claims do I have to substantiate? Look at the title of the thread. If your idea of proof is challenging people to disprove you, then you are not doing a good job. It is called Burden of proof. By the way, since the person who verifies EAT will probably get the next Nobel Prize in Physics, I have no intention of revealing such groundbreaking material to someone else.To substantiate your claim, of course. Why would you ask? Come on. We're in the upper fora, so let's debate, not play games.Why would I do that?Yes.Please provide a link to this explanation of yours.
So you won't show that EAT even has an explanation?Fix'd.
How typical of an FEer.Keep up the offenses.
I've proposed a proof. I've presented how the evidence needed can be obtained. I've explained that the FEW and EnaG already have provided the needed data points. I've met my burden of proof.And I refuted your proof as garbage in my first post.
I admit that I can't prove EAT falseThank you for substantiating my point.
Of course, you quite right. Any one who verifies any of the FE magic is in line for the Nobel Prize in Physics. Given that no FEer has ever been nominated, and the poor quality of FE science, none will ever be nominated.good thing no one asked for your opinion on Nobel Prize in Physics nominees.
Not even close. You just admitted that you "won't" even describe EAT, yet your refutation requires its verification. How typical of an FEer.I've proposed a proof. I've presented how the evidence needed can be obtained. I've explained that the FEW and EnaG already have provided the needed data points. I've met my burden of proof.And I refuted your proof as garbage in my first post.
Why would I do the dirty work for you? You need to supply proof for your own conclusions. And you are reported.Not even close. You just admitted that you "won't" even describe EAT, yet your refutation requires its verification. How typical of an FEer.I've proposed a proof. I've presented how the evidence needed can be obtained. I've explained that the FEW and EnaG already have provided the needed data points. I've met my burden of proof.And I refuted your proof as garbage in my first post.
Why would I do the dirty work for you? You need to supply proof for your own conclusions. And you are reported.Not even close. You just admitted that you "won't" even describe EAT, yet your refutation requires its verification. How typical of an FEer.I've proposed a proof. I've presented how the evidence needed can be obtained. I've explained that the FEW and EnaG already have provided the needed data points. I've met my burden of proof.And I refuted your proof as garbage in my first post.
What dirty work of mine have I asked you to do? I've supplied the evidence for my own conclusions. If you want to challenge me with FE magic, then go ahead and substantiate it. Otherwise, we'll just dismiss you along with your unfounded claims.Why would I do the dirty work for you? You need to supply proof for your own conclusions. And you are reported.Not even close. You just admitted that you "won't" even describe EAT, yet your refutation requires its verification. How typical of an FEer.I've proposed a proof. I've presented how the evidence needed can be obtained. I've explained that the FEW and EnaG already have provided the needed data points. I've met my burden of proof.And I refuted your proof as garbage in my first post.
Previously determined fact: EAT is false.
It's not larger than assuming that the light bends. If you do your research then you find out that it is one reason why people started to think that the Earth can be round. So, it's not so large leap. Smaller than the bendy light one. So, if this second assumption is your only and only argument for bendy light then there is no bendy light.Wow, that's a large leap of faith.Because you can assume from that the round earth.I guess I said it incorrectly. I meant that if you take 1 and then you go and take 2 then you just realize that the 2 contradicts the 1 and therefore the 1 can't be true. Shortly, you can't put two arbitrary premises together and assume something from both of them when they just won't work together.
Ok, how do you think premise 2 contradict premise 1 in our particular case?
Previously determined fact: EAT is false.
This is not considered proof.
1. Earth is flat.
OK, now we are going to carry out clocktower's experiment. ON November 15, 2010 local astronomical noon, everyone measure the altitude of the sun.Please post your latitude (including N or S) and the altitude of the Sun. I recommend using a stake on flat ground. Measure the height (h) of the stick and its shadow (s). The altitude would arctan(h/s). Note: since the Sun is directly above a latitude other than the Equator, the angle will not be the complement of your latitude. If your location is too overcast on Monday, please try again on Tuesday or Wednesday, but be sure to report the change. If your time zone permits, you're also welcome to measure on Sunday.
If the values are exactly as predicted by RET, then RET is correct.
If the values are all weird, then bendy light theory is correct.
OK, now we are going to carry out clocktower's experiment. ON November 15, 2010 local astronomical noon, everyone measure the altitude of the sun.
If the values are exactly as predicted by RET, then RET is correct.
If the values are all weird, then bendy light theory is correct.
OK, now we are going to carry out clocktower's experiment. ON November 15, 2010 local astronomical noon, everyone measure the altitude of the sun.
If the values are exactly as predicted by RET, then RET is correct.
If the values are all weird, then bendy light theory is correct.
This is the point. The experiment proposed by ClockTower does not distinguish between RET and BLT.
How do you propose any experiment do so when there is no description of BLT? Are you just trolling?OK, now we are going to carry out clocktower's experiment. ON November 15, 2010 local astronomical noon, everyone measure the altitude of the sun.
If the values are exactly as predicted by RET, then RET is correct.
If the values are all weird, then bendy light theory is correct.
This is the point. The experiment proposed by ClockTower does not distinguish between RET and BLT.
How do you propose any experiment do so when there is no description of BLT? Are you just trolling?OK, now we are going to carry out clocktower's experiment. ON November 15, 2010 local astronomical noon, everyone measure the altitude of the sun.
If the values are exactly as predicted by RET, then RET is correct.
If the values are all weird, then bendy light theory is correct.
This is the point. The experiment proposed by ClockTower does not distinguish between RET and BLT.
I understand. But I'm not willing to allow a "we're going to think of a response to this challenge someday" defense. When they come up with a description of BLT then we will ask for evidence for it. Until then, I suggest we just accept victory and move on.How do you propose any experiment do so when there is no description of BLT? Are you just trolling?OK, now we are going to carry out clocktower's experiment. ON November 15, 2010 local astronomical noon, everyone measure the altitude of the sun.
If the values are exactly as predicted by RET, then RET is correct.
If the values are all weird, then bendy light theory is correct.
This is the point. The experiment proposed by ClockTower does not distinguish between RET and BLT.
What he is saying any results that prove the Earth's Rotundity with anything to do with the Sun will be explained by BLT. I think they know what direction this is going so they are going to blanket it down like Space Travel and Conspiracy Theory.
So any pictures taken from space are Faked
And any results from Sun shots and tracking are caused by BLT
Means we have to find an alternative angle
Berny
Thinks the FE'rs are battening down the hatches.
I understand. But I'm not willing to allow a "we're going to think of a response to this challenge someday" defense. When they come up with a description of BLT then we will ask for evidence for it. Until then, I suggest we just accept victory and move on.How do you propose any experiment do so when there is no description of BLT? Are you just trolling?OK, now we are going to carry out clocktower's experiment. ON November 15, 2010 local astronomical noon, everyone measure the altitude of the sun.
If the values are exactly as predicted by RET, then RET is correct.
If the values are all weird, then bendy light theory is correct.
This is the point. The experiment proposed by ClockTower does not distinguish between RET and BLT.
What he is saying any results that prove the Earth's Rotundity with anything to do with the Sun will be explained by BLT. I think they know what direction this is going so they are going to blanket it down like Space Travel and Conspiracy Theory.
So any pictures taken from space are Faked
And any results from Sun shots and tracking are caused by BLT
Means we have to find an alternative angle
Berny
Thinks the FE'rs are battening down the hatches.
OK, now we are going to carry out clocktower's experiment. ON November 15, 2010 local astronomical noon, everyone measure the altitude of the sun.
If the values are exactly as predicted by RET, then RET is correct.
If the values are all weird, then bendy light theory is correct.
This is the point. The experiment proposed by ClockTower does not distinguish between RET and BLT.
How about experiments with laser like from http://www.i-fiberoptics.com/pdf/45-700-manual.pdfOK, now we are going to carry out clocktower's experiment. ON November 15, 2010 local astronomical noon, everyone measure the altitude of the sun.
If the values are exactly as predicted by RET, then RET is correct.
If the values are all weird, then bendy light theory is correct.
This is the point. The experiment proposed by ClockTower does not distinguish between RET and BLT.
It's the optical equivalent of the EP. There is no test possible to distinguish bendy light from the earth's curvature.
It's been cloudy here but if it isn't tomorrow I'll help out.
EDIT: Not sure why everyone's still arguing over bendy light, most FE'ers won't profess belief in it anyway.
But the claim about the Earth being flat is not valid. None of the FEers have not seen the Earth in its entirety.It's been cloudy here but if it isn't tomorrow I'll help out.
EDIT: Not sure why everyone's still arguing over bendy light, most FE'ers won't profess belief in it anyway.
And most people won't profess the Earth is flat. However, that has no effect on its validity.
But the claim about the Earth being flat is not valid. None of the FEers have not seen the Earth in its entirety.The same objection can be raised against the RE hypothesis.
No, you can't. Because here on the round Earth people have been on space and seen the Earth in its entirety.But the claim about the Earth being flat is not valid. None of the FEers have not seen the Earth in its entirety.The same objection can be raised against the RE hypothesis.
No, they were not. And, even if you had gone to space, you would have not been able to see a round earth in its entirety.No, you can't. Because here on the round Earth people have been on space and seen the Earth in its entirety.But the claim about the Earth being flat is not valid. None of the FEers have not seen the Earth in its entirety.The same objection can be raised against the RE hypothesis.
You can deny that as much as you want but that won't make people who went to space to disappear. And yes, you can. You can go around the Earth and see it in its entirety.No, you can't. Because here on the round Earth people have been on space and seen the Earth in its entirety.No, they were not. And, even if you had gone to space, you would have not been able to see a round earth in its entirety.
Actually, you could. The Apollo astronauts had about a 2 day trip each way to and from the moon. During that time they would have been able to observe the entire earth as it rotates on its axis. Same goes with satellites in polar orbits. You just wouldn't be able to see the round earth in its entirety all at once (which is not what zork had claimed).No, they were not. And, even if you had gone to space, you would have not been able to see a round earth in its entirety.No, you can't. Because here on the round Earth people have been on space and seen the Earth in its entirety.But the claim about the Earth being flat is not valid. None of the FEers have not seen the Earth in its entirety.The same objection can be raised against the RE hypothesis.
You can deny that as much as you want but that won't make people who went to space to disappear.You mean, like this guy:
You can go around the Earth and see it in its entirety.Do you have any proof for this outlandish claim?
What about him?You can deny that as much as you want but that won't make people who went to space to disappear.You mean, like this guy:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Gagarin#Death_and_legacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Gagarin#Death_and_legacy)
You can deny that as much as you want but that won't make people who went to space to disappear.You mean, like this guy:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Gagarin#Death_and_legacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Gagarin#Death_and_legacy)
Of course. But as you deny the technological advancement then there is no use to show you any videos or photographs. And as private entrepreneurs take things on their own hands there are soon quite many space going persons. But as I or anyone can provide some links to the photos or videos taken from space and to show the entire earth globe then how about you? Can you provide some material which shows the entire flat earth? Even some faked and realistic one?You can go around the Earth and see it in its entirety.Do you have any proof for this outlandish claim?
None of the FEers have not seen the Earth in its entirety.
My mistakes in english language do not entail that. I guess the right version is then - None of the FEers have seen the Earth in its entirety.None of the FEers have not seen the Earth in its entirety.
Doesn't this entail that all of the FEers have seen the Earth in its entirety?
Cloudy in Luleå, Sweden (65 deg 35 min north), unfortunately.OK, now we are going to carry out clocktower's experiment. ON November 15, 2010 local astronomical noon, everyone measure the altitude of the sun.Please post your latitude (including N or S) and the altitude of the Sun. I recommend using a stake on flat ground. Measure the height (h) of the stick and its shadow (s). The altitude would arctan(h/s). Note: since the Sun is directly above a latitude other than the Equator, the angle will not be the complement of your latitude. If your location is too overcast on Monday, please try again on Tuesday or Wednesday, but be sure to report the change. If your time zone permits, you're also welcome to measure on Sunday.
If the values are exactly as predicted by RET, then RET is correct.
If the values are all weird, then bendy light theory is correct.
I will look for outliers and see if they come from questionable sources known to have lied about experimental data previously.
Thanks!
I repeated my observation today (it was a lot sunnier). For Tuesday 11/16, at latitude 29 degrees 51.242 minutes North at local astronomical noon, I measured the sun's altitude to be 39.93 degrees.Thanks. So far all three observations point to a RE to two sigfigs.
I'm in the West Midlands. The Sun is too far away to be seen right now.Remember that you have take the measurement at local astronomical noon.