The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: Rob566 on November 22, 2009, 09:42:20 AM

Title: Quick Question
Post by: Rob566 on November 22, 2009, 09:42:20 AM
Hey Guys,

Quick question..

Can someone provide me with a genuine peice of evidence to prove to me that the world is flat as you all say? Please no opinions or telling me to look at the FAQ, because i have and its laughable, the stuff a child would come up with.
I don't mind posting proof that the Earth is round, wheather it be video or theroy evidence.

I'm not looking for a flaming thread, just a friendly debate  :)
Title: Re: Quick Question
Post by: grifoli on November 22, 2009, 08:35:16 PM
Hey Guys,

Quick question..

Can someone provide me with a genuine peice of evidence to prove to me that the world is flat as you all say? Please no opinions or telling me to look at the FAQ, because i have and its laughable, the stuff a child would come up with.
I don't mind posting proof that the Earth is round, wheather it be video or theroy evidence.

I'm not looking for a flaming thread, just a friendly debate  :)

The first quick answer that you will get is: Look outside your window.

They always begin with that weak argument.
Title: Re: Quick Question
Post by: Spacehopperjoe on November 23, 2009, 08:30:53 AM
Hey Guys,

Quick question..

Can someone provide me with a genuine peice of evidence to prove to me that the world is flat as you all say? Please no opinions or telling me to look at the FAQ, because i have and its laughable, the stuff a child would come up with.
I don't mind posting proof that the Earth is round, wheather it be video or theroy evidence.

I'm not looking for a flaming thread, just a friendly debate  :)

I believe if you look outside your window. You will see the earth is flat. Even, from the second story in a building the world is still flat outside.
Title: Re: Quick Question
Post by: markjo on November 23, 2009, 08:34:45 AM
I believe if you look outside your window. You will see the earth is flat. Even, from the second story in a building the world is still flat outside.

The only problem with looking out your window is that RET predicts that the earth would look flat from that vantage point as well.  So looking out your window is inconclusive.  That is unless you're looking at objects that are partially obscured by the horizon.
Title: Re: Quick Question
Post by: Johannes on November 23, 2009, 06:57:26 PM
I believe if you look outside your window. You will see the earth is flat. Even, from the second story in a building the world is still flat outside.

The only problem with looking out your window is that RET predicts that the earth would look flat from that vantage point as well.  So looking out your window is inconclusive.  That is unless you're looking at objects that are partially obscured by the horizon.
That is a well known perspective affect documented in Earth Not A Globe.
Title: Re: Quick Question
Post by: markjo on November 23, 2009, 07:16:54 PM
That is a well known perspective affect documented in Earth Not A Globe.
That doesn't change the fact that RET and FET make the same prediction about looking out your window.
Title: Re: Quick Question
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on November 24, 2009, 04:56:32 AM
The fact that the earth appears flat, and there is no adequate theory presenting evidence otherwise.
Title: Re: Quick Question
Post by: markjo on November 24, 2009, 06:20:26 AM
The fact that the earth appears flat, and there is no adequate theory presenting evidence otherwise.

Theories are built on evidence, they don't present evidence.  And don't make me bring up optical illusions again to show you that things are not always as they appear.
Title: Re: Quick Question
Post by: Thermal Detonator on November 24, 2009, 01:20:20 PM
The fact that the earth appears flat, and there is no adequate theory presenting evidence otherwise.

The earth does NOT appear flat. Things can be obscured by the horizon. This is not what one would expect to see looking across a flat surface. Fail.
Title: Re: Quick Question
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on November 24, 2009, 02:40:59 PM
The fact that the earth appears flat, and there is no adequate theory presenting evidence otherwise.

The earth does NOT appear flat. Things can be obscured by the horizon. This is not what one would expect to see looking across a flat surface. Fail.
It is when you factor in the atmosphere.
Title: Re: Quick Question
Post by: Thermal Detonator on November 24, 2009, 02:44:06 PM
The fact that the earth appears flat, and there is no adequate theory presenting evidence otherwise.

The earth does NOT appear flat. Things can be obscured by the horizon. This is not what one would expect to see looking across a flat surface. Fail.
It is when you factor in the atmosphere.

Regardless of what extra elements you "factor in" to make your idea look like it works, the fact remains that the earth does not APPEAR flat. Learn to understand what you mean when you type "The earth appears flat". What you meant to type was "The earth appears flat, except when you look at large objects on the horizon".
Title: Re: Quick Question
Post by: markjo on November 24, 2009, 03:17:54 PM
The fact that the earth appears flat, and there is no adequate theory presenting evidence otherwise.

The earth does NOT appear flat. Things can be obscured by the horizon. This is not what one would expect to see looking across a flat surface. Fail.
It is when you factor in the atmosphere.
Did Rowbotham factor in the atmosphere during his Bedford Levels experiment?
Title: Re: Quick Question
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 24, 2009, 05:00:55 PM
Did Rowbotham factor in the atmosphere during his Bedford Levels experiment?

See Experiment 9:

Title: Re: Quick Question
Post by: Thermal Detonator on November 24, 2009, 05:20:28 PM
A simple "yes" would have sufficed, Tom.
Title: Re: Quick Question
Post by: markjo on November 24, 2009, 07:42:14 PM
Did Rowbotham factor in the atmosphere during his Bedford Levels experiment?

See Experiment 9:
...
Refraction can only exist when the medium surrounding the observer is different to that in which the object is placed. As long as the shilling in the basin is surrounded with air, and the observer is in the same air, there is no refraction; but whilst the observer remains in the air, and the shilling is placed in water, refraction exists. This illustration does not apply to the experiments made on the Bedford Canal, because the flag and the boats were in the same medium as the observer--both were in the air.
However, air of different temperatures will have different refractive indexes.

Quote
There is no doubt, however, that it is possible for the atmosphere to have different temperature and density at two stations six miles apart; and some degree of refraction would thence result; but on several occasions the following steps were taken to ascertain whether any such differences existed.
It's good to see that Rowbotham realizes this.

Quote
Two barometers, two thermometers, and two hygrometers, were obtained, each two being of the same make, and reading exactly alike. On a given day, at twelve o'clock, all the instruments were carefully examined, and both of each kind were found to stand at the same point or figure: the two, barometers showed the same density; the two thermometers the same temperature; and the two hygrometers the same degree of moisture in the air. One of each kind was then taken to the opposite station, and at three o'clock each instrument was carefully examined, and the readings recorded, and the observation to the flag, &c., then immediately taken.
Unfortunately, Rowbotham didn't realize (or conveniently ignored) the fact that the vertical temperature gradient has more to do with refractive phenomena than the horizontal temperature gradient.
Title: Re: Quick Question
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 24, 2009, 09:04:12 PM
Quote
Unfortunately, Rowbotham didn't realize (or conveniently ignored) the fact that the vertical temperature gradient has more to do with refractive phenomena than the horizontal temperature gradient.

It's a good thing the other side did not increase or decrease its altitude then, huh?
Title: Re: Quick Question
Post by: Spacehopperjoe on November 25, 2009, 12:56:27 AM
It's a good thing the other side did not increase or decrease its altitude then, huh?

I hear ya,

(http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/1303/lolspi.jpg)
Title: Re: Quick Question
Post by: markjo on November 25, 2009, 06:10:28 AM
Quote
Unfortunately, Rowbotham didn't realize (or conveniently ignored) the fact that the vertical temperature gradient has more to do with refractive phenomena than the horizontal temperature gradient.

It's a good thing the other side did not increase or decrease its altitude then, huh?

What about the temperature gradient from 0 to 8 inches above the water where the telescope was located and the 8 inches to however tall the flag on the boat was?  Cold water + warm air = temperature gradient in the air just above the water.  Under the right conditions, there could be more than enough temperature gradient in those few vertical feet to produce refractive phenomena such as superior mirages or lofting.