The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Jingle Jangle on May 15, 2013, 08:24:05 AM

Title: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: Jingle Jangle on May 15, 2013, 08:24:05 AM
    When a theory is presented to me that deals with RE, I quickly deny its cogency.  The reason why is that there is no science in the scientific method.  The earth was really flat all along, but people want to introduce theories that support round earth globalism.  The Suez Canal, The Nile River, and the Bedford Canal experiment should have had curvature if you want people to believe.  They did not have curvature.  Heretofore, do not believe the epic lies of scientific establishment that add up falsely.  One after another there has been white lie after white lie with nothing to show for it except massive migraine headaches from all the RE data.  FE'ers are truly the only ones there for each other in times of crisis such as these.  Can you not see in our spirits that these experiments that we do are genuine and not petty squabbles...
     RE'ers make up blind discussions and present evidence which they have large volumes of, but they fail to defend against simple canals and rivers.  Why jump off into space into your minds without mastering the ponds and lakes?
Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: Rama Set on May 15, 2013, 08:30:53 AM
    When a theory is presented to me that deals with RE, I quickly deny its cogency.  The reason why is that there is no science in the scientific method.  The earth was really flat all along, but people want to introduce theories that support round earth globalism.  The Suez Canal, The Nile River, and the Bedford Canal experiment should have had curvature if you want people to believe.  They did not have curvature.  Heretofore, do not believe the epic lies of scientific establishment that add up falsely.  One after another there has been white lie after white lie with nothing to show for it except massive migraine headaches from all the RE data.  FE'ers are truly the only ones there for each other in times of crisis such as these.  Can you not see in our spirits that these experiments that we do are genuine and not petty squabbles...
     RE'ers make up blind discussions and present evidence which they have large volumes of, but they fail to defend against simple canals and rivers.  Why jump off into space into your minds without mastering the ponds and lakes?

R.A. Wallace demonstrated curvature on the Bedford Level.
Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: Jingle Jangle on May 15, 2013, 08:36:19 AM
No... They both walked away in agreement that the Earth was horizontal when water is used.  I read a different article where they both agreed that the test was falsified.  16 feet of curvature was not seen.  So, no one can then acknowledge that the earth's circumference is 24,901 miles.  Someone has to see this point...
Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: Jingle Jangle on May 15, 2013, 08:38:33 AM
An experiment was done with several lighthouses as well.  The earth cannot possibly be curved.  Both sides walked away in agreement.  The tallest lighthouse in America is seen 27 miles out at sea.  My gracious, there are so many false mariners in this website.
Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: Rama Set on May 15, 2013, 08:49:13 AM
No... They both walked away in agreement that the Earth was horizontal when water is used.  I read a different article where they both agreed that the test was falsified.  16 feet of curvature was not seen.  So, no one can then acknowledge that the earth's circumference is 24,901 miles.  Someone has to see this point...

The bet was validated by Wallace's referee and falsified by Hambden's referee (a close acquaintance, and disciple of Rowbotham's whose appointment was protested from the outset).  The editor of Field magazine declared Wallace the winner, but Hambden insisted Wallace was a fraud.  Wallace then sued Hambden for libel and was awarded the case.  Subsequently Hambden sued Wallace for the return of the prize money on a legal technicality; Wallace asked for the money before Hambden had a chance to offer it. If you have read contrary, I should like to see the article and its citations.
Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: Rama Set on May 15, 2013, 08:54:56 AM
An experiment was done with several lighthouses as well.  The earth cannot possibly be curved.  Both sides walked away in agreement.  The tallest lighthouse in America is seen 27 miles out at sea.  My gracious, there are so many false mariners in this website.

The Earth curves approximately 8 inches per mile.  At 27 miles, you would have a drop of 18 feet.  The tallest lighthouse in the US is 207 feet tall, so yes, you can see it at that distance.
Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: EarthIsASpaceship on May 15, 2013, 09:37:13 AM
What is the scientific method of determining that the Earth curves that much per mile?  I don't see how it is possible to see curvature in only one mile.
Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: Rama Set on May 15, 2013, 10:11:19 AM
What is the scientific method of determining that the Earth curves that much per mile?  I don't see how it is possible to see curvature in only one mile.

It's geometry:

http://mathcentral.uregina.ca/qq/database/QQ.09.97/dyck2.html (http://mathcentral.uregina.ca/qq/database/QQ.09.97/dyck2.html)
Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: Jingle Jangle on May 15, 2013, 10:12:14 AM
However Samuel Birley Rowbotham redid the experiment with six flags and found the surface to be flat.  Something was falsified at some point...  The cash was the incentive to falsify...  False testimony and etc...
Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: Jingle Jangle on May 15, 2013, 10:17:11 AM
Someone did the other side incorrectly.  That is what I deduce from all of these documents.
Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: DuckDodgers on May 15, 2013, 10:19:26 AM
However Samuel Birley Rowbotham redid the experiment with six flags and found the surface to be flat.  Something was falsified at some point...  The cash was the incentive to falsify...  False testimony and etc...

Not lossing money and having your entire world view be discredited is incentive, thus both sides would have a reason to lie.  That is where the judges come in.  Rowbotham also says that magnefication will restore an object obscured by perspective on water, whichhasbeen shown false.  You should find a new pioneer for your theory, he was obviously a troll or inept.
Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: RealScientist on May 15, 2013, 10:21:36 AM
An experiment was done with several lighthouses as well.  The earth cannot possibly be curved.  Both sides walked away in agreement.  The tallest lighthouse in America is seen 27 miles out at sea.  My gracious, there are so many false mariners in this website.

The Earth curves approximately 8 inches per mile.  At 27 miles, you would have a drop of 18 feet.  The tallest lighthouse in the US is 207 feet tall, so yes, you can see it at that distance.
Please be careful with the numbers. It might be true that Earth curves some 8 inches in a mile, but the accumulated effect of several miles is not linear. Anyway, 207 feet is a lot and I see no problem at all in seeing a 207 feet tall light house from a distance of more than 27 miles, if you are looking from the observation room of a large ship. It might start to be difficult to see if you are sitting inside a raft.
Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: Rama Set on May 15, 2013, 10:23:16 AM
However Samuel Birley Rowbotham redid the experiment with six flags and found the surface to be flat.  Something was falsified at some point...  The cash was the incentive to falsify...  False testimony and etc...

Rowbotham did not do the experiment after Wallace, Lady Blount did. Her experiment was inaccurate due to the effect of superior mirage. In regard to your ramblings about falsification and such, you will have to elaborate as you do not really make sense.
Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: RealScientist on May 15, 2013, 10:31:19 AM
What is the scientific method of determining that the Earth curves that much per mile?  I don't see how it is possible to see curvature in only one mile.
You are right, it is enormously difficult in practice to directly see the curvature of a lake or ocean in just one mile. Most experiments by Rowbotham were made in distances of just 6 miles, making them possible but extremely difficult and prone to error. But nobody that I have ever known has had any trouble seeing how a large ship seems to sink when seen from the beach at a distance of some 16 miles or so. Even Rowbotham had to concede this, and was forced to invent some awful "perspective" explanations for it.
Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: Jingle Jangle on May 15, 2013, 10:53:25 AM
An experiment was done with several lighthouses as well.  The earth cannot possibly be curved.  Both sides walked away in agreement.  The tallest lighthouse in America is seen 27 miles out at sea.  My gracious, there are so many false mariners in this website.

The Earth curves approximately 8 inches per mile.  At 27 miles, you would have a drop of 18 feet.  The tallest lighthouse in the US is 207 feet tall, so yes, you can see it at that distance.

Read the experiments FAQ, your calculations are off substantially.  The increase in curvature would be increasing parabolically where a 16 foot difference would be seen.  With the 100 mile Suez Canal, the drop off would be 1 mile not 800 inches.  Yet, it remains straight...
Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: RealScientist on May 15, 2013, 11:02:19 AM
Read the experiments FAQ, your calculations are off substantially.  The increase in curvature would be increasing parabolically where a 16 foot difference would be seen.  With the 100 mile Suez Canal, the drop off would be 1 mile not 800 inches.  Yet, it remains straight...
And where is your data? Where is the statement from the engineers that tells you that the Canal was made straight according to your idea of straight, and not level in the sense that every few miles the course was checked with an altimeter? Have you even been to the Suez Canal and seen if there are segments that are straight enough to see if the "sinking ship" illusion can be seen?

You are making very serious claims, and that is OK. What is not OK is that you do not have a single piece of evidence to demonstrate that your claims are valid.
Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: EarthIsASpaceship on May 15, 2013, 11:08:03 AM
Rama,

The problem with that geometry is that it's already biased by "supposing the Earth is a sphere".
Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: Rama Set on May 15, 2013, 12:00:50 PM
Rama,

The problem with that geometry is that it's already biased by "supposing the Earth is a sphere".

Geometry has axioms yes, but it is not biased like you mean. It's like saying Euclidean geometry is biases towards flat planes, or a Philips screwdriver is biased towards Philips head screws. It's a tool. I was making an argument that requires a spherical shape of the Earth so of course I would use a calculation based on a sphere (circle really in this case as it was a 2D calculation). Your comment is basically meaningless.
Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: icanbeanything on May 15, 2013, 12:48:50 PM
Please be careful with the numbers. It might be true that Earth curves some 8 inches in a mile, but the accumulated effect of several miles is not linear. Anyway, 207 feet is a lot and I see no problem at all in seeing a 207 feet tall light house from a distance of more than 27 miles, if you are looking from the observation room of a large ship. It might start to be difficult to see if you are sitting inside a raft.

Unfortunately many people on this forum don't understand this. Yet another "not enough math knowledge" example.
Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: Rama Set on May 15, 2013, 01:49:00 PM
Please be careful with the numbers. It might be true that Earth curves some 8 inches in a mile, but the accumulated effect of several miles is not linear. Anyway, 207 feet is a lot and I see no problem at all in seeing a 207 feet tall light house from a distance of more than 27 miles, if you are looking from the observation room of a large ship. It might start to be difficult to see if you are sitting inside a raft.

Unfortunately many people on this forum don't understand this. Yet another "not enough math knowledge" example.

Learning all the time.
Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: Lolflatdisc on May 15, 2013, 02:23:55 PM
An experiment was done with several lighthouses as well.  The earth cannot possibly be curved.  Both sides walked away in agreement.  The tallest lighthouse in America is seen 27 miles out at sea.  My gracious, there are so many false mariners in this website.

The Earth curves approximately 8 inches per mile.  At 27 miles, you would have a drop of 18 feet.  The tallest lighthouse in the US is 207 feet tall, so yes, you can see it at that distance.
Please be careful with the numbers. It might be true that Earth curves some 8 inches in a mile, but the accumulated effect of several miles is not linear. Anyway, 207 feet is a lot and I see no problem at all in seeing a 207 feet tall light house from a distance of more than 27 miles, if you are looking from the observation room of a large ship. It might start to be difficult to see if you are sitting inside a raft.

Good note. Let's redo the math, but instead of using 1 mile, use 27 miles.
I am not into miles, inches and feet, so I will redo the calculation using km, cm and meters (standard physic units)
1 miles = 1.609344 km. Therefore 27 miles  = 43,45 km.
3963 miles = 6377,8 km radius

a^2 = 6377,8^2 + 43,45^2 = 40678220,74 km.  so a = 6377,94 km.
6377,94 - 6377,8 = 0,14 km below your view point.
0,14 km = 140 m

The tallest lighthouse is 207 feet. 1 foot = 0.3048 meters, so 207 = 63 meters high.

I was unable to quickly find the height of an average container ship. However, I saw this picture in comparison.
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/12/10/article-2245394-16711EAC000005DC-164_634x184.jpg)

I know the height of the A380 tail is 24,45. The A380 can almost stack 3 times up. It can be stacked up ~2.75 times on top. This means the bridge is at a height of 67 m.

63+ 67 = 130 m.
This means the lighthouse is actually 10 m further down from the viewpoint. So physically seeing the lighthouse would be impossible, even if you used a telescope. However, sailors could perhaps have seen the light of the lighthouse. Which is also the most important aspect of the lighthouse.

As illustrated in the following diagram.

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/855/shiptj.jpg/?sa=0 (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/855/shiptj.jpg/?sa=0)


Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: Thork on May 15, 2013, 02:38:13 PM
However, sailors could perhaps have seen the light of the lighthouse. Which is also the most important aspect of the lighthouse.
You think sailors on container ships use lighthouses? They ignore GPS, radar, sonar, depth measuring equipment and instead all line up on the deck looking for lighthouses?

The most important function of a lighthouse, is to keep the lighthouse keeper in a job.
Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: EarthIsASpaceship on May 15, 2013, 02:45:38 PM
Rama,

The problem with that geometry is that it's already biased by "supposing the Earth is a sphere".

Geometry has axioms yes, but it is not biased like you mean. It's like saying Euclidean geometry is biases towards flat planes, or a Philips screwdriver is biased towards Philips head screws. It's a tool. I was making an argument that requires a spherical shape of the Earth so of course I would use a calculation based on a sphere (circle really in this case as it was a 2D calculation). Your comment is basically meaningless.

It is not meaningless. Making the assumption that Earth is circular or spherical make all the difference.   Until a true test can show the shape of the Earth, math doesn't prove anything.
Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: Rama Set on May 15, 2013, 03:05:36 PM
Rama,

The problem with that geometry is that it's already biased by "supposing the Earth is a sphere".

Geometry has axioms yes, but it is not biased like you mean. It's like saying Euclidean geometry is biases towards flat planes, or a Philips screwdriver is biased towards Philips head screws. It's a tool. I was making an argument that requires a spherical shape of the Earth so of course I would use a calculation based on a sphere (circle really in this case as it was a 2D calculation). Your comment is basically meaningless.

It is not meaningless. Making the assumption that Earth is circular or spherical make all the difference.   Until a true test can show the shape of the Earth, math doesn't prove anything.

Plenty of true tests have shown it up to and including direct observation from space. Even if that were not true, to make an argument on a RE basis and not use the maths that represent it is logically incoherent.
Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: markjo on May 15, 2013, 03:21:03 PM
However, sailors could perhaps have seen the light of the lighthouse. Which is also the most important aspect of the lighthouse.
You think sailors on container ships use lighthouses? They ignore GPS, radar, sonar, depth measuring equipment and instead all line up on the deck looking for lighthouses?
I would think that sailors would want to use all available navigational devices.  Besides, what about boats that don't have GPS, RADAR or depth measuring equipment?

Quote
The most important function of a lighthouse, is to keep the lighthouse keeper in a job.
Most modern light houses are automated.
Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: EarthIsASpaceship on May 15, 2013, 03:33:28 PM
Rama,

The problem with that geometry is that it's already biased by "supposing the Earth is a sphere".

Geometry has axioms yes, but it is not biased like you mean. It's like saying Euclidean geometry is biases towards flat planes, or a Philips screwdriver is biased towards Philips head screws. It's a tool. I was making an argument that requires a spherical shape of the Earth so of course I would use a calculation based on a sphere (circle really in this case as it was a 2D calculation). Your comment is basically meaningless.

It is not meaningless. Making the assumption that Earth is circular or spherical make all the difference.   Until a true test can show the shape of the Earth, math doesn't prove anything.

Plenty of true tests have shown it up to and including direct observation from space. Even if that were not true, to make an argument on a RE basis and not use the maths that represent it is logically incoherent.

Many people disagree on the validity of the tests that have been done.  Show me a video from space that shows Earth's shape without using a fish-eye lens.
Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: Lolflatdisc on May 15, 2013, 03:59:03 PM
You think sailors on container ships use lighthouses? They ignore GPS, radar, sonar, depth measuring equipment and instead all line up on the deck looking for lighthouses?

The most important function of a lighthouse, is to keep the lighthouse keeper in a job.

I don't know much about sailing ships, but I didn't say it is their only use of navigation. Though it could still be necessary for ships without GPS or it may still be required to obtain visual confirmation of your location. After all, the captain of the Costa Concordia, with all his navigational aid still managed to miss the rock that caused the ship to sink.

Many lighthouses are still operating and it may also be still a welcoming sight for sailors to see. The ship has windows, so it is not stupid to think they go and have a look sometimes. And as already said, lighthouses are pretty much all automated, so saying it is to keep the lighthouse keeper his job is nonsense.
Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: Lolflatdisc on May 15, 2013, 04:01:35 PM

Many people disagree on the validity of the tests that have been done.  Show me a video from space that shows Earth's shape without using a fish-eye lens.

Planet Earth seen from space (Full HD 1080p) ORIGINAL (http://#ws)

If they used a fish-eye lense, the solar panels at 4:28 for example wouldn't show straight as they are.
Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: Rama Set on May 15, 2013, 04:25:25 PM
The Erasthotenes method is perfectly valid. Why wouldn't it be?
Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: RealScientist on May 15, 2013, 04:59:27 PM
Rama,

The problem with that geometry is that it's already biased by "supposing the Earth is a sphere".

Sorry to say so, but this is not a valid argument. Geometry is not biased. That is like saying that the sky is biased towards the blue.

The argument is simple and it is not biased by the opinions of anyone. In a triangle on a flat plane the angles add up to 180 degrees, and that is a theorem derived from the axioms of Euclidean Geometry. If the angles don't add to 180 then by theorem and not by bias the surface is not flat.

The practical problem is another matter.It is very difficult to do this measurement in a useful way. But no amount of bias will change the mathematics.
Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: mathsman on May 16, 2013, 12:35:31 AM
The most important function of a lighthouse, is to keep the lighthouse keeper in a job.

Incorrect. In the UK all the lighthouses are automated and have been since 1998.

Edit: Didn't notice that Markjo had already made this point. Sorry.
Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: Thork on May 16, 2013, 04:18:17 AM
However, sailors could perhaps have seen the light of the lighthouse. Which is also the most important aspect of the lighthouse.
You think sailors on container ships use lighthouses? They ignore GPS, radar, sonar, depth measuring equipment and instead all line up on the deck looking for lighthouses?
I would think that sailors would want to use all available navigational devices.  Besides, what about boats that don't have GPS, RADAR or depth measuring equipment?
Please provide a citation for a container ship that doesn't have GPS, RADAR or depth measuring equipment.

Quote
The most important function of a lighthouse, is to keep the lighthouse keeper in a job.
Most modern light houses are automated.
Do they change their own bulbs, paint themselves, repair staircases, wash the windows and provide maintenance to their own working parts? Or is there a human who KEEPS the light house in good order?
Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: mathsman on May 16, 2013, 04:56:15 AM
Quote
The most important function of a lighthouse, is to keep the lighthouse keeper in a job.
Most modern light houses are automated.
Do they change their own bulbs, paint themselves, repair staircases, wash the windows and provide maintenance to their own working parts? Or is there a human who KEEPS the light house in good order?

The most important fucntion of a lighthouse is to save lives. A quote from the Trinity House website:

Trinity House lighthouses are world famous. Often sited in spectacular locations, they perform a vital role in the safety of mariners in all weathers.
Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: MonkeyButz on May 16, 2013, 05:49:59 AM
So physically seeing the lighthouse would be impossible, even if you used a telescope. However, sailors could perhaps have seen the light of the lighthouse. Which is also the most important aspect of the lighthouse.

As illustrated in the following diagram.

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/855/shiptj.jpg/?sa=0 (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/855/shiptj.jpg/?sa=0)

Unfortunately, your image seems to be a bit out of scale.  I have redrawn the situation, to scale, in AutoCAD.  I drew a line from the top of the ship to the top of the lighthouse, and that sight line is 91 feet above the surface of the Earth at its midpoint, so on a calm day it seems quite plausible for a ship to see the lighthouse 27 miles out.  Out of curiosity, I drew a line from halfway up the ship's height to halfway up the lighthouse's height and the sight line was then 15 feet below the surface of the Earth at its midpoint, so the conditions do have to be ideal.  I cannot attach or upload an AutoCAD file here, but I will gladly email it to anyone who wants to check over the numbers.

Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: markjo on May 16, 2013, 06:27:44 AM
However, sailors could perhaps have seen the light of the lighthouse. Which is also the most important aspect of the lighthouse.
You think sailors on container ships use lighthouses? They ignore GPS, radar, sonar, depth measuring equipment and instead all line up on the deck looking for lighthouses?
I would think that sailors would want to use all available navigational devices.  Besides, what about boats that don't have GPS, RADAR or depth measuring equipment?
Please provide a citation for a container ship that doesn't have GPS, RADAR or depth measuring equipment.
Please provide a citation that lighthouses are intended for the sole use of container ships.

Quote
Quote
The most important function of a lighthouse, is to keep the lighthouse keeper in a job.
Most modern light houses are automated.
Do they change their own bulbs, paint themselves, repair staircases, wash the windows and provide maintenance to their own working parts? Or is there a human who KEEPS the light house in good order?
Are you suggesting that modern lighthouses need daily maintenance?

Before you cry derailment, I just want to say that my point is that your objection to lighthouses is an irrelevant distraction because, in the example being presented, the lighthouse is nothing more than a highly visible reference point.  Whether or not a container ship needs a lighthouse for safe navigation is completely irrelevant.
Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: Lolflatdisc on May 16, 2013, 07:25:58 AM
So physically seeing the lighthouse would be impossible, even if you used a telescope. However, sailors could perhaps have seen the light of the lighthouse. Which is also the most important aspect of the lighthouse.

As illustrated in the following diagram.

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/855/shiptj.jpg/?sa=0 (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/855/shiptj.jpg/?sa=0)

Unfortunately, your image seems to be a bit out of scale.  I have redrawn the situation, to scale, in AutoCAD.  I drew a line from the top of the ship to the top of the lighthouse, and that sight line is 91 feet above the surface of the Earth at its midpoint, so on a calm day it seems quite plausible for a ship to see the lighthouse 27 miles out.  Out of curiosity, I drew a line from halfway up the ship's height to halfway up the lighthouse's height and the sight line was then 15 feet below the surface of the Earth at its midpoint, so the conditions do have to be ideal.  I cannot attach or upload an AutoCAD file here, but I will gladly email it to anyone who wants to check over the numbers.

A bit? You could say, it is totally out of scale, but the diagram is only to show how light (traveling in a straight line) can still be visible, even though the lighthouse itself cannot be seen. If sailors claim they saw the lighthouse at 27 miles is because they saw the light of the lighthouse. The light is inseparable with the lighthouse. It is also not important for sailors to physically see the lighthouse itself, but the light it is emitting. If you got an accurate model, perhaps you can provide screenshots. For me, I am unable to open autocad files.
Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: EarthIsASpaceship on May 16, 2013, 07:31:33 AM
LOL, Real, & Rama,

Ever notice how the camera never pans to either side?  I am not convinced that is a true depiction of the Earth just because the image shows straight solar panels.

Math works ONLY when all the other factors in the equation are true.  It's not accurate to ASSUME the Earth is circular or spherical.  And the Eratosthenes experiment does not prove the Earth is spherical because of two things:
1) He READ in a book that on June 21st, the sun cast a shadow in Syene at Noon 800km away. He didn't TEST it. He simply observed no shadow at Noon on June 21st where he was in Alexandria.  That is not a proper science experiment.
2) Shadows move.  The distance between cities and movement of the sun MUST be taken into consideration.
Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: Rama Set on May 16, 2013, 07:43:56 AM
LOL, Real, & Rama,

Ever notice how the camera never pans to either side?  I am not convinced that is a true depiction of the Earth just because the image shows straight solar panels.

Math works ONLY when all the other factors in the equation are true.  It's not accurate to ASSUME the Earth is circular or spherical.

I am not sure how you get to this conclusion.  We know how the mathematics of spheres work, so you can make hypothetical calculations of how something -should- behave on a sphere.   You are saying that any equation that calculates a hypothetical value is incorrect?  How does the math know it is false?

Quote
  And the Eratosthenes experiment does not prove the Earth is spherical because of two things:
1) He READ in a book that on June 21st, the sun cast a shadow in Syene at Noon 800km away. He didn't TEST it. He simply observed no shadow at Noon on June 21st where he was in Alexandria.  That is not a proper science experiment.


You will notice that I did not say his result was accurate, but that the method is sound.  His result came close, and can be easily reproduced more accurately to give results that agree with modern values.

Quote
2) Shadows move.  The distance between cities and movement of the sun MUST be taken into consideration.

There is no dimension of time involved in the calculation.  How would it be factored in to it?  You can do it over a sufficiently short distance to eliminate relativistic simultaneity issues.  Notice that this very simple and intuitive method gives wildly conflicting results if you assume a flat earth.

Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: Lolflatdisc on May 16, 2013, 07:47:08 AM
LOL, Real, & Rama,

Ever notice how the camera never pans to either side?  I am not convinced that is a true depiction of the Earth just because the image shows straight solar panels.

Math works ONLY when all the other factors in the equation are true.  It's not accurate to ASSUME the Earth is circular or spherical.  And the Eratosthenes experiment does not prove the Earth is spherical because of two things:
1) He READ in a book that on June 21st, the sun cast a shadow in Syene at Noon 800km away. He didn't TEST it. He simply observed no shadow at Noon on June 21st where he was in Alexandria.  That is not a proper science experiment.
2) Shadows move.  The distance between cities and movement of the sun MUST be taken into consideration.

Alright, alright...panning video....here.....
For your information...go watch from 0:55 to get directly to the panning.
Window on the World (http://#)
Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: icanbeanything on May 16, 2013, 07:59:52 AM
Math works ONLY when all the other factors in the equation are true. 

You're wrong. Math is pretty much the only thing that works entirely by itself. That's why it's so famous, and such a big deal. If you knew some, you'd understand.
Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: EarthIsASpaceship on May 16, 2013, 08:13:00 AM
My point is, the answer is only accurate when you use accurate factors.
Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: icanbeanything on May 16, 2013, 08:22:59 AM
My point is, the answer is only accurate when you use accurate factors.

One makes a mathematical model, and compares it with experimental observation to see if it fits. If there's one particular type of observation that doesn't fit, the model is wrong, no matter how well the others fit.

I've yet to see a FET model that fits more than a couple types of observable evidence.

Meanwhile, the only thing that doesn't fit the real world model is your desire for it to be wrong.
Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: Lolflatdisc on May 16, 2013, 08:41:01 AM
My point is, the answer is only accurate when you use accurate factors.

Have you watched the video yet?
Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: Puttah on May 16, 2013, 08:58:54 AM
My point is, the answer is only accurate when you use accurate factors.

Then rather than saying

"Math works ONLY when all the other factors in the equation are true."

Try saying

"The answer doesn't represent reality."

Because the answer to the problem (whether the problem represents reality or not) is correct.
Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: MonkeyButz on May 16, 2013, 10:13:04 AM
For me, I am unable to open autocad files.

AutoDesk's DWG TrueView is a free download and will allow you to open AutoCAD files.  There are lots of other free programs that will allow you to open .dwg files, even for Mac OS.  As for screenshots, the problem is that since the drawing is actually to scale, you can't see anything meaningful in any one view.  Relative to the size of the earth, the height of the ship an the lighthouse and their 27 mile separation are so small that when zoomed completely out, all you see is a sphere.  When you zoom in far enough to see any detail, you are essentially just looking at lines.  It can only really be appreciated if you can zoom around within the drawing.
Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: Lolflatdisc on May 16, 2013, 11:06:13 AM
For me, I am unable to open autocad files.

AutoDesk's DWG TrueView is a free download and will allow you to open AutoCAD files.  There are lots of other free programs that will allow you to open .dwg files, even for Mac OS.  As for screenshots, the problem is that since the drawing is actually to scale, you can't see anything meaningful in any one view.  Relative to the size of the earth, the height of the ship an the lighthouse and their 27 mile separation are so small that when zoomed completely out, all you see is a sphere.  When you zoom in far enough to see any detail, you are essentially just looking at lines.  It can only really be appreciated if you can zoom around within the drawing.

Perhaps you can upload the files using one of the many upload possibilites (Mega, Rapidshare, ...). The FE defenders could then see for themselves the thruth.
Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: Jingle Jangle on May 16, 2013, 01:07:22 PM

Many people disagree on the validity of the tests that have been done.  Show me a video from space that shows Earth's shape without using a fish-eye lens.

Planet Earth seen from space (Full HD 1080p) ORIGINAL (http://#ws)

If they used a fish-eye lense, the solar panels at 4:28 for example wouldn't show straight as they are.

The picture above is a flat surface with only a circular sun spotlight pattern.  I see no curve at all in the planet's surface.  It would have been more visible if it were not for that bendy light.  I do not blame you all.  I just blame the bending of the light by gravity.  That is why so many errors on viewpoint.  (I speak of the beginning scene picture.)

Geometry, by the way, represents the most biased facsimile in the mathematics department when it comes to RE.  You guys must stop being biased and prejudiced with your negative statements toward flat-earthers.  You need more evidence than just conveniently suspicious equations to validate your stances...
Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: Jingle Jangle on May 16, 2013, 01:09:03 PM
My point is, the answer is only accurate when you use accurate factors.

One makes a mathematical model, and compares it with experimental observation to see if it fits. If there's one particular type of observation that doesn't fit, the model is wrong, no matter how well the others fit.

I've yet to see a FET model that fits more than a couple types of observable evidence.

Meanwhile, the only thing that doesn't fit the real world model is your desire for it to be wrong.

We FE'ers have presented plenty of evidence.  Pictures, witnesses, experiments.... Do not call Samuel Birley Rowbotham a troll of any type...
Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: Jingle Jangle on May 16, 2013, 01:18:23 PM
The island was seen as straight.  And yet the isle of Wight is 22 miles in length total.

(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig19.jpg)

It didn't look like this picture below.  If the earth were really curved, you would get this picture.  A big obvious brainer here

(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig20.jpg)
Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: Rama Set on May 16, 2013, 01:26:22 PM
The island was seen as straight.  And yet the isle of Wight is 22 miles in length total.

(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig19.jpg)

It didn't look like this picture below.  If the earth were really curved, you would get this picture.  A big obvious brainer here

(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig20.jpg)

Do you have an actual photo or just an artists rendition?
Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: icanbeanything on May 16, 2013, 01:32:37 PM
The island was seen as straight.  And yet the isle of Wight is 22 miles in length total.

(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig19.jpg)

It didn't look like this picture below.  If the earth were really curved, you would get this picture.  A big obvious brainer here

(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig20.jpg)

1. That is not a picture, it's a drawing.

2. The Isle of Wight is 22 miles long. That is 35.2 km.

The curvature of the Earth in 35.2 km is 97m. Simple calculation, Pithagorean theorem: (Ro+h)^2=Ro^2 + L^2 ; where Ro is Earth Radius, L is the length of the island, and h is the height level difference between the two ends of the island. Using Ro=6371 km and L=35.2km, you get h=97m.

This seems significant at first, until you compare L with h.

L/h = 35.2km / 97m = 363.

That means, the length of the island is 363 times greater than the height difference between its ends.

Meaning, even if you took a picture with perfect parallel projection (which isn't possible), the height level difference at the ends of the island would be 1/363 of the length of the island. If the island on the picture would be 363 pixels wide, you'd see a one pixel drop (not on both sides, only on one, or half a pixel of drop on both sides). This isn't something you'd notice with a telescope, you'd think you're seeing a straight line. As far as your eyes can tell, you'd be looking at the first image, on a globe Earth, just the same.

Seriously, you'd only need to think for just a little bit, and you'd realize why seeing curvature on that island is impossible with an optical telescope.
Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: DuckDodgers on May 16, 2013, 01:48:39 PM
My point is, the answer is only accurate when you use accurate factors.

One makes a mathematical model, and compares it with experimental observation to see if it fits. If there's one particular type of observation that doesn't fit, the model is wrong, no matter how well the others fit.

I've yet to see a FET model that fits more than a couple types of observable evidence.

Meanwhile, the only thing that doesn't fit the real world model is your desire for it to be wrong.

We FE'ers have presented plenty of evidence.  Pictures, witnesses, experiments.... Do not call Samuel Birley Rowbotham a troll of any type...

You have provided virtually no evidence to substantiate most of your claims and you rely upon a book so full of fallacies, misconceptions, and virtually no recorded data written by someone who was too afraid to use his own name when he first published it.  In order for any of your observations to fit your model you invent a new perspective, bendy light, a constantly accelerating Earth, and a global conspiracy which dates back millennia and has never had a single leak.
Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: EarthIsASpaceship on May 16, 2013, 02:16:45 PM
IcanbeAnything,

So basically you are saying the Earth MUST be round because that's the ONLY model that fits (so far).  I need more than a math equation to prove it to me.
Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: icanbeanything on May 16, 2013, 02:32:02 PM
IcanbeAnything,

So basically you are saying the Earth MUST be round because that's the ONLY model that fits (so far).  I need more than a math equation to prove it to me.

Yes, it's the only model that fits every kind observational evidence. FET supporters say that they base their belief on their own observations; well, if all observations put together only fit this model (agreed on the point "SO FAR" - this is constantly evolving), and FET models don't fit it, then why would you give more credit to any FET model over it?

You need more than math to prove it... well, you definitely have it. Like I said, most FET models are supported by some observational evidence, but contradicted by others. However, all observational evidence fits the model in which the earth is round. Is this not proof that this model is superior? Math is the model, observation is the proof.
Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: Lolflatdisc on May 16, 2013, 02:48:20 PM
The island was seen as straight.  And yet the isle of Wight is 22 miles in length total.

(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig19.jpg)

It didn't look like this picture below.  If the earth were really curved, you would get this picture.  A big obvious brainer here

(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig20.jpg)

1. That is not a picture, it's a drawing.

2. The Isle of Wight is 22 miles long. That is 35.2 km.

The curvature of the Earth in 35.2 km is 97m. Simple calculation, Pithagorean theorem: (Ro+h)^2=Ro^2 + L^2 ; where Ro is Earth Radius, L is the length of the island, and h is the height level difference between the two ends of the island. Using Ro=6371 km and L=35.2km, you get h=97m.

This seems significant at first, until you compare L with h.

L/h = 35.2km / 97m = 363.

That means, the length of the island is 363 times greater than the height difference between its ends.

Meaning, even if you took a picture with perfect parallel projection (which isn't possible), the height level difference at the ends of the island would be 1/363 of the length of the island. If the island on the picture would be 363 pixels wide, you'd see a one pixel drop (not on both sides, only on one, or half a pixel of drop on both sides). This isn't something you'd notice with a telescope, you'd think you're seeing a straight line. As far as your eyes can tell, you'd be looking at the first image, on a globe Earth, just the same.

Seriously, you'd only need to think for just a little bit, and you'd realize why seeing curvature on that island is impossible with an optical telescope.

This...
Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: Jingle Jangle on May 16, 2013, 03:32:18 PM
The island was seen as straight.  And yet the isle of Wight is 22 miles in length total.

(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig19.jpg)

It didn't look like this picture below.  If the earth were really curved, you would get this picture.  A big obvious brainer here

(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig20.jpg)

1. That is not a picture, it's a drawing.

2. The Isle of Wight is 22 miles long. That is 35.2 km.

The curvature of the Earth in 35.2 km is 97m. Simple calculation, Pithagorean theorem: (Ro+h)^2=Ro^2 + L^2 ; where Ro is Earth Radius, L is the length of the island, and h is the height level difference between the two ends of the island. Using Ro=6371 km and L=35.2km, you get h=97m.

This seems significant at first, until you compare L with h.

L/h = 35.2km / 97m = 363.

That means, the length of the island is 363 times greater than the height difference between its ends.

Meaning, even if you took a picture with perfect parallel projection (which isn't possible), the height level difference at the ends of the island would be 1/363 of the length of the island. If the island on the picture would be 363 pixels wide, you'd see a one pixel drop (not on both sides, only on one, or half a pixel of drop on both sides). This isn't something you'd notice with a telescope, you'd think you're seeing a straight line. As far as your eyes can tell, you'd be looking at the first image, on a globe Earth, just the same.

Seriously, you'd only need to think for just a little bit, and you'd realize why seeing curvature on that island is impossible with an optical telescope.

You would still see it visibly.  Its a obvious visual difference.  It is easy to tell the difference between lengths of string.  This should be the same thing.  To be precise the curve difference from middle to side would be 70 feet.  70 feet is very easy to tell.  Dont use metric equivalents to strengthen your points.  People have a feeling for feet more than metric...
Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: Scintific Method on May 16, 2013, 03:36:29 PM
You guys must stop being biased and prejudiced...

Stop right there. Ever heard the expression "That's the pot calling the kettle black"?
Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: Lolflatdisc on May 16, 2013, 03:38:26 PM

Many people disagree on the validity of the tests that have been done.  Show me a video from space that shows Earth's shape without using a fish-eye lens.

Planet Earth seen from space (Full HD 1080p) ORIGINAL (http://#ws)

If they used a fish-eye lense, the solar panels at 4:28 for example wouldn't show straight as they are.

The picture above is a flat surface with only a circular sun spotlight pattern.  I see no curve at all in the planet's surface.  It would have been more visible if it were not for that bendy light.  I do not blame you all.  I just blame the bending of the light by gravity.  That is why so many errors on viewpoint.  (I speak of the beginning scene picture.)


Explain how the space station does not appear to be bend by "bendy light"? Why only at high altitudes and only the earth. You have the proof right in front of you. You see a curved line, but you disregard it and explain it by "bendy light" which you aren't able to explain at all.
Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: EarthIsASpaceship on May 16, 2013, 03:52:33 PM
When I look at that video "Planet Earth Seen From Space", I see the clouds move in an odd fashion at the beginning scene.  Almost like it is digitized.  Many scenes could have easily been recorded from a high altitude plane as well.  I'm sorry, but I'm just not convinced by videos like this.
Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: RealScientist on May 16, 2013, 03:53:43 PM
My point is, the answer is only accurate when you use accurate factors.

One makes a mathematical model, and compares it with experimental observation to see if it fits. If there's one particular type of observation that doesn't fit, the model is wrong, no matter how well the others fit.

I've yet to see a FET model that fits more than a couple types of observable evidence.

Meanwhile, the only thing that doesn't fit the real world model is your desire for it to be wrong.

We FE'ers have presented plenty of evidence.  Pictures, witnesses, experiments.... Do not call Samuel Birley Rowbotham a troll of any type...
Troll is probably the wrong description. Snake oil salesman is a lot closer to reality.
Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: Jingle Jangle on May 16, 2013, 04:00:16 PM
Real Homeopathic snake oil and venom has many neurological benefits in the right doses... It is a shame that the field of homeopathic medicine is forsaken by men so fast and fool-hardily.  Many homeopathic cures have the same potency as pharmaceuticals.  If you say it is snake oil, I say it did the trick for me man...
Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: Lolflatdisc on May 16, 2013, 04:07:07 PM
When I look at that video "Planet Earth Seen From Space", I see the clouds move in an odd fashion at the beginning scene.  Almost like it is digitized.  Many scenes could have easily been recorded from a high altitude plane as well.  I'm sorry, but I'm just not convinced by videos like this.

The video appears to be a little shaky in the beginning, but that is due to the hand pan. Other than that I do not see any weird moving clouds. Do you hold any reason to believe that is has been recorded from a high altitude plane?

And remember, I gave you another video, because you wanted to see more panning? Here is it once more
Window on the World (http://#)
Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: icanbeanything on May 16, 2013, 04:11:12 PM
You would still see it visibly.  Its a obvious visual difference.  It is easy to tell the difference between lengths of string.  This should be the same thing.  To be precise the curve difference from middle to side would be 70 feet.  70 feet is very easy to tell.  Dont use metric equivalents to strengthen your points.  People have a feeling for feet more than metric...

You seriously can't count...

Feet, meters, whatever.

22 miles vs 70 feet, ratio is still the same, 363 to 1. 70 feet is easy to tell when seen against a length of 22 miles? Imagine a pretty large ship in front of you, seen from the side. Imagine its bottom deck to be 363 feet long. Could you honestly tell, with your naked eye, that the deck is half a foot higher at the middle than at the ends?

Besides, "People have a feeling for feet more than metric...", yeah right, mr. USA. I really think the imperial system is a big reason why average people using it can't comprehend scales properly. 12 inches in a foot. 5280 feet in a mile. What the hell... oh, and that's it, the rest of units regarding length aren't used, ever. And you wonder why you can't even imagine the Earth-Moon distance, if it's not a nice and round number of a few thousand miles.
Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: RealScientist on May 16, 2013, 04:38:17 PM
Real Homeopathic snake oil and venom has many neurological benefits in the right doses... It is a shame that the field of homeopathic medicine is forsaken by men so fast and fool-hardily.  Many homeopathic cures have the same potency as pharmaceuticals.  If you say it is snake oil, I say it did the trick for me man...
Now I am starting to understand how you are as far away from anything even close to scientific that talking with you has no real meaning.

Real Homeopathic snake oil is exactly what the homeopaths say it is: water. And I like my water with a single malt and some ice, but without the water.

So, please let everyone know that you are absolutely off the Science bandwagon and I will let you alone with your water.
Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: Lolflatdisc on May 16, 2013, 04:41:55 PM
You would still see it visibly.  Its a obvious visual difference.  It is easy to tell the difference between lengths of string.  This should be the same thing.  To be precise the curve difference from middle to side would be 70 feet.  70 feet is very easy to tell.  Dont use metric equivalents to strengthen your points.  People have a feeling for feet more than metric...

You seriously can't count...

Feet, meters, whatever.

22 miles vs 70 feet, ratio is still the same, 363 to 1. 70 feet is easy to tell when seen against a length of 22 miles? Imagine a pretty large ship in front of you, seen from the side. Imagine its bottom deck to be 363 feet long. Could you honestly tell, with your naked eye, that the deck is half a foot higher at the middle than at the ends?

Besides, "People have a feeling for feet more than metric...", yeah right, mr. USA. I really think the imperial system is a big reason why average people using it can't comprehend scales properly. 12 inches in a foot. 5280 feet in a mile. What the hell... oh, and that's it, the rest of units regarding length aren't used, ever. And you wonder why you can't even imagine the Earth-Moon distance, if it's not a nice and round number of a few thousand miles.

Please note there is also centimeters, meters and kilometers. 1 foot is not equal to 1 meter, etc. Some people may be used to using meters (like myself). I do know the rough measurement of 70 feet is about 21m. The exact ratio I would have to look up.
Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: Puttah on May 16, 2013, 05:24:16 PM
Dont use metric equivalents to strengthen your points.  People have a feeling for feet more than metric...

Even though I despise the fact that America is so worried about moving onto the metric system in fear of having half of its population completely confused for the rest of their uneducated lives, if any calculations are being made with Imperial units, I personally convert to metric (so that conversions are easier) and then convert my solution back to Imperial before posting.

I have absolutely no problem visualizing the metric system, because it has some pretty easy conversions. 0.3 metres = 1 foot, 1.6 km = 1 mile.
Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: EarthIsASpaceship on May 16, 2013, 05:58:54 PM
LOL,

The "Window on the World" video is quite impressive, I must admit.  The best I've seen yet!  I'm stumped as to how they created that one.  Many Hollywood movie magic could pass for the real thing nowadays.  I'd be curious to see them record something like that but only at night.
Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: Lolflatdisc on May 16, 2013, 06:57:26 PM
LOL,

The "Window on the World" video is quite impressive, I must admit.  The best I've seen yet!  I'm stumped as to how they created that one.  Many Hollywood movie magic could pass for the real thing nowadays.  I'd be curious to see them record something like that but only at night.

Well the ISS is not faked I can assure that. Not that I have been to the ISS, but I can see the ISS from down here, on earth. Everytime the ISS tracker says it is passing my location, and the weather allows it, I am able to see it pass by in the dark night sky.
Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: robintex on May 16, 2013, 08:35:23 PM
An experiment was done with several lighthouses as well.  The earth cannot possibly be curved.  Both sides walked away in agreement.  The tallest lighthouse in America is seen 27 miles out at sea.  My gracious, there are so many false mariners in this website.

The Earth curves approximately 8 inches per mile.  At 27 miles, you would have a drop of 18 feet.  The tallest lighthouse in the US is 207 feet tall, so yes, you can see it at that distance.
Please be careful with the numbers. It might be true that Earth curves some 8 inches in a mile, but the accumulated effect of several miles is not linear. Anyway, 207 feet is a lot and I see no problem at all in seeing a 207 feet tall light house from a distance of more than 27 miles, if you are looking from the observation room of a large ship. It might start to be difficult to see if you are sitting inside a raft.

I made the same mistake of assuming the curvature of the earth was linear at 8 inches per mile.
But it is not. I proved this to myself on a simple diagram. It is a bit more complicated.
And the distance you can see an object of a certain height also depends on high above the ground you are, too.

This chart assumes you are at ground level.
See the chart for curvature vs. distance.
http://www.davidsenesac.com/Information/line_of_sight.html (http://www.davidsenesac.com/Information/line_of_sight.html)

(That is.:
If you were sitting inside that raft , lying flat at water level, you could see the top of something 1 mile away if it was at least 8 inches in height above the water level . But you could only see the top of something 10 miles away if it was at least  66 feet in height above the water level. You wouldn't be able to see the top of that 207 feet tall light house from 20 miles under those conditions, but you shouldn't have any trouble seeing it at a greater distance even if you just stood up on the raft  or certainly from the deck of a ship above the water level.

I think this is right, but correct me if I am wrong. This of course is assuming a perfectly calm "flat" sea.)

You can go to the FES Forum for education after all ! Thanks very much for setting me straight !

Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: Puttah on May 17, 2013, 08:13:35 AM
It's also pretty easy to see that the height drop isn't linear compared to distance travelled by simply looking at the formulae. One formula that works well is

R2+d2=(R+h)2

h = sqrt(R2+d2) - R

And so if h were linearly dependent on d, then we can express this above formula as h = k(R).d
where k(R) is a constant value in terms of R, but if we equate the two expressions,

k(R).d =  sqrt(R2+d2) - R

k(R) = sqrt[ (R/d)2+1 ] - R/d

Which is still in terms of d and thus is not a constant value, hence height doesn't drop linearly with distance.
Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: EarthIsASpaceship on May 20, 2013, 07:51:33 AM
What does the blue circle mean on this thread?
Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: hoppy on May 20, 2013, 05:26:43 PM
 
Check this chart in Earth Not a Globe. I have verified it's accuracy, it is almost frightening how much drop there should be over long distances.

www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/05.htm (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/05.htm)

The lighthouse mentioned in the beggining of the thread from 27 miles should be 486' high in order for it to be seen from land. Of course subtracting the height from which you are viewing.
Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: Lolflatdisc on May 20, 2013, 06:03:55 PM

Check this chart in Earth Not a Globe. I have verified it's accuracy, it is almost frightening how much drop there should be over long distances.

www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/05.htm (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/05.htm)

The lighthouse mentioned in the beggining of the thread from 27 miles should be 486' high in order for it to be seen from land. Of course subtracting the height from which you are viewing.

Link does not work.

Now to see the actual lighthouse that far out, yes your math is probably right (I take your word on that), but seeing the actual lighthouse in shipping is not the most important aspect. What matters more is if you can see the light coming from the lighthouse. Light could be visible at 27 miles, be it only in the right conditions.
Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: Puttah on May 20, 2013, 07:57:00 PM
I still hold that it's possible to see further than the horizon allows by the use of light refraction. If the temperature of the air near the surface is lower than the temperature at higher altitudes, then air will bend downwards with the curvature of the Earth due to cold air being denser than hot air, and thus the refractive index of the cold air is higher.

A similar effect happens on hot days, where the sand or asphalt is very hot and the air temperature drops quickly as height increases. This is what is known as a mirage, and it happens in the opposite way such that the light bends upwards so the optical illusion makes it seem as though you can see objects in the ground at a distance.

Also, is this really an argument for FET? The fact that the lighthouse vanishes (base first) behind the horizon at all suggests the Earth isn't flat. Suddenly because the lighthouse can be seen further than it should be, it's automatically flat?
Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: Scintific Method on May 20, 2013, 08:15:38 PM
I still hold that it's possible to see further than the horizon allows by the use of light refraction. If the temperature of the air near the surface is lower than the temperature at higher altitudes, then air will bend downwards with the curvature of the Earth due to cold air being denser than hot air, and thus the refractive index of the cold air is higher.

A similar effect happens on hot days, where the sand or asphalt is very hot and the air temperature drops quickly as height increases. This is what is known as a mirage, and it happens in the opposite way such that the light bends upwards so the optical illusion makes it seem as though you can see objects in the ground at a distance.

Also, is this really an argument for FET? The fact that the lighthouse vanishes (base first) behind the horizon at all suggests the Earth isn't flat. Suddenly because the lighthouse can be seen further than it should be, it's automatically flat?

Here's a good, fairly in-depth explanation of mirages on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirage (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirage)

I agree with you Puttah, if the earth were flat, that lighthouse should be visible for several hundred miles across water. No, the atmosphere doesn't get in the way, this idea can be dis-proven simply by viewing the lighthouse from a plane at altitude. Any altitude, any distance, but you will need to be higher for greater distances, something to do with the curvature of the earth... ;)
Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: Puttah on May 20, 2013, 09:48:57 PM
Here's a good, fairly in-depth explanation of mirages on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirage (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirage)

Ahh perfect, and here is what we're looking for exactly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirage#Superior_mirage (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirage#Superior_mirage)

And in particular, it even mentions exactly what I suspected could happen:

Quote from: wikipedia
Superior mirages can have a striking effect due to the Earth's curvature. Were the Earth flat, light rays that bend down would soon hit the ground and only nearby objects would be affected. Since Earth is round, if their downward bending curve is about the same as the curvature of the Earth, light rays can travel large distances, perhaps from beyond the horizon.



I agree with you Puttah, if the earth were flat, that lighthouse should be visible for several hundred miles across water. No, the atmosphere doesn't get in the way, this idea can be dis-proven simply by viewing the lighthouse from a plane at altitude. Any altitude, any distance, but you will need to be higher for greater distances, something to do with the curvature of the earth... ;)

Except that an FEer will tell you that it has to do with a theory of perspective that has never been observed to happen, and I believe that Thork will tell you that the air is thinner and clearer from higher altitudes, hence you can see further. Although this explanation has its flaws as well, for someone playing devil's advocate, it's a good attempt to give FET some kind of foothold.
Title: Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
Post by: hoppy on May 21, 2013, 10:41:28 PM

Check this chart in Earth Not a Globe. I have verified it's accuracy, it is almost frightening how much drop there should be over long distances.

www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/05.htm (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/05.htm)

The lighthouse mentioned in the beggining of the thread from 27 miles should be 486' high in order for it to be seen from land. Of course subtracting the height from which you are viewing.
Hopefully this link will work.


http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za05.htm (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za05.htm)