The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: John Davis on January 22, 2017, 03:47:43 PM

Title: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: John Davis on January 22, 2017, 03:47:43 PM
Any man, or able bodied woman, can view the flat earth for him or herself with ease using this simple experiment (and many others!)

Should they find themselves at a dock, they need only slip the foreman a 20 dollar bill to view the inside of a shipping crate. Be careful, and tread lightly as you likely won't be accustomed to the 'shipyard banter' that often fills these locations. Now, at sunrise, within your shipping crate that is facing sunrise, with one end unbarred, take note of how the light illuminates the crate during the sunrise. If, as we are told, the earth is round then we would expect the top of the crate to be illuminated first - as it should have a better vantage point for the sun as it rises above a horizon.

You might well save your time though, as any dockworker will testify - the crate is not lit in this manner at all. This is yet another proof that the earth is not a spinning round ball hurtling through space at ridiculous speeds in some sort of celestial race, but instead a plane as our senses and logic dictates it must be.

It serves as yet another reason any thinking sailor since the dawn of time has known - the Earth is Flat.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: IonSpen on January 22, 2017, 04:04:36 PM
I feel as if something is missing from this. So tell us what cost you $20?
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: MaxPen on January 22, 2017, 04:27:14 PM
I feel as if something is missing from this. So tell us what cost you $20?

It involved a sailor, a dark shipping crate and $20, I doubt you'll get to hear what really happened.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: John Davis on January 22, 2017, 04:29:46 PM
Ahh, the old familiar gutter mind of the globularist is at it again! They normally don't allow just anybody to wander around - for their safety mind you. Local situations may vary.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: TheRealBillNye on January 22, 2017, 05:21:22 PM
Any person who lives in a mountainous region can tell you that as the sun rises, the tops of the mountains alight before anything else.

Your example of a shipping crate is a poor one, as it uses a very small scale.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: Twerp on January 22, 2017, 06:11:21 PM
Any man, or able bodied woman, can view the flat earth for him or herself with ease using this simple experiment (and many others!)

Should they find themselves at a dock, they need only slip the foreman a 20 dollar bill to view the inside of a shipping crate. Be careful, and tread lightly as you likely won't be accustomed to the 'shipyard banter' that often fills these locations. Now, at sunrise, within your shipping crate that is facing sunrise, with one end unbarred, take note of how the light illuminates the crate during the sunrise. If, as we are told, the earth is round then we would expect the top of the crate to be illuminated first - as it should have a better vantage point for the sun as it rises above a horizon.

You might well save your time though, as any dockworker will testify - the crate is not lit in this manner at all. This is yet another proof that the earth is not a spinning round ball hurtling through space at ridiculous speeds in some sort of celestial race, but instead a plane as our senses and logic dictates it must be.

It serves as yet another reason any thinking sailor since the dawn of time has known - the Earth is Flat.


IKR? It's just like the other day, I was watching this tiny pebble sitting out on a floating dock during sunrise. I think you could say the sun hit it pretty well instantaneously. None of this top illuminated first business which you would expect to see if the earth was a globe. Clear evidence the earth is flat! Case closed!

What? You want to talk about tall buildings and mountains? Not necessary, I've already seen all the evidence I need to see. My preferred worldview has been supported by what I saw and that, my friends, is that!

Also, no true  scotsman sailor ....
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: rabinoz on January 22, 2017, 06:12:04 PM
Any man, or able bodied woman, can view the flat earth for him or herself with ease using this simple experiment (and many others!)

Should they find themselves at a dock, they need only slip the foreman a 20 dollar bill to view the inside of a shipping crate. Be careful, and tread lightly as you likely won't be accustomed to the 'shipyard banter' that often fills these locations. Now, at sunrise, within your shipping crate that is facing sunrise, with one end unbarred, take note of how the light illuminates the crate during the sunrise. If, as we are told, the earth is round then we would expect the top of the crate to be illuminated first - as it should have a better vantage point for the sun as it rises above a horizon.

You might well save your time though, as any dockworker will testify - the crate is not lit in this manner at all. This is yet another proof that the earth is not a spinning round ball hurtling through space at ridiculous speeds in some sort of celestial race, but instead a plane as our senses and logic dictates it must be.

It serves as yet another reason any thinking sailor since the dawn of time has known - the Earth is Flat.

Really? Let's look at just what you are saying.
How many "crates" get loaded onto ships these days? All I ever see in containers everywhere, here and overseas.

Still, that should help you little "imaginary thought experiment", as container ships are much taller,
though people smuggled in containers get treated a bit harshly at the other end.

So, we'll look at a big one of height 73 metres so our observer might get a viewing height of 70 m (hope he has a drill to make a hole - no slats in containers.

Now at a height of 70 m above sea level, the horizon is about 30 km away and the angle down to the horizon is only 0.27°.
Are you going to claim that the ship will roll less than 0.27° even while moored?
And I do hope that your keen observer has thought to take a surveyors quality to detect an angle this small!

Please get some sense of perspective, your dreamworld might be flat, my real earth is certainly a huge Globe!

John, stick to what you do best, thought experiments - don't touch real life!

While you are at it, please explain the upward slanting shadow from Mount Rainier at sunrise:
(https://twistedsifter.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/mt-ranier-casting-a-shadow-upward-to-clouds-sky-tacoma-washington.jpg?w=800&h=451)
It's easy really, the sun is lower than Mt Ranier.
Or the sun rising under the clouds
I thought that your sun was at 5,000 km, not 5,000 metres!

Both from Re: astounding easy to disprove flat earth « Reply #200 on: December 17, 2016, 06:18:53 PM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67675.msg1848472#msg1848472) by Definitely Not Official.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: Alpha2Omega on January 22, 2017, 06:30:01 PM
Now, at sunrise, within your shipping crate that is facing sunrise, with one end unbarred, take note of how the light illuminates the crate during the sunrise. If, as we are told, the earth is round then we would expect the top of the crate to be illuminated first - as it should have a better vantage point for the sun as it rises above a horizon.

Do you mean shipping crate or cargo container? Shipping crates are typically wooden boxes of varying sizes, but seldom have a barred opening in one end; cargo containers are typically 20 or 40-foot long corrugated steel containers that open at one end and are more than large enough to walk around in. Your description sounds like the latter.

The top of a 'crate', or the ceiling of a container? If the latter, this might be expected, perhaps under ideal conditions, only if the container were aligned almost exactly in the direction of the sunrise (the general direction won't do), and, even then, very hard to tell. If the former, than, no, I wouldn't expect the 'top' (not ceiling) to be illuminated by the direct rays first, but it also would be very hard to tell, anyway.

Have you actually tried this yourself? It sounds like you haven't. $20 bribe or not, I can't imagine any shipping company just allowing some random person to wander around in their facility like that.

Quote
You might well save your time though, as any dockworker will testify - the crate is not lit in this manner at all.

So you didn't try it, you asked a dockworker? Were they actually looking for what you claim, or were they busy moving, loading, or unloading the container? Did you pay them $20? Did they tell you what you wanted to hear because you gave them $20?

Quote
This is yet another proof that the earth is not a spinning round ball hurtling through space at ridiculous speeds in some sort of celestial race, but instead a plane as our senses and logic dictates it must be.

Proof? This sounds like an anecdote. A very fanciful anecdote.

Quote
It serves as yet another reason any thinking sailor since the dawn of time has known - the Earth is Flat.

What does? Paying a sailor $20 to tell you what you want to hear?
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: Crouton on January 22, 2017, 07:35:38 PM
Alternatively you can also save yourself $20 and just watch the cargo ships sail off and see if what you observe is consistent with a flat or round world.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: Lonegranger on January 22, 2017, 10:19:20 PM
Any man, or able bodied woman, can view the flat earth for him or herself with ease using this simple experiment (and many others!)

Should they find themselves at a dock, they need only slip the foreman a 20 dollar bill to view the inside of a shipping crate. Be careful, and tread lightly as you likely won't be accustomed to the 'shipyard banter' that often fills these locations. Now, at sunrise, within your shipping crate that is facing sunrise, with one end unbarred, take note of how the light illuminates the crate during the sunrise. If, as we are told, the earth is round then we would expect the top of the crate to be illuminated first - as it should have a better vantage point for the sun as it rises above a horizon.

You might well save your time though, as any dockworker will testify - the crate is not lit in this manner at all. This is yet another proof that the earth is not a spinning round ball hurtling through space at ridiculous speeds in some sort of celestial race, but instead a plane as our senses and logic dictates it must be.

It serves as yet another reason any thinking sailor since the dawn of time has known - the Earth is Flat.

A novel experiment! from the same mind that brought us Nazi designer lunchbox penguins.
How does he do it?
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: Twerp on January 22, 2017, 10:26:46 PM
Or the sun rising under the clouds
I thought that your sun was at 5,000 km, not 5,000 metres!

Maybe they just tricked us into thinking it was 5000 metres and they're really doing space travel beyond the sun! They wouldn't want us to know cause they're gonna make a lot of money by us not knowing!
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: Lonegranger on January 22, 2017, 10:47:09 PM
Can I be on record as saying I'll gladly donate 20 bucks, greenbacks, or whatever to have John Davies shipped off in a crate, 'no airholes required' ......If we all contribute we could put together quite a consignment;  Arealhumanbeing, Sceptimatic, papa legwho, Jora......all in all it would be $100 well spent.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: Gumby on January 22, 2017, 11:02:36 PM
Any man, or able bodied woman, can view the flat earth for him or herself with ease using this simple experiment (and many others!)

Should they find themselves at a dock, they need only slip the foreman a 20 dollar bill to view the inside of a shipping crate. Be careful, and tread lightly as you likely won't be accustomed to the 'shipyard banter' that often fills these locations. Now, at sunrise, within your shipping crate that is facing sunrise, with one end unbarred, take note of how the light illuminates the crate during the sunrise. If, as we are told, the earth is round then we would expect the top of the crate to be illuminated first - as it should have a better vantage point for the sun as it rises above a horizon.

You might well save your time though, as any dockworker will testify - the crate is not lit in this manner at all. This is yet another proof that the earth is not a spinning round ball hurtling through space at ridiculous speeds in some sort of celestial race, but instead a plane as our senses and logic dictates it must be.

It serves as yet another reason any thinking sailor since the dawn of time has known - the Earth is Flat.

I enjoyed the victorian style of the prose. It makes us travel to the docklands with sailships docked at Harbour Exchange and I guess this was nicked from some old book that nobody takes for serious.
But 10 points for the style!
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: rabinoz on January 22, 2017, 11:18:18 PM
Any man, or able bodied woman, can view the flat earth for him or herself with ease using this simple experiment (and many others!)

Should they find themselves at a dock, they need only slip the foreman a 20 dollar bill to view the inside of a shipping crate. Be careful, and tread lightly as you likely won't be accustomed to the 'shipyard banter' that often fills these locations. Now, at sunrise, within your shipping crate that is facing sunrise, with one end unbarred, take note of how the light illuminates the crate during the sunrise. If, as we are told, the earth is round then we would expect the top of the crate to be illuminated first - as it should have a better vantage point for the sun as it rises above a horizon.

You might well save your time though, as any dockworker will testify - the crate is not lit in this manner at all. This is yet another proof that the earth is not a spinning round ball hurtling through space at ridiculous speeds in some sort of celestial race, but instead a plane as our senses and logic dictates it must be.

It serves as yet another reason any thinking sailor since the dawn of time has known - the Earth is Flat.

A novel experiment! from the same mind that brought us Nazi designer lunchbox penguins.
How does he do it?

Easily!
I am . . . . . the leading Zetetic scientist of our time. I have advanced our knowledge of the universe more so than any one other person since Rowbotham himself. When the veil is lifted from the eyes of the world, they will sing songs to laud the sacrifices that have led to what we know about the flat earth.

I'll leave it up to you to decide if it was tongue in cheek or not,
but you must realise that we have that on the authority of none other than: "the leading Zetetic scientist of our time".
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: Lonegranger on January 22, 2017, 11:27:55 PM
Any man, or able bodied woman, can view the flat earth for him or herself with ease using this simple experiment (and many others!)

Should they find themselves at a dock, they need only slip the foreman a 20 dollar bill to view the inside of a shipping crate. Be careful, and tread lightly as you likely won't be accustomed to the 'shipyard banter' that often fills these locations. Now, at sunrise, within your shipping crate that is facing sunrise, with one end unbarred, take note of how the light illuminates the crate during the sunrise. If, as we are told, the earth is round then we would expect the top of the crate to be illuminated first - as it should have a better vantage point for the sun as it rises above a horizon.

You might well save your time though, as any dockworker will testify - the crate is not lit in this manner at all. This is yet another proof that the earth is not a spinning round ball hurtling through space at ridiculous speeds in some sort of celestial race, but instead a plane as our senses and logic dictates it must be.

It serves as yet another reason any thinking sailor since the dawn of time has known - the Earth is Flat.

A novel experiment! from the same mind that brought us Nazi designer lunchbox penguins.
How does he do it?

Easily!
I am . . . . . the leading Zetetic scientist of our time. I have advanced our knowledge of the universe more so than any one other person since Rowbotham himself. When the veil is lifted from the eyes of the world, they will sing songs to laud the sacrifices that have led to what we know about the flat earth.

I'll leave it up to you to decide if it was tongue in cheek or not,
but you must realise that we have that on the authority of none other than: "the leading Zetetic scientist of our time".

Of course! He's the  leading Zetetic scientist of our time, how could I have forgotten!
I'll make a wee note of that for future reference..

John Davis is none other than the.
leading Zetetic scientist of our time

...and what a time it is.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: MaxPen on January 23, 2017, 05:18:54 AM
They normally don't allow just anybody to wander around

Just anyone with 20 bucks, makes perfect sense
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: Woody on January 23, 2017, 06:17:46 AM
(http://img12.deviantart.net/2de5/i/2013/037/2/a/cottage_interior_window_by_californiaclipper-d5nia2a.jpg)

Here is a pic of a window that replicates similar conditions a connex would.

Notice how the shelf above the window is illuminated. 

Also during my time in the military I got the pleasure of living in a connex for a short time.  During that time I experienced 2 sunrises from within it.  The conditions described by the op do not happen until sometime after sunrise.

Now a cave:

(https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/x/cave-mountain-sunrise-20413878.jpg)

How about a tunnel?:

(http://us.123rf.com/450wm/eugenesergeev/eugenesergeev1310/eugenesergeev131000073/22608880-man-stands-inside-of-old-dark-tunnel-with-shining-sun-in-the-end.jpg)
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on January 23, 2017, 06:20:58 AM
John has all the best experiments.

I'm still not sure what he spent the $20 on though.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: Arealhumanbeing on January 23, 2017, 07:45:57 AM
Can I be on record as saying I'll gladly donate 20 bucks, greenbacks, or whatever to have John Davies shipped off in a create. 'no airholes required' ......If we all contribute we could put together quite a consignment;  Arealhumanbeing, Sceptimatic, papa legwho, Jora......all in all it would be $100 well spent.

Is that your job here? To get rid of all the flat earthers? I swear with your previous hinting at the promotion of violence towards flat earthers, and now jokes about having prominent posters on this site killed, you are asking for legal trouble. What would you do on this site without any flat earthers to call twisted little fucks?
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: Copper Knickers on January 23, 2017, 08:52:39 AM
Any man, or able bodied woman, can view the flat earth for him or herself with ease using this simple experiment (and many others!)

Should they find themselves at a dock, they need only slip the foreman a 20 dollar bill to view the inside of a shipping crate. Be careful, and tread lightly as you likely won't be accustomed to the 'shipyard banter' that often fills these locations. Now, at sunrise, within your shipping crate that is facing sunrise, with one end unbarred, take note of how the light illuminates the crate during the sunrise. If, as we are told, the earth is round then we would expect the top of the crate to be illuminated first - as it should have a better vantage point for the sun as it rises above a horizon.

You might well save your time though, as any dockworker will testify - the crate is not lit in this manner at all. This is yet another proof that the earth is not a spinning round ball hurtling through space at ridiculous speeds in some sort of celestial race, but instead a plane as our senses and logic dictates it must be.

It serves as yet another reason any thinking sailor since the dawn of time has known - the Earth is Flat.

I enjoyed the victorian style of the prose. It makes us travel to the docklands with sailships docked at Harbour Exchange and I guess this was nicked from some old book that nobody takes for serious.
But 10 points for the style!

I get the impression Davis sees himself as a modern day Rowbotham and is modelling his style on his. It's that thinly disguised argument from incredulity coupled with boldly asserted untruths with which the Victorian charlatans were so well practised.

Snake oil, anyone?
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: Lonegranger on January 23, 2017, 09:44:13 AM
Can I be on record as saying I'll gladly donate 20 bucks, greenbacks, or whatever to have John Davies shipped off in a create. 'no airholes required' ......If we all contribute we could put together quite a consignment;  Arealhumanbeing, Sceptimatic, papa legwho, Jora......all in all it would be $100 well spent.

Is that your job here? To get rid of all the flat earthers? I swear with your previous hinting at the promotion of violence towards flat earthers, and now jokes about having prominent posters on this site killed, you are asking for legal trouble. What would you do on this site without any flat earthers to call twisted little fucks?

Go away...put in crates.....oh you do love to twist things and then make all sorts of things out of the twisty bits.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: Lonegranger on January 23, 2017, 09:45:07 AM
Can I be on record as saying I'll gladly donate 20 bucks, greenbacks, or whatever to have John Davies shipped off in a create. 'no airholes required' ......If we all contribute we could put together quite a consignment;  Arealhumanbeing, Sceptimatic, papa legwho, Jora......all in all it would be $100 well spent.

Is that your job here? To get rid of all the flat earthers? I swear with your previous hinting at the promotion of violence towards flat earthers, and now jokes about having prominent posters on this site killed, you are asking for legal trouble. What would you do on this site without any flat earthers to call twisted little fucks?

You are so funny....just thought I'd mention that.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: Gumby on January 23, 2017, 09:52:39 AM
Can I be on record as saying I'll gladly donate 20 bucks, greenbacks, or whatever to have John Davies shipped off in a create. 'no airholes required' ......If we all contribute we could put together quite a consignment;  Arealhumanbeing, Sceptimatic, papa legwho, Jora......all in all it would be $100 well spent.

Is that your job here? To get rid of all the flat earthers? I swear with your previous hinting at the promotion of violence towards flat earthers, and now jokes about having prominent posters on this site killed, you are asking for legal trouble. What would you do on this site without any flat earthers to call twisted little fucks?

Nobody wants flatties flattened out! Without flatties this site would be dull and boring and dull and boring as a dead parrot.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: blackestsheep on January 23, 2017, 10:02:39 AM
Any man, or able bodied woman, can view the flat earth for him or herself with ease using this simple experiment (and many others!)

Should they find themselves at a dock, they need only slip the foreman a 20 dollar bill to view the inside of a shipping crate. Be careful, and tread lightly as you likely won't be accustomed to the 'shipyard banter' that often fills these locations. Now, at sunrise, within your shipping crate that is facing sunrise, with one end unbarred, take note of how the light illuminates the crate during the sunrise. If, as we are told, the earth is round then we would expect the top of the crate to be illuminated first - as it should have a better vantage point for the sun as it rises above a horizon.

You might well save your time though, as any dockworker will testify - the crate is not lit in this manner at all. This is yet another proof that the earth is not a spinning round ball hurtling through space at ridiculous speeds in some sort of celestial race, but instead a plane as our senses and logic dictates it must be.

It serves as yet another reason any thinking sailor since the dawn of time has known - the Earth is Flat.
i live under a mountain and every time i went from night shift in the city thats  that sits on a flat ground i culd see the sunrise and when i came home under the mountain it was still dawn...
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: Alpha2Omega on January 23, 2017, 02:30:29 PM
Snake oil, anyone?

How much does it cost? $20?
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: hoppy on January 23, 2017, 02:52:06 PM
Can I be on record as saying I'll gladly donate 20 bucks, greenbacks, or whatever to have John Davies shipped off in a create. 'no airholes required' ......If we all contribute we could put together quite a consignment;  Arealhumanbeing, Sceptimatic, papa legwho, Jora......all in all it would be $100 well spent.

Is that your job here? To get rid of all the flat earthers? I swear with your previous hinting at the promotion of violence towards flat earthers, and now jokes about having prominent posters on this site killed, you are asking for legal trouble. What would you do on this site without any flat earthers to call twisted little fucks?

Nobody wants flatties flattened out! Without flatties this site would be dull and boring and dull and boring as a dead parrot.
Incorrect.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: LuggerSailor on January 23, 2017, 02:56:45 PM
It serves as yet another reason any thinking sailor since the dawn of time has known - the Earth is Flat.

Have you ever met any sailors?

We find it a great source of humour that there are some people that think the Earth is flat.


None of the above could work on a flat earth.

Keep up the comedy :-)

Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: Lonegranger on January 23, 2017, 03:15:15 PM
Can I be on record as saying I'll gladly donate 20 bucks, greenbacks, or whatever to have John Davies shipped off in a create. 'no airholes required' ......If we all contribute we could put together quite a consignment;  Arealhumanbeing, Sceptimatic, papa legwho, Jora......all in all it would be $100 well spent.

Is that your job here? To get rid of all the flat earthers? I swear with your previous hinting at the promotion of violence towards flat earthers, and now jokes about having prominent posters on this site killed, you are asking for legal trouble. What would you do on this site without any flat earthers to call twisted little fucks?

Nobody wants flatties flattened out! Without flatties this site would be dull and boring and dull and boring as a dead parrot.
Incorrect.

I think we would all gladly pay $40 for a crate for you.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: rabinoz on January 23, 2017, 03:22:10 PM
Can I be on record as saying I'll gladly donate 20 bucks, greenbacks, or whatever to have John Davies shipped off in a create. 'no airholes required' ......If we all contribute we could put together quite a consignment;  Arealhumanbeing, Sceptimatic, papa legwho, Jora......all in all it would be $100 well spent.

Is that your job here? To get rid of all the flat earthers? I swear with your previous hinting at the promotion of violence towards flat earthers, and now jokes about having prominent posters on this site killed, you are asking for legal trouble. What would you do on this site without any flat earthers to call twisted little fucks?

Nobody wants flatties flattened out! Without flatties this site would be dull and boring and dull and boring as a dead parrot.
Incorrect.
What do mean by "Incorrect"? Do you want "flatties flattened out"? That would be cruel!

How would you flatten the flatties? Stomp on them with your red gumboots?
(http://i.imgur.com/x10gp.gif)
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: robintex on January 23, 2017, 06:49:23 PM
I'm a great Sherlock Holmes fan.
How would Sherlock have done this little experiment ?
How much does $20 (2017) compute to Pounds Sterling (1895) ?
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: robintex on January 23, 2017, 07:10:09 PM
It serves as yet another reason any thinking sailor since the dawn of time has known - the Earth is Flat.

Have you ever met any sailors?

We find it a great source of humour that there are some people that think the Earth is flat.

  • Our charts are Mercator projections of the globe.
  • We use the rising/dipping distances of lighthouses to determine distance off when position fixing.
  • We use celestial navigation techniques.

None of the above could work on a flat earth.

Keep up the comedy :-)
Speaking as a Former Naval Person (ET2  who just missed it by a few months of making it to ET1, USN) :
(1)  We also know that the horizon is the distinct line where the sea and sky appear to meet.
(2)  We also know how to compute the distance we can see to the horizon.
(3)  The higher you are the farther you can see to the horizon.
(4)  Crow's nests are placed on the highest masts for that reason.
(5)  So are the rotating antennas on some types of Surface Search Radar Systems for that reason.(Not all systems-there are exceptions.)
Aĺl of this depends on the curvature of the earth on the globe.
There would be no curvature if the earth was flat.
There would be no horizon as we know it if the earth was flat.....Only "An indistinct blur which fades away at an idefinite distance."

Unfortunately the ships on which I served never sailed close enough to The Great Ice Wall to see it personally. Rowbotham describes it, so he must have seen it. Even if we had I am afraid my puny level of Security Clearance wouldn't  have allowed  me  to get past the Ice Wall Guards......This was back before NASA took over the Guard Duties.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: Alpha2Omega on January 23, 2017, 07:22:51 PM

Stick close to your close to your P.C.and never go to sea
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Look out your window and see what you shall see
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Chorus:
Yes ! Never, never, never go to sea !


Should there be apologies to Gilbert & Sullivan for this?
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: John Davis on January 28, 2017, 06:53:02 PM
If you look closely at the aforementioned photographs dear lad, you will notice two things. Firstly, they come from a certain industry known as the "stock photograph" industry. You may as well hand me an oil painting of a dinosaur and thus claim that dragons once flew the land! Secondly, andlikely of far more import, any man knows that light shines downwards towards and outwards to the floor from a window, not on the ceiling!

Perhaps a few of these posters may have been right - save the twenty dollars and simply view your kitchen floor.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: Gumby on January 29, 2017, 02:07:03 AM
If you look closely at the aforementioned photographs dear lad, you will notice two things. Firstly, they come from a certain industry known as the "stock photograph" industry. You may as well hand me an oil painting of a dinosaur and thus claim that dragons once flew the land! Secondly, andlikely of far more import, any man knows that light shines downwards towards and outwards to the floor from a window, not on the ceiling!

Perhaps a few of these posters may have been right - save the twenty dollars and simply view your kitchen floor.

Dear Sir

Please lend an eye to this question:

Why does the mountain top get illuminated before the valley at sunrise?

Thanks in advance.

Sincerely yours,

Gumby
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: Alpha2Omega on January 29, 2017, 12:49:20 PM
Secondly, andlikely of far more import, any man knows that light shines downwards towards and outwards to the floor from a window, not on the ceiling!

Well, yeah... sunlight shines downward through a window to the floor when the sun is well above the horizon.

Have you already forgotten what you proposed?

Now, at sunrise, within your shipping crate that is facing sunrise, with one end unbarred, take note of how the light illuminates the crate during the sunrise.

Emphasis added for your convenience.

Did you know that, if the container is 10m above sea level (presuming the horizon is sea level), for your initially proposed experiment to be meaningful, both the floor and ceiling of the container would have to be flat and level to better than 0.1°? I doubt your typical container on a dock is carefully leveled or that the floor and ceiling are perfectly flat and perfectly parallel.

I'll try again:
Have you actually tried this yourself? It sounds like you haven't.

Quote
Perhaps a few of these posters may have been right - save the twenty dollars and simply view your kitchen floor.

Have you actually tried this yourself? At sunrise?

At sunrise, light from the sun through a window illuminates the opposite wall, not the floor or ceiling.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: Alpha2Omega on January 29, 2017, 08:44:51 PM
Secondly, andlikely of far more import, any man knows that light shines downwards towards and outwards to the floor from a window, not on the ceiling!

Perhaps a few of these posters may have been right - save the twenty dollars and simply view your kitchen floor.

It's not my kitchen, and it's near sunset instead of sunrise, but I took this picture about 25 minutes before local sunset, partly for your benefit, but mostly for the benefit of unbiased readers.

(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c118/FromVegaButNotVegan/DSCN3564_25_nom_zpsyxieytdk.jpg)
Please note the sunlight through the west windows illuminates the east wall, not the floor. The lower sill of the west windows cast shadows below the sills of the east windows because the sun is above, not on, the western horizon. As the sun sets, the shadow of the sill rises. Unfortunately, the horizon to the west is obscured by a house and trees, so this is about as close to actual sunset as I can reasonably get. If you have better exposure to your own sunrises or sunsets on or closer to your horizon, please investigate.

Do you have any questions or comments about this, John Davis?

[Edit] Photo link
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: John Davis on January 31, 2017, 09:56:22 PM
Oh boy. so many navs in this lot. The sailors and engineers I met, knew in their heart of hearts - its plane. Some of the tale you hear, they shake the mind.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: Gumby on February 01, 2017, 03:53:59 AM
Oh boy. so many navs in this lot. The sailors and engineers I met, knew in their heart of hearts - its plane. Some of the tale you hear, they shake the mind.

You don't interact with many living people, don't you?
I hope the sailors you pretend to know have no navigation responsibilities, otherwise they will get lost!
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: John Davis on February 04, 2017, 10:29:51 AM
Alpha, thank you kindly for the photograph demonstrating my claim that light from the sun shines downwards towards the floor, not upwards to the ceiling during sunrise or sunset.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: John Davis on February 04, 2017, 11:23:10 AM
Oh boy. so many navs in this lot. The sailors and engineers I met, knew in their heart of hearts - its plane. Some of the tale you hear, they shake the mind.

You don't interact with many living people, don't you?
I hope the sailors you pretend to know have no navigation responsibilities, otherwise they will get lost!

Sailors have had no difficulty using the technique known as 'plane sailing' to navigation the world at great distances.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: Copper Knickers on February 04, 2017, 12:26:59 PM
Oh boy. so many navs in this lot. The sailors and engineers I met, knew in their heart of hearts - its plane. Some of the tale you hear, they shake the mind.

You don't interact with many living people, don't you?
I hope the sailors you pretend to know have no navigation responsibilities, otherwise they will get lost!

Sailors have had no difficulty using the technique known as 'plane sailing' to navigation the world at great distances.

Not for 'great distances'. Plane sailing is only adequate for distances of a few hundred miles as it assumes a flat sea. Beyond that, it's necessary to use Mercator sailing which takes account of the curvature of the earth.

http://shipofficer.com/so/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/6.-Plane-Sailing.pdf
http://msi.nga.mil/MSISiteContent/StaticFiles/NAV_PUBS/APN/Chapt-24.pdf
http://navsoft.com/html/sailings.html
http://rtmates.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/navigation-general-formulas.html

Because Plane sailing involves simpler calculations than Mercator sailing it has entered into common language to mean something straightforward:
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/plain-sailing.html
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: John Davis on February 04, 2017, 12:34:56 PM
Tell that to Easter Island. Or the Norse. Portolan maps which are by necessity on a flat earth, also were incrediably accurate examples of plane sailing. So powerful, they were long considered state secrets.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: sokarul on February 04, 2017, 12:56:28 PM
Any idea where the missing 3x area in the southern hemisphere is?
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: rabinoz on February 04, 2017, 01:04:21 PM
Oh boy. so many navs in this lot. The sailors and engineers I met, knew in their heart of hearts - its plane. Some of the tale you hear, they shake the mind.

You don't interact with many living people, don't you?
I hope the sailors you pretend to know have no navigation responsibilities, otherwise they will get lost!

Sailors have had no difficulty using the technique known as 'plane sailing' to navigation the world at great distances.
Really! Maybe Gumby's right. This is only Wikipedia's entry but still, it's obvious enough!

Quote from: Wikipedia
Plane sailing
Plane sailing (also, colloquially and historically, spelled plain sailing) is an approximate method of navigation over small ranges of latitude and longitude. With the course and distance known, the difference in latitude ΔφAB between A and B can be found, as well as the departure, the distance made good east or west. The difference in longitude ΔλAB is unknown and has to be calculated using meridional parts as in Mercator Sailing.
Both spellings ("plane" and "plain") have been in use for several centuries,
Plane sailing is based on the assumption that the meridian through the point of departure, the parallel through the destination, and the course line form a right triangle in a plane, called the "plane sailing triangle".
The expressions "plane sailing" (or more commonly "plain sailing") has, by analogy, taken on a more general meaning of any activity that is relatively straightforward.
     (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/80/Plane_sailing.svg/240px-Plane_sailing.svg.png)
Departure p and the difference in latitude ΔφAB can be worked out with simple trigonometry.

The crucial difference between your claim and reality is that
you claim: "Sailors have had no difficulty using the technique known as 'plane sailing' to navigation of the world at great distances" but
"Plane sailing" is really limited to being "an approximate method of navigation over small ranges of latitude and longitude."

And would you class Cook's first voyage as "navigation over small ranges of latitude and longitude"?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1d/Cook%27sFirstVoyage54.png/750px-Cook%27sFirstVoyage54.png)
Route of First voyage of James CookFirst voyage of James Cook (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_voyage_of_James_Cook)
By the way, "plane sailing" would work no better over long distances on a flat earth than on the Globe, whatever map you dream up!
Unless of course you decide in the end that your flat earth[1] looks rectangular, as in Mercator's projection.

Really John, stick to your "thought experiments" and the  ;D "Ferrari Effect"  ;D that you handle so well and leave reality alone.

[1] I stress your flat earth because it seems that there are almost as map continental layouts as ardent flat earthers here.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: Gumby on February 04, 2017, 01:05:35 PM
Oh boy. so many navs in this lot. The sailors and engineers I met, knew in their heart of hearts - its plane. Some of the tale you hear, they shake the mind.

You don't interact with many living people, don't you?
I hope the sailors you pretend to know have no navigation responsibilities, otherwise they will get lost!

Sailors have had no difficulty using the technique known as 'plane sailing' to navigation the world at great distances.

Really? You are you trying to convince me that long distance navigation is possible under the assumption the earth is flat?

I imagine you did it yourself, proving wrong all the pilots that sailed across the oceans for centuries!

My sincere congratulations!

By the way can you lend an eye to this:

Dear Sir

Please lend an eye to this question:

Why does the mountain top get illuminated before the valley at sunrise?

Thanks in advance.

Sincerely yours,

Gumby
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: Alpha2Omega on February 04, 2017, 06:08:03 PM
Alpha, thank you kindly for the photograph demonstrating my claim that light from the sun shines downwards towards the floor, not upwards to the ceiling during sunrise or sunset.

Thank you for acknowledging my post and the photo. Did you miss the part that said this was about one half hour before sunset, not during sunset?
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: rabinoz on February 04, 2017, 08:26:50 PM
Alpha, thank you kindly for the photograph demonstrating my claim that light from the sun shines downwards towards the floor, not upwards to the ceiling during sunrise or sunset.

Thank you for acknowledging my post and the photo. Did you miss the part that said this was about one half hour before sunset, not during sunset?
Half an hour before sunset would put the centre of the sun roughly 5° above horizontal where I imagine you live. Is that about right?
Maybe John Davis could tell how his flat earth sun could down to even 5°, let alone below the horizon.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: John Davis on February 04, 2017, 08:31:45 PM
Alpha, thank you kindly for the photograph demonstrating my claim that light from the sun shines downwards towards the floor, not upwards to the ceiling during sunrise or sunset.

Thank you for acknowledging my post and the photo. Did you miss the part that said this was about one half hour before sunset, not during sunset?
Half an hour before sunset would put the centre of the sun roughly 5° above horizontal where I imagine you live. Is that about right?
Maybe John Davis could tell how his flat earth sun could down to even 5°, let alone below the horizon.

I believe you are familiar with my model, which explains this well; in short, space is curved, the earth is flat, and Newton's Laws of Motion Hold.

However, this can be answered even with the most kosher and accepted of flat earth models: Rowbotham's. In fact, any interested student of nature can see this in affect by watching a large enough formation of migrating fowl. As they recede away from the viewer, the first avian at the tip of the vanguard will eventually appear to dip below the others, and then the next two and so on until eventually they appear to meet the horizon - in spite of being at a constant height the entire time. You could well do the same experiment if you happen to live near an airport so long as you take care to note when a plane reaches cruising altitude. For those who frequent urban centers more than natural ones, take note of the tops of buildings or street lanterns.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: John Davis on February 04, 2017, 10:17:23 PM
The sun sets during the entire after solar noon. Am I to take it this picture was at ~11:30am? This seems in opposition to fact.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: rabinoz on February 04, 2017, 10:42:58 PM
Tell that to Easter Island. Or the Norse. Portolan maps which are by necessity on a flat earth, also were incrediably accurate examples of plane sailing. So powerful, they were long considered state secrets.
Where does Easter Island come into it?
You claim "Portolan maps which are by necessity on a flat earth". Why, Portolan maps were made for the real earth, from experience?
Not only that, but the Globe was certainly the accepted shape of the earth at the time, not that it made any difference for sailing around the Mediterranean.

You say "incredibly accurate", but the navigators didn't even have "incredibly accurate" compasses then, so I guess they were accurate for the time.

But, any map can have directions draw to various destinations, those directions will get you there, but not necessarily via the shortest distance.

Until the distances get very large the extra distance when using rhumb line navigation is negligible.
For example across Australia from 30°S, 115°E near the west coast to 30°S, 153°E near the east coast.
Using Great Circle "navigation" (it's over land), the distance is 2,268 miles or 3,649 km
and when using Rhumb Line "navigation" 2,274 miles or 3,660 km - not worth considering.
   
But flying from Sydney (at 33.94°S, 151.18°E) to Santiago (33.39°S, 70.79°W) it's a different story:
Using Great Circle navigation, the distance is 7,061 miles or 11,363 km (the effect of altitude has been ignored)
and when using Rhumb Line navigation 7,940 miles or 12,778 km - certainly worth considering.

I'll let you work out these distances on whatever Flat Earth map (if any) is in vogue today.



      

Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: rabinoz on February 04, 2017, 11:23:50 PM
Alpha, thank you kindly for the photograph demonstrating my claim that light from the sun shines downwards towards the floor, not upwards to the ceiling during sunrise or sunset.

Thank you for acknowledging my post and the photo. Did you miss the part that said this was about one half hour before sunset, not during sunset?
Half an hour before sunset would put the centre of the sun roughly 5° above horizontal where I imagine you live. Is that about right?
Maybe John Davis could tell how his flat earth sun could down to even 5°, let alone below the horizon.

I believe you are familiar with my model, which explains this well; in short, space is curved, the earth is flat, and Newton's Laws of Motion Hold.
:P :P Your model!  ::) ::) In a dream (sorry, thought experiment) you come up with a hypothesis that space bends enough to make a flat earth look like a sphere. Mind you, I have seen no evidence that there is the slightest justification for this
and not the slightest idea how anything would behave on this hypothetical world.

Quote from: John Davis
However, this can be answered even with the most kosher and accepted of flat earth models: Rowbotham's. In fact, any interested student of nature can see this in affect by watching a large enough formation of migrating fowl. As they recede away from the viewer, the first avian at the tip of the vanguard will eventually appear to dip below the others, and then the next two and so on until eventually they appear to meet the horizon - in spite of being at a constant height the entire time.

There's nothing kosher about Rowbotham!
Firstly your migrating fowl. Canada Geese commonly fly at around 1,000 m, and according to Rowbotham's calculations, would not be visible for more than 3 km and they would not be close to the horizon by then, so try another analogy!
Lower flying birds may appear to disappear behind trees etc and yes, of course, perspective reduces the angle between the birds and the horizon.

Analogies like this prove nothing.

Quote from: John Davis
You could well do the same experiment if you happen to live near an airport so long as you take care to note when a plane reaches cruising altitude. For those who frequent urban centers more than natural ones, take note of the tops of buildings or street lanterns.

Yes, nobody denies that perspective brings reduces the angle,
but in case you had forgotten, your sun starts at an altitude of supposedly about 5,000 km. Ski claims that's rubbish and so do I, but that's for another day.

Now at the time the sun is supposed to set it is only around 15,000 km away (the distance depends on the location and time of year), so the sun is still about 18° above the horizon!

At this point I see that the flat earth has two options:

That's a bit too far a stretch for me I'm afraid.
But, John I'm not going to waste all my time on Rowbotham, who
          didn't even know how to read a theodolite - see "Tangential Horizons" and
          could not correctly work out the angular size of the sun.

Must go, and as Sir Terry Pratchett wrote "When you've gotta go, you've gotta go!"
E&OE Errors & Omissions Expected!
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: rabinoz on February 05, 2017, 04:46:31 AM
The sun sets during the entire after solar noon. Am I to take it this picture was at ~11:30am? This seems in opposition to fact.
I've been trying all to work out what that means for hours.
 
Am I to assume that you refer to the photograph in this post The Shipping Crate Experiment « Reply #35 on: January 30, 2017, 02:44:51 PM ». (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69068.msg1864782#msg1864782)?
As I've said a number of times, I do wish you would either Quote posts you refer to or at least include a link. If I guessed correctly there are about 14 intervening posts.

But if that's the post you are referring to, you comment makes no sense.

That post says "As the sun sets, the shadow of the sill rises. Unfortunately, the horizon to the west is obscured by a house and trees, so this is about as close to actual sunset as I can reasonably get."

And yet you make the statement "The sun sets during the entire after solar noon. Am I to take it this picture was at ~11:30am?"
Surely "as close to actual sunset as I can reasonably get" is quite unambiguous. Sunset is at a particular time and is readily predictable, at least on the real earth!
What would make you say "this picture was at ~11:30am"?

 Alpha2Omega did later say "this was about one-half hour before sunset", which to me (with a bit of help from the "LunaSolCal" app) meant that the centre of the sun would be roughly 5° above horizontal.

So, just what did you mean by "The sun sets during the entire after solar noon. Am I to take it this picture was at ~11:30am?"
I am afraid to me the definition of the time of sunset is the time the top edge of the sun just disappears.
If you are observing the sunset over an unobstructed horizon that is a very weel defined and quite predictable time, only changed much by unusual refraction events - mirages etc.

Somtimes I get the feeling that most flat earthers have never seen a sunrise or sunset.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: Alpha2Omega on February 06, 2017, 12:14:00 PM
The sun sets during the entire after solar noon. Am I to take it this picture was at ~11:30am?

No. Why would you think the picture was taken anywhere near solar noon?

Remember, I said we were looking at sunlight through a west window on an east wall.

Please note the sunlight through the west windows illuminates the east wall, not the floor.

Quote
This seems in opposition to fact.

Your assertion is obviously in opposition to fact. Without a totally bizarre and counterintuitive meaning for "sunset" it means nothing at all, and even that wacky interpretation wouldn't fit the description of the picture. It should have been obvious, even to you, that your notion is nonsense.

Half an hour before sunset begins means half an hour before the the lower limb of the sun touches the horizon on the way down; half an hour before sunset ends means half an hour before the the last part of the sun vanishes below the horizon. Just like it always does. These are only a few minutes apart except at very high latitudes, and, even then only briefly, and that rare situation wouldn't be consistent with the photo, anyway.

All of this notwithstanding, that photo and post was to answer

Secondly, andlikely of far more import, any man knows that light shines downwards towards and outwards to the floor from a window, not on the ceiling!

Perhaps a few of these posters may have been right - save the twenty dollars and simply view your kitchen floor.

The light isn't shining on the floor.

Remember that I posted the photo "mostly for the benefit of unbiased readers." Your convoluted attempt at reasoning is exactly why I said that. At least you haven't simply dismissed it as a fake. Yet.

[Edit to add] Sorry, Rab... I didn't see that last response before posting this; I was gone all day yesterday and was brought short by Mr. Davis' preposterous post as I was catching up on reading the thread today.

Also, yes... the (top of the) sun was a bit lower than 5° above the ideal horizon when that was taken.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: John Davis on February 11, 2017, 04:29:00 AM
The sun sets during the entire after solar noon. Am I to take it this picture was at ~11:30am? This seems in opposition to fact.
I've been trying all to work out what that means for hours.
 
Am I to assume that you refer to the photograph in this post The Shipping Crate Experiment « Reply #35 on: January 30, 2017, 02:44:51 PM ». (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69068.msg1864782#msg1864782)?
As I've said a number of times, I do wish you would either Quote posts you refer to or at least include a link. If I guessed correctly there are about 14 intervening posts.

But if that's the post you are referring to, you comment makes no sense.

That post says "As the sun sets, the shadow of the sill rises. Unfortunately, the horizon to the west is obscured by a house and trees, so this is about as close to actual sunset as I can reasonably get."

And yet you make the statement "The sun sets during the entire after solar noon. Am I to take it this picture was at ~11:30am?"
Surely "as close to actual sunset as I can reasonably get" is quite unambiguous. Sunset is at a particular time and is readily predictable, at least on the real earth!
What would make you say "this picture was at ~11:30am"?

 Alpha2Omega did later say "this was about one-half hour before sunset", which to me (with a bit of help from the "LunaSolCal" app) meant that the centre of the sun would be roughly 5° above horizontal.

So, just what did you mean by "The sun sets during the entire after solar noon. Am I to take it this picture was at ~11:30am?"
I am afraid to me the definition of the time of sunset is the time the top edge of the sun just disappears.
If you are observing the sunset over an unobstructed horizon that is a very weel defined and quite predictable time, only changed much by unusual refraction events - mirages etc.

Somtimes I get the feeling that most flat earthers have never seen a sunrise or sunset.
Your confusion is understandable, and likely my words are at fault or my own misunderstanding of the original statement. It is in accordance with observation that I say the sun sets during the entire period after solar noon until the end of day. Thirty minutes before sunset, then, would be 11:30 am judging our clocks by natural standards such as the sun alone.

We now remedy this mistake by assuming he meant 30 temporal minutes before the sun breaches the horizon; if the earth was round - we would expect a light to be shining upwards at this point. This is in disagreement with fact as we can see in the above picture that the sun is clearly illuminating downwards as the base of its sunlit square projected from the window parallel to the one shown is below the window! Of course, these windows as pictured are assumed to be level with the opposite portal that is allowing the projection of light onto it. The light is projected downward, and not upwards to the ceiling! Not even at sunset will we see our ceilings brightened by the warm glow of the sun. This is yet another way the common man with eyes open knows the TRUTH - the earth is a plane, to globularist shame.

Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: John Davis on February 11, 2017, 04:33:18 AM
The sun is rising right now. My ceiling remains dark. What of you good forum goers? Is your ceiling lit?
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: inquisitive on February 11, 2017, 06:19:12 AM
The sun is rising right now. My ceiling remains dark. What of you good forum goers? Is your ceiling lit?
As you know it depends on location, height, direction etc.

Is there anything about the angle of the sun you disagree with? Sunrise and sunset times published across the earth are correct and based on agreed size and shape etc.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: John Davis on February 11, 2017, 06:28:45 AM
You are very correct. Perhaps in Australia, where they hang by their feet, their houses are suitably overturned to allow for the sun to grace ceilings! Or per happenstance, you may be referring to a house level with the side of a mountain, such that the entire house like an uneven table makes drinking a cup of tea an impossibility?

No, sir. If the ceiling is not lit, you must admit - the earth is flat, and that is that.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: Alpha2Omega on February 11, 2017, 02:57:55 PM
The sun sets during the entire after solar noon. Am I to take it this picture was at ~11:30am? This seems in opposition to fact.
I've been trying all to work out what that means for hours.
 
Am I to assume that you refer to the photograph in this post The Shipping Crate Experiment « Reply #35 on: January 30, 2017, 02:44:51 PM ». (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69068.msg1864782#msg1864782)?
As I've said a number of times, I do wish you would either Quote posts you refer to or at least include a link. If I guessed correctly there are about 14 intervening posts.

But if that's the post you are referring to, you comment makes no sense.

That post says "As the sun sets, the shadow of the sill rises. Unfortunately, the horizon to the west is obscured by a house and trees, so this is about as close to actual sunset as I can reasonably get."

And yet you make the statement "The sun sets during the entire after solar noon. Am I to take it this picture was at ~11:30am?"
Surely "as close to actual sunset as I can reasonably get" is quite unambiguous. Sunset is at a particular time and is readily predictable, at least on the real earth!
What would make you say "this picture was at ~11:30am"?

 Alpha2Omega did later say "this was about one-half hour before sunset", which to me (with a bit of help from the "LunaSolCal" app) meant that the centre of the sun would be roughly 5° above horizontal.

So, just what did you mean by "The sun sets during the entire after solar noon. Am I to take it this picture was at ~11:30am?"
I am afraid to me the definition of the time of sunset is the time the top edge of the sun just disappears.
If you are observing the sunset over an unobstructed horizon that is a very weel defined and quite predictable time, only changed much by unusual refraction events - mirages etc.

Somtimes I get the feeling that most flat earthers have never seen a sunrise or sunset.
Your confusion is understandable, and likely my words are at fault or my own misunderstanding of the original statement. It is in accordance with observation that I say the sun sets during the entire period after solar noon until the end of day. Thirty minutes before sunset, then, would be 11:30 am judging our clocks by natural standards such as the sun alone.

According to that line of reasoning, sunset and local solar noon are the same time. Your use of 'sunset' when you mean 'noon' is nothing more than obfuscation.

Quote
We now remedy this mistake by assuming he meant 30 temporal minutes before the sun breaches the horizon; if the earth was round - we would expect a light to be shining upwards at this point.

Why?  Maybe you would expect that, but you'd be wrong. Can you show the reason you think sunlight would shine upward if the earth is a sphere the size it's known to be, and what angle relative to horizontal you would expect? See below for my answer; if yours is different, please show your work.

Quote
This is in disagreement with fact as we can see in the above picture that the sun is clearly illuminating downwards as the base of its sunlit square projected from the window parallel to the one shown is below the window!

Let's see... assuming the radius of the spherical earth is 6400 km. Since this is the second floor of a residence, let's say the window sills are roughly 4m above ground level. If the horizon is formed by ground at roughly the same elevation as at the house, the horizon is about 0.06° below level. Since the sun is about 4° above the horizon when the picture was taken, and the horizon itself if a tiny fraction of a degree below level, then we would expect sunlight to be shining from about 4° above level, which is consistent with the picture.

Quote
Of course, these windows as pictured are assumed to be level with the opposite portal that is allowing the projection of light onto it. The light is projected downward, and not upwards to the ceiling! Not even at sunset will we see our ceilings brightened by the warm glow of the sun.

Exactly as would be expected with the sun a few degrees above the horizon. In principle, at the moment of sunset, just as the last of the sun disappears from view, the last of the sunlight would be shining slightly upward at about 0.06°, or maybe 4 mm (about 1/6 inch) across the width of that room. Since the tops of the windows are about 2 feet (~ 60 cm) below the ceiling, we would not expect the ceiling to be illuminated.

You seem to forget that your original proposal was a shipping crate (container, actually) at "the moment of sunrise", not 30 minutes after the sun broke the horizon. If the open end of the container extended all the way to the ceiling, and the ceiling were perfectly level and flat, the ceiling would be directly illuminated until the lower limb of the sun climbed a fraction of a degree (roughly 0.1° if the container were 10m above the level of the horizon, 0.06° if only 4m). Those are pretty small angles because the radius of the spherical earth is large compared to those heights.

Quote
This is yet another way the common man with eyes open knows the TRUTH - the earth is a plane, to globularist shame.

You later modified the experiment to "view your kitchen floor". By your logic, since the photo clearly shows the sunlight is not striking the floor, the earth must not be flat (presuming it's allowable to substitute a different room for 'kitchen').
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: Alpha2Omega on February 11, 2017, 03:03:47 PM
The sun is rising right now. My ceiling remains dark. What of you good forum goers? Is your ceiling lit?

Is the sun streaming in through a window? How far below your ceiling is the top of the window? How much higher than the elevation of the horizon is the top of the window? These matter.

Is the floor also "dark"? How far above the floor is the window sill?

Remember, your proposal was for a shipping container, then changed to the kitchen floor.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: John Davis on February 12, 2017, 08:35:52 AM
You are most correct - the shipping container is far a more ideal location for such an experiment. However, those without a twenty might find themselves glad to observe this every day from their own house. As you and a previous poster pointed out, yes, they would have to have a reasonable orientated house.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: inquisitive on February 12, 2017, 09:26:21 AM
You are most correct - the shipping container is far a more ideal location for such an experiment. However, those without a twenty might find themselves glad to observe this every day from their own house. As you and a previous poster pointed out, yes, they would have to have a reasonable orientated house.
What is the point of this when the angle of the sun is known and can be measured from multiple locations and at different times, proving a round earth?
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: John Davis on February 12, 2017, 09:37:56 AM
You must be mistaken.

This has been measured many times, and from multiple locations and it certainly does not prove a round earth. While some of these measurements certainly support round earth models, they also overwhelming support flat earth models.

If the earth was a globe, we should see this in easily replicable experiments such as the one above. We do not. Now, this may lead the ball earther to state silly things - the earth is still round, but we need to adjust this small bit of it. Oh, could any man not be an amazing baseball player if only his hits were tallied? What if he refused, like the globe model, to leave the plate once he struck out?

He would like us to believe you can see this curvature in the shadows of sticks in the ground, but not in the shadows of much larger shipping crates!

We have shown the globe to be false again and again through experiment, reason, and every one of our senses. There can be no doubt that we are not swirling about space at ridiculous speeds, hanging from our feet like action figures tied to a centrifuge.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: inquisitive on February 12, 2017, 10:16:58 AM
You must be mistaken.

This has been measured many times, and from multiple locations and it certainly does not prove a round earth. While some of these measurements certainly support round earth models, they also overwhelming support flat earth models.

If the earth was a globe, we should see this in easily replicable experiments such as the one above. We do not. Now, this may lead the ball earther to state silly things - the earth is still round, but we need to adjust this small bit of it. Oh, could any man not be an amazing baseball player if only his hits were tallied? What if he refused, like the globe model, to leave the plate once he struck out?

He would like us to believe you can see this curvature in the shadows of sticks in the ground, but not in the shadows of much larger shipping crates!

We have shown the globe to be false again and again through experiment, reason, and every one of our senses. There can be no doubt that we are not swirling about space at ridiculous speeds, hanging from our feet like action figures tied to a centrifuge.
Please provide links to measurements taken recently that support a flat earth.  Do you agree that published sunset and sunrise times are correct?

Please show links to recent experiments.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: Alpha2Omega on February 12, 2017, 04:17:30 PM
You must be mistaken.

This has been measured many times, and from multiple locations and it certainly does not prove a round earth. While some of these measurements certainly support round earth models

Indeed they do. Thank you. Given the nature of proof in science (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof), "proof" is a non-issue.

Quote
they also overwhelming support flat earth models.

Do you really think so? Why? If the earth were flat, how could the sun even be on the horizon at one place on earth and be directly above another place on earth a finite distance away at the same time? This is easy using the spherical earth and distant sun model. What do you have?

Quote
If the earth was a globe, we should see this in easily replicable experiments such as the one above. We do not.

Actually, we do, time and time again. Without fail. Maybe you don't see it, probably because you don't want to.

The problem is what you claim we should expect to see in these experiments seems to be different from what the real spherical-earth model predicts. IOW, that's a strawman argument.

Can you explain what you expect the shipping container experiment would show if the earth were a globe with a radius of about 6400 km, and how it differs from what it does show (or what you think it would would show if you actually performed it)? If you use math, please show and clearly explain your work.

I've asked for this before. You seem reluctant to provide it. You're making a claim you refuse to back up. Why?

Quote
Now, this may lead the ball earther to state silly things - the earth is still round, but we need to adjust this small bit of it.

Such as? How significant is the adjustment? What is the justification given for the adjustment?

Are you attacking the idea a simple spherical model works well enough for a large number of problems, but a much more complex (but more accurate) ellipsoidal model is necessary when higher precision is needed, and an even more complex, but more accurate still, geoid is necessary to explain very small effects? Each has its own realm where it is most suitable, and the reasons for the differences between them are known.
 
Quote
Oh, could any man not be an amazing baseball player if only his hits were tallied? What if he refused, like the globe model, to leave the plate once he struck out?
Quote

Again, please explain why you think what happens with a properly-conducted "shipping container experiment" would be a strikeout? What do you think the spherical earth model would predict? How much does that differ from what the flat-earth model (assuming you could have a sunrise or sunset at all) would predict. Please show your reasoning in enough detail that it can be understood.

He would like us to believe you can see this curvature in the shadows of sticks in the ground, but not in the shadows of much larger shipping crates!

It sounds like you're referring to Eratosthenes. Shipping crates are tiny compared to the distances necessary to determine the radius of the spherical earth, using shadow lengths and basic equipment, with reasonable accuracy. The distance between them (hundreds of miles in Eratosthenes' case) is much more significant than the length of the whatever is casting the shadow.

Apparently it still stings. A Greek dude was getting better answers more than 2000 years ago, with a simpler model, using very simple measurements, than you can do today.

Quote
We have shown the globe to be false again and again through experiment, reason, and every one of our senses.

Citation needed. One clear and unambiguous example would be a start. Otherwise, this is yet another baseless bluster.

Quote
There can be no doubt that we are not swirling about space at ridiculous speeds, hanging from our feet like action figures tied to a centrifuge.

"Hanging from our feet." Lol.

The speeds are what they are; you call them ridiculous, but you're making inappropriate comparisons to human scale activities on earth. What is ridiculous is the sort of hyperbole you think has "shown the globe to be false". It's just words.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: Badxtoss on February 12, 2017, 05:04:26 PM
The sun is rising right now. My ceiling remains dark. What of you good forum goers? Is your ceiling lit?
Every day I can watch the sunlight receding up the mountain nearby  until only the top is lit, and then only the bottom sides of the clouds.  I can also see the sun, whose size does not change, dip by degrees below the horizon, never shrinking away but dipping below a hard line.
How is that possible?
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: rabinoz on February 12, 2017, 06:30:10 PM
The sun is rising right now. My ceiling remains dark. What of you good forum goers? Is your ceiling lit?
And what angle to the horizontal would you claim the light from a rising sun should be?
I would claim that, if you were 50 ft above a sea horizon, when the very first rays show the light could not be shining "upwards" by more than about 0.1°
and less than a minute later the sun's rays would be above the horizontal, so your whole premise has always been quite ridiculous!

Still, so many claims by you flat earthers are quite ridiculous, otherwise, you would not be able to support your hypotheses.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: Alpha2Omega on February 12, 2017, 07:33:40 PM
The sun is rising right now. My ceiling remains dark. What of you good forum goers? Is your ceiling lit?
And what angle to the horizontal would you claim the light from a rising sun should be?
I would claim that, if you were 50 ft above a sea horizon, when the very first rays show the light could not be shining "upwards" by more than about 0.1°
and less than a minute later the sun's rays would be above the horizontal, so your whole premise has always been quite ridiculous!

I'm still waiting for that answer and it looks like we're in for a very long wait. It's as though he thinks the horizon should be something like 5° or more below level when viewed from just a little above the seashore, when it obviously isn't and shouldn't be expected to be, if the earth were a sphere the size it's known to be.

It seems like Mr. Davis doesn't know how to do high school trig, doesn't know how to apply it to actual real-world problems, or is intentionally throwing out misinformation hoping to fool someone for some strange reason I can't fathom. I can see why Rowbotham did that - he sold seats at "lectures" where the wilder his claims an pronouncements, the more money he made from those who fell for them. Maybe Mr. Davis wants to follow in his footsteps and recognized an opportunity to monetize ignorance.

We can hope he will reply with something relevant and insightful that we never thought of, but it doesn't look good.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: rabinoz on February 12, 2017, 08:55:55 PM
The sun is rising right now. My ceiling remains dark. What of you good forum goers? Is your ceiling lit?
And what angle to the horizontal would you claim the light from a rising sun should be?
I would claim that, if you were 50 ft above a sea horizon, when the very first rays show the light could not be shining "upwards" by more than about 0.1°
and less than a minute later the sun's rays would be above the horizontal, so your whole premise has always been quite ridiculous!

I'm still waiting for that answer and it looks like we're in for a very long wait. It's as though he thinks the horizon should be something like 5° or more below level when viewed from just a little above the seashore, when it obviously isn't and shouldn't be expected to be, if the earth were a sphere the size it's known to be.

It seems like Mr. Davis doesn't know how to do high school trig, doesn't know how to apply it to actual real-world problems, or is intentionally throwing out misinformation hoping to fool someone for some strange reason I can't fathom. I can see why Rowbotham did that - he sold seats at "lectures" where the wilder his claims an pronouncements, the more money he made from those who fell for them. Maybe Mr. Davis wants to follow in his footsteps and recognized an opportunity to monetize ignorance.

We can hope he will reply with something relevant and insightful that we never thought of, but it doesn't look good.

Yes, "It seems like Mr. Davis doesn't know how to do high school trig, doesn't know how to apply it to actual real-world problems" and yet he claims expertise in "relativity" and "gravitation". You work it out.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: Gumby on February 13, 2017, 01:00:51 AM
Oh dear! I just saw the underside of an airplane light by sunshine!
And the sun has set a couple of minutes ago!
It can't be true!
This is impossible!
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: John Davis on February 13, 2017, 07:22:03 AM
As soon as the argument turns against them, the globularist inevitably turns to attacks against me. Obviously, I know high school trigonometry. Your ignorance of my theories regarding the flat earth does not change this. Why I continue to answer insolent children like you is beyond me. Yet here I am.

Trig is not necessary here. Common sense alone is necessary. If the sun is at some point below the roof of the shipping crate, which there is no doubt that this is the case in a globular model, it will be illuminated upwards. This is not the case in reality. I will not waste my time 'checking your work', as I am not your high school mathematics teacher. In fact, I won't bother reading it, as it is in opposition to fact.

I find it odd I have to explain this:
(https://image.ibb.co/hZ4vTv/Screen_Shot_2017_02_13_at_9_07_10_AM.png)
Now, you may argue that the angle is too small to be seen. Fine. You may then say, well that house was below sea-level; ok, then my shipping crate experiment still shows the results we want.



You must be mistaken.

This has been measured many times, and from multiple locations and it certainly does not prove a round earth. While some of these measurements certainly support round earth models

Indeed they do. Thank you. Given the nature of proof in science (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof), "proof" is a non-issue.

Quote
they also overwhelming support flat earth models.

Do you really think so? Why? If the earth were flat, how could the sun even be on the horizon at one place on earth and be directly above another place on earth a finite distance away at the same time? This is easy using the spherical earth and distant sun model. What do you have?
This is completely coherent with my model. Above this, it was explained in other models as well, albeit less elegantly. Rowbotham, I believe, dedicates a section of his book to this. In it, he uses the analogy of a stick with a circle on it. As you recede away from it, you will note that the bottom half of the circle appears to disappear until eventually it will appear as if the bottom is completely gone. This is much like the sun.

Quote
Quote
If the earth was a globe, we should see this in easily replicable experiments such as the one above. We do not.

Actually, we do, time and time again. Without fail. Maybe you don't see it, probably because you don't want to.
Except we don't see it in the experiment above, and we don't see it other easily replicable experiments such as Foucault Pendulums, aeroplane rides, and even the gravitational measurements of the planet (see gravitational anomaly maps.) There's a reason there are so many flatists about now clamouring for someone to "show them the curve." Its because they've looked for it and can't find it.
Quote
The problem is what you claim we should expect to see in these experiments seems to be different from what the real spherical-earth model predicts. IOW, that's a strawman argument.
Are you saying that the spherical earth model predicts that light would magically bend downwards?!
Quote
Can you explain what you expect the shipping container experiment would show if the earth were a globe with a radius of about 6400 km, and how it differs from what it does show (or what you think it would would show if you actually performed it)? If you use math, please show and clearly explain your work.

I've asked for this before. You seem reluctant to provide it. You're making a claim you refuse to back up. Why?
I would expect the shipping crate to be lit starting upwards, and moving downwards throughout the day. This is in my original post. My math is "up is up, and down is down."

'If, as we are told, the earth is round then we would expect the top of the crate to be illuminated first - as it should have a better vantage point for the sun as it rises above a horizon.'

It is irrelevant how much of this top would be illuminated. This will differ based on the supposed size of the magical globe earth.

Quote

Such as? How significant is the adjustment? What is the justification given for the adjustment?

Are you attacking the idea a simple spherical model works well enough for a large number of problems, but a much more complex (but more accurate) ellipsoidal model is necessary when higher precision is needed, and an even more complex, but more accurate still, geoid is necessary to explain very small effects? Each has its own realm where it is most suitable, and the reasons for the differences between them are known.
 
Quote
Oh, could any man not be an amazing baseball player if only his hits were tallied? What if he refused, like the globe model, to leave the plate once he struck out?
Quote

Again, please explain why you think what happens with a properly-conducted "shipping container experiment" would be a strikeout? What do you think the spherical earth model would predict? How much does that differ from what the flat-earth model (assuming you could have a sunrise or sunset at all) would predict. Please show your reasoning in enough detail that it can be understood.

He would like us to believe you can see this curvature in the shadows of sticks in the ground, but not in the shadows of much larger shipping crates!

It sounds like you're referring to Eratosthenes. Shipping crates are tiny compared to the distances necessary to determine the radius of the spherical earth, using shadow lengths and basic equipment, with reasonable accuracy. The distance between them (hundreds of miles in Eratosthenes' case) is much more significant than the length of the whatever is casting the shadow.

Apparently it still stings. A Greek dude was getting better answers more than 2000 years ago, with a simpler model, using very simple measurements, than you can do today.

Quote
We have shown the globe to be false again and again through experiment, reason, and every one of our senses.

Citation needed. One clear and unambiguous example would be a start. Otherwise, this is yet another baseless bluster.

Quote
There can be no doubt that we are not swirling about space at ridiculous speeds, hanging from our feet like action figures tied to a centrifuge.

"Hanging from our feet." Lol.

The speeds are what they are; you call them ridiculous, but you're making inappropriate comparisons to human scale activities on earth. What is ridiculous is the sort of hyperbole you think has "shown the globe to be false". It's just words.
The fact of the matter is you haven't read the appropriate literature and have no legs to stand on when you say it is ridiculous hyperbole that the globe is false. Whether true or not, you don't have a counter-argument here because you have made yourself purposely ignorant to the truth - like a child singing a song and plugging his ears to avoid being told he has to eat his broccoli. Instead you rely upon me to read these books to you via forum post. A citation is not needed, you simply need to do your own research and stop relying upon me to explain every single stumbling step you have.

Eratosthenes did nothing but assume the earth was round. In fact, he stole his work from the far earlier Taoist scientists that used the exact same experiment to show the earth was flat by not taking this assumption first. Additionally, this experiment has been repeated both by modern flatists as well as Rowbotham. The details to his experiment I believe are outlined within his work.

Now, you can quibble about angles all you want, but the fact is as the sun breaches the horizon, it is below the top of the shipping crate.

Do not expect me to post in this thread again; I will not be party to these silly attacks.

Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: Badxtoss on February 13, 2017, 08:41:26 AM
As soon as the argument turns against them, the globularist inevitably turns to attacks against me. Obviously, I know high school trigonometry. Your ignorance of my theories regarding the flat earth does not change this. Why I continue to answer insolent children like you is beyond me. Yet here I am.

Trig is not necessary here. Common sense alone is necessary. If the sun is at some point below the roof of the shipping crate, which there is no doubt that this is the case in a globular model, it will be illuminated upwards. This is not the case in reality. I will not waste my time 'checking your work', as I am not your high school mathematics teacher. In fact, I won't bother reading it, as it is in opposition to fact.

I find it odd I have to explain this:
(https://image.ibb.co/hZ4vTv/Screen_Shot_2017_02_13_at_9_07_10_AM.png)
Now, you may argue that the angle is too small to be seen. Fine. You may then say, well that house was below sea-level; ok, then my shipping crate experiment still shows the results we want.



You must be mistaken.

This has been measured many times, and from multiple locations and it certainly does not prove a round earth. While some of these measurements certainly support round earth models

Indeed they do. Thank you. Given the nature of proof in science (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof), "proof" is a non-issue.

Quote
they also overwhelming support flat earth models.

Do you really think so? Why? If the earth were flat, how could the sun even be on the horizon at one place on earth and be directly above another place on earth a finite distance away at the same time? This is easy using the spherical earth and distant sun model. What do you have?
This is completely coherent with my model. Above this, it was explained in other models as well, albeit less elegantly. Rowbotham, I believe, dedicates a section of his book to this. In it, he uses the analogy of a stick with a circle on it. As you recede away from it, you will note that the bottom half of the circle appears to disappear until eventually it will appear as if the bottom is completely gone. This is much like the sun.

Quote
Quote
If the earth was a globe, we should see this in easily replicable experiments such as the one above. We do not.

Actually, we do, time and time again. Without fail. Maybe you don't see it, probably because you don't want to.
Except we don't see it in the experiment above, and we don't see it other easily replicable experiments such as Foucault Pendulums, aeroplane rides, and even the gravitational measurements of the planet (see gravitational anomaly maps.) There's a reason there are so many flatists about now clamouring for someone to "show them the curve." Its because they've looked for it and can't find it.
Quote
The problem is what you claim we should expect to see in these experiments seems to be different from what the real spherical-earth model predicts. IOW, that's a strawman argument.
Are you saying that the spherical earth model predicts that light would magically bend downwards?!
Quote
Can you explain what you expect the shipping container experiment would show if the earth were a globe with a radius of about 6400 km, and how it differs from what it does show (or what you think it would would show if you actually performed it)? If you use math, please show and clearly explain your work.

I've asked for this before. You seem reluctant to provide it. You're making a claim you refuse to back up. Why?
I would expect the shipping crate to be lit starting upwards, and moving downwards throughout the day. This is in my original post. My math is "up is up, and down is down."

'If, as we are told, the earth is round then we would expect the top of the crate to be illuminated first - as it should have a better vantage point for the sun as it rises above a horizon.'

It is irrelevant how much of this top would be illuminated. This will differ based on the supposed size of the magical globe earth.

Quote

Such as? How significant is the adjustment? What is the justification given for the adjustment?

Are you attacking the idea a simple spherical model works well enough for a large number of problems, but a much more complex (but more accurate) ellipsoidal model is necessary when higher precision is needed, and an even more complex, but more accurate still, geoid is necessary to explain very small effects? Each has its own realm where it is most suitable, and the reasons for the differences between them are known.
 
Quote
Oh, could any man not be an amazing baseball player if only his hits were tallied? What if he refused, like the globe model, to leave the plate once he struck out?
Quote

Again, please explain why you think what happens with a properly-conducted "shipping container experiment" would be a strikeout? What do you think the spherical earth model would predict? How much does that differ from what the flat-earth model (assuming you could have a sunrise or sunset at all) would predict. Please show your reasoning in enough detail that it can be understood.

He would like us to believe you can see this curvature in the shadows of sticks in the ground, but not in the shadows of much larger shipping crates!

It sounds like you're referring to Eratosthenes. Shipping crates are tiny compared to the distances necessary to determine the radius of the spherical earth, using shadow lengths and basic equipment, with reasonable accuracy. The distance between them (hundreds of miles in Eratosthenes' case) is much more significant than the length of the whatever is casting the shadow.

Apparently it still stings. A Greek dude was getting better answers more than 2000 years ago, with a simpler model, using very simple measurements, than you can do today.

Quote
We have shown the globe to be false again and again through experiment, reason, and every one of our senses.

Citation needed. One clear and unambiguous example would be a start. Otherwise, this is yet another baseless bluster.

Quote
There can be no doubt that we are not swirling about space at ridiculous speeds, hanging from our feet like action figures tied to a centrifuge.

"Hanging from our feet." Lol.

The speeds are what they are; you call them ridiculous, but you're making inappropriate comparisons to human scale activities on earth. What is ridiculous is the sort of hyperbole you think has "shown the globe to be false". It's just words.
The fact of the matter is you haven't read the appropriate literature and have no legs to stand on when you say it is ridiculous hyperbole that the globe is false. Whether true or not, you don't have a counter-argument here because you have made yourself purposely ignorant to the truth - like a child singing a song and plugging his ears to avoid being told he has to eat his broccoli. Instead you rely upon me to read these books to you via forum post. A citation is not needed, you simply need to do your own research and stop relying upon me to explain every single stumbling step you have.

Eratosthenes did nothing but assume the earth was round. In fact, he stole his work from the far earlier Taoist scientists that used the exact same experiment to show the earth was flat by not taking this assumption first. Additionally, this experiment has been repeated both by modern flatists as well as Rowbotham. The details to his experiment I believe are outlined within his work.

Now, you can quibble about angles all you want, but the fact is as the sun breaches the horizon, it is below the top of the shipping crate.

Do not expect me to post in this thread again; I will not be party to these silly attacks.
You have yet to explain the sunrise on the mountain, this is essentially your shipping crate experiment but on a scale large enough to actually see.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: Alpha2Omega on February 13, 2017, 01:59:06 PM
As soon as the argument turns against them, the globularist inevitably turns to attacks against me. Obviously, I know high school trigonometry.

Then why not use it? Using it on this problem is not hard. Is it because it gives an answer you don't like?

Quote
Your ignorance of my theories regarding the flat earth does not change this.

You were making a strawman argument for the spherical earth, claiming it should show something different than the real earth actually would. Remember?

Your theory, whatever it is this week, doesn't really figure into that.

Quote
Why I continue to answer insolent children like you is beyond me. Yet here I am.

"Insolent children like you".

"As soon as the argument turns against them, the globularist inevitably turns to attacks against me."

Lol!

I reply because your answers and evasions amuse me. Those two quotes being in the same post is hysterical.

If you're tired of trying to defend the indefensible, you can quietly throw in the towel and this discussion will eventually drop into oblivion.

Quote
Trig is not necessary here. Common sense alone is necessary. If the sun is at some point below the roof of the shipping crate, which there is no doubt that this is the case in a globular model, it will be illuminated upwards.

Your "common sense" is leading you astray. Trig gives you an actual answer if you do the calculations correctly. First you have to know how to do them, though, and your refusal to use it suggests either you don't know how, you're too lazy (or afraid) to try, or you know the true answer but refuse to acknowledge that it kills your argument. Which is it?

Quote
This is not the case in reality.

Right. Because your strawman model for the spherical earth is wildly wrong.

Quote
I will not waste my time 'checking your work', as I am not your high school mathematics teacher.

Actually, I want to see your work because your answer is obviously way off, as shown below. Honestly, I don't think you know how to solve this using simple trig, but trying to bluff your way out of admitting that is your problem, not mine. It is amusing to read, though.

Quote
In fact, I won't bother reading it, as it is in opposition to fact.

It must seem easier for you to ignore facts and stubbornly hang on to a wrong belief than it is to defend that belief or admit you're wrong. It doesn't make for a very convincing argument, but, again, that's your problem.

Quote
I find it odd I have to explain this:
(https://image.ibb.co/hZ4vTv/Screen_Shot_2017_02_13_at_9_07_10_AM.png)
Now, you may argue that the angle is too small to be seen.
[Image above has been resized; annotated copy below is original size]

That's exactly the argument.

I kind of thought that's where you were coming from. The blue circle added to your drawing in the image below shows the size the spherical earth needs to be to make the lower ray touch the horizon at the angle pictured. If we presume the height of the rectangle is 8 feet, typical for a sea container (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/df/77/8e/df778e3782d2fd099f7ad0773e6195aa.jpg), then the radius of the blue circle is maybe 65 feet (~20m, or 0.020 km). The earth is really more than 300,000 times larger than that.

See the problem? If you drew the surface of the earth to scale, with the rectangle representing an 8' high, ~20' long shipping container, the arc would "drop" by 0.002 inches (< 0.0002 feet) in the 88-foot width of your drawing[nb]Using the approximation formula well accepted by flat-earthers of 8 inches times distance in miles squared.[/nb]. Since each small square in the drawing represents 2 feet, the curve of the earth to scale with the container (1/10,000 of a small square) would be indistinguishable from a straight horizontal line in that drawing. The lower sun, as drawn, is well below the horizon, not on it.

The correct lower angle is so small the problem can't be drawn to scale; that's why we use trig to find what it is. It is ever so slightly below level, but nothing remotely like what you drew.

(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c118/FromVegaButNotVegan/JohnDavisContainerAnnotated_zpsdp3znndo.png)

Quote
Fine. You may then say, well that house was below sea-level; ok, then my shipping crate experiment still shows the results we want.

What?

The rest will be addressed in a separate post. This one is already too long.

[Edit] Minor grammar and punctuation oopsies.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: inquisitive on February 13, 2017, 02:30:11 PM
Basically, the sun would shine of the roof of the container if it was not for the earth being in the way.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: rabinoz on February 13, 2017, 03:10:28 PM
Basically, the sun would shine of the roof of the container if it was not for the earth being in the way.
You want the sun's rays shining upwards. You got the sun's rise shining upwards!
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/7tbmkm3ditsu41s/Sunrise%20from%2045000%20ft%20-%20Upward%20Slanting%20suns%20Rays.jpg?dl=1)
Upward Slanting sun's Rays (https://www.youtube.co/watch?v=J3ol8eTdZ5I)
This point shows upward slanting shadows, as John Davis seems to demand,
but you need to click it and watch the video to see where it is taken from - it's only 3:11 long.

By the way the Metabunk Curve Calculator (https://www.metabunk.org/curve/) puts the dip to the horizon as 3.8°.
Gee, maybe the earth really is a Globe. Who'd have thought it?
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: Alpha2Omega on February 15, 2017, 03:51:58 PM
Continued from my previous post (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69068.msg1869201#msg1869201)...

You must be mistaken.

This has been measured many times, and from multiple locations and it certainly does not prove a round earth. While some of these measurements certainly support round earth models

Indeed they do. Thank you. Given the nature of proof in science (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof), "proof" is a non-issue.

Quote
they also overwhelming support flat earth models.

Do you really think so? Why? If the earth were flat, how could the sun even be on the horizon at one place on earth and be directly above another place on earth a finite distance away at the same time? This is easy using the spherical earth and distant sun model. What do you have?
This is completely coherent with my model. Above this, it was explained in other models as well, albeit less elegantly.

Saying it's coherent doesn't mean it actually is, but maybe I'm thinking of the wrong model; the one I think you're talking about, based on the premise of the "shipping [container] experiment", has the surface of the earth as a flat plane and rays of light are straight lines. If so, it doesn't fit what we know happens.

Sunsets remain an enormous bugaboo for flat-earth models. They're easy to explain with a spherical earth, like everything else we observe, for the simple reason that the earth is a large sphere.

Quote
Rowbotham, I believe, dedicates a section of his book to this. In it, he uses the analogy of a stick with a circle on it. As you recede away from it, you will note that the bottom half of the circle appears to disappear until eventually it will appear as if the bottom is completely gone. This is much like the sun.
If you can provide a real reference instead of a vague "I think it's somewhere. Maybe." I'll look for it. Using simple geometry, however, there is no reason to believe an immobile circle on a stick would disappear from the bottom up as you recede from it on a plane. It's easy to see why it would on the surface of a sphere, however.

Quote
Quote
If the earth was a globe, we should see this in easily replicable experiments such as the one above. We do not.

Actually, we do, time and time again. Without fail. Maybe you don't see it, probably because you don't want to.
Except we don't see it in the experiment above, and we don't see it other easily replicable experiments such as Foucault Pendulums, aeroplane rides, and even the gravitational measurements of the planet (see gravitational anomaly maps.) There's a reason there are so many flatists about now clamouring for someone to "show them the curve." Its because they've looked for it and can't find it.
Quote
The problem is what you claim we should expect to see in these experiments seems to be different from what the real spherical-earth model predicts. IOW, that's a strawman argument.
Are you saying that the spherical earth model predicts that light would magically bend downwards?!

No. What makes you think I said that?

Another strawman.

Quote
Quote
Can you explain what you expect the shipping container experiment would show if the earth were a globe with a radius of about 6400 km, and how it differs from what it does show (or what you think it would would show if you actually performed it)? If you use math, please show and clearly explain your work.

I've asked for this before. You seem reluctant to provide it. You're making a claim you refuse to back up. Why?
I would expect the shipping crate to be lit starting upwards, and moving downwards throughout the day. This is in my original post. My math is "up is up, and down is down."

'If, as we are told, the earth is round then we would expect the top of the crate to be illuminated first - as it should have a better vantage point for the sun as it rises above a horizon.'

It is irrelevant how much of this top would be illuminated. This will differ based on the supposed size of the magical globe earth.

Exactly. The example you illustrated requires an earth radius of about 20 meters (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69068.msg1869201#msg1869201). Even you should know this is not a realistic model for the spherical earth. If you used a more reasonable value, like 6,000,000 meters for the earth radius (it's closer to 6,400,000m, but what's a few percent between friends), and a few dozen meters for the altitude of the top of the container, then made the relevant calculations (presuming you know how), you'd see the result differs only very slightly from the flat-earth results. Realistically, this experiment, if conducted, would fall into the 'ambiguous' category because it's too crude to tell the difference between a plane and the surface of a large sphere at the scale involved.

No magic required, just a realistic model and some high school math.

Quote
Quote

Such as? How significant is the adjustment? What is the justification given for the adjustment?

Are you attacking the idea a simple spherical model works well enough for a large number of problems, but a much more complex (but more accurate) ellipsoidal model is necessary when higher precision is needed, and an even more complex, but more accurate still, geoid is necessary to explain very small effects? Each has its own realm where it is most suitable, and the reasons for the differences between them are known.
 
Quote
Oh, could any man not be an amazing baseball player if only his hits were tallied? What if he refused, like the globe model, to leave the plate once he struck out?
Quote

Again, please explain why you think what happens with a properly-conducted "shipping container experiment" would be a strikeout? What do you think the spherical earth model would predict? How much does that differ from what the flat-earth model (assuming you could have a sunrise or sunset at all) would predict. Please show your reasoning in enough detail that it can be understood.

He would like us to believe you can see this curvature in the shadows of sticks in the ground, but not in the shadows of much larger shipping crates!

It sounds like you're referring to Eratosthenes. Shipping crates are tiny compared to the distances necessary to determine the radius of the spherical earth, using shadow lengths and basic equipment, with reasonable accuracy. The distance between them (hundreds of miles in Eratosthenes' case) is much more significant than the length of the whatever is casting the shadow.

Apparently it still stings. A Greek dude was getting better answers more than 2000 years ago, with a simpler model, using very simple measurements, than you can do today.

Quote
We have shown the globe to be false again and again through experiment, reason, and every one of our senses.

Citation needed. One clear and unambiguous example would be a start. Otherwise, this is yet another baseless bluster.

Quote
There can be no doubt that we are not swirling about space at ridiculous speeds, hanging from our feet like action figures tied to a centrifuge.

"Hanging from our feet." Lol.

The speeds are what they are; you call them ridiculous, but you're making inappropriate comparisons to human scale activities on earth. What is ridiculous is the sort of hyperbole you think has "shown the globe to be false". It's just words.
The fact of the matter is you haven't read the appropriate literature and have no legs to stand on when you say it is ridiculous hyperbole that the globe is false.

A vague reference to "appropriate literature" is not an example or evidence. It's an evasion.

Quote
Whether true or not, you don't have a counter-argument here because you have made yourself purposely ignorant to the truth - like a child singing a song and plugging his ears to avoid being told he has to eat his broccoli. [I like broccoli; always did if it wasn't overcooked. When lightly steamed, then tossed with melted butter and a little salt (optional) it's delicious, but don't let it cook too long - maybe 3 minutes for the tops and 5 minutes for the stems (peel the thickest part of the stems and cut into 1" sections before cooking)! My kids loved it this way when they were little, too, and they still do. You should try it if you think broccoli is icky!][Thanks... now I'm hungry!] Instead you rely upon me to read these books to you via forum post. A citation is not needed, you simply need to do your own research and stop relying upon me to explain every single stumbling step you have.

My research shows unequivocally that the earth is spherical. Everything presented in this site and elsewhere, and in literature like EnaG that argues that the earth is flat, has been shown to be either wrong (usually very easily) or no better than ambiguous (like your shipping container experiment). Maybe there's a better argument. If you think you have one, let's hear it, or see a reference to it.

Quote
Eratosthenes did nothing but assume the earth was round.

Well, no... he did far more than that. He made a damn good determination of its size.

Quote
In fact, he stole his work from the far earlier Taoist scientists that used the exact same experiment to show the earth was flat by not taking this assumption first. Additionally, this experiment has been repeated both by modern flatists as well as Rowbotham. The details to his experiment I believe are outlined within his work.

With different baseline lengths and locations you get different answers for the height of the sun if you assume the earth is flat. Rowbotham's "work" is fraught with errors. Much (most? all?) of his data can't be replicated. There's no evidence a lot of it was not simply made up; at the very least it was was poorly collected.

Quote
Now, you can quibble about angles all you want, but the fact is as the sun breaches the horizon, it is below the top of the shipping crate.

Ever so slightly, yes. I calculate 0.1° or less if the top is less than 10m above horizon level, which is difficult to tell without precision instruments. It's certainly nothing like the 39° your drawing shows [if you want to know how I calculated these angles ask - it involves basic trigonometry, though].

By the way, what did those earlier Taoist scientists say was happening when the sun breaches the horizon? Did they think the sun moved below the plane of the earth at sunset and reappeared in the other direction at sunrise? This is unlike more modern flat-earth notions that now at least recognize that the sun is above the horizon on at least part of the earth at all times. The former makes explaining sunsets vastly easier, but is counter to what we now know happens. This is, really, problem #1 facing anyone that wants to believe that the earth is flat.

Quote
Do not expect me to post in this thread again;

Smart idea.

"If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging."
 - Will Rogers

Quote
I will not be party to these silly attacks.

If you're tired of being reduced to silly attacks due to an absence of meaningful answers, that's another good reason to stay away.

Clearly, stepping away is the best solution. Let's see if you can stand to give your arguments up for dead, though.

[Edit] Fix malformed URL to earlier post.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: Mikey T. on February 21, 2017, 02:53:26 PM
Well, nice job with the experiment. 
Now for the LA LA LA LA LA LA CANT HEAR YOU MY FINGERS ARE IN MY EARS bit. 
(https://media.giphy.com/media/ENagATV1Gr9eg/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: rabinoz on February 21, 2017, 03:01:40 PM
As soon as the argument turns against them, the globularist inevitably turns to attacks against me. Obviously, I know high school trigonometry. Your ignorance of my theories regarding the flat earth does not change this. Why I continue to answer insolent children like you is beyond me. Yet here I am.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Now, you can quibble about angles all you want, but the fact is as the sun breaches the horizon, it is below the top of the shipping crate.

Do not expect me to post in this thread again; I will not be party to these silly attacks.
Yes John, "the fact is as the sun breaches the horizon, it is below the top of the shipping crate " by a whole 0.1° or one part in 500!

I believe that us Globalists could rightly say
As soon as the argument turns against them, these Flatties inevitably simply run away!

Bye bye John. Better luck next time!
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: FEskeptic on February 22, 2017, 05:41:15 PM
Basically, the sun would shine of the roof of the container if it was not for the earth being in the way.
You want the sun's rays shining upwards. You got the sun's rise shining upwards!
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Horizon/Sunrise%20from%2045000%20ft%20-%20Upward%20Slanting%20suns%20Rays_zpsaxew6ref.png)
Upward Slanting sun's Rays (http://)
This point shows upward slanting shadows, as John Davis seems to demand,
but you need to click it and watch the video to see where it is taken from - it's only 3:11 long.

By the way the Metabunk Curve Calculator (https://www.metabunk.org/curve/) puts the dip to the horizon as 3.8°.
Gee, maybe the earth really is a Globe. Who'd have thought it?

It would seem that Mr. Davis has never looked up in the sky at dawn or dusk on a clear day. You can literally see the shadow of the earth on the sky.

You can see Earth’s shadow any clear evening ascending in the eastern sky. The shadow is a deep blue-grey, and it’s darker than the blue of the twilight sky. The pink band above the shadow is called the Belt of Venus, and is caused by atmospheric scattering.

(http://www.atoptics.co.uk/atoptics/images1/es5_r1_c1.jpg)
(http://www.webexhibits.org/causesofcolor/images/content/earthShadowPlane-E08D1710-Z.jpg)

Oh look here's a shadow of a mountain on the sky, how do you explain this is a flat earth?
(http://www.twanight.org/newtwan/guests_photos/5001572.jpg)

How do you explain any of this in a flat earth model?


Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: FEskeptic on February 22, 2017, 05:43:48 PM
Mr. Davis, why do you think it is dark at night? Could it be because that side of the earth is in the earths shadow? I think it is.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: John Davis on October 30, 2019, 12:51:29 PM
Mr. Davis, why do you think it is dark at night? Could it be because that side of the earth is in the earths shadow? I think it is.
It is dark anywhere due to the obstruction of light. In this case, due to the fact that air is not transparent.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: MouseWalker on October 30, 2019, 04:37:46 PM
Oh dear! I just saw the underside of an airplane light by sunshine!
And the sun has set a couple of minutes ago!
It can't be true!
This is impossible!

My location allows me to see that on a regular basis, if I look for it, just a couple miles south of an airport that runs north and South.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: MouseWalker on October 30, 2019, 05:28:21 PM
Mr. Davis, why do you think it is dark at night? Could it be because that side of the earth is in the earths shadow? I think it is.
It is dark anywhere due to the obstruction of light. In this case, due to the fact that air is not transparent.
The obstruction is the earth, as that location, has rotated away from facing the sun.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: rabinoz on October 30, 2019, 06:00:34 PM
Mr. Davis, why do you think it is dark at night? Could it be because that side of the earth is in the earth's shadow? I think it is.
It is dark anywhere due to the obstruction of light. In this case, due to the fact that air is not transparent.
If "It is dark anywhere due to the obstruction of light. In this case, due to the fact that air is not transparent."

What is obstructing the light in these photos?
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/JIA5RP.jpg)
Sunset at Karumba on August 8, 2007 at 06:25:02 EAST with a 300 mm 35 mm equiv lens.

(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/deLz9c.jpg)
Sunset at Karumba on August 8, 2007 at 06:25:29 EAST with a 300 mm 35 mm equiv lens.

(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/CUSN9c.jpg)
Sunset at Karumba on August 8, 2007 at 06:25:57 EAST with a 300 mm 35 mm equiv lens.

The sun seems to go from just under the "top half" visible to being entirely obscured in a matter of 55 seconds.
Hence in this case, it does not seem to be "due to the fact that air is not transparent".

Any ideas?

<< Image host changed to https://resimyukle.xyz/ >>
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: SpaceCadet on October 30, 2019, 09:44:14 PM
Mr. Davis, why do you think it is dark at night? Could it be because that side of the earth is in the earths shadow? I think it is.
It is dark anywhere due to the obstruction of light. In this case, due to the fact that air is not transparent.

Air isn't transparent? Well that explains why I don't see anything anywhere.

Wait a minute....

This here statement proobes my belief that John Davis (and Tom Bishop by the way) do not really believe a flat earth. They are just trying to argue in favour of it.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: rvlvr on October 30, 2019, 10:13:34 PM
This is a good experiment, but I prefer the one with sticks and twine and audiences—even though there are no sailors, nor twenty dollar bills being handed to sailors.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: Crutchwater on October 31, 2019, 08:21:20 AM
Mr. Davis, why do you think it is dark at night? Could it be because that side of the earth is in the earths shadow? I think it is.
It is dark anywhere due to the obstruction of light. In this case, due to the fact that air is not transparent.

Yet, shortly after sunset, we can see stars on the horizon.

Are you claiming that stars are nearer to my eye than the sun?
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: John Davis on October 31, 2019, 08:23:10 AM
Mr. Davis, why do you think it is dark at night? Could it be because that side of the earth is in the earths shadow? I think it is.
It is dark anywhere due to the obstruction of light. In this case, due to the fact that air is not transparent.

Air isn't transparent? Well that explains why I don't see anything anywhere.

Wait a minute....

This here statement proobes my belief that John Davis (and Tom Bishop by the way) do not really believe a flat earth. They are just trying to argue in favour of it.
Air is not transparent. You might be aware that light is scattered as it travels through a medium of air and so it cannot travel indefinitely through it. This is why in many flat earth models the sun acts like a spotlight.


Mr. Davis, why do you think it is dark at night? Could it be because that side of the earth is in the earth's shadow? I think it is.
It is dark anywhere due to the obstruction of light. In this case, due to the fact that air is not transparent.
If "It is dark anywhere due to the obstruction of light. In this case, due to the fact that air is not transparent."

What is obstructing the light in these photos?
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/agflgl8bz3xhwfl/LHG-0693%20-%20Sunset%20Karumba%2020070808%2006.25.02%2C%20300%20mm.jpg?dl=1)
Sunset at Karumba on August 8, 2007 at 06:25:02 EAST with a 300 mm 35 mm equiv lens.

(https://www.dropbox.com/s/y3l9fm2orxrluxn/LHG-0697%20-%20Sunset%20Karumba%2020070808%2006.25.29%2C%20300%20mm.JPG?dl=1)
Sunset at Karumba on August 8, 2007 at 06:25:29 EAST with a 300 mm 35 mm equiv lens.

(https://www.dropbox.com/s/cyd7gg5jriln73b/LHG-0698%20-%20Sunset%20Karumba%2020070808%2006.25.57%2C%20300%20mm.JPG?dl=1)
Sunset at Karumba on August 8, 2007 at 06:25:57 EAST with a 300 mm 35 mm equiv lens.

The sun seems to go from just under the "top half" visible to being entirely obscured in a matter of 55 seconds.
Hence in this case, it does not seem to be "due to the fact that air is not transparent".

Any ideas?

Your image links seem to come up broken to me.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on October 31, 2019, 09:52:28 AM
This here statement proobes my belief that John Davis (and Tom Bishop by the way) do not really believe a flat earth. They are just trying to argue in favour of it.
No shit, Sherlock.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: markjo on October 31, 2019, 09:59:00 AM
Air is not transparent. You might be aware that light is scattered as it travels through a medium of air and so it cannot travel indefinitely through it.
What part of the definition of "transparent" stipulates that light must be able to travel unimpeded though it indefinitely? ???
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: John Davis on November 01, 2019, 12:00:58 PM
Air is not transparent. You might be aware that light is scattered as it travels through a medium of air and so it cannot travel indefinitely through it.
What part of the definition of "transparent" stipulates that light must be able to travel unimpeded though it indefinitely? ???
The definition of transparent is that it allows light to travel through it. Feel free to substitute another word if you feel there's a better way to put it. I'm sure there is.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: rabinoz on November 01, 2019, 01:56:36 PM
It is dark anywhere due to the obstruction of light. In this case, due to the fact that air is not transparent.
If "It is dark anywhere due to the obstruction of light. In this case, due to the fact that air is not transparent."

What is obstructing the light in these photos?
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/JIA5RP.jpg)
Sunset at Karumba on August 8, 2007 at 06:25:02 EAST with a 300 mm 35 mm equiv lens.

(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/deLz9c.jpg)
Sunset at Karumba on August 8, 2007 at 06:25:29 EAST with a 300 mm 35 mm equiv lens.

(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/CUSN9c.jpg)
Sunset at Karumba on August 8, 2007 at 06:25:57 EAST with a 300 mm 35 mm equiv lens.

The sun seems to go from just under the "top half" visible to being entirely obscured in a matter of 55 seconds.
Hence in this case, it does not seem to be "due to the fact that air is not transparent".

Any ideas?

Your image links seem to come up broken to me.

I don't know the cause of your broken links because they work fine for me on four separate devices that use three separate links to the internet.
Just in case the problem continues I changed the image host here and in the original post to the one wise uses at https://resimyukle.xyz/.
I hope that solves the problem.

They are my photos so that's how I know the location and times so accurately. The camera did not have a GPS link so the "absolute" time might be a minute or so off but the time span is correct.
TimeandDate.com shows sunset at Karumba Point that day at 6:25 PM EAST.

So I suggest that you "It is dark anywhere due to the obstruction of light." part is correct but
"It is" "due to the fact that air is not transparent" does not fit this case of sunset at Karumba.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: Crutchwater on November 01, 2019, 03:12:32 PM
Air is not transparent. You might be aware that light is scattered as it travels through a medium of air and so it cannot travel indefinitely through it.
What part of the definition of "transparent" stipulates that light must be able to travel unimpeded though it indefinitely? ???
The definition of transparent is that it allows light to travel through it. Feel free to substitute another word if you feel there's a better way to put it. I'm sure there is.

... So air becomes opaque enough to block sunlight, then shortly thereafter returns to transparent for us to see stars on the horizon?

Got it.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: Gumwars on November 01, 2019, 03:15:23 PM
Air is not transparent. You might be aware that light is scattered as it travels through a medium of air and so it cannot travel indefinitely through it.
What part of the definition of "transparent" stipulates that light must be able to travel unimpeded though it indefinitely? ???
The definition of transparent is that it allows light to travel through it. Feel free to substitute another word if you feel there's a better way to put it. I'm sure there is.

Are you being deliberately dense or is this yet another ruse in your near endless catalog of BS used to dodge getting pinned down on an answer?  Let's look at this a different way shall we?

So air is not transparent, according to you.  At what point, in your opinion, does air cease to be transparent?  At what distance and/or conditions is refraction sufficient to not just distort an image, but to cancel out completely a viewer's ability to see it, aided or unaided? 
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: markjo on November 01, 2019, 03:25:48 PM
The definition of transparent is that it allows light to travel through it. Feel free to substitute another word if you feel there's a better way to put it. I'm sure there is.
Since we can routinely see through several miles of atmosphere, I would think that it would be safe to say that it satisfies any reasonable definition of the word "transparent".  Since you're the one trying to make a point, perhaps you're the one who should find a better word.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: John Davis on November 01, 2019, 03:45:50 PM
Air is not transparent. You might be aware that light is scattered as it travels through a medium of air and so it cannot travel indefinitely through it.
What part of the definition of "transparent" stipulates that light must be able to travel unimpeded though it indefinitely? ???
The definition of transparent is that it allows light to travel through it. Feel free to substitute another word if you feel there's a better way to put it. I'm sure there is.

... So air becomes opaque enough to block sunlight, then shortly thereafter returns to transparent for us to see stars on the horizon?

Got it.
Stop presenting strawman. I said nothing of the sort.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: John Davis on November 01, 2019, 03:47:12 PM
The definition of transparent is that it allows light to travel through it. Feel free to substitute another word if you feel there's a better way to put it. I'm sure there is.
Since we can routinely see through several miles of atmosphere, I would think that it would be safe to say that it satisfies any reasonable definition of the word "transparent".  Since you're the one trying to make a point, perhaps you're the one who should find a better word.
We don't see anything through the atmosphere as it doesn't exist.

Has it occured to you that the air around the sun might well be more dense than that of the air near the surface of terra?

At any rate, its a known fact that the flat earth sun acts as a spotlight. I don't see why presenting a reasonable enough mention of a possible cause is warranting this much discussion.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: Gumwars on November 01, 2019, 04:01:03 PM
We don't see anything through the atmosphere as it doesn't exist.

That's a wild assumption.

Has it occured to you that the air around the sun might well be more dense than that of the air near the surface of terra?

And your evidence is what exactly?  Have you considered any implications an absurd idea like that might portend?  Why is the air near the sun more dense?  Again, my question that you have yet to answer, at what point does air become non-transparent?  At what density or distance?

At any rate, its a known fact that the flat earth sun acts as a spotlight.

Except running with that insane idea generates a number of paradoxical outcomes John.  A man of your intellect can easily arrive at those explainable conclusions without much assistance.  Do you need someone to list them so you can try to explain why those phenomena are not observed?

I don't see why presenting a reasonable enough mention of a possible cause is warranting this much discussion.

Because it isn't reasonable.  Making a baseless assertion that air density/distance is a factor in why we see the sunrise or set as we do or why certain objects are visible or not, without any factual evidence supporting it is why the discussion has arrived here.  If the FE Sun is 3000 miles away, then it seems logical that if we can see the Sun at that distance, then we should be able to see other objects that are at the same distance or closer without issue.  Especially when we have examples of the Sun being visible at the horizon and completely visible, then it should be no issue for us to view other objects distances of less than 3000 miles with little difficulty.  However, when I stand on the beach in Laguna Niguel and look west on a clear day, I cannot see Avalon on Catalina Island.  That is only 32 miles away.  I can see the island, but I cannot see the port of Avalon at the shore to that island.

Why is that John?
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: John Davis on November 01, 2019, 04:33:16 PM
We don't see anything through the atmosphere as it doesn't exist.

That's a wild assumption.
Its an assumption to say the earth is a sphere, and that poisons any idea of an atmo"sphere".

Quote
Has it occured to you that the air around the sun might well be more dense than that of the air near the surface of terra?

And your evidence is what exactly?  Have you considered any implications an absurd idea like that might portend?  Why is the air near the sun more dense?  Again, my question that you have yet to answer, at what point does air become non-transparent?  At what density or distance?
So why can't I see stars during the day?

Quote
At any rate, its a known fact that the flat earth sun acts as a spotlight.

Except running with that insane idea generates a number of paradoxical outcomes John.  A man of your intellect can easily arrive at those explainable conclusions without much assistance.  Do you need someone to list them so you can try to explain why those phenomena are not observed?
It is clear to any thinking man that the earth is flat. The conjecture of a spotlight sun is well supported in peer reviewed research.

Quote
I don't see why presenting a reasonable enough mention of a possible cause is warranting this much discussion.

Because it isn't reasonable.  Making a baseless assertion that air density/distance is a factor in why we see the sunrise or set as we do or why certain objects are visible or not, without any factual evidence supporting it is why the discussion has arrived here.  If the FE Sun is 3000 miles away, then it seems logical that if we can see the Sun at that distance, then we should be able to see other objects that are at the same distance or closer without issue.  Especially when we have examples of the Sun being visible at the horizon and completely visible, then it should be no issue for us to view other objects distances of less than 3000 miles with little difficulty.  However, when I stand on the beach in Laguna Niguel and look west on a clear day, I cannot see Avalon on Catalina Island.  That is only 32 miles away.  I can see the island, but I cannot see the port of Avalon at the shore to that island.

Why is that John?
Perhaps you should try using a telescope. You know, I'm not put on this earth to spoon feed Earth: Not A Globe to angry globularists.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: Gumwars on November 01, 2019, 04:46:59 PM
Its an assumption to say the earth is a sphere, and that poisons any idea of an atmo"sphere".

Okay.  If the term is that toxic to you, whatever.

So why can't I see stars during the day?

The gigantic ball of burning hydrogen tends to drown out weaker lights.

It is clear to any thinking man that the earth is flat. The conjecture of a spotlight sun is well supported in peer reviewed research.

To the first point, no, it is far from clear that the Earth is flat.  In fact, it requires some very complicated mental gymnastics to arrive at that conclusion.  Now, if you are a simpleton, and don't need much by way of logic, then it is a very easy thing to accept.  But like Weezer's Sweater all I need to do is hold this string as you walk away; it unravels under its own motion. 

To the second point, stop lying.  No really.  STOP LYING.  You shame REAL scientists across a spread of disciplines that are actually doing work to make the world a better place by claiming FE has anything published.  It was funny for about a minute, now its just showing your ass.

Perhaps you should try using a telescope. You know, I'm not put on this earth to spoon feed Earth: Not A Globe to angry globularists.

Aided or unaided, the Port of Avalon is not visible from the shore at Laguna Niguel.  No amount of magnification will bring it back into view.  This is a rhetorical question John.  I'm well aware of why it isn't visible but merely wanted to point out one of the several problems with your air density rubbish.  32 miles is nearly a factor of 100 less than what you claim the Earth's distance is to the Sun, yet Avalon is not visible.  Should it be?  According to your notion, yes.  In reality it isn't.  Care to advise as to what phenomena you believe is at work on this situation?
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: John Davis on November 01, 2019, 04:50:49 PM
Its an assumption to say the earth is a sphere, and that poisons any idea of an atmo"sphere".

Okay.  If the term is that toxic to you, whatever.

So why can't I see stars during the day?

The gigantic ball of burning hydrogen tends to drown out weaker lights.
No, actually the so called "transparent" air scatters the light.

Its call Rayleigh scattering bud.

Quote
It is clear to any thinking man that the earth is flat. The conjecture of a spotlight sun is well supported in peer reviewed research.

To the first point, no, it is far from clear that the Earth is flat.  In fact, it requires some very complicated mental gymnastics to arrive at that conclusion.  Now, if you are a simpleton, and don't need much by way of logic, then it is a very easy thing to accept.  But like Weezer's Sweater all I need to do is hold this string as you walk away; it unravels under its own motion. 

To the second point, stop lying.  No really.  STOP LYING.  You shame REAL scientists across a spread of disciplines that are actually doing work to make the world a better place by claiming FE has anything published.  It was funny for about a minute, now its just showing your ass.

Perhaps you should try using a telescope. You know, I'm not put on this earth to spoon feed Earth: Not A Globe to angry globularists.

Aided or unaided, the Port of Avalon is not visible from the shore at Laguna Niguel.  No amount of magnification will bring it back into view.  This is a rhetorical question John.  I'm well aware of why it isn't visible but merely wanted to point out one of the several problems with your air density rubbish.  32 miles is nearly a factor of 100 less than what you claim the Earth's distance is to the Sun, yet Avalon is not visible.  Should it be?  According to your notion, yes.  In reality it isn't.  Care to advise as to what phenomena you believe is at work on this situation?
You are incorrect. A telescope will bring it back into view. See the peer reviewed results of the Bishop Experiment.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: Gumwars on November 01, 2019, 05:07:17 PM
No, actually the so called "transparent" air scatters the light.

Its call Rayleigh scattering bud.

Yet another example of you being dishonest.  What causes Rayleigh scattering "bud"?  Oh, that's right, the gigantic ball of burning hydrogen.

You are incorrect. A telescope will bring it back into view. See the peer reviewed results of the Bishop Experiment.

Appealing to the echo chamber, eh John?  Tom Bishop's failed experiment in Monterrey does little to convince, seeing how he made the same mistake Rowbotham did and, shocker here, arrived at the same incorrect conclusion.  By the way, simply adding "Peer reviewed" to anything doesn't actually make it peer reviewed.  Care to provide a link to the peer review? 
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: John Davis on November 01, 2019, 05:18:47 PM
No, actually the so called "transparent" air scatters the light.

Its call Rayleigh scattering bud.

Yet another example of you being dishonest.  What causes Rayleigh scattering "bud"?  Oh, that's right, the gigantic ball of burning hydrogen.
Air not being transparent causes rayleigh scattering. How is your ignorance me being dishonest? Please cease your baseless attacks against me as they are against the rules and I'm not above enforcing them.

Quote
You are incorrect. A telescope will bring it back into view. See the peer reviewed results of the Bishop Experiment.

Appealing to the echo chamber, eh John?  Tom Bishop's failed experiment in Monterrey does little to convince, seeing how he made the same mistake Rowbotham did and, shocker here, arrived at the same incorrect conclusion.  By the way, simply adding "Peer reviewed" to anything doesn't actually make it peer reviewed.  Care to provide a link to the peer review? 
Rowbotham never performed the Bishop experiment, hence the name. You sure are keen on inventing the history of the flat earth society while at the same time knowing nothing of it.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: Crutchwater on November 01, 2019, 05:25:22 PM
Air is not transparent. You might be aware that light is scattered as it travels through a medium of air and so it cannot travel indefinitely through it.
What part of the definition of "transparent" stipulates that light must be able to travel unimpeded though it indefinitely? ???
The definition of transparent is that it allows light to travel through it. Feel free to substitute another word if you feel there's a better way to put it. I'm sure there is.

... So air becomes opaque enough to block sunlight, then shortly thereafter returns to transparent for us to see stars on the horizon?

Got it.
Stop presenting strawman. I said nothing of the sort.

You absolutely did!

You said "It is dark anywhere due to the obstruction of light. In this case, due to the fact that air is not transparent."

Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: John Davis on November 01, 2019, 05:30:22 PM
Which is not what you said I said.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: rabinoz on November 01, 2019, 06:40:01 PM
Since we can routinely see through several miles of atmosphere, I would think that it would be safe to say that it satisfies any reasonable definition of the word "transparent".  Since you're the one trying to make a point, perhaps you're the one who should find a better word.
We don't see anything through the atmosphere as it doesn't exist.

Has it occured to you that the air around the sun might well be more dense than that of the air near the surface of terra?
much discussion.
Let's change markjo's "Since we can routinely see through several miles of atmosphere"
 to "Since we can routinely see the sun and moon through hundreds of miles of atmosphere" - effectively about 200 miles anyway.

The full moon can be easily seen when a little above the horizon as in:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/7zdd4wfaapdbehe/P607%20-%20Full%20Moon%2C%2020190121%2019.11.37%2C%20Alt%203.5%C2%B0%20Az%2065%C2%B0.JPG?dl=1)
Full Moon, January 21, 2019 at 19:11:37 EAST, Altitude 3.5° Azimuth 65°
          And can be easily seen when just above the horizon as in:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/yuw9rrsqjhctlap/SUPER%20MOON%20CRUISE%21%21%21%20TUESDAY%2C%20FEBRUARY%2019th%20at%207.30%20PM.jpg?dl=1)
SUPER MOON CRUISE!!! TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 19th at 7.30 PM
This is not my photo but I'm sure we've all seen this sort of full moon rising.
Whether the earth is flat or spherical the sun or moon would viewed through at least a couple of hundred miles of atmosphere.
Now, based on the sun's apparent magnitude of -26.7 and the moon's of -12.6, the intensity of light from the sun should be about 440,000 times that of a full moon.

Here's some entertaining reading on that from almost 160 years ago:
Comparison of the Light of the Sun and Moon Author(s): George P. Bond Source: Memoirs of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, New Series, Vol. 8, No. 1 (1861), pp. 287-298 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/25057971.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Afb22c38896d9aaa751bad8b415b6544e)
Bond ended up claiming that, "Sunlight = 470 980 times the light of the mean Full Moon".

So if the sun is so much brighter than the moon how could the sun go from being fully visible to completely "obscured" over a period of only 2 minutes?

Quote from: John Davis
At any rate, its a known fact that the flat earth sun acts as a spotlight. I don't see why presenting a reasonable enough mention of a possible cause is warranting this much discussion.
So "its a known fact that the flat earth sun acts as a spotlight" is it? The 'Wiki" claims:
Quote
Spotlight effect
The Sun's area of light is limited to a circular area of light upon the earth much like the light of a lighthouse is limited to a finite circular area around it.
But, as seen below the Sun's area of light is never circular.

Sol, how can the pattern of the light from this "spotlight" change to match the pattern of light observed?
The patterns in the following video show how the shape of the pattern of the day-night areas on the flat-Earth to match that observed:

Changing shape of the Day and Night Areas on a flat-Earth
from: Day and Night Areas on a Flat Earth (https://flatearth.ws/day-night-area)


Just how does the pattern this "spotlight sun" manage to make the required changes in shape throughout the year.

Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: JackBlack on November 01, 2019, 06:54:00 PM
So why can't I see stars during the day?
Because the much brighter light from the sun scatters through the atmosphere washing out the much fainter stars.

It is clear to any thinking man that the earth is flat.
Quite the opposite.
All the available evidence points to a round Earth, not a flat one.
It is clear to any thinking person that Earth is round, not flat.

The conjecture of a spotlight sun is well supported in peer reviewed research.
By "peer reviewed research" do you mean wild claims spouted by FEers, or actual research?
Because the actual research shows the sun is a giant ball of plasma.

The only which appears to support a spotlight sun is the wild assumption that Earth is flat, which then needs some nonsense to stop the light from reaching everyone all the time.

Perhaps you should try using a telescope. You know, I'm not put on this earth to spoon feed Earth: Not A Globe to angry globularists.
The sheer difference between just before and just after sunrise is far too great for the atmosphere to be a cause.

If the sun was a spotlight it should vanish high in the sky. If it was the atmosphere being too thick, it would fade to a blur high in the sky, gradually growing fainter against the surrounding sky, until it is too faint and distorted to make out.

That does not match what is typically observed. Instead what is observed is the sun appear to set beyond the horizon, with Earth obstructing the view.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: Crutchwater on November 01, 2019, 07:10:49 PM
Which is not what you said I said.

Explain how it could be interpreted any other way?
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: markjo on November 01, 2019, 07:50:21 PM
No, actually the so called "transparent" air scatters the light.
How far does one need to see through a medium for it to fit your definition of transparent?
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: markjo on November 01, 2019, 08:08:59 PM
Rowbotham never performed the Bishop experiment, hence the name.
To be fair, Tom never provided enough documentation to adequately prove that he ever performed the Bishop experiment either.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: Gumwars on November 01, 2019, 08:19:19 PM
Air not being transparent causes rayleigh scattering. How is your ignorance me being dishonest? Please cease your baseless attacks against me as they are against the rules and I'm not above enforcing them.

Don't threaten me with a good time.

Rowbotham never performed the Bishop experiment, hence the name. You sure are keen on inventing the history of the flat earth society while at the same time knowing nothing of it.

The Bishop experiment was carried out in Monterrey, CA, and attempted to prove the Earth is flat by using a telescope to see the lighthouse across the bay in Santa Cruz, CA.  IT IS THE SAME EXPERIMENT.  The only difference is the distance and location.  The same flaw in Rowbotham's experiment was not accounted for in Bishop's, calculating for refraction, and both claimed victory without understanding all of the variables involved. 

Mr. Davis, I'm well aware of your nonsense.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: John Davis on November 04, 2019, 08:08:45 AM
Rowbotham never performed the Bishop experiment, hence the name.
To be fair, Tom never provided enough documentation to adequately prove that he ever performed the Bishop experiment either.
I recall him doing so beyond a reasonable doubt. Perhaps your reasonable doubt is higher than mine, but given my skepticism of a great many things and people here, I doubt it.

Air not being transparent causes rayleigh scattering. How is your ignorance me being dishonest? Please cease your baseless attacks against me as they are against the rules and I'm not above enforcing them.

Don't threaten me with a good time.

Rowbotham never performed the Bishop experiment, hence the name. You sure are keen on inventing the history of the flat earth society while at the same time knowing nothing of it.

The Bishop experiment was carried out in Monterrey, CA, and attempted to prove the Earth is flat by using a telescope to see the lighthouse across the bay in Santa Cruz, CA.  IT IS THE SAME EXPERIMENT.  The only difference is the distance and location.  The same flaw in Rowbotham's experiment was not accounted for in Bishop's, calculating for refraction, and both claimed victory without understanding all of the variables involved. 

Mr. Davis, I'm well aware of your nonsense.
Oh okay. I'm sure you can explain then how refraction would cause a telescope to remove or add said refraction?

Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: John Davis on November 04, 2019, 08:09:37 AM
Also his experiment has nothing to do with refraction and it's not even relevant.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: Unconvinced on November 04, 2019, 09:22:21 AM
Rowbotham never performed the Bishop experiment, hence the name.
To be fair, Tom never provided enough documentation to adequately prove that he ever performed the Bishop experiment either.
I recall him doing so beyond a reasonable doubt. Perhaps your reasonable doubt is higher than mine, but given my skepticism of a great many things and people here, I doubt it.

I’m sure the Bishop experiment was carried out to similar high standards as the Shipping Crate Experiment.

;)
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: John Davis on November 04, 2019, 09:26:51 AM
Do you feel its fair to Bishop to make such a judgement? To myself?
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: Unconvinced on November 04, 2019, 11:07:52 AM
Do you feel its fair to Bishop to make such a judgement? To myself?

You tell me.  I’ve never seen Tom’s results.

But you’re the one talking up your high level of scientific sceptism on same the thread where you proposed a silly “experiment” to allegedly prove a flat earth.  Which doesn’t make for a very convincing argument.

Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: John Davis on November 04, 2019, 11:46:35 AM
If you've never seen his results, then clearly it is not a fair judgement.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: JackBlack on November 04, 2019, 11:59:25 AM
I recall him doing so beyond a reasonable doubt. Perhaps your reasonable doubt is higher than mine, but given my skepticism of a great many things and people here, I doubt it.
If that was the case you would be quite sceptical of him as well.
Considering how you reject space travel as fake, even with all the evidence of it, that would mean you would never find that anyone has proven they have done something in reality beyond a reasonable doubt.

But could you clarify, just what is this "Bishop" experiment you refer to?
What is the evidence he provided for doing it?
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: Unconvinced on November 04, 2019, 02:17:43 PM
If you've never seen his results, then clearly it is not a fair judgement.

Perhaps you missed my smiley? 

Fine, if you want to turn this nonsense thread into a serious discussion, stump up the details of the experiment and I’ll give it a fair judgement.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: markjo on November 04, 2019, 06:01:36 PM
Also his experiment has nothing to do with refraction and it's not even relevant.
Anyone who understands how atmospheric refractive phenomena work knows why refraction is very relevant.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: EvolvedMantisShrimp on November 04, 2019, 06:10:21 PM
We don't see anything through the atmosphere as it doesn't exist.

Has it occured to you that the air around the sun might well be more dense than that of the air near the surface of terra?
Depends on how you define 'air'. If you are referring to the gas cocktail that surrounds Earth, then no. Because that would be impossible. However, if you are referring to an atmosphere, then Yes, the Sun has one and it is much less dense than Earth's atmosphere.

At any rate, its a known fact that the flat earth sun acts as a spotlight. I don't see why presenting a reasonable enough mention of a possible cause is warranting this much discussion.
It's not known because it's not a fact. It's also impossible. Due to the amount of energy the Sun releases, 'Spotlight Sun' would eventually become 'Rocket Sun'.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: Gumwars on November 05, 2019, 07:17:43 PM

Oh okay. I'm sure you can explain then how refraction would cause a telescope to remove or add said refraction?

Why would it add or remove refraction?  Better question is why do you think it would add or remove refraction?
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: John Davis on November 06, 2019, 12:49:26 PM

Oh okay. I'm sure you can explain then how refraction would cause a telescope to remove or add said refraction?

Why would it add or remove refraction?  Better question is why do you think it would add or remove refraction?
Because I'm aware of the experiment in question.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: rabinoz on November 06, 2019, 04:02:29 PM

Oh okay. I'm sure you can explain then how refraction would cause a telescope to remove or add said refraction?

Why would it add or remove refraction?  Better question is why do you think it would add or remove refraction?
Because I'm aware of the experiment in question.
If you are referring to either the Bedford Level experiment or the Bishop experiment I would say that refraction was highly important and a telescope would neither add or remove refraction.
This is especially so as both were performed very close to the surface of the water and the western coast of California is renowned for its cold ocean water welling up from deep Pacific Ocean currents.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: Unconvinced on November 07, 2019, 04:35:59 AM

Oh okay. I'm sure you can explain then how refraction would cause a telescope to remove or add said refraction?

Why would it add or remove refraction?  Better question is why do you think it would add or remove refraction?
Because I'm aware of the experiment in question.

Oh for God's sake, that really is a non answer.

If this experiment is such great evidence for a flat earth, why are you so reluctant to say what the results were, or what conclusions your drew from them?
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: Gumwars on November 08, 2019, 04:07:01 PM

Oh okay. I'm sure you can explain then how refraction would cause a telescope to remove or add said refraction?

Why would it add or remove refraction?  Better question is why do you think it would add or remove refraction?
Because I'm aware of the experiment in question.

John, do you ever or have you ever actually answered a question?  You respond a-plenty but you rarely if ever actually answer.  I feel like I'm interacting with a slightly more sophisticated Eliza program...
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: Unconvinced on November 08, 2019, 04:14:03 PM

John, do you ever or have you ever actually answered a question?  You respond a-plenty but you rarely if ever actually answer.  I feel like I'm interacting with a slightly more sophisticated Eliza program...

Is that like Alexa?  Does it have different names in different countries?

Satan goes by many names...

Edit:  Ah crap.  Forgot which thread I was on.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: Gumwars on November 08, 2019, 04:24:34 PM

John, do you ever or have you ever actually answered a question?  You respond a-plenty but you rarely if ever actually answer.  I feel like I'm interacting with a slightly more sophisticated Eliza program...

Is that like Alexa?  Does it have different names in different countries?

Satan goes by many names...

Edit:  Ah crap.  Forgot which thread I was on.

Lol, I think my age is showing...

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/ELIZA
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: Unconvinced on November 08, 2019, 04:36:00 PM

John, do you ever or have you ever actually answered a question?  You respond a-plenty but you rarely if ever actually answer.  I feel like I'm interacting with a slightly more sophisticated Eliza program...

Is that like Alexa?  Does it have different names in different countries?

Satan goes by many names...

Edit:  Ah crap.  Forgot which thread I was on.

Lol, I think my age is showing...

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/ELIZA

Yay!  Before my time.

Does that make me cool and down with the kids again?  I was starting to think I’d lost it, so thanks.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: Gumwars on November 08, 2019, 05:09:30 PM

John, do you ever or have you ever actually answered a question?  You respond a-plenty but you rarely if ever actually answer.  I feel like I'm interacting with a slightly more sophisticated Eliza program...

Is that like Alexa?  Does it have different names in different countries?

Satan goes by many names...

Edit:  Ah crap.  Forgot which thread I was on.

Lol, I think my age is showing...

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/ELIZA

Yay!  Before my time.

Does that make me cool and down with the kids again?  I was starting to think I’d lost it, so thanks.

You're welcome...I think?
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: John Davis on November 08, 2019, 08:27:02 PM
The way that can be named, is not the Way.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: Gumwars on November 08, 2019, 08:27:57 PM
The way that can be named, is not the Way.

What is a good man, but a bad man's teacher.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: John Davis on November 08, 2019, 08:32:35 PM
The way that can be named, is not the Way.

What is a good man, but a bad man's teacher.
A fool. He is a fool. Show me the good man, and I'll give you an answer. Likewise for the bad man...
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: John Davis on November 08, 2019, 08:35:52 PM
When you deconstruct the other, and the beyond it becomes quickly obvious - we are not where we seem to be. The falcon may not hear the falconer - but he hears the echos. The bits that tie to concordance. To rationality. He strives to make order out of nonsense - it is our task as man. We make so called order out of so called chaos.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: Gumwars on November 08, 2019, 08:46:57 PM
The way that can be named, is not the Way.

What is a good man, but a bad man's teacher.
A fool. He is a fool. Show me the good man, and I'll give you an answer. Likewise for the bad man...

I don't recall that in Lao Tze's teachings.  Nor do I believe your quote from the Tao Te Ching keeping with his intent.  Show me a anyone that is willing to recognize his own failings, all of them in a row, and I'll say he is not a fool, but a man. 

This exercise here isn't to make order out of nonsense.  It's the opposite.  You don't work to find order; you are an agent of chaos.  You claim all the trappings of a man born of logic and wisdom yet this entire voyage is an affront to it. 

You may have good works in the real world John Davis, but not here.  Here is a room full of the jester and his lot. 
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: John Davis on November 08, 2019, 08:51:44 PM
I have no works; the work is done.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: Gumwars on November 08, 2019, 08:54:01 PM
Have you not played the part well...

Glad to see the reflective, introspective you is equally devoid of substance.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: John Davis on November 08, 2019, 08:56:46 PM
The way that can be named, is not the Way.

What is a good man, but a bad man's teacher.
A fool. He is a fool. Show me the good man, and I'll give you an answer. Likewise for the bad man...

I don't recall that in Lao Tze's teachings.  Nor do I believe your quote from the Tao Te Ching keeping with his intent.  Show me a anyone that is willing to recognize his own failings, all of them in a row, and I'll say he is not a fool, but a man. 

This exercise here isn't to make order out of nonsense.  It's the opposite.  You don't work to find order; you are an agent of chaos.  You claim all the trappings of a man born of logic and wisdom yet this entire voyage is an affront to it. 

You may have good works in the real world John Davis, but not here.  Here is a room full of the jester and his lot. 
I'm sorry, it just can't be named. I have tried.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: John Davis on November 08, 2019, 08:57:45 PM
Have you not played the part well...

Glad to see the reflective, introspective you is equally devoid of substance.
oh my, fru fru, fra fra.

The substance you define to facts might be better served as evidence.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: Gumwars on November 08, 2019, 09:03:31 PM
Have you not played the part well...

Glad to see the reflective, introspective you is equally devoid of substance.
oh my, fru fru, fra fra.

The substance you define to facts might be better served as evidence.

In this kangaroo court?  By all means prosecutor, do your worst.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: John Davis on November 08, 2019, 09:07:21 PM
Oh walla waLLA!
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: markjo on November 09, 2019, 03:51:12 PM
I think that Bullhorn hacked John's account.  Either that or John got into Bullhorn's drug supply.
Title: Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
Post by: frenat on November 09, 2019, 04:20:11 PM

John, do you ever or have you ever actually answered a question?  You respond a-plenty but you rarely if ever actually answer.  I feel like I'm interacting with a slightly more sophisticated Eliza program...

Is that like Alexa?  Does it have different names in different countries?

Satan goes by many names...

Edit:  Ah crap.  Forgot which thread I was on.

Lol, I think my age is showing...

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/ELIZA
Heiwa is closer to being ELIZA. He's been accused of it multiple times in the past.