Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - jdoe

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 13
1
Quote
The claim of an illusion along with some vague explanation concerning optics or physics isn't proof that the explanation is true.

Sort of like the explanation for the sinking ship effect?

2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Holes in the RET?
« on: January 13, 2009, 11:33:18 PM »
Quote
Water is not convex

Rowbotham's experiments have been conducted many times in the 150 year history of the Flat Earth Society. Just check out the link in my signature. A woman named Lady Bount was among the first to provided photographic evidence for a Flat Earth -

"The Old Bedford Level was the scene of further experiments over the years, until in 1904, photography was used to prove that the earth is flat. Lady Blount, a staunch believer in the zetetic method hired a photographer, Mr Cifton of Dallmeyer's who arrived at the Bedford Level with the firm's latest Photo-Telescopic camera. The apparatus was set up at one end of the clear six-mile length, while at the other end Lady Blount and some scientific gentlemen hung a large, white calico sheet over the Bedford bridge so that the bottom of it was near the water. Mr Clifton, lying down near Welney bridge with his camera lens two feet above the water level, observed by telescope the hanging of the sheet, and found that he could see the whole of it down to the bottom. This surprised him, for he was an orthodox globularist and round-earth theory said that over a distance of six miles the bottom of the sheet should bemore than 20 feet below his line of sight. His photograph showed not only the entire sheet but its reflection in the water below. That was certified in his report to Lady Blount, which concluded: "I should not like to abandon the globular theory off-hand, but, as far as this particular test is concerned, I am prepared to maintain that (unless rays of light will travel in a curved path) these six miles of water present a level surface."

The description clearly shows refraction is happening.  How can one see a reflection in the water when one is only 2 ft above the surface?  This is very similar to a mirage that one sees in hot weather where there are upside down images of objects on the horizon.

Quote
From "100 Proofs the earth is not a globe" by William Carpenter we read -

36. If we take a journey down the Chesapeake Bay, by night, we shall see the "light" exhibited at Sharpe's Island for an hour before the steamer gets to it. We may take up a position on the deck so that the rail of the vessel's side will be in a line with the "light" and in the line of sight; and we shall find that in the whole journey the light will won't vary in the slightest degree in its apparent elevation. But, say that a distance of thirteen miles has been traversed, the astronomers' theory of "curvature" demands a difference (one way or the other!) in the apparent elevation of the light, of 112 feet 8 inches! Since, however, there is not a difference of 100 hair's breadths, we have a plain proof that the water of the Chesapeake Bay is not curved, which is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

Where is the eyewitness account and data to back up this assertion?

Quote
If the earth were a globe then lighthouses should be seen, at a certain distance, to be below the horizon

From "100 Proofs the earth is not a globe" by William Carpenter we read -

5. The lights which are exhibited in lighthouses are seen by navigators at distances at which, according to the scale of the supposed "curvature" given by astronomers, they ought to be many hundreds of feet, in some cases, down below the line of sight! For instance: the light at Cape Hatteras is seen at such a distance (40 miles) that, according. to theory, it ought to be nine-hundred feet higher above the level of the sea than it absolutely is, in order to be visible! This is a conclusive proof that there is no "curvature," on the surface of the sea - "the level of the sea,"- ridiculous though it is to be under the necessity of proving it at all: but it is, nevertheless, a conclusive proof that the Earth is not a globe.

How do ships know how far away they are from a lighthouse?

Quote
The North Star can be seen beyond the equator

The North Star can actually be seen at over 20 degrees beyond the equator before disappearing to perspective, an impossibility on a Round Earth. This is a proof for a Flat Earth. Samuel Birley Rowbotham reports observing the North Star at 23.5 degrees beyond the equator. William Carpenter includes this well known discrepancy as proof number 71 in a book entitled "A hundred proofs the earth is not a globe." -

71. The astronomers' theory of a globular Earth necessitates the conclusion that, if we travel south of the equator, to see the North Star is an impossibility. Yet it is well known this star has been seen by navigators when they have been more than 20 degrees south of the equator. This fact, like hundreds of other facts, puts the theory to shame, and gives us a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

That is absolute bullshit.  Where are the first-hand accounts to verify this claim?

Quote
A half sunken ship can be restored through the aid of a telescope

This is an impossibility on the Round Earth model. If the ship's hull were really behind a hill of water and not just lost due to perspective merging the water and hull in the distance then it would be impossible to restore the ship's hull with the aid of a telescope.

Thomas Winship writes about it in his book Zetetic Cosmogony:
http://i17.tinypic.com/89h8v9y.gif
http://i24.tinypic.com/wjxpg6.png
http://i21.tinypic.com/dfjfoj.png
http://i24.tinypic.com/123qgd3.png
http://i23.tinypic.com/2l9hxrs.png

There are also accounts of restored hulls in the book Cellular Cosmogony by Cyrus Teed:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/cc/cc21.htm

The fact that half sunken ships can be restored with the aid of a telescope due to perspective proves that the ship was not behind a "hill of water" and that the earth is not really convex.

I see a tiny ship on the horizon with eyes.  How exactly can I tell how much of it appears sunken?  It's too small to tell, and it can be very subjective.  Those FE pioneers were biased and convinced themselves ships appeared sunken when they really were not.  Also, consider that none of the evidence posted on this forum has ever supported that sunken ships can be restored.

Quote
Distances between latitudes should are farther apart in the South

From "100 Proofs the earth is not a globe" by William Carpenter:

16. If the, Earth were a globe, the distance round its surface at, say, 45 "degrees" south latitude, could not possibly be any greater than it is at the same latitude north; but, since it is found by navigators to be twice the distance -- to say the least of it -- or, double the distance it ought to be according to the globular theory, it is a proof that the Earth is not a globe

If the earth were a globe the horizon line would not be at eye level

Where is the data to back up this assertion?

Quote
If the earth were a globe the horizon line would not be at eye level

From "100 Proofs the earth is not a globe" by William Carpenter we read -

30. If the Earth were a globe, an observer who should ascend above its surface would have to took downwards at the horizon (if it be possible to conceive of a horizon at all under such circumstances) even as astronomical diagrams indicate that angles - varying from ten to nearly fifty degrees below the "horizontal" line of sight! (It is just as absurd as it would be to be taught that when we look at a man full in the face we are looking down at his feet!) But, as no observer in the clouds, or upon any eminence on the earth, has ever had to do so, it follows that the diagrams spoken of are imaginary and false; that the theory which requires such things to prop it up is equally airy and untrue; and that we have a substantial proof that Earth is not a globe.

Where is the math to back this up?  By my calculation, the angle the horizon is below eye level is cos-1(r/(r+h)) on a RE.  Even at a height of 1 km, the angle is only about 1 degree, which is hardly perceptible.

Quote
If the earth was a globe surveyors would make allowance for the earth's curvature

From "100 Proofs the earth is not a globe" by William Carpenter we read -

3. Surveyors' operations in the construction of railroads, tunnels, or canals are conducted without the slightest "allowance" being made for "curvature," although it is taught that this so-called allowance is absolutely necessary! This is a cutting proof that Earth is not a globe.

According to Lynn Nelson, who once worked as a surveyor,

"Well, a surveyor can operate using standard geometry for nine miles. Beyond that distance, the curvature of the Earth becomes a factor, and the surveyor has to switch his calculations of lines to spherical geometry and his computation of angles to spherical trigonometry."

http://www.kancoll.org/articles/nelson/surveyor.htm











3
Uh, Tom, the orbit of the Earth is very nearly circular.  That's why the sun appears to be at the center.  Also, those diagrams are in perspective.  Also, learn physics, and you'll see why the sun has to be at the focus.

The nearness of the sun varying due to an elliptical orbit has negligible effect on the seasons.  It is the axial tilt of the Earth that causes the analemma.  The elliptical orbit only makes the figure-8 shape asymmetrical.

4
Quote
Do you have any data to back up that assertion?

It's common knowledge. Look it up on Google.

I've never heard of it.  I think you are making it up.  Where's the data?

Quote
Quote
Shouldn't it be the other way around?

No. There are more rays bending upwards and making U-Turns when the sun is at a greater altitude. At a lower altitude more rays are able to intersect with the earth's surface.

http://i34.tinypic.com/219xuo4.gif


You've got it the other way around.

5
Quote
Yes, the Southern Hemisphere is hotter than the Northern Hemisphere.

Do you have any data to back up that assertion?

Quote
And the larger spotlight when the sun is in the south is caused by the bendy light effect. The spotlight grows smaller when the sun is far from the earth and grows bigger when the sun is close to the earth.

Shouldn't it be the other way around?

Also, a circular spotlight cannot possible account for lengths of day in the Southern hemisphere.

6
Quote
Wouldn't that make the sunlight noticeably less intense during the southern hemiplane summer (light intensity follows the inverse square rule, doesn't it)?

Nah. The sun is only changing an altitude of about 2000 miles. There wouldn't be much of a change to its intensity. The rays of the sun aren't shining through any more atmosphere then it is higher up.

Let's see.  The sun is a point source, so it's intensity falls off as 1/r^2.  Therefore the ratio of intensity when the sun is 3000 miles high to when it is 1000 miles high is 3000^2/1000^2 ~ 9.  Nine times as intense.  That is noticeable.

7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The FE sun is impossible [revisited]
« on: September 15, 2008, 04:43:57 PM »
Quote
  -Therefore the field is does not get weaker with distance. 
  -Therefore we should (on the ground) be able to "feel" or detect this immensely strong, light-bending gravitation.  We can't.
  -Therefore the hypothesis is rejected.

You're assuming that the gravitational field acts the same way on matter as it does on light. You're wrong.

First off no one knows exactly what a gravitational field is. Neither is it known how susceptible light is to gravitational fields. In the Round Earth model someone looks into a filtered telescope, sees the sun pass in front of a star - sees the star's light warped around it and proclaims - "ah ha!, since the sun is 93 million miles away and 900,000 miles in diameter, it must take a gravitational field of this size to affect photons to the observed degree." But what happens when to the susceptibility of light in a gravitational field when the sun is really 3000 miles away and 32 miles in diameter?

I suspect that the real answer is that several million g's isn't necessary, and that light is just more susceptible to gravitational fields than previously thought.

Until you can show me a controlled experiment which has tested the behavior of light in a gravitational field, your analysis on how light should be have in a gravitational field is stupid at best.

Remember Tom, gravity=acceleration.   In accelerating reference frames, light and matter are acted upon equally, and it's easy to figure out how much light bends.  The harder you accelerate the more light bends.  It's not hard to show that an acceleration of several million g's is necessary to bend light as required by FE.

8
The Lounge / Re: .99999 does not equal 1
« on: September 04, 2008, 06:01:11 PM »
Could we perhaps attain light speed if we travelled at 299792457.999...m/s?

Is this better?

9
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: daylight times
« on: August 31, 2008, 08:14:26 PM »
I'm in too.  We definitely need people in the southern hemisphere(plane), that's where the biggest problem with FET is.

10
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Can you disprove the Flat Earth Theory?
« on: August 31, 2008, 08:04:12 PM »
Why don't round earther's set up a series of experiments that would prove a round earth and do them theirselves? Or is that too much to ask?

What would you accept as evidence?  Water level experiments won't work; you'll just claim that light is bending upwards.

11
Well to put it simple, Classical Relativity says frames of reference effect physics while Modern Relativity says they don't.

In inertial frames of reference.  An accelerating car is a non-inertial frame of reference.  Newton's laws of motion don't hold.

12
Quote
But anyways I'll stay by my belief of modern relativity and that there is a force pushing you into the back of the chair when you accelerate in a car.

'Modern relativity' indicates no such thing.

13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
« on: August 30, 2008, 03:48:05 PM »
Quote
So you have high school physics under your belt and want to pursue physics in college, cool. Well it seems you have your work cut out for you with your light bends up theory, how can it be demonstrated?

Shine a laser beam across a mile long lake. The photons on the receiving end should arrive at a slightly higher altitude. This is evidence that the earth is curved.

Fixed.

14
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Cloud question and clarification
« on: August 27, 2008, 07:18:16 PM »
Quote
When one looks up into the night sky he is looking at stars all around him. Of course it's going to look like a dome.

And the stars will travel in perfect circular arcs?  Light bends in such a way that the stars travel in circular arcs.  Do you realize how utterly improbable it is that light happens to bend in a way to make that happen?  And the elevation of the North Star corresponding to one's latitude?  What are the chances light bends like that?  Every star rotates with the same angular velocity?  What are the chances that a swirling gravitationally bound system would do that?

The only reasonable explanation without relying on numerous coincidences is that the Earth is spherical and that it or the heavens are rotating uniformly.

Quote
Read this: http://milesmathis.com/caven.html

One person who has whackjob views on gravity and no understanding of general relativity speculates on flaws with the Cavendish experiment.  How does that prove anything?  Where is your data?

15
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Cloud question and clarification
« on: August 27, 2008, 05:34:39 PM »
Quote
Aha!  So what about the Rowbotham experiments?  Shouldn't they be affected too?  Were his results affected by refraction, was he lying or simply mistaken?

I'm thinking it has something to do with scale and exactly how shallow of a curve the light rays are bending as they proceed through their course. Depending on the particulars Rowbotham's experiments over the six mile stretch of the Bedford Canal may be entirely compatible with the bending-light theory.

That's doubtful.  Ask Robosteve for his ideas on the matter.

Quote
Quote
I'm referring to evidence that light bends instead of the Earth curving.  That experiment is also explained by RE.  There is no evidence which suggests light is bending instead of the Earth curving.

There is no experiment which suggests that the earth is curving rather than photons curving. All of your experiments are also explained by FE.

I disagree.  Look at the heavens.  A round earth requires that stars travel across the sky in perfect circular arcs.  Equatorial mount telescopes take advantage of this fact.  I find that light bending in such a way to make stars appear travel in perfect circular arcs in a giant celestial sphere is too big of coincidence to believe.

In addition, a round earth requires that the sidereal day (the period with which the stars rotate 23 hours 56 minutes) and the solar day (usual 24 hour day) be related by the ratio

length of year/(length of year + 1 day)=365.24/(365.24+1)= .99727

That this observed is yet another coincidence that I cannot believe if the Earth was really flat.

Quote
Quote
However, there is evidence that universal gravitation exists.

I walked off of the edge of my chair just now. I didn't see any evidence of universal gravitation between masses. I just the saw the earth accelerate upwards to meet me.


See Cavendish experiments and gravimetry.  The existence of universal gravitation strongly suggests the Earth must be round.

16
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Cloud question and clarification
« on: August 27, 2008, 04:56:09 PM »
Quote
Proof?

Shine a laser beam exactly one foot in altitude over a mile-long lake or canal. At the receiving end the beam should arrive higher than one foot in altitude.

This is evidence that light bends upwards.


Aha!  So what about the Rowbotham experiments?  Shouldn't they be affected too?  Were his results affected by refraction, was he lying or simply mistaken?

Quote
Sure there is. Shine a laser beam over a one mile long lake and you'll see that the receiving photons arrive at a higher altitude.

I'm referring to evidence that light bends instead of the Earth curving.  That experiment is also explained by RE.  There is no evidence which suggests light is bending instead of the Earth curving.

However, there is evidence that universal gravitation exists.  This suggests that the Earth is curving instead of light bending.  The celestial sphere also suggests the Earth is curving.

17
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Cloud question and clarification
« on: August 27, 2008, 04:16:36 PM »
May I ask what does bend the light upwards? What force, object or whatever, and the system

The mechanism is a special sub-atomic graviton particle too small to see or detect.

How ironic.  Either gravitons cause gravitation and cause the Earth to be round, or the earth is flat and gravitons bend light. 

Which would you rather believe?

Keep in mind, we do have evidence that all mass/energy attracts mass/energy (Cavendish experiments, gravimetric surveys, etc) and no proof that light bends upward.

18
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Motion.
« on: August 27, 2008, 02:49:07 PM »
Yeah, this is Zeno's Paradox.  I'm sure there is a good Wikipedia article on it.

19
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Polaris and Sigma Octanis
« on: August 27, 2008, 03:05:40 AM »
Quote
Your star maps aren't even accurate enough for such an analysis. Unless you think it's possible to accurately map a celestial hemisphere onto a flat map and vice versa. It's physically impossible to map a series of points on the interior of a dome onto a flat surface with any accuracy.

It's called a coordinate system Tom.  Virtually every visible star has been assigned a celestial coordinate called declination and right ascension.  Knowing ones latitude and time of day with this coordinate allows one to find a star easily.  It's basic astronomy Tom.  I suggest you try it. 

20
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Polaris and Sigma Octanis
« on: August 27, 2008, 02:52:32 AM »
Quote
From the volcanic Hawaiian island Mauna Loa in the Northern Hemisphere it's easy to see that the Southern Cross is traveling around the North Star over a 24 hour period.

Tom, if you knew anything about astronomy, you'd realize there is nothing unusual about that picture and it does not prove that the Crux rotates around the north star.  The Southern Cross can be seen from northern latitudes up to 30o and still rotate around the south celestial pole. 

Remember those star trail photos from the equator?  You can see both celestial poles at the same time on the horizon as stars arc overhead.  Now as you move north, the south celestial pole dips below the horizon and north pole raises above it.  According to charts the Crux is about 30o from the south celestial pole, so you would have to go 30o north of the equator to see it permanently below the horizon as the stars rotate above.  Since Hawaii is at about 25o, that photo you have is perfectly consistent with this explanation.

What I don't understand is why you deny the first-hand accounts of people who live in the southern hemisphere and the 4.5 rule I stated earlier.  It seems you are the one without any evidence to back your claim.

21
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Polaris and Sigma Octanis
« on: August 26, 2008, 02:07:44 AM »
Quote
If you look at the positions that Cook lists in his reports for islands and landmarks, they line up closely with modern charts.  In places, there are surveys made in the late 19th century that still provide the basis for modern charts.

I'd like to get my hands on some of Cook's logs and charts.  I suspect they would disprove many things about FE.

22
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Polaris and Sigma Octanis
« on: August 26, 2008, 01:47:53 AM »
Quote
If the Southern Cross were rotating around the Northern disk it would still be pointing southward towards Antarctica as it rotated over each observer. I don't see what's so hard about that concept to grasp.

Just pointing southward isn't sufficient to determine south with any accuracy, especially if it is on the opposite side of the sky.  You must know how far away the cross is from the celestial pole.  All navigators know it's 4.5 lengths from the pole.  How can you deny this fact?  Every star map in existence says the Crux is close to the pole.  People who live in the southern hemisphere say so.  What will it take to convince you?

23
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Polaris and Sigma Octanis
« on: August 26, 2008, 01:23:07 AM »
Tom, why do you insist on making this incredibly stupid argument?  Everyone who has used the Southern Cross to navigate knows it is 4.5 lengths from the celestial pole.  That's the essence of how the Southern Cross is used to find south.  If the Crux somehow varied its distance from the pole or was far away from it, it wouldn't even be useful to find south.  People who actually live in the southern hemisphere are trying to tell you that its position is correct in the photos.

24
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
« on: August 24, 2008, 11:40:48 PM »
The second picture is wrong.  It's from altitude.  The correct picture from ground is http://img520.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9358005smallpc3.jpg.

The ship still appears sunk.

25
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
« on: August 24, 2008, 11:36:50 PM »
Yes, he does.  Check again.

26
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
« on: August 24, 2008, 11:31:44 PM »
Whoa, Tom, let's keep in mind what the title of this thread is.  In my time here, I have seen you expound the sinking ship effect as evidence for FE over and over again.  Yet, when someone actually went out with a telescope and decided to verify these claims, the results were totally contradictory to what is predicted by the FE literature and what you have claimed here time and time again.  It seems your model has failed most spectacularly.

The FE literature has always predicted a sinking ship.

It also predicts that the ship should be restored by telescope.  The pictures show the opposite.

27
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Question
« on: August 24, 2008, 10:57:14 PM »

28
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
« on: August 24, 2008, 10:55:14 PM »
Whoa, Tom, let's keep in mind what the title of this thread is.  In my time here, I have seen you expound the sinking ship effect as evidence for FE over and over again.  Yet, when someone actually went out with a telescope and decided to verify these claims, the results were totally contradictory to what is predicted by the FE literature and what you have claimed here time and time again.  It seems your model has failed most spectacularly.

29
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Bendy light: The maths
« on: August 22, 2008, 09:23:06 AM »
OK, let me give you guys my approach to the problem; it's long so be patient...

and the answer is... four?
Yup....that's what I got.  Definitely 4.

LOL.

But anyway, I don't like the idea of light being accelerated.  The only way the path of photons can be bent is through gravitation or interaction with a medium.  I've done the calculations for gravitation, and the field would have to be enormous.  We'd all be dead.

I have another idea that I think is more elegant.  I propose the existence of a quintessence permeating all space.  This quintessence has negative equation of state, P = wϵ, where w < -1/3.  (This is the same property of dark energy in RET)  This means that for any energy density of quintessence, there will be negative pressure.  This negative pressure is what makes dark energy so interesting.

Now I assume that there is a vertical gradient in the quintessence.  The energy density of the quintessence increases as one moves upwards.  By the equation above, there is also a pressure gradient.

Consider the earth trapped in this pressure gradient.  It feels a strong negative pressure pulling it upwards from the top.  On the bottom, the negative pressure is slightly less.  The difference between the two pressures gives rise to a buoyant force which pushes the earth upwards at 9.8m/s2.

Now, here is the interesting part.  The density of the quintessence increases with height, so presumably so does its index of refraction towards light, possibly in a nonlinear way.  The increase of refractive index with height is exactly what is needed to bend light to cause sunrises/sunsets, sinking ship effect, etc.   Keep in mind it was the negative pressure property of dark energy that made this possible.

Thoughts, criticisms?

30
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Polaris and Sigma Octanis
« on: August 21, 2008, 08:43:58 PM »
Quote
That's not the Southern Cross. I don't know what that is. One of Cross stars don't even match where the star trail ends. Whoever made that picture was obviously just guessing and trying to fit a cross somewhere for some school astronomy project.

LOL.  The star trails match up perfectly in both photos.  Navigators have used the Crux for centuries.  One of the rules they use to find south is to extend the long arm of the Crux 4.5 times its length right to the pole.  The photos I have provided are consistent with this.  Would someone from the southern hemisphere please just confirm these facts for Tom?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 13