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.


Topics - jdoe

Pages: [1]
1
Flat Earth Debate / Conducting Rowbotham Experiment
« on: August 06, 2008, 08:02:57 PM »
I have for some time wanted to do the Rowbotham experiments for myself, so today, I seriously got to thinking about how I would do it.  I found a really nice lake nearby that I can look across with a telescope.  Here is a picture of it from Google Earth.

I did some scouting around the lake, and I found two points where I could set up the equipment.  On the right is a beach where I plan to set my telescope.  On the left is a little promontory sticking out onto the lake where I can set some sort of target I can look for.  The distance between the two points is 6.05 miles, almost exactly what Rowbotham had.

Here is the telescope I plan to use,

the Meade ETX-70.  The diameter is 70mm, focal length is 350mm, and the maximum magnification is 240x.  I plan to take the telescope as close to water level as I can on the beach.  I have a digital camera that I can fix to the eyepiece to take pictures.

During my scouting, refraction was a real problem when looking across the water with the telescope.  Trees on the opposite shore were stretched and double.  A tree would appear right side up, but there would be an upside-down image right under it.  Buoys sometimes appeared to be floating in mid-air above the water.  As an aside, I never did see water breaking shore, only a nice fine line between the water and the trees above.  It's hard to say if anything appeared sunken or not.  I'll leave all judgment aside until I perform the experiment.

Hopefully, I'll be able to perform the experiment this weekend if I'm not busy.  I'll appreciate any comments or suggestions in the meantime.

2
Flat Earth Debate / Cavendish Experiment Video
« on: June 20, 2008, 02:53:19 PM »
I found this really good video of the Cavendish experiment and a corresponding article.

Video: http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues_2005/2005-07-01/feature1/images/vid_1.avi (requires some sort of player)

Article: http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues_2005/2005-07-01/feature1/

Looks pretty good to me.  Perhaps TheEngineer can do a quick analysis of it. 

Discuss.

3
Flat Earth Debate / What happened to the Monterey Bay thread?
« on: May 02, 2008, 04:15:12 PM »
Tom had a thread going about someone who was able to see across Monteray Bay and measure the size of the earth.  I attempted to correct one of his calculations, but the thread got locked later.  I even PMed him to show him his mistake, but then the thread disappeared.  What happened?

4
Flat Earth Debate / The Measurement of Longitude and Dead Reckoning
« on: April 27, 2008, 09:02:08 AM »
In the old days of navigation at sea, longitude was one of the most difficult quantities to measure.  It wasn't until the invention of the marine chronometer in the late 1700's when navigators were able to accurately chart their longitude at sea.  The practice was to carry a precise chronometer, which kept the time of their home port, and compare it with the position of the sun in the sky at their present location.  From these observations navigators were able to determine their longitude nearly anywhere.

Before the days of chronometers, navigators relied on the process of "dead reckoning".  The ship's course was plotted on a map, and using the ship's speed and wind patterns, navigators were able to extrapolate and determine the ship's position and hence, longitude. Even after the invention of the chronometer, dead reckoning continued as a check and safety if the chronometer failed.

In principle, using a chronometer to measure longitude is completely independent of maps, distance, speed or any other kind of measurement other than the position of the sun.  One could be dropped off on a desert island with only a chronometer and be able to determine one's longitude.

In contrast, dead reckoning depends vitally on all of these things.  In particular, it relied on the assumption that the earth was round.  If a navigator knew how much distance he covered in a day in a certain direction, he could look up how many miles were in a degree at his particular latitude and calculate his current longitude from his position the previous day.  The number of miles per degree longitude varies significantly in the round and flat models.

As an example, let's say we have a Portuguese ship nearing Cape Horn at 30 degrees south.  According to the round earth model, there will be about 52 nautical miles in a degree longitude.  But in the flat earth model, there will be 126 nautical miles.   

How could such a difference go unnoticed?  If the earth were flat and a ship were using round earth charts, it would most certainly become hopelessly lost.

If ships were using a chronometer and plotting their course on a map, the discrepancies would become blatantly obvious.  In the Southern Hemisphere, navigators would become mystified as they traveled farther and farther while the sun told them their longitude was changing only little by little.  Even the discrepancies in the Northern hemisphere would pile up.  At 45 degrees, there will be a 5 nautical mile difference between the two models.  Multiply this by a several month journey, and it adds up.  It would seem their charts and tables were utterly wrong.

How could it be then that thousands of ships successfully roamed the seas for the past 500 years if all this were the case?

Sorry for the long post, but I hope it brings out good discussion.

5
Flat Earth Debate / Why do we always see the same face of the moon?
« on: February 28, 2008, 07:37:28 PM »
In FE theory, when the moon is high in the sky we are looking at its underside.  As it moves in its orbit, gets far away, and approaches the horizon, we would now be looking at its side and its appearance should be different.  But that is not what we observe; we always seem to see the same face of the moon no matter where it is in the sky.  How is this explained?

6
Flat Earth Q&A / FE Experiments
« on: February 16, 2008, 03:08:15 AM »
This is a question for all the FE'ers out there.  Have you done the Rowbotham experiments yourself?  What experiments did you do?  How did you set up the experiments?  What was it like seeing results?  How convincing were the results?

I suspect these experiences were life-changing.  I want a detailed first-hand account of what it was like.  The more details the better.

Thanks a lot.

7
Flat Earth Q&A / Mercury/Venus Transits of the Sun
« on: February 10, 2008, 02:29:31 PM »
I'm just curious to see how these are explained in FE theory.

8
Flat Earth Debate / Chapter III E:NaG
« on: January 19, 2008, 04:15:07 PM »
Wow, I just read this chapter and there are a lot of mistakes in the simplest of physics.

For example:



According to Robowtham, a ball thrown upwards on a moving ship will follow a diagonal path, stop and then fall vertically, missing the ship entirely.  But, in introductory physics, we learn that the ball will take a parabolic path and land in the same spot from where it was thrown.  I've never seen such a lack of understanding of the most basic physics!

Robowtham then continues to say that a cannonball fired vertically from a cannon should land a mile and a half away if the earth was indeed rotating. 

This lack of understanding is extremely disturbing and almost laughable.

9
Flat Earth Q&A / How was the size of the flat earth determined?
« on: January 17, 2008, 08:30:34 PM »
Answers?

10
Flat Earth Debate / Is Rowbotham valid evidence for FE?
« on: January 11, 2008, 05:45:41 PM »
Can we trust the results of his experiments?  There are countless ambiguities and faults in his methods that do not meet the standards of scientific rigor.  Thus, we can only be sure of his results if they have been repeated at higher standards.  Do any reports of verifications of Rowbotham's experiments exist?  Where are they that I may look at them?  Until such evidence is produced we have no reason to accept Rowbotham's experiments and his claims are null.

11
Flat Earth Debate / How are celestial bodies held above the flat earth?
« on: December 09, 2007, 01:04:15 AM »
This problem exists in the UA model and Username's gravitational infinite earth model, but there may be a different explanation in each model.

I have heard of the photoelectric suspension theory, but I haven't seen a good explanation of it.

Any ideas?

12
Flat Earth Debate / International Space Station Sightings
« on: November 21, 2007, 04:27:33 PM »
Sightings of the International Space Station occur all over the world.  I've seen it streaking across the sky myself on one occasion.  Evidently, it is possible for an amateur astronomer with a good telescope to take some detailed pictures of the ISS.

Take a look at this article: http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/station/science/articles/200207291340.html



Is it just another overly complicated NASA conspiracy?

13
Flat Earth Debate / Universal Gravitation
« on: November 19, 2007, 02:25:06 AM »
In RE Theory, the motions of the heavens are explained beautifully using Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation, F=G*M*m/r^2, where G is the universal gravitational constant.  With a table of planet masses and sun-planet distances and a good knowledge of calculus and elementary physics, one can calculate the motions of the heavens with great accuracy.

If FE theory is correct, why can the universal gravitation equation can predict the motion of the planets so well if it is using the wrong assumptions of RE theory?

14
Flat Earth Debate / Why doubt RE Theory?
« on: November 12, 2007, 03:46:02 PM »
What are some good reasons to doubt Round Earth Theory?  RE explains curved horizons, seasons, days, eclipses, motions of stars and planets, the Foucault pendulum, and many other observations simply and predictably.  What better does FE have to offer?

15
Flat Earth Debate / Foucault Pendulum
« on: November 09, 2007, 05:51:13 PM »
How do you explain the Foucault Pendulum?  Its period of precession is 24 hours at the poles and increases as latitude decreases.  There is no precession at the equator.

Pages: [1]