### 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 - niceguybut

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5
61
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Scientific work and repeatable experiment about FE done in last 20 years
« on: March 04, 2009, 09:29:22 AM »
I took a laser, leveled it and shot it at a building. My friend marked the spot and we calculated the light was higher then where it was first "shot" (we used proper equipment and technique to measure height of course). Thus light bends upwards proving bendy light.

"proper equipment and technique"?  More detail needed, for example what equipment did you use, at what elevation did you set up your equipment, how did you measure the elevation, how far away was the building you aimed at, how did you measure the elevation at the target, how did you measure the distance from equipment to target, etc.

Depending on how far away the building was that you aimed the laser at, the point at which the laser struck the building would be higher on the building on a round earth that it is on the building at which the laser was located owing to the fact that the laser would describe a tangent to the surface of the earth.  Over reasonably short distances though, this difference would be negligible and could be accounted for in errors in equipment, use of the equipment, etc.  If you got a big difference in height I would suggest that either your equipment or technique might not be as "proper" as you assert.
I believe you missed the poster satire. The experiment proves RE convincingly, unless you subscribe to the FE-admittedly-defeated theory of bendy light. (The theory failed to be self-consistent and suffered a languishing death.)

Quite possibly, the post sounds a bit Rowbotham-esque.  I hope the bendy light theory has gone away, the joke wore off.

62
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Scientific work and repeatable experiment about FE done in last 20 years
« on: March 04, 2009, 08:53:09 AM »
I took a laser, leveled it and shot it at a building. My friend marked the spot and we calculated the light was higher then where it was first "shot" (we used proper equipment and technique to measure height of course). Thus light bends upwards proving bendy light.

"proper equipment and technique"?  More detail needed, for example what equipment did you use, at what elevation did you set up your equipment, how did you measure the elevation, how far away was the building you aimed at, how did you measure the elevation at the target, how did you measure the distance from equipment to target, etc.

Depending on how far away the building was that you aimed the laser at, the point at which the laser struck the building would be higher on the building on a round earth that it is on the building at which the laser was located owing to the fact that the laser would describe a tangent to the surface of the earth.  Over reasonably short distances though, this difference would be negligible and could be accounted for in errors in equipment, use of the equipment, etc.  If you got a big difference in height I would suggest that either your equipment or technique might not be as "proper" as you assert.

63
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Bridge pillars - curvature of the earth
« on: March 04, 2009, 08:12:34 AM »
Why is the Humber Bridge issue being raised yet again - the 36mm gap is the theoretical distance, nobody has measured it:

Quote
The two towers are build vertical to a tangent to the earth, i.e. radial to the centre of the earth, thus, theoretically, the shape between the two towers is an inverted trapesium rather than a rectangle with the length between the bottom of the towers being 36mm less than the length at the top of the towers.

The gap at the base is, of course, the one that was actually "measured" with the apparent increase being a result of building the towers "vertically".

Regards

Peter Hill
General Manager & Bridgemaster

64
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: So I must be imagining things when...
« on: March 02, 2009, 04:45:08 PM »
This is such a simple concept in engineering I can not believe you guys do not understand it.

Any civil engineer knows about problems relating to the curvature of the earth.  Early plats of land that were sold in the US were angled funny because the government didn't take this into consideration when setting up boundaries.

My dad is a civil engineer, and he always has to take this consideration when building roads.  I do not think he is part of a conspiracy, lol, I've seen his designs, and I've gone with him to look at projects in progress.

Every civil engineer in this country, and every construction worker who used their plans, would have to be in on this conspiracy.

I'm a civil engineer in another country and I'm pretty sure I'm not part of any conspiracy.

65
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Scientific work and repeatable experiment about FE done in last 20 years
« on: March 02, 2009, 04:41:29 PM »
It affects the work I do since I have to work with the ellipsoidal shape of the Earth to keep roads aligned and measurements parallel to that ellipsoid in long distances.

That's a good point, my dad is a civil engineer, he has to do the same when designing highways and such.  How is the government getting to his head and making him think he has to do these calculations?  Why do the projects end up looking right when his plans are followed?

I'm a civil engineer who designs highways.  Does that mean they're in my head too?  Aaaagh!!!

66
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Rowbothams restorer telescope?
« on: March 02, 2009, 04:39:51 PM »
Um, I'm not going to make an account. I may be able to, but right now I have no inclination to find out. You work there- you tell me.

Work where? I don't have anything to do with Spotify.
You see, only people from the UK can create a Spotify account for free these days.
So I can't create one, and no one else in the world besides UK, unless you use a web proxy of course.
The reason I ask is if I needed an account, could you create on for me?

If you ask nicely, I can try for you.  Despite living in Ireland I'm in the UK this week so could try setting up an account.  I'll PM you if I get anywhere.
Sorry, it's just you were being very vague, and they have a Stockholm department, so I started connecting dots. Anyway, I actually live in Ireland, so I probably can't. I actually really need to get to bed now, as I have to be up at 6am tomorrow (train), but if you like I'll try in the morning once I get on campus, and I can PM you to let you know if it worked. Sound good?

That would be great. If you did see a register form when you visited that link, you sure can create an account.
Test it tomorrow and let me know. You should really try Spotify though. It's a huge library of music for free,
and you can play it directly from the application.

67
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Other planets in our solar system...?
« on: February 27, 2009, 07:48:32 AM »
If you were to look up the definition of the word "bisect" you'd see that it refers to the split of a single...thing completely in half, not the seperation of two distinct parts.  And besides, you're assuming that the Earth is able to be in 2 different universes at the same time.

I know the definition of "bisect" though obviously I cannot clearly convey my point to you.

Imagine if you divide an apartment with your roommate so that one half is 'his', and the other half is 'yours', there is no real damage to the apartment. You may stretch tape across it to signify the different halves but still the apartment is fine. An infinite earth is analogous to the tape across the carpet. Spacetime corresponds to the completely fine apartment.

A better analogy might be the erection of a partition wall, in that you wouldn't be able to access one half from the other without a destructive means of going through.  The apartment would still be unaffected (apart from some potential damage to the walls, floor and ceiling that the landlord might object to - the theological implications of this for FET I leave to others to debate), but I agree that the apartment itself would still be one apartment, not two.

68
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« on: February 27, 2009, 02:12:32 AM »
Just because I haven't done this yet:

Lurk more.  Read the FAQ.  Lurk more.  Use the search function.  Oh, and did I mention lurking more?

In a nutshell there are many threads on this subject, so the search function is your friend.

69
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: So I must be imagining things when...
« on: February 27, 2009, 01:52:56 AM »
oh a level line, i thought it was used to make straight lines.

Eh?  A level is used to assist in recording heights above a datum level.  Its view is always tangential to the surface of the earth unless it is incorrectly set up.

@NEEMAN - if you're interested, for a slightly more expanded explanation of the equipment RJM described, you can find one here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_station

70
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What gives with the ancient texts?
« on: February 25, 2009, 04:53:13 AM »
Quote
I disagree.  I believe that de Morgan is praising Rowbotham's skill as an orator, and such praise seems to be fairly common so we can allow that he knew how to hold an audience fairly well, though de Morgan says that the subject matter need not be considered beyond an intellectual exercise to ensure that those seeking to study astronomy have counter-arguments against which to pit their knowledge.

Obviously Rowbotham's work is accepted by the scientific and academic community if it's being used as an exercise.

No, I believe that they recognised that he knew enough to be able to sound convincing, convincing enough to make people think any way, and that to refute his arguments would be a good exercise.

Quote
As far as I can tell, de Morgan did not take Rowbotham's arguments seriously:

Quote
Dec. 8, 1848, the Secretary of the Astronomical Society (De Morgan by name) said, at the close of the proceedings,?"Now, gentlemen, if you will promise not to tell the Council, I will read something for your amusement": and he then read a few of the arguments which had been transmitted by the lecturer.

Considering that the reference you gave was 22 years prior to De Morgan's quotes in 1872, e Morgan obviously had time to look into it further and decide favor Rowbotham for his expert ingenuity.

"expert ingenuity"?  Where did you get that from?  It sounds to me like having received the full version of ENaG in 1865, he was able to give it a more thorough review than merely considering the original pamphlets an amusing aside, but still did not take it seriously.  I refer you back to A Budget of Paradoxes:

Quote
(August 28, 1865.) The Zetetic Astronomy has come into my hands. When, in 1851, I went to see the Great Exhibition, I heard an organ played by a performer who seemed very desirous to exhibit one particular stop. "What do you think of that stop?" I was asked.?"That depends on the name of it," said I.?"Oh! what can the name have to do with the sound? 'that which we call a rose,' etc."?"The name has everything to do with it: if it be a flute-stop, I think it very harsh; but if it be a railway-whistle-stop, I think it very sweet." So as to this book: if it be childish, it is clever; if it be mannish, it is unusually foolish.

I think you're mistaken in trying to interpret de Morgan's words as unequivocal praise for all things Flat Earth, since he clearly doesn't think it is:

Quote
Let the future decide: they say roundly that the earth is flat; I say flatly that it is round.

Quote
Your other quotes are all from local newspapers who again praise Rowbotham's oratory skills, but don't go on to vindicate his subject matter beyond saying that it is intriguing.

Really? From reading the reviews sure sounded like the press and the attendees at the colleges lectures made up their minds to me.

And what qualifies local newspaper journalists to be able to say what consitutes irrefutable scientific proof?

71
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Latitudes
« on: February 25, 2009, 04:16:38 AM »

72
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What gives with the ancient texts?
« on: February 25, 2009, 01:02:48 AM »
I don't think it can be argued that Rowbotham was calling his opponents liars, but perhaps you might want to consider the full quote from A Budget of Paradoxes, Vol II:

Quote
The author, though confident in the extreme, neither impeaches the honesty of those whose opinions he assails, nor allots them any future inconvenience: in these points he is worthy to live on a globe, and to revolve in twenty-four hours.
I never said that De Morgan fully believed that the earth was a plane, just that he accepted the credibility of the work in Earth Not a Globe, which was what I was asked to demonstrate. De Morgan gave high praise to Rowbotham for his teachings, despite having his own opinions on the subject matter. In that sense Rowbotham's work was accepted for inquiry and discussion.

I disagree.  I believe that de Morgan is praising Rowbotham's skill as an orator, and such praise seems to be fairly common so we can allow that he knew how to hold an audience fairly well, though de Morgan says that the subject matter need not be considered beyond an intellectual exercise to ensure that those seeking to study astronomy have counter-arguments against which to pit their knowledge.  As far as I can tell, de Morgan did not take Rowbotham's arguments seriously:

Quote
Dec. 8, 1848, the Secretary of the Astronomical Society (De Morgan by name) said, at the close of the proceedings,?"Now, gentlemen, if you will promise not to tell the Council, I will read something for your amusement": and he then read a few of the arguments which had been transmitted by the lecturer.

Your other quotes are all from local newspapers who again praise Rowbotham's oratory skills, but don't go on to vindicate his subject matter beyond saying that it is intriguing.  The provincial English press wasn't unanimous in its praise though:

Quote
The Blackburn Standard and Preston Guardian (Dec. 12 and 16, 1849) unite in stating that the lecturer ran away from his second lecture at Burnley, having been rather too hard pressed at the end of his first lecture to explain why the large hull of a ship disappeared before the sails. The persons present and waiting for the second lecture assuaged their disappointment by concluding that the lecturer had slipped off the icy edge of his flat disk, and that he would not be seen again till he peeped up on the opposite side.

73
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What gives with the ancient texts?
« on: February 23, 2009, 05:00:18 PM »
And if you want a definitive statement of de Morgan's belief, another quote from A Budget of Paradoxes, Vol II:

Quote
...they say roundly that the earth is flat; I say flatly that it is round.

Personally, I think that you need to read the full passage to truly understand Morgan's feelings about Rowbotham's work:

Totally agree, but was afraid of a "tl;dr" comment.  Maybe a link could be sigged.  Hmm...

74
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What gives with the ancient texts?
« on: February 23, 2009, 03:39:06 PM »
And if you want a definitive statement of de Morgan's belief, another quote from A Budget of Paradoxes, Vol II:

Quote
...they say roundly that the earth is flat; I say flatly that it is round.

75
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What gives with the ancient texts?
« on: February 23, 2009, 03:30:46 PM »
Quote
I'm amused that you post this viewing it as a vindication of Rowbotham's theories by de Morgan, when to me it appears that he is saying that Rowbotham provides useful intellectual exercises for students of astronomy to question their teachings, but that his theories need not be taken seriously.

Yes, Rowbotham does provide useful intellectual exercises for students of astronomy to learn the truth that the the earth is flat.

I think you'll find that's not what I said.  Nor is it what de Morgan said either:

Quote
...all these and other things are well fitted to form exercises in learning the elements of astronomy.

Astronomy ≠ Flat Earth

You missed "nor allots them any future inconvenience" bit meaning that Rowbotham did not cause any problems for RET either.

That's funny, I took the last sentence of Morgan's statement to say that Rowbotham does not call his opponents liars, "nor allots them any future inconvenience", meaning that he does not resort to insults either.

I don't think it can be argued that Rowbotham was calling his opponents liars, but perhaps you might want to consider the full quote from A Budget of Paradoxes, Vol II:

Quote
The author, though confident in the extreme, neither impeaches the honesty of those whose opinions he assails, nor allots them any future inconvenience: in these points he is worthy to live on a globe, and to revolve in twenty-four hours.

76
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What gives with the ancient texts?
« on: February 23, 2009, 02:58:28 PM »
Augustus de Morgan was a mathematician well known for studying cranks. He wrote "A Budget of Paradoxes" which was one of the first books to discuss in detail math and physics crackpots. Without the context of the quote in question I can't say for sure but it looks like a classic de Morgan line. He never says that anyone thought the work was correct merely that it required ingenuity. Similarly, he says that the evidence for a round earth is "cumulative and circumstantial." Please read a bit by de Morgan.

(Incidentally, de Morgan wrote a number of books on astronomy and related ideas for the popular press. If he had thought this had any validity whatsoever he would have noted it).

It's a good thing that he does note it then. Here's another quote from him:

"The flat earth floating tremulously on the sea, the sun moving always over it, giving day when near enough, and night when too far off; the self-luminous moon, with a semi-transparent invisible moon created to give her an eclipse now and then; the new law of perspective, by which the vanishing of the hull before the masts, usually thought to prove the earth globular, really proves it flat; all these and other things are well fitted to form exercises in learning the elements of astronomy. 'Parallax,' though confident in the extreme, neither impeaches the honesty of those whose opinions he assails, nor allots them any future inconvenience."--Augustus De Morgan, Professor of Mathematics in Cambridge University, President of the Royal Astronomical Society, F.R.A.S., &c., &c.--Athen?um Journal for October 12, 1872.

I'm amused that you post this viewing it as a vindication of Rowbotham's theories by de Morgan, when to me it appears that he is saying that Rowbotham provides useful intellectual exercises for students of astronomy to question their teachings, but that his theories need not be taken seriously.

77
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Which Organisations Are Involved...?
« on: February 23, 2009, 02:50:27 PM »
And I tell you RE'ers to read the literature because your constant prattling questions are incessant and already answered in expert detail by the thousands of pages of research throughout the Flat Earth Literature.
Peer review demonstrates the data as real world data.

Who peer-reviewed it and deemed it "expert", and where can one find the results of these reviews?  I'm having a look through what I can of the list of references in your sig (principally the online stuff owing to a lack of free time), but a pointer would be appreciated to focus the search.

78
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Measurements for the distance of the Sun, Venus, and Mars
« on: February 19, 2009, 05:46:48 AM »
There is no way to know the true distance to the planets as the atmolayer and the perspective laws skew any conclusions we could draw from earth.

Could you not quantify the effects you believe they have, then make some assumptions that could be tested at a future date?

79
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Employment prospects in Antarctica
« on: February 12, 2009, 02:56:11 PM »
There may be opportunities to travel on the continent though, and to quiz scientists who are already there.  Plus think of the opportunities to do some southern hemisphere/hemiplane navigation experiments, with no problems about funding as they'll be paying you to go!

Ah well, just a thought.

80
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Employment prospects in Antarctica
« on: February 12, 2009, 02:42:35 PM »

81
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Problem
« on: February 12, 2009, 01:53:12 AM »
Nobody has given me a solution to this problem. I was really hoping one of you people would, but you havn't.

You haven't shown it to be a problem yet, that's probably why.  For example, which people circumnavigate the earth every day and not see the ice wall, where were they flying from and two, in which direction, and is there documentary evidence?  You won't get a detailed answer if you don't provide details to refute.

82
##### The Lounge / Re: Broadband for a day
« on: February 11, 2009, 04:14:37 PM »
Good lord!

83
##### The Lounge / Re: Drinking is fun
« on: February 11, 2009, 04:08:47 PM »
I don't feel good anymore when I'm sober, therefore I wish to buy some cheap wine and drink as much as I can this Friday night.

Buy Australian - no sulphites so less chance of a hangover.  That's what I'm hoping for tomorrow any way...

84
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: An icebreaker would travel at the astonishing speed of 26mph according to FET!
« on: February 11, 2009, 03:46:45 PM »
An nuclear powered icebreaker can tarvel at maximum speed of 8,5mph through ice and 15,6mph under ice-free conditions. Lets consider moderate conditions, 12mph. If an icebreaker would travel at 12mph around Antartica (The ice wall) at some distance from the coast it would take about 580 hours with a distance of aprrox. 10000 miles used. If the same trip would be done with a FE-map, the voyage would appear to go along the ice wall until you arrive where you began, and not around it. There is one difference here though, the distance is about 21000 miles (twice the RE distance). Because the total time is the same the average speed must be higher. S/T=V gives an average speed of 26mph (the values are rounded). That speed is significantly higher (almost 70% higher) than the top speed at totally ice free conditions. Either it's an act of god or the more likely explanation, the FE-map is inaccurate!

Where did you get your starting figures? I hope it is not based on RE measurements. Obviously you'll get incorrect conclusions if you use faulty measurements.

RE measurements ≠ faulty measurements

In the interests of fairness, I should also add:

FE measurements ≠ faulty measurements

85
##### Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Clarification on Gravity
« on: February 11, 2009, 03:19:39 PM »
A pound is a unit of weight now?
It has been for some time now...

Only in the US, where not everyone in the world lives...

86
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What evidence would convince you that the Earth was not flat?
« on: February 11, 2009, 03:12:05 PM »
Again, what do you mean by peer review? Which parts? The details of the plans for the rockets are publicly available. Rocks brought back were analyzed in papers that went into peer reviewed journals. What do you want them to have done differently?

Playing devil's advocate, I suspect he'd want you to provide links to those plans and journals if on the web, or details of how to find the details if they aren't.

87
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What evidence would convince you that the Earth was not flat?
« on: February 11, 2009, 03:00:19 PM »
can you clarify in more detail what you mean by peer review?

Presumably this.

88
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Retrograde motion
« on: February 11, 2009, 02:54:51 PM »
"God did it" answers all the questions you could ever ask - does that mean that fundamental religion is the best solution?

No, because there's no way to prove that.

Says who?  Just because the statement doesn't reveal the method doesn't mean there's no way to test for it - it just means we're not smart enough to have come up with an experiment yet.

Okay, there's no currently conceivable way to prove that yet.

89
##### Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Clarification on Gravity
« on: February 11, 2009, 02:50:22 PM »
Bloody northerners...

Southern fairies

My bigger issue is the one of interpretation. Strictly we can't tell the difference between gravity and a fictitious force.

I refer the honourable gentlemen to the simplistic definition I gave earlier, that gravitation is the cause, and gravity is the effect.  As I say, I'm not a physicist, so am only trying to get the layman interpretation of what's happening.  I can build from there.

90
##### Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Problem
« on: February 11, 2009, 02:41:06 PM »
People travel right around the earth every day without even coming across the icewall

Which people?

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5