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 - astronomy101

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 9
61
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Bedford Canal Experiment
« on: March 08, 2007, 12:41:08 PM »
As skeptical scientist pointed out the results of the experiment failed when unbaised people attended the experiments.

If you are planning on reading through the experiments I will save you some time.

There are basically four types of explanations he uses to say the earth isn't round. I say explanations because sometimes (due to his rambling style of writing) the "experiments" contain a couple of explanations that aren't connected to the "experiment". You will also note that his "experiments" are mostly vague and sometimes don't actually really say anything (e.g. EXP 10, it's really just an introduction to EXP 11).

1. A "lack" of obstructed vision.
This is basically denying that ships disapear over the horizon. From what I've seen his maths is correct but the results have been falsified. Conducting similar experiments yourself should demonstrate this.


2. A "lack" of curvature to the horizon.
This is basically denying that the horizon curves, saying that because we can't see it with our eye when we are close to sea-level it doesn't exist.


3. A "lack" of a dip to the horizon.
These are probably the funniest experiments because the results confirm what you would expect on a round earth and Rowbotham then goes on to suggest that a naked eye is more accurate than the equipment he used. He's basically saying that because (when viewed without equipment) the horizon appears at eye level it must mean it hasn't descended at all.


4. Altitude over distance.
These are also close to being the funniest. With these Rowbotham basically takes two points a fair distance apart (e.g. London & Liverpool) and says that because they're at the same altitude that they must be level with each other. He then creates an imaginary line that goes through the earth and shows how much higher a point in between would be "if" the earth was round. The funny thing is he's quite accurate, if you drilled a tunnel between the two points the point referred to in between would be that much higher than the tunnel.




Of course my favourite "experiment" is this one...

EXPERIMENT 3.
A good theodolite was placed on the northern bank of the canal, midway between Welney Bridge and the Old Bedford Bridge, which are fully six miles apart, as shown in diagram, fig. 7. The line of sight from the "levelled" theodolite fell


FIG. 7.

upon the points B, B, at an altitude, making allowance for refraction, equal to that of the observer at T. Now the points B, B, being three miles from T, would have been the square of three, or nine times 8 inches, or 6 feet below the line of sight, C, T, C, as seen in the following diagram, fig. 8.


FIG. 8.



I highlighted the part where he tampers with his results. Depending on how high the theodolite was depends on how high up the bridge it would land. The "6 feet below the line of sight" refers to how much lower the ground is at 3 miles, so if the bridges were taller than 6 feet it is likely that they were visible at 3 miles - and that's assuming you were on the ground, if you aren't a worm yourself they wouldn't even need to be 6 feet tall.

No FE response?

62
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Speed?
« on: March 08, 2007, 12:37:46 PM »
Good job Diego/

63
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: On Railroad Tracks (From Flat Earth News)
« on: March 08, 2007, 12:37:04 PM »
Not answered yet...

64
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: 4 questions for you flat earthers
« on: March 08, 2007, 12:35:44 PM »
based on that image right there above my post... your are saying that there is light all the time in the north pole.. when in fact we know that the north pole goes dark for i think up to 6 months at a time

Refer to the FAQ.
Read Earth: Not a Globe

65
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: private satellites
« on: March 06, 2007, 12:29:19 PM »
Nope, multiple satellites will allow the spheres to line up at one point.  The error is 3 meters on my bros unit.  Not more not less.  New receivers take into account time dilation and all that good stuff.
You obviously don't understand how integrated systems work.  You don't just have an ephemeris error and that's it.  You also have a clock error, a multipath error, calculation error, and atmospheric errors.  Due to the uncertainty in the calculation, the receiver often won't have spheres that align at only one point, therefore, the unit must calculate a numerically probable location.

Good Job, :o

66
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Antartica
« on: March 06, 2007, 12:27:17 PM »
There are also cruises which circumnavigate Antarctica at a slightly more northern latitude, and stop at the southern tips of South America, Africa, and Australia, covering distances in time spans impossible if the above map were correct.
How does FE account for this?

See Earth: Not a Globe, please.

68
The scientific explanation of everything is in the FAQ.

69
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Weight?
« on: March 06, 2007, 11:59:26 AM »
Read the FAQ.
Refer to the Equivalence Principle.

Did you really think you were just going to come on here and in one post, not knowing anything about FE, disprove it?

Read the FAQ.

70
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: and uh Why?
« on: March 06, 2007, 11:55:20 AM »
If I said that you were able to jump off a cliff and be able to fly, based upon one book written in 1800's that no scientific body has followed up since, would you believe me? If I were then to provide you with a lorry load of papers, all providing explanations that all support each other and the original book that leans towards the idea that you would be able to fly, would you not be more likely to believe me?

Simple experiment easily disproves this. Therefore, no. SHow me a simple experiment to prove the earth is round.

71
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: and uh Why?
« on: March 06, 2007, 11:54:31 AM »
So you guys really belive this is a conspiracy to hide the "fact" that the world is flat? :o Wow you gotta have imagination to do that.
Slayer_2

Wow, you have to have a great imagination to come on here and not read the FAQ.

72
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What new forums would you like to see?
« on: March 06, 2007, 11:46:00 AM »
A forum where Tom Bishop personally answers questions would be appriciated. :o

73
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: and uh Why?
« on: March 06, 2007, 11:41:52 AM »
 ::)

74
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: RE-winning threads
« on: March 06, 2007, 11:41:12 AM »
Earth: Not a Globe single handedly discredited all RE arguements.

75
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Proof?
« on: March 06, 2007, 11:39:37 AM »
1. Read the FAQ.
2. Earth: Not a Blobe
3. Read 100 Proofs of a Flat Earth
4. Read Flat Earth News
5. Talk to TOm Bishop
6. Use the search function.

76
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Sun as a Spotlight
« on: March 06, 2007, 11:38:06 AM »
This is quite possibly explained in Earth: Not a Globe.

77
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: and uh Why?
« on: March 06, 2007, 11:37:08 AM »
Firstly, my science is not based upon a book written in the 1600's, it is based upon hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed papers, which together allow for such grand theories to be taken as the most accurate. All these papers are essential, as they are the building blocks of the science. A science based upon one or two papers, to me, is very unsound and not very scientific. That's not to say such theories are invalid, merely that they lack the credible support of thousands of knowledgeable men and women. I personally have a very critical mind, I challenge and doubt everything I read; however, if I can see evidence for a theory that is backed by other theories, I am likely to accept it. I never take science as fact though, and indeed would gladly except any of my work to be incorrect if the general view of things change and someone else can provide a better explanation.

Secondly, technology has definitely aided one's understand of science. With computers, complex calculations can be computed whilst virtually eliminating error (especially human error). My point is, at present, the thought of us living on the moon is absolutely ridiculous, however, if someone developed the science and technology to allow that to happen, it will become a reality, and my old belief that it was impossible will have to be revised.

Sir/ma'am,
Keplers laws of planetary motion was written in almost the same time, but do you not believe them?

78
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Gravity (again)
« on: March 06, 2007, 11:30:42 AM »
Ahem.

79
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Issues w/ FE NEVER Resolved...
« on: March 06, 2007, 11:28:53 AM »
It is not if you would actually read Earth: Not a Globe. And maybe take a peek at the FAQ.

80
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: and uh Why?
« on: March 06, 2007, 11:20:51 AM »
Good job Tom Bishop. You didn't cite your sources though.  :-\

81
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What are these phenomena that RE can't explain?
« on: March 06, 2007, 11:19:31 AM »
astronomy101, you're not helping.  I'm really curious if there's any aspect of our existence that's better explained by FE.  Just one thing!  One.  And not "Because it fits with the bible better", I mean scientific aspects.

I <3 lamp.

82
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Additional Evidence for FE?
« on: March 06, 2007, 11:18:39 AM »
The earth is not round. It only appears to be round. Look at the reflection from a flat circular object in a spoon?  For example, look at the reflection and move it up, down, back, and forth at about 13 degrees. If you adgust it correctly you will see a flat circular image appear to be round.

Please send me my reward in cash. Thanks - DJFICO

No, you lose. Please refer to FAQ.

83
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Sun/(Moon) Significantly Above the Horizon
« on: March 06, 2007, 11:16:10 AM »
Post count is the single most important thing on the internet though.

Yes it is. You may talk. You have over 500. I am a weakling

84
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Is anyone on here...
« on: March 06, 2007, 11:13:14 AM »
a flat earther?
because it seems to me that most of the people that are members of this site are just Round earth proponents trying to put down the theory of the flat earth

If you :
1. Refer to the FAQ
2. Understand the Equivalence Principle
3. Read Earth: Not a Globe
4. Hear what Tom Bishop has to say

You too will be a FLat Earth Proponent.

So all that's left for me to do is read that book and i'll believe in a FE?

yes.

85
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Sun/(Moon) Significantly Above the Horizon
« on: March 06, 2007, 11:12:30 AM »
You only have 9 posts and understand nothing.
Refer to the FAQ and read Earth: Not a Globe before saying anything ever again.

You're going to have to shut up.  The number of posts gives no indication of how much some user has read on this site (or actually used the search button).  I'm not saying his post was intelligent or had content, but you certainly didn't do otherwise. 

Mr. Astronomy, you used to have at least some content and point to your posts, what happened?  And why are you now wasting your time with this drivel? 

Splox, have you seen EricTheRed's thread on light curvature and how it can explain the observable sun, moon, and sinking of ships over the horizon? 

I become delusioned by the Flat Earth hypothesis and TOm Bishop's rants.

86
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: March 21st, The Equinox
« on: March 06, 2007, 11:06:54 AM »
That's a video?

Yes it is. Please refer to the FAQ,

87
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What are these phenomena that RE can't explain?
« on: March 06, 2007, 11:05:39 AM »
Exactly.  The very concept of black holes is completely reliant on gravity, so neither side has a better or worse explanation for them, since gravity itself doesn't have a better or worse explanation from either side.  Anyway, here's a few things I've thought of that (at least I believe) RE has a better explanation for.

- Why do the sun and moon move above the Earth in the way they do?
- What is the process the sun uses to generate electromagnetic radiation?
- How, exactly, did the Earth come about to be almost totally flat on the side opposite the force of UA on a universal scale?  "Sheering and rotational forces in its young life" doesn't cut it, I want a real explanation.
- What is UA anyway? (note this is independent of gravity; I mean UA in general)  How can something continually exert a constant force on the Earth and all other celestial bodies without, for lack of a better word, slowing down?
- How does the atmosphere stay on the Earth?

- (edited in) Why do black holes, which we know to be extremely massive due to light bending near them, not accelerate far, far slower then the Earth?  The best explanation for the sun, moon, and stars staying in more or less the same position relative to us is that they have the same mass as Earth; if UA is an equal force being applied to all objects, then more massive objects would accelerate less, and therefore very massive black holes would be accelerating very little in relation to us, and "fall behind".
     -Actually, since the source of this information would be NASA, that casts a shadow of a doubt on this
      since they're the big bad evil conspirators.  I'll leave it up as something to think about, but don't
      debate on this point.

Perhaps more later as I think of them.  And I still want something that FE explains better then RE.

-Photoelectric effect
-Spotlight
-rotational forces and sheers
-UA = gravity
-150 ft. ice wall surrounds earth to keep in atmosphere

Please start refering to the FAQ and Earth: Not a Globe to answer your pathetic questions.

88
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Number of People in the Conspiracy
« on: March 06, 2007, 06:19:43 AM »
Please refer to the FAQ and conduct a search

89
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Number of People in the Conspiracy
« on: March 06, 2007, 06:07:01 AM »
The US government couldn't even pull off a measely conspiracy like Watergate or 9/11 without it being blown wide open, do you really think they could pull off something as gargantuan as a Flat Earth conspiracy? HAH!

You really think the U.S. governemtn committed 9-11? Hell, I am an anarchist and think otherwise.

90
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Additional Evidence for FE?
« on: March 06, 2007, 06:04:54 AM »
We both agree that the ICR and PETA are very bad sources. You say it is because their existence depends on hiding opposing discoveries. I say they are bad sources because these organizations are based on irrational premises.

I trust the Center for Consumer Freedom (kindof an anti-PETA), even though their existence depends on animal research being good and letting people freely choose being the best option, just like PETA's existence depends on animal research being eeeevil, because the Center for Consumer Freedom, unlike PETA, does NOT pretend that they know what's best for me, and does not finance terrorist organizations dedicated to stopping me from doing what I think is best for myself. It's an issue of morality, not epistemology. I don't trust PETA because PETA is pure evil and advocates very very immoral things.

As for the ICR, they openly admit that they are founded on religious dogma, not science. That's a pretty obvious case of irrational premises, wouldn't you say?


Please read the FAQ and get a better posting history. 9 posts?

If you'd shut your big yap and read the thread again, you'd realize I was defending Flat Earthers, you blithering imbecile, you red-assed baboon.

If you were defending FE, you would have told me to read the FAQ.  :o

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 9