A question for you flat earthers...

  • 56 Replies
  • 23461 Views
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18004
Re: A question for you flat earthers...
« Reply #30 on: October 08, 2007, 01:22:15 PM »
Quote
Think about it folks: we have the opportunity to change the mind of one of FE's most fervent and irrational proponents.  His Rowbotham/"there's no sinking ship" argument is one of the founding pillars of his belief.  Pull that away, and things might get a little shaky, putting strain on any other supports that he cares to also examine more closely.  Never before in internet history has such an audacious thing been accomplished--someone changed their mind!  Not only that--to change it from unreason to reason.  This would make ABC Evening News.  I'd give away 20 cameras for this.

Don't bother sending the camera; you can come over to Lovers Point with the camera in-hand and we can together look through a telescope at the opposite beach across the bay and see, mathematically, that the earth truly is a plane.

Check over the math to your hearts content, you will find it to be absolutely correct. If we cannot see the beach when looking across the bay, your model is correct. If we can see the beach then your model is incorrect.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2007, 01:32:39 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: A question for you flat earthers...
« Reply #31 on: October 08, 2007, 01:33:10 PM »
We won't even need to wait for a ship to depart from the harbour.

Actually, we do.  This is about ships over the horizon, not kids on the beach.

But that's fine, we can do that too.  Sounds fun.  Hey, I'm all about lying flat on the ground with a high-powered telescope with another guy, watching people sunbathing and teenagers playing.  ("But officer, there's supposed to be a 600 ft wall of water!")  :-\

Without checking the accuracy of your assumptions or Math, I do see you omitted something, Tom.  Something that frankly, blows my mind in it's omission coming from you: refraction.  (Specifically, atmospherric terrestrial refraction.)  We were just talking about refraction.

I'll have to check with my wife who maintains the social calendar, but I believe I can get away this Sat or Sun.  We could also wait until the 26th, when the moon is full.
Look you ugly son of a bitch, making up observations and unfounded suppositions is exactly what the Flat Earth Society is about.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17694
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: A question for you flat earthers...
« Reply #32 on: October 08, 2007, 06:24:20 PM »
This should be interesting.  Should film it, or tape it.
The illusion is shattered if we ask what goes on behind the scenes.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18004
Re: A question for you flat earthers...
« Reply #33 on: October 08, 2007, 07:55:34 PM »
Quote
Actually, we do.  This is about ships over the horizon, not kids on the beach.

The same concept applies. However, this test of looking across the bay is a more direct test of the theories. 

Are you afraid of a direct test which would prove whether or not the earth is a globe?

Quote
But that's fine, we can do that too.  Sounds fun.  Hey, I'm all about lying flat on the ground with a high-powered telescope with another guy, watching people sunbathing and teenagers playing.  ("But officer, there's supposed to be a 600 ft wall of water!")  :-\

I'm glad you find the test acceptable Please review the math, do some math of your own, and confirm that we should not be able to see the opposite beach thirty miles away.

Quote
Without checking the accuracy of your assumptions or Math, I do see you omitted something, Tom.  Something that frankly, blows my mind in it's omission coming from you: refraction.  (Specifically, atmospherric terrestrial refraction.)  We were just talking about refraction.

Unless you believe that we will see a freak occurrence where the opposite beach appears to be suspended exactly 600 feet in the air, you'll have nothing to worry about.

Quote
I'll have to check with my wife who maintains the social calendar, but I believe I can get away this Sat or Sun.  We could also wait until the 26th, when the moon is full.

How does the 20th or 27th sound for you? That way we'll have time to secure a proper camera mount, any other equipment we'll need, and Gulliver can have time to put the $10,000 he has promised us for notarized and photographic evidence into an escrow account.

« Last Edit: October 08, 2007, 08:30:55 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: A question for you flat earthers...
« Reply #34 on: October 08, 2007, 08:44:37 PM »
Unless you believe that we will see a freak occurrence where the opposite beach is suspended 600 feet in the air, you'll have nothing to worry about...etc....etc

You should know by now not to put words in the mouths of others they didn't say.  You get bitch-slapped over it every time, and look like an idiot to the noobs.  (Wow...I've been here less than a week and already complaining about the noobs.) 

And I already told you once--I'll tell you once more but listen up: I checked your math, and it is not acceptable.  Do you understand?  It does not factor in terrestrial refraction.  You might as well come up with the formula for the circumference of a circle, and leave out Pi.  How you didn't include it is mind-blowing, after all you mention "Snell's Law" with every other breath because it sounds cool.  Google "terrestrial refraction".  When your math accurately factors that in, then we can talk more about your formulas.  When engineers have to take it into account for microwave relay stations to even work, it's important.  (And as they know and you should too, the amount of refraction depends on the wavelength.)

You know what the bitter irony (for you) of your beliefs?  If the Earth's atmosphere were just a tad more dense (like 6% more if I remember correctly...could be less), it would refract the visible spectrum just enough more to make the earth appear flat from sea level, given a clear enough day.  Of course, the colors of visible light would refract and scatter more and less preferentially by wavelength, so it wouldn't look perfect.  But probably enough for alot more people to be locked into the flat earth idea.  Funny, isn't it?  You just missed your utopia by 6%.


27th sound for you?

Sounds great, I'll set it up with my wife.  I'll probably bring the family down and put up in a beachside hotel and make an aquarium weekend out of it.  But until you fix your broken formula or lose it, there won't be any peeping tom on the beach.  At least, not in the name of science.

Speaking of formulas, since the night before will be full moon, I might get out there early and take the liberty of measuring the moon's diameter throughout the night.  This would be THE opportunity to come up with the expected apparent diameter of a full moon throughout the night, that your model predicts.  All I'm interested in is the % size change throughout the night, you don't even have to determine absolute degrees, unless you just want bonus credit.  I haven't heard you comment on this challenge--does it spook you?  Or are you just going to punt and blurt out "Snell's Law" again no matter how inappropriately?  Do you do this with your shrink patients?

Patient: "Mr. Bishop, sometimes when I'm...you know, with my wife, I have a hard time, uh, you know..."
Tom: "Yes, Bill, I do.  Snell's Law.  Have a nice day!"

Tom, in spite of having little patience or the thinnest veneer of courtesy for your often times imbecilic arguments, unconscionable intellectual dishonesty, and pattern of evasion and intentional misprepresentation...I am actually genuinely interested in meeting you as a real person, with all good cheer.  This is just internet crap.  It's not necessarily you.  But just in case, for the love of all that is holy, do not say "Snells Law", or "Rowbotham" at any time we are in earshot of each other.  I'm a nice guy, but you wouldn't like me when I'm angry, or green for that matter.
Look you ugly son of a bitch, making up observations and unfounded suppositions is exactly what the Flat Earth Society is about.

?

Feisty

Re: A question for you flat earthers...
« Reply #35 on: October 09, 2007, 07:10:12 AM »
Quote
These accounts are demonstratively false as documented by Experiment #0013 in The RE Primer. Let's not forget that you refuse to provide contemporary proof with the lame excuse that no one makes a camera mount for your telescope (which is a lie).

The accounts I've referenced clearly demonstrates that the globular assumption of sinking ships is in error, that the sinking ship effect is nothing more than a trick of perspective, an effect which could only occur on a plane surface. I've given multiple accounts of observers being able to look through the "hill of water" of the earth's supposed convexity and restore half-sunken ships to full view. This is sufficient evidence.

And, all you have to say is that all of these people are liars?

You've posted an excellent image of the effect. One just has to look at the scene through a telescope with sufficient zoom to see the ship restored in full, exactly as my sources discovered for themselves.


Yeah, Tom...this is because the ship really is dipping below the horizon, and the use of a telescope increases the viewers depth of view and thus would extend their perception of the horizon. Look through that telescope for longer and the ship again will dip because it is exiting your visual limit to the horizon again, and descending over the Earth's curvature.

And in relation to your liars comment: "All of those people" you mean are much, much less in number than the millions, if not billions, which have flown across the world in such a direction that the Flat Earth 'theory' (read: clap-trap), whom you call liars. And that evidence you gave us...how old is that? It looks to pre-date satellite photography, space travel, aeronautics, rational thought etc.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17694
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: A question for you flat earthers...
« Reply #36 on: October 09, 2007, 07:30:55 AM »
Yeah, Tom...this is because the ship really is dipping below the horizon, and the use of a telescope increases the viewers depth of view and thus would extend their perception of the horizon. Look through that telescope for longer and the ship again will dip because it is exiting your visual limit to the horizon again, and descending over the Earth's curvature.
Telescopes gather the light for a certain area and then bends it into focus.  It doesn't bend light around a supposedly curved earth.
Quote
And that evidence you gave us...how old is that?
Truth doesn't have an expiration date.
The illusion is shattered if we ask what goes on behind the scenes.

?

Feisty

Re: A question for you flat earthers...
« Reply #37 on: October 09, 2007, 08:06:59 AM »
Define, and prove, truth. You can't. No one can, not even me. This is the whole point of debate, and this is why there are two sides to this argument.

I'm glad you didn't have much argument with which to oppose my point though :D

And in regards to this whole 'wall-of-water' debacle. You are right Tom, 100%...

...however, you do not see this because the elevation of your telescope was ignored from your equation. With that in mind, it makes a vast amount of difference. You can't proclaim 'proof' when your experiments ignore a hugely important variable. You also didn't put into account the point of variation in ones visual range. Peripheral vision shows that our vision is not a fixed localus, only seeing on small facet of the world at one given time. We can also see things above and below the thing we focus on, and this is what's allowing you to see over the wall of water.

Don't forget...the telescope is extending your field of vision, essentially putting your eyesight closer to the subject and so the wall of water for said beach disappears. The wall of water does still exist, just further on in the distance again.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17694
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: A question for you flat earthers...
« Reply #38 on: October 09, 2007, 08:32:09 AM »
Define, and prove, truth. You can't. No one can, not even me. This is the whole point of debate, and this is why there are two sides to this argument.
I meant to say, evidence doesn't have an expiration date.

Quote
Don't forget...the telescope is extending your field of vision, essentially putting your eyesight closer to the subject and so the wall of water for said beach disappears. The wall of water does still exist, just further on in the distance again.
As I said in the previous post, no its not.
The illusion is shattered if we ask what goes on behind the scenes.

*

Colonel Gaydafi

  • Spam Moderator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 65208
  • Queen of the gays!
Re: A question for you flat earthers...
« Reply #39 on: October 09, 2007, 08:35:08 AM »
Can I come too?
Quote from: WardoggKC130FE
If Gayer doesn't remember you, you might as well do yourself a favor and become an hero.
Quote from: Raa
there is a difference between touching a muff and putting your hand into it isn't there?

?

Feisty

Re: A question for you flat earthers...
« Reply #40 on: October 09, 2007, 08:40:12 AM »
Nope, you're right, evidence too doesn't have an expiration date. It DOES however have a validity period. As more and more evidence to the contrary appears, the weaker it gets. It's like a person being asked "Does God exist" and they say "Yes, because Jesus says so".

Fair enough, when Jesus was alive, but now...somewhat moot.

And stop saying "No, it's not".

What other point for telescopes is there? To extend your field of vision. Done, dusted, sorted. (and yet you'll still disagree  :P people don't by telescopes as paperweights, you know?)

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17694
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: A question for you flat earthers...
« Reply #41 on: October 09, 2007, 08:44:14 AM »
Nope, you're right, evidence too doesn't have an expiration date. It DOES however have a validity period. As more and more evidence to the contrary appears, the weaker it gets.
Evidence is either represents what is going on (and is therefore valid) or doesn't (and is not.)  Time has nothing to do with it, nor does how much other evidence is around.  Now, if you could explain why the evidence was invalid that would be a different story.

Quote
What other point for telescopes is there? To extend your field of vision. Done, dusted, sorted. (and yet you'll still disagree  :P people don't by telescopes as paperweights, you know?)
It doesn't extend it the way you are saying it does, as said earlier.  It can only use light that actually reaches the telescope...  Light behind the supposed curve of the earth would not.
The illusion is shattered if we ask what goes on behind the scenes.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17694
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: A question for you flat earthers...
« Reply #42 on: October 09, 2007, 08:45:07 AM »
In fact, it actually doesn't extend your "field of vision", it shrinks it.
The illusion is shattered if we ask what goes on behind the scenes.

Re: A question for you flat earthers...
« Reply #43 on: October 09, 2007, 11:56:02 AM »
Don't forget...the telescope is extending your field of vision, essentially putting your eyesight closer to the subject and so the wall of water for said beach disappears. The wall of water does still exist, just further on in the distance again.

Feisty, Username is right on this one.  A telescope doesn't place your eyeball closer to the ship, it merely gathers more light and focuses it to suit your eyeball, wherever you are.  It doesn't place you somewhere else.  So while you pupil is essentially, say, 20" wide instead of .25" (or whatever the case may be), that's the only difference.  (Well that, and the obviously more narrow field of view thanks to the shape of the mirror and/or lenses.) 

Username may have some flaky understanding of things in some areas, and sucks at calculating bandwidth consumption, but as Gulliver pointed out to me and I've in turn noticed, he is capable of acknowledging weaknesses in FE theory where he perceives it to exist, and in general is fairly bright and gets it.  And I'll tell you this much, as much as he annoys me sometimes, he is the last, best hope for an FE'er ever having the possibility of discovering--and acknowledging--truth.  It sure ain't gonna be TomB, that's for sure.  So try not to piss username off.  (Leave that to me.)
Look you ugly son of a bitch, making up observations and unfounded suppositions is exactly what the Flat Earth Society is about.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: A question for you flat earthers...
« Reply #44 on: October 09, 2007, 01:51:18 PM »
Think about it folks: we have the opportunity to change the mind of one of FE's most fervent and irrational proponents.
It's Gulliver, reborn!


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17694
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: A question for you flat earthers...
« Reply #45 on: October 09, 2007, 01:53:23 PM »
This would be really great if bubbles was actually Tom B
The illusion is shattered if we ask what goes on behind the scenes.

Re: A question for you flat earthers...
« Reply #46 on: October 09, 2007, 02:02:40 PM »
This would be really great if bubbles was actually Tom B

I would certainly kill myself.  Or at least, get a lot less tail.  (Sigh...that was real mature...)
Look you ugly son of a bitch, making up observations and unfounded suppositions is exactly what the Flat Earth Society is about.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18004
Re: A question for you flat earthers...
« Reply #47 on: October 09, 2007, 03:40:10 PM »
Quote
...however, you do not see this because the elevation of your telescope was ignored from your equation. With that in mind, it makes a vast amount of difference. You can't proclaim 'proof' when your experiments ignore a hugely important variable.

My equation assumes that the observer is right near sea level. My experiment took place 20 inces above the sea level above the earth. For other elevations, the equation can easily be adjusted depending on wherever the experiment takes place.

Quote
And I already told you once--I'll tell you once more but listen up: I checked your math, and it is not acceptable.  Do you understand?  It does not factor in terrestrial refraction.

We cannot factor in terrestrial refraction without knowing in advance the atmospheric variables which will occur on the day of the experiment. Unless you are already accusing me of rigging the atmosphere to suspend a perfect image of the opposite coast exactly 600 feet in altitude, you really have nothing to stand on.

Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham accounts for terrestrial refraction in Experiment 9 of Earth Not a Globe:

    ...

    The only modification which can be made in the above calculations is the allowance for refraction, which is generally considered by surveyors to amount to one-twelfth the altitude. of the object observed. If we make this allowance, it will reduce the various quotients so little that the whole will be substantially the same. Take the last case as an instance. The altitude of the light on Cape Bonavista, Newfoundland, is 150 feet, which, divided by 12, gives 13 feet as the amount to be deducted from 491 feet, making instead 478 feet, as the degree of declination.

    Many have urged that refraction would account for much of the elevation of objects seen at the distance of several miles. Indeed, attempts have been made to show that the large flag at the end of six miles of the Bedford Canal (Experiment 1, fig. 2, p. 13) has been brought into the line of sight entirely by refraction. That the line of sight was not a right line, but curved over the convex surface of the water; and the well-known appearance of an object in a basin of water, has been referred to in illustration. A very little reflection, however, will show that the cases are not parallel; for instance, if the object (a shilling or other coin) is placed in a basin without water there is no refraction. Being surrounded with atmospheric air only, and the observer being in the same medium, there is no bending or refraction of the eye line. Nor would there be any refraction if the object and the observer were both surrounded with water. Refraction can only exist when the medium surrounding the observer is different to that in which the object is placed. As long as the shilling in the basin is surrounded with air, and the observer is in the same air, there is no refraction; but whilst the observer remains in the air, and the shilling is placed in water, refraction exists. This illustration does not apply to the experiments made on the Bedford Canal, because the flag and the boats were in the same medium as the observer--both were in the air. To make the cases parallel, the flag or the boat should have been in the water, and the observer in the air; as it was not so, the illustration fails. There is no doubt, however, that it is possible for the atmosphere to have different temperature and density at two stations six miles apart; and some degree of refraction would thence result; but on several occasions the following steps were taken to ascertain whether any such differences existed. Two barometers, two thermometers, and two hygrometers, were obtained, each two being of the same make, and reading exactly alike. On a given day, at twelve o'clock, all the instruments were carefully examined, and both of each kind were found to stand at the same point or figure: the two, barometers showed the same density; the two thermometers the same temperature; and the two hygrometers the same degree of moisture in the air. One of each kind was then taken to the opposite station, and at three o'clock each instrument was carefully examined, and the readings recorded, and the observation to the flag, &c., then immediately taken. In a short time afterwards the two sets of observers met each other about midway on the northern bank of the canal, when the notes were compared, and found to be precisely alike--the temperature, density, and moisture of the air did not differ at the two stations at the time the experiment with the telescope and flag-staff was made. Hence it was concluded that refraction had not played any part in the observation, and could not be allowed for, nor permitted to influence, in any way whatever, the general result.

    In 1851, the author delivered a course of lectures in the Mechanics' Institute, and afterwards at the Rotunda, in Dublin, when great interest was manifested by large audiences; and he was challenged to a repetition of some of his experiments--to be carried out in the neighbourhood. Among others, the following was made, across the Bay of Dublin. On the pier, at Kingstown Harbour, a good theodolite was fixed, at a given altitude, and directed to a flag which, earlier in the day, had been fixed at the base of the Hill of Howth, on the northern side of the bay. An observation was made at a given hour, and arrangements had been made for thermometers, barometers, and hygrometers--two of each--which had been previously compared, to be read simultaneously, one at each station. On the persons in charge of the instruments afterwards meeting, and comparing notes, it was found that the temperature, pressure, and moisture of the air had been alike at the two points, at the time the observation was made from Kingstown Pier. It had also been found by the observers that the point observed on the Hill of Howth had precisely the same altitude as that of the theodolite on the pier, and that, therefore, there was no curvature or convexity in the water across Dublin Bay. It was, of course, inadmissible that the similarity of altitude at the two places was the result of refraction, because there was no difference in the condition of the atmosphere at the moment of observation.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2007, 03:42:51 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: A question for you flat earthers...
« Reply #48 on: October 09, 2007, 04:31:25 PM »
Quote
...however, you do not see this because the elevation of your telescope was ignored from your equation. With that in mind, it makes a vast amount of difference. You can't proclaim 'proof' when your experiments ignore a hugely important variable.

My equation assumes that the observer is right near sea level. My experiment took place 20 inces above the sea level above the earth. For other elevations, the equation can easily be adjusted depending on wherever the experiment takes place.

Quote
And I already told you once--I'll tell you once more but listen up: I checked your math, and it is not acceptable.  Do you understand?  It does not factor in terrestrial refraction.

We cannot factor in terrestrial refraction without knowing in advance the atmospheric variables which will occur on the day of the experiment. Unless you are already accusing me of rigging the atmosphere to suspend a perfect image of the opposite coast exactly 600 feet in altitude, you really have nothing to stand on.

Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham accounts for terrestrial refraction in Experiment 9 of Earth Not a Globe:

    ...

    The only modification which can be made in the above calculations is the allowance for refraction, which is generally considered by surveyors to amount to one-twelfth the altitude. of the object observed. If we make this allowance, it will reduce the various quotients so little that the whole will be substantially the same. Take the last case as an instance. The altitude of the light on Cape Bonavista, Newfoundland, is 150 feet, which, divided by 12, gives 13 feet as the amount to be deducted from 491 feet, making instead 478 feet, as the degree of declination.

    Many have urged that refraction would account for much of the elevation of objects seen at the distance of several miles. Indeed, attempts have been made to show that the large flag at the end of six miles of the Bedford Canal (Experiment 1, fig. 2, p. 13) has been brought into the line of sight entirely by refraction. That the line of sight was not a right line, but curved over the convex surface of the water; and the well-known appearance of an object in a basin of water, has been referred to in illustration. A very little reflection, however, will show that the cases are not parallel; for instance, if the object (a shilling or other coin) is placed in a basin without water there is no refraction. Being surrounded with atmospheric air only, and the observer being in the same medium, there is no bending or refraction of the eye line. Nor would there be any refraction if the object and the observer were both surrounded with water. Refraction can only exist when the medium surrounding the observer is different to that in which the object is placed. As long as the shilling in the basin is surrounded with air, and the observer is in the same air, there is no refraction; but whilst the observer remains in the air, and the shilling is placed in water, refraction exists. This illustration does not apply to the experiments made on the Bedford Canal, because the flag and the boats were in the same medium as the observer--both were in the air. To make the cases parallel, the flag or the boat should have been in the water, and the observer in the air; as it was not so, the illustration fails. There is no doubt, however, that it is possible for the atmosphere to have different temperature and density at two stations six miles apart; and some degree of refraction would thence result; but on several occasions the following steps were taken to ascertain whether any such differences existed. Two barometers, two thermometers, and two hygrometers, were obtained, each two being of the same make, and reading exactly alike. On a given day, at twelve o'clock, all the instruments were carefully examined, and both of each kind were found to stand at the same point or figure: the two, barometers showed the same density; the two thermometers the same temperature; and the two hygrometers the same degree of moisture in the air. One of each kind was then taken to the opposite station, and at three o'clock each instrument was carefully examined, and the readings recorded, and the observation to the flag, &c., then immediately taken. In a short time afterwards the two sets of observers met each other about midway on the northern bank of the canal, when the notes were compared, and found to be precisely alike--the temperature, density, and moisture of the air did not differ at the two stations at the time the experiment with the telescope and flag-staff was made. Hence it was concluded that refraction had not played any part in the observation, and could not be allowed for, nor permitted to influence, in any way whatever, the general result.

    In 1851, the author delivered a course of lectures in the Mechanics' Institute, and afterwards at the Rotunda, in Dublin, when great interest was manifested by large audiences; and he was challenged to a repetition of some of his experiments--to be carried out in the neighbourhood. Among others, the following was made, across the Bay of Dublin. On the pier, at Kingstown Harbour, a good theodolite was fixed, at a given altitude, and directed to a flag which, earlier in the day, had been fixed at the base of the Hill of Howth, on the northern side of the bay. An observation was made at a given hour, and arrangements had been made for thermometers, barometers, and hygrometers--two of each--which had been previously compared, to be read simultaneously, one at each station. On the persons in charge of the instruments afterwards meeting, and comparing notes, it was found that the temperature, pressure, and moisture of the air had been alike at the two points, at the time the observation was made from Kingstown Pier. It had also been found by the observers that the point observed on the Hill of Howth had precisely the same altitude as that of the theodolite on the pier, and that, therefore, there was no curvature or convexity in the water across Dublin Bay. It was, of course, inadmissible that the similarity of altitude at the two places was the result of refraction, because there was no difference in the condition of the atmosphere at the moment of observation.

You lost me at "Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham".  I'll give you another chance if you'd like to try again.
Look you ugly son of a bitch, making up observations and unfounded suppositions is exactly what the Flat Earth Society is about.

?

The Communist

  • 1217
  • Paranoid Intellectual & Pedantic Twat
Re: A question for you flat earthers...
« Reply #49 on: October 10, 2007, 04:21:46 PM »

In 1851, the author delivered a course of lectures in the Mechanics' Institute, and afterwards at the Rotunda, in Dublin, when great interest was manifested by large audiences; and he was challenged to a repetition of some of his experiments--to be carried out in the neighbourhood. Among others, the following was made, across the Bay of Dublin. On the pier, at Kingstown Harbour, a good theodolite was fixed, at a given altitude, and directed to a flag which, earlier in the day, had been fixed at the base of the Hill of Howth, on the northern side of the bay. An observation was made at a given hour, and arrangements had been made for thermometers, barometers, and hygrometers--two of each--which had been previously compared, to be read simultaneously, one at each station. On the persons in charge of the instruments afterwards meeting, and comparing notes, it was found that the temperature, pressure, and moisture of the air had been alike at the two points, at the time the observation was made from Kingstown Pier. It had also been found by the observers that the point observed on the Hill of Howth had precisely the same altitude as that of the theodolite on the pier, and that, therefore, there was no curvature or convexity in the water across Dublin Bay. It was, of course, inadmissible that the similarity of altitude at the two places was the result of refraction, because there was no difference in the condition of the atmosphere at the moment of observation.


Where can I observe the results for these experiments?
On FES, you attack a strawman. In Soviet Russia, the strawman attacks you
-JackASCII

Do you have any outlandish claims to back up your evidence?
-Raist

Quote from: GeneralGayer date=1190908626
Yeah I love gay porn.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18004
Re: A question for you flat earthers...
« Reply #50 on: October 10, 2007, 06:40:48 PM »
Quote
You lost me at "Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham".  I'll give you another chance if you'd like to try again.

There are illustrations available in the literature if reading is too difficult for you.

Quote
Where can I observe the results for these experiments?

Look out your window.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2007, 06:43:15 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

The Communist

  • 1217
  • Paranoid Intellectual & Pedantic Twat
Re: A question for you flat earthers...
« Reply #51 on: October 11, 2007, 12:24:39 PM »
Quote
Where can I observe the results for these experiments?

Look out your window.

I want to see the measurements.  I cannot measure by looking out my window.
On FES, you attack a strawman. In Soviet Russia, the strawman attacks you
-JackASCII

Do you have any outlandish claims to back up your evidence?
-Raist

Quote from: GeneralGayer date=1190908626
Yeah I love gay porn.

?

Tom Dipshit

  • 484
  • Flat Earth Opponent
Re: A question for you flat earthers...
« Reply #52 on: October 11, 2007, 12:55:06 PM »
Quote
Where can I observe the results for these experiments?

Look out your window.

I want to see the measurements.  I cannot measure by looking out my window.
PS. I see a curve outside my house.
Tom Bishop: "The earth cuts the universe in half."

Narcberry (smarticus): "Oceans are free from gravity."

Z' Lord of Purple: "yes, superfast jet streams for the win!!!"

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: A question for you flat earthers...
« Reply #53 on: October 11, 2007, 01:02:41 PM »
I see a wooden fence outside my window.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

?

The Communist

  • 1217
  • Paranoid Intellectual & Pedantic Twat
Re: A question for you flat earthers...
« Reply #54 on: October 12, 2007, 06:02:38 PM »
I want to see the measurements.  I cannot measure by looking out my window.
On FES, you attack a strawman. In Soviet Russia, the strawman attacks you
-JackASCII

Do you have any outlandish claims to back up your evidence?
-Raist

Quote from: GeneralGayer date=1190908626
Yeah I love gay porn.

?

Torn Bishop

Re: A question for you flat earthers...
« Reply #55 on: October 12, 2007, 11:21:08 PM »
Quote
You lost me at "Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham".  I'll give you another chance if you'd like to try again.

There are illustrations available in the literature if reading is too difficult for you.
Thats the only reason we stick to this infallible truth.
Quote
Where can I observe the results for these experiments?

Look out your window.
We see us in the reflection, how pretty we are  ;D

?

UnenslavedAthiest

Re: A question for you flat earthers...
« Reply #56 on: October 13, 2007, 07:30:29 AM »
Never in my life, have I laughed so hard at a group of people.

You FE'ers rock, keep up the show and you might make it into a prime time slot on the Comedy Channel :P

Or does the mental home not allow you to leave?