Flat? Round? both round somewhat.

  • 135 Replies
  • 47586 Views
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17796
Re: Flat? Round? both round somewhat.
« Reply #60 on: October 28, 2007, 02:30:25 AM »
Quote
Simple. We have real round Earth pictures, but no real Flat earth pictures.

Ps. The next FE will reply that the images are fake/conspiracy.

Then you agree with my opening statement in the second post of this thread:

"The Round Earth Theory is draped in religion. It's a faith issue. In order to believe in a Round Earth we must have blind faith in NASA and its scripture. Otherwise there is zero reason why any living breathing person should believe in, or even consider, the Round Earth model." Tom Bishop

We've come full circle. Thank you for demonstrating that I am correct after all.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2007, 03:33:49 AM by Tom Bishop »

?

afiq980

  • 37
  • Earth is round.
Re: Flat? Round? both round somewhat.
« Reply #61 on: October 28, 2007, 04:18:39 AM »
Quote
Simple. We have real round Earth pictures, but no real Flat earth pictures.

Ps. The next FE will reply that the images are fake/conspiracy.

Then you agree with my opening statement in the second post of this thread:

"The Round Earth Theory is draped in religion. It's a faith issue. In order to believe in a Round Earth we must have blind faith in NASA and its scripture. Otherwise there is zero reason why any living breathing person should believe in, or even consider, the Round Earth model." Tom Bishop

We've come full circle. Thank you for demonstrating that I am correct after all.

No, you just made a statement, it may be right, it may be wrong. No one said that your statement is correct.

I could also say this:-

"The Flat Earth Theory is draped in religion. It's a faith issue. In order to believe in a Flat Earth we must have blind faith in ourselves and its scripture. Otherwise there is zero reason why any living breathing person should believe in, or even consider, the Flat Earth model." http://fiqo.blogspot.com

see?

?

Conspiracy Mastermind

  • 1836
  • There is no conspiracy...
Re: Flat? Round? both round somewhat.
« Reply #62 on: October 28, 2007, 04:29:13 AM »
Quoting oneself, how wonderful.
"Flat Earth Theory is draped in religion. In order to follow it, one must have faith in the literature, one must have faith in the magical efect of perspective that explain what can otherwise not be explained. One must also have faith in the belief that a global conspiracy is the reason for all evidence for a Round Earth. Finally, one must have faith in the belief that science is fundementally wrong. Failure to have faith in any of the above results in the theory falling apart."
-Monsieur Bishope


Thankyou for proving I was correct all along.
Quote from: Tomcooper84
there is no optical light, there is just light and theres no other type of light unless you start talkling about energy saving lightbulbs compared to other types of light bulbs
ENaG: Evidence Not a Guarantee.

?

afiq980

  • 37
  • Earth is round.
Re: Flat? Round? both round somewhat.
« Reply #63 on: October 28, 2007, 04:41:45 AM »
good job!

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: Flat? Round? both round somewhat.
« Reply #64 on: October 28, 2007, 04:51:05 AM »
Quote
No offense, but Tom Bishop is obviously behind time. Modern sciences are too confusing for him to catch up.

If modern science claims to have experimental evidence for the shape of the earth perhaps you should share. Here's your chance to educate a Neanderthal.

Quote
And here's something you can see in your back Garden, irrefutable evidence:

The shadow of Earth on the Moon during a lunar eclipse is round.
(oh wait, you can't explain eclipses...)

That's not experimental evidence. That's an observation.

Do you know the difference between experimental evidence and an observation yet? Apparently not.

For the Flat Earth interpretation of the Lunar Eclipse please read Chapter 11 of Earth Not a Globe.

Quote
Observation are not experiments, but they are PART of the experiments. You took high school sciences before, right? I assume you do, because in every lab report there always have be some observational data to back up the conclusion. As for the experiments themselves, you have to use observational evidences to bring about your experimental conclusion. It's how science work.

If you had taken high school science you would know that every scientific study requires controlled experimentation before coming to a conclusion.

When you submit a scientific study on the growth rate of plants in different frequencies of light without preforming tests, trials, and controlled experiments to confirm your hypotheses; when you make a conclusion without preforming experiments to demonstrate that your conclusion is correct. Guess what. You get a big red bolded F and asked to see the teacher after class.

You get an F here as well.

Quote
I know an Astronomer ,
Haven't spoken to him for years , not sure if he would be amused or annoyed with a statement like that.
Tom, that statement is simply incorrect.

Are you telling me that your astronomer friend makes controlled experiments on the cosmos to back up his observational interpretation? That's absolutely hilarious. If you know any astronomers who experiments with the cosmos before coming to a conclusion perhaps you should share a few details. Is your astronomer friend a superhero? Does he possess alien technology? I'm very curious as to how he can create controlled experiments with the cosmos to verify his Aristotelian suppositions.

Why don't you REers ever feel like backing up your claims? Why don't you guys ever post experimental evidence that proves that the earth is a sphere? You guys claim that such evidence exists. So go ahead and post it!

Why aren't you guys posting that experimental evidence yet?

Why are there no experiments which prove a Round Earth?

Where are my experiments? I asked for them, didn't I? You said you had them.

If you have experiments perhaps maybe you should post them.

I think you should post them.

I've been asking you over and over now.

All it takes is a simple copy and paste.

I'm here waiting in absolute suspense.

You REers seem surprisingly silent on this subject.

I don't understand. I've posted countless evidence, and yet you dismiss it, and attribute it to interpretation. I've seen your "experiments" and every single one of them has been disproved.

I know what you're asking for. You want some kind of laboratory controlled experiment that showcases a globular Earth. You and I both know there isn't one. You think that means I believe in science fiction. Or have blind faith in NASA. I've explained numerous ways you can see this for yourself.

You say that astronomy can be interpreted in different ways, yet you conveniently leave out all of the facts. We can measure the speed of light. We can measure the mass of a planet, and a star. We can measure the emissions spectrum of a star, and the radius of a star. There are proofs that show all of these to be undeniably true, and fit in perfectly with everything we know about atomic theory perfectly.

How about you perform this "series of observations" that I quoted before and see how it fits in with your model:

The constellations shift relative to the horizon as you move north and south around the globe, something that could only happen if you were standing on a sphere. (You may have to draw a few diagrams to convince yourself of this.) Given sufficient world travel combined with careful observation on your part, the frisbee hypothesis becomes well - nigh insupportable. I suppose this doesn't qualify as a home experiment, but I never said science would be easy.

And how about you take a trip to the South Pole? Have you been to the South Pole? There's an experiment for you.
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

?

Conspiracy Mastermind

  • 1836
  • There is no conspiracy...
Re: Flat? Round? both round somewhat.
« Reply #65 on: October 28, 2007, 04:55:48 AM »
Oh thankyou, I was about to have a stroke, now you have averted it. Tom Bishop does not accept the evidence for a round earth any more than we accept the "evidence" for a flat one. You can't prove anything to him, because any observational evidence is simply part of a big optical illusion caused by effects of perspective.
Quote from: Tomcooper84
there is no optical light, there is just light and theres no other type of light unless you start talkling about energy saving lightbulbs compared to other types of light bulbs
ENaG: Evidence Not a Guarantee.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Flat? Round? both round somewhat.
« Reply #66 on: October 28, 2007, 07:06:01 AM »
Most Flat Earthers are atheists. The idea of a Flat Earth has more to do with the apparent and observable than it does with religion. FE has also been conclusively proven through test and trial.

If anything, it is the Round Earth Theory which is draped in religion. It's a faith issue. In order to believe in a Round Earth we must have blind faith in NASA and its scripture. Otherwise there is zero reason why any living breathing person should believe in, or even consider, the Round Earth model.
You're hopeless aren't you. Your society began because people read the bible and saw words like, "the four corners of the Earth". Your society is nothing more than the church that screwed Galileo.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=5680.msg60510#msg60510
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

?

Tom Dipshit

  • 484
  • Flat Earth Opponent
Re: Flat? Round? both round somewhat.
« Reply #67 on: October 28, 2007, 11:16:47 AM »
Oh thankyou, I was about to have a stroke, now you have averted it. Tom Bishop does not accept the evidence for a round earth any more than we accept the "evidence" for a flat one. You can't prove anything to him, because any observational evidence is simply part of a big optical illusion caused by effects of perspective.
Is it? He says to us all the time that he observers a flat earth by looking outside of his window. Yet, as you mentioned, he is disregarding other easy to observer experiments. Someone in this thread said go to Antarctica and keep going (not word for word of course) or when someone said take a camera and record the stars and play what it recorded on fast. Tom Bulshit ignored the Antarctica post and stupidly replied the stars post. I would also like to mention that observing the earths curve takes a good pair of eyes. I can see the earths curves by just living high up in the middle of a mountain.
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!!!"

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17796
Re: Flat? Round? both round somewhat.
« Reply #68 on: October 28, 2007, 11:39:44 AM »
Quote
No, you just made a statement, it may be right, it may be wrong. No one said that your statement is correct.

I could also say this:-

Wrong. We've given you experimental controlled evidence confirming that the earth is flat. We've made experiments which rule out refraction (Experiment 9 of Earth Not a Globe) and other known effects. We've seen and published unexplainable results. Repeatedly. The Flat Earth Literature demonstrates that the earth is, without a doubt, flat as a pancake.

Can you say the same for your model?

Quote
I don't understand. I've posted countless evidence, and yet you dismiss it, and attribute it to interpretation. I've seen your "experiments" and every single one of them has been disproved.

Disproved? How? I've never seen anything which disproves the Flat Earth experiments outside of just calling everyone who preforms it liars.

The results of the experiments are undeniable. The flatness of the earth is incontestable.

Quote
I know what you're asking for. You want some kind of laboratory controlled experiment that showcases a globular Earth. You and I both know there isn't one. You think that means I believe in science fiction. Or have blind faith in NASA. I've explained numerous ways you can see this for yourself.

We've provided controlled experiments upon the surface of the earth. Why don't you all?

Lets recapitulate. Does the Round Earth Theory have controlled experiments which confirms that its model is correct? No.

Does the Flat Earth Theory have controlled experiments which confirms that its model is correct? Yes.

Therefore, Flat Earth Theory is the greatest model.

Quote
Is it? He says to us all the time that he observers a flat earth by looking outside of his window. Yet, as you mentioned, he is disregarding other easy to observer experiments. Someone in this thread said go to Antarctica and keep going (not word for word of course) or when someone said take a camera and record the stars and play what it recorded on fast. Tom Bulshit ignored the Antarctica post and stupidly replied the stars post. I would also like to mention that observing the earths curve takes a good pair of eyes. I can see the earths curves by just living high up in the middle of a mountain.

I am simply matching my observations and interpretations with yours. I do not claim that my observations are experimental evidence like you guys seem to.

Flat Earth proponents have made repeated controlled experiments which rules out refraction and mathematically demonstrates that the surface of the earth is flat. Flat Earth Theory is not simply a series of observations without experimentation like your model. Consult the Flat Earth Literature.

Where are your controlled experiments?

« Last Edit: October 28, 2007, 12:10:27 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

Tom Dipshit

  • 484
  • Flat Earth Opponent
Re: Flat? Round? both round somewhat.
« Reply #69 on: October 28, 2007, 12:41:56 PM »
I have one thing that can discredit all of that; no.
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!!!"

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17796
Re: Flat? Round? both round somewhat.
« Reply #70 on: October 28, 2007, 12:57:02 PM »
I have one thing that can discredit all of that; no.

Yeah, I know that already. There is no experimental evidence for a Round Earth. What's your point?

Lets attempt to apply the scientific method to the Round Earth model:

Step 1. Define the question

"What shape is the earth?"

Step 2. Gather information and resources (observe)

"Look at the skies/movements of the pendulum/shadows on the ground"

Step 3. Form hypothesis

"The Earth is round"

Step 4. Perform experiment and collect data

The Round Earth Theory fails to make a controlled experiment. No data can be collected. Nothing can be confirmed beyond the hypothesis ind interpretation stage.

Step 5. Analyze data

Cannot go further. The Round Earth Theory fails to make a controlled experiment.

Step 6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis

Cannot go further. The Round Earth Theory fails to make a controlled experiment.

Step 7. Publish results

Cannot go further. The Round Earth Theory fails to make a controlled experiment. There is nothing to publish except observation and interpretation.

Step 8. Retest

Cannot retest. The Round Earth Theory fails to make a controlled experiment.


3 out of 8 - Fail
« Last Edit: October 28, 2007, 01:22:14 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

Conspiracy Mastermind

  • 1836
  • There is no conspiracy...
Re: Flat? Round? both round somewhat.
« Reply #71 on: October 28, 2007, 02:18:03 PM »
I have one thing that can discredit all of that; no.

Yeah, I know that already. There is no experimental evidence for a Round Earth. What's your point?

Lets attempt to apply the scientific method to the Round Earth model:

Step 1. Define the question

"What shape is the earth?"

Step 2. Gather information and resources (observe)

"Look at the skies/movements of the pendulum/shadows on the ground"

Step 3. Form hypothesis

"The Earth is flat"

Step 4. Perform experiment and collect data

The Round Earth Theory fails to make a controlled experiment. No data can be collected. Nothing can be confirmed beyond the hypothesis ind interpretation stage.

Step 5. Analyze data

Cannot go further. The Flat Earth Theory fails to make a controlled experiment.

Step 6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis

Cannot go further. The Flat Earth Theory fails to make a controlled experiment.

Step 7. Publish results

Cannot go further. The Flat Earth Theory fails to make a controlled experiment. There is nothing to publish except observation and interpretation.

Step 8. Retest

Cannot retest. The Flat Earth Theory fails to make a controlled experiment.


3 out of 8 - Fail

Oh dear, looks like FE is out of the window.
Quote from: Tomcooper84
there is no optical light, there is just light and theres no other type of light unless you start talkling about energy saving lightbulbs compared to other types of light bulbs
ENaG: Evidence Not a Guarantee.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17796
Re: Flat? Round? both round somewhat.
« Reply #72 on: October 28, 2007, 02:31:31 PM »
Quote
Oh dear, looks like FE is out of the window.

Lets attempt to apply the scientific method to the Flat Earth model:

Step 1. Define the question

"What shape is the earth?"

Step 2. Gather information and resources (observe)

"The surface of the earth appears flat"

Step 3. Form hypothesis

"The Earth is flat"

Step 4. Perform experiment and collect data

Experiment 1
Experiment 2
Experiment 3
Experiment 4
Experiment 5
Experiment 6
Experiment 7
Experiment 8
Experiment 9
Experiment 10
Experiment 11
Experiment 12
Experiment 13
Experiment 14
Experiment 15

Step 5. Analyze data

Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham mathematically demonstrates that the earth does not curve in the fashion predicted by the Round Earth model.

Step 6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis

Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham makes adjustments to his experiments which accounts for refraction and other such phenomenas. The tests, trials, and experiments are carried out in multiple locations under a plethora of different atmospheric conditions with specialized instruments. Therefore we can conclude that, unless light does not travel in straight lines, the surface of the earth is flat.

Therefore the earth is flat.

Step 7. Publish results

Earth Not a Globe, Zetetic Cosmogony, a documentary on the Discovery Channel, dozens of other published Flat Earth works.

Step 8. Retest

Done. Lady Blount provides experimental and photographic evidence which demonstrates that the earth does not curve in the fashion predicted by a Round 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."

Thomas Winship, William Carpenter, John Hampden, Alfred Wallace, Dr. Leo Ferarri, and many other Flat Earth authors reconduct Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham's experiments which suggest that the earth is flat.

Tom Bishop mathematically demonstrates through test and trial that Monterey Bay is perfectly flat.


8 out of 8 - Pass


« Last Edit: October 28, 2007, 02:43:08 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

ChiefConspirator

  • 102
  • Tom Bishop - A Life
Re: Flat? Round? both round somewhat.
« Reply #73 on: October 28, 2007, 02:38:34 PM »
Oh, hey Tom. Fancy running into you here. Jesus, this is awkward. I mean I don't want to even bring it up, but....maybe you remember we have some unfinished business on another thread. Do you remember that? See I've been waiting for a response from you for sometime. It turns out you're posting all over the forum, but apparently you didn't feel that a huge gaping hole in FE theory was important enough to address. Why don't you hop on by, and set us non-believers straight?

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=17694.0
I've never seen any round earth. Why should I believe in something I've never seen?

?

Conspiracy Mastermind

  • 1836
  • There is no conspiracy...
Re: Flat? Round? both round somewhat.
« Reply #74 on: October 28, 2007, 02:40:55 PM »
Quote
Oh dear, looks like FE is out of the window.

Lets attempt to apply the scientific method to the Flat Earth model:

Yeah, I know that already. There is no experimental evidence for a Round Earth. What's your point?

Step 1. Define the question

"What shape is the earth?"

Step 2. Gather information and resources (observe)

"The surface of the earth appears flat"

Step 3. Form hypothesis

"The Earth is flat"

Step 4. Perform experiment and collect data

Experiment 1
Experiment 2
Experiment 3
Experiment 4
Experiment 5
These experiments were performed on a man-made landlocked body of water.
Experiment 6
Experiment 7
Experiment 8
Experiment 9
Experiment 10
Experiment 11
Experiment 12
Experiment 13
Experiment 14
Experiment 15 All these other observations are just word-of mouth.
FAIL

Step 5. Analyze data

Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham mathematically demonstrates that the earth does not curve in the fashion predicted by the Round Earth model.
FAIL, for reasons above.
Step 6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis

Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham makes adjustments to his experiments which accounts for refraction and other such phenomenas. The tests, trials, and experiments are carries out in multiple locations under a plethora of atmospheric conditions. Therefore we can conclude that unless light does not travel is straight lines, the surface of the earth is flat.

Therefore the earth is flat.
FAIL, again.
Step 7. Publish results

Earth Not a Globe, Zetetic Cosmogony, a documentary on the Discovery Channel, dozens of other published Flat Earth works.
Stupid criterion, since you can publish anything, true or not.
Step 8. Retest

Done. Lady Blount provides experimental and photographic evidence which demonstrates that the earth does not curve in the fashion predicted by a Round 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."

Tom Bishop mathematically demonstrates through test and trial that Monterey Bay is perfectly flat:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=17379.msg300563#msg300563
FAIL. Photographic evidence is not admissable. Word of mouth. Vested interest.

3 out of 7 - FAIL



Quote from: Tomcooper84
there is no optical light, there is just light and theres no other type of light unless you start talkling about energy saving lightbulbs compared to other types of light bulbs
ENaG: Evidence Not a Guarantee.

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: Flat? Round? both round somewhat.
« Reply #75 on: October 28, 2007, 04:35:41 PM »
Quote
Oh dear, looks like FE is out of the window.

Lets attempt to apply the scientific method to the Flat Earth model:

Yeah, I know that already. There is no experimental evidence for a Round Earth. What's your point?

Step 1. Define the question

"What shape is the earth?"

Step 2. Gather information and resources (observe)

"The surface of the earth appears flat"

Step 3. Form hypothesis

"The Earth is flat"

Step 4. Perform experiment and collect data

Experiment 1
Experiment 2
Experiment 3
Experiment 4
Experiment 5
These experiments were performed on a man-made landlocked body of water.
Experiment 6
Experiment 7
Experiment 8
Experiment 9
Experiment 10
Experiment 11
Experiment 12
Experiment 13
Experiment 14
Experiment 15 All these other observations are just word-of mouth.
FAIL

Step 5. Analyze data

Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham mathematically demonstrates that the earth does not curve in the fashion predicted by the Round Earth model.
FAIL, for reasons above.
Step 6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis

Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham makes adjustments to his experiments which accounts for refraction and other such phenomenas. The tests, trials, and experiments are carries out in multiple locations under a plethora of atmospheric conditions. Therefore we can conclude that unless light does not travel is straight lines, the surface of the earth is flat.

Therefore the earth is flat.
FAIL, again.
Step 7. Publish results

Earth Not a Globe, Zetetic Cosmogony, a documentary on the Discovery Channel, dozens of other published Flat Earth works.
Stupid criterion, since you can publish anything, true or not.
Step 8. Retest

Done. Lady Blount provides experimental and photographic evidence which demonstrates that the earth does not curve in the fashion predicted by a Round 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."

Tom Bishop mathematically demonstrates through test and trial that Monterey Bay is perfectly flat:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=17379.msg300563#msg300563
FAIL. Photographic evidence is not admissable. Word of mouth. Vested interest.

3 out of 7 - FAIL




That's exactly what I meant when I said every one of your experiments has been disproved, Tom.

You can't perform an experiment which shows a flat earth because your maths is flawed, your methods are poor, and the results are inconclusive.

Monsieur Bishope beat me to the punch.
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17796
Re: Flat? Round? both round somewhat.
« Reply #76 on: October 28, 2007, 05:19:34 PM »
Quote
That's exactly what I meant when I said every one of your experiments has been disproved, Tom.

Oh really? Why don't you disprove this experiment I regularly perform.

How exactly does the Round Earth model explain the results?

Quote
You can't perform an experiment which shows a flat earth because your maths is flawed, your methods are poor, and the results are inconclusive.

There is nothing incorrect with the math. Unless you do not believe on the Pythagorean theorem. Is that what you're telling me here? You don't believe in math?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17796
Re: Flat? Round? both round somewhat.
« Reply #77 on: October 28, 2007, 05:21:40 PM »
I'm still waiting for that experimental evidence which demonstrates that the earth is a sphere.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2007, 05:26:49 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: Flat? Round? both round somewhat.
« Reply #78 on: October 28, 2007, 05:28:13 PM »
I'm still waiting for that experimental evidence which demonstrates that the earth is a sphere.

Your evidence is my evidence. Since your experiments do not work, and are easily disprovable, then the Earth must be a globe.
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Re: Flat? Round? both round somewhat.
« Reply #79 on: October 28, 2007, 05:28:30 PM »
There is nothing incorrect with the math. Unless you do not believe on the Pythagorean theorem. Is that what you're telling me here? You don't believe in math?

You don't believe in Astronomy?

By the way, the Earth is round.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17796
Re: Flat? Round? both round somewhat.
« Reply #80 on: October 28, 2007, 05:33:37 PM »
Quote
You don't believe in Astronomy?

Astronomy is observation and interpretation only. There is no scientific method applied. Haven't you been following along?

Quote
Your evidence is my evidence. Since your experiments do not work, and are easily disprovable, then the Earth must be a globe.

Then disprove them already. I'm waiting. Try to explain the results with your model. I dare you.

After you disprove our experimental evidence perhaps you can post some experimental evidence which suggests that the earth is a sphere.

I'm still waiting for that evidence. Do you have any yet?

Something even remotely experimental?

I've given you our experimental evidence. Now its your turn to show me yours.

Either post experimental evidence suggesting that the earth is a globe or admit defeat.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2007, 05:39:15 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: Flat? Round? both round somewhat.
« Reply #81 on: October 28, 2007, 05:43:21 PM »
Quote
You don't believe in Astronomy?

Astronomy is observation and interpretation only. There is no scientific method applied. Haven't you been following along?

Quote
Your evidence is my evidence. Since your experiments do not work, and are easily disprovable, then the Earth must be a globe.

Then disprove them already. I'm waiting. Try to explain the results with your model. I dare you.

After you disprove our experimental evidence perhaps you can post some experimental evidence which suggests that the earth is a sphere.

I'm still waiting for that evidence. Do you have any yet?

Something even remotely experimental?

I've given you our experimental evidence. Now its your turn to show me yours.

Either post experimental evidence suggesting that the earth is a globe or admit defeat.

Like I said, disproving your evidence clearly proves that the earth is a globe.
I disproved your sinking ship theory with Pythagoras. Trekky has disproved your model of the sun.
Every single experiment you have posted has been defeated. Therefore you have no experimental evidence either, and all we have to rely on is observation and interpretation, and thus, considering the overwhelming amount of evidence for a spherical Earth, we must assume it is true.
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Re: Flat? Round? both round somewhat.
« Reply #82 on: October 28, 2007, 05:45:34 PM »
Quote
You don't believe in Astronomy?

Astronomy is observation and interpretation only. There is no scientific method applied.
Nope. Try again.

Quote
Your evidence is my evidence. Since your experiments do not work, and are easily disprovable, then the Earth must be a globe.

Then disprove them already. I'm waiting. Try to explain the results with your model. I dare you.

After you disprove our experimental evidence perhaps you can post some experimental evidence which suggests that the earth is a sphere.

I'm still waiting for that evidence. Do you have any yet?

Something even remotely experimental?

I've given you our experimental evidence. Now its your turn to show me yours.

Either post experimental evidence suggesting that the earth is a globe or admit defeat.

The earth is round. You lose.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17796
Re: Flat? Round? both round somewhat.
« Reply #83 on: October 28, 2007, 05:50:04 PM »
Quote
Like I said, disproving your evidence clearly proves that the earth is a globe.

Where has the experimental evidence been disproved? I'm having trouble finding it. Care to make a copy-paste?

Quote
I disproved your sinking ship theory with Pythagoras.

No you have not.

Quote
Trekky has disproved your model of the sun.

No he has not.

Quote
Every single experiment you have posted has been defeated. Therefore you have no experimental evidence either, and all we have to rely on is observation and interpretation, and thus, considering the overwhelming amount of evidence for a spherical Earth, we must assume it is true.

No Flat Earth experiments have been disproved.  Tell me again how your model of the earth explains the view I see across my bay through a telescope?

Quote
Nope. Try again.

What experiments do astronomers conduct?

I mean, really now, your arguments just suck. You give me zero experimental evidence which suggests that the earth is a globe, you do not justify the results of the experiments in the Flat Earth Literature. You don't really do anything.

This reflects poorly on your model.

Where is the experimental evidence?
« Last Edit: October 28, 2007, 05:55:26 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: Flat? Round? both round somewhat.
« Reply #84 on: October 28, 2007, 05:55:21 PM »
Quote
Like I said, disproving your evidence clearly proves that the earth is a globe.

Where has the experimental evidence been disproved? I'm having trouble finding it. Care to make a copy-paste?

Quote
I disproved your sinking ship theory with Pythagoras.

No you have not.
[/quote]

Errr, yes, I did. And you didn't respond to my post.

Quote
Quote
Trekky has disproved your model of the sun.

No he has not.

Yes, he has. Your failure to understand what a scale model is does not mean you are victorious.

Quote
Quote
Every single experiment you have posted has been defeated. Therefore you have no experimental evidence either, and all we have to rely on is observation and interpretation, and thus, considering the overwhelming amount of evidence for a spherical Earth, we must assume it is true.

No Flat Earth experiments have been disproved.  Tell me again how your model of the earth explains the view I see across my bay?

Refraction of light. There are many controlled experiments you can perform which show light bending around a curve due to refraction.
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Re: Flat? Round? both round somewhat.
« Reply #85 on: October 28, 2007, 05:56:32 PM »
I mean, really now, your arguments just suck.
LOL. This is entertaining.

Astronomers conduct experiments. You lose, again.

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: Flat? Round? both round somewhat.
« Reply #86 on: October 28, 2007, 05:58:39 PM »
And also, every single Flat Earth Experiment is performed in conditions where the instruments recording the results over such an area would have a larger margin of error than the curvature of the Earth. Thus, we can say that every Flat Earth experiment is inconclusive, and your theory cannot be proved.
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17796
Re: Flat? Round? both round somewhat.
« Reply #87 on: October 28, 2007, 06:01:18 PM »
Quote
Errr, yes, I did. And you didn't respond to my post.

That's a pretty crappy debating tactic. "I disproved your experiments a long time ago."

I asked you to post your disproofs here, remember?

Quote
Yes, he has. Your failure to understand what a scale model is does not mean you are victorious.

Unfortunately, as I have pointed out in that thread, Trekky has not posted an accurate scale model.

Quote
Refraction of light. There are many controlled experiments you can perform which show light bending around a curve due to refraction.

I'm tired of your terrible reading comprehension. I've already mentioned that Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham has already accounted for refraction in his experiments.

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 may, 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.

Your rebuttal?
« Last Edit: October 28, 2007, 06:04:33 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17796
Re: Flat? Round? both round somewhat.
« Reply #88 on: October 28, 2007, 06:02:59 PM »
Quote
And also, every single Flat Earth Experiment is performed in conditions where the instruments recording the results over such an area would have a larger margin of error than the curvature of the Earth. Thus, we can say that every Flat Earth experiment is inconclusive, and your theory cannot be proved.

Why don't you explain for me, in detail, what kind of margin of error occurs in my experiment across the Monterey Bay. Here it is again in case you've missed it:

I live along the California Monterey Bay. It is a relatively long bay that sits next to the Pacific Ocean. The exact distance between the extremes of the Monterey Bay, Lovers Point in Pacific Grove and Lighthouse State Beach in Santa Cruz, is 33.4 statute miles. See this map.

On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa. With a good telescope, laying down on the stomach at the edge of the shore on the Lovers Point beach 20 inches above the sea level it is possible to see people at the waters edge on the adjacent beach 33 miles away near the lighthouse. The entire beach is visible down to the water splashing upon the shore. Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore and teenagers merrily throwing Frisbees to one another. I can see runners jogging along the water's edge with their dogs. From my vantage point the entire beach is visible.

IF the earth is a globe, and is 24,900 English statute miles in circumference, the surface of all standing water must have a certain degree of convexity--every part must be an arc of a circle. From the summit of any such arc there will exist a curvature or declination of 8 inches in the first statute mile. In the second mile the fall will be 32 inches; in the third mile, 72 inches, or 6 feet, as shown in this chart. Ergo; looking at the opposite beach 30 miles away there should be a bulge of water over 600 feet tall blocking my view. There isn't.

Here's the math:



Suppose that the earth is a sphere with a radius of 3,963 miles. If you are at a point P on the earth's surface and move tangent to the surface a distance of 1 mile then you can form a right angled triangle as in the diagram.

Looking over a distance of 1 mile, we can use the theorem of Pythagoras:

a2 = 3,9632 + 12 = 15,705,370

and when we square root that figure we get a = 3,963.000126 miles

Thus your position is 3,963.000126 - 3,963 = 0.000126 miles above the surface of the earth.

0.000126 miles = 12 in * 5,280 ft * 0.000126 mi = 7.98 inches

Hence after one mile the earth drops approximately 8 inches.

-

Ergo, looking across 30 miles the Pythagorean theorem becomes:

a2 = 39632 +302 = 15,706,269

and when we square root that figure we get a = 3,963.113549 miles

Thus your position is 3,963.113549 - 3,963 = 0.113549 miles above the surface of the earth

0.113549 miles = 5,280 ft * 0.113549 mi = 599.53872 feet

Hence after 30 miles the earth drops approximately 600 feet.

-

Whenever I have doubts about the shape of the earth I simply walk outside my home, down to the beach, and perform this simple test. The same result comes up over and over throughout the year under a plethora of different atmospheric conditions.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17796
Re: Flat? Round? both round somewhat.
« Reply #89 on: October 28, 2007, 06:05:24 PM »
Quote
Astronomers conduct experiments. You lose, again.

Oh really? What kind of experiments do Astronomers conduct?