What happened to the Monterey Bay thread?

You should. But you're just below Gayer priority-wise.

Woohoo! I'm better than Roundy

ITT: I hate narcberry so much.

This is a completely valid argument against FE. The refraction has nothing to do with it because even without it in the equation, the direct result is that the Earth is round (but with a different diameter). As I have said numerous times before, FE defies the commonly accepted models for physics and geometry (i.e. perspective). Is it really so much to demand that some FEer stops arguing about the accuracy of the website's calculations and simply explains why we see such an effect at all?

The refraction has nothing to do with it

If it doesn't than how do you reconcile that your models predictions are not equal to observation?

Quote from: silverhammermba on May 05, 2008, 08:27:13 AM

The refraction has nothing to do with it

If it doesn't than how do you reconcile that your models predictions are not equal to observation?

Which model's prediction is not equal to observation and by how much? And what is your model's prediction and how much is the error in your prediction?

You have not bothered to analyze the experiment that started this thread, and therefore you have no idea where the very real sources of experimental error are.

Your train of thought is something like: "there is always some error in your models, so you are wrong; therefore I am right". That is completely wrong. You can only propose a better model and show with experiments that the error in your model is smaller.

I guess it would be too much to expect an RE'er to have read the thread they were posting to.