"Conspiracy" is not a valid argument

No, just zetetic science.

No, it's circular.  It's dismissing the evidence that the earth is not flat on the grounds that the earth is flat.

Quote from: General Douchebag on June 15, 2008, 08:11:22 AM

No, just zetetic science.

No, it's circular.  It's dismissing the evidence that the earth is not flat on the grounds that the earth is flat.

No, it's dismissing evidence that the earth is not flat on the grounds of prior evidence that the earth is flat.  Nothing circular about it at all.

Quote from: lindelof on June 15, 2008, 11:21:36 AM

Quote from: General Douchebag on June 15, 2008, 08:11:22 AM

No, just zetetic science.

No, it's circular.  It's dismissing the evidence that the earth is not flat on the grounds that the earth is flat.

No, it's dismissing evidence that the earth is not flat on the grounds of prior evidence that the earth is flat.  Nothing circular about it at all.

Hum.  Actually, it's not really circular, as they aren't using the existence of a conspiracy to argue that the Earth is flat.  They're just being fallacious.  I think.  When forming a judgment you have to weigh all the evidence that you have, you can't just dismiss a huge amount to evidence because it disagrees with other evidence.

Hum.  Actually, it's not really circular, as they aren't using the existence of a conspiracy to argue that the Earth is flat.  They're just being fallacious.  I think.  When forming a judgment you have to weigh all the evidence that you have, you can't just dismiss a huge amount to evidence because it disagrees with other evidence.

Depends on the justification for dismissing it.

True.  But the Fe's (at least as far as I can tell) don't seem to have any good reason for dismissing it other than it contradicts the evidence they like.

True.  But the Fe's (at least as far as I can tell) don't seem to have any good reason for dismissing it other than it contradicts the evidence they like.

Exactly.  Direct observational evidence that can be experimentally verified by anybody.

Quote from: lindelof on June 15, 2008, 01:26:50 PM

True.  But the Fe's (at least as far as I can tell) don't seem to have any good reason for dismissing it other than it contradicts the evidence they like.

Exactly.  Direct observational evidence that can be experimentally verified by anybody.

Evidence shouldn't be weighted heavier because it is more accessible.  And plenty of the RE evidence is accessible (lunar eclipses, star behavior in the Southern Hemisphere).

Quote from: lindelof on June 15, 2008, 01:26:50 PM

True.  But the Fe's (at least as far as I can tell) don't seem to have any good reason for dismissing it other than it contradicts the evidence they like.

Exactly.  Direct observational evidence that can be experimentally verified by anybody.

Good thing one can directly observe satellites.  Whew, close one.

Evidence shouldn't be weighted heavier because it is more accessible. 

In that case, I have a ghost in my closet. Don't ask to see it because it is inaccessible to you.

Looking directly at you car is the best evidence of its color.  This evidence trumps all reflections, videos, photographs, third hand accounts, textbooks, religious proclamations.

Similarly, measuring the shape of the earth directly is the best evidence of its flatness.

Looking directly at you car is the best evidence of its color.  This evidence trumps all reflections, videos, photographs, third hand accounts, textbooks, religious proclamations.

Similarly, measuring the shape of the earth directly is the best evidence of its flatness.

When you can explain how amateurs (like me) all over the world observe sustained space travel and man-made impacts with celestial bodies, without contradicting FE, then I'll trust your measurements.  Incidently, I've seen the earth's curvature first hand when it prevented me from seeing a shore about 10 miles away through my telescope.  The trees beyond the shore appeared to rise right of the river from the trunk up.  I see no reason to trust your "measurements" over my own and my own first hand observations of spaceflight which proves beyond all shadow of a doubt that the earth is round.

When you can explain how amateurs (like me) all over the world observe sustained space travel and man-made impacts with celestial bodies, without contradicting FE, then I'll trust your measurements.

An explanation is not necessary, but of course, I would love to hear more details of your measurements of the flatness of the earth, lived_eht_asan.

Incidently, I've seen the earth's curvature first hand when it prevented me from seeing a shore about 10 miles away through my telescope.  The trees beyond the shore appeared to rise right of the river from the trunk up.

Finally, someone has some first-hand experience with observing the convexity of the Earth.   The FE-RE debate ultimately boils down to the validity of the experiments which measure the curvature/noncurvature of the Earth.  For such an important issue, there is little information to be found about these experiments.  I've been waiting for someone, somewhere to detail the performance of said experiments, but no one has.

Looking directly at you car is the best evidence of its color.  This evidence trumps all reflections, videos, photographs, third hand accounts, textbooks, religious proclamations.

Similarly, measuring the shape of the earth directly is the best evidence of its flatness.

How much of the earth do you need to directly measure in order to determine its flatness?

It seems like any amount is sufficient.

I've been waiting for someone, somewhere to detail the performance of said experiments, but no one has.

Read Earth Not a Globe.

Quote

I've been waiting for someone, somewhere to detail the performance of said experiments, but no one has.

Read Earth Not a Globe.

I did and I found the accounts of the experiments lacking in details.  What kind of telescopes were used?  What were the weather conditions?  How were distances measured?  What was the orientation of the bodies of water?  What did the image in the telescope look like?  Pictures?

Besides, a single performance of an experiment is meaningless.  The results of an experiment are only valid once they have been repeated by others.  This is what I am after.  I want a detailed account from someone else who has performed the experiments.  After all this site has been through, I'm surprised no one has.

I did and I found the accounts of the experiments lacking in details.  What kind of telescopes were used?  What were the weather conditions?  How were distances measured?  What was the orientation of the bodies of water?  What did the image in the telescope look like?  Pictures?

The details of the experiments are sufficiently described in the text, often overly detailed.

I want a detailed account from someone else who has performed the experiments.  After all this site has been through, I'm surprised no one has.

If you want corroborating evidence then you should consult one of the fifty other pieces of Flat Earth Literature listed in my signature link. There are detailed performances of convexity experiments.

For example, a woman named Lady Bount was among the first to provided photographic evidence for a Flat 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."

Further repetitions are described in "100 Proofs the earth is not a globe" by William Carpenter:

"If we take a journey down the Chesapeake Bay, by night, we shall see the "light" exhibited at Sharpe's Island for an hour before the steamer gets to it. We may take up a position on the deck so that the rail of the vessel's side will be in a line with the "light" and in the line of sight; and we shall find that in the whole journey the light will won't vary in the slightest degree in its apparent elevation. But, say that a distance of thirteen miles has been traversed, the astronomers' theory of "curvature" demands a difference (one way or the other!) in the apparent elevation of the light, of 112 feet 8 inches! Since, however, there is not a difference of 100 hair's breadths, we have a plain proof that the water of the Chesapeake Bay is not curved, which is a proof that the Earth is not a globe."

The details of the experiments are sufficiently described in the text, often overly detailed.

Then how come I can't find the answers to the questions I listed?

The examples you listed are not what I am after.  These are not controlled, well-detailed experiments.  They give no mention of the procedures, conditions, and equipment specifications used in the experiment. These are no more convincing than accounts of sightings of UFOs and Bigfoot.

Then how come I can't find the answers to the questions I listed?

The examples you listed are not what I am after.  These are not controlled, well-detailed experiments.  They give no mention of the procedures, conditions, and equipment specifications used in the experiment. These are no more convincing than accounts of sightings of UFOs and Bigfoot.

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at with the equipment thing. Are you saying that different models of telescopes can see through a hill of water?

As far as terrestrial refraction goes, Rowbotham does take terrestrial refraction into account in his experiments. See Experiment 9, for instance:

...

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.

Quote from: lived_eht_asan on June 15, 2008, 02:55:34 PM

Looking directly at you car is the best evidence of its color.  This evidence trumps all reflections, videos, photographs, third hand accounts, textbooks, religious proclamations.

Similarly, measuring the shape of the earth directly is the best evidence of its flatness.

How much of the earth do you need to directly measure in order to determine its flatness?

5 to 10 miles is sufficient.  RE would require an object to be 10-20 feet below the horizon at this distance.  In my own observations, 5 to 10 miles is observable without curvature.

Quote from: markjo on June 15, 2008, 08:20:07 PM

Quote from: lived_eht_asan on June 15, 2008, 02:55:34 PM

Looking directly at you car is the best evidence of its color.  This evidence trumps all reflections, videos, photographs, third hand accounts, textbooks, religious proclamations.

Similarly, measuring the shape of the earth directly is the best evidence of its flatness.

How much of the earth do you need to directly measure in order to determine its flatness?

5 to 10 miles is sufficient.  RE would require an object to be 10-20 feet below the horizon at this distance.  In my own observations, 5 to 10 miles is observable without curvature.

Please, elaborate.

As far as terrestrial refraction goes, Rowbotham does take terrestrial refraction into account in his experiments. See Experiment 9, for instance:

...

Two barometers ... 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 ...  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.

No he did not take refraction into account.

Rowbothem did not know what type of temperature gradient would cause downwards refraction:  It is the vertical temperature gradient from the water upwards, not the horizontal gradient between the stations, which would cause a downward refraction of the light rays.  In the correction conditions, it would cause light to curve in the direction of the earth's curvature.  -This is perfectly possible, given the effects of cold water against warmer air.

Quote

Then how come I can't find the answers to the questions I listed?

The examples you listed are not what I am after.  These are not controlled, well-detailed experiments.  They give no mention of the procedures, conditions, and equipment specifications used in the experiment. These are no more convincing than accounts of sightings of UFOs and Bigfoot.

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at with the equipment thing. Are you saying that different models of telescopes can see through a hill of water?

As far as terrestrial refraction goes, Rowbotham does take terrestrial refraction into account in his experiments. See Experiment 9, for instance:

...

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.

Appeal to authority is a fallacy

You have to do your own experiments and tests and show us the results.

See how dumb you sound when you say that Tom?

Quote

When you can explain how amateurs (like me) all over the world observe sustained space travel and man-made impacts with celestial bodies, without contradicting FE, then I'll trust your measurements.

An explanation is not necessary

Yes, it is since it is direct evidence of a round earth.  You fail to explain it, your theory fails.

Quote

Incidently, I've seen the earth's curvature first hand when it prevented me from seeing a shore about 10 miles away through my telescope.  The trees beyond the shore appeared to rise right of the river from the trunk up.

Finally, someone has some first-hand experience with observing the convexity of the Earth.   The FE-RE debate ultimately boils down to the validity of the experiments which measure the curvature/noncurvature of the Earth. 

Nonsense, it has many facets, most of which you ignore.  There are many, many ways to disprove your theory.  All someone has to do is prove that spaceflight is real or that gravitation occurs between any object with mass.

For such an important issue, there is little information to be found about these experiments.  I've been waiting for someone, somewhere to detail the performance of said experiments, but no one has.

Frankly, I hate doing what you're suggesting for the simple reason that salt air and blowing sand is death to coatings on precision optics like mine, so the beach is strictly out of the question.  I went out to a river just once to use my telescope to observe a shuttle launch and witnessed for myself that the shore on the other side about 5-10 miles away was hidden by the river, only the trees beyond were visible.  As for the "importance" of the issue, most people are smart enough to realize a flat earth is made impossible by the observations of spaceflights and other things, making any "measurements" showing the earth being flat untrustworthy.

jdoe is an REer...why is it 'his theory' all of a sudden?

As for the "importance" of the issue, most people are smart enough to realize a flat earth is made impossible by the observations of spaceflights and other things, making any "measurements" showing the earth being flat untrustworthy.

Nevermind an alternate explanation for observations, empirical measurements must be untrustworthy. That's a laugh and a half. Thanks for that.

Quote from: messierhunter on June 16, 2008, 06:44:33 AM

As for the "importance" of the issue, most people are smart enough to realize a flat earth is made impossible by the observations of spaceflights and other things, making any "measurements" showing the earth being flat untrustworthy.

Nevermind an alternate explanation for observations, empirical measurements must be untrustworthy. That's a laugh and a half. Thanks for that.

You have yet to produce a valid alternative explanation for evidence that would not exist if the "measurements" were trustworthy.  I have measured the positions of satellites and found them to be correct.  Why should I trust some FE'ers "measurements" conducted on their own terms more than I trust measurements I made myself?  Want to talk about a laugh?  I'm laughing at your sorry excuse for a handwave.

jdoe is an REer...why is it 'his theory' all of a sudden?

I don't care what he is, if you're defending FE by saying you don't need to explain mountains of contrary evidence, the theory you're defending fails.

You have yet to produce a valid alternative explanation for evidence that would not exist if the "measurements" were trustworthy.  I have measured the positions of satellites and found them to be correct.  Why should I trust some FE'ers "measurements" conducted on their own terms more than I trust measurements I made myself?  Want to talk about a laugh?  I'm laughing at your sorry excuse for a handwave.

For one, I did no such hand-waving, and you're right, I haven't produced an alternate explanation. And two, you said any measurements going against observations' explanations must be untrustworthy. That sounds like much more prevalent hand-waving to me. Why trust empirical fact when you can go off of a relative observation?

I don't care what he is, if you're defending FE by saying you don't need to explain mountains of contrary evidence, the theory you're defending fails.

I've never seen him defend FE, and he always tends to have reasonable points in his posts. Perhaps it's because he disagreed with you, and you couldn't get away with whatever you were talking about.

Quote from: messierhunter on June 16, 2008, 07:12:59 AM

You have yet to produce a valid alternative explanation for evidence that would not exist if the "measurements" were trustworthy.  I have measured the positions of satellites and found them to be correct.  Why should I trust some FE'ers "measurements" conducted on their own terms more than I trust measurements I made myself?  Want to talk about a laugh?  I'm laughing at your sorry excuse for a handwave.

For one, I did no such hand-waving,

You're handwaving to the claims of FE'ers without supplying an explanation for contradicting evidence.

and you're right, I haven't produced an alternate explanation. And two, you said any measurements going against observations' explanations must be untrustworthy.

Both measurements can't be right.  They're mutually exclusive.  You have two sets of measurements going against each other.  I've measured the orbits of satellites, two biased FE'ers have claimed to have measured the earth as flat.  One of the groups is wrong.

 That sounds like much more prevalent hand-waving to me. Why trust empirical fact when you can go off of a relative observation?

I'm not handwaving, I'll gladly supply you an alternative explanation to your "evidence," but that's not what this thread is about, is it?  On top of that, I'm supplying evidence from a ton of sources all pointing to the same conclusion, rather than handwave to a much smaller set of measurements from people who set out with the agenda of proving the earth flat, rather than to disprove a null hypothesis.  The horde of amateurs who observed the Tempel 1 impact never had any intention of proving the shape of the earth with their observations.  That's what gives it so much more weight than the "measurements" cited in support of FE.  Others (like Alfred Wallace) who have challenged those measurements found them to be non-repeatable, only to be slandered and sued afterwards.

I've never seen him defend FE, and he always tends to have reasonable points in his posts. Perhaps it's because he disagreed with you, and you couldn't get away with whatever you were talking about.

Oh I "got away" with what I was talking about all right.  An explanation is necessary before you can even think about dismissing mountains of contradicting evidence.  You have yet to even supply speculation.  Honestly, you take all the fun out of debating whackjobs.  The best part is when they come back with the most insane alternative explanations, like what Tom often does.  That's the best part because it's so easy to knock it down with more proof.