'Look out of the window argument'

okay to keep the habit going, here is a wiki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative


okay now imagine this, let's say that the RET is true(just for once)

the earth would have a diameter of approx. 13k km and a 40k km Perimeter

We will just take a small piece to imagine it more easily..





this part of the Perimeter is 1000km long.

since the angle a circle changes is the same on any place on the circle we can say:

the angle of the 1000km long piece is (1/40) * 360 degrees = 9 degrees.

here is a picture that shows how the earth would curve over 1000KM if the RET was true.




okay now to bring it abit closer to your window... let's see how much the curvature is for 10KM (0.09 degrees)





do you now see why it SEEMS flat but is not?

 

...do you now see why it SEEMS flat but is not?

So this diagram...

Isn't what an observer would see if the Earth was round?

It would look like this...

As was observed by Rowbotham.  Amazing isn't it?

So this diagram...

Quote from: Rowbotham

Isn't what an observer would see if the Earth was round?

It's certainly highly exaggerated.

Noone here with a good reply? please.. it's the debate forum.

Quote from: IgnoranceIsStrength on September 12, 2008, 04:53:50 AM

...do you now see why it SEEMS flat but is not?

So this diagram...

Quote from: Rowbotham

Isn't what an observer would see if the Earth was round?

It would look like this...

Quote from: Rowbotham

As was observed by Rowbotham.  Amazing isn't it?

exactly, thanks for helping me out on getting going here

you can see at the 4.5 mile pic that the bending is 0.09 degrees AT MOST, perfect good example that explains why people would think the earth was flat because looking out of the window.

thanks!

The "look out of your window" experiment is not an argument. It is merely a premise that is validated through FET. Given the refutation of RET, it becomes evidence enough of the earth being flat.

No zeteticist would consider it sufficient otherwise.

The "look out of your window" experiment is not an argument. It is merely a premise that is validated through FET.

Do you mean that "the earth looks flat from my window" is a premise of the overall argument that the earth is flat?

Given the refutation of RET, it becomes evidence enough of the earth being flat.

No zeteticist would consider it sufficient otherwise.

So you are saying that there are only two possible shapes for the earth?  Sphere or disk?  I'd say there are many other possible
shapes the earth could hold and still be consistent with looking flat from a window.

If you're really a zeteticist, wouldn't you state only that the portion of the earth visible to you is flat?

Quote from: Oscar Wilde on September 12, 2008, 07:28:28 PM

The "look out of your window" experiment is not an argument. It is merely a premise that is validated through FET.

Do you mean that "the earth looks flat from my window" is a premise of the overall argument that the earth is flat?

It is certainly an observation that directly supports it.

Quote from: Oscar Wilde on September 12, 2008, 07:28:28 PM

Given the refutation of RET, it becomes evidence enough of the earth being flat.

No zeteticist would consider it sufficient otherwise.

So you are saying that there are only two possible shapes for the earth?  Sphere or disk?  I'd say there are many other possible shapes the earth could hold and still be consistent with looking flat from a window.

I was speaking about the refutation of RET through the vindication of FET. I apologise if that was not clear.

If you're really a zeteticist, wouldn't you state only that the portion of the earth visible to you is flat?

The view from one's window is only a starting point...forgive me, but have you lurked or used the search function at all?

The view from one's window is only a starting point...forgive me, but have you lurked or used the search function at all?

A fair amount, yes, but this forum has a great deal of information on it, so I haven't been able to catch up with all the ideas presented here.

But in what I have read, the "window" argument (sorry, experiment) is often presented as if it were an argument in and of itself that really should settle the matter.

Clearly some people think it is only some part of the discussion, but others are unwilling to even debate whether it makes any sense to utter at all.  I started a thread
pointing out that as an argument by itself, it represents blatantly flawed inductive reasoning, and a fair number of the responses indicated that calling the logic of FET into
question was nonsensical.

I like your position on the matter better than anything else I've read, so I was just trying to make sure I understood you correctly. 

Quote from: Oscar Wilde on September 12, 2008, 08:00:45 PM

The view from one's window is only a starting point...forgive me, but have you lurked or used the search function at all?

But in what I have read, the "window" argument (sorry, experiment) is often presented as if it were an argument in and of itself that really should settle the matter.

Anyone who presents it as such is a fool and certainly not a zeteticist.

Oscar is correct.  Even Tom Bishop has admitted that just looking flat doesn't necessarily make it flat.  It's the other evidence available to us that confirms that our senses are correct.

Quote from: LogicIsBetter on September 12, 2008, 08:58:19 PM

Quote from: Oscar Wilde on September 12, 2008, 08:00:45 PM

The view from one's window is only a starting point...forgive me, but have you lurked or used the search function at all?

But in what I have read, the "window" argument (sorry, experiment) is often presented as if it were an argument in and of itself that really should settle the matter.

Anyone who presents it as such is a fool and certainly not a zeteticist.

Glad to hear it.

Quote from: Rig Navigator on September 12, 2008, 06:38:03 AM

Quote from: IgnoranceIsStrength on September 12, 2008, 04:53:50 AM

...do you now see why it SEEMS flat but is not?

So this diagram...

Quote from: Rowbotham

Isn't what an observer would see if the Earth was round?

You're an idiot.

Did you ever consider that the illustrations in ENAG were for illustrative purposes only?

Did you even look at the math?

Did you even look at the math?

Calling it "math" is extremely generous.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 13, 2008, 12:57:30 AM

Did you ever consider that the illustrations in ENAG were for illustrative purposes only?

Did you even look at the math?

Calling it "math" is extremely generous.

Indeed.   The "math" certainly isn't for mathematical purposes.

Quote

Quote from: Rig Navigator on September 12, 2008, 06:38:03 AM

Quote from: IgnoranceIsStrength on September 12, 2008, 04:53:50 AM

...do you now see why it SEEMS flat but is not?

So this diagram...

Quote from: Rowbotham

Isn't what an observer would see if the Earth was round?

You're an idiot.

Did you ever consider that the illustrations in ENAG were for illustrative purposes only?

Did you even look at the math?

My, my Tom.  Aren't you getting a bit harsh?  That's the second time (that I've seen so far today) that you've called someone an idiot.  As I recall, several FE'ers have criticized RE's "illustrative" drawings in the past.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 13, 2008, 12:57:30 AM

Did you even look at the math?

Calling it "math" is extremely generous.

The math Rowbotham uses for calculating the convexity of the earth if it were a globe with a circumference of 24,900 miles is the exact same math the Royal Astronomical society uses to calculate the convexity of the earth. Rowbotham references where he got his math for those doubters who cannot work out the math on their own to see that it is accurate (such as you).

I didn't find the drop per mile in Rowbotham's work. (I didn't look for more than 20 seconds)
Do you know offhand, how much he thought it drops per mile?

By the way, his experiments indicate that he saw everything as a flat plane, whereas you consider everything to look curved because light allegedly bends upwards. Isn't this a kind of a contradiction? ...Pick a theory and stick with it.

I didn't find the drop per mile in Rowbotham's work. (I didn't look for more than 20 seconds)
Do you know offhand, how much he thought it drops per mile?

By the way, his experiments indicate that he saw everything as a flat plane, whereas you consider everything to look curved because light allegedly bends upwards. Isn't this a kind of a contradiction? ...Pick a theory and stick with it.

Rowbotham has a table in his book for drop per mile:  http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za05.htm

You're an idiot.

Um, thanks?

Did you ever consider that the illustrations in ENAG were for illustrative purposes only?

Well, I always did think that illustrations were to help support the argument made in the text.  This appears to be that sort of illustration.  Maybe a little exaggerated, but the text clearly mentions that Rowbotham expected to see the ship move up and over a "hill of water" as it moved between the piers.

Did you even look at the math?

Which math?  The one that says that the curve of the horizon wouldn't be visible from sea level that was presented on this site or the math that Rowbotham expects to observe 40 inches of change in the image of the ship as it traveled between the piers?

Here is the entire section around the illustration...



I wouldn't want to be accused of being an idiot again.