Drop - How does it happen?

Hi all,

I have three stakes, all of equal length. I place one on a flat lake, continue along for a mile, place another, then place my third 2 miles away from my starting location.

When I site the top of the first stake against my third, the second one is 8 inches higher, why is that? RE theory's say it is due to the curve of the earth of course.

Have you actually done this? Walked along a lake, planting stakes? Or did Jesus tell you it was so?

It's something you can test yourself, if I said I have you wouldn't believe me anyway. Sooooo any explanation?

I have a feeling bendy light is going to be mentioned...

It's something you can test yourself, if I said I have you wouldn't believe me anyway. Sooooo any explanation?

That's the RE way of saying, "No, I've never tried it. No, you can't make me try it. But, the results are still irrefutable!"

Ok, so you're saying that it doesn't happen.

So by that, if I went out and did it, and that was the result, you couldn't explain it?

Ok, so you're saying that it doesn't happen.

So by that, if I went out and did it, and that was the result, you couldn't explain it?

Make sure to keep a detailed record of your experiment.

Hi all,

I have three stakes, all of equal length. I place one on a flat lake, continue along for a mile, place another, then place my third 2 miles away from my starting location.

When I site the top of the first stake against my third, the second one is 8 inches higher, why is that? RE theory's say it is due to the curve of the earth of course.

LIAR!!

I will no longer trust anything you say from here on out.

Quote from: Peleus on October 19, 2008, 04:37:21 PM

It's something you can test yourself, if I said I have you wouldn't believe me anyway. Sooooo any explanation?

That's the RE way of saying, "No, I've never tried it. No, you can't make me try it. But, the results are still irrefutable!"

That's the FE way of saying. "since you didn't do it, and i didn't do it, means it must be impossible, since we can only assume that everyone else is a liar"

It's something you can test yourself, if I said I have you wouldn't believe me anyway. Sooooo any explanation?

How are we supposed to know the results of the experiment if no one has done it? 

Quote from: Peleus on October 19, 2008, 04:37:21 PM

It's something you can test yourself, if I said I have you wouldn't believe me anyway. Sooooo any explanation?

How are we supposed to know the results of the experiment if no one has done it? 

Uhhh I'm surprised you haven't heard of the Bedford Level experiment? You know that thing they tried to use to prove the earth was flat but it backfired when it proved the earth was round?

Uhhh I'm surprised you haven't heard of the Bedford Level experiment?

Rowbotham's Bedford Canal experiment proved the earth to be flat.

The later Betford Canal wager between Hampden and Wallace for a year's worth of pay was inconclusive, since each man walked away from the experiment claiming that he won. The wager isn't really valid as an experiment either, since anyone would lie when they stand to lose a year's worth of pay.

Later experiments on the Bedford Canal by Lady Blount suggested a flat earth.

So how does the Bedford Canal experiment in any way prove the Round Earth model? 

But I thought you said that the experiment hadn't be done, now you're saying it has?

Also, the Bedford Canal Experiment proved that this drop occurs. This was detailed in a bet between John Hampton and Russell Wallace. A court of law found that Wallace won the bet. Why was it inconclusive? It was good enough for the courts to award the winnings and jail a person for spreading false accusations about someone, I would say that's pretty conclusive.

Source here- http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=2&res=9C00EFDF113EEE34BC4852DFBE66838A669FDE&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Also can you answer my questions about sunlight in the other thread?

Also, the Bedford Canal Experiment proved that this drop occurs. This was detailed in a bet between John Hampton and Russell Wallace. A court of law found that Wallace won the bet. Why was it inconclusive? It was good enough for the courts to award the winnings and jail a person for spreading false accusations about someone, I would say that's pretty conclusive.

Christine Garwood goes some depth into this subject in her book "Flat Earth: History of an infamous idea". The court case had nothing to do with proving whether the earth is flat or round. It was a libel and slander suite brought on by Alfred Wallace.

So are you saying it doesn't happen, or that no one has ever done it?

So are you saying it doesn't happen, or that no one has ever done it?

Samuel Birley Rowbotham did it. He saw a Flat Earth.

Quote

Uhhh I'm surprised you haven't heard of the Bedford Level experiment?

Rowbotham's Bedford Canal experiment proved the earth to be flat.

Lie.  It "proved" it was possible to see a distant object when viewed across a body of water, at low level. 

As ever, the word "proof" is as flexible as FET itself.

I have a feeling bendy light is going to be mentioned...

yes, bendy light is vry important here

So are you saying it doesn't happen, or that no one has ever done it?

You haven't done it, nor have any of us. How can any of us know the results without doing it? Go do it!

The Bedford Canal experiment did prove the Earth to be flat, water would be convex on an RE. This is not the Bedford Level experiment, I know this because the Bedford Level experiment didn't require stakes or the ability to walk on water.

Wouldn't it?

oh great! i'm leaving this thread. THIS ALWAYS HAPPENS, everything just becomes so complicated, and goes WAAAAY of topic. I wish threads here could be simple. A THOROUGH question, a THOROUGH answer, and a debate on the ANSWER or QUESTION, nothing off topic, or on the nitty gritty of things like grammar and what not

YOU WANT IT SIMPLE? HE DIDN'T DO THE EXPERIMENT, HE JUST MADE SOME SHIT UP. THAT'S NOT A VALID POINT OUTSIDE OF YOUR MIND. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, NOW FUCK OFF. Simple enough? 

YOU WANT IT SIMPLE? HE DIDN'T DO THE EXPERIMENT, HE JUST MADE SOME SHIT UP. THAT'S NOT A VALID POINT OUTSIDE OF YOUR MIND. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, NOW FUCK OFF. Simple enough? 

YES!!!!!!!!! THANK YOU!!!!! why couldn't some one just answer like that on the VERY FIRST REPLY?!?!?!

I think that by following Occam's razor we can arrive at a proof for a flat Earth by discussing this in terms of general relativity, geodesics and the equivalence principle.  Of course, we may need to take a quick detour through the standard model graviton and perhaps a few gravitinos, but by the end of it you'll be so sure the Earth is flat you'll look out the window and be amazed you could ever have been so stupid.

I think that by following Occam's razor we can arrive at a proof for a flat Earth by discussing this in terms of general relativity, geodesics and the equivalence principle.  Of course, we may need to take a quick detour through the standard model graviton and perhaps a few gravitinos, but by the end of it you'll be so sure the Earth is flat you'll look out the window and be amazed you could ever have been so stupid.

Occam's razor can only be applied to possible solutions which use a known set of variables.  -Basically it's the problem with the least variables that wins.

We don't know what holds the sun and sun/moon/planets/stars, we don't know what they orbit around, we don't know what causes UA or how it is affected by altitude, we don't know why radio signals take 2.5 second to bounce of the moon, we don't know what causes the tides, we don't know what causes sun-sets and we most definitely do not know how many variables there are in RET.  This is because there are no mathematical models behind it.

Therefore RET cannot be compared to existing models in order to apply Occam's Razor.   

In fact, you may as well say Religion is the correct solution because there is just one God behind it all.

Moon squirter - did you miss the subtle undertone of sarcasm in my post?

Moon squirter - did you miss the subtle undertone of sarcasm in my post?

Opps    Must save that Occam rant for another time.

Quote from: Matrix on October 21, 2008, 02:51:31 AM

Moon squirter - did you miss the subtle undertone of sarcasm in my post?

Opps    Must save that Occam rant for another time.

Do it like Tom: save your best posts in an easily accessable place, then copy and paste them whenever they apply again.

It's ok, I get wound up and rant about stuff occasionally without realising that I'm actually just making a tit out of myself.