Proof of a round earth?

There are a multitude of methods in which any one can prove that the earth is a sphere. These are the most common.

You can launch a rocket to a high altitude and take pictures of the earth (which various government agencies and private groups have already done thousands of times in the past), but that isn't the most practical way. Pictures and videos taken by orbiting satellites and space stations are certainly the most definitive proof that the earth is a sphere.

I've never seen anything strong enough to convince me that the earth is a sphere.  In fact I would expect the horizon to appear to be curved from high up anyway because of the sun's spotlight effect.  Of course, pictures are never really proof anyway, or else we'd have proof of aliens, ghosts, the Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot, etc.

But if you're not convinced, read on...

Okay! 

You can also observe, with binoculars, ships slowly 'sinking' below the horizon as it sails farther and farther out to the ocean, then watch them come back. They certainly didn't fall off the edge of the earth! You can also sail or fly around the world.

This is easily explained by the light bending through the atmosphere, thus causing something far away to appear lower than it actually is and therefore partially cut off.

The Greeks discovered that the earth is round by observing lunar eclipses (i.e. when the earth blocks the sun from the moon, casting its round shadow on the moon's surface).

The FE opinion is that the Greeks made an incorrect assumption (as they often did) regarding what was actually blocking the moon.  We believe there is another celestial object close to the sun that sometimes comes between the sun and moon, that we call the Shadow Object, that causes lunar eclipses.

Another method is simultaneously measuring the length of the shadows cast by identical poles perpendicular to a flat surface that is tangential to the earth's radius at various, distant locations. If indeed the earth is round, then the shadows should all vary in length from one distant location to another, which means that the angle at which the parallel rays of sunlight struck each pole varied from one location to another. (recall the alternate-angles theorem from Geometry class) If the earth is flat, then the lengths of all the shadows should be identical when measured simultaneously, since all rays of sunlight that strike the earth are parallel. However, they are not identical, but in fact, varies in such a way that the angles indicate a spherical surface. (This was one of the earliest methods to determine the radius of the earth)

I haven't seen anything convincing to suggest that the only explanation for this is that the earth is a sphere.  The sun's position relative to the different poles on earth will not be the same in FE so why wouldn't the sizes of their shadows vary?  Also, the atmosphere causes the sun's light to bend, thus causing the spotlight effect.  So I don't think the sun's rays are striking the earth parallel to each other anyway.

Also, keep in mind the 24 hour time zones. When it is noon in Hawaii, it is approximately midnight in the Middle East and vice versa. How can it be noon and midnight simultaneously? It is certainly impossible with a flat earth and a sun millions of times more massive.

Ah.  You think the sun in FE is similar in size to the sun in RE.  That might be the problem; we think the earth is much more massive than the sun, and due to the aforementioned spotlight effect the sun only illuminates part of the earth at a time.

Ah.  You think the sun in FE is similar in size to the sun in RE.  That might be the problem; we think the earth is much more massive than the sun, and due to the aforementioned spotlight effect the sun only illuminates part of the earth at a time.

If the sun is a spotlight, why does it always appear spherical?

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on January 04, 2009, 04:51:30 PM

Ah.  You think the sun in FE is similar in size to the sun in RE.  That might be the problem; we think the earth is much more massive than the sun, and due to the aforementioned spotlight effect the sun only illuminates part of the earth at a time.

If the sun is a spotlight, why does it always appear spherical?

It's not a spotlight.  The atmosphere causes the light coming from the sun to bend, and also limits the amount of earth that is illuminated.  It's what we call the spotlight effect.

I guess the problem is that you can never truly disprove the FE model, as every time evidence comes up against it, another phenomena or fundamental force s created to explain it. While it results in a 'working' model, it also results in a very complex one. As there's no way to tell the two models apart from my point of view, I go for the RE one as it's simpler and requires less unknown forces and assumptions flying around.

Quote from: Mammon on January 04, 2009, 03:41:32 PM

There are a multitude of methods in which any one can prove that the earth is a sphere. These are the most common.

You can launch a rocket to a high altitude and take pictures of the earth (which various government agencies and private groups have already done thousands of times in the past), but that isn't the most practical way. Pictures and videos taken by orbiting satellites and space stations are certainly the most definitive proof that the earth is a sphere.

I've never seen anything strong enough to convince me that the earth is a sphere.  In fact I would expect the horizon to appear to be curved from high up anyway because of the sun's spotlight effect.  Of course, pictures are never really proof anyway, or else we'd have proof of aliens, ghosts, the Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot, etc.

Ok, what would be evidence strong enough to convince you that the Earth is a Sphere?

Quote

You can also observe, with binoculars, ships slowly 'sinking' below the horizon as it sails farther and farther out to the ocean, then watch them come back. They certainly didn't fall off the edge of the earth! You can also sail or fly around the world.

This is easily explained by the light bending through the atmosphere, thus causing something far away to appear lower than it actually is and therefore partially cut off.

As the amount light refracts is dependent of the difference between the two medium's refractive index and that different frequencies of light bend by different amounts actually disproves the atmospheric refraction explanation. An explaination is usless if it can't actually explain what is seen.

Quote

The Greeks discovered that the earth is round by observing lunar eclipses (i.e. when the earth blocks the sun from the moon, casting its round shadow on the moon's surface).

The FE opinion is that the Greeks made an incorrect assumption (as they often did) regarding what was actually blocking the moon.  We believe there is another celestial object close to the sun that sometimes comes between the sun and moon, that we call the Shadow Object, that causes lunar eclipses.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on January 04, 2009, 04:51:30 PM

Quote

Another method is simultaneously measuring the length of the shadows cast by identical poles perpendicular to a flat surface that is tangential to the earth's radius at various, distant locations. If indeed the earth is round, then the shadows should all vary in length from one distant location to another, which means that the angle at which the parallel rays of sunlight struck each pole varied from one location to another. (recall the alternate-angles theorem from Geometry class) If the earth is flat, then the lengths of all the shadows should be identical when measured simultaneously, since all rays of sunlight that strike the earth are parallel. However, they are not identical, but in fact, varies in such a way that the angles indicate a spherical surface. (This was one of the earliest methods to determine the radius of the earth)

I haven't seen anything convincing to suggest that the only explanation for this is that the earth is a sphere.  The sun's position relative to the different poles on earth will not be the same in FE so why wouldn't the sizes of their shadows vary?  Also, the atmosphere causes the sun's light to bend, thus causing the spotlight effect.  So I don't think the sun's rays are striking the earth parallel to each other anyway.

I agree, the shape of the Luna Eclipse and even Eratosthenes shadow experiment do not prove the Earth is Round or Flat. However, Eratosthenes did not base his conclusion for the roundness of Earth on his famous experiment, that was only to calculate the circumference after he had does experiments to determine the shape of the Earth.

It seems to me that the FEers constant misuse and misrepresentation of these experiments shows a complete lack of actual research or questioning of how Eratosthenes determined the shape of the Earth. It would be a bit like looking at what Rowbotham calculated his taxes and concluding that is how he achieve his conclusion about the shape of the Earth (the plate would have been flat), it really does not make a bit of sense at all.

By the time Eratosthenes did the experiment with the sticks and shadows, he had already done experiments and looked at other people's experiments about the shape of the Earth. He assumed a Round Earth, because he had evidence that it was round.

Large scale construction projects that were undertaken (like roads, aqueducts, large scale irrigation, etc), had to account for any curvature of the Earth (if any) as these projects did used a curved Earth model and these projects were successful, we can know that the Earth really is curved (otherwise they would not have worked).

Geometry is also another proof of a round Earth. Large scale measuring of the surface features of the Earth (these were done and there is evidence of this with drawings, the actual devices used and the documentary evidence that this took place). Surveying has been around since Egypt (one of the pieces of evidence is the maths needed to do these things were developed at these times - besides the tables that have the written records of these calculations and the reason for them), and by the time of Eratosthenes, this was advanced enough to make surveys beyond the horizon and thus be sufficient to detect any curvature.

So the experiments that Eratosthenes did were not to determine the shape of the Earth, but to measure that curvature more accurately so that surveyors could use it.

As for the Luna Eclipses, well it is not proof, of course, but it is a reason to consider that the Earth is round. It is not complete disproof of a flat Earth (and was never intended to be), but it is sufficient to cast doubt and that there might be some other explanation that is could be true. All it says is that there is no easy explanation that we have that can be tested that explains this phenomena. So if an explanation comes along that can be tested (and it is found not ot be false) then it means that a Round Earth has to be considered (although not necessarily true). It is a reason not to shut out things because they disagree with you.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on January 04, 2009, 04:51:30 PM

Quote

Also, keep in mind the 24 hour time zones. When it is noon in Hawaii, it is approximately midnight in the Middle East and vice versa. How can it be noon and midnight simultaneously? It is certainly impossible with a flat earth and a sun millions of times more massive.

Ah.  You think the sun in FE is similar in size to the sun in RE.  That might be the problem; we think the earth is much more massive than the sun, and due to the aforementioned spotlight effect the sun only illuminates part of the earth at a time.

The problem with a near and small Sun is distance. As the calculated Diameter of the FE is (according tot he FAQ): 24,900 miles (more than 40,000 km), and the FE Sun is supposed to be 3,000 miles above us, then the difference in distance between midday and Sunset/rise distances to the Sun is more than 4 times the distance. Basic geometry states that the distance to an object is doubled, then the apparent size is halved. This means that the FE sun at midday is more than4 times the size at sunrise. But this is not the case now is it as you can plainly see just by looking.

The explanation is "Atmospheric Effects", but we know the refractive index of Air, we can test it directly. And guess what, it is no where near great enough to account for the variation in size. Also, as this would be extremely dependent on atmospheric condition, there would be cases where this would not work, but as nobody has ever observed a violation of this effect, then either that atmosphere is deliberately adjusting its self to make this occur, or the Sun can't really be just 3,000 miles above us.

Actually we do see an increase in the size of the Sun at sunrise/set, but most of this is due to an optical illusion which could not occur on a flat Earth. The illusion is caused by having a very distant object and comparing it to relatively nearby objects (as demonstrated here: http://www.moillusions.com/2008/12/moon-optical-illusion.html).

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on January 04, 2009, 04:51:30 PM

Quote from: Mammon on January 04, 2009, 03:41:32 PM

There are a multitude of methods in which any one can prove that the earth is a sphere. These are the most common.

You can launch a rocket to a high altitude and take pictures of the earth (which various government agencies and private groups have already done thousands of times in the past), but that isn't the most practical way. Pictures and videos taken by orbiting satellites and space stations are certainly the most definitive proof that the earth is a sphere.

I've never seen anything strong enough to convince me that the earth is a sphere.  In fact I would expect the horizon to appear to be curved from high up anyway because of the sun's spotlight effect.  Of course, pictures are never really proof anyway, or else we'd have proof of aliens, ghosts, the Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot, etc.

Ok, what would be evidence strong enough to convince you that the Earth is a Sphere?

I don't know.  I imagine if I saw it I would know.  It would have to be strong enough to somehow overcome Rowbotham's proof against it.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on January 04, 2009, 04:51:30 PM

Quote

You can also observe, with binoculars, ships slowly 'sinking' below the horizon as it sails farther and farther out to the ocean, then watch them come back. They certainly didn't fall off the edge of the earth! You can also sail or fly around the world.

This is easily explained by the light bending through the atmosphere, thus causing something far away to appear lower than it actually is and therefore partially cut off.

As the amount light refracts is dependent of the difference between the two medium's refractive index and that different frequencies of light bend by different amounts actually disproves the atmospheric refraction explanation. An explaination is usless if it can't actually explain what is seen.

Yes, it seems evident that light behaves differently through the earth's atmosphere than it does in a laboratory; apparently there's something that those who have performed such experiments on light have not taken into account (understandable, since they likely don't even know about this effect, as they were surely unaware of the particulars of FET).  That the light bends somehow is clear; exactly how it happens remains something of a mystery.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on January 04, 2009, 04:51:30 PM

Quote

The Greeks discovered that the earth is round by observing lunar eclipses (i.e. when the earth blocks the sun from the moon, casting its round shadow on the moon's surface).

The FE opinion is that the Greeks made an incorrect assumption (as they often did) regarding what was actually blocking the moon.  We believe there is another celestial object close to the sun that sometimes comes between the sun and moon, that we call the Shadow Object, that causes lunar eclipses.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on January 04, 2009, 04:51:30 PM

Quote

Another method is simultaneously measuring the length of the shadows cast by identical poles perpendicular to a flat surface that is tangential to the earth's radius at various, distant locations. If indeed the earth is round, then the shadows should all vary in length from one distant location to another, which means that the angle at which the parallel rays of sunlight struck each pole varied from one location to another. (recall the alternate-angles theorem from Geometry class) If the earth is flat, then the lengths of all the shadows should be identical when measured simultaneously, since all rays of sunlight that strike the earth are parallel. However, they are not identical, but in fact, varies in such a way that the angles indicate a spherical surface. (This was one of the earliest methods to determine the radius of the earth)

I haven't seen anything convincing to suggest that the only explanation for this is that the earth is a sphere.  The sun's position relative to the different poles on earth will not be the same in FE so why wouldn't the sizes of their shadows vary?  Also, the atmosphere causes the sun's light to bend, thus causing the spotlight effect.  So I don't think the sun's rays are striking the earth parallel to each other anyway.

I agree, the shape of the Luna Eclipse and even Eratosthenes shadow experiment do not prove the Earth is Round or Flat. However, Eratosthenes did not base his conclusion for the roundness of Earth on his famous experiment, that was only to calculate the circumference after he had does experiments to determine the shape of the Earth.

Exactly.  It's a mistake REers make, assuming that the ancient Greeks proved the earth is round.  That is simply not the case.

Quote

It seems to me that the FEers constant misuse and misrepresentation of these experiments shows a complete lack of actual research or questioning of how Eratosthenes determined the shape of the Earth. It would be a bit like looking at what Rowbotham calculated his taxes and concluding that is how he achieve his conclusion about the shape of the Earth (the plate would have been flat), it really does not make a bit of sense at all.

I disagree.  Eratosthenes' experiments didn't prove the earth is round, and that is the relevant point.

Quote

By the time Eratosthenes did the experiment with the sticks and shadows, he had already done experiments and looked at other people's experiments about the shape of the Earth. He assumed a Round Earth, because he had evidence that it was round.

Large scale construction projects that were undertaken (like roads, aqueducts, large scale irrigation, etc), had to account for any curvature of the Earth (if any) as these projects did used a curved Earth model and these projects were successful, we can know that the Earth really is curved (otherwise they would not have worked).

I see your point about aqueducts since they were raised structures but I really don't see it with roads or irrigation systems.  Do you have any blueprints suggesting that the builders of the aqueducts took the shape of the earth into account when they were building them?

Quote

Geometry is also another proof of a round Earth. Large scale measuring of the surface features of the Earth (these were done and there is evidence of this with drawings, the actual devices used and the documentary evidence that this took place). Surveying has been around since Egypt (one of the pieces of evidence is the maths needed to do these things were developed at these times - besides the tables that have the written records of these calculations and the reason for them), and by the time of Eratosthenes, this was advanced enough to make surveys beyond the horizon and thus be sufficient to detect any curvature.

This is news to me.  Can you provide a link?  I thought the ancient Greeks were the first to determine that the earth was round, and the Egyptians believed it was flat.

Quote

As for the Luna Eclipses, well it is not proof, of course, but it is a reason to consider that the Earth is round. It is not complete disproof of a flat Earth (and was never intended to be), but it is sufficient to cast doubt and that there might be some other explanation that is could be true. All it says is that there is no easy explanation that we have that can be tested that explains this phenomena. So if an explanation comes along that can be tested (and it is found not ot be false) then it means that a Round Earth has to be considered (although not necessarily true). It is a reason not to shut out things because they disagree with you.

I agree.  I think it's perfectly reasonable to consider the possibility that the earth is round until you've seen enough evidence to rule it out.  That's exactly what Rowbotham did!

Quote

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on January 04, 2009, 04:51:30 PM

Quote

Also, keep in mind the 24 hour time zones. When it is noon in Hawaii, it is approximately midnight in the Middle East and vice versa. How can it be noon and midnight simultaneously? It is certainly impossible with a flat earth and a sun millions of times more massive.

Ah.  You think the sun in FE is similar in size to the sun in RE.  That might be the problem; we think the earth is much more massive than the sun, and due to the aforementioned spotlight effect the sun only illuminates part of the earth at a time.

The problem with a near and small Sun is distance. As the calculated Diameter of the FE is (according tot he FAQ): 24,900 miles (more than 40,000 km), and the FE Sun is supposed to be 3,000 miles above us, then the difference in distance between midday and Sunset/rise distances to the Sun is more than 4 times the distance. Basic geometry states that the distance to an object is doubled, then the apparent size is halved. This means that the FE sun at midday is more than4 times the size at sunrise. But this is not the case now is it as you can plainly see just by looking.

Yes, this appears to be some kind of glare.

Quote

The explanation is "Atmospheric Effects", but we know the refractive index of Air, we can test it directly. And guess what, it is no where near great enough to account for the variation in size. Also, as this would be extremely dependent on atmospheric condition, there would be cases where this would not work, but as nobody has ever observed a violation of this effect, then either that atmosphere is deliberately adjusting its self to make this occur, or the Sun can't really be just 3,000 miles above us.

As I've pointed out, there must be some property of the atmosphere that has not been duplicated in the laboratory.  Lack of an observed violation of the effect of which you speak does not mean that such violations never occur.

Quote

Actually we do see an increase in the size of the Sun at sunrise/set, but most of this is due to an optical illusion which could not occur on a flat Earth. The illusion is caused by having a very distant object and comparing it to relatively nearby objects (as demonstrated here: http://www.moillusions.com/2008/12/moon-optical-illusion.html).

The moon exhibits the same effect.  By your line of reasoning the moon must be a similar distance from the earth as the sun.  It sounds like support for FET to me.

NOTE: I'm not going to the trouble fixing your mistakes in quoting so you're going to have to work out my responses yourself.

I don't know.  I imagine if I saw it I would know.  It would have to be strong enough to somehow overcome Rowbotham's proof against it.

However Rowbotham has made many mistakes and assumptions in his proofs. This calls into question the validity of his results (it doesn't disprove them, just calls into question their accuracy). This means that they can't be considered "the" proof of a FE without further evidence. Also, as others have attempted to repeat Robotham's experiments and got variable and some conflicting results, we have to considder, even if you think it unlikely, that Rowbotham might be wrong.

Also, as was shown in Google Earth, even using a Round Earth model, where the actual shape is not determined by reality, but the data that supports a Round Earth and the maths, that Rowbotham's results were able to be reproduced. As Google Earth definitely has a Round Earth, and Rowbotham's results were repeated on it, then there is no way that Rowbotham's experiments can actually determine the truth one way or the other.

The only real evidence that can be considered in a case like this is evidence that disproves one or the other as evidence that can support both is not really useful at all.

So, any evidence must be:
1) Reliable (ie we can check to see if it has been made up or faked in any way)
2) Repeatable (it has to not only occur due to specific conditions as FE and RE are global/planar phenomena)
3) Discriminatory (no, not in the derogatory sense, but that it allows us to discriminate between the propositions)

Would you agree that if this could be achieved then it would allow us to resolve this issue?

Quote from: cbarnett97 on January 04, 2009, 02:34:58 PM

The argument that the sun, mood and other planets are not earth so they are different is one of the weakest arguments out there, every time a meteor hits we can test it to see what it is made up of and we always find out that it is made up of the same materials that we have here on earth, so it behaves the same, so if it exhibits gravitation on mars then it will ehitbit gravitation here on earth as well. iron is iron, and if we found different elements in space then I would be more inclined to accept your argument.

I think meteors are nothing but random space debris, possibly originating outside the observable part of the universe, free-falling through space.  I've seen no concrete evidence that Mars is composed of the same material as a meteor.

Except of course the meteor that came from Mars.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on January 04, 2009, 02:48:37 PM

Quote from: cbarnett97 on January 04, 2009, 02:34:58 PM

The argument that the sun, mood and other planets are not earth so they are different is one of the weakest arguments out there, every time a meteor hits we can test it to see what it is made up of and we always find out that it is made up of the same materials that we have here on earth, so it behaves the same, so if it exhibits gravitation on mars then it will ehitbit gravitation here on earth as well. iron is iron, and if we found different elements in space then I would be more inclined to accept your argument.

I think meteors are nothing but random space debris, possibly originating outside the observable part of the universe, free-falling through space.  I've seen no concrete evidence that Mars is composed of the same material as a meteor.

Except of course the meteor that came from Mars.

I highly doubt that that's in any concrete way a verifiable fact.

Quote from: C-Ray on January 07, 2009, 09:11:22 AM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on January 04, 2009, 02:48:37 PM

Quote from: cbarnett97 on January 04, 2009, 02:34:58 PM

The argument that the sun, mood and other planets are not earth so they are different is one of the weakest arguments out there, every time a meteor hits we can test it to see what it is made up of and we always find out that it is made up of the same materials that we have here on earth, so it behaves the same, so if it exhibits gravitation on mars then it will ehitbit gravitation here on earth as well. iron is iron, and if we found different elements in space then I would be more inclined to accept your argument.

I think meteors are nothing but random space debris, possibly originating outside the observable part of the universe, free-falling through space.  I've seen no concrete evidence that Mars is composed of the same material as a meteor.

Except of course the meteor that came from Mars.

I highly doubt that that's in any concrete way a verifiable fact.

It is, using Spectroscopy. It is a well studied phenomena that certain materials absorb and emit light in very specific frequencies. By using this we have determined that there is a distinct and measurable arrangements of material in the Solar system. Each planet has a unique fingerprint of elements and isotopes of those elements. Thus, by examining the elements and isotopes of a Meteor, we can determine where it came from. Thus we can concretely determine that the Meteor in question actually came from Mars (and that the other bodies of the Solar system, and even the extra solar bodies, are made form the same stuff as the Earth).

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on January 07, 2009, 02:11:30 PM

Quote from: C-Ray on January 07, 2009, 09:11:22 AM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on January 04, 2009, 02:48:37 PM

Quote from: cbarnett97 on January 04, 2009, 02:34:58 PM

The argument that the sun, mood and other planets are not earth so they are different is one of the weakest arguments out there, every time a meteor hits we can test it to see what it is made up of and we always find out that it is made up of the same materials that we have here on earth, so it behaves the same, so if it exhibits gravitation on mars then it will ehitbit gravitation here on earth as well. iron is iron, and if we found different elements in space then I would be more inclined to accept your argument.

I think meteors are nothing but random space debris, possibly originating outside the observable part of the universe, free-falling through space.  I've seen no concrete evidence that Mars is composed of the same material as a meteor.

Except of course the meteor that came from Mars.

I highly doubt that that's in any concrete way a verifiable fact.

It is, using Spectroscopy. It is a well studied phenomena that certain materials absorb and emit light in very specific frequencies. By using this we have determined that there is a distinct and measurable arrangements of material in the Solar system. Each planet has a unique fingerprint of elements and isotopes of those elements. Thus, by examining the elements and isotopes of a Meteor, we can determine where it came from. Thus we can concretely determine that the Meteor in question actually came from Mars (and that the other bodies of the Solar system, and even the extra solar bodies, are made form the same stuff as the Earth).

Without first-hand evidence of what the planets are composed of it can't be anything more than a theory that spectroscopy accurately predicts what they are composed of.

Without first-hand evidence of what the planets are composed of it can't be anything more than a theory that spectroscopy accurately predicts what they are composed of.

What would quality as first-hand evidence? At some point you're going to have to rely on a theory to test whether the two samples are correct. If you dismiss any experimental evidence because it relies on a theory being true, it would be impossible to sufficiently prove anything to you.

Quote

Without first-hand evidence of what the planets are composed of it can't be anything more than a theory that spectroscopy accurately predicts what they are composed of.

What would quality as first-hand evidence? At some point you're going to have to rely on a theory to test whether the two samples are correct. If you dismiss any experimental evidence because it relies on a theory being true, it would be impossible to sufficiently prove anything to you.

If it were somehow possibly to directly obtain a sample of Mars from the planet itself, and compare that sample's composition to the meteor's composition, and they matched, that would prove that Mars is at least partly composed of the same stuff the meteor is composed of.

Quote from: Edtharan on January 07, 2009, 05:57:01 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on January 07, 2009, 02:11:30 PM

Quote from: C-Ray on January 07, 2009, 09:11:22 AM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on January 04, 2009, 02:48:37 PM

Quote from: cbarnett97 on January 04, 2009, 02:34:58 PM

The argument that the sun, mood and other planets are not earth so they are different is one of the weakest arguments out there, every time a meteor hits we can test it to see what it is made up of and we always find out that it is made up of the same materials that we have here on earth, so it behaves the same, so if it exhibits gravitation on mars then it will ehitbit gravitation here on earth as well. iron is iron, and if we found different elements in space then I would be more inclined to accept your argument.

I think meteors are nothing but random space debris, possibly originating outside the observable part of the universe, free-falling through space.  I've seen no concrete evidence that Mars is composed of the same material as a meteor.

Except of course the meteor that came from Mars.

I highly doubt that that's in any concrete way a verifiable fact.

It is, using Spectroscopy. It is a well studied phenomena that certain materials absorb and emit light in very specific frequencies. By using this we have determined that there is a distinct and measurable arrangements of material in the Solar system. Each planet has a unique fingerprint of elements and isotopes of those elements. Thus, by examining the elements and isotopes of a Meteor, we can determine where it came from. Thus we can concretely determine that the Meteor in question actually came from Mars (and that the other bodies of the Solar system, and even the extra solar bodies, are made form the same stuff as the Earth).

Without first-hand evidence of what the planets are composed of it can't be anything more than a theory that spectroscopy accurately predicts what they are composed of.

We can test all types of materials here on Earth. The important difference is not that there are new elements out there, but it is the ratios of them that are important. As we know the spectral lines of these materials here on Earth, then if we get the same spectral lines on some other body, then it is reasonable to assume that they are made form the same materials. Careful analysis will be able to reveal the ratios of the elements. Then, by looking at material that we know has not come from here on Earth, we can recheck the assumptions and change them from assumptions into fact.

We can test all types of materials here on Earth. The important difference is not that there are new elements out there, but it is the ratios of them that are important. As we know the spectral lines of these materials here on Earth, then if we get the same spectral lines on some other body, then it is reasonable to assume that they are made form the same materials.

This is where I disagree.  I don't think it's reasonable to assume any such thing.  It's reasonable to hypothesize, if you're into that sort of scientific method, but until we have first-hand evidence I don't feel it's reasonable to assume anything.

Quote from: Edtharan on January 07, 2009, 06:53:42 PM

We can test all types of materials here on Earth. The important difference is not that there are new elements out there, but it is the ratios of them that are important. As we know the spectral lines of these materials here on Earth, then if we get the same spectral lines on some other body, then it is reasonable to assume that they are made form the same materials.

This is where I disagree.  I don't think it's reasonable to assume any such thing.  It's reasonable to hypothesize, if you're into that sort of scientific method, but until we have first-hand evidence I don't feel it's reasonable to assume anything.

So if we make a measurement at one location, it is not reasonable to assume that it can occur at other locations. Does this mean that the experiments that Rowbotham did at the Bedford level don't really make any statement about the rest of the World?

Why would something as specific as Spectral lines, if shown to be the same in two samples, not be reasonable to have the same cause? Why, really I'd like to know.

The spectral lines in Spectroscopy are extremely precise. There has been no example where spectral lines have been shown to not match material found here on Earth. In fact, when they did this for the Sun, initially they got lines that didn't correspond to any element that was thought to exist here on Earth, but it did conform to the lines as predicted by atomic theory to the second element in the periodic table. They called this element Helium (from the Greek Helios, meaning Sun). Knowing this they began looking for Helium here on Earth (which they knew should be very rare due to gravity - yes, helium proves that we are not accelerating as a cause of "gravity") and they did find it. Ever had a helium Balloon? Well it is because of spectroscopy that we actually discover it and you could not have those balloons if spectroscopy didn't work.

So we know by direct observational evidence that Spectroscopy works, and that it can give us information about other objects that we can't directly touch. That information tells us a lot about those other objects, and violates predictions made from FET (and therefore count as evidence against FET).

So if we make a measurement at one location, it is not reasonable to assume that it can occur at other locations. Does this mean that the experiments that Rowbotham did at the Bedford level don't really make any statement about the rest of the World?

Why would something as specific as Spectral lines, if shown to be the same in two samples, not be reasonable to have the same cause? Why, really I'd like to know.

The spectral lines in Spectroscopy are extremely precise. There has been no example where spectral lines have been shown to not match material found here on Earth.

This is the kicker right here.  I don't think there's any reason to assume that the results aren't skewed somehow when we point an instrument at some object in space.

So we know by direct observational evidence that Spectroscopy works, and that it can give us information about other objects that we can't directly touch. That information tells us a lot about those other objects, and violates predictions made from FET (and therefore count as evidence against FET).

Which predictions are you talking about?

Quote from: Edtharan on January 07, 2009, 09:20:26 PM

So if we make a measurement at one location, it is not reasonable to assume that it can occur at other locations. Does this mean that the experiments that Rowbotham did at the Bedford level don't really make any statement about the rest of the World?

Why would something as specific as Spectral lines, if shown to be the same in two samples, not be reasonable to have the same cause? Why, really I'd like to know.

The spectral lines in Spectroscopy are extremely precise. There has been no example where spectral lines have been shown to not match material found here on Earth.

This is the kicker right here.  I don't think there's any reason to assume that the results aren't skewed somehow when we point an instrument at some object in space.

There is no evidence that the lines are skewed at all, None. So based on evidence there is no reason not to reach that conclusion.

Also, we can track objects that have come from elsewhere in the solar system and if they hit Earth we can get those direct measurement. This has been done and we can see that they are made from the same stuff.

Quote

So we know by direct observational evidence that Spectroscopy works, and that it can give us information about other objects that we can't directly touch. That information tells us a lot about those other objects, and violates predictions made from FET (and therefore count as evidence against FET).

Which predictions are you talking about?

If you are claiming that the planets are not made of the Same stuff as Earth, then they would have different spectral lines.

Spectral lines are not just a colour, they are a very distinct band of many precise frequencies for each element that is unique as a finger print. What you are saying is that just by looking at something that is a distance away changes this unique fingerprint in such a way as to make it look like something else. It is like if you looked at my fingerprints and your finger prints up close and saw that they were different, then looked at your finger prints far away and found that for some magical reason they were now absolutely 100% identical to mine.

Read up abut it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectroscopy

If it were somehow possibly to directly obtain a sample of Mars from the planet itself, and compare that sample's composition to the meteor's composition, and they matched, that would prove that Mars is at least partly composed of the same stuff the meteor is composed of.

Isn't that assuming that the theory behind the mechanisms used to determine the sample's composition is correct?

Quote

Which predictions are you talking about?

If you are claiming that the planets are not made of the Same stuff as Earth, then they would have different spectral lines.

Spectral lines are not just a colour, they are a very distinct band of many precise frequencies for each element that is unique as a finger print. What you are saying is that just by looking at something that is a distance away changes this unique fingerprint in such a way as to make it look like something else.

Not just that.  I'm proposing that the planets are composed of some exotic material or materials that keep them buoyed above the earth.  I actually don't think it's part of the general model but it's been something I've been trying to build on.  I see your point though.  Perhaps they are composed partly of elements we find on earth but still primarily (or just enough to make the difference) of these exotic materials, which are entirely alien to earth, and for some reason don't show up on spectography readings.

It is like if you looked at my fingerprints and your finger prints up close and saw that they were different, then looked at your finger prints far away and found that for some magical reason they were now absolutely 100% identical to mine.

LMAO.  I think from millions of miles away it might be impossible to tell the difference between our fingerprints.

Quote from: Edtharan on January 08, 2009, 12:37:26 AM

Quote

Which predictions are you talking about?

If you are claiming that the planets are not made of the Same stuff as Earth, then they would have different spectral lines.

Spectral lines are not just a colour, they are a very distinct band of many precise frequencies for each element that is unique as a finger print. What you are saying is that just by looking at something that is a distance away changes this unique fingerprint in such a way as to make it look like something else.

Not just that.  I'm proposing that the planets are composed of some exotic material or materials that keep them buoyed above the earth.  I actually don't think it's part of the general model but it's been something I've been trying to build on.  I see your point though.  Perhaps they are composed partly of elements we find on earth but still primarily (or just enough to make the difference) of these exotic materials, which are entirely alien to earth, and for some reason don't show up on spectography readings.

Quote

It is like if you looked at my fingerprints and your finger prints up close and saw that they were different, then looked at your finger prints far away and found that for some magical reason they were now absolutely 100% identical to mine.

LMAO.  I think from millions of miles away it might be impossible to tell the difference between our fingerprints.

It was an analogy. 

Yes, we do not have a method of looking at fingerprints millions of kilometres away. But if we did, then the analogy stands.

The thing about spectroscopy is that it does allow us to look at something close up and far away and get the same readings. In the analogy it is like we really did have that device that allowed us to look at finger prints both close up and far away.

Since light travels from the object to us (or how could we see it?), then if the "Fingerprint" is in the structure of the light that reaches us, then we can look at that structure and use its uniqueness (the fingerprint) to identify it. If that uniqueness is based off some property of the source, then we can use that uniqueness to tell us about the source of that light.

That is what spectroscopy does. By using the light emitted (or reflected) from a surface, we can examine the properties of that light that would be changed by the properties of the source.

we can examine the properties of that light that would be changed by the properties of the source.

In addition to any properties of a medium.

In addition to any properties of a medium.

But there's no evidence that any medium between the Earth and the celestial objects should change the spectral lines of the light passing through it.

If you then take the observations of the planet's spectral lines as evidence that there is a line changing medium between the two objects, then all you've done is move the problem of why the planets has the same spectral lines when they behave differently to why the medium between the two adjusts spectral lines.

Quote

In addition to any properties of a medium.

But there's no evidence that any medium between the Earth and the celestial objects should change the spectral lines of the light passing through it.

Is there any evidence that any medium between the earth and the celestial bodies wouldn't change the spectral lines of the light passing through it?

Is there any evidence that any medium between the earth and the celestial bodies wouldn't change the spectral lines of the light passing through it?

No, in much the same way there isn't any evidence of a small teapot between Mars and Jupiter. None of the models suggest anything between the planet and celestial objects, so why should we simply assume such thing exists when a problem is found in the model?

My main problem is that that it doesn't solve the problem, it just moves it somewhere else. It may solve the question of why celestial light sources look the way they do, but it brings up the question of why whatever is there interferes in the way it does, and what caused it to be there in the first place.

Quote from: NTheGreat on January 13, 2009, 04:08:31 AM

Quote

In addition to any properties of a medium.

But there's no evidence that any medium between the Earth and the celestial objects should change the spectral lines of the light passing through it.

Is there any evidence that any medium between the earth and the celestial bodies wouldn't change the spectral lines of the light passing through it?

Could we not use spectroscopy to analyze the composition of a meteor before and after it hits the EArth? Would that not eliminate the variable of "properties of the medium"

And if this has been done someone please find the source

An intrigued
Cinlef

Could we not use spectroscopy to analyze the composition of a meteor before and after it hits the EArth? Would that not eliminate the variable of "properties of the medium"

And if this has been done someone please find the source

An intrigued
Cinlef

No, that has not been done. October of 2008 was the first and only time Astronomers were able to predict that a meteoroid would impact with the earth, and that one burned up before reaching the surface:

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/10/meteor-predicte.html

Quote

Could we not use spectroscopy to analyze the composition of a meteor before and after it hits the EArth? Would that not eliminate the variable of "properties of the medium"

And if this has been done someone please find the source

An intrigued
Cinlef

No, that has not been done. October of 2008 was the first and only time Astronomers were able to predict that a meteoroid would impact with the earth, and that one burned up before reaching the surface:

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/10/meteor-predicte.html

Good catch Tom.

But in theory is what I described was done, that would eliminate the whole issue of a distorting medium would it not?
I ask since it is likely that meteor prediction will be more accurate in the future increasing the odds of what I described occurring.
Though I suppose since NASA or some related agency is most likely the ones who would end up examining the meteor an argument can be made that confirming the spectroscopy results on Earth to the satisfaction of the FES would be difficult from a practical standpoint.....

A thoughtful
Cinlef

Quote from: NTheGreat on January 13, 2009, 04:08:31 AM

Quote

In addition to any properties of a medium.

But there's no evidence that any medium between the Earth and the celestial objects should change the spectral lines of the light passing through it.

Is there any evidence that any medium between the earth and the celestial bodies wouldn't change the spectral lines of the light passing through it?

Classic example of argumentum ad ignorantiam. I never want to see one of you FE proponents accuse someone of using logical fallacies again.

Classic example of argumentum ad ignorantiam. I never want to see one of you FE proponents accuse someone of using logical fallacies again.

I'm pretty sure he wasn't saying that it is proven that a medium would influence it, because we don't know that it wouldn't.

There was no attempt to prove anything (true or false) within that post, but instead he asked a question provoking investigation. When a scientist conducts an experiment, he looks for every variable that can change in order to eliminate the unnecessary variables. If anything, he is helping to set guidelines for experimentation. Cinlef then took Roundy's concern of a possible contaminating variable, into account when he devised his experiment.