Something doesnt add up

just as a curiosity Tom if you were to take one of those trips to the (supposed) south pole what would you think about it? Would this convince you of a round earth or would you need more evidence? If you needed more evidence, what _would_ you accept as firm evidence of a round earth. Would you need a trip into space (assuming it was possible) or something else?

Quote

How am I supposed to know how close Australia and South America are in FE if there is no accurate FE map?

Your not.

Then how do you know that the RE distances are wrong?

Quote

No, it isn't.  Especially when it's for a cause that I don't believe in.

Then don't ask for evidence if you're not willing to foot the bill.

Sorry Tom, I keep forgetting that FE doesn't need to support their theory with evidence.   

Quote

No, but you have dismissed RE claims in respect to the distance between the southern continents without providing any evidence to the contrary.  If you don't know what the true FE distance is between Australia and South America, then how can you prove that the RE distances are wrong?

I haven't dismissed anything. I just want your evidence which you say exists.

Here is an RE tool that you can use to measure distances between various location on the Earth:
http://www.earth-download-new.com/2/index.asp

Map your favorite contacts. Display their picture on a map for easy viewing and directions. Find travel distance and surrounding areas to your business associates.

Quote

No Tom, I'm just asking you to provide specific evidence that supports your theory of the true size and form of the flat earth.

Provide me the funds and I'll be happy to provide some. Until then you can look up the evidence the Flat Earth Society has already collected in the Flat Earth Literature.

I've read ENAG and Zetetic Cosmology.  Both works have so many fundamental errors that they are useless as references. 

Quote

How am I supposed to know how close Australia and South America are in FE if there is no accurate FE map?

Your not.

To produce a FE map would require research (i.e. lots hard, boring and costly work).  This does not lend itself to a typical FEer's lifestyle of sitting in a chair and looking out of the window.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 12, 2009, 05:12:52 PM

Quote

How am I supposed to know how close Australia and South America are in FE if there is no accurate FE map?

Your not.

To produce a FE map would require research (i.e. lots hard, boring and costly work).  This does not lend itself to a typical FEer's lifestyle of sitting in a chair and looking out of the window.

Unfortunately scientific paradigms that are not in fashion do not get the grant money. Try being a physicist who does not agree with string theory and see how far you get in your grant proposals.

Quote from: Moon squirter on February 13, 2009, 01:02:18 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 12, 2009, 05:12:52 PM

Quote

How am I supposed to know how close Australia and South America are in FE if there is no accurate FE map?

Your not.

To produce a FE map would require research (i.e. lots hard, boring and costly work).  This does not lend itself to a typical FEer's lifestyle of sitting in a chair and looking out of the window.

Unfortunately scientific paradigms that are not in fashion do not get the grant money. Try being a physicist who does not agree with string theory and see how far you get in your grant proposals.

So how did string theory get the funding to become fashionable? 

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Technology/Pix/pictures/2008/02/01/SeaCableHi.jpg is a map of undersea cables. It strikes me that someone may have said something if they had run out of cable when laying in the southern hemisphere.

Also I don't think funding is the reason that scientists have been reticent to (re)map the southern hemisphere.

Quote from: zeroply on February 13, 2009, 10:58:09 AM

Quote from: Moon squirter on February 13, 2009, 01:02:18 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 12, 2009, 05:12:52 PM

Quote

How am I supposed to know how close Australia and South America are in FE if there is no accurate FE map?

Your not.

To produce a FE map would require research (i.e. lots hard, boring and costly work).  This does not lend itself to a typical FEer's lifestyle of sitting in a chair and looking out of the window.

Unfortunately scientific paradigms that are not in fashion do not get the grant money. Try being a physicist who does not agree with string theory and see how far you get in your grant proposals.

So how did string theory get the funding to become fashionable? 

It's like fashion - there's no real logic to it. In modern physics truth has only minimal significance, it's all about making your paper sexy. If you don't believe me, read up on some of the great work by the Bogdanoff brothers.

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Technology/Pix/pictures/2008/02/01/SeaCableHi.jpg is a map of undersea cables. It strikes me that someone may have said something if they had run out of cable when laying in the southern hemisphere.

Also I don't think funding is the reason that scientists have been reticent to (re)map the southern hemisphere.

Hmmm.. fascinating! I notice that there are many, many more north-south cables than east-west ones. I wonder why that is? Maybe the distances N-S are easier to calculate and plan than the E-W ones? Most of the cables would have similar lengths on RE and FE maps.

Are we looking at the same map? The vast majority are east west. From Europe to the US and from the US to the Far East. Most of the North south ones are the ones at run along coasts.

Quote from: bowler on February 13, 2009, 11:38:32 AM

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Technology/Pix/pictures/2008/02/01/SeaCableHi.jpg is a map of undersea cables. It strikes me that someone may have said something if they had run out of cable when laying in the southern hemisphere.

Also I don't think funding is the reason that scientists have been reticent to (re)map the southern hemisphere.

Hmmm.. fascinating! I notice that there are many, many more north-south cables than east-west ones. I wonder why that is? Maybe the distances N-S are easier to calculate and plan than the E-W ones? Most of the cables would have similar lengths on RE and FE maps.

Actually, north-south cable runs would be just as bad as, if not worse than, east-west.  FE'ers around here have been assuming that latitude lines are evenly spaced on a FE when in fact they are not.

Then how do you know that the RE distances are wrong?

You guys don't have any raw evidence for your RE distances, and are unwilling to present any. So how am I supposed to know whether they're right?

Sorry Tom, I keep forgetting that FE doesn't need to support their theory with evidence.

If you want a study done on this or that, or whatever you're demanding from one day to the next, it's your obligation to finance your requests. No one is obligated to go out and conduct studies for you as an act of charity. If you want something done you have to be willing to foot the bill.

Here is an RE tool that you can use to measure distances between various location on the Earth:
http://www.earth-download-new.com/2/index.asp

Quote

Map your favorite contacts. Display their picture on a map for easy viewing and directions. Find travel distance and surrounding areas to your business associates.

Will that computer program charter a ship to circumnavigate the entire lower southern hemisphere? If not it doesn't seem like it would be very helpful for telling us the true magnitude of the earth.

I've read ENAG and Zetetic Cosmology.  Both works have so many fundamental errors that they are useless as references.

How would you know that they are in error if you haven't peer reviewed their work by reproducing the studies and experiements?

Quote

Then how do you know that the RE distances are wrong?

You guys don't have any raw evidence for your RE distances, and are unwilling to present any. So how am I supposed to know whether they're right?

I already told you about my 1200 mile road trip to Florida that FET said should have been more than 2200 miles.

Quote

Sorry Tom, I keep forgetting that FE doesn't need to support their theory with evidence.

If you want a study done on this or that, or whatever you're demanding from one day to the next, it's your obligation to finance your requests. No one is obligated to go out and conduct studies for you as an act of charity. If you want something done you have to be willing to foot the bill.

So advancing the the cause of Flat Earth research is charity?

Quote

Here is an RE tool that you can use to measure distances between various location on the Earth:
http://www.earth-download-new.com/2/index.asp

Quote

Map your favorite contacts. Display their picture on a map for easy viewing and directions. Find travel distance and surrounding areas to your business associates.

Will that computer program charter a ship to circumnavigate the entire lower southern hemisphere? If not it doesn't seem like it would be very helpful for telling us the true magnitude of the earth.

Last I knew, Google Earth is not a navigational application, and I don't believe that I presented it as one.

Quote

I've read ENAG and Zetetic Cosmology.  Both works have so many fundamental errors that they are useless as references.

How would you know that they are in error if you haven't peer reviewed their work by reproducing the studies and experiements?

The wrong assumptions that Winship and Rowbotham based their experiments upon make them senseless to recreate.

Quote

Is it worth me actually doing the work to get this data?

Yes it is. When you guys actually have some data to present please let us know so we can look at it.

Do you have any data that you are right?

I just want to point out that you don't exactly need thousands of dollars worth of funding to prove something

http://space.about.com/cs/astronomerbios/a/Eratosthenesbio.htm

A stick and the sun do just fine. Not only that, but if you look to the past, people did not need to spend gigantic amounts of money in order to map things.

A stick and the sun do just fine.

I think you mean a stick and a sun and an assumption that the earth is round. Because if a Flat Earth is assumed Eratosthenes' experiment gives us data corresponding to the Flat Earth model.

I already told you about my 1200 mile road trip to Florida that FET said should have been more than 2200 miles.

No it didn't.

So advancing the the cause of Flat Earth research is charity?

If you want a study done you have to be willing to pay for it your own damn self. I'm under no obligation to pay for whatever data you're demanding from one day to the next.

Last I knew, Google Earth is not a navigational application, and I don't believe that I presented it as one.

So how does Google Earth prove the configuration of the earth's landmasses again? 

The wrong assumptions that Winship and Rowbotham based their experiments upon make them senseless to recreate.

If you haven't recreated the experiments at all I don't see how you're in any position to say whether they are incorrect.

Do you have any data that you are right?

There's a library of data in my signature link.

All these arguments aside, you're not even talking about the point anymore: Flight times and distances disprove FET, and there's no theory, let alone data, and proves it otherwise. So at the moment, the paradigm should hold that the Earth is round.

Quote from: hi on February 14, 2009, 01:55:50 PM

Do you have any data that you are right?

There's a library of data in my signature link.

Do you have any data that your sorces are right?

All these arguments aside, you're not even talking about the point anymore: Flight times and distances disprove FET, and there's no theory, let alone data, and proves it otherwise. So at the moment, the paradigm should hold that the Earth is round.

I keep asking for the raw data which disproves FET and proves an RET, but you guys keep not presenting any.

Do you have any data that your sorces are right?

The sources are peer reviewed. Therefore they are valid as evidence and corroborated beyond doubt.

Why do you put so much trust into the peer reviews? What if they're part of a even bigger conspiracy? Or maybe the FET and the RET are both part of one mega conspiracy?

Quote

I already told you about my 1200 mile road trip to Florida that FET said should have been more than 2200 miles.

No it didn't.

Then do tell, what does FET say the distance should have been?

Quote

So advancing the the cause of Flat Earth research is charity?

If you want a study done you have to be willing to pay for it your own damn self. I'm under no obligation to pay for whatever data you're demanding from one day to the next.

In other words you can make all the outlandish claims that you want and never have to back any of them up with any data.   

Quote

Last I knew, Google Earth is not a navigational application, and I don't believe that I presented it as one.

So how does Google Earth prove the configuration of the earth's landmasses again? 

Ask Google, it's their application.

Quote

The wrong assumptions that Winship and Rowbotham based their experiments upon make them senseless to recreate.

If you haven't recreated the experiments at all I don't see how you're in any position to say whether they are incorrect.

How can I recreate any of those experiments if they have not been properly documented?  When Rowbotham did his Bedford Level experiment, did he make observations going both ways in order to reduce the possibility of a superior mirage?  Did he level his telescope?  How powerful was his telescope?  Did he test to see if the water was flowing at all (thereby indicating that there was a slope in the water surface)?

By the way, I have yet to see any evidence that you have recreated any of those experiments like you have repeatedly claimed to have done.

Why do you put so much trust into the peer reviews?

Because peer review is what makes an experiment or study valid as evidence.

Educate yourself.

Then do tell, what does FET say the distance should have been?

FET doesn't say anything about what the distance would have been.

In other words you can make all the outlandish claims that you want and never have to back any of them up with any data.

Wrong. I've never made any claims for the distance between the continents. In fact, I clearly stated that the current flat earth map was a hypothesis in my very first post in this thread.

The only one here making distance claims here is you. And, unsurprisingly, you still haven't provided the evidence to back up those claims.

How can I recreate any of those experiments if they have not been properly documented?  When Rowbotham did his Bedford Level experiment, did he make observations going both ways in order to reduce the possibility of a superior mirage?

Rowbotham already accounts for the possibility of a superior mirage. 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.

Did he level his telescope?

He sure did.

How powerful was his telescope?

Rowbotham actually used a variety of telescopes over his 30 year study.

Did he test to see if the water was flowing at all (thereby indicating that there was a slope in the water surface)?

Yep. In his work he describes the canal as standing and completely still at the time of the experiment.

Quote

How can I recreate any of those experiments if they have not been properly documented?  When Rowbotham did his Bedford Level experiment, did he make observations going both ways in order to reduce the possibility of a superior mirage?

Rowbotham already accounts for the possibility of a superior mirage. See Experiment 9, for instance:

I don't see anywhere in that passage where he said that he checked the temperature or humidity at different heights above the water.  Remember that temperature inversions at different heights are responsible for mirages.  As near as I can tell, Rowbotham only checked one elevation at either end.  Not sufficient to tell if such inversions are present.

Quote

Did he level his telescope?

He sure did.

He did at Rotunda, in Dublin.  He didn't say anything about about it at Bedford.
 

Quote

How powerful was his telescope?

Rowbotham actually used a variety of telescopes over his 30 year study.

I'm interested how many telescopes he used over the years.  I'm interested in which telescope he used for that particular experiment.

Quote

Did he test to see if the water was flowing at all (thereby indicating that there was a slope in the water surface)?

Yep. In his work he describes the canal as standing and completely still at the time of the experiment.

How did he determine that? 

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.

Says who? I did a quick search that suggests that it's typically 15% of the altitude.

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.

What was the tolerance of the equipment used? Why are these values not recorded?

I don't see anywhere in that passage where he said that he checked the temperature or humidity at different heights above the water.  Remember that temperature inversions at different heights are responsible for mirages.  As near as I can tell, Rowbotham only checked one elevation at either end.  Not sufficient to tell if such inversions are present.

Yes it is.

He did at Rotunda, in Dublin.  He didn't say anything about about it at Bedford.

Rowbotham is always aligning his telescope with the horizon, which is level to the surface of the earth.
 

I'm interested how many telescopes he used over the years.  I'm interested in which telescope he used for that particular experiment

The type of telescope doesn't really matter, but Rowbotham mentions in his lectures that he uses a high quality newtonian.

How did he determine that?

He was there standing in it.

Says who? I did a quick search that suggests that it's typically 15% of the altitude.

Incorrect.

What was the tolerance of the equipment used? Why are these values not recorded?

The tolerance was sufficient and the values were recorded and compared, just like it says in the passage.

Incorrect.

Again, says who?

The tolerance was sufficient and the values were recorded and compared, just like it says in the passage.

I don't want to know if the tolerance was sufficient, I want to know what it is. Why isn't it recorded? Where are these recorded values?

If you read some old research papers you'll find their take on error analysis to be somewhat... lax... compared to modern standards.  In the famous Michelson-Morley interferometer experiment the analysis was basically that "the fringes didn't seem to move"... as measured by eye, completely subjectively.  This was later made quantitative and improved, of course, but the initial paper was littered with stuff like that.  Makes for an easy and interesting read, but not so good from a scientific rigour point of view.  Rowbotham could be forgiven given some of the established standards of the time, I suspect.

Then it's a good thing that Michelson-Morley has been redone many times over the years with increasingly better equipment and documentation as well as more rigorous error analysis.  Sadly, the same doesn't appear to be true for Rwobotham's experiments.