DIY Experement: The Distance Between the Earth and the Moon

  • 184 Replies
  • 46961 Views
Re: DIY Experement: The Distance Between the Earth and the Moon
« Reply #60 on: February 23, 2009, 11:00:08 AM »
What is so unreasonable about what I said?

You missed the point. His point was that regardless of the largescale set up of the Earth it would locally look very similar.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17953
Re: DIY Experement: The Distance Between the Earth and the Moon
« Reply #61 on: February 23, 2009, 01:03:51 PM »
What would you expect the photo to show if the world was a sphere 12,000 km wide? What would you expect it to show if it was a cube with edges 20,000 km long? What about if it was a dodecahedron 40,000km across, or a giant tulip 40 trillion lightyears across?

A person does not take a tape measure marked in meters, measure a bunch of objects less than 50 cm big, and then declare all the objects have no size as their ruler only allows them to determine the size of said objects to the nearest meter.

The only thing that can be inferred from a plane earth is that the earth exists as a plane. Any other shapes will have to be proven.

Re: DIY Experement: The Distance Between the Earth and the Moon
« Reply #62 on: February 23, 2009, 01:20:49 PM »

The only thing that can be inferred from a plane earth is that the earth exists as a plane. Any other shapes will have to be proven.

Are you trying to be obtuse? His point was that if any of these objects are really really large then on the surface they look like a plane at almost any point.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17953
Re: DIY Experement: The Distance Between the Earth and the Moon
« Reply #63 on: February 23, 2009, 01:31:59 PM »
Are you trying to be obtuse? His point was that if any of these objects are really really large then on the surface they look like a plane at almost any point.

Right. And if you look at a bumble bee it's possible that it's really just an oddly mutated wasp.

There's no evidence what-so-ever to suggest the latter. All that can be inferred from looking at a bumble bee is that it's a bumble bee. Anything else must be proven.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2009, 04:53:33 AM by Tom Bishop »

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: DIY Experement: The Distance Between the Earth and the Moon
« Reply #64 on: February 23, 2009, 01:43:39 PM »

The only thing that can be inferred from a plane earth is that the earth exists as a plane. Any other shapes will have to be proven.

Are you trying to be obtuse? His point was that if any of these objects are really really large then on the surface they look like a plane at almost any point.
I got A Reveleation! All this time Tom talks not about whole earth, planet, as we know it but about tiny piece of land which he sees with his eyes. Yes, we must accept the truth that the earth is flat. In you near vicinity.
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

Re: DIY Experement: The Distance Between the Earth and the Moon
« Reply #65 on: February 23, 2009, 02:21:42 PM »
Quote
Right. And if you look at a bumble bee it's possible that it's really just an oddly mutated wasp.

There's no evidence what-so-ever to suggest the former. All that can be inferred from looking at a bumble bee is that it's a bumble bee. Anything else must be proven.

And all we can see in that photo is water and sky. Does that mean that there's no land above water level on our planet?

?

hi

  • 302
  • Love the debate, hate the stupidity!
Re: DIY Experement: The Distance Between the Earth and the Moon
« Reply #66 on: February 23, 2009, 07:13:56 PM »
Are you trying to be obtuse? His point was that if any of these objects are really really large then on the surface they look like a plane at almost any point.

Right. And if you look at a bumble bee it's possible that it's really just an oddly mutated wasp.

There's no evidence what-so-ever to suggest the former. All that can be inferred from looking at a bumble bee is that it's a bumble bee. Anything else must be proven.
I hate to admit it, but this is the very first time I have ever agreed with Tom.

Re: DIY Experement: The Distance Between the Earth and the Moon
« Reply #67 on: February 24, 2009, 06:11:15 AM »
What would you expect the photo to show if the world was a sphere 12,000 km wide? What would you expect it to show if it was a cube with edges 20,000 km long? What about if it was a dodecahedron 40,000km across, or a giant tulip 40 trillion lightyears across?

A person does not take a tape measure marked in meters, measure a bunch of objects less than 50 cm big, and then declare all the objects have no size as their ruler only allows them to determine the size of said objects to the nearest meter.

The only thing that can be inferred from a plane earth is that the earth exists as a plane. Any other shapes will have to be proven.

A ship disappearing below the horizon is proof for the RE. If you are going to explain that with some other phenomenon then you'll need to provide proof for that.

Re: DIY Experement: The Distance Between the Earth and the Moon
« Reply #68 on: February 24, 2009, 06:25:58 AM »
Are you trying to be obtuse? His point was that if any of these objects are really really large then on the surface they look like a plane at almost any point.

Right. And if you look at a bumble bee it's possible that it's really just an oddly mutated wasp.

There's no evidence what-so-ever to suggest the latter. All that can be inferred from looking at a bumble bee is that it's a bumble bee. Anything else must be proven.

I don't know where to begin with this cloth eared form of reasoning.

Looking at a bumble bee, we assume the observer has criteria for identifying a bumble bee. Likewise there will be similar criteria for identifying a wasp. (Thorax size and shape, head size and shape etc)

Um...

And if you look at a wasp it's possible that it's really just an oddly mutated bumble bee.

There's no evidence what-so-ever to suggest the latter. All that can be inferred from looking at a wasp is that it's a wasp. Anything else must be proven.

How does this strenthen your argument for the shape of the earth?

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: DIY Experement: The Distance Between the Earth and the Moon
« Reply #69 on: February 24, 2009, 10:06:11 AM »
Right. And if you look at a bumble bee it's possible that it's really just an oddly mutated wasp.

There's no evidence what-so-ever to suggest the latter. All that can be inferred from looking at a bumble bee is that it's a bumble bee. Anything else must be proven.
  You are right and so you must prove that the entire earth is really flat. Since the beginning you just have proved that the earth in your near vicinity is flat. Nothing more. You just don't have any data to prove more.
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17953
Re: DIY Experement: The Distance Between the Earth and the Moon
« Reply #70 on: February 24, 2009, 11:06:41 PM »
Quote
Um...

And if you look at a wasp it's possible that it's really just an oddly mutated bumble bee.

There's no evidence what-so-ever to suggest the latter. All that can be inferred from looking at a wasp is that it's a wasp. Anything else must be proven.

Right. If you look at a wasp there is no reason to assume that it's a bumble bee, or vice-versa, which is why I'm wondering why we should consider that the earth exists as a globe beyond human experience.

Quote
You are right and so you must prove that the entire earth is really flat. Since the beginning you just have proved that the earth in your near vicinity is flat. Nothing more. You just don't have any data to prove more.

There's plenty of data in the literature.

A ship disappearing below the horizon is proof for the RE. If you are going to explain that with some other phenomenon then you'll need to provide proof for that.

Please read the literature. Since it can be restored with a telescope, the sinking ship is actually a proof for the FE.

See the Lake Michigan Experiments.

Thomas Winship provides similar accounts in Zetetic Cosmogony.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2009, 11:39:55 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: DIY Experement: The Distance Between the Earth and the Moon
« Reply #71 on: February 25, 2009, 12:34:01 AM »
A ship disappearing below the horizon is proof for the RE. If you are going to explain that with some other phenomenon then you'll need to provide proof for that.

Please read the literature. Since it can be restored with a telescope, the sinking ship is actually a proof for the FE.

See the Lake Michigan Experiments.

Thomas Winship provides similar accounts in Zetetic Cosmogony.

Some drawings made over one hundert years ago by couple of guys aren't valid proof. Do you for example have some photos that you can show us? I have photos that shows no such effect exist.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=23667.0


Naked eye

Comparison

Magnified


And by the way your claim that a telescope that rowbothan used would restore more of the oil rig is not valid, since lenses of the telescopes in the 19th century were about the same size as modern binoculars and so the resolution would be about the same.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2009, 01:35:10 AM by jargo »

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17953
Re: DIY Experement: The Distance Between the Earth and the Moon
« Reply #72 on: February 25, 2009, 02:02:06 AM »
Quote
Some drawings made over one hundert years ago by couple of guys aren't valid proof. Do you for example have some photos that you can show us? I have photos that shows no such effect exist.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=23667.0


Naked eye

Comparison

Magnified

Those were made with binoculars. The authors of the literature, including Samuel Birley Rowbotham who provides accounts of the same effect, used telescopes. Huge difference in methodologies.

Not to mention that with those low quality blow ups it's extremely hard to tell if anything from the base was revealed. Nor do we know if the tide is in to hide the legs.

Quote
And by the way your claim that a telescope that rowbothan used would restore more of the oil rig is not valid, since lenses of the telescopes in the 19th century were about the same size as modern binoculars and so the resolution would be about the same.

Absolutely untrue. Reflector and Refractor technologies eclipsed in the early 1800's. There's a reason why the 1800's are known as the golden age of telescopes. Telescopes and binoculars have remained unchanged since the 1800's. Today the only element of advancement has been in the mechanization of manufacture.

Your attempts to compare your pair of binoculars to a telescope are entirely bunk.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2009, 02:22:05 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: DIY Experement: The Distance Between the Earth and the Moon
« Reply #73 on: February 25, 2009, 02:19:01 AM »
Quote
Some drawings made over one hundert years ago by couple of guys aren't valid proof. Do you for example have some photos that you can show us? I have photos that shows no such effect exist.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=23667.0


Naked eye

Comparison

Magnified

You used binoculars. The authors of the literature, including Samuel Birley Rowbotham who provides accounts of the same effect, used telescopes. Huge difference in methodologies.

How was rowbothams telescope better than binoculars used in this test? Did it have bigger main lens that governs the resolution of the telescope or binoculars?

Not to mention that with those low quality blow ups it's extremely hard to tell if anything from the base was revealed.

No it is not you can simply measure the width and height of the object.





Quote
And by the way your claim that a telescope that rowbothan used would restore more of the oil rig is not valid, since lenses of the telescopes in the 19th century were about the same size as modern binoculars and so the resolution would be about the same.

Wrong. Glass making and lens making were perfected in the 1700's, and telescopes were perfected in the 1800's. There's a reason why the 1800's are known as the golden age of telescopes.

1900's telescopes only advanced in terms of mechanization.

What was wrong? I did not imply that that modern binoculars are better quality that rowbothans telescope. I only said that its main lens was the same size as modern binoculars and so it would have had similar resolution to modern binoculars or modern telescope of the same size.
 

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17953
Re: DIY Experement: The Distance Between the Earth and the Moon
« Reply #74 on: February 25, 2009, 02:35:20 AM »
Quote

What makes you think that this image proves that the size ratio of the rig remained unchanged? It actually supports the notion that magnification reveals the base.

34/48 > 12/18

You lose.

Quote
What was wrong? I did not imply that that modern binoculars are better quality that rowbothans telescope. I only said that its main lens was the same size as modern binoculars and so it would have had similar resolution to modern binoculars or modern telescope of the same size.

How do you know the size of Rowbotham's main lens to make that assessment? While he doesn't specify a grade, Rowbotham tells us that he's using a high grade Newtonian, which doesn't use a lens at all.

Read more.

Re: DIY Experement: The Distance Between the Earth and the Moon
« Reply #75 on: February 25, 2009, 02:37:33 AM »
While he doesn't specify a grade, Rowbotham tells us that he's using a high grade Newtonian, which doesn't use a lens at all.

So his telescope didnt have an eyepiece? That certainly explains a lot.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17953
Re: DIY Experement: The Distance Between the Earth and the Moon
« Reply #76 on: February 25, 2009, 02:39:01 AM »
So his telescope didnt have an eyepiece? That certainly explains a lot.

The eyepiece isn't the objective lens of a telescope, which is what was being discussed.

Please try to keep up.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2009, 02:41:18 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: DIY Experement: The Distance Between the Earth and the Moon
« Reply #77 on: February 25, 2009, 03:03:44 AM »
Quote

What makes you think that this image proves that the size ratio of the rig remained unchanged? It actually supports the notion that magnification reveals the base.

34/48 > 12/18

You lose.

Edit.
You are right that would support rowbothans theory, if the difference did not fit within error margin. However rowbotham claimed that he did also see effect on operaglass and yet we did not see that effect so clearly with bicolulars which proves that rowbotham was lying.

Quote
What was wrong? I did not imply that that modern binoculars are better quality that rowbothans telescope. I only said that its main lens was the same size as modern binoculars and so it would have had similar resolution to modern binoculars or modern telescope of the same size.

How do you know the size of Rowbotham's main lens to make that assessment? While he doesn't specify a grade, Rowbotham tells us that he's using a high grade Newtonian, which doesn't use a lens at all.

Read more.

Where does he say that he is using a newtonian telescope? The size of the mirror on an newtonian telescope determines resolution just like the size of the lens in a binocular.
And besides rowbotham claims to have seen the effect with operaglass when we can't see the same effect on higher resolution binoculars.

I also copy pasted some calculations below. Feel free to point out what is wrong with them.


I measured the width and the height of the oil rig in the two photos.

I attributed an error to all of my measutrements of +/- one pixel.

Within experimental error the height:width ratio was the same in both pictures (see below).

So from a proper, scientific viewpoint there was no recovery of height with magnification.

If anyone wants to ignore the experimental error, please go ahead.

But that would be un-scientific, anti-scientific or pseudo-scientific.

----------------------------------



Zoomed out

Height (H1) = (30 +/- 1) mm (where 1 mm is the width of one pixel)
Width (W1) = (58 +/- 1) mm

Fractional error in H1 = 1/30 = 3.33%
Fractional error in W1 = 1/58 = 1.72%

H1/W1 = 0.517

Fractional error in H1/W1 (FE1) = 3.33% + 1.72% = 5.06%   

Zoomed in

Height (H2) = (83 +/- 1) mm
Width (W2) = (155 +/- 1) mm

Fractional error in H2 = 1/83 = 1.20%
Fractional error in W2 = 1/155 = 0.65%

H2/W2 = 0.535

Fractional error in H2/W2 (FE2) = 1.20% + 0.65% = 1.85%

Comparing the two pictures

(H2/W2)/(H1/W1) = 0.535 / 0.517 = 1.0353

Fractional error in (H2/W2)/(H1/W1) = FE1 + FE2 = 5.06% + 1.85% = 6.91%

Actual error in (H2/W2)/(H1/W1) = 6.91% x 1.035 = 0.0715

Conclusion

The shape of the rig in the two images is the same within experimental error.

(Given that: 1.0353 - 0.0715 = 0.9638; and 0.9638 < 1.0000)
« Last Edit: February 25, 2009, 07:45:53 AM by jargo »

Re: DIY Experement: The Distance Between the Earth and the Moon
« Reply #78 on: February 25, 2009, 05:48:12 AM »
Quote
34/48 > 12/18

You lose.

but 33.5/48.5 < 12.5/17.5

Please consider tolerances. The results suggest do not show any certain change.

Re: DIY Experement: The Distance Between the Earth and the Moon
« Reply #79 on: February 25, 2009, 07:33:23 AM »
Those were made with binoculars. The authors of the literature, including Samuel Birley Rowbotham who provides accounts of the same effect, used telescopes. Huge difference in methodologies.

Tom, tell him about the special restorer telescope that Rowbotham used. You know, the one that doesn't exist.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17953
Re: DIY Experement: The Distance Between the Earth and the Moon
« Reply #80 on: February 25, 2009, 01:02:19 PM »
Quote
You are right that would support rowbothans theory, if the difference did not fit within error margin.

Yeah right, experimental error.  ::)

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: DIY Experement: The Distance Between the Earth and the Moon
« Reply #81 on: February 25, 2009, 02:42:21 PM »
Quote
You are right and so you must prove that the entire earth is really flat. Since the beginning you just have proved that the earth in your near vicinity is flat. Nothing more. You just don't have any data to prove more.

There's plenty of data in the literature.
Yes, there is plenty of data that earth is flat in your near vicinity. But not any data about whole earth.
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17953
Re: DIY Experement: The Distance Between the Earth and the Moon
« Reply #82 on: February 25, 2009, 02:54:52 PM »
Yes, there is plenty of data that earth is flat in your near vicinity. But not any data about whole earth.

A whole is the sum of its parts.

Re: DIY Experement: The Distance Between the Earth and the Moon
« Reply #83 on: February 25, 2009, 02:57:51 PM »
Yes, there is plenty of data that earth is flat in your near vicinity. But not any data about whole earth.

A whole is the sum of its parts.

And yet...


?

zork

  • 3319
Re: DIY Experement: The Distance Between the Earth and the Moon
« Reply #84 on: February 25, 2009, 03:32:11 PM »
Yes, there is plenty of data that earth is flat in your near vicinity. But not any data about whole earth.

A whole is the sum of its parts.
Maybe, if you talk about Elementary algebra. But it's not the case when we talk about Geometry.
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42559
Re: DIY Experement: The Distance Between the Earth and the Moon
« Reply #85 on: February 25, 2009, 06:32:39 PM »
Yes, there is plenty of data that earth is flat in your near vicinity. But not any data about whole earth.

A whole is the sum of its parts.

Individual parts may or may not be representative of the whole.
http://travel.webshots.com/photo/1383551920071802097SdufQT
« Last Edit: February 25, 2009, 07:15:46 PM by markjo »
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

hi

  • 302
  • Love the debate, hate the stupidity!
Re: DIY Experement: The Distance Between the Earth and the Moon
« Reply #86 on: February 25, 2009, 06:47:13 PM »
Yes, there is plenty of data that earth is flat in your near vicinity. But not any data about whole earth.

A whole is the sum of its parts.
Then you can't just sum up the only parts you measured, you must go to every part and add them up.

You can't look at just at the flat side of a half sphere and call it flat, you need to look all around it before you can make an assumption.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17953
Re: DIY Experement: The Distance Between the Earth and the Moon
« Reply #87 on: February 25, 2009, 07:14:36 PM »
You can't look at just at the flat side of a half sphere and call it flat, you need to look all around it before you can make an assumption.

There's no reason to assume that the earth exists some other shape elsewhere. The only thing experienced is that the earth exists as a plane.

If you're going to speculate on a shape outside of human experience you're going to have to prove it.

?

hi

  • 302
  • Love the debate, hate the stupidity!
Re: DIY Experement: The Distance Between the Earth and the Moon
« Reply #88 on: February 25, 2009, 07:19:52 PM »
You can't look at just at the flat side of a half sphere and call it flat, you need to look all around it before you can make an assumption.

There's no reason to assume that the earth exists some other shape elsewhere. The only thing experienced is that the earth exists as a plane.

If you're going to speculate on a shape outside of human experience you're going to have to prove it.
If space travel wasn't part of "the conspiracy" then I would use that as a human experince.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17953
Re: DIY Experement: The Distance Between the Earth and the Moon
« Reply #89 on: February 25, 2009, 07:22:01 PM »
If space travel wasn't part of "the conspiracy" then I would use that as a human experince.

Doesn't sound like much of an experience if it doesn't happen.