Using science to fight science

I have a fair bit of scientific training and have a compulsion where I enjoy trying to convince other people science is right just like I was convinced. However, I can't really throw formulas at you, because you simply reject their premise. You do, however, seem to employ some "scientific" thought so I will attack from that angle. Yes, I've read the FAQ. No, I don't enjoy confrontation, I enjoy friendly arguing.

First, I must ask, why do you all have a problem with the concept of a round earth? The physics that dictate it do a very good job of explaining a lot of things and make extremely accurate predictions. Your FAQ makes no predictions at all and only addresses a barrage of questions by attempting to explain them away in a semi-rigorous manner. The only advantage of your postulate is that is conforms with what we see with our eye, that is, the earth is flat.

But that cannot be the basis of your reasoning. You cannot simply reject a theory because you can't see it. If so, you would be forced to reject medicine as a conspiracy of the pharmaceuticals because you can't see it work. You would reject the concept of atom because how could an electron, which is attracted to a proton, orbit without simply falling in? I'm curious if any of you reject a larger portion of science for your beliefs.

Finally, I reject the experiment made by Samuel Rowbotham. I say experiment because they are all same (save for the ridiculous one which compares the curvature of the earth with the flatness of water). The argument is, when you look out very far with a telescope, you don't see the earth curve, therefore it doesn't, at all. It is very easy to measure the drop in the earth due to curvature at the relatively short distances described in his book.

Simply take the ratio of the distance involved and the circumference of the earth:

5/78225

The drop in the height is 24900-24900cos(2*pi*5/78225)=-0.002 miles according to my calculator

Not surprisingly, this is incredibly small, about 10.5 feet, well within the errors induced by topography. You would not be able to discern the difference.

I'll end with this. A highschool (maybe middleschool) class sent a camera into near-space with a weather balloon. You can see the photos here: http://i.gizmodo.com/5173755/teens-capture-amazing-shots-20-miles-from-earths-surface-with-a-balloon

My point isn't to say the photos provide proof (because of the conspiracy), but it is an experiment that you could easily replicate. Why don't you?

These photo's clearly show the ice wall. Look very carefully.

Obviously those "kids" are smart enough to fake their own photos. And since I'm a broke college student I would have no way to replicate what they "apparently" did.

These photo's clearly show the ice wall. Look very carefully.

Obviously those "kids" are smart enough to fake their own photos. And since I'm a broke college student I would have no way to replicate what they "apparently" did.

So it clearly shows the ice wall yet is obviously faked. Ok.

Anyone care to address my other points?

These photo's clearly show the ice wall. Look very carefully.

I have 20/20 vision and i'm a foot away from my 17 inch monitor zoomed in trying to find this ice wall that is apparently clear as day. could you take the image into paint and circle to ice wall, i dont see anything other than the curvature of the earth.

Quote from: spanner34.5 on April 07, 2009, 05:09:53 AM

These photo's clearly show the ice wall. Look very carefully.

I have 20/20 vision and i'm a foot away from my 17 inch monitor zoomed in trying to find this ice wall that is apparently clear as day. could you take the image into paint and circle to ice wall, i dont see anything other than the curvature of the earth.

Again clearly, the circumference of the flat earth, the edge is the ice wall.

lol your too funny. that 'edge' you see supports both theories.. FAIL

Anyone care to address my other points?

You the one missing the point. You cant fight with science as theirs is not science.

Start asking some more basic questions as to why no one on the entire planet that actually looks upwards with a telescope has noticed that the moon is only a rock 32 miles across.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon

It stops being science when the word "conspiracy" gets mentioned in every 3rd sentence.

But that cannot be the basis of your reasoning. You cannot simply reject a theory because you can't see it.

Sure I can. If you can't see it and if you can't detect it then it's not valid for consideration. It's about as credible as the idea of ghosts are. It's as simple as that.

Sure I can. If you can't see it and if you can't detect it then it's not valid for consideration. It's about as credible as the idea of ghosts are. It's as simple as that.

You can detect it(the earth curvature), just go high enough. http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf

Quote

But that cannot be the basis of your reasoning. You cannot simply reject a theory because you can't see it.

Sure I can. If you can't see it and if you can't detect it then it's not valid for consideration. It's about as credible as the idea of ghosts are. It's as simple as that.

... tom... noooooooooo...... you just fucked over the whole shadow object theory of FE... tsk tsk.. (you make me so happy )

Quote

But that cannot be the basis of your reasoning. You cannot simply reject a theory because you can't see it.

Sure I can. If you can't see it and if you can't detect it then it's not valid for consideration. It's about as credible as the idea of ghosts are. It's as simple as that.

Do you believe in viruses?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 08, 2009, 02:49:38 AM

Sure I can. If you can't see it and if you can't detect it then it's not valid for consideration. It's about as credible as the idea of ghosts are. It's as simple as that.

You can detect it(the earth curvature), just go high enough. http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf

How am I supposed to get to 60,000 feet without a military aircraft? And even if I did make it to the edge of the atmosphere, how do I know that I'm looking at a globe earth and not the distant curved edges of a circular spotlight?

Do you believe in viruses?

I've seen viruses.

Quote from: zork on April 08, 2009, 03:05:16 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 08, 2009, 02:49:38 AM

Sure I can. If you can't see it and if you can't detect it then it's not valid for consideration. It's about as credible as the idea of ghosts are. It's as simple as that.

You can detect it(the earth curvature), just go high enough. http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf

How am I supposed to get to 60,000 feet without a military aircraft? And even if I did make it to the edge of the atmosphere, how do I know that I'm looking at a globe earth and not the distant curved edges of a circular spotlight?

Tom, if you read that link, then you would know that curvature can be detected photographically around 20,000 ft.  Also, humans have a neat tool for telling the difference between the edge of a spotlight and curvature.  It's called depth perception.

Quote from: zork on April 08, 2009, 03:05:16 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 08, 2009, 02:49:38 AM

Sure I can. If you can't see it and if you can't detect it then it's not valid for consideration. It's about as credible as the idea of ghosts are. It's as simple as that.

You can detect it(the earth curvature), just go high enough. http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf

How am I supposed to get to 60,000 feet without a military aircraft? And even if I did make it to the edge of the atmosphere, how do I know that I'm looking at a globe earth and not the distant curved edges of a circular spotlight?

1. You could calculate how far you would have to see in order to see the edge of this spotlight (according to location and time).

2. You could then apply your well-used "atmosphere is not transparent" argument.

3. You could then conclude that you are not seeing 3000 miles but a few hundred miles.  Therefore it must be a curve.

Welcome to the RES.

Tom, if you read that link, then you would know that curvature can be detected photographically around 20,000 ft.  Also, humans have a neat tool for telling the difference between the edge of a spotlight and curvature.  It's called depth perception.

I've been above 20,000 feet plenty of times and I never saw this "curvature"

TheEngineer never saw any either:

"I believe I said that I put myself through college working for an airline, thus having access to free flights around the world.  I also worked for a private FBO, in which the owner owned a Cessna Citation.  I am also a licensed pilot.  Not once, during any of the hundreds if not thousands of flights I've been on, have I ever witnessed the curvature of the Earth."

1. You could calculate how far you would have to see in order to see the edge of this spotlight (according to location and time).

2. You could then apply your well-used "atmosphere is not transparent" argument.

3. You could then conclude that you are not seeing 3000 miles but a few hundred miles.  Therefore it must be a curve.

Welcome to the RES.

At the edge of the atmosphere there is significantly less atmosphere to look through, so your argument is invalid.

Quote

But that cannot be the basis of your reasoning. You cannot simply reject a theory because you can't see it.

Sure I can. If you can't see it and if you can't detect it then it's not valid for consideration. It's about as credible as the idea of ghosts are. It's as simple as that.

You mean like the Shadow Object?

Oh yea just for the record. One real idiot I never got along with that lived in my house for a while was at one of these places

http://www.antarcticconnection.com/antarctic/stations/index.shtml

Cant remember which one, but he left crap with me when he moved away after ... a bit of an argument. I didnt think at the time id would have to memorize the data before giving it back to battle the evil FE to a battle of wits.

His research was based on space plasma physics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_(physics), he did mention penguins, and showed photos of the cap etc, never an ice wall though. You'd think that would have come up.

Quote from: zork on April 08, 2009, 03:05:16 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 08, 2009, 02:49:38 AM

Sure I can. If you can't see it and if you can't detect it then it's not valid for consideration. It's about as credible as the idea of ghosts are. It's as simple as that.

You can detect it(the earth curvature), just go high enough. http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf

How am I supposed to get to 60,000 feet without a military aircraft? And even if I did make it to the edge of the atmosphere, how do I know that I'm looking at a globe earth and not the distant curved edges of a circular spotlight?

 Photographically it can be detected around 20,000 feet. I guess that there are some suitable mountains which you can climb. And about "how do you know..." part... I don't know. But thing is that you don't know either, you can't in any way say that you look at "distant curved edges of a circular spotlight". And most important part of not seeing earth curvature at ground level is that it invalidates all Rowbotham experiments where he tried to detect earth curvature on the ground.

Quote

Tom, if you read that link, then you would know that curvature can be detected photographically around 20,000 ft.  Also, humans have a neat tool for telling the difference between the edge of a spotlight and curvature.  It's called depth perception.

I've been above 20,000 feet plenty of times and I never saw this "curvature"

TheEngineer never saw any either:

"I believe I said that I put myself through college working for an airline, thus having access to free flights around the world.  I also worked for a private FBO, in which the owner owned a Cessna Citation.  I am also a licensed pilot.  Not once, during any of the hundreds if not thousands of flights I've been on, have I ever witnessed the curvature of the Earth."

Tom, I think that you missed the phrase "detected photographically" in that statement with "photographically" being the key word.  Photographs can often detect things not perceptible with the naked eye.

You mean like the Shadow Object?

I've seen direct evidence of the shadow object.

Tom, I think that you missed the phrase "detected photographically" in that statement with "photographically" being the key word.  Photographs can often detect things not perceptible with the naked eye.

It actually said "may" be detected photography at 20,000 feet. There is no conclusion. Most of that study is about how unreliable photographic evidence is due to barrel roll.

Quote

Tom, I think that you missed the phrase "detected photographically" in that statement with "photographically" being the key word.  Photographs can often detect things not perceptible with the naked eye.

It actually said "may" be detected photography at 20,000 feet. There is no conclusion. Most of that study is about how unreliable photographic evidence is due to barrel roll.

It also said "The threshold elevation for detecting curvature would seem to be somewhat less than 35,000 ft".  About the altitude of many commercial flights.  Just because you or Engy can't detect the curvature at 35,000 ft doesn't mean that the curvature is impossible to detect at 35,000 ft.

It also said "The threshold elevation for detecting curvature would seem to be somewhat less than 35,000 ft".  About the altitude of many commercial flights.  Just because you or Engy can't detect the curvature at 35,000 ft doesn't mean that the curvature is impossible to detect at 35,000 ft.

There are no hard conclusions in that study, just a lot of "may be" and "might be".The author does not demonstrate where curvature is detected and at what altitude.

Quote from: markjo on April 08, 2009, 06:53:38 PM

It also said "The threshold elevation for detecting curvature would seem to be somewhat less than 35,000 ft".  About the altitude of many commercial flights.  Just because you or Engy can't detect the curvature at 35,000 ft doesn't mean that the curvature is impossible to detect at 35,000 ft.

There are no hard conclusions in that study, just a lot of "may be" and "might be".The author does not demonstrate where curvature is detected and at what altitude.

To be exact, only one "may be" and one "might be" phrase. Not "a lot". And these are in context of lower altitudes. In short, there are altitudes where you detect curvature and there are altitudes where curvature might be detected.

To be exact, only one "may be" and one "might be" phrase. Not "a lot". And these are in context of lower altitudes. In short, there are altitudes where you detect curvature and there are altitudes where curvature might be detected.

It's hardly a fact that curvature can be detected at 20,000 feet just because the author of a study says it "may be" possible without any further evidence to corroborate that statement, especially when he just got through telling us that photographs are unreliable due to barrel roll which exists in all camera types.

Quote from: zork on April 09, 2009, 12:05:02 AM

To be exact, only one "may be" and one "might be" phrase. Not "a lot". And these are in context of lower altitudes. In short, there are altitudes where you detect curvature and there are altitudes where curvature might be detected.

It's hardly a fact that curvature can be detected at 20,000 feet

But still, it may be photographically detected. So, its not also a fact that curvature can't be detected at 20,000 feet.

Quote from: Taurondir on April 08, 2009, 06:57:55 AM

You mean like the Shadow Object?

I've seen direct evidence of the shadow object.

Please show us this direct evidence of the shadow object.
I am sick of this argument, as is everybody else.

All we need from you is this direct evidence of this outlandish claim, of the existence of this shadow object, and I, along with many others will get off your back about it, for once and for all.

So, Tom, show us this evidence.

And please don't say something like:
"Because the earth is flat, it must mean that an object goes between earth and the sun to block it off, making it an eclipse. That is my evidence, just what I can observe with my very own little eye."

And Tom, you need your eyes checked again. No wonder you have been prescribed glasses. And everybody knows, if you need the aid of glasses to see with your eyes, it means you cant really trust your own eyes.

He does however have a point. Lense vingetting is very often a problem in photography, and in layman terms that means that whenever you take a picture, the edges of it bend in towards the middle, less on an expensive lense, more on a cheaper, smaller lense. Like the lense of a compact camera. What did the kids use in their experiment? A Nikon Coolpix. Thats a cheap and decently mediocre camera, that is not builtto remove lense vingetting. So.... Those pictures may be beutiful as hell, and add to an experiment I would want to try, but they could also support both theories.

Then again, the argument "that can't be true, because I can't see it / can't do it myself." is one of the arguments I like the least. Can you speak and/or write chinese? Can you sail a boat against the wind? Can you make realistic-looking computer images? Can you program a connection between two computers, or evolve that connection into the internet? Can you build a stonehenge without the use of modern tools? Or the pyramids? Can you make a liquid flow upwards? Can you create a chargeable battery? Have you seen a quark? There are a shitloads of things I realize that I can't do or see. But I still realize they are real, and can be done.

He does however have a point. Lense vingetting is very often a problem in photography, and in layman terms that means that whenever you take a picture, the edges of it bend in towards the middle, less on an expensive lense, more on a cheaper, smaller lense. Like the lense of a compact camera. What did the kids use in their experiment? A Nikon Coolpix. Thats a cheap and decently mediocre camera, that is not builtto remove lense vingetting. So.... Those pictures may be beutiful as hell, and add to an experiment I would want to try, but they could also support both theories.

Then again, the argument "that can't be true, because I can't see it / can't do it myself." is one of the arguments I like the least. Can you speak and/or write chinese? Can you sail a boat against the wind? Can you make realistic-looking computer images? Can you program a connection between two computers, or evolve that connection into the internet? Can you build a stonehenge without the use of modern tools? Or the pyramids? Can you make a liquid flow upwards? Can you create a chargeable battery? Have you seen a quark? There are a shitloads of things I realize that I can't do or see. But I still realize they are real, and can be done.

What the fuck are you talking about?

tl:dr



EDIT: Also, don't fucking reply when I made a damn good statement and request. I was not looking for your fat ass to respond because you are not Tom, are you? I don't give a flying fuck how you respond. So shut the fuck up, ok?

Sorry for being rude, I am deeply sorry and apologetic. You douche bag

Dude, take it easy. That post did two things. A: it prooved Tom's point about that camera sent into near-space, wich you used as an argument against FET. B: it ridiculed a possible reply from Tom, and added to the questions aimed towards him.

Welcome to the internet, there are other people here as well. And everything written is not aimed at you I do, however, look forward to Toms reply. I doubt it will come soon though, as he is not online at the moment. Don't waste your time, and check back later when he might have left a reply.