Lets see what you've got

Hello, I've never read anything as intriguing as you theory. I am 56 years old and have been a fan of astronomy most of my life.

How can you convince me that the earth is flat?

PS I read the FAQ.

PPS It wasn't very convincing.

We can't.  Its up to you to do your own experiments, and make your own observations.  Good luck.

There's a library of resources for your own self study in my signature link

There's a library of resources for your own self study in my signature link

Earth not a globe sounds interesting. I'll start there

You may want to give this one a try too:
The Flat Earth and her moulder
by Ossipoff H. Woofson
http://books.google.com/books?id=PRIoAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA213&lpg=PA213&dq=The+Flat+Earth+and+her+moulder+by+Ossipoff+H.+Woofson&source=bl&ots=8sNOUxMUGn&sig=ERQ0HFU27lB2_GdzzO65YxvRUOI&hl=en&ei=dgf1SfmVJIzyMpOsqLkP&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 26, 2009, 03:59:08 PM

There's a library of resources for your own self study in my signature link

Earth not a globe sounds interesting. I'll start there

I personally recommend it.

Quote from: astrofan on April 26, 2009, 04:04:19 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 26, 2009, 03:59:08 PM

There's a library of resources for your own self study in my signature link

Earth not a globe sounds interesting. I'll start there

I personally recommend it.

So far it seems like utter nonsense. When can I stop reading?

Quote from: Anteater7171 on April 27, 2009, 12:37:58 AM

Quote from: astrofan on April 26, 2009, 04:04:19 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 26, 2009, 03:59:08 PM

There's a library of resources for your own self study in my signature link

Earth not a globe sounds interesting. I'll start there

I personally recommend it.

So far it seems like utter nonsense. When can I stop reading?

When you start to believe.

There's a library of resources for your own self study in my signature link

There is list of unavailable books for general public(some exceptions excluded) on your signature link. It's just copy/paste from some library list and you don't know itself what they talk about. As much as we can find out they are science fiction, history and bibliography books. I guess the better reading for astrofan is:
noob essentials: troll bishop debate forfeits  - http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=18710.msg341181#msg341181

I'm now worried about Tom refusing "to post pictures corroborating his story of children splashing".

There is list of unavailable books for general public(some exceptions excluded) on your signature link. It's just copy/paste from some library list and you don't know itself what they talk about. As much as we can find out they are science fiction, history and bibliography books. I guess the better reading for astrofan is:
noob essentials: troll bishop debate forfeits  - http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=18710.msg341181#msg341181

I'm not obligated to prove anything to anybody. I don't give a crap what you believe. Repeating "prove it" and "go take a picture to prove you're not lying" are not valid debate tactics. You guys need to provide your own evidence which proves your model right.

All the evidence I need is right there in my signature link, published and peer reviewed. When you guys manage to publish a piece of literature which proves through experiment that the earth is a globe let us know.

All the evidence I need is right there in my signature link, published and peer reviewed.

Tom, have you personally examined all of the evidence in your signature link?

Tom, have you personally examined all of the evidence in your signature link?

The evidence is right there, peer reviewed and corroborated. Continually asking me to "prove it" is not a valid form of debate. It was already proven in the peer reviews and repetitions. If you're so incessant to doubt what has already been confirmed and demonstrated true, then the obligation is entirely on you to demonstrate otherwise.

Quote from: markjo on April 27, 2009, 02:51:59 PM

Tom, have you personally examined all of the evidence in your signature link?

The evidence is right there, peer reviewed and corroborated. Asking me to "prove it" is not a valid form of debate. It was already proven in the peer reviews. If you're so incessant to doubt the confirmed and true, then the obligation is entirely on you to demonstrate otherwise.

That's not what I asked you.  I'm not asking you to prove anything and I don't care who else has peer reviewed it.  I'm just asking if you have personally examined the evidence that you are presenting.  A simple yes or no response is all that is required.

P.S.  I already know what the answer is.  I just want to hear it from you.

You guys need to provide your own evidence which proves your model right.

And the same rule applies to yourself.

All the evidence I need is right there in my signature link, published and peer reviewed.

I doubt any of that has been peer reviewed.

When you guys manage to publish a piece of literature which proves through experiment that the earth is a globe let us know.

Try putting some sticks in the sand, walking a few miles and doing the same again. Repeat. Observe. Think.

Here's nice essay for you to read. It's by Asimov.

http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm

That's not what I asked you.  I'm not asking you to prove anything and I don't care who else has peer reviewed it.  I'm just asking if you have personally examined the evidence that you are presenting.  A simple yes or no response is all that is required.

P.S.  I already know what the answer is.  I just want to hear it from you.

I've examined the online literature, and about half the content of the offline literature. The remainder is so rare that the volumes can be found only at certain places on earth. But if you read the literature, there are excerpts and paraphrases across the entire collection, so much so that all of the relevant content is there for reading.

I doubt any of that has been peer reviewed.

It was. Many, many times.

Try putting some sticks in the sand, walking a few miles and doing the same again. Repeat. Observe. Think.

What will walking away from a stick tell me about the shape of the earth?

Here's nice essay for you to read. It's by Asimov.

http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm

Asimov doesn't experiment, demonstrate, or prove crap.

What will walking away from a stick tell me about the shape of the earth?

That's where the observation and thinking part comes in.

That's where the observation and thinking part comes in.

The stick recedes and ascends via perception to the level of the eye, just like it would on a plane. Therefore the earth is a plane. Thanks for contributing.

The stick recedes and ascends via perception to the level of the eye, just like it would do on a plane. Therefore the earth is a plane. Thanks for contributing.

Try looking at the shadows.

Hint: From the sun.

Try looking at the shadows.

Hint: From the sun.

How can I look at the shadow of a stick if I walked several miles away from it? 

Quote from: astrofan on April 27, 2009, 03:41:07 PM

Try looking at the shadows.

Hint: From the sun.

How can I look at the shadow of a stick if I walked several miles away from it? 

I think this is a red herring tactic.

Quote from: astrofan on April 27, 2009, 03:41:07 PM

Try looking at the shadows.

Hint: From the sun.

How can I look at the shadow of a stick if I walked several miles away from it? 

I would look at the shadow before you walk away.

(Are event sequences hard for you? Do you chew food before its in your mouth?)

I would look at the shadow before you walk away.

(Are event sequences hard for you? Do you chew food before its in your mouth?)

But if I do that then the shadow and sun would have changed position by the time I walked to a point many miles away to place the next stick. What the hell kind of triangulation experiment is that?

Quote from: markjo on April 27, 2009, 03:01:47 PM

That's not what I asked you.  I'm not asking you to prove anything and I don't care who else has peer reviewed it.  I'm just asking if you have personally examined the evidence that you are presenting.  A simple yes or no response is all that is required.

P.S.  I already know what the answer is.  I just want to hear it from you.

I've examined the online literature, and about half the content of the offline literature. The remainder is so rare that the volumes can be found only at certain places on earth. But if you read the literature, there are excerpts and paraphrases across the entire collection, so much so that all of the relevant content is there for reading.

Ah, so your strategy is revealed.  Post a bunch of obscure articles that you know that no one would be reasonably able to track down and then berate whoever is "too lazy" to do the leg work that you were supposed to have done yourself.  Well, I did manage to find one of your off line articles on line.  Check this out:

The Flat Earth and her moulder
by Ossipoff H. Woofson as published in the March 28, 1884 issue of Knowledge.
http://books.google.com/books?id=PRIoAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA213&lpg=PA213&dq=The+Flat+Earth+and+her+moulder+by+Ossipoff+H.+Woofson&source=bl&ots=8sNOVvNSGn&sig=v6mcngGUsVldldCofYwpupASZiw&hl=en&ei=FkP2SczfHIqQMsf6tMkP&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6

We have been requested by the former secretary of the Zetetic Society to insert a series of papers in which he promises to show the nature of the deceptions practised by some at least among the advocates of the flat earth theory ED

THE FLAT EARTH AND HER MOULDER BY H OSSIPOFF WOOFSON

If THERE is always a deep meaning concealed behind common X sayings and though generally of but few words they often embrace a whole philosophy By themselves they may express one thing but if followed by another sentence they will often embrace a whole moral teaching which when applied to experience strikingly illustrate facts of indisputable value.

My sojourn in England has been but of short duration yet I have managed to learn much and in the present caso I have strictly though unconsciously followed the advice of the Scotchman who maintained that Honesty was the best policy in the negative it would mean that dishonesty was the worst policy Questioned as to how he knew it his answer was Cause I ve tried em both As a matter of fact the adage and saying are bad from a moral point of view Honesty should be a virtue and not a necessity But if we apply the whole to matters of investigation and of a speculative nature a better saying could scarcely bo found For it is by all means essential to try both sides of a question before we can say which is the right one This I was led quite inadvertently I confess to do and it enabled me to investigate a teaching which for its audacity and ingenuity hardly has an equal in the whole array of paradoxies and scientific frauds Nay not only was I led to investigate but I was brought to regard it for a time as an accomplished fact as a truth persecuted and opposed by unscrupulous philosophers whose object in resisting it was to postpone that punishment at the hands of universal judgment which would surely overtake them sooner or later.

Every falsehood must have a semblance of truth in it and some plausibility otherwise it could not gain converts and as long as yon believe the expounder of it to be sincere yon are sure to credit his statements Simple minded credulous inexperienced people do not as a rule require great inducement For them a small amount of ingenuity and plausibility is sufficient to gain their fancy and to excite their imagination To gain the credulity of people of higher culture the expounder of a psendo theory must of necessity possess in proportion greater skill Such hypocrites we are bound to admit must possess no ordinary perception of human failings and a vast psychological discernment.

There are quacks for all classes and to suit all tastes There is the street quack who makes a good living by the sale of water and bread pills supposed to effect marvellous cures there are the impostors who amass fortunes by their self denying generosity to benefit humanity by means of a bottle of stuff for which they condescendingly accept a goodly fee There are traps for everybody the highest and the lowest.

Experience and good lessons are however essential elements for our future guidance and if these are obtained in our early lives they really recompensate us in the long run for our mistakes and light mindedness.

Now circumstances have led me to embrace the so called Zetetic Philosophy and although far from being very much elated at the short lived honour I yet feel a kind of recompensation by the fact that my experience may be of service to others Mr Proctor to whom my thanks are due for his generous offer to allow space in his valuable journal for my account of the Zetetic Philosophy has indeed not missed an opportunity to expose its falsehood but he could have been scarcely expected to strike at the root of it for want of such information which I was enabled to collect.

I propose giving a detailed history in short weekly articles of the whole of what I shall allow myself to call the humbug catchpenny philosophy concocted by a man who styles himself Parallax otherwise Rowbotham alias Tryon, Gonlden, Dr Birley, etc.

Tom, you really should examine your own "evidence" before you ask someone else to.  They just might.

Tom, you really should examine your own "evidence" before you ask someone else to.  They just might.

The Flat Earth and her Moulder is a series of weekly discussion articles featuring Flat Earth Theory. It features wild criticisms against the theory as well as well written rebuttals from Flat Earth supporters. It's included in the Flat Earth Literature list because it's part of the fabric of the Flat Earth Society's rich history.

But if I do that then the shadow and sun would have changed position by the time I walked to a point many miles away to place the next stick. What the hell kind of triangulation experiment is that?

Hmm. What could you do Tom? Think, think, think.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 27, 2009, 04:17:36 PM

But if I do that then the shadow and sun would have changed position by the time I walked to a point many miles away to place the next stick. What the hell kind of triangulation experiment is that?

Hmm. What could you do Tom? Think, think, think.

I can stop considering your experiment because it is neither thought out or coherent.

I can stop considering your experiment because it is neither thought out or coherent.

That's because I'm asking you to think things out and be coherent. You can't do it.

That's because I'm asking you to think things out and be coherent. You can't do it.

You're the one who can't even think up a workable or coherent triangulation experiment. When you figure out what you're talking about feel free to send me a PM. Until then, lurk more and post less.

Quote from: astrofan on April 27, 2009, 05:24:19 PM

That's because I'm asking you to think things out and be coherent. You can't do it.

You're the one who can't even think up a workable or coherent experiment. When you figure out what you're talking about feel free to send me a PM.

All I'm asking you to do Tom is think how you might get around the problem. You posed the problem (correctly) that the sun would have moved in the time it takes to reach the second (and consecutive) sticks. The problem is not insurmountable.

How would you overcome it?