New Experiment - input welcome .. please contribute

Pretty piss poor response FE believers.

Pretty piss poor response FE believers.

Please keep this kind of posting out of D&D. Read the rules; if your post doesn't contribute, then you shouldn't post it at all.

Consider this a warning.

Quote from: dyno on July 13, 2009, 05:48:58 AM

Pretty piss poor response FE believers.

Please keep this kind of posting out of D&D. Read the rules; if your post doesn't contribute, then you shouldn't post it at all.

Er ...

The lack of "contribution" has been from FErs, I fear ...

Dyno (OP) has just got a tad frustrated (quite forgiveable, methinks?).

what difference can be observed with a telecope between FE and RE?
the stars will be in the same place, we have explanations for sinking ships, everything that works in RE works in FE.
there are really just a few very subtle differences. the RE model would not have been caught ground to begin with if someone hadn't made it work.

I'm not really certain what kind of experiments your thinking of, but I'm willing to put up my doubt in RE at stake for this if you can find one that will make a difference.

promises, no accusations as fake.

The point in requesting input from FE believers is I thought they may have an idea of an experiment I could perform.

The point in requesting input from FE believers is I thought they may have an idea of an experiment I could perform.

Tom's already done enough:

I regularly repeat the convexity experiments across my bay for acquaintances.

I'll share a detailed description of the results if you'd like.

Here you go:
The earth is flat.

Another cool experiment would be to repeat Rig Navigator's "restore" esperiments with a nice, powerful zoom lens (i.e. with no, huge and intermediate magnification).

I would be quite interested in this, actually. Several reports exist of hull restoration with use of a telescope. It'd be interesting to see a more modern account.

They were inconclusive - no restoration within experimental error - last time:

I believe, without re-reading the threads, that some restoration was apparent, but you begged off that it was within experimental error.

Yeah the real issue is for a FEr to contribute ideas. Otherwise they end up looking at the results and saying "oh but you didn't do it properly".

To be perfectly honest, you must know going into this that some variation of this will be the initial response from a flat earth advocate -- just as when presented with pictures from across a bay, the evidence is dismissed by round earth advocates as a "mirage", "refraction", or "the observer really wasn't on the beach." This tendency is as predictable as it is frustrating.

I believe, without re-reading the threads, that some restoration was apparent, but you begged off that it was within experimental error.

"Experimental error" is of fundamental importance to good science (and is often dismissed as unimportant in pseudo-science).

You and I both have a pencil and we measure their lengths with the same ruler that is marked off in 0.5 cm lines (a shit ruler, as it happens).

Therefore any length we measure is only accurate to within +/- 0.25 cm - the "resolution" is half of the length between the ruler's lines.

If my pencil is 8.25 +/- 0.25 cm long and yours is 8.00 +/- 0.25 cm long ...

Then the difference is 0.25 cm with an error of 2 x 0.25 cm = 0.50 cm.

In this case we do not really know if my pencil is longer because the difference could be attributed to measurement error only.

Re-reading my response, it seems more snitty than I had intended. I was simply trying to note that some restoration was evident, though not enough to be convincing to you.

Re-reading my response, it seems more snitty than I had intended. I was simply trying to note that some restoration was evident, though not enough to be convincing to you.

Snitty? That's a new one on me!

No offence taken, by the way?

Noun   1.   snit - a state of agitated irritation

I noticed when re-reading the post you replied to that it one might have read a testiness or smugness which wasn't there. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't causing offense where none was intended.

Re-reading my response, it seems more snitty than I had intended. I was simply trying to note that some restoration was evident, though not enough to be convincing to you.

The fact some restoration appeared at a glance is irrelevant.  The numbers never lie, and they indicate that the existence of restoration is inconclusive.  To make any additional claim beyond that is not objective.