"Preaching to the (un)converted"

So you want impossibly high standards to prove that a RE, but will accept any level of information or opinion for believing in a FE?

So Parsifal, how do you rationally justify FET?
Or is the answer, you don't.

Please point out where I have expressed an unreserved belief in FET.

Quote from: markjo on September 23, 2009, 06:23:17 AM

It's his problem that you set impossible standards? 

If he wants to convince me that the Earth is round, then yes.

I based my earlier comment on this post.

Quote from: Parsifal on September 23, 2009, 07:02:13 AM

Quote from: markjo on September 23, 2009, 06:23:17 AM

It's his problem that you set impossible standards? 

If he wants to convince me that the Earth is round, then yes.

I based my earlier comment on this post.

That has nothing to do with what I said.

On the flip side to condemn RET you would have to conduct the same experiment to justify what is wrong or misinterpreted.

Except of course that without anyone bringing fresh evidence to the table, the default position round these parts is that the Earth is indeed flat.

My first two recommendations are, develop an accurate FE map and do the Cavendish experiment. The Cavendish experiment could be done easily enough to prove the point even if an accurate experiment takes more effort.

As I have said before, any experimental data posted here by FEers will be held suspect (even if only involuntarily) by the most heavily indoctrinated REers - in order to satisfy this issue it is necessary for an REer (preferably several, independent of one another) to conduct these experiments.

Quote from: Atom Man on September 27, 2009, 07:36:17 AM

On the flip side to condemn RET you would have to conduct the same experiment to justify what is wrong or misinterpreted.

Except of course that without anyone bringing fresh evidence to the table, the default position round these parts is that the Earth is indeed flat.

Quote

My first two recommendations are, develop an accurate FE map and do the Cavendish experiment. The Cavendish experiment could be done easily enough to prove the point even if an accurate experiment takes more effort.

As I have said before, any experimental data posted here by FEers will be held suspect (even if only involuntarily) by the most heavily indoctrinated REers - in order to satisfy this issue it is necessary for an REer (preferably several, independent of one another) to conduct these experiments.

This is part of the problem. Despite all of the physics, cosmology text books, maps, journals and magazines the burden of proof is on RET. I have said this before, if this is a genuine discussion board then the burden of proof in on all of us. The question is where is the experimental evidence to support FET. There are plenty of "theories" but no experimental evidence to support them. Just disclaiming RET does little to constructively support a genuine FET. Ignoring existing RET does not make it any less relevant.

Quote from: Matrix on September 30, 2009, 07:08:45 AM

As I have said before, any experimental data posted here by FEers will be held suspect (even if only involuntarily) by the most heavily indoctrinated REers - in order to satisfy this issue it is necessary for an REer (preferably several, independent of one another) to conduct these experiments.

This is part of the problem. Despite all of the physics, cosmology text books, maps, journals and magazines the burden of proof is on RET. I have said this before, if this is a genuine discussion board then the burden of proof in on all of us. The question is where is the experimental evidence to support FET. There are plenty of "theories" but no experimental evidence to support them. Just disclaiming RET does little to constructively support a genuine FET. Ignoring existing RET does not make it any less relevant.

I completely agree there is a burden of proof on everyone to support their ideas with evidence, although the fact that the Earth is flat means that RET has more ground to cover by a considerable margin.  Additionally, as I said, many REers will disregard any evidence, however compelling, from any suspected FEer for the sole reason that they are too prejudiced to be objective - for this reason it will benefit everyone if the evidence that supports FET comes from an REer.

although the fact that the Earth is flat

Although we've yet to see any real evidence for this, so calling it a fact is far fetched.

it will benefit everyone if the evidence that supports FET comes from an REer.

Welcome to bizarro world?

Although we've yet to see any real evidence for this, so calling it a fact is far fetched.

In order to avoid Conspiracy 'traps' you must always attempt to think laterally, or you will simply be brainwashed (again) by their very convincing, but imperfect, deception. At present, there has been very little evidence posted here which is in any way convincing.

Quote from: Matrix on September 30, 2009, 09:20:36 AM

it will benefit everyone if the evidence that supports FET comes from an REer.

Welcome to bizarro world?

I fail to see what's so bizarre about my suggestion - since the Earth is flat, a properly conducted series of experiments should support this fact.  Since FEers will be expecting this result, it would be more believable for the RE majority of the evidence came from a sceptic such as themselves.

I fail to see what's so bizarre about my suggestion - since the Earth is flat, a properly conducted series of experiments should support this fact.  Since FEers will be expecting this result, it would be more believable for the RE majority of the evidence came from a sceptic such as themselves.

OK so what you meant to say was "it will benefit everyone if the FET supporting evidence, as presented by a FE'er, is reviewed and validated by a REer, and found to be in accordance with the FE'ers findings"

There have been many attempts over the past hundred plus years by REers to produce the positive results of FE experiments. None have been successful.

There have been many attempts over the past hundred plus years by REers to produce the positive results of FE experiments. None have been successful.

And I humbly submit that none of that experimental evidence has been presented here for examination.  At present we only have the peer-reviewed journals to go on, but since many contain reference to satellite data which is clearly impossible (or faked, with or without the researchers' knowledge) one must conclude they are not entirely reliable either.

At present we only have the peer-reviewed journals to go on, but since many contain reference to satellite data which is clearly impossible

I don't know how they could be impossible or faked. But maybe you could tell me which journals you're refering to.

Quote from: Crustinator on September 30, 2009, 09:40:00 AM

There have been many attempts over the past hundred plus years by REers to produce the positive results of FE experiments. None have been successful.

And I humbly submit that none of that experimental evidence has been presented here for examination.  At present we only have the peer-reviewed journals to go on, but since many contain reference to satellite data which is clearly impossible (or faked, with or without the researchers' knowledge) one must conclude they are not entirely reliable either.

Geodesic surveys performed long before the advent of satellite technology have been used to measure the size and form of the earth. 

I fail to see what's so bizarre about my suggestion - since the Earth is flat, a properly conducted series of experiments should support this fact. 

Try this experiment (try and conduct it properly):

Mark out an area on a flat floor to represent the flat earth. Mark out the equator. Now get a torch or spotlight (the sun acts like a spotlight we are told) and however you want to do it mask the lens of the torch/spotlight so that it illuminates the flat earth representation the way the sun does.

Now circlulate the torch/spotlight sun around above the flat earth equator representation that you have drawn on the floor so that the light, as it does in reality, goes from east to west. When you can do this comfortably introduce a moon. Use a piece of card or a small ball or something to represent it and now move the moon around in a circular pattern to simulate what it does in real life - it too rises in the east and sets in the west.

When you can do that, simulate a total eclipse of the sun by moving the moon into a position immediately below the spotlight. It doesn't matter if the sun overtakes the moon or vice versa but do try and make a shadow on the representation of the flat earth. Continue to move both 'sun' and 'moon' in a circular pattern that goes from east to west. Notice the way the shadow goes. If both the 'sun' and 'moon' are circulating from east to west (that's clockwise if viewed from above) the shadow will also have to circulate clockwise (if viewed from above) or travel from east to west. It will also move in a circular pattern as both the sun and moon are moving in a circular pattern.

Now do a bit of research on recent total eclipses of the sun (there was one this year) and check which way the shadow went as it moved across the earth. You will find that not only did it go from west to east - the direct opposite of what would happen on a flat earth, but it almost certainly didn't describe the arc of a circle as it would have to on a flat earth. There is another total eclipse next year so you can try a bit of direct observation if you want to. I'm sure there'll be ample news coverage to tell you where to see it and which way the shadow will travel across the earth - it will, I am sure, go from west to east.

Now, if the shadow goes the opposite direction during a total eclipse than what it should do on a flat earth, the earth cannot be flat. If the shadow during a total eclipse does not follow a circular path across the earth like it should do if the earth were flat, the earth cannot be flat.

There's 2 simple bits of observable evidence that the earth cannot be flat. You can forget going into space to see the curvature, you can forget the Bedford Level load of shite, you can forget bendy light because the earth cannot be flat if the shadows cast by a total eclipse of the sun do what they do. Even bendy light couldn't make the shadows go the wrong way.

The earth cannot be and is not, flat.

HTH

Quote from: Matrix on September 30, 2009, 09:33:47 AM

I fail to see what's so bizarre about my suggestion - since the Earth is flat, a properly conducted series of experiments should support this fact. 

Try this experiment (try and conduct it properly):

...

HTH

I look forward to reading your report and watching the unedited, continuous video of you conducting this experiment.

I don't know how they could be impossible or faked. But maybe you could tell me which journals you're refering to.

Well we could begin with all of the AIP and IoP journals, for instance, since at some point every one of them will have published a paper that used GPS data in some capacity.

Geodesic surveys performed long before the advent of satellite technology have been used to measure the size and form of the earth. 

As I have mentioned before, I am aware there is a wealth of evidence from prior experiments, although to be sure we require first hand experimental evidence - this minimises, but does not eliminate, the risk of tampering/influence from a Conspiracy-affected source.

Quote from: Crustinator on September 30, 2009, 10:26:20 AM

I don't know how they could be impossible or faked. But maybe you could tell me which journals you're refering to.

Well we could begin with all of the AIP and IoP journals, for instance, since at some point every one of them will have published a paper that used GPS data in some capacity.

Are you suggesting that GPS (even if it is faked) gives inaccurate readings?

Quote from: markjo on September 30, 2009, 11:04:49 AM

Geodesic surveys performed long before the advent of satellite technology have been used to measure the size and form of the earth. 

As I have mentioned before, I am aware there is a wealth of evidence from prior experiments, although to be sure we require first hand experimental evidence - this minimises, but does not eliminate, the risk of tampering/influence from a Conspiracy-affected source.

Then feel free to conduct your own geodesic survey and let us know if your results differ from previous surveys.

I look forward to reading your report and watching the unedited, continuous video of you conducting this experiment.

LOL.

I don't need to prove to myself that the earth isn't flat and I certainly have no intentions of doing it for you. Video evidence isn't acceptable by the way, surely you know that. I've told you why the earth cannot be flat, you don't like it, fine. Look out your window and it'll look flat for you. You can believe that it really is if you want to.  If you don't want to prove to yourself that the earth cannot be flat that's all right by me.

If you think that what I wrote above is not correct do your own experiment and show me where I have got it wrong. If you want to keep believing that the earth is flat despite simple undeniable evidence it says more about you than it does about anything else.

 

Are you suggesting that GPS (even if it is faked) gives inaccurate readings?

I'm suggesting that I prefer nature to generate my data.

Then feel free to conduct your own geodesic survey and let us know if your results differ from previous surveys.

I refer you to my previous comments about how it would be beneficial for an REer/s to conduct the required experiments.

Video evidence isn't acceptable by the way

It's just one safeguard to make the illegitimate generation of data more difficult - not much more, of course, but it is intended to discourage complete fabrication.

Look out your window and it'll look flat for you.

You mean it doesn't look flat to you? Interesting.

If you don't want to prove to yourself that the earth cannot be flat that's all right by me.

But I am already satisfied through observation that the world is flat - the burden of proof is on you, so rather than launching defamatory and immature attacks on my character when I don't instantly adopt your point of view when you have provided no evidence to support it, why don't you go and gather your facts then come back with a better attitude?

If you want to keep believing that the earth is flat despite simple undeniable evidence it says more about you than it does about anything else.

If the evidence is so simple and so utterly undeniable, let's see it. Otherwise, I would suggest you are making some rather outlandish claims given the lack of material to back them up.

But I am already satisfied through observation that the world is flat - the burden of proof is on you, so rather than launching defamatory and immature attacks on my character when I don't instantly adopt your point of view when you have provided no evidence to support it, why don't you go and gather your facts then come back with a better attitude?

Well the next real evidence will appear on July 11th 2010. You'll need to go to either southern Chile, Argentina or southeastern Polynesia to see it for yourself but the evidence will be clear enough. The experiment I suggested would simply tell you what would happen on a flat earth. The real eclipse will be observed differently. As you appear to be somewhat lazy and require me to do all the providing you might want to look at this Wiki page on the July 22nd 2009 total solar eclipse. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse_of_July_22,_2009

If the evidence is so simple and so utterly undeniable, let's see it.

July 11th 2010. Southern Chile, Argentina or southeastern Polynesia

Otherwise, I would suggest you are making some rather outlandish claims given the lack of material to back them up.

There are plenty of sources for information on total solar eclipses. If you can't be bothered to do a bit of research yourself why do you think I should do it for you? However, the claims are hardly outlandish. Hundreds of thousands of people have witnessed total solar eclipses. Just because you may not have done so doesn't invalidate what was observed by those people.

Just as a matter of interest where have I defamed you or made immature attacks on your character?

There are plenty of sources for information on total solar eclipses. If you can't be bothered to do a bit of research yourself why do you think I should do it for you? However, the claims are hardly outlandish. Hundreds of thousands of people have witnessed total solar eclipses. Just because you may not have done so doesn't invalidate what was observed by those people.

I've seen an eclipse with my own eyes - it doesn't prove the Earth isn't flat.

Just as a matter of interest where have I defamed you or made immature attacks on your character?

You edited the comment out of one of your posts - I believe it was along the lines of "Look out your window while you're licking it and it will look flat to you".  The post in question is shown to have been edited some time after you originally made it, although I have no further evidence to support my claims so I shall leave it at that.

I've seen an eclipse with my own eyes - it doesn't prove the Earth isn't flat.

Congratulations, which one did you see? Which direction did the shadow approach from?


You should read my post again. A total solar eclipse proves conclusively that the earth cannot be flat.

The sun and moon, both circulating east to west above a flat earth would cast a shadow that would be an arc of a circle which would travel across the flat earth from east to west.

As the real shadow cast by a total solar eclipse is rarely an arc of a circle and usually travels west to east the earth cannot be flat. What other conclusion could you draw?

Quote from: markjo on September 30, 2009, 01:01:19 PM

Then feel free to conduct your own geodesic survey and let us know if your results differ from previous surveys.

I refer you to my previous comments about how it would be beneficial for an REer/s to conduct the required experiments.

RE'ers have performed the required experiments.  However, you have dismissed the data as being the product of a conspiracy.  That's why  FE'ers must do the experiments themselves so that they can get credible data.

What other conclusion could you draw?

That we do not fully understand the physics behind the behaviour of the Sun and Moon in FET.

RE'ers have performed the required experiments.  However, you have dismissed the data as being the product of a conspiracy.  That's why  FE'ers must do the experiments themselves so that they can get credible data.

I have already conducted many experiments which directly contradict FET, which is why I am so interested in developing it to ensure it is consistent with the observed facts.  This is motivated by the Flat Earth Axiom, which I suspect I am the only proponent of here due its inherently unscientific foundations (although to be fair, its no worse than the axiom that all inertial observers see the same speed of light).

Quote from: Matrix on September 30, 2009, 01:22:21 PM

Quote from: markjo on September 30, 2009, 01:01:19 PM

Then feel free to conduct your own geodesic survey and let us know if your results differ from previous surveys.

I refer you to my previous comments about how it would be beneficial for an REer/s to conduct the required experiments.

RE'ers have performed the required experiments.  However, you have dismissed the data as being the product of a conspiracy.  That's why  FE'ers must do the experiments themselves so that they can get credible data.

Please read Earth Not a Globe.

Please read Earth Not a Globe.

There are no experiments in ENaG that are reproducible with positive results.

Many people here have tried.

(No your efforts don't count)

The experiments in Earth Not A Globe have been shown to not be consistently reproducable and are therefore not valid as data one way or the other. Since they are the  only experiments that FE guys ever cite, that basically balances out as there is no experimental evidence to show the earth is flat.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 01, 2009, 03:23:19 PM

Please read Earth Not a Globe.

There are no experiments in ENaG that are reproducible with positive results.

Many people here have tried.

(No your efforts don't count)

A woman named Lady Bount was among the first to peer review Rowbotham's work:

"The Old Bedford Level was the scene of further experiments over the years, until in 1904, photography was used to prove that the earth is flat. Lady Blount, a staunch believer in the zetetic method hired a photographer, Mr Cifton of Dallmeyer's who arrived at the Bedford Level with the firm's latest Photo-Telescopic camera. The apparatus was set up at one end of the clear six-mile length, while at the other end Lady Blount and some scientific gentlemen hung a large, white calico sheet over the Bedford bridge so that the bottom of it was near the water. Mr Clifton, lying down near Welney bridge with his camera lens two feet above the water level, observed by telescope the hanging of the sheet, and found that he could see the whole of it down to the bottom. This surprised him, for he was an orthodox globularist and round-earth theory said that over a distance of six miles the bottom of the sheet should bemore than 20 feet below his line of sight. His photograph showed not only the entire sheet but its reflection in the water below. That was certified in his report to Lady Blount, which concluded: "I should not like to abandon the globular theory off-hand, but, as far as this particular test is concerned, I am prepared to maintain that (unless rays of light will travel in a curved path) these six miles of water present a level surface."

Mrs. Peach found a reference from The English Mechanic, a scientific journal:

"The Flat Earth: another Bedford Canal experiment" (Bernard H.Watson, et al),
ENGLISH MECHANIC, 80:160, 1904

Bedford Canal, England. A repeat of the 1870 experiment.
"A train of empty turf-boats had just entered the Canal from the river Ouse, and
was about proceeding to Ramsey. I arranged with the captain to place the shallowest
boat last in the train, and to take me on to Welney Bridge, a distance of six
miles. A good telescope was then fixed on the lowest part of the stern of the last
boat. The sluice gate of the Old Bedford Bridge was 5ft. 8in. high, the turf-boat
moored there was 2ft. 6in. high, and the notice board was 6ft. 6in. from the water.
The sun was shining strongly upon them in the direction of the south-southwest; the
air was exceedingly still and clear, and the surface of the water smooth as a
molten mirror, so that everything was favourable for observation. At 1.15 p.m. the
train started for Welney. As the boats gradually receded, the sluice gate, the
turf-boat and the notice board continued to be visible to the naked eye for about
four miles. When the sluice gate and the turf-boat (being of a dark colour) became
somewhat indistinct, the notice board (which was white) was still plainly visible,
and remained so to the end of six miles. But on looking through the telescope all
the objects were distinctly visible throughout the whole distance. On reaching
Welney Bridge I made very careful and repeated observations, and finding several
men upon the banks of the canal, I called them to look through the telescope. They
all saw distinctly the white notice board, the sluice gate, and the black turf-boat
moored near them.

Now, as the telescope was 18in. above the water, The line of sight would touch the
horizon at one mile and a half away (if the surface were convex). The curvature of
the remaining four miles and a half would be 13ft. 6in. Hence the turf-boat should
have been 11ft., the top of the sluice gate 7ft. 10in., and the bottom of the
notice board 7ft. below the horizon.

My recent experiment affords undeniable proof of the Earth's unglobularity, because
it rests not on transitory vision; but my proof remains printed on the negative of
the photograph which Mr.Clifton took for me, and in my presence, on behalf of
J.H.Dallmeyer, Ltd.
A photograph can not 'imagine' nor lie!".

A woman named Lady Bount was among the first to peer review Rowbotham's work:

Please read my post Tom, and stop copypasta-ing walls of text.

Here:

There are no experiments in ENaG that are reproducible with positive results.

"Reproducible" as in now, today, not "reproduced" as in done once by some dotty Victorian old fruit 100 years ago.

Truth doesn't have an expiration date.