Quick Question

Hey Guys,

Quick question..

Can someone provide me with a genuine peice of evidence to prove to me that the world is flat as you all say? Please no opinions or telling me to look at the FAQ, because i have and its laughable, the stuff a child would come up with.
I don't mind posting proof that the Earth is round, wheather it be video or theroy evidence.

I'm not looking for a flaming thread, just a friendly debate 

Hey Guys,

Quick question..

Can someone provide me with a genuine peice of evidence to prove to me that the world is flat as you all say? Please no opinions or telling me to look at the FAQ, because i have and its laughable, the stuff a child would come up with.
I don't mind posting proof that the Earth is round, wheather it be video or theroy evidence.

I'm not looking for a flaming thread, just a friendly debate 

The first quick answer that you will get is: Look outside your window.

They always begin with that weak argument.

Hey Guys,

Quick question..

Can someone provide me with a genuine peice of evidence to prove to me that the world is flat as you all say? Please no opinions or telling me to look at the FAQ, because i have and its laughable, the stuff a child would come up with.
I don't mind posting proof that the Earth is round, wheather it be video or theroy evidence.

I'm not looking for a flaming thread, just a friendly debate 

I believe if you look outside your window. You will see the earth is flat. Even, from the second story in a building the world is still flat outside.

I believe if you look outside your window. You will see the earth is flat. Even, from the second story in a building the world is still flat outside.

The only problem with looking out your window is that RET predicts that the earth would look flat from that vantage point as well.  So looking out your window is inconclusive.  That is unless you're looking at objects that are partially obscured by the horizon.

Quote from: Spacehopperjoe on November 23, 2009, 08:30:53 AM

I believe if you look outside your window. You will see the earth is flat. Even, from the second story in a building the world is still flat outside.

The only problem with looking out your window is that RET predicts that the earth would look flat from that vantage point as well.  So looking out your window is inconclusive.  That is unless you're looking at objects that are partially obscured by the horizon.

That is a well known perspective affect documented in Earth Not A Globe.

That is a well known perspective affect documented in Earth Not A Globe.

That doesn't change the fact that RET and FET make the same prediction about looking out your window.

The fact that the earth appears flat, and there is no adequate theory presenting evidence otherwise.

The fact that the earth appears flat, and there is no adequate theory presenting evidence otherwise.

Theories are built on evidence, they don't present evidence.  And don't make me bring up optical illusions again to show you that things are not always as they appear.

The fact that the earth appears flat, and there is no adequate theory presenting evidence otherwise.

The earth does NOT appear flat. Things can be obscured by the horizon. This is not what one would expect to see looking across a flat surface. Fail.

Quote from: Waste of Mind on November 24, 2009, 04:56:32 AM

The fact that the earth appears flat, and there is no adequate theory presenting evidence otherwise.

The earth does NOT appear flat. Things can be obscured by the horizon. This is not what one would expect to see looking across a flat surface. Fail.

It is when you factor in the atmosphere.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on November 24, 2009, 01:20:20 PM

Quote from: Waste of Mind on November 24, 2009, 04:56:32 AM

The fact that the earth appears flat, and there is no adequate theory presenting evidence otherwise.

The earth does NOT appear flat. Things can be obscured by the horizon. This is not what one would expect to see looking across a flat surface. Fail.

It is when you factor in the atmosphere.

Regardless of what extra elements you "factor in" to make your idea look like it works, the fact remains that the earth does not APPEAR flat. Learn to understand what you mean when you type "The earth appears flat". What you meant to type was "The earth appears flat, except when you look at large objects on the horizon".

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on November 24, 2009, 01:20:20 PM

Quote from: Waste of Mind on November 24, 2009, 04:56:32 AM

The fact that the earth appears flat, and there is no adequate theory presenting evidence otherwise.

The earth does NOT appear flat. Things can be obscured by the horizon. This is not what one would expect to see looking across a flat surface. Fail.

It is when you factor in the atmosphere.

Did Rowbotham factor in the atmosphere during his Bedford Levels experiment?

Did Rowbotham factor in the atmosphere during his Bedford Levels experiment?

See Experiment 9:

...

      The only modification which can be made in the above calculations is the allowance for refraction, which is generally considered by surveyors to amount to one-twelfth the altitude. of the object observed. If we make this allowance, it will reduce the various quotients so little that the whole will be substantially the same. Take the last case as an instance. The altitude of the light on Cape Bonavista, Newfoundland, is 150 feet, which, divided by 12, gives 13 feet as the amount to be deducted from 491 feet, making instead 478 feet, as the degree of declination.

      Many have urged that refraction would account for much of the elevation of objects seen at the distance of several miles. Indeed, attempts have been made to show that the large flag at the end of six miles of the Bedford Canal (Experiment 1, fig. 2, p. 13) has been brought into the line of sight entirely by refraction. That the line of sight was not a right line, but curved over the convex surface of the water; and the well-known appearance of an object in a basin of water, has been referred to in illustration. A very little reflection, however, will show that the cases are not parallel; for instance, if the object (a shilling or other coin) is placed in a basin without water there is no refraction. Being surrounded with atmospheric air only, and the observer being in the same medium, there is no bending or refraction of the eye line. Nor would there be any refraction if the object and the observer were both surrounded with water. Refraction can only exist when the medium surrounding the observer is different to that in which the object is placed. As long as the shilling in the basin is surrounded with air, and the observer is in the same air, there is no refraction; but whilst the observer remains in the air, and the shilling is placed in water, refraction exists. This illustration does not apply to the experiments made on the Bedford Canal, because the flag and the boats were in the same medium as the observer--both were in the air. To make the cases parallel, the flag or the boat should have been in the water, and the observer in the air; as it was not so, the illustration fails. There is no doubt, however, that it is possible for the atmosphere to have different temperature and density at two stations six miles apart; and some degree of refraction would thence result; but on several occasions the following steps were taken to ascertain whether any such differences existed. Two barometers, two thermometers, and two hygrometers, were obtained, each two being of the same make, and reading exactly alike. On a given day, at twelve o'clock, all the instruments were carefully examined, and both of each kind were found to stand at the same point or figure: the two, barometers showed the same density; the two thermometers the same temperature; and the two hygrometers the same degree of moisture in the air. One of each kind was then taken to the opposite station, and at three o'clock each instrument was carefully examined, and the readings recorded, and the observation to the flag, &c., then immediately taken. In a short time afterwards the two sets of observers met each other about midway on the northern bank of the canal, when the notes were compared, and found to be precisely alike--the temperature, density, and moisture of the air did not differ at the two stations at the time the experiment with the telescope and flag-staff was made. Hence it was concluded that refraction had not played any part in the observation, and could not be allowed for, nor permitted to influence, in any way whatever, the general result.

      In may, the author delivered a course of lectures in the Mechanics' Institute, and afterwards at the Rotunda, in Dublin, when great interest was manifested by large audiences; and he was challenged to a repetition of some of his experiments--to be carried out in the neighbourhood. Among others, the following was made, across the Bay of Dublin. On the pier, at Kingstown Harbour, a good theodolite was fixed, at a given altitude, and directed to a flag which, earlier in the day, had been fixed at the base of the Hill of Howth, on the northern side of the bay. An observation was made at a given hour, and arrangements had been made for thermometers, barometers, and hygrometers--two of each--which had been previously compared, to be read simultaneously, one at each station. On the persons in charge of the instruments afterwards meeting, and comparing notes, it was found that the temperature, pressure, and moisture of the air had been alike at the two points, at the time the observation was made from Kingstown Pier. It had also been found by the observers that the point observed on the Hill of Howth had precisely the same altitude as that of the theodolite on the pier, and that, therefore, there was no curvature or convexity in the water across Dublin Bay. It was, of course, inadmissible that the similarity of altitude at the two places was the result of refraction, because there was no difference in the condition of the atmosphere at the moment of observation.

A simple "yes" would have sufficed, Tom.

Quote from: markjo on November 24, 2009, 03:17:54 PM

Did Rowbotham factor in the atmosphere during his Bedford Levels experiment?

See Experiment 9:
...
Refraction can only exist when the medium surrounding the observer is different to that in which the object is placed. As long as the shilling in the basin is surrounded with air, and the observer is in the same air, there is no refraction; but whilst the observer remains in the air, and the shilling is placed in water, refraction exists. This illustration does not apply to the experiments made on the Bedford Canal, because the flag and the boats were in the same medium as the observer--both were in the air.

However, air of different temperatures will have different refractive indexes.

There is no doubt, however, that it is possible for the atmosphere to have different temperature and density at two stations six miles apart; and some degree of refraction would thence result; but on several occasions the following steps were taken to ascertain whether any such differences existed.

It's good to see that Rowbotham realizes this.

Two barometers, two thermometers, and two hygrometers, were obtained, each two being of the same make, and reading exactly alike. On a given day, at twelve o'clock, all the instruments were carefully examined, and both of each kind were found to stand at the same point or figure: the two, barometers showed the same density; the two thermometers the same temperature; and the two hygrometers the same degree of moisture in the air. One of each kind was then taken to the opposite station, and at three o'clock each instrument was carefully examined, and the readings recorded, and the observation to the flag, &c., then immediately taken.

Unfortunately, Rowbotham didn't realize (or conveniently ignored) the fact that the vertical temperature gradient has more to do with refractive phenomena than the horizontal temperature gradient.

Unfortunately, Rowbotham didn't realize (or conveniently ignored) the fact that the vertical temperature gradient has more to do with refractive phenomena than the horizontal temperature gradient.

It's a good thing the other side did not increase or decrease its altitude then, huh?

It's a good thing the other side did not increase or decrease its altitude then, huh?

I hear ya,

Quote

Unfortunately, Rowbotham didn't realize (or conveniently ignored) the fact that the vertical temperature gradient has more to do with refractive phenomena than the horizontal temperature gradient.

It's a good thing the other side did not increase or decrease its altitude then, huh?

What about the temperature gradient from 0 to 8 inches above the water where the telescope was located and the 8 inches to however tall the flag on the boat was?  Cold water + warm air = temperature gradient in the air just above the water.  Under the right conditions, there could be more than enough temperature gradient in those few vertical feet to produce refractive phenomena such as superior mirages or lofting.