A Critique of Earth Not a Globe

  • 63 Replies
  • 13748 Views
*

jtelroy

  • 479
  • Intellectual
A Critique of Earth Not a Globe
« on: January 18, 2010, 09:17:14 PM »
I just began reading this, and hope that I didn't post it too soon. 

However, I noticed that the author made one grievous in the assumptions his experiments are based on.

First, his calculation of the curvature of the Earth.  He calculates curvature under the assumption that RET theory stated the Earth is perfect geometric sphere.

It is not.

In reality, RET contests that the Earth is an oblate spheroid, with relatively no curvature at the poles and the greatest possible curvature at the equator. 

Because of this, RET would not effect an Earth with a constant curvature of the one he calculated.  As a result, the experiments were not designed around accurately curvature assumptions, and therefore have inaccurate results.

Also, the book was published in the late 1800's, meaning that the scientific equipment available to the author were most-likely sub-standard, although this is only an assumption and I have no means of proving it.

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: A Critique of Earth Not a Globe
« Reply #1 on: January 18, 2010, 09:21:21 PM »
In reality, RET contests that the Earth is an oblate spheroid, with relatively no curvature at the poles and the greatest possible curvature at the equator. 
Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim?

*

jtelroy

  • 479
  • Intellectual
Re: A Critique of Earth Not a Globe
« Reply #2 on: January 18, 2010, 09:27:00 PM »
In reality, RET contests that the Earth is an oblate spheroid, with relatively no curvature at the poles and the greatest possible curvature at the equator. 
Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim?

Not needed in this situation.  I'm simply stating a tenet of RET, not debating its validity.

The experiments were done to show the RET was incorrect.  However the experiments simply show that the Earth cannot be a perfect sphere, and RET does not say the Earth is a perfect sphere, but an oblate spheroid.

If you wish to debate the validity of the Earth as an oblate spheroid, I welcome you to start a second topic.

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: A Critique of Earth Not a Globe
« Reply #3 on: January 18, 2010, 09:28:41 PM »
Assuming RET is correct, could you give me an estimate of how negligible the curvature near the poles really is?

*

jtelroy

  • 479
  • Intellectual
Re: A Critique of Earth Not a Globe
« Reply #4 on: January 18, 2010, 09:30:14 PM »
Assuming RET is correct, could you give me an estimate of how negligible the curvature near the poles really is?
Sure, I'll work on acquiring that for you.

One moment.

EDIT: It appears I over-exaggerated.  The curve is not negligible near the poles, but slightly decreased.  Still, the fact that it is not a prefect sphere.  I will concede the point that my original statement was more or less incorrect as a result.

However, I would like to move on to a related point, if that is alright.

Also, when looking at this site, I found a calculation for RE curvature:
http://regentsprep.org/Regents/earthsci/units/introduction/planetarysize.cfm

I realize that those calculations rely on light not being "bendy" but again, I am simply demonstrating tenets of the Round Earth theory.

The specifics of the curvature are a roughly 7 degree difference over about 780 km.

The majority of the experiments in EnaG were done over a distance of 6 miles, which is roughly 10 km (actually slightly less)

This means that the curvature the experiments done in EnaG should have observed a negligible curve (7/78 degrees, if my math is right) which is indeed what they observed.

Now I cannot work out how exactly the author of EnaG worked out that RE would have such a dramatic curve, as in the version I am reading, he seems to simply apply arbitrary numbers for distances to estimate the curve without explaining why.

A link to the version page:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za05.htm

However, I still wish to put forth this critique:  while the EnaG experiments did disprove an Earth with the specifications the author describes, they do not disprove the Earth described by RET.

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: A Critique of Earth Not a Globe
« Reply #5 on: January 19, 2010, 10:46:32 AM »
I'm reading the book too. When I'm finished I will crush Bishop to a fine powder with mighty arguments.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

Re: A Critique of Earth Not a Globe
« Reply #6 on: January 19, 2010, 11:04:35 AM »
Critique maybe a bit strong, i'd start by ignoring anything that doesnt give errors. When you measure curvature this way you can't say the world is flat at all. All you can do is say its has a radius of at least whatever your systematic error is, i.e. it could just have a really huge radius. So for a start no errors no result. Secondly, I don't some midly insane person to tell me the world is, to a good approximation, flat over the scale of a few miles, I can see that for myself quite easily. I can stand on a cliff by the sea and tell its nearly flat for a lot further than that.

Re: A Critique of Earth Not a Globe
« Reply #7 on: January 19, 2010, 11:08:47 AM »
I'm reading the book too. When I'm finished I will crush Bishop to a fine powder with mighty arguments.

It won't matter.  I do commend you for actually attempting to read the whole thing.  I didn't have the stomach for it. 
I criticized him on conflicting information in the chapter on the moon and he wouldn't own up to it.  I have no patience to waste my time reading the whole pile of dribble.
"We know that the sun is 93 million miles away and takes up 5 degrees of the sky.

*

jtelroy

  • 479
  • Intellectual
Re: A Critique of Earth Not a Globe
« Reply #8 on: January 19, 2010, 01:07:57 PM »
I'm reading the book too. When I'm finished I will crush Bishop to a fine powder with mighty arguments.

It won't matter.  I do commend you for actually attempting to read the whole thing.  I didn't have the stomach for it. 
I criticized him on conflicting information in the chapter on the moon and he wouldn't own up to it.  I have no patience to waste my time reading the whole pile of dribble.

I think the book is relatively good science, for a book written in the late 1800's.  By modern standards, it doesn't seem to hold much weight.

As for Bishop, I don't think we'll ever be able to crush him.  He has an ability to dodge questions and shroud himself and in his own loopholes.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18025
Re: A Critique of Earth Not a Globe
« Reply #9 on: January 19, 2010, 04:34:44 PM »
I think the book is relatively good science, for a book written in the late 1800's.  By modern standards, it doesn't seem to hold much weight.

Modern standards? Would that be something gravitons, dark matter, and the metric expansion of space went through?

Re: A Critique of Earth Not a Globe
« Reply #10 on: January 19, 2010, 04:39:43 PM »
I think the book is relatively good science, for a book written in the late 1800's.  By modern standards, it doesn't seem to hold much weight.

Modern standards? Would that be something gravitons, dark matter, and the metric expansion of space went through?


Yes.
There is evidence for a NASA conspiracy. Please search.

Re: A Critique of Earth Not a Globe
« Reply #11 on: January 19, 2010, 05:01:30 PM »
I'd settle for some kind of data analysis. I just proved that human cells has NO length whatsoever. Seriously I held a ruler up to my hand and the cell didn't even make it close to the 1mm marker. I have no doubt that the experiment was quite consistent with the Earth being flat. I'm also pretty confident it was consistent with the RE (Real Earth) curvature. Thats not modern science. The idea that your uncertainty is at least as important as your result dates back many a' year.

*

jtelroy

  • 479
  • Intellectual
Re: A Critique of Earth Not a Globe
« Reply #12 on: January 19, 2010, 07:50:35 PM »
I think the book is relatively good science, for a book written in the late 1800's.  By modern standards, it doesn't seem to hold much weight.

Modern standards? Would that be something gravitons, dark matter, and the metric expansion of space went through?


That. or doing something beyond seeing if things dissapear after 6 miles, when RET clearly agrees that they wouldn't.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18025
Re: A Critique of Earth Not a Globe
« Reply #13 on: January 20, 2010, 07:40:11 AM »
I think the book is relatively good science, for a book written in the late 1800's.  By modern standards, it doesn't seem to hold much weight.

Modern standards? Would that be something gravitons, dark matter, and the metric expansion of space went through?


Yes.

What standards did "gravitons" go through?

*

jtelroy

  • 479
  • Intellectual
Re: A Critique of Earth Not a Globe
« Reply #14 on: January 20, 2010, 07:54:51 AM »
I think the book is relatively good science, for a book written in the late 1800's.  By modern standards, it doesn't seem to hold much weight.

Modern standards? Would that be something gravitons, dark matter, and the metric expansion of space went through?


Yes.

What standards did "gravitons" go through?

There is evidence of this on the internet.  Please do research.

Re: A Critique of Earth Not a Globe
« Reply #15 on: January 20, 2010, 08:16:16 AM »
The graviton has not been shown to exist. Should it exist some of its properties, such as spin, can be constrained from the tensor properties of general reltivity. Its mass would be zero as gravitation appears to propagate at the speed of light. Though there is NO proof that gravity is a quantised field. To be honest asthetics are really the only reason at the moment to postulate that it is quantised, by which I mean all the other forces appear to be quantised.

*

jtelroy

  • 479
  • Intellectual
Re: A Critique of Earth Not a Globe
« Reply #16 on: January 20, 2010, 08:41:35 AM »
The graviton has not been shown to exist. Should it exist some of its properties, such as spin, can be constrained from the tensor properties of general reltivity. Its mass would be zero as gravitation appears to propagate at the speed of light. Though there is NO proof that gravity is a quantised field. To be honest asthetics are really the only reason at the moment to postulate that it is quantised, by which I mean all the other forces appear to be quantised.


Quite so, although most research done in quantum field theory has shown that nearly other forced can be accurately explained via attribution to particles.  Only gravitation, dark energy, and dark matter remained to be confirmed.

It would certainly be odd for a theory to correct in almost every stituation wouldn't it?

You are right in saying that there is no concrete proof for the graviton, but judging by how all similar forces can be explained through similar particles, there is a distinct possibility the graviton exists.

How does this apply to the thread?

The research.  Physicists have been doing painstaking research on quantum field theory since the 60's when it was developed, and other scientists have jumped on to prove or disprove that research.

EnaG has ONE scientist performing experiments with equipment over a century old, and as far as I can tell there has been little effort to re-test his experiments, or for that matter, correct his grievous miscalculation on Earth curvature.

Re: A Critique of Earth Not a Globe
« Reply #17 on: January 20, 2010, 08:51:23 AM »
Firstly I don't disagree with you point about EnaG, its pretty ridiculous as a scientific pieve of work. It would be rubbish if it found the Earth was round, its just bad work plain and simple. I was just clarifying the point abut gravitons. I'm not so convinced that gravitons exist. A force is just something that changes the momentum of a body. I don't see why that necessarily has to be done via a quantum field. General relativity and QFT are very different theories, chalk and cheese barely does the differences justice. As a result all theories that seek to combine them have ended up required huge number of dimensions or having so many free parameters they have essentially no predictive power. I for one would not be suprised if the graviton was never found for reasons that I won't go into. Either way your right it has nothing to do with this thread, carry on bashing.

*

jtelroy

  • 479
  • Intellectual
Re: A Critique of Earth Not a Globe
« Reply #18 on: January 20, 2010, 09:11:11 AM »
Firstly I don't disagree with you point about EnaG, its pretty ridiculous as a scientific pieve of work. It would be rubbish if it found the Earth was round, its just bad work plain and simple. I was just clarifying the point abut gravitons. I'm not so convinced that gravitons exist. A force is just something that changes the momentum of a body. I don't see why that necessarily has to be done via a quantum field. General relativity and QFT are very different theories, chalk and cheese barely does the differences justice. As a result all theories that seek to combine them have ended up required huge number of dimensions or having so many free parameters they have essentially no predictive power. I for one would not be suprised if the graviton was never found for reasons that I won't go into. Either way your right it has nothing to do with this thread, carry on bashing.

I actually tried to connect to the point ot thread not, alienate it, sorry if that didn't come across the way I intended.

Re: A Critique of Earth Not a Globe
« Reply #19 on: January 20, 2010, 09:36:42 AM »
I think the book is relatively good science, for a book written in the late 1800's.  By modern standards, it doesn't seem to hold much weight.

Modern standards? Would that be something gravitons, dark matter, and the metric expansion of space went through?


Yes.

What standards did "gravitons" go through?

From what I understand gravitons are hypothetical particles (don't let this confound you).
There is evidence for a NASA conspiracy. Please search.

*

jtelroy

  • 479
  • Intellectual
Re: A Critique of Earth Not a Globe
« Reply #20 on: January 20, 2010, 12:33:11 PM »
I think the book is relatively good science, for a book written in the late 1800's.  By modern standards, it doesn't seem to hold much weight.

Modern standards? Would that be something gravitons, dark matter, and the metric expansion of space went through?


I'd like to note that this is clear evidence of what I was saying earlier.

Tom Bishop immediately attempted to refute the weakest part of my post, (which honestly I tacked that point on as afterthought, worthy of passing mention) while completely ignoring all the stronger points I made.  This makes it seem like he is debating my position, but really he just refuting one very small component of it.

Tom, if you're going to debate with me on the merits of my observations, please acknowledge all of them.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18025
Re: A Critique of Earth Not a Globe
« Reply #21 on: January 20, 2010, 09:19:40 PM »
I think the book is relatively good science, for a book written in the late 1800's.  By modern standards, it doesn't seem to hold much weight.

Modern standards? Would that be something gravitons, dark matter, and the metric expansion of space went through?


I'd like to note that this is clear evidence of what I was saying earlier.

Tom Bishop immediately attempted to refute the weakest part of my post, (which honestly I tacked that point on as afterthought, worthy of passing mention) while completely ignoring all the stronger points I made.  This makes it seem like he is debating my position, but really he just refuting one very small component of it.

Tom, if you're going to debate with me on the merits of my observations, please acknowledge all of them.

You attempted to compare Earth Not a Globe to modern science, which has supposedly gone through greater standards than the science of the 1800's.

However, since gravitons et all have not gone through any standards what-so-ever before coming into mainstream science it makes your claim of modern works going through greater standards is suspect.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2010, 09:13:49 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

jtelroy

  • 479
  • Intellectual
Re: A Critique of Earth Not a Globe
« Reply #22 on: January 20, 2010, 09:56:31 PM »
I think the book is relatively good science, for a book written in the late 1800's.  By modern standards, it doesn't seem to hold much weight.

Modern standards? Would that be something gravitons, dark matter, and the metric expansion of space went through?


I'd like to note that this is clear evidence of what I was saying earlier.

Tom Bishop immediately attempted to refute the weakest part of my post, (which honestly I tacked that point on as afterthought, worthy of passing mention) while completely ignoring all the stronger points I made.  This makes it seem like he is debating my position, but really he just refuting one very small component of it.

Tom, if you're going to debate with me on the merits of my observations, please acknowledge all of them.

You attempted to compare Earth Not a Globe to modern science, which has supposedly gone through greater standards than the science of the 1800's.

However, since gravitons et all have not gone through any standards what-so-ever before going into mainstream science it makes your claim of modern works going through greater standards suspect.

That's because they're theoretical.  Plus, I wouldn't call QFT "Mainstream" as only the really advanced physicists are working with it.  Generally Accepted? Sure.  Mainstream? No.

Also, I don't know why you immediately jumped to the graviton of all QFT particles to criticize.  I would have thought it more logical to bring up the Higgs Boson, since it is the fundamental particle behind QFT and hasn't been observed yet.  Maybe you didn't mention that because I would say that the good people at CERN are going to be using the LHC to confirm or deny its existence and consequently QFT.

Also your argument is largely misleading.  QFT as a whole has been mostly observed and confirmed by many independent scientists.  The Graviton just happens to be one of the particles not yet confirmed, although it fits with tested and verified observations.

So I don't see how the graviton makes modern science suspect in anyway, because I have demonstrated there have been quite a few standard you have overlooked or missed due to your weird angle of looking at QFT.



And on a side note Tom, please respond to my other points as well, or admit that you have nothing to say about them.  I've already said that I consider the antiquity of the book to be a minor point, and would much rather the focus be on the other things I said.

*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • Ding dong!
Re: A Critique of Earth Not a Globe
« Reply #23 on: January 21, 2010, 01:19:05 AM »
I think the book is relatively good science, for a book written in the late 1800's.  By modern standards, it doesn't seem to hold much weight.

Modern standards? Would that be something gravitons, dark matter, and the metric expansion of space went through?


I'd like to note that this is clear evidence of what I was saying earlier.

Tom Bishop immediately attempted to refute the weakest part of my post, (which honestly I tacked that point on as afterthought, worthy of passing mention) while completely ignoring all the stronger points I made.  This makes it seem like he is debating my position, but really he just refuting one very small component of it.

Tom, if you're going to debate with me on the merits of my observations, please acknowledge all of them.

You attempted to compare Earth Not a Globe to modern science, which has supposedly gone through greater standards than the science of the 1800's.

However, since gravitons et all have not gone through any standards what-so-ever before going into mainstream science it makes your claim of modern works going through greater standards suspect.

For the 10th time, Gravitons are postulated to exist, Tom.  There is as yet no observation evidence.  You're putting up a smoke screen here, by trying to compare apples with oranges.

You yourself disagree with ENaG's lunatic claim that the moon produces it's own light.  You have found that simple observation contradicts Robothem's outlandish conclusion.  The biggest evidence for a round earth (the heavens) is completely misinterpreted by ENaG, as you yourself are beginning to discovering.
I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18025
Re: A Critique of Earth Not a Globe
« Reply #24 on: January 21, 2010, 06:09:41 AM »
Quote
That's because they're theoretical.

Oh. So it's basically making something up without experimental confirmation and then waving your hand around about it's fantastic properties.

Great "standards" there.

Quote
Also, I don't know why you immediately jumped to the graviton of all QFT particles to criticize.  I would have thought it more logical to bring up the Higgs Boson, since it is the fundamental particle behind QFT and hasn't been observed yet.  Maybe you didn't mention that because I would say that the good people at CERN are going to be using the LHC to confirm or deny its existence and consequently QFT.

Higgs Boson is another fake.

Quote
Also your argument is largely misleading.  QFT as a whole has been mostly observed and confirmed by many independent scientists.

Actually, it hasn't.

Quote
The Graviton just happens to be one of the particles not yet confirmed, although it fits with tested and verified observations.

Actually, Gravitons are one of many particles not confirmed yet.

Quote
So I don't see how the graviton makes modern science suspect in anyway, because I have demonstrated there have been quite a few standard you have overlooked or missed due to your weird angle of looking at QFT.

Did you know that the Photon has not been found? No one has seen an individual photon. There is no empirical evidence for the existence of photons, yet their existence is taken as fact against opposing EM theories.

Nearly everything we know about the universe remains as a hypothesis.

We don't even know the mechanism for magnetism. No one has discovered any magnetic photon messenger particles. No one has discovered magnets to be bending the fabric of space. Yet when asked what causes magnets to attract, the answer given by modern science is "they just do".
« Last Edit: January 21, 2010, 06:16:00 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: A Critique of Earth Not a Globe
« Reply #25 on: January 21, 2010, 06:17:56 AM »
Quote
That's because they're theoretical.

Oh. So it's basically making something up without experimental confirmation and then waving your hand around about it's fantastic properties.

Great "standards" there.

Just like:

Quote
This conclusion is forced upon, us by the evidence; but it involves the admission that the moon shines with light of its own--that it is not a reflector of the sun's light, but absolutely self-luminous
"We know that the sun is 93 million miles away and takes up 5 degrees of the sky.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18025
Re: A Critique of Earth Not a Globe
« Reply #26 on: January 21, 2010, 06:31:59 AM »
Rowbotham presents evidence for each of his claims.

There is absolutely no evidence for gravitons. They've been entirely made up without any sort of backing what-so-ever.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2010, 06:33:41 AM by Tom Bishop »

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: A Critique of Earth Not a Globe
« Reply #27 on: January 21, 2010, 06:57:39 AM »
Rowbotham presents evidence for each of his claims.

There is absolutely no evidence for gravitons. They've been entirely made up without any sort of backing what-so-ever.

The "evidence" Rowbottom presents is frequently utterly wrong.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

*

jtelroy

  • 479
  • Intellectual
Re: A Critique of Earth Not a Globe
« Reply #28 on: January 21, 2010, 07:35:39 AM »
Quote
That's because they're theoretical.

Oh. So it's basically making something up without experimental confirmation and then waving your hand around about it's fantastic properties.

Great "standards" there.

Quote
Also, I don't know why you immediately jumped to the graviton of all QFT particles to criticize.  I would have thought it more logical to bring up the Higgs Boson, since it is the fundamental particle behind QFT and hasn't been observed yet.  Maybe you didn't mention that because I would say that the good people at CERN are going to be using the LHC to confirm or deny its existence and consequently QFT.

Higgs Boson is another fake.

Quote
Also your argument is largely misleading.  QFT as a whole has been mostly observed and confirmed by many independent scientists.

Actually, it hasn't.

Quote
The Graviton just happens to be one of the particles not yet confirmed, although it fits with tested and verified observations.

Actually, Gravitons are one of many particles not confirmed yet.

Quote
So I don't see how the graviton makes modern science suspect in anyway, because I have demonstrated there have been quite a few standard you have overlooked or missed due to your weird angle of looking at QFT.

Did you know that the Photon has not been found? No one has seen an individual photon. There is no empirical evidence for the existence of photons, yet their existence is taken as fact against opposing EM theories.

Nearly everything we know about the universe remains as a hypothesis.

We don't even know the mechanism for magnetism. No one has discovered any magnetic photon messenger particles. No one has discovered magnets to be bending the fabric of space. Yet when asked what causes magnets to attract, the answer given by modern science is "they just do".


It's obvious to me you don't know what you're talking about, so I'm just going to ignore this.

Re: A Critique of Earth Not a Globe
« Reply #29 on: January 21, 2010, 08:05:36 AM »
Rowbotham presents evidence for each of his claims.

There is absolutely no evidence for gravitons. They've been entirely made up without any sort of backing what-so-ever.

The "evidence" Rowbottom presents is frequently utterly wrong.

^This
By Robotham's logic, roses(being red) and violets(being blue) must emit their own light as if they were to reflect sunlight, which is generally semi-golden in color and warm, then they would reflect the same.

Quote
1st. A reflector is a plane or concave surface, which gives off or returns what it receives:--

If a piece of red hot metal or any other heated object is placed before a plane or concave surface, heat is reflected.

If snow or ice, or any artificial freezing mixture is similarly placed, cold will be reflected.

If light of any given colour is placed in the same way, the same colour of light will be reflected.

If a given sound is produced, the same tone or pitch will be reflected.

A reflector will not throw off cold when heat is placed before it; nor heat when cold is presented. If a red light is received, red light will be returned, not blue or yellow. If the note C is sounded upon any musical instrument, a reflector will not return the note D or G, but precisely the same note, altered only in degree or intensity.

If the moon is a reflector of the sun's light, she could not radiate or throw down upon the earth any other light than such as she first receives from the sun. No difference could exist in the quality or character of the light; and it

p. 140

could not possibly differ in any other respect than that of intensity or quantity. It has been asserted in opposition to the above, that the moon might absorb some of the rays of light from the sun and reflect only the remaining rays. To this it is replied that absorption means speedy saturation: a piece of blotting paper, or a lump of hard sugar, or a sponge when brought into contact with any fluid or gaseous substance, would only absorb for a short time; it would quickly become saturated, filled to repletion, and from that moment would cease to absorb, and ever afterwards could only reflect or throw back whatever was projected upon it. So the moon, if an object without light of her own, might at the beginning of her existence absorb the sun's ray's, and, fixing some, might return the others; but as already shown, she could only absorb to saturation, which would occur in a very short time; and from this point of saturation to the present moment she could not have been other than a reflector--a reflector, too, of all which she receives.

We have then, in order to know whether the moon is a reflector, merely to ascertain whether the light which we receive from her is, or is not the same, in .character as that received from the sun.

1st. The sun's light is generally, and in an ordinary state of the atmosphere, of an oppressive, fierce, semi-golden, pyro-phosphorescent character; while that of the moon is pale, silvery and gentle; and when shining most brightly is mild and non-pyrotic.
"We know that the sun is 93 million miles away and takes up 5 degrees of the sky.