« previous next »
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Theorys to disprove the flat Earth theory

  • 28 Replies
  • 3924 Views
?

dell

  • 28
Theorys to disprove the flat Earth theory
« on: July 07, 2010, 03:53:31 AM »
Just wondering, within the thoery of the flat Earth how do you explain the fact that different parts of the Earth are light at different times of day. Under your idea that the Earth is flat, surely with the sun rising it would cast light on the entire planet?

eg:



And how do you explain satellites that orbit the Earth? And different temperatures and climates.
Logged
?

Mr Pseudonym

  • Official Member
  • 5448
Re: Theorys to disprove the flat Earth theory
« Reply #1 on: July 07, 2010, 04:20:16 AM »
The FAQ answers all these queries.  Please read this then respond.
Logged
Quote from: hallsofvallhalla on July 07, 2010, 01:06:43 PM
Why do we fall back to earth? Because our weight pushes us down, no laws, no gravity pulling us. It is the law of intelligence.
?

dell

  • 28
Re: Theorys to disprove the flat Earth theory
« Reply #2 on: July 08, 2010, 01:50:10 AM »
Ok, if they are metal disc's held up by the photoelectric effect or whatever, then how come they shine? what process makes them light up the sky? also, for it to be due to photoelectric effect and electromagnetic repulsion with the earth, then surely the earth would need to be made of metal aswell, or else the photoelectric affect wouldnt effect it?
Logged
?

dell

  • 28
Re: Theorys to disprove the flat Earth theory
« Reply #3 on: July 09, 2010, 11:55:00 AM »
Another thing, if boats dissapear over the horizon due to perspective (or just the fact that they have become too small to see) go to the beach, wait for a boat to be too far away to see, then see if you can see it through a telescope... ohh wait, you cant because it's gone over the horizon.
Logged
*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8738
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Theorys to disprove the flat Earth theory
« Reply #4 on: July 09, 2010, 12:38:36 PM »
Quote from: dell on July 09, 2010, 11:55:00 AM
Another thing, if boats dissapear over the horizon due to perspective (or just the fact that they have become too small to see) go to the beach, wait for a boat to be too far away to see, then see if you can see it through a telescope... ohh wait, you cant because it's gone over the horizon.

And yet the Lake Michigan experiments, famously reproduced exactly this, as well as numerous other observations.  In fact, a RE-believer reproduced this experiment with a telephoto lens and found a small amount of restoration in the photos on this very forum. Though the results were dismissed as 'negligible' it is stunning (were RET true) that the restoration was present at all.
Logged
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."
?

dell

  • 28
Re: Theorys to disprove the flat Earth theory
« Reply #5 on: July 09, 2010, 12:46:42 PM »
Ok then, as perspective obviously does exist, this would explain the 'small amount of restoration'. But still not the restoration of the boat, assuming there is a horizon and perspective, then the boat would start to disappear due to perspective before it disappears due to the curvature of the earth... so yes a small amount of restoration could take place, but not the whole image.
Logged
*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8738
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Theorys to disprove the flat Earth theory
« Reply #6 on: July 09, 2010, 12:59:23 PM »
Quote from: The Cellular Cosmogony, pgs 166-167
It is with reference to this phenomenon that special observations were made on August 16, 1896, from the shore of Lake Michigan, World's Fair grounds, by the Experimenting Staff. The atmosphere was clear and the horizon sharply defined against the sky beyond. Several sloop yachts and a schooner were observed at a distance of about 12 miles. From an altitude of 10 feet above the water (from a pier extending into the Lake), the hulls and about one half of the height of the masts were visible to the unaided eye. Through an opera glass, all of the surface of the sails and the full height of masts were visible, with the hulls still invisible; but with a telescope of about 50 powers, the hull of each vessel was brought into view with remarkable clearness.

We then went to the beach, and with the unaided eye about 30 inches above the surface of the water, only a very small portion of the top of the masts could be seen--they appeared like mere white specks just above the horizon.

With the eye this distance from the water, if the water were convex, the horizon would be two miles away, leaving 10 miles to curvate downward from the horizon, placing the hull of each boat 60 feet below the horizon. As the masts of the sloop yachts were probably not over 40 feet in height, their tops would have been at least 20 feet out of sight.

It was now that the test came with the opera glass and the telescope. With the opera glass, only about one half of the height of the sails and masts could be seen; but through the telescope, the hull of each yacht, at the distance of 12 miles, was made plainly visible.



On the Lake shore at Roby, Ind., August 23, 1896, we made seven specific observations, some of which we briefly present below: We were greeted with the most beautiful horizon--clear and well defined; and the observations were rendered the more satisfactory by reason of the sunshine upon the vessels from the west.

As we approached the shore we observed, with the unaided eye, what apppeared[sic] to be a mere white speck upon the horizon. It was a small steamer, with only a small portion of the pilot house visible above the water line. In the field of the telescope, applied to this horizon point, we observed the steamer down to the actual surface of the water upon which it rested; the whole of its body was in plain view.

In about half an hour the top of the smokestack of another smaller steamer was seen; and through the telescope the whole of the body of the vessel. A number of observations were made of some yachts, whose topmasts only were visible above the water line by means of the naked eye, but whose hulls were clearly seen through the instrument, the altitude of which was about 18 inches above the Lake level.

The ships were either behind a huge wall of water, or not. Clearly, they were not as Dr. Teed demonstrated time and again.
Logged
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."
*

ClockTower

  • 6462
Re: Theorys to disprove the flat Earth theory
« Reply #7 on: July 09, 2010, 01:15:25 PM »
Quote from: Ski on July 09, 2010, 12:59:23 PM

The ships were either behind a huge wall of water, or not. Clearly, they were not as Dr. Teed demonstrated time and again.
That's a false dichotomy. Experimental protocol errors could have caused the small restoration. The question is: did the restoration match the FE's prediction? It did not.
Logged
Quote from: Tausami on March 13, 2012, 12:21:24 PM
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards
?

dell

  • 28
Re: Theorys to disprove the flat Earth theory
« Reply #8 on: July 09, 2010, 01:19:39 PM »
Ok then, how come even with a really powerful telescope you could never ever show me france from the coast near my house (a good 75 miles)
Logged
*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12260
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Theorys to disprove the flat Earth theory
« Reply #9 on: July 09, 2010, 01:26:20 PM »
France doesn't exist.
Logged
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)
?

bowler

  • 871
Re: Theorys to disprove the flat Earth theory
« Reply #10 on: July 09, 2010, 01:42:37 PM »
Why at sunset does the sun appear to reflect off the bottom of clouds, not the top or even appreciably the sides?
Logged
*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12260
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Theorys to disprove the flat Earth theory
« Reply #11 on: July 09, 2010, 01:46:35 PM »
Quote from: bowler on July 09, 2010, 01:42:37 PM
Why at sunset does the sun appear to reflect off the bottom of clouds, not the top or even appreciably the sides?
Are you claiming that the sides of clouds are perfectly black?
Logged
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)
?

bowler

  • 871
Re: Theorys to disprove the flat Earth theory
« Reply #12 on: July 09, 2010, 01:49:44 PM »
No but then nor is a shadow. Still I can quite easily tell what is in shade and what is in the sun. It all depends on the exact type of scttered light you seeing, or in other terms, light and shade.
Logged
*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8904
  • Semper vigilans
Re: Theorys to disprove the flat Earth theory
« Reply #13 on: July 09, 2010, 01:52:17 PM »
Aren't shadings unique though? How could I definitively tell?
Logged
Quote from: James on August 26, 2011, 05:40:53 AM
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?
*

ClockTower

  • 6462
Re: Theorys to disprove the flat Earth theory
« Reply #14 on: July 09, 2010, 01:55:15 PM »
Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on July 09, 2010, 01:52:17 PM
Aren't shadings unique though? How could I definitively tell?
Their uniqueness is irrelevant. You can easily tell that the Sun's light hitting the clouds from below. If you're open minded, you'd quickly see that evidence for a RE.
Logged
Quote from: Tausami on March 13, 2012, 12:21:24 PM
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards
?

bowler

  • 871
Re: Theorys to disprove the flat Earth theory
« Reply #15 on: July 09, 2010, 02:06:49 PM »
I don't need a universal colour chart of shadows. Heres a handly little experiment that I've learnt in my years in physics. Go into a dark room with a box and a torch. How shine the torch underneath the box but close to one edge. You'll see that the bottom is ver illuminated, the side is sort of illuminated and the top is comparatively dark. Now slowly move it round to the side the bottom will become darker, the side will become lighter, as will the top. All im hypothesising is that if the bottom of the cloud is significantly brighter than the side then the implication is that  the light is coming from below the midline. That said I work on experiments that fire particles through the Earth so whatever really.
Logged
*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8738
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Theorys to disprove the flat Earth theory
« Reply #16 on: July 09, 2010, 06:39:17 PM »
Quote from: dell on July 09, 2010, 01:19:39 PM
Ok then, how come even with a really powerful telescope you could never ever show me france from the coast near my house (a good 75 miles)

I don't know that "with a really powerful telescope" I could not.
Logged
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."
*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8738
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Theorys to disprove the flat Earth theory
« Reply #17 on: July 09, 2010, 06:43:04 PM »
Quote from: ClockTower on July 09, 2010, 01:15:25 PM
Quote from: Ski on July 09, 2010, 12:59:23 PM

The ships were either behind a huge wall of water, or not. Clearly, they were not as Dr. Teed demonstrated time and again.
That's a false dichotomy. Experimental protocol errors could have caused the small restoration. The question is: did the restoration match the FE's prediction? It did not.

Dr. Teed (not a Flat Earth advocate) did not observe a small restoration but the full restoration of ships that should have been atleast 20' below the horizon according to RET. I'm not sure what protocol errors you are proposing, but it seems to me the results are completely compatible with FET and not the RET.
Logged
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."
*

ClockTower

  • 6462
Re: Theorys to disprove the flat Earth theory
« Reply #18 on: July 09, 2010, 06:50:36 PM »
Quote from: Ski on July 09, 2010, 06:43:04 PM
Quote from: ClockTower on July 09, 2010, 01:15:25 PM
Quote from: Ski on July 09, 2010, 12:59:23 PM

The ships were either behind a huge wall of water, or not. Clearly, they were not as Dr. Teed demonstrated time and again.
That's a false dichotomy. Experimental protocol errors could have caused the small restoration. The question is: did the restoration match the FE's prediction? It did not.

Dr. Teed (not a Flat Earth advocate) did not observe a small restoration but the full restoration of ships that should have been atleast 20' below the horizon according to RET. I'm not sure what protocol errors you are proposing, but it seems to me the results are completely compatible with FET and not the RET.

No doubt you're close to publishing these astounding results for peer-review and public recognition, right?
Logged
Quote from: Tausami on March 13, 2012, 12:21:24 PM
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards
*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8904
  • Semper vigilans
Re: Theorys to disprove the flat Earth theory
« Reply #19 on: July 09, 2010, 06:56:28 PM »
Why would Ski publish the work of someone else?
Logged
Quote from: James on August 26, 2011, 05:40:53 AM
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?
*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8738
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Theorys to disprove the flat Earth theory
« Reply #20 on: July 09, 2010, 06:58:27 PM »
Quote from: ClockTower on July 09, 2010, 06:50:36 PM
Quote from: Ski on July 09, 2010, 06:43:04 PM
Quote from: ClockTower on July 09, 2010, 01:15:25 PM
Quote from: Ski on July 09, 2010, 12:59:23 PM

The ships were either behind a huge wall of water, or not. Clearly, they were not as Dr. Teed demonstrated time and again.
That's a false dichotomy. Experimental protocol errors could have caused the small restoration. The question is: did the restoration match the FE's prediction? It did not.

Dr. Teed (not a Flat Earth advocate) did not observe a small restoration but the full restoration of ships that should have been atleast 20' below the horizon according to RET. I'm not sure what protocol errors you are proposing, but it seems to me the results are completely compatible with FET and not the RET.

No doubt you're close to publishing these astounding results for peer-review and public recognition, right?

Were it mine, no doubt I would.
Logged
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."
*

ClockTower

  • 6462
Re: Theorys to disprove the flat Earth theory
« Reply #21 on: July 09, 2010, 07:04:25 PM »
Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on July 09, 2010, 06:56:28 PM
Why would Ski publish the work of someone else?
I would expect that every FEer would be supportive of such Nobel-prize-level results! Isn't this like the greatest thing that happened for FET in hundreds of years? There's no possibility that Dr. T fooled everyone, right?
Logged
Quote from: Tausami on March 13, 2012, 12:21:24 PM
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards
*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8738
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Theorys to disprove the flat Earth theory
« Reply #22 on: July 09, 2010, 07:08:33 PM »
I already quoted the work in this very thread. I can't read the book for you, nor am I so naive to believe that it would change your antagonism at any rate.
Logged
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."
*

ClockTower

  • 6462
Re: Theorys to disprove the flat Earth theory
« Reply #23 on: July 09, 2010, 07:23:24 PM »
Quote from: Ski on July 09, 2010, 07:08:33 PM
I already quoted the work in this very thread. I can't read the book for you, nor am I so naive to believe that it would change your antagonism at any rate.
Goodness, I see why I'm confused. You're quoting evidence in support of a concave Earth. Are you joining the Cellular Cosmogony, or just switching to their model of a concave Earth? Do tell!
Logged
Quote from: Tausami on March 13, 2012, 12:21:24 PM
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards
*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8738
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Theorys to disprove the flat Earth theory
« Reply #24 on: July 09, 2010, 07:27:44 PM »
Neither. I am simply stating the observations were made and are consistent with a flat earth and incompatible with the RE model.
Logged
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."
?

dell

  • 28
Re: Theorys to disprove the flat Earth theory
« Reply #25 on: July 10, 2010, 01:21:35 AM »
Listen for scientific research to be accepted it has to withstand vigorous testing, and the experiment has to be repeated many times, by independent scientific bodies... has this happened? or is it just the FEr that has tested this?
Logged
?

zork

  • 3319
Re: Theorys to disprove the flat Earth theory
« Reply #26 on: July 10, 2010, 02:56:14 AM »
Quote from: Ski on July 09, 2010, 06:43:04 PM
Quote from: ClockTower on July 09, 2010, 01:15:25 PM
Quote from: Ski on July 09, 2010, 12:59:23 PM

The ships were either behind a huge wall of water, or not. Clearly, they were not as Dr. Teed demonstrated time and again.
That's a false dichotomy. Experimental protocol errors could have caused the small restoration. The question is: did the restoration match the FE's prediction? It did not.

Dr. Teed (not a Flat Earth advocate) did not observe a small restoration but the full restoration of ships that should have been atleast 20' below the horizon according to RET. I'm not sure what protocol errors you are proposing, but it seems to me the results are completely compatible with FET and not the RET.
  It's again just a general description and I have some doubts about it. He says "we observed, with the unaided eye, what apppeared[sic] to be a mere white speck upon the horizon. It was a small steamer, with only a small portion of the pilot house visible above the water line." If it was small steamer then you can really see a small white peck with unaided eye even when it is well in the distances where you can see it fully with telescope. There is also a matter of temperature and refraction which affect the result of seeing something far away. I guess that Dr. Teed observations don't actually show anything without some numbers. Like temperature above the water, how long was distance to the ship, how big was the ship itself.
Logged
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.
*

ClockTower

  • 6462
Re: Theorys to disprove the flat Earth theory
« Reply #27 on: July 10, 2010, 08:21:51 AM »
Quote from: Ski on July 09, 2010, 07:27:44 PM
Neither. I am simply stating the observations were made and are consistent with a flat earth and incompatible with the RE model.

But the observations don't support an FE, rather a concave E. You did read the book, right?
Logged
Quote from: Tausami on March 13, 2012, 12:21:24 PM
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards
*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8738
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Theorys to disprove the flat Earth theory
« Reply #28 on: July 10, 2010, 01:22:01 PM »
Quote from: ClockTower on July 10, 2010, 08:21:51 AM
Quote from: Ski on July 09, 2010, 07:27:44 PM
Neither. I am simply stating the observations were made and are consistent with a flat earth and incompatible with the RE model.

But the observations don't support an FE, rather a concave E. You did read the book, right?
Logged
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »