Proof: The Earth is Round

Simple proof:

Hypothesis: Three observers appropriately located will determine that Earth is round (north to south)

Previously determined fact: EAT is false.

Place three observers at least 3,000 miles apart on the same longitude and altitude above mean sea level at local noon on the same time and day. Each measures the angle to the Sun at that time.

Result: Each reports a significant different angle than the other two. The three angles will not agree as to the location of the Sun assuming the Earth is flat.

Conclusion: The Earth is round.

Hypothesis: Three observers appropriately located will determine that Earth is round (east to west)

Previously determined fact: EAT is false. The Earth is round (north to south).

Place three observers at least 3,000 miles apart on the same latitude and altitude above mean sea level during daylight hours for all on the same UT. Each measures the angle to the Sun at that time.

Result: Each reports a significant different angle than the other two. The three angles will not agree as to the location of the Sun assuming the Earth is flat.

Conclusion: The Earth is round.

How can you come to a conclusion without actually doing the experiment? 

How can you come to a conclusion without actually doing the experiment? 

Easily. I just use established facts, like you did in determining that at 45^o latitude that the Sun's angle is 45^o is your Wiki entry on the Sun's distance. It was good enough for you, right?

Have you performed this experiment yourself?

Have you performed this experiment yourself?

Not directly, but once we agree that it's definitive, I will. Currently I rely on established facts as Tom Bishop does in his Wiki entry on the distance that the Sun is above the FE.

Oh, so your "simple proof" actually turns out to be unsubstantiated conjecture. What a surprise!

Oh, so your "simple proof" actually turns out to be unsubstantiated conjecture. What a surprise!

I have substantiated my conjecture. Do you challenge that? If so, tell me what's wrong with Tom's Wiki page.

The only legitimate means for the substantiation of the result of an empirical experiment is the performance of that experiment. You have not performed this experiment, so the results you predict have not be adequately substantiated.

The only legitimate means for the substantiation of the result of an empirical experiment is the performance of that experiment. You have not performed this experiment, so the results you predict have not be adequately substantiated.

False. There are many legitimate means for substantiating a conjecture.

For example, we know that at high noon local time, the Sun's angle to the observer on the equinoxes is the complement of the observer's latitude. So we can infer that on that day, should we run the proposed experiment, at the Equator, at 45^o N, and at the North Pole, we would get angle of 90^o, 45^o, and 0^o respectively. With those reading, we know that the FE is false by this proof. We're also fortunate to have the Wiki entry to confirm two of those readings.

As a zeteticist I clearly subscribe to higher standards of legitimacy than you. Your own epistemological laziness does not mitigate the inadequacy of your evidence.

As a zeteticist I clearly subscribe to higher standards of legitimacy than you. Your own epistemological laziness does not mitigate the inadequacy of your evidence.

I see. Do tell us us what standard of legitimacy has your conjecture that the Moon is flat and lit by its own biomass met. It seems to me that you have a double-standard regarding legitimacy. For shame.

James, Tom Bishop, have you both performed Rowbotham experiments yourself? Have you tested UA, Bendy light, Ice wall by yourself? I don't think so (If you did, please provide), so I don't think you're in a possition to ask for it to ClockTower.
If we can discuss FE features in many threads with no single evidence (map?), we can discuss this.

The only legitimate means for the substantiation of the result of an empirical experiment is the performance of that experiment. You have not performed this experiment, so the results you predict have not be adequately substantiated.

Nice that you say that the FE is not adequately substantiated.

As a zeteticist I clearly subscribe to higher standards of legitimacy than you. Your own epistemological laziness does not mitigate the inadequacy of your evidence.

So what you are saying - is that unless you observe or do the experiment itself you will not believe it - so you can believe in anything you want if and can continue to do so because you just refuse to to observe or do an experiment that would prove you wrong?

Berny
Eating pillsbury crescent rolls

Isn't it great that whenever you definitively point out a FE contradiction, they just vanish?

Isn't it great that whenever you definitively point out a FE contradiction, they just vanish?

I guess that they don't want to face the truth.

Well, I guess this is becoming a Victory for...

Well, I guess this is becoming a Victory for...

Well, since no experimentation was done before coming to a conclusion...

Flat Earth

Previously determined fact: EAT is false.

This is wrong. Therefore, all your remaining deductions is not correct.

Quote from: Kira-SY on November 13, 2010, 08:58:40 AM

Well, I guess this is becoming a Victory for...

Well, since no experimentation was done before coming to a conclusion...

Flat Earth

Actually, you did the experiment for us. We just take Rowbotham's word on the operation of the sextant and your entry in the Wiki and we have the three data points and the experiment is complete.

This only assumes that you did the experiment in the Wiki. You did do that before posting it, right?

So victory goes to Round Earth all thanks to you!

Quote from: ClockTower on November 13, 2010, 01:19:43 AM

Previously determined fact: EAT is false.

This is wrong. Therefore, all your remaining deductions is not correct.

Prove your outlandish claim.

Quote from: parsec on November 13, 2010, 09:35:51 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on November 13, 2010, 01:19:43 AM

Previously determined fact: EAT is false.

This is wrong. Therefore, all your remaining deductions is not correct.

Prove your outlandish claim.

Light bends. Therefore, EAT is not false.

How can you come to a conclusion without actually doing the experiment? 

The same way that you can conclude that the sun is 3000 miles away without personally observing the sun at a latitude of 45 degrees at noon on the day of the equinox.

Quote from: ClockTower on November 13, 2010, 09:37:51 AM

Quote from: parsec on November 13, 2010, 09:35:51 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on November 13, 2010, 01:19:43 AM

Previously determined fact: EAT is false.

This is wrong. Therefore, all your remaining deductions is not correct.

Prove your outlandish claim.

Light bends. Therefore, EAT is not false.

Wrong. That's a non sequitur. You might as well say: Winds blows. Therefore, the Earth is round.

Quote from: parsec on November 13, 2010, 09:42:20 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on November 13, 2010, 09:37:51 AM

Quote from: parsec on November 13, 2010, 09:35:51 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on November 13, 2010, 01:19:43 AM

Previously determined fact: EAT is false.

This is wrong. Therefore, all your remaining deductions is not correct.

Prove your outlandish claim.

Light bends. Therefore, EAT is not false.

Wrong. That's a non sequitur. You might as well say: Winds blows. Therefore, the Earth is round.

No, you may not. You not understanding it does not make it a non-sequitur.

Quote from: ClockTower on November 13, 2010, 09:58:41 AM

Quote from: parsec on November 13, 2010, 09:42:20 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on November 13, 2010, 09:37:51 AM

Quote from: parsec on November 13, 2010, 09:35:51 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on November 13, 2010, 01:19:43 AM

Previously determined fact: EAT is false.

This is wrong. Therefore, all your remaining deductions is not correct.

Prove your outlandish claim.

Light bends. Therefore, EAT is not false.

Wrong. That's a non sequitur. You might as well say: Winds blows. Therefore, the Earth is round.

No, you may not. You not understanding it does not make it a non-sequitur.

I never said that my (Gerunds take the possessive.) not understanding did anything.

Quote from: parsec on November 13, 2010, 10:11:28 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on November 13, 2010, 09:58:41 AM

Quote from: parsec on November 13, 2010, 09:42:20 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on November 13, 2010, 09:37:51 AM

Quote from: parsec on November 13, 2010, 09:35:51 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on November 13, 2010, 01:19:43 AM

Previously determined fact: EAT is false.

This is wrong. Therefore, all your remaining deductions is not correct.

Prove your outlandish claim.

Light bends. Therefore, EAT is not false.

Wrong. That's a non sequitur. You might as well say: Winds blows. Therefore, the Earth is round.

No, you may not. You not understanding it does not make it a non-sequitur.

I never said that my (Gerunds take the possessive.) not understanding did anything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerund#Gerunds_in_English Gerunds can be used in a clause that serves as a noun phrase.

But, seriously, your argument was wrong.

Quote from: ClockTower on November 13, 2010, 10:17:10 AM

Quote from: parsec on November 13, 2010, 10:11:28 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on November 13, 2010, 09:58:41 AM

Quote from: parsec on November 13, 2010, 09:42:20 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on November 13, 2010, 09:37:51 AM

Quote from: parsec on November 13, 2010, 09:35:51 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on November 13, 2010, 01:19:43 AM

Previously determined fact: EAT is false.

This is wrong. Therefore, all your remaining deductions is not correct.

Prove your outlandish claim.

Light bends. Therefore, EAT is not false.

Wrong. That's a non sequitur. You might as well say: Winds blows. Therefore, the Earth is round.

No, you may not. You not understanding it does not make it a non-sequitur.

I never said that my (Gerunds take the possessive.) not understanding did anything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerund#Gerunds_in_English Gerunds can be used in a clause that serves as a noun phrase.

But, seriously, your argument was wrong.

Since they are nouns, they take adjectives. The pronoun form that modifies a noun is the possessive.
But, seriously, your argument was wrong.

Quote from: parsec on November 13, 2010, 10:19:49 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on November 13, 2010, 10:17:10 AM

Quote from: parsec on November 13, 2010, 10:11:28 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on November 13, 2010, 09:58:41 AM

Quote from: parsec on November 13, 2010, 09:42:20 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on November 13, 2010, 09:37:51 AM

Quote from: parsec on November 13, 2010, 09:35:51 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on November 13, 2010, 01:19:43 AM

Previously determined fact: EAT is false.

This is wrong. Therefore, all your remaining deductions is not correct.

Prove your outlandish claim.

Light bends. Therefore, EAT is not false.

Wrong. That's a non sequitur. You might as well say: Winds blows. Therefore, the Earth is round.

No, you may not. You not understanding it does not make it a non-sequitur.

I never said that my (Gerunds take the possessive.) not understanding did anything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerund#Gerunds_in_English Gerunds can be used in a clause that serves as a noun phrase.

But, seriously, your argument was wrong.

Since they are nouns, they take adjectives. The pronoun form that modifies a noun is the possessive.
But, seriously, your argument was wrong.

They are not nouns. It is the same form as the present participle of the verb. The clause was:
'You are not understanding' and this is the subject of the main sentence that your lack of understanding does not make something a non-sequitur. When used as such, the auxiliary verb ('are' in this case) is omitted. Your sentence does not even make sense:

'your not understanding'

Quote from: ClockTower on November 13, 2010, 10:49:07 AM

Quote from: parsec on November 13, 2010, 10:19:49 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on November 13, 2010, 10:17:10 AM

Quote from: parsec on November 13, 2010, 10:11:28 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on November 13, 2010, 09:58:41 AM

Quote from: parsec on November 13, 2010, 09:42:20 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on November 13, 2010, 09:37:51 AM

Quote from: parsec on November 13, 2010, 09:35:51 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on November 13, 2010, 01:19:43 AM

Previously determined fact: EAT is false.

This is wrong. Therefore, all your remaining deductions is not correct.

Prove your outlandish claim.

Light bends. Therefore, EAT is not false.

Wrong. That's a non sequitur. You might as well say: Winds blows. Therefore, the Earth is round.

No, you may not. You not understanding it does not make it a non-sequitur.

I never said that my (Gerunds take the possessive.) not understanding did anything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerund#Gerunds_in_English Gerunds can be used in a clause that serves as a noun phrase.

But, seriously, your argument was wrong.

Since they are nouns, they take adjectives. The pronoun form that modifies a noun is the possessive.
But, seriously, your argument was wrong.

They are not nouns. It is the same form as the present participle of the verb. The clause was:
'You are not understanding' and this is the subject of the main sentence that your lack of understanding does not make something a non-sequitur. When used as such, the auxiliary verb ('are' in this case) is omitted. Your sentence does not even make sense:

'your not understanding'

You can't even quote the phrase correctly. What a failure you are. You used as a noun phrase "you not understanding".

Understanding is a noun: either it's a gerund, which is a verb used as a noun, or it's just a noun http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/understanding_1.

You even admit that it's the subject, and, what do you know, subjects are nouns.

Now can you just admit you're wrong, and return to your proof of EAT please.