Proof: The Earth is Round

Quote from: ClockTower on November 13, 2010, 07:53:04 PM

Quote from: parsec on November 13, 2010, 07:43:41 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on November 13, 2010, 07:41:38 PM

Quote from: parsec on November 13, 2010, 07:31:13 PM

Considering the title of this thread, that wasn't much of a proof, was it?

Quite the contrary, with Tom's wonderful support in the Wiki and Rowbotham's support about the sextant, it is a wonderful proof. And get this, any two FEers can at some time during the year repeat the experiment and convince themselves. No more excuses. Hurrah! Final and absolute victory for RE!

pats 'ClockTower' on the shoulder... There there, don't get overexcited. Here, drink these pills.

You know you really never had a chance there. I really thought there was a time that you could have made a case for EAT. I guess the math must have been too much for you, like Roundy and his grand unified theory for FET.

EAT is just not even making a decent appearance in these topics anymore. Really, you want to start from the "assumption" that the Earth is flat to prove EAT?

Oh, and you don't drink pills.

Keep telling that to yourself.

So do you have any decent statement of EAT or a way to test it yet? How much longer do you need, if not?

Yes.

Yes.

Please provide a link to this explanation of yours.

Quote from: parsec on November 13, 2010, 08:07:10 PM

Yes.

Please provide a link to this explanation of yours.

Why would I do that?

Quote from: ClockTower on November 13, 2010, 08:08:41 PM

Quote from: parsec on November 13, 2010, 08:07:10 PM

Yes.

Please provide a link to this explanation of yours.

Why would I do that?

To substantiate your claim, of course. Why would you ask? Come on. We're in the upper fora, so let's debate, not play games.

Quote from: parsec on November 13, 2010, 08:11:46 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on November 13, 2010, 08:08:41 PM

Quote from: parsec on November 13, 2010, 08:07:10 PM

Yes.

Please provide a link to this explanation of yours.

Why would I do that?

To substantiate your claim, of course. Why would you ask? Come on. We're in the upper fora, so let's debate, not play games.

I am debating. What claims do I have to substantiate? Look at the title of the thread. If your idea of proof is challenging people to disprove you, then you are not doing a good job. It is called Burden of proof. By the way, since the person who verifies EAT will probably get the next Nobel Prize in Physics, I have no intention of revealing such groundbreaking material to someone else.

Quote from: ClockTower on November 13, 2010, 08:14:04 PM

Quote from: parsec on November 13, 2010, 08:11:46 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on November 13, 2010, 08:08:41 PM

Quote from: parsec on November 13, 2010, 08:07:10 PM

Yes.

Please provide a link to this explanation of yours.

Why would I do that?

To substantiate your claim, of course. Why would you ask? Come on. We're in the upper fora, so let's debate, not play games.

I am debating. What claims do I have to substantiate? Look at the title of the thread. If your idea of proof is challenging people to disprove you, then you are not doing a good job. It is called Burden of proof. By the way, since the person who verifies EAT will probably get the next Nobel Prize in Physics, I have no intention of revealing such groundbreaking material to someone else.

So you can't show that EAT even has an explanation? How typical of an FEer.

I've proposed a proof. I've presented how the evidence needed can be obtained. I've explained that the FEW and EnaG already have provided the needed data points. I've met my burden of proof. I admit that I can't prove EAT false since no FEer will even state what it is in a scientific way or provide and verifiable objective evidence to substantiate it.

Of course, you quite right. Any one who verifies any of the FE magic is in line for the Nobel Prize in Physics. Given that no FEer has ever been nominated, and the poor quality of FE science, none will ever be nominated.

So you won't show that EAT even has an explanation?

Fix'd.

How typical of an FEer.

Keep up the offenses.

I've proposed a proof. I've presented how the evidence needed can be obtained. I've explained that the FEW and EnaG already have provided the needed data points. I've met my burden of proof.

And I refuted your proof as garbage in my first post.

I admit that I can't prove EAT false

Thank you for substantiating my point.

Of course, you quite right. Any one who verifies any of the FE magic is in line for the Nobel Prize in Physics. Given that no FEer has ever been nominated, and the poor quality of FE science, none will ever be nominated.

good thing no one asked for your opinion on Nobel Prize in Physics nominees.

Quote from: ClockTower on November 13, 2010, 08:29:24 PM

I've proposed a proof. I've presented how the evidence needed can be obtained. I've explained that the FEW and EnaG already have provided the needed data points. I've met my burden of proof.

And I refuted your proof as garbage in my first post.

Not even close. You just admitted that you "won't" even describe EAT, yet your refutation requires its verification. How typical of an FEer.

Quote from: parsec on November 13, 2010, 08:38:02 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on November 13, 2010, 08:29:24 PM

I've proposed a proof. I've presented how the evidence needed can be obtained. I've explained that the FEW and EnaG already have provided the needed data points. I've met my burden of proof.

And I refuted your proof as garbage in my first post.

Not even close. You just admitted that you "won't" even describe EAT, yet your refutation requires its verification. How typical of an FEer.

Why would I do the dirty work for you? You need to supply proof for your own conclusions. And you are reported.

Quote from: ClockTower on November 13, 2010, 08:42:58 PM

Quote from: parsec on November 13, 2010, 08:38:02 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on November 13, 2010, 08:29:24 PM

I've proposed a proof. I've presented how the evidence needed can be obtained. I've explained that the FEW and EnaG already have provided the needed data points. I've met my burden of proof.

And I refuted your proof as garbage in my first post.

Not even close. You just admitted that you "won't" even describe EAT, yet your refutation requires its verification. How typical of an FEer.

Why would I do the dirty work for you? You need to supply proof for your own conclusions. And you are reported.

If you flat earther's would work from the evidence instead of from a fantasized conclusion, maybe this would turn more scientific in a way..after all, science is aboutdrawing conclusions from available facts.

Quote from: ClockTower on November 13, 2010, 08:42:58 PM

Quote from: parsec on November 13, 2010, 08:38:02 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on November 13, 2010, 08:29:24 PM

I've proposed a proof. I've presented how the evidence needed can be obtained. I've explained that the FEW and EnaG already have provided the needed data points. I've met my burden of proof.

And I refuted your proof as garbage in my first post.

Not even close. You just admitted that you "won't" even describe EAT, yet your refutation requires its verification. How typical of an FEer.

Why would I do the dirty work for you? You need to supply proof for your own conclusions. And you are reported.

What dirty work of mine have I asked you to do? I've supplied the evidence for my own conclusions. If you want to challenge me with FE magic, then go ahead and substantiate it. Otherwise, we'll just dismiss you along with your unfounded claims.

Previously determined fact: EAT is false.

This is not considered proof.

Quote from: zork on November 13, 2010, 01:57:07 PM

Quote from: parsec on November 13, 2010, 01:29:38 PM

Quote from: zork on November 13, 2010, 01:28:46 PM

I guess I said it incorrectly. I meant that if you take 1 and then you go and take 2 then you just realize that the 2 contradicts the 1 and therefore the 1 can't be true. Shortly, you can't put two arbitrary premises together and assume something from both of them when they just won't work together.

Ok, how do you think premise 2 contradict premise 1 in our particular case?

Because you can assume from that the round earth.

Wow, that's a large leap of faith.

It's not larger than assuming that the light bends. If you do your research then you find out that it is one reason why people started to think that the Earth can be round. So, it's not so large leap. Smaller than the bendy light one. So, if this second assumption is your only and only argument for bendy light then there is no bendy light.

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

Previously determined fact: EAT is false.

This is not considered proof.

Neither does this:

1. Earth is flat.

The rest of everything you've been saying through the thread fails alone.
Please, admit you have lost the debate, that you have no single evidence for anything, and stop reporting and playing misterious child "I have but I won't tell, nanananana". Some of us try to have a serious debating forum.

what i learned in science is that theories are never proven, just supported, so many of the theories may be overturned or changed

anyways, light does bend, as it is attracted to gravity (i think it has like a mass of 1/c right?  becuase e=mc^2)  and also, becuase light is a wave, it has a tendency to spread out after it passes objects, like slits right (i think ive seen a similar experiment)

OK, now we are going to carry out clocktower's experiment. ON November 15, 2010 local astronomical noon, everyone measure the altitude of the sun.

If the values are exactly as  predicted by RET, then RET is correct.
If the values are all weird, then bendy light theory is correct.

OK, now we are going to carry out clocktower's experiment. ON November 15, 2010 local astronomical noon, everyone measure the altitude of the sun.

If the values are exactly as  predicted by RET, then RET is correct.
If the values are all weird, then bendy light theory is correct.

Please post your latitude (including N or S) and the altitude of the Sun. I recommend using a stake on flat ground. Measure the height (h) of the stick and its shadow (s). The altitude would arctan(h/s). Note: since the Sun is directly above a latitude other than the Equator, the angle will not be the complement of your latitude. If your location is too overcast on Monday, please try again on Tuesday or Wednesday, but be sure to report the change. If your time zone permits, you're also welcome to measure on Sunday.

I will look for outliers and see if they come from questionable sources known to have lied about experimental data previously.

Thanks!

OK, now we are going to carry out clocktower's experiment. ON November 15, 2010 local astronomical noon, everyone measure the altitude of the sun.

If the values are exactly as  predicted by RET, then RET is correct.
If the values are all weird, then bendy light theory is correct.

This is the point. The experiment proposed by ClockTower does not distinguish between RET and BLT.

Quote from: wecl0me12 on November 14, 2010, 05:43:01 AM

OK, now we are going to carry out clocktower's experiment. ON November 15, 2010 local astronomical noon, everyone measure the altitude of the sun.

If the values are exactly as  predicted by RET, then RET is correct.
If the values are all weird, then bendy light theory is correct.

This is the point. The experiment proposed by ClockTower does not distinguish between RET and BLT.

So no matter what the results prove BLT is always correct?

Berny
BLT makes me hungry

Quote from: wecl0me12 on November 14, 2010, 05:43:01 AM

OK, now we are going to carry out clocktower's experiment. ON November 15, 2010 local astronomical noon, everyone measure the altitude of the sun.

If the values are exactly as  predicted by RET, then RET is correct.
If the values are all weird, then bendy light theory is correct.

This is the point. The experiment proposed by ClockTower does not distinguish between RET and BLT.

How do you propose any experiment do so when there is no description of BLT? Are you just trolling?

Quote from: parsec on November 14, 2010, 09:31:50 AM

Quote from: wecl0me12 on November 14, 2010, 05:43:01 AM

OK, now we are going to carry out clocktower's experiment. ON November 15, 2010 local astronomical noon, everyone measure the altitude of the sun.

If the values are exactly as  predicted by RET, then RET is correct.
If the values are all weird, then bendy light theory is correct.

This is the point. The experiment proposed by ClockTower does not distinguish between RET and BLT.

How do you propose any experiment do so when there is no description of BLT? Are you just trolling?

What he is saying any results that prove the Earth's Rotundity with anything to do with the Sun will be explained by BLT.  I think they know what direction this is going so they are going to blanket it down like Space Travel and Conspiracy Theory.

So any pictures taken from space are Faked
And any results from Sun shots and tracking are caused by BLT

Means we have to find an alternative angle

Berny
Thinks the FE'rs are battening down the hatches.

Quote from: ClockTower on November 14, 2010, 09:40:20 AM

Quote from: parsec on November 14, 2010, 09:31:50 AM

Quote from: wecl0me12 on November 14, 2010, 05:43:01 AM

OK, now we are going to carry out clocktower's experiment. ON November 15, 2010 local astronomical noon, everyone measure the altitude of the sun.

If the values are exactly as  predicted by RET, then RET is correct.
If the values are all weird, then bendy light theory is correct.

This is the point. The experiment proposed by ClockTower does not distinguish between RET and BLT.

How do you propose any experiment do so when there is no description of BLT? Are you just trolling?

What he is saying any results that prove the Earth's Rotundity with anything to do with the Sun will be explained by BLT.  I think they know what direction this is going so they are going to blanket it down like Space Travel and Conspiracy Theory.

So any pictures taken from space are Faked
And any results from Sun shots and tracking are caused by BLT

Means we have to find an alternative angle

Berny
Thinks the FE'rs are battening down the hatches.

I understand. But I'm not willing to allow a "we're going to think of a response to this challenge someday" defense. When they come up with a description of BLT then we will ask for evidence for it. Until then, I suggest we just accept victory and move on.

Quote from: berny_74 on November 14, 2010, 09:44:20 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on November 14, 2010, 09:40:20 AM

Quote from: parsec on November 14, 2010, 09:31:50 AM

Quote from: wecl0me12 on November 14, 2010, 05:43:01 AM

OK, now we are going to carry out clocktower's experiment. ON November 15, 2010 local astronomical noon, everyone measure the altitude of the sun.

If the values are exactly as  predicted by RET, then RET is correct.
If the values are all weird, then bendy light theory is correct.

This is the point. The experiment proposed by ClockTower does not distinguish between RET and BLT.

How do you propose any experiment do so when there is no description of BLT? Are you just trolling?

What he is saying any results that prove the Earth's Rotundity with anything to do with the Sun will be explained by BLT.  I think they know what direction this is going so they are going to blanket it down like Space Travel and Conspiracy Theory.

So any pictures taken from space are Faked
And any results from Sun shots and tracking are caused by BLT

Means we have to find an alternative angle

Berny
Thinks the FE'rs are battening down the hatches.

I understand. But I'm not willing to allow a "we're going to think of a response to this challenge someday" defense. When they come up with a description of BLT then we will ask for evidence for it. Until then, I suggest we just accept victory and move on.

Does that work for you?
BTW I work so I cannot be included in the study.

Berny
Victory for the Round Earth

Quote from: wecl0me12 on November 14, 2010, 05:43:01 AM

OK, now we are going to carry out clocktower's experiment. ON November 15, 2010 local astronomical noon, everyone measure the altitude of the sun.

If the values are exactly as  predicted by RET, then RET is correct.
If the values are all weird, then bendy light theory is correct.

This is the point. The experiment proposed by ClockTower does not distinguish between RET and BLT.

It's the optical equivalent of the EP.  There is no test possible to distinguish bendy light from the earth's curvature.

Quote from: parsec on November 14, 2010, 09:31:50 AM

Quote from: wecl0me12 on November 14, 2010, 05:43:01 AM

OK, now we are going to carry out clocktower's experiment. ON November 15, 2010 local astronomical noon, everyone measure the altitude of the sun.

If the values are exactly as  predicted by RET, then RET is correct.
If the values are all weird, then bendy light theory is correct.

This is the point. The experiment proposed by ClockTower does not distinguish between RET and BLT.

It's the optical equivalent of the EP.  There is no test possible to distinguish bendy light from the earth's curvature.

How about experiments with laser like from http://www.i-fiberoptics.com/pdf/45-700-manual.pdf
Experiment 19. Measuring the Curvature of the Earth
Or something similar.

 In addition you can put build some solid beam alongside the laser beam. If the light bends then the solid beam and laser beam should not be side by side till the endpoint.

It's been cloudy here but if it isn't tomorrow I'll help out.

EDIT: Not sure why everyone's still arguing over bendy light, most FE'ers won't profess belief in it anyway.

It's been cloudy here but if it isn't tomorrow I'll help out.

EDIT: Not sure why everyone's still arguing over bendy light, most FE'ers won't profess belief in it anyway.

And most people won't profess the Earth is flat. However, that has no effect on its validity.

Quote from: General Disarray on November 14, 2010, 11:46:23 AM

It's been cloudy here but if it isn't tomorrow I'll help out.

EDIT: Not sure why everyone's still arguing over bendy light, most FE'ers won't profess belief in it anyway.

And most people won't profess the Earth is flat. However, that has no effect on its validity.

But the claim about the Earth being flat is not valid. None of the FEers have not seen the Earth in its entirety.

But the claim about the Earth being flat is not valid. None of the FEers have not seen the Earth in its entirety.

The same objection can be raised against the RE hypothesis.