We Don't Need to Disprove FE.

Quote from:  Wikipedia

These controversies became a regular feature in the English Mechanic magazine in 1904-5, publishing Blount's photo, and it reported two experiments in 1905 which showed the opposite results, one of which, by Clement Stratton on the Ashby Canal showed a dip on a sight-line only 4 feet 9 inches (1.45 m) above the surface.[12]

We could do this all day.

I haven't seen those articles, or evidence that they exist. The only thing which suggests that they exist is a user made Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is a notorously uncredible and unreliable source.

Citations needed.

Quote from:  Wikipedia

Refraction of light can produce the results noted by Rowbotham and Blount. Because the density of air in the Earth's atmosphere decreases with height above the Earth's surface, all light rays travelling nearly horizontally bend downward. This phenomenon is routinely allowed for in levelling and celestial navigation.[13] If the measurement is close enough to the surface, light rays can curve downward at a rate equal to the mean curvature of the Earth's surface. In this case, the two effects of curvature and refraction cancel each other out and the Earth will appear flat in optical experiments.

It feels good to prove Tom wrong.

Again, another unsourced Wikipedia article.

A Superior Mirage is actually extremely rare. Rarer than an Inferior Mirage. To believe that an extremely rare mirage manifests in front of the observer every time the experiment is performed is laughable.

Not only that; the mirage would also need to be picture perfect, projecting a body from beneath the horizon into the sky, to the exact altitude it would need to be for it to appear that the earth was flat. This would need to happen each and every time the experiments in the literature were performed. Unlikely.

Numerous water convexity tests have resulted in conflicting results and should therefore be considered inconclusive.

I haven't seen data from any contradicting convexity tests. If they exist, lets see them.

Until then, the convexity tests we do have must be taken at face value.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 27, 2010, 11:59:05 AM

The earth is flat and its flatness has been experimentally verified. I have seen no terrestrial experiments, in geodesy or otherwise, which suggests that the earth is a globe.  

Then you don't understand geodesy.

If there are any geodesy experiments which support an RE , lets see them.

Until then the stunning lack of geodesy experiments must be taken at face value.

There is plenty of evidence from the various space programs of the world, but you reject all if as the product of a conspiracy.

I've provided evidence demonstrating that NASA is untrustworthy. You know where to look.

There is evidence from amateur high altitude balloon flights but you reject all of it as lens distortion or "the edge of the sun's spotlight".

We've demonstrated that many of the high altitude photographs/videos which get posted around here contain lens distortion (ie. the curvature changes depending on what part of the screen it is crossing, suggesting a fisheye lens).

It is also to be expected that there be some slight curvature when looking down at the the illuminated surface of the earth at high altitudes.

There is evidence from celestial navigation (especially  in the southern hemisphere) but you reject it as the result of "celestial gears" or bendy light

A vast vast majority of our members live in the Northern Hemisphere. Indeed, less than 10% of the world's population even lives in the Southern Hemisphere, most of which are in poor countries without internet access.

If you have the resources to map out the Southern Hemisphere you should probably make a thread about it.

There is evidence in the form of GPS navigation for which the satellite orbital data, signal frequency and data structures are publicly available and for which open source hardware and software receivers are available. But you reject them as conspiracy run pseudollites.

The DOD's 45th and 50th Space Wings both work closely with NASA to deploy and maintain the GPS satellites. Obviously they would be in on it.

So don't tell me that there is a lack of evidence for a round earth.  There is more than plenty of evidence out there.  You just need to be open to the possibility that that evidence that contradicts FET just might be valid.

"The space man said so" isn't evidence. It's dogma.

terrestrial evidence? horizons?


the sun falling behind the horizon
disproves infinite plane i guess, because infinite plane would converge to a point
and


you can see the curvature

believe what you want

terrestrial evidence? horizons?

Please read Earth Not a Globe.

Or, if you're lazy, I've summarized the sections pertinent to the sun here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Sun

See: "Setting of the Sun"

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=44962.0

Argumentum ad Hominem.

This, there's no need to be such a pillock to compensate for also being totally willfully ignorant. Also, that last sentence wasn't an ad hominem, I can provide concrete proof for both claims.

The Sun's area of light is limited to a circular area of light upon the earth much like the light of a lighthouse is limited to a finite circular area around it. The rotating light on a lighthouse does not propagate infinitely into the distance. This means that only certain portions of the Earth are lightened at a time. It also describes how night and day arise in Flat Earth. The apparent view of rising and setting are caused by perspective, just as a flock of birds overhead will descend into the horizon as they fly into the distance.

"The apparent view of rising and setting are caused by perspective, just as a flock of birds overhead will descend into the horizon as they fly into the distance" suggests that the earth must be flat to use the bird proof.  becuase of that, that is circular logic, which isnt that useful in proving something but

think of it this way.  if the earth really is a flat plane, or mostly flat plane, then imagine the birds as a point in a triangle, with the other point from the hypothenuse as you.  the bird's hieght stays the same, but moves farther from you.  no matter how far tahe bird moves away, the the angle you look at the bird, the bird will not be below the plane itself.  the line from you and the bird does not go below the horizon, meaning it does not go below the ground.  this doesnt work logically

now imagine a rounded surface, and you are one point, and the bird is another.  it stays the same distance above the ground (hence flying in a circular path) and eventually, after flying a set distance, will go to a point in which you are obstructed from a part of the surface.

Please read Earth Not a Globe.

*screams and screams and screams until he's sick* 

(admit it, y'all missed me doing that.)

Quote

Numerous water convexity tests have resulted in conflicting results and should therefore be considered inconclusive.

I haven't seen data from any contradicting convexity tests. If they exist, lets see them.

Until then, the convexity tests we do have must be taken at face value.

Have you forgotten the controversy surrounding the results of the Hampden/Wallace reenactment of the Bedford Levels experiment?

Quote

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 27, 2010, 11:59:05 AM

The earth is flat and its flatness has been experimentally verified. I have seen no terrestrial experiments, in geodesy or otherwise, which suggests that the earth is a globe.  

Then you don't understand geodesy.

If there are any geodesy experiments which support an RE , lets see them.

Until then the stunning lack of geodesy experiments must be taken at face value.

Yes, it's frightfully amazing how a branch of science that studies the shape of the earth doesn't have any experiments to measure the shape of the earth. 
http://www.springerlink.com/content/117n526m3720u62r/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Geodesic_Mission

Quote

There is plenty of evidence from the various space programs of the world, but you reject all if as the product of a conspiracy.

I've provided evidence demonstrating that NASA is untrustworthy. You know where to look.

None of your "evidence" suggests that NASA is lying about the shape of the earth or that they (as well as every other space agency in the world) are faking their entire space program.

Quote

There is evidence from amateur high altitude balloon flights but you reject all of it as lens distortion or "the edge of the sun's spotlight".

We've demonstrated that many of the high altitude photographs/videos which get posted around here contain lens distortion (ie. the curvature changes depending on what part of the screen it is crossing, suggesting a fisheye lens).

It is also to be expected that there be some slight curvature when looking down at the the illuminated surface of the earth at high altitudes.

How did I know that you were going to say that? 

Quote

There is evidence from celestial navigation (especially  in the southern hemisphere) but you reject it as the result of "celestial gears" or bendy light

A vast vast majority of our members live in the Northern Hemisphere. Indeed, less than 10% of the world's population even lives in the Southern Hemisphere, most of which are in poor countries without internet access.

The population of the southern hemisphere is irrelevant.  A significant amount of international shipping travels the oceans of the southern hemisphere and they seem to get by just fine with maps based on RE measurements.

Quote

There is evidence in the form of GPS navigation for which the satellite orbital data, signal frequency and data structures are publicly available and for which open source hardware and software receivers are available. But you reject them as conspiracy run pseudollites.

The DOD's 45th and 50th Space Wings both work closely with NASA to deploy and maintain the GPS satellites. Obviously they would be in on it.

Irrelevant.  The information is out there so that you can make your own equipment to independently peer review the signal data and movement.

Quote

So don't tell me that there is a lack of evidence for a round earth.  There is more than plenty of evidence out there.  You just need to be open to the possibility that that evidence that contradicts FET just might be valid.

"The space man said so" isn't evidence. It's dogma.

Saying "The space man said so" isn't refuting evidence. It's denial.

Have you forgotten the controversy surrounding the results of the Hampden/Wallace reenactment of the Bedford Levels experiment?

That wasn't a contradicting experiment in favor of an RE.

As I recall, both parties walked away from the trial claiming that they had won.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 27, 2010, 06:01:32 PM

Quote

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 27, 2010, 11:59:05 AM

The earth is flat and its flatness has been experimentally verified. I have seen no terrestrial experiments, in geodesy or otherwise, which suggests that the earth is a globe.  

Then you don't understand geodesy.

If there are any geodesy experiments which support an RE , lets see them.

Until then the stunning lack of geodesy experiments must be taken at face value.

Yes, it's frightfully amazing how a branch of science that studies the shape of the earth doesn't have any experiments to measure the shape of the earth.  
http://www.springerlink.com/content/117n526m3720u62r/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Geodesic_Mission

Neither of those links study the physical curvature of the earth.

The French Geodesic Mission assumes that the earth is round before the mission even begins and proceeds to guess at its features based on a few measurements of the sun in the sky.

The second source you give is not publicly available, but it's clear from the abstract that the recipe is the same: assume that the earth is round and wrap all further data around this assumption.

The water convexity tests in Earth Not a Globe are unique because they do not assume the shape the earth takes for the experiment. The shape is the fundemental purpose of the experiment.

None of your "evidence" suggests that NASA is lying about the shape of the earth or that they (as well as every other space agency in the world) are faking their entire space program.

Actually, it does.

See the Conspiracy page in the FEW.

China's Space Agency's missions are " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">laughably fake, for example.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 27, 2010, 06:01:32 PM

Quote

There is evidence from celestial navigation (especially  in the southern hemisphere) but you reject it as the result of "celestial gears" or bendy light

A vast vast majority of our members live in the Northern Hemisphere. Indeed, less than 10% of the world's population even lives in the Southern Hemisphere, most of which are in poor countries without internet access.

The population of the southern hemisphere is irrelevant.  A significant amount of international shipping travels the oceans of the southern hemisphere and they seem to get by just fine with maps based on RE measurements.

Really? So there's a "significant amount" of international shipping between points in the Southern Hemisphere despite the fact that less than 10% of the word's population even lives in the Southern Hemisphere?

Are they sending empty packages around for kicks or something?  

Quote

The DOD's 45th and 50th Space Wings both work closely with NASA to deploy and maintain the GPS satellites. Obviously they would be in on it.

Irrelevant.  The information is out there so that you can make your own equipment to independently peer review the signal data and movement.

Example?

Who has independently verified this?

How am I supposed to "make my own equipment"? Where are the tutorials?

Aside from the obvious irony and sarcasm, google disagrees with you.

Sigh. You could have at least checked before making this claim.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/spellcheck/british/?q=pedanticism
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/pedant

As I recall, both parties walked away from the trial claiming that they had won.

That's why I said that it was inconclusive.

Neither of those links study the physical curvature of the earth.

The French Geodesic Mission assumes that the earth is round before the mission even begins and proceeds to guess at its features based on a few measurements of the sun in the sky.

The French Geodesic Mission (also called the Geodesic Mission to Peru, Geodesic Mission to the Equator and the Spanish-French Geodesic Mission) was an 18th-century expedition to what is now Ecuador carried out for the purpose of measuring the roundness of the Earth and measuring the length of a degree of longitude  at the Equator.

The second source you give is not publicly available, but it's clear from the abstract that the recipe is the same: assume that the earth is round and wrap all further data around this assumption.

And your recipe is the same: deny any data that contradicts FET without exception.

Quote

None of your "evidence" suggests that NASA is lying about the shape of the earth or that they (as well as every other space agency in the world) are faking their entire space program.

Actually, it does.

See the Conspiracy page in the FEW.

China's Space Agency's missions are " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">laughably fake, for example.

Where does that link suggest that the entire Chinese space program is faked?

Really? So there's a "significant amount" of international shipping between points in the Southern Hemisphere despite the fact that less than 10% of the word's population even lives in the Southern Hemisphere?

Are they sending empty packages around for kicks or something?  

Tom, believe it or not, there are cargo container ships and super tankers that will not fit through the Panama or Suez canals and therefore must go the long way around South America and/or Africa.

Post-Panamax or over-Panamax denote ships larger than Panamax that do not fit in the canal, such as supertankers and the largest modern container ships. The 'largest oil tanker in the world' ? whichever ship held the title at the time ? has not been able to transit the Panama Canal at least since the 'Idemitsu Maru' was launched in the 1960s; she was about 150,000 deadweight tons. U.S. Navy supercarriers  are also in the post-Panamax class; the Nimitz class aircraft carriers are 1,092 ft (332.84 m) long overall with a beam of 134 ft (40.84 m), while the flight deck is 252 ft (76.81 m) wide.

Quote

Quote

The DOD's 45th and 50th Space Wings both work closely with NASA to deploy and maintain the GPS satellites. Obviously they would be in on it.

Irrelevant.  The information is out there so that you can make your own equipment to independently peer review the signal data and movement.

Example?

Who has independently verified this?

How am I supposed to "make my own equipment"? Where are the tutorials?

http://gps.psas.pdx.edu/
http://dev.emcelettronica.com/gps-receiver-design
http://home.earthlink.net/~cwkelley/

That's why I said that it was inconclusive.

If it was inconclusive then it must not be a contradicting convexity test in favor of RE as you claimed when you referenced it.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 27, 2010, 08:54:26 PM

Neither of those links study the physical curvature of the earth.

The French Geodesic Mission assumes that the earth is round before the mission even begins and proceeds to guess at its features based on a few measurements of the sun in the sky.

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Geodesic_Mission

The French Geodesic Mission (also called the Geodesic Mission to Peru, Geodesic Mission to the Equator and the Spanish-French Geodesic Mission) was an 18th-century expedition to what is now Ecuador carried out for the purpose of measuring the roundness of the Earth and measuring the length of a degree of longitude  at the Equator.

The French Geodesic Mission experiment tries to measure how acute the curvature of the earth is by studying the position/movement of the sun. The experimenters assume that the earth is a globe.

The experimenters do not discover that the earth is a globe. It is already assumed that it is.

The water convexity experiments in ENAG are unique because they allow the experimenter to discover and study the physical shape of the earth for his or her own self. The French Geodesic Mission, on the other hand, does not study the physical shape of the earth. The mission did not allow experimenters to study or discover the earth's physical shape.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 27, 2010, 08:54:26 PM

The second source you give is not publicly available, but it's clear from the abstract that the recipe is the same: assume that the earth is round and wrap all further data around this assumption.

And your recipe is the same: deny any data that contradicts FET without exception.

As opposed to your recipie of: accept any data which might possibly support RET without looking much into it?  

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 27, 2010, 08:54:26 PM

Quote

None of your "evidence" suggests that NASA is lying about the shape of the earth or that they (as well as every other space agency in the world) are faking their entire space program.

Actually, it does.

See the Conspiracy page in the FEW.

China's Space Agency's missions are " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">laughably fake, for example.

Where does that link suggest that the entire Chinese space program is faked?

There are links in the Conspiracy page in the FEW which touches on China's other faked space missions.

However, it's good to see that you're not denying the obvious fakery going on with the Chinese spacewalk.

Tom, believe it or not, there are cargo container ships and super tankers that will not fit through the Panama or Suez canals and therefore must go the long way around South America and/or Africa.

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panamax#Post-Panamax_ships

Post-Panamax or over-Panamax denote ships larger than Panamax that do not fit in the canal, such as supertankers and the largest modern container ships. The 'largest oil tanker in the world' ? whichever ship held the title at the time ? has not been able to transit the Panama Canal at least since the 'Idemitsu Maru' was launched in the 1960s; she was about 150,000 deadweight tons. U.S. Navy supercarriers  are also in the post-Panamax class; the Nimitz class aircraft carriers are 1,092 ft (332.84 m) long overall with a beam of 134 ft (40.84 m), while the flight deck is 252 ft (76.81 m) wide.

I'm fairly certain that most shipping vessels do not fall under the class of "the largest oil tanker in the world."

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 27, 2010, 08:54:26 PM

Quote

Quote

The DOD's 45th and 50th Space Wings both work closely with NASA to deploy and maintain the GPS satellites. Obviously they would be in on it.

Irrelevant.  The information is out there so that you can make your own equipment to independently peer review the signal data and movement.

Example?

Who has independently verified this?

How am I supposed to "make my own equipment"? Where are the tutorials?

http://gps.psas.pdx.edu/
http://dev.emcelettronica.com/gps-receiver-design
http://home.earthlink.net/~cwkelley/

How will building any of those GPS receivers tell me whether the signal is coming from a Pseudolite or a Satellite?

Quote from: markjo

That's why I said that it was inconclusive.

If it was inconclusive then it must not be a contradicting convexity test in favor of RE as you claimed when you referenced it.

When experiments are subject to atmospheric refractive phenomena (mirages), I'd say that they are fairly inconclusive.

The experimenters do not discover that the earth is a globe. It is already assumed that it is.

That's right.  And guess what.  Their data did not contradict their assumption.  Something that frequently happens in FET.

Quote

Where does that link suggest that the entire Chinese space program is faked?

There are links in the Conspiracy page in the FEW which touches on China's other faked space missions.

However, it's good to see that you're not denying the obvious fakery going on with the Chinese spacewalk.

And which of those links suggest that China's space program is fake from start to finish?  I'm not talking about just their manned space program, but their unmanned space program as well.

I'm fairly certain that most shipping vessels do not fall under the class of "the largest oil tanker in the world."

I didn't say that they did.  I said a significant amount.

How will building any of those GPS receivers tell me whether the signal is coming from a Pseudolite or a Satellite?

You can use a directional antenna to track the movement of the signal sources and determine if the movement is consistent with the published orbital data.

I have to say I am disappointed in both sides of the forum.

Science is not about absolutes, so you cannot prove a theory to disprove all others. That is correct in mathematics, not in science.

Even though our current model for the shape and movement of the objects in the Solar System is proved to a precision that nobody would have thought possible just 100 years ago, a better model could appear. But the flat Earth "models" could only enter the arena if they had at least the same prediction capabilities our model has, and they fall so short it is not even funny.

Many threads have shown parts of the current model so I am not inclined to describe them here. We can just limit ourselves to Newtonian gravitation, which predicts everything in the Solar System with a high degree of accuracy (not perfect, but high), even the orbit of Mercury, And Newtonian gravitation is more than enough to destroy any model of flat Earth except the infinite flat Earth. And the model of the atmosphere as an almost perfectly transparent gas is enough to dispell the "bendy light" idiocies since it predicts the apparent location, brightness and size of the celestial objects. "Bendy light" predicts nothing of the kind.

I have to say I am disappointed in both sides of the forum.

Science is not about absolutes, so you cannot prove a theory to disprove all others. That is correct in mathematics, not in science.

Even though our current model for the shape and movement of the objects in the Solar System is proved to a precision that nobody would have thought possible just 100 years ago, a better model could appear. But the flat Earth "models" could only enter the arena if they had at least the same prediction capabilities our model has, and they fall so short it is not even funny.

Many threads have shown parts of the current model so I am not inclined to describe them here. We can just limit ourselves to Newtonian gravitation, which predicts everything in the Solar System with a high degree of accuracy (not perfect, but high), even the orbit of Mercury, And Newtonian gravitation is more than enough to destroy any model of flat Earth except the infinite flat Earth. And the model of the atmosphere as an almost perfectly transparent gas is enough to dispell the "bendy light" idiocies since it predicts the apparent location, brightness and size of the celestial objects. "Bendy light" predicts nothing of the kind.

You also cant assume unsupported theories are correct. Newtonian Gravity has proven to be very accurate but the concept of EAT has not. You can't dismiss other ideas except the ridiculous baseless one.

When experiments are subject to atmospheric refractive phenomena (mirages), I'd say that they are fairly inconclusive.

The experiments have been repeated by different observers.

I don't see a mirage every time I look out my window. It is ludicrus to suggest that a mirage appears every time someone performs a water convexity experiment, which just happens to project an image of the body the exact hight into the air it would need to be if the earth were flat.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 27, 2010, 11:16:08 PM

The experimenters do not discover that the earth is a globe. It is already assumed that it is.

That's right.  And guess what.  Their data did not contradict their assumption.  Something that frequently happens in FET.

The experimenters do not study the physcial shape of the earth. To assume things about the earth by looking at the sun is not a study of the earth. The experiment cannot tell us what shape it is. It's a series of assumptions.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 27, 2010, 11:16:08 PM

Quote

Where does that link suggest that the entire Chinese space program is faked?

There are links in the Conspiracy page in the FEW which touches on China's other faked space missions.

However, it's good to see that you're not denying the obvious fakery going on with the Chinese spacewalk.

And which of those links suggest that China's space program is fake from start to finish?  I'm not talking about just their manned space program, but their unmanned space program as well.

The links also touch on discrapancies in some of China's unmanned missions.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 27, 2010, 11:16:08 PM

I'm fairly certain that most shipping vessels do not fall under the class of "the largest oil tanker in the world."

I didn't say that they did.  I said a significant amount.

A significant amount of shipping vessles fall under the class of "the largest oil tanker in the world"?  

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 27, 2010, 11:16:08 PM

How will building any of those GPS receivers tell me whether the signal is coming from a Pseudolite or a Satellite?

You can use a directional antenna to track the movement of the signal sources and determine if the movement is consistent with the published orbital data.

How will looking at the movement of the craft across the sky tell me whether it is a pseudolite or satellite, or how close it is?

It's not possible to tell the speed of high altitude objects without first knowing its altitude, or conversely, it's speed without knowing its altitude.

Due to perspective a plane at 5,000 feet will naturally travel across the sky faster than a plane at 40,000 feet, for example. Looking at a plane traveling overhead, without knowing anything about it, it is impossible to tell its height or speed.

You also cant assume unsupported theories are correct. Newtonian Gravity has proven to be very accurate but the concept of EAT has not. You can't dismiss other ideas except the ridiculous baseless one.

Just to be precise with the terms, in science it is not a good idea to say a "theory" is correct or incorrect, but instead strongly supported by evidence or not supported by evidence.

In the case of every "flat Earth theory" in this forum, the absence of evidence is beyond anything in modern science. Even psychic doctors have more evidence for their "treatments" than the "FE Theorists" for their ideas.

I don't see a mirage every time I look out my window. It is ludicrus to suggest that a mirage appears every time someone performs a water convexity experiment, which just happens to project an image of the body the exact hight into the air it would need to be if the earth were flat.

Do you conduct water convexity experiments by looking out your window?  As I recall, Rowbotham's water convexity experiments are conducted on hot days with no wind and with the observer very near water surface level.  Theses are conditions that produce significant temperature gradients near water surface level.  Significant temperature gradients and very shallow angles of observation are ideal conditions for mirages.

The experimenters do not study the physcial shape of the earth. To assume things about the earth by looking at the sun is not a study of the earth. The experiment cannot tell us what shape it is. It's a series of assumptions.

Tom, the experimenters were measuring the length of degrees of latitude at different locations in order to determine the earth's deviation from a perfect sphere.  How is that not studying the physical shape of the earth?  Besides, how does one measure the curvature of an infinite plane? 

Quote

And which of those links suggest that China's space program is fake from start to finish?  I'm not talking about just their manned space program, but their unmanned space program as well.

The links also touch on discrapancies in some of China's unmanned missions.

In other words, none of them.  Thanks, that's what I thought.  Claiming that there are discrepancies in some space missions is not the same as claiming that the entire space program is being faked.

A significant amount of shipping vessles fall under the class of "the largest oil tanker in the world"?  

Tom, do I need to refer you to rif.org?  I said a significant amount of shipping occurs in the southern hemisphere.  I never said anything about the number of ships that would or would not fit in the Panama or Suez canals.

How will looking at the movement of the craft across the sky tell me whether it is a pseudolite or satellite, or how close it is?

It's not possible to tell the speed of high altitude objects without first knowing its altitude, or conversely, it's speed without knowing its altitude.

I didn't say that you could.  But, you can tell if the angular velocity and trajectory of a signal source is consistent with the orbital parameters of GPS satellites.  You could also build two sets of receivers and triangulate the altitude of the signal sources.

Quote from: Danukenator123 on December 28, 2010, 10:06:19 AM

You also cant assume unsupported theories are correct. Newtonian Gravity has proven to be very accurate but the concept of EAT has not. You can't dismiss other ideas except the ridiculous baseless one.

Just to be precise with the terms, in science it is not a good idea to say a "theory" is correct or incorrect, but instead strongly supported by evidence or not supported by evidence.

In the case of every "flat Earth theory" in this forum, the absence of evidence is beyond anything in modern science. Even psychic doctors have more evidence for their "treatments" than the "FE Theorists" for their ideas.

I took a look into what psychic doctors are all about after reading this post because I know very little about them.  It strikes me that you are quite correct that modern science and psychic doctors do have similarities in their approach to evidence and are more aligned to one another then FE Theorists and psychic doctors are.   

Quote from: trig on December 28, 2010, 02:47:44 PM

Quote from: Danukenator123 on December 28, 2010, 10:06:19 AM

You also cant assume unsupported theories are correct. Newtonian Gravity has proven to be very accurate but the concept of EAT has not. You can't dismiss other ideas except the ridiculous baseless one.

Just to be precise with the terms, in science it is not a good idea to say a "theory" is correct or incorrect, but instead strongly supported by evidence or not supported by evidence.

In the case of every "flat Earth theory" in this forum, the absence of evidence is beyond anything in modern science. Even psychic doctors have more evidence for their "treatments" than the "FE Theorists" for their ideas.

I took a look into what psychic doctors are all about after reading this post because I know very little about them.  It strikes me that you are quite correct that modern science and psychic doctors do have similarities in their approach to evidence and are more aligned to one another then FE Theorists and psychic doctors are.   

I love it when an FE "theorist" declares his total disregard for modern science. I can assure you, anything you say is great as long as you clearly state that you are not associated in any way to science.

What bothers me is that every time I think I have a clear list of "scientific FE'rs" an one of "anti-science FE'rs" many or all of you go back to the other camp when it suits you.

So, please, become the perfect FE'r, the one that after declaring himself anti-science or anti-modern-science stays in that stance.

Quote from: gotham on December 28, 2010, 04:52:08 PM

Quote from: trig on December 28, 2010, 02:47:44 PM

Quote from: Danukenator123 on December 28, 2010, 10:06:19 AM

You also cant assume unsupported theories are correct. Newtonian Gravity has proven to be very accurate but the concept of EAT has not. You can't dismiss other ideas except the ridiculous baseless one.

Just to be precise with the terms, in science it is not a good idea to say a "theory" is correct or incorrect, but instead strongly supported by evidence or not supported by evidence.

In the case of every "flat Earth theory" in this forum, the absence of evidence is beyond anything in modern science. Even psychic doctors have more evidence for their "treatments" than the "FE Theorists" for their ideas.

I took a look into what psychic doctors are all about after reading this post because I know very little about them.  It strikes me that you are quite correct that modern science and psychic doctors do have similarities in their approach to evidence and are more aligned to one another then FE Theorists and psychic doctors are.   

I love it when an FE "theorist" declares his total disregard for modern science. I can assure you, anything you say is great as long as you clearly state that you are not associated in any way to science.

What bothers me is that every time I think I have a clear list of "scientific FE'rs" an one of "anti-science FE'rs" many or all of you go back to the other camp when it suits you.

So, please, become the perfect FE'r, the one that after declaring himself anti-science or anti-modern-science stays in that stance.

Ironically I was attempting to throw a quick nugget of compliment, albeit sideways, to RET.  It is not an anti-science or anti-modern-science moment but one of respect.  The fact that it aligns psychic doctors and science is not to malign psychic doctors or science.  They both do their best to bring forth evidence and I do respect the efforts but just not always to the point of agreement with every outcome. 

Ironically I was attempting to throw a quick nugget of compliment, albeit sideways, to RET.  It is not an anti-science or anti-modern-science moment but one of respect.  The fact that it aligns psychic doctors and science is not to malign psychic doctors or science.  They both do their best to bring forth evidence and I do respect the efforts but just not always to the point of agreement with every outcome. 

And I was so happy...

If science is as honest as psychic doctors in its attempt to bring forth evidence, and if gotham respects the efforts of both "disciplines" equally, I want to go back to the Dark Ages!

Or maybe not. Maybe I will go to the Philippines and learn how to make a big show extracting chicken or cow organs from gullible sick people that don't ask where the wound is, and make a lot of money from their misery.

Quote from: gotham on December 30, 2010, 04:57:27 AM

Ironically I was attempting to throw a quick nugget of compliment, albeit sideways, to RET.  It is not an anti-science or anti-modern-science moment but one of respect.  The fact that it aligns psychic doctors and science is not to malign psychic doctors or science.  They both do their best to bring forth evidence and I do respect the efforts but just not always to the point of agreement with every outcome. 

And I was so happy...

If science is as honest as psychic doctors in its attempt to bring forth evidence, and if gotham respects the efforts of both "disciplines" equally, I want to go back to the Dark Ages!

Or maybe not. Maybe I will go to the Philippines and learn how to make a big show extracting chicken or cow organs from gullible sick people that don't ask where the wound is, and make a lot of money from their misery.

Oh, there is another option. There is room onboard the FET bandwagon that is moving swiftly and boldly forward to out what is truth. Jump aboard and your happiness will return.   

Quote from: trig on December 30, 2010, 05:14:34 AM

Quote from: gotham on December 30, 2010, 04:57:27 AM

Ironically I was attempting to throw a quick nugget of compliment, albeit sideways, to RET.  It is not an anti-science or anti-modern-science moment but one of respect.  The fact that it aligns psychic doctors and science is not to malign psychic doctors or science.  They both do their best to bring forth evidence and I do respect the efforts but just not always to the point of agreement with every outcome. 

And I was so happy...

If science is as honest as psychic doctors in its attempt to bring forth evidence, and if gotham respects the efforts of both "disciplines" equally, I want to go back to the Dark Ages!

Or maybe not. Maybe I will go to the Philippines and learn how to make a big show extracting chicken or cow organs from gullible sick people that don't ask where the wound is, and make a lot of money from their misery.

Oh, there is another option. There is room onboard the FET bandwagon that is moving swiftly and boldly forward to out what is truth. Jump aboard and your happiness will return.   

Sure. I'll hop in as soon as I see one little shred of evidence or a bucket full of money. Or when truth knocks me in the head.

Quote from: doyh on December 26, 2010, 12:05:07 PM

Aside from the obvious irony and sarcasm, google disagrees with you.

Sigh. You could have at least checked before making this claim.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/spellcheck/british/?q=pedanticism
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/pedant

GOOGLE SAID IT, SO IT WAS TRUE, DAMN IT!!!!