We Don't Need to Disprove FE.

pedanticism

Judging from the lack of responses from round earthers, they really don't have a coherent model.
And another win for FEers!!!!!

RE'rs are having trouble presenting a coherent RE model because there isn't one.

RE'rs are having trouble presenting a coherent RE model because there isn't one.

Tom has such a way with words.

This is seriously sad.  Apparently RE arguments end just after, "You're dumb, lol."

RE'rs are having trouble presenting a coherent RE model because there isn't one.

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

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 26, 2010, 09:10:38 PM

RE'rs are having trouble presenting a coherent RE model because there isn't one.

How's this for a start?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth

First of all, you can't prove a negative so trying to prove that something doesn't exist is a waste of time. 

The world is round with plenty of proof (far too much to put in one post) but examples include photos from space and that the North Star is only visible from the northern hemisphere.  This proof is of course not accepted as anything other than fabrications and false by the FES but with no evidence to back up those FE views it does not invalidate the proof of a round world.

While there are many proofs that the earth is round there is an appalling lack of proof to support the FET.  It seems that other theories are being bused in an attempt to bolster the FET (Ex: the bendy light theory), but you can not truly support one theory with another.   This is not to say that some haven't tried to supply experiments and other information as evidence but it falls short of the support needed to bring the FET out of the theory stage.

@ Ichimaru Gin:  Claiming victory because no one posts what you want is like going outside and yelling Santa Claus exists, not having any of the passersby contradict you and claiming Santa is real based on that.  Your time would be better spent with fewer flippant and useless remarks and more searching for something, anything that would help support the FET.

@ Tom Bishop :  Claiming that those who believe in a round earth can't produce a model because there isn't one, based on the lack of a post,  is no more a valid statement than if there were a nuclear physicist, who does not reply to a post asking for a valid model of a nuclear reaction indicating that such a model doesn't exist.

As with any theory, it is up to those proponents to prove that their theory is more than just a theory.  To those actually on the course and working hard to prove the FET whether it is ultimately possible or not, I salute you for making the effort.  For those who sit back and come up with theories without trying to validate them and to those who sit at their computers waiting to make flippant, useless posts, why are you wasting your time?

Quote from: digitalartist on December 27, 2010, 09:01:38 AM

First of all, you can't prove a negative so trying to prove that something doesn't exist is a waste of time. 

The world is round with plenty of proof (far too much to put in one post) but examples include photos from space and that the North Star is only visible from the northern hemisphere.  This proof is of course not accepted as anything other than fabrications and false by the FES but with no evidence to back up those FE views it does not invalidate the proof of a round world.

While there are many proofs that the earth is round there is an appalling lack of proof to support the FET.  It seems that other theories are being bused in an attempt to bolster the FET (Ex: the bendy light theory), but you can not truly support one theory with another.   This is not to say that some haven't tried to supply experiments and other information as evidence but it falls short of the support needed to bring the FET out of the theory stage.

@ Ichimaru Gin:  Claiming victory because no one posts what you want is like going outside and yelling Santa Claus exists, not having any of the passersby contradict you and claiming Santa is real based on that.  Your time would be better spent with fewer flippant and useless remarks and more searching for something, anything that would help support the FET.

@ Tom Bishop :  Claiming that those who believe in a round earth can't produce a model because there isn't one, based on the lack of a post,  is no more a valid statement than if there were a nuclear physicist, who does not reply to a post asking for a valid model of a nuclear reaction indicating that such a model doesn't exist.

As with any theory, it is up to those proponents to prove that their theory is more than just a theory.  To those actually on the course and working hard to prove the FET whether it is ultimately possible or not, I salute you for making the effort.  For those who sit back and come up with theories without trying to validate them and to those who sit at their computers waiting to make flippant, useless posts, why are you wasting your time?

Once again, no presentation of RET. Another win for FES!

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 26, 2010, 09:10:38 PM

RE'rs are having trouble presenting a coherent RE model because there isn't one.

How's this for a start?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth

Quote from: markjo on December 27, 2010, 06:21:20 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 26, 2010, 09:10:38 PM

RE'rs are having trouble presenting a coherent RE model because there isn't one.

How's this for a start?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth

An incoherent childish fantasy at best.

How can you claim to be a seeker of truth when you won't even consider any evidence that conflicts with your unshakable conviction in FET?

If you are speaking of the Bedford Level experiment, scientists have been unable to reproduce it. In fact, all reproductions have proven that the Earth is round.

At the point chosen for all the experiments the river is a slow-flowing drainage canal running in an uninterrupted straight line for a six-mile stretch to the north-east of the village of Welney. The most famous of the observations, and the one that was taught in schools until photographs of the Earth from space became available,[1][2] involved a set of three poles fixed at equal height above water level along this length. As the surface of the water was assumed to be level, the discovery that the middle pole, when viewed carefully through a theodolite, was almost three feet higher than the poles at each end was finally accepted as a new proof that the surface of the earth was indeed curved.

A woman named Lady Bount was among the first to peer review Rowbotham's work:

"The Old Bedford Level was the scene of further experiments over the years, until in 1904, photography was used to prove that the earth is flat. Lady Blount, a staunch believer in the zetetic method hired a photographer, Mr Cifton of Dallmeyer's who arrived at the Bedford Level with the firm's latest Photo-Telescopic camera. The apparatus was set up at one end of the clear six-mile length, while at the other end Lady Blount and some scientific gentlemen hung a large, white calico sheet over the Bedford bridge so that the bottom of it was near the water. Mr Clifton, lying down near Welney bridge with his camera lens two feet above the water level, observed by telescope the hanging of the sheet, and found that he could see the whole of it down to the bottom. This surprised him, for he was an orthodox globularist and round-earth theory said that over a distance of six miles the bottom of the sheet should bemore than 20 feet below his line of sight. His photograph showed not only the entire sheet but its reflection in the water below. That was certified in his report to Lady Blount, which concluded: "I should not like to abandon the globular theory off-hand, but, as far as this particular test is concerned, I am prepared to maintain that (unless rays of light will travel in a curved path) these six miles of water present a level surface."

Mrs. Peach recently found a reference of photographic evidence from The English Mechanic, a scientific journal:

"The Flat Earth: another Bedford Canal experiment" (Bernard H.Watson, et al),
ENGLISH MECHANIC, 80:160, 1904

Bedford Canal, England. A repeat of the 1870 experiment.

"A train of empty turf-boats had just entered the Canal from the river Ouse, and
was about proceeding to Ramsey. I arranged with the captain to place the shallowest
boat last in the train, and to take me on to Welney Bridge, a distance of six
miles. A good telescope was then fixed on the lowest part of the stern of the last
boat. The sluice gate of the Old Bedford Bridge was 5ft. 8in. high, the turf-boat
moored there was 2ft. 6in. high, and the notice board was 6ft. 6in. from the water.
The sun was shining strongly upon them in the direction of the south-southwest; the
air was exceedingly still and clear, and the surface of the water smooth as a
molten mirror, so that everything was favourable for observation. At 1.15 p.m. the
train started for Welney. As the boats gradually receded, the sluice gate, the
turf-boat and the notice board continued to be visible to the naked eye for about
four miles. When the sluice gate and the turf-boat (being of a dark colour) became
somewhat indistinct, the notice board (which was white) was still plainly visible,
and remained so to the end of six miles. But on looking through the telescope all
the objects were distinctly visible throughout the whole distance. On reaching
Welney Bridge I made very careful and repeated observations, and finding several
men upon the banks of the canal, I called them to look through the telescope. They
all saw distinctly the white notice board, the sluice gate, and the black turf-boat
moored near them.

Now, as the telescope was 18in. above the water, The line of sight would touch the
horizon at one mile and a half away (if the surface were convex). The curvature of
the remaining four miles and a half would be 13ft. 6in. Hence the turf-boat should
have been 11ft., the top of the sluice gate 7ft. 10in., and the bottom of the
notice board 7ft. below the horizon.

My recent experiment affords undeniable proof of the Earth's unglobularity, because
it rests not on transitory vision; but my proof remains printed on the negative of
the photograph which Mr.Clifton took for me, and in my presence, on behalf of
J.H.Dallmeyer, Ltd.
A photograph can not 'imagine' nor lie!".

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]

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.

A photograph can not 'imagine' nor lie!".

Quote from: markjo on December 27, 2010, 11:05:36 AM

How can you claim to be a seeker of truth when you won't even consider any evidence that conflicts with your unshakable conviction in FET?

I've considered and dismissed RET dutifully. RET is not the correct model of the earth. The earth is a plane and the numerous water convexity tests verify this fact.

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. 

It's not so much that FE'ers reject experimental evidence for an RE, as much as there is none at all.