Casual FET Research

I was walking down the hall in what I thought to be straight today, but as I went through the exit way I had moved leftward enough for my backpack to snag on the door handle.

Vongeo this was a good idea for a thread, until you and others started derailing it.

 I can see on some TV commercials from a high view, the earth appears flat. I can't remember which ones right now.

 Also some interviews on TV from high up in skyscrapers, the background will look flat, especially in large cities.

 Just saying.

Just saying.

With a RE perspective, you can't see a curved horizon a the height of a commercial flight. That's all.

In this thread, I simulated what the horizon of a round earth would look like from different altitudes. You can see that at 10km (ca. 30,000 feet, a typical commercial jet cruising altitude), the horizon looks slightly curved, just like on the picture Vongeo took.

The picture is hence actually RET evidence, and should have been posted as such in a separate thread. 

When I walked the Coast to Coast path this summer, I met two men in Keld who said that they had made a navigational error at the very start of the walk. After setting off from St. Bees and following the coast north for a few miles, they turned east, and soon came across a train track. Instead of crossing the train track as they were supposed to, they turned right and followed it south. Within a few miles, they had ended up in St. Bees again. This is further evidence that walking in a straight line for even a short distance is difficult.

.....I met two men in Keld who said that they had made a navigational error at the very start of the walk...... This is further evidence that walking in a straight line for even a short distance is difficult.

no this is evidence that people make mistakes. walking in a straight line is easy. you have to be pretty 'special' to not know you have navigated yourself in a circle. This is a series of mistakes, not evidence that walking is a straight line is hard.

Quote from: Lord Xenu on October 20, 2011, 04:52:17 AM

.....I met two men in Keld who said that they had made a navigational error at the very start of the walk...... This is further evidence that walking in a straight line for even a short distance is difficult.

no this is evidence that people make mistakes. walking in a straight line is easy. you have to be pretty 'special' to not know you have navigated yourself in a circle. This is a series of mistakes, not evidence that walking is a straight line is hard.

As an experiment, I challenge you to try and follow a perfectly straight line on a map through, let's say, a wood without any paths for a few miles, without navigating. Then afterwards see how far you deviated off course. You will probably be quite surprised at how difficult maintaining a straight course is.

Challenge accepted.

I'll be going hunting in the next few weeks, in some woods, where I will have ample opportunity to test this. I will post results to this thread. Though I'm sure you will try to discredit my findings, IF they support my claim. I will have to come up with a way to test my plan/theory versus the results.

What distance would you accept as a reasonable test of this 'walking in a straight line' idea?

Challenge accepted.

I'll be going hunting in the next few weeks, in some woods, where I will have ample opportunity to test this. I will post results to this thread. Though I'm sure you will try to discredit my findings, IF they support my claim. I will have to come up with a way to test my plan/theory versus the results.

What distance would you accept as a reasonable test of this 'walking in a straight line' idea?

However far you think that you can walk, darling, but at least three miles would be preferable. Remember - you're not allowed to navigate using any noticeable landmarks, just try and follow a straight course for as far as you can.

darling? Please tell me you are form the deep south (USA) and that is your normal word for friend or buddy, and not an attempt at slighting me. Lets keep this civil please.

min 3 miles - Got it
no landmark navigation (like mountain peeks over the trees) - got it
just me and my sense of direction alone in the tree with no other electronic/mechanical assistance - got it

Challenge still acepted.

Do you have a suggestion for how I can determine my start and end points against a planned start and end point?

darling? Please tell me you are form the deep south (USA) and that is your normal word for friend or buddy, and not an attempt at slighting me. Lets keep this civil please.

I'm from England, and it's a term of endearment. 

Do you have a suggestion for how I can determine my start and end points against a planned start and end point?

Dunno. Some landmark that is not clearly visible above the treeline but is marked on the map?

Challenge accepted.

Don't fall for it.  He'll come up with some nonsense about not being a perfectly straight line because you need to avoid walking into trees or other obstacles.

Quote from: Sentient Pizza on October 20, 2011, 08:25:42 AM

Challenge accepted.

Don't fall for it.  He'll come up with some nonsense about not being a perfectly straight line because you need to avoid walking into trees or other obstacles.

Who's "he"? The cat's mother? I'm offended.

Quote from: markjo on October 20, 2011, 09:03:07 AM

Quote from: Sentient Pizza on October 20, 2011, 08:25:42 AM

Challenge accepted.

Don't fall for it.  He'll come up with some nonsense about not being a perfectly straight line because you need to avoid walking into trees or other obstacles.

Who's "he"? The cat's mother? I'm offended.

I think we are clear that I dont plan to cut down ever tree so that I may continue on a constant heading/direction in more or less a straight path.

no one would argue that going arround a tree makes the test less valid. We are not testing straight lines we are testing non landmark based navigation while maintaing a constant heading/path. Deviation for obstacles requires lots of directional changes and only makes the task of walking a straight line through a forrest even harder to accomplish.

Given that I have always asumed I knew what direction and how far I have walked, but never tested it, I am interested to see the result. Though i am having a hard time figuring out how I will properly be able to demonstrate the results here (either way they come out) on the FES.

I will have to figure out how to plot my planned course along side mt traveled course. Also I will have to know the start and stop coordinates of both paths, and be able to show them here.

I conducted a valid scientific experiment just recently.   I spun around in a circle many times in a row, then stopped.  Upon stopping, I noticed the Earth continued to rotate even though I had stopped.  There is only one possible conclusion that can be drawn from this.  The Earth is rotating, but we have an inbuilt gyroscope that makes it seem like the earth is still.  Until we upset the gyroscope by spinning we are unaware of the earth's rotation.

This is proof positive.  If the Earth wasn't spinning, how would it be possible for me to see it spinning around me in this experiment?

btw:

If the experimenter were holding the camera one would see that the earth is moving upwards to the observer. This is direct firsthand evidence that the earth is moving upwards. A camera sitting on the desk watching the experiment is second hand evidence.

Tom I feel I've under-estimated you.  This is perhaps the best trolling I've seen yet.  I know I've been calling for Thork to be Troll President, but if you keep up this standard I feel I may have to switch my vote.

I conducted a valid scientific experiment just recently.   I spun around in a circle many times in a row, then stopped.  Upon stopping, I noticed the Earth continued to rotate even though I had stopped.  There is only one possible conclusion that can be drawn from this.  The Earth is rotating, but we have an inbuilt gyroscope that makes it seem like the earth is still.  Until we upset the gyroscope by spinning we are unaware of the earth's rotation.

This is proof positive.  If the Earth wasn't spinning, how would it be possible for me to see it spinning around me in this experiment?

This is nonsensical. In RE theory, it is only if one was standing at the North or South pole that one would feel the Earth rotating around us. Since I am assuming you live somewhere in the middle of the northern hemisphere, you should feel the Earth dragging you in one direction, not spinning you around. Therefore, the Earth's rotation cannot be the cause of this experience.

This is nonsensical. In RE theory, it is only if one was standing at the North or South pole that one would feel the Earth rotating around us. Since I am assuming you live somewhere in the middle of the northern hemisphere, you should feel the Earth dragging you in one direction, not spinning you around. Therefore, the Earth's rotation cannot be the cause of this experience.

Claerly you dont understand RE anything. at no point on the earth shoudl you feel that your are spinning or dragged in any direction. This is simple strwman nonsense. Everything arround you including the air is moving allong with you at the same rate and it is ver constant, hense you will not detect this with what you feel. That is why humans through time have made machines and made observations of things that show us what is going on.

In fact this whole thread starting with the Tom Bishop "Walking off a char" experiment is bunk and has been off topic the whole time.

Quote from: pitdroidtech on October 21, 2011, 07:07:20 AM

I conducted a valid scientific experiment just recently.   I spun around in a circle many times in a row, then stopped.  Upon stopping, I noticed the Earth continued to rotate even though I had stopped.  There is only one possible conclusion that can be drawn from this.  The Earth is rotating, but we have an inbuilt gyroscope that makes it seem like the earth is still.  Until we upset the gyroscope by spinning we are unaware of the earth's rotation.

This is proof positive.  If the Earth wasn't spinning, how would it be possible for me to see it spinning around me in this experiment?

This is nonsensical. In RE theory, it is only if one was standing at the North or South pole that one would feel the Earth rotating around us. Since I am assuming you live somewhere in the middle of the northern hemisphere, you should feel the Earth dragging you in one direction, not spinning you around. Therefore, the Earth's rotation cannot be the cause of this experience.

I didn't mention my location when I conducted this experiment.   How do you know I wasn't at the South or North Pole?

Since I am assuming you live somewhere in the middle of the northern hemisphere,

This is the problem with assumptions when conducting scientific experiments.

1. I went on a jaunt recently to the south pole in my private jet to conduct the experiment.  Us millionaires do such things on a whim.

2. I infact live in the middle of the SOUTHERN hemisphere, in the great continent and southern island of Australia.

   

Round earthers fought me. Not proof of conspiracy but certainly not not Proof.

Quote from: Lord Xenu on October 21, 2011, 08:34:19 AM

Since I am assuming you live somewhere in the middle of the northern hemisphere,

This is the problem with assumptions when conducting scientific experiments.

1. I went on a jaunt recently to the south pole in my private jet to conduct the experiment.  Us millionaires do such things on a whim.

2. I infact live in the middle of the SOUTHERN hemisphere, in the great continent and southern island of Australia.

 

It makes no difference. If you were not at the North Pole or the South Pole, your experiment proves nothing.

Wher's the science?

Here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/404

I found a little survey in a door that asked whats your GPA and How often do you play video games, which exemplifies sciences assumptions negative effect compared to Zetecism 

Here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/404

Your link isn't working (like FET).

Quote from: Conker on November 05, 2011, 05:58:53 AM

Here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/404

Your link isn't working (like FET).

It worked fine for me. 

Quote from: Conker on November 05, 2011, 05:58:53 AM

Here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/404

Your link isn't working (like FET).

Maybe this one will work better for you:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_404

OP:

I'm curious: how do you know that what you are feeling is the earth moving up towards you, rather than you falling down towards the earth?  What would be different if the other case were true?

This seems like it might be good evidence, but I'm not entirely converted yet, so I want to be sure.

OP:

I'm curious: how do you know that what you are feeling is the earth moving up towards you, rather than you falling down towards the earth?  What would be different if the other case were true?

This seems like it might be good evidence, but I'm not entirely converted yet, so I want to be sure.

It would be a pull rather than a push. Unless that was a rhetorical question.