What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?

  • 72 Replies
  • 12096 Views
Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
« Reply #30 on: March 22, 2013, 09:27:02 AM »
We read that the Babylonians were good at predicting celestial events:

http://www.livius.org/k/kidinnu/kidinnu.htm

    "The Babylonian temple astronomers, who were in fact called  tupšar Enûma Anu Enlil, had been observing the skies for centuries and had recorded their observations in Astronomical diaries, astronomical almanacs, catalogues of stars and other texts. We possess observations of Venus written down under king Ammisaduqa (1646-1626 according to the Middle Chronology), detailed stellar catalogues from the eighth century -our Zodiac was invented in Babylon-, and astronomical diaries from the seventh century until the first century BCE.

    Because there were many data available to Babylonian astronomers, their results could be pretty accurate. An example is the length of the synodic month, i.e., the period between two full moons, which they were able to establish with an error of only a couple of minutes. The same can be said for the length of the year.

    Using these data, Babylonian astronomers were able to predict lunar eclipses and - later - solar eclipses with a fair accuracy. Their tool was the Saros-cycle: this is the period of 223 synodic months (or 18 years and 11.3 days) after which lunar and solar eclipses repeat themselves. E.g., when you know that there has been a solar eclipse on 18 May 603 BCE at dawn, you can be confident that there is an almost similar eclipse on 28 May 585 at sunset."

And what's this, it seems that the "modern" method NASA is using to predict the eclipse is borrowed from Ancient Babylonia!  :o

http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsaros/SEsaros.html

    "The periodicity and recurrence of eclipses is governed by the Saros cycle, a period of approximately 6,585.3 days (18 years 11 days 8 hours). It was known to the Chaldeans as a period when lunar eclipses seem to repeat themselves, but the cycle is applicable to solar eclipses as well."

No one disputes that the Babylonians were able to predict the timing of eclipses in their region.  This is yet another pathetic straw man argument.  Contemporary astronomers do not claim that predicting the timing of eclipses indicates the shape of the Earth or the arrangement of our solar system.  And, predicting eclipses does not represent the limit of its predictive power.

As you yourself agreed in this thread, diligent amateurs can calculate the future positions of the planets with a very high degree of accuracy for years and years into the future, from any position on Earth, with a margin of error that is significantly smaller than the angular diameter of a full moon.

Once again, here is a summary of the steps taken to calculate the future positions of a given planet: http://www.stargazing.net/kepler/ellipse.html#twig02a
Quote
The sections below deal with calculating the RA and DEC of a planet from the osculating elements. As an example, I shall find the position of Mars at 0h UT on the 21st of June 1997. The main steps in the calculation are;

Finding the position of the planet in its orbit
Find the number of days since the date of the elements
Find the mean anomaly from the Mean Longitude and the daily motion
Find the true anomaly using the Equation of Centre
Find the radius vector of the planet
Refer that position to the Ecliptic - hence find the heliocentric ecliptic coordinates of the planet
Repeat most of above to find the heliocentric coordinates of the Earth
Transform the heliocentric coordinates to geocentric coordinates by a change of origin
Transform the geocentric ecliptic coordinates to geocentric equatorial coordinates by a rotation about the X axis
Calculate the RA and DEC and Earth - planet distance from the rectangular coordinates

Also, the people on your websites are specifically framing their claims, not to learn the truth of the matter, but because they want to "debunk" Apollo Hoax claims --

Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
« Reply #31 on: March 22, 2013, 11:22:30 AM »
Sorry. Thought you wanted to know something.

he did, martian.

he wants to be able see whether you just made all that up.

so do i. it's very interesting.
true wisdom is always concise

?

Homesick Martian

  • 419
  • Hardcore Zetetic Terrorist
Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
« Reply #32 on: March 22, 2013, 01:03:54 PM »
Sorry. Thought you wanted to know something.

he did, martian.

he wants to be able see whether you just made all that up.
so do i. it's very interesting.

You can find most of this information in the wikipedia articles about bab. astronomy and astrology. Both are quite good as far as I can judge. Sure there's more on the web, but I don't know, I'm a caveman (=rather go to the library).
« Last Edit: March 22, 2013, 01:08:53 PM by Homesick Martian »

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
« Reply #33 on: March 23, 2013, 02:36:45 AM »
I want to hear them all. What are the theories or facts that support a flat earth, and deny the possibility of a round earth? Anything that is backed up with either observable or calculated data, doesn't matter to me. Just as long as there's something to support it. Instead of info that 'disproves' the flat earth, what are the facts that disproves the round earth?

We can skip over the 'disappear over the horizon' and 'the horizon looks flat'. Those have become akin to beating a poor dead horse. Something new, that I haven't heard of yet.

Just thought a refresher on the OP might be in order.

So far, there have been no unique proofs put forward to support FET (surprise, surprise), just a bunch of theories that agree with some observed phenomena, but not all, and have no evidence to back them up.

On the other hand, there are a number of proofs available of RET, many of which can be reproduced by anyone with the patience and intelligence to do so.

A short list of easy proofs (some of which require traveling, so ease could be argued):
- observing the path of celestial bodies, either at a single latitude, or multiple latitudes
- measuring the angle of the sun at midday at various latitudes at a particular time of year
- observing both the North and South celestial poles (possible from an equatorial position)
- experiments akin to the Bedford Level experiments (being careful to take atmospheric refraction into account)
- observing the other planets of our solar system over time (requires patience and a telescope)
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36114
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
« Reply #34 on: March 23, 2013, 02:41:52 AM »
- observing the path of celestial bodies, either at a single latitude, or multiple latitudes

This is not a proof, it is a description of an activity. Be more specific.

- measuring the angle of the sun at midday at various latitudes at a particular time of year

The Sun does not possess an angle, it is a spheroid.

- observing both the North and South celestial poles (possible from an equatorial position)

This is not a proof, it is a description of an activity. Be more specific.

- experiments akin to the Bedford Level experiments (being careful to take atmospheric refraction into account)

This is not a proof, it is a description of a broad class of activities. Be more specific.

- observing the other planets of our solar system over time (requires patience and a telescope)

This is not a proof, it is a description of an activity. Moreover, it is a more specific instance of your first "proof" and therefore redundant.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
« Reply #35 on: March 23, 2013, 03:12:55 AM »
Very well.

A short list of activities one could conduct to gather data which could then be used to establish the shape of the earth:
- observing the path of celestial bodies over the course of individual nights, either at a single latitude, or multiple latitudes
- measuring the angle of elevation of the sun at midday at various latitudes at a particular time of year
- observing both the North and South celestial poles (possible from an equatorial position, and only possible on a round earth)
- experiments akin to the Bedford Level experiments (being careful to take atmospheric refraction into account)
- observing the other planets of our solar system over several months/years (requires patience and a telescope)

The data collected from three of the first four activities (with the exception of the celestial poles observation) could be used to directly calculate the shape of the earth, and would be equally useful for a round or flat earth. The final activity is simply of interest in establishing the motions of other planets (and their moons, which I neglected to mention before), which demonstrate the effects of gravity. Or, if you prefer, the celestial gears (a rather more elaborate and less elegant concept than gravity, imho).

I do believe that most people would have had the intelligence to understand what I meant in my previous post. However, since some seem to require clarification, I hope this has cleared things up sufficiently.
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36114
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
« Reply #36 on: March 23, 2013, 04:15:58 AM »
A short list of activities

Irrelevant. This thread is about proofs.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
« Reply #37 on: March 23, 2013, 05:11:18 AM »
This thread is about proofs.

*sigh*

Ok, here we go:

When observed from different latitudes, the paths of celestial bodies over the course of any given night are consistent with a spherical earth.
The angles at which rays of sunlight hit the ground at various latitudes are consistent with a spherical earth.
It is possible to observe both a North and a South celestial pole, which is consistent with a spherical earth.
Observations made of objects at increasing distances over a level surface, such as a slow flowing river, a still lake, or a salt lake, in the absence of atmospheric refraction, show these objects to be increasingly obscured by the horizon as distance increases. This effect is consistent with a round earth.
The observable orbits of other planets in our solar system, and of the moons of those planets, demonstrate the effects of gravity, a phenomena not yet fully understood, but which allows us to stand anywhere on the surface of a spherical earth without falling off.
Additionally, it is possible to circumnavigate Antarctica by traveling West along the 60 degrees South line of latitude, whilst executing a continuous left turn (or by traveling East on the same line, executing a continuous right turn).
In light of all these observations which can be made by anyone with the patience and intelligence required, it is highly likely that our earth is, at least approximately, spherical.

So, where are your proofs? That is what the OP was asking for, proofs for FET. So far I haven't seen any.
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12169
  • google
Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
« Reply #38 on: March 23, 2013, 05:24:57 AM »
When observed from different latitudes, the paths of celestial bodies over the course of any given night are consistent with a spherical earth.
They are also consistent with Henry the Magical Unicorn moving them around so that they look exactly how they look.

The angles at which rays of sunlight hit the ground at various latitudes are consistent with a spherical earth.
They are also consistent with Henry's wife - Henrietta - moving the Sun so that it appears exactly like it appears.

It is possible to observe both a North and a South celestial pole, which is consistent with a spherical earth.
This is also consistent with Henry's son - Hendrik - having created the North and South pole.

Observations made of objects at increasing distances over a level surface, such as a slow flowing river, a still lake, or a salt lake, in the absence of atmospheric refraction, show these objects to be increasingly obscured by the horizon as distance increases. This effect is consistent with a round earth. [...]
I'm sure this is also somehow consistent with magical unicorns, but I think you get the idea by now. The fact that observation X is consistent with assumption Y does not mean that X proves Y. You have to understand that logical implication is one-way only. Just because Y implies X does not mean that X implies (or proves) Y.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2013, 05:28:53 AM by PizzaPlanet »
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
« Reply #39 on: March 23, 2013, 06:09:22 AM »
The fact that observation X is consistent with assumption Y does not mean that X proves Y. You have to understand that logical implication is one-way only. Just because Y implies X does not mean that X implies (or proves) Y.

So how would you go about proving either a flat or round earth?

And, where are your proofs? That is what the OP was asking for, proofs for FET. So far I haven't seen any.

Yes, I am going to keep repeating that until I see something that even comes close to what I have presented, or until Lunia tells me to get off his/her thread! :)
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12169
  • google
Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
« Reply #40 on: March 23, 2013, 06:48:16 AM »
Yes, I am going to keep repeating that until I see something that even comes close to what I have presented, or until Lunia tells me to get off his/her thread! :)
I can see several other situations which could lead to you no longer repeating that.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
« Reply #41 on: March 23, 2013, 08:14:28 AM »
Yes, I am going to keep repeating that until I see something that even comes close to what I have presented, or until Lunia tells me to get off his/her thread! :)
I can see several other situations which could lead to you no longer repeating that.

Are you a seer?

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
« Reply #42 on: March 23, 2013, 02:41:27 PM »
Ah, the pattern recurs:

RE'er presents evidence of round earth
FE'er declares evidence useless
RE'er asks for any evidence of FE
FE'er derails topic

So nice to have consistency...

Still waiting to see any kind of proofs of FET.
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12169
  • google
Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
« Reply #43 on: March 23, 2013, 05:51:57 PM »
Are you a seer?
Sadly, no. However, given that there is an infinite amount of situations that match my prediction, it is safe to assume that it is a distinct possibility.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36114
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
« Reply #44 on: March 24, 2013, 04:15:01 AM »
When observed from different latitudes, the paths of celestial bodies over the course of any given night are consistent with a spherical earth.

When observed from different latitudes, the paths of celestial bodies over the course of any given night are consistent with a flat Earth.

The angles at which rays of sunlight hit the ground at various latitudes are consistent with a spherical earth.

The angles at which rays of sunlight hit the ground at various latitudes are consistent with a flat Earth.

It is possible to observe both a North and a South celestial pole, which is consistent with a spherical earth.

It is possible to observe both a north and a south celestial pole, which is consistent with a flat Earth.

Observations made of objects at increasing distances over a level surface, such as a slow flowing river, a still lake, or a salt lake, in the absence of atmospheric refraction, show these objects to be increasingly obscured by the horizon as distance increases. This effect is consistent with a round earth.

Observations made of objects at increasing distances over a level surface, such as a slow flowing river, a still lake, or a salt lake, in the absence of atmospheric refraction, show these objects to be increasingly obscured by the horizon as distance increases. This effect is consistent with a flat Earth.

The observable orbits of other planets in our solar system, and of the moons of those planets, demonstrate the effects of gravity, a phenomena not yet fully understood, but which allows us to stand anywhere on the surface of a spherical earth without falling off.

The observable behaviour of accelerating objects anywhere in the known Universe demonstrates the effects of inertia, a phenomenon which allows us to stand anywhere on the surface of an accelerating flat Earth without falling off.

Additionally, it is possible to circumnavigate Antarctica by traveling West along the 60 degrees South line of latitude, whilst executing a continuous left turn (or by traveling East on the same line, executing a continuous right turn).

Additionally, it is possible to circumnavigate Antarctica by travelling west along the 60 degrees south line of latitude, whilst executing a continuous right turn (or by traveling east on the same line, executing a continuous left turn).

In light of all these observations which can be made by anyone with the patience and intelligence required, it is highly likely that our earth is, at least approximately, spherical.

In light of all these observations which can be made by anyone with the patience and intelligence required, it is highly likely that our Earth is, at least approximately, flat.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
« Reply #45 on: March 24, 2013, 04:17:37 AM »
can we please have evidence of everything you just put in the please  Parsifal

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36114
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
« Reply #46 on: March 24, 2013, 04:21:23 AM »
can we please have evidence of everything you just put in the please  Parsifal

I have already provided as much evidence as Scintific Method has for his claims.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
« Reply #47 on: March 24, 2013, 04:23:52 AM »
why will no FEr provide an example of experimental evidence performed by FE to back up what they say? its quite revealing don't you say?

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
« Reply #48 on: March 24, 2013, 05:01:39 AM »
When observed from different latitudes, the paths of celestial bodies over the course of any given night are consistent with a spherical earth.

When observed from different latitudes, the paths of celestial bodies over the course of any given night are consistent with a flat Earth.

The paths of celestial bodies can easily be observed to curve more the further one is from the equator when they are observed, and to curve in opposite directions in the northern and southern hemispheres. For example, at latitude 30 degrees South, a star which passes directly overhead rises South of East, and sets South of West. At 30 degrees North, the rising and setting of a star that passes directly overhead is North of East and North of West respectively. This is not consistent with a flat earth. This is consistent with a round earth.

The angles at which rays of sunlight hit the ground at various latitudes are consistent with a spherical earth.

The angles at which rays of sunlight hit the ground at various latitudes are consistent with a flat Earth.

On either equinox, the sun's rays strike the ground as follows:
- at 40 degrees either North or South latitude; 50 degrees above horizontal
- at 30 degrees either North or South latitude; 60 degrees above horizontal
- at 20 degrees either North or South latitude; 70 degrees above horizontal
- at 10 degrees either north or South latitude; 80 degrees above horizontal
I think even an ape can see the pattern there. These results are not consistent with a flat earth. These results are consistent with a round earth.

It is possible to observe both a North and a South celestial pole, which is consistent with a spherical earth.

It is possible to observe both a north and a south celestial pole, which is consistent with a flat Earth.


How is this even remotely possible on a flat earth?

Observations made of objects at increasing distances over a level surface, such as a slow flowing river, a still lake, or a salt lake, in the absence of atmospheric refraction, show these objects to be increasingly obscured by the horizon as distance increases. This effect is consistent with a round earth.

Observations made of objects at increasing distances over a level surface, such as a slow flowing river, a still lake, or a salt lake, in the absence of atmospheric refraction, show these objects to be increasingly obscured by the horizon as distance increases. This effect is consistent with a flat Earth.


How is this even remotely possible on a flat earth?

The observable orbits of other planets in our solar system, and of the moons of those planets, demonstrate the effects of gravity, a phenomena not yet fully understood, but which allows us to stand anywhere on the surface of a spherical earth without falling off.

The observable behaviour of accelerating objects anywhere in the known Universe demonstrates the effects of inertia, a phenomenon which allows us to stand anywhere on the surface of an accelerating flat Earth without falling off.


The planets in our solar system follow measurable orbits. Their moons follow measurable orbits around them. Orbits are not evidence of inertia, they are evidence of gravity. Inertia is the tendency of an object to resist a change of it's motion. Gravity is an attractive force between two objects with mass. If planets or moons were subject only to inertia, they would fly off in a straight line away from their companion planet.

Additionally, it is possible to circumnavigate Antarctica by traveling West along the 60 degrees South line of latitude, whilst executing a continuous left turn (or by traveling East on the same line, executing a continuous right turn).

Additionally, it is possible to circumnavigate Antarctica by travelling west along the 60 degrees south line of latitude, whilst executing a continuous right turn (or by traveling east on the same line, executing a continuous left turn).


Admittedly, I have not circumnavigated Antarctica, but I am confident that, if you bothered to ask someone who had or, better yet, tried it yourself, you would find that you turn left when traveling west. If you tried turning right, you would quickly find yourself going North, not West.

In light of all these observations which can be made by anyone with the patience and intelligence required, it is highly likely that our earth is, at least approximately, spherical.

In light of all these observations which can be made by anyone with the patience and intelligence required, it is highly likely that our Earth is, at least approximately, flat.

In light of the further evidence provided, all of which can be obtained by anyone with the patience and intelligence to go out there and get it themselves, I rest my case. The earth is round.

And again, I am still waiting to see anything more substantial than "it looks flat" from the flat earth theorists.
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36114
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
« Reply #49 on: March 24, 2013, 07:36:22 AM »
The paths of celestial bodies can easily be observed to curve more the further one is from the equator when they are observed, and to curve in opposite directions in the northern and southern hemispheres. For example, at latitude 30 degrees South, a star which passes directly overhead rises South of East, and sets South of West. At 30 degrees North, the rising and setting of a star that passes directly overhead is North of East and North of West respectively. This is not consistent with a flat earth. This is consistent with a round earth.

Incorrect. The behaviour you have described is consistent with both models.

On either equinox, the sun's rays strike the ground as follows:
- at 40 degrees either North or South latitude; 50 degrees above horizontal
- at 30 degrees either North or South latitude; 60 degrees above horizontal
- at 20 degrees either North or South latitude; 70 degrees above horizontal
- at 10 degrees either north or South latitude; 80 degrees above horizontal
I think even an ape can see the pattern there. These results are not consistent with a flat earth. These results are consistent with a round earth.

"Results" of what? How did you produce these figures?

It is possible to observe both a north and a south celestial pole, which is consistent with a flat Earth.

How is this even remotely possible on a flat earth?

In much the same way that it is possible on a round Earth.

Observations made of objects at increasing distances over a level surface, such as a slow flowing river, a still lake, or a salt lake, in the absence of atmospheric refraction, show these objects to be increasingly obscured by the horizon as distance increases. This effect is consistent with a flat Earth.

How is this even remotely possible on a flat earth?

It is consistent with a flat Earth with bendy light.

The planets in our solar system follow measurable orbits. Their moons follow measurable orbits around them. Orbits are not evidence of inertia, they are evidence of gravity. Inertia is the tendency of an object to resist a change of it's motion. Gravity is an attractive force between two objects with mass. If planets or moons were subject only to inertia, they would fly off in a straight line away from their companion planet.

Irrelevant.

Admittedly, I have not circumnavigated Antarctica, but I am confident that, if you bothered to ask someone who had or, better yet, tried it yourself, you would find that you turn left when traveling west. If you tried turning right, you would quickly find yourself going North, not West.

Why are you confident of that?

In light of the further evidence provided, all of which can be obtained by anyone with the patience and intelligence to go out there and get it themselves, I rest my case. The earth is round.

I would try to argue that your case is not nearly ready to be put at rest, but unfortunately you have not yet made a valid case.

And again, I am still waiting to see anything more substantial than "it looks flat" from the flat earth theorists.

I am still waiting to see anything more substantial than "I have been told it is round" from the round Earth theorists.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
« Reply #50 on: March 24, 2013, 08:15:19 AM »
Parsifal-How can you invoke the hypothesis, not theory, those have experimental evidence, when the equations involve an undefined constant and therefore cannot possess predictive power?  Is there an undisclosed part of the Bendy Light hypothesis you are not sharing?
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

?

Homesick Martian

  • 419
  • Hardcore Zetetic Terrorist
Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
« Reply #51 on: March 24, 2013, 10:59:52 AM »
Parsifal-How can you invoke the hypothesis, not theory, those have experimental evidence, when the equations involve an undefined constant and therefore cannot possess predictive power?  Is there an undisclosed part of the Bendy Light hypothesis you are not sharing?

There isn't.

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
« Reply #52 on: March 30, 2013, 03:52:14 PM »
Looks like we'll all be waiting quite some time to see those FET proofs. Why am I not surprised?
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
« Reply #53 on: April 12, 2013, 05:31:23 PM »
I wasn't going to respond to Parsifail, but I'm bored, and this thread is fading into obscurity without any answers having been offered, so here goes! (sorry for the lengthy post, but I thought everything should be kept in context)

The paths of celestial bodies can easily be observed to curve more the further one is from the equator when they are observed, and to curve in opposite directions in the northern and southern hemispheres. For example, at latitude 30 degrees South, a star which passes directly overhead rises South of East, and sets South of West. At 30 degrees North, the rising and setting of a star that passes directly overhead is North of East and North of West respectively. This is not consistent with a flat earth. This is consistent with a round earth.

Incorrect. The behaviour you have described is consistent with both models.

Nope, for a Flat Earth model, the paths of celestial bodies would always curve one way, rising and setting North of East and West respectively.

On either equinox, the sun's rays strike the ground as follows:
- at 40 degrees either North or South latitude; 50 degrees above horizontal
- at 30 degrees either North or South latitude; 60 degrees above horizontal
- at 20 degrees either North or South latitude; 70 degrees above horizontal
- at 10 degrees either north or South latitude; 80 degrees above horizontal
I think even an ape can see the pattern there. These results are not consistent with a flat earth. These results are consistent with a round earth.

"Results" of what? How did you produce these figures?


Okay, most of those figures are not personally verified by me, but I did personally verify for 30 degrees, and ANYONE can verify for whatever latitude they live at. This is a really easy test, because anyone can predict the angle the sun will be at for their latitude, and go measure it themselves. It has also been used for nautical navigation for several hundred years.

It is possible to observe both a north and a south celestial pole, which is consistent with a flat Earth.

How is this even remotely possible on a flat earth?

In much the same way that it is possible on a round Earth.


What?! There would only be one observable celestial pole on a flat earth: the North celestial pole. You would have to be able to go to the edge and look down to be able to see the South celestial pole.

Observations made of objects at increasing distances over a level surface, such as a slow flowing river, a still lake, or a salt lake, in the absence of atmospheric refraction, show these objects to be increasingly obscured by the horizon as distance increases. This effect is consistent with a flat Earth.

How is this even remotely possible on a flat earth?

It is consistent with a flat Earth with bendy light.


Bendy light has been pretty thoroughly debunked, so no, this is not consistent with a flat earth.

The planets in our solar system follow measurable orbits. Their moons follow measurable orbits around them. Orbits are not evidence of inertia, they are evidence of gravity. Inertia is the tendency of an object to resist a change of it's motion. Gravity is an attractive force between two objects with mass. If planets or moons were subject only to inertia, they would fly off in a straight line away from their companion planet.

Irrelevant.


Wrong. Highly relevant. Gravity renders the UA unnecessary, and makes it highly unlikely that the earth would be able to retain a planar shape. It also explains how the earth can orbit the sun, and how the moon can orbit the earth.

Admittedly, I have not circumnavigated Antarctica, but I am confident that, if you bothered to ask someone who had or, better yet, tried it yourself, you would find that you turn left when traveling west. If you tried turning right, you would quickly find yourself going North, not West.

Why are you confident of that?


Because I trust the maps that have been tried and proven to be accurate for aeronautical and nautical navigation.

In light of the further evidence provided, all of which can be obtained by anyone with the patience and intelligence to go out there and get it themselves, I rest my case. The earth is round.

I would try to argue that your case is not nearly ready to be put at rest, but unfortunately you have not yet made a valid case.


And what constitutes a valid case? I have provided a number of arguments in favour of a round earth, evidence for which can be gathered by anyone with a basic understanding of geometry. More than I can say for the FES, which so far has provided only vague, unsubstantiated hypothesis based on the notion that the earth must be flat because "it looks flat".

I am still waiting to see anything more substantial than "I have been told it is round" from the round Earth theorists.

I think that the observations I have provided, most of which can be verified by anyone with some basic equipment, constitute something more substantial.
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
« Reply #54 on: April 17, 2013, 11:39:00 PM »
And still we wait...

Just for fun, I'll go through a few flat earth hypotheses (not theories, and certainly not proofs):

- Bendy Light. Implausible. The formula is unworkable, the constant is unknown, and it does not even come close to accounting for the difference between the flat earth path of the sun, and the apparent path of the sun.

- Universal Accelerator. Implausible. What's wrong with gravity? It makes a lot more sense than a system that requires the exponential increase of energy that it would take to continue accelerating the earth. Gravity also explains a host of other observable phenomena, UA only explains one, and even then not very well (measurable variations in gravitational effect in different areas on the earths surface sort of preclude UA).

- Aetheric Wind. Implausible. See above, and add turbulence, which would increase the likelihood of celestial objects actually being blown into the surface of the earth.

I think that'll do for now.

C'mon FE'ers, there's plenty of (really easy) ways to show that the earth is round, how are you going to show us that it's flat?
« Last Edit: April 23, 2013, 08:24:25 PM by Scintific Method »
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
« Reply #55 on: April 26, 2013, 01:42:29 AM »
Wow, still nothing!

At the risk of being labeled a pain in the a***, I'll have a shot at a couple more popular flat earth 'experiments'.

Bedford Level - First performed by Rowbotham in 1838. He waded into the water and used a telescope held 8" above the water to observe a boat with a 5' mast row away from him. Allegedly observing the vessel to remain in sight for the entire 6 miles to Welney bridge, he declared the earth to be flat, not realising (or deliberately ignoring) the fact that light refracts near the surface of water in such a way as to follow the curvature of the earth.

This experiment was later repeated by Wallace, using elevated measuring points, and successfully showed the curvature of the earth. No need to go into detail on that here, there are more than enough threads on the subject! This thread being a complete account from Wallace's biography.

Eratosthenes - measured the circumference of the earth to within 2% of it's currently accepted value some 2200 years ago. Flat earth proponents claim that, had he assumed a flat earth, he would in fact have calculated the distance to the sun (either that, or they claim he was drunk/demented/otherwise defective in his reasoning). Had he done this, he would have achieved a result somewhere around 4,500 miles.

However, simply by adding a third point of measurement somewhere in between the initial two (or further North or South of either of them), the distance measurement becomes inconsistent, but the circumference measurement remains the same. Anyone can confirm this with either a little travel, or by calling on some friends who live at different latitudes to assist.

Okay, that's enough from me, it's about time we heard from a FE'er in this thread! Come on guys!
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
« Reply #56 on: May 03, 2013, 12:09:59 AM »
It's coming up on the weekend again, and still nothing from the FE side of the fence. What's wrong? Don't you have anything to submit? Oh well, here's a couple of other threads that might be of interest:

relative travel times in hemispheres

What is the Earth's circumference at different latitudes?

Enjoy!
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
« Reply #57 on: May 06, 2013, 03:56:33 PM »
There is proof for a round earth, you just don't accept it.
There is no "proof" at all. There is a theory just as there is a theory about the earth being flat but no definitive proof of either and it comes down to using one's own logic and common sense, which, going by that, should end up with the earth being flat.

There are thousands, thousands of pictures and videos...how is that not proof to you? Send a weather balloon up, like many amateurs did. You will see it with your own equipment, yet you stay here behind your computer ranting the earth is flat and that there is no evidence. Time to get out of your cave and come with proof.
Hello!

Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
« Reply #58 on: May 06, 2013, 04:05:22 PM »

Seriously. And they call RET magic and illogical? Really?
Ditto, though, as the rotating globe required, (in my opinion) a whole lot of magic to work.

The 'magic' is the mass of the globe. Space is like a fabric, although it is not a real fabric the same principle works. Lay down on your bed. Put a marble next to you. Where does the marble go? It will move towards you. You have lots of mass, the mass of the marble is very tiny, so it moves towards you. You bent your matress and form a slope.

Now in space the same principle applies. The mass forms a slope. Objects with lower mass are pulled towards the objects with high mass. Hence we orbit the sun, because it has a huge mass.

Put two marbles on your bed and nothing will happen, move them closer to each other and see them move towards eachother. Use some heavy marbles though, because your mattress is pretty stiff.

Now why don't we move towards the sun is because of our speed. We have an orbital speed, which allows us to stay in our track around the sun. The same thing as a roulette table. The ball is located on a slope, but due to the high speed it maintains its path and spins around. It slows down due to friction with the table and the air, slowly going towards the middle. The same would happen to the earth if you were able to stop it from moving around. In space there is no friction and all the planets are nicely lined up so they do not affect each other's path. This was different about 4.5 billion years ago when our solar system was formed. It just all settled in the many, many years that were to come.

« Last Edit: May 06, 2013, 06:41:58 PM by Lolflatdisc »
Hello!

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: What are the 'unique' proofs that the earth isn't round?
« Reply #59 on: May 07, 2013, 05:17:43 AM »

Seriously. And they call RET magic and illogical? Really?
Ditto, though, as the rotating globe required, (in my opinion) a whole lot of magic to work.

The 'magic' is the mass of the globe. Space is like a fabric, although it is not a real fabric the same principle works. Lay down on your bed. Put a marble next to you. Where does the marble go? It will move towards you. You have lots of mass, the mass of the marble is very tiny, so it moves towards you. You bent your matress and form a slope.

Now in space the same principle applies. The mass forms a slope. Objects with lower mass are pulled towards the objects with high mass. Hence we orbit the sun, because it has a huge mass.

Put two marbles on your bed and nothing will happen, move them closer to each other and see them move towards eachother. Use some heavy marbles though, because your mattress is pretty stiff.

Now why don't we move towards the sun is because of our speed. We have an orbital speed, which allows us to stay in our track around the sun. The same thing as a roulette table. The ball is located on a slope, but due to the high speed it maintains its path and spins around. It slows down due to friction with the table and the air, slowly going towards the middle. The same would happen to the earth if you were able to stop it from moving around. In space there is no friction and all the planets are nicely lined up so they do not affect each other's path. This was different about 4.5 billion years ago when our solar system was formed. It just all settled in the many, many years that were to come.

Really nice analogy. Get ready for the ridicule :)
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.