Thoughts on "A Hundred Proofs the Earth is not a Globe"

  • 14 Replies
  • 3165 Views
?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Thoughts on "A Hundred Proofs the Earth is not a Globe"
« on: May 18, 2013, 04:53:05 AM »
This publication was brought back to my attention recently, so I thought I'd express my opinion on it, starting with the first 25 "proofs".

1- I've flown, and this does not accurately describe my observations.
2- What experiments? Did they account for environmental variables?
3- Surveyors methods are such that curvature does not need to be accounted for in railways and canals.
4- A misconception. The Nile may only fall a foot in 1000 miles, but that is relative to sea level, not to a straight line.
5- Anecdotal. Is it the actual light being seen directly, or the beam it casts? I've seen the beam from lighthouses without seeing the lighthouse itself.
6- Failure to recognise a spherical phenomenon: gaining altitude allows one to see greater distances. This is actually evidence for a round earth.
7- There is not enough information in this anecdote to draw a conclusion from.
8- No, a model globe would be useless for navigation, as it would not be detailed enough, or convenient to use.
9- Navigational charts are not to scale at their edges, because the earth is not flat. If it were, flat charts would be to scale everywhere on the chart.
10- Nonsense. This shows a total lack of understanding of magnetic field lines and compasses.
11- See 10.
12- Again, a lack of understanding of the spherical world.
13- More misunderstandings.
14- More anecdotes and misunderstandings.
15- Ever heard of this thing called 'gravity'? It's what keeps us on the planet.
16- Found by what navigators? I never heard of anyone going twice as far at 45 degrees South as they did at 45 degrees North.
17- Theological proof? That's shaky! I could just as easily say that our Creator made the earth round with gravity to hold us on it's surface so that we would never fall off any edges.
18- Senses are not much use without reason, and reason tells us, ultimately, that we live on a globe.
19- This could do with being worded more clearly.
20- 'Up' is away from earth, and 'down' is toward it. Simple.
21- See 15.
22- Contradicting a more reputable source. Never say 'it can't be done' to the man doing it.
23- Not sure what the author is getting at here, but proof of a globular earth is all around us.
24- See 16.
25- More misconceptions, and no evidence or references to back them up.

Sorry if that's a bit of tough reading, you'll need to reference the publication itself to get those comments in context. I'm sure there'll be some discussion on this one!
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."

?

Puttah

  • 1860
Re: Thoughts on "A Hundred Proofs the Earth is not a Globe"
« Reply #1 on: May 18, 2013, 08:30:42 AM »
Can anyone shed any light on this reasoning?

5. The lights which are exhibited in lighthouses are seen by navigators at distances at which, according to the scale of the supposed "curvature" given by astronomers, they ought to be many hundreds of feet, in some cases, down below the line of sight! For instance: the light at Cape Hatteras is seen at such a distance (40 miles) that, according. to theory, it ought to be nine-hundred feet higher above the level of the sea than it absolutely is, in order to be visible! This is a conclusive proof that there is no "curvature," on the surface of the sea - "the level of the sea,"- ridiculous though it is to be under the necessity of proving it at all: but it is, nevertheless, a conclusive proof that the Earth is not a globe.

You seem to be pretty picky when it comes to RE evidence (and by picky I mean you shut everything down, either by making up your own theory to try and explain it, or ignoring the evidence entirely), but when FE evidence comes along, it's suddenly conclusive proof that the Earth is not a globe?

I had to do some research on this. The lighthouse is 57m tall while the base is 7m above sea level, so that's 64m high. The ships that were seeing this light? Well, I can only speculate, but would it be unreasonable to take a 20m high crow's nest?

Doing the maths on these figures, you should be able to see the light peak just over the horizon from a distance of 27 miles. Now, this obviously falls short of the 40 mile distance, so to explain this, may I suggest mirages as a possible cause? I don't know how much of an effect this would cause, but it certainly could be a significant factor in being able to see the light from such a distance. If the air temperature is cooler near sea level than higher up, then this will create the right conditions for light to refract with the surface of the Earth, making it possible to see light from much further than the straight path of light the maths I did assumes.

Of course, this is just an idea I'm throwing out there. I'm not claiming that light refraction was definitely the cause.
Scepti, this idiocy needs to stop and it needs to stop right now. You are making a mockery of this fine forum with your poor trolling. You are a complete disgrace.

?

Puttah

  • 1860
Re: Thoughts on "A Hundred Proofs the Earth is not a Globe"
« Reply #2 on: May 18, 2013, 08:54:58 AM »
Fair enough.
I'm still trying to figure it all out and wanted to also know if the claim is a genuine claim, so on that note, I'm not just simply jumping on the flat earth bandwagon, as I don't agree with some of the theories, which isn't to say they are wrong, yet I can 100% say that a rotating globe is wrong, or even a stationary globe.

Why are you against a stationary globe? I thought you were against RET just because of the atmosphere rotating with the Earth, which I understand, but a geocentric model wouldn't have a rotating atmosphere, so what gives?

Now going by your answer, I'd say that you would be thinking this is feasible for the proof that the earth is not a globe, which means there is doubt cast in your mind.

No, not at all. I'm aware of light refraction and reflection, and the optical illusions it can create when passing through air, and this can certainly be a cause in this case. Also, this is just one piece of data. Data can often be unreliable, or an outlier, and as such I do not hang an entire theory based on the results of one piece of data. That is not how science is conducted.

Also considering there are still so many holes in FET, if I was to abandon RET because of this one testimony, I surely wouldn't be jumping on the FET bandwagon. I'd believe in an a heavily elliptical Earth before I'd believe in a flat Earth.
Scepti, this idiocy needs to stop and it needs to stop right now. You are making a mockery of this fine forum with your poor trolling. You are a complete disgrace.

?

darknavyseal

  • 439
  • Round Earth, for sure, maybe.
Re: Thoughts on "A Hundred Proofs the Earth is not a Globe"
« Reply #3 on: May 18, 2013, 12:34:46 PM »
The 100 proofs is a joke. Half of them are woefully out of date, and another good portion of them are ridiculously ignorant.

49 is a classic case that skeptimatic mimics. Out of touch physics, not understanding frames of reference, etc.

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: Thoughts on "A Hundred Proofs the Earth is not a Globe"
« Reply #4 on: May 18, 2013, 12:59:49 PM »
...I can 100% say that a rotating globe is wrong, or even a stationary globe.
...I'm saying it because it really makes no sense for most part.

Well scepti (and I'm not having a go at you by saying this, just sharing my opinion), the alternatives to a rotating globe make absolutely no sense to me. I just can't get the evidence to gel with the theory of a flat earth, it just doesn't work. That's not indoctrination talking, that's reason and logic.
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: Thoughts on "A Hundred Proofs the Earth is not a Globe"
« Reply #5 on: May 18, 2013, 02:01:58 PM »
Can anyone shed any light on this reasoning?

5. The lights which are exhibited in lighthouses are seen by navigators at distances at which, according to the scale of the supposed "curvature" given by astronomers, they ought to be many hundreds of feet, in some cases, down below the line of sight! For instance: the light at Cape Hatteras is seen at such a distance (40 miles) that, according. to theory, it ought to be nine-hundred feet higher above the level of the sea than it absolutely is, in order to be visible! This is a conclusive proof that there is no "curvature," on the surface of the sea - "the level of the sea,"- ridiculous though it is to be under the necessity of proving it at all: but it is, nevertheless, a conclusive proof that the Earth is not a globe.

I don't think that in this case they're referring to "the light at Cape Hatteras" as the actual top of the lighthouse and the source of light. Rather, they mean they can see the light coming from the lighthouse being refracted in the sky and reflected by clouds. The top of the lighthouse could still be below the horizon. Think about how you can see the rays of searchlights filling the sky, without actually having to see the lamp itself.

Quote
Can anyone shed any light on this reasoning?

10.- That the mariners' compass points north and south at the same time is a fact as indisputable as that two and two makes four; but that this would be impossible if the thing, were placed on a globe with "north" and "south' at the centre of opposite hemispheres is a fact that does not figure in the school-books, though very easily seen: and it requires no lengthy train of reasoning to bring out of it a pointed proof that the Earth is not a globe.

The compass doesn't point towards geographic north and south, it points in the direction of the magnetic field lines, which don't follow a direct straight line to the poles.

Also, the compass points the way it does because it can't point in any direction, just in the 2D plane it is allowed to rotate in. If you pull a cart by a rope, even if you pull it at an upward angle, it won't go up, it will just roll on the ground in the direction you pull.

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: Thoughts on "A Hundred Proofs the Earth is not a Globe"
« Reply #6 on: May 18, 2013, 04:47:38 PM »
Also, the compass points the way it does because it can't point in any direction, just in the 2D plane it is allowed to rotate in.

Actually, handy bit of info not everyone would know: compasses do dip as you get closer to one pole than the other. It's something that pilots are aware of, although it only effects you when you are executing a turn. It means that, during the turn, depending on where you are, and which way you are turning, your compass will either overshoot or undershoot the actual heading.


If you actually pass very close to a magnetic pole, a magnetic compass will dip dramatically!
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: Thoughts on "A Hundred Proofs the Earth is not a Globe"
« Reply #7 on: May 19, 2013, 12:43:25 AM »
Also, the compass points the way it does because it can't point in any direction, just in the 2D plane it is allowed to rotate in.

Actually, handy bit of info not everyone would know: compasses do dip as you get closer to one pole than the other. It's something that pilots are aware of, although it only effects you when you are executing a turn. It means that, during the turn, depending on where you are, and which way you are turning, your compass will either overshoot or undershoot the actual heading.


If you actually pass very close to a magnetic pole, a magnetic compass will dip dramatically!

Yes, this is true. I believe it's because the magnetic field lines are nearly parallel to the surface at the equator, but inclined at an angle when closer to the poles. They're completely vertical at the poles. But not any compass can dip to follow the lines; most have free bearings that allow it.

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: Thoughts on "A Hundred Proofs the Earth is not a Globe"
« Reply #8 on: May 19, 2013, 12:55:01 AM »
Also, the compass points the way it does because it can't point in any direction, just in the 2D plane it is allowed to rotate in.

Actually, handy bit of info not everyone would know: compasses do dip as you get closer to one pole than the other. It's something that pilots are aware of, although it only effects you when you are executing a turn. It means that, during the turn, depending on where you are, and which way you are turning, your compass will either overshoot or undershoot the actual heading.


If you actually pass very close to a magnetic pole, a magnetic compass will dip dramatically!

Yes, this is true. I believe it's because the magnetic field lines are nearly parallel to the surface at the equator, but inclined at an angle when closer to the poles. They're completely vertical at the poles. But not any compass can dip to follow the lines; most have free bearings that allow it.

Absolutely correct. A compass with restricted movement will bind up near the poles. Also, it should be stressed that the magnetic poles are separate and distinct from the geographic poles, a situation which makes FET more difficult to explain, but not RER (Round Earth Reality :) )
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: Thoughts on "A Hundred Proofs the Earth is not a Globe"
« Reply #9 on: May 19, 2013, 02:11:17 AM »
Absolutely correct. A compass with restricted movement will bind up near the poles. Also, it should be stressed that the magnetic poles are separate and distinct from the geographic poles, a situation which makes FET more difficult to explain, but not RER (Round Earth Reality :) )

Speaking of which, I don't even know the FET explanation for Earth's magnetic field. I just read in the FAQ that a compass works because of the magnetic field (duh) like in reality, but I haven't seen any ideas about how the flat earth has a magnetic field, and why its north is the center.

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5130
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Thoughts on "A Hundred Proofs the Earth is not a Globe"
« Reply #10 on: May 19, 2013, 08:11:05 AM »
Absolutely correct. A compass with restricted movement will bind up near the poles. Also, it should be stressed that the magnetic poles are separate and distinct from the geographic poles, a situation which makes FET more difficult to explain, but not RER (Round Earth Reality :) )

Speaking of which, I don't even know the FET explanation for Earth's magnetic field. I just read in the FAQ that a compass works because of the magnetic field (duh) like in reality, but I haven't seen any ideas about how the flat earth has a magnetic field, and why its north is the center.

There are a few different theories out there.  I believe I remember one of which involves a rotating disk underneath the surface of the Earth and set to rotate by the same UA that causes the acceleration of FE.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

Re: Thoughts on "A Hundred Proofs the Earth is not a Globe"
« Reply #11 on: May 19, 2013, 08:17:42 AM »
Absolutely correct. A compass with restricted movement will bind up near the poles. Also, it should be stressed that the magnetic poles are separate and distinct from the geographic poles, a situation which makes FET more difficult to explain, but not RER (Round Earth Reality :) )

Speaking of which, I don't even know the FET explanation for Earth's magnetic field. I just read in the FAQ that a compass works because of the magnetic field (duh) like in reality, but I haven't seen any ideas about how the flat earth has a magnetic field, and why its north is the center.

There are a few different theories out there.  I believe I remember one of which involves a rotating disk underneath the surface of the Earth and set to rotate by the same UA that causes the acceleration of FE.

The theory just gets weirder and weirder...so for one disc the UA and the dark energy causes a rotating force, for the other disc it causes an upward force...I see  ??? :-X
And how exactly does this rotating disc cause magnetic fields...is it some kind of giant coper coil  :o :-X
Hello!

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5130
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Thoughts on "A Hundred Proofs the Earth is not a Globe"
« Reply #12 on: May 19, 2013, 08:20:30 AM »
Absolutely correct. A compass with restricted movement will bind up near the poles. Also, it should be stressed that the magnetic poles are separate and distinct from the geographic poles, a situation which makes FET more difficult to explain, but not RER (Round Earth Reality :) )

Speaking of which, I don't even know the FET explanation for Earth's magnetic field. I just read in the FAQ that a compass works because of the magnetic field (duh) like in reality, but I haven't seen any ideas about how the flat earth has a magnetic field, and why its north is the center.

There are a few different theories out there.  I believe I remember one of which involves a rotating disk underneath the surface of the Earth and set to rotate by the same UA that causes the acceleration of FE.

The theory just gets weirder and weirder...so for one disc the UA and the dark energy causes a rotating force, for the other disc it causes an upward force...I see  ??? :-X
And how exactly does this rotating disc cause magnetic fields...is it some kind of giant coper coil  :o :-X

I honestly don't remember if that was ever explained.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

Re: Thoughts on "A Hundred Proofs the Earth is not a Globe"
« Reply #13 on: May 19, 2013, 08:42:11 AM »
I guess we have to imagine there's a giant fan connected to a huge generator on the underside of earth, being operated by UA so it produces a magnetic field. Hey, if I was the creator and FET was the only thing I had to build upon, this is how I'd do it...

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6753
Re: Thoughts on "A Hundred Proofs the Earth is not a Globe"
« Reply #14 on: May 20, 2013, 07:36:37 PM »
The hundred proofs is an interesting read but I feel that it gets a bit repetitive. In my opinion the author had to stretch mighty far to take the list to one hundred. However, that's not to say that there are many points on the list that make you think and many more that are unanswerable with anything but, "that's false because I was told it was."