Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE

  • 76 Replies
  • 7754 Views
?

Jingle Jangle

  • 284
  • I breathe therefore I am
    When a theory is presented to me that deals with RE, I quickly deny its cogency.  The reason why is that there is no science in the scientific method.  The earth was really flat all along, but people want to introduce theories that support round earth globalism.  The Suez Canal, The Nile River, and the Bedford Canal experiment should have had curvature if you want people to believe.  They did not have curvature.  Heretofore, do not believe the epic lies of scientific establishment that add up falsely.  One after another there has been white lie after white lie with nothing to show for it except massive migraine headaches from all the RE data.  FE'ers are truly the only ones there for each other in times of crisis such as these.  Can you not see in our spirits that these experiments that we do are genuine and not petty squabbles...
     RE'ers make up blind discussions and present evidence which they have large volumes of, but they fail to defend against simple canals and rivers.  Why jump off into space into your minds without mastering the ponds and lakes?

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
    When a theory is presented to me that deals with RE, I quickly deny its cogency.  The reason why is that there is no science in the scientific method.  The earth was really flat all along, but people want to introduce theories that support round earth globalism.  The Suez Canal, The Nile River, and the Bedford Canal experiment should have had curvature if you want people to believe.  They did not have curvature.  Heretofore, do not believe the epic lies of scientific establishment that add up falsely.  One after another there has been white lie after white lie with nothing to show for it except massive migraine headaches from all the RE data.  FE'ers are truly the only ones there for each other in times of crisis such as these.  Can you not see in our spirits that these experiments that we do are genuine and not petty squabbles...
     RE'ers make up blind discussions and present evidence which they have large volumes of, but they fail to defend against simple canals and rivers.  Why jump off into space into your minds without mastering the ponds and lakes?

R.A. Wallace demonstrated curvature on the Bedford Level.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

?

Jingle Jangle

  • 284
  • I breathe therefore I am
No... They both walked away in agreement that the Earth was horizontal when water is used.  I read a different article where they both agreed that the test was falsified.  16 feet of curvature was not seen.  So, no one can then acknowledge that the earth's circumference is 24,901 miles.  Someone has to see this point...

?

Jingle Jangle

  • 284
  • I breathe therefore I am
An experiment was done with several lighthouses as well.  The earth cannot possibly be curved.  Both sides walked away in agreement.  The tallest lighthouse in America is seen 27 miles out at sea.  My gracious, there are so many false mariners in this website.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
No... They both walked away in agreement that the Earth was horizontal when water is used.  I read a different article where they both agreed that the test was falsified.  16 feet of curvature was not seen.  So, no one can then acknowledge that the earth's circumference is 24,901 miles.  Someone has to see this point...

The bet was validated by Wallace's referee and falsified by Hambden's referee (a close acquaintance, and disciple of Rowbotham's whose appointment was protested from the outset).  The editor of Field magazine declared Wallace the winner, but Hambden insisted Wallace was a fraud.  Wallace then sued Hambden for libel and was awarded the case.  Subsequently Hambden sued Wallace for the return of the prize money on a legal technicality; Wallace asked for the money before Hambden had a chance to offer it. If you have read contrary, I should like to see the article and its citations.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
An experiment was done with several lighthouses as well.  The earth cannot possibly be curved.  Both sides walked away in agreement.  The tallest lighthouse in America is seen 27 miles out at sea.  My gracious, there are so many false mariners in this website.

The Earth curves approximately 8 inches per mile.  At 27 miles, you would have a drop of 18 feet.  The tallest lighthouse in the US is 207 feet tall, so yes, you can see it at that distance.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

What is the scientific method of determining that the Earth curves that much per mile?  I don't see how it is possible to see curvature in only one mile.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
What is the scientific method of determining that the Earth curves that much per mile?  I don't see how it is possible to see curvature in only one mile.

It's geometry:

http://mathcentral.uregina.ca/qq/database/QQ.09.97/dyck2.html
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

?

Jingle Jangle

  • 284
  • I breathe therefore I am
However Samuel Birley Rowbotham redid the experiment with six flags and found the surface to be flat.  Something was falsified at some point...  The cash was the incentive to falsify...  False testimony and etc...

?

Jingle Jangle

  • 284
  • I breathe therefore I am
Someone did the other side incorrectly.  That is what I deduce from all of these documents.

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5131
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
« Reply #10 on: May 15, 2013, 10:19:26 AM »
However Samuel Birley Rowbotham redid the experiment with six flags and found the surface to be flat.  Something was falsified at some point...  The cash was the incentive to falsify...  False testimony and etc...

Not lossing money and having your entire world view be discredited is incentive, thus both sides would have a reason to lie.  That is where the judges come in.  Rowbotham also says that magnefication will restore an object obscured by perspective on water, whichhasbeen shown false.  You should find a new pioneer for your theory, he was obviously a troll or inept.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

*

RealScientist

  • 417
  • Science does not care for Earth's shape
Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
« Reply #11 on: May 15, 2013, 10:21:36 AM »
An experiment was done with several lighthouses as well.  The earth cannot possibly be curved.  Both sides walked away in agreement.  The tallest lighthouse in America is seen 27 miles out at sea.  My gracious, there are so many false mariners in this website.

The Earth curves approximately 8 inches per mile.  At 27 miles, you would have a drop of 18 feet.  The tallest lighthouse in the US is 207 feet tall, so yes, you can see it at that distance.
Please be careful with the numbers. It might be true that Earth curves some 8 inches in a mile, but the accumulated effect of several miles is not linear. Anyway, 207 feet is a lot and I see no problem at all in seeing a 207 feet tall light house from a distance of more than 27 miles, if you are looking from the observation room of a large ship. It might start to be difficult to see if you are sitting inside a raft.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
« Reply #12 on: May 15, 2013, 10:23:16 AM »
However Samuel Birley Rowbotham redid the experiment with six flags and found the surface to be flat.  Something was falsified at some point...  The cash was the incentive to falsify...  False testimony and etc...

Rowbotham did not do the experiment after Wallace, Lady Blount did. Her experiment was inaccurate due to the effect of superior mirage. In regard to your ramblings about falsification and such, you will have to elaborate as you do not really make sense.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

RealScientist

  • 417
  • Science does not care for Earth's shape
Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
« Reply #13 on: May 15, 2013, 10:31:19 AM »
What is the scientific method of determining that the Earth curves that much per mile?  I don't see how it is possible to see curvature in only one mile.
You are right, it is enormously difficult in practice to directly see the curvature of a lake or ocean in just one mile. Most experiments by Rowbotham were made in distances of just 6 miles, making them possible but extremely difficult and prone to error. But nobody that I have ever known has had any trouble seeing how a large ship seems to sink when seen from the beach at a distance of some 16 miles or so. Even Rowbotham had to concede this, and was forced to invent some awful "perspective" explanations for it.

?

Jingle Jangle

  • 284
  • I breathe therefore I am
Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
« Reply #14 on: May 15, 2013, 10:53:25 AM »
An experiment was done with several lighthouses as well.  The earth cannot possibly be curved.  Both sides walked away in agreement.  The tallest lighthouse in America is seen 27 miles out at sea.  My gracious, there are so many false mariners in this website.

The Earth curves approximately 8 inches per mile.  At 27 miles, you would have a drop of 18 feet.  The tallest lighthouse in the US is 207 feet tall, so yes, you can see it at that distance.

Read the experiments FAQ, your calculations are off substantially.  The increase in curvature would be increasing parabolically where a 16 foot difference would be seen.  With the 100 mile Suez Canal, the drop off would be 1 mile not 800 inches.  Yet, it remains straight...

*

RealScientist

  • 417
  • Science does not care for Earth's shape
Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
« Reply #15 on: May 15, 2013, 11:02:19 AM »
Read the experiments FAQ, your calculations are off substantially.  The increase in curvature would be increasing parabolically where a 16 foot difference would be seen.  With the 100 mile Suez Canal, the drop off would be 1 mile not 800 inches.  Yet, it remains straight...
And where is your data? Where is the statement from the engineers that tells you that the Canal was made straight according to your idea of straight, and not level in the sense that every few miles the course was checked with an altimeter? Have you even been to the Suez Canal and seen if there are segments that are straight enough to see if the "sinking ship" illusion can be seen?

You are making very serious claims, and that is OK. What is not OK is that you do not have a single piece of evidence to demonstrate that your claims are valid.

Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
« Reply #16 on: May 15, 2013, 11:08:03 AM »
Rama,

The problem with that geometry is that it's already biased by "supposing the Earth is a sphere".

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
« Reply #17 on: May 15, 2013, 12:00:50 PM »
Rama,

The problem with that geometry is that it's already biased by "supposing the Earth is a sphere".

Geometry has axioms yes, but it is not biased like you mean. It's like saying Euclidean geometry is biases towards flat planes, or a Philips screwdriver is biased towards Philips head screws. It's a tool. I was making an argument that requires a spherical shape of the Earth so of course I would use a calculation based on a sphere (circle really in this case as it was a 2D calculation). Your comment is basically meaningless.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
« Reply #18 on: May 15, 2013, 12:48:50 PM »
Please be careful with the numbers. It might be true that Earth curves some 8 inches in a mile, but the accumulated effect of several miles is not linear. Anyway, 207 feet is a lot and I see no problem at all in seeing a 207 feet tall light house from a distance of more than 27 miles, if you are looking from the observation room of a large ship. It might start to be difficult to see if you are sitting inside a raft.

Unfortunately many people on this forum don't understand this. Yet another "not enough math knowledge" example.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
« Reply #19 on: May 15, 2013, 01:49:00 PM »
Please be careful with the numbers. It might be true that Earth curves some 8 inches in a mile, but the accumulated effect of several miles is not linear. Anyway, 207 feet is a lot and I see no problem at all in seeing a 207 feet tall light house from a distance of more than 27 miles, if you are looking from the observation room of a large ship. It might start to be difficult to see if you are sitting inside a raft.

Unfortunately many people on this forum don't understand this. Yet another "not enough math knowledge" example.

Learning all the time.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
« Reply #20 on: May 15, 2013, 02:23:55 PM »
An experiment was done with several lighthouses as well.  The earth cannot possibly be curved.  Both sides walked away in agreement.  The tallest lighthouse in America is seen 27 miles out at sea.  My gracious, there are so many false mariners in this website.

The Earth curves approximately 8 inches per mile.  At 27 miles, you would have a drop of 18 feet.  The tallest lighthouse in the US is 207 feet tall, so yes, you can see it at that distance.
Please be careful with the numbers. It might be true that Earth curves some 8 inches in a mile, but the accumulated effect of several miles is not linear. Anyway, 207 feet is a lot and I see no problem at all in seeing a 207 feet tall light house from a distance of more than 27 miles, if you are looking from the observation room of a large ship. It might start to be difficult to see if you are sitting inside a raft.

Good note. Let's redo the math, but instead of using 1 mile, use 27 miles.
I am not into miles, inches and feet, so I will redo the calculation using km, cm and meters (standard physic units)
1 miles = 1.609344 km. Therefore 27 miles  = 43,45 km.
3963 miles = 6377,8 km radius

a^2 = 6377,8^2 + 43,45^2 = 40678220,74 km.  so a = 6377,94 km.
6377,94 - 6377,8 = 0,14 km below your view point.
0,14 km = 140 m

The tallest lighthouse is 207 feet. 1 foot = 0.3048 meters, so 207 = 63 meters high.

I was unable to quickly find the height of an average container ship. However, I saw this picture in comparison.


I know the height of the A380 tail is 24,45. The A380 can almost stack 3 times up. It can be stacked up ~2.75 times on top. This means the bridge is at a height of 67 m.

63+ 67 = 130 m.
This means the lighthouse is actually 10 m further down from the viewpoint. So physically seeing the lighthouse would be impossible, even if you used a telescope. However, sailors could perhaps have seen the light of the lighthouse. Which is also the most important aspect of the lighthouse.

As illustrated in the following diagram.

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/855/shiptj.jpg/?sa=0


« Last Edit: May 15, 2013, 02:27:53 PM by Lolflatdisc »
Hello!

?

Thork

Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
« Reply #21 on: May 15, 2013, 02:38:13 PM »
However, sailors could perhaps have seen the light of the lighthouse. Which is also the most important aspect of the lighthouse.
You think sailors on container ships use lighthouses? They ignore GPS, radar, sonar, depth measuring equipment and instead all line up on the deck looking for lighthouses?

The most important function of a lighthouse, is to keep the lighthouse keeper in a job.

Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
« Reply #22 on: May 15, 2013, 02:45:38 PM »
Rama,

The problem with that geometry is that it's already biased by "supposing the Earth is a sphere".

Geometry has axioms yes, but it is not biased like you mean. It's like saying Euclidean geometry is biases towards flat planes, or a Philips screwdriver is biased towards Philips head screws. It's a tool. I was making an argument that requires a spherical shape of the Earth so of course I would use a calculation based on a sphere (circle really in this case as it was a 2D calculation). Your comment is basically meaningless.

It is not meaningless. Making the assumption that Earth is circular or spherical make all the difference.   Until a true test can show the shape of the Earth, math doesn't prove anything.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
« Reply #23 on: May 15, 2013, 03:05:36 PM »
Rama,

The problem with that geometry is that it's already biased by "supposing the Earth is a sphere".

Geometry has axioms yes, but it is not biased like you mean. It's like saying Euclidean geometry is biases towards flat planes, or a Philips screwdriver is biased towards Philips head screws. It's a tool. I was making an argument that requires a spherical shape of the Earth so of course I would use a calculation based on a sphere (circle really in this case as it was a 2D calculation). Your comment is basically meaningless.

It is not meaningless. Making the assumption that Earth is circular or spherical make all the difference.   Until a true test can show the shape of the Earth, math doesn't prove anything.

Plenty of true tests have shown it up to and including direct observation from space. Even if that were not true, to make an argument on a RE basis and not use the maths that represent it is logically incoherent.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2013, 03:08:07 PM by Rama Set »
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39819
Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
« Reply #24 on: May 15, 2013, 03:21:03 PM »
However, sailors could perhaps have seen the light of the lighthouse. Which is also the most important aspect of the lighthouse.
You think sailors on container ships use lighthouses? They ignore GPS, radar, sonar, depth measuring equipment and instead all line up on the deck looking for lighthouses?
I would think that sailors would want to use all available navigational devices.  Besides, what about boats that don't have GPS, RADAR or depth measuring equipment?

Quote
The most important function of a lighthouse, is to keep the lighthouse keeper in a job.
Most modern light houses are automated.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
« Reply #25 on: May 15, 2013, 03:33:28 PM »
Rama,

The problem with that geometry is that it's already biased by "supposing the Earth is a sphere".

Geometry has axioms yes, but it is not biased like you mean. It's like saying Euclidean geometry is biases towards flat planes, or a Philips screwdriver is biased towards Philips head screws. It's a tool. I was making an argument that requires a spherical shape of the Earth so of course I would use a calculation based on a sphere (circle really in this case as it was a 2D calculation). Your comment is basically meaningless.

It is not meaningless. Making the assumption that Earth is circular or spherical make all the difference.   Until a true test can show the shape of the Earth, math doesn't prove anything.

Plenty of true tests have shown it up to and including direct observation from space. Even if that were not true, to make an argument on a RE basis and not use the maths that represent it is logically incoherent.

Many people disagree on the validity of the tests that have been done.  Show me a video from space that shows Earth's shape without using a fish-eye lens.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2013, 03:49:51 PM by EarthIsASpaceship »

Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
« Reply #26 on: May 15, 2013, 03:59:03 PM »
You think sailors on container ships use lighthouses? They ignore GPS, radar, sonar, depth measuring equipment and instead all line up on the deck looking for lighthouses?

The most important function of a lighthouse, is to keep the lighthouse keeper in a job.

I don't know much about sailing ships, but I didn't say it is their only use of navigation. Though it could still be necessary for ships without GPS or it may still be required to obtain visual confirmation of your location. After all, the captain of the Costa Concordia, with all his navigational aid still managed to miss the rock that caused the ship to sink.

Many lighthouses are still operating and it may also be still a welcoming sight for sailors to see. The ship has windows, so it is not stupid to think they go and have a look sometimes. And as already said, lighthouses are pretty much all automated, so saying it is to keep the lighthouse keeper his job is nonsense.
Hello!

Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
« Reply #27 on: May 15, 2013, 04:01:35 PM »

Many people disagree on the validity of the tests that have been done.  Show me a video from space that shows Earth's shape without using a fish-eye lens.

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Planet Earth seen from space (Full HD 1080p) ORIGINAL

If they used a fish-eye lense, the solar panels at 4:28 for example wouldn't show straight as they are.
Hello!

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
« Reply #28 on: May 15, 2013, 04:25:25 PM »
The Erasthotenes method is perfectly valid. Why wouldn't it be?
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

RealScientist

  • 417
  • Science does not care for Earth's shape
Re: Even the Scientific Method is being destroyed by acknowledging a RE
« Reply #29 on: May 15, 2013, 04:59:27 PM »
Rama,

The problem with that geometry is that it's already biased by "supposing the Earth is a sphere".

Sorry to say so, but this is not a valid argument. Geometry is not biased. That is like saying that the sky is biased towards the blue.

The argument is simple and it is not biased by the opinions of anyone. In a triangle on a flat plane the angles add up to 180 degrees, and that is a theorem derived from the axioms of Euclidean Geometry. If the angles don't add to 180 then by theorem and not by bias the surface is not flat.

The practical problem is another matter.It is very difficult to do this measurement in a useful way. But no amount of bias will change the mathematics.