Test the Earth's shape: Measure a mountain!

Yes, and I am sure that you go around all day measuring the "real world", right? 

The thing is, you're the wackos that are claiming that all of science is a conspiracy, that NASA lie to us, that all the photos taken of the earth are fake and that satellites don't exist.  YOU are the ones who should be measuring things to support your idiot cause.

Mocking someone who lives in the real world who is prepared to back up their statements through actual measurement is exactly what we might expect from you, but not the sort of thing that advances your backward cause.  And certainly not a great way to convince anyone to swap sides.

This thread is fantastic. The pure lack of actual input and attention from FE proponents has me thinking they have given up
Does this mean we win?

On a sidenote, a while back I calculated the height of occlusion from a curving horizon to be 1 meter per 7,3 km of distance. Calculated as the height of a chorde (entirely theoretical).
It's a nice number to remember.

This thread is fantastic. The pure lack of actual input and attention from FE proponents has me thinking they have given up
Does this mean we win?

On a sidenote, a while back I calculated the height of occlusion from a curving horizon to be 1 meter per 7,3 km of distance. Calculated as the height of a chorde (entirely theoretical).
It's a nice number to remember.

They can't understand any of that. Remember to them, looking at the horizon at the beach is proof enough the world is flat. They can't understand that the world is so big you could not see the curve of the earth at ground level. It is like they have their eye stuck on the large beach ball.

This thread is fantastic. The pure lack of actual input and attention from FE proponents has me thinking they have given up
Does this mean we win?

On a sidenote, a while back I calculated the height of occlusion from a curving horizon to be 1 meter per 7,3 km of distance. Calculated as the height of a chorde (entirely theoretical).
It's a nice number to remember.

Win what? As far as you are all concerned there was nothing TO win. I mean, 'you know'... and all your global Earth friends know that your Earth is a globe, 100% don't you? If that's the case;  why are you even jumping up and down patting other on the back and saying flat Earth has lost and you have won? Won what exactly?

Someone measures a mountain and bang, the Earth is a globe? This is the stuff that you people rely on and yet you have books that could build a sky scraper on why your Earth is a globe...but no...here we are looking at someone who's decided that those books are not enough and he's measured a mountain just to rubber stamp it all.
What next?

Quote from: Kebab on March 03, 2014, 03:24:39 AM

This thread is fantastic. The pure lack of actual input and attention from FE proponents has me thinking they have given up
Does this mean we win?

On a sidenote, a while back I calculated the height of occlusion from a curving horizon to be 1 meter per 7,3 km of distance. Calculated as the height of a chorde (entirely theoretical).
It's a nice number to remember.

They can't understand any of that. Remember to them, looking at the horizon at the beach is proof enough the world is flat. They can't understand that the world is so big you could not see the curve of the earth at ground level. It is like they have their eye stuck on the large beach ball.

It appears that you also can't understand how big the Earth is, because time and time again I keep seeing many of you putting up stuff like, "look, there's a plane and you can see that the Earth is a globe." Then you use the vanishing act of a ship going down the globe.
It's as if you really believe that the globe you believe you stand on is actually just a reasonable large ball and things just disappear over the curve because your eyes are super human and you can see this is true, when a telescope easily disproves your own eyes.
Of course, you people will never admit this. But like you all mention from time to time, when things don't go your way. You people say " oh we are just here for the fun of it, to watch the zoo animals hang onto a flat Earth whilst we laugh at them." Yeah, ok.

Quote from: Starman on March 03, 2014, 03:47:13 AM

Quote from: Kebab on March 03, 2014, 03:24:39 AM

This thread is fantastic. The pure lack of actual input and attention from FE proponents has me thinking they have given up
Does this mean we win?

On a sidenote, a while back I calculated the height of occlusion from a curving horizon to be 1 meter per 7,3 km of distance. Calculated as the height of a chorde (entirely theoretical).
It's a nice number to remember.

They can't understand any of that. Remember to them, looking at the horizon at the beach is proof enough the world is flat. They can't understand that the world is so big you could not see the curve of the earth at ground level. It is like they have their eye stuck on the large beach ball.

It appears that you also can't understand how big the Earth is, because time and time again I keep seeing many of you putting up stuff like, "look, there's a plane and you can see that the Earth is a globe." Then you use the vanishing act of a ship going down the globe.
It's as if you really believe that the globe you believe you stand on is actually just a reasonable large ball and things just disappear over the curve because your eyes are super human and you can see this is true, when a telescope easily disproves your own eyes.
Of course, you people will never admit this. But like you all mention from time to time, when things don't go your way. You people say " oh we are just here for the fun of it, to watch the zoo animals hang onto a flat Earth whilst we laugh at them." Yeah, ok.

You will not see the bottom of a ship over the horizon with a telescope. If that were true you would see ships that you could not see at all.

We even had a "pilot" here just the other day who claimed that he can see the curvature of the Earth from cruising altitude, even though every other pilot on Earth says you can not.  He then went on to say that you can even see the curvature of the Earth from the beach.  I hope I never fly with him at the wheel. 

We even had a "pilot" here just the other day who claimed that he can see the curvature of the Earth from cruising altitude, even though every other pilot on Earth says you can not.  He then went on to say that you can even see the curvature of the Earth from the beach.  I hope I never fly with him at the wheel.

One pilot does not make his claim true. The X-15 pilot can make that claim.

Yes, and I am sure that no pilot has ever been caught in a lie, right?   

Yes, and I am sure that no pilot has ever been caught in a lie, right? 

True but one pilot does represent all the pilots.

Yes, all of the rest say it is BS that you can see the curvature of the Earth. 

Yes, all of the rest say it is BS that you can see the curvature of the Earth.

I can see the curve, but it definitely curves upward no doubt about it.

You've yet to show me any indication that you understand Rowbotham's perspective, so forgive my skepticism.

I really think it's time that the flat earth fraternity dismissed Rowbotham's "theories" from 150 years ago as their sole source of "evidence", and concentrated a little more on current scientific theories established by people who haven't been dead for more than a century, and who also hold accredited academic qualifications in the various fields of science such as geophysics and astrophysics.  Rowbotham held no academic qualifications of any sort, and was totally unequipped to make the calculated guesses he did with his Bedford Level "experiments". 

The only reason a handful of people accepted his experimental "results" was that in the mid-19th century, the wider population had virtually no scientific knowledge to draw upon.  Very few children attended school beyond the age of 14 years—if they were lucky—and their parents were schooled in the early 1800s when contemporary science was in its infancy.  So anything that was backed up with fancy illustrations and big words and glib explanations was swallowed whole without question in most cases.

Today, Rowbotham is considered by the scientific establishment to be nothing more than a curiosity of the period.  He actually added not one iota of knowledge to the current scientific magnum opus.
 

Quote from: Ski on August 23, 2013, 11:45:10 AM

You've yet to show me any indication that you understand Rowbotham's perspective, so forgive my skepticism.

I really think it's time that the flat earth fraternity dismissed Rowbotham's "theories" from 150 years ago as their sole source of "evidence", and concentrated a little more on current scientific theories established by people who haven't been dead for more than a century, and who also hold accredited academic qualifications in the various fields of science such as geophysics and astrophysics.  Rowbotham held no academic qualifications of any sort, and was totally unequipped to make the calculated guesses he did with his Bedford Level "experiments". 

The only reason a handful of people accepted his experimental "results" was that in the mid-19th century, the wider population had virtually no scientific knowledge to draw upon.  Very few children attended school beyond the age of 14 years—if they were lucky—and their parents were schooled in the early 1800s when contemporary science was in its infancy.  So anything that was backed up with fancy illustrations and big words and glib explanations was swallowed whole without question in most cases.

Today, Rowbotham is considered by the scientific establishment to be nothing more than a curiosity of the period.  He actually added not one iota of knowledge to the current scientific magnum opus

accredited academic qualifications in the various fields of science such as geophysics and astrophysics. Well the astrophysicists have fallen in to a black hole. So should we keep  following the same  flawed theory or go with what can be proved & demonstrated as being  fact?       


Edited to fix quote tree.  jroa