I understand the FE theory, but do you have any repeatable experimental evidence

And you cant use the one where the boat goes along the river as it has been done multiple times and got different results so clearly there is a flaw in that experiment.

I guess what i am asking is for proof that FE theory is correct

I am going to move this to FEG for now.  I would suggest that you read the FAQ and search the fora a bit.  If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask.

I am going to move this to FEG for now.  I would suggest that you read the FAQ and search the fora a bit.  If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask.

Apart from the question raised in the post, why did you move it?

Have read FAQ
Have searched fora

Quote from: Junker on October 21, 2013, 07:51:19 PM

I am going to move this to FEG for now.  I would suggest that you read the FAQ and search the fora a bit.  If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask.

Apart from the question raised in the post, why did you move it?

Have read FAQ
Have searched fora

Q&A is for specific questions about FET.  You post a topic asking for something, say in your first sentence what can't be included, and then ask for general proof.  This is an incredibly broad request.  If you want serious answers, I would suggest you ask specific questions.

Also, if you have done both of those, you wouldn't post such a vague thread.

Look out your window.

Q&A is for specific questions about FET.  You post a topic asking for something, say in your first sentence what can't be included, and then ask for general proof.  This is an incredibly broad request.  If you want serious answers, I would suggest you ask specific questions.

Also, if you have done both of those, you wouldn't post such a vague thread.

If you could then suggest then a specific field of science or research or topic that I could enquire about for specific experiments?

To mike247

Look out your window

Just a hint.: I know from experience this is about the only answer you are going to get from FE. Cheers !

Look out your window.

I look out my window and i see what .. whats your point here? Are you trying to suggest because the earth looks flat (to me it doesn't look flat as I spend a lot of time at high altitudes so can perfectly well see the curve) that it is flat? Our eyes are terrible sources for which to interpret the world. They can be fooled, illusioned and tricked so incredibly easily

If the flat earth theory was correct, there should be a myriad of repeatable predictions, tests, practical experiments and applications, could you please direct me to some

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 21, 2013, 09:10:58 PM

Look out your window.

I look out my window and i see what .. whats your point here? Are you trying to suggest because the earth looks flat (to me it doesn't look flat as I spend a lot of time at high altitudes so can perfectly well see the curve) that it is flat? Our eyes are terrible sources for which to interpret the world. They can be fooled, illusioned and tricked so incredibly easily

If the flat earth theory was correct, there should be a myriad of repeatable predictions, tests, practical experiments and applications, could you please direct me to some

to mike247

[bSuggestion: Ask them about the "recovering a ship which has passed over the horizon with a telescope" for one example.  [/b]

Unfortunately google is unhelpful for me here.  All it gives me are the Bedford Level experiment and a pastor on his church site that doesn't understand the physics behind gravity and inertia.  Also he should have chosen better paragraph headers; the latter 2 were named "Blow!" and "Get High!"

to mike247

Suggestion: Ask them about the "recovering a ship which has passed over the horizon with a telescope" for one example. 

You can't, Or at least every time i've looked at ships through binoculars and telescopes I can't

However you CAN recover a ship by raising your altitude, which suggests the earth is round

Quote from: Googleotomy on October 21, 2013, 09:24:54 PM

to mike247

Suggestion: Ask them about the "recovering a ship which has passed over the horizon with a telescope" for one example. 

You can't, Or at least every time i've looked at ships through binoculars and telescopes I can't

However you CAN recover a ship by raising your altitude, which suggests the earth is round

Yes recovering a ship that has passed over the horizon is silly isn't it.
But  a ship on a calm sea sailing into the sunset on top of the horizon getting smaller and smaller until it becomes a dot then you lose sight of it so you pick the scope and you recover it. Now that's something.

Quote from: mike247 on October 21, 2013, 09:30:20 PM

Quote from: Googleotomy on October 21, 2013, 09:24:54 PM

to mike247

Suggestion: Ask them about the "recovering a ship which has passed over the horizon with a telescope" for one example. 

You can't, Or at least every time i've looked at ships through binoculars and telescopes I can't

However you CAN recover a ship by raising your altitude, which suggests the earth is round

Yes recovering a ship that has passed over the horizon is silly isn't it.
But  a ship on a calm sea sailing into the sunset on top of the horizon getting smaller and smaller until it becomes a dot then you lose sight of it so you pick the scope and you recover it. Now that's something.

You need to differentiate between disappearance due to the horizon (first case) and due to the angular resolution (second case). Your eyes can normally only see an object if has an angular resolution larger than 1 arc minute. A scope can only recover objects which disappear due to the angular resolution by magnifying it.

Look out your window.

That is the LHC, it's circumference of 1,500 times smaller then the earth it doesn't look very curved, especially if you only look at the left wall, as we don't have the equivalent of the right wall in real life.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 21, 2013, 09:10:58 PM

Look out your window.

I look out my window and i see what .. whats your point here? Are you trying to suggest because the earth looks flat (to me it doesn't look flat as I spend a lot of time at high altitudes so can perfectly well see the curve) that it is flat? Our eyes are terrible sources for which to interpret the world. They can be fooled, illusioned and tricked so incredibly easily

If the flat earth theory was correct, there should be a myriad of repeatable predictions, tests, practical experiments and applications, could you please direct me to some

So I show you a repeatable experiment and the response is "I don't believe my eyes. An illusion did it." I see.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 21, 2013, 09:10:58 PM

Look out your window.

That is the LHC, it's circumference of 1,500 times smaller then the earth it doesn't look very curved, especially if you only look at the left wall, as we don't have the equivalent of the right wall in real life.

An observation of a flat earth constitutes evidence that the earth is flat. It is not evidence of "an illusion". The fact that other illusions may exist (although I can see curvature in that image) is not evidence that the flat earth is an illusion.

If I have a red teacup in my hand, should I assume that the teacup is red based on my direct experimental observation, or should I assume that its redness "is just an illusion"?

In the above we have direct experimental results (observation of teacup) vs. an assumed illusion. Experiment Vs. Assumption. Experiment always wins.

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on October 22, 2013, 03:12:03 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 21, 2013, 09:10:58 PM

Look out your window.

That is the LHC, it's circumference of 1,500 times smaller then the earth it doesn't look very curved, especially if you only look at the left wall, as we don't have the equivalent of the right wall in real life.

An observation of a flat earth constitutes evidence that the earth is flat. It is not evidence of "an illusion". The fact that other illusions may exist (although I can see curvature in that image) is not evidence that the flat earth is an illusion.

If I have a red teacup in my hand, should I assume that the teacup is red based on my direct experimental observation, or should I assume that its redness "is just an illusion"?

In the above we have a direct experimental results (observation of teacup) vs. an assumed illusion. Experiment Vs. Assumption. Experiment always wins.

Your entire argument here applies to sunsets on a FE. You call those an illusion.

Quote from: Googleotomy on October 21, 2013, 09:24:54 PM

to mike247

Suggestion: Ask them about the "recovering a ship which has passed over the horizon with a telescope" for one example. 

You can't, Or at least every time i've looked at ships through binoculars and telescopes I can't

However you CAN recover a ship by raising your altitude, which suggests the earth is round

When you increase your altitude you are changing your perspective and broadening the perspective lines in relation to the earth, pushing your vanishing point back.

For the sinking ship explanation see the chapter Why a Ship's Hull Disappears Before the Mast-Head on page 201 in Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham

Also see the chapter Experiments on Lake Michigan on page 165 of Cellular Cosmogony by Cyrus Teed

Also see the chapter Disappearance of Ships on page 24 of Zetetic Cosmogony by Thomas Winship

In the examples above, these are direct experiments where a telescope is applied to half-sunken ships and they have been restored to view. This suggests that the ships are not really hiding behind a 'hill of water'.

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on October 22, 2013, 03:12:03 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 21, 2013, 09:10:58 PM

Look out your window.

That is the LHC, it's circumference of 1,500 times smaller then the earth it doesn't look very curved, especially if you only look at the left wall, as we don't have the equivalent of the right wall in real life.

An observation of a flat earth constitutes evidence that the earth is flat. It is not evidence of "an illusion". The fact that other illusions may exist (although I can see curvature in that image) is not evidence that the flat earth is an illusion.

If I have a red teacup in my hand, should I assume that the teacup is red based on my direct experimental observation, or should I assume that its redness "is just an illusion"?

In the above we have a direct experimental results (observation of teacup) vs. an assumed illusion. Experiment Vs. Assumption. Experiment always wins.

No it would be more like saying I can't see you therefore you don't exist.

When I look out my window it doesn't look flat.

What you really mean by "it looks flat" is that you don't see any curvature it doesn't mean there's no curvature, only that's it either small or non-existent. With the earth being as large as it is, the curvature is simply to small to been seen from ground level. You have to go up to many kilometres in altitude to see any curvature.

My posted picture of the LHC showed that even with a circle 1500 smaller then the earth the curvature doesn't look very big. How can you expect to see any curvature from ground level on a sphere with a circumference of 40075 kilometres.

Your entire argument here applies to sunsets on a FE. You call those an illusion.

Not without evidence. There is evidence that the sunset is a refraction illusion.



When a mountains and ships disappear from view the vanishing point is relatively close to the observer, maybe 15 miles away, and disappears uneventfully. When the sun disappears from view the vanishing point is  thousands of miles away from the observer; and hence the sun is descending into thousands of miles of atmosphere which impedes its path.



If you've ever seen a sunset you would notice that a sun seems to merge into the horizon like a liquid as in the above image. That area where it's merging is the result of disappearing into the atmosphere. Fog lights shining through fog also have this liquid effect, where the light is broadcasted and projected onto the atmosphere, seemingly floating on the atmosphere itself rather than in the distance.

In FET this broadcast or projection of light upon the atmosphere is related to the magnification of the sun at sunset.

What about sunsets that do not merge in to the horizon like a liquid?

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on October 22, 2013, 03:12:03 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 21, 2013, 09:10:58 PM

Look out your window.

That is the LHC, it's circumference of 1,500 times smaller then the earth it doesn't look very curved, especially if you only look at the left wall, as we don't have the equivalent of the right wall in real life.

An observation of a flat earth constitutes evidence that the earth is flat. It is not evidence of "an illusion". The fact that other illusions may exist (although I can see curvature in that image) is not evidence that the flat earth is an illusion.

If I have a red teacup in my hand, should I assume that the teacup is red based on my direct experimental observation, or should I assume that its redness "is just an illusion"?

In the above we have a direct experimental results (observation of teacup) vs. an assumed illusion. Experiment Vs. Assumption. Experiment always wins.

There are two competing theories (I am being generous) that both attempt to describe a range of observable phenomena, one of which is a perceived lack of curvature of the Earth.  Both theories make the prediction, that from out your window, with no aid of magnification, the Earth should look flat.  Both of these predictions are easily substantiated by basic geometry.  When you perform the experiment, neither prediction is falsified.  The experiment clearly delivers an inconclusive result, mostly due to the imprecision afforded by the naked eye. 

Quote from: REphoenix on October 22, 2013, 04:13:44 AM

Your entire argument here applies to sunsets on a FE. You call those an illusion.

Not without evidence. There is evidence that the sunset is a refraction illusion.



When a mountains and ships disappear from view the vanishing point is relatively close to the observer, maybe 15 miles away, and disappears uneventfully. When the sun disappears from view the vanishing point is  thousands of miles away from the observer; and hence the sun is descending into thousands of miles of atmosphere which impedes its path.



If you've ever seen a sunset you would notice that a sun seems to merge into the horizon like a liquid as in the above image. That area where it's merging is the result of disappearing into the atmosphere. Fog lights shining through fog also have this liquid effect, where the light is broadcasted and projected onto the atmosphere, seemingly floating on the atmosphere itself rather than in the distance.

In FET this broadcast or projection of light upon the atmosphere is related to the magnification of the sun at sunset.

Expect the sun should always be well above the horizon and the vanishing point shoul be many tens of thousands of kilometers away. It's incredibly bright, yet over a short distance it can go from at the horizon to not visible. What happens to the light given off. Far more light reaches your ideas the from an object of similar apparent size. In FE, it shouldn't even reach the horizon.

So I show you a repeatable experiment and the response is "I don't believe my eyes. An illusion did it." I see.

I see the earth is flat therefore it is flat is not by any standard a good justification to believe anything, the very fact that illusions can be placed on our eyes indicates they are very fallible, imagine interpreting results through a microscope that only showed the correct image half the time, it would be useless

An observation of a flat earth constitutes evidence that the earth is flat. It is not evidence of "an illusion". The fact that other illusions may exist (although I can see curvature in that image) is not evidence that the flat earth is an illusion.

If I have a red teacup in my hand, should I assume that the teacup is red based on my direct experimental observation, or should I assume that its redness "is just an illusion"?

In the above we have a direct experimental results (observation of teacup) vs. an assumed illusion. Experiment Vs. Assumption. Experiment always wins.

If your color blind then no the cup might not be red.
If our eyes are not good enough then no we cannot assume what we see is a direct representation of reality.

Incidentally, the color property of objects is an illusion our brains use to make sense of different wavelengths, light does not have a color, it is not a physical property of the photons but something our brains add in afterwards so even more so, if we see a red cup we can in no way assume or deduce that cup is red to everyone else, they might think its red but their red could be our green who knows, so that is a very poor example of why we should trust our eyes

So I show you a repeatable experiment and the response is "I don't believe my eyes. An illusion did it." I see.

Isn't that the exact same response we get from you whenever someone invokes refraction as an explanation for the Bedford Levels Experiment?

Look out your window.

This is truly laughable. You expect to be able to perceive a curvature of ~1 arc minute (the generally accepted average minimum angular resolution of the human eye) in 5km (distance to horizon in a featureless area), and yet the fact that the sun is ~50 times it's own angular diameter lower than it should be at sunset (at the equinox) and as much as 90 times it's own angular diameter left or right (or more, depending which model you follow) of where it should be for a flat earth is "just an illusion"... Yeah, sure, and you wonder why so many people have so much trouble taking you seriously!

What about sunsets that do not merge in to the horizon like a liquid?

That image is looking up at a hill, not the true horizon. Take a look at the cow to the furthest right. His feet are obscured by the land.

There are images of the sun disappearing behind land where it is behaving like a liquid.



It is, however, possible to get the sun as a picturesque circle. The sun is constantly morphing as it sets and if a number of pictures are taken one can capture a circular sun.

That image is looking up at a hill, not the true horizon. Take a look at the cow to the furthest right. His feet are obscured by the land.



There are images of the sun disappearing behind land where it is behaving like a liquid.

This is just light refracting through the atmosphere

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 22, 2013, 04:08:31 AM

An observation of a flat earth constitutes evidence that the earth is flat. It is not evidence of "an illusion". The fact that other illusions may exist (although I can see curvature in that image) is not evidence that the flat earth is an illusion.

If I have a red teacup in my hand, should I assume that the teacup is red based on my direct experimental observation, or should I assume that its redness "is just an illusion"?

In the above we have a direct experimental results (observation of teacup) vs. an assumed illusion. Experiment Vs. Assumption. Experiment always wins.

If your color blind then no the cup might not be red.
If our eyes are not good enough then no we cannot assume what we see is a direct representation of reality.

Incidentally, the color property of objects is an illusion our brains use to make sense of different wavelengths, light does not have a color, it is not a physical property of the photons but something our brains add in afterwards so even more so, if we see a red cup we can in no way assume or deduce that cup is red to everyone else, they might think its red but their red could be our green who knows, so that is a very poor example of why we should trust our eyes

"It's possible that it might be an illusion" is not valid science. Some people believe that it possible that we live in a computer simulation of physics. Is that evidence that reality does not really exist? No. It is an assumption. We cannot assume that we live in a "computer simulation" until it has been demonstrated that we live in a computer simulation.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 21, 2013, 09:10:58 PM

Look out your window.

This is truly laughable. You expect to be able to perceive a curvature of ~1 arc minute (the generally accepted average minimum angular resolution of the human eye) in 5km (distance to horizon in a featureless area), and yet the fact that the sun is ~50 times it's own angular diameter lower than it should be at sunset (at the equinox) and as much as 90 times it's own angular diameter left or right (or more, depending which model you follow) of where it should be for a flat earth is "just an illusion"... Yeah, sure, and you wonder why so many people have so much trouble taking you seriously!

I don't expect to be able to perceive the curvature of the earth, if it were a really huge ball with some slight curvature. There is simply no reason to believe illusion over reality.