Please explain the horizon

Basically, the FE arguments put forward so far are of the same nature as those illustrated by Engineerboy, except without the proof, and the intelligence.

Basically, the FE arguments put forward so far are of the same nature as those illustrated by Engineerboy, except without the proof, and the intelligence.

Are you saying that there's proof of or intelligence in any of the following arguments?

Coriolis force = round earth, QED.
The earth would travel faster than the speed of light, therefore, the earth is round.
Gravity is exactly the same thing as the electromagnetic force, therefore the earth is round, QED.
I waited 6 minutes for an answer, no one did, therefore, I win, you conceed the point, you have no answer, I stumped the FES and now the site can be shut down.

Since Engineerboy has cleverly paraphrased most of those to remove any sense of context, i agree that no proof or intelligence is conveyed in the quote you posted. Especially the last one, although I never said that I agreed with every word posted by RE-ers.

Since Engineerboy has cleverly paraphrased most of those to remove any sense of context, i agree that no proof or intelligence is conveyed in the quote you posted.

In that case, are you saying that in context, some of those arguments are provable or intelligent?

Some, yes. The coriolis force certainly is provable, and the effect observed on earth is characteristic of a spherical rotating reference frame.

however, "The earth would travel faster than the speed of light, therefore, the earth is round.
Gravity is exactly the same thing as the electromagnetic force, therefore the earth is round, QED. " obviously are invalid arguments because they make illogical and/or wrong assumptions, i.e. Gravity is not the same as the EM force.

Some, yes. The coriolis force certainly is provable, and the effect observed on earth is characteristic of a spherical rotating reference frame.

Characteristic of, but not exclusively explainable by.

Fair enough. But consider this.

A man found splattered at the bottom of a 400ft cliff. His condition is not exclusively explainable by him being a moron and falling off the cliff, however, you can be almost certain thats what happened.

What would be an alternative explanation? No sarcasm intended, I really would like to know the answer to this.

edit: explanation to the coriolis force, not the man and the cliff.

Fair enough. But consider this.

A man found splattered at the bottom of a 400ft cliff. His condition is not exclusively explainable by him being a moron and falling off the cliff, however, you can be almost certain thats what happened.

What would be an alternative explanation? No sarcasm intended, I really would like to know the answer to this.

edit: explanation to the coriolis force, not the man and the cliff.

I think I might have started something....

Anyway. What I did notice is that FE does not actually try to reach the logical conlusion. For example, the logical explanation for objects sinking below the horison and the sunsets is that our planet is a sphere and the objects are simply following it's surface. However, the FE conclusion is "perspective effect" and apparently, it doesn't really matter how this effect is explained.

If someone can in fact inform me of the alternate explanation of the coriolis force observed on earth, I'd be more than happy to consider it as a possibility. Unfortunately, every time I ask for an alternate explanation, everyone disappears.

I have yet to see any convincing evidence that the coriolis effect would even need to exist on a FE.

What are you saying, that it doesn't exist?

I am saying that if Earth is flat there may not even be a coriolis effect. Of course, it would be possible to test, but I doubt anyone here has ever done it.

The fact that hurricanes are spiral shaped is evidence that the Coriolis force exists. and the fact that hurricanes ONLY move anticlockwise above the equator and [Typhoons] ONLY move clockwise below the equator, also shows  this effect.

The fact that hurricanes are spherical is evidence that the Coriolis force exists.

Are they, though? That is the question. I certainly have never observed hurricanes to be spherical.

 

and the fact that hurricanes ONLY move anticlockwise above the equator and [Typhoons] ONLY move clockwise below the equator, also shows  this effect.

Once again, the question of whether or not they actually do spin like this is still up in the air.

Once again, the question of whether or not they actually do spin like this is still up in the air.

Look it up, you'll find out wheter it's true or not. I have no knowledge of this so I can't help you.

Sorry, I meant spiral shaped. And if you watch a weather report on hurricanes you will see what I mean.

Weather system observations can be made by weather balloons, so this doesn't contradict the "no satellites" idea.

I guess the only way we'll ever know if the effect would exist on a FE is if one of us buys or builds their own weather balloon.

The effect would exist on a FE if the earth were rotating. The fact that it varies with latitude is characteristic of a sphere.

The "fact" that it varies with latitude is one thing that remains to be seen.

Anyway. What I did notice is that FE does not actually try to reach the logical conlusion. For example, the logical explanation for objects sinking below the horison and the sunsets is that our planet is a sphere and the objects are simply following it's surface. However, the FE conclusion is "perspective effect" and apparently, it doesn't really matter how this effect is explained.

I don't think you mean logical here.  What you are describing is closer to "simpler" explanation. And of course, there's no really compelling reason that Ockham's Razor need be correct.

Quote from: "Jake"

Coriolis effect does not only affect storm, it effects clouds etc etc.

Fine. Show me how I can observe Coriolis force on the Earth by doing an experiment that doesn't require a plane ticket or expensive equipment.

Right........ Because you would not be able to purchase such equipment you are going to ignore the findings from those pieces of equipment?

Right........ Because you would not be able to purchase such equipment you are going to ignore the findings from those pieces of equipment?

No. Because I am not able to purchase such equipment, I have no idea what their findings might be. All I have is your word for it, and I'm skeptical so I don't trust you. Should I believe the word of every wacko in a bar who wants to buy me a beer because the world is going to be destroyed by aliens in six minutes? Then why should I believe you, especially when other people who claim "scientific" results make completely bogus claims such as zero-point energy and the fact that toilets flush in different directions 10 yards north and 10 yards south of the equator?

I don't think Coriolis effect caused by earth rotation is strong enough to be easly measured in a homemade experiment.
If you are desperated enough you can try Foucault pendulum.

Okay, I'm really too lazy to actually do this since I already know what the result would be, but let's say I went to the local science museum (which probably has a Foucault pendulum) and observed a pendulum swinging back and forth and every so often knocking down a wooden peg, so I can see it rotate. Further, let's suppose I were to measure the speed of rotation, and determine that it moves 10º every hour. Why should I then conclude that the Earth is round, and not that the earth is flat and rotates once every 36 hours?

Quote from: "phaseshifter"

Anyway. What I did notice is that FE does not actually try to reach the logical conlusion. For example, the logical explanation for objects sinking below the horison and the sunsets is that our planet is a sphere and the objects are simply following it's surface. However, the FE conclusion is "perspective effect" and apparently, it doesn't really matter how this effect is explained.

I don't think you mean logical here.  What you are describing is closer to "simpler" explanation. And of course, there's no really compelling reason that Ockham's Razor need be correct.

How is that conclusion NOT logical?

How is that conclusion NOT logical?

It is logical. That doesn't mean it's correct.


I could say that, theoretically, any time you see a boat sinking into the water, it actually IS sinking into the water, in a literal sense, because whenever boats get to a certain point, a bunch of parasitic fish bite holes in it.
Of course, further evidence would prove it wrong (for example, sailing a boat yourself out to observe it), and it would immediately proven wrong. However, it's still a possibility.

Thus the conclusion is logical. It's just stupid.

~D-Draw

Quote from: "phaseshifter"

How is that conclusion NOT logical?

It is logical. That doesn't mean it's correct.


I could say that, theoretically, any time you see a boat sinking into the water, it actually IS sinking into the water, in a literal sense, because whenever boats get to a certain point, a bunch of parasitic fish bite holes in it.
Of course, further evidence would prove it wrong (for example, sailing a boat yourself out to observe it), and it would immediately proven wrong. However, it's still a possibility.

Thus the conclusion is logical. It's just stupid.

~D-Draw

There's nothing logical about stupidity.

Quote from: "Jake"

Right........ Because you would not be able to purchase such equipment you are going to ignore the findings from those pieces of equipment?

No. Because I am not able to purchase such equipment, I have no idea what their findings might be. All I have is your word for it, and I'm skeptical so I don't trust you. Should I believe the word of every wacko in a bar who wants to buy me a beer because the world is going to be destroyed by aliens in six minutes? Then why should I believe you, especially when other people who claim "scientific" results make completely bogus claims such as zero-point energy and the fact that toilets flush in different directions 10 yards north and 10 yards south of the equator?

Your example is irrelevant to the situation. It isn't 'my word' that you are having to believe it is that of many scientists. If you can't believe what has been proven with this 'expensive' equipment many times then you aren't skeptical, your bias.

Either that or retarded...

Quote from: "Jake"

Right........ Because you would not be able to purchase such equipment you are going to ignore the findings from those pieces of equipment?

No. Because I am not able to purchase such equipment, I have no idea what their findings might be. All I have is your word for it, and I'm skeptical so I don't trust you. Should I believe the word of every wacko in a bar who wants to buy me a beer because the world is going to be destroyed by aliens in six minutes? Then why should I believe you, especially when other people who claim "scientific" results make completely bogus claims such as zero-point energy and the fact that toilets flush in different directions 10 yards north and 10 yards south of the equator?

Quote from: "insaneman"

I don't think Coriolis effect caused by earth rotation is strong enough to be easly measured in a homemade experiment.
If you are desperated enough you can try Foucault pendulum.

Okay, I'm really too lazy to actually do this since I already know what the result would be, but let's say I went to the local science museum (which probably has a Foucault pendulum) and observed a pendulum swinging back and forth and every so often knocking down a wooden peg, so I can see it rotate. Further, let's suppose I were to measure the speed of rotation, and determine that it moves 10º every hour. Why should I then conclude that the Earth is round, and not that the earth is flat and rotates once every 36 hours?

That's a logical conclusion.  It, however requires modifying the FE theory to allow for a rotating earth.  That in itself would, by the way, have a HUGE effect on tides and sea levels.  Again, as with most of my stuff, in no way a total disproval, just proof that modification is needed.

That's like with the bible. Every few decades someone disproved something and they said 'Okay, that wasn't meant literally.', but kept on claiming that the rest is true. No they (at least the 'official churge', christians of course) arrived at a place where they say that everything (creation and so on) is just a story to show something. They seem like they forgot that they didn't say that earlier...

However the FE freaks always modify their theory when something comes up...or cry 'CONSPIRACY' and ignore it. But which sense has a theory that changes all the time and has not really got a reason?

So: WHY THE EARTH SHOULD BE FLAT? WHAT TELLS YOU THAT IT CAN'T BE A BALL? We have a lot of proofs for the fast that the earth is a globe, but there isn't a motif for the conspiracy or any hint that the earth could be flat. It's just a unproved (even disproved) theory. Why does it exist then?