Flat Earth Reality

No,   nothing remotely similar to the sinking ship,   first off how would you measure the earth's radius by observing a ship going over the horizon?  You would never be sure what refractive effects to allow for, and the flat earthers would revert to the perspective vanishing and waves blocking distant objects.  Similarily for buildings on the horizon.   

It's the same basic principle, just less built for exact measurements. If there's a response to one, there'll be a response to the other, generally, once you get past the waves argument.

Bendy light isn't going to help explain how plumb lines are measurably inclined over distances as short as a mile.   The equipment required to measure the radius of the earth  is simple and the method basic.

I don't expect any flat earthers to respond,  nothing they could say anyway.

Bendy light's all you'll get anyway. Just have it working on that short scale, and you've got it.
If you don't expect FEers to respond, not much point in posting. Personally I think it's interesting to try and figure out what they'd come up with, or trying to understand what they do say (when they pop up).

Quote from: Rayzor on March 21, 2016, 05:01:34 PM

No,   nothing remotely similar to the sinking ship,   first off how would you measure the earth's radius by observing a ship going over the horizon?  You would never be sure what refractive effects to allow for, and the flat earthers would revert to the perspective vanishing and waves blocking distant objects.  Similarily for buildings on the horizon.   

It's the same basic principle, just less built for exact measurements. If there's a response to one, there'll be a response to the other, generally, once you get past the waves argument.

Quote

Bendy light isn't going to help explain how plumb lines are measurably inclined over distances as short as a mile.   The equipment required to measure the radius of the earth  is simple and the method basic.

I don't expect any flat earthers to respond,  nothing they could say anyway.

Bendy light's all you'll get anyway. Just have it working on that short scale, and you've got it.
If you don't expect FEers to respond, not much point in posting. Personally I think it's interesting to try and figure out what they'd come up with, or trying to understand what they do say (when they pop up).

You just keep misunderstanding the method, and complaining about there being no point to posting.. 

So, once more, it's nothing even remotely like a ship disappearing over the horizon.    The method described can be scaled to smaller distances down to a few meters if you have sufficiently accurate levels, like a Talyval,  so the bendy light argument can't be used. 

The method is easily reproduced anywhere on the planet with just a plumb bob,  a sighting device of some sort, and an instrument that can measure vertical angles to within a few arc seconds.

I don't expect flat earthers to answer, because there is no basis on which to refute the measurement.  That makes it all the more informative to post,  not less.

6:30
"[...] here are some mathematicians doing some type of celestial observation. And what are they doing here? Conspiring to create a fake round earth..."

That's his ideological bias. This video can't be serious.
One can't analyse a subject by means of irony and pretend he's gonna look both sides equally.

The ultimate dishonesty would be for a Geodetic Survey to pretend he thought the earth is flat.
When you have spent your working life making measurements that simply will NOT fit on a plane surface you could never honestly believe the earth is flat!

The video is very serious. There is simply no flat earth map which shows the shapes and sizes of continents correctly!

We accept that flat maps of the globe MUST have distortion of some sort, but if there earth were flat, no projections would be needed and all maps should have the correct shapes and all dimensions to the same scale.

Quote from: Jane on March 21, 2016, 05:12:21 PM

Quote from: Rayzor on March 21, 2016, 05:01:34 PM

No,   nothing remotely similar to the sinking ship,   first off how would you measure the earth's radius by observing a ship going over the horizon?  You would never be sure what refractive effects to allow for, and the flat earthers would revert to the perspective vanishing and waves blocking distant objects.  Similarily for buildings on the horizon.   

It's the same basic principle, just less built for exact measurements. If there's a response to one, there'll be a response to the other, generally, once you get past the waves argument.

Quote

Bendy light isn't going to help explain how plumb lines are measurably inclined over distances as short as a mile.   The equipment required to measure the radius of the earth  is simple and the method basic.

I don't expect any flat earthers to respond,  nothing they could say anyway.

Bendy light's all you'll get anyway. Just have it working on that short scale, and you've got it.
If you don't expect FEers to respond, not much point in posting. Personally I think it's interesting to try and figure out what they'd come up with, or trying to understand what they do say (when they pop up).

You just keep misunderstanding the method, and complaining about there being no point to posting.. 

So, once more, it's nothing even remotely like a ship disappearing over the horizon.    The method described can be scaled to smaller distances down to a few meters if you have sufficiently accurate levels, like a Talyval,  so the bendy light argument can't be used. 

The method is easily reproduced anywhere on the planet with just a plumb bob,  a sighting device of some sort, and an instrument that can measure vertical angles to within a few arc seconds.

I don't expect flat earthers to answer, because there is no basis on which to refute the measurement.  That makes it all the more informative to post,  not less.

Depends on which bendy light option's used. Though I'm guessing I'm misunderstanding something because I have no idea how a few metres could be used to reliably measure curvature: you'd just get the behaviour of the local vicinity. Could get flat or even concave that way: I'm assuming you'll be measuring the direction of the force of gravity, but on such a small scale it'd likely be just as affected by the local masses.
You need a certain scale in order to have the experiment be reliable. And regardless, there's no reason bendy light won't work on a small scale under some models, it'd just have a much smaller effect. But after all, the consequences of that are what we'd expect under either model.

Literally the only difference you've given between this and the horizon ship is that this experiment gives better numbers. I've not contested that, but that's only a small change. It's not the exact same, but generally you can split arguments up into set categories. Directly detecting curvature along a 2-D plane is one such category: it's what you're doing with the plumb line and observation points, and it's what you do with the sinking ship.
It's fairly clear that precisely the same things are at play: the varying directions of 'down' depending on where you are on the Earth's surface.

Quote from: Rayzor on March 21, 2016, 07:23:32 PM

Quote from: Jane on March 21, 2016, 05:12:21 PM

Quote from: Rayzor on March 21, 2016, 05:01:34 PM

No,   nothing remotely similar to the sinking ship,   first off how would you measure the earth's radius by observing a ship going over the horizon?  You would never be sure what refractive effects to allow for, and the flat earthers would revert to the perspective vanishing and waves blocking distant objects.  Similarily for buildings on the horizon.   

It's the same basic principle, just less built for exact measurements. If there's a response to one, there'll be a response to the other, generally, once you get past the waves argument.

Quote

Bendy light isn't going to help explain how plumb lines are measurably inclined over distances as short as a mile.   The equipment required to measure the radius of the earth  is simple and the method basic.

I don't expect any flat earthers to respond,  nothing they could say anyway.

Bendy light's all you'll get anyway. Just have it working on that short scale, and you've got it.
If you don't expect FEers to respond, not much point in posting. Personally I think it's interesting to try and figure out what they'd come up with, or trying to understand what they do say (when they pop up).

You just keep misunderstanding the method, and complaining about there being no point to posting.. 

So, once more, it's nothing even remotely like a ship disappearing over the horizon.    The method described can be scaled to smaller distances down to a few meters if you have sufficiently accurate levels, like a Talyval,  so the bendy light argument can't be used. 

The method is easily reproduced anywhere on the planet with just a plumb bob,  a sighting device of some sort, and an instrument that can measure vertical angles to within a few arc seconds.

I don't expect flat earthers to answer, because there is no basis on which to refute the measurement.  That makes it all the more informative to post,  not less.

Depends on which bendy light option's used. Though I'm guessing I'm misunderstanding something because I have no idea how a few metres could be used to reliably measure curvature: you'd just get the behaviour of the local vicinity. Could get flat or even concave that way: I'm assuming you'll be measuring the direction of the force of gravity, but on such a small scale it'd likely be just as affected by the local masses.
You need a certain scale in order to have the experiment be reliable. And regardless, there's no reason bendy light won't work on a small scale under some models, it'd just have a much smaller effect. But after all, the consequences of that are what we'd expect under either model.

Literally the only difference you've given between this and the horizon ship is that this experiment gives better numbers. I've not contested that, but that's only a small change. It's not the exact same, but generally you can split arguments up into set categories. Directly detecting curvature along a 2-D plane is one such category: it's what you're doing with the plumb line and observation points, and it's what you do with the sinking ship.
It's fairly clear that precisely the same things are at play: the varying directions of 'down' depending on where you are on the Earth's surface.

Ok,  let's try and keep it simple. 

The sinking ship observation is open to being refuted, by several counter arguments,  the perspective argument,  the bendy light argument,  the wave obscuration argument.  and so on.  We have all seen them many times.   

This direct measurement surveying method,  is immune to all those counter attacks.   

Ok,  let's try and keep it simple. 

The sinking ship observation is open to being refuted, by several counter arguments,  the perspective argument,  the bendy light argument,  the wave obscuration argument.  and so on.  We have all seen them many times.   

This direct measurement surveying method,  is immune to all those counter attacks.

Arguments can be refined to do away with certain responses. Once you're no longer worried about waves and distance, that doesn't change the core of the argument.
The bendy light response can still be applied, with sufficient imagination. That's how most FE responses are.

Quote from: Uninvited Guest on March 17, 2016, 10:22:24 AM

6:30
"[...] here are some mathematicians doing some type of celestial observation. And what are they doing here? Conspiring to create a fake round earth..."

That's his ideological bias. This video can't be serious.
One can't analyse a subject by means of irony and pretend he's gonna look both sides equally.

The ultimate dishonesty would be for a Geodetic Survey to pretend he thought the earth is flat.
When you have spent your working life making measurements that simply will NOT fit on a plane surface you could never honestly believe the earth is flat!

The video is very serious. There is simply no flat earth map which shows the shapes and sizes of continents correctly!

We accept that flat maps of the globe MUST have distortion of some sort, but if there earth were flat, no projections would be needed and all maps should have the correct shapes and all dimensions to the same scale.

I challenge you to show me a flat earth map without obvious distortion of the shapes of many continents!

Didn't follow your argument. You're saying that his experience alone already answers the question beforehand?
I think it is not true. Experience is baggage from the past and should be put aside when you're trying to analyse something new.
If you are approaching something new with the spirit of putting your knowledge on a pedestal, regardless what the subject is,
you are gonna to reach the same old conclusions as ever. So why bother anyway? And that can be seen in his behavior from start to end, always employing some sarcastic sayings which already express his conclusions, no matter what he's saying.

I want to prove nothing. But if I tried it, expect that I'm gonna look the both sides seriously. That's the least one can do.

So I find very bizarre that you actually are looking into his arguments and really considering a few points.
He is no scientist. Just an old professional that can't learn anymore.

I want to prove nothing. But if I tried it, expect that I'm gonna look the both sides seriously. That's the least one can do.

Ok,  so he proved the earth is a globe with a simple measurement that you could do yourself,  that is if you had an open mind, as you claim.

I've already described the method and the type of equipment you need.   But if you can hire/borrow a theodolite and find a location where you have a clear view for a mile or so,  you can find out for yourself.

You can take the challenge seriously, and do it yourself, or you can take the word of thousands of professional surveyors and millions of measurements over hundreds of years.

Quote from: rabinoz on March 21, 2016, 08:08:48 PM

The video is very serious. There is simply no flat earth map which shows the shapes and sizes of continents correctly!

We accept that flat maps of the globe MUST have distortion of some sort, but if there earth were flat, no projections would be needed and all maps should have the correct shapes and all dimensions to the same scale.

I challenge you to show me a flat earth map without obvious distortion of the shapes of many continents!

Didn't follow your argument. You're saying that his experience alone already answers the question beforehand?
I think it is not true. Experience is baggage from the past and should be put aside when you're trying to analyse something new.
If you are approaching something new with the spirit of putting your knowledge on a pedestal, regardless what the subject is,
you are gonna to reach the same old conclusions as ever. So why bother anyway? And that can be seen in his behavior from start to end, always employing some sarcastic sayings which already express his conclusions, no matter what he's saying.

I want to prove nothing. But if I tried it, expect that I'm gonna look the both sides seriously. That's the least one can do.

So I find very bizarre that you actually are looking into his arguments and really considering a few points.
He is no scientist. Just an old professional that can't learn anymore.

We can't win. Flat Earthers seem down on all scientists, now you won't accept the measurements of a professional geodetic-surveyor because he is NOT a scientist!

But, my whole point has been that geodetic-surveyors do not set out to prove the earth a Globe. There task is simply to accurately measure the sizes and shapes  of countries and continents. Part of that involves measurement of heights and verticals.

These measurements are enough to find the sizes of degrees of longitude at various latitudes. These figures prove that the earth cannot be flat.

I have done approximate measurements in a few places in Australia and the distance for each degree of longitude fits the Globe and is a long way from the distance we find on the "accepted flat earth map".

Quote from: Uninvited Guest on March 22, 2016, 02:19:53 PM

I want to prove nothing. But if I tried it, expect that I'm gonna look the both sides seriously. That's the least one can do.

Ok,  so he proved the earth is a globe with a simple measurement that you could do yourself,  that is if you had an open mind, as you claim.

I've already described the method and the type of equipment you need.   But if you can hire/borrow a theodolite and find a location where you have a clear view for a mile or so,  you can find out for yourself.

You can take the challenge seriously, and do it yourself, or you can take the word of thousands of professional surveyors and millions of measurements over hundreds of years.

You need to read what I'm writing instead of talking as a parrot. I'm putting into perspective you can't take into account evidence from someone with a strong ideological bias favoring just one side of the coin.

Btw why are you assuming that I want to prove Earth is round? You fail to realize that your assumptions are founded on 'scientists' like the one from the video.

Quote from: Uninvited Guest on March 22, 2016, 02:19:53 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on March 21, 2016, 08:08:48 PM

The video is very serious. There is simply no flat earth map which shows the shapes and sizes of continents correctly!

We accept that flat maps of the globe MUST have distortion of some sort, but if there earth were flat, no projections would be needed and all maps should have the correct shapes and all dimensions to the same scale.

I challenge you to show me a flat earth map without obvious distortion of the shapes of many continents!

Didn't follow your argument. You're saying that his experience alone already answers the question beforehand?
I think it is not true. Experience is baggage from the past and should be put aside when you're trying to analyse something new.
If you are approaching something new with the spirit of putting your knowledge on a pedestal, regardless what the subject is,
you are gonna to reach the same old conclusions as ever. So why bother anyway? And that can be seen in his behavior from start to end, always employing some sarcastic sayings which already express his conclusions, no matter what he's saying.

I want to prove nothing. But if I tried it, expect that I'm gonna look the both sides seriously. That's the least one can do.

So I find very bizarre that you actually are looking into his arguments and really considering a few points.
He is no scientist. Just an old professional that can't learn anymore.

We can't win. Flat Earthers seem down on all scientists, now you won't accept the measurements of a professional geodetic-surveyor because he is NOT a scientist!

But, my whole point has been that geodetic-surveyors do not set out to prove the earth a Globe. There task is simply to accurately measure the sizes and shapes  of countries and continents. Part of that involves measurement of heights and verticals.

These measurements are enough to find the sizes of degrees of longitude at various latitudes. These figures prove that the earth cannot be flat.

I have done approximate measurements in a few places in Australia and the distance for each degree of longitude fits the Globe and is a long way from the distance we find on the "accepted flat earth map".

Who said I'm a flat earther?
Bring decent evidence and I may agree with you. One that is not pedantic, sarcastic and that employes irony to prove his point of view.

Quote from: Rayzor on March 22, 2016, 06:15:30 PM

Quote from: Uninvited Guest on March 22, 2016, 02:19:53 PM

I want to prove nothing. But if I tried it, expect that I'm gonna look the both sides seriously. That's the least one can do.

Ok,  so he proved the earth is a globe with a simple measurement that you could do yourself,  that is if you had an open mind, as you claim.

I've already described the method and the type of equipment you need.   But if you can hire/borrow a theodolite and find a location where you have a clear view for a mile or so,  you can find out for yourself.

You can take the challenge seriously, and do it yourself, or you can take the word of thousands of professional surveyors and millions of measurements over hundreds of years.

You need to read what I'm writing instead of talking as a parrot. I'm putting into perspective you can't take into account evidence from someone with a strong ideological bias favoring just one side of the coin.

Btw why are you assuming that I want to prove Earth is round? You fail to realize that your assumptions are founded on 'scientists' like the one from the video.

It's you who needs a lesson in reading comprehension. The shape of the earth is not an ideological question,  it's a question of fact, not opinion.

Anyway, you missed the essential point, no extra assumptions are required.   Ruler, square and plumb is all you need, But given your other illiterate garble,  I can't say I'm surprised you don't understand.

Quote from: Uninvited Guest on March 23, 2016, 06:33:56 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on March 22, 2016, 06:15:30 PM

Quote from: Uninvited Guest on March 22, 2016, 02:19:53 PM

I want to prove nothing. But if I tried it, expect that I'm gonna look the both sides seriously. That's the least one can do.

Ok,  so he proved the earth is a globe with a simple measurement that you could do yourself,  that is if you had an open mind, as you claim.

I've already described the method and the type of equipment you need.   But if you can hire/borrow a theodolite and find a location where you have a clear view for a mile or so,  you can find out for yourself.

You can take the challenge seriously, and do it yourself, or you can take the word of thousands of professional surveyors and millions of measurements over hundreds of years.

You need to read what I'm writing instead of talking as a parrot. I'm putting into perspective you can't take into account evidence from someone with a strong ideological bias favoring just one side of the coin.

Btw why are you assuming that I want to prove Earth is round? You fail to realize that your assumptions are founded on 'scientists' like the one from the video.

It's you who needs a lesson in reading comprehension. The shape of the earth is not an ideological question,  it's a question of fact, not opinion.

Anyway, you missed the essential point, no extra assumptions are required.   Ruler, square and plumb is all you need, But given your other illiterate garble,  I can't say I'm surprised you don't understand.

You can say that the shape of the earth is not only an ideological question. I agree with that.
Did you mean that or you still think there is no ideology behind it? 

Quote from: Rayzor on March 23, 2016, 06:54:21 AM

Quote from: Uninvited Guest on March 23, 2016, 06:33:56 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on March 22, 2016, 06:15:30 PM

Quote from: Uninvited Guest on March 22, 2016, 02:19:53 PM

I want to prove nothing. But if I tried it, expect that I'm gonna look the both sides seriously. That's the least one can do.

Ok,  so he proved the earth is a globe with a simple measurement that you could do yourself,  that is if you had an open mind, as you claim.

I've already described the method and the type of equipment you need.   But if you can hire/borrow a theodolite and find a location where you have a clear view for a mile or so,  you can find out for yourself.

You can take the challenge seriously, and do it yourself, or you can take the word of thousands of professional surveyors and millions of measurements over hundreds of years.

You need to read what I'm writing instead of talking as a parrot. I'm putting into perspective you can't take into account evidence from someone with a strong ideological bias favoring just one side of the coin.

Btw why are you assuming that I want to prove Earth is round? You fail to realize that your assumptions are founded on 'scientists' like the one from the video.

It's you who needs a lesson in reading comprehension. The shape of the earth is not an ideological question,  it's a question of fact, not opinion.

Anyway, you missed the essential point, no extra assumptions are required.   Ruler, square and plumb is all you need, But given your other illiterate garble,  I can't say I'm surprised you don't understand.

You can say that the shape of the earth is not only an ideological question. I agree with that.
Did you mean that or you still think there is no ideology behind it? 

The shape of the earth has nothing whatever to do with ideology,  it is a easily observed and measurable physical fact,  like the color of the sky,  or how tall you are,  you can choose to believe the sky is bright pink if you like, and that you are 15 ft tall, however that won't change reality.

Douglass Adams saw the future when he wrote about the labour saving robot, the electric monk.   The electric monk would save you from having to believe in things, by doing the believing for you.
This forum is the prototype electric monk.

Douglass Adams saw the future when he wrote about the labour saving robot, the electric monk.   The electric monk would save you from having to believe in things, by doing the believing for you.
This forum is the prototype electric monk.

You can read about the Electric Monk here.  It's quite a good read; thank you Rayzor. 

Quote from: Uninvited Guest on March 24, 2016, 08:45:52 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on March 23, 2016, 06:54:21 AM

Quote from: Uninvited Guest on March 23, 2016, 06:33:56 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on March 22, 2016, 06:15:30 PM

Quote from: Uninvited Guest on March 22, 2016, 02:19:53 PM

I want to prove nothing. But if I tried it, expect that I'm gonna look the both sides seriously. That's the least one can do.

Ok,  so he proved the earth is a globe with a simple measurement that you could do yourself,  that is if you had an open mind, as you claim.

I've already described the method and the type of equipment you need.   But if you can hire/borrow a theodolite and find a location where you have a clear view for a mile or so,  you can find out for yourself.

You can take the challenge seriously, and do it yourself, or you can take the word of thousands of professional surveyors and millions of measurements over hundreds of years.

You need to read what I'm writing instead of talking as a parrot. I'm putting into perspective you can't take into account evidence from someone with a strong ideological bias favoring just one side of the coin.

Btw why are you assuming that I want to prove Earth is round? You fail to realize that your assumptions are founded on 'scientists' like the one from the video.

It's you who needs a lesson in reading comprehension. The shape of the earth is not an ideological question,  it's a question of fact, not opinion.

Anyway, you missed the essential point, no extra assumptions are required.   Ruler, square and plumb is all you need, But given your other illiterate garble,  I can't say I'm surprised you don't understand.

You can say that the shape of the earth is not only an ideological question. I agree with that.
Did you mean that or you still think there is no ideology behind it? 

The shape of the earth has nothing whatever to do with ideology,  it is a easily observed and measurable physical fact,  like the color of the sky,  or how tall you are,  you can choose to believe the sky is bright pink if you like, and that you are 15 ft tall, however that won't change reality.

Douglass Adams saw the future when he wrote about the labour saving robot, the electric monk.   The electric monk would save you from having to believe in things, by doing the believing for you.
This forum is the prototype electric monk.

The blue I see is not same blue you see. Blue is just a definition, not a real thing. Plenty of research on that.

If it is not an ideological issue, what are we doing here? Your beliefs are shared by Science. Wheter you are right or wrong about them, it doesn’t matter. The scientific community is an ideological group. Before you start “ohh but the facts!!”, you must realize ideology is not about who is right or wrong. But about who you believe.

You refuse to accept it because you’ve been indoctrinated by the scientific method. Now that you are wise you run around on forums yelling your knowledge for the poor ignorants. You have been good to us, thank you.