A short trip and confirmation

Finding Cornwall the most benevolent, and scenic, place On this fair disc I rarely have pause to  travel, other than to London for the occasional research foray to the Imperial Museum or British Library. However This week as I near three score and ten I have the most pleasurable reason to travel to Paris to visit my heir, and brand new grandson.

  Being forced to choose between three Devils; the Chunnel (Dear God in Heaven), the Ferry (I am prone to sea sickness), or that of flight; I chose the latter. Flight appealed to me since I could use the opportunity, barring foul weather, to make observations to further the discussions on this fair board. It has been some time since I flew British Airways (the idea of flying one of those dreadful discount airlines or Heaven help me Air France was never a choice) and I am certain it is still the finest airWay in The world but it's service has declined ever since the Name change from Imperial Airlines, to BOAC, to its present moniker.

Whilst in flight I, with my handy pair of binoculars procured from
Prismatics by my father, proceeded to observe the Horizon and the sun. I will attach photographs once I have them back from the developer and can scan them in using my new Hewlitt Packard printer- scanner which was a gift from my daughter and installed by her (and she will more likely be the best candidate to scan such).

First the sun changed size as we flew eastward from London towards the new early morning sun. It appeared larger as we flew eastwards which indicates that it is closer than imagined by the round earth theorists. 

Second in carefully observing the horizon there was virtually no bend or curve that could not be explained by the refractory effect of aether as predicted by Newton.

Third distant objects (in this case being the coast of France) arose into view as one from the midst (meaning in a short time) as also predicted by the refraction of light by aether.

Finally, although the earth is not as flat as a pancake (owing to ridges and valleys) it is none the less flat and my careful observation proved this. All of these observations point to a flat disc of an earth not a round spinning globe. Further more the phase of the moon was clearly visible which it could not have been, as shown by our new Turkish contributor, were the Sun, Earth and Moon configured as the round earthers wouldst have us believe.

So with this trip (my first out of Britain in almost 40 years) I accomplished two important tasks.

First I was able to see my grandson with my eyes and second I was able to confirm, through careful high altitude observation that my studies of the last 30 years are indeed correct. The earth is flat and the sun is indeed just over 32 miles in diameter moving about it appointed track in the celestial sphere.

I was able to confirm, through careful high altitude observation that my studies of the last 30 years are indeed correct. The earth is flat and the sun is indeed just over 32 miles in diameter moving about it appointed track in the celestial sphere.

Just how were you able to confirm that "the sun is indeed just over 32 miles in diameter"? Did you get close enough to examine it - remember what happened to poor Icarus!

Second in carefully observing the horizon there was virtually no bend or curve that could not be explain by the refractory effect of aether as predicted by Newton.

Third distant objects (in this case being the coast of France) arose into view as one from the midst (meaning in a short time) as also predicted by the refraction of light by aether.

You are quite OK with "refractory effect of aether as predicted by Newton." Yet ignore his work on gravitation?
But, what on earth do you mean by the "refractory effect of aether"[1]? Quite incomprehensible to a novice like me!

"Third distant objects (in this case being the coast of France) arose into view as one from the midst (meaning in a short time) as also predicted by the refraction of light by aether".

Would you please tell us exactly how we also work out how "predicted by the refraction of light by aether" can be utilised to calculate when "distant objects" should appear.

I do think some of this aether must have seeped into your brain and had a refractory effect.

But, I do hope that you had a pleasant trip to France, and I sure hope you French is better than mine "Deux crêpes de sucre , s'il vous plaît" and "Je ne parle pas français".  Maybe my Australian accent didn't help!

[1] I'm afraid I cannot find a meaning for "refractory" that seems relevant!

refractory

• Stubborn or unmanageable
• Resistant to a process or stimulus
• technical (Of a substance) resistant to heat; hard to melt or fuse

Just how were you able to confirm that "the sun is indeed just over 32 miles in diameter"? Did you get close enough to examine it - remember what happened to poor Icarus!



You are quite OK with "refractory effect of aether as predicted by Newton." Yet ignore his work on gravitation?
But, what on earth do you mean by the "refractory effect of aether"[1]? Quite incomprehensible to a novice like me!

"Third distant objects (in this case being the coast of France) arose into view as one from the midst (meaning in a short time) as also predicted by the refraction of light by aether".

Would you please tell us exactly how we also work out how "predicted by the refraction of light by aether" can be utilised to calculate when "distant objects" should appear.

I do think some of this aether must have seeped into your brain and had a refractory effect.

But, I do hope that you had a pleasant trip to France, and I sure hope you French is better than mine "Deux crêpes de sucre , s'il vous plaît" and "Je ne parle pas français".  Maybe my Australian accent didn't help!

[1] I'm afraid I cannot find a meaning for "refractory" that seems relevant!

Quote from: OED

refractory

• Stubborn or unmanageable
• Resistant to a process or stimulus
• technical (Of a substance) resistant to heat; hard to melt or fuse

As to the refraction of light I refer you to  Sacrobosco’s Algorismus and Tractatus de Sphere, written in 1245 (or thereabouts) alas out of print since 1678 but available at the British Library. Since I was unable to leave the gallery with it (it being in the rare book collection) I have only my poor, but copious notes, taken by my own hand.

From the original (my stenographic copy):  Refractione luminis,mutatio in transitu suo per directionem propagatio lucis interface inter duo media . At plana infinita in interface internonabsorbing in refractivam index et pythones , et punctum puncto I et II , refractione luminis dicitur per duos analogias . Uno modo secundum quod est in plano per refractionis radii incidentis occurrunt ( perpendicularis) ad superficiem interface

My translation (however poor and rough): By the term refraction of the light is is doth meant the change of the direction of propagation of light in its passage through the interface between the two materials. This being the number of planes acting as  into the interface between  nonabsorbent portions of material , and divined by observing these spirit like apparitions, from point to a point 1 and 2 , this refraction of light is observed to travel in two directions. In one way, which is in the plane passing through the refraction of the ray of the first incident, and according the second, occurring perpendicular to the said surface of the interface. It is thought that this was the first known observation of the refraction of light or at least recording of such.

The calculation would be very simple- had I a sextant or astrolabe and the use of my watch. First I would have to have  calculated the distance at which I would expect to "See them" given my height (meaning the plane). Then one would record the actual time/distance at which the said objects appeared. The difference of such would be the amount of refraction of light by said aether. However what was not observed, at any time in my voyage, was the curvature of the earth and the gradual rising of the coast of France (from top to bottom)as would have been predicted by the helio-centric model.

With regards to the size of the sun- the flat earth model would predict that the sun would increase in size as we flew eastwards at great speed early that morn. However what I observed (and I did take photos that I hope will verify my observations) was that the sun INCREASE in size which would be predicted if a) the sun were close to the earth (relative to the helio-centric model) and b) if the Sun of a size smaller than that posited by heliocentrists.  My observations were in line with the flat earth theory, however.

Maybe this is a better experiment:  Get three boats (or just two, and leave a guy on the pier), and travel out to sea, measuring the angle to the other two people at specific times.  If the angles add up to more than 180, and you did the math correctly, it's a sphere.  If it's equal to 180, it's flat, and if it's less than 180, you're on the inside of a torus or something, and should redo calculations. 
Of course, it's probably already been done.  I'm sure geodesists aren't just faking information to get out of work. 

So what did you calculate the refractive index of the aether to be?  And where was it's interface with the atmosphere (or some other medium I suppose)?

It's always amusing when flat earthers start threads that show they don't believe the earth is flat.

Maybe this is a better experiment:  Get three boats (or just two, and leave a guy on the pier), and travel out to sea, measuring the angle to the other two people at specific times.  If the angles add up to more than 180, and you did the math correctly, it's a sphere.  If it's equal to 180, it's flat, and if it's less than 180, you're on the inside of a torus or something, and should redo calculations. 
Of course, it's probably already been done.  I'm sure geodesists aren't just faking information to get out of work.

I just did the (rough) math and you should expect to see something on the order of 179 degrees and 57 arc minutes facing towards the surface (or 180 degrees 3 arc minutes facing up).  I'm unsure how easy this would be to measure, especially with boats rocking on the oceans surface, I am assuming difficult.

Maybe this is a better experiment:  Get three boats (or just two, and leave a guy on the pier), and travel out to sea, measuring the angle to the other two people at specific times.  If the angles add up to more than 180, and you did the math correctly, it's a sphere.  If it's equal to 180, it's flat, and if it's less than 180, you're on the inside of a torus or something, and should redo calculations. 
Of course, it's probably already been done.  I'm sure geodesists aren't just faking information to get out of work.

Having surveyed for a brief time and taken surveying (admittedly with an old fashioned transit and plumb bob) I am relatively certain that the data one would get in such an experiment would be refutable. The reason would be the movement of the sea. One could certain have an error of 3-5% in which case one could end up with less than 180, and, as you say, we then be theorizing a concave earth.
However what I observed from my window seat which my daughter procured for me on -line with the mere click of a button button, showed conclusive that the world is not curved in the least, but a flat plan with inundation.  (and my daughter, a technology wizard of an uncertain type  is the one who gave me this marvelous Apple MacTop computer  for my previous birthday and set me up on a google window by which I was able to locate all manner of things, including, if you can believe it, The Times of London, by which she also procured a subscription by which I can read all manner of articles any time of day or night without paper.. but I digress)

However what I observed from my window seat [...] showed conclusive that the world is not curved in the least, but a flat plan with inundation.

So you say you observed 0 curvature, what are the error bars on that number?

EDIT: For comparison the expected (scalar) curvature of the round Earth is around 2/r^2 = 5x10^-8 km^-2

Quote from: Sir Richard on March 18, 2016, 11:25:13 AM

However what I observed from my window seat [...] showed conclusive that the world is not curved in the least, but a flat plan with inundation.

So you say you observed 0 curvature, what are the error bars on that number?

EDIT: For comparison the expected (scalar) curvature of the round Earth is around 2/r^2 = 5x10^-8 km^-2

I would suggest less than 1% or less than would be expected vs. the boating experiment (on open ocean) that you suggested,

Finding Cornwall the most benevolent, and scenic, place On this fair disc I rarely have pause to  travel, other than to London for the occasional research foray to the Imperial Museum or British Library.

I presume you mean the Imperial War Museum?  I don't live far from it - one of the best museums around.  It's had an excellent refit recently as well.

First the sun changed size as we flew eastward from London towards the new early morning sun. It appeared larger as we flew eastwards which indicates that it is closer than imagined by the round earth theorists. 

Why, do you think, nobody else has noticed this?  The sun has been studied extensively, and even the Flat Earth Society accepts that it stays the same apparent size all day long.  They put this down to some atmospheric magnification effect or some other hand waving.

If this really happened as you described, then we wouldn't have sunsets, would we?  The sun would just get really small until you couldn't see it.  Also, if you go with the figures in Rowbotham's 3000 miles height for the sun then even when it reached 10,000 miles away it would still be 17 degrees above the horizon.

How do you explain sunsets?

Quote from: Sir Richard on March 18, 2016, 04:43:51 AM

Finding Cornwall the most benevolent, and scenic, place On this fair disc I rarely have pause to  travel, other than to London for the occasional research foray to the Imperial Museum or British Library.

I presume you mean the Imperial War Museum?  I don't live far from it - one of the best museums around.  It's had an excellent refit recently as well.

Quote

First the sun changed size as we flew eastward from London towards the new early morning sun. It appeared larger as we flew eastwards which indicates that it is closer than imagined by the round earth theorists. 

Why, do you think, nobody else has noticed this?  The sun has been studied extensively, and even the Flat Earth Society accepts that it stays the same apparent size all day long.  They put this down to some atmospheric magnification effect or some other hand waving.

If this really happened as you described, then we wouldn't have sunsets, would we?  The sun would just get really small until you couldn't see it.  Also, if you go with the figures in Rowbotham's 3000 miles height for the sun then even when it reached 10,000 miles away it would still be 17 degrees above the horizon.

How do you explain sunsets?

Yes the Imperial War Museum is magnificent as the Natural History Museum.  They are incredible testament to our fair nation's contribution to the progress of the World and Her place in it. London is a temptation, but only for that reason- I prefer the slower pace outside of London. Samuel Johnson once compared Britain to a small bodied person with a gigantic oversized head, that head being London.

What I am referring to i the Sun increased in size as we moved towards it at high altitude and speed, as on one expect.
What you are referring to is the effect of perspective and the slower movement of the sun.

However This week as I near three score and ten

It has been some time since I flew British Airways (the idea of flying one of those dreadful discount airlines or Heaven help me Air France was never a choice) and I am certain it is still the finest airWay in The world but it's service has declined ever since the Name change from Imperial Airlines, to BOAC, to its present moniker.

Imperial Airlines stopped operating in 1939, 7 years before you were even born. 

If you're only 69, or younger, your formative years were in the 1960s - why do you talk like a Victorian gentleman who has been transported through time?

What I am referring to i the Sun increased in size as we moved towards it at high altitude and speed, as on one expect.
What you are referring to is the effect of perspective and the slower movement of the sun.

I've no idea what this means.

Quote

What I am referring to i the Sun increased in size as we moved towards it at high altitude and speed, as on one expect.
What you are referring to is the effect of perspective and the slower movement of the sun.

I've no idea what this means.

Me too. Perspective can not explain a sun set, there has to be something else mixed in.

Quote from: Sir Richard on March 18, 2016, 04:43:51 AM

However This week as I near three score and ten

Quote

It has been some time since I flew British Airways (the idea of flying one of those dreadful discount airlines or Heaven help me Air France was never a choice) and I am certain it is still the finest airWay in The world but it's service has declined ever since the Name change from Imperial Airlines, to BOAC, to its present moniker.

Imperial Airlines stopped operating in 1939, 7 years before you were even born. 

If you're only 69, or younger, your formative years were in the 1960s - why do you talk like a Victorian gentleman who has been transported through time?

As to your former comment on Imperial Airways...it is the same as when  I told my late wife after she pushed me (and I mean that both literally and figuratively) onto a dreadful American Cruise (ship):  "This is NOT how they did it on the Titanic" to which she replied tartly "I dare say we should be glad of not being drowned."

With regards to your latter comment what was said of Sir Francis Burton, one of my heroes, could have been said of me
"He was, as has been well said, an Elizabethan born out of time; in the days of Drake his very faults might have counted to his credit."

I make no bones about it- as I wrote elsewhere on this forum  I am Victorian in outlook, if not sentiment. The greatest influence on my life was one Victorian born, who, because of his position in industry, was considered "indispensable to the War Effort" and thus escaped the slaughter on the Western Front. This escape ,I suspect, ensured that both his inclinations and outlook were unchanged from before the war, which as you know, or may know, was the watershed in our history. You may blame it on my rearing and the innate stubbornness I inherited from my mother and her father. I am contrarian as well as Victorian.  I hear all this rubbish being spouted about these days: "Be true to yourself... march to the beat of a differing drummer"... ad nauseam. The real problem with this rubbish is that the people who are most prone to spout it off are aghast when they actually see it in action. I resent the 21st century and the supposed "need for speed". Posters have replied "TLTR" which I mystified me until my daughter told me "It means too long to read". So I suppose any response that has more than 20 characters, or whatever the length is allowed on tweeter, is now too long to read. I wonder whether anyone who is under 45 years can push through a book that is not candy prose or such.

I have made it a life long habit to resist the bastardization of the English language that occurred in the 20th century, never mind this one.  Most of my generation is too eager to show how "hip and with it they are" and have been responsible for the degradation of the English culture to a point where I suspect in the next 30 years we shall have the manners and outlook of our American cousins.

. . . as I near three score and ten I have the most pleasurable reason to travel to Paris to visit my heir, and brand new grandson.

That, dear sir, transcends all else. Congratulations.

As to your former comment on Imperial Airways...it is the same as when  I told my late wife after she pushed me (and I mean that both literally and figuratively) onto a dreadful American Cruise (ship):  "This is NOT how they did it on the Titanic" to which she replied tartly "I dare say we should be glad of not being drowned."

Totally irrelevant to Jimmy the Crab's question. In fact, it only proves that the old ways are not necessarily the best ways.

With regards to your latter comment what was said of Sir Francis Burton, one of my heroes, could have been said of me
"He was, as has been well said, an Elizabethan born out of time; in the days of Drake his very faults might have counted to his credit."

I make no bones about it- as I wrote elsewhere on this forum  I am Victorian in outlook, if not sentiment. The greatest influence on my life was one Victorian born, who, because of his position in industry, was considered "indispensable to the War Effort" and thus escaped the slaughter on the Western Front. This escape ,I suspect, ensured that both his inclinations and outlook were unchanged from before the war, which as you know, or may know, was the watershed in our history. You may blame it on my rearing and the innate stubbornness I inherited from my mother and her father. I am contrarian as well as Victorian.  I hear all this rubbish being spouted about these days: "Be true to yourself... march to the beat of a differing drummer"... ad nauseam. The real problem with this rubbish is that the people who are most prone to spout it off are aghast when they actually see it in action. I resent the 21st century and the supposed "need for speed". Posters have replied "TLTR" which, I mystified me until my daughter told me "It means too long to read". So I suppose any response that has more than 20 characters, or whatever the length is allowed on tweeter, is now too long to read. I wonder whether anyone who is under 45 years can push through a book that is not candy prose or such.

The expression is actually TL;DR, or "too long; didn't read." I think this has more to do with the fact that you cannot present your ideas without some extra fluff or personal anecdote similar to the one above. Also, your writing can be quite confusing to read at times. You use outdated or overly-complex words which make reading your posts somewhat of a chore  (i.e. "vituperative", "prismatics", etc.).

Maybe you should apply your own thinking to your writing and choose simpler, more efficient words.

Ya now what, I'll just do it now. I am 14 years old, and I don't care who knows it. I care deeply about reading, and worked my way through books such as The Three Musketeers at quite an early age. I also have several other friends who show the same appreciation for literature. Please be careful about commenting on a generation you know very little about.
^{Check yourself before you wreck yourself amirite?}

I have made it a life long habit to resist the bastardization of the English language that occurred in the 20th century, never mind this one.  Most of my generation is too eager to show how "hip and with it they are" and have been responsible for the degradation of the English culture to a point where I suspect in the next 30 years we shall have the manners and outlook of our American cousins.

You realize that language is not something set in stone? No matter how much you try, new words and expressions will always arise and be molded by their use. This is so much more evident thanks to the Internet as cultures swap words and other pieces of language.

Overall, I think you suffer from something called false nostalgia.You think of "the good old times" (especially the Victorian era) in a much more ideal way than how they actually occurred. There have been some worrying trends in world society, but these can be fixed. Sometimes, the best idea is to embrace change even if you do not like it.

As to your former comment on Imperial Airways...it is the same as when  I told my late wife after she pushed me (and I mean that both literally and figuratively) onto a dreadful American Cruise (ship):  "This is NOT how they did it on the Titanic" to which she replied tartly "I dare say we should be glad of not being drowned."

Ha!  That's quite a slick comeback.  I don't know how you stay in character, it's quite impressive.  Sort of.

With regards to your latter comment what was said of Sir Francis Burton, one of my heroes, could have been said of me
"He was, as has been well said, an Elizabethan born out of time; in the days of Drake his very faults might have counted to his credit."

Yes, I'm sure you're just like Richard Burton.

I have made it a life long habit to resist the bastardization of the English language that occurred in the 20th century, never mind this one.  Most of my generation is too eager to show how "hip and with it they are" and have been responsible for the degradation of the English culture to a point where I suspect in the next 30 years we shall have the manners and outlook of our American cousins.

Wasn't your father a coal miner?  At what point did you start pretending to be Phileas Fogg?

Quote from: Sir Richard on March 18, 2016, 01:36:54 PM

As to your former comment on Imperial Airways...it is the same as when  I told my late wife after she pushed me (and I mean that both literally and figuratively) onto a dreadful American Cruise (ship):  "This is NOT how they did it on the Titanic" to which she replied tartly "I dare say we should be glad of not being drowned."

Totally irrelevant to Jimmy the Crab's question. In fact, it only proves that the old ways are not necessarily the best ways.


The expression is actually TL;DR, or "too long; didn't read." I think this has more to do with the fact that you cannot present your ideas without some extra fluff or personal anecdote similar to the one above. Also, your writing can be quite confusing to read at times. You use outdated or overly-complex words which make reading your posts somewhat of a chore  (i.e. "vituperative", "prismatics", etc.).

Maybe you should apply your own thinking to your writing and choose simpler, more efficient words.

Ya now what, I'll just do it now. I am 14 years old, and I don't care who knows it. I care deeply about reading, and worked my way through books such as The Three Musketeers at quite an early age. I also have several other friends who show the same appreciation for literature. Please be careful about commenting on a generation you know very little about.
^{Check yourself before you wreck yourself amirite?}

You realize that language is not something set in stone? No matter how much you try, new words and expressions will always arise and be molded by their use. This is so much more evident thanks to the Internet as cultures swap words and other pieces of language.

Overall, I think you suffer from something called false nostalgia.You think of "the good old times" (especially the Victorian era) in a much more ideal way than how they actually occurred. There have been some worrying trends in world society, but these can be fixed. Sometimes, the best idea is to embrace change even if you do not like it.

Thank you for your response, it was most pleasurable to read, I might add. My daughter gave me this Apple computer (apparently very powerful for its size) last year but I let it molder for a long while. Then a month ago she spent time setting up a network called for me  (a wifi network it is called) and, after the death of my wife, I determined to learn how to use it and the internet/google. I must say there are benefits to being able to converse across the world with people (which I thought would be the case) but the idea that I would be discussing matters with a fourteen year old never crossed my mind.

I am no respecter of age mind you. I actually think my generation has much responsibility to bear regarding the present state of affairs both in Britain and the US.   But let me address your points one by one, if I may. You have to forgive me, but it took me hours (literally) to figure out how to cut and paste and actually respond to quotes. My daughter (old enough to be your mother at 35 years of age) loaded the photo on my profile page. She said she wanted to have a photo that captured my essence. I must say I got a jolly good laugh out of it. Do you think it shows off my outlook and personality?

Back to your points, my young, but erudite friend:
1. Totally irrelevant to Jimmy Crab's question. Not true from my view, of course. Rather the point was I imagine that the Titanic was a superb first class ocean liner just as I imagine Imperial Airways Sea boats (yes they used to stop in Bermuda on the way to American from Britain) were first class. Did you know that they actually had a nurse on board in case anyone fell ill during a flight? My response was intended to show that I was "imagining" this- and by use of an anecdote (true I must add) to add a bit of self deprecating humour (which is always the best kind).

2. Maybe you should apply your own thinking to your writing and choose simpler, more efficient words. Here you are confusing efficient (I think) with effective. Let me ask you a few questions (sincere ones I might add). On a beautiful day at the beach, or on a mountain, say when the sun is setting, would it be more effective to run out one minute before the sun rise, snap a photograph, and run back in to begin other activity?  I would argue that would be more efficient, of course, but not more effective. Efficiency seems to be the order of the day. But I care not for efficiency, it results in terrible meals (think American Fast Food) versus a nice slow cooked pie eaten in a local pub. Was "War and Peace" efficient? I think not.

3.You realize that language is not something set in stone?  More's the pity I might add. This efficiency and use of shortened "English" inevitably leads to where Orwell predicted. I would suggest you read 1984 if it is not required in your school reading curricula (I hope that it is).

4.Overall, I think you suffer from something called false nostalgia.You think of "the good old times" (especially the Victorian era) in a much more ideal way than how they actually occurred. There have been some worrying trends in world society, but these can be fixed. Sometimes, the best idea is to embrace change even if you do not like it.  The logical problem with your argument, if I might be so bold as to point it out is this: I have met and conversed with Victorians, and lived and experienced the decades following 1950. Although your point may be true (I say it is not true) it would seem that the person who actually experienced those times (or interacted with people whose mores and values derived from those times) would be in a better position to judge whether the nostalgia was real or false. You see my point- having experience little more than one decade I am not sure you are yet in a position to judge previous ages. Having said that time is the most precious commodity one has- and you are a wealthy person with regards to time and I but a pauper. Your youth is a value beyond the worth of gold. You should take care how you spend it and spend it when you do wisely.

Do not take it in your head  that I despise youth, that is far from the truth. You may trust on that had you seen me with my 4 month old grandson this week.

You must admit that the younger generation seems to want everything delivered with one snap of the finger including ideas and discourse. Efficient this may be, but effective I do doubt it.

Yes, I'm sure you're just like Richard Burton.

I have made it a life long habit to resist the bastardization of the English language that occurred in the 20th century, never mind this one.  Most of my generation is too eager to show how "hip and with it they are" and have been responsible for the degradation of the English culture to a point where I suspect in the next 30 years we shall have the manners and outlook of our American cousins.

Wasn't your father a coal miner?  At what point did you start pretending to be Phileas Fogg?
[/quote]
With regards to Richard Burton, he was my hero in my youth. However we did differ in one way, I have no predilection for young boys which seems was a weakness of his.

As regards my father, he was a civil engineer by education and trade. My mother had only two years of university when a surprise was delivered (literally) that made her, sadly, give up her formal education.
My maternal grandfather, whom I think you may be referring to, started life as a coal miner but later founded a company that served the coal industry.  Sadly both his company, and most of Britain's coal industry, are gone.

You have me at a loss with regards to Phineas Fogg. I am now proficient at using both Google for searching but do to so I  find I must shut down this forum window and then I must find my place here again, which is no mean feat for me. But you have aroused my curiosity and I will check it tomorrow. It is past my bed time at this point. Good night to you.

With regards to my quip about the Titanic and the tart reply of my wife (who although not loquacious did have a gift for sparse repartee, which, as is by now evident, was not bequeathed to me) is a true story. 

Quote from: Sir Richard on March 18, 2016, 04:43:51 AM

. . . as I near three score and ten I have the most pleasurable reason to travel to Paris to visit my heir, and brand new grandson.

That, dear sir, transcends all else. Congratulations.

Thank you. He is brilliant at the age of four month, I might add.

Well, SirRichard, I respect you quite a bit more now. I see that your opinions are valid, but I still think that change in language and behavior is not a bad thing.

Well, SirRichard, I respect you quite a bit more now. I see that your opinions are valid, but I still think that change in language and behavior is not a bad thing.

Good night my young friend. It has been a pleasure and perhaps we, who are three score apart in years, have demonstrated that differences in opinion can be shared and discussed with out vituperative language. I thought you might enjoy that last bit.

You have me at a loss with regards to Phineas Fogg. I am now proficient at using both Google for searching but do to so I  find I must shut down this forum window and then I must find my place here again, which is no mean feat for me. But you have aroused my curiosity and I will check it tomorrow. It is past my bed time at this point. Good night to you.

Phileas, as you well know.  For someone who is such a fan of the Victorian era, and apparently well read, I'm surprised you are not aware of it's most famous and enduring fictional creation....

What I'm asking you is why, for someone the same age as the recently deceased David Bowie, do you affect the speech patterns of someone from 1870?

You're trying too hard.

Quote from: Stanton on March 18, 2016, 01:52:18 PM

Quote from: Sir Richard on March 18, 2016, 04:43:51 AM

. . . as I near three score and ten I have the most pleasurable reason to travel to Paris to visit my heir, and brand new grandson.

That, dear sir, transcends all else. Congratulations.

Thank you. He is brilliant at the age of four month, I might add.

A theory I would never dare to contradict.   

I was able to confirm, through careful high altitude observation that my studies of the last 30 years are indeed correct. The earth is flat and the sun is indeed just over 32 miles in diameter moving about it appointed track in the celestial sphere.

I went overboard a bit in my reply, but what "set me off" was your claim above that with no measuring instruments you can determine that "the sun is indeed just over 32 miles in diameter".
That claim does seem "a bit over the top", but to me it seems to have as much basis as most flat earth claims.

Also, going back to 1245 to for your authority on refraction seems to be dredging a bit deep.

Yes, I know we also refer to old material, but in all cases it needs to be verified by further evidence. A lot of the work of René Descartes, Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton has not stood the test of time.

Quote from: skeliton112 on March 18, 2016, 11:33:02 AM

Quote from: Sir Richard on March 18, 2016, 11:25:13 AM

However what I observed from my window seat [...] showed conclusive that the world is not curved in the least, but a flat plan with inundation.

So you say you observed 0 curvature, what are the error bars on that number?

EDIT: For comparison the expected (scalar) curvature of the round Earth is around 2/r^2 = 5x10^-8 km^-2

I would suggest less than 1% or less than would be expected vs. the boating experiment (on open ocean) that you suggested,

Providing the margin of error as a percentage when your measurement is 0 does not work, as 1% of 0 is still 0 meaning you are entirely sure that the earth does not curve one iota, not even 1mm over a billion kilometres.

I'll rephrase the question:  What is a value for curvature that you are ~95% certain is above the true value?

EDIT: I just noticed that you said I suggested the boating experiment, I did not.  I responded to the person who did with an estimation of what angle would be expected and then a comment expressing my doubts that it could be accurately measured.

Quote from: Sir Richard on March 18, 2016, 02:44:47 PM

You have me at a loss with regards to Phineas Fogg. I am now proficient at using both Google for searching but do to so I  find I must shut down this forum window and then I must find my place here again, which is no mean feat for me. But you have aroused my curiosity and I will check it tomorrow. It is past my bed time at this point. Good night to you.

Phileas, as you well know.  For someone who is such a fan of the Victorian era, and apparently well read, I'm surprised you are not aware of it's most famous and enduring fictional creation....

What I'm asking you is why, for someone the same age as the recently deceased David Bowie, do you affect the speech patterns of someone from 1870?

I never laid claim to being a "fan" of the Victorian era rather, as I have said, I am Victorian in both sentiment and outlook. Having now concluded a Google Search I can tell you that I have never read Jules Verne nor any book with science fiction as the subject.

As to your second question I give two answers.  First as to why I do I not write [speak] like David Bowie: I suppose for the same reason that you do not affect the same speech patterns of one of those rap artists, none of whom, blessedly, I can name by name. I must confess I do not recollect ever having heard David Bowie speak, or did I give him a single thought, except upon occasions when I saw his visage staring out of the front page of the Sun, other than he resembled Peter Pan in his looks.

In the second part of my reply, I will add, that you and I have never had the pleasure of conversing so I am not sure how you could conclude that my speech patterns are of those from 1870. Actually I am surprised you did not accuse me of having the speech patterns of those great scholars  Peter Abelard, Archbishops Lanfranc or Anselm of Canterbury whom I admire much more than any Victorian Philosopher, if there were one I admired, which there is not.