A short trip and confirmation

  • 49 Replies
  • 4400 Views
*

Sir Richard

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 451
Re: A short trip and confirmation
« Reply #30 on: March 19, 2016, 04:54:07 AM »
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.
For your first comment I would reply that my observations were very much in line with what one would expect if the sun were relatively nearer the earth than the hello-centrists supposed. If the earth and sun were at the distance of 3,000 miles, which my observations seem to show, then the diameter of the sun would logically be 32 miles.

As to my reference regarding refraction of light, any evidence I give, even that which you do not refute, seems to make you more obdurate, which is the opposite affect for which I had hoped.
"Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?"  J Stalin

"It is not the people that vote that count it is the people that count the votes" J Stalin

*

Sir Richard

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 451
Re: A short trip and confirmation
« Reply #31 on: March 19, 2016, 05:00:07 AM »

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 the angle would be expected and then a comment expressing my doubts that it could be accurately measured.
My apologies on the error of attribution. These debates are sometimes difficult to keep straight with all this cutting and pasting and panes flying about. Regarding the certainty I would say that my certainty is nigh over 95% since I was using a very nice pair of binoculars, which were surprisingly difficult, I might add, to carry through all the airport security onto the airplane. By the way the security procedures at the airport where appallingly uncivil and today I am composing a letter to the Secretary of State Transport to inform him of such.
"Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?"  J Stalin

"It is not the people that vote that count it is the people that count the votes" J Stalin

Re: A short trip and confirmation
« Reply #32 on: March 19, 2016, 05:18:13 AM »

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 the angle would be expected and then a comment expressing my doubts that it could be accurately measured.
My apologies on the error of attribution. These debates are sometimes difficult to keep straight with all this cutting and pasting and panes flying about. Regarding the certainty I would say that my certainty is nigh over 95% since I was using a very nice pair of binoculars, which were surprisingly difficult, I might add, to carry through all the airport security onto the airplane. By the way the security procedures at the airport where appallingly uncivil and today I am composing a letter to the Secretary of State Transport to inform him of such.
No worries, I just wanted to clear that up.

The point that I was trying to make by asking you what the margin of error of your measurement was is that planes (0 curvature) look very similar to spheres with low curvature.  No matter how accurate your observations and no matter how good your equipment there will always be an uncertainty attached to any measurement you make.  For instance, a common ruler has marks every 1mm.  This means that if I measure something to be 21mm there is a +/- 0.5mm margin of error (The smallest interval divided by 2).

TL;DR (I hear you like the phrase): I am unconvinced that you could discern between a sphere with a curvature of 5x10^-8 km^-2 and a plane with a curvature of 0 km^-2 using binoculars from an aeroplane, although I am more than willing to hear an argument to the contrary.

Re: A short trip and confirmation
« Reply #33 on: March 19, 2016, 05:34:46 AM »
I drove to the grocery store yesterday, and outside my car window and the sun looked like it was 1.496×108 km away. I guess I just countered your entire argument. Move on to the next one.

Re: A short trip and confirmation
« Reply #34 on: March 19, 2016, 05:40:33 AM »
I drove to the grocery store yesterday, and outside my car window and the sun looked like it was 1.496×108 km away. I guess I just countered your entire argument. Move on to the next one.
Well, he promised to post pictures later.  Hopefully they will show something interesting to explain.

*

Sir Richard

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 451
Re: A short trip and confirmation
« Reply #35 on: March 19, 2016, 06:17:30 AM »
I drove to the grocery store yesterday, and outside my car window and the sun looked like it was 1.496×108 km away. I guess I just countered your entire argument. Move on to the next one.
Well, he promised to post pictures later.  Hopefully they will show something interesting to explain.
I am having the photographs developed at the local Boots- they are to be ready on Monday.

Then I will have to await my daughter's visit since I seem incapable of scanning and loading photographs despite the new equipment she procured on my behalf.

 I used my trusty Leica and can only hope that they recorded what I saw through my pair of Praxis. Such are the vagaries of science.
"Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?"  J Stalin

"It is not the people that vote that count it is the people that count the votes" J Stalin

Re: A short trip and confirmation
« Reply #36 on: March 19, 2016, 06:59:02 AM »
I asked a similar question on the first page but you may not have noticed and I'm curious as to what your answer is:

In regards to your third argument in the OP: What did you calculate the refractive index of aether to be and where does it interface with a medium of a different refractive index?

Or, alternatively, if it's index is not constant: Can you describe how the refractive index of aether changes as a function of some quantities (altitude, etc.)?  Roughly or specifically.

EDIT: A third alternative to cover all bases: If the refraction you predict is not due to a difference in refractive index's then what causes the refraction of light by the aether in your model and, further, how can you predict the path taken by light with it?
« Last Edit: March 19, 2016, 07:10:55 AM by skeliton112 »

*

Sir Richard

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 451
Re: A short trip and confirmation
« Reply #37 on: March 19, 2016, 10:04:34 AM »
I asked a similar question on the first page but you may not have noticed and I'm curious as to what your answer is:

In regards to your third argument in the OP: What did you calculate the refractive index of aether to be and where does it interface with a medium of a different refractive index?

Or, alternatively, if it's index is not constant: Can you describe how the refractive index of aether changes as a function of some quantities (altitude, etc.)?  Roughly or specifically.

EDIT: A third alternative to cover all bases: If the refraction you predict is not due to a difference in refractive index's then what causes the refraction of light by the aether in your model and, further, how can you predict the path taken by light with it?
A posited in an early thread else where the aether varies in concentration in directly proportional to the distance from the terrestrial plan. I.e.: the higher the altitude of an object from the terrestrial plane the more concentrated the aether whilst the reverse is also true. Thus the refractive index changes in relation to the vertical distance betwixt two objects.
"Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?"  J Stalin

"It is not the people that vote that count it is the people that count the votes" J Stalin

Re: A short trip and confirmation
« Reply #38 on: March 19, 2016, 10:14:37 AM »
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.
You claim to be well read and "Victorian in outlook" but have never heard of Jules Verne?

Quote
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.
My point being, you are a child of the 1960s like Bowie, not the 1860s.  You are not that old, yet you make out you are from a different era.

So at what point did you start this pretentious style of writing?


Quote
I am having the photographs developed at the local Boots- they are to be ready on Monday.
Which branch is that?  I'm not aware of any still develop film....as you might know, nearly all photography is digital now.

Quote
Then I will have to await my daughter's visit since I seem incapable of scanning and loading photographs despite the new equipment she procured on my behalf.
Yes, yes of course... ::)
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

*

Sir Richard

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 451
Re: A short trip and confirmation
« Reply #39 on: March 19, 2016, 11:03:33 AM »
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.
You claim to be well read and "Victorian in outlook" but have never heard of Jules Verne?

Quote
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.
My point being, you are a child of the 1960s like Bowie, not the 1860s.  You are not that old, yet you make out you are from a different era.

So at what point did you start this pretentious style of writing?


Quote
I am having the photographs developed at the local Boots- they are to be ready on Monday.
Which branch is that?  I'm not aware of any still develop film....as you might know, nearly all photography is digital now.

Quote
Then I will have to await my daughter's visit since I seem incapable of scanning and loading photographs despite the new equipment she procured on my behalf.
Yes, yes of course... ::)
I would suggest that you might want to improve your reading comprehension perhaps by taking a bit more time With passages  prior to responding. Firstly I did not say I was unaware of Jules Vernes rather that I had not read any of his works. And in case you care I have yet To read a word of HG Wells although as a young man I did attend the cinema to see the movie that dramatized his work of  the "War of Worlds".

My local Boots develops film and I am well aware of digital photography but prefer my Lica. As the hippies say "I could really blow your mind" By telling you I possess a Harmon Kardin high fidelity stereo system to for my record collection. I am told both are now worth a bit of money.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2016, 11:16:03 AM by Sir Richard »
"Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?"  J Stalin

"It is not the people that vote that count it is the people that count the votes" J Stalin

?

palmerito0

  • 582
  • Why does this forum exist?
Re: A short trip and confirmation
« Reply #40 on: March 19, 2016, 11:31:02 AM »
I would suggest that you might want to improve your reading comprehension perhaps by taking a bit more time With passages  prior to responding.

Took a page right out of jroa's book didn't you.
Heiwa on the impossibility of space travel:

There are no toilets up there and sex is also a problem, just to mention a few difficulties.

WHEEEEEEEEEEE

*

Sir Richard

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 451
Re: A short trip and confirmation
« Reply #41 on: March 19, 2016, 11:42:50 AM »
I would suggest that you might want to improve your reading comprehension perhaps by taking a bit more time With passages  prior to responding.

Took a page right out of jroa's book didn't you.
Good evening  my friend. I am not sure who jroa is.

What do you think of the meta-physical discussion, elsewhere, regarding matter, reality and the mind? I am interested in your perspective.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2016, 11:45:30 AM by Sir Richard »
"Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?"  J Stalin

"It is not the people that vote that count it is the people that count the votes" J Stalin

Re: A short trip and confirmation
« Reply #42 on: March 19, 2016, 12:09:07 PM »
I asked a similar question on the first page but you may not have noticed and I'm curious as to what your answer is:

In regards to your third argument in the OP: What did you calculate the refractive index of aether to be and where does it interface with a medium of a different refractive index?

Or, alternatively, if it's index is not constant: Can you describe how the refractive index of aether changes as a function of some quantities (altitude, etc.)?  Roughly or specifically.

EDIT: A third alternative to cover all bases: If the refraction you predict is not due to a difference in refractive index's then what causes the refraction of light by the aether in your model and, further, how can you predict the path taken by light with it?
A posited in an early thread else where the aether varies in concentration in directly proportional to the distance from the terrestrial plan. I.e.: the higher the altitude of an object from the terrestrial plane the more concentrated the aether whilst the reverse is also true. Thus the refractive index changes in relation to the vertical distance betwixt two objects.
Thankyou very much for your precise answer.  In fact I think it is precise enough to make some predictions if I interpret two things you say, please correct me if I misinterpret.

1. The relationship between height and concentration is linear (doubling the height doubles the concentration).  I assume this is what you mean because you said "directly proportional)
2. The relationship between concentration and refractive index is positive and linear.  You merely described a change in concentration implying some unknown change in refractive index, however when I asked for refractive index you answered with concentration so I assume they are in some way proportional, and directly proportional seems most likely.

These two things would imply height and refractive index are directly proportional due to the associativity of multiplication, i.e. k(cx) = (kc)x.

I plan to use this to figure out how you would expect the horizontal distance to the horizon to vary with altitude.  I may edit it into this post, make a new post or make a new thread as long as you don't correct me before then.

?

palmerito0

  • 582
  • Why does this forum exist?
Re: A short trip and confirmation
« Reply #43 on: March 19, 2016, 02:13:49 PM »
I would suggest that you might want to improve your reading comprehension perhaps by taking a bit more time With passages  prior to responding.

Took a page right out of jroa's book didn't you.
Good evening  my friend. I am not sure who jroa is.

What do you think of the meta-physical discussion, elsewhere, regarding matter, reality and the mind? I am interested in your perspective.

Jroa's just a troll that somehow made his way up to the position of moderator. His favorite argument is basically to say "You don't understand anything" and spam  ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) emoticons everywhere.

As to the other thread, I don't like to define reality as just what we can experience. There are so many more possible things, so we should always be open to the fact that what we have experienced does not encompass everything that exists.
Heiwa on the impossibility of space travel:

There are no toilets up there and sex is also a problem, just to mention a few difficulties.

WHEEEEEEEEEEE

*

Sir Richard

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 451
Re: A short trip and confirmation
« Reply #44 on: March 19, 2016, 02:42:32 PM »
I would suggest that you might want to improve your reading comprehension perhaps by taking a bit more time With passages  prior to responding.

Took a page right out of jroa's book didn't you.
Good evening  my friend. I am not sure who jroa is.

What do you think of the meta-physical discussion, elsewhere, regarding matter, reality and the mind? I am interested in your perspective.

Jroa's just a troll that somehow made his way up to the position of moderator. His favorite argument is basically to say "You don't understand anything" and spam  ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) emoticons everywhere.

As to the other thread, I don't like to define reality as just what we can experience. There are so many more possible things, so we should always be open to the fact that what we have experienced does not encompass everything that exists.
Did you read the most excellent article on meditation I posted on the research of such at Harvard?
"Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?"  J Stalin

"It is not the people that vote that count it is the people that count the votes" J Stalin

*

Rayzor

  • 11291
  • Looking for Occam
Re: A short trip and confirmation
« Reply #45 on: March 20, 2016, 02:08:23 AM »
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.
You claim to be well read and "Victorian in outlook" but have never heard of Jules Verne?

Quote
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.
My point being, you are a child of the 1960s like Bowie, not the 1860s.  You are not that old, yet you make out you are from a different era.

So at what point did you start this pretentious style of writing?


Quote
I am having the photographs developed at the local Boots- they are to be ready on Monday.
Which branch is that?  I'm not aware of any still develop film....as you might know, nearly all photography is digital now.

Quote
Then I will have to await my daughter's visit since I seem incapable of scanning and loading photographs despite the new equipment she procured on my behalf.
Yes, yes of course... ::)
I would suggest that you might want to improve your reading comprehension perhaps by taking a bit more time With passages  prior to responding. Firstly I did not say I was unaware of Jules Vernes rather that I had not read any of his works. And in case you care I have yet To read a word of HG Wells although as a young man I did attend the cinema to see the movie that dramatized his work of  the "War of Worlds".

My local Boots develops film and I am well aware of digital photography but prefer my Lica. As the hippies say "I could really blow your mind" By telling you I possess a Harmon Kardin high fidelity stereo system to for my record collection. I am told both are now worth a bit of money.

I suspect you meant Leica,  but if you really had a Leica, you wouldn't have mispelt it.   But nice derailing tactic.   Harmon Kardin?   Really!  Got a good set of Meyer X10's?

Your account reeks of misunderstanding of basic principles.   You need to go back and re-read "Your Deceptive Mind".

Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

Re: A short trip and confirmation
« Reply #46 on: March 20, 2016, 04:39:31 AM »
And Leica make very nice digital cameras.

It's interesting how Sir Richard can apparently operate a computer, a browser, post on forums using bbcode yet putting a photo under his scanner and pressing the "scan" button is beyond his skills.   ::)

Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

*

Sir Richard

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 451
Re: A short trip and confirmation
« Reply #47 on: March 21, 2016, 04:58:31 AM »
And Leica make very nice digital cameras.

It's interesting how Sir Richard can apparently operate a computer, a browser, post on forums using bbcode yet putting a photo under his scanner and pressing the "scan" button is beyond his skills.   ::)
Oh were it that simple. When I tried doing that initially, to load my own photo on the computer so that I could put it onto my profile- the scanner read "printer problem". So there is a problem here somewhere. As my daughter so aptly put it- "the problem is between the mouse and the user in your case"

I would be interested in knowing a bit about your education and background if you don't mind.
"Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?"  J Stalin

"It is not the people that vote that count it is the people that count the votes" J Stalin

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23000
  • The Last Spiritual Heir Of The St Jacob The Less
Re: A short trip and confirmation
« Reply #48 on: March 21, 2016, 05:08:18 AM »
I have an idea about this matter.

Try to turn around the antarctica.

Notice your route.

If you can do that, the earth is a spheroid. If antarctica turns around you, then the world is flat.
All these people are dead.



No ways remained us but counterattack as a self defence.


*

Sir Richard

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 451
Re: A short trip and confirmation
« Reply #49 on: March 21, 2016, 07:17:37 AM »


I suspect you meant Leica,  but if you really had a Leica, you wouldn't have mispelt it.   But nice derailing tactic.   Harmon Kardin?   Really!  Got a good set of Meyer X10's?

Your account reeks of misunderstanding of basic principles.   You need to go back and re-read "Your Deceptive Mind".
With regards to Leica I do admit to misspellings upon occasion. But at my age I am glad to be able to read the screen without the aid of glasses.

With regards to the Harmon Karden system, yes,it is true I do have a complete system as well as a very nice collection of Vinyl Albums.
About twenty years prior I received a gift of a compact disc player that one could connect with a stereo system. It was expensive, at the time, I imagine.

I then went out an purchased a few compact discs of my favorite operas (Don Giovanni being one). I had read very positive reviews about the sound quality of such and I was eager to enter into this new golden age of audio recordings. I must confess that upon listening to the music, first using speakers, and then through a very nice set of headphones, I was very disappointed in the sound that issued forth. I found the sound cold, and for lack of a better description, flat and lifeless. To be sure all the notes were there (and ranges) but not in their fullness, and to my ear, not there depth.

Apparently vinyl is staging a "comeback" because of the lack of sound quality in current CDs. I understand good used equipment is difficult to find. There is a very well stocked record local shop which is very busy with customers during weekends these days.
"Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?"  J Stalin

"It is not the people that vote that count it is the people that count the votes" J Stalin