The Shipping Crate Experiment

  • 141 Replies
  • 10713 Views
Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
« Reply #60 on: February 12, 2017, 09:26:21 AM »
You are most correct - the shipping container is far a more ideal location for such an experiment. However, those without a twenty might find themselves glad to observe this every day from their own house. As you and a previous poster pointed out, yes, they would have to have a reasonable orientated house.
What is the point of this when the angle of the sun is known and can be measured from multiple locations and at different times, proving a round earth?

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16578
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
« Reply #61 on: February 12, 2017, 09:37:56 AM »
You must be mistaken.

This has been measured many times, and from multiple locations and it certainly does not prove a round earth. While some of these measurements certainly support round earth models, they also overwhelming support flat earth models.

If the earth was a globe, we should see this in easily replicable experiments such as the one above. We do not. Now, this may lead the ball earther to state silly things - the earth is still round, but we need to adjust this small bit of it. Oh, could any man not be an amazing baseball player if only his hits were tallied? What if he refused, like the globe model, to leave the plate once he struck out?

He would like us to believe you can see this curvature in the shadows of sticks in the ground, but not in the shadows of much larger shipping crates!

We have shown the globe to be false again and again through experiment, reason, and every one of our senses. There can be no doubt that we are not swirling about space at ridiculous speeds, hanging from our feet like action figures tied to a centrifuge.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2017, 09:42:53 AM by John Davis »
Quantum Ab Hoc

Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
« Reply #62 on: February 12, 2017, 10:16:58 AM »
You must be mistaken.

This has been measured many times, and from multiple locations and it certainly does not prove a round earth. While some of these measurements certainly support round earth models, they also overwhelming support flat earth models.

If the earth was a globe, we should see this in easily replicable experiments such as the one above. We do not. Now, this may lead the ball earther to state silly things - the earth is still round, but we need to adjust this small bit of it. Oh, could any man not be an amazing baseball player if only his hits were tallied? What if he refused, like the globe model, to leave the plate once he struck out?

He would like us to believe you can see this curvature in the shadows of sticks in the ground, but not in the shadows of much larger shipping crates!

We have shown the globe to be false again and again through experiment, reason, and every one of our senses. There can be no doubt that we are not swirling about space at ridiculous speeds, hanging from our feet like action figures tied to a centrifuge.
Please provide links to measurements taken recently that support a flat earth.  Do you agree that published sunset and sunrise times are correct?

Please show links to recent experiments.

Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
« Reply #63 on: February 12, 2017, 04:17:30 PM »
You must be mistaken.

This has been measured many times, and from multiple locations and it certainly does not prove a round earth. While some of these measurements certainly support round earth models

Indeed they do. Thank you. Given the nature of proof in science, "proof" is a non-issue.

Quote
they also overwhelming support flat earth models.

Do you really think so? Why? If the earth were flat, how could the sun even be on the horizon at one place on earth and be directly above another place on earth a finite distance away at the same time? This is easy using the spherical earth and distant sun model. What do you have?

Quote
If the earth was a globe, we should see this in easily replicable experiments such as the one above. We do not.

Actually, we do, time and time again. Without fail. Maybe you don't see it, probably because you don't want to.

The problem is what you claim we should expect to see in these experiments seems to be different from what the real spherical-earth model predicts. IOW, that's a strawman argument.

Can you explain what you expect the shipping container experiment would show if the earth were a globe with a radius of about 6400 km, and how it differs from what it does show (or what you think it would would show if you actually performed it)? If you use math, please show and clearly explain your work.

I've asked for this before. You seem reluctant to provide it. You're making a claim you refuse to back up. Why?

Quote
Now, this may lead the ball earther to state silly things - the earth is still round, but we need to adjust this small bit of it.

Such as? How significant is the adjustment? What is the justification given for the adjustment?

Are you attacking the idea a simple spherical model works well enough for a large number of problems, but a much more complex (but more accurate) ellipsoidal model is necessary when higher precision is needed, and an even more complex, but more accurate still, geoid is necessary to explain very small effects? Each has its own realm where it is most suitable, and the reasons for the differences between them are known.
 
Quote
Oh, could any man not be an amazing baseball player if only his hits were tallied? What if he refused, like the globe model, to leave the plate once he struck out?
Quote

Again, please explain why you think what happens with a properly-conducted "shipping container experiment" would be a strikeout? What do you think the spherical earth model would predict? How much does that differ from what the flat-earth model (assuming you could have a sunrise or sunset at all) would predict. Please show your reasoning in enough detail that it can be understood.

He would like us to believe you can see this curvature in the shadows of sticks in the ground, but not in the shadows of much larger shipping crates!

It sounds like you're referring to Eratosthenes. Shipping crates are tiny compared to the distances necessary to determine the radius of the spherical earth, using shadow lengths and basic equipment, with reasonable accuracy. The distance between them (hundreds of miles in Eratosthenes' case) is much more significant than the length of the whatever is casting the shadow.

Apparently it still stings. A Greek dude was getting better answers more than 2000 years ago, with a simpler model, using very simple measurements, than you can do today.

Quote
We have shown the globe to be false again and again through experiment, reason, and every one of our senses.

Citation needed. One clear and unambiguous example would be a start. Otherwise, this is yet another baseless bluster.

Quote
There can be no doubt that we are not swirling about space at ridiculous speeds, hanging from our feet like action figures tied to a centrifuge.

"Hanging from our feet." Lol.

The speeds are what they are; you call them ridiculous, but you're making inappropriate comparisons to human scale activities on earth. What is ridiculous is the sort of hyperbole you think has "shown the globe to be false". It's just words.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
« Reply #64 on: February 12, 2017, 05:04:26 PM »
The sun is rising right now. My ceiling remains dark. What of you good forum goers? Is your ceiling lit?
Every day I can watch the sunlight receding up the mountain nearby  until only the top is lit, and then only the bottom sides of the clouds.  I can also see the sun, whose size does not change, dip by degrees below the horizon, never shrinking away but dipping below a hard line.
How is that possible?

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
« Reply #65 on: February 12, 2017, 06:30:10 PM »
The sun is rising right now. My ceiling remains dark. What of you good forum goers? Is your ceiling lit?
And what angle to the horizontal would you claim the light from a rising sun should be?
I would claim that, if you were 50 ft above a sea horizon, when the very first rays show the light could not be shining "upwards" by more than about 0.1°
and less than a minute later the sun's rays would be above the horizontal, so your whole premise has always been quite ridiculous!

Still, so many claims by you flat earthers are quite ridiculous, otherwise, you would not be able to support your hypotheses.

Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
« Reply #66 on: February 12, 2017, 07:33:40 PM »
The sun is rising right now. My ceiling remains dark. What of you good forum goers? Is your ceiling lit?
And what angle to the horizontal would you claim the light from a rising sun should be?
I would claim that, if you were 50 ft above a sea horizon, when the very first rays show the light could not be shining "upwards" by more than about 0.1°
and less than a minute later the sun's rays would be above the horizontal, so your whole premise has always been quite ridiculous!

I'm still waiting for that answer and it looks like we're in for a very long wait. It's as though he thinks the horizon should be something like 5° or more below level when viewed from just a little above the seashore, when it obviously isn't and shouldn't be expected to be, if the earth were a sphere the size it's known to be.

It seems like Mr. Davis doesn't know how to do high school trig, doesn't know how to apply it to actual real-world problems, or is intentionally throwing out misinformation hoping to fool someone for some strange reason I can't fathom. I can see why Rowbotham did that - he sold seats at "lectures" where the wilder his claims an pronouncements, the more money he made from those who fell for them. Maybe Mr. Davis wants to follow in his footsteps and recognized an opportunity to monetize ignorance.

We can hope he will reply with something relevant and insightful that we never thought of, but it doesn't look good.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
« Reply #67 on: February 12, 2017, 08:55:55 PM »
The sun is rising right now. My ceiling remains dark. What of you good forum goers? Is your ceiling lit?
And what angle to the horizontal would you claim the light from a rising sun should be?
I would claim that, if you were 50 ft above a sea horizon, when the very first rays show the light could not be shining "upwards" by more than about 0.1°
and less than a minute later the sun's rays would be above the horizontal, so your whole premise has always been quite ridiculous!

I'm still waiting for that answer and it looks like we're in for a very long wait. It's as though he thinks the horizon should be something like 5° or more below level when viewed from just a little above the seashore, when it obviously isn't and shouldn't be expected to be, if the earth were a sphere the size it's known to be.

It seems like Mr. Davis doesn't know how to do high school trig, doesn't know how to apply it to actual real-world problems, or is intentionally throwing out misinformation hoping to fool someone for some strange reason I can't fathom. I can see why Rowbotham did that - he sold seats at "lectures" where the wilder his claims an pronouncements, the more money he made from those who fell for them. Maybe Mr. Davis wants to follow in his footsteps and recognized an opportunity to monetize ignorance.

We can hope he will reply with something relevant and insightful that we never thought of, but it doesn't look good.

Yes, "It seems like Mr. Davis doesn't know how to do high school trig, doesn't know how to apply it to actual real-world problems" and yet he claims expertise in "relativity" and "gravitation". You work it out.

*

Gumby

  • 821
  • I don't exist.
Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
« Reply #68 on: February 13, 2017, 01:00:51 AM »
Oh dear! I just saw the underside of an airplane light by sunshine!
And the sun has set a couple of minutes ago!
It can't be true!
This is impossible!
How dumb can you be?
I think MH370 was hijacked and the persons who did the hijacking were indeed out to prove a flat earth.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16578
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
« Reply #69 on: February 13, 2017, 07:22:03 AM »
As soon as the argument turns against them, the globularist inevitably turns to attacks against me. Obviously, I know high school trigonometry. Your ignorance of my theories regarding the flat earth does not change this. Why I continue to answer insolent children like you is beyond me. Yet here I am.

Trig is not necessary here. Common sense alone is necessary. If the sun is at some point below the roof of the shipping crate, which there is no doubt that this is the case in a globular model, it will be illuminated upwards. This is not the case in reality. I will not waste my time 'checking your work', as I am not your high school mathematics teacher. In fact, I won't bother reading it, as it is in opposition to fact.

I find it odd I have to explain this:

Now, you may argue that the angle is too small to be seen. Fine. You may then say, well that house was below sea-level; ok, then my shipping crate experiment still shows the results we want.



You must be mistaken.

This has been measured many times, and from multiple locations and it certainly does not prove a round earth. While some of these measurements certainly support round earth models

Indeed they do. Thank you. Given the nature of proof in science, "proof" is a non-issue.

Quote
they also overwhelming support flat earth models.

Do you really think so? Why? If the earth were flat, how could the sun even be on the horizon at one place on earth and be directly above another place on earth a finite distance away at the same time? This is easy using the spherical earth and distant sun model. What do you have?
This is completely coherent with my model. Above this, it was explained in other models as well, albeit less elegantly. Rowbotham, I believe, dedicates a section of his book to this. In it, he uses the analogy of a stick with a circle on it. As you recede away from it, you will note that the bottom half of the circle appears to disappear until eventually it will appear as if the bottom is completely gone. This is much like the sun.

Quote
Quote
If the earth was a globe, we should see this in easily replicable experiments such as the one above. We do not.

Actually, we do, time and time again. Without fail. Maybe you don't see it, probably because you don't want to.
Except we don't see it in the experiment above, and we don't see it other easily replicable experiments such as Foucault Pendulums, aeroplane rides, and even the gravitational measurements of the planet (see gravitational anomaly maps.) There's a reason there are so many flatists about now clamouring for someone to "show them the curve." Its because they've looked for it and can't find it.
Quote
The problem is what you claim we should expect to see in these experiments seems to be different from what the real spherical-earth model predicts. IOW, that's a strawman argument.
Are you saying that the spherical earth model predicts that light would magically bend downwards?!
Quote
Can you explain what you expect the shipping container experiment would show if the earth were a globe with a radius of about 6400 km, and how it differs from what it does show (or what you think it would would show if you actually performed it)? If you use math, please show and clearly explain your work.

I've asked for this before. You seem reluctant to provide it. You're making a claim you refuse to back up. Why?
I would expect the shipping crate to be lit starting upwards, and moving downwards throughout the day. This is in my original post. My math is "up is up, and down is down."

'If, as we are told, the earth is round then we would expect the top of the crate to be illuminated first - as it should have a better vantage point for the sun as it rises above a horizon.'

It is irrelevant how much of this top would be illuminated. This will differ based on the supposed size of the magical globe earth.

Quote

Such as? How significant is the adjustment? What is the justification given for the adjustment?

Are you attacking the idea a simple spherical model works well enough for a large number of problems, but a much more complex (but more accurate) ellipsoidal model is necessary when higher precision is needed, and an even more complex, but more accurate still, geoid is necessary to explain very small effects? Each has its own realm where it is most suitable, and the reasons for the differences between them are known.
 
Quote
Oh, could any man not be an amazing baseball player if only his hits were tallied? What if he refused, like the globe model, to leave the plate once he struck out?
Quote

Again, please explain why you think what happens with a properly-conducted "shipping container experiment" would be a strikeout? What do you think the spherical earth model would predict? How much does that differ from what the flat-earth model (assuming you could have a sunrise or sunset at all) would predict. Please show your reasoning in enough detail that it can be understood.

He would like us to believe you can see this curvature in the shadows of sticks in the ground, but not in the shadows of much larger shipping crates!

It sounds like you're referring to Eratosthenes. Shipping crates are tiny compared to the distances necessary to determine the radius of the spherical earth, using shadow lengths and basic equipment, with reasonable accuracy. The distance between them (hundreds of miles in Eratosthenes' case) is much more significant than the length of the whatever is casting the shadow.

Apparently it still stings. A Greek dude was getting better answers more than 2000 years ago, with a simpler model, using very simple measurements, than you can do today.

Quote
We have shown the globe to be false again and again through experiment, reason, and every one of our senses.

Citation needed. One clear and unambiguous example would be a start. Otherwise, this is yet another baseless bluster.

Quote
There can be no doubt that we are not swirling about space at ridiculous speeds, hanging from our feet like action figures tied to a centrifuge.

"Hanging from our feet." Lol.

The speeds are what they are; you call them ridiculous, but you're making inappropriate comparisons to human scale activities on earth. What is ridiculous is the sort of hyperbole you think has "shown the globe to be false". It's just words.
The fact of the matter is you haven't read the appropriate literature and have no legs to stand on when you say it is ridiculous hyperbole that the globe is false. Whether true or not, you don't have a counter-argument here because you have made yourself purposely ignorant to the truth - like a child singing a song and plugging his ears to avoid being told he has to eat his broccoli. Instead you rely upon me to read these books to you via forum post. A citation is not needed, you simply need to do your own research and stop relying upon me to explain every single stumbling step you have.

Eratosthenes did nothing but assume the earth was round. In fact, he stole his work from the far earlier Taoist scientists that used the exact same experiment to show the earth was flat by not taking this assumption first. Additionally, this experiment has been repeated both by modern flatists as well as Rowbotham. The details to his experiment I believe are outlined within his work.

Now, you can quibble about angles all you want, but the fact is as the sun breaches the horizon, it is below the top of the shipping crate.

Do not expect me to post in this thread again; I will not be party to these silly attacks.

Quantum Ab Hoc

Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
« Reply #70 on: February 13, 2017, 08:41:26 AM »
As soon as the argument turns against them, the globularist inevitably turns to attacks against me. Obviously, I know high school trigonometry. Your ignorance of my theories regarding the flat earth does not change this. Why I continue to answer insolent children like you is beyond me. Yet here I am.

Trig is not necessary here. Common sense alone is necessary. If the sun is at some point below the roof of the shipping crate, which there is no doubt that this is the case in a globular model, it will be illuminated upwards. This is not the case in reality. I will not waste my time 'checking your work', as I am not your high school mathematics teacher. In fact, I won't bother reading it, as it is in opposition to fact.

I find it odd I have to explain this:

Now, you may argue that the angle is too small to be seen. Fine. You may then say, well that house was below sea-level; ok, then my shipping crate experiment still shows the results we want.



You must be mistaken.

This has been measured many times, and from multiple locations and it certainly does not prove a round earth. While some of these measurements certainly support round earth models

Indeed they do. Thank you. Given the nature of proof in science, "proof" is a non-issue.

Quote
they also overwhelming support flat earth models.

Do you really think so? Why? If the earth were flat, how could the sun even be on the horizon at one place on earth and be directly above another place on earth a finite distance away at the same time? This is easy using the spherical earth and distant sun model. What do you have?
This is completely coherent with my model. Above this, it was explained in other models as well, albeit less elegantly. Rowbotham, I believe, dedicates a section of his book to this. In it, he uses the analogy of a stick with a circle on it. As you recede away from it, you will note that the bottom half of the circle appears to disappear until eventually it will appear as if the bottom is completely gone. This is much like the sun.

Quote
Quote
If the earth was a globe, we should see this in easily replicable experiments such as the one above. We do not.

Actually, we do, time and time again. Without fail. Maybe you don't see it, probably because you don't want to.
Except we don't see it in the experiment above, and we don't see it other easily replicable experiments such as Foucault Pendulums, aeroplane rides, and even the gravitational measurements of the planet (see gravitational anomaly maps.) There's a reason there are so many flatists about now clamouring for someone to "show them the curve." Its because they've looked for it and can't find it.
Quote
The problem is what you claim we should expect to see in these experiments seems to be different from what the real spherical-earth model predicts. IOW, that's a strawman argument.
Are you saying that the spherical earth model predicts that light would magically bend downwards?!
Quote
Can you explain what you expect the shipping container experiment would show if the earth were a globe with a radius of about 6400 km, and how it differs from what it does show (or what you think it would would show if you actually performed it)? If you use math, please show and clearly explain your work.

I've asked for this before. You seem reluctant to provide it. You're making a claim you refuse to back up. Why?
I would expect the shipping crate to be lit starting upwards, and moving downwards throughout the day. This is in my original post. My math is "up is up, and down is down."

'If, as we are told, the earth is round then we would expect the top of the crate to be illuminated first - as it should have a better vantage point for the sun as it rises above a horizon.'

It is irrelevant how much of this top would be illuminated. This will differ based on the supposed size of the magical globe earth.

Quote

Such as? How significant is the adjustment? What is the justification given for the adjustment?

Are you attacking the idea a simple spherical model works well enough for a large number of problems, but a much more complex (but more accurate) ellipsoidal model is necessary when higher precision is needed, and an even more complex, but more accurate still, geoid is necessary to explain very small effects? Each has its own realm where it is most suitable, and the reasons for the differences between them are known.
 
Quote
Oh, could any man not be an amazing baseball player if only his hits were tallied? What if he refused, like the globe model, to leave the plate once he struck out?
Quote

Again, please explain why you think what happens with a properly-conducted "shipping container experiment" would be a strikeout? What do you think the spherical earth model would predict? How much does that differ from what the flat-earth model (assuming you could have a sunrise or sunset at all) would predict. Please show your reasoning in enough detail that it can be understood.

He would like us to believe you can see this curvature in the shadows of sticks in the ground, but not in the shadows of much larger shipping crates!

It sounds like you're referring to Eratosthenes. Shipping crates are tiny compared to the distances necessary to determine the radius of the spherical earth, using shadow lengths and basic equipment, with reasonable accuracy. The distance between them (hundreds of miles in Eratosthenes' case) is much more significant than the length of the whatever is casting the shadow.

Apparently it still stings. A Greek dude was getting better answers more than 2000 years ago, with a simpler model, using very simple measurements, than you can do today.

Quote
We have shown the globe to be false again and again through experiment, reason, and every one of our senses.

Citation needed. One clear and unambiguous example would be a start. Otherwise, this is yet another baseless bluster.

Quote
There can be no doubt that we are not swirling about space at ridiculous speeds, hanging from our feet like action figures tied to a centrifuge.

"Hanging from our feet." Lol.

The speeds are what they are; you call them ridiculous, but you're making inappropriate comparisons to human scale activities on earth. What is ridiculous is the sort of hyperbole you think has "shown the globe to be false". It's just words.
The fact of the matter is you haven't read the appropriate literature and have no legs to stand on when you say it is ridiculous hyperbole that the globe is false. Whether true or not, you don't have a counter-argument here because you have made yourself purposely ignorant to the truth - like a child singing a song and plugging his ears to avoid being told he has to eat his broccoli. Instead you rely upon me to read these books to you via forum post. A citation is not needed, you simply need to do your own research and stop relying upon me to explain every single stumbling step you have.

Eratosthenes did nothing but assume the earth was round. In fact, he stole his work from the far earlier Taoist scientists that used the exact same experiment to show the earth was flat by not taking this assumption first. Additionally, this experiment has been repeated both by modern flatists as well as Rowbotham. The details to his experiment I believe are outlined within his work.

Now, you can quibble about angles all you want, but the fact is as the sun breaches the horizon, it is below the top of the shipping crate.

Do not expect me to post in this thread again; I will not be party to these silly attacks.
You have yet to explain the sunrise on the mountain, this is essentially your shipping crate experiment but on a scale large enough to actually see.

Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
« Reply #71 on: February 13, 2017, 01:59:06 PM »
As soon as the argument turns against them, the globularist inevitably turns to attacks against me. Obviously, I know high school trigonometry.

Then why not use it? Using it on this problem is not hard. Is it because it gives an answer you don't like?

Quote
Your ignorance of my theories regarding the flat earth does not change this.

You were making a strawman argument for the spherical earth, claiming it should show something different than the real earth actually would. Remember?

Your theory, whatever it is this week, doesn't really figure into that.

Quote
Why I continue to answer insolent children like you is beyond me. Yet here I am.

"Insolent children like you".

"As soon as the argument turns against them, the globularist inevitably turns to attacks against me."

Lol!

I reply because your answers and evasions amuse me. Those two quotes being in the same post is hysterical.

If you're tired of trying to defend the indefensible, you can quietly throw in the towel and this discussion will eventually drop into oblivion.

Quote
Trig is not necessary here. Common sense alone is necessary. If the sun is at some point below the roof of the shipping crate, which there is no doubt that this is the case in a globular model, it will be illuminated upwards.

Your "common sense" is leading you astray. Trig gives you an actual answer if you do the calculations correctly. First you have to know how to do them, though, and your refusal to use it suggests either you don't know how, you're too lazy (or afraid) to try, or you know the true answer but refuse to acknowledge that it kills your argument. Which is it?

Quote
This is not the case in reality.

Right. Because your strawman model for the spherical earth is wildly wrong.

Quote
I will not waste my time 'checking your work', as I am not your high school mathematics teacher.

Actually, I want to see your work because your answer is obviously way off, as shown below. Honestly, I don't think you know how to solve this using simple trig, but trying to bluff your way out of admitting that is your problem, not mine. It is amusing to read, though.

Quote
In fact, I won't bother reading it, as it is in opposition to fact.

It must seem easier for you to ignore facts and stubbornly hang on to a wrong belief than it is to defend that belief or admit you're wrong. It doesn't make for a very convincing argument, but, again, that's your problem.

Quote
I find it odd I have to explain this:

Now, you may argue that the angle is too small to be seen.
[Image above has been resized; annotated copy below is original size]

That's exactly the argument.

I kind of thought that's where you were coming from. The blue circle added to your drawing in the image below shows the size the spherical earth needs to be to make the lower ray touch the horizon at the angle pictured. If we presume the height of the rectangle is 8 feet, typical for a sea container, then the radius of the blue circle is maybe 65 feet (~20m, or 0.020 km). The earth is really more than 300,000 times larger than that.

See the problem? If you drew the surface of the earth to scale, with the rectangle representing an 8' high, ~20' long shipping container, the arc would "drop" by 0.002 inches (< 0.0002 feet) in the 88-foot width of your drawing[nb]Using the approximation formula well accepted by flat-earthers of 8 inches times distance in miles squared.[/nb]. Since each small square in the drawing represents 2 feet, the curve of the earth to scale with the container (1/10,000 of a small square) would be indistinguishable from a straight horizontal line in that drawing. The lower sun, as drawn, is well below the horizon, not on it.

The correct lower angle is so small the problem can't be drawn to scale; that's why we use trig to find what it is. It is ever so slightly below level, but nothing remotely like what you drew.



Quote
Fine. You may then say, well that house was below sea-level; ok, then my shipping crate experiment still shows the results we want.

What?

The rest will be addressed in a separate post. This one is already too long.

[Edit] Minor grammar and punctuation oopsies.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2017, 02:07:19 PM by Alpha2Omega »
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
« Reply #72 on: February 13, 2017, 02:30:11 PM »
Basically, the sun would shine of the roof of the container if it was not for the earth being in the way.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
« Reply #73 on: February 13, 2017, 03:10:28 PM »
Basically, the sun would shine of the roof of the container if it was not for the earth being in the way.
You want the sun's rays shining upwards. You got the sun's rise shining upwards!
This point shows upward slanting shadows, as John Davis seems to demand,
but you need to click it and watch the video to see where it is taken from - it's only 3:11 long.

By the way the Metabunk Curve Calculator puts the dip to the horizon as 3.8°.
Gee, maybe the earth really is a Globe. Who'd have thought it?
« Last Edit: May 25, 2019, 02:30:10 PM by rabinoz »

Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
« Reply #74 on: February 15, 2017, 03:51:58 PM »
Continued from my previous post...

You must be mistaken.

This has been measured many times, and from multiple locations and it certainly does not prove a round earth. While some of these measurements certainly support round earth models

Indeed they do. Thank you. Given the nature of proof in science, "proof" is a non-issue.

Quote
they also overwhelming support flat earth models.

Do you really think so? Why? If the earth were flat, how could the sun even be on the horizon at one place on earth and be directly above another place on earth a finite distance away at the same time? This is easy using the spherical earth and distant sun model. What do you have?
This is completely coherent with my model. Above this, it was explained in other models as well, albeit less elegantly.

Saying it's coherent doesn't mean it actually is, but maybe I'm thinking of the wrong model; the one I think you're talking about, based on the premise of the "shipping [container] experiment", has the surface of the earth as a flat plane and rays of light are straight lines. If so, it doesn't fit what we know happens.

Sunsets remain an enormous bugaboo for flat-earth models. They're easy to explain with a spherical earth, like everything else we observe, for the simple reason that the earth is a large sphere.

Quote
Rowbotham, I believe, dedicates a section of his book to this. In it, he uses the analogy of a stick with a circle on it. As you recede away from it, you will note that the bottom half of the circle appears to disappear until eventually it will appear as if the bottom is completely gone. This is much like the sun.
If you can provide a real reference instead of a vague "I think it's somewhere. Maybe." I'll look for it. Using simple geometry, however, there is no reason to believe an immobile circle on a stick would disappear from the bottom up as you recede from it on a plane. It's easy to see why it would on the surface of a sphere, however.

Quote
Quote
If the earth was a globe, we should see this in easily replicable experiments such as the one above. We do not.

Actually, we do, time and time again. Without fail. Maybe you don't see it, probably because you don't want to.
Except we don't see it in the experiment above, and we don't see it other easily replicable experiments such as Foucault Pendulums, aeroplane rides, and even the gravitational measurements of the planet (see gravitational anomaly maps.) There's a reason there are so many flatists about now clamouring for someone to "show them the curve." Its because they've looked for it and can't find it.
Quote
The problem is what you claim we should expect to see in these experiments seems to be different from what the real spherical-earth model predicts. IOW, that's a strawman argument.
Are you saying that the spherical earth model predicts that light would magically bend downwards?!

No. What makes you think I said that?

Another strawman.

Quote
Quote
Can you explain what you expect the shipping container experiment would show if the earth were a globe with a radius of about 6400 km, and how it differs from what it does show (or what you think it would would show if you actually performed it)? If you use math, please show and clearly explain your work.

I've asked for this before. You seem reluctant to provide it. You're making a claim you refuse to back up. Why?
I would expect the shipping crate to be lit starting upwards, and moving downwards throughout the day. This is in my original post. My math is "up is up, and down is down."

'If, as we are told, the earth is round then we would expect the top of the crate to be illuminated first - as it should have a better vantage point for the sun as it rises above a horizon.'

It is irrelevant how much of this top would be illuminated. This will differ based on the supposed size of the magical globe earth.

Exactly. The example you illustrated requires an earth radius of about 20 meters. Even you should know this is not a realistic model for the spherical earth. If you used a more reasonable value, like 6,000,000 meters for the earth radius (it's closer to 6,400,000m, but what's a few percent between friends), and a few dozen meters for the altitude of the top of the container, then made the relevant calculations (presuming you know how), you'd see the result differs only very slightly from the flat-earth results. Realistically, this experiment, if conducted, would fall into the 'ambiguous' category because it's too crude to tell the difference between a plane and the surface of a large sphere at the scale involved.

No magic required, just a realistic model and some high school math.

Quote
Quote

Such as? How significant is the adjustment? What is the justification given for the adjustment?

Are you attacking the idea a simple spherical model works well enough for a large number of problems, but a much more complex (but more accurate) ellipsoidal model is necessary when higher precision is needed, and an even more complex, but more accurate still, geoid is necessary to explain very small effects? Each has its own realm where it is most suitable, and the reasons for the differences between them are known.
 
Quote
Oh, could any man not be an amazing baseball player if only his hits were tallied? What if he refused, like the globe model, to leave the plate once he struck out?
Quote

Again, please explain why you think what happens with a properly-conducted "shipping container experiment" would be a strikeout? What do you think the spherical earth model would predict? How much does that differ from what the flat-earth model (assuming you could have a sunrise or sunset at all) would predict. Please show your reasoning in enough detail that it can be understood.

He would like us to believe you can see this curvature in the shadows of sticks in the ground, but not in the shadows of much larger shipping crates!

It sounds like you're referring to Eratosthenes. Shipping crates are tiny compared to the distances necessary to determine the radius of the spherical earth, using shadow lengths and basic equipment, with reasonable accuracy. The distance between them (hundreds of miles in Eratosthenes' case) is much more significant than the length of the whatever is casting the shadow.

Apparently it still stings. A Greek dude was getting better answers more than 2000 years ago, with a simpler model, using very simple measurements, than you can do today.

Quote
We have shown the globe to be false again and again through experiment, reason, and every one of our senses.

Citation needed. One clear and unambiguous example would be a start. Otherwise, this is yet another baseless bluster.

Quote
There can be no doubt that we are not swirling about space at ridiculous speeds, hanging from our feet like action figures tied to a centrifuge.

"Hanging from our feet." Lol.

The speeds are what they are; you call them ridiculous, but you're making inappropriate comparisons to human scale activities on earth. What is ridiculous is the sort of hyperbole you think has "shown the globe to be false". It's just words.
The fact of the matter is you haven't read the appropriate literature and have no legs to stand on when you say it is ridiculous hyperbole that the globe is false.

A vague reference to "appropriate literature" is not an example or evidence. It's an evasion.

Quote
Whether true or not, you don't have a counter-argument here because you have made yourself purposely ignorant to the truth - like a child singing a song and plugging his ears to avoid being told he has to eat his broccoli. [I like broccoli; always did if it wasn't overcooked. When lightly steamed, then tossed with melted butter and a little salt (optional) it's delicious, but don't let it cook too long - maybe 3 minutes for the tops and 5 minutes for the stems (peel the thickest part of the stems and cut into 1" sections before cooking)! My kids loved it this way when they were little, too, and they still do. You should try it if you think broccoli is icky!][Thanks... now I'm hungry!] Instead you rely upon me to read these books to you via forum post. A citation is not needed, you simply need to do your own research and stop relying upon me to explain every single stumbling step you have.

My research shows unequivocally that the earth is spherical. Everything presented in this site and elsewhere, and in literature like EnaG that argues that the earth is flat, has been shown to be either wrong (usually very easily) or no better than ambiguous (like your shipping container experiment). Maybe there's a better argument. If you think you have one, let's hear it, or see a reference to it.

Quote
Eratosthenes did nothing but assume the earth was round.

Well, no... he did far more than that. He made a damn good determination of its size.

Quote
In fact, he stole his work from the far earlier Taoist scientists that used the exact same experiment to show the earth was flat by not taking this assumption first. Additionally, this experiment has been repeated both by modern flatists as well as Rowbotham. The details to his experiment I believe are outlined within his work.

With different baseline lengths and locations you get different answers for the height of the sun if you assume the earth is flat. Rowbotham's "work" is fraught with errors. Much (most? all?) of his data can't be replicated. There's no evidence a lot of it was not simply made up; at the very least it was was poorly collected.

Quote
Now, you can quibble about angles all you want, but the fact is as the sun breaches the horizon, it is below the top of the shipping crate.

Ever so slightly, yes. I calculate 0.1° or less if the top is less than 10m above horizon level, which is difficult to tell without precision instruments. It's certainly nothing like the 39° your drawing shows [if you want to know how I calculated these angles ask - it involves basic trigonometry, though].

By the way, what did those earlier Taoist scientists say was happening when the sun breaches the horizon? Did they think the sun moved below the plane of the earth at sunset and reappeared in the other direction at sunrise? This is unlike more modern flat-earth notions that now at least recognize that the sun is above the horizon on at least part of the earth at all times. The former makes explaining sunsets vastly easier, but is counter to what we now know happens. This is, really, problem #1 facing anyone that wants to believe that the earth is flat.

Quote
Do not expect me to post in this thread again;

Smart idea.

"If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging."
 - Will Rogers

Quote
I will not be party to these silly attacks.

If you're tired of being reduced to silly attacks due to an absence of meaningful answers, that's another good reason to stay away.

Clearly, stepping away is the best solution. Let's see if you can stand to give your arguments up for dead, though.

[Edit] Fix malformed URL to earlier post.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2017, 08:47:48 PM by Alpha2Omega »
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

Mikey T.

  • 2443
Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
« Reply #75 on: February 21, 2017, 02:53:26 PM »
Well, nice job with the experiment. 
Now for the LA LA LA LA LA LA CANT HEAR YOU MY FINGERS ARE IN MY EARS bit. 

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
« Reply #76 on: February 21, 2017, 03:01:40 PM »
As soon as the argument turns against them, the globularist inevitably turns to attacks against me. Obviously, I know high school trigonometry. Your ignorance of my theories regarding the flat earth does not change this. Why I continue to answer insolent children like you is beyond me. Yet here I am.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Now, you can quibble about angles all you want, but the fact is as the sun breaches the horizon, it is below the top of the shipping crate.

Do not expect me to post in this thread again; I will not be party to these silly attacks.
Yes John, "the fact is as the sun breaches the horizon, it is below the top of the shipping crate " by a whole 0.1° or one part in 500!

I believe that us Globalists could rightly say
As soon as the argument turns against them, these Flatties inevitably simply run away!

Bye bye John. Better luck next time!

Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
« Reply #77 on: February 22, 2017, 05:41:15 PM »
Basically, the sun would shine of the roof of the container if it was not for the earth being in the way.
You want the sun's rays shining upwards. You got the sun's rise shining upwards!
This point shows upward slanting shadows, as John Davis seems to demand,
but you need to click it and watch the video to see where it is taken from - it's only 3:11 long.

By the way the Metabunk Curve Calculator puts the dip to the horizon as 3.8°.
Gee, maybe the earth really is a Globe. Who'd have thought it?

It would seem that Mr. Davis has never looked up in the sky at dawn or dusk on a clear day. You can literally see the shadow of the earth on the sky.

You can see Earth’s shadow any clear evening ascending in the eastern sky. The shadow is a deep blue-grey, and it’s darker than the blue of the twilight sky. The pink band above the shadow is called the Belt of Venus, and is caused by atmospheric scattering.




Oh look here's a shadow of a mountain on the sky, how do you explain this is a flat earth?


How do you explain any of this in a flat earth model?



Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
« Reply #78 on: February 22, 2017, 05:43:48 PM »
Mr. Davis, why do you think it is dark at night? Could it be because that side of the earth is in the earths shadow? I think it is.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16578
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
« Reply #79 on: October 30, 2019, 12:51:29 PM »
Mr. Davis, why do you think it is dark at night? Could it be because that side of the earth is in the earths shadow? I think it is.
It is dark anywhere due to the obstruction of light. In this case, due to the fact that air is not transparent.
Quantum Ab Hoc

Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
« Reply #80 on: October 30, 2019, 04:37:46 PM »
Oh dear! I just saw the underside of an airplane light by sunshine!
And the sun has set a couple of minutes ago!
It can't be true!
This is impossible!

My location allows me to see that on a regular basis, if I look for it, just a couple miles south of an airport that runs north and South.
The the universe has no obligation to makes sense to you.
The earth is a globe.

Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
« Reply #81 on: October 30, 2019, 05:28:21 PM »
Mr. Davis, why do you think it is dark at night? Could it be because that side of the earth is in the earths shadow? I think it is.
It is dark anywhere due to the obstruction of light. In this case, due to the fact that air is not transparent.
The obstruction is the earth, as that location, has rotated away from facing the sun.
The the universe has no obligation to makes sense to you.
The earth is a globe.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
« Reply #82 on: October 30, 2019, 06:00:34 PM »
Mr. Davis, why do you think it is dark at night? Could it be because that side of the earth is in the earth's shadow? I think it is.
It is dark anywhere due to the obstruction of light. In this case, due to the fact that air is not transparent.
If "It is dark anywhere due to the obstruction of light. In this case, due to the fact that air is not transparent."

What is obstructing the light in these photos?

Sunset at Karumba on August 8, 2007 at 06:25:02 EAST with a 300 mm 35 mm equiv lens.


Sunset at Karumba on August 8, 2007 at 06:25:29 EAST with a 300 mm 35 mm equiv lens.


Sunset at Karumba on August 8, 2007 at 06:25:57 EAST with a 300 mm 35 mm equiv lens.

The sun seems to go from just under the "top half" visible to being entirely obscured in a matter of 55 seconds.
Hence in this case, it does not seem to be "due to the fact that air is not transparent".

Any ideas?

<< Image host changed to https://resimyukle.xyz/ >>
« Last Edit: November 01, 2019, 01:32:04 PM by rabinoz »

Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
« Reply #83 on: October 30, 2019, 09:44:14 PM »
Mr. Davis, why do you think it is dark at night? Could it be because that side of the earth is in the earths shadow? I think it is.
It is dark anywhere due to the obstruction of light. In this case, due to the fact that air is not transparent.

Air isn't transparent? Well that explains why I don't see anything anywhere.

Wait a minute....

This here statement proobes my belief that John Davis (and Tom Bishop by the way) do not really believe a flat earth. They are just trying to argue in favour of it.

*

rvlvr

  • 2004
Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
« Reply #84 on: October 30, 2019, 10:13:34 PM »
This is a good experiment, but I prefer the one with sticks and twine and audiences—even though there are no sailors, nor twenty dollar bills being handed to sailors.

*

Crutchwater

  • 2151
  • Stop Indoctrinating me!
Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
« Reply #85 on: October 31, 2019, 08:21:20 AM »
Mr. Davis, why do you think it is dark at night? Could it be because that side of the earth is in the earths shadow? I think it is.
It is dark anywhere due to the obstruction of light. In this case, due to the fact that air is not transparent.

Yet, shortly after sunset, we can see stars on the horizon.

Are you claiming that stars are nearer to my eye than the sun?
I will always be Here To Laugh At You.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16578
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
« Reply #86 on: October 31, 2019, 08:23:10 AM »
Mr. Davis, why do you think it is dark at night? Could it be because that side of the earth is in the earths shadow? I think it is.
It is dark anywhere due to the obstruction of light. In this case, due to the fact that air is not transparent.

Air isn't transparent? Well that explains why I don't see anything anywhere.

Wait a minute....

This here statement proobes my belief that John Davis (and Tom Bishop by the way) do not really believe a flat earth. They are just trying to argue in favour of it.
Air is not transparent. You might be aware that light is scattered as it travels through a medium of air and so it cannot travel indefinitely through it. This is why in many flat earth models the sun acts like a spotlight.


Mr. Davis, why do you think it is dark at night? Could it be because that side of the earth is in the earth's shadow? I think it is.
It is dark anywhere due to the obstruction of light. In this case, due to the fact that air is not transparent.
If "It is dark anywhere due to the obstruction of light. In this case, due to the fact that air is not transparent."

What is obstructing the light in these photos?

Sunset at Karumba on August 8, 2007 at 06:25:02 EAST with a 300 mm 35 mm equiv lens.


Sunset at Karumba on August 8, 2007 at 06:25:29 EAST with a 300 mm 35 mm equiv lens.


Sunset at Karumba on August 8, 2007 at 06:25:57 EAST with a 300 mm 35 mm equiv lens.

The sun seems to go from just under the "top half" visible to being entirely obscured in a matter of 55 seconds.
Hence in this case, it does not seem to be "due to the fact that air is not transparent".

Any ideas?

Your image links seem to come up broken to me.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2019, 08:49:21 AM by John Davis »
Quantum Ab Hoc

Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
« Reply #87 on: October 31, 2019, 09:52:28 AM »
This here statement proobes my belief that John Davis (and Tom Bishop by the way) do not really believe a flat earth. They are just trying to argue in favour of it.
No shit, Sherlock.
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.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40534
Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
« Reply #88 on: October 31, 2019, 09:59:00 AM »
Air is not transparent. You might be aware that light is scattered as it travels through a medium of air and so it cannot travel indefinitely through it.
What part of the definition of "transparent" stipulates that light must be able to travel unimpeded though it indefinitely? ???
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16578
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: The Shipping Crate Experiment
« Reply #89 on: November 01, 2019, 12:00:58 PM »
Air is not transparent. You might be aware that light is scattered as it travels through a medium of air and so it cannot travel indefinitely through it.
What part of the definition of "transparent" stipulates that light must be able to travel unimpeded though it indefinitely? ???
The definition of transparent is that it allows light to travel through it. Feel free to substitute another word if you feel there's a better way to put it. I'm sure there is.
Quantum Ab Hoc