Why wouldn't the Gov't lie?

Of course, you would expect an engineer that flies airplanes to experience for himself the differences in travel distance that occur depending on the shape of the earth. Engineers are supposed to be number crunchers, not philosophers, and present their case with clear numbers

It's been done.  This site has been around long before you.  Has it ever occured to you that I have answered these questions hundreds of times?  Would you not simply skip to the answer after a while?  

Just to give you a taste, the first experiment was naively or purposefully designed with an observer at just 8 inches above the sea level, making waves and other disruptions enormous compared with what you try to see.

Engineers are supposed to be good at visualizations.  Do you even understand the experiment?

Engineers are supposed to be number crunchers, not philosophers, and present their case with clear numbers

Have you never heard of a PhD? Doctor of Philosophy? Where an engineer can theorise about something and then try to back up claims with either experiments, or data that already exists around us. A theory has to stand up to proof and scrutiny, unlike round earth theories.

It's been done.  This site has been around long before you.  Has it ever occured to you that I have answered these questions hundreds of times?  Would you not simply skip to the answer after a while?  

Engineers are supposed to be good at visualizations.  Do you even understand the experiment?

So many words, so few numbers. Engineers are supposed to be good visualizing, measuring and understanding measurement error. An engineer should know that by looking through a window of a plane you will see less than one degree of the circunference of the earth (to do that you would have to see 111 kilometers of horizon) and a simple peek through the window will not settle the issue for or against FE. If you need a visualization, ask somebody to draw a 1 degree arc with a pair of compasses and a straight line of the same length with a ruler and try to tell them apart.

As an engineer I have had to check several experiments to see if the results are valid or if noise will mask the results and in this case a critical part of the experiment depends on the desicion of placing the observer just 8 inches above the level of the sea.

If the designer had chosen to place the boat at least 10 or 20 miles away and the observer at a reasonable height of 6 or 7 feet above sea level, I would say the experimenter is at least reasonable. Remember, you are trying to measure a circle of 12000 kilometers in diameter.

If you do not have a motor boat to do the experiment, check my other experiments posted in this forum for cheaper ones. If you are going to show me your calculations and verifiable experiments that have given you precise, repeatable measurements, please direct me to them instead of telling me they have been answered hundreds of times.

... a simple peek through the window will not settle the issue for or against FE.

No one ever said it did, Trig. In fact we've been saying quite the opposite: That saying "take a plane ride and you'll see that Earth is round" is meaningless, because Earth is far too large to see any curvature from that altitude.

Quote from: "trig"

Engineers are supposed to be number crunchers, not philosophers, and present their case with clear numbers

Have you never heard of a PhD? Doctor of Philosophy? Where an engineer can theorise about something and then try to back up claims with either experiments, or data that already exists around us. A theory has to stand up to proof and scrutiny, unlike round earth theories.

It seems you have never been in a graduate program. PhD meant for a very long time "a doctorate in anything different from medicine". Only recently have some universities broken with tradition and registered their programs as something different from MD and PhD (ex. JD, Doctorate in Jurisprudence).

Let me assure you, no philosophy thesis have ever awarded anybody a title of PhD in engineering.

If the designer had chosen to place the boat at least 10 or 20 miles away and the observer at a reasonable height of 6 or 7 feet above sea level, I would say the experimenter is at least reasonable. Remember, you are trying to measure a circle of 12000 kilometers in diameter.

But that is not what he is trying to measure.  

Take the second experiment for example.  The observer is 5 feet above the sea.  He places flags at one mile intervals five feet out of the water for a total of six miles with a large flag at the end.  If the earth's radius is correct, there should be a 23' 11 3/4" (ooh, look-numbers!) apparent drop at 6 miles.  That is more than enough distance to measure what he wanted to.  He found that at 6 miles, he could still see the flag at the same height - 5 feet.  That means that at the very least, the radius of the earth is wrong.

Take the second experiment for example.  The observer is 5 feet above the sea.  He places flags at one mile intervals five feet out of the water for a total of six miles with a large flag at the end.  If the earth's radius is correct, there should be a 23' 11 3/4" (ooh, look-numbers!) apparent drop at 6 miles.  That is more than enough distance to measure what he wanted to.  He found that at 6 miles, he could still see the flag at the same height - 5 feet.  That means that at the very least, the radius of the earth is wrong.

Who would've imagined! A number, finally. The wrong one, since at best you would be able to see that the middle lflags are 12' above the imaginary line joining the first and last flags, not 24'. But a number anyway!

But the point is clearly illustrated again. You have to have an experiment that gives undeniable evidence to a person among a few thousands who thinks all the other 6,500,000,000 of us are deluded. Six flags that move upwards and downwards with the waves and will never quite fall in a single line will provide plenty of room to explain away the results you might get.

It is the engineer's or scientist's job to design experiments again and again until the potential causes of error are accounted for. In this case, if you drop the 6 mile length of the measured arc, at least doubling it to match the reach of a reasonable telescope, the results you get will be hard to explain away. Better yet, look for methods that are easier than the direct observation of the curvature of the sea. Careful measurements of the position of the stars and sun at different times give very accurate information on the viability of the "carpet of stars on a plane above the earth's disk" theory, and you just need a telescope designed for astronomy to do the measurements.

Quote from: "TheEngineer"

Take the second experiment for example.  The observer is 5 feet above the sea.  He places flags at one mile intervals five feet out of the water for a total of six miles with a large flag at the end.  If the earth's radius is correct, there should be a 23' 11 3/4" (ooh, look-numbers!) apparent drop at 6 miles.  That is more than enough distance to measure what he wanted to.  He found that at 6 miles, he could still see the flag at the same height - 5 feet.  That means that at the very least, the radius of the earth is wrong.

Who would've imagined! A number, finally. The wrong one, since at best you would be able to see that the middle lflags are 12' above the imaginary line joining the first and last flags, not 24'. But a number anyway!

It would help if you looked at the actual experiment to familiarize yourself with what is going on.  The telescope is parallel to the surface of the earth.  That is why there should be an apparent 24' drop.  

But the point is clearly illustrated again. You have to have an experiment that gives undeniable evidence to a person among a few thousands who thinks all the other 6,500,000,000 of us are deluded. Six flags that move upwards and downwards with the waves and will never quite fall in a single line will provide plenty of room to explain away the results you might get.

A rise in the water of 24 feet?

The telescope is parallel to the surface of the earth.  That is why there should be an apparent 24' drop.  

Here comes the big difference between a theoretical experiment and a real life experiment. It is easy to say "the telescope shall be horizontal", but getting a tripod capable of pointing a telescope horizontal to within 10% of the 0.043 degree angle you are supposed to measure is well beyond the capabilities of a Celestron CGE computerized telescope mount. And that is the top of the line Celestron mount, Truth is, your best shot at pointing your telescope perfectly horizontal is by pointing to the farthest flag. Also, you are trying to see a 0.021 degree difference in apparent position between the middle flags and the farthest flags, and a typical 1000 mm telescope with a 12.5 mm Plossl eyepiece has a 0.6 degree field of view. With no more sources of error the experiment is feasible, but here you are wrestling with up to 1 meter waves, and boats drifting several meters out of position.

With 1850's technology this experiment could have been tried and the inconclusive results could have been interpreted as evidence of a flat earth but  a 21st century engineer has to do a better job. The experiment can be redesigned with sources of error considered in the calculaitions, or you can use a truckload of equipment to overcome the many flaws of the proposed experiment. For example, you can use cell phones to tell every boat if they are drifting, film what you see through the teescope so you can make several measurements and average out the relative height of every boat and use a very good telescope so you get a better magnification than the one in my example. But it is a lot easier to redesign the experiment.

As I said, engineering is about knowing how to measure, not just about thinking that any dissent is because the other one did not understand the experiment.

As I said, engineering is about knowing how to measure, not just about thinking that any dissent is because the other one did not understand the experiment.

There is no boat, the flags are not floating, and there are no waves.

Quote from: "trig"

As I said, engineering is about knowing how to measure, not just about thinking that any dissent is because the other one did not understand the experiment.

There is no boat, the flags are not floating, and there are no waves.

So, finally, we get from the discussion of an experiment to the "Twilight Zone". The drawings in the text show specifically a man standing on the water and flags placed on the water. Not floating on the water, but placed on the surface!

We are now talking large masses of water without waves, flags placed on the water without a means to stay there and an observer on the surface without a boat or whatever. Real smart, ain't we?

Again, if you would have read the experiment, you would have seen that this was done on a canal.  He is standing on the edge.  The flag poles are in the ground, with the flag 5' out of the water.  Phoenix is watered from the Colorado River by use of an open canal system called the CAP.  I have seen these canals and even have one less than three miles from my house.  Large waves, they do not have.

Again, if you would have read the experiment, you would have seen that this was done on a canal.  He is standing on the edge.  The flag poles are in the ground, with the flag 5' out of the water.  Phoenix is watered from the Colorado River by use of an open canal system called the CAP.  I have seen these canals and even have one less than three miles from my house.  Large waves, they do not have.

Ok, I admit I did not see that golden nugget of ignorance in the original experiment. I will take your word on it, since I am already getting bored with this discussion and will not go to the original description of the experiment.

There is no mystical ability of the water to describe the exact circumference of the earth, or the straight line of the flat earth, for that matter. Only water tat is not flowing, or is flowing on average the same amount in all directions will take the shape of the earth. It is not easy to find a canal where the net flow of water is zero because then the canal is useless. Furthermore, in a very shallow canal the friction of the water with the bottom of the canal will make the water take more the shape of its bed than that of the earth.

These are all simple facts well within the grasp of an engineer, a scientist or anybody with a minimum grasp of technology. It is clear even for those of us who have been to a river or two in our lifetimes.

Taking an 1850's experiment as gospel is acceptable for an 1860's scientist, but not for an engineer of the 21st century.

Just to show you a simple experiment that shows the unexpected amount of friction in the flow of water, try the following: take some 10 meters of 1/4 inch hose and fill it with water. Keep both ends pointing upwards and leave some 10 or 20 cm. with no water at each end. Then move any end up and down to see for yourself the effects of friction.

The big problem still is the lack of a good engineering job on your part to design a reasonable experiment from the crude ideas shown by Rowbothan.

The big problem still is the lack of a good engineering job on your part to design a reasonable experiment from the crude ideas shown by Rowbothan.

When did that become my job?

Quote from: "trig"

The big problem still is the lack of a good engineering job on your part to design a reasonable experiment from the crude ideas shown by Rowbothan.

When did that become my job?

Such is science. It is not about deciding to believe in any one point of view or in the authority of someone.

You understand the experiments and the claimed conclusions, you defend your endorsment of them, you declare your objections. Eventually the peer review of experiments and their results produces solid evidence and the original authors of the hypothesis, experiments and reviews become irrelevant.

You can also decide to renounce any association to science as our culture defines it and believe what you like. But remember, science and engineering are intimately associated. Science is more oriented towards new knowledge, engineering towards specific products, but they are otherwise the same thing.

Perhaps one day, you will understand.

Perhaps one day, you will understand.

And so, we have come full circle. Those who know the earth is flat are victims of Science because "The Scientific Establishment" is part of "The Great Conspiracy", and the poor guys that have "understood" are forced into submission by the impossible requirement of making a scientifically sound case. At best, they can only say that Rowbothan did the experiments he said he did and correctly interpreted the results; and everybody since then is too lazy or too stupid to repeat, review and analyze what Rowbothan did. Or maybe everyone who does any of the above inmediately and magically becomes part of the conspiracy.

I can only say to you: grow up, buy a telescope with equatorial mounting, that is, any telescope designed for astronomical viewing. Make your own precise measurements of the movement of celestial objects to see if there are any measurements that support the hypothesis of a hovering sun or moon, like the change in size of these objects or a speeding or slowing in angular change in position during the day. Look for telltale signs of optical illusions, like chromatic separation in stars far from the zenith (for example, 45 degrees away from the zenith). You will find that science is not just what you read in books, it is something you can do yourself, far away from any conspiracies. If you find that the angular speed of any star is about 30% slower when it is 45 degrees away from the zenith than when it is at the zenith, you wil have made science and destroyed the conspiracy.

You can also make experiments to discover the shape of the surface of large masses of water, but take into account that it has to be carefully made and it is more expensive than just buying a telescope and learning to use it.

And finally, accept that no good science can be done without those pesky numbers. The meanest of all the confabulations of The Great Dictator is the demonic curse on all those who do "understand" that made them too lazy to collect, analyze and show results in numbers.

Perhaps one day, you will understand.

Or not.  I guess you will just join Max Fagin and never get it.