A question to my fellow round earthers

My family says you can fuck off

Do you have an example of critical thinking that suggests that the earth is flat?

(To Shifter: Is that better?)

Just look at all of the RET crap about "Atmospheric Ducting" to explain away why a Round Earth behaves like a Flat Earth, Over The Horizon radar caused by the Ionosphere, and all of the ENAG experiments explained by a Flat Earth mirage effect that projects the object at the altitude it needs to be at, no more and no less, for the particular distance looked across.

Quote from: Copper Knickers on June 21, 2018, 04:10:36 PM

Do you have an example of critical thinking that suggests that the earth is flat?

(To Shifter: Is that better?)

Just look at all of the RET crap about "Atmospheric Ducting" to explain away why a Round Earth behaves like a Flat Earth, Over The Horizon radar caused by the Ionosphere, and all of the ENAG experiments explained by a Flat Earth mirage effect that projects the object at the altitude it needs to be at, no more and no less, for the particular distance looked across.

This sounds like a good start for critical thinking.
I ask you, can you provide an example of a direct experiment that we can each do at home that would help to determine whether the Earth were flat or round? Just one please. Ideally one that each of us could do alone.

Look out your window.

Quote from: Copper Knickers on June 21, 2018, 04:10:36 PM

Do you have an example of critical thinking that suggests that the earth is flat?

Just look at all of the RET crap about "Atmospheric Ducting" to explain away why a Round Earth behaves like a Flat Earth, Over The Horizon radar caused by the Ionosphere, and all of the ENAG experiments explained by a Flat Earth mirage effect that projects the object at the altitude it needs to be at, no more and no less, for the particular distance looked across.

That's a long sentence which I'll admit I'm unable to parse sufficiently well to know whether it gave the example I was asking for or not.

I'll take a guess, though, that you are positing that a critical analysis of atmospheric ducting would conclude that it is 'RET crap'. If so, would you be able to expand on that analysis at all?

Just look at all of the RET crap about "Atmospheric Ducting" to explain away why a Round Earth behaves like a Flat Earth,

Those working in atmospheric refraction, looming, ducting and mirages don't give a fig about your flat earth ideas. They know the earth is a Globe and that's that.
You might read: San Diego State University, Ducts..
But how can you deny refraction, looming, ducting and mirages when you see photos like:
You might read: Flat Earth General / Re: Throwing a Curveball of Refraction

And Rowbotham certainly accepts that refraction makes the sun appear a little higher than it really is, as in

If any allowance is to be made for refraction--which, no doubt, exists where the sun's rays have to pass through a medium, the atmosphere, which gradually increases in density as it approaches the earth's surface--it will considerably diminish the above-named distance of the sun; so that it is perfectly safe to affirm that the under edge of the sun is considerably less than 700 statute miles above the earth.

From: Zetetic Astronomy, by 'Parallax' p. 99, CHAPTER V., THE TRUE DISTANCE OF THE SUN.

Over The Horizon radar caused by the Ionosphere,

To get any reasonable resolution with radar requires a narrow beam-width. A 1° beamwidth needs a dish about 30 x wavelength.

Some "Over The Horizon radar is caused by the Ionosphere". This uses to band 3-30 MHz.
Now if you are going to claim that OTH radar does not need the ionosphere, please tell us why they use this band, even though it is plagued with the vagaries of the ionosphere.

The best frequency to use depends on the current conditions of the atmosphere and the sunspot cycle. For these reasons, systems using skywaves typically employ real-time monitoring of the reception of backscattered signals to continuously adjust the frequency of the transmitted signal.

Hence the frequency must be variable to accommodate the current ionospheric conditions. Just as an example pick 10 MHz with a wavelength if about 30 m.
If a dish antenna were used it would need to be about 1000 m in diameter - clearly "not on", so huge wire antennae are used as seen below:

The resolution of any radar depends on the width of the beam and the range to the target. For example; a radar with 1 degree beam width and a target at 120 km (75 mi) range will show the target as 2 km (1.2 mi) wide. To produce a 1 degree beam at the most common frequencies, an antenna 1.5 kilometres (0.93 mi) wide is required. Due to the physics of the reflection process, actual accuracy is even lower, with range resolution on the order of 20 to 40 kilometres (12–25 mi) and bearing accuracy of 2 to 4 kilometres (1.2–2.5 mi) being suggested. Even a 2 km accuracy is useful only for early warning, not for weapons fire.

Why go to all this trouble if the earth were flat?

and all of the ENAG experiments explained by a Flat Earth mirage effect that projects the object at the altitude it needs to be at, no more and no less, for the particular distance looked across.

Most of them do not need any extra refraction. All they need is a proper use of observer height and "hidden height", of which Rowbotham seems woefully ignorant.

You do remember Rowbotham's Biot and Arago fiasco, I hope.
I know that you refused to acknowledge the details but remember this:

Rowbotham massively wrong on curvature claim [proven]
In 'Earth is Not a Globe', Rowbotham states:

Quote

"In the account of the trigonometrical operations in France, by M. M. Biot and Arago, it is stated that the light of a powerful lamp, with good reflectors, was placed on a rocky summit, in Spain, called Desierto las Palmas, and was distinctly seen from Camprey, on the Island of Iviza. The elevation of the two points was nearly the same, and the distance between them nearly 100 miles. If the earth is a globe, the light on the rock in Spain would have been more than 6600 feet, or nearly one mile and a quarter, below the line of sight."

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za19.htm

What he fails to mention, however, was that the elevation of the summit in Desierto de las Palmas - Bartolo - is about 2385 feet, while the elevation of the peak on Ibiza - actually called Camp Vell - is 1299 feet (not exactly "nearly the same").
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Though to give him some credit, while he messed up the elevations and the mathematics, as well as the conclusion, he did at least get the distance right.

Before considering the detail, just look at Rowbotham's claim of "If the earth is a globe, the light on the rock in Spain would have been more than 6600 feet, or nearly one mile and a quarter, below the line of sight."
Rowbotham worked that out from his simple "8 inches per mile squared", which gives (8/12) x 100² or 6667 feet but this assumes that the observer is at sea-level.
It clearly stated that the light "was distinctly seen from Camprey, on the Island of Iviza". Now surveyors would not put their theodolites in the sea and is easy to show that they were viewing from a hill near Camp Vell on the NW corner of Ibiza at an altitude of about 1266 feet
This which would make the hidden height 100 miles away only 2123 feet (with no refraction allowed for).
Now it was stated that "the surveyors would put "powerful lamp, with good reflectors, was placed on a rocky summit, in Spain, called Desierto las Palmas".
There seems little doubt that this was Alto del Bartolo (715 m or 2456 feet) near a ruin called Desierto las Palmas, so the lamp would easily be visible.

We'll go into much more detail on this and Rowbotham's other claims if you wish.

The answer is clearly vainglory. A generation unable to resist the opportunity to copy and paste something they were told and trust in the belief it will make them appear inteligent to others or in order to self-validate.

See above.

Quote from: Copper Knickers on June 21, 2018, 04:10:36 PM

Do you have an example of critical thinking that suggests that the earth is flat?

(To Shifter: Is that better?)

Just look at all of the RET crap about "Atmospheric Ducting" to explain away why a Round Earth behaves like a Flat Earth, Over The Horizon radar caused by the Ionosphere

Ducting and ionospheric reflection don't make "a round earth behave like a flat earth". They make a spherical earth with an atmosphere behave like a spherical earth with occasional atmospheric anomalies (ducting) and reflection off the ionosphere. The latter depends on solar activity and position of the sun. If the earth were flat, why wouldn't the effects of ducting, unexpected beyond line of sight radio propagation, happen all the time instead of only occasionally due to unusual conditions?

If the earth were flat, there would be no need for over the horizon radar since there would be no horizon; it would also be much harder to explain why shortwave radio transmissions (the band most commonly affected by ionospheric reflection) fade out with distance, then can be received again at much greater distances, and why those distances depend on wavelength and conditions in the ionosphere (which are controlled predictably by solar activity and time of day). No "crap" involved.

and all of the ENAG experiments explained by a Flat Earth mirage effect that projects the object at the altitude it needs to be at, no more and no less, for the particular distance looked across.

What? That makes no sense whatsoever.

Look out your window.

I believe this is intended as an example of an experiment to determine the shape of the Earth. I'm afraid I lack the precision necessary to answer this question with my eyes alone just by looking out my window. I'll need a little more to go on. Out my window, I see trees and hills and some houses. How does this answer the question of the shape of the Earth?

My guess is that Ski intends for me to go and look at the ocean perhaps where I can see that the horizon appears to be flat. That being the case, I would answer that it does indeed look flat. To the level of precision my eyes can deliver, the horizon matches both the FE and RE models just fine. So that "experiment" doesn't really help. I'll need a little bit more. Let me give an example.

Full moon is coming. How about we take photos of the moon every 15 minutes while being careful to hold the focal length constant. We will then measure the size of the moon in these images to see how it changed (or didn't) during the night. How much does the RE model predict the moon will change? How much does the FE model predict the moon will change? Which one did that match?

Does any FE have any other experiments you would suggest we could do to help determine which model is more accurate?

There is a problem with both round and flat earthers. Each side thinks they're superior to the other and think that everything the opposing side says is wrong without even thinking that you yourself might be wrong.

Look out your window.

I see my neighborhood. I don't think this will determine anything.

The answer is clearly vainglory. A generation unable to resist the opportunity to copy and paste something they were told and trust in the belief it will make them appear inteligent to others or in order to self-validate.

See above.

So again, no answers?

I have been here a long time. I have answered all of the questions before. I don't remember the last time I have seen an original question. Feel free to use the search function. So if you find ignore you, its probably because I find you to be yet another copy and paste troll who puts zero thought into any "discussion". Why would I waste my time casting pearls?

I have been here a long time. I have answered all of the questions before. I don't remember the last time I have seen an original question. Feel free to use the search function. So if you find ignore you, its probably because I find you to be yet another copy and paste troll who puts zero thought into any "discussion". Why would I waste my time casting pearls?

Since you have been here so long, and I have not, I am asking you to impart some of the wisdom you have gained over all that time. I'm sure this has been asked many times, and maybe since you've answered it before, you can just point me to your favorite answer.

Could you please provide an example of an experiment that each of us could do that might help to answer the question, "Is the Earth flat or round?"

Thanks!

Same reason schools have debate club - its fun.
Its fun to fantasize troll image lawyer debate see responses.
If to do it by guise of honesty is the only way to draw it out?  I disagree because inconet dumbasses will get caught up in the discussion.

Eitherway   its fun to be overwelmingly correct....maybr i should switch sudes to keep it interesting (with viewpoint disclaimer of courese)

Could you please provide an example of an experiment that each of us could do that might help to answer the question, "Is the Earth flat or round?"

You can look at the plain facts out your window.

You can mete out a triangle from 3 points and survey them, calculate the sum of the angles on the surface and decide if the earth has a nonEuclidean surface.

You can stand on the ground and hold an accelerometer and see you are being accelerated at 9.8m/s/s by the surface of the earth, then step off a table holding the accelerometer and watch it go to zero and observe the earth accelerating upwards to meet you.

You can travel to Bedford.

Quote from: ICanScienceThat on June 26, 2018, 09:06:23 AM

Could you please provide an example of an experiment that each of us could do that might help to answer the question, "Is the Earth flat or round?"

You can travel to Bedford.

I have travelled to Bedford. My understanding that the earth is observably round was unchanged by the experience. I guess that settles it then?

It's really up to you to decide what settles a matter to your satisfaction, isn't it? It either did or didn't for you. Why would you ask me?

It's really up to you to decide what settles a matter to your satisfaction, isn't it? It either did or didn't for you. Why would you ask me?

I asked you as it was you who proposed that the act of travelling to Bedford would help to answer the question, "Is the Earth flat or round?"

I guess I am seeking reassurance from you that my interpretation of my experience of travelling to Bedford is correct. It seems reasonable that you would know as it is your proposal.

There is no creature so eager to be told what is true or what to believe than the Orthodox globularist. It's a wonder you lot aren't required to tithe.

Quote from: ICanScienceThat on June 26, 2018, 09:06:23 AM

Could you please provide an example of an experiment that each of us could do that might help to answer the question, "Is the Earth flat or round?"

You can look at the plain facts out your window.

You can mete out a triangle from 3 points and survey them, calculate the sum of the angles on the surface and decide if the earth has a nonEuclidean surface.

You can stand on the ground and hold an accelerometer and see you are being accelerated at 9.8m/s/s by the surface of the earth, then step off a table holding the accelerometer and watch it go to zero and observe the earth accelerating upwards to meet you.

You can travel to Bedford.

All of your suggestions suffer from precisely the same flaw. None of them can answer the question, "Is the Earth flat or is it round?" because none of them would result in any different answers whether the Earth were flat or round. Do you understand what I'm saying here?

"...look at the plain facts..." That's too vague to be one of the experiments.

"You can mete out a triangle from 3 points and survey them, calculate the sum of the angles on the surface and decide if the earth has a nonEuclidean surface." This one is reasonably close to a testable experiment. With your understanding of the accepted RE dimensions, how far apart with these 3 points need to be to generate a measurable difference? How precise would be good enough to be considered proof for you?

"You can stand on the ground and hold an accelerometer and see you are being accelerated at 9.8m/s/s by the surface of the earth, then step off a table holding the accelerometer and watch it go to zero and observe the earth accelerating upwards to meet you." And how would this be any different under the standard model?

Look out your window.

Some windows provide more information about the shape of the earth than others.

Quote from: Ski on June 24, 2018, 01:54:06 PM

Look out your window.

Some windows provide more information about the shape of the earth than others.

Is that your window, Markjo?

Quote from: Ski on June 24, 2018, 01:54:06 PM

Look out your window.

Some windows provide more information about the shape of the earth than others.

Photoshop fail. The curve of the Earth looks distorted behind her arm and the window frames.

Not only that:

Well, the first would stand as stronger evidence for planism than globularism, but it would not conclusively rule out a sphere or toroid or turtle-shaped earth of sufficient size, no.

The second could actually falsify globularism/turtlism fantasies or planism, so I'm sure that's why it draws no further interest.

The third falsifies Newtonianism so prevalent here abouts amongst gobularists.

The fourth might also provide evidence of planism or globularism.

Are you asking if there is experimental proof of planism? No. There is no experiment providing proof of planism any more than any experiment could ever offer proof of any hypothesis. There are no proofs in science. This isn't a math problem to be derived or calculated.

Quote from: ICanScienceThat on June 26, 2018, 09:06:23 AM

Could you please provide an example of an experiment that each of us could do that might help to answer the question, "Is the Earth flat or round?"

You can look at the plain facts out your window.

And that tells me nothing more than that there are trees and hills.
When I can look out on an ocean horizon it looks flat, which is exactly how it should look on a huge Globe.
It can however easily be seen to be close because of objects at a known distance that I see on the horizon and that it usually looks quite sharp.
Tom Bishop and jroa both insist that were it very far away it would look very hazy.

You can mete out a triangle from 3 points and survey them, calculate the sum of the angles on the surface and decide if the earth has a nonEuclidean surface.

No, I can't because I do not have the instruments of the required precision to measure the angles.
Presumably, you do and have proven that the surface is flat and not the surface of a near-spherical object about 7,920 miles in diameter.
So please post your evidence but remember that even on the Globe, for a triangle of side 100 miles the spherical excess is still less than 1 arcminute.

You can stand on the ground and hold an accelerometer and see you are being accelerated at 9.8m/s/s by the surface of the earth, then step off a table holding the accelerometer and watch it go to zero and observe the earth accelerating upwards to meet you.

And how does that differentiate between a flat earth and the globe?
But take your accelerometer on a plane flying straight and level west to east at 800 kph read your accelerometer, then read it again flying east to west.
Of course most planes have an accelerometer built in, though it is labelled as a G-meter.
This is only a preliminary video. There are more coming ( I hope ):

On this trip we were flying East with a Ground Speed of 600+ knots due to a healthy tail wind.

We were about 35 South Latitude.  The Earth's rotation at this point results in a speed of roughly 740 Knots.    Combining both speeds means we were flying at a speed equivalent to 1340 Knots across a stationary Sphere.   Calculating Centrifugal force based on Earth's Radius and this tangential velocity results in 0.007 G.  
The accelerometer in the Aircraft rounds this to 0.01 and it can be clearly seen that our speed across the Earth has "reduced" the apparent G felt on board the aircraft by about 1%

The G meter is reading 0.99 in level flight.       On the Ground it reads 1.00 always and I will show this in a more detailed future video.

You can travel to Bedford.

And that will tell you nothing at all. So:

Could you please provide an example of an experiment that each of us could do that might help to answer the question, "Is the Earth flat or round?"

Not only that:

So whoever made the video doesn't understand that the concept of up and down are pretty much arbitrary in microgravity, doesn't take into account the focal length of the various cameras used and doesn't realize that angled windows can cause refraction.  Come on Tom, you can do better than that.

Well, the first would stand as stronger evidence for planism than globularism, but it would not conclusively rule out a sphere or toroid or turtle-shaped earth of sufficient size, no.

This is correct; it would be inconclusive, so it's not a good experiment.
 

The second could actually falsify globularism/turtlism fantasies or planism, so I'm sure that's why it draws no further interest.

"Could." Again, correct. It's the only one that appears to have a theoretical chance. Lets examine this one in detail in a moment.

The third falsifies Newtonianism so prevalent here abouts amongst gobularists.

Please explain why you think this experiment "falsifies Newtonianism"? It does no such thing.
 

The fourth might also provide evidence of planism or globularism.

Because of the limited distances involved, the differences are subtle. Since we've seen that commonly-observed complicating factors make small differences in conditions swamp the effect being tested, people to come away claiming they have evidence for either model. So this one, too, is ambiguous.

Are you asking if there is experimental proof of planism? No. There is no experiment providing proof of planism any more than any experiment could ever offer proof of any hypothesis. There are no proofs in science. This isn't a math problem to be derived or calculated.

Very good! You're one of the few here that recognize that!

Anyway, let's consider your second proposed experiment, measuring the sum of the interior angles of a carefully surveyed triangle.

If the earth is a flat plane, the result will always be 180°. If the earth is a sphere, the result will always be > 180°. Seems straightforward enough.

The question, however, is: How much different from than 180° would the result be, and can you realistically expect to be able to measure it?

The sum of the interior angles of a spherical triangle, T, has the range 180° < T < 900°. The value for T depends on the area contained within the triangle as a proportion to the area of the sphere, using the formula

T = 180° (1 + 4 a/A) where a is the area of the triangle and A is the area of the sphere.

The excess angle, x (amount T exceeds 180°) would be

x = T - 180°
 = 180° (1 + 4 a/A) - 180°
 = 180° + 720° a/A - 180°
 = 720° a/A

So, let's see how large the triangle must be to produce an excess angle of 1° on a sphere 4,000 miles in radius.

Area of a sphere with radius r is

A = 4 pi r²

so

A = 4 pi (4000 miles)²
 = 4 pi 16,000,000 mi²
 = 201,061,929.8 mi²

Let's call it 200 million mi².

remember,

x =  720° a/A

so

1° = 720° a/(200,000,000 mi²)

solving for a,

a = 1° (200,000,000 mi²) / 720°
 = 200,000,000 mi² / 720
 = 277,778 mi²

That's a little larger than the US state of Texas. It's also about half again as large as the Ross Ice Shelf (which is roughly triangular and pretty flat, but logistics are something of a problem).

Although, in theory, it seems sound, that experiment just doesn't seem practical if you're looking for an obvious difference. Sorry. Good idea, though!

Well, the first would stand as stronger evidence for planism than globularism, but it would not conclusively rule out a sphere or toroid or turtle-shaped earth of sufficient size, no.

I guess maybe you could say that. I'm happy to grant you that the Earth looks flat. The problem is that this particular experiment produces EXACTLY the same results for both models so it is of no help at all in this case. You understand why that is right? Can't conclusively rule either one out, and in fact, it's of no help at all pointing to one model or the other. They both make exactly the same prediction.

The second could actually falsify globularism/turtlism fantasies or planism, so I'm sure that's why it draws no further interest.

Funny you should say it draws no further interest. This experiment is often quoted as one that proves the Earth is round. Did you not know that?
Before I undertake this test, I must first ask, "How far apart to my survey points need to be for me to measure any difference between the flat Earth and round Earth models?" Have you considered that question yourself yet? Until you have this answer, the experiment is not useful, so we have to do that first.
In looking for any reference to this question for you, I found this: https://www.metabunk.org/demonstrating-spherical-excess-spherical-angles-on-the-surface-of-the-earth.t8905/ which I found very helpful, although they didn't work out the minimum distances for me. However, they did highlight a logical pitfall that you may not have considered.
Edit: Alpha2Omega kindly worked the math for us, so I think that makes the experiment impractical unless we can come up with a way to get a really huge triangle survey. We could back this out from stellar observations, but somehow I don't think that's going to satisfy you.

The third falsifies Newtonianism so prevalent here abouts amongst gobularists.

I'm not planning to get into it, but it does not. The standard model predicts EXACTLY the same results. If you have a question about globe physics, ask a RE not a FE. We'll explain how our model works. Your "experiment" here is based in a misunderstanding of the standard model.

The fourth might also provide evidence of planism or globularism.

The fourth experiment was simply, "Travel to Bedford." I understand this to mean reproduce the famous Bedford level experiment. You may not be aware of this, but both FEs and REs claim victory in that experiment. If you only read one side's account of that experiment, you're likely to get an incomplete picture. I suggest you read both sides. If you'd like to repeat the experiment (it gets done fairly often), I would add a few requirements designed to eliminate common errors. I won't act like I'm a genius coming up with these. They would be the same things that countless others have said before.
For reference, here is how that tale is told in the RE world:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/rosetta-stones/wallace-8217-s-woeful-wager-how-a-founder-of-modern-biology-got-suckered-by-flat-earthers/

Are you asking if there is experimental proof of planism? No. There is no experiment providing proof of planism any more than any experiment could ever offer proof of any hypothesis. There are no proofs in science. This isn't a math problem to be derived or calculated.

No need to prove. Just anything that justifies your assertion that there is any empirical evidence that suggests the Earth is not round.

So to sum it up, you have offered 2 valid experiments:
1) Let's triangulate 3 distant points and see if the angles between them add to greater than 180 degrees. (Edit: impractical)
2) Let's repeat the Bedford level experiment.

Now let me ask you. Have you ever tried either of these? Has anyone you trust ever tried one? Do you have any reference material that you trust regarding either one of those that I could see as well?

Edit: So the Bedford level experiment then. We can do that. I'm happy to find you several different examples of reference for that.