I'm new

Quote from: John Davis on September 28, 2018, 08:01:13 AM

Quote from: Googleotomy on September 27, 2018, 06:42:28 PM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on September 27, 2018, 06:31:01 PM

Quote from: Googleotomy on September 27, 2018, 04:35:31 PM

It makes no sense at all compared to reality.

Not everyone spent time in the navy in the middle of the last century.

Not everyone in the real world works in some job or field of work such as scientists, engineers, technicians, cartographers, etc.where it is necessary to know that the earth is a globe. This also includes those who spent time in the navy at any time.

Lucky for them, and myself, it is not necessary to know the earth is a globe because such a thing is an impossible feat. You know, unless you hold on to Aristotelian nonsense values about knowledge and ignore the Enlightenment, and are setting back humanity thousands of years.

Tell me, do you believe in spontaneous generation too?

Evidently your work does not include those groups I mentioned .
And knowing the earth is a globe  is not an "impossible feat".

You should publish your work. If what you say is true, it would be the greatest attack on empiricism that I am aware of.

That the earth is a globe is a known fact and has evidence and proof of it.

Again, you are relying on antiquated and incorrect views on knowledge that are in disagreement with the facts.  As far as your proof: Proof is for mathematical theorems and alcoholic beverages. It’s not for science. How can take your word on the results of your methodology, if you fail to understand the methodology itself lending one to believe you lack the knowledge to use it properly?

Flat earth has no evidence whatsoever.

Clearly incorrect. You simply disagree or ignore the evidence for it.

Flat earth even has the stupidity to try to pass off the North Polar Azimuthal Equidistant Projection, which is one on many projections of the globe as a "Flat Earth Map Of The Earth."
FE will even acknowledge they have yet to produce their own accurate flat earth map.
There being no flat earth to work from , that is "an impossible feat".

Some examples where it must be known that the earth is a globe due to the curvature of a sphere are. :
Estimating the distance to the horizon for different heights of an observer. (The old reference to The Navy Manual For Lookouts.)
Knowing the distance to the horizon for the maximum range for some surface search radar systems.
Knowing the distance to the horizon for the spacing of repeater stations for some microwave repeater systems.
Sectional and Oceanic charts made from projections of the globe.
And many other applications.

None of these require knowledge that the earth is a globe, no more so than knowledge of a globe is required to predict eclipses - which it isn't. Have you read Earth Not A Globe?

Quote from: New Earth on September 27, 2018, 12:08:12 PM

Quote from: John Davis on September 27, 2018, 11:17:00 AM

This is not my illustration, its Samuel Shenton's from a lecture. I believe he was positing that each of these domes could have their own civilizations in them; and that it might provide explanation for the ascension of Jesus (and where he went) as well as tying in other mythologies. I find it interesting that he brings in the long held infinite earth view (which can be traced as far back as Rowbotham's time) with the dome ideology. I could see it being a compelling view for many of those flatists that are new to the scene.

Well yes, infinite earth features many civilizations, many races and cultures. I just don't think these other worlds are inside domes. I view them as super continents kind of like Pangea used to be or much larger situated on top of the infinite ocean. And yes its a good point about Jesus's ascension he probably did go to Paradise located outside Antarctica . Infinite earth also explains UFO's and many other paranormal phenomenon. I actually think that when we die we get new physical bodies and live beyond Antarctica on some of these worlds. Heleocentric model actually makes the existence of aliens pretty impossible because in Heleocentrism there are light years between planets and galaxies, infinite earth is all connected by land and water, this makes the case for Aliens a lot more probable.

I will tell you why the main reason why Domes make no sense. If we had a real dome over our world, that would indicate and proof beyond shadow of a doubt the existence of God or creator.  NASA could not hide the dome. NASA can hide flat earth but no not the dome.

NASA can clearly hide whatever they want, because people want to believe them. This has been engrained in our culture of Aristotelian science since at least the cold war and the moon race. If NASA says they found life on a planet, with no evidence, people believe them. When they invent planets people believe them. When they say they finally discovered dark matter, but didn't, people believe them. The popularity of error is tied directly to man's will to shove any second-hand fact down his gullet.

Interesting response.
I thought i had commented but seems it was admin'd out.
Might get myself banned again but lets see -

How does an artists rendition appear accurate and valid to you but any nasa photograph is clearly cgi falsity?

Good luck at life if i get banned again.

Quote from: Googleotomy on September 28, 2018, 09:11:22 AM

Quote from: John Davis on September 28, 2018, 08:01:13 AM

Quote from: Googleotomy on September 27, 2018, 06:42:28 PM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on September 27, 2018, 06:31:01 PM

Quote from: Googleotomy on September 27, 2018, 04:35:31 PM

It makes no sense at all compared to reality.

Not everyone spent time in the navy in the middle of the last century.

Not everyone in the real world works in some job or field of work such as scientists, engineers, technicians, cartographers, etc.where it is necessary to know that the earth is a globe. This also includes those who spent time in the navy at any time.

Lucky for them, and myself, it is not necessary to know the earth is a globe because such a thing is an impossible feat. You know, unless you hold on to Aristotelian nonsense values about knowledge and ignore the Enlightenment, and are setting back humanity thousands of years.

Tell me, do you believe in spontaneous generation too?

Evidently your work does not include those groups I mentioned .
And knowing the earth is a globe  is not an "impossible feat".

You should publish your work. If what you say is true, it would be the greatest attack on empiricism that I am aware of.

Quote

That the earth is a globe is a known fact and has evidence and proof of it.

Again, you are relying on antiquated and incorrect views on knowledge that are in disagreement with the facts.  As far as your proof: Proof is for mathematical theorems and alcoholic beverages. It’s not for science. How can take your word on the results of your methodology, if you fail to understand the methodology itself lending one to believe you lack the knowledge to use it properly?

Quote

Flat earth has no evidence whatsoever.

Clearly incorrect. You simply disagree or ignore the evidence for it.

Quote

Flat earth even has the stupidity to try to pass off the North Polar Azimuthal Equidistant Projection, which is one on many projections of the globe as a "Flat Earth Map Of The Earth."
FE will even acknowledge they have yet to produce their own accurate flat earth map.
There being no flat earth to work from , that is "an impossible feat".

Some examples where it must be known that the earth is a globe due to the curvature of a sphere are. :
Estimating the distance to the horizon for different heights of an observer. (The old reference to The Navy Manual For Lookouts.)
Knowing the distance to the horizon for the maximum range for some surface search radar systems.
Knowing the distance to the horizon for the spacing of repeater stations for some microwave repeater systems.
Sectional and Oceanic charts made from projections of the globe.
And many other applications.

None of these require knowledge that the earth is a globe, no more so than knowledge of a globe is required to predict eclipses - which it isn't. Have you read Earth Not A Globe?

ENAG is obviously  a work of fiction.

I willl leave your comments on my comments for the other "Round Earthers" to comment.

You can deny all of  my comments all you want, but you can't change how things work in the real world.

Do you think the USN and all the other navies in the world are fakes ?
(In reference to The Navy Manual For Lookouts)

You are the one that is changing the way things work in the real world - namely science and empiricism. Unless you have solved the issue of infinite regression that leads to the problem of induction. If you have, then great. Claim your Nobel Prize. If you haven't, stop pretending science is magic and it tells you what to believe. It really doesn't, and if you knew anything about it you would know this.

As far as your navy scouts manual, of course I don't believe they are fakes. I also don't believe one needs to know the earth is a globe to make use of their manual. Your view on science is one that is completely incorrect, albeit widespread.

You claim it has been proven; this is not a word in the lexicon of a scientist - at least an honest one. Why? Because for it to be proven, one must have solved the problem of induction.

But lets stop this right here and now and explain to you, and your round earth cohorts, the err of your way. Then you might see why your navy manual says nothing about the shape of the earth, and why your understanding of science predates the scientific revolution.


Science is the process through which we derive reliable predictive rules through controlled experimentation. That's the science that gives us this website, vaccines, the ability to predict eclipses, and the ability to use your little navy manual with success.

To you, Science is the pursuit of Truth. This is in actuality Aristotelian science which was a setback for all human civilization (and its a side you seem to want to take now!) For Aristotle science started with empiricism and then used theoretical speculation to decide true causes. What we learned from the scientific revolution and afterwards is that Aristotle was wrong. Science is not knowledge of the ultimate causes of things but is a process to produce predictive rules through experimentation.

Your idea that science tells you anything about the real world betrays that you aren't even aware of the greatest revolution within your own field, and of any scientific field.

Rowbotham points this out in Earth Not A Globe multiple times, and it can be found in plenty of non-flat literature. He points out the fact the mathematics and tabulation that leads to the prediction of eclipses is not tied to any particular theory, and then provides evidence by citing pre-heliocentric cultures that performed the same tabulation while believing something completely different.


Likewise, it would be very easy for any person to come up with a thousand different ways to theoretically frame our current knowledge about things. I've done it here with the non-euclidean flat earth. Its no wonder Isaac Newton worried that his support of induction lead him to be unable to say anything with any certainty.

You are the one that is changing the way things work in the real world - namely science and empiricism. Unless you have solved the issue of infinite regression that leads to the problem of induction. If you have, then great. Claim your Nobel Prize. If you haven't, stop pretending science is magic and it tells you what to believe. It really doesn't, and if you knew anything about it you would know this.

As far as your navy scouts manual, of course I don't believe they are fakes. I also don't believe one needs to know the earth is a globe to make use of their manual. Your view on science is one that is completely incorrect, albeit widespread.

You claim it has been proven; this is not a word in the lexicon of a scientist - at least an honest one. Why? Because for it to be proven, one must have solved the problem of induction.

But lets stop this right here and now and explain to you, and your round earth cohorts, the err of your way. Then you might see why your navy manual says nothing about the shape of the earth, and why your understanding of science predates the scientific revolution.


Science is the process through which we derive reliable predictive rules through controlled experimentation. That's the science that gives us this website, vaccines, the ability to predict eclipses, and the ability to use your little navy manual with success.

To you, Science is the pursuit of Truth. This is in actuality Aristotelian science which was a setback for all human civilization (and its a side you seem to want to take now!) For Aristotle science started with empiricism and then used theoretical speculation to decide true causes. What we learned from the scientific revolution and afterwards is that Aristotle was wrong. Science is not knowledge of the ultimate causes of things but is a process to produce predictive rules through experimentation.

Your idea that science tells you anything about the real world betrays that you aren't even aware of the greatest revolution within your own field, and of any scientific field.

Rowbotham points this out in Earth Not A Globe multiple times, and it can be found in plenty of non-flat literature. He points out the fact the mathematics and tabulation that leads to the prediction of eclipses is not tied to any particular theory, and then provides evidence by citing pre-heliocentric cultures that performed the same tabulation while believing something completely different.


Likewise, it would be very easy for any person to come up with a thousand different ways to theoretically frame our current knowledge about things. I've done it here with the non-euclidean flat earth. Its no wonder Isaac Newton worried that his support of induction lead him to be unable to say anything with any certainty.

I think most of us....At least we "Round  Earthers" who have been on these Flat Earth Societies Websites long enough to recognize they are just two more "Spoof Websites" on the Internet, so I won't argue with you about flat earth with you.LOL

However, if you can post an example of how the distance to the horizon on a flat earth could be estimated , I would be interested in reading it.
There would be no curvature of the earth on a flat earth , so where is the horizon on a flat earth ?
Another area where I have had personal experience.

All of the examples I gave were those in areas where I have had personal experience.
They work.
I assure you we all know the earth  is a globe.

But if you want to play the old flat earth game of denying every thing that is common knowledge  , have at it !
I hope you are enjoying it.
We enjoy reading them and all the flat earth stuff and nonsense.
Thanks for the opportunity to debunk them and post the true facts.

For example.:
Both ham radio operators and astronomical observatories have estimated or measured the distance from the earth to the moon and the diameter of the moon .
And it's certainly not 3000 miles distance and 32 miles in diameter !
Are all those people liars ? LOL

Cheers !
Long live the FES Websites !

P.S. I doubt that anyone....at least in the navy...had ever heard the word "flat earth" before the Internet.

You think the moderators are the ones scaring off the new posters that want to inquire about FE? That's rich.

Case in Point:
"I'm New" posted once and has never posted again.
Did my posting scare him off, or did the moderators scare him off  ?

To you, Science is the pursuit of Truth.

No, science does not claim to ever have "The TRUTH" that seems to be the purview of so many flat-earthers who so often claim to prove the earth flat with videos like:
"5 Facts That Prove The Earth Is Flat" Engineering Explained
"Proof the earth is FLAT" Moby Motion
"Flat Earth PROVEN By Independent Research" MrBeast

This is in actuality Aristotelian science which was a setback for all human civilization (and its a side you seem to want to take now!)

From what I have seen it was probably Pythagoras and especially Plato who thought the earth a sphere for philosophical reasons - spheres were "cool".

For Aristotle science started with empiricism and then used theoretical speculation to decide true causes.

And Aristotle was the one that claimed everything had a cause though he was undoubtedly wrong with many of his "causes".
Aristotle was able to present reasons why he considered the earth a spherical object. Some of those reasons might have been incorrect but further observations verified his reasoning.

There are numerous observations and measurement made by not only the Greeks but a little later by Indian, Arabian and Persian scientists and astronomers that were quite consistent with a Globe earth.

And that consistency right through the ages seems very important to me.
I will grant that the geocentric vs heliocentric question is a very subtle one. There is no easy observation on earth alone to prove one or the other.
But the Flat Earth vs Globe Earth is a totally different matter and in most places where serious observations were made, from around 300 BC on, the Globe Earth seems to have been accepted.

What we learned from the scientific revolution and afterwards is that Aristotle was wrong.

Sure, Aristotle was wrong in many of his "causes". What do you expect from someone 2300 years ago with none of the instruments we now have.

Science is not knowledge of the ultimate causes of things but is a process to produce predictive rules through experimentation.

Of course! Though there is always an attempt to get as close as possible to these "ultimate causes".

Your idea that science tells you anything about the real world betrays that you aren't even aware of the greatest revolution within your own field, and of any scientific field.

You need to be careful about claims like "Your idea that science tells you anything about the real world"!
You have no right to assign motive to others but that does seem to be what so many flat-earthers try to do.

Rowbotham points this out in Earth Not A Globe multiple times, and it can be found in plenty of non-flat literature.

I'm afraid a Doctor like Rowbotham pointing out anything in "Earth Not A Globe" does not carry much weight when he is provably wrong in so many places.
What makes Rowbotham any authority on these things?

He points out the fact the mathematics and tabulation that leads to the prediction of eclipses is not tied to any particular theory, and then provides evidence by citing pre-heliocentric cultures that performed the same tabulation while believing something completely different.

But only to a very limited degree and those predictions based only of those tables were not very accurate when it came to location as some Chinese astronomers when they lost their heads.

And if you bothered to look into it you might find that there are vast differences between the flat earth models that those pre-spherical earth cultures and any modern flat earth model.

They really did have sun, moon and stars appearing to rise from the eastern horizon and set in the western horizon not circling overhead like flocks of birds!

Likewise, it would be very easy for any person to come up with a thousand different ways to theoretically frame our current knowledge about things. I've done it here with the non-euclidean flat earth. Its no wonder Isaac Newton worried that his support of induction lead him to be unable to say anything with any certainty.

No, it would not and you have never done it! You simply claim that your "non-euclidean flat earth" explains everything but never explain how this "non-euclidean flat earth" could possibly have any predictive power.

Isaac Newton, aided by the work of Robert Hooke and Galileo, simply presents "Laws" ("Theories" would be better) describing what was observed.
He never claimed to know the "ultimate cause" and he wrote:

It is inconceivable that inanimate brute matter should, without the mediation of something else which is not material, operate upon and affect other matter without mutual contact, as it must be, if gravitation in the sense of Epicurus, be essential and inherent in it. And this is one reason why I desired you would not ascribe innate gravity to me. That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws; but whether this agent be material or immaterial, I have left open to the consideration of my readers.

(Newton: Letter to Bentley, February 1693)

He never said that his gravitation was not true, but just that he couldn't comprehend the mechanism.

He never pretended to know the ultimate cause of gravitation but his "Laws" have proved amazingly accurate and flat-earthers struggle to explain them away!

Modern instruments and observations have left virtually no doubt that the earth is really a slowly rotating sphere - get used to it!
The only recourse flat-earthers have now is to claim that there is some massive conspiracy to hide "THE TRUTH" from the common people.

Quote from: boydster on September 26, 2018, 06:33:43 PM

You think the moderators are the ones scaring off the new posters that want to inquire about FE? That's rich.

Case in Point:
"I'm New" posted once and has never posted again.
Did my posting scare him off, or did the moderators scare him off  ?

I think you and rab did a great job. As usual.

Quote from: Googleotomy on September 28, 2018, 02:27:09 PM

ì

Quote from: boydster on September 26, 2018, 06:33:43 PM

You think the moderators are the ones scaring off the new posters that want to inquire about FE? That's rich.

Case in Point:
"I'm New" posted once and has never posted again.
Did my posting scare him off, or did the moderators scare him off  ?

I think you and rab did a great job. As usual.

I think he found out what the answer to the description of the flat earth was  and  having found it  wanted  no further part of it.
The vague  replies of John Davis and the insults as to "noobs" by Space Cow Girl weren't of much help.

Finding answers to questions hasn't scared me off. 
For example, I already knew the earth was a globe .
But I wasn't aware of the simple formula for estimating the distance to the horizon (Because of the curvature of the globe.)
If I had known this when I was in the navy, it would have made my radar checks for ranges to ships and comparing them to my visual sightings more interesting.

I also had an idea of at approximately what the distance from the earth to the moon was.
But I wasn't aware of how this was calculated one way  until I did searches and found how the astronomical observatories did this using laser beams aimed at reflectors placed their by the astronauts.
And also how the ham radio operators did this by timing how long it took to send a signal to the moon and receive it back on earth and use the speed of radio waves to get the results.

Really this website answers more information on how things really work on the real world of the globe earth than how things are supposed to work in the imaginary world of the flat earth.

I, too, was new to this website at one time.
I think the words of the moderators is  like what old  "Pogo the Possum" once said "We have met the enemy and he is us." LOL

You were in the Navy?

 

You were in the Navy?

Yes.

Just ask Space Cow Girl. LOL

I think there are some other contributors to this website with the same background .

Quote from: John Davis on September 28, 2018, 01:55:41 PM

You are the one that is changing the way things work in the real world - namely science and empiricism. Unless you have solved the issue of infinite regression that leads to the problem of induction. If you have, then great. Claim your Nobel Prize. If you haven't, stop pretending science is magic and it tells you what to believe. It really doesn't, and if you knew anything about it you would know this.

As far as your navy scouts manual, of course I don't believe they are fakes. I also don't believe one needs to know the earth is a globe to make use of their manual. Your view on science is one that is completely incorrect, albeit widespread.

You claim it has been proven; this is not a word in the lexicon of a scientist - at least an honest one. Why? Because for it to be proven, one must have solved the problem of induction.

But lets stop this right here and now and explain to you, and your round earth cohorts, the err of your way. Then you might see why your navy manual says nothing about the shape of the earth, and why your understanding of science predates the scientific revolution.


Science is the process through which we derive reliable predictive rules through controlled experimentation. That's the science that gives us this website, vaccines, the ability to predict eclipses, and the ability to use your little navy manual with success.

To you, Science is the pursuit of Truth. This is in actuality Aristotelian science which was a setback for all human civilization (and its a side you seem to want to take now!) For Aristotle science started with empiricism and then used theoretical speculation to decide true causes. What we learned from the scientific revolution and afterwards is that Aristotle was wrong. Science is not knowledge of the ultimate causes of things but is a process to produce predictive rules through experimentation.

Your idea that science tells you anything about the real world betrays that you aren't even aware of the greatest revolution within your own field, and of any scientific field.

Rowbotham points this out in Earth Not A Globe multiple times, and it can be found in plenty of non-flat literature. He points out the fact the mathematics and tabulation that leads to the prediction of eclipses is not tied to any particular theory, and then provides evidence by citing pre-heliocentric cultures that performed the same tabulation while believing something completely different.


Likewise, it would be very easy for any person to come up with a thousand different ways to theoretically frame our current knowledge about things. I've done it here with the non-euclidean flat earth. Its no wonder Isaac Newton worried that his support of induction lead him to be unable to say anything with any certainty.

I think most of us....At least we "Round  Earthers" who have been on these Flat Earth Societies Websites long enough to recognize they are just two more "Spoof Websites" on the Internet, so I won't argue with you about flat earth with you.LOL

I'm sorry for you as you reduce ideas to websites, or tele shows you might visit when bored.

However, if you can post an example of how the distance to the horizon on a flat earth could be estimated , I would be interested in reading it.

Through tabulation, mathematics and empiricism. There is a necessary nominalism to mathematics that is lost when we try to make it relatable through theory. Isn't the curse of the universal language, is that it loses that truth in the details of the cultures that speak it? Isn't a universal language too ambiguous? What then of the language of math - and its tie to our ideas of what is round and what is not? Good sense tells us the earth is round. Good logic tells us to argue the other path, because history shows - we are wrong about most things.

You claim it has been proven; this is not a word in the lexicon of a scientist - at least an honest one. Why? Because for it to be proven, one must have solved the problem of induction.

Would this render Rowbotham a dishonest scientist? In ENAG, he titles Chapter II "Experiments Demonstrating the True Form of Standing Water, and Proving the Earth to be a Plane".

And a claim that he solved the problem of induction with his limited series of experiments of dubious results and scripture bound conjecture is decidedly not earned nor warranted.

science is a new religion called Scientism. In the old days people believed the church without question, these days they believe classroom teachers and Heleocentric Darwinistic bull shit they spew. The church was brainwashing the masses. Vladimir Lenin called it the Opium for the masses. Now the science does the same as church did. Brainwashing the masses with no fucking evidence for their shit. They can't figure out how to eliminate traffic or cure common flue, instead they give you more emojis on your phone. They are fucking bastards fuck the science. This Globe Matrix will be erased and rebuild in the image of truth, freedom and dignity. No more vile crap or Stormy Daniels and alike. Fuck these people. Infinite earth is the real earth, the true reward that they hid from you since the mother fucking Copernicus. John Davis mentioned Aristotle, of course he was an asshole. Where I live they got a lot of Greek diners, food fucking sucks and they are cheap as hell. Don't trust the Greeks especially when they say Earth is round.

You are incorrect in your thinking.

Quote from: Googleotomy on September 28, 2018, 02:24:11 PM

Quote from: John Davis on September 28, 2018, 01:55:41 PM

You are the one that is changing the way things work in the real world - namely science and empiricism. Unless you have solved the issue of infinite regression that leads to the problem of induction. If you have, then great. Claim your Nobel Prize. If you haven't, stop pretending science is magic and it tells you what to believe. It really doesn't, and if you knew anything about it you would know this.

As far as your navy scouts manual, of course I don't believe they are fakes. I also don't believe one needs to know the earth is a globe to make use of their manual. Your view on science is one that is completely incorrect, albeit widespread.

You claim it has been proven; this is not a word in the lexicon of a scientist - at least an honest one. Why? Because for it to be proven, one must have solved the problem of induction.

But lets stop this right here and now and explain to you, and your round earth cohorts, the err of your way. Then you might see why your navy manual says nothing about the shape of the earth, and why your understanding of science predates the scientific revolution.


Science is the process through which we derive reliable predictive rules through controlled experimentation. That's the science that gives us this website, vaccines, the ability to predict eclipses, and the ability to use your little navy manual with success.

To you, Science is the pursuit of Truth. This is in actuality Aristotelian science which was a setback for all human civilization (and its a side you seem to want to take now!) For Aristotle science started with empiricism and then used theoretical speculation to decide true causes. What we learned from the scientific revolution and afterwards is that Aristotle was wrong. Science is not knowledge of the ultimate causes of things but is a process to produce predictive rules through experimentation.

Your idea that science tells you anything about the real world betrays that you aren't even aware of the greatest revolution within your own field, and of any scientific field.

Rowbotham points this out in Earth Not A Globe multiple times, and it can be found in plenty of non-flat literature. He points out the fact the mathematics and tabulation that leads to the prediction of eclipses is not tied to any particular theory, and then provides evidence by citing pre-heliocentric cultures that performed the same tabulation while believing something completely different.


Likewise, it would be very easy for any person to come up with a thousand different ways to theoretically frame our current knowledge about things. I've done it here with the non-euclidean flat earth. Its no wonder Isaac Newton worried that his support of induction lead him to be unable to say anything with any certainty.

I think most of us....At least we "Round  Earthers" who have been on these Flat Earth Societies Websites long enough to recognize they are just two more "Spoof Websites" on the Internet, so I won't argue with you about flat earth with you.LOL

I'm sorry for you as you reduce ideas to websites, or tele shows you might visit when bored.

Quote

However, if you can post an example of how the distance to the horizon on a flat earth could be estimated , I would be interested in reading it.

Through tabulation, mathematics and empiricism. There is a necessary nominalism to mathematics that is lost when we try to make it relatable through theory. Isn't the curse of the universal language, is that it loses that truth in the details of the cultures that speak it? Isn't a universal language too ambiguous? What then of the language of math - and its tie to our ideas of what is round and what is not? Good sense tells us the earth is round. Good logic tells us to argue the other path, because history shows - we are wrong about most things.

This is addressed to Mr. John Davis -

I have asked for answers to these questions before , but with no results so far.
But I'm going to make one more try.

Show us your figures, computatiions and results on estimating the distance from an observer to the horizon on a "flat earth"

It is very simple on the "round earth."

For the sake of repetition I will show you my method and some examples.
On the round earth, the horizon is the distinct line where the sea and sky appear to meet because of the curvature of the earth.

The computation for estimating the distance to the horizon is very simple.
The distance to the horizon (in miles) is equal to the product of 1.2 (a constant) times the square root of the height of the observer (in feet)

For a 6 feet tall observer standing at sea level, the estimated distance to the horizon is about 2 to 3 miles.
For a person on the Bridge of a ship, 65 feet above the water line - about 10 to 11 miles.
For a person in the Crow's Nest on a ship, 100 feet above the water line - about 12 to 13 miles

These figures have been proven to be accurate for many years, dating  back to the days when ships had crow's nests manned by trained lookouts.

Some of their training included comparing their visual sighting results with those of the ship's radar. A trained lookout was very skilled at this.

Now list us see some illustrations, methods, facts, figures and results of the flat earth for those for the round earth.

You might also explain about the horizon on a flat earth
Also a descrption of what it looks like and where it is.

In short, either put up or shut up !

science is a new religion called Scientism.

Incorrect!

In the old days people believed the church without question,

More or less correct though
      "in the 15th century, most people were forced by the Inquisition to believe the Roman Catholic Church without question"
would be far more accurate!

Even so, some, including Copernicus, Galileo, John Calvin and others certainly departed from "The Church's" teaching in various ways.
But, Mr Flat Earth, the shape of the earth was never "an article of faith" and to my knowledge no-one was even censured for their belief in a flat-earth!
In the early days, before about 500 AD there was plenty of discussion in "The Church" about the shape of the earth and there were dissenters from the Globe shape.

these days they believe classroom teachers and Heleocentric  << try Heliocentric >>Darwinistic bull shit they spew.

Incorrect!

Darwinism has no connection with Heliocentrism and the earth was believed to be a Globe for around 1800 years before Copernicus.
Copernicus had nothing at all to do with teaching that the earth was a Globe - that was well accepted by "The Church" for at least 1000 years before his time!
And Darwin did not write his "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection" until almost 300 years after the time of Copernicus and millenia after the Globe was accepted.

The church was brainwashing the masses. Vladimir Lenin called it the Opium for the masses.

Incorrect! If you are going to quote other sources then at least get the original source right!
The full quote from Karl Marx translates as:

Now the science does the same as church did. Brainwashing the masses with no fucking evidence for their shit.

Totally incorrect!

They can't figure out how to eliminate traffic or cure common flue, instead they give you more emojis on your phone.

Totally incorrect and totally irrelevant! And what on earth is "cure common flue"?
What on earth has "giving you more emojis on your phone" got to do with modern physics, astronomy, cosmology or the shape of the earth?

They are fucking bastards fuck the science.

Why should any reasonable person take the slightest notice of an uncouth low-down so-and-so like you turned out to be?

This Globe Matrix will be erased and rebuild in the image of truth, freedom and dignity.

Not your "Globe Matrix" again? That thing that you refuse point-blank to give any evidence for, yet expect us to swallow the result of your hallucinations.

You talk like a gutter-snipe and then dare talk about "the image of truth, freedom and dignity" - get lost!

No more vile crap or Stormy Daniels and alike.

What on earth has Stormy Daniels got to do with the shape of the earth or heliocentrism?

Fuck these people. Infinite earth is the real earth, the true reward that they hid from you since the mother fucking Copernicus. John Davis mentioned Aristotle, of course he was an asshole. Where I live they got a lot of Greek diners, food fucking sucks and they are cheap as hell. Don't trust the Greeks especially when they say Earth is round.

So now you are a cursing racism ignoramus that respects no-one else, yet you expect others to respect your hallucinations - it ain't gunna happen mate!

But Mr New Earth it wasn't just the Greeks that "say Earth is round", they included:

• Greek: Pythagoras, Aristotle, Eratosthenes, etc,
• Greco-Roman: Ptolemy,
• Indian: Aryabhata of India,
• Arabian and Persian: Caliph al-Ma'mun, Al-Khwarizmi and Al Birini etc
• English: The Venerable Bede (and many more later including Isaac Newton),
• French/English: Johannes de Sacrobosco, thought to be born in England but " a scholar, monk and astronomer who was a teacher at the University of Paris",
• Polish: Copernicus,
• Italian: Galileo Galilei and many more,
• Danish: Tycho Brahe and
• German: Johannes Kepler.

etc, etc! And these are just a few of the "figureheads" that tend to get the credit.

Yes, Mr Flat Earth, far from being mainly a "Greek affair" the Globe was really a very international affair. Drag your filthy racist mind out of the gutter and face the facts!

Cleaning up your act and posting some useful evidence might make a difference.

The computation for estimating the distance to the horizon is very simple.
The distance to the horizon (in miles) is equal to the product of 1.2 (a constant) times the square root of the height of the observer (in feet)

For a 6 feet tall observer standing at sea level, the estimated distance to the horizon is about 2 to 3 miles.

In short, either put up or shut up !

Why is there a 33% margin of error?

Quote from: Googleotomy on September 29, 2018, 10:53:20 AM

The computation for estimating the distance to the horizon is very simple.
The distance to the horizon (in miles) is equal to the product of 1.2 (a constant) times the square root of the height of the observer (in feet)

For a 6 feet tall observer standing at sea level, the estimated distance to the horizon is about 2 to 3 miles.

In short, either put up or shut up !

Why is there a 33% margin of error?

These were just estimates.
The old lookouts would most likely be experienced in taking account of the atmospheric conditions to give estimates very close to those from the radar.
You can work out the distances  to an exact value using the math in the explanation.
6 feet tall person at sea level = 2.9 miles
Person in crow's nest, 100 feet above sea level = 12 miles
Person at the top of Point Loma at San Diego (400 feet above sea level) = 24 miles
The measurements are based on the height of the observer's eyes above sea level.

There are also tables for figuring the distance to the horizon for the maximum range for some surface search radars on different types of ship.
A small ship with a radar antenna mounted  on a short mast would have a shorter range for the radar than that on a larger ship with the radar antenna mounted on a much taller mast.
Before we get too involved in nit-picking this is just an example of one type of radar system.
There are all kinds of radar systems , each with their own capabilities and limitations.

There is another constant of 1.5 which takes into account any refraction.

Quote from: Googleotomy on September 29, 2018, 10:53:20 AM

The computation for estimating the distance to the horizon is very simple.
The distance to the horizon (in miles) is equal to the product of 1.2 (a constant) times the square root of the height of the observer (in feet)

For a 6 feet tall observer standing at sea level, the estimated distance to the horizon is about 2 to 3 miles.

In short, either put up or shut up !

Why is there a 33% margin of error?

Why do some FE's ask questions but never answer any ?

Rowbotham points this out in Earth Not A Globe multiple times, and it can be found in plenty of non-flat literature. He points out the fact the mathematics and tabulation that leads to the prediction of eclipses is not tied to any particular theory, and then provides evidence by citing pre-heliocentric cultures that performed the same tabulation while believing something completely different.

I have another meta bone to pick.

So what?

That's the equivalent of saying that indigenous peoples of NA used smoke signals to communicate over distance, had different belief constructs than those of us today who use email and IM to do same. Yes, different cultures throughout history have devised ways within and without their belief systems to communicate and try to understand the world around them.

So what?

Were those pre-heliocentric cultures able to conform their tabulation to every point on earth, all of which was not known to them? With the accuracy and scale we have today? Can you really equate pre-heliocentric cultures knowledge of the earth at large to what we presumably have today?

Forward is about ease, scale, speed and accuracy. Just because a culture could predict their notions of the heavens under a set surrounding belief systems that are different to ours today doesn't necessitate the denial of systems that have been developed over a millennia to better understand, to serve humankind, today.

Denial of which is that we don't know more today than we knew 1000's of years ago. Do we know everything? Absolutely not. Do we know more than Rowbotham? Absolutely yes.

Enter you getting all pedantic and all Hume about 'what is knowing?' Save it for someone who cares. This is a practical point, not a philosophical one: science, maths, physics, etc., are there to further knowledge, not to obscure, diminish or detract. If you want to live in the time of Babylonia, your choice.

Hi, I'm new to the whole "Flat Earth Theory," and I was wondering if you all could tell me what shape the flat earth is in? Is it a circular shape?

Flat earth theory is a complete joke.  I am here to study the psychosis involved in actually believing it.

Quote from: Bullwinkle on September 29, 2018, 04:35:50 PM

Quote from: Googleotomy on September 29, 2018, 10:53:20 AM

The computation for estimating the distance to the horizon is very simple.
The distance to the horizon (in miles) is equal to the product of 1.2 (a constant) times the square root of the height of the observer (in feet)

For a 6 feet tall observer standing at sea level, the estimated distance to the horizon is about 2 to 3 miles.

In short, either put up or shut up !

Why is there a 33% margin of error?

Why do some FE's ask questions but never answer any ?

You would have to ask them.

Through tabulation, mathematics and empiricism. There is a necessary nominalism to mathematics that is lost when we try to make it relatable through theory. Isn't the curse of the universal language, is that it loses that truth in the details of the cultures that speak it? Isn't a universal language too ambiguous? What then of the language of math - and its tie to our ideas of what is round and what is not? Good sense tells us the earth is round. Good logic tells us to argue the other path, because history shows - we are wrong about most things.

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit, right?

During the thousands of years the shape of the earth has been studied, if it were in fact flat, there would already be an existing formula to calculate the distance to the horizon on the flat earth.  You can make the claim that "NASA" controls the data, but that would just further indicate your state of denial.

Quote from: Googleotomy on September 29, 2018, 05:46:12 PM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on September 29, 2018, 04:35:50 PM

Quote from: Googleotomy on September 29, 2018, 10:53:20 AM

The computation for estimating the distance to the horizon is very simple.
The distance to the horizon (in miles) is equal to the product of 1.2 (a constant) times the square root of the height of the observer (in feet)

For a 6 feet tall observer standing at sea level, the estimated distance to the horizon is about 2 to 3 miles.

In short, either put up or shut up !

Why is there a 33% margin of error?

Why do some FE's ask questions but never answer any ?

You would have to ask them.

Could you suggest some FEers that might be willing and able to answer some simple questions? You possibly?

Could you suggest some FEers that might be willing and able to answer some simple questions? You possibly?

RE'rs have absolutely zero interest in answers.
They are just looking for something to attack.

Quote from: Googleotomy on September 29, 2018, 05:46:12 PM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on September 29, 2018, 04:35:50 PM

Quote from: Googleotomy on September 29, 2018, 10:53:20 AM

The computation for estimating the distance to the horizon is very simple.
The distance to the horizon (in miles) is equal to the product of 1.2 (a constant) times the square root of the height of the observer (in feet)

For a 6 feet tall observer standing at sea level, the estimated distance to the horizon is about 2 to 3 miles.

In short, either put up or shut up !

Why is there a 33% margin of error?

Why do some FE's ask questions but never answer any ?

You would have to ask them.

You possibly.LOL
I have shown the methods and results for estimating the distance to the horizon and asked  John Davis for the same.
But I haven't seen any.
Would you like to give it a try ?

Quote from: rabinoz on September 29, 2018, 07:33:53 PM

Could you suggest some FEers that might be willing and able to answer some simple questions? You possibly?

RE'rs have absolutely zero interest in answers.

Sure, "RE'rs have absolutely zero interest in answers" that are simply hypotheses with no evidence to back them up.

They are just looking for something to attack.

If these FEers answer with nothing more than hypotheses with no evidence to back them up what can they expect?

Quote from: rabinoz on September 29, 2018, 07:33:53 PM

Could you suggest some FEers that might be willing and able to answer some simple questions? You possibly?

RE'rs have absolutely zero interest in answers.
They are just looking for something to attack.

I AM an RE who IS  interested in the answers to the question of  HOW an FE would estimate the  distance to the horizon on a flat earth.
Are FE's interested in RE answers ?
I've been in the navy (as Space Cow Girl should know by now....LOL) and  worked on radars and microwave repeaters and UHF and VHF radios both in the USN and the FAA so I know how it works as far as the distance to the horizon is concerned....On the "round earth".

But I would REALLY just like to see how it compares with the "round earth" method  and result.
It's really very simple for a "round earther" as I have explained.

In the first place .......If we have any intelligence at all, we know the earth isn't flat.
But I AM interested in how it WOULD be done IF  the earth WAS  flat.
I promise I wouldn't "attack" you.
I might disagree with you, though.

I know the "round earth method" works all the time anyway.

If y'all (Bullwinkle and John Davis) don't have any answer(s)....
Just say so and we'll just leave it at that until some FE comes up with the answer.

Cheers !
Long Live The Flat Earth Society !
The source of all FE and RE Information !

First of all, JD did answer you. He said through tabulation, mathematics and empiricism. Which, if you are keeping track, is how things are figured out on RE, too. But the fact that you would ignore an answer and then pretend you never got one is hardly a surprise.

Secondly, I find it incredibly hard to believe you can go back and re-read your posts in this thread and stand by your earlier assertion that it's not your own behavior that would drive someone away from this place.

God forbid anyone has a chance to try and think through an idea on their own without the help of Googleotomy, rabinoz, and if they are really lucky, maybe even JackBlack to relentlessly tell them how wrong they are.