What flat earth experiment?

  • 54 Replies
  • 2115 Views
*

rabinoz

  • 25566
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: What flat earth experiment?
« Reply #30 on: March 13, 2020, 05:48:55 PM »
If you do have any "peer-reviewed journals" why are you so reluctant to reveal them.
I'm not. There have been plenty over the years. Like I said, visit your local library or our library.

The Earth Not a Globe Review comes to mind as an early example.
Reviewed, presumably, by similar science deniers to Rowbotham.
It might be entitled The Earth Not a Globe Review but that seems to be that in name only - you have read it? I've a copy and have read some.

Would you like a thread on the simple factual errors in Earth Not a Globe that any competent reviewer should have pointed out?

This might not be quite relevant but were your The Earth Not a Globe Review really a critical review why did they not point out these errors in ENaG?
And while we're on evidence. Where is Rowbotham's experimental evidence for these claims?
  • The Sun, Moon, Planets and stars circling 700 to 1000 miles above the Earth.

  • Antarctica being a massive ring continent around a North Pole centred circular Earth.

  • "If the Southern Cross is a circumpolar cluster of stars, it is a matter of absolute certainty that it could never be in-visible to navigators upon or south of the equator. It would always be seen far above the horizon, just as the "Great Bear" is at all times visible upon and north of the equator."

    The "Great Bear, Ursa Major, is" is certainly not "at all times visible upon and north of the equator."

    All of the Southern Cross, Crux is circumpolar only to those living further south that about 30°S latitude
    and the Great Bear, Ursa Major is circumpolar only to those living further north that about 30°N latitude.
Rowbotham is simply wrong about these and many other things so why should anyone believe his claim that the Earth is flat when that claim was based on much of that evidence.

I could go on and on but we'll leave it there.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16455
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: What flat earth experiment?
« Reply #31 on: March 13, 2020, 05:55:05 PM »
If you do have any "peer-reviewed journals" why are you so reluctant to reveal them.
I'm not. There have been plenty over the years. Like I said, visit your local library or our library.

The Earth Not a Globe Review comes to mind as an early example.
Reviewed, presumably, by similar science deniers to Rowbotham.
It might be entitled The Earth Not a Globe Review but that seems to be that in name only - you have read it? I've a copy and have read some.
It was reviewed by his peers in his tradition of knowledge. Why would you expect anything else of peer review?

Quote
Would you like a thread on the simple factual errors in Earth Not a Globe that any competent reviewer should have pointed out?
Are you referring to the book? You seem a bit confused.

Quote
This might not be quite relevant but were your The Earth Not a Globe Review really a critical review why did they not point out these errors in ENaG?
They aren't peer reviewing ENaG.

Quote
And while we're on evidence. Where is Rowbotham's experimental evidence for these claims?
  • The Sun, Moon, Planets and stars circling 700 to 1000 miles above the Earth.

Provided in book. Similar to the replicated experiment by Taoists and more modern scholars.

Quote
  • Antarctica being a massive ring continent around a North Pole centred circular Earth.

  • "If the Southern Cross is a circumpolar cluster of stars, it is a matter of absolute certainty that it could never be in-visible to navigators upon or south of the equator. It would always be seen far above the horizon, just as the "Great Bear" is at all times visible upon and north of the equator."

    The "Great Bear, Ursa Major, is" is certainly not "at all times visible upon and north of the equator."

    All of the Southern Cross, Crux is circumpolar only to those living further south that about 30°S latitude
    and the Great Bear, Ursa Major is circumpolar only to those living further north that about 30°N latitude.
Rowbotham is simply wrong about these and many other things so why should anyone believe his claim that the Earth is flat when that claim was based on much of that evidence.

I could go on and on but we'll leave it there.
You should go on; go on actually reading the book.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

rabinoz

  • 25566
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: What flat earth experiment?
« Reply #32 on: March 13, 2020, 06:44:16 PM »
Rowbotham is simply wrong about these and many other things so why should anyone believe his claim that the Earth is flat when that claim was based on much of that evidence.

I could go on and on but we'll leave it there.
You should go on; go on actually reading the book.
I've read quite a deal and it's clear that Rowbotham knew little of astromony, yet tried to use astronomical evidence, and less still of the Southern Hemisphere.
Do you want more of Rowbotham's obvious errors pointed out?

*

rabinoz

  • 25566
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: What flat earth experiment?
« Reply #33 on: March 13, 2020, 06:47:23 PM »
If you do have any "peer-reviewed journals" why are you so reluctant to reveal them.
I'm not. There have been plenty over the years. Like I said, visit your local library or our library.

The Earth Not a Globe Review comes to mind as an early example.
Would you and others care to read an extract from The Earth Not a Globe Review that you recommended?
Quote from: The Earth Not a Globe Review pp 5-7
CREATION versus SALVATION.
OR
ILLOGICAL CHRISTIANS.

We are often advised by well-meaning Christians, who are ignorant of the bearings of our contention, to allow the subject of the plane earth to “ drop,” and to join with them in proclaiming what they are pleased to call “ the gospel.” As we are going to press we have received another gratuitous piece of advice of the same nature. Our friend writes :—
“You believe the earth is flat and stands still. I may give it a passing notice. I am surprised to find a man of so much intelligence and learn­ ing should persist in such notions. Is it not a clear fact that we can determine the approximate size of the globe ? And if you go in a straight line in any direction you will come to the place from which you started, and how do you account for the Seasons, and the difference in the length of the days at different Seasons ; and tidal motions, &c. I think you would be better engaged in helping to swell the world-wide cry of the Gospel. Don’t you think so?”

In answer to the last question we say decidely, No! not at the ex­pense of leaving off teaching the plain truth. It is undeniable that the Holy Scriptures teach that the Earth is stationary ; that it rests on “ foundations” and ‘‘ pillars” ; and that it is “ established so fast that it cannot be moved.” We therefore contend that if, as some of our Christian friends would have us believe, the Bible is not true in its material teachings respecting the Universe, it is not reliable in its promises of spiritual blessings. But we maintain that the Bible is true; true to fact and to every day observation; and that the earth does not move. In future numbers we hope to give good proofs of the earth’s immobility for those who need them ; but in the meantime we have a right to ask for some one proof, and we only ask for one, of the earth’s supposed terrible motions ? It appears stationary. It feels stationary. Then why should we give up the evidence of our God-given senses for the sake of a mere astronomical and unsupported assumption ?

There is much more behind this question of the shape of the earth than our good natured but illogical advisers are aware of. If we are
credited, as we are by those who know us, with at least an average share of common sense, and a little more than the average amount of “intelligence and learning”, how is it that our advisers—who for the most part have never really studied the question—how is it they cannot credit us with understanding this subject, which we have have studied, and with understanding its importance as supplying a good foundation for our con­fidence in the sure Word of God ? We maintain that if the Bible is not true respecting the material Creation, it is not reliable it its promises of Salvation ; and that it is perfectly useless to preach the Gospel of Jesus
the Christ to men who have lost their faith in the inspiration, or truthful­ ness, of the Word of God- It is, moreover, a great pity when Christian friends unite with sceptical foes in support of a godless science, falsely called “ science, ” which strikes at the very foundation of the truth of the Creator’s Word. They incur a grave responsibility in so doing. Let them take heed.

In answer to our correspondents questions, we say. It is not “a clear fact that we can determine the approximate size of the globe.” It
is not a clear fact that the earth is a globe at all. Let proof be offered.

And again, it is not possible “to go in a straight line in any direction, and come back to the place of starting". ”Any straight line” is an im­
possibility on a spherical surface. But apart from this self-evident fact, no one has ever travelled or voyaged due North, or due South, and come back to the same place again. The great ice barriers would prevent this. Yet our correspondent thoughtlessly says, "in any direction”! Men can go round the World in an easterly or a westerly direction ; but this is also possible on a plane. Hence it is no proof of the earth’s sphericity.
Does that sound like a review of ENaG?  It's just "more of the same" and based entirely on an interpretation of scriptures and/or their intent.

One of his claims might have partly true back then but is certainly quite untrue today!
"But apart from this self-evident fact, no one has ever travelled or voyaged due North, or due South, and come back to the same place again. The great ice barriers would prevent this".
There have been numerous cases of people travelling North or South and coming back to the same place again via both the North and South Poles and there are no great ice barriers that would prevent this.

So, where are these peer reviews of flat Earth publications?

*

Stash

  • 4032
Re: What flat earth experiment?
« Reply #34 on: March 14, 2020, 09:05:30 AM »
Yes, his credentials are well known.

I can consider something to be peer reviewed if it was reviewed by the authors peers before publication and afterwards. The methodology of this review can consist of a great many methodological tools and practices such as collaboration, internal consistency, replication and so on.

I think you are upset because it was not reviewed by your, or rather your beliefs peers. This is a simple misunderstanding. Your peers are not ours.

Aside from that modern peer review is a joke.

Yes, his credentials, or lack thereof, are well known. As well as his nom de plume's. I had just never seen him referred to as Dr.Birley in the context of FET. As usually 'Rowbotham' was used.

And I am by no means upset. It's just that what you cited are Letters to the Editor, not what I would consider peer review. Those 'Letters' were chosen by the editor(s) of the ENAG Review to be published in the ENAG Review.  Basically they were in complete control of their own propaganda.

I'm sure there are many issues with modern peer review. ENAG Review avoided whatever these problems may be by not partaking in the peer review process altogether.
No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

Re: What flat earth experiment?
« Reply #35 on: March 14, 2020, 05:13:47 PM »
I don’t really understand why flat earthers don’t distance themselves from ENAG?  They could still credit Rowbotham for starting the “modern” flat earth thing while still recognizing that his ideas and “proofs” are frankly just garbage.

All the stuff about perspective and vanishing points for instance is so convoluted and so obviously not how things work..  Surely it’s better to just say he was very wrong about stuff and focus on something (a bit) more plausible?


*

Stash

  • 4032
Re: What flat earth experiment?
« Reply #36 on: March 14, 2020, 06:11:53 PM »
It's all very complicated and convoluted. From what I've ascertained after reading through ENAG many times and other literature from the 'modern' flat earth movement in the 1800's and early 1900's, it's mostly, very, very scripturally based. Rowbotham in ENAG does a good job or sort of masking this until in Chapter XV where he ties all of his findings into full and utter support of scriptural passages and such.
Lady Blount and her crew who took over the mantle from Rowbotham don't even mask the scriptural notions, they came straight out to say, "The stated object of the new Universal Zetetic Society was “The propagation of knowledge relating to Natural Cosmogony in confirmation of the Holy Scriptures, based upon practical scientific investigation.” Society Rule number 1 was: “The so-called ‘sciences,’ and especially Modern Astronomy, to be dealt with from practical data in connection with the Divine System of Cosmogony revealed by the Creator.”
https://www.cantab.net/users/michael.behrend/ebooks/PlaneTruth/pages/Chapter_07.html

Fast forward to today there's a healthy mix of scriptural belief in FE and psuedoscientific belief. But it's hard to discern between the two a lot of the time.

I think you can credit Rowbotham for the modern FE movement, but unless one is scripturally bound, if I were FE, I would definitely distance myself from ENAG and most of what came after at the turn of the last century.

No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16455
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: What flat earth experiment?
« Reply #37 on: March 15, 2020, 10:36:49 AM »
As yet I have seen no coherent reason why these are not considered peer review.

Presented thus far:
- They talk about religious concepts
- I don't believe in the irrelevant Dr Birley's credentials
- They at times contain a letters to the editor section aside from the peer reviewed content
- They had a board which decided what got published

This is of course taking only one of the many many journals available throughout our history and trying to poop on it. Not one of these definitively or in any other way preclude these works from being 'peer reviewed.' Also it looks like Rabinoz has somehow gotten tripped up with even the most basic understanding of the title of the journal.


Now, let us consider the metric you wish to hold us to; we have already seen its a process that will accept completely nonsensical garbage made from MathGen. Why would I want to hold myself, or our work, to your faulty standards to begin with?

You lot claimed we didn't produce peer reviewed literature. I provided an example as well as a reasonable definition of acceptance. Since, there has been a lot of crying and whining about having met your challenge and no actual proof otherwise.

This is clearly yet another win for Flat Earth.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

rabinoz

  • 25566
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: What flat earth experiment?
« Reply #38 on: March 15, 2020, 03:36:14 PM »
As yet I have seen no coherent reason why these are not considered peer review.

Presented thus far:
- They talk about religious concepts
- I don't believe in the irrelevant Dr Birley's credentials
- They at times contain a letters to the editor section aside from the peer reviewed content
- They had a board which decided what got published
So you are content to ignore all of the factual errors in Rowbotham's ENaG and insist of debating pure semantics.

Quote from: John Davis
This is of course taking only one of the many many journals available throughout our history and trying to poop on it. Not one of these definitively or in any other way preclude these works from being 'peer reviewed.' Also it looks like Rabinoz has somehow gotten tripped up with even the most basic understanding of the title of the journal.

Now, let us consider the metric you wish to hold us to; we have already seen its a process that will accept completely nonsensical garbage made from MathGen. Why would I want to hold myself, or our work, to your faulty standards to begin with?

You lot claimed we didn't produce peer reviewed literature. I provided an example as well as a reasonable definition of acceptance. Since, there has been a lot of crying and whining about having met your challenge and no actual proof otherwise.

This is clearly yet another win for Flat Earth.
Possibly a win in the debating stakes but totally irrelevant to the topic which is "What flat earth experiment?"

You are far more interested in showing how smart you are yet I doubt that I've seen you propose any meaningful flat Earth experiments that might clearly show whether the Earth is flat or a Globe.

What about it?

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16455
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: What flat earth experiment?
« Reply #39 on: March 15, 2020, 04:14:42 PM »
As yet I have seen no coherent reason why these are not considered peer review.

Presented thus far:
- They talk about religious concepts
- I don't believe in the irrelevant Dr Birley's credentials
- They at times contain a letters to the editor section aside from the peer reviewed content
- They had a board which decided what got published
So you are content to ignore all of the factual errors in Rowbotham's ENaG and insist of debating pure semantics.

Quote from: John Davis
This is of course taking only one of the many many journals available throughout our history and trying to poop on it. Not one of these definitively or in any other way preclude these works from being 'peer reviewed.' Also it looks like Rabinoz has somehow gotten tripped up with even the most basic understanding of the title of the journal.

Now, let us consider the metric you wish to hold us to; we have already seen its a process that will accept completely nonsensical garbage made from MathGen. Why would I want to hold myself, or our work, to your faulty standards to begin with?

You lot claimed we didn't produce peer reviewed literature. I provided an example as well as a reasonable definition of acceptance. Since, there has been a lot of crying and whining about having met your challenge and no actual proof otherwise.

This is clearly yet another win for Flat Earth.
Possibly a win in the debating stakes but totally irrelevant to the topic which is "What flat earth experiment?"

You are far more interested in showing how smart you are yet I doubt that I've seen you propose any meaningful flat Earth experiments that might clearly show whether the Earth is flat or a Globe.

What about it?
Nobody is talking about ENaG. We are talking about ENaG review.

I was asked to provide evidence that peer review is done in the flat earth community.  I presented it, and the lot of you argued against it in spite of having no good reason to do so. Then I pointed out how the metric you are holding us to is a bunk method in your own traditions actual practice of it.

I think that says a lot. If you can't be bothered to read on some flat earth experiments, it has to be clear your intent in being here. Do you honestly think ENaG Review is supposed to be a peer review of ENaG? Of course ENaG contained errors. So did Dialogue On The Chief Two World Systems. What's your point?

If folks want experiments I'd point them to our library which has plenty. So yes, it addresses the main point. At least as it stood before it was side railed with this peer review nonsense which has been shown to be of no worth.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

rabinoz

  • 25566
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: What flat earth experiment?
« Reply #40 on: March 15, 2020, 04:57:34 PM »
I think that says a lot. If you can't be bothered to read on some flat earth experiments, it has to be clear your intent in being here. Do you honestly think ENaG Review is supposed to be a peer review of ENaG? Of course ENaG contained errors. So did Dialogue On The Chief Two World Systems. What's your point?
ENaG is held up as the basis of the modern flat Earth revival but no one regards Galileo's Dialogue On The Chief Two World Systems in that way.
Not only that but Galileo's Dialogue On The Chief Two World Systems was, I believe, first published in 1632 and was supporting the Copernican system which is far from the Kepler-Newtonian Solar System.

But Rowbotham was writing in the late 1800s and should have understood simple astronomy and the geography of the Southern Hemisphere far better than he did.

Quote from: John Davis
If folks want experiments I'd point them to our library which has plenty. So yes, it addresses the main point.
OK, would you care to point out a few meaningful experiments in your library that can be replicated?

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16455
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: What flat earth experiment?
« Reply #41 on: March 15, 2020, 06:28:10 PM »
It is not held up as any sort of thing. All is said is that one should be properly aware of the most critical work of any movement before throwing insults at it; that is to say you can't disagree with something you don't understand.

Can you say you understand the Flat Earth ideology? If so why then ask me for an experiment?!

I'd be happy to point one out. Take a bunch of sticks. Put them in the ground. Measure the angle of incidence with the sun. Collaborate and correlate. There are least two, and as can be shown, infinitely many framings of this experiment. It is an argument that is harder than you give it credit for to discredit - and so you give it none and try not to even field the question.

The truth is we have a large body of such experiments. You'd like to say they don't exist. When we show they exist, you'd like to poison the well with questions of "peer review." Once that veil is lifted, you instead attack a man who has literally nothing to do with the discussion at hand - and his work - multiple times.

Come now. Do you think the average person that comes here to learn of the flat earth idea is really swayed by such parlor tricks?
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16455
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: What flat earth experiment?
« Reply #42 on: March 15, 2020, 06:30:31 PM »
Its nice to have these useful folks around. As Rowbotham points out, we should make our enemies and their ill thought out whimsy to our benefit. For truth is in our favour, and in Truth - Victory.

Are you ready to concede defeat? Or do you need your head beaten about a windmill a third time?
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

rabinoz

  • 25566
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: What flat earth experiment?
« Reply #43 on: March 15, 2020, 07:42:16 PM »
It is not held up as any sort of thing. All is said is that one should be properly aware of the most critical work of any movement before throwing insults at it; that is to say you can't disagree with something you don't understand.

Can you say you understand the Flat Earth ideology? If so why then ask me for an experiment?!
Because I've not seen an experiment that proves that the Earth is flat.

Quote from: John Davis
I'd be happy to point one out. Take a bunch of sticks. Put them in the ground. Measure the angle of incidence with the sun. Collaborate and correlate. There are least two, and as can be shown, infinitely many framings of this experiment.
That has been done numerous times and the result do not fit with a flat Earth and a nearby sun.

Here is one example where Sly Sparkane tried to get flat Earthers and others to collaborate in a group experiment like your "bunch of sticks":

Equinox Test by Sly Sparkane

Quote
This test is open to ALL Flat and Globe Earthers... It's going to be really easy to participate.. Mirror and invite at will!!! but all entry links (photos or videos) must be sent to my channel as messages.. I really don't want to go chasing this stuff down.. :) Make an entry Friday, Saturday or Sunday.. the measurements will not be much different.. Check your stuff against Timeanddate.com or Suncalc.org
And guess what? He got 23 non-FEers to participate but not one flat Earther!

And here are his results:

Flat Earth: Debunked by Sly Sparkane


Quote from: John Davis
It is an argument that is harder than you give it credit for to discredit - and so you give it none and try not to even field the question.
I'll happily give credit where credit is due but any experiment that is worthwhile must be repeatable.

Quote from: John Davis
The truth is we have a large body of such experiments. You'd like to say they don't exist. When we show they exist,
If you have such "a large body of such experiments" where are they? The "average person that comes here to learn of the flat earth idea" isn't going to be able to hunt through your literature to find this "large body of such experiments".

Quote from: John Davis
you'd like to poison the well with questions of "peer review."
You raised the idea of "peer review"
Within our library are reproductions and scans of works that are available at your local library through interlibrary loan. Many of the works contained are peer reviewed journals, and all of them have been peer reviewed in some form.
I said little about "peer review".

Quote from: John Davis
Come now. Do you think the average person that comes here to learn of the flat earth idea is really swayed by such parlor tricks?
Well, all flat Earthers seem to have is a bunch of "such parlor tricks" so you'd better hope that "the average person that comes here to learn of the flat earth idea is really swayed by such parlor tricks".

If you disagree please some experiments, measurements or other evidence that might "sway them".
Would you suggest these as experiments One Hundred Proofs that the Earth is not a Globe by William Carpenter?
If not how is one to find these experiments buried in hundreds of titles in THE FLAT EARTH SOCIETY LIBRARY?

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16455
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: What flat earth experiment?
« Reply #44 on: March 16, 2020, 07:53:54 AM »
Of course the results fit. It is possible that whom ever performed your version of this experiment is not taking into account the change in path of the sun due to time of year etc.  I imagine he should have included at least one flat earther if he wanted his result to be taken seriously. I don't really have time to review an argument you couldn't be bothered to present yourself. I did spend a little time looking through the results quickly and it looks like my hunch is the actual case.

And then he poisons the results: Make an entry Friday, Saturday or Sunday.. the measurements will not be much different.. Check your stuff against Timeanddate.com or Suncalc.org

And then he notes that ONE line converges. This makes no sense at all. One line cannot converge to a point.

I can't think of a more ill formed attempt at this experiment. TO think he wasted 23 peoples time.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2020, 07:57:33 AM by John Davis »
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16455
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: What flat earth experiment?
« Reply #45 on: March 16, 2020, 07:59:31 AM »
I'd also be interested in seeing how he determined the distance between the supposed latitudes without presuming the result of the experiment.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

rabinoz

  • 25566
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: What flat earth experiment?
« Reply #46 on: March 16, 2020, 04:04:29 PM »
I'd also be interested in seeing how he determined the distance between the supposed latitudes without presuming the result of the experiment.
What I'm more interested in is why no flat Earther even attempted to participate in the experiment.

I imagine he could have used this:
Quote from: The Flat Earth Society Wiki
Finding your Latitude and Longitude
Latitude
To locate your latitude on the Flat Earth, it's important to know the following fact: The degrees of the Earth's Latitude are based upon the angle of the sun in the sky at noon equinox.

That's why 0˚ N/S sits on the equator where the sun is directly overhead, and why 90˚ N/S sits at the poles where the sun is at a right angle to the observer. At 45 North or South from the equator, the sun will sit at an angle 45˚ in the sky. The angle of the sun past zenith is our latitude.

Knowing that as you recede North or South from the equator at equinox, the sun will descend at a pace of one degree per 69.5 miles, we can even derive our distance from the equator based upon the position of the sun in the sky.

Seems close enough for the purpose. The whole point was that these different locations gave quite different heights of the Sun above a flat Earth but all pointed very close to a far distant Sun.

So where's your next experiment? You might try a verification of this:
Quote from: The Flat Earth Society Wiki
Basic Perspective
A fact of basic perspective is that the line of the horizon is always at eye level with the observer. This will help us understand how viewing distance works, in addition to the sinking ship effect.

Have you ever noticed that as you climb a mountain the line of the horizon seems to rise with you?

This is because the vanishing point is always at eye level with the observer. This is a very basic property of perspective. From a plane or a mountain, however high you ascend - the horizon will rise to your eye level. The next time you climb in altitude study the horizon closely and observe as it rises with your eye level.

The horizon will continue to rise with altitude, at eye level with the observer, until there is no more land to see.

*

faded mike

  • 1256
  • new world
Re: What flat earth experiment?
« Reply #47 on: March 16, 2020, 11:04:08 PM »
To the op, sorry, i overlooked that you were adressing John Davis, i think i missed the point you were making as well.
" Using our vast surveillance system, we've uncovered revolutionary new information..."
           -them

I am not a druggy

Re: What flat earth experiment?
« Reply #48 on: March 17, 2020, 01:19:57 AM »
it's pretty plain and clear he's calling out the lack of proper experimentation on the FE side.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16455
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: What flat earth experiment?
« Reply #49 on: March 18, 2020, 07:58:30 AM »
The experiment given by Rab is obviously crap. They give them the expected result, and then are surprised when it matches up. Its called confirmation bias. Then they use only 23 points of data. They have it spread out over a few days. He also is trying to prove against a strawman - picking a random point and using it to determine the height of the sun is ludicrous.

There are just so many things that make this laughable. It's not even "children's science tv show" level of valid.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2020, 08:04:27 AM by John Davis »
Quantum Ab Hoc

Re: What flat earth experiment?
« Reply #50 on: March 18, 2020, 09:10:49 AM »
The experiment given by Rab is obviously crap. They give them the expected result, and then are surprised when it matches up. Its called confirmation bias. Then they use only 23 points of data. They have it spread out over a few days. He also is trying to prove against a strawman - picking a random point and using it to determine the height of the sun is ludicrous.

There are just so many things that make this laughable. It's not even "children's science tv show" level of valid.

Confirmation bias?
Did your buddies from the beyond the curve doc not have that?


*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16455
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: What flat earth experiment?
« Reply #51 on: March 18, 2020, 09:33:18 AM »
I am not sure, but I do know that the behind the curve doc reportedly misreported many of the results of the experiments they covered. In short, "because I saw it on the tele / youtube / internet" is not a good reason to believe in something.

The television show that led to Mikes death clearly didn't have his best interests in mind as well, continually pushing him to meet their schedule not his safety recommendations.
Quantum Ab Hoc

Re: What flat earth experiment?
« Reply #52 on: March 18, 2020, 01:56:52 PM »
The experiment given by Rab is obviously crap. They give them the expected result, and then are surprised when it matches up. Its called confirmation bias. Then they use only 23 points of data. They have it spread out over a few days. He also is trying to prove against a strawman - picking a random point and using it to determine the height of the sun is ludicrous.

There are just so many things that make this laughable. It's not even "children's science tv show" level of valid.
The main point that makes it laughable is that it is discussing FE as if it might be real.

Would you care to provide more points of data? Most people would accept 23 points, as it would be quite conclusive.
See just using 2 points isn't enough (or points where the symmetry reduces it to 2) as that would be unconstrained as the radius of Earth could be changed to produce any height. But using 3 points allows one to start determining the both the radius of Earth and the height of the sun, both to some degree of error, with the possibility of one value having no upper bound.


Or explain how these data match the FE?

Or do the experiment yourself.


Really, the only valid objection would be to say that the distances between the points of longitude are completely wrong.
That if the distance between the equator and 45 degrees north is 5000 km; then instead of the distance between each 10 degrees of latitude, going from the equator, being a constant ~1111 km, it would instead be:
~880, ~940, ~1070, ~1310, ~1760, ~2700, ~5080, ~14620, ~infinite.

But to avoid this issue I would recommend limiting the measurements to the northern hemisphere (in fact, if Earth was flat you should be able to continue this in the southern hemisphere, but the observations require that to be more than infinitely far away from Polaris, making it quite difficult), and then as well as observing the sun on the equinox also observe Polaris. Because it is well known that for every degree of latitude you move south away from Polaris, its angle of elevation would drop by 1 degree.

This now produces the same kind of series, but now instead of having the distance between the equator and 45 degrees north being 5000 km, you have the distance between the north pole and 45 degrees north being 5000 km, and you have the distances between each 10 degrees increasing as you go south, not north.

Now, you might try and say that that relies upon the assumed height and distance, but it doesn't.
See, it doesn't matter what the actual distances are. The important part is that for a FE the distance between the degrees of latitude must increase as you go north if you use the sun, so the distance between 70 and 80 must be larger than between 10 and 20; while if you use Polaris, they must decrease, so between 10 and 20 must be larger than between 70 and 80.

i.e. a>b, while also b>a.

It doesn't take a math genius to figure out that is impossible.

So as you dismiss the experiments by REers, perhaps you can get a bunch of FEers together (in the metaphorical sense) to take measurements this equinox?
The angle of elevation of the sun at solar noon and the angle of elevation of Polaris at night.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16455
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: What flat earth experiment?
« Reply #53 on: March 18, 2020, 02:07:39 PM »
It's not really in my interest to spend time on an experiment that doesn't have anything to do with my current work. I'd be curious to hear Tom's take on this as he's likely better versed in this model and its modern equivalent.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

rabinoz

  • 25566
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: What flat earth experiment?
« Reply #54 on: March 18, 2020, 04:41:54 PM »
The experiment given by Rab is obviously crap. They give them the expected result, and then are surprised when it matches up. Its called confirmation bias. Then they use only 23 points of data. They have it spread out over a few days. He also is trying to prove against a strawman - picking a random point and using it to determine the height of the sun is ludicrous.

There are just so many things that make this laughable. It's not even "children's science tv show" level of valid.
Well, why haven't you or other flat Earthers, organised a properly run experiment to prove that your flat Earth Sun is 5000 km (or whatever) above the Earth?