Flat? Round? both round somewhat.

  • 135 Replies
  • 40027 Views
*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5178
Re: Flat? Round? both round somewhat.
« Reply #90 on: October 28, 2007, 06:08:49 PM »
Quote
Astronomers conduct experiments. You lose, again.

Oh really? What kind of experiments do Astronomers conduct?

Here, it's enough for your level.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17328
Re: Flat? Round? both round somewhat.
« Reply #91 on: October 28, 2007, 06:12:05 PM »
Quote
Here, it's enough for your level.

Sorry, I don't see any controlled experiments. I just see observations and interpretations.

Perhaps you can post an astronomical experiment here for us.

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: Flat? Round? both round somewhat.
« Reply #92 on: October 28, 2007, 06:13:59 PM »
Quote
And also, every single Flat Earth Experiment is performed in conditions where the instruments recording the results over such an area would have a larger margin of error than the curvature of the Earth. Thus, we can say that every Flat Earth experiment is inconclusive, and your theory cannot be proved.

Why don't you explain for me, in detail, what kind of margin of error occurs in my experiment across the Monterey Bay. Here it is again in case you've missed it:

I live along the California Monterey Bay. It is a relatively long bay that sits next to the Pacific Ocean. The exact distance between the extremes of the Monterey Bay, Lovers Point in Pacific Grove and Lighthouse State Beach in Santa Cruz, is 33.4 statute miles. See this map.

On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa. With a good telescope, laying down on the stomach at the edge of the shore on the Lovers Point beach 20 inches above the sea level it is possible to see people at the waters edge on the adjacent beach 33 miles away near the lighthouse. The entire beach is visible down to the water splashing upon the shore. Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore and teenagers merrily throwing Frisbees to one another. I can see runners jogging along the water's edge with their dogs. From my vantage point the entire beach is visible.

IF the earth is a globe, and is 24,900 English statute miles in circumference, the surface of all standing water must have a certain degree of convexity--every part must be an arc of a circle. From the summit of any such arc there will exist a curvature or declination of 8 inches in the first statute mile. In the second mile the fall will be 32 inches; in the third mile, 72 inches, or 6 feet, as shown in this chart. Ergo; looking at the opposite beach 30 miles away there should be a bulge of water over 600 feet tall blocking my view. There isn't.

Here's the math:



Suppose that the earth is a sphere with a radius of 3,963 miles. If you are at a point P on the earth's surface and move tangent to the surface a distance of 1 mile then you can form a right angled triangle as in the diagram.

Looking over a distance of 1 mile, we can use the theorem of Pythagoras:

a2 = 3,9632 + 12 = 15,705,370

and when we square root that figure we get a = 3,963.000126 miles

Thus your position is 3,963.000126 - 3,963 = 0.000126 miles above the surface of the earth.

0.000126 miles = 12 in * 5,280 ft * 0.000126 mi = 7.98 inches

Hence after one mile the earth drops approximately 8 inches.

-

Ergo, looking across 30 miles the Pythagorean theorem becomes:

a2 = 39632 +302 = 15,706,269

and when we square root that figure we get a = 3,963.113549 miles

Thus your position is 3,963.113549 - 3,963 = 0.113549 miles above the surface of the earth

0.113549 miles = 5,280 ft * 0.113549 mi = 599.53872 feet

Hence after 30 miles the earth drops approximately 600 feet.

-

Whenever I have doubts about the shape of the earth I simply walk outside my home, down to the beach, and perform this simple test. The same result comes up over and over throughout the year under a plethora of different atmospheric conditions.

Well, I can use your own logic to defeat your theory here. You said that all maps are innacurate, and the true shape of the Earth is unknown. So you don't know for sure that it is 33 miles. You're blindly believing.

And water is not perfectly flat, try downloading google earth and looking at the oceans.

And I see no recorded results, only your word for it and a diagram of a triangle.
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17328
Re: Flat? Round? both round somewhat.
« Reply #93 on: October 28, 2007, 06:19:16 PM »
Quote
Here's more.

Man, this is pure entertaining.

Pure entertaining? How old are you? Do you know how to use proper English?

Stop posting. We already know what no controlled experiments with the cosmos are involved in Astronomy. It's all observation, as any child of five could realize. Agent Z has already realized this. I can give him credit for that. Reread this thread before posting further.

Quote
Well, I can use your own logic to defeat your theory here. You said that all maps are innacurate, and the true shape of the Earth is unknown. So you don't know for sure that it is 33 miles. You're blindly believing.

I've traveled along the highway which wraps around the coast of my bay. I can look at my odometer. I'm fairly certain that the distance is correct.

Quote
And water is not perfectly flat, try downloading google earth and looking at the oceans.

Google Earth is a 3D model. What are you telling me to look at here?

Quote
And I see no recorded results, only your word for it and a diagram of a triangle.

As is all science; someone's word and math to support his or her claim. What's your point?
« Last Edit: October 28, 2007, 06:22:14 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5178
Re: Flat? Round? both round somewhat.
« Reply #94 on: October 28, 2007, 06:25:07 PM »
Here, Tom, more kids experiments for you.

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: Flat? Round? both round somewhat.
« Reply #95 on: October 28, 2007, 06:26:12 PM »
Quote
Here's more.

Man, this is pure entertaining.

Pure entertaining? How old are you? Do you know how to use proper English?

Stop posting. We already know what no controlled experiments with the cosmos are involved in Astronomy. It's all observation, as any child of five could realize. Agent Z has already realized this. I can give him credit for that. Reread this thread before posting further.
[/quote]

No, I have not, I just gave up on you with astronomy, because I realised it would be a lost cause with you.

Quote
Quote
Well, I can use your own logic to defeat your theory here. You said that all maps are innacurate, and the true shape of the Earth is unknown. So you don't know for sure that it is 33 miles. You're blindly believing.

I've traveled along the highway which wraps around the coast of my bay. I can look at my odometer. I'm fairly certain that the distance is correct.

If you have not travelled the exact 33.4 miles then your proof is inadmissable.

Quote
Quote
And water is not perfectly flat, try downloading google earth and looking at the oceans.

Google Earth is a 3D model. What are you telling me to look at here?

Why don't you just do what I say, and you'll find out. You are a scientist, right?

Quote
Quote
And I see no recorded results, only your word for it and a diagram of a triangle.

As is all science; someone's word and math to support his claim. What's your point?

No, real science has a proof. Your experiment goes: I see it, so it must be true.

Your proof is inaccurate because the Earth is not a perfect sphere. Unless you look up the exact curvature of the Earth in that specific region, then reapply the figures, then rerun the test, your proof fails. (Remember those margins of errors I was talking about?)
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Flat? Round? both round somewhat.
« Reply #96 on: October 28, 2007, 06:28:39 PM »
So Tom, you wanted us to post problems with FE? I'll just direct you to where you ran away.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=17436.0
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=17759.0
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: Flat? Round? both round somewhat.
« Reply #97 on: October 28, 2007, 06:59:58 PM »
This whole debate is stupid anyway. The lunar eclipse proves that the Earth is Round. Oh wait, I forgot

SHADOW OBJECT!!!!!1111!!!!!
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Flat? Round? both round somewhat.
« Reply #98 on: October 28, 2007, 07:09:49 PM »


Quote from: Tom Bishop
Round Earth Theory is draped in religious belief.
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17328
Re: Flat? Round? both round somewhat.
« Reply #99 on: October 28, 2007, 07:57:58 PM »
Here, Tom, more kids experiments for you.

Astronomy does not make controlled experiments with the cosmos. Astronomers simply look into their telescopes, observe, and interpret.

Again, please think before you post.

Quote
No, I have not, I just gave up on you with astronomy, because I realised it would be a lost cause with you.

The lost cause it purely on your end. Everyone knows that Astronomy fails when we apply the scientific method. Astronomy is purely observational.

Quote
Why don't you just do what I say, and you'll find out. You are a scientist, right?

I know that you've been defeated, hat you've run out of "Round Earth evidence" to present. Instead of making cryptic posts and wasting time perhaps you should just admit defeat.

Quote
No, real science has a proof. Your experiment goes: I see it, so it must be true.

Your proof is inaccurate because the Earth is not a perfect sphere. Unless you look up the exact curvature of the Earth in that specific region, then reapply the figures, then rerun the test, your proof fails. (Remember those margins of errors I was talking about?)

The Round Earth is only slightly flattened at the poles. My region, at 36.600N, is well within the regions where curvature should appear.

However, it does not.

« Last Edit: October 28, 2007, 08:38:56 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17328
Re: Flat? Round? both round somewhat.
« Reply #100 on: October 28, 2007, 07:59:27 PM »
This whole debate is stupid anyway. The lunar eclipse proves that the Earth is Round. Oh wait, I forgot

SHADOW OBJECT!!!!!1111!!!!!

The Lunar eclipse is OBSERVATIONAL ASTRONOMY. Telling me to look at the eclipse does not prove experimentally that the earth is a sphere. We're talking about the scientific method here, remember?

Experimentation is the key to all science. Don't you agree?

What about that recurring shadow upon the moon proves that it comes from the earth as opposed to some other celestial body? What evidence do you have?

You have none. Your argument is weak, flawed, and all together based on Aristotelian suppositions. 
« Last Edit: October 28, 2007, 08:13:50 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: Flat? Round? both round somewhat.
« Reply #101 on: October 28, 2007, 08:02:41 PM »
Dude, your experiments are purely observational. There is no difference.
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17328
Re: Flat? Round? both round somewhat.
« Reply #102 on: October 28, 2007, 08:08:50 PM »
Dude, your experiments are purely observational. There is no difference.

Have you read that copy-paste I made on how Rowbotham accounts for terrestrial refraction yet? Specialized instruments - hydrometers, barometers, thermometers - are used at multiple points along the experimentation route to rule out that the medium is not changing along the path of the experimentation area. This rules out light is being bent along the path.

Surveyor's instruments - plumb lines, theodolites, and high powered telescopes are used to ensure that the observer is looking across level paths.

Also, did you forget that I claim to have conducted the experiment at multiple times throughout the year during a variety of atmospheric conditions? This repeated and controlled method rules out the likelihood of me seeing a chance optical illusion.

Now lets think about this critically. There is a big difference looking across the surface of water here on earth to detect curvature and looking at a recurring shadow on a distant moon.

The Flat Earth experiments can be controlled with instruments to rule out terrestrial refraction, they can be conducted with water in long manmade containers, and they can be repeated over and over again at different locations upon the earth. This is essentially is a controlled experiment.

The phrase "look at the eclipse" is not a controlled experiment. That's an observation.

Why should I interpret the recurring shadow on the moon as the shadow of the earth as opposed to the shadow of any other celestial body?

There's a lot of celestial bodies up there, you know.

« Last Edit: October 28, 2007, 08:36:17 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5178
Re: Flat? Round? both round somewhat.
« Reply #103 on: October 28, 2007, 08:15:16 PM »
Well then, Tom, since you don't agree with observations, why do you agree the Earth is flat just by looking out of the window? That's an observation too, you know.

This is like debating with a wall.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17328
Re: Flat? Round? both round somewhat.
« Reply #104 on: October 28, 2007, 08:18:09 PM »
Quote
Well then, Tom, since you don't agree with observations, why do you agree the Earth is flat just by looking out of the window? That's an observation too, you know.

The phrase "look out your window" is not an experiment and I do not claim it to be.

It must feel like debating with a wall because you have no real evidence for a Round Earth. Just admit it. I'm as tried as debating about this as you are tired of reading about it. For years the Flat Earth Society has searched and searched for experimental evidence suggesting that the earth is a sphere, but unfortunately, none was to be found.

There is no experimental evidence suggesting that the earth is a sphere. There is nothing which follows the scientific method that tells us that the earth is a ball. Nothing. Your bin for "experimental evidence" is empty.

What does that say about your model?
« Last Edit: October 28, 2007, 08:22:27 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: Flat? Round? both round somewhat.
« Reply #105 on: October 28, 2007, 08:35:52 PM »
Dude, your experiments are purely observational. There is no difference.

Have you read that copy-paste I made on how Rowbotham accounts for terrestrial refraction yet? Specialized instruments - hydrometers, barometers, thermometers - are used at multiple points along the experimentation route to rule out that the medium is not changing along the path of the experimentation area. This rules out light is being bent along the path.

Surveyor's instruments - plumb lines, theodolites, and high powered telescopes are used to ensure that the observer is looking across level paths.

Also, did you forget that I claim to have conducted the experiment at multiple times throughout the year during a variety of atmospheric condition. This repeated and controlled method rules out the likelihood of me seeing a chance optical illusion.

Now lets think about this criticially. There is a big difference looking across the surface of water here on earth to detect curvature and looking at a recurring shadow on a distant moon.

The Flat Earth experiments can be controlled with instruments to rule out terrestrial refraction, they can be conducted with water in long manmade containers, and they can be repeated over and over again at different locations upon the earth. This is essentially is a controlled experiment.

The phrase "look at the eclipse" is not a controlled experiment. That's an observation.

Why should I interpret the recurring shadow on the moon as the shadow of the earth as opposed to the shadow of any other celestial body?

There's a lot of celestial bodies up there, you know.



Yes, I read the Rowbotham experiment. It has no sources, no maths, basically no proof. It's the single word of one person. Just like your "repetitions" of this experiment across your bay. How do I know that you live in this particular place, and have performed this experiment. I don't. Until you provide proof that you do, it is invalid.

It's true that there are a lot of celestial bodies up there. What do you think causes a lunar eclipse? It has been widely recognised as the Earth since before Aristotle pointed out the fact that since the shadow is always spherical, then the Earth must be also.

Simple geometry can prove that the earth causes a lunar ecliipse. That's why it's common knowledge.
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17328
Re: Flat? Round? both round somewhat.
« Reply #106 on: October 28, 2007, 08:49:54 PM »
Quote
Yes, I read the Rowbotham experiment. It has no sources, no maths, basically no proof. It's the single word of one person. Just like your "repetitions" of this experiment across your bay. How do I know that you live in this particular place, and have performed this experiment. I don't. Until you provide proof that you do, it is invalid.

Sure. You can go ahead and call me, Rowbotham, and every Flat Earth author liars. There's nothing stopping you from doing that. It just goes to show that our evidence is so powerful that it's the best rebuttal we can expect.

If you truly are curious about the shape of the earth, as you seem to be, then perhaps you should find a body of water near your location and preform the experiment yourself. Then you can rule out your "they are all liars" hypothesis. I cannot prove that to you. You must prove it to yourself.

Quote
It's true that there are a lot of celestial bodies up there. What do you think causes a lunar eclipse? It has been widely recognised as the Earth since before Aristotle pointed out the fact that since the shadow is always spherical, then the Earth must be also.

Simple geometry can prove that the earth causes a lunar ecliipse. That's why it's common knowledge.

Geometry does not prove that the shadow on the moon is an eclipse. The eclipse occurs a couple times a year, and so the Round Earth model has the moon rotating around the earth at a certain necessary period and aligning twice a year with the sun. All it takes to create a contradictory model is to place the moon above the Flat Earth and have some body align with the moon and sun every couple of years instead.

Read this Zetetic Cosmogony chapter on the Lunar Eclipse:

http://books.google.com/books?id=GzkKAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA#PPA74,M1

You will find, that if you look into the subject a little, that predicting the lunar eclipse has historically been based on recurring charts and tables based on previous eclipses. Future eclipses are predicted by following the pattern. This is how Aristotle, and every scientist since the history off time has predicted the eclipse. Predicting the eclipse involves pattern recognition.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2007, 09:42:28 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17328
Re: Flat? Round? both round somewhat.
« Reply #107 on: October 28, 2007, 08:58:23 PM »
Quote
Aristotle pointed out the fact that since the shadow is always spherical, then the Earth must be also.

Wait. You're talking nonsense now. The shadow on the moon is not spherical. What makes you think that a SHADOW can be spherical?

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: Flat? Round? both round somewhat.
« Reply #108 on: October 28, 2007, 09:00:07 PM »
Quote
Yes, I read the Rowbotham experiment. It has no sources, no maths, basically no proof. It's the single word of one person. Just like your "repetitions" of this experiment across your bay. How do I know that you live in this particular place, and have performed this experiment. I don't. Until you provide proof that you do, it is invalid.

Sure. You can go ahead and call me, Rowbotham, and every Flat Earth author liars. There's nothing stopping you from doing that. It just goes to show that our evidence is so powerful that it's the best rebuttal we can expect.

I'm not calling you a liar. But if your evidence is so convincing, where is it? You've provided all the math, and yet all you have to say is, "I have seen it." Why don't you take a still shot with your telescope and post it on the forum? That constitutes proof.

Quote
If you truly are curious about the shape of the earth, as you seem to be, then perhaps you should find a body of water near your location and preform the experiment yourself. Then you can rule out your "their all liars" hypothesis. I cannot prove that to you. You must prove it to yourself.

Trust me, the next time I'm near a beach, I will perform this experiment myself, and I will post the results.

Quote
It's true that there are a lot of celestial bodies up there. What do you think causes a lunar eclipse? It has been widely recognised as the Earth since before Aristotle pointed out the fact that since the shadow is always spherical, then the Earth must be also.

Quote
Simple geometry can prove that the earth causes a lunar ecliipse. That's why it's common knowledge.

Geometry does not prove that the shadow on the moon is an eclipse. The eclipse occurs a couple times a year, and so the Round Earth model has the moon rotating around the earth and aligning twice a year with the sun. All it takes to create a contradictory model is to place the moon above the Flat Earth and have some body align with the moon and sun every couple of years instead.

Some body? Where is the evidence for such a body?
I watched a lunar ecplise in March, it was quite spectacular. And strangely, I didn't see any body moving off after it finished.

Quote
The Moon does not completely disappear as it passes through the umbra because of the refraction of sunlight by the Earth's atmosphere into the shadow cone; if the Earth had no atmosphere, the Moon would be completely dark during an eclipse. The red colouring arises because sunlight reaching the Moon must pass through a long and dense layer of the Earth's atmosphere, where it is scattered. Shorter wavelengths are more likely to be scattered by the small particles, and so by the time the light has passed through the atmosphere, the longer wavelengths dominate. This resulting light we perceive as red. This is the same effect that causes sunsets and sunrises to turn the sky a reddish colour; an alternative way of considering the problem is to realise that, as viewed from the Moon, the Sun would appear to be setting (or rising) behind the Earth.

How does your model account for the reddish colour of the Lunar eclipse?
« Last Edit: October 28, 2007, 09:02:29 PM by Agent Z »
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5178
Re: Flat? Round? both round somewhat.
« Reply #109 on: October 28, 2007, 09:00:28 PM »
Tom, stop wasting your time with this debate. It would save you 10x more time just by accepting the fact that the Earth is spherical.

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: Flat? Round? both round somewhat.
« Reply #110 on: October 28, 2007, 09:03:23 PM »
Quote
Aristotle pointed out the fact that since the shadow is always spherical, then the Earth must be also.

Wait. You're talking nonsense now. The shadow on the moon is not spherical. What makes you think that a SHADOW can be spherical?

You're right, that post was nonsensical. The shadow is always circular therefore the Earth must be spherical.
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: Flat? Round? both round somewhat.
« Reply #111 on: October 28, 2007, 09:16:01 PM »

Sure. You can go ahead and call me, Rowbotham, and every Flat Earth author liars. There's nothing stopping you from doing that. It just goes to show that our evidence is so powerful that it's the best rebuttal we can expect.


Just realised how ironic this statement was when you call every piece of information obtained from outer space a lie every day to keep your theory alive.
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17328
Re: Flat? Round? both round somewhat.
« Reply #112 on: October 28, 2007, 09:56:48 PM »
Quote
I'm not calling you a liar. But if your evidence is so convincing, where is it? You've provided all the math, and yet all you have to say is, "I have seen it." Why don't you take a still shot with your telescope and post it on the forum? That constitutes proof.

My model of telescope does not have a camera mount. But if you would like to see something photographic which demonstrates that the surface of water does not curve in the way predicted by the Round Earth model we just need to search the internet for telescopic images across bodies of water.

See this website for example: http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/Mirages.html



"View of Toronto Skyline (53km across the lake) through Canon Rebel digital camera 28 to 400mm zoom"

53 kilometers equals 33 miles. Picture is taken from the ground on the opposite coast. We see undeniably that the Toronto skyline is unobscured, the distance between the observer and object confirmed accurate by the photographer himself.

Again, lets dig up the math:



Suppose that the earth is a sphere with a radius of 3,963 miles. If you are at a point P on the earth's surface and move tangent to the surface a distance of x miles then you can form a right angled triangle as in the diagram.

Looking across 30 miles the Pythagorean theorem becomes:

a2 = 39632 +302 = 15,706,269

and when we square root that figure we get a = 3,963.113549 miles

Thus your position is 3,963.113549 - 3,963 = 0.113549 miles above the surface of the earth

0.113549 miles = 5,280 ft * 0.113549 mi = 599.53872 feet

Hence after 30 miles the earth drops approximately 600 feet.

As we can see, there is no 600 foot tall wall of water cutting the Toronto skyline in half.

Admittedly, this is not conclusive, as the photographer does not tell us his exact altitude above sea level. But since his other images on his website are taken at ground level, we can reasonably conclude that this shot of Toronto was also taken at ground level, as opposed to the top of a tall building or up in a hot air balloon.

Searching the internet in this fashion reveals a number of scenes which are incompatible with the Round Earth model.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2007, 10:23:42 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17328
Re: Flat? Round? both round somewhat.
« Reply #113 on: October 28, 2007, 10:04:16 PM »
Quote
Some body? Where is the evidence for such a body?
I watched a lunar ecplise in March, it was quite spectacular. And strangely, I didn't see any body moving off after it finished.

There is no experimental evidence for such a body because Astronomy, even Flat Earth Astronomy, is observational and interpretational only.

The current Flat Earth hypothesis of the Shadow Object places a body between the moon and sun during an eclipse, not the moon and earth. The shadow object simply casts a shadow upon the moon, it does not obscure it directly.

You're not going to be able to see the shadow of the Shadow Object obscure the stars because the shadow object moves in circular patterns with the swirling multiple system which moves at one rotation per twenty four hours. The Shadow object is sitting somewhere in the whirling stellar system which rotates above our heads, moving as it moves, circling the hub of the earth at one rotation per 24 hours.

The existence of this body is visible only when the Sun, Shadow Object, and Moon perfectly align, manifesting as a shadow upon the moon.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2007, 10:41:02 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: Flat? Round? both round somewhat.
« Reply #114 on: October 28, 2007, 10:05:14 PM »
I've just realised what your error is.

In this picture

You have line x as both a curve and a straight line in your proof. That's your error.
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17328
Re: Flat? Round? both round somewhat.
« Reply #115 on: October 28, 2007, 10:08:09 PM »
I've just realised what your error is.

In this picture

You have line x as both a curve and a straight line in your proof. That's your error.

Well yes, the Pythagorean theorem is demonstrating how much the earth should drop when looking across a known distance.

X is the known distance we are looking over.

X also exists as a curve because Round Earth theory holds that the earth is a sphere.

Do you have any better math we can use to calculate the drop on a Round Earth model?


?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: Flat? Round? both round somewhat.
« Reply #117 on: October 28, 2007, 10:15:44 PM »
yes, but in your example you use the pythagorean theorem to calculate a and then use that answer in your proof.

Quote
a2 = 39632 +302 = 15,706,269

and when we square root that figure we get a = 3,963.113549 miles

this statement is saying that if we look 30 miles horizontally along the curved plane of earth, then we will be .112549 miles high.

Quote

Thus your position is 3,963.113549 - 3,963 = 0.113549 miles above the surface of the earth

0.113549 miles = 5,280 ft * 0.113549 mi = 599.53872 feet

Hence after 30 miles the earth drops approximately 600 feet.

This statement is incorrect, because if we look horizontally 30 miles across we are no longer on the surface of earth. Thus the distance is less, and your proof is wrong.
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17328
Re: Flat? Round? both round somewhat.
« Reply #118 on: October 28, 2007, 10:17:35 PM »
Quote
Explain this, then:

We already have. It's a perspective effect which occurs when you look at distant bodies with the naked eye.

Using a proper equipment with proper optical (not digital) magnification reverses this effect and brings the scene back into view. This is a proof for a Flat Earth. This effect is part of why reason why the ancients mistakenly concluded that the earth is a globe.

See this post for more information and personal testimonies: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=17435.msg301724#msg301724
« Last Edit: October 28, 2007, 10:27:13 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: Flat? Round? both round somewhat.
« Reply #119 on: October 28, 2007, 10:18:11 PM »
Do you have any better math we can use to calculate the drop on a Round Earth model?

I'll need some time to work on it, but I think I can come up with a better model. (I need to go and check my notes.)
You've got me intrigued now though.

edit: although I'll have to do it tomorrow, it's 530 in the morning here and I'm getting tired. You do understand the error though right. To sum it up in 1 line, where line a intersects the Earths surface, that distance is not 30 miles.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2007, 10:34:19 PM by Agent Z »
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness