DIY Experement: The Distance Between the Earth and the Moon

Quote from: hi on February 25, 2009, 07:19:52 PM

If space travel wasn't part of "the conspiracy" then I would use that as a human experince.

Doesn't sound like much of an experience if it doesn't happen.

Well neither of us can prove that it has happened, the only people that have proof is NASA and the astronauts. All we have are some pictures and assumptions. If those pictures are real then we, the RE'ers are correct. If they're fake then we can't rule out the Earth being round, only that we made them during the space race to look better than Russia.

Well neither of us can prove that it has happened

Samuel Birley Rowbotham already proved that it hasn't happened.

Quote from: hi on February 25, 2009, 07:31:50 PM

Well neither of us can prove that it has happened

Samuel Birley Rowbotham already proved that it hasn't happened.

He wasn't around in the 1960s was he?

He wasn't around in the 1960s was he?

He didn't need to be. He proved that the earth is flat in the mid 1800's, thereby proving that no modern man has gone into space to see the earth as a globe.

Quote from: hi on February 25, 2009, 07:36:10 PM

He wasn't around in the 1960s was he?

He didn't need to be. He proved that the earth is flat in the mid 1800's, thereby proving that no one has not gone into space to see the earth as a globe.

I need evidence from you that space travel isn't possible, in oder to prove we never went to space.

I need evidence from you that space travel isn't possible, in oder to prove we never went to space.

All the answers you'll ever need are contained within my signature link.

Quote from: hi on February 25, 2009, 07:39:33 PM

I need evidence from you that space travel isn't possible, in oder to prove we never went to space.

All the answers you'll ever need are contained within my signature link.

Those links (I have looked at them) don't explain that space travel isn't possible, they just all support the flat Earth theory. Unless I missed something, if I did then can you please give me a specific link.

Those links (I have looked at them) don't explain that space travel isn't possible, they just all support the flat Earth theory. Unless I missed something, if I did then can you please give me a specific link.

Samuel Birley Rowbotham's proof of the Flat Earth proves that man hasn't been into space to see the earth as a globe. It is unrelated to whether space travel is 'possible' or not.

Samuel Birley Rowbotham's proof of the Flat Earth proves that man hasn't been into space to see the earth as a globe. It is unrelated to whether space travel is 'possible' or not.

There is only one conclusion that we can come to when Rowbotham claims the earth is flat yet all pictures taken from high altitudes and space show that the earth is in fact a globe: Rowbotham was wrong.

You should try accepting all evidence into your beliefs sometime.

Quote from: hi on February 25, 2009, 07:46:39 PM

Those links (I have looked at them) don't explain that space travel isn't possible, they just all support the flat Earth theory. Unless I missed something, if I did then can you please give me a specific link.

Samuel Birley Rowbotham's proof of the Flat Earth proves that man hasn't been into space to see the earth as a globe. It is unrelated to whether space travel is 'possible' or not.

If the Earth is flat can't we still exit its atmosphere, just in a differnet technique? Maybe we did actually travel to space, if the conspiracy is true then NASA just photoshopped some of thoe pics they gathered and made them look spherical.

Quote

You are right that would support rowbothans theory, if the difference did not fit within error margin.

Yeah right, experimental error. 

Feel free to point out what is wrong with the calculations below. If you fail to do so you lose. Not that you haven't lost already since you ignored my point about rowbotham seeing the effect on operaglass when we can't see it on higher quality binoculars.

I measured the width and the height of the oil rig in the two photos.

I attributed an error to all of my measutrements of +/- one pixel.

Within experimental error the height:width ratio was the same in both pictures (see below).

So from a proper, scientific viewpoint there was no recovery of height with magnification.

If anyone wants to ignore the experimental error, please go ahead.

But that would be un-scientific, anti-scientific or pseudo-scientific.

----------------------------------



Zoomed out

Height (H1) = (30 +/- 1) mm (where 1 mm is the width of one pixel)
Width (W1) = (58 +/- 1) mm

Fractional error in H1 = 1/30 = 3.33%
Fractional error in W1 = 1/58 = 1.72%

H1/W1 = 0.517

Fractional error in H1/W1 (FE1) = 3.33% + 1.72% = 5.06%   

Zoomed in

Height (H2) = (83 +/- 1) mm
Width (W2) = (155 +/- 1) mm

Fractional error in H2 = 1/83 = 1.20%
Fractional error in W2 = 1/155 = 0.65%

H2/W2 = 0.535

Fractional error in H2/W2 (FE2) = 1.20% + 0.65% = 1.85%

Comparing the two pictures

(H2/W2)/(H1/W1) = 0.535 / 0.517 = 1.0353

Fractional error in (H2/W2)/(H1/W1) = FE1 + FE2 = 5.06% + 1.85% = 6.91%

Actual error in (H2/W2)/(H1/W1) = 6.91% x 1.035 = 0.0715

Conclusion

The shape of the rig in the two images is the same within experimental error.

(Given that: 1.0353 - 0.0715 = 0.9638; and 0.9638 < 1.0000)

Quote from: hi on February 25, 2009, 06:47:13 PM

You can't look at just at the flat side of a half sphere and call it flat, you need to look all around it before you can make an assumption.

There's no reason to assume that the earth exists some other shape elsewhere. The only thing experienced is that the earth exists as a plane.

*smacks Tom on side of head*

That's why we don't assume. We can see. There are people all over the planet Tom.

If you're going to speculate on a shape outside of human experience you're going to have to prove it.

Then it wouldn't be speculation would it? It would be proof. Christ its like you add two teaspoons of granulated fail to every post, just to be sure.

If the Earth is flat can't we still exit its atmosphere, just in a differnet technique?

Sure. I personally suspect that there might be a Lagrange Point where the upwards pull of the stars and the acceleration of the earth balances out, creating a zone of weightlessness.

Feel free to point out what is wrong with the calculations below. If you fail to do so you lose. Not that you haven't lost already since you ignored my point about rowbotham seeing the effect on operaglass when we can't see it on higher quality binoculars.

What's "wrong" is that any differences in ratios are explained away as 'experimental error'.

Anyone can clearly see that when the rig in those images is magnified more area can be seen at the bottom of the rig.

*smacks Tom on side of head*

That's why we don't assume. We can see. There are people all over the planet Tom.

Right. And all those people are unanimous in seeing that the earth exists as a plane.

Right. And all those people are unanimous in seeing that the earth exists as a plane.

I thought the conspiracy made sure people saw it as a sphere. You know with their "doodads".

Quote from: hi on February 25, 2009, 07:46:39 PM

Those links (I have looked at them) don't explain that space travel isn't possible, they just all support the flat Earth theory. Unless I missed something, if I did then can you please give me a specific link.

Samuel Birley Rowbotham's proof of the Flat Earth proves that man hasn't been into space to see the earth as a globe. It is unrelated to whether space travel is 'possible' or not.

No he did not.

What's "wrong" is that any differences in ratios are explained away as 'experimental error'.

Anyone can clearly see that when the rig in those images is magnified more area can be seen at the bottom of the rig.

No, you can't. The ratio suggests that the rig has changed it position by less than a pixel when the smallest unit of measurement you have is a pixel. That's like tying to find objects bigger than 75cm using a ruler marked in meters, then measuring an object that's 51cm big and declaring that the object must be bigger than 75cm as your ruler suggests it's about 1 meter long.

What's "wrong" is that any differences in ratios are explained away as 'experimental error'.

Anyone can clearly see that when the rig in those images is magnified more area can be seen at the bottom of the rig.

Yeah you can see one pixel more, hardly something that "anyone can see". Are you claiming that you can measure the height of that rig more accurately than 0,5 pixels ? If not it can be not be used as an proof of the effect that rowbotham claimed exist. If you think that it is as valid proof then you need read more. Start with some book that describes scientific method. This test provided no proof of the existence of the perspective effect but it proved that if it exist it is much smaller than rowbothan described.
And again you failed to respond to my other point.

Quote from: hi on February 25, 2009, 07:59:15 PM

If the Earth is flat can't we still exit its atmosphere, just in a differnet technique?

Sure. I personally suspect that there might be a Lagrange Point where the upwards pull of the stars and the acceleration of the earth balances out, creating a zone of weightlessness.

Well I'm glad that you FE'ers accept the idea of a possiblity of space travel. I thought you all thought we were bound to this rock we call Earth.

A little off topic, but I posted a thread once wondering what you FE'ers think of when you look up at the stars. And I really wanted to know your personal opinion Tom. I'm not going to critisize you for what ever you say, I am just really curious of what you think.

No, you can't. The ratio suggests that the rig has changed it position by less than a pixel when the smallest unit of measurement you have is a pixel. That's like tying to find objects bigger than 75cm using a ruler marked in meters, then measuring an object that's 51cm big and declaring that the object must be bigger than 75cm as your ruler suggests it's about 1 meter long.

In the original images in the thread the rig was 13 pixels high. Whoever enlarged the images in an image editor and added the scale was creating pixels out of nothing. Please show us the scales with the original sizes intact.

Yeah you can see one pixel more, hardly something that "anyone can see". Are you claiming that you can measure the height of that rig more accurately than 0,5 pixels ? If not it can be not be used as an proof of the effect that rowbotham claimed exist. If you think that it is as valid proof then you need read more. Start with some book that describes scientific method. This test provided no proof of the existence of the perspective effect but it proved that if it exist it is much smaller than rowbothan described.

When you guys manage to follow the instructions and use a high end telescope for the experiment we can talk. As it is now you're using a pair of binoculars which seems to enlarge the rig by maybe a factor of two. Entirely unacceptable for comparison against the accounts in the literature.

Well I'm glad that you FE'ers accept the idea of a possiblity of space travel. I thought you all thought we were bound to this rock we call Earth.

A little off topic, but I posted a thread once wondering what you FE'ers think of when you look up at the stars. And I really wanted to know your personal opinion Tom. I'm not going to critisize you for what ever you say, I am just really curious of what you think.

I'm not lost in wonder when I look up at the stars. When I look up at the stars on a clear night I'm just looking at some small points of lights. Hardly breathtaking.

No response to my question? 

i got a better picture than the oilrig. take a look at this one
this is a container ship where the hull is indeed not visible, now try to zoom in on that and tell me its visible.

i got a better picture than the oilrig. take a look at this one
this is a container ship where the hull is indeed not visible, now try to zoom in on that and tell me its visible.

Zooming in on a computer and with a telescope are two different things. So your point cannot be proven.

When you guys manage to follow the instructions and use a high end telescope for the experiment we can talk. As it is now you're using a pair of binoculars which seems to enlarge the rig by maybe a factor of two. Entirely unacceptable for comparison against the accounts in the literature.

You just keep ignoring my point. In addition to a telescope literature also talks about an opera glass that had lover magnification than the 7x binoculars used in this test. How is that an unacceptable comparison?


 

Here is what Rowbotham claims to have seen through his opera glass not through his telescope.
As you can see the effect is much stronger that we can see from our images. And no you can't use the fact we did not use a telescope as an reason to ignore this evidence because Rowbotham did not use a telescope either when he drew these images. He used an opera glass with similar magnification to our binoculars. In the telescope images Rowbotham drew the effect is even stronger but I am not using them as proof.

With operaglass	Without operaglass

Quote from: brutsi on February 26, 2009, 10:32:40 PM

i got a better picture than the oilrig. take a look at this one
this is a container ship where the hull is indeed not visible, now try to zoom in on that and tell me its visible.

Zooming in on a computer and with a telescope are two different things. So your point cannot be proven.

You need a magical restorer telescope. Ask for it by name.

Quote from: hi on February 25, 2009, 06:47:13 PM

You can't look at just at the flat side of a half sphere and call it flat, you need to look all around it before you can make an assumption.

There's no reason to assume that the earth exists some other shape elsewhere. The only thing experienced is that the earth exists as a plane.

If you're going to speculate on a shape outside of human experience you're going to have to prove it.

Bingo! That is why I insist that You can't prove whole earth flat. Because you can't experience whole earth but only the little piece of land in your near vicinity. And all your talk that was, is and will be is only and only about the piece of land in your near vicinity.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 25, 2009, 07:14:36 PM

Quote from: hi on February 25, 2009, 06:47:13 PM

You can't look at just at the flat side of a half sphere and call it flat, you need to look all around it before you can make an assumption.

There's no reason to assume that the earth exists some other shape elsewhere. The only thing experienced is that the earth exists as a plane.

If you're going to speculate on a shape outside of human experience you're going to have to prove it.

Bingo! That is why I insist that You can't prove whole earth flat. Because you can't experience whole earth but only the little piece of land in your near vicinity. And all your talk that was, is and will be is only and only about the piece of land in your near vicinity.

Tom Bishop trapped himself! This is good news. He may explode now.

Bingo! That is why I insist that You can't prove whole earth flat. Because you can't experience whole earth but only the little piece of land in your near vicinity. And all your talk that was, is and will be is only and only about the piece of land in your near vicinity.

All I've experience is that the earth exists as a plane. There's no reason to conclude or suspect that the earth exists as anything else.

Quote from: zork on February 27, 2009, 12:32:20 PM

Bingo! That is why I insist that You can't prove whole earth flat. Because you can't experience whole earth but only the little piece of land in your near vicinity. And all your talk that was, is and will be is only and only about the piece of land in your near vicinity.

All I've experience is that the earth exists as a plane. There's no reason to conclude or suspect that the earth exists as anything else.

There's a million reasons. You just ignore them.

Quote from: zork on February 27, 2009, 12:32:20 PM

Bingo! That is why I insist that You can't prove whole earth flat. Because you can't experience whole earth but only the little piece of land in your near vicinity. And all your talk that was, is and will be is only and only about the piece of land in your near vicinity.

All I've experience is that the earth exists as a plane. There's no reason to conclude or suspect that the earth exists as anything else.

You have indeed experienced many events that lead to a reason to suspect that the earth is round. You've seen the sunrise rise due East and set due West (and just twice a year at the equinoxes just as RE predicted, and FE predicts that it'd never happen) just as one simple example. You've seen FE fail to predict the time and position of sunrise repeatedly while RE does so consistently and accurately--an experience you can repeat any day you can see the sun rise (or set, or at noon, or at most any time).