How do you know water is level across long distances? Has anyone ever tried using lasers to actually test it? (They could win a nobel). I think it starts curving around 3-5 miles out when the ships start disappearing.

Notice what rjr ignores here. Look for him to continue repeating his complaint downthread as if he never say masque's explanation above … or any of the other explanations already posted upthread...or any further explanations to be posted downthread.


PairTheBoard

Why don't you read the discussion upthread? Look at the experiment masque linked to that obtained the result of a temperature gradient in a closed container of gas consistent with the downward acceleration of gas molecules due to gravity and inconsistent with your application of the 2nd law of thermodynamics to your theory that gas molecules are not affected by gravity (like any other kind of mass). Notice how Mr. Shears ignores that result and just goes on spewing spaghetti against the wall, even though that experiment falsifies a foundational element of his theory. That result should not be happening if his theory is correct that gas molecules do not accelerate downward near the earth.

Why don't you consider the implications of this experiment that has been done rather than complain about experiments that would be extremely difficult to conduct. Could it be because you lack intellectual honesty?


PairTheBoard

Mr. Shears -
"Why? Because those buildings are definitely hidden behind earth curve and not just a wave?"

Originally Posted by 1&onlybillyshears -
"To be clear, are you arguing an object in the foreground cannot obscure a larger object further away?"

BeaucoupFish -
"It is dependent on the object's height and the observer's height.

Is the height of a "small wave" lower than the observer's height? If so, the wave will not obscure taller objects (other than the base of the object, ofc)."

Mr. Shears -
"So with certain parameters a smaller object in the foreground can conceal a larger object in the background."
===================

This series of exchanges is especially telling. First, Mr. Shears makes his habitual strawman attack accusing me with my picture of concluding something I wasn't concluding. Then, grasping at straws, he proposes the explanation of a wave obstructing the bottom of the buildings. Anyone who draws a diagram for how that might work will come to the realization expressed by BeaucoupFish. Mr. Shears then clings to the technicality that, yes a 1 foot wave could obstruct the buildings for a 1 inch tall observer - something totally irrelevant to the picture above.

This is a microlook at the incompetence and general intellectual dishonesty of Mr. Shears throughout this discussion.


PairTheBoard

This is a great example of Mr. Shears' incompetence and intellectual dishonesty. Anyone dumb enough to come up with this bogus analysis is unqualified to engage in this whole discussion. Anyone stubborn enough to stand by this analysis after seeing a proper one is intellectually dishonest.

Notice his quote here from wiki -
"The intensity (or illuminance or irradiance) of light or other linear waves radiating from a point source (energy per unit of area perpendicular to the source) is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source"

When we stand on earth and look at a full moon we are seeing the light from every "point source" on the half moon. That is, we see the light from every square inch of the half moon. When we are sitting on the moon, eyes 1m from the surface, the point sources we see that are 1 meter away are only those directly below us. We will also see in our peripheral vision light from point sources from the surrounding ground which will be greater than 1 meter away. Furthermore, the totality of point sources whose light can reach our eyes will only consist of those out to the horizon - which will be much more limited than the reach to a horizon on earth because of the greater surface curvature of the smaller moon. Not to mention the effects of the angle of reflected light scatter off the moon's non-smooth surface.

However, look for Mr. Shears to ignore these failures in his analysis and continue to repeat this complaint downthread where this post is beyond the view of future grunchers. More intellectual dishonesty. He is not interested in the truth. Only in his trolling.


PairTheBoard

So just to be clear: the calculations that Billy is using to say that the moon would be too bright don't work because those calculations only work for "point-sources" and the moon is not a point source. Correct?

I apologize if I come off as intellectually dishonest or whatever.. quite the contrary.. I said if presented w evidence i would be willing to switch my position.. is the same true for all of the heliocentric defenders?

I’ve heard the pressure gradient argument... part of the reason I stay away from this thread and other online forums with this debate is that it’s the same old arguments on both sides.

If anything I have the most integrity in here w this topic willing to listen to both sides and use my own discernment. I don’t have any agenda to push and I’m not some science nerd who gets offended when I tell him Star Trek and Star Wars were meant to get us all to believe outer space is real.

And basically it boils down to this GRAVITY as a force being real or not.

Can you explain gravity using density and buoyancy?

If so we have a major problem here which I believe to be the case.

If we can’t reprove Gravity using scientific method of experiments then we can’t base all outer space science on it.

It’s really that simple

Rjr,
You're moving onto gravity when you haven't addressed this yet.

Sometimes you can, and sometimes you can't. Gravity is one of the more mysterious forces in the universe from what I understand. Sometimes density and buoyancy work though as in the example below.

My proof for large bodies not curving is skating on a really large pond which ive done... water always freezes perfectly level.

You can't really think that is proof or is going to fly with anyone? They have x-games style downhill ice skating derby now.
No one has ever used lasers to actually test it for real? And water doesn't always freeze perfectly level fwiw. Looks pretty tough to skate on.

Ok now show water curving around exterior of a ball.. show something upside down in Southern Hemisphere ...

You’re still using boats going over horizon when that has been disproven. If the boats come back into focus it’s limited vision and termination point and not hidden behind curve.

A fine demonstration of Pair the Boards lack of understanding of the scientific method. You do not know what an experiment is. You do not know what a theory is.

Ok now show me water curving around a ball earth..
Show me upside stuff in Southern Hemisphere being stuck by gravity to the under side of a ball.. then maybe I’ll change my mind.

Seems trivially easy

Yes the best case against me, a well reasoned discussion.
So you don't think these pictures show earth curve obstruction? I agree, I apologise for assuming you think the world is a sphere.
Let us see this diagram.
A 1 inch tall observer is just completely made up. But yeah I am dishonest.

Hmm, you promise much.

Point source is a square inch you say? You have a citation for this?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_source

See, it is purely a term used in mathematical modelling. Does not literally mean "a point". Does the fact we can resolve an apparent size for the moon make the application of the formula invalid? Is the pertinent question you could have legitimately asked. My assertion is that since the concept of point source is purely a mathematical convention, and the fact we don't know the size or shape of the moon, and the fact that the lux values already account for surface area means that yes, the formula is valid. We have 1 lumen per sq metre here, and an insane amount of brightness per sq metre on the moon.

You also begged the question of half moon.

You can judge this by the quality of the argument. One can 'learn' something for years and still not apply it correctly or perhaps the teaching itself was incorrect. Conversely one can 'learn' a new concept in 30 seconds and while there is no depth of knowledge, if the principle is correct they are on a firmer footing than the former. If you want to assert dunning kruger you need to demonstrate it.

Do you agree or disagree with this definition of experiment, this is the wiki definition, if you are using something else please cite:

Experiment - a procedure carried out to support, refute, or validate a hypothesis. Experiments provide insight into cause-and-effect by demonstrating what outcome occurs when a particular factor is manipulated.

Every experiment has a hypothesis. Every hypothesis has to be testable. If it is testable then it can be proven or disproven, binary as it were. The definition of inductive reasoning is based on likelihood, whereas deductive reasoning gives a result that is either valid or invalid. Therefore it is the latter that is applied to the scientific method.

Every test has to be valid ie that which is assigned causation in the hypothesis has to be manipulated. For proving (or lending credibility or whatever way you want to term it) you can have a million foucault or star rotation or whatever type "experiments" that do not falsify the "hypothesis" that earth spins. Does not mean jack because there is no experiment (presumed cause has not been manipulated) and there is no valid hypothesis (prediction of CAUSE and EFFECT).

"from my own link", no that is now your own citation, nothing to do with my citation it just happens to be from the same document. Petty? Maybe, but people generally don't know how citations work so this needs stating.
This does not contradict what I am saying. It is a caveat that does not apply when the scientific method is applied correctly and in the right context. Ie we have infallible scientific proofs eg
Water boils at 100C
Collapse of the wave function is caused by knowledge of the which path information

I will read them.

No you did not say that. You supported your argument with it. What is the purpose of invoking the opinion of multiple other posters if not to lend credibility to your own argument that because others agree it makes your own argument stronger? I will reflect on whether this is actually an appeal to consensus. But it is poor form regardless.

My argument is that the validated experiments that prove things in science have nothing to do with globe proofs. To clarify:

1) there is no science supporting the globe model.
2) science proves things.
3) every globe proof/demonstration/supporting evidence is either a formal affirming the consequent or a begging the question.

To test this, why don't you give me your best, or few or top 3 or whatever, globe proofs/demonstrations/experiments that support the globe model and I will point out the lack of science and logical fallacies.

Probably I don't agree but cannot answer the question because you have presupposed a circling sun for some reason. If the question is will it work on a stationary flat earth I say it will work.


You just had this as a premise in the previous question, you seem keen for me to adopt this premise.

Just people in general.
Every image is fake is a perfectly correct conclusion to draw once we know that space is fake. Show the photo that proves the violation of the second law of thermodynamics. That sentence itself is laughable.
How would I criticise my position is the same way any position is criticised and changed. By reasoned argument.

Yes, this was in the netflix film behind the curve (if you watch it let me know what you think, in particular the "characters" of Mark sargent and Patricia steere). Bob knodel and jeran from globe busters claimed to perform an "experiment" firing a laser in this way. Inconclusive I think. In any case this is pseudo science, there is no test ie hypothesis test in a scientific context here. What is the natural phenomenon observed, hypothesis and experiment that manipulates the presumed cause?

What I will argue is how can the evolved sea sparrow block 1 work when it needs LINE OF SIGHT 30 miles+ away at a height of 50 feet in SURFACE TO SURFACE application? This is a much better non scientific proof than a laser that claims science.

They also used a gyroscope to "test" for earth rotation and were rather disappointed to find a 15 degree per hour rotation, matching that of "earth spin". They argued it must be the ether rotating I think, despite this concept being thoroughly debunked. This is the problem when not applying the scientific method ie getting a man made device that is obviously not a natural phenomenon and wondering what might be the cause of its behaviour. The cause cannot be manipulated. Its the same as all the fairytale globe proofs, in fact you had globers in all seriousness pointing to the "evidence" in the film as globebusters proving the globe! Yes actual flat earthers proving the globe with pseudoscience.

Synopsis of the Flat Earth Trolls and their Postings. Everything you need to know in less than ten minutes:






Thank You for your attention and increasing the post count for SMP.

I try to get you to talk about CGI which you won't do because you think it will be too easily dismissed--but then you reference a flat earth film released on Netflix, of all places!
I saw the first 20 or so minutes of it I think last April. Mark Sargent and Patricia Steere seem like propagandist/disinfo agents and so "characters" is the right term.
But if you can shine a laser 15 miles (or whatever) across a body of water and the height doesn't change, that would seem to be a phenomenon being observed. Not sure why you have to limit yourself to natural phenomena. Everything deserves an explanation.

This is text book projection if I ever saw it

No. You can see every reflecting square inch (point source) of the half moon from the earth. You can't see every reflecting square inch of the half moon when on the moon.


PairTheBoard

You gotta start doing a once-over and proof read that **** to catch the bolded before posting.

We are all going to assume that you actually believe that the earth is flat.

1. Observation.
Practically uncountable number of images collected (from over half a century) by multiple and competing sources, and today it is even possible to watch near-live video in ultra high definition from multiple weather satellites, which are used to.... well, can you guess what weather satellites are used for?

Observation makes other methods rather redundant, but since you asked for 3:

2. Circumference of Tropic of Cancer, equator, and Tropic of Capricorn, is consistent with the globe, and not by flat Earth.

3. Any measurement that shows an observation angle of say a celestial object like the North Star, varies as predicted by the observer's latitude in the northern hemisphere, is consistent with the globe and not by a flat Earth.



I'd be interested to find out what you think a scientific experiment would look like, that satisfies all your particular demands for 'real science' (e.g. cause and effect etc), in which a positive outcome would be a "globe proof".

Gravity can be most simply understood as the phenomenon we observe whereby objects near the earth accelerate downward if unimpeded. Less dense substances are impeded by substances of greater density. So in the picture the substance of greatest density sinks to the bottom, the substance of next greatest density sinks until it is impeded by the substance of greatest density, and so on.

Gravity can be fairly well modeled as a force. This model of gravity as a force then predicts the phenomenon of the cylinder in the picture (and floating helium balloons) just as we can see the same phenomenon of denser substances settling at the bottom if we were to put the cylinder into a centrifuge and subject it to centrifugal force.


PairTheBoard