Only a fool believes the earth is round!
John Burns (NZ)
enough, the sun revolves around the earth! And...the transistor comes from
alien technology, and JFK was assasinated and .... and .... and
..............
Oh yeah, apparrently some guy who just pisses me off too much thinks that we
didn't land on the moon - we didn't, but some NASA astronauts did (or so I
think, along with the rest of the general population).
- John
Douglas Berry
"John Burns (NZ)" <johnbu...@NOhotmailSPAM.com> warmed at our fire
and told this tale:
>Yes, thats right... the earth is flat - and if you didn't think that was
>enough, the sun revolves around the earth! And...the transistor comes from
>alien technology, and JFK was assasinated and .... and .... and
>..............
AhHA! If the sun revolves around the Earth, WHERE DOES IT GO AT
NIGHT? BWAHAHA!!!
--
Douglas E. Berry grid...@mindspring.com
http://gridlore.home.mindspring.com/
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
John Burns (NZ)
switch??
-JB
Douglas Berry <grid...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:nnfgeuohddr0a4lnv...@4ax.com...
Ragnar
> "John Burns (NZ)" <johnbu...@NOhotmailSPAM.com> warmed at our fire
> and told this tale:
>
> >Yes, thats right... the earth is flat - and if you didn't think that was
> >enough, the sun revolves around the earth! And...the transistor comes
from
> >alien technology, and JFK was assasinated and .... and .... and
> >..............
>
> AhHA! If the sun revolves around the Earth, WHERE DOES IT GO AT
> NIGHT? BWAHAHA!!!
>
Giant venetian blinds timed and spaced so you think the sun is setting or
rising.
Darren
> > AhHA! If the sun revolves around the Earth, WHERE DOES IT GO AT
> > NIGHT? BWAHAHA!!!
> >
>
> Giant venetian blinds timed and spaced so you think the sun is setting or
> rising.
Aw come on guys! Be serious, everyone knows IT TURNS INTO THE MOON!!!!!!!
John Griffin
"John Burns (NZ)" <johnbu...@NOhotmailSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:acac27$6qt$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> Damn!
> I'm less educated than I thought
>
> A sun that undergoes a metamorphosis on a daily basis - now thats a great
> theory.
>
> I was actually looking at some photos of the sun and moon recently and
> noticed that part of the sun seemed to have a 'am' marked on it, while the
> moon appeared to have a 'pm' on it. Do you think that the moon and the
sun
> are hoaxes themselves?? - This could add a dramatic twist to the moon hoax
> thing, after all, if the moon is a hoax, then would actually landing on
the
> hoaxed moon be considered a hoax, or would it be an official landing??
>
> I also had a look at some photos of peoples heads and i think the photos
> have faces in them, but I am yet to confirm this in every case...
>
> -John
Did you know there's gigantic solar system object near Pluto that's shaped
like an arrow? If you don't believe that, find pictures showing pluto. You
can see the arrow in lots of them, right between the planet and the word
"Pluto." It rotates in some strange way, sometimes turning its dark face
toward us, in case you wonder why it isn't in all pictures of that part of
the sky. I don't know why one side is dark and the other one bright. My
guess is that it's pure carbon with snow on one side.
Wollman probably takes it into account along with such things as the
evolutionary stage of all the stars, etc.
>
> Darren <darrenswre...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:aca2sp$agu$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
Ioannis
[snip]
> Did you know there's gigantic solar system object near Pluto that's shaped
> like an arrow? If you don't believe that, find pictures showing pluto. You
> can see the arrow in lots of them, right between the planet and the word
> "Pluto." It rotates in some strange way, sometimes turning its dark face
> toward us, in case you wonder why it isn't in all pictures of that part of
> the sky. I don't know why one side is dark and the other one bright. My
> guess is that it's pure carbon with snow on one side.
This object was placed there by the same people who posted the
Earth-anihilation announcement at Alpha Centauri, to build the space
highway.
--
Ioannis
http://users.forthnet.gr/ath/jgal/
___________________________________________
Eventually, _everything_ is understandable.
mike II
> Aw come on guys! Be serious, everyone knows IT TURNS INTO THE MOON!!!!!!!
That is probably true, but what is going on when BOTH the sun AND moon
are visible simultaneously? It must be another moon, or a reflected
image of a night scene that happened a few weeks back. The universe is
sure complicated.
mike II
--
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
/ /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /
/ /\ \/ /\ \/ohm...@spots.ab.ca/\ \/ /\ \/ /
/_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/
Kleuskes & Moos
> This object was placed there by the same people who posted the
> Earth-anihilation announcement at Alpha Centauri, to build the space
> highway.
Oooops. The Vogons have started allready? Guess it's time to hitch a ride.
;^)
John Griffin
> John Griffin wrote:
> [snip]
> > Did you know there's gigantic solar system object near Pluto that's shaped
> > like an arrow? If you don't believe that, find pictures showing pluto. You
> > can see the arrow in lots of them, right between the planet and the word
> > "Pluto." It rotates in some strange way, sometimes turning its dark face
> > toward us, in case you wonder why it isn't in all pictures of that part of
> > the sky. I don't know why one side is dark and the other one bright. My
> > guess is that it's pure carbon with snow on one side.
> [snip]
>
> This object was placed there by the same people who posted the
> Earth-anihilation announcement at Alpha Centauri, to build the space
> highway.
So, if I see it again and it looks more like the perfect round muzzle
flash than an arrow, we're in deep doo-doo? I'm not worrying yet. I
don't think those people can hit the broad side of a barn at that
distance.
Are you a real Martian?
DrPostman
accordance with the prophecy wrote:
>Did you know there's gigantic solar system object near Pluto that's shaped
>like an arrow? If you don't believe that, find pictures showing pluto. You
>can see the arrow in lots of them, right between the planet and the word
>"Pluto." It rotates in some strange way, sometimes turning its dark face
>toward us, in case you wonder why it isn't in all pictures of that part of
>the sky. I don't know why one side is dark and the other one bright. My
>guess is that it's pure carbon with snow on one side.
Damned near spewed my root beer all over the keyboard!
Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Member,Board of Directors of afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULT® member #15-51506-253.
You can email me at: jamie_eckles(at)hotmail.com
"Why don't you tell this MAD-DOG she'll cure her own HYSTERIA with a
HYSTERECTOMY? That may calm the BITCH down a little. Tell her you know a
good veterinarian."
-Fake "Dr" Turi shows his light and love
Ioannis
[snip]
> > This object was placed there by the same people who posted the
> > Earth-anihilation announcement at Alpha Centauri, to build the space
> > highway.
>
> So, if I see it again and it looks more like the perfect round muzzle
> flash than an arrow, we're in deep doo-doo?
I am pretty sure it was intended to remain in the shape of an arrow. Its
purpose was to point where we should relocate prior to the execution of
the construction. Of course the corresponding clarification was posted
along with the rest of the announcement at Alpha, that's why nobody knew
about it.
As nobody has relocated yet, I wouldn't worry about it.
> I'm not worrying yet. I
> don't think those people can hit the broad side of a barn at that
> distance.
>
> Are you a real Martian?
Me? No. I am actually an Illuminatus Time Lord, second cousin of Tom
Baker from his mother's side, from an undocumented marriage that dates
back to her days as a telepath on Mars when they found that big
fossilized Shadow vehicle there.
Douglas Berry
Ioannis <morp...@olympus.mons> warmed at our fire and told this
tale:
>Me? No. I am actually an Illuminatus Time Lord, second cousin of Tom
>Baker from his mother's side, from an undocumented marriage that dates
>back to her days as a telepath on Mars when they found that big
>fossilized Shadow vehicle there.
But are you also Lazurus Long?
Ioannis
[snip]
> But are you also Lazurus Long?
I assume you meant to write "Lazarus".
Neither. Last time I checked I was dead and I am short on pretty much
everything.
> --
>
> Douglas E. Berry grid...@mindspring.com
> http://gridlore.home.mindspring.com/
Gavin Whittaker
: Yes, thats right... the earth is flat - and if you didn't think that was
: enough,
Joking aside, this is actually very difficult, if not impossible, to
demonstrate convincingly to a sceptic, without leaving the surface of the
Earth. Certainly, all the evidence that I have is anecdotal, and taken
on trust. I suspect that it is the same for most people.
: the sun revolves around the earth!
From my frame of reference, it does...
: And...the transistor comes from
: alien technology,
Bell Labs. Doesn't get more alien than that...
: and JFK was assasinated
Errrr.... I think you'll find he was...
: Oh yeah, apparrently some guy who just pisses me off too much thinks that we
: didn't land on the moon - we didn't, but some NASA astronauts did (or so I
: think, along with the rest of the general population).
Now. Another sentiment that I agree with...
Gavin
John Burns (NZ)
> demonstrate convincingly to a sceptic, without leaving the surface of the
> Earth. Certainly, all the evidence that I have is anecdotal, and taken
> on trust. I suspect that it is the same for most people.
I think the most accurate way of proving this, would be the standard sun
down the well experiment.
People known to live in opposit timezones, both dig big holes. Then at a
known time, they measure the angle and direction of the sun in the hole. It
should differ in relation to the distance apart that the 2 holes are.
Once done, the hole makes good use as cheap transport to china
(Yes, I know I will get flamed by this one, china is not dicertly opposite
new zealand, and any one who was to slide down the hole would end up at the
centre of the earth or oscillating backwards and forwards through part of
the hole - I know!!)
The hole can also be used to put all of the moon hoax believing people in,
the concreted over
-John
John Griffin
> John Griffin wrote:
> [snip]
> > > This object was placed there by the same people who posted the
> > > Earth-anihilation announcement at Alpha Centauri, to build the space
> > > highway.
> >
> > So, if I see it again and it looks more like the perfect round muzzle
> > flash than an arrow, we're in deep doo-doo?
>
> I am pretty sure it was intended to remain in the shape of an arrow. Its
> purpose was to point where we should relocate prior to the execution of
> the construction. Of course the corresponding clarification was posted
> along with the rest of the announcement at Alpha, that's why nobody knew
> about it.
What and where is "Alpha"? If I were to look at it, how many pop-up
ads would I have to close afterward?
In case you didn't understand what I said, an arrow looks round if
it's coming straight at you.
> As nobody has relocated yet, I wouldn't worry about it.
>
> > I'm not worrying yet. I
> > don't think those people can hit the broad side of a barn at that
> > distance.
> >
> > Are you a real Martian?
>
> Me? No. I am actually an Illuminatus Time Lord, second cousin of Tom
> Baker from his mother's side, from an undocumented marriage that dates
> back to her days as a telepath on Mars when they found that big
> fossilized Shadow vehicle there.
So why are you posting from a Martian mountain address?
John R Nickolls
And of course you know that Auckland is directly antipodes to Seville.
It wouldn't be too difficult nowadays for an experiment to be made using
the Internet - have observers scattered around the world simultaneously
make basic theodolite shots of (say) the sun, and integrate the results.
Biggest hurdle would be actually organizing and equipping them, and
verifying the readings, but the sceptics could get organized too, and
buddy up with the observers.
--
John R Nickolls/Paratechnics
PO Box 75-931, Manurewa, Auckland, New Zealand,
Tel: +64-9-296 6134 Fax: +64-9-296 6238 <-- NEW NUMBERS
http://crash.ihug.co.nz/~nickolls
http://www.GeoCities.com/john_r_nickolls
John Griffin
"Ioannis" <morp...@olympus.mons> wrote in message
> John Griffin wrote:
> [snip]
> > So why are you posting from a Martian mountain address?
>
Oh. I thought it was winter there.
Gavin Whittaker
:> demonstrate convincingly to a sceptic, without leaving the surface of the
:> Earth. Certainly, all the evidence that I have is anecdotal, and taken
:> on trust. I suspect that it is the same for most people.
: I think the most accurate way of proving this, would be the standard sun
: down the well experiment.
No. That gives you the radius of the Earth IF you assume that the Earth
is round - it doesn't, of itself, prove that the Earth is round. If the
Earth is flat with the Sun directly above one of your wells, and at a finite
distance, then you will get a different angle of shadow for a well that
is distant from that first well.
Gavin
John Griffin
> > Joking aside, this is actually very difficult, if not impossible, to
That won't work! On the rare occasions when antipodal points are both
sunlit at the same time (only for an instant twice per year except in
the tropics), the sun elevation will be zero at both of them!
A guy named Eratosthenes calculated the radius of Earth over 2000
years ago by a similar method. He used two wells a few hundred miles
apart. Check out Eratosthenes on the web for a description of how he
did that and how good his measurements and calculations were.
>
> The hole can also be used to put all of the moon hoax believing people in,
> the concreted over
That part works!
>
> -John
Jonathan Vogt
In article <acac27$6qt$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>, John Burns (NZ) <johnburns007
@NOhotmailSPAM.com> writes
>Damn!
>I'm less educated than I thought
>
>A sun that undergoes a metamorphosis on a daily basis - now thats a great
>theory.
>
>I was actually looking at some photos of the sun and moon recently and
>noticed that part of the sun seemed to have a 'am' marked on it, while the
>moon appeared to have a 'pm' on it. Do you think that the moon and the sun
>are hoaxes themselves?? - This could add a dramatic twist to the moon hoax
>thing, after all, if the moon is a hoax, then would actually landing on the
>hoaxed moon be considered a hoax, or would it be an official landing??
>
>I also had a look at some photos of peoples heads and i think the photos
>have faces in them, but I am yet to confirm this in every case...
>
>-John
>
>
>Darren <darrenswre...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>news:aca2sp$agu$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
>>
>>
--
Jonathan Vogel
John Burns (NZ)
> demonstrate convincingly to a sceptic, without leaving the surface of the
> Earth. Certainly, all the evidence that I have is anecdotal, and taken
> on trust. I suspect that it is the same for most people.
Its just as difficult o prove that the earth is Flat, but after all, if only
a fool believes the earth is round, we don't have a problem......do we??
-John
Jim
> > Oh, sorry. That's my summer resort.
>
> Oh. I thought it was winter there.
Nah, that's just a temperature inversion due to badly polarised teeth.
Incidently, if you see that nice Mr. Sheridan whilst on Mars, could you
ask him to stop grinning? It's becoming anoying. Cheers.
Jim
--
j...@magrathea.plus.com -*- Grey...@mac.com
"We deal in the moral equivalent of black holes, where the normal
laws of right and wrong break down; beyond those metaphysical
event horizons there exist ... special circumstances" - Use Of Weapons
John Burns (NZ)
Jim <j...@magrathea.plus.com> wrote in message
news:1fclrxi.ak2bq41yt85gsN%j...@magrathea.plus.com...
Gavin Whittaker
It's not difficult though, is it? I look out of the window and the Earth is
generally flat. It looks flat from here, so the empirical evidence from
where I stand is that it IS flat and the sun goes around it. The fact
that I believe it to be round and to go around the sun is based on
trust, not on any experiment that I have done, or measurement that I can
do.
Gavin
mike II
> A guy named Eratosthenes calculated the radius of Earth over 2000
> years ago by a similar method. He used two wells a few hundred miles
> apart.
With all respect, he wasn't THAT good. They had to fish him out of the
second well after he fell in. A net like contrivance was used to hoist
him out. To this day it's called the Sieve of Erathosthenes.
John Burns (NZ)
Gavin Whittaker <ah...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:ach5n3$cio$1...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk...
Gavin Whittaker
Admitted, but that's local bumpiness. If I stand in Kansas or
Norfolk, where those bumps do not mess up the observation, it looks pretty
much like a flat Earth to me...
My main point, I think, still holds. I have yet to hear of an
experiment that a person, on the face of the Earth, can do for themselves to
prove the Earth is round, and that we (I include myself) take this 'fact'
on trust.
Gavin
: Gavin Whittaker <ah...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
:>
Andreas Parsch
>
> My main point, I think, still holds. I have yet to hear of an
> experiment that a person, on the face of the Earth, can do for themselves to
> prove the Earth is round, and that we (I include myself) take this 'fact'
> on trust.
>
Depends on what you include in "do for themselves". E.g., many people can
bring a few hundred bucks to a travel agent, and buy a long-range flight
ticket. _Not_ falling off the earth on that flight is a strong evidence ;-)
against a flat earth, and the time difference, differnt sun angle, etc. will
do the rest.
However, I agree that some poor ("poor" as in "no money or other major
resources") fellow will more or less have to trust the "round earth"
advocats ;-).
Andreas
Pete Lawrence
<ah...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> Admitted, but that's local bumpiness. If I stand in Kansas or
>Norfolk, where those bumps do not mess up the observation, it looks pretty
>much like a flat Earth to me...
>
> My main point, I think, still holds. I have yet to hear of an
>experiment that a person, on the face of the Earth, can do for themselves to
>prove the Earth is round, and that we (I include myself) take this 'fact'
>on trust.
I can see quite a long way along the South Coast from Selsey East
Beach. So far in fact that one day I thought I'd wander down with a
pair of 11x80s and try and identify landmarks. (I've yet to drag down
any bigger scopes!).
As you move along the coast on a clear day, it's possible to start
making out key buildings that can help me to identify where I'm
looking. There is a pylon/mast in Brighton (approximately 30 miles
away) that I can clearly see as having it's bottom underwater (or
under the horizon formed by the sea). This would be difficult to
explain if the Earth was flat!
--
Pete
John R Nickolls
the Earth, though there are some clues, like the shape of the earth's
shadow in Lunar eclipses.
This discussion tends to highlight the fact that we take an incredible
amount of facts strictly on faith.
I'd still like to try my internet experiment though
--
John R Nickolls
of diffraction.
Pete Lawrence wrote:
<snip>
> under the horizon formed by the sea). This would be difficult to
> explain if the Earth was flat!
>
> --
> Pete
--
John Burns (NZ)
There is a lot of scientific evidence to prove the earth is round. We do
take this blindly on faith.
There is also a lot of evidence to prove that we landed on the moon - once
again we take this somewhat on faith, but for almost all of us, the
scientific evidence easily outweighs the fact that we may not have landed on
the moon.
Pity there is very little concrete evidence pertaining to religion.
(I've just opened up a huge can of worms!)
-John
John R Nickolls <nick...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3CED356E...@ihug.co.nz...
Mark McIntyre
<ah...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>In uk.sci.astronomy "John Burns (NZ)" <johnbu...@nohotmailspam.com> writted:
>: Its not all that flat, we have a lot of mountain ranges, etc, etc
>
> Admitted, but that's local bumpiness. If I stand in Kansas or
>Norfolk, where those bumps do not mess up the observation, it looks pretty
>much like a flat Earth to me...
>
> My main point, I think, still holds. I have yet to hear of an
>experiment that a person, on the face of the Earth, can do for themselves to
>prove the Earth is round, and that we (I include myself) take this 'fact'
>on trust.
Then you must have your ears filled with glue.
1) Fly up in a balloon. You can see the curvature.
2) repeat the "wells" experiment
3) shoot a radio beam or laser parallel to the ground locally, measure
its altitude at varying locations
4) examine the shape of the earth's shadow
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
John Griffin
> In uk.sci.astronomy "John Burns (NZ)" <johnbu...@nohotmailspam.com>
writted:
> : Its not all that flat, we have a lot of mountain ranges, etc, etc
>
> Admitted, but that's local bumpiness. If I stand in Kansas or
> Norfolk, where those bumps do not mess up the observation, it looks pretty
> much like a flat Earth to me...
>
> My main point, I think, still holds. I have yet to hear of an
> experiment that a person, on the face of the Earth, can do for themselves
to
> prove the Earth is round, and that we (I include myself) take this 'fact'
> on trust.
>
> Gavin
Use a plumb bob. It will point to the center of gravity. If Earth is flat,
it will point straight down over that point, but it will point almost
horizontally if you're at the edge. I don't know how to find the edge, but
this experiment might work. If the bob always points straight down, the
planet must be round.
John Griffin
Refraction in the atmosphere could explain that. The atmosphere would
be pretty difficult to explain, though. Maybe you'd have to consider
gravitational lensing.
mike II
> Use a plumb bob. It will point to the center of gravity. If Earth is flat,
> it will point straight down over that point, but it will point almost
> horizontally if you're at the edge. I don't know how to find the edge, but
> this experiment might work. If the bob always points straight down, the
> planet must be round.
Not necessarily. If this strange force indeed exists, then it may be
acting at a ninety degree angle to the mean surface plane, much like a
gyro's reaction to an outside disturbance. We have no way of knowing
whether the thickness or width of the pizza shaped planet has a bearing
on it's strength of 'pull'. In fact, this phenomena was the subject of
my last experiment. I was dropping quantities of large AND small lead
balls from a tall local tower, (ignoring air resistance) but was
arrested before I could draw any meaningful conclusions. They DID,
however seem to fall at ninety degrees to the flat surface.
John Burns (NZ)
with water and doing a similar experiment, but my experiment was more
looking at the damage that could (and was) caused by a hug icicle rather
than how it fell. I do remember it did fall and it appeared to fall down in
direction
-JB
mike II <ohm...@spots.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:3CEDAB27...@spots.ab.ca...
mike II
> I do remember it did fall and it appeared to fall down in
> direction
Well, that is a proof. If you, nearer the edge of the planet, actually
saw a 'downward' ninety degreeish movement, much as I did here, then we
must conclude that:
a) The object falling creates the attraction to the object below, or
b) Falling is an inherent nature of all matter. Copious amounts of
experimental Guinness have suggested this.
c) Gravity, per say, is non existent. Our senses mistake a variation of
'static cling' for this 'force'.
DrPostman
<ah...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> My main point, I think, still holds. I have yet to hear of an
>experiment that a person, on the face of the Earth, can do for themselves to
>prove the Earth is round, and that we (I include myself) take this 'fact'
>on trust.
Stop and look up at the moon some night when it isn't full.
Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Member,Board of Directors of afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULT® member #15-51506-253.
You can email me at: jamie_eckles(at)hotmail.com
>HI
> I sow sometimes
-Theo <byj...@ch.inter.net>
Jim
> b) Falling is an inherent nature of all matter. Copious amounts of
> experimental Guinness have suggested this.
I have double-cecked this and have even tried substituting Guiness for
other faller-enhancers (such as Marstons Pedigree, Old Peculiar) and can
conclude that all matter *must* exist as constantly flipping binary
states. State 1 is the 'falling' state (the extension of which is the
'lying down singing' state). There then follows the 'state switch',
after which the matter may well be vertical again but, and this is the
important bit, VERY VERY DELICATE. There seems to be a period of
state-change roughly corresponding to one terrestrial day.
DrPostman
with the prophecy wrote:
>Refraction in the atmosphere could explain that. The atmosphere would
>be pretty difficult to explain, though. Maybe you'd have to consider
>gravitational lensing.
Here is how one of the ancients did it:
"Eratosthenes lived in a place called Syene (now called Aswan). He noticed that on the
longest day of the year (the summer solstice) when the sun reached it's very highest point
in the sky, that a stick placed straight up and down in the sand did not cast a shadow. In
fact, he looked down into a dry well and noticed that the midday sun shone straight to the
bottom, and the walls of the well were in sunlight. It was as if the sun was directly
overhead.
Eratosthenes wondered if a second stick stuck in the sand in a different place would cast
a shadow. If the second stick cast a shadow, then the earth could not be flat (as some
presumed) but must be round . Knowing what he did about mathematics (mathematics does come
in handy every now and again!), he figured out that if he could measure the distance
between the two sticks, and the shadow cast at the second stick, he could work out the
size of the earth. He'd be famous!
Eratosthenes raced off to Alexandria, 800 km away and placed a second stick in the sand.
Sure enough, this time the sun cast a shadow.
Eratosthenes measured the shadow and using the distance between the two sticks figured the
earth's circumference to be 40,234 km (25,000 miles). The currently accepted value for the
earth's circumference at the Equator is 40,074 km (24,901 miles). A difference of only 160
km (99 miles)!
That's like guessing the size of a soccer pitch and missing by the width of 2 soccer
balls. Pretty amazing for guy who measured distances by how far his camel can travel in a
day!"
source http://www.geod.nrcan.gc.ca/index_e/geodesy_e/whatis-01_e.html
John Griffin
>
> > Use a plumb bob. It will point to the center of gravity. If Earth is
flat,
> > it will point straight down over that point, but it will point almost
> > horizontally if you're at the edge. I don't know how to find the edge,
but
> > this experiment might work. If the bob always points straight down, the
> > planet must be round.
>
> Not necessarily. If this strange force indeed exists, then it may be
> acting at a ninety degree angle to the mean surface plane, much like a
> gyro's reaction to an outside disturbance. We have no way of knowing
> whether the thickness or width of the pizza shaped planet has a bearing
> on it's strength of 'pull'. In fact, this phenomena was the subject of
> my last experiment. I was dropping quantities of large AND small lead
> balls from a tall local tower, (ignoring air resistance) but was
> arrested before I could draw any meaningful conclusions. They DID,
> however seem to fall at ninety degrees to the flat surface.
>
> mike II
I thought it was square, not pizza shaped. As a matter of fact, I think the
true basis of the belief in a flat Earth is just a bit of nonsense about
"the four corners of the Earth" in some old book that a few people claim is
a literal description of all this shit and where it came from.
Even if it's square, I didn't consider the fact that it might be spinning on
one or more axes at just the right speed to work with whatever other forces
might be happening on the day of the experiment and make the plumb line
point straight down.
Another thing that I didn't think of is that even if the side where we live
is flat, it could be a hemisphere, giant cobblestones, a pyramid, or even a
long rod. I guess that won't work after all, but I bet there's a cult
somewhere that believes Earth is a living five-sided pyramid with a
different "multiverse" on each face.
Besides that, you couldn't do the experiment I described because you'd be
standing at the same angle. It would look like down to you. Damn, back to
the drawing board.
Gavin Whittaker
: On Thu, 23 May 2002 09:55:08 +0000 (UTC), Gavin Whittaker
: <ah...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
:>In uk.sci.astronomy "John Burns (NZ)" <johnbu...@nohotmailspam.com> writted:
:>: Its not all that flat, we have a lot of mountain ranges, etc, etc
:>
:> Admitted, but that's local bumpiness. If I stand in Kansas or
:>Norfolk, where those bumps do not mess up the observation, it looks pretty
:>much like a flat Earth to me...
:>
:> My main point, I think, still holds. I have yet to hear of an
:>experiment that a person, on the face of the Earth, can do for themselves to
:>prove the Earth is round, and that we (I include myself) take this 'fact'
:>on trust.
: Then you must have your ears filled with glue.
I wouldn't recommend using an ad hominem such as this when you
plainly haven't read or understood earlier portions of this thread.
: 1) Fly up in a balloon. You can see the curvature.
The curvature is not noticeable during a normal aircraft flight,
let alone on a balloon. Inventing evidence does not help anyone.
To be fair, curvature IS apparent from high altitude aircraft such as
concorde or a B1 (ca 45-60,000', IIRC).
I specifically stated that the problem is one for a person ON the surface
of the Earth.
: 2) repeat the "wells" experiment
As I stated earlier in this thread, this experiment measures the radius of
the Earth IF you assume that the Earth is round, and that the Sun can be
assumed to be a very distant light source. It does not demonstrate
that the Earth IS round.
: 3) shoot a radio beam or laser parallel to the ground locally, measure
: its altitude at varying locations
Radio beams are only poorly collimated. Lasers are possible, but
you have to demonstrate that there is no atmospheric refraction
involved. Difficult over such a large distance. Your other problem is
that of simply ensuring that the beam is parallel with the ground to the
precision required. I've never heard of the experiment being
done, so have no idea of its feasibility.
: 4) examine the shape of the earth's shadow
This demonstrates that if you have a flat Earth, it is probably circular.
Yes, *of course* the evidence stacks in favour of a spherical Earth, but
without heading up to see it from space, that conclusion is only
reached, as someone else has pointed out, by invoking Occam's razor.
Only with the advent of aerospace travel did a flat Earth become an
unsustainable belief.
Gavin
*****************************************************************************
Dr. A.G. Whittaker - Dept. of Chemistry, King's buildings, West Mains
Rd., Edinburgh. EH9 3JJ.
Tel: 0131 6504736. Fax: 0131 6504743.
email: g.whi...@ed.ac.uk
*****************************************************************************
DrPostman
accordance with the prophecy wrote:
>: 4) examine the shape of the earth's shadow
>
> This demonstrates that if you have a flat Earth, it is probably circular.
Only if you use data from one location.
Uncle Nono
news:ac99id$ap1$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> Yes, thats right... the earth is flat - and if you didn't think that was
> enough, the sun revolves around the earth! And...the transistor comes
from
> alien technology, and JFK was assasinated and .... and .... and
> ..............
>
> Oh yeah, apparrently some guy who just pisses me off too much thinks that
we
> didn't land on the moon - we didn't, but some NASA astronauts did (or so I
> think, along with the rest of the general population).
>
> - John
What's wrong with believing that the sun revolves around the Earth? The
Bible apparently supports this "fact"! Oh, I forgot I believe in the Noble
Qur'an which 1400 years ago stated that the planets revolve around the sun.
Shall we bring back the Inquisition and punish skeptics for trying to find
the truth?
John, I like your thinking and sarcasm because I really get frustrated with
some of the responses people give in newsgroups. When the subject is
apples, they use oranges to substantiate their claims, go bananas if someone
disagrees, and go nuts if there's one hint of skepticism. I especially hate
it when people think they know what I know I know, but if we mix all these
people together and chop up their arguments we wind up with a fruit salad!
--
Uncle Ñoño
TheKingstonF...@communities.msn.com
Our Family Website: http://communities.msn.com/TheKingstonFamilyWebsite
--
Uncle Nono
"Douglas Berry" <grid...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:nnfgeuohddr0a4lnv...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 20 May 2002 10:37:44 +1200, a wanderer, known to us only as
> "John Burns (NZ)" <johnbu...@NOhotmailSPAM.com> warmed at our fire
> and told this tale:
>
> >Yes, thats right... the earth is flat - and if you didn't think that was
> >enough, the sun revolves around the earth! And...the transistor comes
from
> >alien technology, and JFK was assasinated and .... and .... and
> >..............
>
> AhHA! If the sun revolves around the Earth, WHERE DOES IT GO AT
> NIGHT? BWAHAHA!!!
>
> --
>
> Douglas E. Berry grid...@mindspring.com
> http://gridlore.home.mindspring.com/
>
> "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
> when they do it from religious conviction."
> Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
Uncle Nono
we get our cheese from, dummy?
--
Uncle Ñoño
TheKingstonF...@communities.msn.com
Our Family Website: http://communities.msn.com/TheKingstonFamilyWebsite
--
> Damn!
> I'm less educated than I thought
>
> A sun that undergoes a metamorphosis on a daily basis - now thats a great
> theory.
>
> I was actually looking at some photos of the sun and moon recently and
> noticed that part of the sun seemed to have a 'am' marked on it, while the
> moon appeared to have a 'pm' on it. Do you think that the moon and the
sun
> are hoaxes themselves?? - This could add a dramatic twist to the moon hoax
> thing, after all, if the moon is a hoax, then would actually landing on
the
> hoaxed moon be considered a hoax, or would it be an official landing??
>
> I also had a look at some photos of peoples heads and i think the photos
> have faces in them, but I am yet to confirm this in every case...
>
> -John
Uncle Nono
news:3CE9CF...@olympus.mons...
> John Griffin wrote:
> [snip]
> > Did you know there's gigantic solar system object near Pluto that's
shaped
> > like an arrow? If you don't believe that, find pictures showing pluto.
You
> > can see the arrow in lots of them, right between the planet and the word
> > "Pluto." It rotates in some strange way, sometimes turning its dark
face
> > toward us, in case you wonder why it isn't in all pictures of that part
of
> > the sky. I don't know why one side is dark and the other one bright. My
> > guess is that it's pure carbon with snow on one side.
> [snip]
>
> This object was placed there by the same people who posted the
> Earth-anihilation announcement at Alpha Centauri, to build the space
> highway.
> --
> Ioannis
> http://users.forthnet.gr/ath/jgal/
> ___________________________________________
> Eventually, _everything_ is understandable.
I guess that would explain the phenomena of air pollution?
Uncle Nono
> > Joking aside, this is actually very difficult, if not impossible, to
the
> > Earth. Certainly, all the evidence that I have is anecdotal, and taken
> > on trust. I suspect that it is the same for most people.
>
> down the well experiment.
>
> People known to live in opposit timezones, both dig big holes. Then at a
> known time, they measure the angle and direction of the sun in the hole.
It
> should differ in relation to the distance apart that the 2 holes are.
>
> Once done, the hole makes good use as cheap transport to china
>
> (Yes, I know I will get flamed by this one, china is not dicertly opposite
> new zealand, and any one who was to slide down the hole would end up at
the
> centre of the earth or oscillating backwards and forwards through part of
> the hole - I know!!)
>
> The hole can also be used to put all of the moon hoax believing people in,
> the concreted over
>
> -John
I wouldn't doubt it if we already have wholes in the earth leading to China
from California. The China towns of both Southern and Northern California
are full of holes and underground tunnels that the Chinese used to live
under and hide in. Who knows, maybe some of those tunnels get off the
beaten track and go straight through to China! Maybe that might explain the
missing Mexicans trying to flee underground to get across the border.
Uncle Nono
gets the same idea at the same time and then the twain shall meet. If that
were the case what would that do to the Earth's current rotation? If we
stick a pole down one of the holes would we then have the West and East
Poles? Wouldn't that affect the seasons too so that we would have such an
off pattern rotation that we would have, what, eight seasons instead of
four? Better yet, if we penetrate the earth deep enough won't it pop?
--
Uncle Ńońo
John Griffin
"Uncle Nono" <TheKingstonF...@communities.msn.com> wrote in message
news:iRzH8.2904$Np5...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
All of them?
John R Nickolls
confusing me. Perhaps that's it...
Uncle Nono wrote:
>
> Can you imagine that? We dig one hole to the opposite end; someone else
> gets the same idea at the same time and then the twain shall meet. If that
> were the case what would that do to the Earth's current rotation? If we
> stick a pole down one of the holes would we then have the West and East
> Poles? Wouldn't that affect the seasons too so that we would have such an
> off pattern rotation that we would have, what, eight seasons instead of
> four? Better yet, if we penetrate the earth deep enough won't it pop?
> --
> Uncle Ñoño
> TheKingstonF...@communities.msn.com
> Our Family Website: http://communities.msn.com/TheKingstonFamilyWebsite
> --
--
Charles Gregory
: The Flat-Earthers would, I understand, propose that this was an effect
: of diffraction.
: > under the horizon formed by the sea). This would be difficult to
: > explain if the Earth was flat!
For those who don't know, the Flat Earth Society was formed by a
philosophy professor with the intent of re-introducing to people the
'reality' of their perceptions. "In your heart you *know* it is flat" is
not just a smarmy joke. It reflects on the fact that our senses tell us
things in a way that is more concrete and 'real' than the things we
might 'learn' from books.
A great deal of fun is had with it, but if someone raises an obvious
objection, like 'ships disappear below the horizon', then the proper
response is, "have you seen this for yourself?" and if you have, you may
count yourself among the lucky few who have *experienced* a curved Earth.
I am one of these people. I can atest to the fact that even a perfectly
calm sea is curved slightly upward. The rest of us are only taking
someone else's *word* for this, and do not really 'know' any more than we
see around us every day.
Far from being 'stupid', it is about attitude, and recognition of the
basis of your internal belief structures. It is not an attempt to get
people to blindly question science, but rather to get people to realize
that part of them *does* automatically and blindly question things that do
not fit with personal experience.
And all of this is relevant to the parapsychology debate, because that
same underlying 'doubt' about unexperienced things is what fuels the
debate by 'skeptics' who grab and use 'science' as a crutch to forward
the arguments that really amount to nothing more than not having seen it
for themselves.
Obviously, part of the philosophical outlook alos emphasises the reality
of 'fantasy' experiences. People can think they "know" that psychic powers
a real based upon a false experience. The attitude of the Flat Earther is
to not merely reject the experience because it contradicts book learning,
but to seek further experience that either supports or contradicts the
initial one. In the end, it's about the truest form of scientific inquiry.
DrPostman
with the prophecy wrote:
>A great deal of fun is had with it, but if someone raises an obvious
>objection, like 'ships disappear below the horizon', then the proper
>response is, "have you seen this for yourself?" and if you have, you may
>count yourself among the lucky few who have *experienced* a curved Earth.
>I am one of these people. I can atest to the fact that even a perfectly
>calm sea is curved slightly upward. The rest of us are only taking
>someone else's *word* for this, and do not really 'know' any more than we
>see around us every day.
Anyone who had flown on a commercial airliner on a clear day can
see the curvature as well. A LOT of people have done this.
Gavin Whittaker
: On 29 May 2002 17:05:40 GMT, ab...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Charles Gregory) in accordance
: with the prophecy wrote:
:>A great deal of fun is had with it, but if someone raises an obvious
:>objection, like 'ships disappear below the horizon', then the proper
:>response is, "have you seen this for yourself?" and if you have, you may
:>count yourself among the lucky few who have *experienced* a curved Earth.
:>I am one of these people. I can atest to the fact that even a perfectly
:>calm sea is curved slightly upward. The rest of us are only taking
:>someone else's *word* for this, and do not really 'know' any more than we
:>see around us every day.
: Anyone who had flown on a commercial airliner on a clear day can
: see the curvature as well. A LOT of people have done this.
It would be convenient to think so, wouldn't it? I can only assume that
you are assuming this. I fly about 4-5 trips (8-10 flights) per annum on
commercial airliners, cruising altitude is typically 28-30,000'. IMHO, any
effect is so poorly pronounced as to provide no evidence of the Earth's
curvature. Any effects I have seen come from refraction from the double
glazing on the plane.
As I have said elsewhere, I am told that the curvature IS visible
from Concorde at 50-60,000', more than twice the cruising altitude of most
commercial flights. My recollection of the early concorde flights is
that part of the promotion was the fact that you were high enough to see
the Earth's curvature.
Gavin.
Gavin Whittaker
: with the prophecy wrote:
:>Refraction in the atmosphere could explain that. The atmosphere would
:>be pretty difficult to explain, though. Maybe you'd have to consider
:>gravitational lensing.
: Here is how one of the ancients did it:
: "Eratosthenes lived in a place called Syene
Read the rest of the thread. This gives the circumference of the
Earth IF you ASSUME that the Earth is round. It does not prove that the
Earth is round.
Gavin
Gavin Whittaker
: What's wrong with believing that the sun revolves around the Earth? The
: Bible apparently supports this "fact"! Oh, I forgot I believe in the Noble
: Qur'an which 1400 years ago stated that the planets revolve around the sun.
ISTR that relativity says that you can regard any body as revolving
around whatever you want it to in a system like this. It just makes the
maths easier if you assume the overwhelmingly heaviest body to be the
centre.
: Shall we bring back the Inquisition and punish skeptics for trying to
: find the truth?
The scientific community has its own versions of the inquisition. Have
a look at the venom that gets thrown around when a radical new theory is
proposed or an established scientist's work is criticised. I'm not talking
about scientific debate, I'm talking about concerted attempts to bring people
down. If you want examples, start with Newton's treatment of Flamsteed, and
work forward, paying particular attention to the behaviour of high
achievers, and those who feel their work deserves a Nobel prize.
Gavin
Sharon Curtis
Gavin Whittaker <ah...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>In uk.sci.astronomy DrPostman <I...@mysig.emailthere> writted:
>: On 29 May 2002 17:05:40 GMT, ab...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Charles Gregory) in accordance
>: with the prophecy wrote:
>
>
>:>A great deal of fun is had with it, but if someone raises an obvious
>:>objection, like 'ships disappear below the horizon', then the proper
>:>response is, "have you seen this for yourself?" and if you have, you may
>:>count yourself among the lucky few who have *experienced* a curved Earth.
>:>I am one of these people. I can atest to the fact that even a perfectly
>:>calm sea is curved slightly upward. The rest of us are only taking
>:>someone else's *word* for this, and do not really 'know' any more than we
>:>see around us every day.
>
>: Anyone who had flown on a commercial airliner on a clear day can
>: see the curvature as well. A LOT of people have done this.
>
> It would be convenient to think so, wouldn't it? I can only assume that
>you are assuming this. I fly about 4-5 trips (8-10 flights) per annum on
>commercial airliners, cruising altitude is typically 28-30,000'. IMHO, any
>effect is so poorly pronounced as to provide no evidence of the Earth's
>curvature. Any effects I have seen come from refraction from the double
>glazing on the plane.
Two points:
Yes the small windows aren't enough to show enough, but from the
pilot's view you can see a lot more, enough to show the curvature
(ok I know that's not for the passengers to see!)
What a passenger can do is to compare the horizon with the real
horizon. Assuming the plane isn't banking, use a glass of water
to give you the horizontal, and compare it with the horizon, which
is distinctly lower...
> As I have said elsewhere, I am told that the curvature IS visible
>from Concorde at 50-60,000', more than twice the cruising altitude of most
>commercial flights. My recollection of the early concorde flights is
>that part of the promotion was the fact that you were high enough to see
>the Earth's curvature.
Wow!
M Holmes
: Depends on what you include in "do for themselves". E.g., many people can
: bring a few hundred bucks to a travel agent, and buy a long-range flight
: ticket. _Not_ falling off the earth on that flight is a strong evidence ;-)
: against a flat earth, and the time difference, differnt sun angle, etc. will
: do the rest.
How would you know for sure that the pilot is flying a straight line?
FoFP
M Holmes
: In uk.sci.astronomy Uncle Nono <TheKingstonF...@communities.msn.com> writted:
: : What's wrong with believing that the sun revolves around the Earth? The
: : Bible apparently supports this "fact"! Oh, I forgot I believe in the Noble
: : Qur'an which 1400 years ago stated that the planets revolve around the sun.
: ISTR that relativity says that you can regard any body as revolving
: around whatever you want it to in a system like this. It just makes the
: maths easier if you assume the overwhelmingly heaviest body to be the
: centre.
: : Shall we bring back the Inquisition and punish skeptics for trying to
: : find the truth?
Weren't the Inquisition quite subtle in their response by positing that
the Sun revolved around the Earth but God moved stuff around "as if" the
Earth revolved around the Sun?
Cunningly, there's no experimental way to tell the difference between a
heliocentric model and this one.
FoFP
Charles Gregory
: I fly about 4-5 trips (8-10 flights) per annum on
: commercial airliners, cruising altitude is typically 28-30,000'. IMHO, any
: effect is so poorly pronounced as to provide no evidence of the Earth's
: curvature.
I would agree that it does not provide 'evidence', as it is difficult to
distinguish. But I have noticed the very slight curvature at altitudes
above 30,000 feet.
: Any effects I have seen come from refraction from the double
: glazing on the plane.
No, this doesn't hold true. I can be at 10,000 feet and the same window
does not produce the notable curvature.
: As I have said elsewhere, I am told that the curvature IS visible
: from Concorde at 50-60,000', more than twice the cruising altitude of most
: commercial flights.
I flew to Florida from Toronto on a large jetliner, and I could have
sworn they reached 40,000 (perhaps 38,000) it was in my memory the highest
I had ever flown, and therfore, noteworthy.
Jonathan Silverlight
<ah...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> writes
>In uk.sci.astronomy DrPostman <I...@mysig.emailthere> writted:
>: On 29 May 2002 17:05:40 GMT, ab...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Charles
>:Gregory) in accordance
>: with the prophecy wrote:
>
>
>:>A great deal of fun is had with it, but if someone raises an obvious
>:>objection, like 'ships disappear below the horizon', then the proper
>:>response is, "have you seen this for yourself?" and if you have, you may
>:>count yourself among the lucky few who have *experienced* a curved Earth.
>:>I am one of these people. I can atest to the fact that even a perfectly
>:>calm sea is curved slightly upward. The rest of us are only taking
>:>someone else's *word* for this, and do not really 'know' any more than we
>:>see around us every day.
>
>: Anyone who had flown on a commercial airliner on a clear day can
>: see the curvature as well. A LOT of people have done this.
>
> It would be convenient to think so, wouldn't it? I can only assume that
>you are assuming this. I fly about 4-5 trips (8-10 flights) per annum on
>commercial airliners, cruising altitude is typically 28-30,000'. IMHO, any
>effect is so poorly pronounced as to provide no evidence of the Earth's
>curvature. Any effects I have seen come from refraction from the double
>glazing on the plane.
I don't follow this. A few years ago I was on a flight in India and as
the plane approached cruising altitude the Himalayas appeared on the
horizon. It's the first time I saw them. When the aircraft started to
descend they sank below the horizon again. If that's not due to
curvature, what causes it? :-)
Sharon Curtis
Jonathan Silverlight <jsi...@merseia.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>I don't follow this. A few years ago I was on a flight in India and as
>the plane approached cruising altitude the Himalayas appeared on the
>horizon. It's the first time I saw them. When the aircraft started to
>descend they sank below the horizon again. If that's not due to
>curvature, what causes it? :-)
I assume your smiley means you know perfectly well that the curvature
of the earth doesn't follow from that sort of observation...
Sharon
Don Bowman
you will get several different readings.
If, for example, you end up with an angle of 45 degrees, it could mean that
the Earth is flat and that the sun is the same distance from the Earth as
the distance that you have travelled.
It could also mean that the Sun is an infinite distance away at that you
have travelled 45 degrees around a circular Earth.
If you take enough readings and the Earth is flat, then all projected lines
will intersect at the same point. That is where the Sun is.
If, on the other hand, you end up with a fine mesh of lines, your surface is
curved in some way. If you make the necessary adjustments so that the
projected lines meet at some distant point or just trail off into the
sunset, then you will have your curve.
On the other hand, I could be wrong.
Don Bowman
"Gavin Whittaker" <ah...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:ad51fa$3uv$2...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk...
John R Nickolls
way one can reconcile the observed positions of objects like the Sun and
the stars is for the earth to be spherical.
Otherwise Astro-navigation, Inertial Navigation and GPS (to name but a
few) would not work.
Don Bowman wrote:
>
> If you repeat the Erastosthenes measurements in several different places,
> you will get several different readings.
>
> If, for example, you end up with an angle of 45 degrees, it could mean that
> the Earth is flat and that the sun is the same distance from the Earth as
> the distance that you have travelled.
>
> It could also mean that the Sun is an infinite distance away at that you
> have travelled 45 degrees around a circular Earth.
>
> If you take enough readings and the Earth is flat, then all projected lines
> will intersect at the same point. That is where the Sun is.
>
> If, on the other hand, you end up with a fine mesh of lines, your surface is
> curved in some way. If you make the necessary adjustments so that the
> projected lines meet at some distant point or just trail off into the
> sunset, then you will have your curve.
>
> On the other hand, I could be wrong.
>
> Don Bowman
>
<snip>
John R Nickolls
have any disclaimers to say "listen, this is just an exercise in
perceptive reality" or such.
What I've seen has come out in the form of tracts which hammer any
possibility of a spherical Earth.
Every joke has to have a punch line, and every experiment must have a
conclusion. The good professor may have had a great idea when starting
the Society, but I would suggest that it got out of hand long ago.
Charles Gregory wrote:
>
> John R Nickolls (nick...@ihug.co.nz) wrote:
> : The Flat-Earthers would, I understand, propose that this was an effect
> : of diffraction.
> : > under the horizon formed by the sea). This would be difficult to
> : > explain if the Earth was flat!
>
> For those who don't know, the Flat Earth Society was formed by a
> philosophy professor with the intent of re-introducing to people the
> 'reality' of their perceptions. "In your heart you *know* it is flat" is
> not just a smarmy joke. It reflects on the fact that our senses tell us
> things in a way that is more concrete and 'real' than the things we
> might 'learn' from books.
>
John Burns (NZ)
astronauts on the moon thing. Its kinda funny how some threads just keep
going and going (like an energizer)
-John
"John R Nickolls" <nick...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3CFA9F9D...@ihug.co.nz...
Charles Gregory
: have any disclaimers to say "listen, this is just an exercise in
: perceptive reality" or such.
I wouldn't discount the idea that some people have taken the exercise too
far, or that others *blindly* treat it like a religion, but the actual
application of 'Flat Earth thinking' is subtle, because to successfully do
it, you must in fact show rational grounds for believing the Earth is
flat. Not because the Earth is in fact flat, but because you have
successfully demonstrated, at that point, that 'rational' arguments cannot
help a human being decide reality. The very word 'realize', properly used,
refers to the internal sense of reality which your senses have conveyed to
you. You 'realize' that the Earth is flat, even while you "know"
otherwise. It is more than a silly thought game or joke. And as long as
you think of it as a mental exercise, and do not fully indulge the
'outlandish' concept, you are missing the real benefit.
Once you have opened your mind completely to the idea of a Flat Earth, you
can truly appreciate the few shreds of personal experience that tell you
it is really round. Not take some book's word for it. I *know* the world
is round, because I fully embraced the 'crazy' idea it is flat. Not merely
looking for holes, but trying as best I could to support it. For fun, but
without treating it as a 'game' or 'pretend'.
It is a equivalent in critical thinking to Carl Sagan's "absolutely open
minded and hyper critical at the same time".
: What I've seen has come out in the form of tracts which hammer any
: possibility of a spherical Earth.
Oh, absolutely. As I recall, the old Flat Earth Society required you to
write paper *proving* that the Earth was flat, by logic and rationale.
Very strong stuff.
: Every joke has to have a punch line, and every experiment must have a
: conclusion. The good professor may have had a great idea when starting
: the Society, but I would suggest that it got out of hand long ago.
Oh, it got out of hand the moment the idea left his classroom. (grin)
But he wanted to let it get out of hand. He wanted people to just wake up.
Eventhe people who take his 'crazy' idea seriously will benefit in one way
or another.
Just so you understand, this is a guy who, upon discovering that no one
could hear him speak at a crowded university dinner, proceeded to
pantomine and move his lips without making a sound. Did this for about
five minutes, then finished with a broad sweeping gesture like someone
making a final point, and sat down. Everyone applauded loudly.
Reality is what you make of it. :-)
Charles Gregory
: I actually only made this post originally as a bit of a flame at the whole
: astronauts on the moon thing. Its kinda funny how some threads just keep
: going and going (like an energizer)
: -John
Sorry, never saw it. Just thought I'd toss in the viewpoint of someone who
actually met the (80's) President of (a? the?) Flat Earth Society. The guy
who showed up on the cover of a magazine playful tromping a globe flat.
As for the astronauts on the moon, we all know that green cheese cannot
support any amount of weight. So there you go..... :-)
- Charles
John R Nickolls
programme about the Apollo hoax was shown here just this week.
Already had to fend off a couple of people who are convinced that the
programme was absolutely on the level. (Oh! a flat earth pun there
too.)
Gavin Whittaker
: In article <ad51cl$3uv$1...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>,
: Gavin Whittaker <ah...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
:>In uk.sci.astronomy DrPostman <I...@mysig.emailthere> writted:
:>
:>: see the curvature as well. A LOT of people have done this.
:> It would be convenient to think so, wouldn't it? I can only assume that
:>you are assuming this. <snip>
: Yes the small windows aren't enough to show enough, but from the
: pilot's view you can see a lot more, enough to show the curvature
: (ok I know that's not for the passengers to see!)
Okay, I had the chance to test these hypotheses...
I've just returned from a trip to Poland. 4 flights in total at
cruising altitudes of ca. 32,000'. No sign of any curvature (even with
your glass trick, Sharon!).
More importantly, I had a good chat with two Lufthansa pilots on Saturday
after the flight from Stuttgart to Manchester. Both pilots were absolutely
and emphatically categorical that you cannot perceive the curvature of the
Earth from a plane at normal cruising altitudes (up to 37,000' in their
experience), despite them having looked for it (I thought it curious that
they had actively looked for it, and that they have evidently had this sort
of discussion before). They do not know of any colleagues who have observed
it, either.
ATB,
Gavin
John R Nickolls
reasonably certain I have seen curvature from high-flying RAF aircraft
in the Near and Middle East. I have certainly seen the Earth's shadow
projecting into the atmosphere early in the morning, and that clearly
shows a curve.
--
Gavin Whittaker
: That's an interesting set of observations Gavin. However, I'm
: reasonably certain I have seen curvature from high-flying RAF aircraft
: in the Near and Middle East. I have certainly seen the Earth's shadow
: projecting into the atmosphere early in the morning, and that clearly
: shows a curve.
Thanks, John,
The RAF experience is consistent with the claim that you can
observe the curvature from Concorde.
The second observation is a very interesting one - I'll have to think
about whether there are any potential flaws, but it looks to be the best
evidence on this thread. Is this from the Earth's surface or at
altitude, though?
ATB,
Sharon Curtis
Gavin Whittaker <ah...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>In uk.sci.astronomy Sharon Curtis <s...@groat.cs.stir.ac.uk> writted:
>: In article <ad51cl$3uv$1...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>,
>: Gavin Whittaker <ah...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>:>In uk.sci.astronomy DrPostman <I...@mysig.emailthere> writted:
>:>
>:>: Anyone who had flown on a commercial airliner on a clear day can
>:>: see the curvature as well. A LOT of people have done this.
>
>:> It would be convenient to think so, wouldn't it? I can only assume that
>:>you are assuming this. <snip>
>
>: Yes the small windows aren't enough to show enough, but from the
>: pilot's view you can see a lot more, enough to show the curvature
>: (ok I know that's not for the passengers to see!)
>
> Okay, I had the chance to test these hypotheses...
>
> I've just returned from a trip to Poland. 4 flights in total at
>cruising altitudes of ca. 32,000'. No sign of any curvature (even with
>your glass trick, Sharon!).
Hmmm.
Looking at it scientifically, how far away can you see on the
earth's surface? 50 miles? 100 miles? And how far does that
translate to in terms of degrees (imagine two points x distance
apart both joined by straight lines to the earth's centre - what's
the angle between those lines).
If you can see 1 (or x) degrees away from the point you're flying over,
then your horizon is 1 (or x) degrees below the level. Is this enough
to perceive a curvature? I don't know. If the horizon suddenly
dropped by two sun diameters, would it still look straight? Maybe.
But the curvature is still there, even if it doesn't appear to be.
>after the flight from Stuttgart to Manchester. Both pilots were absolutely
>and emphatically categorical that you cannot perceive the curvature of the
>Earth from a plane at normal cruising altitudes (up to 37,000' in their
>experience), despite them having looked for it (I thought it curious that
>they had actively looked for it, and that they have evidently had this sort
>of discussion before).
You thought it curious? When the one view out of the window is
the horizon?!?!?!?
steve
How hard would it be to establish that two, reasonably long pendulums,
placed say one mile apart are not parallel. The pendulums would both
point to the centre of the earth, if they are not actually in motion, or
at least assuming that the effect of local masses could be neglected.
A collimated laser system, and mirrors mounted perpedicular to the
support could be a start.
Steve
Chris Marriott
during any lunar eclipse, that the Earth's shadow is circular. That, surely,
is pretty firm evidence that the Earth is a sphere, isn't it?
Regards,
--
Chris
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Marriott, SkyMap Software, UK
e-mail: ch...@skymap.com Web site: http://www.skymap.com
Astronomy software written by astronomers, for astronomers
John R Nickolls
The shadow was seen on several occasions at or above 35,000
Gavin Whittaker wrote:
>
> In uk.sci.astronomy John R Nickolls <nick...@ihug.co.nz> writted:
> : That's an interesting set of observations Gavin. However, I'm
> : reasonably certain I have seen curvature from high-flying RAF aircraft
> : in the Near and Middle East. I have certainly seen the Earth's shadow
> : projecting into the atmosphere early in the morning, and that clearly
> : shows a curve.
>
> Thanks, John,
>
> The RAF experience is consistent with the claim that you can
> observe the curvature from Concorde.
>
> The second observation is a very interesting one - I'll have to think
> about whether there are any potential flaws, but it looks to be the best
> evidence on this thread. Is this from the Earth's surface or at
> altitude, though?
>
> ATB
<snip>
steve
> What about the trivial observation, which can be made with the naked eye
> during any lunar eclipse, that the Earth's shadow is circular. That, surely,
> is pretty firm evidence that the Earth is a sphere, isn't it?
If you were being particularly obtuse, couldn't you argue that you were
on a flat, circular disk ?
Steve
Andrew Carol
<st...@astronomycentre.org.uk> wrote:
You can tell the earth is round because you can note the elevation of
the North Star varies according to your latitude, but does not vary by
your longitude.
Of course the North Star is not EXACTLY over the north pole, but it is
certainly close enough to make the point.
Communicating with someone even a few hundred miles north or south of
you (or making the trip yourself) can provide all the proof you need.
---- Andy
Jonathan Vogt
elliptical sphere , that seems to tie in with most observations so I'll
go along with that... Jon
--
Jonathan Vogel
Gavin Whittaker
: I've been chatting to my mate God and he insists he made the Earth an
: elliptical sphere , that seems to tie in with most observations so I'll
: go along with that... Jon
Only 'most'? ISTR that Relativity stemmed from the fact that Newtonian
mechanics only worked most of the time. Out of curiosity, what
observations don't fit the details of your chat with God, or was that a
slip of the typing finger?
Gavin
Jonathan Vogt
<ah...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> writes
with the curtains drawn, indicate that the world is an oblong Persian
carpet , with a Hi Fi, TV , dining table sitting on it and a book shelf
in one corner.... Jon
--
Jonathan Vogel
Gavin Whittaker
Coool. How would you feel about starting a parascientific movement based
on that premise? The only problem I see is explaining the existence of
Persia. Have you any evidence that a manned landing on Persia is not a
hoax?
I'm finally going to allow myself the luxury of a smiley on this
thread:
;-)
Gavin
traveler
> On Mon, 20 May 2002 10:37:44 +1200, a wanderer, known to us only as
> "John Burns (NZ)" <johnbu...@NOhotmailSPAM.com> warmed at our fire
> and told this tale:
>
> >Yes, thats right... the earth is flat - and if you didn't think that was
> >enough, the sun revolves around the earth! And...the transistor comes from
> >alien technology, and JFK was assasinated and .... and .... and
> >..............
>
> AhHA! If the sun revolves around the Earth, WHERE DOES IT GO AT
> NIGHT? BWAHAHA!!!
To the dark side, where else?
traveler
> Damn!
> I'm less educated than I thought
>
> A sun that undergoes a metamorphosis on a daily basis - now thats a great
> theory.
>
> I was actually looking at some photos of the sun and moon recently and
> noticed that part of the sun seemed to have a 'am' marked on it, while the
> moon appeared to have a 'pm' on it. Do you think that the moon and the sun
> are hoaxes themselves?? - This could add a dramatic twist to the moon hoax
> thing, after all, if the moon is a hoax, then would actually landing on the
> hoaxed moon be considered a hoax, or would it be an official landing??
Now you're onto something. The only reality is that which can be
learned from watching television. All else is illusion. Now get up
and go to work like a good little yuppie. That's right. Have your
2.2 kids, your mortgage and your car payment, buy lots of insurance,
and vote for the candidate of your choice. That's all life is, and
nothing more, oh, except for Brad Pitt and Jennifer Lopez and Madonna
and (who's that turkey?) George Clooney. Aren't you happy now? What
do you mean there has got to be more? Send the boys out in the white
coats. He is "depressed" and not taking his meds.
DrPostman
prophecy wrote:
>Now you're onto something. The only reality is that which can be
>learned from watching television. All else is illusion.
Chauncey? Chauncey Gardner, is that you?
Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Member,Board of Directors of afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULT® member #15-51506-253.
You can email me at: jamie_eckles(at)hotmail.com
>HI
> I sow sometimes
-Theo <byj...@ch.inter.net>
Jonathan Vogt
> Coool. How would you feel about starting a parascientific movement based
>on that premise? The only problem I see is explaining the existence of
>Persia. Have you any evidence that a manned landing on Persia is not a
>hoax?
I have a really old atlas which has Persia marked , thats a start
> I'm finally going to allow myself the luxury of a smiley on this
>thread:
>
Gavin , a smile should not be a luxury
anyway enough of this nonsense , back to the scope , oh its cloudy..
Jon
--
Jonathan Vogel
Gavin Whittaker
:> Coool. How would you feel about starting a parascientific movement based
:>on that premise? The only problem I see is explaining the existence of
:>Persia. Have you any evidence that a manned landing on Persia is not a
:>hoax?
: I have a really old atlas which has Persia marked , thats a start
Yes, but no pictures on Neil Armstrong on there, are there?
:> I'm finally going to allow myself the luxury of a smiley on this
:>thread:
: Gavin , a smile should not be a luxury
Don't misunderstand me, I smile a lot, it's just that I've actually been
serious on this thread about the general absence of evidence (for most
people) for a spherical planet. Most people really don't know why they
think the Earth isn't flat, except for evidence taken totally on trust.
: anyway enough of this nonsense , back to the scope , oh its cloudy..
You still have a telescope? I've converted mine into a rain gauge.
ATB, Gavin
John Burns (NZ)
Its fun, or should be.....
Sending a gps and transmitter with a digital camera in an insulated box up
into the sky trailing behind a huge Weather Balloon. I don't know why, but
taking photos of the curvature of the earth from 100,000feet up in the air
appeals
John Burns
f i l e - i t @ x t r a . c o . n z
01000001 01100100 00100000 01000001 01110011 01110100 01110010 01100001
00100000 01110000 01100101 01110010 00100000 01000001 01110010 01100100
01110101 01100001
"Gavin Whittaker" <ah...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:aea43h$2ps$1...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk...
Jonathan Vogt
<ah...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> writes
I could cut one out of a magazine and stick it on.
>
>
> Don't misunderstand me, I smile a lot, it's just that I've actually been
>serious on this thread about the general absence of evidence (for most
>people) for a spherical planet. Most people really don't know why they
>think the Earth isn't flat, except for evidence taken totally on trust.
Fair enough , one piece of evidence I have from an airline pilot
friend of mine to indicate that the earth is not flat is the fact that
it is a shorter distance across the Atlantic if you follow an arc , if
the earth were flat the shortest distance would be a straight line ,
no!!
>: anyway enough of this nonsense , back to the scope , oh its cloudy..
>
> You still have a telescope? I've converted mine into a rain gauge.
What bloody good idea , meteorology now that would be a good hobby
I've got the scope out two nights running early this week cos the sky
was clear , come 9:30 , solid cloud $*&£%$^&..... Jon V
--
Jonathan Vogel
Sharon Curtis
Jonathan Vogt <j...@appscintech.com> wrote:
>In article <aea43h$2ps$1...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>, Gavin Whittaker
><ah...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> writes
>>In uk.sci.astronomy Jonathan Vogt <j...@appscintech.com> writted:
>>
>> Yes, but no pictures on Neil Armstrong on there, are there?
>
> I could cut one out of a magazine and stick it on.
>>
>>
>> Don't misunderstand me, I smile a lot, it's just that I've actually been
>>serious on this thread about the general absence of evidence (for most
>>people) for a spherical planet. Most people really don't know why they
>>think the Earth isn't flat, except for evidence taken totally on trust.
I dunno about *totally* on trust. I think the main thing is maps.
You take the maps on trust, yes, but then when you actually go somewhere,
you realise that whilst the map may have inaccuracies, it isn't
greatly lying to you. You see satellite images that supposedly come
from satellites, and they bear a remarkable resemblance to the maps.
You can see satellites yourself in the sky, and if they weren't
really there, who on earth is producing all the updated satellite
images which coincide with the weather? It's not so much direct
evidence (like the shadow of the earth across the eclipsed moon) but
there's an awful lot of evidence supporting the earth-is-round in
little bits and pieces. Like here (56N) Antares is very low in
the sky indeed. If I go south, Antares is much higher in the sky.
I moved North some years ago and now experience a much greater
amount of midsummer midnight light than further south.
Going back to the average person, I would point to maps and looking
out of aeroplane windows.
Sharon
Andy Guthrie
"steve" <st...@astronomycentre.org.uk> wrote in message
news:3D05E598...@astronomycentre.org.uk...
>
> How hard would it be to establish that two, reasonably long pendulums,
> placed say one mile apart are not parallel. The pendulums would both
> point to the centre of the earth, if they are not actually in motion, or
> at least assuming that the effect of local masses could be neglected.
>
> A collimated laser system, and mirrors mounted perpedicular to the
> support could be a start.
>
further apart at the top than the bottom. It shouldn't be too difficult to
demonstrate the above.
An alternative is to plant three posts in a calm shallow stretch of water,
one mile apart, such that each rises the same distance above the water. By
taking a sight from the top of one of the end posts, measure how far above
the straight line to the top of the third post the top of the middle one is.
This, I think, is about 8 inches, if my sums are correct.
AG
Andy Guthrie
"Sharon Curtis" <s...@groat.cs.stir.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:aeacqp$mbv$1...@groat.cs.stir.ac.uk...
> >In article <aea43h$2ps$1...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>, Gavin Whittaker
> >>
> >> Don't misunderstand me, I smile a lot, it's just that I've actually
been
> >>serious on this thread about the general absence of evidence (for most
> >>people) for a spherical planet. Most people really don't know why they
> >>think the Earth isn't flat, except for evidence taken totally on trust.
>
> I dunno about *totally* on trust. I think the main thing is maps.
> You take the maps on trust, yes, but then when you actually go somewhere,
> you realise that whilst the map may have inaccuracies, it isn't
> greatly lying to you. You see satellite images that supposedly come
> from satellites, and they bear a remarkable resemblance to the maps.
> You can see satellites yourself in the sky, and if they weren't
> really there, who on earth is producing all the updated satellite
> images which coincide with the weather? It's not so much direct
> evidence (like the shadow of the earth across the eclipsed moon) but
> there's an awful lot of evidence supporting the earth-is-round in
> little bits and pieces. Like here (56N) Antares is very low in
> the sky indeed. If I go south, Antares is much higher in the sky.
> I moved North some years ago and now experience a much greater
> amount of midsummer midnight light than further south.
>
> Going back to the average person, I would point to maps and looking
> out of aeroplane windows.
>
What other explanation is there for the fact that, from an aeroplane at any
altitude, it is impossible to see anything on the surface beyond a seemingly
perfect circle, things which come into view after travelling a small
distance in any direction. Doesn't look like atmospherics, as the line is
sharp and the same in all directions, and a sea horizon rules out land
undulations. Anyway, easy to show you can see further the higher you go
whatever the local conditions. There is only one explanation.
AG
number six
Andy Guthrie wrote:
Have we already slipped so far as to have to argue the
oblate sheroidness of our planet? Cheez and crackers!
>
>