Jump to content

Flat Earth?


gerrydandridge
 Share

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, paul's got wright said:

Chinahand what is the independent variable in the cavendish "experiment" ?

Don't forget to brush up on the scientific method x

Why don't you try to understand it yourself.  The paper is here.

The independent and dependent variables are very clearly explained.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, TheTeapot said:

If you shrank the earth down to the size of a golf ball it would be smoother than a smooth thing.

Comparison is usually with a snooker ball. Link here. Apparently earth is as round as a snooker ball - the ‘oblateness’ of the spheroid is minuscule - but it’s a bit rough, due to the mountains and stuff. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Bobbie Bobster said:

I'm not going to watch that particular sinkfull of water swirl down the plughole, thank you very much!

I saw something like that on TV recently and that there was two sinks next to each other but both spiralled different ways.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Chinahand said:

Why don't you try to understand it yourself.  The paper is here.

The independent and dependent variables are very clearly explained.  

 

I already understand it as you know fine well china.

What is the independent variable please. Lets scrutinize your alleged proof together. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, paul's got wright said:

I already understand it as you know fine well china.

What is the independent variable please. Lets scrutinize your alleged proof together. 

 

The independent variable in Cavendish’s experiment is D. The critical dependent variable is N. Agree?

“Let’s scrutinise your alleged proof together.“ 

Oh goodness it isn’t mine, it isn’t a proof this is science not mathematics and to be frank this is tedious beyond words but please do tell us what Cavendish has done wrong. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Chinahand said:

The independent variable in Cavendish’s experiment is D. The critical dependent variable is N. Agree?

“Let’s scrutinise your alleged proof together.“ 

Oh goodness it isn’t mine, it isn’t a proof this is science not mathematics and to be frank this is tedious beyond words but please do tell us what Cavendish has done wrong. 

Come now china, for the audience, d being what exactly? 

Yes i have explained to you before none of the claimed proofs you have offered, are yours. You just believe in them. You have faith. 

Also, N being?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, paul's got wright said:

Which fe model gerry there are many?   (I cannot find one that will predict the angle of elevation of the sun as the globe model does), If you move around the globe say from the equator to the northern pole it is predictable as to how high the sun is in the sky depending on where you stand and the time you make the measurement. If we take any FE map and try this is simply does not work. To overlook this flaw when its pointed out  requires cognitive dissonance.

Also, do you accept that any model must be verified scientifically, if it is to be used to to demonstrate anything in the real world?  Do vast bodies of water conform to a curve gerry? Can you demonstrate it scientifically?  Who first came up with the concept of the earth as a sphere? What was their religious position, political stance etc.  Has a yone done a modern day experiment that scientifically proves the earth to be a rotating sphere? The problem with science is that it is looking at a material world, take out dark energy and dark matter and science is comparing everything to the 4% of existence that they can measure, the other 96% is out of sight and ignored, science is very much the religion of the atheist, its riddled with fraud, especially when we look into our origins, masses of curved oceans don't make sense,

I respect your belief but surely scientific proof is the bench mark when discuseing the shape of the earth? (as above, show me a FE map that predicts the elevation of the sun at noon or any other time in certain positions on the FE map)

To add, I am fully with you in a sense that we have been lied to by NASA and world governments, I cant come to a conclusion as to if we are spinning or static and perhaps the objects in the sky are the only things moving....I think space exists and that we are visited by space travellers all the time, however I don't think we can ever leave this construct with our biological bodies, the moon landings and images of earth and other planets are  likely fraudulent. It is hard to discern fully as with all things I find truth is purposely hidden in a pot of lies, so some aspects of both flat and globe earth are likely correct, but they have been purposely mixed to obfuscate and this is designed to divide us once again.

Would you agree that if a FE model cannot predict the elevation of the sun correctly, on a given day at a given time in various locations on the FE map then it has to be wrong,because we can observe this physically by going to these places at the correct times, the globe predicts this.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, paul's got wright said:

You just believe in them. You have faith.

As has been explained multiple times already belief and faith when used in the context of science mean something very different from the religious meaning.

Tim Minchin put it pretty well:

"Science adjusts its views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved."

And there's also Stephen Gould's definition of a fact in science:

"In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent'.

Science works because it is useful - most often this enables you to predict something - and the "faith" you have in the prediction is based on the confidence gained from it repeatedly been shown to be correct.

It is perverse to think that the acceleration due to gravity isn't 9.8 plus or minus a bit m/s2.  You don't hold that fact on faith, you hold it due to confidence that it is accurate based on it been tested huge numbers of times.

Every time someone uses a sextant and a chronometer and measures the position of the sun, and then compares that position to the position of the sun at the same time at a known place - say where the Greenwich meridian crosses the equator, and hence predicts they are a certain distance across the globe from that point they are running a little experiment to verify the shape of the earth. 

The prediction you make for where you are, based on the assumption of the earth being a globe is useful - it actually works and can be used to work out where you are.

You can have faith in the tables and charts used for navigation.  This faith, belief, isn't a blind faith, or a guess.  It is a meaningful confidence, based on the prediction been shown to be accurate multiple times.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...