Chiff and Fipple Forums

s1m0n wrote:... Ezekiel's 'wheel within a wheel'...

which is enough to find some text to go with the image. Very apt, Dr Phil

david_h wrote:

s1m0n wrote:... Ezekiel's 'wheel within a wheel'...

which is enough to find some text to go with the image. Very apt, Dr Phil

Thank you.

But, being dumb, I am not sure why it is apt. I was playing off the flat-earth thing and raising awareness of Flammarion's delightful woodcut. I do not mind being 'apt' - in fact I am reveling in it. But if I can figure out the trick I might manage again sometime......

DrPhill wrote:But, being dumb, I am not sure why it is apt...

Simply that, as I think you intended, it plays off the shenanigans at Bedford Level very well. What Google found me was:

"A naïve missionary of the Middle Ages even tells us that, in one of his voyages in search of the terrestrial paradise, he reached the horizon where the earth and the heavens met, and that he discovered a certain point where they were not joined together, and where, by stooping his shoulders, he passed under the roof of the heavens." Camille Flammarion, L’atmosphère: météorologie populaire, 1888." https://newgottland.com/2012/02/08/more ... in-wheels/

By the mid 19th century (though I have not looked up when) surveyors and navigators had a lot of experience of atmospheric refraction, such that they could probably pick a day and time when there was, or was not, likely to be an inversion that made the earth look flat. I guess opposing experts trying to convince a court would have had the lawyers laughing their way to the bank.

OK, thanks. I thought I had accidentally been more clever.

But you are right about my intent. It irritates me that we can say on one day 'the atmospheric conditions are just wrong so the experiment does not tell the truth' and on another day 'these are the right conditions, see it proves our case'. I would be tempted to dismiss both as equally unreliable.

Happened in school too, when measuring the acceleration due to gravity. All of our results 'tended to the low side'. So we picked the highest because, as the teacher explained, 'it was the one least affected by friction'. I learned an important lesson that day, but not the one on the syllabus.

david_h wrote:"A naïve missionary of the Middle Ages even tells us that, in one of his voyages in search of the terrestrial paradise, he reached the horizon where the earth and the heavens met, and that he discovered a certain point where they were not joined together, and where, by stooping his shoulders, he passed under the roof of the heavens."

Hey, bartender? I'll have what he's having.

Nanohedron wrote:Hey, bartender? I'll have what he's having.

A large religious experience? With a slice of doubt, sir?

DrPhill wrote: I would be tempted to dismiss both as equally unreliable.

They probably both give good estimates of refraction at the time of the experiments. By that time the curvature of the earth was known to a hight degree of precision. Something like Bedford Level would be ideal for demonstrating the changes in refraction of light.

david_h wrote:

DrPhill wrote: I would be tempted to dismiss both as equally unreliable.

They probably both give good estimates of refraction at the time of the experiments. By that time the curvature of the earth was known to a hight degree of precision. Something like Bedford Level would be ideal for demonstrating the changes in refraction of light.

Nice idea. Point it the other direction and show how some 'evidence' can be misleading, or how badly constructed 'scientific experiments' can give misleading results. That would make an interesting science lesson. I still want the earth to be flat though. Just to get back at the know-it-alls.

DrPhill wrote:

Nanohedron wrote:Hey, bartender? I'll have what he's having.

A large religious experience? With a slice of doubt, sir?

Nah, just pour me a slug o' them special effects.

chas wrote:I saw this on the WaPo website and find it hilarious. A guy wants to shoot himself up in a “homemade scrap metal rocket” to prove the earth is flat.

I hope he survives this and they publish an interview with him before his next attempt (to go up high enough in the atmosflat to get photographic evidence of the flatness). I wonder what mental gyrations one must use to, for example, think that going a few thousand feet up in a homemade rocket is somehow different from going up in a Cessna.

Well, he finally did it. Banged-up, but he survived.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technolo ... ar-BBKEr5H

Although this time he says the launch was never intended to prove the Earth was flat. Seem a bit facile, if you ask me. Perhaps appropriately, now he wants to run for Governor of California.

Nanohedron wrote:Well, he finally did it. Banged-up, but he survived.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technolo ... ar-BBKEr5H

Although this time he says the launch was never intended to prove the Earth was flat. Seem a bit facile, if you ask me. Perhaps appropriately, now he wants to run for Governor of California.

I’ve been following this guy for a while and this launch was never meant to prove the flat earth theory. He has another rocket planned to go 60-something miles up and photograph the flat earth.

Gov’ner huh? He’ll fit right in!

The flat-earth thing isn't actually something he cares about (and most likely don't believe in either), it's just a gimmick to get funding. He first tried to get funding and got almost nothing, then he re-launched the funding campaign but this time announcing that it was about the flath earth. And it worked (due to the media coverage, probably), he got more money.

Tor wrote:The flat-earth thing isn't actually something he cares about (and most likely don't believe in either), it's just a gimmick to get funding. He first tried to get funding and got almost nothing, then he re-launched the funding campaign but this time announcing that it was about the flath earth. And it worked (due to the media coverage, probably), he got more money.

As Simon pointed out above - crazy like a fox.