Paella wrote on Apr 18^th, 2010 at 7:45pm:


Yep. Hence the Spirit level in my original post. You don't need particularly long sticks or a particularly long tape measure either. One from Bunnings will do the trick.  If you want to get technical just use a theodolite (projecting the image of the sun)


Your other methods are perfectly valid.

I brought up the Keplerian elements because if we can track a Low Earth Satellite using Keps, that provides proof of the precise shape of the Earth. I don't see why we should limit ourselves to Stone Age equipment. The allegation was that we couldn't prove that the Earth was an oblate speroid, subsequently amended to - without going into orbit. (You do know that driving in reverse gear so fast can be hazardous?)

Going back to the 15th- 16th Century, Newton's theory of gravitation predicted the Earth to be an oblate ellipsoid with a flattening of 1:230, which is pretty damn close.

Grendel, has it occurred to you that if we didn't know the exact shape of the Earth before the first space probes were launched that they would have probably had some major problems?  

I just read back through the thread beo. Looks pretty good to me. The bit about satellites came in much later.

But anyway ... how then, wiseguy, did it become known well before the 1950s, that the Earth is an ellipsoid?

here's a tip. Try at least googling a topic before you post your ... ummm ... knowledge (?) on it.

OK. Let's get back on track. Grendel has clarified the fact that he can't prove that the Earth isn't flat, because despite some of his posts, he's never been in outer space. His technical specialty is in the altogether different field of climatology - and there he knows what's right and wrong just by ....a feeling in his bones.

- After all - it's just the weather.... isn't it?  

Yes I agree Muso, let's get back on track. Beo can be right. Muso, Paella and Isaac Newton can be wrong.

Paella wrote on Apr 20^th, 2010 at 10:00am:

Is this too complicated for you beo?

Should I put it in simpler terms? Pick one of the following:

1. You're right, I'm wrong.

2. It is impossible to prove the Earth is an Ellipsoid, sorry ... oblate spheroid. It can't be done, it's never been done.

3. Beo is right. Beo is alsways right.

Can we move on now?

"Climate Doubt Acknowledge by Alarmists".

We've been through this with soren. I think we got him to understand in the end, but this will be a bigger step up for beo.

Uncertainty is inherent in science. Moreover, there is uncertainty in our ability to observe and comprehend the physical universe. To fail to acknowledge uncertainty is not so much bad science, it is unscientific.

You will not find a scientifically stated conclusion that fails to acknowledge its inherent uncertainty. Generally, the uncertainty in the conclusion is not only stated, it will be quantified. So "Climate Doubt" isn't just acknowledged, it's quantified and published. The above headline is hardly a revelation, merely a misrepresentation.

To confuse scientific consensus with scientific certainty belies that the author either has no understanding of the scientific method, or that he does understand the scientific method and is deliberately attempting to mislead his readers (and given the publication in which the article appeared, this would not be very difficult).

Once again: science cannot absolutely and positively prove anything. It doesn't even lay claim to being able to do so. In fact, science can demonstrate that this is not possible. Science relies on inductive reasoning, so there can always be an undiscovered exception. It is impossible to prove that something does not exist, so it is impossible to prove that an undiscovered exception does not exist.

A scientific consensus means that agreement on the theory is so widespread that the theory can be considered a scientific fact. A scientific fact is a theory that the scientific community is so confident in that it is willing to proceed on the assumption that it is true. It can thereafter be used as a premise. There will always be dissenters, but not enough to deny a consensus. Remember, you can still find qualified scientists who believe that nicotine is not addictive, and others that believe in intelligent design. Roughly, they are about as numerous as the ones that do not accept AGW (and unsurprisingly, there is  a big overlap in ID scientists and denialist scientists).

The level of agreement within the scientific community on global warming (that is, it is occurring and it is caused by human activity) has long had such a degree of widespread support in the scientific community that it can be considered a scientific fact. Some examples of other scientific theories that have been elevated to scientific facts are germ theory (once as controversial as AGW), heat transfer, universal gravitation, relativity, (most of) quantum theory, evolution and yes, even the theory that the earth is an ellipsoid ... sorry, oblate spheroid.

Theoretically, so to speak, if I were to drop a billiard ball on to my desk, it is only a theory that the desk will stop it from falling. It is consistent with the laws of physics that none of the electromagnetic fields in the billiard ball will interact with any of the electromagnetic fields in the desk, and the ball will just pass straight through. But this is very, very improbable. If calculated in terms of "one in x", the x would be greater than the number of atoms in the universe. But it could still happen. So there is a degree of uncertainty in stating "if I drop this ball on my desk, the desk will stop it from falling", even though it can safely be considered a scientific fact that the desk will, indeed, stop the ball.

The tobacco industry successfully exploited the inherent uncertainty of the scientific method for many years. The intelligent design lobby is now trying the same tactic, with considerably less success. The fossil fuel industry is also sending out a lot of dog whistles about "doubt", but they seem to be realising that governments, as well as the general public, are pretty well on to it. Then there are the lunatic fringe denialists, who, like some of the intelligent design crew, actually seem to believe it.

Some people believe strange things. That is a fact.

Look you idiots I studied Science, I also studied Chemistry and Physics, I understand "uncertainty" and can even quote Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (not that I'm a fan of it) or discuss Max Planck or Niels Bohr if you like.

There is no uncertainty in what you believe. Unlike skeptics or people you defame by calling them deniers.  You are a sad lot of hypocrites.

Quote:


Yes, like; the Earth is flat, the Sun orbits the Earth, Phlogiston theory, Aristotle's dynamic motion, the existence of "Ether" as a medium, classical elemental theory (earth, air, fire and water).

Quote:


Which leads us to that old chestnut that when you ASSUME...  YOU make an ASS of U and ME...

We have been trying to say to you lot quite simply that there is dissent and difference of opinion re AGW...  I note you say it is in fact a CONTROVERSIAL.... THEORY.

So then it is NOT A PROVEN FACT?  Really?  Well what do you know.
BTW the theory that EARTH is an OBLATE SPHEROID is NOT a THEORY.  It is a PROVEN FACT.

Yes some people are in denial...  it isn't the skeptics.