Sun spots?

Just a curiosity, what is the FE view on Sun spots? They can be viewed with no special equipment and are in constant motion. You can view them tracking from one side to the other, then disappearing on the leading edge.

Just wondering the FE view on them if the sun and planet dont rotate.

Just a curiosity, what is the FE view on Sun spots? They can be viewed with no special equipment and are in constant motion. You can view them tracking from one side to the other, then disappearing on the leading edge.

Just wondering the FE view on them if the sun and planet dont rotate.

The sun is round, and travels in circles around the top of the Earth. It works the exact same way as in the RE Theory.

~D-Draw

Strange. I thought the FE theory says the Sun (and moon) is flat? Isn't that what Rowbotham claims, and explains, in his book?

Strange. I thought the FE theory says the Sun (and moon) is flat? Isn't that what Rowbotham claims, and explains, in his book?

Book? B-o-o-k? You mean holy text!

Quote from: "Xargo"

Strange. I thought the FE theory says the Sun (and moon) is flat? Isn't that what Rowbotham claims, and explains, in his book?

Book? B-o-o-k? You mean holy text!

Holy?

Quote from: "Yeah, sure..."

Quote from: "Xargo"

Strange. I thought the FE theory says the Sun (and moon) is flat? Isn't that what Rowbotham claims, and explains, in his book?

Book? B-o-o-k? You mean holy text!

Holy?

Uh, no, sacred. Then it's alright.
(just one word for both in my language btw, strange...)

Um, I mean Rowbothams book "Earth not a globe" (or something like that). There's nothing holy or sacred about it.

Quote from: "TheEngineer"

Quote from: "Yeah, sure..."

Quote from: "Xargo"

Strange. I thought the FE theory says the Sun (and moon) is flat? Isn't that what Rowbotham claims, and explains, in his book?

Book? B-o-o-k? You mean holy text!

Holy?

Uh, no, sacred. Then it's alright.
(just one word for both in my language btw, strange...)

Sacred Text is just the website that it is available on.  It does not mean that it is holy or sacred.  As the website says:

Welcome to the largest freely available archive of full-text books about religion, mythology, folklore and the esoteric on the Internet.

Glad we got that sorted out.
Anyways...

The sun is round, and travels in circles around the top of the Earth. It works the exact same way as in the RE Theory.

Strange. I thought the FE theory says the Sun (and moon) is flat? Isn't that what Rowbotham claims, and explains, in his book?

We don't condone EVERYTHING that Rowbotham says, necessarily. He may have claimed the sun and moon were flat (honestly, I'm not sure if he did or not), but it's quite obvious that that's not true, since we can see otherwise. Just because Flat Earthers believe some things out of a specific text doesn't mean they have to officially accept ALL of it.

~D-Draw

Quote from: "TheEngineer"

Quote from: "Yeah, sure..."

Quote from: "Xargo"

Strange. I thought the FE theory says the Sun (and moon) is flat? Isn't that what Rowbotham claims, and explains, in his book?

Book? B-o-o-k? You mean holy text!

Holy?

Uh, no, sacred. Then it's alright.
(just one word for both in my language btw, strange...)

Holy and Sacred have virtually the same meaning in English, they are simply two different words. You could use either word for any situation where either one is appropriate.

Engineer was just feigning surprise that you would call someone's book sacred/holy to FE'ers simply because it talks about the same thing.

Similar to calling the Bible holy to Jews just because it talks about a Jewish guy being a mossiah.

The sun is round, and travels in circles around the top of the Earth. It works the exact same way as in the RE Theory.

Strange. I thought the FE theory says the Sun (and moon) is flat? Isn't that what Rowbotham claims, and explains, in his book?

Can you point out where Rowbotham claims the sun is a disc? As far as I'm aware he claimes that the sun is a sphere. He certainly claims that the moon is a sphere.

Can you point out where Rowbotham claims the sun is a disc? As far as I'm aware he claimes that the sun is a sphere. He certainly claims that the moon is a sphere.

I got what I wanted when Diego posted the following:

We don't condone EVERYTHING that Rowbotham says, necessarily. He may have claimed the sun and moon were flat (honestly, I'm not sure if he did or not), but it's quite obvious that that's not true, since we can see otherwise. Just because Flat Earthers believe some things out of a specific text doesn't mean they have to officially accept ALL of it.

You mean you choose yourself what's correct and what's not? Scientifical truth = Your personal opinion?

If I we're to read a scientifical text, and found that several parts of it is flawed and/or incorrect (as in Rowbotham's case), I would start questioning the authenticy of the over-all work. Wouldn't you?..

If I we're to read a scientifical text, and found that several parts of it is flawed and/or incorrect (as in Rowbotham's case), I would start questioning the authenticy of the over-all work. Wouldn't you?..

That's just common sense.

I note again however how FE ers will jump at every opportunity to reply to an off topic comment rather than the topic itself.

I note again however how FE ers will jump at every opportunity to reply to an off topic comment rather than the topic itself.

That's a lie and you know it.  

That's a lie and you know it.  

No it isn't.

Of course it is. Flat Earthers only ever discuss the important, on-topic issues.

How can you be so cruel?

How can you be so cruel?

It's easy to be cruel towards idiots.

Zing!      

I only wish I could be as funny as you!!!  :lol:

Zing!      
I only wish I could be as funny as you!!!  :lol:

Takes years of practice and self-control, midgard... And then, when you least expect it... KA-CHING!!  :x

You mean you choose yourself what's correct and what's not? Scientifical truth = Your personal opinion?

If I we're to read a scientifical text, and found that several parts of it is flawed and/or incorrect (as in Rowbotham's case), I would start questioning the authenticy of the over-all work. Wouldn't you?..

Yep, and it has been questioned, I assure you. But all of the rest of it makes sense, so there's no problem with the text as a whole; just parts of it.

~D-DRaw

lol. I rest my case.