The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: OompaHolzbach on October 02, 2008, 01:33:11 PM
-
As stated above. ?
-
what experiments are you talking about. If the results still work today why not? Why reinvent the wheel.
-
Because in my experience, they don't hold up.
-
Truth doesn't have an expiration date.
-
Because in my experience, they don't hold up.
You have a lot of experience with century-old experiments do you? Specifically failed ones?
-
Yeah, who cares about what scientists said a hundred years ago? Relativity is so old-fashioned, not to mention Newton's laws of motion.
-
You have a lot of experience with century-old experiments do you? Specifically failed ones?
Well, I read Earth is Not a Globe, so yes.
-
Well, I read Earth is Not a Globe, so yes.
So you've performed the experiments in Earth Not a Globe yourself?
-
So you've performed the experiments in Earth Not a Globe yourself?
Well, I have finished about three by now, and so far, not one was happened like Rowbotham has said it would.
-
So you've performed the experiments in Earth Not a Globe yourself?
Well, I have finished about three by now, and so far, not one was happened like Rowbotham has said it would.
That's interesting to me, could you tell/show (me)? I don't mind if it is by a PM, but i'm really interested, thank you!
-
That's interesting to me, could you tell/show (me)? I don't mind if it is by a PM, but i'm really interested, thank you!
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=23667.0 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=23667.0)
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=23177.0 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=23177.0)
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=23557.0 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=23557.0)
-
Truth doesn't have an expiration date.
You've got to admit that's a great quote.
-
Ok. I had read the threads with the pictures, but not the one about the peanuts, anyway I didn't know they were experiments in ENaG. Very good effort, thanks a lot, and I hope FE'ers some day will make an effort to sound the half convincing.
By the way, every day I'm more and more sure that Tom Bishop is just a guy who enters here to have fun and piss off people. He is not a FE'er nor anything, just one person doing a role in the forum. It has been stated clear on those threads.
-
Because in my experience, they don't hold up.
Good Call... the Michelson Morley experiment should be trusted but the interpretation of what it meant should perhaps be re-evaluated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment
The Foucault Pendulum Need desperate attention as well...
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast06aug99_1.htm
This is a project which last I heard was losing funding and in danger of missing it's objective.
http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn13938-gravity-probe-b-scores-f-in-nasa-review.html
-
Good Call... the Michelson Morley experiment should be trusted but the interpretation of what it meant should perhaps be re-evaluated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment
Through the years, the results have remained the same with continued experimentation. Whether the interpretation shifts to something that supports the wavelike nature of matter, that could be one of the interesting areas of quantum theory over the next years.
The Foucault Pendulum Need desperate attention as well...
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast06aug99_1.htm
I haven't seen any contrary data resulting from those series of observations. That article was published almost a decade ago. Even a search of the original author doesn't really bring up any post-1999 data.
This is a project which last I heard was losing funding and in danger of missing it's objective.
http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn13938-gravity-probe-b-scores-f-in-nasa-review.html
Hmm, a project wasn't meeting the expectations of the people providing the funding, so it is being cut. I am not sure about your point on that one.
-
Yeah, who cares about what scientists said a hundred years ago? Relativity is so old-fashioned, not to mention Newton's laws of motion.
Ummm, isn't that what FEers claim every day?
-
Yeah, who cares about what scientists said a hundred years ago? Relativity is so old-fashioned, not to mention Newton's laws of motion.
Ummm, isn't that what FEers claim every day?
They rely on some form of measured skepticism I assume, however his comment does seem to be contradictory to his own words at times.
-
The age of the experiments is not of importance. It's all about whether the experiments deliver consistent results, whether they make verifiable predictions, whether they are falsifiable etc. Einsteins theories, while obviously not 100% perfect, have been corroborated consistently, they've made accurate predictions and have been widely verified by the scientific community and have thus held up to this day.
Rowbothams ramblings are a different story altogether. His theories don't stand up to scrutiny, he completely ignored (or made false assuptions/claims about) certain factors (such as sunrise and sunset, the southern hemisphere etc.) and his experiments could not be consistently repeated by the scientific community.
-
Yeah, who cares about what scientists said a hundred years ago? Relativity is so old-fashioned, not to mention Newton's laws of motion.
Ummm, isn't that what FEers claim every day?
I don't think any FEers believe that relativity and Newton's laws of motion are useless.