The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: len on December 03, 2008, 01:01:47 PM
-
His pseudonym is Parallax.
Does he understand what parallax mean and that if we use the parallax method to determine distance (which we already do) of stars then he himself is a contradicting his theory about the stars, sun, and moon being approximately 3,100 miles away.
I think FET'ers have totally mistaken the work of a brilliant man. I think in the sense that we readily agree with what science teaches us without question, Rowbotham's FET was a metaphorically fiction book based on certain scientific facts designed to get us to think outside of the box. To not readily accept what is spoonfed to us in modern day society. That other possibilities exist. An alternative thought to the norm. Which is perfectly acceptable.
This is my theory of course. I have a new found respect for FET'ers in the sense that they do not accept everything and they question everything that is told to them. Albeit a little crazy with the conspiracy, I think other more substantial theories could replace the conspiracy theory. With a little bit more reasoning, mathematics, and logic there is a chance for FET'ers to have a more core to their theory.
-
Does he understand what parallax mean and that if we use the parallax method to determine distance (which we already do) of stars then he himself is a contradicting his theory about the stars, sun, and moon being approximately 3,100 miles away.
Astronomical parallax relies on the shape of the earth. Rowbotham used astronomical parallax under the assumption of a flat earth to triangulate the sun and stars to be very close to the surface of the earth.
Under the assumption of a globular earth, the sun and stars are triangulated to be millions of miles away.
-
Astronomical parallax relies on the shape of the earth. Rowbotham used astronomical parallax under the assumption of a flat earth to triangulate the sun and stars to be very close to the surface of the earth.
No it does not. Tom do you just come up with these answers?
Distance measurement by parallax is a special case of the principle of triangulation, which states that one can solve for all the sides and angles in a network of triangles if, in addition to all the angles in the network, the length of at least one side has been measured. Thus, the careful measurement of the length of one baseline can fix the scale of an entire triangulation network. In parallax, the triangle is extremely long and narrow, and by measuring both its shortest side (the motion of the observer) and the small top angle (always less than 1 arcsecond,[3] leaving the other two close to 90 degrees), the length of the long sides (in practice considered to be equal) can be determined.
Assuming the angle is small (see derivation below), the distance to an object (measured in parsecs) is the reciprocal of the parallax (measured in arcseconds): d(pc) = 1 / p(arcsec). For example, the distance to Proxima Centauri is 1/0.772=1.29 parsecs (4.2 ly).
It's the triangulation. It works on a FET just as it works on an RET model. The base that is measured is extremly small which makes the triangles long and narrow.
Your rebuttal sir?
-
Christine Garwood seems to think that Rowbotham was in it for the lulz. The fact that this tradition of trolling for attention continues today is testament to the power of Rowbotham's idiotic ideas.
Garwood is the author of the new book explaining FET ideology and history of it correct?
-
No it does not. Tom do you just come up with these answers?
Distance measurement by parallax is a special case of the principle of triangulation, which states that one can solve for all the sides and angles in a network of triangles if, in addition to all the angles in the network, the length of at least one side has been measured. Thus, the careful measurement of the length of one baseline can fix the scale of an entire triangulation network. In parallax, the triangle is extremely long and narrow, and by measuring both its shortest side (the motion of the observer) and the small top angle (always less than 1 arcsecond,[3] leaving the other two close to 90 degrees), the length of the long sides (in practice considered to be equal) can be determined.
Assuming the angle is small (see derivation below), the distance to an object (measured in parsecs) is the reciprocal of the parallax (measured in arcseconds): d(pc) = 1 / p(arcsec). For example, the distance to Proxima Centauri is 1/0.772=1.29 parsecs (4.2 ly).
It's the triangulation. It works on a FET just as it works on an RET model. The base that is measured is extremly small which makes the triangles long and narrow.
Your rebuttal sir?
Nope. The legs of the triangles on an RE wouldn't be on a level surface. Read more.
-
No it does not. Tom do you just come up with these answers?
Distance measurement by parallax is a special case of the principle of triangulation, which states that one can solve for all the sides and angles in a network of triangles if, in addition to all the angles in the network, the length of at least one side has been measured. Thus, the careful measurement of the length of one baseline can fix the scale of an entire triangulation network. In parallax, the triangle is extremely long and narrow, and by measuring both its shortest side (the motion of the observer) and the small top angle (always less than 1 arcsecond,[3] leaving the other two close to 90 degrees), the length of the long sides (in practice considered to be equal) can be determined.
Assuming the angle is small (see derivation below), the distance to an object (measured in parsecs) is the reciprocal of the parallax (measured in arcseconds): d(pc) = 1 / p(arcsec). For example, the distance to Proxima Centauri is 1/0.772=1.29 parsecs (4.2 ly).
It's the triangulation. It works on a FET just as it works on an RET model. The base that is measured is extremly small which makes the triangles long and narrow.
Your rebuttal sir?
Nope. The legs of the triangles on an RE wouldn't be on a level surface. Read more.
You'd be dealing with Riemannian geometry. However, in cases of small distances (less than a thousand miles on the round earth), the curvature would not be noticeably far off. You also claimed on the .net that the angles of a triangle vary with scale, which suggests that you did not pass the high school geometry level.
-
Nope. The legs of the triangles on an RE wouldn't be on a level surface. Read more.
Tom, in order for parallax to work, you have to have a perfectly level/straight base. Which means the involvement of the curvature of the earth will cause the base not to be level or straight. Which means, if you were a RET, you have to rule out the curvature (which is minimal since we're not talking a long base). In essence, adopting FET of a flat earth would be better here. And you'd still get a distance longer than 3,100 miles.
-
Nope. The legs of the triangles on an RE wouldn't be on a level surface. Read more.
Tom, in order for parallax to work, you have to have a perfectly level/straight base. Which means the involvement of the curvature of the earth will cause the base not to be level or straight. Which means, if you were a RET, you have to rule out the curvature (which is minimal since we're not talking a long base). In essence, adopting FET of a flat earth would be better here. And you'd still get a distance longer than 3,100 miles.
You can have a base level enough on a round earth, since the base should be small for parallaxes to work. You would not be almost a hundred million miles off from curvature.
-
Does he understand what parallax mean and that if we use the parallax method to determine distance (which we already do) of stars then he himself is a contradicting his theory about the stars, sun, and moon being approximately 3,100 miles away.
Astronomical parallax relies on the shape of the earth. Rowbotham used astronomical parallax under the assumption of a flat earth to triangulate the sun and stars to be very close to the surface of the earth.
Do you have any data to back up your claims?
-
No it does not. Tom do you just come up with these answers?
Distance measurement by parallax is a special case of the principle of triangulation, which states that one can solve for all the sides and angles in a network of triangles if, in addition to all the angles in the network, the length of at least one side has been measured. Thus, the careful measurement of the length of one baseline can fix the scale of an entire triangulation network. In parallax, the triangle is extremely long and narrow, and by measuring both its shortest side (the motion of the observer) and the small top angle (always less than 1 arcsecond,[3] leaving the other two close to 90 degrees), the length of the long sides (in practice considered to be equal) can be determined.
Assuming the angle is small (see derivation below), the distance to an object (measured in parsecs) is the reciprocal of the parallax (measured in arcseconds): d(pc) = 1 / p(arcsec). For example, the distance to Proxima Centauri is 1/0.772=1.29 parsecs (4.2 ly).
It's the triangulation. It works on a FET just as it works on an RET model. The base that is measured is extremly small which makes the triangles long and narrow.
Your rebuttal sir?
Nope. The legs of the triangles on an RE wouldn't be on a level surface. Read more.
An interesting thing about stellar parallax on an FE - the farther apart the legs of the triangle, the closer the object will be. However, if you move the legs of the triangle closer, then that exact same object will be farther away. An interesting paradox that FET has yet to resolve.
-
Does he understand what parallax mean and that if we use the parallax method to determine distance (which we already do) of stars then he himself is a contradicting his theory about the stars, sun, and moon being approximately 3,100 miles away.
Astronomical parallax relies on the shape of the earth. Rowbotham used astronomical parallax under the assumption of a flat earth to triangulate the sun and stars to be very close to the surface of the earth.
Under the assumption of a globular earth, the sun and stars are triangulated to be millions of miles away.
Tom, if you are correct in your assumptions about parallax (and you are not), then Robotham would have had to violate his own methodology. As Robotham is a Zetetic, and the Zetetic Method requires you not to have initial assumptions, then he has violated his own methodology by having the assumption that they Earth was flat to begin with.
There is a word that describes someone who claims to be one way, but when it is inconvenient for them they violate that claim, it is called Hypocrite.
We can correct this, by assuming both a flat Earth and a Round Earth and making the calculations for both. The one that best fits reality (checked by other methods) is the one that we should accept. This is Zetetic method as well as scientific method. And if You (and Rowbotham) are Zetetics then you should accept the results produced from the Zetetic Method.
Well, one way we can resolve this is to check if the Earth is Flat be a method that would absolutely distinguish between them. As both Flat Earth and Round Earth both say that looking out a window will show you something that looks flat, this method can not distinguish between them.
However, Geodesics would allow us to distinguish between a Flat Earth and a Round Earth. And, furthermore, as Zetetic Philosophy states that you ahve to look at all the evidence, then this must also be considered by Zetetics.
Measurements of geodesics for the surface of the Earth mathematically require it to be round. So no longer is it an assumption that the Earth's surface be round, but it is a mathematical imperative. To prove this wrong you have to prove the measurements wrong (do the measurement yourself), or prove that Geometry is wrong (as Geometry is a logical extension of Mathematics which is itself a branch of logic, Geometry can be shown to be logically self consistent and that it matches with reality).
This is the big one. No FEer has explained why the geodesics measured for the Earth's surface state, mathematically, that it is Round. Why would this be so if the Earth is really Flat?
The differences between the assumption of a Flat Earth and a Round Earth on the base line for the measurement of Parallax is not that great. It is difficult to see how in a linear system (measuring parallax) how such a small variation could lead to such a large difference (a few thousand kilometres for FET as compared to 106,506,900,000,000 km for RET - that is the rough distance to Proxima Centauri, the nearest star other than the sun under RET).
I would suggest that you provide the data with which Robotham used to derive the distances to the Stars. If the base data matches what is measured then we can verify the data he used to make his calculation. If however, his base data is inaccurate, then we can conclude that the calculations he did got the result he did because he had bad data.
-
Does he understand what parallax mean and that if we use the parallax method to determine distance (which we already do) of stars then he himself is a contradicting his theory about the stars, sun, and moon being approximately 3,100 miles away.
Astronomical parallax relies on the shape of the earth. Rowbotham used astronomical parallax under the assumption of a flat earth to triangulate the sun and stars to be very close to the surface of the earth.
Under the assumption of a globular earth, the sun and stars are triangulated to be millions of miles away.
Tom, if you are correct in your assumptions about parallax (and you are not), then Robotham would have had to violate his own methodology. As Robotham is a Zetetic, and the Zetetic Method requires you not to have initial assumptions, then he has violated his own methodology by having the assumption that they Earth was flat to begin with.
There is a word that describes someone who claims to be one way, but when it is inconvenient for them they violate that claim, it is called Hypocrite.
If you at least skim through ENAG, then you will see that Rowbotham goes through is "proofs" that the earth is indeed flat before he calculates his distance to the sun. Therefore, his book does build a foundation for his parallax calculations. Granted, his foundation is wrong but he does have one.
-
Does he understand what parallax mean and that if we use the parallax method to determine distance (which we already do) of stars then he himself is a contradicting his theory about the stars, sun, and moon being approximately 3,100 miles away.
Astronomical parallax relies on the shape of the earth. Rowbotham used astronomical parallax under the assumption of a flat earth to triangulate the sun and stars to be very close to the surface of the earth.
Under the assumption of a globular earth, the sun and stars are triangulated to be millions of miles away.
Tom, if you are correct in your assumptions about parallax (and you are not), then Robotham would have had to violate his own methodology. As Robotham is a Zetetic, and the Zetetic Method requires you not to have initial assumptions, then he has violated his own methodology by having the assumption that they Earth was flat to begin with.
There is a word that describes someone who claims to be one way, but when it is inconvenient for them they violate that claim, it is called Hypocrite.
If you at least skim through ENAG, then you will see that Rowbotham goes through is "proofs" that the earth is indeed flat before he calculates his distance to the sun. Therefore, his book does build a foundation for his parallax calculations. Granted, his foundation is wrong but he does have one.
Ahh, I hadn't read that far into it yet.
So because we know due to the geodesics that have been measured (and can easily be measured by anyone, so no government or other organisation could cover that up via a conspiracy) the Surface must be round, we can conclude that Robotham had bad data.
If his experimental error is that great for the distance to the stars, it calls into question anything else that he has got through experimentation. At least enough doubt to reject his work and look for other sources of data.
He might have been right with other experimental data, but because of the magnitude of this error we need to recheck all his data before we can accept it as being valid. This is according to his own Zetetic method, as it requires empirical data.
Actually it also means that we can't just rely on one source for the data for RET either, and as we don't have just one source and it has been independently checked (ie amateur astronomers with good, back yard telescopes can do this and thus removes any conspirator manipulations) we can be more confident of RE data than Robotham's (a single person with a motive).
-
Ahh, I hadn't read that far into it yet.
So because we know due to the geodesics that have been measured (and can easily be measured by anyone, so no government or other organisation could cover that up via a conspiracy) the Surface must be round, we can conclude that Robotham had bad data.
If his experimental error is that great for the distance to the stars, it calls into question anything else that he has got through experimentation. At least enough doubt to reject his work and look for other sources of data.
He might have been right with other experimental data, but because of the magnitude of this error we need to recheck all his data before we can accept it as being valid. This is according to his own Zetetic method, as it requires empirical data.
Actually it also means that we can't just rely on one source for the data for RET either, and as we don't have just one source and it has been independently checked (ie amateur astronomers with good, back yard telescopes can do this and thus removes any conspirator manipulations) we can be more confident of RE data than Robotham's (a single person with a motive).
Edtharan, very well written. My hats off to you. However, according to FETs, there are no credible sources for measurements. The devices we use, perhaps even a ruler(I hope I'm exaggerating), is in question. As silly as it may seem, I have a list of modern day technology that is considered unreliable that no FET has disagreed with yet. http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=25210.0
The only instruments you may use are the ones approved by Rowbotham himself.
-
Ahh, I hadn't read that far into it yet.
So because we know due to the geodesics that have been measured (and can easily be measured by anyone, so no government or other organisation could cover that up via a conspiracy) the Surface must be round, we can conclude that Robotham had bad data.
If his experimental error is that great for the distance to the stars, it calls into question anything else that he has got through experimentation. At least enough doubt to reject his work and look for other sources of data.
He might have been right with other experimental data, but because of the magnitude of this error we need to recheck all his data before we can accept it as being valid. This is according to his own Zetetic method, as it requires empirical data.
Actually it also means that we can't just rely on one source for the data for RET either, and as we don't have just one source and it has been independently checked (ie amateur astronomers with good, back yard telescopes can do this and thus removes any conspirator manipulations) we can be more confident of RE data than Robotham's (a single person with a motive).
Edtharan, very well written. My hats off to you. However, according to FETs, there are no credible sources for measurements. The devices we use, perhaps even a ruler(I hope I'm exaggerating), is in question. As silly as it may seem, I have a list of modern day technology that is considered unreliable that no FET has disagreed with yet. http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=25210.0
The only instruments you may use are the ones approved by Rowbotham himself.
Theodolites can't on that list (well sort of - but as Rowbotham used them they should be fine). Actually there is a system of surveying that has been around since Roman times (the Romans knew the Earth was round and their aqueducts relied on this fact as they were long enough to be effected by the curvature of the Earth) and I proposed a method that could be done based on that.
The only tools you need are a horizontal measure (a spirit level, or a plum bob with a right angle horizontal line - as horizontal is at 90 degrees to vertical), a protractor, paper and pencil and a knowledge of geometry (and Rowbotham relied on geometry, this should be allowed).
Using these you can make a crude theodolite, and because they can construct this themselves they can be assured that there has been no tampering. You can even determine altitude (from a base reference point - ie sea level) with this system.
As Rowbotham must have used surveying techniques in his experiments, then those self same techniques must be acceptable by FEers (or they need to dismiss Rowbotham's experiments). However, using the same types of equipment, and the same techniques, you can measure the geodesic for Earth (and have been done since well before Rowbotham) and these indicate a Round and not Flat Earth.
-
If his experimental error is that great for the distance to the stars, it calls into question anything else that he has got through experimentation. At least enough doubt to reject his work and look for other sources of data.
What makes you think that the error is on Rowbotham's end?
In RE the distance astronomical unit changes on a regular basis. On the earth's distance from the sun Copernicus computed it as 3,391,200 miles, Kepler contradicted him with an estimate of 12,376,800 miles, while Newton had asserted that it did not matter whether it was 28 million or 54 million miles 'for either will do as well'.
-
If his experimental error is that great for the distance to the stars, it calls into question anything else that he has got through experimentation. At least enough doubt to reject his work and look for other sources of data.
What makes you think that the error is on Rowbotham's end?
In RE the distance astronomical unit changes on a regular basis. On the earth's distance from the sun Copernicus computed it as 3,391,200 miles, Kepler contradicted him with an estimate of 12,376,800 miles, while Newton had asserted that it did not matter whether it was 28 million or 54 million miles 'for either will do as well'.
Thank you Tom for agreeing with me. Oh, but you didn't think you were? :o
Well, it is because the data from one source was found to be incorrect, that science looked to other source to confirm or disprove the results. It is the fact that there were inconsistencies, that the numbers were revised. Because there were errors, the did not accept the original data that they thought might be bad.
This is exactly what I am proposing we do for Rowbotham's data.
Because there are inconsistencies, we need to look at the data again. If you really did read my post, you will see that I said that we should also do this for RE data as well. Because there are inconsistencies, all the data (even Rowbotham's) must be considered suspect. To consider one set of data more reliable than the other without supplementary data, is to violate both the Scientific Principal and the Zetetic Principal.
Tom, because you persist in violating Zetetic principals, yet claim to be a Zetetic, I am beginning to think that you are a being dishonest (mostly with yourself) and that you really don't follow the Zetetic Principal and are just using it as an excuse to hold your views on Faith alone.
-
Because there are inconsistencies, we need to look at the data again.
We already did peer review Rowbotham's work. Take a look at one of the sixty-or-so other pieces of Flat Earth Literature published after Earth Not a Globe. References can be found in my signature link.
-
Because there are inconsistencies, we need to look at the data again.
We already did peer review Rowbotham's work. Take a look at one of the sixty-or-so other pieces of Flat Earth Literature published after Earth Not a Globe. References can be found in my signature link.
They are all just as bad.
-
They are all just as bad.
Really? Did you read them? How can you make a judgement call like that without even reading the material?
And you guys call us close minded...
-
They are all just as bad.
Really? Did you read them? How can you make a judgement call like that without even reading the material?
And you guys call us close minded...
I read most of it.
-
Because there are inconsistencies, we need to look at the data again.
We already did peer review Rowbotham's work. Take a look at one of the sixty-or-so other pieces of Flat Earth Literature published after Earth Not a Globe. References can be found in my signature link.
As you continually violate the principals laid out in Earth Not a Globe, I don't think you are qualified to peer review that work.
-
You really, really have no idea what "peer review" means do you Tom?
Yep. It means the re-performing and verification of past experiments by an unconnected third party. There's plenty of that in the Flat Earth Literature published after Earth Not a Globe.
What unconnected third-party re-performed and verified NASA's experiments and claims?
-
You really, really have no idea what "peer review" means do you Tom?
Yep. It means the re-performing and verification of past experiments by an unconnected third party. There's plenty of that in the Flat Earth Literature published after Earth Not a Globe.
What unconnected third-party re-performed and verified NASA's experiments and claims?
Where have you re-performed Rowbotham's experiments? I have done the telescope restoration experiment numerous times and the result is consistent: a powerful telescope will not restore a anything that is partially occluded by the horizon.
-
No it means a review performed by peers. Equals. People with the brains, training and lack of bias to assess something with a level of criticality.
Sure sounds like the literature in my link fits the bill then.
You've been given links showing that NASAs work is peer reviewed. Search here or on the internet.
Really? When was NASA peer reviewed by an unconnected third party?
-
No it means a review performed by peers. Equals. People with the brains, training and lack of bias to assess something with a level of criticality.
Sure sounds like the literature in my link fits the bill then.
No, that's called fiction.
-
No it means a review performed by peers. Equals. People with the brains, training and lack of bias to assess something with a level of criticality.
Sure sounds like the literature in my link fits the bill then.
Tom, please tell me how this book from your link supports Rowbotham's assertion of a flat earth:
(http://www.dianacopperwhite.com/cat/flatearth.jpg)
http://www.dianacopperwhite.com/catalogues.html
-
Tom, please tell me how this book from your link supports Rowbotham's assertion of a flat earth:
It's a collection of works.
-
Tom, please tell me how this book from your link supports Rowbotham's assertion of a flat earth:
It's a collection of works.
Tom Bishop lets his most deceitful vein emerge when quoting the work of others. Of course, Diana Copperwhite is a painter and talks of a flat Earth as a metaphor, and Tom Bishop knows it.
Expressing a belief in a scientific hypothesis is the right of everyone. Telling flat-out lies is not.
-
Tom Bishop lets his most deceitful vein emerge when quoting the work of others. Of course, Diana Copperwhite is a painter and talks of a flat Earth as a metaphor, and Tom Bishop knows it.
Nope. It's not a collection of paintings. It's a collection of high-res detailed photographs of the horizon taken by Jacqui McIntosh.
-
Tom Bishop lets his most deceitful vein emerge when quoting the work of others. Of course, Diana Copperwhite is a painter and talks of a flat Earth as a metaphor, and Tom Bishop knows it.
Nope. It's not a collection of paintings. It's a collection of high-res detailed photographs of the horizon taken by Jacqui McIntosh.
They are fake. You must show coherent proof.
-
Tom Bishop lets his most deceitful vein emerge when quoting the work of others. Of course, Diana Copperwhite is a painter and talks of a flat Earth as a metaphor, and Tom Bishop knows it.
Nope. It's not a collection of paintings. It's a collection of high-res detailed photographs of the horizon taken by Jacqui McIntosh.
Wow Tom, I didn't realize that one of your super powers is ablity to judge a book by it's cover. How did you come to the conclusion that the painter Diana Copperwhite put together a book of landscape photographs by Jacqui McIntosh? Or do you suppose that Diana Copperwhite had Jacqui McIntosh photograph her paintings for a book to be published to coincide with a Spanish art fair?
DIANA COPPERWHITE
FLAT EARTH
Photography by Jacqui McIntosh
Published by Kevin Kavanagh Gallery to coincde with ARCO 07, Madrid, 2007
ISBN 978-0-9555164-0-5
-
Wow Tom, I didn't realize that one of your super powers is ablity to judge a book by it's cover. How did you come to the conclusion that the painter Diana Copperwhite put together a book of landscape photographs by Jacqui McIntosh? Or do you suppose that Diana Copperwhite had Jacqui McIntosh photograph her paintings for a book to be published to coincide with a Spanish art fair?Or do you suppose that Diana Copperwhite had Jacqui McIntosh photograph her paintings for a book to be published to coincide with a Spanish art fair?
Photography is also art. And artists do more than paint pictures.
There's another book of photography in my list called "Flat Earth 2007 - Photographs of the Cambridgeshire Fens"
by Roger Coleman. Check it out at your local library sometime.
-
Wow Tom, I didn't realize that one of your super powers is ablity to judge a book by it's cover. How did you come to the conclusion that the painter Diana Copperwhite put together a book of landscape photographs by Jacqui McIntosh? Or do you suppose that Diana Copperwhite had Jacqui McIntosh photograph her paintings for a book to be published to coincide with a Spanish art fair?Or do you suppose that Diana Copperwhite had Jacqui McIntosh photograph her paintings for a book to be published to coincide with a Spanish art fair?
Photography is also art. And artists do more than paint pictures.
There's another book of photography in my list called "Flat Earth 2007 - Photographs of the Cambridgeshire Fens"
by Roger Coleman. Check it out at your local library sometime.
So what about all the pictures posted here that contradict Rowbotham's experimental results?
-
The pictures are not taken with high powered telescopes.
-
The pictures are not taken with high powered telescopes.
Those are both more powerful than the ones available in the 19th century.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22317.0
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=18526.msg335497#msg335497
-
Tom Bishop lets his most deceitful vein emerge when quoting the work of others. Of course, Diana Copperwhite is a painter and talks of a flat Earth as a metaphor, and Tom Bishop knows it.
Nope. It's not a collection of paintings. It's a collection of high-res detailed photographs of the horizon taken by Jacqui McIntosh.
And Tom Bishop can show us one of those photographs, together with an explanation by the author, either Diana Copperwhite or Jacqui McIntosh, on how Earth might be flat?
Tom Bishop is a very special kind of liar that does not care whether his lies are exposed to the world. Among those that I have unearthed (there are more found by others) I can remember these right now:
- He declares that he has a very sophisticated telescope, but suddenly forgets the brand name and model. Sometimes it is a computerized Celestron NexStar, sometimes an Orion Starblast 4.5 EQ Reflector.
- He declares that his telescope (whatever the brand name he decides to say he has) has no attachment for a camera. On other occasions he decides he needs an attachment for a camera without removable lenses, either relying on the reader's ignorance or relying on peoples' capacity to believe Tom is such an ignoramus.
- He declared that James Clarke Ross reported a 60,000 mile trip around Antarctica, but then a copy of the report surfaced and the trip around Antarctica was less than half the supposed 60,000 miles.
- He declared that James Clarke Ross had found the "Ice Wall" but then the very same book by James Clarke Ross showed that the "Ice Wall" is not even close to being the wall that Flat Earthers say exists.
And the list could go on and on with the misrepresentations of the authors' ideas expressed in books.
-
And Tom Bishop can show us one of those photographs, together with an explanation by the author, either Diana Copperwhite or Jacqui McIntosh, on how Earth might be flat?
I don't have any of the books on hand, sorry.
Tom Bishop is a very special kind of liar that does not care whether his lies are exposed to the world. Among those that I have unearthed (there are more found by others) I can remember these right now:
- He declares that he has a very sophisticated telescope, but suddenly forgets the brand name and model. Sometimes it is a computerized Celestron NexStar, sometimes an Orion Starblast 4.5 EQ Reflector.
- He declares that his telescope (whatever the brand name he decides to say he has) has no attachment for a camera. On other occasions he decides he needs an attachment for a camera without removable lenses, either relying on the reader's ignorance or relying on peoples' capacity to believe Tom is such an ignoramus.
- He declared that James Clarke Ross reported a 60,000 mile trip around Antarctica, but then a copy of the report surfaced and the trip around Antarctica was less than half the supposed 60,000 miles.
- He declared that James Clarke Ross had found the "Ice Wall" but then the very same book by James Clarke Ross showed that the "Ice Wall" is not even close to being the wall that Flat Earthers say exists.
And the list could go on and on with the misrepresentations of the authors' ideas expressed in books.
Wrong.
-
And Tom Bishop can show us one of those photographs, together with an explanation by the author, either Diana Copperwhite or Jacqui McIntosh, on how Earth might be flat?
I don't have any of the books on hand, sorry.
Tom Bishop is a very special kind of liar that does not care whether his lies are exposed to the world. Among those that I have unearthed (there are more found by others) I can remember these right now:
- He declares that he has a very sophisticated telescope, but suddenly forgets the brand name and model. Sometimes it is a computerized Celestron NexStar, sometimes an Orion Starblast 4.5 EQ Reflector.
- He declares that his telescope (whatever the brand name he decides to say he has) has no attachment for a camera. On other occasions he decides he needs an attachment for a camera without removable lenses, either relying on the reader's ignorance or relying on peoples' capacity to believe Tom is such an ignoramus.
- He declared that James Clarke Ross reported a 60,000 mile trip around Antarctica, but then a copy of the report surfaced and the trip around Antarctica was less than half the supposed 60,000 miles.
- He declared that James Clarke Ross had found the "Ice Wall" but then the very same book by James Clarke Ross showed that the "Ice Wall" is not even close to being the wall that Flat Earthers say exists.
And the list could go on and on with the misrepresentations of the authors' ideas expressed in books.
Wrong.
Tom Bishop has nothing to show to demonstrate he is not a liar. And that is without the long list of possibly honest misquotations of article after article in the net. I am having a hard time coming up with a single published work apart from Earth Not a Globe and other Zetetic literature that Tom Bishop has not misquoted or quoted completely out of context.
He should refrain from giving opinions other than his own.
-
And Tom Bishop can show us one of those photographs, together with an explanation by the author, either Diana Copperwhite or Jacqui McIntosh, on how Earth might be flat?
I don't have any of the books on hand, sorry.
Tom Bishop is a very special kind of liar that does not care whether his lies are exposed to the world. Among those that I have unearthed (there are more found by others) I can remember these right now:
- He declares that he has a very sophisticated telescope, but suddenly forgets the brand name and model. Sometimes it is a computerized Celestron NexStar, sometimes an Orion Starblast 4.5 EQ Reflector.
- He declares that his telescope (whatever the brand name he decides to say he has) has no attachment for a camera. On other occasions he decides he needs an attachment for a camera without removable lenses, either relying on the reader's ignorance or relying on peoples' capacity to believe Tom is such an ignoramus.
- He declared that James Clarke Ross reported a 60,000 mile trip around Antarctica, but then a copy of the report surfaced and the trip around Antarctica was less than half the supposed 60,000 miles.
- He declared that James Clarke Ross had found the "Ice Wall" but then the very same book by James Clarke Ross showed that the "Ice Wall" is not even close to being the wall that Flat Earthers say exists.
And the list could go on and on with the misrepresentations of the authors' ideas expressed in books.
Wrong.
Tom Bishop has nothing to show to demonstrate he is not a liar. And that is without the long list of possibly honest misquotations of article after article in the net. I am having a hard time coming up with a single published work apart from Earth Not a Globe and other Zetetic literature that Tom Bishop has not misquoted or quoted completely out of context.
He should refrain from giving opinions other than his own.
Tom bishop has repeatedly violated the principals of Zetetic philosophy as laid out by Samuel Rowbotham in Earth Not a Globe, therefore he can not even claim to be a Zetetic so even Zetetic Literature is in disagreement with Tom Bishop.
-
Just as there are differences of opinion in RET, there are differences of opinion in FET, and many people have varied and overlapping beliefs. It is possible to respect aspects of Rowbotham's work without believing he was entirely correct, in much the same way that Newton is widely respected amongst RE theorists even though his ideas are conceptually at odds with modern RET.
-
Just as there are differences of opinion in RET, there are differences of opinion in FET, and many people have varied and overlapping beliefs. It is possible to respect aspects of Rowbotham's work without believing he was entirely correct, in much the same way that Newton is widely respected amongst RE theorists even though his ideas are conceptually at odds with modern RET.
There is no FET in a strict sense, since the T means "theory" and that is reserved for hypothesis that have solid evidence and have been verified through the scientific method (which in turns means verifiable predictions). Better call it FEH.
And there is no "modern RET" in the sense that acknowledging the overwhelming evidence for an almost spherical Earth is just a tiny bit of the huge mass of knowledge amassed during the last two millenia or so. Better call it science.
Now to the point: Edtharan is not pointing to changes in opinion, which we all have, but to not following the essential principles of one's most publicized discipline. And in that respect Tom Bishop has a lot to answer. Not that I am much interested in anyone's opinion about Zetetic Science, anyway.
-
Rather than debate semantics, I'm just going to say that I use the traditional terminology for ease of comprehension. The intent of my content is clear, and that is all that is necessary.
Moving on, what I am pointing out is that Rowbotham is not the beginning and end of RET for anyone on these forums, even Tom. In much the same way that many RE'ers believe the ancient Greeks were on the right track when they speculated on RE models which did not include the Americas or Australia, many of us recognise that Rowbotham's work has much merit though it is of course neither definitive or exhaustive.
-
Rather than debate semantics, I'm just going to say that I use the traditional terminology for ease of comprehension. The intent of my content is clear, and that is all that is necessary.
Moving on, what I am pointing out is that Rowbotham is not the beginning and end of RET for anyone on these forums, even Tom. In much the same way that many RE'ers believe the ancient Greeks were on the right track when they speculated on RE models which did not include the Americas or Australia, many of us recognise that Rowbotham's work has much merit though it is of course neither definitive or exhaustive.
Speaking about ancient knowledge, the Romans knew that the Earth was round, as many of their Aqueducts were long enough to be effected by any curvature of the Earth. As these aqueducts clearly have factored in the existence of a Round Earth, then it is clear that the Romans knew of the existence of the facts of a Round Earth. The very fact that they ahve had to compensate for a rounded Earth means that the Earth must be round. If the Earth was not round and they put these factors in, then the Aqueducts would not have worked. Water would not have flowed along them, and as the aqueducts still work today it is conclusive that the Aqueducts work.
-
as the aqueducts still work today it is conclusive that the Aqueducts work.
Really? Are you sure you're willing to make such a bold statement?
In any event, I am skeptical that any of the Roman aqueducts were long enough to prove or disprove either theory. Variations in topography would surely have superceded the general form of the earth over those kind of distances.
-
as the aqueducts still work today it is conclusive that the Aqueducts work.
Really? Are you sure you're willing to make such a bold statement?
In any event, I am skeptical that any of the Roman aqueducts were long enough to prove or disprove either theory. Variations in topography would surely have superceded the general form of the earth over those kind of distances.
First of all, the Aqueducts had to carry water which means that water had to flow along them and that means a slope. As building them higher then needed would cause unnecessary expenses and cause risks that the construction would not be completed, they would not have built them higher than needed.
This means that they had to very accurately construct them with the correct slope, and they could not have afforded to make them too low because water does not run up hill.
And yes, I am certain that Roman Aqueducts are still in use today: http://members.tripod.com/think2020/photo.htm
The Aqueduct, El Puente in Spain is still in use and is over 10 miles long.
-
I wasn't disputing that the aqueducts are still in use today; it was a joke based on the rather redundant nature of that statement.
Anyway, I understand that water does not run up a hill. What I am saying is that local topography would render the general form of the earth irrelevant.
-
Whereas Biblical literalists only took the bible literally, you take everything literally, at its most basic level. No offence, but this is a hallmark of autism or brain damage. If this is the case you shouldn't be in forums like this.
Go easy on the bot, it does try.
-
I wasn't disputing that the aqueducts are still in use today; it was a joke based on the rather redundant nature of that statement.
Anyway, I understand that water does not run up a hill. What I am saying is that local topography would render the general form of the earth irrelevant.
No. As the Aqueducts would need to avoid following the local topography to achieve a smooth flow of water (and avoid damaging the aqueduct), the Romans had to carefully construct the aqueduct and carve through local topography with tunnels, bridges and different slopes than the local hills.
A 10 mile aqueduct (and there were 30 mile and longer aqueducts, just not ones still working), would be effected by the curve of the Earth. So, if the Romans wanted the water in this Aqueduct to flow from the source to the outlet, and they constructed it for a Round Earth, but the Earth was really flat, then it would not work.
If the constructed the aqueduct to conform to the local topography of the area, then what would occur when there was a valley? Thus they had to avoid conforming to local topography and conform to large scale topographies.
As the construction of Aqueducts clearly show conformation to a Round Earth, and the aqueducts work, then this is clear proof that the Earth must be Round.
Either the Aqueducts work or they don't. And as a Aqueduct designed for the wrong shape of the Earth would not work, and they do work, then we have to conclude that the shape of the Earth that the Aqueducts were designed for must really be the Shape of the Earth.
-
His pseudonym is Parallax.
Does he understand what parallax mean and that if we use the parallax method to determine distance (which we already do) of stars then he himself is a contradicting his theory about the stars, sun, and moon being approximately 3,100 miles away.
I think FET'ers have totally mistaken the work of a brilliant man. I think in the sense that we readily agree with what science teaches us without question, Rowbotham's FET was a metaphorically fiction book based on certain scientific facts designed to get us to think outside of the box. To not readily accept what is spoonfed to us in modern day society. That other possibilities exist. An alternative thought to the norm. Which is perfectly acceptable.
This is my theory of course. I have a new found respect for FET'ers in the sense that they do not accept everything and they question everything that is told to them. Albeit a little crazy with the conspiracy, I think other more substantial theories could replace the conspiracy theory. With a little bit more reasoning, mathematics, and logic there is a chance for FET'ers to have a more core to their theory.
FET treated in the way it is (or was) here is no worse than that of fundemental religious groups and thier scriptures. I'm not saying it is right or wrong, it's just a different way of going about things.
-
I wasn't disputing that the aqueducts are still in use today; it was a joke based on the rather redundant nature of that statement.
Anyway, I understand that water does not run up a hill. What I am saying is that local topography would render the general form of the earth irrelevant.
No. As the Aqueducts would need to avoid following the local topography to achieve a smooth flow of water (and avoid damaging the aqueduct), the Romans had to carefully construct the aqueduct and carve through local topography with tunnels, bridges and different slopes than the local hills.
A 10 mile aqueduct (and there were 30 mile and longer aqueducts, just not ones still working), would be effected by the curve of the Earth. So, if the Romans wanted the water in this Aqueduct to flow from the source to the outlet, and they constructed it for a Round Earth, but the Earth was really flat, then it would not work.
If the constructed the aqueduct to conform to the local topography of the area, then what would occur when there was a valley? Thus they had to avoid conforming to local topography and conform to large scale topographies.
As the construction of Aqueducts clearly show conformation to a Round Earth, and the aqueducts work, then this is clear proof that the Earth must be Round.
Either the Aqueducts work or they don't. And as a Aqueduct designed for the wrong shape of the Earth would not work, and they do work, then we have to conclude that the shape of the Earth that the Aqueducts were designed for must really be the Shape of the Earth.
Rather than do the roundabout with you, I'll refer you to the following source:
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Vitruvius/8*.html
Specifically this quote:
What about large distances, such as those spanned by aqueducts, over which a rather small yet constant drop has to be managed? Don't we have to factor in the curvature of the earth?
The surprising practical answer is no. Once we know the total drop required over the length of the aqueduct ? that is a very different question, and a much harder one indeed, involving the methods available to ancient surveyors for determining length but especially altitude ? it is enough to make sure that we measure that drop locally with Vitruvius' level, at frequent intervals along the route.
Now, perhaps I have misunderstood the source in question, and if I have, I am more than willing to be corrected. But it does appear to support me.
-
I wasn't disputing that the aqueducts are still in use today; it was a joke based on the rather redundant nature of that statement.
Anyway, I understand that water does not run up a hill. What I am saying is that local topography would render the general form of the earth irrelevant.
No. As the Aqueducts would need to avoid following the local topography to achieve a smooth flow of water (and avoid damaging the aqueduct), the Romans had to carefully construct the aqueduct and carve through local topography with tunnels, bridges and different slopes than the local hills.
A 10 mile aqueduct (and there were 30 mile and longer aqueducts, just not ones still working), would be effected by the curve of the Earth. So, if the Romans wanted the water in this Aqueduct to flow from the source to the outlet, and they constructed it for a Round Earth, but the Earth was really flat, then it would not work.
If the constructed the aqueduct to conform to the local topography of the area, then what would occur when there was a valley? Thus they had to avoid conforming to local topography and conform to large scale topographies.
As the construction of Aqueducts clearly show conformation to a Round Earth, and the aqueducts work, then this is clear proof that the Earth must be Round.
Either the Aqueducts work or they don't. And as a Aqueduct designed for the wrong shape of the Earth would not work, and they do work, then we have to conclude that the shape of the Earth that the Aqueducts were designed for must really be the Shape of the Earth.
Rather than do the roundabout with you, I'll refer you to the following source:
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Vitruvius/8*.html
Specifically this quote:
What about large distances, such as those spanned by aqueducts, over which a rather small yet constant drop has to be managed? Don't we have to factor in the curvature of the earth?
The surprising practical answer is no. Once we know the total drop required over the length of the aqueduct ? that is a very different question, and a much harder one indeed, involving the methods available to ancient surveyors for determining length but especially altitude ? it is enough to make sure that we measure that drop locally with Vitruvius' level, at frequent intervals along the route.
Now, perhaps I have misunderstood the source in question, and if I have, I am more than willing to be corrected. But it does appear to support me.
Even if you used local measurements to build the aqueducts (and the long range organisation of them dispute this), they would still need to respect the curvature of the Earth (which they do).
All that says is that if you only look at how the water moves locally, you will still be able to design the aqueducts to work. However, the long ranged design elements (bridges, tunnels, and the need to try and make it form the source to the outflow in as short a distance - as it would take money, time and effort to make it longer) show that they did not only use local measurements in planning the aqueducts. Local measurements would have been good for verifying the long range plans, but it still does not counter that the design of the Aqueducts account for the curvature of the Earth.
-
I don't see how the curvature of the earth would factor into the plannig of routes. Again, local topography would be the most important factor. Routes would be planned based on that, and the aquaduct constructed according to local measurements. What you are saying sounds like conjecture; I would like to see some sort of source if possible.
-
As the construction of Aqueducts clearly show conformation to a Round Earth, and the aqueducts work, then this is clear proof that the Earth must be Round.
Either the Aqueducts work or they don't. And as a Aqueduct designed for the wrong shape of the Earth would not work, and they do work, then we have to conclude that the shape of the Earth that the Aqueducts were designed for must really be the Shape of the Earth.
Unfortunately, for once, I have to agree with Neeman. The main reason is friction. Water will not flow fast enough unless there is at least a 1% fall or so, while the change in angle due to the curvature of Earth is just 0.4 degrees in a 30 mile aqueduct. If parts of the aqueduct decline at 2% and others at 1% the aqueduct works fine, and because the Romans did not need to make the aqueduct perfectly straight, Also, they did not have telescopes to make the other side of the aqueduct clearly visible for the whole distance.
Therefore the curvature of the Earth would be somewhat visible but not evident.
-
Just as there are differences of opinion in RET, there are differences of opinion in FET, and many people have varied and overlapping beliefs.
I know this point isn't pivotal to the debate taking place, but it annoys me anyway. You, and many other FE'ers, seem to think (or pretend) that the unknown's in FET and RET are roughly comparable. This is not the case.
Take astronomy, we can list some of the unsolved problems in each field.
RET
- To what degree is the large scale structure of the universe homogenous?
- What is the nature of the core of a neutron star? Is it a quark-gluon plasma?
- Is the pioneer anomoly a real effect, if so, what is it's cause (deviates from predictions by 27*10-10 m/s)?
- What is the source of ultra-high energy cosmic-rays?
- Is dark matter affecting the rotation of galaxies?
- Does GR fully explain gravity?
FET
- What keeps the sun and moon in orbit?
- Why do the stars rotate as a solid disk?
- How do the stars shine?
- Does gravity exist?
- How did the universe form?
- What causes sunsets?
- What are pulsars, supernovae, nebulae, quasars, and gamma-ray bursts?
In RET, the unknown's are mostly concerned with details. In FET, the huge, important chunks are missing from the model. (These lists are examples only).
-
You can also add these:
- How is the 'cosmological constant' explained? How is it derived? And officially, once and for all, is there a cosmological constant or not? This has actually see-sawed a couple of times in the last century, which is pretty incredible given the implications- certainly not a 'detail'.
- What is the mechanism for 'gravity'? Note that I am deliberatley leaving out the gravity/gravitations semantics for ease of use; you're a regular so I'm sure you know the score. You'll probably want to respond that in FET, the mechanism for the DEA/UA has yet to be explained either. The difference of course is that in FET that mechanism is only responsible for gravitation on earth; in RET it is the basis for every single observable phenomona, and hence fo far greater importance.
- DE/DM. Again, far more tha a detail; without it, a RE universe stops working.
It's been a while since I've posted here, but back when this question used to pop up a lot I think I had at least one more major issue for which RET had nothing but ???s.
-
Come now. FET doesn't even know if the FE is a finite disc or infinite plane.
-
And RET doesn't know if there's a cosmolgical constant or not. And I wouldn't say 'FET doesn't know', rather I would say there are two competing FETs.
-
And RET doesn't know if there's a cosmolgical constant or not. And I wouldn't say 'FET doesn't know', rather I would say there are two competing FETs.
There are a great many things about the nature of the universe that RET does not know. The size and shape of the earth are not among them.
-
Whether the FE is finite or infinite is largely irrelevant in the wider context.
-
But in RET the size and shape of the earth is based upon the same theories which continually do not match up with the 'observable' universe. This is wht you get magical place holds like the cosmological constant, DE/DM etc.
-
But in RET the size and shape of the earth is based upon the same theories which continually do not match up with the 'observable' universe. This is wht you get magical place holds like the cosmological constant, DE/DM etc.
I'm sorry, but what do the cosmological constant, DE and DM have to do with the the size and shape of the earth in RET?
-
Whether the FE is finite or infinite is largely irrelevant in the wider context.
I disagree. If you believe that mass warps space-time, then the finite/infinite question is highly relevant.
-
Most problems in the RE model are also present in the the FE model. The RE model may not have an explanation for why distant galaxies are accelerating way from us, but then again the FE model doesn't have an explanation as to why the dimmer galaxy-like lights in the sky are red-shifted a bit more than you would expect.
-
Whether the FE is finite or infinite is largely irrelevant in the wider context.
I disagree. If you believe that mass warps space-time, then the finite/infinite question is highly relevant.
If you say so. ::)
-
Whether the FE is finite or infinite is largely irrelevant in the wider context.
I disagree. If you believe that mass warps space-time, then the finite/infinite question is highly relevant.
If you say so. ::)
I'm glad that you agree.
-
But in RET the size and shape of the earth is based upon the same theories which continually do not match up with the 'observable' universe. This is wht you get magical place holds like the cosmological constant, DE/DM etc.
I'm sorry, but what do the cosmological constant, DE and DM have to do with the the size and shape of the earth in RET?
RE physics, when extrapolated, require things like DE/DM and the CC to function. Not only that, but some people believe in them, some don't, and they are used and withdrawn every time something doesn't fit, which suggests inherent flaws in the model.
-
But in RET the size and shape of the earth is based upon the same theories which continually do not match up with the 'observable' universe. This is wht you get magical place holds like the cosmological constant, DE/DM etc.
I'm sorry, but what do the cosmological constant, DE and DM have to do with the the size and shape of the earth in RET?
RE physics, when extrapolated, require things like DE/DM and the CC to function. Not only that, but some people believe in them, some don't, and they are used and withdrawn every time something doesn't fit, which suggests inherent flaws in the model.
So they have nothing to do with the size and shape of the earth itself. Thank you, I'm so glad that we agree on that.
-
But in RET the size and shape of the earth is based upon the same theories which continually do not match up with the 'observable' universe. This is wht you get magical place holds like the cosmological constant, DE/DM etc.
I'm sorry, but what do the cosmological constant, DE and DM have to do with the the size and shape of the earth in RET?
RE physics, when extrapolated, require things like DE/DM and the CC to function. Not only that, but some people believe in them, some don't, and they are used and withdrawn every time something doesn't fit, which suggests inherent flaws in the model.
So they have nothing to do with the size and shape of the earth itself. Thank you, I'm so glad that we agree on that.
FET
- What keeps the sun and moon in orbit?
- Why do the stars rotate as a solid disk?
- How do the stars shine?
- Does gravity exist?
- How did the universe form?
- What causes sunsets?
- What are pulsars, supernovae, nebulae, quasars, and gamma-ray bursts?
I take it we can agree on most of these as well then?
-
I'm glad that you agree.
So they have nothing to do with the size and shape of the earth itself. Thank you, I'm so glad that we agree on that.
I'm sorry, but is this a common debate tactic amongst round earthers? :-\
-
- How is the 'cosmological constant' explained? How is it derived? And officially, once and for all, is there a cosmological constant or not? This has actually see-sawed a couple of times in the last century, which is pretty incredible given the implications- certainly not a 'detail'.
The cosmological constant was an early theory that bears a lot of similarity to the modern idea of "dark energy". It is an unknown in RET, as in FET.
- What is the mechanism for 'gravity'? Note that I am deliberatley leaving out the gravity/gravitations semantics for ease of use; you're a regular so I'm sure you know the score. You'll probably want to respond that in FET, the mechanism for the DEA/UA has yet to be explained either. The difference of course is that in FET that mechanism is only responsible for gravitation on earth; in RET it is the basis for every single observable phenomona, and hence fo far greater importance.
I've already included that: I said "Does GR fully explain gravity?". Again, this is also a problem in FET: What is the mechanism for the UA?
- DE/DM. Again, far more tha a detail; without it, a RE universe stops working.
True. However, there are several plausible candidate theories for what DE/DM actually is. Similarly, gravity has several plausible mechanisms. By comparison, most of the questions I posed for FET don't even have a plausible hypothesis.
-
The Lamabada-CDM model is simply one proposed form of CDM. And 'plausible' is an entirely subjective and totally unscientific term.
-
The Lamabada-CDM model is simply one proposed form of CDM. And 'plausible' is an entirely subjective and totally unscientific term.
I was using the word "plausible" to distinguish proper scientific hypotheses, e.g. the lambda-CDM model, from outlandish unworkable theories, e.g. the perspective explanation of sunsets, that clearly make no scientific sense whatsoever.
-
Any CC is deeply unscientific. They are nothing more than mathematical sleight of hand. Got a problem with a theory? Invent a force that acts in incredible ways to explain that problem, with no proof other than that the problem exists.
-
Any CC is deeply unscientific. They are nothing more than mathematical sleight of hand. Got a problem with a theory? Invent a force that acts in incredible ways to explain that problem, with no proof other than that the problem exists.
You mean just what FET did when it invented the UA? Or the "rotational gravitational force" on a pendulum? Or the "whirling cornucopia" that keeps the stars rotating? Or the EA? Or the dark energy field?
The only difference is that RE theorists are making progress toward finding out what the CC is.
-
If by progress you mean inventing ever more elaborate names for it, then from an artistic standpoint, I suppose it is progress 9though the whole 'dark = unknown' symbolism is a bit crude).
-
If by progress you mean inventing ever more elaborate names for it, then from an artistic standpoint, I suppose it is progress 9though the whole 'dark = unknown' symbolism is a bit crude).
I don't mean that at all. We've figured out a lot of the properites of DE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy#Nature_of_dark_energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy#Nature_of_dark_energy)
We also have a lot of candidate particles for DM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Matter#Dark_matter_composition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Matter#Dark_matter_composition)
-
And is there evidence for any of this? Because to me, it looks suspiciously like character development.
-
I'm glad that you agree.
So they have nothing to do with the size and shape of the earth itself. Thank you, I'm so glad that we agree on that.
I'm sorry, but is this a common debate tactic amongst round earthers? :-\
It seems to work for Tom Bishop.
-
As usual, this discussion devolved into a war of explanations. It is the predictive power of the theories what makes them scientifically sound, not the length of the list of unknowns.
While FE hypothesis predicts just about nothing, not even the apparent position of the celestial objects in the sky that even Ptolemy could, modern science predicts the movements of all the stars, planets and other objects in the solar system almost perfectly, and those of the rest of the known universe with some unknowns.
The rest of the world can be Zetetics, "look through my window" kind of guys that cannot combine vision with intellect, conspiracists or any other kind of human beings. But scientists start with the scientific method.
-
While FE hypothesis predicts just about nothing, not even the apparent position of the celestial objects in the sky that even Ptolemy could, modern science predicts the movements of all the stars, planets and other objects in the solar system almost perfectly, and those of the rest of the known universe with some unknowns.
The ancients could predict celestial phenomenas just fine under their flat earth cosmologies.
-
While FE hypothesis predicts just about nothing, not even the apparent position of the celestial objects in the sky that even Ptolemy could, modern science predicts the movements of all the stars, planets and other objects in the solar system almost perfectly, and those of the rest of the known universe with some unknowns.
The ancients could predict celestial phenomenas just fine under their flat earth cosmologies.
The ancients could predict celestial phenomenas based on a model where celestial objects are fixed to spheres centered around Earth. This model explains acceptably the apparent positions of stars and galaxies, and not not very well the positions of planets and comets. They totally failed with timezones.
The FE bunch try to explain celestial phenomenas based on a model where celestial objects are on a plane. And this model predicts just about nothing. Timezones is almost the only thing that the model predicts, even though it makes only a partial prediction of them.
Prediction power is what makes FE hypothesis such a joke.
-
I already told you that the ancients could predict celestial phenomenas just fine under their flat earth cosmologies. The Ancient Egyptians had a flat earth cosmology and they could predict eclipses and transits decades and even centuries in the future.
-
While FE hypothesis predicts just about nothing, not even the apparent position of the celestial objects in the sky that even Ptolemy could, modern science predicts the movements of all the stars, planets and other objects in the solar system almost perfectly, and those of the rest of the known universe with some unknowns.
The ancients could predict celestial phenomenas just fine under their flat earth cosmologies.
Very few "Ancients" use a flat Earth model, most had a round Earth model (because there is so much evidence for it) and the observations did quite fit with a Flat Earth Model.
learn2history Tom.
-
the observations did quite fit with a Flat Earth Model.
I know they did. What's your point?
-
While FE hypothesis predicts just about nothing, not even the apparent position of the celestial objects in the sky that even Ptolemy could, modern science predicts the movements of all the stars, planets and other objects in the solar system almost perfectly, and those of the rest of the known universe with some unknowns.
The ancients could predict celestial phenomenas just fine under their flat earth cosmologies.
But what can you predict with your cosmology? Last I knew, most of the current FE models are not the same as the ancient FE models.
-
the observations did quite fit with a Flat Earth Model.
I know they did. What's your point?
Sorry, late night again (I'm having a bad night here).
I meant to write: "Didn't" (I also think the batteries in my keyboard are going flat)
-
I must say that I don't know of any accurate FE models of the celestial objects used by the ancients. If I recall correctly, the model used in those days was of a number of spheres surrounding a round Earth, which had smaller spheres embedded in them. The larger spheres rotated around the Earth, and the smaller ones had the planets attached to them and rotated occasionally to account for the retrograde motion of the superior planets.
-
I already told you that the ancients could predict celestial phenomenas just fine under their flat earth cosmologies. The Ancient Egyptians had a flat earth cosmology and they could predict eclipses and transits decades and even centuries in the future.
You are saying it just fine: "under their flat earth cosmologies". That cosmology is not the same as the one that Rowbotham and his followers propose. The "ancients" could safely ignore the fact that midday does not come at the same time in every part of the world and did not have sextants to navigate long distances, so the apparent shape of the dome of stars was irrelevant to the shape of the Earth.
Now things are different: Nobody, not even Rowbotham, ignores the fact that midday comes at different times for different places on Earth, and that means he had to change from a spherical dome of stars to a flat dome. And with this change he corrected the timezones but demolished almost everything else from every other cosmology known to man.
Even the Mayas and Aztecs saw in the sky an apparent sphere with the stars on it, and made precise measurements to that effect. Only Rowbotham and his followers defined their "cosmology" and conveniently forgot to make measurements to corroborate it. They predicteda whole lot of things.
Now, Please, Tom Bishop, give us a model that includes a flat sheet of stars and approximates what humanity has verified for more than 2 millenia. Even a drawing from any ancient civilization that shows a flat roof of stars will do.
-
But what can you predict with your cosmology? Last I knew, most of the current FE models are not the same as the ancient FE models.
FET can predict all the same celestial phenomenas as the ancients. On predicting the Lunar Eclipse, for example, Samuel Birley Rowbotham provides a series of equations which will determine the time, duration, and magnitude of the next Lunar Eclipse. See his Lunar Eclipse chapter of Earth Not a Globe.
-
But what can you predict with your cosmology? Last I knew, most of the current FE models are not the same as the ancient FE models.
FET can predict all the same celestial phenomenas as the ancients. On predicting the Lunar Eclipse, for example, Samuel Birley Rowbotham provides a series of equations which will determine the time, duration, and magnitude of the next Lunar Eclipse. See his Lunar Eclipse chapter of Earth Not a Globe.
What about planetary transits? Oh wait, they can't happen in FET, because then the planets would be tiny and would move into our atmosphere.
-
The whole RE model DE point is kind of irrelevant when comparing models anyway, as it also exists as a problem under the FE model, although in a slightly different way.
-
I must say that I don't know of any accurate FE models of the celestial objects used by the ancients. If I recall correctly, the model used in those days was of a number of spheres surrounding a round Earth, which had smaller spheres embedded in them. The larger spheres rotated around the Earth, and the smaller ones had the planets attached to them and rotated occasionally to account for the retrograde motion of the superior planets.
FET uses the heliocentric model for the planets. The planets all revolve around the sun while the sun revolves around the hub of the earth. This combined motion of systems creates the occasional retrograde motion of the planets as seen by an observer on earth.
-
FET uses the heliocentric model for the planets. The planets all revolve around the sun while the sun revolves around the hub of the earth. This combined motion of systems creates the occasional retrograde motion of the planets as seen by an observer on earth.
If the superior planets are revolving a set distance from the Sun, why is Mars less than 2 degrees away from it?
-
Mars isn't 2 degrees away from the sun. Not sure what you're talking about.
-
I must say that I don't know of any accurate FE models of the celestial objects used by the ancients. If I recall correctly, the model used in those days was of a number of spheres surrounding a round Earth, which had smaller spheres embedded in them. The larger spheres rotated around the Earth, and the smaller ones had the planets attached to them and rotated occasionally to account for the retrograde motion of the superior planets.
FET uses the heliocentric model for the planets. The planets all revolve around the sun while the sun revolves around the hub of the earth. This combined motion of systems creates the occasional retrograde motion of the planets as seen by an observer on earth.
Why did you misquote me? My actual post was talking about planetary transits, and the fact that planetary orbits appear vertical to us at the equator.
-
Mars isn't 2 degrees away from the sun. Not sure what you're talking about.
...Where is it, then?
Mars is a little close currently and thus may be a little difficult to observe. You could try Jupiter. Less than 30 degrees away from the Sun, closer even than Venus, which appears quite close to it at the moment. Was a wonderful sight when the Moon eclipsed Venus for a while.
-
I must say that I don't know of any accurate FE models of the celestial objects used by the ancients. If I recall correctly, the model used in those days was of a number of spheres surrounding a round Earth, which had smaller spheres embedded in them. The larger spheres rotated around the Earth, and the smaller ones had the planets attached to them and rotated occasionally to account for the retrograde motion of the superior planets.
FET uses the heliocentric model for the planets. The planets all revolve around the sun while the sun revolves around the hub of the earth. This combined motion of systems creates the occasional retrograde motion of the planets as seen by an observer on earth.
It is a little hard to just describe in text, but there is a difference in the motions of the Planets Mercury and Venus as compared to the rest. IF you use an astronomy program and plot out the movements of the planets you can see the difference (note: the astronomy program is just to show the motions, not as a proof of them - the proof is to go out and plot their movements over several years - it will take time, but can be done with a moderately priced - around $1000 telescope - and a bit of patience and attention to detail).
The RET Model has these Outer Planets as being further away form the Sun then the Earth where as Mercury and Venus are closer to the Sun than the Earth. RET predicts the positions of all these planets very accurately and so as a Model is extremely good (note: this is a model not specifically that it is really this way, it just means that when modelled mathematically it give accurate predictions as to the future - or even past - positions of the planets).
As the motions of these outer planets can most easily be described by having them go behind the Earth (as compared from the sun), how does FET cope when the planets are modelled as being between the Earth and the Sun?