The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: Dsman0 on March 06, 2009, 04:15:50 PM
-
Why won't we win? Because to them, we have no proof. Judging by there logic, you can't prove that black is even black. You can shove all of these clear figures that show how they are wrong, and you are right, but they won't believe them. All you'll ever get out of them is, "read the FAQ" so prove them wrong all you want. They'll just pass it off as lies and deceit just for the sake of keeping their shambles on an argument intact. Let them live in misunderstanding - just be glad that you don't. Be glad that unlike them, you are a normal person, and you'll be a contributor to society some day, unlike them, who will probably be on meth still. Consider it a privilege that you aren't a fuckwit. As opposed to them.
-
Why won't we win? Because we have no proof. You can't prove that black is even black. You can shove all of these clear figures , but they mean nothing, and they won't have to believe them. All you'll ever get out of it is a burst blood vesssel. It can just be passed off as lies and deceit just for the sake of keeping any argument intact. There is no understanding. Be sad that unlike them, you are an ignorant person, and you'll be a bigot some day, unlike them, who will probably be contributing to science and society still. Consider it a privilege that you have met them.
Make the amendments there and you might just learn something.
-
Grammar maybe. Not sure about anything else.
-
So you don't agree that nothing can ever be proven outside of the abstract and meaningless world of mathematics?
-
Not at all. I have my beliefs and I have science. Not quite ne'er the twain shall meet but the overlap is not vast. I cannot prove my religious beliefs they are personal a relationship between me and whatever/whoever I believe. This is faith I know it to be true but I can't prove it. I may learn from a book but faith itself comes from a personal relationship.
Science is entirely about the incredibly meaningful world of mathematics. Why ever we have the universe we do mathematics is the language it is described in. So when it comes to matters of the physical world I do think in terms of maths.
-
But the whole point of science is to apply mathematics (which is completely meaningless on its own, I have to say) to the real world, but since we have to rely on our own perception at some point, and there is no way of knowing that what we perceive is reality, then nothing in science can ever be proven conclusively. I'm not sure why you mentioned religion.
-
No what we perceive is almost certainly not reality. I perceive a table as solid, I perceive an atom as a particle, I perceive light as a wave and I perceive the world as flat. If I look around me these 4 things I might think are true. Thats why its a never good idea to trust your eyes. With a bit of effort I can find out that a table isn't solid, atoms and light are all just fields and the Earth is a sphere. Your right you can't do it with maths alone as Kuhn pointed out there is a subjective, creative aspect to Science.
Though maths is more than a tool, the form of expressions allows to to try and understand things we can't possibly perceive with our senses. A good example of this is Maxwells equations. When Maxwell first considered the EM field he did so with cogs and gears concepts one can picture. He then reformulated it in turns of the abstract Electromagnetic field and 4 elegant differential equations. To me this was an important moment, it was the moment that science became described by abstract mathematics not merely calculated with it.
-
Why won't we win? Because to them, we have no proof.
Which is kind of weird. Because there are many times more books and materials which rely on round earth or describe it or something else related to RE. And there is handful of books about flat earth and somehow the credibility of handful FE books is so high that they just are truth. I wonder why...
-
Which is kind of weird. Because there are many times more books and materials which rely on round earth or describe it or something else related to RE. And there is handful of books about flat earth and somehow the credibility of handful FE books is so high that they just are truth. I wonder why...
Please show me any one peer reviewed book or published work which proves through experiment that the earth is a globe.
-
Please show me any one peer reviewed book or published work which proves through experiment that the earth is a globe.
Start for small - http://www.vidyaonline.net/arvindgupta/earthpix.pdf - Isaac Asimov, How did we find out that the earth is round.
And you can start with standard schoolbooks which are peer reviewed by many because they are basic scientific books.
Also, how about some link about Rowbothams book peer reviewing. And not some hundred or hundred an fifty years ago but in last 10-20 years. Or we can stretch timeline to some 30 or 40 years.
-
Start for small - http://www.vidyaonline.net/arvindgupta/earthpix.pdf - Isaac Asimov, How did we find out that the earth is round.
And you can start with standard schoolbooks which are peer reviewed by many because they are basic scientific books.
Also, how about some link about Rowbothams book peer reviewing. And not some hundred or hundred an fifty years ago but in last 10-20 years. Or we can stretch timeline to some 30 or 40 years.
What experiment did the author do to prove that the earth is round?
-
Start for small - http://www.vidyaonline.net/arvindgupta/earthpix.pdf - Isaac Asimov, How did we find out that the earth is round.
And you can start with standard schoolbooks which are peer reviewed by many because they are basic scientific books.
Also, how about some link about Rowbothams book peer reviewing. And not some hundred or hundred an fifty years ago but in last 10-20 years. Or we can stretch timeline to some 30 or 40 years.
What experiments did the author do to prove that the earth is round?
You don't need experiments right away. Start with observations. And I ask again - how about some link about Rowbothams book peer reviewing. And not some hundred or hundred an fifty years ago but in last 10-20 years. Or we can stretch timeline to some 30 or 40 years.
-
Start for small - http://www.vidyaonline.net/arvindgupta/earthpix.pdf - Isaac Asimov, How did we find out that the earth is round.
And you can start with standard schoolbooks which are peer reviewed by many because they are basic scientific books.
Also, how about some link about Rowbothams book peer reviewing. And not some hundred or hundred an fifty years ago but in last 10-20 years. Or we can stretch timeline to some 30 or 40 years.
What experiments did the author do to prove that the earth is round?
You don't need experiments right away. Start with observations. And I ask again - how about some link about Rowbothams book peer reviewing. And not some hundred or hundred an fifty years ago but in last 10-20 years. Or we can stretch timeline to some 30 or 40 years.
Gotcha. So no experiments then.
-
Gotcha. So no experiments then.
There is, but as I said - you can start with observations at first. In the Asimov's book there is observations and conclusion that to match the results of observation the earth must be round.
And also - gotcha - there is no peer review of Rowbothams work.
-
Why us REers won't win? We're on the FEers forum. This is their field, not ours. Their word is law, and until we convince them onto an REers forum(Which there are none that I know of), we'll never win.
It's best just to be nice to them so they won't kill us with their evil cyborg penguins(Linux users would love those).
-
Gotcha. So no experiments then.
There is, but as I said - you can start with observations at first. In the Asimov's book there is observations and conclusion that to match the results of observation the earth must be round.
And also - gotcha - there is no peer review of Rowbothams work.
Observations aren't experiments.
-
is english first language your
we use pronouns determine participle and tense you should too
-
all you can do attack my eyes
wow
-
we discuss english and your butchering it
-
this thread not discuss flat earth
discuss futility concept proof
-
Gotcha. So no experiments then.
There is, but as I said - you can start with observations at first. In the Asimov's book there is observations and conclusion that to match the results of observation the earth must be round.
And also - gotcha - there is no peer review of Rowbothams work.
Observations aren't experiments.
Observations are a fundamental aspect of experiments. If you aren't going to observe the results, then why bother with the experiment? Observations are also a method of inquiry important to zetetic research.
-
Unless such observations are made in a controlled experimental environment, they mean nothing.
-
Why us REers won't win? We're on the FEers forum. This is their field, not ours. Their word is law, and until we convince them onto an REers forum(Which there are none that I know of), we'll never win.
It's best just to be nice to them so they won't kill us with their evil cyborg penguins(Linux users would love those).
It's your lucky day. Check the link in my signature and you'll find
The Round Earth Society.
-
Observations aren't experiments.
Why do you need so badly only experiments? All starts with observations and it provides also data to you. So we start from the beginning and observe the big experiment which is earth and universe itself. So, there is experiment if you look at this that way.
And still - gotcha - there is no peer review of Rowbothams work.
-
Unless such observations are made in a controlled experimental environment, they mean nothing.
rowbotham use controlled experimental environment?
Yeah, only he called them experiments. But you wouldn't be familiar with those, would you?
-
And still - gotcha - there is no peer review of Rowbothams work.
Actually, there is.
-
And still - gotcha - there is no peer review of Rowbothams work.
Actually, there is.
Prove it.
-
And still - gotcha - there is no peer review of Rowbothams work.
Actually, there is.
So, is it available for others to look or is it some antique book/article that isn't available anymore? And if you read back then I asked peer review which was done in last 40 years. If it isn't available online then please refer to the title and author of the book/article. Though, author must be real scientist not "scientist" like Rowbotham was.
-
So, is it available for others to look or is it some antique book/article that isn't available anymore? And if you read back then I asked peer review which was done in last 40 years. If it isn't available online then please refer to the title and author of the book/article. Though, author must be real scientist not "scientist" like Rowbotham was.
After ENAG was published there was a monthly journal called "Earth Not a Globe Review" which was dedicated to peer reviewing the work.
There are also reproductions of Rowbotham's experiments by independent researchers which you can find in my signature link.
-
So, is it available for others to look or is it some antique book/article that isn't available anymore? And if you read back then I asked peer review which was done in last 40 years. If it isn't available online then please refer to the title and author of the book/article. Though, author must be real scientist not "scientist" like Rowbotham was.
After ENAG was published there was a monthly journal called "Earth Not a Globe Review" which was dedicated to peer reviewing the work.
There are also reproductions of Rowbotham's experiments by independent researchers which you can find in my signature link.
Patently false. Peer review requires independence. EnaGR was not independent or even open-minded. Not a single "reproduction" has passed scientific review either. You can, however, observe the constant size of the Sun as it sets tonight over the Pacific Ocean and demonstrate to yourself that Rowbotham was wrong in at least that case. Of course, we anticipate that you'll ignore reality, again.
-
Patently false. Peer review requires independence. EnaGR was not independent or even open-minded.
Earth Not a Globe Review wasn't published by Rowbotham. It was independent.
NoYou can, however, observe the constant size of the Sun as it sets tonight over the Pacific Ocean and demonstrate to yourself that Rowbotham was wrong in at least that case.
I have observed the sun setting. It demonstrated that Rowbotham's explanation held up.
-
Patently false. Peer review requires independence. EnaGR was not independent or even open-minded.
Earth Not a Globe Review wasn't published by Rowbotham. Therefore it was independent.
[\quote]Patently false. Independence requires more than a change of players.[\quote]
NoYou can, however, observe the constant size of the Sun as it sets tonight over the Pacific Ocean and demonstrate to yourself that Rowbotham was wrong in at least that case. Of course, we anticipate that you'll ignore reality, again.
I have and it demonstrated that Rowbotham's explanation held up.
Nope. You're fibbing, again. Document your results and have a high school physics teacher watch your machinations.
-
There's no point debating with this moron, Tom.
END SUB ARGUE_PEERREVIEW
END IF
END
-
This was interesting on Friday evening. Shame.
-
I have observed the sun setting. It demonstrated that Rowbotham's explanation held up.
Gee Tom, I've observed the sun setting and have concluded that Rowbotham's explanation does not hold up.
-
Patently false. Peer review requires independence. EnaGR was not independent or even open-minded.
Earth Not a Globe Review wasn't published by Rowbotham. It was independent.
"Meanwhile Lady Blount established a journal, the Earth Not a Globe Review to act as a further mouthpiece for zetetic views. Edited by Zetetes it was circulated worldwide with the help of staunch supporters in Ireland, Canada, America, South Africa, India, Australia and New Zealand. The only major exception was Russia where, for unknown reasons, it was banned." - Garwood
Sound independent?
-
When I last looked at this post it had some semblance of sanity, though that was after about 6 posts. I read a fair few journal articles and have yet to see anything from the FAQ come up. In short that is why REers will never win, we unfortunately have to provide proof beyond proof (yeah I liked thundercats). As where the FE argument merely needs to quote its FAQ which I quite enjoy reading, for the same reason I enjoy going to the circus.
-
As where the FE argument merely needs to quote its FAQ which I quite enjoy reading, for the same reason I enjoy going to the circus.
Because there is a whole world of possibilities within your grasp, if only you are open to them? Good to see you're learning!
-
So, is it available for others to look or is it some antique book/article that isn't available anymore? And if you read back then I asked peer review which was done in last 40 years. If it isn't available online then please refer to the title and author of the book/article. Though, author must be real scientist not "scientist" like Rowbotham was.
After ENAG was published there was a monthly journal called "Earth Not a Globe Review" which was dedicated to peer reviewing the work.
There are also reproductions of Rowbotham's experiments by independent researchers which you can find in my signature link.
Are there any peer review that any scientist did? You can't call a "peer review" a work done by some Rowbotham followers. I can't see any work of scientist from your signature link also. So, question remains.
-
I'm a scientist! Hear me RAWR!
-
I'm actually here because it's virtually insurmountable. I've always loved debating challenges, and being told '90 Percent Of The Evidence You Bring Is Inadmissable' provides one hell of a challenge.
Still, says something about the human race, eh? Even after we develop the ability to go into space and get the answer...
If Round Earth supporters went into space and came back and announced the world was round, 'conspiracy' would be announced. If Flat Earth supporters went up into space and came back saying the Earth is flat, same thing will happen. In the end, it all boils down to belief, and no amount of evidence will ever convince everyone.
-
Actually, RE'ers will never win because the Earth is flat.
-
I'm a scientist! Hear me RAWR!
Are you doing the peer review of Rowbothams work?
Actually, RE'ers will never win because the Earth is flat.
Yes, in this forum. But out there...
-
Are you doing the peer review of Rowbothams work?
Why would I need to, when there's a wealth of debate-worthy evidence at hand?
Actually, RE'ers will never win because the Earth is flat.
Yes, in this forum. But out there...
I'm fairly certain the curvature of the Earth doesn't vary greatly between the host server and outside of it's warehouse.
-
Are you doing the peer review of Rowbothams work?
Why would I need to, when there's a wealth of debate-worthy evidence at hand?
Um. Not really.
-
Why would I need to, when there's a wealth of debate-worthy evidence at hand?
Um. Not really.
Um. Ya rly.
-
Totally inadmissable evidence. Conspiracy cover-up, so afraid that everything's fabricated. Sorry! ^_^
-
Why would I need to, when there's a wealth of debate-worthy evidence at hand?
Um. Not really.
Um. Ya rly.
1. Rowbotham - insane
2. Conspiracy - non existant
3. ???
4. Profit
-
1. Rowbotham - insane
2. Conspiracy - non existant
3. ???
4. Profit
Gotta give it to you, I lol'd ;D
-
Actually, RE'ers will never win because the Earth is flat.
Sorry dude, please try in your "Scientist" credentials for stating a weakly supported theory as fact.
-
Ah I went through this phase as well.
-
You see? It happens to everyone in the end. Maybe if Better Model hangs around long enough he'll figure it out.
-
You see? It happens to everyone in the end. Maybe if Better Model hangs around long enough he'll figure it out.
Perhaps every time someone starts this kind of argument, a book should be opened on how long it'll take before the penny drops?
-
That could be pretty good - there's quite a large deviation on the time so should get an interesting number of bets!