The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: 04red on March 27, 2007, 07:51:09 PM

Title: Flat Earth Experiment
Post by: 04red on March 27, 2007, 07:51:09 PM
I would like to do an experiment that proves that the Earth is flat since Tom saids that there are many experiments that prove it. 
Title: Re: Flat Earth Experiment
Post by: GeoGuy on March 27, 2007, 08:03:31 PM
Read Earth not a Globe. A link to which can be found in my signature.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Experiment
Post by: Paralyzed Night on April 18, 2009, 08:53:40 PM
There is no experiment to prove a flat earth.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Experiment
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 18, 2009, 08:55:31 PM
Oops you necrofailed there a little bit.  Make sure you clean up after yourself.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Experiment
Post by: Paralyzed Night on April 18, 2009, 08:58:37 PM
Oops you necrofailed there a little bit.  Make sure you clean up after yourself.

Are you saying there is an experiment to prove that the earth is flat?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Experiment
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 18, 2009, 08:59:44 PM
Read Earth not a Globe.

Plenty
Title: Re: Flat Earth Experiment
Post by: Paralyzed Night on April 18, 2009, 09:03:07 PM
No, they don't prove the earth is flat. Otherwise, back when this book was released, scientists would have confirmed this and all agreed to a flat earth. But that didn't happen. So guess what that must mean.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Experiment
Post by: Parsifal on April 18, 2009, 09:11:49 PM
No, they don't prove the earth is flat. Otherwise, back when this book was released, scientists would have confirmed this and all agreed to a flat earth. But that didn't happen. So guess what that must mean.

The Conspiracy paid them off to keep their mouths shut?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Experiment
Post by: markjo on April 18, 2009, 09:18:27 PM
No, they don't prove the earth is flat. Otherwise, back when this book was released, scientists would have confirmed this and all agreed to a flat earth. But that didn't happen. So guess what that must mean.

The Conspiracy paid them off to keep their mouths shut?

Or they had a good laugh at Rowbotham and then went about their business doing real science.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Experiment
Post by: Paralyzed Night on April 18, 2009, 09:18:58 PM
No, they don't prove the earth is flat. Otherwise, back when this book was released, scientists would have confirmed this and all agreed to a flat earth. But that didn't happen. So guess what that must mean.

The Conspiracy paid them off to keep their mouths shut?

Good try, but incorrect.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Experiment
Post by: Parsifal on April 18, 2009, 09:20:16 PM
Good try, but incorrect.

Proof?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Experiment
Post by: zork on April 19, 2009, 03:18:14 AM
No, they don't prove the earth is flat. Otherwise, back when this book was released, scientists would have confirmed this and all agreed to a flat earth. But that didn't happen. So guess what that must mean.

The Conspiracy paid them off to keep their mouths shut?
Proof?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Experiment
Post by: Parsifal on April 19, 2009, 03:19:50 AM
Proof?

If we had proof, it wouldn't be a very good conspiracy.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Experiment
Post by: zork on April 19, 2009, 03:31:09 AM
Proof?

If we had proof, it wouldn't be a very good conspiracy.
Or there isn't any conspiracy. To suspect conspiracy you must have at least some concrete suspicions. Otherwise there isn't any.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Experiment
Post by: markjo on April 19, 2009, 09:51:48 AM
Proof?

If we had proof, it wouldn't be a very good conspiracy.

If you had proof, you wouldn't sound so silly.  :P
Title: Re: Flat Earth Experiment
Post by: Paralyzed Night on April 19, 2009, 04:50:12 PM
This conspiracy that you guys seem to think exist would have destroyed any remains of ENaG, but it hasn't. It is still available to everybody, publicly and freely.

If the book actually held anything credible or accurate then scientists all around the world would have been believing in a FE. But still, even up until now (since the birth of ENaG), no real scientist believes it.

And the reason for it is simple. As has been stated on this site a numerous amounts of times, ENaG is full of flawed and incorrect data, experiments and logic.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 19, 2009, 04:57:30 PM
Quote
This conspiracy that you guys seem to think exist would have destroyed any remains of ENaG, but it hasn't.

Why would it need to?

Eliminating traces of a public domain book would not only be difficult considering that thousands of people have copies, but any attempt to do so would be suspicious as well.

Quote
And the reason for it is simple. As has been stated on this site a numerous amounts of times, ENaG is full of flawed and incorrect data, experiments and logic.

A statement isn't proof.

There is strong corroborating evidence suggesting that the experiments in Earth Not a Globe are true. Independent researchers have reproduced the experiments and have attested to their validity.

A woman named Lady Bount (http://www.zetetic.co.uk/zetetic.html) was among the first to peer review Rowbotham's work:


Mrs. Peach recently found a reference of photographic evidence from The English Mechanic, a scientific journal:

"The Flat Earth: another Bedford Canal experiment" (Bernard H.Watson, et al),
ENGLISH MECHANIC, 80:160, 1904

Bedford Canal, England. A repeat of the 1870 experiment.
"A train of empty turf-boats had just entered the Canal from the river Ouse, and
was about proceeding to Ramsey. I arranged with the captain to place the shallowest
boat last in the train, and to take me on to Welney Bridge, a distance of six
miles. A good telescope was then fixed on the lowest part of the stern of the last
boat. The sluice gate of the Old Bedford Bridge was 5ft. 8in. high, the turf-boat
moored there was 2ft. 6in. high, and the notice board was 6ft. 6in. from the water.
The sun was shining strongly upon them in the direction of the south-southwest; the
air was exceedingly still and clear, and the surface of the water smooth as a
molten mirror, so that everything was favourable for observation. At 1.15 p.m. the
train started for Welney. As the boats gradually receded, the sluice gate, the
turf-boat and the notice board continued to be visible to the naked eye for about
four miles. When the sluice gate and the turf-boat (being of a dark colour) became
somewhat indistinct, the notice board (which was white) was still plainly visible,
and remained so to the end of six miles. But on looking through the telescope all
the objects were distinctly visible throughout the whole distance. On reaching
Welney Bridge I made very careful and repeated observations, and finding several
men upon the banks of the canal, I called them to look through the telescope. They
all saw distinctly the white notice board, the sluice gate, and the black turf-boat
moored near them.

Now, as the telescope was 18in. above the water, The line of sight would touch the
horizon at one mile and a half away (if the surface were convex). The curvature of
the remaining four miles and a half would be 13ft. 6in. Hence the turf-boat should
have been 11ft., the top of the sluice gate 7ft. 10in., and the bottom of the
notice board 7ft. below the horizon.

My recent experiment affords undeniable proof of the Earth's unglobularity, because
it rests not on transitory vision; but my proof remains printed on the negative of
the photograph which Mr.Clifton took for me, and in my presence, on behalf of
J.H.Dallmeyer, Ltd.
A photograph can not 'imagine' nor lie!".
Title: Re: Flat Earth Experiment
Post by: Paralyzed Night on April 19, 2009, 05:04:39 PM
And if you couldn't be bothered lurking a little bit, here are some nice posts that prove this point:

Quote
...ENaG is full of flawed and incorrect data, experiments and logic.

Here:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=23177.0

Here:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=27422.msg652960#msg652960

Here:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=26278.msg608345#msg608345


Just a taste... Now do some search and see the rest.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Experiment
Post by: Paralyzed Night on April 19, 2009, 05:06:23 PM
And Tom Bishop, if somebody re-creates a flawed experiment, then obviously, they will get the same flawed answer. Your statement so far has added nothing.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 19, 2009, 05:08:43 PM
And if you couldn't be bothered lurking a little bit, here are some nice posts that prove this point:

Nope. Thoroughly discussed and debunked.

Quote
And Tom Bishop, if somebody re-creates a flawed experiment, then obviously, they will get the same flawed answer. Your statement so far has added nothing.

If someone preforms the convexity experiment they will get the same answer. That answer is that the earth is flat.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Experiment
Post by: Paralyzed Night on April 19, 2009, 05:13:34 PM

Quote
Nope. Thoroughly discussed and debunked.

Incorrect, it has been shown to be wrong. I will show you a peer review of an experiment:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=23177.0


Quote
If someone preforms the convexity experiment they will get the same answer. That answer is that the earth is flat.

And here is an example of the flawed logic I was talking about:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=27422.msg652960#msg652960




Title: Re: Flat Earth Experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 19, 2009, 05:18:27 PM
Quote
Incorrect, it has been shown to be wrong. I will show you a peer review of an experiment:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=23177.0

As I've already discussed in that same thread, the OP in the thread got the exact same results as Rowbotham did.

Read more, lurk more.

Quote
And here is an example of the flawed logic I was talking about:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=27422.msg652960#msg652960

The bedford canal is a long stretch of standing water, as described in Earth Not a Globe.

The author of that post does not know what he's talking about. Neither does he provide any math or figures to back it up.

When you have an actual legitimate argument please feel free to make a post about it.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Experiment
Post by: Paralyzed Night on April 19, 2009, 05:24:01 PM
Quote
As I've already discussed in that very thread, the OP got the exact same results as Rowbotham did.

Read more, lurk more.

If you had actually read it, you would have noticed that 'Edtharan' showed that both you and 'Robotham' are wrong.


Quote
When you have an actual argument please feel free to start a thread about it.

My argument is
Quote
...ENaG is full of flawed and incorrect data, experiments and logic.

I have a valid argument and have shown valid proof.

On the other hand, you have just shown that somebody else has done the same flawed experiment and got the same flawed answer as the flawed Robotham.

Please come back when you find a better rebuttal.

Title: Re: Flat Earth Experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 19, 2009, 05:31:57 PM
Quote
If you had actually read it, you would have noticed that 'Edtharan' showed that both you and 'Robotham' are wrong.

Nope. Edtharan argues that the bedford canal was flowing, when Rowbotham distinctly describes it as standing in the literature. I'd think that Rowbotham would be the better judge of what it was and wasn't doing seeing that he was the one there standing in it.

Furthermore, even if the water was flowing, the flow must still obey the convexity of "gravity" if the earth were a globe. When a wave travels across the middle of the pacific and hits the coast of California it must still obey the convexity of the earth. It doesn't take a straight line path there. The wave coasts down the convexity of the earth to its destination. On an RE flowing water is convex at every level, and the flow still adheres to that convexity.

The argument is fundamentally flawed and your "valid proof" is bunk.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Experiment
Post by: Paralyzed Night on April 19, 2009, 05:42:25 PM
Quote
The argument is fundamentally flawed and your "valid proof" is bunk.

ENaG is flawed and your 'belief' is bunk.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Experiment
Post by: Paralyzed Night on April 19, 2009, 05:52:07 PM
You don't have an answer for this quote?

Quote
If the book actually held anything credible or accurate then scientists all around the world would have been believing in a FE. But still, even up until now (since the birth of ENaG), no real scientist believes it.

How do you explain this?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Experiment
Post by: Paralyzed Night on April 19, 2009, 06:37:15 PM
No answer?

Thought so. I win.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 19, 2009, 07:06:42 PM
You don't have an answer for this quote?

Quote
If the book actually held anything credible or accurate then scientists all around the world would have been believing in a FE. But still, even up until now (since the birth of ENaG), no real scientist believes it.

How do you explain this?

It doesn't matter what most people believe. All that matters is what's true.

Do most scientists even know that Earth Not a Globe exists? Of the few who do, how many have peer reviewed and reproduced the experiments?

An appeal to popularity is a fallacy. Popular belief does not give a theory credibility what-so-ever.

Only four hundred years ago the most knowledgeably people of the day believed in the existence of witches and witchcraft. Only sixty years ago most doctors believed that cigarettes were harmless. Today we're still being told that beta blockers stop heart attacks, that cough syrup suppresses coughs, and that fluoride fights cavities. Popular belief has a well established history of error, agenda, and misconception.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Experiment
Post by: zork on April 19, 2009, 10:51:19 PM
There is strong corroborating evidence suggesting that the experiments in Earth Not a Globe are true. Independent researchers have reproduced the experiments and have attested to their validity.

A woman named Lady Bount (http://www.zetetic.co.uk/zetetic.html) was among the first to peer review Rowbotham's work:
  Tom, peer review is done by people who have scientific qualifications to do it. Otherwise it isn't peer review. So, you must show us what scientific qualifications Lady Bount had otherwise it isn't peer review.

Today we're still being told that beta blockers stop heart attacks, that cough syrup suppresses coughs, and that fluoride fights cavities. Popular belief has a well established history of error, agenda, and misconception.
Today we are told many things and specially by yellow press. Your examples are from yellow press which exaggerates and twist information. As shown by your thread http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=28085.0 the cough syrup case was totally twisted out of proportions. Article said one thing research totally other.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 19, 2009, 11:32:55 PM
Quote
Tom, peer review is done by people who have scientific qualifications to do it. Otherwise it isn't peer review. So, you must show us what scientific qualifications Lady Bount had otherwise it isn't peer review.

What kind of scientific qualifications are required to look across a body of water?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Experiment
Post by: Anteater7171 on April 19, 2009, 11:42:55 PM
Quote
Tom, peer review is done by people who have scientific qualifications to do it. Otherwise it isn't peer review. So, you must show us what scientific qualifications Lady Bount had otherwise it isn't peer review.

What kind of scientific qualifications are required to look across a body of water?
Tom you and I both know that it's all just mumbo-jumbo to keep us from understanding the true shape of our planet. This is there way to keep us from being accredited.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Experiment
Post by: zork on April 20, 2009, 12:49:37 AM
Quote
Tom, peer review is done by people who have scientific qualifications to do it. Otherwise it isn't peer review. So, you must show us what scientific qualifications Lady Bount had otherwise it isn't peer review.
What kind of scientific qualifications are required to look across a body of water?
Nothing. But then you agree that this wasn't peer review at all. This was just picnic where people looked across a body of water and this kind of thing doesn't count in science. To state that it was peer review you must produce some evidence that person who did it has some scientific education and degree. I don't have problem if you refer in future to it as picnic where Lady Blount observed results of repeated experiment which Rowbotham did earlier.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Experiment
Post by: markjo on April 20, 2009, 06:15:51 AM
Quote
And the reason for it is simple. As has been stated on this site a numerous amounts of times, ENaG is full of flawed and incorrect data, experiments and logic.

A statement isn't proof.

There is strong corroborating evidence suggesting that the experiments in Earth Not a Globe are true. Independent researchers have reproduced the experiments and have attested to their validity.

A woman named Lady Bount (http://www.zetetic.co.uk/zetetic.html) was among the first to peer review Rowbotham's work:

    "The Old Bedford Level was the scene of further experiments over the years, until in 1904, photography was used to prove that the earth is flat. Lady Blount, a staunch believer in the zetetic method hired a photographer, Mr Cifton of Dallmeyer's who arrived at the Bedford Level with the firm's latest Photo-Telescopic camera. The apparatus was set up at one end of the clear six-mile length, while at the other end Lady Blount and some scientific gentlemen hung a large, white calico sheet over the Bedford bridge so that the bottom of it was near the water. Mr Clifton, lying down near Welney bridge with his camera lens two feet above the water level, observed by telescope the hanging of the sheet, and found that he could see the whole of it down to the bottom. This surprised him, for he was an orthodox globularist and round-earth theory said that over a distance of six miles the bottom of the sheet should bemore than 20 feet below his line of sight. His photograph showed not only the entire sheet but its reflection in the water below. That was certified in his report to Lady Blount, which concluded: "I should not like to abandon the globular theory off-hand, but, as far as this particular test is concerned, I am prepared to maintain that (unless rays of light will travel in a curved path) these six miles of water present a level surface."

Mrs. Peach recently found a reference of photographic evidence from The English Mechanic, a scientific journal:

"The Flat Earth: another Bedford Canal experiment" (Bernard H.Watson, et al),
ENGLISH MECHANIC, 80:160, 1904

Bedford Canal, England. A repeat of the 1870 experiment.
"A train of empty turf-boats had just entered the Canal from the river Ouse, and
was about proceeding to Ramsey. I arranged with the captain to place the shallowest
boat last in the train, and to take me on to Welney Bridge, a distance of six
miles. A good telescope was then fixed on the lowest part of the stern of the last
boat. The sluice gate of the Old Bedford Bridge was 5ft. 8in. high, the turf-boat
moored there was 2ft. 6in. high, and the notice board was 6ft. 6in. from the water.
The sun was shining strongly upon them in the direction of the south-southwest; the
air was exceedingly still and clear, and the surface of the water smooth as a
molten mirror, so that everything was favourable for observation. At 1.15 p.m. the
train started for Welney. As the boats gradually receded, the sluice gate, the
turf-boat and the notice board continued to be visible to the naked eye for about
four miles. When the sluice gate and the turf-boat (being of a dark colour) became
somewhat indistinct, the notice board (which was white) was still plainly visible,
and remained so to the end of six miles. But on looking through the telescope all
the objects were distinctly visible throughout the whole distance. On reaching
Welney Bridge I made very careful and repeated observations, and finding several
men upon the banks of the canal, I called them to look through the telescope. They
all saw distinctly the white notice board, the sluice gate, and the black turf-boat
moored near them.

Now, as the telescope was 18in. above the water, The line of sight would touch the
horizon at one mile and a half away (if the surface were convex). The curvature of
the remaining four miles and a half would be 13ft. 6in. Hence the turf-boat should
have been 11ft., the top of the sluice gate 7ft. 10in., and the bottom of the
notice board 7ft. below the horizon.

My recent experiment affords undeniable proof of the Earth's unglobularity, because
it rests not on transitory vision; but my proof remains printed on the negative of
the photograph which Mr.Clifton took for me, and in my presence, on behalf of
J.H.Dallmeyer, Ltd.
A photograph can not 'imagine' nor lie!".


Tom, you do realize that you (well, Dr. Rowbotham and Lady Bount) just disproved bendy light, don't you?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 20, 2009, 10:26:46 AM
Quote
Tom, peer review is done by people who have scientific qualifications to do it. Otherwise it isn't peer review. So, you must show us what scientific qualifications Lady Bount had otherwise it isn't peer review.
What kind of scientific qualifications are required to look across a body of water?
Nothing.

Good, then Lady Bount's results stand as truth.

Quote
This was just picnic where people looked across a body of water and this kind of thing doesn't count in science. To state that it was peer review you must produce some evidence that person who did it has some scientific education and degree. I don't have problem if you refer in future to it as picnic where Lady Blount observed results of repeated experiment which Rowbotham did earlier.

Much of Lady Bount's upbringing is unknown, but she was a fellow (http://thepeerage.com/p16646.htm#i166452) of the Royal Society of Literature (F.R.S.L.). Some of her publications are listed in my signature link.

Quote
Tom, you do realize that you (well, Dr. Rowbotham and Lady Bount) just disproved bendy light, don't you?

Actually they disproved that the earth is a globe. Thanks for keeping up.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Experiment
Post by: markjo on April 20, 2009, 10:32:43 AM
Quote
Tom, you do realize that you (well, Dr. Rowbotham and Lady Bount) just disproved bendy light, don't you?

Actually they disproved that the earth is a globe. Thanks for keeping up.

Yes, and in proving that the earth is flat, they also proved that light doesn't bend.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Experiment
Post by: zork on April 20, 2009, 12:24:59 PM
Quote
Tom, peer review is done by people who have scientific qualifications to do it. Otherwise it isn't peer review. So, you must show us what scientific qualifications Lady Bount had otherwise it isn't peer review.
What kind of scientific qualifications are required to look across a body of water?
Nothing.
Good, then Lady Bount's results stand as truth.

 Only result was that she saw something but she doesn't have any required scientific background therefore the possibility that she interpreted results wrongly are very high. So, it does not in any way stand as truth.

Much of Lady Bount's upbringing is unknown, but she was a fellow (http://thepeerage.com/p16646.htm#i166452) of the Royal Society of Literature (F.R.S.L.). Some of her publications are listed in my signature link.
So it was a picnic for people who were related to literature. So it will be referred as so.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 20, 2009, 12:53:21 PM
Quote
Only result was that she saw something but she doesn't have any required scientific background therefore the possibility that she interpreted results wrongly are very high. So, it does not in any way stand as truth.

What kind of "scientific background" is required to look across a body of water and see a white calico sheet?  ???
Title: Re: Flat Earth Experiment
Post by: markjo on April 20, 2009, 12:56:38 PM
Quote
Only result was that she saw something but she doesn't have any required scientific background therefore the possibility that she interpreted results wrongly are very high. So, it does not in any way stand as truth.

What kind of "scientific background" is required to look across a body of water and see a white calico sheet?  ???

How do you know that she really saw what she said that she saw?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 20, 2009, 01:07:44 PM
Quote
Only result was that she saw something but she doesn't have any required scientific background therefore the possibility that she interpreted results wrongly are very high. So, it does not in any way stand as truth.

What kind of "scientific background" is required to look across a body of water and see a white calico sheet?  ???

How do you know that she really saw what she said that she saw?

Because her account was corroborated by Mr. Clifton, who took a photo of the scene for Lady Blount to publish in her monthly journal The Earth.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Experiment
Post by: markjo on April 20, 2009, 01:25:54 PM
Quote
Only result was that she saw something but she doesn't have any required scientific background therefore the possibility that she interpreted results wrongly are very high. So, it does not in any way stand as truth.

What kind of "scientific background" is required to look across a body of water and see a white calico sheet?  ???

How do you know that she really saw what she said that she saw?

Because her account was corroborated by Mr. Clifton, who took a photo of the scene for Lady Blount to publish in her monthly journal The Earth.

Would you please post a copy of this alleged photo?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 20, 2009, 01:29:58 PM
Would you please post a copy of this alleged photo?

You can find the photo in backissues of Lady Blount's journal The Earth.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Experiment
Post by: markjo on April 20, 2009, 02:28:25 PM
Would you please post a copy of this alleged photo?

You can find the photo in backissues of Lady Blount's journal The Earth.

I don't have access to that publication.  Perhaps you could scan and post it from your collection.  I'm reasonably sure that  the copyright has expired by now.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 20, 2009, 03:04:49 PM
I don't have access to that publication.  Perhaps you could scan and post it from your collection.  I'm reasonably sure that  the copyright has expired by now.

I don't have it, but you can find back issues at the University of Liverpool's Special Collections and Archives department. There's a special Flat Earth collection.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Experiment
Post by: monkeybradders on April 20, 2009, 03:26:17 PM
I don't have access to that publication.  Perhaps you could scan and post it from your collection.  I'm reasonably sure that  the copyright has expired by now.

I don't have it, but you can find back issues at the University of Liverpool's Special Collections and Archives department. There's a special Flat Earth collection.

errm http://google.liv.ac.uk/search?q=flat+earth&site=Library&access=p&entqr=0&output=xml_no_dtd&sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&ud=1&client=Library&oe=UTF-8&ie=UTF-8&proxystylesheet=Library (http://google.liv.ac.uk/search?q=flat+earth&site=Library&access=p&entqr=0&output=xml_no_dtd&sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&ud=1&client=Library&oe=UTF-8&ie=UTF-8&proxystylesheet=Library)

Thought not
Title: Re: Flat Earth Experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 20, 2009, 03:29:13 PM
I don't have access to that publication.  Perhaps you could scan and post it from your collection.  I'm reasonably sure that  the copyright has expired by now.

I don't have it, but you can find back issues at the University of Liverpool's Special Collections and Archives department. There's a special Flat Earth collection.

errm http://google.liv.ac.uk/search?q=flat+earth&site=Library&access=p&entqr=0&output=xml_no_dtd&sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&ud=1&client=Library&oe=UTF-8&ie=UTF-8&proxystylesheet=Library (http://google.liv.ac.uk/search?q=flat+earth&site=Library&access=p&entqr=0&output=xml_no_dtd&sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&ud=1&client=Library&oe=UTF-8&ie=UTF-8&proxystylesheet=Library)

Thought not

Search harder.

http://www.archiveshub.ac.uk/news/06101601.html
Title: Re: Flat Earth Experiment
Post by: markjo on April 20, 2009, 04:36:29 PM
I don't have access to that publication.  Perhaps you could scan and post it from your collection.  I'm reasonably sure that  the copyright has expired by now.

I don't have it, but you can find back issues at the University of Liverpool's Special Collections and Archives department. There's a special Flat Earth collection.

Sorry, but I don't have access to the University of Liverpool's Special Collections and Archives department either.  Do you have a source closer to Ithaca, NY that would have it?

BTW, have you ever actually seen this alleged photograph, or are you just taking someone's word for it that it exists and it depicts what is claimed?  Have you verified the authenticity of the photograph?  Have you examined it for tampering?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 20, 2009, 04:45:00 PM
Quote
Sorry, but I don't have access to the University of Liverpool's Special Collections and Archives department either.  Do you have a source closer to Ithaca, NY that would have it?

It's also available at the Library of Congress, which holds one of the largest Flat Earth collections on earth.

Quote
BTW, have you ever actually seen this alleged photograph, or are you just taking someone's word for it that it exists and it depicts what is claimed?  Have you verified the authenticity of the photograph?  Have you examined it for tampering?

Why would I need to see the photograph? I don't base my contention that Lady Bount did the experiment on a photograph. The validity and honesty of an experiment is based on peer review.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Experiment
Post by: markjo on April 20, 2009, 05:07:04 PM
Quote
Sorry, but I don't have access to the University of Liverpool's Special Collections and Archives department either.  Do you have a source closer to Ithaca, NY that would have it?

It's also available at the Library of Congress, which holds one of the largest Flat Earth collections on earth.

The conspiracy has a Flat Earth collection?  :o 

Sorry, but I don't live near Washington, DC either and I'm not planning any trips anytime soon.

Quote
Quote
BTW, have you ever actually seen this alleged photograph, or are you just taking someone's word for it that it exists and it depicts what is claimed?  Have you verified the authenticity of the photograph?  Have you examined it for tampering?

Why would I need to see the photograph? I don't base my contention that Lady Bount did the experiment on a photograph. The validity and honesty of an experiment is based on peer review.

So you have never seen a photograph that you are trying to admit into evidence?  Tsk, tsk.  Where is the peer review of that photograph?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 20, 2009, 05:14:00 PM
Quote
The conspiracy has a Flat Earth collection?  :o 

Sorry, but I don't live near Washington, DC either and I'm not planning any trips anytime soon.

Washington DC is about a four hour drive away from New York. There's nothing stopping you if you truly wanted to see the original material.

Quote
Where is the peer review of that photograph?

Read Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Experiment
Post by: markjo on April 20, 2009, 07:06:33 PM
Quote
The conspiracy has a Flat Earth collection?  :o 

Sorry, but I don't live near Washington, DC either and I'm not planning any trips anytime soon.

Washington DC is about a four hour drive away from New York. There's nothing stopping you if you truly wanted to see the original material.

Maybe 4 hours from New York City, but I don't live in NYC.  DC is about 8 hours from where I live.  I've been through there a few times.  It's not a day trip, especially if traffic is bad.

Quote
Quote
Where is the peer review of that photograph?

Read Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.

I thought that the photograph was to peer review Rowbotham's work.  ???
Title: Re: Flat Earth Experiment
Post by: zork on April 20, 2009, 10:50:59 PM
Quote
Only result was that she saw something but she doesn't have any required scientific background therefore the possibility that she interpreted results wrongly are very high. So, it does not in any way stand as truth.
What kind of "scientific background" is required to look across a body of water and see a white calico sheet?  ???
What kind of peer review is "looking across a body of water and trying to see a white calico sheet"? It's not peer review in any aspect, so yes, you don't need "scientific background" to look across water and it is also not a peer review. So, the statement stands that it was picnic for looking across water, not peer review. And the result was not truth.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Experiment
Post by: monkeybradders on April 21, 2009, 03:10:18 AM
I don't have access to that publication.  Perhaps you could scan and post it from your collection.  I'm reasonably sure that  the copyright has expired by now.

I don't have it, but you can find back issues at the University of Liverpool's Special Collections and Archives department. There's a special Flat Earth collection.

errm http://google.liv.ac.uk/search?q=flat+earth&site=Library&access=p&entqr=0&output=xml_no_dtd&sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&ud=1&client=Library&oe=UTF-8&ie=UTF-8&proxystylesheet=Library (http://google.liv.ac.uk/search?q=flat+earth&site=Library&access=p&entqr=0&output=xml_no_dtd&sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&ud=1&client=Library&oe=UTF-8&ie=UTF-8&proxystylesheet=Library)

Thought not

Search harder.

http://www.archiveshub.ac.uk/news/06101601.html

That's golden. My favourite part is below. I've made the key points bold.

"Immediate Source of Acquisition
Donated to the Science Fiction Foundation at the North East London Polytechnic in 1971. The archive was then moved to the University of Liverpool Special Collections and Archives in 1993 as part of the Science Fiction Foundation Collection"
Title: Re: Flat Earth Experiment
Post by: svenanders on April 21, 2009, 06:03:26 AM
Epic!
Title: Re: Flat Earth Experiment
Post by: markjo on April 21, 2009, 06:22:53 AM
I don't have access to that publication.  Perhaps you could scan and post it from your collection.  I'm reasonably sure that  the copyright has expired by now.

I don't have it, but you can find back issues at the University of Liverpool's Special Collections and Archives department. There's a special Flat Earth collection.

errm http://google.liv.ac.uk/search?q=flat+earth&site=Library&access=p&entqr=0&output=xml_no_dtd&sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&ud=1&client=Library&oe=UTF-8&ie=UTF-8&proxystylesheet=Library (http://google.liv.ac.uk/search?q=flat+earth&site=Library&access=p&entqr=0&output=xml_no_dtd&sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&ud=1&client=Library&oe=UTF-8&ie=UTF-8&proxystylesheet=Library)

Thought not

Search harder.

http://www.archiveshub.ac.uk/news/06101601.html

That's golden. My favourite part is below. I've made the key points bold.

"Immediate Source of Acquisition
Donated to the Science Fiction Foundation at the North East London Polytechnic in 1971. The archive was then moved to the University of Liverpool Special Collections and Archives in 1993 as part of the Science Fiction Foundation Collection"

Quote
Access Conditions

Access is open to bona fide researchers

A bona fide FE researcher.  Now there's an oxymoron.   :P
Title: Re: Flat Earth Experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 21, 2009, 02:05:24 PM
Quote
Maybe 4 hours from New York City, but I don't live in NYC.  DC is about 8 hours from where I live.  I've been through there a few times.  It's not a day trip, especially if traffic is bad.


Travel arrangements are your problem, not mine.

Quote
I thought that the photograph was to peer review Rowbotham's work.  ???

The experiments peer review each other.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Experiment
Post by: monkeybradders on April 21, 2009, 04:04:30 PM
Tom, Tom cooooooo eeeeiii Tom
Anything about you reference material being filed under "Science Fiction" i'm assuming you knew this and you're happy with it because a man like you wouldn't reference somthing without reading it first.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 21, 2009, 04:24:45 PM
Tom, Tom cooooooo eeeeiii Tom
Anything about you reference material being filed under "Science Fiction" i'm assuming you knew this and you're happy with it because a man like you wouldn't reference somthing without reading it first.

The handlers are free to file the donated literature however they want, just like when I file NASA's space propaganda books under "Religion" in my personal library.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Experiment
Post by: Paralyzed Night on April 21, 2009, 06:40:48 PM
Tom, Tom cooooooo eeeeiii Tom
Anything about you reference material being filed under "Science Fiction" i'm assuming you knew this and you're happy with it because a man like you wouldn't reference somthing without reading it first.

The handlers are free to file the donated literature however they want, just like when I file NASA's space propaganda books under "Religion" in my personal library.

So why do you think that they handled it under
Quote
Science Fiction
?

Obviously many people have read it and chose to classify it as so.

So why did they not conclude that the earth must be flat, after reading such evidence? Well, go back to my other post and you will see that:

Quote
...ENaG is full of flawed and incorrect data, experiments and logic.

We have threads on this site debunking ENaG and Robotham's flawed experiments, we also have this:

Quote
...scientists would have confirmed this and all agreed to a flat earth. But that didn't happen. So guess what that must mean.

Which is talking about why scientists, after reading the book didn't believe it.

Now we have this:

Quote
That's golden. My favourite part is below. I've made the key points bold.

"Immediate Source of Acquisition
Donated to the Science Fiction Foundation at the North East London Polytechnic in 1971. The archive was then moved to the University of Liverpool Special Collections and Archives in 1993 as part of the Science Fiction Foundation Collection"

I have now enough trust that ENaG is truly flawed, after doing my own research and observations and conclude that its just a work of fiction, but servers as a good way to teach about open mindness.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 21, 2009, 07:01:49 PM
Quote
So why do you think that they handled it under Science Fiction?

It's not a librarian's job to read through the books they bring in. It's not their job to understand every one of the thousands of pieces of literature on their shelves, or to agree with anything.  A librarian's job is to categorize based on snap judgment, slap some numbers onto the binding, and put it on a shelf somewhere. A librarian is not obligated to read even a single page of a book before filing it.

Quote
Now we have this:

Quote
That's golden. My favourite part is below. I've made the key points bold.

"Immediate Source of Acquisition
Donated to the Science Fiction Foundation at the North East London Polytechnic in 1971. The archive was then moved to the University of Liverpool Special Collections and Archives in 1993 as part of the Science Fiction Foundation Collection"

The librarians over at the Library of Congress filed their Flat Earth books under Science Reference Guides (http://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/SciRefGuides/flatearth.html). That must be incontrovertible proof that Flat Earth Theory is true and everyone at the Library of Congress is an FE'er, right?

Your arguments are lame, just like your "proof."
Title: Re: Flat Earth Experiment
Post by: markjo on April 21, 2009, 07:40:56 PM
Quote
Maybe 4 hours from New York City, but I don't live in NYC.  DC is about 8 hours from where I live.  I've been through there a few times.  It's not a day trip, especially if traffic is bad.


Travel arrangements are your problem, not mine.

OK Tom, let me see if I have this straight.  You claim that there is a photograph commissioned by Lady Blount that supposedly supports Rowbotham's Bedford Level experiment.  Yet you admit that you have never actually seen that photograph so you have no idea of what is actually shown in that photograph or if it really supports Rowbotham's results.  Why should I waste my time doing your research for you?  It's your claim that this photograph exists and supports your claim that Rowbotham's Bedford Level experiment demonstrates a flat earth, therefore it's your burden of proof to provide the evidence, not mine.  In other words, please provide a copy of that photograph or stop presenting it as evidence.

Quote
Quote
I thought that the photograph was to peer review Rowbotham's work.  ???

The experiments peer review each other.

You keep using that term (peer review).  I don't think it means what you think it means. [/Princess Bride reference]

Check me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that photograph taken 20 years after Rowbotham died?  How does one peer review someone else's work done 20 years after one's own death?  ???
Title: Re: Flat Earth Experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 21, 2009, 08:24:49 PM
Quote
OK Tom, let me see if I have this straight.  You claim that there is a photograph commissioned by Lady Blount that supposedly supports Rowbotham's Bedford Level experiment.  Yet you admit that you have never actually seen that photograph so you have no idea of what is actually shown in that photograph or if it really supports Rowbotham's results.  Why should I waste my time doing your research for you?  It's your claim that this photograph exists and supports your claim that Rowbotham's Bedford Level experiment demonstrates a flat earth, therefore it's your burden of proof to provide the evidence, not mine.  In other words, please provide a copy of that photograph or stop presenting it as evidence.

I don't need to produce the photograph because I'm not using the photograph as evidence that the earth is not a globe. A good number of written records of the experiment exist from multiple independent researchers. That's all the evidence needed. The concept of peer review already proves beyond doubt the results of the experiment.

When someone peer reviews Apollo 11 let me know.

Quote
Check me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that photograph taken 20 years after Rowbotham died?  How does one peer review someone else's work done 20 years after one's own death?

Who said that the researcher had to be alive to peer review his work?  ???
Title: Re: Flat Earth Experiment
Post by: markjo on April 21, 2009, 08:30:50 PM
Quote
OK Tom, let me see if I have this straight.  You claim that there is a photograph commissioned by Lady Blount that supposedly supports Rowbotham's Bedford Level experiment.  Yet you admit that you have never actually seen that photograph so you have no idea of what is actually shown in that photograph or if it really supports Rowbotham's results.  Why should I waste my time doing your research for you?  It's your claim that this photograph exists and supports your claim that Rowbotham's Bedford Level experiment demonstrates a flat earth, therefore it's your burden of proof to provide the evidence, not mine.  In other words, please provide a copy of that photograph or stop presenting it as evidence.

I don't need to produce the photograph because I'm not using the photograph as evidence that the earth is not a globe. A good number of written records of the experiment exist from multiple independent researchers. That's all the evidence needed. The concept of peer review already proves beyond doubt the results of the experiment.

Then why do you keep brining up the photo if you're not using it as evidence?

Quote
Quote
Check me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that photograph taken 20 years after Rowbotham died?  How does one peer review someone else's work done 20 years after one's own death?

Who said that the researcher had to be alive to peer review his work?  ???

Rowbotham died in 1884.  Lady Blount's photo was taken in 1904.  How does Rowbotham peer review Lady Blount's work from the grave? 
Title: Re: Flat Earth Experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 22, 2009, 12:13:46 AM
Quote
Then why do you keep brining up the photo if you're not using it as evidence?

I mentioned the photo once, and it was in description of Mr. Clifton's actions at the scene. Mr. Clifton presents direct corroboration of the experiment through testimony and photography.

I'm not obligated to travel across country to find the photo because we already have his direct writen testimony on the matter. The photograph is supplementary to the case. While we do not have it on hand we know it exists and was published because there are numerous references to it in various literary sources.

But if you really have delusional doubts about the facts, you are always free to look at the photo for yourself. You know where to find it. You are also free to dig up the grave of Samuel Birley Rowbotham if you have doubts that he existed as well.

Quote
Rowbotham died in 1884.  Lady Blount's photo was taken in 1904.  How does Rowbotham peer review Lady Blount's work from the grave? 

The experiments exist as peer reviews and corroborations of each other because academia transcends individual lifespans. In an article about Rowbotham's experiments Lady Blount's trials could be listed as a corroborating work, and in an article about Lady Blount's trials a reference to Rowbotham's trials could be listed as a corroborating work.

The convexity experiments conducted by these independent researchers produce the same undeniable result each and every time the experiment is performed: The earth is flat.
Title: Re: Flat Earth Experiment
Post by: monkeybradders on April 22, 2009, 01:46:01 AM
Quote
So why do you think that they handled it under Science Fiction?

It's not a librarian's job to read through the books they bring in. It's not their job to understand every one of the thousands of pieces of literature on their shelves, or to agree with anything.  A librarian's job is to categorize based on snap judgment, slap some numbers onto the binding, and put it on a shelf somewhere. A librarian is not obligated to read even a single page of a book before filing it.

Quote
Now we have this:

Quote
That's golden. My favourite part is below. I've made the key points bold.

"Immediate Source of Acquisition
Donated to the Science Fiction Foundation at the North East London Polytechnic in 1971. The archive was then moved to the University of Liverpool Special Collections and Archives in 1993 as part of the Science Fiction Foundation Collection"

The librarians over at the Library of Congress filed their Flat Earth books under Science Reference Guides (http://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/SciRefGuides/flatearth.html). That must be incontrovertible proof that Flat Earth Theory is true and everyone at the Library of Congress is an FE'er, right?

Your arguments are lame, just like your "proof."

Wrong, it means that there is no consistency in FE because you all fail to produce anything that makes sense to and can be agreed upon by your fellow members, let alone Mrs.Pennyapple at the library.

BTW i'm not arguing with you. Just what is it I have 'proved' that you don't agree with?
Title: Re: Flat Earth Experiment
Post by: markjo on April 22, 2009, 06:22:40 AM
Quote
Then why do you keep brining up the photo if you're not using it as evidence?

I mentioned the photo once, and it was in description of Mr. Clifton's actions at the scene. Mr. Clifton presents direct corroboration of the experiment through testimony and photography.

I'm not obligated to travel across country to find the photo because we already have his direct writen testimony on the matter. The photograph is supplementary to the case. While we do not have it on hand we know it exists and was published because there are numerous references to it in various literary sources.

But if you really have delusional doubts about the facts, you are always free to look at the photo for yourself. You know where to find it. You are also free to dig up the grave of Samuel Birley Rowbotham if you have doubts that he existed as well.

Tom, you have mentioned that photograph several times and you have even added it to your signature link.  You seem to have a an unusual amount of faith in a photograph that you've never seen before to call yourself a skeptic.  I don't doubt that the photograph exists.  I only question the actual scene captured in that photograph and, as a zetetic, so should you.

Quote
Quote
Rowbotham died in 1884.  Lady Blount's photo was taken in 1904.  How does Rowbotham peer review Lady Blount's work from the grave? 

The experiments exist as peer reviews and corroborations of each other because academia transcends individual lifespans. In an article about Rowbotham's experiments Lady Blount's trials could be listed as a corroborating work, and in an article about Lady Blount's trials a reference to Rowbotham's trials could be listed as a corroborating work.

The convexity experiments conducted by these independent researchers produce the same undeniable result each and every time the experiment is performed: The earth is flat.

*sigh*  Tom, you can't review something that hasn't happened yet.  You can preview something that hasn't happened, but you can't review it (peer or otherwise).  Rowbotham can't peer review an experiment that happened 20 years after he died.  Lady Blount's work can peer review and build upon Rowbotham's work, but Rowbotham can't review or add to Lady Blount's work after he's dead.  Why is that so hard to understand?  That is unless Rowbotham invented time travel as well.