The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Corey B. Trotz on December 03, 2008, 11:43:33 AM

Title: The Earth is round because
Post by: Corey B. Trotz on December 03, 2008, 11:43:33 AM
Suppose the North Pole is the center of a flat Earth.  The distance around the arctic circle would be much smaller, therefore, than the distance around the 40 degree north line.  There would be little difference of comparison for these circular distances between a flat Earth model and a round Earth model.  However, the problem with the flat Earth model arises when we apply the same rules past the 0 degree line. 

In a flat Earth model, as you go "south" the circumference would increase more and more until the antarctic circle would be the greatest circumference possible.  Why does a flight from Rio de Janiero to Cape Town take less time than a flight from Los Angeles to London?  Being in the "Southern Hemisphere," in the flat Earth model an arc of the same degree measure should be a much greater distance than one in the "Northern Hemisphere."

The answer is that 40 degrees North and 40 degrees South have the same circumference.  The Earth is not flat.  I win.
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on December 03, 2008, 11:52:50 AM
Have you measured the 40 degree north and south lines? 
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: Corey B. Trotz on December 03, 2008, 12:08:37 PM
Not personally.  What does it matter?  Are you going to propose that the circumference 40 degree south line is significantly larger than the 40 degree north?

I am saying, suppose it is significantly larger and the Earth is therefore flat.  This would lead to absurdities in international air travel, in both its durations and directions.  The RE model fits actual flight times and directions perfectly.  The FE model does not.

Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: Corey B. Trotz on December 03, 2008, 12:14:58 PM
You can make up new models of a flat Earth of where exactly the continents are to account for certain flight durations, but whichever way you do it you can never account for all the flight durations, and if you do, then the flight turns will be off.  When I take off from Memphis to Amsterdam, I am not making this ridiculous 270 degree turn to make the flight duration 10 hours.  No, I am traveling north across the continental U.S. for a little while and then we take a 90 degree turn and go east across the Atlantic.  That is all there is to it.  The RE model fits flight durations and velocity changes perfectly.  The FE model has to propose government conspiracies, or propose flight patterns that planes clearly do not follow.
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on December 03, 2008, 01:01:48 PM
Not personally.  What does it matter?  Are you going to propose that the circumference 40 degree south line is significantly larger than the 40 degree north?

Why yes.  But without actual measurements, we do not know a thing.
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: Perfect Circle on December 03, 2008, 03:15:35 PM
All you need is the speed of the plane.
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: Edtharan on December 03, 2008, 05:15:47 PM
We can also use ratios to work out thinks in lieu of direct measurements.

As we know that the Circle on a flat Earth in the south Hemiplane will, by mathematical necessity, be larger and a circle in the Northern Hemiplane, we know that it should take longer to travel or require the plane to move faster when flying between two points in the Southern Hemiplane.

Now, as planes travel both ways, we can rule out any air currents that might be influencing the planes as these air currents would cause planes travelling on one direction to makes the RE predicted times, but in the other direction they would not. As both directions fit RE times, we can rule out any air currents (and if you had two air currents one going one way and the other going the other way, they would cause massive amounts of turbulence that would be detected, and even be strong enough to knock the planes out of the air - and as they aren't knocked out of the air, then there is not that much turbulence out there, definitely not enough to account for two high speed jet streams passing one another).
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: Fileffel on December 04, 2008, 12:03:38 AM
*Facepalm*

^ That was directed at the topic creator.
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: Oom19 on December 04, 2008, 03:13:56 PM
Not personally.  What does it matter?  Are you going to propose that the circumference 40 degree south line is significantly larger than the 40 degree north?

Why yes.  But without actual measurements, we do not know a thing.


Measure it to prove its flat then.  Since society generaly accepts that its round, you really have to prove to us its flat.  I have never seen real evidence, only speculation.
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 06, 2008, 02:51:54 PM
Measure it to prove its flat then.  Since society generaly accepts that its round, you really have to prove to us its flat.  I have never seen real evidence, only speculation.

It has already been measured and proven through test, trial, and experiment. Read Earth Not a Globe and the other Flat Earth Literature referenced in my signature link.
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: Sean on December 06, 2008, 03:28:16 PM
The earth has been proven flat so well, even an RE'er must not deny its flatness.
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: ghazwozza on December 06, 2008, 04:05:49 PM
Measure it to prove its flat then.  Since society generaly accepts that its round, you really have to prove to us its flat.  I have never seen real evidence, only speculation.

It has already been measured and proven through test, trial, and experiment. Read Earth Not a Globe and the other Flat Earth Literature referenced in my signature link.

Your flat earth literature is a joke. It has been discredited too many times to be considered worthy of admission into debate.
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on December 06, 2008, 04:08:01 PM
Measure it to prove its flat then.  Since society generaly accepts that its round, you really have to prove to us its flat.  I have never seen real evidence, only speculation.

It has already been measured and proven through test, trial, and experiment. Read Earth Not a Globe and the other Flat Earth Literature referenced in my signature link.

Experiments that were later shown by a qualified surveyor to point to a round earth, something FE refuses to acknowledge.  Just like you refuse to acknowledge any evidence that contradicts the FE model.  Show me evidence of a conspiracy Tom.

Rowbatham never explained midnight sun at the poles.  Care to join my discussion Tom?  It's been almost a week and FE has been silent.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=25214.0
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 06, 2008, 04:13:07 PM
Quote
Experiments that were later shown by a qualified surveyor to point to a round earth, something FE refuses to acknowledge.

Actually, it didn't. Both Wallace and Hampden walked away from the wager claiming that their own side had won.

The wager between the two men was for a year's worth of pay. How is a large bet between two men concrete proof for anything?

Quote
Rowbatham never explained midnight sun at the poles.

Sure he did. It doesn't happen. There is no midnight sun in Antarctica.

Read Earth Not a Globe.
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: ghazwozza on December 06, 2008, 04:15:52 PM
Again, read Earth Not a Globe.

You're not listening:
Your flat earth literature is a joke. It has been discredited too many times to be considered worthy of admission into debate.
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 06, 2008, 04:22:36 PM
Proof? Who discredited it? You?
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: ghazwozza on December 06, 2008, 04:24:16 PM
Proof?

Do a search. Alternatively, I propose a challenge. You submit a page, any page, from ENaG, and I'll point out either a scientific error or an unsurported claim.
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 06, 2008, 04:40:55 PM
Proof?

Do a search. Alternatively, I propose a challenge. You submit a page, any page, from ENaG, and I'll point out either a scientific error or an unsurported claim.

So you don't have any proof that ENAG was discredited, then?

Thought so.
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: Sean on December 06, 2008, 04:46:51 PM
Proof?

Do a search. Alternatively, I propose a challenge. You submit a page, any page, from ENaG, and I'll point out either a scientific error or an unsurported claim.

So you don't have any proof that ENAG was discredited, then?

Thought so.

 PUSSY, PUSSY, PUSSY, PUSSY, PUSSY, PUSSY, PUSSY, PUSSY, PUSSY, PUSSY, PUSSY, PUSSY, PUSSY, PUSSY, PUSSY,
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: Perfect Circle on December 06, 2008, 05:35:52 PM
Proof? Who discredited it? You?
-Yes, I have already shown myself that ships/cities/drilling platforms on the horizon cannot be restored by any powerful telescope.
-I have posted a thread showing that Rowbotham's numbers could not have been accurate to the nearest inch, or even foot, based on his starting data so he must by lying or hiding data.
-I have explained the flaws of experiments relying on tools such as levels.

-Then there's the fact that thousands of non-government, non-conspiracy people have witnessed midnight sun at the poles.
-Your spotlight-sun model cannot explain the illumination phases of other planets.
-The orbits of other planets are consistent anywhere in the world, something that is impossible on a flat earth (along with vertical orbits without colliding with the flat earth).
-Bendy light is not only a worthless theory with no evidence at all, but it cannot explain the perception of stars at different locations at night, nor why the sun cannot be seen, nor the angle of the sun's rising and setting positions to the north pole on the equinox.
-You have not provided a valid, evidence-backed explanation of how we are traveling at vastly different speeds in the northern and southern hemisphere.
-You have not explained how 'the ice wall' can be circumnavigated in such a short time. The 'peninsula' explanation doesn't work, because than a ship would not end up back where it started.
-You have not provided a valid explanation of how the sun defies the laws of physics by traveling much slower above the Tropic of Cancer and much faster above the Tropic of Capricorn.
-You have not explained how odometers could possibly by tricked by the conspiracy.

I will add more as they come to me.
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 06, 2008, 05:37:07 PM
I still don't see any proof that Rowbotham's work was discredited or disproved.

How about bringing some actual contradicting evidence to the table?
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: Perfect Circle on December 06, 2008, 05:38:26 PM
I still don't see any proof that Rowbotham's work was discredited.

How about bringing some actual contradicting evidence to the table?
How about respond to my threads and posts, you know, the ones you've been conveniently ignoring?
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: ghazwozza on December 06, 2008, 05:41:28 PM
I still don't see any proof that Rowbotham's work was discredited.

How about bringing some actual contradicting evidence to the table?

ENaG claims the Nile drops by only a foot. In actuality, it drops 400 meters. If the Nile dropped by only a foot, it wouldn't flow.

I still don't see any proof that Rowbotham's work was discredited.

How about bringing some actual contradicting evidence to the table?
How about respond to my threads and posts, you know, the ones you've been conveniently ignoring?

Would be nice, TB. YOu do tend to ignore contradicting evidence.
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 06, 2008, 05:53:06 PM
Quote
ENaG claims the Nile drops by only a foot. In actuality, it drops 400 meters. If the Nile dropped by only a foot, it wouldn't flow.

Where does ENaG say that the Nile drops by only a foot?

Quote
Would be nice, TB. YOu do tend to ignore contradicting evidence.

What contradicting evidence? I haven't seen you guys present any evidence for your claims period.
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: NTheGreat on December 06, 2008, 05:53:27 PM
Quote
I still don't see any proof that Rowbotham's work was discredited.

How about bringing some actual contradicting evidence to the table?

Alfred Russel Wallace and John Hampden performed an experiment on the Bedford level with independent verification that the surface of water is curved, in disagreement with Parallax's findings.
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: ghazwozza on December 06, 2008, 06:01:04 PM
What contradicting evidence? I haven't seen you guys present any evidence for your claims period.

I can't be bothered to go searching for evidence now. Pick a page, any page, and link to it, and I'll tell you why it's wrong.
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 06, 2008, 06:03:07 PM
Quote
Alfred Russel Wallace and John Hampden performed an experiment on the Bedford level with independent verification that the surface of water is curved, in disagreement with Parallax's findings.

Both Wallace and Hampden walked away from the wager claiming that their own side had won.

The wager between the two men was for a year's worth of pay. How is a large bet between two men concrete proof for anything?
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 06, 2008, 06:03:59 PM
Quote
I can't be bothered to go searching for evidence now.

Thanks. I knew you didn't have any.
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: ghazwozza on December 06, 2008, 06:18:41 PM
Quote
I can't be bothered to go searching for evidence now.

Thanks. I knew you didn't have any.

Alright, I'll bite. In this thread (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=23177.0), Rowbotham's claim to understand physics is completely destroyed.

To name but a few of his errors, he:
- claims that momentum is a force.
- assumes an object loses all momentum when it reaches the top of it's path.
- fails to use boundary condition reasoning to spot his errors.
- doesn't perform a control experiment (or even consider one), which is what the OP did.
- states (incorrectly) that a falling object takes a diagonal course, not a parabolic one.
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: Perfect Circle on December 06, 2008, 06:24:46 PM
You still ignored my threads:
Planetary illumination, orbits and transit: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=25251.0
Bendy light: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=25219.0
The accuracy of Rowbotham: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=25098.0
The flaw of experiments assuming a flat horizontal: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=25117.0

Then there's the threads about the equinox, the sun defying the laws of physics and drastically changing speed throughout the seasons, etc.
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 06, 2008, 06:25:39 PM
Alright, I'll bite. In this thread (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=23177.0), Rowbotham's claim to understand physics is completely destroyed.

To name but a few of his errors, he:
- claims that momentum is a force.
- assumes an object loses all momentum when it reaches the top of it's path.
- fails to use boundary condition reasoning to spot his errors.
- doesn't perform a control experiment (or even consider one), which is what the OP did.
- states (incorrectly) that a falling object takes a diagonal course, not a parabolic one.

What are you talking about? The OP in that thread got the same results as Rowbotham. There is was no centripetal acceleration detected.

And your criticisms against Rowbotham's word usage is due to the fact that terms like "centripetal acceleration" didn't exist in the 1800's.

That thread doesn't disprove Rowbotham's results. The Author got the same results as Samuel Birley Rowbotham. The weight fell straight down.
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 06, 2008, 06:28:54 PM
You still ignored my threads:
Planetary illumination, orbits and transit: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=25251.0
Bendy light: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=25219.0
The accuracy of Rowbotham: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=25098.0
The flaw of experiments assuming a flat horizontal: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=25117.0

Then there's the threads about the equinox, the sun defying the laws of physics and drastically changing speed throughout the seasons, etc.

Where in any of those threads did you disprove Rowbotham's Earth Not a Globe?
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: Perfect Circle on December 06, 2008, 06:29:33 PM
Alright, I'll bite. In this thread (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=23177.0), Rowbotham's claim to understand physics is completely destroyed.

To name but a few of his errors, he:
- claims that momentum is a force.
- assumes an object loses all momentum when it reaches the top of it's path.
- fails to use boundary condition reasoning to spot his errors.
- doesn't perform a control experiment (or even consider one), which is what the OP did.
- states (incorrectly) that a falling object takes a diagonal course, not a parabolic one.

What are you talking about? The OP in that thread got the same results as Rowbotham. There is was no centripetal acceleration detected.

And your criticisms against Rowbotham's word usage is due to the fact that terms like "centripetal acceleration" didn't exist in the 1800's.
Because in Rowbotham's age, he didn't fully understand physics. Therefore, his statements are pretty much worthless today.
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: Perfect Circle on December 06, 2008, 06:30:04 PM
You still ignored my threads:
Planetary illumination, orbits and transit: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=25251.0
Bendy light: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=25219.0
The accuracy of Rowbotham: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=25098.0
The flaw of experiments assuming a flat horizontal: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=25117.0

Then there's the threads about the equinox, the sun defying the laws of physics and drastically changing speed throughout the seasons, etc.

Where in any of those threads did you disprove Rowbotham's Earth Not a Globe?
The last three. And many of my other posts that didn't become threads.
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: ghazwozza on December 06, 2008, 06:30:16 PM
Alright, I'll bite. In this thread (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=23177.0), Rowbotham's claim to understand physics is completely destroyed.

To name but a few of his errors, he:
- claims that momentum is a force.
- assumes an object loses all momentum when it reaches the top of it's path.
- fails to use boundary condition reasoning to spot his errors.
- doesn't perform a control experiment (or even consider one), which is what the OP did.
- states (incorrectly) that a falling object takes a diagonal course, not a parabolic one.

What are you talking about? The OP in that thread got the same results as Rowbotham. There is was no centripetal acceleration detected.

Why don't you respond to my points. He makes numerous basic errors in his explanation. Try to address each bullet point.

Also, the OP got the same result as Rowbotham in a control experiment (in an aeroplane). Rowbotham didn't do a control experiment, showing bad scientific practice. The fact that the same result was found in the control experiment shows that the experiment itself is useless.

Rowbotham fails at science.
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 06, 2008, 06:30:58 PM
Because in Rowbotham's age, he didn't fully understand physics. Therefore, his statements are pretty much worthless today.

So where did someone get different results than Rowbotham? Who got contradicting results? Who disproved Earth Not a Globe?

Quote
The last three. And many of my other posts that didn't become threads.

Really? In what threads did you make experiments to contradict Rowbotham's?

I didn't see any.

Quote
Why don't you respond to my points. He makes numerous basic errors in his explanation. Try to address each bullet point.

Also, the OP got the same result as Rowbotham in a control experiment (in an aeroplane). Rowbotham didn't do a control experiment, showing bad scientific practice. The fact that the same result was found in the control experiment shows that the experiment itself is useless.

Rowbotham fails at science.

The OP got the same results as Rowbotham did. I don't see how the poster of that thread is disproving Rowbotham if he got the same results.
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: Perfect Circle on December 06, 2008, 06:32:51 PM
Because in Rowbotham's age, he didn't fully understand physics. Therefore, his statements are pretty much worthless today.

So where did someone get different results than Rowbotham? Who got contradicting results? Who disproved Earth Not a Globe?
Henry Yule Oldham, Alfred Russel Wallace, several others, and I.
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 06, 2008, 06:34:43 PM
Quote
Henry Yule Oldham, Alfred Russel Wallace, several others, and I.

Where are those findings published?

I'm still waiting for you guys to show me something that disproves Rowbotham or gives a contradicting result.
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: ghazwozza on December 06, 2008, 06:35:49 PM
Quote
I can't be bothered to go searching for evidence now.

Thanks. I knew you didn't have any.

Alright, I'll bite. In this thread (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=23177.0), Rowbotham's claim to understand physics is completely destroyed.

To name but a few of his errors, he:
- claims that momentum is a force.
- assumes an object loses all momentum when it reaches the top of it's path.
- fails to use boundary condition reasoning to spot his errors.
- doesn't perform a control experiment (or even consider one), which is what the OP did.
- states (incorrectly) that a falling object takes a diagonal course, not a parabolic one.

Alright, I'll bite. In this thread (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=23177.0), Rowbotham's claim to understand physics is completely destroyed.

To name but a few of his errors, he:
- claims that momentum is a force.
- assumes an object loses all momentum when it reaches the top of it's path.
- fails to use boundary condition reasoning to spot his errors.
- doesn't perform a control experiment (or even consider one), which is what the OP did.
- states (incorrectly) that a falling object takes a diagonal course, not a parabolic one.

What are you talking about? The OP in that thread got the same results as Rowbotham. There is was no centripetal acceleration detected.

Why don't you respond to my points. He makes numerous basic errors in his explanation. Try to address each bullet point.

Also, the OP got the same result as Rowbotham in a control experiment (in an aeroplane). Rowbotham didn't do a control experiment, showing bad scientific practice. The fact that the same result was found in the control experiment shows that the experiment itself is useless.

Rowbotham fails at science.

In red are all of my points that you ignored. Can you not answer them? Do you admit that Rowbotham's work is scientifically unsound?

I'm still waiting for you guys to show me something that disproves Rowbotham

Already have Tom, but you chose not to see it.
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 06, 2008, 06:47:19 PM
I still don't see any conflicting results to Rowbotham's results. Complaining about his misuse of physics terms to what is in common use today doesn't really mean anything since its unclear what those terms meant in the Victorian Age.

I just want to see were someone got a different result in an experiment to what Samuel Birley Rowbotham observed.

Where were Rowbotham's experiments disproved?
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: ghazwozza on December 06, 2008, 06:59:39 PM
I still don't see any conflicting results to Rowbotham's results. Complaining about his misuse of physics terms to what is in common use today doesn't really mean anything since its unclear what those terms meant in the Victorian Age.

I just want to see were someone got a different result in an experiment to what Samuel Birley Rowbotham observed.

Where were Rowbotham's experiments disproved?

You are not listening. When did I say the OP got different results? I said that the experiment itself was useless and inconclusive.
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 06, 2008, 07:02:18 PM
So the results of Rowbotham's experiments were never disproved or contradicted then. I already knew that. Thanks.
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: ghazwozza on December 06, 2008, 07:10:31 PM
So the results of Rowbotham's experiments were never disproved or contradicted then. Thanks.

No problem. So you agree with me -- his entire experiment was bunk.
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 06, 2008, 07:24:02 PM
When you guys can come up with an experiment which contradicts with Rowbotham's results, let me know.
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: ghazwozza on December 06, 2008, 07:30:59 PM
When you guys can come up with an experiment which contradicts with Rowbotham's results, let me know.

So we're agreed: ENaG is inadmissable as evidence. I will be referencing this thread whenever you mention it from now on.
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: markjo on December 06, 2008, 07:37:04 PM
When you guys can come up with an experiment which contradicts with Rowbotham's results, let me know.

How about this one?
http://www.ehartwell.com/Apollo17/
(http://www.ehartwell.com/Apollo17/images/550px-The_Earth_seen_from_Apollo_17.jpg)
Quote
"We'd like to confirm, from the crew of America, that the world is round."
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: Edtharan on December 06, 2008, 08:00:15 PM
Proof?

Do a search. Alternatively, I propose a challenge. You submit a page, any page, from ENaG, and I'll point out either a scientific error or an unsurported claim.

So you don't have any proof that ENAG was discredited, then?

Thought so.
Actually he is saying that he has proof, he just wants to know which part of ENaG you think is the most conclusive point about FET. He is saying he has proof that every page has something that discredits it.
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 06, 2008, 08:21:30 PM
How about this one?
http://www.ehartwell.com/Apollo17/
http://www.ehartwell.com/Apollo17/images/550px-The_Earth_seen_from_Apollo_17.jpg

How about one that was actually performed?
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: markjo on December 06, 2008, 08:42:44 PM
How about this one?
http://www.ehartwell.com/Apollo17/
http://www.ehartwell.com/Apollo17/images/550px-The_Earth_seen_from_Apollo_17.jpg

How about one that was actually performed?

As opposed to your claim of being able to see a beach 30 miles away with binoculars at sea level?  ::)
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 06, 2008, 09:33:31 PM
When you have some evidence which contradicts Rowbotham's let me know and we can continue this thread.
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: Perfect Circle on December 06, 2008, 11:10:20 PM
When you have some evidence which contradicts Rowbotham's let me know and we can continue this thread.
I read through the following topics to make sure you did not already (validly) address them:

1. Occlusion by Horizon not restored by telescope:

a. http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=24914.msg552253#msg552253
b. http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=25081.msg553672#msg553672
c. http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=649.0
d. http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22317.0
e. http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=23639.msg503054#msg503054
f. http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=18526.msg334789#msg334789
g. http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=18526.msg334800#msg334800
h. http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=18526.msg334813#msg334813
i. http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=18526.msg335497#msg335497

Additional evidence for 1:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=25080.msg553264#msg553264
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=25081.msg552787#msg552787
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=25081.msg553368#msg553368
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=25210.msg560149#msg560149
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=18506.msg333875#msg333875
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=18483.msg333104#msg333104
http://www.pdas.com/atmthick.htm

2. FE Sun not possible:

a. http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22996.0
b. http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=25228.msg559688#msg559688
c. http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=25219.0
d. http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=683.0
e. http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=479.0
f. http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=646.0
g. http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=23623.0
h. http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=25028.0
i. http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=18506.msg333875#msg333875

Additional supporting evidence for 2:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=24827.msg556818#msg556818
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=25282.msg560104#msg560104
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=25028.msg551479#msg551479
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=25028.msg551782#msg551782
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=25210.msg560149#msg560149
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=18483.msg333104#msg333104
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=18506.msg333875#msg333875

3. Planetary model contradiction:

a. http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=25251.0
b. http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=25251.msg559735#msg559735

4. Flaw of experiments based on flat horizontal/flat water:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=25117.0

5. Rowbotham's false accuracy:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=25098.0

6. Curvature from high altitudes:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=25098.msg554923#msg554923

7. Midnight sun:

a. http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=25214.0
b. http://www.palinstravels.co.uk/book-1253

Additional supporting evidence for 7:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/541907/antarctica_land_of_the_midnight_sun.html (personal account, with a 'contact' link)
http://frozensouth.com/2008/10/30/ice-caves-and-24-hour-sunlight.aspx (personal account, you can surely contact them from their site)
http://www.latintrails.com/destinations/antarctica/antarctica.htm (book a trip)
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=25214.msg558106#msg558106


(I will ask friends from a local high school programs to send me personal accounts and pictures if they end up going to Antarctica)

I will be adding more in time. Once you have addressed these, we can continue this thread.
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: Perfect Circle on December 06, 2008, 11:43:35 PM
I guess Tom has exited the thread. Unless he's going to come back here and say something stupid like, 'read ENAG' or, 'you still haven't provided any proof'.
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 07, 2008, 12:49:19 AM
I don't see any experiments conducted in any of those threads which contradict or disproves any of Rowbotham's experiments.
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: Perfect Circle on December 07, 2008, 01:01:02 AM
I don't see any experiments conducted in any of those threads which contradict or disproves any of Rowbotham's experiments.
Which means you did not visit the links, and therefore, are not worthy to debate. Come back when you are ready.
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 07, 2008, 01:02:23 AM
I checked again and I still didn't see any contradicting experiments. Care to point one out to me?
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: Perfect Circle on December 07, 2008, 01:04:48 AM
I checked again and I still didn't see any contradicting experiments. Care to point one out to me?
And you peer-reviewed anything? Come back when you're ready.
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 07, 2008, 01:05:46 AM
Guess you really don't have any contradicting experiments to show me.
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: Perfect Circle on December 07, 2008, 01:17:33 AM
Guess you really don't have any contradicting experiments to show me.
Guess you don't have any proof that the earth is flat.
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 07, 2008, 01:22:51 AM
Guess you don't have any proof that the earth is flat.

Look out your window, read ENAG, and stop trying to change the topic.
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: Perfect Circle on December 07, 2008, 01:25:17 AM
Guess you don't have any proof that the earth is flat.

Look out your window, read ENAG, and stop trying to change the topic.
Out my window: houses.
Out a plane window: very slight curvature.
ENAG: discredited and flawed.
You're the one who won't continue the topic until we provide you with evidence. Since I have complied, you are the only one holding up the topic.
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: NTheGreat on December 07, 2008, 06:10:01 AM
Quote from: Perfect Circle date=01:01:02 AM
Which means you did not visit the links, and therefore, are not worthy to debate. Come back when you are ready.

Quote from: Tom Bishop date=01:02:23 AM
I checked again and I still didn't see any contradicting experiments. Care to point one out to me?

You checked all 43 links in less than 1 and a half minutes? Impressive.
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: ghazwozza on December 07, 2008, 08:21:50 AM
Quote from: Perfect Circle date=01:01:02 AM
Which means you did not visit the links, and therefore, are not worthy to debate. Come back when you are ready.

Quote from: Tom Bishop date=01:02:23 AM
I checked again and I still didn't see any contradicting experiments. Care to point one out to me?

You checked all 43 links in less than 1 and a half minutes? Impressive.

Tom's CPU runs at over 9000 Hz.
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on December 07, 2008, 02:40:40 PM
Quote
Experiments that were later shown by a qualified surveyor to point to a round earth, something FE refuses to acknowledge.

Actually, it didn't. Both Wallace and Hampden walked away from the wager claiming that their own side had won.

The wager between the two men was for a year's worth of pay. How is a large bet between two men concrete proof for anything?

Quote
Rowbatham never explained midnight sun at the poles.

Sure he did. It doesn't happen. There is no midnight sun in Antarctica.

Read Earth Not a Globe.

No actually the judge declared Wallace the winner, Hampden refused to admit defeat and accused Wallace of cheating, a claim he had no evidence of.  Hampden was later imprisoned for libel, so what does that tell you?  Whether you like it or not, Wallace (a qualified surveyor) showed that Rowbatham's results were flawed.

Quote
In 1870, a flat-Earth proponent named John Hampden offered a ?500 wager in a magazine advertisement to anyone who could demonstrate a convex curvature in a body of water such as a river, canal, or lake. Wallace, intrigued by the challenge and short of money at the time, designed an experiment in which he set up two objects along a six-mile (10-km) stretch of canal. Both objects were at the same height above the water as, and in a straight line with, a telescope he mounted on a bridge. When seen through the telescope, one object appeared higher than the other, showing the curvature of the earth. The judge for the wager, the editor of Field magazine, declared Wallace the winner, but Hampden refused to accept the result. He sued Wallace and launched a campaign, which persisted for several years, of writing letters to various publications and to organizations of which Wallace was a member denouncing him as a swindler and a thief. Wallace won multiple libel suits against Hampden, but the resulting litigation cost Wallace more than the amount of the wager and the controversy frustrated him for years.[115]


And again, Rowbatham "saying" that there is no midnight sun in Antarctica does not make all the actual accounts of seamen and explorers false.  Rowbatham never traveled to Antarctica to see it for himself, therefore he cannot discount known observations.  24 hour sunlight or night exists in a
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 07, 2008, 02:50:37 PM
Quote
No actually the judge declared Wallace the winner, Hampden refused to admit defeat and accused Wallace of cheating, a claim he had no evidence of. 

Read Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea by Christine Garwood. There were two judges in the experiment, Wallace's judge and Hampden's judge. Wallace's judge declared Wallace the winner and Hampden's judge declared Hampden the winner. The details of the wager are all described in Christine Garwood's book.

Quote
Hampden was later imprisoned for libel, so what does that tell you? 

Years later Wallace sued Hampden for slander, libel, and threatening his life. The court case doesn't really tell me anything about who won the wager.

Quote
Whether you like it or not, Wallace (a qualified surveyor) showed that Rowbatham's results were flawed

Nope. The wager was for a years worth of pay and each man walked away claiming that he had won. Of course anyone would lie about the results when there's a year's worth of pay to lose.

The Wallace v. Hampden wager is not a valid experiment.

Quote
And again, Rowbatham "saying" that there is no midnight sun in Antarctica does not make all the actual accounts of seamen and explorers false.

Rowbotham supports his assertion with quotes from Antarctic explorers like Sir James Clark Ross who reported seeing no midnight sun.
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: Perfect Circle on December 07, 2008, 02:52:51 PM
Rowbotham supports his assertion with quotes from Antarctic explorers like Sir James Clark Ross who reported seeing no midnight sun.
Our explorers outnumber and out-qualify your explorers. You obviously did not read through all of the linked pages in my post.
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: NTheGreat on December 07, 2008, 03:11:36 PM
Quote
Read Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea by Christine Garwood. There were two judges in the experiment, Wallace's judge and Hampden's judge. Wallace's judge declared Wallace the winner and Hampden's judge declared Hampden the winner. The details of the wager are all described in Christine Garwood's book.

It was later revealed that the 'unbiased' judge that Hampden selected was in fact an avid FE believer, which he had selected to try and ensure that he got a favourable result.
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 07, 2008, 03:14:10 PM
Quote
Read Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea by Christine Garwood. There were two judges in the experiment, Wallace's judge and Hampden's judge. Wallace's judge declared Wallace the winner and Hampden's judge declared Hampden the winner. The details of the wager are all described in Christine Garwood's book.

It was later revealed that the 'unbiased' judge that Hampden selected was in fact an avid FE believer

And the judge Wallace chose was an RE believer.

What's your point?

Quote
which he had selected to try and ensure that he got a favourable result.

What evidence do you have that Hampden cheated?

None? Just because you said so?
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: NTheGreat on December 07, 2008, 05:21:03 PM
Quote
And the judge Wallace chose was an RE believer.

What's your point?

I don't recall the judge Wallace chose being an avid RE model believer. Wallace choose his judge because the judge didn't have any motive to prefer one model over the other. Hampden's judge was a friend who owned a printing press which they used to produced FE pamphlets. If the earth was observed to be flat, Wallace's judge would admit it, but if it was observed to be round, Hampden's judge would be unlikely to admit it.

Quote
What evidence do you have that Hampden cheated?

None? Just because you said so?

He had a biased judge who was a strong believer in a FE model. He also tricked Wallace into performing the experiment on the Bedford level, where he believed a flat Earth observation would occur regardless of the planets real shape because of Parallax's prior 'experiments'.
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 07, 2008, 05:54:01 PM
So aside from your petty slander you don't have any actual evidence that Hampden cheated or lied, then?

Didn't think so.
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: Edtharan on December 07, 2008, 06:00:06 PM
So aside from your petty slander you don't have any actual evidence that Hampden cheated or lied, then?

Didn't think so.
According tot he Rule governing Peer Review (and you claim that they peer reviewed Rowbotham's work) you can not use a biased reviewer. Therefore Hampton was unqualified to be a peer reviewer and his review must be rejected.
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 07, 2008, 06:01:54 PM
So aside from your petty slander you don't have any actual evidence that Hampden cheated or lied, then?

Didn't think so.
According tot he Rule governing Peer Review (and you claim that they peer reviewed Rowbotham's work) you can not use a biased reviewer. Therefore Hampton was unqualified to be a peer reviewer and his review must be rejected.

And Wallace's judge believed in an RE, so you can go ahead and reject both of them on grounds of "bias".
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: Edtharan on December 07, 2008, 06:08:33 PM
So aside from your petty slander you don't have any actual evidence that Hampden cheated or lied, then?

Didn't think so.
According tot he Rule governing Peer Review (and you claim that they peer reviewed Rowbotham's work) you can not use a biased reviewer. Therefore Hampton was unqualified to be a peer reviewer and his review must be rejected.

And Wallace's judge believed in an RE, so you can go ahead and reject both of them on grounds of "bias".
Finally.

Now that we are in agreement that if there is bias, we can consider the results suspect if the result agree with the bias.

Since we are now in agreement Tom. How about we try to come to some arrangement where by we can agree on an experiment that will determine which is true RE or FE, and agree on people who will perform this experiment.
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: markjo on December 07, 2008, 06:25:15 PM
So aside from your petty slander you don't have any actual evidence that Hampden cheated or lied, then?
The wager was for a years worth of pay and each man walked away claiming that he had won. Of course anyone would lie about the results when there's a year's worth of pay to lose.
Sounds like a pretty good reason for Hampden to lie or cheat, doesn't it Tom?  I say that it serves Hampden right for making a bet that he couldn't afford to lose.
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2008, 12:39:31 AM
Quote
Sounds like a pretty good reason for Hampden to lie or cheat, doesn't it Tom?

Sounds like a pretty good reason for Wallace to lie, too, which is why I'm not taking this wager at anything more than face value.

However, you REers seem to be taking this ridiculous wager as some sort of "proof" that the earth is a globe.

Unfortunately, it's not proof for the two following reasons:

1.) Both men walked away from the wager claiming that they had won.
2.) The wager was for a years worth of pay. So of course anyone on the losing side would cheat or lie about the results when he had a year's worth of pay to lose.

So the wager between Hampden and Wallace doesn't really tell us anything about the shape of the earth. Sorry.
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2008, 02:02:33 AM
Get back to me when you guys have some proper evidence and we can continue this thread.
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: markjo on December 08, 2008, 05:47:45 AM
Get back to me when you guys have some proper evidence and we can continue this thread.

I'm not sure if you have ever defined what you consider to be "proper evidence".  You seem to reject pretty much everything out of hand, so what do you want from us?
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2008, 08:34:18 AM
Quote
so what do you want from us?

You can start with some actual evidence for your numerous unsupported claims.
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: NTheGreat on December 08, 2008, 11:04:40 AM
Quote
1.) Both men walked away from the wager claiming that they had won.

Then ignore the two men representing either viewpoint. What did the person judging it say?

Quote
The wager was for a years worth of pay. So of course anyone on the losing side would cheat or lie about the results when he had a year's worth of pay to lose.

So ignore what the person representing the winning or loosing side says. What did the judge say?

Hampden was responsible for the place, date, time and equipment used. Why do you say that Wallace rigged the experiment to suggest a round Earth?
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on December 08, 2008, 01:05:04 PM
Here is the article that documented the bet and who actually won the bet (Wallace was judged to be the winner, Hampden refused to admit defeat and accused Wallace of cheating).

You have to purchase the article to read the whole thing.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v1/n23/pdf/001581a0.pdf
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2008, 01:44:19 PM
Quote
Then ignore the two men representing either viewpoint. What did the person judging it say?

Already discussed in this thread. There were two judges in the wager. Wallace's judge declared Wallace the winner and Hampden's judge declared Hampden the winner.

The details of th wager are all described in Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea by Christine Garwood.
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on December 08, 2008, 01:46:36 PM
Quote
Then ignore the two men representing either viewpoint. What did the person judging it say?

Already discussed in this thread. There were two judges in the wager. Wallace's judge declared Wallace the winner and Hampden's judge declared Hampden the winner.

The details of th wager are all described in Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea by Christine Garwood.

was Christine Garwood present during the experiment?  The journalist from Nature was there, and he was the one who wrote the article.  Christine Garwood got her info second hand from Hampden.
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2008, 01:49:14 PM
Quote
was Christine Garwood present during the experiment?  The journalist from Nature was there, and he was the one who wrote the article.  Christine Garwood got her info second hand from Hampden.

The journalist from Nature was Wallace's judge. He's the one who declared Wallace the winner.
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on December 08, 2008, 01:50:15 PM
Quote
was Christine Garwood present during the experiment?

what was the name of Hampden's judge?
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2008, 01:50:46 PM
Christine Garwood is a historian who has done deep research on the subject. The details of the wager are all described and supported in her book Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea. Check it out at your local library.
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on December 08, 2008, 02:02:30 PM
Quote
In one of the more poignant episodes of her book, Garwood recounts the story of Alfred Russel Wallace, the great naturalist and contemporary of Darwin, who accepted a wager of 500 [pounds sterling] to prove that the Earth curved. The test, with two presumably independent judges, was to see if two markers at the same exact height above a straight canal in England, six and three miles from a telescope, would appear to line up when viewed through the telescope. Wallace knew that the far marker would appear lower than the middle one, owing to the Earth's curve down and away. And so it did; but in a stunning exercise of doublethink, one of the judges--who turned out to be a partisan of Parallax--interpreted what he saw as confirming just the opposite. The ensuing brouhaha was embarrassing to Wallace, and, if anything, strengthened the hand of the contrarians.

Tell me how if the far marker appeared lower that indicates a flat earth, I believe that contradicts what Rowbatham indicates in his second experiment:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za07.htm
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2008, 02:04:59 PM
They didn't even perform the same experiment as Rowbotham. They tried it, but were having technical issues. So they performed a completely different experiment.

Read Garwood's book for more information on the setup.
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on December 08, 2008, 02:15:28 PM
Sure, they used 2 markers, each 3 miles apart, instead of 6 markers 1 mile apart.  The last flag was still 6 miles from the viewer, and it was lower than a flag that was half that distance.  That directly contradicts what Rowbatham found.
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2008, 02:48:39 PM
Quote
Sure, they used 2 markers, each 3 miles apart, instead of 6 markers 1 mile apart.  The last flag was still 6 miles from the viewer, and it was lower than a flag that was half that distance.

Really? How do you know what was seen?

Each man walked away claiming that he had won, remember?
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on December 08, 2008, 04:30:03 PM
Quote
Sure, they used 2 markers, each 3 miles apart, instead of 6 markers 1 mile apart.  The last flag was still 6 miles from the viewer, and it was lower than a flag that was half that distance.

Really? How do you know what was seen?

Each man walked away claiming that he had won, remember?

Wrong actually, Hampden accused Wallace of cheating and purposely setting up the experiment to give the results of a round earth.  That is why "The Bedford Canal swindle detected & exposed" was written.  He had absolutely no proof of the claim, and was later imprisoned for libel due to his attempts to defame Wallace. 
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2008, 06:16:40 PM
Wrong actually, Hampden accused Wallace of cheating and purposely setting up the experiment to give the results of a round earth.  That is why "The Bedford Canal swindle detected & exposed" was written.  He had absolutely no proof of the claim, and was later imprisoned for libel due to his attempts to defame Wallace. 

Nope. After the experiment Hampden and Carpenter walked away claiming that they had won. Wallace reported later that Carpenter had actually jumped for joy upon looking into the telescope, cheering 'Beautiful, Beautiful!'

Pick up Christine Garwood's book.
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: niceguybut on December 08, 2008, 07:10:12 PM
Wrong actually, Hampden accused Wallace of cheating and purposely setting up the experiment to give the results of a round earth.  That is why "The Bedford Canal swindle detected & exposed" was written.  He had absolutely no proof of the claim, and was later imprisoned for libel due to his attempts to defame Wallace. 

Nope. After the experiment Hampden and Carpenter walked away claiming that they had won. Pick up Christine Garwood's book.

It didn't end there though:

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=2&res=9C00EFDF113EEE34BC4852DFBE66838A669FDE&oref=slogin
http://www.wku.edu/~smithch/wallace/S162-163.htm
http://www.wku.edu/~smithch/wallace/S202.htm
http://www.wku.edu/~smithch/wallace/S248B.htm
http://books.google.ie/books?id=ZzDHPKxDkAwC&pg=PA21&lpg=PA21&dq=loyalists+of+flat+earth&source=web&ots=WPLoFuvFPL&sig=We7jwl44wdgBGGO5JkC--RWdDvo&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2008, 11:26:07 PM
They argued about it for a bit, but nothing that happened afterwards tells us who really won the experiment.
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: Edtharan on December 09, 2008, 12:18:38 AM
Wrong actually, Hampden accused Wallace of cheating and purposely setting up the experiment to give the results of a round earth.  That is why "The Bedford Canal swindle detected & exposed" was written.  He had absolutely no proof of the claim, and was later imprisoned for libel due to his attempts to defame Wallace. 

Nope. After the experiment Hampden and Carpenter walked away claiming that they had won. Wallace reported later that Carpenter had actually jumped for joy upon looking into the telescope, cheering 'Beautiful, Beautiful!'

Pick up Christine Garwood's book.
If I walk away form this thread claiming I have won, does that make RET true then?

That's the thing. Just walking away and claiming that you ahve won is not sufficient, anybody can do that. However, it seems (and that they agreed with the results - or why would they have claimed cheating is the results didn't agree with them...).

So if the FEers agreed that the data did not support FET (and made the claim that the REers cheated), but them walked away claiming they had won, then they have violated Zetetic philosophy. They had no evidence that the REers had cheated other than the evidence didn't support FET.

Zetetic philosophy (which Rowbotham subscribed to), says not to make any assumptions, and that you must come to all conclusions based form the evidecne.

So:

Without evidence of cheating, the came to the conclusion that the other side cheated. Violation 1.

The evidence that was available agreed with RET and not FET, yet they kept the conclusion that FET was correct. As this conclusion was not supported by the evidence, Violation 2

Now, FET might still be true that the Earth is Flat, and you can still believe it to be true. But based on the results form this, at the time, the FEers, if they were Zetetics, should have agreed that the evidence said that the Earth was Round. Because the available evidence said that it was.

It is only under the assumption that the Earth is Flat, does the conclusion of Cheating make logical sense. But Zetetic philosophy says that you can not make assumptions. As a Zetetic, Tom, this should be obvious to you (read page 1 of ENaG).
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on December 09, 2008, 04:25:46 AM
They argued about it for a bit, but nothing that happened afterwards tells us who really won the experiment.

My question is, why didn't Samuel Rowbatham use a spirit level in his second experiment to ensure that his telescope was exactly level to the ground, and not just a strait line along the flags?  Wallace is absolutely right, Carpenter was disputing his efforts to ensure that he was level with the ground, which is completely ridiculous.

Nothing in Rowbatham's second experiment in ENaG mentions the use of a spirit level.  It's a commonly used device for geometry and surveying.  Rowbatham simply aligned his telescopes with the top of the flags without leveling his telescope, making his results flawed.

So Tom, when you peer reviewed Rowbatham did you catch that one?
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on December 09, 2008, 10:43:52 AM
bump for response.
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: sparticus on December 09, 2008, 08:36:24 PM
You always get derailed when you ask a question FEers do not want to answer so you forget you asked it.

Back there a bit Tom was asked what kind of RE proof would be sufficient since everything is no good.
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: NTheGreat on December 10, 2008, 05:54:13 AM
Quote
Carpenter had actually jumped for joy upon looking into the telescope, cheering 'Beautiful, Beautiful!'

I believe that was because the telescope was set up in such a way that the cross-hair on it didn't line up with the marker on the post or the bridge. Why they felt this suggested a FE was beyond everyone else at the time.
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on December 10, 2008, 07:06:23 AM
Quote
Nothing in Rowbatham's second experiment in ENaG mentions the use of a spirit level.  It's a commonly used device for geometry and surveying.  Rowbatham simply aligned his telescope with the top of the flags without leveling his telescope with the ground, making his results flawed.

So Tom, when you peer reviewed Rowbatham did you catch that one?

bump for response.
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: Ferruccio on February 08, 2009, 01:12:52 AM
Quote from: Perfect Circle date=01:01:02 AM
Which means you did not visit the links, and therefore, are not worthy to debate. Come back when you are ready.

Quote from: Tom Bishop date=01:02:23 AM
I checked again and I still didn't see any contradicting experiments. Care to point one out to me?

You checked all 43 links in less than 1 and a half minutes? Impressive.

This was a real sticker for me.  It kind of proves that Tom Bishop is being dishonest.

Technique to use with Tom Bishop:  Don't let him lead you on.  Just find an absurdity he is doing and run it into the ground until he has nowhere else to go.  Ignore everything that remotely veers off that topic.  I did that with a perspective thread that I did nearly a year ago.  This seems pretty absurd to me.  So, I'd just run this into the ground until he admits that he can't possibly check, thoroughly, 45 links in 81 seconds.
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: KingMan on February 08, 2009, 08:15:09 AM
Measure it to prove its flat then.  Since society generaly accepts that its round, you really have to prove to us its flat.  I have never seen real evidence, only speculation.

It has already been measured and proven through test, trial, and experiment. Read Earth Not a Globe and the other Flat Earth Literature referenced in my signature link.
Why is it that if the ice wall exists, is there a record for the youngest person to visit both poles? Is the 14 year old lying?
Title: Re: The Earth is round because
Post by: bowler on February 08, 2009, 01:29:42 PM
As I said there is a conspiracy, the world is flat. Everyone but about 20-30 people on the planet is in on it..... Argh oh no I spilt the beans, im a gonna.