Flat Earth Experiment

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. 

Read Earth not a Globe. A link to which can be found in my signature.

There is no experiment to prove a flat earth.

Oops you necrofailed there a little bit.  Make sure you clean up after yourself.

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?

Read Earth not a Globe.

Plenty

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.

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?

Quote from: 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.

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.

Quote from: 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.

The Conspiracy paid them off to keep their mouths shut?

Good try, but incorrect.

Good try, but incorrect.

Proof?

Quote from: 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.

The Conspiracy paid them off to keep their mouths shut?

Proof?

Proof?

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

Quote from: zork on April 19, 2009, 03:18:14 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.

Quote from: zork on April 19, 2009, 03:18:14 AM

Proof?

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

If you had proof, you wouldn't sound so silly. 

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.

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.

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 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!".

And if you couldn't be bothered lurking a little bit, here are some nice posts that prove this point:

...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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

My argument is

...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.

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.

The argument is fundamentally flawed and your "valid proof" is bunk.

ENaG is flawed and your 'belief' is bunk.

You don't have an answer for this 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?

No answer?

Thought so. I win.

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.

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 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.

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?