tiny question

Explorations of Sir James Clark Ross, R. N., Eotvos, Sunspots.xlsx, Foucault and its reproductions that we've listed for you, NPL, precession of Mercury (Einstein), ...

Accounts from Sir James Clark Ross provides evidence of a 150 foot Ice Wall and a 60,000+ nautical mile circumference of Antarctica.

Sunspots.xlsx proves that the sun contracts and expands North and South over the year in tandem with Flat Earth predictions.

Foucault's Pendulum proves that the stars emit a gravitational field, and make one full rotation per 24 hours.

The precession of Mercury proves that a celestial body obscures the sun once in a while.

Reputable scientists from all around the globe.

Scientists from all around the "globe" have reproduced NASA's moon missions?

Foucault's Pendulum proves that the stars emit gravitation, and make one full rotation per 24 hours.

Oh, well now we're back at the question as to why the stars wouldn't crash into the earth.  If the UA is pushing at 9.8m/s², and the stars are pulling on the earth, than they should collide.

Quote

Explorations of Sir James Clark Ross, R. N., Eotvos, Sunspots.xlsx, Foucault and its reproductions that we've listed for you, NPL, precession of Mercury (Einstein), ...

Accounts from Sir James Clark Ross provides evidence of a 150 foot Ice Wall and a 60,000+ nautical mile circumference of Antarctica.

Sunspots.xlsx proves that the sun contracts and expands North and South over the year in tandem with Flat Earth predictions.

Foucault's Pendulum proves that the stars emit a gravitational field, and make one full rotation per 24 hours.

The precession of Mercury proves that a celestial body obscures the sun once in a while.

Quote

Reputable scientists from all around the globe.

Scientists from all around the "globe" have reproduced NASA's moon missions?

You have yet to provide the primary source reference for your claim. So we continue to reject this point.
Really? Please explain the difference then between the predictions of the Sun's location in sky of the two theories.
Do you have any evidence?
That's simply without merit. It doesn't prove that.
You asked who reviewed. A review does not mean a reproduction.

Sunspots.xlsx proves that the sun contracts and expands North and South over the year in tandem with Flat Earth predictions.

Actually and more importantly, Sunspots.xlsx proves that the sun moves across the sky at a constant speed throughout a day, from sunrise to sunset, and this could never be the case on an FE. I do believe we've mentioned this several times and never got a response to this challenge other than "what is your evidence that the speed is constant?" Well here it is, use it for yourself and compare, or do any number of other experiments to demonstrate this to yourself.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 15, 2007, 12:52:33 PM

Sunspots.xlsx proves that the sun contracts and expands North and South over the year in tandem with Flat Earth predictions.

Actually and more importantly, Sunspots.xlsx proves that the sun moves across the sky at a constant speed throughout a day, from sunrise to sunset, and this could never be the case on an FE. I do believe we've mentioned this several times and never got a response to this challenge other than "what is your evidence that the speed is constant?" Well here it is, use it for yourself and compare, or do any number of other experiments to demonstrate this to yourself.

Thank you for making such an excellent point. Kudos.

Quote

which legitimate science publications these experiments were reviewed in?

Harper Magazine, Knowledge, Modern Mechanics, Earth Not a Globe Review, Earth. See the Information Repository for a full listing of Flat Earth books and articles.

 

Quote

which legitimate science publications these experiments were reviewed in?

Harper Magazine, Knowledge, Modern Mechanics, Earth Not a Globe Review, Earth. See the Information Repository for a full listing of Flat Earth books and articles.

I'll repeat my question: which legitimate SCIENTIFICAL publication's have revieuws of experiments that prove the earth is flat?

I'll repeat my question: which legitimate SCIENTIFICAL publication's have revieuws of experiments that prove the earth is flat?

I've references perfectly legitimate scientific publications.

What legitimate scientific publications have peer reviewed the experiments which prove that the earth is a globe?

Quote

I'll repeat my question: which legitimate SCIENTIFICAL publication's have revieuws of experiments that prove the earth is flat?

I've references perfectly legitimate scientific publications.

What legitimate scientific publications have peer reviewed the experiments which prove that the earth is a globe?

#  R. v. Eötvös, Mathematische und Naturwissenschaftliche Berichte aus Ungarn, 8, 65, 1890.
# R. v. Eötvös, in Verhandlungen der 16 Allgemeinen Konferenz der Internationalen Erdmessung (London-Cambridge, 21-29 September 1909). G. Reiner, Berlin, 319,1910.
# R. v. Eötvös, D. Pekár, E. Fekete: Beiträge zum Gesetz der Proportionalität von Trägheit and Gravität, with the motto "Ars longa, vita brevis", submitted to the Beneke Foundation in Göttingen (1909). This text is now unknown.
# C. Runge, Nachrichten von der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, No. 1, 37-41. Weidmann, Berlin, 1909.
# R. v. Eötvös, D. Pekár, E. Fekete, Annalen der Physik (Leipzig) 68, 11, 1922. English translation for the U. S. Department of Energy by J. Achzenter, M. Bickeböller, K. Bräuer, P. Buck, E. Fischbach, G. Lubeck, C. Talmadge, University of Washington preprint 40048-13-N6. - More complete English text reprinted earlier in Annales Universitatis Scientiarium Budapestiensis de Rolando Eötvös Nominate, Sectio Geologica, 7, 111, 1963.
# Roland Eötvös Gesammelte Arbeiten, edited by P. Selényi, Hungarian Academic Press, Budapest, 1953, 385 pages.
# J. Renner, Matematikai és Természettudományi Értesítő, 13, 542, 1935, with abstract in German.
# P. G. Roll, R. Krotkov, R. H. Dicke, Annals of Physics, New York, 26, 442, 1964.
# Personal communication by J. Renner to G. M. 1963.
# E. P. Wigner, Proc. American Philosophical Society, 93, 521, 1949.
# E. Fischbach et al., Phys. Rev. Letters, 56, 2424, 2426, 1986; E. Fischbach, D. Sudarsky, A. Szafer, C. Talmadge, S. H. Aronson, 57, 1959, 1986.
# E. Fischbach, D. Sudarsky, A. Szafer, C. Talmadge, S. H. Aronson, Annals of Physics, New York, 182, 60, 1988.
# D. Pekár, R. v. Eötvös, 50 years anniversary of the torsion balance, Budapest, 1939 (in Hungarian), p. 107.
# Personal communication of J. Barnóthy to G. M. 1986.
# Personal communication of G. Barta to G. M. 1987.
# C. Talmadge, S. H. Aronson and E. Fischbach, in Progress in Electroweak Interactions, ed. by J. Tran Thahn Van (Editions Frontičres, Gif sur Yvette, 1986) p. 229.
# Personal communication of G. Barta to G. M. 1990.
# A. M. Hall, H. Armbruster, E. Fischbach and C. Talmadge, in Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Medium and High Energy Nuclear Physics, Taipei, May 1990.
# P. Király, Természet Világa (World of Nature), 5, 154, 1987 (in Hungarian).

What legitimate scientific publications have peer reviewed the experiments which prove that the earth is a globe?

Haha. Tom has actually got to the stage of "reputable scientists secretly suspect the Earth is flat too!". Genius.

Quote

I'll repeat my question: which legitimate SCIENTIFICAL publication's have revieuws of experiments that prove the earth is flat?

I've references perfectly legitimate scientific publications.

no they are not.

they are all part of a conspiracy
haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

seriously now, i did some googling on those references and I couldn't find any scientific magazines or articles you mentionned, maybe you could help me out on this one and give me the links of the peer revieuwed magazines and the scientifical expiriments they describe that proves the earth can't possibly be round.

if the FE'ers refuse to see the facts it has no use to try to argue with them. They have their point, what doesn't fit in they ignore.

Quite lame

if the FE'ers refuse to see the facts it has no use to try to argue with them. They have their point, what doesn't fit in they ignore.

Quite lame

I agree with your conclusion, but offer that is not the reason to argue here. It's to help those you stumble on this website and might be lead astray. The RE Primer project is to put all the best of our arguments in one place and put a stake through the heart of the ugly FE vampire. May no one else succumb to the darkness.

May no one else succumb to the darkness.

You sound more and more like Tom Bishop with every post you make.

Quote from: Gulliver on June 20, 2007, 12:43:04 PM

May no one else succumb to the darkness.

You sound more and more like Tom Bishop with every post you make.

Arggh! Not that!

I know, it's scary.  Just be careful to never actually become Tom Bishop.  The last thing we need is another one. 

I know, it's scary.  Just be careful to never actually become Tom Bishop.  The last thing we need is another one. 

Agreed.