This simply cannot be

You cannot disprove the round earth "theory" by small scale tests.  its impossible.  pouring sand on a beach ball and watching the sand roll off does not equate to people on the earth.

Heres a main flaw with small scale tests such as that, and it is a flaw that exists with both RE and FE theories:

The acceleration 9.8 m/s² is commonly referred to as "G" or "gravity".  this force exists, there is no denying that.  if you pick up a book and let go of it, the book does not float in the air.  this force is greater than the "gravity" that may or may not exist between two masses that we can relate to.  if you pour sand on a beach ball, the sand is being pulled more by "G" than the gravitational force that may or may not exist between the ball and the sand particles.  thus, the particles will always slide off of the beach ball.

Since we cannot escape this "G" force, as it is everywhere, we cannot subtract it from any equation in a small scale experiment.   and even a larger scale experiment would still be acted upon by "G", and still affect the results.

The logically way a RE'er would escape this force would be to launch into space, where "G" is much much less prevalent.  But this solution cannot exist in FE theory, thus, all small scale tests to disprove RE theory in a FE world are invalid.

Then the large-scale tests Dr Rowbotham performed that proved a flat earth are still valid.  Whew!

Then the large-scale tests Dr Rowbotham performed that proved a flat earth are still valid.  Whew!

do you mean the bedford level experiment?  the one that later only reinforced the RE theory?

cause for the life of me i cant find any of Dr. Rowbotham's other experiments.

so please, enlighten me.

That's right, the Bedford Level experiment.  That proved a flat earth.  Good job googling!

That's right, the Bedford Level experiment.  That proved a flat earth.  Good job googling!

WTF?  i may only be getting my info from wikipedia, but it says right on the entry:

The Bedford Level Experiment was a series of observations carried out along a six-mile length of the Bedford Level (the Old Bedford River), Norfolk, England, during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. It was an attempt to demonstrate that the Earth was flat. Early results seemed to prove this contention, but most later attempts to reproduce the observations firmly supported the conventional view that the earth is a sphere.

i can still read right?  it says that it supports the conventional view that the earth is a sphere

Wikipedia is owned by Tom Bishop, and is thus unreliable.

Wikipedia is owned by Tom Bishop, and is thus unreliable.

can you refer me to a reliable source for the bedford level experiment?

As you will see from some of the people here, the only time that any FE theory is correct is when it is viewed locally, they will then apply that to everything you can think of just to make sure they are always correct.

Quote from: Hannibal Lecter on September 06, 2007, 08:23:24 PM

Wikipedia is owned by Tom Bishop, and is thus unreliable.

can you refer me to a reliable source for the bedford level experiment?

Christine Garwood's book "Flat Earth: The History of an infamous idea" provides historical data showing that the post-Rowbotham experiment mentioned in Wikipedia actually demonstrated a Flat Earth. Flat Earth proponent John Hampden won the wager when the referee William Carpenter declared that experimental results showed a Flat Earth.

There were a few objections to the referee's decision, however, which is why there is still some dispute today.

Quote from: SR388 on September 06, 2007, 08:26:28 PM

Quote from: Hannibal Lecter on September 06, 2007, 08:23:24 PM

Wikipedia is owned by Tom Bishop, and is thus unreliable.

can you refer me to a reliable source for the bedford level experiment?

Christine Garwood's book "Flat Earth: The History of an infamous idea" shows that the post-Rowbotham experiment mentioned in Wikipedia actually demonstrated a Flat Earth. Flat Earth proponent John Hampden won the wager when the referee William Carpenter declared that experimental results showed a Flat Earth.

but you are tom bishop, and thus unreliable.

You cannot disprove the round earth "theory" by small scale tests.  its impossible.  pouring sand on a beach ball and watching the sand roll off does not equate to people on the earth.

Heres a main flaw with small scale tests such as that, and it is a flaw that exists with both RE and FE theories:

The acceleration 9.8 m/s² is commonly referred to as "G" or "gravity".  this force exists, there is no denying that.  if you pick up a book and let go of it, the book does not float in the air.  this force is greater than the "gravity" that may or may not exist between two masses that we can relate to.  if you pour sand on a beach ball, the sand is being pulled more by "G" than the gravitational force that may or may not exist between the ball and the sand particles.  thus, the particles will always slide off of the beach ball.

Since we cannot escape this "G" force, as it is everywhere, we cannot subtract it from any equation in a small scale experiment.   and even a larger scale experiment would still be acted upon by "G", and still affect the results.

The logically way a RE'er would escape this force would be to launch into space, where "G" is much much less prevalent.  But this solution cannot exist in FE theory, thus, all small scale tests to disprove RE theory in a FE world are invalid.

Too bad gravity doesn't exsist. Search General Relativity.

Too bad gravity doesn't exsist. Search General Relativity.

WOW.

my point remains valid.  theres some kind of magic that makes things go down.

yeah, just checked.  things do in fact fall when you let go of them in the air.

but you are tom bishop, and thus unreliable.

You don't have to believe me. Which is why I gave a reference: "Flat Earth: The history of an infamous idea" by Christine Garwood.

WOW.

my point remains valid.  theres some kind of magic that makes things go down.

yeah, just checked.  things do in fact fall when you let go of them in the air.

Einstein maintained that gravity as a force did not exist. Are you saying that you're smarter than Einstein?

Quote

but you are tom bishop, and thus unreliable.

You don't have to believe me. Which is why I gave a reference: "Flat Earth: The history of an infamous idea" by Christine Garwood.

Quote

WOW.

my point remains valid.  theres some kind of magic that makes things go down.

yeah, just checked.  things do in fact fall when you let go of them in the air.

Einstein maintained that gravity as a force did not exist. Are you saying that you're smarter than Einstein?

Translation:

dfhdshfhfsdhkfhsksfh3r44ffqw3re3t435y645

Are you saying that you're smarter than Einstein?

LOL, Tom. No, he isn't. But you sure as hell call all of Hawkings theories "mere fantasies."

Quote from: Jimmy Crackhorn on September 06, 2007, 08:40:50 PM

Too bad gravity doesn't exsist. Search General Relativity.

WOW.

my point remains valid.  theres some kind of magic that makes things go down.

yeah, just checked.  things do in fact fall when you let go of them in the air.

Sticky thread: Universal Acceleration 101.

You cannot disprove the round earth "theory" by small scale tests.  its impossible.  pouring sand on a beach ball and watching the sand roll off does not equate to people on the earth.

Heres a main flaw with small scale tests such as that, and it is a flaw that exists with both RE and FE theories:

The acceleration 9.8 m/s² is commonly referred to as "G" or "gravity".  this force exists, there is no denying that.  if you pick up a book and let go of it, the book does not float in the air.  this force is greater than the "gravity" that may or may not exist between two masses that we can relate to.  if you pour sand on a beach ball, the sand is being pulled more by "G" than the gravitational force that may or may not exist between the ball and the sand particles.  thus, the particles will always slide off of the beach ball.

Since we cannot escape this "G" force, as it is everywhere, we cannot subtract it from any equation in a small scale experiment.   and even a larger scale experiment would still be acted upon by "G", and still affect the results.

The logically way a RE'er would escape this force would be to launch into space, where "G" is much much less prevalent.  But this solution cannot exist in FE theory, thus, all small scale tests to disprove RE theory in a FE world are invalid.

Read more.

Quote

but you are tom bishop, and thus unreliable.

You don't have to believe me. Which is why I gave a reference: "Flat Earth: The history of an infamous idea" by Christine Garwood.

Quote

WOW.

my point remains valid.  theres some kind of magic that makes things go down.

yeah, just checked.  things do in fact fall when you let go of them in the air.

Einstein maintained that gravity as a force did not exist. Are you saying that you're smarter than Einstein?

a) im not about to check on a book that probably exists on the same level of Dianetics
b) you are all saying you are smarter than the man who created Newtonian physics.  i cant really take you seriously
c)  things still do fall when you let go of them in the air. if thats gravity, whoohoo doesnt matter.  if not, my point is STILL valid.

the force that makes things go down is greater than anything you can use to simulate a small scale test disproving RE theory

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 06, 2007, 08:53:56 PM

Quote

but you are tom bishop, and thus unreliable.

You don't have to believe me. Which is why I gave a reference: "Flat Earth: The history of an infamous idea" by Christine Garwood.

Quote

WOW.

my point remains valid.  theres some kind of magic that makes things go down.

yeah, just checked.  things do in fact fall when you let go of them in the air.

Einstein maintained that gravity as a force did not exist. Are you saying that you're smarter than Einstein?

a) im not about to check on a book that probably exists on the same level of Dianetics
b) you are all saying you are smarter than the man who created Newtonian physics.  i cant really take you seriously
c)  things still do fall when you let go of them in the air. if thats gravity, whoohoo doesnt matter.  if not, my point is STILL valid.

the force that makes things go down is greater than anything you can use to simulate a small scale test disproving RE theory

Okay, so first of all, you come here thinking we've never seen something drop? Once again: Sticky Thread: Universal Acceleration 101. It's valid (except for the atmosphere), even Gulliver admits it (although, he still calls it a "trick"). We never said we were smarter than Newton. Newton's equations on gravity are wrong, though. Einstein fixed those up.

Okay, so first of all, you come here thinking we've never seen something drop? Once again: Sticky Thread: Universal Acceleration 101. It's valid (except for the atmosphere), even Gulliver admits it (although, he still calls it a "trick"). We never said we were smarter than Newton. Newton's equations on gravity are wrong, though. Einstein fixed those up.

That + read the FAQ + not all of Newton's equations are wrong.

Like I said, READ MORE. Please.

Quote from: Jimmy Crackhorn on September 06, 2007, 09:11:40 PM

Okay, so first of all, you come here thinking we've never seen something drop? Once again: Sticky Thread: Universal Acceleration 101. It's valid (except for the atmosphere), even Gulliver admits it (although, he still calls it a "trick"). We never said we were smarter than Newton. Newton's equations on gravity are wrong, though. Einstein fixed those up.

That + read the FAQ + not all of Newton's equations are wrong.

Like I said, READ MORE. Please.

in any case, the experiment i described (sand+beach ball) which has been used to disprove RE theory to the layman is not a valid one

Quote from: divito on September 06, 2007, 09:13:10 PM

Quote from: Jimmy Crackhorn on September 06, 2007, 09:11:40 PM

Okay, so first of all, you come here thinking we've never seen something drop? Once again: Sticky Thread: Universal Acceleration 101. It's valid (except for the atmosphere), even Gulliver admits it (although, he still calls it a "trick"). We never said we were smarter than Newton. Newton's equations on gravity are wrong, though. Einstein fixed those up.

That + read the FAQ + not all of Newton's equations are wrong.

Like I said, READ MORE. Please.

in any case, the experiment i described (sand+beach ball) which has been used to disprove RE theory to the layman is not a valid one

Uh, I can't tell what you're saying but that's from Alaska.net, which is a parody of this site. People don't use it as a real argument for FE (except Tom Bishop, but for a different reason).

in any case, the experiment i described (sand+beach ball) which has been used to disprove RE theory to the layman is not a valid one

I believe that thread about the beach ball was made by narcberry (and from Alaska.net), who basically likes fucking around. It wasn't serious, and I'm pretty sure no one has explained (besides narc), any such experiment to disprove RE. Read more.

a) im not about to check on a book that probably exists on the same level of Dianetics

The book "Flat Earth: The History of an infamous idea" is actually a PRO Round Earth book. Indeed, the author makes it clear in her work that she is a RE proponent, that the earth is a globe. The book is actually a historical account of people who believed the earth was flat, namely the members of the Flat Earth Society. Christine Garwood dismisses the idea of a Flat Earth as a "delusion" in commentary, but provides accurate historical research showing the past transgressions of the Flat Earth Society. Garwood admits that the Flat Earth Society has won every experimental challenge thrown at it, but dismisses the recorded results which shows objects appearing when they should be behind the curve of the earth as "chance optical illusions."

b) you are all saying you are smarter than the man who created Newtonian physics.  i cant really take you seriously

Newton was shown to be wrong a century ago. Modern Physics holds Relativity to be accurate. Ergo, since you say that gravity exists as a force you are also saying that you are smarter than Einstein.

c)  things still do fall when you let go of them in the air. if thats gravity, whoohoo doesnt matter.  if not, my point is STILL valid.

There could be a number of mechanisms for object falling to the ground: upwards acceleration of the earth, dark energy, quantum mechanic's theory of gravitation, the Aristotelian theory of gravitation, Le Sage's theory of gravitation, Nordström's theory of gravitation, or Whitehead's theory of gravitation.

Each of these are just as likely as the increasingly discredited theory of "Gravity."

Quote

a) im not about to check on a book that probably exists on the same level of Dianetics

The book "Flat Earth: The History of an infamous idea" is actually a PRO Round Earth book. Indeed, the author makes it clear that she is a RE proponent, that the earth is a globe. The book is actually a historical account of people who believed the earth was flat, namely the members of the Flat Earth Society. Christine Garwood dismisses the idea of a Flat Earth as a "delusion" in commentary, but provides historical research showing the past transgressions of the Flat Earth Society. Garwood admits that the Flat Earth Society has won every experimental challenge thrown at them, but dismisses results as "chance optical illusions."

Wow, so one more that actually bought the book (the only other one is Gulliver).

Newton was shown to be wrong a century ago. Modern Physics holds Relativity to be accurate. Ergo, since you say that gravity exists as a force you are also saying that you are smarter than Einstein.

Or he isn't educated in relativity. Ergo, you're wrong.

alright, ill admit defeat on that matter.


FE'ers are all still morons though.  Especially Tom Bishop, since it appears that even other FE'ers dont like him.

alright, ill admit defeat on that matter.


FE'ers are all still morons though.  Especially Tom Bishop, since it appears that even other FE'ers dont like him.

Good, you have learned that disproving FE is a lot harder than one first thought. Tom Bishop, while everyone else calls him an idiot, I don't believe he is one. He is either a very elaborate troll (at least more than Narc anyway) or for some strange reason believes in an FE. He seems smart enough to know otherwise. I wouldn't like to call anyone an idiot, but if any FE'er is an idiot, it's bullhorn, Raa, and 17 November.

Quote from: SR388 on September 06, 2007, 09:29:44 PM

alright, ill admit defeat on that matter.


FE'ers are all still morons though.  Especially Tom Bishop, since it appears that even other FE'ers dont like him.

Good, you have learned that disproving FE is a lot harder than one first thought.

its the forum equivalent of Sisyphus' punishment in Tartarus

This thread is a crime against reason.