Rowbotham's sinking effect

  • 84 Replies
  • 20464 Views
?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
Re: Rowbotham's sinking effect
« Reply #60 on: December 07, 2007, 11:23:53 AM »
Why? FE'ers would do the same to RE'ers, but it just happens they can never find a hole in the RE theory.

There are loads of holes in RE theory.

You know, I keep hearing that.  What are the holes?  What can't RE explain?

I believe they consider cutting edge theoretical physics to be holes in RE theory. Dark energy for instance isn't yet explained, but has little relevance to the shape of the earth, in RE at least. However, I would prefer if this topic was continued in a new thread.
Ironic, the shadow object has little to do with the shape of the Earth yet FE'ers are supposed to explain it, why is that?

because it is presumably very close, large, and would be a big part of everyday experience for most able-visioned people on the planet.  presumably it would have been seen and pondered our early ancestors started paying attention to the sky.  it would be akin to ignoring the sun.  if there is not an unexplained subject more worthy of investigation and explanation i can't imagine what it could be.  (thus the notion that we haven't, is a bit preposterous on the scale of "which explanation makes more sense".)

dark matter is a placeholder word for some future theory to explain extremely subtle and distant observations (redshifts in galactic rotations which so far seem to not quite match newtonian predictions), and which have only recently have been able to even observe (with telescopes in space and ground-based computer-controlled adaptive optics).  and it doesn't affect anybody, at least not demonstrably yet in a direct way.  only a handful of humans actively pay attention to it, or have "seen" it, in highly abstracted electronic forms.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Rowbotham's sinking effect
« Reply #61 on: December 07, 2007, 11:24:44 AM »
Why presume anything without evidence?
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
Re: Rowbotham's sinking effect
« Reply #62 on: December 07, 2007, 11:33:35 AM »
What's funny? The sinking effect is a foundation stone for FE. FET cannot exist without a solution to this problem whether it is revision or a substitution to the perspective effect.

What is funny is that you think a lack of explanation means something is a failure.

it doesn't necessarily mean failure, but it is (and should be) raising eyebrows that fe'ers have posted on this subject, and are currently posting elsewhere but now ignoring this.  (bishop's trollish hairy fingers jammed in his wax-caked ears, "la la la la la la rowbotham la la la...".)

?

eric bloedow

Re: Rowbotham's sinking effect
« Reply #63 on: December 09, 2007, 01:05:41 PM »
i asked several times why the shadow object has never been observed to block the lights from any star, ever.

Tom B's reply? "it never passes in front of any stars".

to which i retorted, "not even the same stars that the moon was blocking just before or after the eclipse started?

Tom never answered that, he buried his head in the sand again! pathetic.

?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
Re: Rowbotham's sinking effect
« Reply #64 on: December 09, 2007, 01:13:53 PM »
i asked several times why the shadow object has never been observed to block the lights from any star, ever.

Tom B's reply? "it never passes in front of any stars".

to which i retorted, "not even the same stars that the moon was blocking just before or after the eclipse started?

Tom never answered that, he buried his head in the sand again! pathetic.

good one.  it definitely stretches the limits of plausibility and credibility that bishop actually believes his own stories.

?

eric bloedow

Re: Rowbotham's sinking effect
« Reply #65 on: December 11, 2007, 02:40:00 PM »
bump!

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: Rowbotham's sinking effect
« Reply #66 on: December 12, 2007, 05:35:18 AM »
You should leave Tom alone. Your incessant arguing with him only amuses him.
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
Re: Rowbotham's sinking effect
« Reply #67 on: December 12, 2007, 08:54:31 AM »
it amuses us too.  or at least, me.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Rowbotham's sinking effect
« Reply #68 on: December 12, 2007, 09:25:59 AM »
I concur. The reason I'm here is to debate. I'm not interested in converting FE'ers to RE.
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: Rowbotham's sinking effect
« Reply #69 on: December 12, 2007, 09:27:35 AM »
You concur with me, or cpt_bthimes?
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
Re: Rowbotham's sinking effect
« Reply #70 on: December 12, 2007, 01:09:03 PM »
You concur with me, or cpt_bthimes?
cpt_bthimes, although the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

i concur

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: Rowbotham's sinking effect
« Reply #71 on: December 12, 2007, 11:40:17 PM »
You concur with me, or cpt_bthimes?
cpt_bthimes, although the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Wait, you speak for singularity now?

Ahhh, I see. You're the same person... lame.
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: Rowbotham's sinking effect
« Reply #72 on: December 13, 2007, 06:27:19 AM »
I'm so confused now.
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6258
Re: Rowbotham's sinking effect
« Reply #73 on: December 13, 2007, 06:44:36 AM »
For all intensive purposes, it's probably easier to just consider us to be one entity with two accounts. It doesn't really make a difference.

What about for superficial purposes?

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: Rowbotham's sinking effect
« Reply #74 on: December 13, 2007, 07:44:01 AM »
My brother would lose fingers the day he touched my computer without my permission.
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
Re: Rowbotham's sinking effect
« Reply #75 on: December 13, 2007, 08:16:23 AM »
You concur with me, or cpt_bthimes?
cpt_bthimes, although the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Wait, you speak for singularity now?

Ahhh, I see. You're the same person... lame.

his name is "singularity".  that means he is only one.  there can be only one.  at any rate, you can rest assured, i am only one too.  i mean one, also.  one different one than any other one.  i am a singularity as well.  but not the singularity.  i am not a duality, or the duality.  or triality (word?).

although i am grateful for internet anonymity (never know what wacko would want to stalk you), i've never played that stupid internet game.  it's a sign of weakness that you need multiple personnas to get your point across.  (i suppose there are other less malevolent reasons beyond my ability to guess, so maybe i shouldn't be judgmental.)  i even use a slight obfuscation of my own name.  the only other person i've seen do that here (by my memory), is bishop.  and he doesn't even obfuscate it.  (if that is his real name.)  which of course, is proof of his low iq and/or lack of sanity.

anyway it always amuses me when someone accuses someone else of also being some other else.  first, it's impossible - or very difficult - to prove.  but an effortless accusation to make.  so in that sense it's kind of a cowardly thing to do.  (like saying someone has syphilis.)  secondly, it's impossible - or very hard - to disprove by the accused, without revealing his/her own identity at least.  so, the whole thing (being multiple people as well as accusing others of being multiple people) is utterly pointless. 

when i played online games years ago, i was constantly accused of being a bot.    so amusing.  i would always respond with some contextually inappropriate and generic message (like "prepare to die now"), just to screw with them before i killed them repeatedly until they ran away, then followed them to every server they jumped to.  (what bot could do that?)  ahhh, the internet.  those were the days.

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: Rowbotham's sinking effect
« Reply #76 on: December 13, 2007, 08:18:43 AM »
Although he admitted that he was both.

So I win.

Prepared for more pwnage. (Awaits move to another thread to repwn)
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
Re: Rowbotham's sinking effect
« Reply #77 on: December 13, 2007, 10:53:35 AM »
Although he admitted that he was both.

So I win.

Prepared for more pwnage. (Awaits move to another thread to repwn)

who admitted he was both?  i thought the gabe avatar admitted he was two real people, which is the exact reverse of what you said.  if so, then no pownage for you.  secondly, i didn't hear the real person behind the singularity avatar admit he had two distinct and concurrent avatars.  (he did used to be logic, which he was open about and was a perfectly obvious transition, but that is not the same thing as having two separate concurrent virtual entities pretending to be two separate real people.)

of course, i'm too lazy for this trivial topic to reread the thread to see if singularity did actually admit right there in print to also owning another avatar, or if i misread or misremember what gabe said.  so if you want to claim pownage over that, have at it!  you would deserve it.

?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
Re: Rowbotham's sinking effect
« Reply #78 on: December 13, 2007, 09:07:44 PM »
I didn't say I was one person, but I did say that people can think that, if its easier to comprehend. I didn't post anything about this as Singularity, because once again that would require logging out.

i'm confused.  i'll just let lord z win...

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: Rowbotham's sinking effect
« Reply #79 on: December 14, 2007, 01:57:08 AM »
Epic.
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

?

Tristan Lachman

  • 39
  • Flat Earther
Re: Rowbotham's sinking effect
« Reply #80 on: December 14, 2007, 08:59:27 AM »
although i am grateful for internet anonymity (never know what wacko would want to stalk you), i've never played that stupid internet game.  it's a sign of weakness that you need multiple personnas to get your point across.  (i suppose there are other less malevolent reasons beyond my ability to guess, so maybe i shouldn't be judgmental.)  i even use a slight obfuscation of my own name.  the only other person i've seen do that here (by my memory), is bishop.  and he doesn't even obfuscate it.  (if that is his real name.)  which of course, is proof of his low iq and/or lack of sanity.

There's no reason to hide your real name if you respect the rules of the forum.

?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
Re: Rowbotham's sinking effect
« Reply #81 on: December 14, 2007, 09:56:29 AM »
although i am grateful for internet anonymity (never know what wacko would want to stalk you), i've never played that stupid internet game.  it's a sign of weakness that you need multiple personnas to get your point across.  (i suppose there are other less malevolent reasons beyond my ability to guess, so maybe i shouldn't be judgmental.)  i even use a slight obfuscation of my own name.  the only other person i've seen do that here (by my memory), is bishop.  and he doesn't even obfuscate it.  (if that is his real name.)  which of course, is proof of his low iq and/or lack of sanity.

There's no reason to hide your real name if you respect the rules of the forum.

that's irrelevant.  millions of people respect the rules of law every day, yet still die at the hands of sociopaths with no rules.  it's a different dynamic on the internets, but the real-life illustration is only to show that respecting the rules has nothing to do with the reasons - if not necessity - for anonymity.  it's about the cost/benefit ratio.  in an ocean of anonymity, there is no benefit to exposing yourself. 

besides, i have views about my government which surely slip out, that would be unbecoming of my former position.  although small odds, it could jeopardize my income. 

not to mention, i don't want people googling my name and coming up with flat earth bullshit.

furthermore, i've been the victim of online identity theft and brother, it was a nightmare.  still is, the trouble never really ends.  so yeah, i'm now an absolute freak about online privacy, security, and anonymity.  you wouldn't believe the ends i go to (such as only buying from sites that accept paypal, the only vendor with my bank card).

so while you may have no reason for anonymity, it doesn't stand to reason that i therefore shouldn't either. 

btw, are you really tristan lachman, and is that really a picture of you?  i don't care (in fact i hope not), but the answer might reveal your true feelings about my position, rather than what seems on the surface to be a reasonable position for playing devil's advocate.

the irony might wind up being that i am less anonymous than you.  i don't think it would be too hard to track me down.  and if, by some incredibly odd reason with fantastically low odds, someone who knows me stumbled on these forums and saw one of my posts, i would definitely be recognizable.  which is more an artifact of this being my "standard" username and avatar of a few years that i've used on a small collection of other private boards.  and not totally in line with my own "rules" of privacy.

?

Tristan Lachman

  • 39
  • Flat Earther
Re: Rowbotham's sinking effect
« Reply #82 on: December 14, 2007, 10:41:50 AM »
My opinion is that as long as you are not vulgar, your reputation won't be hurt. And the chance to have a sociopath steal your identity or stalk you is quite small - they could as well pick a random person from the telephone book - so I would like to hear your story.

Are you really Tristan Lachman?

Yes.

Is that really a picture of you?

Nope.

*

Optimus Prime

  • 1148
  • Autobot Leader: Keeper of the Matrix of Leadership
Re: Rowbotham's sinking effect
« Reply #83 on: December 14, 2007, 10:56:22 AM »
My opinion is that as long as you are not vulgar, your reputation won't be hurt. And the chance to have a sociopath steal your identity or stalk you is quite small - they could as well pick a random person from the telephone book - so I would like to hear your story.

That's a classic "It'll never happen to me" statement if I ever heard one. I too have been trounced by ID theft. It sucked hard. I spent over a year with the billing disputes, etc. And I STILL get stuff in the mail every do often from some of the stupid places they had made purchases from.

I just got a Betty Crocker Christmas friggin' cookbook yesterday!! I never ordered it, but now I find out that "I" signed up for this cookbook quarterly. These people bought stuff in my name just for kicks because they knew it would mess with me. Not to mention the thousands they just blew on gas and booze (Which I can't even drink due to my epilepsy.)

To put a finer point on it, I've been into computers since I was 8. I should "know better" right? My home system is as secure as it gets and I don't know that I've ever had a virus. But one day I saw a book online that had been out of print for ages, and I knew my Mother wanted it, and I thought 'ah, what the heck. One time won't kill me...' and that's all it took. One time I used my debit card online to make a purchase and from that point forward it all turned into a nightmare of bill collectors, fraud investigators, etc.

So I'm here to say that it is beneficial to keep yourself to yourself on the internet in reference to your ID and where you are. People view such things as easy targets and will choose you over some anonymous user any day of the week.

My 2 cents
OP
Dyslexics are teople poo!

?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
Re: Rowbotham's sinking effect
« Reply #84 on: December 14, 2007, 11:10:12 AM »
My opinion is that as long as you are not vulgar, your reputation won't be hurt. And the chance to have a sociopath steal your identity or stalk you is quite small - they could as well pick a random person from the telephone book - so I would like to hear your story.

*your* reputation might not be hurt just by being *seen* in association with a flat earth website, but it is not a rational position to project that onto someone (or anyone) else.  *mine would*.  period.  it doesn't matter what my reasons are, only that i believe i have them.  (even though i've already outlined them.)  it is, after all, a *personal choice* that does not require a defense.  ditto for your more global opinions on things that invariably slip through between the lines.

you have also ignored my multiple other reasons for maintaining anonymity. 

including the part about revealing who you are gains you nothing, but could (however remotely) be costly for myriad potential reasons, even when financial matters aren't at stake.  meanwhile, relative anonymity is free to obtain, and has few costs as a result.  it's hard for me to see how anyone would *not* simply choose anonymity in a situation of a forum like this.

think of it this way: air shows typically do not fly over large cities.  (near, but not over, or in trajectories that could land them there given the most common malfunctions such as engine failure.)  why?  the odds of crashing into a city while flying over it are fantastically low.  yet, the resulting cost would be simply unacceptable.  (or infinitely high.)  small odds * infinitely high consequences = unacceptable risk.  and there you have it.  for me, while the odds are fantastically low, the overall risk of disclosing my identity is unacceptable.

period.  i don't even know why we are debating this.  it is an undebatable point, as it is purely, and only, a matter of personal choice.  each must weigh the pros and cons.  you have apparently chosen differently than me.  i'm not going to tell you that you have chosen poorly.

Is that really a picture of you?

Nope.

why not?