Exclusive Evidence

  • 45 Replies
  • 9323 Views
*

Gabe

  • 485
Exclusive Evidence
« on: December 12, 2007, 04:43:58 AM »
Quote
Quote
This UA theory is creative, but lacks total evidence and support.
I can measure the rate of the FE's acceleration with nothing more than a pen, a ruler and a watch.
The evidence you speak of is equally valid as evidence for RE.

I recall a study on the effects of prayer where two groups of people who were ill and were isolated. None of them knew about the study. People were then instructed to pray for people in group A while group B was not. Medical assistance in both groups was administered to the same extent, but somehow the group in which people were prayed for healed better and faster. Several people attributed this to be proof of God, but the fact is that  is also is evidence for ESP, etc.

What evidence is there exclusive to FE?

Tom Bishop, don't bring up Robotham's experiments like in other similar threads. He has been throughly disproved and shown to be unreliable and faulty providing sources.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
There is no evidence for an infinite Earth.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The Earth is infinite.
Warning, you have just lowered your IQ by reading my sig.

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: Exclusive Evidence
« Reply #1 on: December 12, 2007, 04:46:20 AM »
That's because Rowbotham was a phony...

Everyone knows that.
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

*

Gabe

  • 485
Re: Exclusive Evidence
« Reply #2 on: December 12, 2007, 04:49:46 AM »
That's because Rowbotham was a phony...

Everyone knows that.
Yes, I'm sure even Bishop knows on some level. My point is without the flawed speculative BS Rowbotham provides, FET is an empty shell. There is no evidence to conclude the Earth is flat.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
There is no evidence for an infinite Earth.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The Earth is infinite.
Warning, you have just lowered your IQ by reading my sig.

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: Exclusive Evidence
« Reply #3 on: December 12, 2007, 04:53:57 AM »
I'm sure Dogplatter would argue with you here.

What about a gut feeling?
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

*

Gabe

  • 485
Re: Exclusive Evidence
« Reply #4 on: December 12, 2007, 04:55:45 AM »
My gut feeling says the Earth is round...
Quote from: Tom Bishop
There is no evidence for an infinite Earth.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The Earth is infinite.
Warning, you have just lowered your IQ by reading my sig.

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: Exclusive Evidence
« Reply #5 on: December 12, 2007, 04:56:25 AM »
And yet you have no proof. Thus the Earth must be flat. QED.
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

*

Gabe

  • 485
Re: Exclusive Evidence
« Reply #6 on: December 12, 2007, 06:17:43 AM »
lol. (No response necessary)  ;D
Quote from: Tom Bishop
There is no evidence for an infinite Earth.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The Earth is infinite.
Warning, you have just lowered your IQ by reading my sig.

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: Exclusive Evidence
« Reply #7 on: December 12, 2007, 06:19:42 AM »
I'm glad you enjoyed what I did there.
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Exclusive Evidence
« Reply #8 on: December 12, 2007, 09:26:57 AM »
Anyone have a serious comment? My own thread (a long time ago) asked this question just to be ignored.
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: Exclusive Evidence
« Reply #9 on: December 12, 2007, 09:29:27 AM »
Well, the Shadow Object and Antimoon would be exclusive to FE Science.

Along with the apparently impossible pictures taken on the Bedford Canal (see the Wiki page "Bedford Canal Experiment")

I'm sure there is more.
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

?

eric bloedow

Re: Exclusive Evidence
« Reply #10 on: December 12, 2007, 03:41:05 PM »
ok, show me a video of stars passing behind the shadow object and re-appearing and i'll admit it's possible for it to exist.

of course you can't, because it doesn't exist, it was made up by FErs in order to try to explain eclipses!

there is no shadow object in RE, because there is no need for it: in RE, lunar eclipses are caused by the earth passing between the sun and the moon, which cannot happen in FE!

antimoon is another absurd FE fiction that supposedly explains tides...and there is zero evidence of it!

oh, and the canal experiment? that's good old robotham's totally screwed-up observations from 150 years ago. he claimed: "according to my calulations, there should be a 24-foot drop visible. but it did not drop 24 feet, so there is ZERO drop, so earth is flat!"
so if there was actually, say, a 6-foot drop, he would say that was the same as zero! that's his "proof"!

come up with some things that are actually scientific, not just wild, off-the-wall guesses, and maybe people would take you seriously!

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18025
Re: Exclusive Evidence
« Reply #11 on: December 12, 2007, 04:27:20 PM »
Quote
ok, show me a video of stars passing behind the shadow object and re-appearing and i'll admit it's possible for it to exist.

During an eclipse the Shadow Object does not pass between the Moon and observer, it intersects the light between the Sun and Moon.

The Shadow Object does not need to be as large as the moon. The Shadow Object is a non-luminous body a few miles in diameter which rotates around the sun level to the plane of the earth, projecting a shadow upon moon twice a year as it precisely intersects the light between the Sun and Moon.

When we look up at the Sun during the day we do not see the shadow object moving around it because the brightness of the sun's powerful vertical rays have blotted it out, just as they blot out every single star and celestial body. 
« Last Edit: December 12, 2007, 06:11:20 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Exclusive Evidence
« Reply #12 on: December 12, 2007, 04:50:05 PM »
And yet you have no proof. Thus the Earth must be flat. QED.

Well round earth does have proof, but you guys are paranoid and dismiss it as a conspiracy

Re: Exclusive Evidence
« Reply #13 on: December 12, 2007, 05:37:04 PM »
Quote
ok, show me a video of stars passing behind the shadow object and re-appearing and i'll admit it's possible for it to exist.

During an eclipse the Shadow Object does not pass between the Moon and observer, it intersects the light between the Sun and Moon.

The Shadow Object does not need to be as large as the moon. The Shadow Object is a non-luminous body the size of a beach ball which rotates around the sun level to the plane of the earth, projecting a shadow upon moon twice a year as it precisely intersects the light between the Sun and Moon.

When we look up at the Sun during the day we do not see the shadow object moving around it because the brightness of the sun's powerful vertical rays have blotted it out, just as they blot out every single star and celestial body. 

is there any proof of this shadow object ?
Quote from: jack
I'm special.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18025
Re: Exclusive Evidence
« Reply #14 on: December 12, 2007, 06:14:28 PM »
Quote
is there any proof of this shadow object ?

Yes. Although we cannot observe the Shadow Object directly due to the Sun's powerful rays, we can accurately predict the time, magnitude, and duration of the Lunar Eclipse by using the following formulas in Chapter 10 of the book Earth Not a Globe by Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham:

---


Let A, B, R, (in the above diagram) be a section of the eclipse shadow at the distance of the moon; S, n, the path described by its centre, S, on the ecliptic; M, n, the relative orbit of the moon; M, n, S, n, being considered straight lines. Draw S, o, perpendicular to S, n, and S, m, to M, n; then o, and m, are in the places, with respect to S, of the moon in opposition, and at the middle of the eclipse.

Let α = S, B = h + π - σ, the radius of the section of the shadow.

λ = S, o, the moon's latitude in opposition.

f = the relative horary motion in longitude of the moon in the relative orbit, M, n.

h = the moon's horary motion in the relative orbit.

g = the moon's horary motion in latitude.

μ = the moon's semi-diameter;


Let M, and N, be the place of the moon's centre at the time of the first and last contact; therefore

SM = SN = a + μ.

Now S m = λ cos n;


and m, o = λ sin n.

If, therefore, t, and t´, be the times from opposition of the first and last contact,


The time from opposition, of the middle of the eclipse


The magnitude of the eclipse, or the part of the moon immersed,

= S u - S v.

= S u--S m + m, v.

=a - λ cos n + μ.

The moon's diameter is generally divided into twelve equal parts, called digits;

therefore the digits eclipsed = 12 :: α - λ, n +μ : 2 μ


COR. 1.--If λ cos n, be greater than α + μ, t and t´ are impossible, and no eclipse can take place, as is also evident from the figure.

COR. 2.--In exactly the same manner it may be proved, if t and t´ be the times from opposition, of the centres of the shadow and moon being at any given distance c,


COR. 3.--If c = h + μ + σ + μ = the radius of the penumbra, + the radius of the moon, the times of the moon entering and emerging from the penumbra are obtained.

The horary motion of the moon is about 32½´, and that of the sun 2½´; therefore the relative horary motion of the moon is 30´; and as the greatest diameter of the section at the distance of the moon is 1° 31´ 44″, a lunar eclipse may last more than three hours.

?

The Arctic Fox

Re: Exclusive Evidence
« Reply #15 on: December 12, 2007, 06:17:17 PM »
Bishop's signature has a link to a Google Video that describes the shadow object.  Of course, he doesn't even realize that the video is an obvious spoof.

Re: Exclusive Evidence
« Reply #16 on: December 12, 2007, 06:46:16 PM »
I find it humorous how all the FE people can't just accept a simple concise earth and have to dream up crazy ideas like shadow objects, and pick and chose from physics to try and make their theories work.  The same thing happened when people tried to explain that the earth wasn't the center of the solar system by creating crazy orbital paths of other planets like nested levels of epicycles.  The simplest observable explanation my friends.  FE is not it. 
« Last Edit: December 12, 2007, 06:48:19 PM by youguysareretatdslol »

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18025
Re: Exclusive Evidence
« Reply #17 on: December 12, 2007, 06:48:36 PM »
I find it humorous how all the FE people can't just accept a simple concise earth and have to dream up crazy ideas like shadow objects, and pick and chose from physics to try and make their theories work.  The same thing happened when people tried to explain that the earth wasn't the center of the solar system by creating crazy orbital paths of other planets like double retrograde motion.  The simplest observable explanation my friends.  FE is not it. 

What's the simplest explanation; that man has successfully designed and built multi-trillion dollar rocket technologies from scratch to send massive payloads into space, and that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis, win the Space Race, and constantly wow the nation by landing a man on the moon and sending robotic rovers to mars; or that they didn't it's all just a Conspiracy?

What's the simplest explanation; that when I look out my window and see a Flat Earth that my eyes are deceiving me and that I am actually looking at the enormous sphere of the earth spinning through space at tens of thousands of miles an hour, whirling in perpetual epicycles around the universe; or that my eyes are not playing tricks on me and that the earth is exactly as it appears?

When I walk off the edge of a three foot drop off and go into free fall while observing the surface of the earth carefully the earth appears to accelerate up towards me. What's the simplest explanation; that there exists an unknown and unproven mechanism inherent in all bodies which allows them to accelerate into each other via unexplained quantum effects; or that this mysterious highly theoretical force does not exist and the earth is just being pushed upwards from its underside?
« Last Edit: December 12, 2007, 07:25:19 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Gabe

  • 485
Re: Exclusive Evidence
« Reply #18 on: December 12, 2007, 07:04:30 PM »
Well, the Shadow Object and Antimoon would be exclusive to FE Science.

Along with the apparently impossible pictures taken on the Bedford Canal (see the Wiki page "Bedford Canal Experiment")

I'm sure there is more.

The shadow object is only in the FE model but it is not directly observable to be used as evidence. Its effects are not exclusive to FE. Failure.  ;)
Quote from: Tom Bishop
There is no evidence for an infinite Earth.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The Earth is infinite.
Warning, you have just lowered your IQ by reading my sig.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18025
Re: Exclusive Evidence
« Reply #19 on: December 12, 2007, 07:25:33 PM »
Quote
The shadow object is only in the FE model but it is not directly observable to be used as evidence. Its effects are not exclusive to FE. Failure.  ;)

What evidence is there showing that the shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse comes from the earth?

Since you do not have evidence showing this, how can you maintain that the earth causes the shadow upon the moon during a lunar eclipse as opposed to any of the other celestial bodies above our heads? There are quite a number of celestial bodies up there, you know.

Re: Exclusive Evidence
« Reply #20 on: December 12, 2007, 07:31:58 PM »
What evidence is there showing that the shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse comes from the earth?

Since you do not have evidence showing this, how can you maintain that the earth causes the shadow as opposed to any of the other celestial bodies above our heads? There are quite a number of celestial bodies up there, you know.

The problem is that they are not up there.   They are out there.   Every reputable astronomer will tell you exactly the same thing.  What is simpler:  There is a magical object we can't see or detect blocking the sun's light, or the nature of two orbiting bodies from time to time cause one to block the sun's light. 

Quote
What's the simplest explanation; that man has successfully designed and built multi-trillion dollar rocket technologies from scratch to send massive payloads into space, and that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis, win the Space Race, and constantly wow the nation by landing a man on the moon and sending robotic rovers to mars; or that they really didn't it's all just a Conspiracy?
So by this theory all multi-trillion dollar things built from scratch are a conspiracy.   Like our computers, communications, highways, schools, and wars.  It is just easier to fake those too instead of doing it for real with an entire nation/world watching and scrutinizing you. 
Burt Rutan.  (Not the same as NASA just way cheaper and still an example of someone in space)  So NASA built a whole bunch of rockets and space shuttles and killed some astronauts while they were at it all for the sake of a conspiracy.  Sorry I left my tinfoil hat at work. 
Quote
What's the simplest explanation; that when I look out my window and see a Flat Earth that my eyes are deceiving me and that I am actually looking at the enormous sphere of the earth spinning through space at tens of thousands of miles an hour, whirling in perpetual epicycles around the universe; or that my eyes are not playing tricks on me and that the earth is exactly as it appears?
This is like saying that a sailor on a boat or a fish swimming in the ocean say it goes on forever just because it can't see land.  If the earth is so flat why can't you get a telescope and see across thousands of miles from the top of a building? 
Quote
When I walk off the edge of a three foot drop off and observe the surface of the earth carefully it appears to accelerate up towards me. What's the simplest explanation; that there exists an unknown and unproven mechanism inherent in all object which allows them to accelerate into each other; or that this mysterious highly theoretical force does not exist and the earth is just accelerating upwards?
Yes but the earth blocks the magical accelerating force from impacting you.  Oh and the planets have gravity because you need some way to explain how it changes with altitude.  But nope, not the earth.  Gravity is observable, while nothing involving a forever accelerating earth is.  The motion of the planets, their moons, and comets are predictable and provable because of gravitational attraction.  The FE idea pulls at random straws and pseudo scientific ideas.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Exclusive Evidence
« Reply #21 on: December 12, 2007, 08:10:57 PM »
I find it humorous how all the FE people can't just accept a simple concise earth and have to dream up crazy ideas like shadow objects, and pick and chose from physics to try and make their theories work.  The same thing happened when people tried to explain that the earth wasn't the center of the solar system by creating crazy orbital paths of other planets like nested levels of epicycles.  The simplest observable explanation my friends.  FE is not it. 
I find your name quite funny and quite a bit ironic.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: Exclusive Evidence
« Reply #22 on: December 12, 2007, 09:03:20 PM »
I find it humorous how all the FE people can't just accept a simple concise earth and have to dream up crazy ideas like shadow objects, and pick and chose from physics to try and make their theories work.  The same thing happened when people tried to explain that the earth wasn't the center of the solar system by creating crazy orbital paths of other planets like nested levels of epicycles.  The simplest observable explanation my friends.  FE is not it. 

You are not my friend. Noob.

LOL
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: Exclusive Evidence
« Reply #23 on: December 12, 2007, 09:10:37 PM »
Quote
is there any proof of this shadow object ?

Yes. Although we cannot observe the Shadow Object directly due to the Sun's powerful rays, we can accurately predict the time, magnitude, and duration of the Lunar Eclipse by using the following formulas in Chapter 10 of the book Earth Not a Globe by Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham:

---


Let A, B, R, (in the above diagram) be a section of the eclipse shadow at the distance of the moon; S, n, the path described by its centre, S, on the ecliptic; M, n, the relative orbit of the moon; M, n, S, n, being considered straight lines. Draw S, o, perpendicular to S, n, and S, m, to M, n; then o, and m, are in the places, with respect to S, of the moon in opposition, and at the middle of the eclipse.

Let α = S, B = h + π - σ, the radius of the section of the shadow.

λ = S, o, the moon's latitude in opposition.

f = the relative horary motion in longitude of the moon in the relative orbit, M, n.

h = the moon's horary motion in the relative orbit.

g = the moon's horary motion in latitude.

μ = the moon's semi-diameter;


Let M, and N, be the place of the moon's centre at the time of the first and last contact; therefore

SM = SN = a + μ.

Now S m = λ cos n;


and m, o = λ sin n.

If, therefore, t, and t´, be the times from opposition of the first and last contact,


The time from opposition, of the middle of the eclipse


The magnitude of the eclipse, or the part of the moon immersed,

= S u - S v.

= S u--S m + m, v.

=a - λ cos n + μ.

The moon's diameter is generally divided into twelve equal parts, called digits;

therefore the digits eclipsed = 12 :: α - λ, n +μ : 2 μ


COR. 1.--If λ cos n, be greater than α + μ, t and t´ are impossible, and no eclipse can take place, as is also evident from the figure.

COR. 2.--In exactly the same manner it may be proved, if t and t´ be the times from opposition, of the centres of the shadow and moon being at any given distance c,


COR. 3.--If c = h + μ + σ + μ = the radius of the penumbra, + the radius of the moon, the times of the moon entering and emerging from the penumbra are obtained.

The horary motion of the moon is about 32½´, and that of the sun 2½´; therefore the relative horary motion of the moon is 30´; and as the greatest diameter of the section at the distance of the moon is 1° 31´ 44″, a lunar eclipse may last more than three hours.



bishop we all know you have no idea what all that bs means.  you cannot work through a real example to show how it can arrive at an actual testable prediction.  i have challenged you repeatedly to do so, and you have failed every time.  it's time to either quit posting this rediculous bullshit, or put your money where your mouth is.  you sad little man.  but you won't.

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: Exclusive Evidence
« Reply #24 on: December 12, 2007, 09:14:09 PM »
Classic rant thimes.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2007, 09:15:56 PM by Lord Z »
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

?

Tristan Lachman

  • 39
  • Flat Earther
Re: Exclusive Evidence
« Reply #25 on: December 13, 2007, 04:37:44 AM »
bishop we all know you have no idea what all that bs means.  you cannot work through a real example to show how it can arrive at an actual testable prediction.  i have challenged you repeatedly to do so, and you have failed every time.  it's time to either quit posting this ridiculous bullshit, or put your money where your mouth is.  you sad little man.  but you won't.

It is time to leave the internet once you get worked up over nothing. Tom Bishop is, at least, always posting with dignity. Your challenge has been heard and I'll try to predict the next lunar eclipse with Dr Rowbotham's formulae.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2007, 04:40:38 AM by Tristan Lachman »

Re: Exclusive Evidence
« Reply #26 on: December 13, 2007, 04:40:23 AM »
bishop we all know you have no idea what all that bs means.  you cannot work through a real example to show how it can arrive at an actual testable prediction.  i have challenged you repeatedly to do so, and you have failed every time.  it's time to either quit posting this rediculous bullshit, or put your money where your mouth is.  you sad little man.  but you won't.

It is time to leave the internet once you get worked up over nothing. Tom Bishop is, at least, always posting with dignity. Your challenge has been heard and I'll try to predict the next lunar eclipse with Dr Rowbotham's formulae.

To be fair, Tom Bishop did go mental at the engineer once...he was rather rude
« Last Edit: December 13, 2007, 06:20:10 AM by GazMcB »

Re: Exclusive Evidence
« Reply #27 on: December 13, 2007, 05:58:17 AM »
Classic rant thimes.

classic rubbish posted by tom means classic response from RE'ers
Quote from: jack
I'm special.

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: Exclusive Evidence
« Reply #28 on: December 13, 2007, 06:23:10 AM »
bishop we all know you have no idea what all that bs means.  you cannot work through a real example to show how it can arrive at an actual testable prediction.  i have challenged you repeatedly to do so, and you have failed every time.  it's time to either quit posting this rediculous bullshit, or put your money where your mouth is.  you sad little man.  but you won't.

It is time to leave the internet once you get worked up over nothing. Tom Bishop is, at least, always posting with dignity. Your challenge has been heard and I'll try to predict the next lunar eclipse with Dr Rowbotham's formulae.

To be fair, Tom Bishop did go mental at the engineer once...he was rather rude

It was hilarious... I'm gonna go find it and read it again.
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Exclusive Evidence
« Reply #29 on: December 13, 2007, 07:47:03 AM »
"Listen here you ugly son of a bitch..."

It was a classic.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson