Will we get more explanations about that famous "Shadow Object" ?

I'm still waiting a schema that explains us how a lunar eclipse work in your flat earth theory. Oh yeah, it is because of the shadow object, I know that argument. I'm still waiting for a schema. Or at least, more explanations so we can understand and make some experiments about your theory. Because as far as I remember, nobody have already seen or detected that mysterious shadow object.

By the way, are you able to tell me when this shadow object will pass between the Earth and the Moon, resulting in a lunar eclipse?

Scientists already known that the next lunar eclipse will be on July 07th, 2009 because we know that the Earth will be between the Sun and the Moon in a "straight line". What about you, flat earthers?

Read Earth Not a Globe please.

I don't believe in the shadow object, so I'm not sure I'm qualified to address it.

You should post more often, Ski. We could always use informed, alternative views.

I don't believe in the shadow object, so I'm not sure I'm qualified to address it.

You should post more often, Ski. We could always use informed, alternative views.

Yes, as I recall, you have an interesting alternative to how lunar eclipses work.

Read Earth Not a Globe please.

The simplest method of ascertaining any future eclipse is to take the tables which have been formed during hundreds of years of careful observation; or each observer may form his own tables by collecting a number of old almanacks one for each of the last forty years: separate the times of the eclipses in each year, and arrange them in a tabular form. On looking over the various items he will soon discover parallel cases, or "cycles" of eclipses; that is, taking the eclipses in the first year of his table, and examining those of each succeeding year, he will notice peculiarities in each year's phenomena; but on arriving to the items of the nineteenth and twentieth years, he will perceive that some of the eclipses in the earlier part of the table will have been now repeated--that is to say, the times and characters will be alike. If the time which has elapsed between these two parallel or similar eclipses be carefully noted, and called a "cycle," it will then be a very simple and easy matter to predict any future similar eclipse, because, at the end of the "cycle," such similar eclipse will be certain to occur; or, at least, because such repetitions of similar phenomena have occurred in every cycle of between eighteen and nineteen years during the last several thousand years, it may be reasonably expected that if the natural world continues to have the same general structure and character, such repetitions may be predicted for all future time. The whole process is neither more nor less--except a little more complicated--than that because an express train had been observed for many years to pass a given point at a given second--say of every eighteenth day, so at a similar moment of every cycle or eighteenth day, for a hundred or more years to. come, the same might be predicted and expected. To tell the actual day and second, it is only necessary to ascertain on what day of the week the eighteenth or "cycle day" falls.

Of course, it all seems so simple now 

You should post more often, Ski. We could always use informed, alternative views.

I now hold a position at work that sees me spending less time in front of a computer and more time actually doing things. One step forward; one step back.

Read Earth Not a Globe please.

I will read it during the spring break, because my Physical Engineering program takes a lot of my time.

By the way, if you have time, you can read "How did we find out the Earth is round" by Isaac Asimov in 1972. http://www.vidyaonline.net/arvindgupta/earthpix.pdf

By the way, if you have time, you can read "How did we find out the Earth is round" by Isaac Asimov in 1972. http://www.vidyaonline.net/arvindgupta/earthpix.pdf

Tom won't accept that because Issac Asimov was an author of science fiction.  Much like he doesn't believe that Arthur C. Clarke invented the communication satellite (Echo 1) because he was an author of science fiction as well.  I suppose that Tom doesn't believe that a successful science fiction author can also credibly write about science fact.

Tom won't accept that because Issac Asimov was an author of science fiction.  Much like he doesn't believe that Arthur C. Clarke invented the communication satellite (Echo 1) because he was an author of science fiction as well.  I suppose that Tom doesn't believe that a successful science fiction author can also credibly write about science fact.

Hell, Rowbotham was inventor and writer. Isaac Asimov was writer and professor of biochemistry. Arthur C. Clarke was writer and inventor and futurist. I don't see why Rowbotham has more credibility if we talk about science. Did he even had any decent education in some university?

Quote from: markjo on February 23, 2009, 10:29:38 AM

Tom won't accept that because Issac Asimov was an author of science fiction.  Much like he doesn't believe that Arthur C. Clarke invented the communication satellite (Echo 1) because he was an author of science fiction as well.  I suppose that Tom doesn't believe that a successful science fiction author can also credibly write about science fact.

Hell, Rowbotham was inventor and writer. Isaac Asimov was writer and professor of biochemistry. Arthur C. Clarke was writer and inventor and futurist. I don't see why Rowbotham has more credibility if we talk about science. Did he even had any decent education in some university?

There are no reasons why Rowbotham would have more credibility than anybody else. It's just because he claimed that the earth is flat that Tom always refer us to his book. Of course, we could refer Tom to a thousand of scientifict/engineers books/magazines supporting a round Earth. But I'm glad to see that Rowbotham never refer to a mysterious shadow object in his cause of lunar eclipse.

Now, does this shadow object exist or not? Tell me Tom! Some of your friends already told me that it exists.

Tom won't accept that because Issac Asimov was an author of science fiction.

No, that has nothing to do with why I don't accept it. I don't accept it simply because it's wrong.

Now, does this shadow object exist or not? Tell me Tom! Some of your friends already told me that it exists.

Yes, it does. When the lunar eclipse occurs the shadow object is intersecting the light between the sun and moon.

Physical Engineering

WTF is that?

Quote

Tom won't accept that because Issac Asimov was an author of science fiction.

No, that has nothing to do with why I don't accept it. I don't accept it simply because it's wrong.

Would you care to point out where Mr. Asimov is wrong?

Would you care to point out where Mr. Asimov is wrong?

His first mistake was on page one where he asserted that the earth is round.

It's not.

No, that has nothing to do with why I don't accept it. I don't accept it simply because it's wrong.

I guess the both of us have something in common. I don't accept Earth Not a Globe because it's wrong too.

The difference between us is that I'm the one who's actually justified while you are irrational.

Quote from: markjo on February 23, 2009, 07:29:06 PM

Would you care to point out where Mr. Asimov is wrong?

His first mistake was on page one where he asserted that the earth is round.

It's not.

Tom, for once, be open minded. At least try reading RE lituature, I myself have tried reading FE lituature and I sure as hell don't support it.

Quote from: markjo on February 23, 2009, 07:29:06 PM

Would you care to point out where Mr. Asimov is wrong?

His first mistake was on page one where he asserted that the earth is round.

It's not.

So I take it that the other nine pages where points out step-by-step how that conclusion was reached are irrelevant?

Quote from: grifoli on February 23, 2009, 09:20:55 AM

Physical Engineering

WTF is that?

Sorry it is a wrong translation from french to english  I mean Engineering Physics.

So I take it that the other nine pages where points out step-by-step how that conclusion was reached are irrelevant?

Do you mean where he repeats Aristotle's 2000 year old disproved nonsense?

Yes, that's irreverent and wrong.

Quote from: markjo on February 23, 2009, 07:47:40 PM

So I take it that the other nine pages where points out step-by-step how that conclusion was reached are irrelevant?

Do you mean where he repeats Aristotle's 2000 year old disproved nonsense?

Yes, that's irreverent and wrong.

How is it either?

How is it either?

The sinking ship effect is actually a proof for a flat earth, since it has been found that half sunken ships could be restored with the aid of a telescope.

The lunar eclipse doesn't prove that the earth is a globe, in fact, since it sometimes happens during the day, it's proof against the globular theory. Its prediction is a matter of patterns and recurrences.

And the shifting of the stars as you travel northward or southward is a matter of perspective.

All of this is addressed in detail in the literature. Please read it.

Quote from: hi on February 23, 2009, 08:07:23 PM

How is it either?

The sinking ship effect is actually a proof for a flat earth, since it has been found that half sunken ships could be restored with the aid of a telescope.

The lunar eclipse doesn't prove that the earth is a globe, in fact, since it sometimes happens during the day, it's proof against the globular theory. Its prediction is a matter of patterns and recurrences.

And the shifting of the stars as you travel northward or southward is a matter of perspective.

All of this is addressed in detail in the literature. Please read it.

Speaking of lunar eclipses, what about the shadow object Tom?

The sinking ship effect is actually a proof for a flat earth.

Nope, I've never witnessed a ship sailing around while the hull is below water. And even if they did, I'm not sure how that supports a flat earth.

Using zetetic beliefs I can't observe the ship's hull while I can observe the ship's sails because it's hull is being blocked by the earth itself. This happens because the earth has curvature.

It's simple.

The sinking ship effect is actually a proof for a flat earth, since it has been found that half sunken ships could be restored with the aid of a telescope.

The only person in the world who has claimed this is possible is Rowbotham.

This experiment has never once been replicated by anyone.

Speaking of lunar eclipses, what about the shadow object Tom?

What about it?

The only person in the world who has claimed this is possible is Rowbotham.

This experiment has never once been replicated by anyone.

Actually Thomas Winship, Cyrus Teed, and a number of other people have published accounts of half-sunken ships being restored with the aid of a telescope.

Actually Thomas Winship, Cyrus Teed, and a number of other people have published accounts of half-sunken ships being restored with the aid of a telescope.

So is there any evidence of these experiments?

I'm not going to just take someone's word for it, I need to see the results for myself.

Actually Thomas Winship, Cyrus Teed, and a number of other people have published accounts of half-sunken ships being restored with the aid of a telescope.

Several of whom were not FE advocates.

Quote from: hi on February 23, 2009, 08:13:22 PM

Speaking of lunar eclipses, what about the shadow object Tom?

What about it?

That's what this topic was made for, so you can explain to us all what the mysterious shadow object is.

So is there any evidence of these experiments?

I'm not going to just take someone's word for it, I need to see the results for myself.

Numerous detailed accounts can be found here:

Lake Michigan Experiments.

Thomas Winship provides similar accounts in his book Zetetic Cosmogony.