Why us REers will never win.

Why won't we win? Because to them, we have no proof. Judging by there logic, you can't prove that black is even black. You can shove all of these clear figures that show how they are wrong, and you are right, but they won't believe them. All you'll ever get out of them is, "read the FAQ" so prove them wrong all you want. They'll just pass it off as lies and deceit just for the sake of keeping their shambles on an argument intact. Let them live in misunderstanding - just be glad that you don't. Be glad that unlike them, you are a normal person, and you'll be a contributor to society some day, unlike them, who will probably be on meth still. Consider it a privilege that you aren't a fuckwit. As opposed to them.

Why won't we win? Because we have no proof. You can't prove that black is even black. You can shove all of these clear figures , but they mean nothing, and they won't have to believe them. All you'll ever get out of it is a burst blood vesssel. It can just be passed off as lies and deceit just for the sake of keeping any argument intact. There is no understanding. Be sad that unlike them, you are an ignorant person, and you'll be a bigot some day, unlike them, who will probably be contributing to science and society still. Consider it a privilege that you have met them.

Make the amendments there and you might just learn something.

Grammar maybe. Not sure about anything else.

So you don't agree that nothing can ever be proven outside of the abstract and meaningless world of mathematics?

Not at all. I have my beliefs and I have science. Not quite ne'er the twain shall meet but the overlap is not vast. I cannot prove my religious beliefs they are personal a relationship between me and whatever/whoever I believe. This is faith I know it to be true but I can't prove it. I may learn from a book but faith itself comes from a personal relationship.

Science is entirely about the incredibly meaningful world of mathematics. Why ever we have the universe we do mathematics is the language it is described in. So when it comes to matters of the physical world I do think in terms of maths.

But the whole point of science is to apply mathematics (which is completely meaningless on its own, I have to say) to the real world, but since we have to rely on our own perception at some point, and there is no way of knowing that what we perceive is reality, then nothing in science can ever be proven conclusively. I'm not sure why you mentioned religion.

No what we perceive is almost certainly not reality. I perceive a table as solid, I perceive an atom as a particle, I perceive light as a wave and I perceive the world as flat. If I look around me these 4 things I might think are true. Thats why its a never good idea to trust your eyes. With a bit of effort I can find out that a table isn't solid, atoms and light are all just fields and the Earth is a sphere. Your right you can't do it with maths alone as Kuhn pointed out there is a subjective, creative aspect to Science.

Though maths is more than a tool, the form of expressions allows to to try and understand things we can't possibly perceive with our senses. A good example of this is Maxwells equations. When Maxwell first considered the EM field he did so with cogs and gears concepts one can picture. He then reformulated it in turns of the abstract Electromagnetic field and 4 elegant differential equations. To me this was an important moment, it was the moment that science became described by abstract mathematics not merely calculated with it.

Why won't we win? Because to them, we have no proof.

Which is kind of weird. Because there are many times more books and materials which rely on round earth or describe it or something else related to RE. And there is handful of books about flat earth and somehow the credibility of handful FE books is so high that they just are truth. I wonder why...

Which is kind of weird. Because there are many times more books and materials which rely on round earth or describe it or something else related to RE. And there is handful of books about flat earth and somehow the credibility of handful FE books is so high that they just are truth. I wonder why...

Please show me any one peer reviewed book or published work which proves through experiment that the earth is a globe.

Please show me any one peer reviewed book or published work which proves through experiment that the earth is a globe.

Start for small - http://www.vidyaonline.net/arvindgupta/earthpix.pdf - Isaac Asimov, How did we find out that the earth is round.
And you can start with standard schoolbooks which are peer reviewed by many because they are basic scientific books.
Also, how about some link about Rowbothams book peer reviewing. And not some hundred or hundred an fifty years ago but in last 10-20 years. Or we can stretch timeline to some 30 or 40 years.

Start for small - http://www.vidyaonline.net/arvindgupta/earthpix.pdf - Isaac Asimov, How did we find out that the earth is round.
And you can start with standard schoolbooks which are peer reviewed by many because they are basic scientific books.
Also, how about some link about Rowbothams book peer reviewing. And not some hundred or hundred an fifty years ago but in last 10-20 years. Or we can stretch timeline to some 30 or 40 years.

What experiment did the author do to prove that the earth is round?

Quote

Start for small - http://www.vidyaonline.net/arvindgupta/earthpix.pdf - Isaac Asimov, How did we find out that the earth is round.
And you can start with standard schoolbooks which are peer reviewed by many because they are basic scientific books.
Also, how about some link about Rowbothams book peer reviewing. And not some hundred or hundred an fifty years ago but in last 10-20 years. Or we can stretch timeline to some 30 or 40 years.

What experiments did the author do to prove that the earth is round?

You don't need experiments right away. Start with observations. And I ask again - how about some link about Rowbothams book peer reviewing. And not some hundred or hundred an fifty years ago but in last 10-20 years. Or we can stretch timeline to some 30 or 40 years.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 07, 2009, 04:16:01 AM

Quote

Start for small - http://www.vidyaonline.net/arvindgupta/earthpix.pdf - Isaac Asimov, How did we find out that the earth is round.
And you can start with standard schoolbooks which are peer reviewed by many because they are basic scientific books.
Also, how about some link about Rowbothams book peer reviewing. And not some hundred or hundred an fifty years ago but in last 10-20 years. Or we can stretch timeline to some 30 or 40 years.

What experiments did the author do to prove that the earth is round?

You don't need experiments right away. Start with observations. And I ask again - how about some link about Rowbothams book peer reviewing. And not some hundred or hundred an fifty years ago but in last 10-20 years. Or we can stretch timeline to some 30 or 40 years.

Gotcha. So no experiments then.

Gotcha. So no experiments then.

There is, but as I said - you can start with observations at first. In the Asimov's book there is observations and conclusion that to match the results of observation the earth must be round.
 And also - gotcha - there is no peer review of Rowbothams work.

Why us REers won't win? We're on the FEers forum. This is their field, not ours. Their word is law, and until we convince them onto an REers forum(Which there are none that I know of), we'll never win.


It's best just to be nice to them so they won't kill us with their evil cyborg penguins(Linux users would love those).

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 07, 2009, 04:19:30 AM

Gotcha. So no experiments then.

There is, but as I said - you can start with observations at first. In the Asimov's book there is observations and conclusion that to match the results of observation the earth must be round.
 And also - gotcha - there is no peer review of Rowbothams work.

Observations aren't experiments.

is english first language your

we use pronouns determine participle and tense you should too

all you can do attack my eyes

wow

we discuss english and your butchering it

this thread not discuss flat earth

discuss futility concept proof

Quote from: zork on March 07, 2009, 04:38:28 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 07, 2009, 04:19:30 AM

Gotcha. So no experiments then.

There is, but as I said - you can start with observations at first. In the Asimov's book there is observations and conclusion that to match the results of observation the earth must be round.
 And also - gotcha - there is no peer review of Rowbothams work.

Observations aren't experiments.

Observations are a fundamental aspect of experiments.  If you aren't going to observe the results, then why bother with the experiment?  Observations are also a method of inquiry important to zetetic research.

Unless such observations are made in a controlled experimental environment, they mean nothing.

Why us REers won't win? We're on the FEers forum. This is their field, not ours. Their word is law, and until we convince them onto an REers forum(Which there are none that I know of), we'll never win.


It's best just to be nice to them so they won't kill us with their evil cyborg penguins(Linux users would love those).

It's your lucky day. Check the link in my signature and you'll find
The Round Earth Society.

Observations aren't experiments.

  Why do you need so badly only experiments? All starts with observations and it provides also data to you. So we start from the beginning and observe the big experiment which is earth and universe itself. So, there is experiment if you look at this that way.

And still - gotcha - there is no peer review of Rowbothams work.

Quote from: General Douchebag on March 07, 2009, 09:18:43 AM

Unless such observations are made in a controlled experimental environment, they mean nothing.

rowbotham use controlled experimental environment?

Yeah, only he called them experiments. But you wouldn't be familiar with those, would you?

And still - gotcha - there is no peer review of Rowbothams work.

Actually, there is.

Quote from: zork on March 07, 2009, 01:34:08 PM

And still - gotcha - there is no peer review of Rowbothams work.

Actually, there is.

Prove it.

Quote from: zork on March 07, 2009, 01:34:08 PM

And still - gotcha - there is no peer review of Rowbothams work.

Actually, there is.

  So, is it available for others to look or is it some antique book/article that isn't available anymore? And if you read back then I asked peer review which was done in last 40 years. If it isn't available online then please refer to the title and author of the book/article. Though, author must be real scientist not "scientist" like Rowbotham was.

So, is it available for others to look or is it some antique book/article that isn't available anymore? And if you read back then I asked peer review which was done in last 40 years. If it isn't available online then please refer to the title and author of the book/article. Though, author must be real scientist not "scientist" like Rowbotham was.

After ENAG was published there was a monthly journal called "Earth Not a Globe Review" which was dedicated to peer reviewing the work.

There are also reproductions of Rowbotham's experiments by independent researchers which you can find in my signature link.

Quote

So, is it available for others to look or is it some antique book/article that isn't available anymore? And if you read back then I asked peer review which was done in last 40 years. If it isn't available online then please refer to the title and author of the book/article. Though, author must be real scientist not "scientist" like Rowbotham was.

After ENAG was published there was a monthly journal called "Earth Not a Globe Review" which was dedicated to peer reviewing the work.

There are also reproductions of Rowbotham's experiments by independent researchers which you can find in my signature link.

Patently false. Peer review requires independence. EnaGR was not independent or even open-minded. Not a single "reproduction" has passed scientific review either. You can, however, observe the constant size of the Sun as it sets tonight over the Pacific Ocean and demonstrate to yourself that Rowbotham was wrong in at least that case. Of course, we anticipate that you'll ignore reality, again.