About the "believer", not the "theories"...

Hey.  Nobody can accuse me of not trying.

Perhaps I should make my own forum for FE'ers and moderate it properly to see what happens.

I'd give every FE'er Free Custom Email and their own WebSpace to upload Pictures, Videos and anything else they wanted.

Any FE'ers want a bunch of free stuff?  I'll even allow FE'ers to run the place if they wish to

---

---

---

The problem is there's too much drivel surrounding the evidence. There's no way I could carefully refute every point the videos bring up, simply because the amount of text would be a whole topic in itself, and by the time I had created it all the topic would have moved on. In essence, the shear size of the videos is defence against counter-evidence.

That is why he uses such "evidence."  It is messy enough to be questionable to anyone, long enough to be difficult to get through and has so many flaws both minor and major that to list them becomes a huge project.

This is the ever repeating pattern.  The underlying problem (and why you can never succeed) is that no matter what Tom says, he does not understand or agree with the requirements for scientific proof.  Because he is convinced that he does understand, he is unable to see the flaw in his definition of proof, so he is unwilling to stop submitting evidence that does not meet the admissibility requirements of a scientific debate.

It is the very fact that the evidence is rejected by you (with proper explanation) that makes it invalid here.  It doesn't make it false, but Tom cannot see the difference between false and inadmissible.  He thinks it's true, therefore he thinks it should be accepted, period.  He doesn't agree with why you are rejecting it, so he whines about it, but he fails to see that WHY you reject it doesn't really matter.  The fact that you do throws it out regardless.

Tom should remember that it's a two way street.  If there is evidence we have provided that he rejects (with proper explanation), then we should not keep referencing it either.  The fundamental principal of acceptability for any argument in fair debate is what Tom seems incapable of grasping, and as a result, anything he offers as evidence will continue to be the same things that were rejected before and that he knows you will not accept now.

It's a case of doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different (or perhaps not) result.

Hey Tom:

I wanted to start a discussion on your two videos in another thraed because it's off-topic here, but a moderator dumped it here:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29829.0

I don't think I can be bothered to watch them now ...

There's no way I could carefully refute every point the videos bring up, simply because the amount of text would be a whole topic in itself, and by the time I had created it all the topic would have moved on.

Oh right, you can't refute the evidence because there's "too much of it". What a load. If you were truly interested in defending your beliefs you would address the points in the video and rebut them with evidence of your own.

Starts with solar particle events. Some figures are quoted, 130 rem and 70 rem. Where do these figures come from? They're essentially meaningless. Who says the astronauts are exposed to this, and who says this will be the effect?

Van Allen says they would. You know him, right? He's another of your "pillars of science".

Talking about an unprotected astronauts passing through space, and the Van Allen belts. Talking about the radiation levels rising and varying, but no actual figures.

See Van Allen's work.

• Apparently there little agreement on the size of the belts, yet only two sources are quoted. They also said the belts vary a while back anyway, so why should the figures match?

Please see Van Allen's work for details. Do you own research. If you already knew the basics of your own model you wouldn't be asking these amateur questions and would know where to look.

• Talking about flares. No evidence that such things are deadly to astronauts.

Please look up the concept of Solar Flares. They are very powerful and very destructive.

• Saying that the hull of the craft was not thick enough to protect the astronauts, yet they seem to neglect to mention all the other stuff being carried in the capsule which could act as a shield.

Yes, I am sure their nylon Velcro beds and food stuffs are all very effective at blocking deadly radiation.

I could go on, but it would take too long.

You could go on, but you won't because you've realized that you cannot present contradicting evidence. You have no contradicting evidence what-so-ever to present.

So what has to be done to determine when you have 'the truth'? Why is a result collected in the lab considered the truth and one collected from the sky not? Is is simply the fact that you can perform more experiments on the one in the lab?

Experiments in a lab can come to the truth of a matter through trial and error. If there is a question, an experiment in a lab can always put the hypothesis to the test. Many tests can be tried, each in succession, to rule out any hypothesis which might come up.

Observation of the sky cannot do that. There is no trial and error. If it a hypothesis is questioned it cannot be put to the test. Astronomy is entirely devoid of testing and experimentation.

Experimentation is a fundamental tenet to all science. Chemists, Biologists and Psychologists all put their subject matter under carefully designed tests to come to the truth of a hypothesis. Endless trials are conducted, each with a control and slightly different variables. Eventually, after much experimentation and testing, the researchers can come to a truth.

Astronomers don't do that. Astronomers do not follow the Scientific Method. Astronomy is not a "science". Astronomers are not "scientists".

Wind him up and watch him go, folks!

Claiming to be scientific while not following The Scientific Method makes one a liar.

You mean like Astronomers?

Quote from: Skeptek's Signature

Claiming to be scientific while not following The Scientific Method makes one a liar.

You mean like Astronomers?

No, like the Energizer Bunny!

This isn't an unrelated thread. The author of this thread is calling FE'ers "believers," when really it is the RE'er who is the believer.

So because you think RE'ers are believers, you would expect a debate about a full-length conspiracy theory video in a thread about the debate tactics of believers?

I do believe that today I have glimpsed the true face of the FET movement.  The whole thing is a fraud.  Each participant may have their own particular reasons for being on board, but none of them are declared in the open.

Science is the mantra, but bullshit is the mainstay.

The whole thing is a fraud.  Each participant may have their own particular reasons for being on board, but none of them are declared in the open.

We already have a flying spaghetti monster guy here, and quite frankly you're not an improvement. If you truly believe what you posted, then why haven't you left?

After finding this website and reading over the forums for the past few days, I have (obviously) decided to create a user account and join in with the "discussions" regarding FE and RE "theories."

While the fine details vary from post to post, there are several themes that seem to recur with "FE Theorists" (which I SHOULD henceforth refer to as SPCs - self-proclaimed cabalists).  These consist of (but are not necessarily limited to):

1.) The Grand Conspiracy Theory
2.) Non sequitur replies
3.) Utter disregard or outright neglect for intended meaning, choosing to instead focus on semantics by quoting people out of context.

***

What is even more astounding to me is the sheer number of nonsensical points dubbed as "valid arguments" for why "RE Theory" and "RE Theorists / Explorers" are incorrect.  I have yet to find a valid FE point which cannot be used to refute "FE Theory" itself.

Though, here is something for you all to chew on:

FE Society is a group of conspirators who have found, irrefutably, that the Earth is spherical.  In an attempt to cover up this truth, which has been accepted world-wide for hundreds of years, they have formed this Grand Conspiracy to cover up these facts.  Using the claim of a Grand Conspiracy on "the other side" themselves, they divert attention to their own conspiracy by pointing the finger at everyone else.  This has allowed for a slow and gradual increase in their following.  They hope, for profit and other conspiratorial reasons, they will be able to convince the world of their lies...

...

...

And 'round and 'round we go...

This thread is NOT about details of FE theory or any other.

Then why did you post it in a Flat Earth discussion board, dumbass?

Ahhh, yes... I forgot to include in my list:

4.) Resorting to name-calling and other equally ineffective, immature methods of debate

So because you think RE'ers are believers, you would expect a debate about a full-length conspiracy theory video in a thread about the debate tactics of believers?

I expect an RE'er to look at the evidence which contradicts his beliefs and then present contradicting evidence of his own. The RE'er needs to defend his belief system. If an RE'er cannot or refuses to do that, and yet still insists that his ideas are fact, then he is a "believer".

Quote

Would you please post your objections to the "science" of astronomy in my star-trails thread?

I've shown you your deficiencies here. That's good enough.

OK: I am going to ask one more time (very politely as ever) ...

In this thread you have said that we cannot draw any valid scientific conclusions from our observations of the stars.

But in many other threads you have esposed your Multiple, Layered, Gear-Driven, Counter-Rotating, Disk-Like Star Systems Theory to explain the way that the stars and planets move across the sky every night.

I went on to counter this with my own Round Earth Spherical Sky Model.

So:

1. You started the debate about stars

2. I continued it

3. It isn't concluded, and

3. You now refuse to carry on the debate.

Does that seem fair and gentlemanly to you?

Does that seem fair and gentlemanly to anyone else?

So come on, Tom: get yourself over to my "star-trails" thread and start defending your model of the night sky.

Yes we can only "observe" the stars, and yes that makes astronomy an "observational science" ...

But that doesn't remove the desire or need to look up on a starry night and understand why the stars and planets move the way they do.

Oh right, you can't refute the evidence because there's "too much of it". What a load. If you were truly interested in defending your beliefs you would address the points in the video and rebut them with evidence of your own.

Right. I'm not going to sit around for hours searching through the video to find this valid evidence. If you want to make a point, don't hide it in hours of nonsense.

Van Allen says they would. You know him, right? He's another of your "pillars of science".

See Van Allen's work.

Please see Van Allen's work for details. Do you own research. If you already knew the basics of your own model you wouldn't be asking these amateur questions and would know where to look.

Where does he make these claims? And what makes his word absolute truth? The fact he discovered them doesn't mean he knows the belts like the back of his hand.

Please look up the concept of Solar Flares. They are very powerful and very destructive.

I can't see why they would cause such a problem with sufficient shielding between the astronauts and the source. They are only really damaging to the complex electronic equipment we have in modern satellites.

Yes, I am sure their nylon Velcro beds and food stuffs are all very effective at blocking deadly radiation

Considering the radiation is mainly particles, I imagine they are quite effective.

You could go on, but you won't because you've realized that you cannot present contradicting evidence. You have no contradicting evidence what-so-ever to present.

Please don't twist my words. If you want me to analyse it, shorten it into something someone would be bothered to analyse.

Please don't twist my words. If you want me to analyse it, shorten it into something someone would be bothered to analyse.

The videos last for hours?

That's not fair - Tom should also provide a "clip" or "clips" that give the minimum evidence needed to support his point(s).

In a similar vein, his oft-used "Read Eath Not A Globe" is also rather a somwehat unfair request.

Yes we can only "observe" the stars, and yes that makes astronomy an "observational science" ...

But that doesn't remove the desire or need to look up on a starry night and understand why the stars and planets move the way they do.

It doesn't matter how much you "try" to understand. If you cannot test a basic idea with a basic experiment to come to the truth of the matter, you are not understanding anything.

Right. I'm not going to sit around for hours searching through the video to find this valid evidence. If you want to make a point, don't hide it in hours of nonsense.

Oh, so now the video is rejected because it's "too long" and you don't have the attention span. What a terrible excuse to shut your eyes from confrontation and go on believing your tarnished belief system.

The evidence is there for all to see. Not one area has been contradicted.

Where does he make these claims? And what makes his word absolute truth? The fact he discovered them doesn't mean he knows the belts like the back of his hand.

Look up James Val Allen's work. It's apparent that you don't know even the very basics of your model or the work which founds it. I'm not in the business of providing remedial education. Look up the works which describe the Van Allen belts for yourself and then provide your evidence which demonstrates it to be incorrect. You can learn more at your public library.

I can't see why they would cause such a problem with sufficient shielding between the astronauts and the source. They are only really damaging to the complex electronic equipment we have in modern satellites.

Lethal doses of radiation on the Apollo craft would do a little more than "damage complex electronic equipment".

Considering the radiation is mainly particles, I imagine they are quite effective.

Radiation passes through solids. Pleas watch the video and go over the sources. Thick lead shielding is necessary to block radiation.

The videos last for hours?

That's not fair - Tom should also provide a "clip" or "clips" that give the minimum evidence needed to support his point(s).

In a similar vein, his oft-used "Read Eath Not A Globe" is also rather a somwehat unfair request.

It's not unfair to ask you to look at the evidence.

Quote from: 3 Tesla on June 17, 2009, 05:05:38 AM

The videos last for hours?

That's not fair - Tom should also provide a "clip" or "clips" that give the minimum evidence needed to support his point(s).

In a similar vein, his oft-used "Read Eath Not A Globe" is also rather a somwehat unfair request.

It's not unfair to ask you to look at the evidence.

OK then:

Please read the entire Proceedings Of The Royal Atronomical Society - hundred's of years worth of articles - and rebut every piece of evidence therein for a global earth.

Does that sound fair to you?

OK then:

Please read the entire Proceedings Of The Royal Atronomical Society - hundred's of years worth of articles - and rebut every piece of evidence therein for a global earth.

Does that sound fair to you?

I have read the entire recorded proceedings of the Royal Astronomical Society. They're available on Google Books. There is no evidence for a "global earth".

A number of famous Flat Earthers such as Samuel Shenton have been fellows of the Royal Astronomical Society, by the way.

Quote

Yes we can only "observe" the stars, and yes that makes astronomy an "observational science" ...

But that doesn't remove the desire or need to look up on a starry night and understand why the stars and planets move the way they do.

It doesn't matter how much you "try" to understand. If you cannot test a basic idea with a basic experiment to come to the truth of the matter, you are not understanding anything.

If that is true ...

Why did you bother to propose your Counter-Rotating Star-Systems Theory in the first place?

You started, or at least joined in, a debate about the night sky ...

And refusing to finish that debate off just makes you look childish and petulant.

Also:

Given that you can never demonstrate your "Celestial light bends upwards" theory in an actual, earth-based laboratory ...

Why do you allow yourself to use it as an answer all the time?

You would appear to be acting hypocritically.

I have read the entire recorded proceedings of the Royal Astronomical Society.

Wow - I am impressed!

In that case could you kindly summarise the findings presented in the following paper?

Clarke, Alexander Ross
"Note on the figure of the earth."
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astonomical Society, 19: 36-38 (1859)

I gather that it presents evidence that The Earth is an oblate spheroid/ellipsoid ...

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 16, 2009, 02:46:57 PM

This isn't an unrelated thread. The author of this thread is calling FE'ers "believers," when really it is the RE'er who is the believer.

So because you think RE'ers are believers, you would expect a debate about a full-length conspiracy theory video in a thread about the debate tactics of believers?

Answer this, Tom.  THIS is the real issue here.  By avoiding the real issue, you prove that you are a fraud.

Quote from: Skeptek on June 12, 2009, 11:09:17 AM

This thread is NOT about details of FE theory or any other.

Then why did you post it in a Flat Earth discussion board, dumbass?

To expose you all as FRAUDS.  Like me, many people come here looking for answers.  They want to know what kind of person would actually believe this stuff and brag about it.  The truth is simple.  Only a truly mentally ill person.

When newcomers arrive, they are immediately lied to by the FAQ and then by each nut-bag who calls the rantings of some retarded bible thumper "evidence" (Tom Bishop).

I posted here because people like Tom Bishop are not content with just having their own fantasies about magic gears that make the sky go 'round.  They want to poison real science because they don't understand it and are not qualified to be part of it.

Pretending to be scientific is one of the worst kinds of evil.  Every tyrant in history has used some pseudoscience as support or basis for their madness.

Insisting on misrepresenting yourself to society at intimate levels of interaction is a pathology resembling psychosis.  We call you "sociopaths."

I feel it is my duty to point out that all "believers" here actually don't.  It's all a hoax.

If that is true ...

Why did you bother to propose your Counter-Rotating Star-Systems Theory in the first place?

You started, or at least joined in, a debate about the night sky ...

And refusing to finish that debate off just makes you look childish and petulant.

I've always stated that the heavens were unknowable. Rowbotham himself does not make any speculation on the mechanisms and processes of the cosmos. On the topic of the heavens Rowbotham quotes that the movement of the stars are visible to us, but the mechanism is unknown. Rowbotham does not go into rambling hypothesis like Newton, building one hypothesis upon another in mumbling pretension. Rowbotham tells us to proceed only by inquiry.

From Chapter 1 of Earth Not a Globe:

None can doubt that by making special experiments, and collecting manifest and undeniable facts, arranging them in logical order, and observing what is naturally and fairly deducible therefrom, the result must be more consistent and satisfactory than the contrary method of framing a theory or system--assuming the existence and operation of causes of which there is no direct and practical evidence, and which is only claimed to be "admitted for the sake of argument," and for the purpose of giving an apparent and plausible, but not necessarily truthful explanation of phenomena. All theories are of this character. "Supposing, instead of inquiring, imagining systems instead of learning from observation and experience the true constitution of things. Speculative men, by the force of genius may invent systems that will perhaps be greatly admired for a time; these, however, are phantoms which the force of truth will sooner or later dispel; and while we are pleased with the deceit, true philosophy with all the arts and improvements that depend upon it, suffers. The real state of things escapes our observation; or, if it presents itself to us, we are apt either to reject it wholly as fiction, or, by new efforts of a vain ingenuity to interweave it with our own conceits, and labour to make it tally with our favourite schemes. Thus, by blending together parts so ill-suited, the whole comes forth an absurd composition of truth and error. * * * These have not done near so much harm as that pride and ambition which has led philosophers to think it beneath them to offer anything less to the world than a complete and finished system of Nature; and, in order to obtain this at once, to take the liberty of inventing certain principles and hypotheses from which they pretend to explain all her mysteries."

"Theories are things of uncertain mode. They depend, in a great measure, upon the humour and caprice of an age, which is sometimes in love with one, and sometimes with another."

The system of Copernicus was admitted by its author to be merely an assumption, temporary and incapable of demonstration. The following are his words:--"It is not necessary that hypotheses should be true, or even probable; it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculation. * * * Neither let anyone, so far as hypotheses are concerned, expect anything certain from astronomy, since that science can afford nothing of the kind, lest, in case he should adopt for truth, things feigned for another purpose, he should leave this science more foolish than he came. * * * The hypothesis of the terrestrial motion was nothing but an hypothesis, valuable only so far as it explained phenomena, and not considered with reference to absolute truth or falsehood."

The Newtonian and all other "views" and "systems" have the same general character as the "hypothesis of the terrestrial motion," framed by Copernicus. The foundations or premises are always unproved; no proof is ever attempted; the necessity for it is denied; it is considered sufficient that the assumptions seem to explain the phenomena selected. In this way it is that theory supplants theory, and system gives way to system, often in rapid succession, as one failure after another compels opinions to change. Until the practice of theorising is universally relinquished, philosophy will continue to be looked upon by the bulk of mankind as a vain and mumbling pretension, antagonistic to the highest aspirations of humanity. Let there be adopted a true and practical free-thought method, with sequence as the only test of truth and consistency, and the philosopher may become the Priest of Science and the real benefactor of his species. "Honesty of thought is to look truth in the face, not in the side face, but in the full front; not merely to look at truth when found, but to seek it till found. There must be no tampering with conviction, no hedging or mental prevarication; no making 'the wish father to the thought;' no fearing to arrive at a particular result. To think honestly, then, is to think freely; freedom and honesty of thought are truly but interchangeable terms. For how can he think honestly, who dreads his being landed in this or that conclusion? Such an one has already predetermined in his heart how he shall think, and what he shall believe. Perfect truth, like perfect love, casteth out fear."

Let the method of simple inquiry--the "Zetetic" process be exclusively adopted--experiments tried and facts collected--not such only as corroborate an already existing state of mind, but of every kind and form bearing on the subject, before a conclusion is drawn, or a conviction affirmed.

"Nature speaks to us in a peculiar language; in the language of phenomena. She answers at all times the questions which are put to her; and such questions are experiments."

"Nature lies before us as a panorama; let us explore and find delight, she puts questions to us, and we may also question her; the answers may ofttimes be hard to spell, but no dreaded sphinx shall interfere when human wisdom falters."

We have an excellent example of a "Zetetic" process in an arithmetical operation, more especially so in what is called the "Golden Rule," or the "Rule of Three." If a hundredweight of any article costs a given sum, what will some other weight, less or more, be worth? The separate figures may be considered as the elements or facts in the inquiry; the placing and working of them as the logical arrangement of the evidence; and the quotient, or answer, as the fair and natural deduction,--the unavoidable or necessitated verdict. Hence, in every arithmetical or "Zetetic" process, the conclusion arrived at is essentially a quotient; which, if the details are correctly worked, must of necessity be true, and beyond the reach or power of contradiction.

We have another example of the "Zetetic" process in our Courts of Justice. A prisoner is placed at the bar; evidence for and against him is demanded: when advanced it is carefully arranged and patiently considered. It is then presented to the Jury for solemn reconsideration, and whatever verdict is given, it is advanced as the unavoidable conclusion necessitated by the whole of the evidence. In trials, for justice, society would not tolerate any other procedure. Assumption of guilt, and prohibition of all evidence to the contrary, is a practice not to be found among any of the civilised nations of the earth--scarcely indeed, among savages and barbarians; and yet assumption of premises, and selection of evidence to corroborate assumptions, is everywhere and upon all subjects the practice of theoretical philosophers!

The "Zetetic" process is also the most natural method of investigation. Nature herself always teaches it; it is her own continual suggestion; children invariably seek information by asking questions, by earnestly inquiring from those around them. Fearlessly, anxiously, and without the slightest regard to consequences, question after question, in rapid and exciting succession, will often proceed from a child, until the most profound in learning and philosophy, will feel puzzled to reply; and often the searching cross-examinations of a mere natural tyro, can only be brought to an end by an order to retire--to bed --to school--to play--to anywhere--rather than that the fiery "Zetetic" ordeal shall be continued.

If then both Nature and justice, as well as the common sense and practical experience of mankind demand, and will not be content with less or other than the "Zetetic" process, why is it ignored and constantly violated by the learned in philosophy? What right have they to begin their disquisitions with fanciful data, and then to demand that, to these all surrounding phenomena be moulded. As private individuals they have, of course, a right to "do as they like with their own;" but as authors and public teachers their unnatural efforts are immeasurably pernicious. Like a poor animal tied to a stake in the centre of a meadow, where it can only feed in a limited circle, the theoretical philosopher is tethered to his premises, enslaved by his own assumptions, and however great his talent, his influence, his opportunities, he can only rob his fellow men of their intellectual freedom and independence, and convert them into slaves like him-self. In this respect astronomical science is especially faulty. It assumes the existence of certain data; it then applies these data to the explanation of certain phenomena. If the solution seems plausible it is considered that the data may be looked upon as proved--demonstrated by the apparently satisfactory explanation they have afforded. Facts, and explanations of a different character, are put aside as unworthy of regard; since that which is already assumed seems to explain matters, there need be no further concern. Guided by this principle, the secretary of the Royal Astronomical Society (Professor De Morgan, of Trinity College, Cambridge), reviewing a paper by the author, in the Athenum, for March 25th, 1865, says: "The evidence that the earth is round is but cumulative and circumstantial; scores of phenomena ask, separately and independently, what other explanation can be imagined except the sphericity of the earth?" It is thus candidly admitted that there is no direct and positive evidence that the earth is round, that it is only "imagined" or assumed to be so in order to afford an explanation of "scores of phenomena." This is precisely the language of Copernicus, of Newton, and of all astronomers who have laboured to prove the rotundity of the earth. It is pitiful in the extreme that after so many ages of almost unopposed indulgence, philosophers instead of beginning to seek, before everything else, the true constitution of the physical world, are still to be seen labouring only to frame hypotheses, and to reconcile phenomena with imaginary and ever-shifting foundations. Their labour is simply to repeat and perpetuate the self-deception of their predecessors. Surely the day is not far distant when the very complications which their numerous theories have created, will startle them into wakefulness, and convince them that for long ages past they have but been idly dreaming! Time wasted, energies thrown away, truth obscured, and falsehood rampant, constitute a charge so grave that coming generations will look upon them as the bitterest enemies of civilisation, the heaviest drags on the wheels of progress, and the most offensive embodiment of frivolity, pride of learning, and canting formality; worse than this--by their position, their standing in the front ranks of learning, they deceive the public. They appear to represent a solid phalanx of truth and wisdom, when in reality they are but as the flimsy ice of an hour's induration--all surface, without substance, or depth, or reliability, or power to save from danger and ultimate destruction.

Let the practice of theorising be abandoned as one oppressive to the reasoning powers, fatal to the full development of truth, and, in every sense, inimical to the solid progress of sound philosophy.

If, to ascertain the true figure and condition of the earth, we adopt the "Zetetic" process, which truly is the only one sufficiently reliable, we shall find that instead of its being a globe--one of an infinite number of worlds moving on axes and in an orbit round the sun, it is the directly contrary--a Plane, without diurnal or progressive motion, and unaccompanied by anything in the firmament analogous to itself; or, in other words, that it is the only known material world.

Clarke, Alexander Ross
"Note on the figure of the earth."
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astonomical Society, 19: 36-38 (1859)

I gather that it presents evidence that The Earth is an oblate spheroid/ellipsoid ...

What of it?

The reason thy think the earth is an oblate spheroid is because things weigh slightly more at the equator than at the North Pole. Such measurements can and are interpreted differently under a Flat Earth model. Many members of the FES question those g-meter measurements altogether, believing the error margin in g meters to be far too great to come to any conclusion.

The researchers are assuming that the earth is a globe, as always. Elsewhere whenever any member of the Royal Astronomical Society provides reasons for believing that the earth is a globe, they quote the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotile verbatim. It's always neglected that Aristotle's work (observations) have been demolished in Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.

Quote from: 3 Tesla on June 17, 2009, 06:33:40 AM

Clarke, Alexander Ross
"Note on the figure of the earth."
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astonomical Society, 19: 36-38 (1859)

I gather that it presents evidence that The Earth is an oblate spheroid/ellipsoid ...

What of it?

The reason thy think the earth is an oblate spheroid is because things weigh slightly less at the equator than at the North Pole. Such measurements can and are interpreted differently under a Flat Earth model. Many members of the FES question those g-meter measurements altogether, believing the error margin in g meters to be far too great to come to any conclusion.

The researchers are assuming that the earth is a globe, as always. Elsewhere whenever any member of the Royal Astronomical Society provides reasons for believing that the earth is a globe, they quote the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotile verbatim. It's always neglected that Aristotle's work (observations) have been demolished in Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.

But Rowbotham was a bible literalist and his book is religious dogma, and you keep saying that your a scientist.  Why do you base your belief on a religious book while saying you are not a religious believer of FE?

But Rowbotham was a bible literalist and his book is religious dogma, and you keep saying that your a scientist.  Why do you base your belief on a religious book while saying you are not a religious believer of FE?

Rowbotham does not demolish Aristotle's work through religion. He does it through test, trial, and experiment. Please pursue his work Earth Not a Globe, which is available online:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za00.htm

Quote from: Skeptek on June 17, 2009, 07:42:04 AM

But Rowbotham was a bible literalist and his book is religious dogma, and you keep saying that your a scientist.  Why do you base your belief on a religious book while saying you are not a religious believer of FE?

Rowbotham does not demolish Aristotle's work through religion. He does it through test, trial, and experiment. Please pursue his work Earth Not a Globe, which is available online:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za00.htm

The book you have referenced a few thousand times is a religious text written by a pseudoscientist about pseudoscience.  There is nothing scientific about Rowbotham's work, his book or anyone who follows his teachings.  I point out the domain name of the link you provided.  You are a liar once again.

I've always stated that the heavens were unknowable.

That is not true Tom - as well you know!

Here is just one example where you espouse your belief in "celestial disks":

Quote from: dyno on June 04, 2009, 10:35:09 PM

that means that apart from the poles, there should be static areas in star trail photography.

Star trail photographers are specifically looking for good shots of action and movement when they go through their rolls.

You're also assuming that in the areas above the gaps of the celestial disks there aren't other celestial disks moving in the same general direction as the ones below them.

Quote

why aren't there strong intereractions between the edges of gears? why aren't stars torn exchanged between gears on the edge?

They've been moving in this fashion for hundreds of years, if not eons. The stars which would have been torn away would be long gone. Now only a stable system exists.

Now kindly resume your debate with me about the nature of the night sky.