RET, what is wrong with it?

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on September 17, 2009, 06:03:16 PM

Quote from: W on September 17, 2009, 05:58:07 PM

The earth has been proven to be flat, therefore it is not a sphere. In proving FET we disprove RET by simple logic.

Name anything other than the works of Rowbottom (which you yourself have stated are irrelevant to your belief) which proves (and I mean proves as in negates the possibility of roundness also being true) that the earth is flat.

He already did by looking out his window and jumping off his chair.

Scientific breakthrough!

Quote from: W on September 17, 2009, 06:00:37 PM

Quote from: bl4ke360 on September 17, 2009, 05:59:15 PM

You have no idea what constitutes proof in the scientific community.

Then what does constitute proof in the scientific community?

See, you just admitted it right there.

Not so, dear. I asked *you* what *you* think constitutes proof. Go on.

Name anything other than the works of Rowbottom (which you yourself have stated are irrelevant to your belief) which proves (and I mean proves as in negates the possibility of roundness also being true) that the earth is flat.

Please show me the post where I said that the works of Rowbotham were irrelevant to my belief. You are taking things way out of context.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on September 17, 2009, 06:03:16 PM

Name anything other than the works of Rowbottom (which you yourself have stated are irrelevant to your belief) which proves (and I mean proves as in negates the possibility of roundness also being true) that the earth is flat.

Please show me the post where I said that the works of Rowbotham were irrelevant to my belief. You are taking things way out of context.

In the Questioning The Holy Book thread you state that even if Rowbottom had not written his book, or if he had subsequently written another book refuting his earlier data and admitting he was wrong all along, you would still believe the earth was flat. Therefore, Rowbottom's findings are of no relevance to your belief as if they were different, your belief would still be the same.

In the Questioning The Holy Book thread you state that even if Rowbottom had not written his book, or if he had subsequently written another book refuting his earlier data and admitting he was wrong all along, you would still believe the earth was flat. Therefore, Rowbottom's findings are of no relevance to your belief as if they were different, your belief would still be the same.

This is not what I said at all. I said that if Rowbotham (not Rowbottom, by the way) hadn't written his book, but all evidence still pointed to a flat earth, I would still believe it were flat, however Rowbotham's book is quite relevant because it provides proof that the earth is flat.

If the earth were a sphere, and a book were written proving this, I would believe it were a sphere, but it's not.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on September 17, 2009, 06:10:00 PM

In the Questioning The Holy Book thread you state that even if Rowbottom had not written his book, or if he had subsequently written another book refuting his earlier data and admitting he was wrong all along, you would still believe the earth was flat. Therefore, Rowbottom's findings are of no relevance to your belief as if they were different, your belief would still be the same.

This is not what I said at all. I said that if Rowbotham (not Rowbottom, by the way) hadn't written his book, but all evidence still pointed to a flat earth, I would still believe it were flat, however Rowbotham's book is quite relevant because it provides proof that the earth is flat.

If the earth were a sphere, and a book were written proving this, I would believe it were a sphere, but it's not.

No, it provides proof that someone doesn't know how to perform experiments correctly, and is an overall idiot.

Ignoring the waffle above me, and straight to the TS's question, there is relatively little that could be taken as proof that RET is wrong.

The structure of the earth has never been observed, our evidence for it comes from seismics and our best guess as to what would create the results we see.  Of course, this is also backed up by things like magnetic fields, tectonics, and volcanoes, so it looks like we were right.

There are a couple of gravity anomalies, one in Siberia, which we only have theories as to why it happens.  But, FE doesn't really explain that any better (and I can't remember the RE theory).

Thing is, RET is pretty damn good, no gaping holes anywhere.  Well, nothing that sends people (well, geologists/geographers/environmental scientists) off debating the shape of the earth.

The earth has been proven to be flat, therefore it is not a sphere. In proving FET we disprove RET by simple logic.

Well in science things don't work like this. Actually I think the process would be to dsiprove somthing first and THAN prove something else ie an alternate solution.

Also, there is no evidence for a flat Earth.