Where's your head at Tom?

Quote from: d00gz on December 13, 2009, 05:02:43 AM

If this is not the case, your comments are fairly hypocritical. Just because someone was wrong about one thing, does that make everything the say false?

It's not a matter of him being wrong.

It's a matter of you RE'ers representing Aristotle's science as a science when it's not.

Quote from: The Earth is ROUND!!!!!!! on December 13, 2009, 03:03:13 AM

So one thing he said defines his whole career?

Well when you teach people that frogs and newts spontaneously generate from mud it kind of defines how much research you really put into your science.

It doesn't extend to just frogs and newts either. Aristotle seems to think that all animals spontaneously generate from the environment.

Like he walked outside one day and said, "Oh, I saw a salamander crawling around in mud. They must come from mud. Gophers come from dirt. Birds come from the trees. And flies? It's obvious that flies spontaneously generate from rotting meat."

Quote from: d00gz on December 13, 2009, 05:02:43 AM

If this is not the case, your comments are fairly hypocritical. Just because someone was wrong about one thing, does that make everything the say false?

It's not a matter of him being wrong.

It's a matter of you RE'ers representing Aristotle's science as a science when it's not.

Quote from: The Earth is ROUND!!!!!!! on December 13, 2009, 03:03:13 AM

So one thing he said defines his whole career?

Well when you teach people that frogs and newts spontaneously generate from mud it kind of defines how much research you really put into your science.

It doesn't extend to just frogs and newts either. Aristotle seems to think that all animals spontaneously generate from the environment.

Like he walked outside one day and said, "Oh, I saw a salamander crawling around in mud. They must come from mud. Gophers come from dirt. Birds come from the trees. And flies? It's obvious that flies spontaneously generate from rotting meat."

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 13, 2009, 05:15:02 AM

Quote from: d00gz on December 13, 2009, 05:02:43 AM

If this is not the case, your comments are fairly hypocritical. Just because someone was wrong about one thing, does that make everything the say false?

It's not a matter of him being wrong.

It's a matter of you RE'ers representing Aristotle's science as a science when it's not.

So what you're saying is since you disagree with Rowbotham that the moon is self-illuminated, that means every other theory of his is wrong?

I'm glad we cleared that up Tom.

Who said that newts being spontaneously generated from mud was science?

Tom, I don't think that any RE'er on this site has ever argued that Aristotle's model of the universe was completely correct.  I would contend that Aristotle, among other ancient Greeks, did help advance our understanding of the universe.

Quote from: markjo on December 13, 2009, 05:05:02 PM

Tom, I don't think that any RE'er on this site has ever argued that Aristotle's model of the universe was completely correct.  I would contend that Aristotle, among other ancient Greeks, did help advance our understanding of the universe.

The problem is that you're making an appeal to an authority whose science is laughably wrong. Aristotile clearly only performed cursory research in his science. Holding up his work as if the subject matter had already been proven ages ago is a fallacy.

If you actually read Aristotile's works you'd find that they sound like someones rambling diary entries than anything. Aristotile never performs experiments, tells us where he got his information from, or how he even comes to his conclusions.

Then it's a good thing that we don't use Aristotle for modern science.

Yes you do.

Go to any website on the internet which tells us why the earth is round and the first thing presented as evidence is the work of Aristotile in 300 B.C.

Quote

Then it's a good thing that we don't use Aristotle for modern science.

Yes you do.

Go to any website on the internet which tells us why the earth is round and the first thing presented as evidence is the work of Aristotile in 300 B.C.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 13, 2009, 06:05:17 PM

Yes you do.

Go to any website on the internet which tells us why the earth is round and the first thing presented as evidence is the work of Aristotile in 300 B.C.

I think this says otherwise...

"In The Histories, written 431 BCE - 425 BCE, Herodotus dismisses a report of the sun observed shining from the north. This arises when discussing the circumnavigation of Africa undertaken c. 615-595 BCE. (The Histories, 4.43) His dismissive comment attests to a widespread ignorance of the ecliptic's inverted declination in a southern hemisphere."

Quote from: JBJosh on December 13, 2009, 06:10:31 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 13, 2009, 06:05:17 PM

Yes you do.

Go to any website on the internet which tells us why the earth is round and the first thing presented as evidence is the work of Aristotile in 300 B.C.

I think this says otherwise...

Actually Pythagoras, Herodotus, and Plato were only supposed to have speculated about the earth being a sphere.

Aristotile is often credited with the one to have "proved" it.

The ancient greeks are selective and biased with their evidence to the extreme. For example, on that same page we read -

"In The Histories, written 431 BCE - 425 BCE, Herodotus dismisses a report of the sun observed shining from the north. This arises when discussing the circumnavigation of Africa undertaken c. 615-595 BCE. (The Histories, 4.43) His dismissive comment attests to a widespread ignorance of the ecliptic's inverted declination in a southern hemisphere."

Although the sun is coming in from the north, Herodotus dismisses the account outright as being fabricated, because it's not what his round world model says should happen.

Although the sun is coming in from the north, Herodotus dismisses the account outright as being fabricated, because it's not what his round world model says should happen.

Quote from: The Earth is ROUND!!!!!!! on December 03, 2009, 06:22:18 PM

But their science is derived off of what their math tells them.

What mathematical equations did they use to determine that flies spontaneously generated from rotting meat and that frogs and newts spontaneously generated from mud?

Quote

Then it's a good thing that we don't use Aristotle for modern science.

Yes you do.

Go to any website on the internet which tells us why the earth is round and the first thing presented as evidence is the work of Aristotile in 300 B.C.

remember:if the earth was flat, then the earth's shadow on the moon would be elliptical, not round.

remember:if the earth was flat, then the earth's shadow on the moon would be elliptical, not round.

Quote from: GlobeFlat on December 14, 2009, 06:08:33 PM

remember:if the earth was flat, then the earth's shadow on the moon would be elliptical, not round.

You can't tell an eliptical arc from a circular arc. They are basically one in the same.

No. He is right (sort of). Unless the sun, earth, and moon were all perfectly aligned and the earth was at a ninety degree to the plane, any shadow cast would be slightly elliptical, which is just a fancy word for an oval. Hold a frisbee and a baseball up to a lamp. : )

Actually, if the earth was flat, then the earth couldn't possibly cast its shadow on the moon.

Quote from: Canadark on December 14, 2009, 08:46:17 PM

No. He is right (sort of). Unless the sun, earth, and moon were all perfectly aligned and the earth was at a ninety degree to the plane, any shadow cast would be slightly elliptical, which is just a fancy word for an oval. Hold a frisbee and a baseball up to a lamp. : )

Quote from: markjo on December 14, 2009, 06:13:33 PM

Actually, if the earth was flat, then the earth couldn't possibly cast its shadow on the moon.

because the earth is never between the sun and the moon in the flat earth model.

Quote from: LiceFarm on December 15, 2009, 10:59:01 AM

Quote from: Canadark on December 14, 2009, 08:46:17 PM

No. He is right (sort of). Unless the sun, earth, and moon were all perfectly aligned and the earth was at a ninety degree to the plane, any shadow cast would be slightly elliptical, which is just a fancy word for an oval. Hold a frisbee and a baseball up to a lamp. : )

Quote from: markjo on December 14, 2009, 06:13:33 PM

Actually, if the earth was flat, then the earth couldn't possibly cast its shadow on the moon.

because the earth is never between the sun and the moon in the flat earth model.

Yeah I know, I'm just trying so hard to rationalize the FE model in my head. Every time I get close my brain goes "oh but you forgot about these millions of other variables that now no longer make any sense".

Quote from: Canadark on December 15, 2009, 01:23:10 PM

Quote from: LiceFarm on December 15, 2009, 10:59:01 AM

Quote from: Canadark on December 14, 2009, 08:46:17 PM

No. He is right (sort of). Unless the sun, earth, and moon were all perfectly aligned and the earth was at a ninety degree to the plane, any shadow cast would be slightly elliptical, which is just a fancy word for an oval. Hold a frisbee and a baseball up to a lamp. : )

Quote from: markjo on December 14, 2009, 06:13:33 PM

Actually, if the earth was flat, then the earth couldn't possibly cast its shadow on the moon.

because the earth is never between the sun and the moon in the flat earth model.

Yeah I know, I'm just trying so hard to rationalize the FE model in my head. Every time I get close my brain goes "oh but you forgot about these millions of other variables that now no longer make any sense".

It's quite simple actually. The whole concept is that the Earth is flat, an anti-moon causes lunar eclipses, a sub-moon causes the tides, there are sky mirrors that explain multiple things, and everything else should be chalked up as conspiracy or un-knowable. Pretty simple if you ask me.

Quote from: The Earth is ROUND!!!!!!! on December 15, 2009, 01:33:48 PM

Quote from: Canadark on December 15, 2009, 01:23:10 PM

Quote from: LiceFarm on December 15, 2009, 10:59:01 AM

Quote from: Canadark on December 14, 2009, 08:46:17 PM

No. He is right (sort of). Unless the sun, earth, and moon were all perfectly aligned and the earth was at a ninety degree to the plane, any shadow cast would be slightly elliptical, which is just a fancy word for an oval. Hold a frisbee and a baseball up to a lamp. : )

Quote from: markjo on December 14, 2009, 06:13:33 PM

Actually, if the earth was flat, then the earth couldn't possibly cast its shadow on the moon.

because the earth is never between the sun and the moon in the flat earth model.

Yeah I know, I'm just trying so hard to rationalize the FE model in my head. Every time I get close my brain goes "oh but you forgot about these millions of other variables that now no longer make any sense".

It's quite simple actually. The whole concept is that the Earth is flat, an anti-moon causes lunar eclipses, a sub-moon causes the tides, there are sky mirrors that explain multiple things, and everything else should be chalked up as conspiracy or un-knowable. Pretty simple if you ask me.

But... none of those things exist! *head explodes*

They think they have valid points *head explodes*

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on December 16, 2009, 03:38:24 AM

They think they have valid points *head explodes*

So do you. *head implodes*