Please provide some proof or actual hard evidence of your "theory"

Quote from: Battery72 on July 28, 2012, 04:34:09 PM

Quote from: timme on July 28, 2012, 12:31:20 PM

So can anyone here provide proof that the earth is flat. I'm still waiting for it.

Mee too  It's all based on one person's skill in dabating from the 1800s. It's all about how water is flat no matter what so how would that fit on a round Earth. Since they don't believe in gravity the Earth must be flat LOL. That's a joke because if you have a glass of water, change it's angle 45%. the wather will still be flat, but it's possible that the vessel can have a shape other that flat for the water to be flat.

If the earth is round all standing water must exhibit some degree of curvature.

It does Tom. You can measure this on the ocean. If you found a perfectly calm stretch of water over 28 kilometers yo could tie a string to a boat 1 inch above sea level strech it out over 28 ks and tie it to another boat . If the water was truly flat, the string would remain exactly 1 inch above the water, but no it would touch or go under the water even pulled taught. What do you say about this?

It's a nice idea, but over 28 km a string is going to sag even if you pull it as taut as possible without breaking it.

Fair enough but you get the idea. Use something that doesn't sag and the result will speak for itself. 

Fair enough but you get the idea. Use something that doesn't sag and the result will speak for itself. 

Good luck finding that material, you may want to go into the nano-tech field for that.

...Did Tom just report someone for pointing out a hole in his arguments?
That's all that happened, unless some post was deleted somewhere, and he gave no reason for it. It appears that he was trying to scare someone away in order that they not prove him wrong.

As I have seen this on the forum, this is direct evidence of Tom suppressing opposing viewpoints, and cannot be contested by any other argument, as I require sensorial evidence, and I have just seen, with my own eyes, Tom suppressing opposing viewpoints. Any arguments to the contrary by FErs are clearly friends of Tom and are merely fabricating evidence of his innocence in this.

Do the above two paragraphs sound familiar to anyone? This is genuinely what your defense appears to be. I'm not trying to be offensive, I'm trying to show the flaw in your logic.

Quote from: Battery72 on July 29, 2012, 04:18:56 PM

Fair enough but you get the idea. Use something that doesn't sag and the result will speak for itself. 

Good luck finding that material, you may want to go into the nano-tech field for that.

light is a strong contender

I was assuming we were talking solid materials, not massless particle beams lol.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 25, 2012, 07:42:42 AM

Samuel Birley Rowbotham proved elementary geometry to be wrong. It is an inaccurate representation of reality.

You said this, and it's not as if I'm exaggerating your claim.  Your determination of the curvature of standing water is based on the geometric properties of circles.  You don't believe in those properties.  You claim that Rowbotham proved them to be wrong.

Yes, I know I said that Samuel Birely Rowbotham proved traditional, unmodified geometry to be incorrect. However, my posts reference geometry as depicted in Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham. Therefore it is correct.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 29, 2012, 10:00:00 AM

Quote from: Battery72 on July 28, 2012, 04:34:09 PM

Quote from: timme on July 28, 2012, 12:31:20 PM

So can anyone here provide proof that the earth is flat. I'm still waiting for it.

Mee too  It's all based on one person's skill in dabating from the 1800s. It's all about how water is flat no matter what so how would that fit on a round Earth. Since they don't believe in gravity the Earth must be flat LOL. That's a joke because if you have a glass of water, change it's angle 45%. the wather will still be flat, but it's possible that the vessel can have a shape other that flat for the water to be flat.

If the earth is round all standing water must exhibit some degree of curvature.

It does Tom. You can measure this on the ocean. If you found a perfectly calm stretch of water over 28 kilometers yo could tie a string to a boat 1 inch above sea level strech it out over 28 ks and tie it to another boat . If the water was truly flat, the string would remain exactly 1 inch above the water, but no it would touch or go under the water even pulled taught. What do you say about this?

If we do it on the ocean we will see ships seem to sink into the water due to disappearing behind waves and swells.

If we do it on a calm body of water, such as a canal, no convexity will be seen.

Quote from: garygreen on July 29, 2012, 02:22:57 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 25, 2012, 07:42:42 AM

Samuel Birley Rowbotham proved elementary geometry to be wrong. It is an inaccurate representation of reality.

You said this, and it's not as if I'm exaggerating your claim.  Your determination of the curvature of standing water is based on the geometric properties of circles.  You don't believe in those properties.  You claim that Rowbotham proved them to be wrong.

Yes, I know I said that Samuel Birely Rowbotham proved traditional, unmodified geometry to be incorrect. However, my posts reference geometry as depicted in Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham. Therefore it is correct.

In what way does Rowbotham 'modify' plane geometry?  What is the difference between the two?  Perhaps you could point me to a page number or chapter title for an example of where Rowbotham does this? 

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 30, 2012, 09:31:11 AM

Quote from: garygreen on July 29, 2012, 02:22:57 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 25, 2012, 07:42:42 AM

Samuel Birley Rowbotham proved elementary geometry to be wrong. It is an inaccurate representation of reality.

You said this, and it's not as if I'm exaggerating your claim.  Your determination of the curvature of standing water is based on the geometric properties of circles.  You don't believe in those properties.  You claim that Rowbotham proved them to be wrong.

Yes, I know I said that Samuel Birely Rowbotham proved traditional, unmodified geometry to be incorrect. However, my posts reference geometry as depicted in Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham. Therefore it is correct.

In what way does Rowbotham 'modify' plane geometry?  What is the difference between the two?  Perhaps you could point me to a page number or chapter title for an example of where Rowbotham does this?

There is no one page number. Read the entire thing.

Quote from: garygreen on July 30, 2012, 10:01:18 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 30, 2012, 09:31:11 AM

Quote from: garygreen on July 29, 2012, 02:22:57 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 25, 2012, 07:42:42 AM

Samuel Birley Rowbotham proved elementary geometry to be wrong. It is an inaccurate representation of reality.

You said this, and it's not as if I'm exaggerating your claim.  Your determination of the curvature of standing water is based on the geometric properties of circles.  You don't believe in those properties.  You claim that Rowbotham proved them to be wrong.

Yes, I know I said that Samuel Birely Rowbotham proved traditional, unmodified geometry to be incorrect. However, my posts reference geometry as depicted in Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham. Therefore it is correct.

In what way does Rowbotham 'modify' plane geometry?  What is the difference between the two?  Perhaps you could point me to a page number or chapter title for an example of where Rowbotham does this?

There is no one page number. Read the entire thing.

I have.
 
Let me get this straight: you claim that Rowbotham proves plane geometry to be false, yet you cannot point to a single passage in 400+ pages that advances such an argument?  Do you know what a proof is?

Forget Rowbotham.  Tell me yourself what part of plane geometry you find erroneous.  Say something, anything, other than a bald assertion that geometry is 'wrong.' 

Quote from: garygreen on July 29, 2012, 02:22:57 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 25, 2012, 07:42:42 AM

Samuel Birley Rowbotham proved elementary geometry to be wrong. It is an inaccurate representation of reality.

You said this, and it's not as if I'm exaggerating your claim.  Your determination of the curvature of standing water is based on the geometric properties of circles.  You don't believe in those properties.  You claim that Rowbotham proved them to be wrong.

Yes, I know I said that Samuel Birely Rowbotham proved traditional, unmodified geometry to be incorrect. However, my posts reference geometry as depicted in Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham. Therefore it is correct.

"It's geometry according to SBR, therefore it's correct" is LRon-tastic religious fundamentalism.

Robothem may be an authority on many subjects, but definitely not geometry.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 30, 2012, 09:31:11 AM

Quote from: garygreen on July 29, 2012, 02:22:57 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 25, 2012, 07:42:42 AM

Samuel Birley Rowbotham proved elementary geometry to be wrong. It is an inaccurate representation of reality.

You said this, and it's not as if I'm exaggerating your claim.  Your determination of the curvature of standing water is based on the geometric properties of circles.  You don't believe in those properties.  You claim that Rowbotham proved them to be wrong.

Yes, I know I said that Samuel Birely Rowbotham proved traditional, unmodified geometry to be incorrect. However, my posts reference geometry as depicted in Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham. Therefore it is correct.

"It's geometry according to SBR, therefore it's correct" is LRon-tastic religious fundamentalism.

Robothem may be an authority on many subjects, but definitely not geometry.

Tom is, however, smarter than every other person on the planet and can see the Rowbotham is correct. We're all just really stupid and naive.

...Did Tom just report someone for pointing out a hole in his arguments?
That's all that happened, unless some post was deleted somewhere, and he gave no reason for it. It appears that he was trying to scare someone away in order that they not prove him wrong.

As I have seen this on the forum, this is direct evidence of Tom suppressing opposing viewpoints, and cannot be contested by any other argument, as I require sensorial evidence, and I have just seen, with my own eyes, Tom suppressing opposing viewpoints. Any arguments to the contrary by FErs are clearly friends of Tom and are merely fabricating evidence of his innocence in this.

Do the above two paragraphs sound familiar to anyone? This is genuinely what your defense appears to be. I'm not trying to be offensive, I'm trying to show the flaw in your logic.

I don't see the flaw.  Your assessment seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Quote from: ThinkingMan on July 30, 2012, 05:58:26 AM

Quote from: Battery72 on July 29, 2012, 04:18:56 PM

Fair enough but you get the idea. Use something that doesn't sag and the result will speak for itself. 

Good luck finding that material, you may want to go into the nano-tech field for that.

light is a strong contender

I mentioned using lasers in another thread. Any bend in light over 28ks would be nothing.

Quote from: Battery72 on July 29, 2012, 03:10:45 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 29, 2012, 10:00:00 AM

Quote from: Battery72 on July 28, 2012, 04:34:09 PM

Quote from: timme on July 28, 2012, 12:31:20 PM

So can anyone here provide proof that the earth is flat. I'm still waiting for it.

Mee too  It's all based on one person's skill in dabating from the 1800s. It's all about how water is flat no matter what so how would that fit on a round Earth. Since they don't believe in gravity the Earth must be flat LOL. That's a joke because if you have a glass of water, change it's angle 45%. the wather will still be flat, but it's possible that the vessel can have a shape other that flat for the water to be flat.

If the earth is round all standing water must exhibit some degree of curvature.

It does Tom. You can measure this on the ocean. If you found a perfectly calm stretch of water over 28 kilometers yo could tie a string to a boat 1 inch above sea level strech it out over 28 ks and tie it to another boat . If the water was truly flat, the string would remain exactly 1 inch above the water, but no it would touch or go under the water even pulled taught. What do you say about this?

If we do it on the ocean we will see ships seem to sink into the water due to disappearing behind waves and swells.

If we do it on a calm body of water, such as a canal, no convexity will be seen.

I wasn't taking about a canal over s short disctance. I read about the experiment. That's seriously flawed. I said a large body of "calm" water. How do ship disappear on calm water Tom? That's cluting at straws Tom.

Rowbotham's calculations and measurments about the size of the Earth were flawed, so he based of experiments on this math, so everything that followed was/is flawed. He was good a debating his findings, that's about it.

you need to take 2 points several 10s of meters above the sea at equal heights to nail the experiment in question. this is because light reacts in funny ways next to water.

Tell me this: how is it that I am able to start in Kansas, USA, drive for a few thousand miles, and continue over the Earth on boats and vehicles in one straight path, and then end up BACK in Kansas, USA?

If you still say the Earth is flat after reading this statement, you are trolling and prove this whole forum is actually designed by a master troll.

Tell me this: how is it that I am able to start in Kansas, USA, drive for a few thousand miles, and continue over the Earth on boats and vehicles in one straight path, and then end up BACK in Kansas, USA?

If you still say the Earth is flat after reading this statement, you are trolling and prove this whole forum is actually designed by a master troll.

Well, you are not actually going in a straight line, but I know the point you are trying to make. The answer you might get from an FE proponent would be along the lines of "you are going in a circle just like you go in a circle on a sphere" granted that is a horrible answer because the circle on the sphere is completely different then one made on a flat plane.

Boatsey, a circle is a circle.  You are drawing a line around something, whether it is a disk or a ball.

Boatsey, a circle is a circle.  You are drawing a line around something, whether it is a disk or a ball.

And yet, one is flat circle, the other is a spheroid.

Quote from: jroa on July 31, 2012, 05:14:04 AM

Boatsey, a circle is a circle.  You are drawing a line around something, whether it is a disk or a ball.

And yet, one is flat circle, the other is a spheroid.

What?  A circle is always a circle, even if it is drawn around a cube.  It is still a circle.

How does one draw a circle around a cube?

First, draw a cube.  Then, draw a circle around it.  It is still a circle.

we're talking about circles that adhere to the surface or aforementioned object. Not a drawing on a piece of paper. The difference he's talking about is the "turn" you make in your circle on the disk and your circle on the spheroid. The two "turns" are very different.

If you are turning in a circle, it is a circle.  I don't see why this is hard to understand.

The degree an angle of the turn over a given distance is different.

I think you're talking about non-commutative geometry.

I think you're talking about non-commutative geometry.

To whom are you referring? I don't know the terminology, but I can test it with a baseball and a 45 record if you'd like.