My First Topic

I've been browsing this forum and have found it quite intriguing. I suppose the reason I'm here is to debate, of course. However, I'm not going to insult anyone for their beliefs. That's counter-productive. The moderators seriously shouldn't tolerate the insults spewed out by those RE'ers that do such things.

Anyways, I suppose I'll propose my various concerns in this thread. If I ask a question that has already been asked, then I apologize for your inconvenience. I'll try to use the search function first.

First question: Has anyone duplicated Samuel Rowbotham's experiments while obtaining the same results that he has?

I don't live in England, and so it would be very costly for me to do so.

As far as I know, no one on this forum has conducted any large scale experiments to add to the validity of either side.

I wasn't necessarily asking if anyone here has replicated his experiments, but rather if anyone at all has. I'm going to go on the assumption that they probably haven't.

It seems to me, that among the FE supporters here, skepticism is extremely strong and no one will be convinced without absolute proof. Given this skeptical nature, why is it that many of you seem to believe the proclaimed results of Samuel Rowbotham's experiments in the first place? As far as I can tell, he basically just wrote a book/pamphlet/whatever it was, in which he published his finds. How do you know that Mr. Rowbotham wasn't lying in this book? Did he provide proof that he actually did the experiments? Did he provide proof that he did indeed obtain the results he professed to have obtained? If not, then why do you believe him at all?

I see the possible scenario in two opposing ways:

[scenario 1] - Mr. Rowbotham lied about his "discoveries", and the rest of the world's scientists and governments are indeed correct in asserting that the Earth is a sphere.

[scenario 2] - Mr. Rowbotham's discoveries were correct, and the rest of the world's scientists and governments consistently lie about the flatness of the Earth.

To put it another way, either:

[1] Mr. Rowbothman lied, and the rest of the world is telling the truth.
-or-
[2] Mr. Rowbothman told the truth, and the rest of the world is lying.

Which seems more likely? A single man lying, or all of the governments of the world lying?

Well, think about it this way. Had the Flat Earth model been the "generally accepted" one for the entire human technology boom/space age, I assure you, more than Mr. Rowboatham would have written reports. The FE model is simply at a loss, due to general unacceptance. Also, I haven't seen proof that NASA has conducted any experiments in space either...but everyone believes that now.

~D-Draw

Which still doesn't answer this question: "Why do you believe Samuel Rowbotham's testimony?"

Well, think about it this way. Had the Flat Earth model been the "generally accepted" one for the entire human technology boom/space age, I assure you, more than Mr. Rowboatham would have written reports. The FE model is simply at a loss, due to general unacceptance. Also, I haven't seen proof that NASA has conducted any experiments in space either...but everyone believes that now.

~D-Draw

History proves this point of view to be false. Flat earth WAS generally acepted, until people decided to test the theory and all the results pointed at a spherical world. When the first experimentations started bothering the status quo, others replicated them in order to find a flaw into it, which they didn't.

Quote from: "DiegoDraw"

Well, think about it this way. Had the Flat Earth model been the "generally accepted" one for the entire human technology boom/space age, I assure you, more than Mr. Rowboatham would have written reports. The FE model is simply at a loss, due to general unacceptance. Also, I haven't seen proof that NASA has conducted any experiments in space either...but everyone believes that now.

~D-Draw

History proves this point of view to be false. Flat earth WAS generally acepted, until people decided to test the theory and all the results pointed at a spherical world. When the first experimentations started bothering the status quo, others replicated them in order to find a flaw into it, which they didn't.

ANd that was done in preclassical times too.

The last time wetern society generally believed in a flat earth was in the old babylonian period, ca 1800 BC.

Babylonian mathematicians demonstrated, as did the egyptians, rpoofs for a round earth. A greek in alexandria calculated the earth's circumference by measuring shadows and angles at the tropic on the equinox and other days..

aristotle used the example of the shadow of the earth on the moon demonstrate that, knowing the only object which can always cast a round shadow in all instances is a sphere, and that the earth always casts a round shadow, as reported as far afield as india and spain, it must be a sphere.

So i mean, with 5000 years of mounting evidence, first observational/theoretical, then experimental, then predictive (in this model, this should happen, if it happens it supports the model, until something happens that th emodel says shouldn't happen),

with all of that evidence, why is this one man, a lone voice in the wilderness, so credible?  Especially without personally examining his proofs and repeating his experiments to test and verify the data?

A lot of people knock science, but in science, it's a rigorous process of experimentation, followed by a long period of your peers around the world copying your experiment to see if they got the same data, or if yours was a mere fluke or attributable to some other unforseen phenomenon or circumstance of your environment.

Applying that same thing, i mean, as a flat earther, wouldn't you want to test this theory personally?

not accepting the conclusion "The earth is flat, and if i do these experients and see these things, that prooves the earth is flat because dude said that after the same observations"... but to make the observations, then serisouly consider their meaning.

History proves this point of view to be false. Flat earth WAS generally acepted, until people decided to test the theory and all the results pointed at a spherical world. When the first experimentations started bothering the status quo, others replicated them in order to find a flaw into it, which they didn't.

So, simply because some scientists were more popular, we should trust them more than a scientist that is correct? I'm not saying that the men and mathematicians were bad people/deceivers or whatever, I'm just saying that they could've been wrong just this once, and since everyone trusted them, the sciences focused along the preconceived notion that the Earth was round.

Case-in-point: If I run experiments with a preconceived hypothesis that the Earth is flat, I'll try to do whatever I can to prove that the Earth is flat, even if it's not, because I want the Earth to be flat, in order to prove my preconception true.

So, with that, you can obviously see how information can be easily corrupted and, with that, it wouldn't be hard for that to get out of hand and spread to all scientists who then further Round Earth theories, not caring about running more experiments on the shape of the Earth (because they already assume the Earth is round).

~D-Draw

So, simply because some scientists were more popular, we should trust them more than a scientist that is correct?

But they were NOT more popular. Like I said the majority back then beleived the earth t obe flat, so flat earth beleivers were actually more popular.

So what was your point?....

And note that you are saying "a scientist that IS correct" how did you determine that he was?

But they were NOT more popular. Like I said the majority back then beleived the earth t obe flat, so flat earth beleivers were actually more popular.

So what was your point?....

But, you see, it was such a gradual thing. It's not like it was just one guy saying, "HEY! THE EARTH IS ROUND THE EARTH IS ROUND!" It was over years of popular scientific research. Now, the Flat Earth theory is left without enough scientists to prove it right, and any scientist who ATTEMPTS to prove it is instantly labeled a madman, and none of his evidence is considered to be scientifically correct, even if they do prove it.

And note that you are saying "a scientist that IS correct" how did you determine that he was?

I don't think you got what I was saying. I wasn't attempting to just claim my point in a strive for arrogance, I was just saying it for the sake of conclusive assumption.


~D-Draw

But, you see, it was such a gradual thing. It's not like it was just one guy saying, "HEY! THE EARTH IS ROUND THE EARTH IS ROUND!" It was over years of popular scientific research. Now, the Flat Earth theory is left without enough scientists to prove it right, and any scientist who ATTEMPTS to prove it is instantly labeled a madman, and none of his evidence is considered to be scientifically correct, even if they do prove it.

Well the fact that it was gradual should put some credibility into it, since the facts prevailed against  the status quo after many, many challenges.

And actually, it did start with one guy. Claims that the earth was round was considered heresy, which was punishable by death. So someone wouldn't have gone around saying it just for fun, you had to be DAMN sure to put your life on the line. Saying the earth is flat today involves very little risk. Being called a loony once is not comparable to getting hanged.

Besides, there are no scientists to support the FE theory because it was already proven to be false. Nothing would stop someone from doing it if they wanted to. I haven't heard of anyone supporting it in the scientific community, or of any proof being shown for it.  What was the nature of that proof if you don't mind me asking?

If years of scientific research is required for something to be accepted and adopted, then what more could we ask for?

And note that you are saying "a scientist that IS correct" how did you determine that he was?

Gotcha.

You stll there Diego?

You stll there Diego?

Yup.

Well the fact that it was gradual should put some credibility into it, since the facts prevailed against  the status quo after many, many challenges.

Theoretically it should. Here's the problem, though, in an analogy:
I say that the moon does not exist. I run a theory to prove that it isn't there. I tell you that the moon doesn't exist.
Thinking this, you go and test it. You find that it does exist, with the same theories and experiment. How does this work?
Well, I'm going based off of the assumption that it DOESN'T exist, so I'm basing all experiments on that fact, meaning if I said, "The moon doesn't exist because if it did, it would shine light on this specific area at this time," whereas YOU, basing results on the opposite, would say, "No, the moon DOES exist, because if it didn't, it wouldn't shine light on this specific area at this time."
Nowadays, all experiments are based on the idea that the Earth is round, because everybody is thinking exactly how you think, whereas back then when technology was shooting upwards really fast, people were simple, and it was easy to change their perception of the world.

And actually, it did start with one guy. Claims that the earth was round was considered heresy, which was punishable by death. So someone wouldn't have gone around saying it just for fun, you had to be DAMN sure to put your life on the line. Saying the earth is flat today involves very little risk. Being called a loony once is not comparable to getting hanged.

You had to be damned sure OR madly in love with opium.

Besides, there are no scientists to support the FE theory because it was already proven to be false. Nothing would stop someone from doing it if they wanted to. I haven't heard of anyone supporting it in the scientific community, or of any proof being shown for it.  What was the nature of that proof if you don't mind me asking?

It was proven to be false based on the Round Earth Model. That's basically the same as saying "The Earth isn't flat BECAUSE it's round," which simply has no logic at all.

If years of scientific research is required for something to be accepted and adopted, then what more could we ask for?

If the research is faulty and based on an unnerving bias, then you could definitely ask for a lot more.


~D-Draw