81
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
82
Flat Earth Community / Koreshan Community and the Hollow Earth
« on: April 05, 2019, 11:52:14 AM »
Has anyone here done any reading on the Koreshan Community of the late 1800s? I find this particular account to be of interest.
"Previous experiments with the Illinois Drainage Canal in Chicago and on the shore of Lake Michigan encouraged Morrow to devise a method of measuring the curvature of the earth exemplified by the surface of a large body of water.
A straight, 4-mile, north-south beach near Naples provided a site for an ambitious experiment. He designed four "rectilineators" each precisely 12 feet long and perfectly square and level.
Teed commissioned the Pullman Railroad Car Company to build the mahogany and brass contraptions. One has survived is on display at the Koreshan State Park.
On the beach, Morrow bolted his rectilineators together and positioned them with a plumb bob and spirit level to furnish a reference.
Surveying data was computed each quarter-mile and compared to the water level of the Gulf of Mexico in caissons that dampened wave action.
If the beach were on the inside of a ball, the survey live would tend up. If the earth were round, the line would tend down.
The survey line tended down which inadvertently allowed Morrow to compute the correct circumference of the earth at 25,000 miles.
However, when Morrow corrected "human errors" in reading water levels in the caissons, he proved to his and Teed's satisfaction that we did, indeed, live inside a ball."
http://www.lindseywilliams.org/index.htm?LAL_Archives/Inside_-_Out_World_-_Koreshan_Unity_Community.htm~mainFrame
Does anyone have any other resources on these experiments? Any thoughts on what went wrong, and why it showed the earth was round? What were the corrections that were made to show the earth was concave?
"Previous experiments with the Illinois Drainage Canal in Chicago and on the shore of Lake Michigan encouraged Morrow to devise a method of measuring the curvature of the earth exemplified by the surface of a large body of water.
A straight, 4-mile, north-south beach near Naples provided a site for an ambitious experiment. He designed four "rectilineators" each precisely 12 feet long and perfectly square and level.
Teed commissioned the Pullman Railroad Car Company to build the mahogany and brass contraptions. One has survived is on display at the Koreshan State Park.
On the beach, Morrow bolted his rectilineators together and positioned them with a plumb bob and spirit level to furnish a reference.
Surveying data was computed each quarter-mile and compared to the water level of the Gulf of Mexico in caissons that dampened wave action.
If the beach were on the inside of a ball, the survey live would tend up. If the earth were round, the line would tend down.
The survey line tended down which inadvertently allowed Morrow to compute the correct circumference of the earth at 25,000 miles.
However, when Morrow corrected "human errors" in reading water levels in the caissons, he proved to his and Teed's satisfaction that we did, indeed, live inside a ball."
http://www.lindseywilliams.org/index.htm?LAL_Archives/Inside_-_Out_World_-_Koreshan_Unity_Community.htm~mainFrame
Does anyone have any other resources on these experiments? Any thoughts on what went wrong, and why it showed the earth was round? What were the corrections that were made to show the earth was concave?
83
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Elon Musk
« on: April 04, 2019, 04:33:14 PM »
So...what you are saying is that there is no way you can prove using the zetetic method of observation to prove the earth is either round or flat? Unless you become a billionaire yourself and build your own rocket. Do you mistrust literally everything?
84
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Elon Musk
« on: April 03, 2019, 03:04:02 PM »
If you simply want to reference things that took a while to come about, you can look at the history of mobile phones.
https://www.uswitch.com/mobiles/guides/history-of-mobile-phones/
Took us a while to get there, now didn't it?
And to further that point at the 1939 World Fair, self driving cars were supposed to be the next thing in the near future. We are now seeing that come to fruition. There is more to it than just lack of technological ability. A lot of it comes from supply and demand. Automobiles were still a new thing, and people enjoyed the thrill of being able to drive something that wasn't a horse. Then it became a symbol of prosperity. No one was interested in self driving cars. Now self driving cars are the new symbol of prosperity and there is a market demand. Companies aren't just going to make products for the advancement of tech. There has to be financial incentive - since this world is now corporate driven. (Even inventors today are looking at it from a financial perspective).
Peruse the rest of the list, Mr. Pessimist.
https://gizmodo.com/100-years-of-failure-10-technologies-we-were-promised-5423510
https://www.uswitch.com/mobiles/guides/history-of-mobile-phones/
Took us a while to get there, now didn't it?
And to further that point at the 1939 World Fair, self driving cars were supposed to be the next thing in the near future. We are now seeing that come to fruition. There is more to it than just lack of technological ability. A lot of it comes from supply and demand. Automobiles were still a new thing, and people enjoyed the thrill of being able to drive something that wasn't a horse. Then it became a symbol of prosperity. No one was interested in self driving cars. Now self driving cars are the new symbol of prosperity and there is a market demand. Companies aren't just going to make products for the advancement of tech. There has to be financial incentive - since this world is now corporate driven. (Even inventors today are looking at it from a financial perspective).
Peruse the rest of the list, Mr. Pessimist.
https://gizmodo.com/100-years-of-failure-10-technologies-we-were-promised-5423510
85
Flat Earth Community / Re: Your Path to FE
« on: March 28, 2019, 06:24:59 PM »
Not true. When you started claiming that scientists have mocked you and others attempts to break into the scientific community I demanded evidence. There is nothing wrong with that. You continue to feel like you are being attacked. I am not. It has no relevancy to your arguments for or against FE or DE. You made a claim without evidence. I am asking for that evidence. I have regularly engaged with you on this topic and others and have not ridiculed you. Why are you so defensive?
86
Flat Earth Community / Re: Your Path to FE
« on: March 28, 2019, 03:14:50 PM »
I'm not being narrow minded. You have posted absolutely no reference to any one thing that you or someone else has submitted and had it laughed. Yet, you continually reference having it done to you and others by a legitimate person from the scientific community. I am not talking about a general response to the FE community by Tyson or Nye in a random YouTube video. You continually reference yours and others FE research as being mocked by scientists. Yet, you provide no evidence of this whatsoever. Please show me what you or someone else has submitted in good faith to the scientific research community and show evidence that it has been rejected. Not some YouTube video or response on here.
And now you are just resorting ad hominem attacks on me. I have not cried fake at you once. And I won't cry fake at you if you provide me evidence. I, contrary to FEers, don't cry fake at everything that proves me wrong. I am legitimately asking for evidence to back up your claims.
And now you are just resorting ad hominem attacks on me. I have not cried fake at you once. And I won't cry fake at you if you provide me evidence. I, contrary to FEers, don't cry fake at everything that proves me wrong. I am legitimately asking for evidence to back up your claims.
87
Flat Earth Community / Re: Your Path to FE
« on: March 28, 2019, 11:41:26 AM »
No, you havent posted any evidence to show someone has been mocking you. All you have done is stated that it has happened. Show me an email reply to your research that you have submitted, or a link to something. Claiming it here with a text reply on this forum does not constitute evidence.
88
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Convince me
« on: March 27, 2019, 07:37:35 PM »
I am not too familiar with editing RAW images. Are you saying that Photoshop and its ilk can edit a RAW image and save it as a RAW image?
89
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Convince me
« on: March 27, 2019, 05:53:36 PM »
Yeah, I wasn't going to chime in on this one, but I think that I remember seeing somewhere else that that photo in particular had been photoshopped. This was before I found the flat earth stuff here. But I could be wrong. I never really investigated it much. Looks like I will need to reinvestigate.
Update* https://flatearth.ws/pontchartrain#but_the_pictures_are_fake
Take it for what its worth...
https://www.metabunk.org/soundly-proving-the-curvature-of-the-earth-at-lake-pontchartrain.t8939/
I know people here don't think much of the two websites I linked, but oh well...
The person Tom references - Soundly - even did a live Youtube of him taking the photos and uploading the files to his Google Drive.
Update* https://flatearth.ws/pontchartrain#but_the_pictures_are_fake
Take it for what its worth...
https://www.metabunk.org/soundly-proving-the-curvature-of-the-earth-at-lake-pontchartrain.t8939/
I know people here don't think much of the two websites I linked, but oh well...
The person Tom references - Soundly - even did a live Youtube of him taking the photos and uploading the files to his Google Drive.
90
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Help with the conspiracy aspect
« on: March 27, 2019, 05:35:51 PM »
QED - Links sent via PM. I will be ok if you find something at fault with them. Thats what I originally posted them for - for a good in depth analysis of the results.
91
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Help with the conspiracy aspect
« on: March 27, 2019, 04:47:29 PM »
I need a little more understanding with what you mean by the "chosen elite of antiquity." I mean. I seriously had a good chuckle at that one.
Also, I will continue to hold up evidence of the duplication of Eratosthenes experiment that proves the earth is a globe. All you need is 3 points to determine this. I have given the forum multiple links with tons of points, more than just 3. There is no linearity to the length of the shadows as predicted by a flat earth. And still no one has refuted it - it has all trailed off topic to talking about maps. So I refute your claim about individual evidences not concluding that the earth is a globe.
All of this talk about sinking ships and perspectives, mirages, projected sun, etc. is all irrelevant in the face of the above data.
Also, I will continue to hold up evidence of the duplication of Eratosthenes experiment that proves the earth is a globe. All you need is 3 points to determine this. I have given the forum multiple links with tons of points, more than just 3. There is no linearity to the length of the shadows as predicted by a flat earth. And still no one has refuted it - it has all trailed off topic to talking about maps. So I refute your claim about individual evidences not concluding that the earth is a globe.
All of this talk about sinking ships and perspectives, mirages, projected sun, etc. is all irrelevant in the face of the above data.
92
Flat Earth Community / Re: Your Path to FE
« on: March 27, 2019, 02:05:13 PM »
I am still waiting on cited sources to backup your claim that people are straight up dismissing your theories or anyone else's theories - by a real scientist.
Even on your own website you make this claim.
http://dualearththeory.proboards.com/thread/4/dual-earth-theory-faq
"Why should I accept DET over any alternatives?
Not only does it rely on fewer assumptions to explain all observations (setting it above RET and classical FET models), but it remains unrefuted and, ultimately, unaddressed. When presented, the model is met with mocking, but there is rarely any attempt to actually address the model, and more often than not those attempts are addressed in the model itself.
If you disagree, and believe you can refute the model, you are encouraged to do so. I do not object to disagreement, only dishonesty."
Why do you ignore this request for evidence? Who is dismissing?
Your claims on your own website have gone unrefuted and unaddressed because there has been no one posting on your forum. Is this because you a) haven't published your work b) haven't presented it to anyone c) no one really has visited your forum d) you deleted comments on your forum or e) something else?
Even on your own website you make this claim.
http://dualearththeory.proboards.com/thread/4/dual-earth-theory-faq
"Why should I accept DET over any alternatives?
Not only does it rely on fewer assumptions to explain all observations (setting it above RET and classical FET models), but it remains unrefuted and, ultimately, unaddressed. When presented, the model is met with mocking, but there is rarely any attempt to actually address the model, and more often than not those attempts are addressed in the model itself.
If you disagree, and believe you can refute the model, you are encouraged to do so. I do not object to disagreement, only dishonesty."
Why do you ignore this request for evidence? Who is dismissing?
Your claims on your own website have gone unrefuted and unaddressed because there has been no one posting on your forum. Is this because you a) haven't published your work b) haven't presented it to anyone c) no one really has visited your forum d) you deleted comments on your forum or e) something else?
93
Flat Earth Community / Re: Your Path to FE
« on: March 27, 2019, 12:55:31 PM »
I think its funny that you think that any member here (except maybe QED) speaks for the scientific community - aka published scientists. I am just an engineer.
Cite us specific examples of a published scientist that you or someone else has been ridiculed or dismissed by. You are just spouting biased nonsense (anecdotal at best) with no actual evidence. And you cannot include YouTubers, Bill Nye, or Neil DeGrasse Tyson. I am not talking celebrity scientists.
And most of the more coherent thinkers on this site that are REers do not dismiss things out of hand, just because its different. Thats quite the paraphrasing of hundreds (of not thousands) of posts. Most of what I see on here is a back and forth between both parties being stubborn and not relinquishing one way or another that someone doesn't understand the concept being discussed. Most of the time, it is an REer who says this is how it works, and the FEer either comes up with some red herring ("but what about this"), an ad hoc explanation, or a complete dismissal and invokes "but Rowbotham says." Any attempt at explaining how something works by an REer is completely dismissed by the FEer and the accusation that the REer has no idea how the science works behind it.
Cite us specific examples of a published scientist that you or someone else has been ridiculed or dismissed by. You are just spouting biased nonsense (anecdotal at best) with no actual evidence. And you cannot include YouTubers, Bill Nye, or Neil DeGrasse Tyson. I am not talking celebrity scientists.
And most of the more coherent thinkers on this site that are REers do not dismiss things out of hand, just because its different. Thats quite the paraphrasing of hundreds (of not thousands) of posts. Most of what I see on here is a back and forth between both parties being stubborn and not relinquishing one way or another that someone doesn't understand the concept being discussed. Most of the time, it is an REer who says this is how it works, and the FEer either comes up with some red herring ("but what about this"), an ad hoc explanation, or a complete dismissal and invokes "but Rowbotham says." Any attempt at explaining how something works by an REer is completely dismissed by the FEer and the accusation that the REer has no idea how the science works behind it.
94
Flat Earth Community / Re: Your Path to FE
« on: March 26, 2019, 07:39:45 PM »
JRowe, can you cite some specific sources from which you are drawing the claim of how modern science treats new discoveries?
Do you mean with a skeptic look? The same look that you give established theories that have existed before you were born? So, are you saying scientists shouldn't be skeptical of new discoveries and theories? But it is ok for you to be skeptical? Isn't that severely biased?
Do you mean with a skeptic look? The same look that you give established theories that have existed before you were born? So, are you saying scientists shouldn't be skeptical of new discoveries and theories? But it is ok for you to be skeptical? Isn't that severely biased?
95
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Eratosthenes Experiment Duplicated
« on: March 26, 2019, 11:16:55 AM »
The projection of the sun is irrelevant to the shape of the earth. Even if the sun is a projection, using the lengths of shadows from 3 points determines that the earth is a sphere.
Are you part of a new society called SP? Sun Projectionists?
Are you part of a new society called SP? Sun Projectionists?
96
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Eratosthenes Experiment Duplicated
« on: March 25, 2019, 07:21:05 PM »
You can argue all you want about what the article is using as a reference for distances. It still has nothing to do with the topic of multiple measurements that were taken by schools all over the earth and that verify that the earth is round.
97
Flat Earth Community / Re: Your Path to FE
« on: March 25, 2019, 05:16:54 PM »
I never said it wasnt ok to admit you were wrong. Where am I contradicting myself? I have said the same thing multiple times - that scientists work through the proofs of their theory with a set of assumptions. If that result does not match observation/measurement, they go back to the drawing board.
The scientific community is not afraid of being proven wrong. This happens all the time. Results get scrutinized. Some scientists get disgraced. Some get corrected.
The scientific community is not afraid of being proven wrong. This happens all the time. Results get scrutinized. Some scientists get disgraced. Some get corrected.
98
Flat Earth Community / Re: Your Path to FE
« on: March 25, 2019, 02:43:06 PM »
For an example of scientists discarding something that was wrong:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028133-200-rewriting-the-textbooks-einsteins-cosmological-fudge/
Its ok to admit that we are wrong. Scientists go back to the drawing board all the time. It is the uneducated public that thinks that science is immutable.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028133-200-rewriting-the-textbooks-einsteins-cosmological-fudge/
Its ok to admit that we are wrong. Scientists go back to the drawing board all the time. It is the uneducated public that thinks that science is immutable.
99
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Eratosthenes Experiment Duplicated
« on: March 25, 2019, 02:09:53 PM »
Here is further experimental evidence. Peruse at your leisure.
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/143365111.pdf
I am still waiting on anyone to tell me if there is something wrong or missing in these experiments.
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/143365111.pdf
I am still waiting on anyone to tell me if there is something wrong or missing in these experiments.
100
Flat Earth Community / Re: Your Path to FE
« on: March 25, 2019, 02:07:02 PM »
I certainly don't worship scientists. I personally can't stand Neil or Bill Nye (the two most popular ones). I speak only for myself. I am an educated and degreed engineer. I understand how science is supposed to work. I ask questions. I do not accept everything verbatim. I read scientific articles all the time because I like to see what is going on out in the scientific realm. Do I believe everything I read? No.