The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Curious Squirrel on May 07, 2018, 05:22:24 PM
-
I'm curious what people are aware of for experiments or tests that will differ depending on belief of RE or FE. FE needs to be falsifiable after all. Here's the ones I can come up with in my time, along with what I've seen discussed in regards to them so far. I would love it if FE believers would be up for giving any more, or correcting my 'conclusions' on the ones posted here.
1) 'Sinking ship'
a) FE posits that a ship whose hull has 'vanished' from sight, can be restored by the use of optical magnification. Videos have been posted purporting to show this effect, largely argued to be inconclusive evidence from RE proponents.
b) RE posits that a ships hull vanishes from sight by going over the curve and cannot be restored using magnification. Videos have been posted purporting to show this effect, largely argued to be inconclusive for similar reasons.
Conclusion: None. Neither sides evidence has been conclusive enough for the other.
2) Lasers/spotting over distance
a) FE posits that a laser shone from a level position across a surface (such as a lake) will arrive at the other side at the same height that it left. Youtube is littered with these videos, but RE mostly regards them with skepticism both for the general lack of experimental rigor, and the unknowns of firing a laser over water.
b) RE posits a certain amount of drop should occur depending on the distance the laser is fired. One video in particular has been offered up, the laser part of the experiment undergoing intense scrutiny. Unfortunately exactly matching up with mathematical drop calculations has left it in a problematic state for being able to reject the FE videos as well.
Conclusion: None. Neither sides evidence is particularly conclusive, and b leads to problems in dismissing a.
3) Horizon to eye level
a) FE posits that the horizon will always rise to eye level. There have been few images/videos shown in reference to this, the largest proof for it residing within EnaG. RE proponents generally regard the statement with skepticism and request photo's showing the effect with detailed information about how it was done.
b) RE posits the horizon should 'dip' lower and lower beneath 'level' as one goes higher. Currently a thread is underway working to create current images to prove this. FE proponents have been largely silent here recently, but expressed concerns over the setup of the experiment near the start. One FE experiment suggestion was met with skepticism by RE crowd.
Conclusion: Unknown at present. Information is still being gathered and is yet to be fully presented. As well, FE proponents have yet to set forth a structured set of what they would accept as proof.
4) Add your own
There should likely be more, but these are what I can come up with for relatively easy/cheaply testable differences. Do note, there are a number of things that, while the mechanisms are different, the final observations are stated to be the same regardless of flat or round. Including but not limited to: Sunset/rise, appearance/disappearance of pole star(s), separate constellations, movement of the stars, and angle of the sun.
I invite FE or RE to correct if I've presented something wrong, or if they have more differences to offer. The best differences would be those that can be tested relatively cheaply or easily by one person, ideally both.
-
Perspective as the explanation for sunsets is another huge one.
I made a thread showing how some aircraft don't follow the same laws of perspective as the sun even though they are on the same plane (ha).
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9557.0
I know there's talk about it elsewhere but I don't remember specific threads.
Edit: not exactly the same plane but above the viewers eye level. But if the sun, 3000 miles up, behaves that way then surely everything below it would do the same?
-
Perspective as the explanation for sunsets is another huge one.
I made a thread showing how some aircraft don't follow the same laws of perspective as the sun even though they are on the same plane (ha).
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9557.0
I know there's talk about it elsewhere but I don't remember specific threads.
The problem here is, there's not actual testable differences (at least easy ones anyway) between what FE says we see, and what RE says we see. For most intents and purposed, the FE hypothesis claims we should see exactly what RE says, with little area for testing. The planes you cite in this instance are not far enough away to experience perspective like the sun, and are not bright enough to experience magnification like the sun, according to the FE idea. Essentially, there's nothing about them that means they should experience the FE 'modified perspective' as it were.
-
Perspective as the explanation for sunsets is another huge one.
I made a thread showing how some aircraft don't follow the same laws of perspective as the sun even though they are on the same plane (ha).
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9557.0
I know there's talk about it elsewhere but I don't remember specific threads.
The problem here is, there's not actual testable differences (at least easy ones anyway) between what FE says we see, and what RE says we see. For most intents and purposed, the FE hypothesis claims we should see exactly what RE says, with little area for testing. The planes you cite in this instance are not far enough away to experience perspective like the sun, and are not bright enough to experience magnification like the sun, according to the FE idea. Essentially, there's nothing about them that means they should experience the FE 'modified perspective' as it were.
Ah I see now, misunderstood the first post.
-
RE posits the horizon should 'dip' lower and lower beneath 'level' as one goes higher. Currently a thread is underway working to create current images to prove this. FE proponents have been largely silent here recently, but expressed concerns over the setup of the experiment near the start.
I'd like to reiterate invite to all to critique setup before I expend the effort to record observations. Mostly received feedback from RE folks. Any FE input?
Also, I was not planning on creating a video documenting the exercise. But that seems to be the medium du jour for conveying Flat Earth vs Round Earth arguments. What do folks here think? Video? Or are stills good enough?
-
How about...:
Distance to the sun
a) FE claims that the sun is close and the Eratosthenes experiment can be reinterpreted with a flat earth and a close, small sun.
b) RE claims that the sun is distant enough that light rays can be thought of as effectively parallel so the Eratosthenes experiment proves the earth is a sphere
Conclusion: RE has suggested that if the sun were as close as claimed then observations and triangulation could be done to verify that. FE has not done any experimentation (as far as I know) to this effect. There has also been no explanation for how a small, close sun is powered.
-
And how about getting 2 people to bserve the South Pole star (or region) at the same time from different parts of the world.
It would prove a south polar rotation of the stars.
-
And how about getting 2 people to bserve the South Pole star (or region) at the same time from different parts of the world.
It would prove a south polar rotation of the stars.
I don't believe the FE hypothesis predicts there to be any difference here though. So it's not particularly useful in falsifying either FE or RE.
-
And how about getting 2 people to bserve the South Pole star (or region) at the same time from different parts of the world.
It would prove a south polar rotation of the stars.
I don't believe the FE hypothesis predicts there to be any difference here though. So it's not particularly useful in falsifying either FE or RE.
They do try to predict a different theory, but there is also a statement by Tom?? That Sigma octantis has never been seen by 2 people at the same time..
There cannot be a rotation around a southern pole axis on a FE. There have been rather silly attempts to show it using perspective, and the answer seems to be that it will be seen due south by everyone in the Southern Hemisphere, located above the ice wall over the circumfrance all at the same time.....
-
P-Brane describes how one would see the Southern Stars rotate. The model P-Brane describes still seems a bit hazy on how people living on opposite sides of the Monopole world can see the South Pole star, Sigma Octantis, at the same time, however. But what evidence is there that they have seen it at the exact same time?
As an addendum to his video, perhaps Sigma Octantis is on the dark side of the earth opposite of the sun. Sigma Octantis may also be the brightest star that is the furthest out on the star disk. It is always on the opposite side of the sun, moving in the same 24 hour period, so it is always in night. Since it is the furthest out on the star disk, it appears in the middle of the rotation due to the perspective explanation P-Brane describes in the video.
The people on opposite sides of the earth would only see stars at night. It is not night for two people on opposite sides of the earth at the same time; and so whoever is in night is experiencing Sigma Octantis sweep across their half of the earth.
-
P-Brane describes how one would see the Southern Stars rotate. The model P-Brane describes still seems a bit hazy on how people living on opposite sides of the Monopole world can see the South Pole star, Sigma Octantis, at the same time, however. But what evidence is there that they have seen it at the exact same time?
As an addendum to his video, perhaps Sigma Octantis is on the dark side of the earth opposite of the sun. Sigma Octantis may also be the brightest star that is the furthest out on the star disk. It is always on the opposite side of the sun, moving in the same 24 hour period, so it is always in night. Since it is the furthest out on the star disk, it appears in the middle of the rotation due to the perspective explanation P-Brane describes in the video.
The people on opposite sides of the earth would only see stars at night. It is not night for two people on opposite sides of the earth at the same time; and so whoever is in night is experiencing Sigma Octantis sweep across their half of the earth.
Ah, true. So what you would need, would be two people low enough in latitude that days are something like 11 hours or less. Thus, two people on opposite sides of the Earth could see it at once. So something like.
Sigma Octanis
a) FE predicts that Sigma Octanis moves in the sky opposite the sun, thus it could not be seen at the same time by two people more than a certain number of degrees of longitude apart.
b) RE predicts Sigma Octanis is visible to anyone sufficiently far to the south at any time, but the sun makes the sky too bright to see it most of the time.
Conclusion: Two people observing the night sky during the Southern winter, below approx. 45S with a difference in longitude greater than 120 degrees, can/cannot see Sigma Octanis. Whichever is true falsifies a part of either FE or RE thought.
-
Ah, true. So what you would need, would be two people low enough in latitude that days are something like 11 hours or less. Thus, two people on opposite sides of the Earth could see it at once. So something like.
Sigma Octanis
a) FE predicts that Sigma Octanis moves in the sky opposite the sun, thus it could not be seen at the same time by two people more than a certain number of degrees of longitude apart.
b) RE predicts Sigma Octanis is visible to anyone sufficiently far to the south at any time, but the sun makes the sky too bright to see it most of the time.
Conclusion: Two people observing the night sky during the Southern winter, below approx. 45S with a difference in longitude greater than 120 degrees, can/cannot see Sigma Octanis. Whichever is true falsifies a part of either FE or RE thought.
FE explains this with smoke and mirrors:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=Z6SK7FmNEXc
-
Isn't the shape of the earth on the first hand not a mapping problem (if we forget for a moment that one can simply observer the shape from space...) ? A job for geographer and cartographer? You measure distances of different places and try to build a map out of this. And find that the only possible solution is a globe. That's the way it worked for centuries. And only after that, you can ask how do all the other observation fit into this picture. Not the other way round.
-
Ah, true. So what you would need, would be two people low enough in latitude that days are something like 11 hours or less. Thus, two people on opposite sides of the Earth could see it at once. So something like.
Sigma Octanis
a) FE predicts that Sigma Octanis moves in the sky opposite the sun, thus it could not be seen at the same time by two people more than a certain number of degrees of longitude apart.
b) RE predicts Sigma Octanis is visible to anyone sufficiently far to the south at any time, but the sun makes the sky too bright to see it most of the time.
Conclusion: Two people observing the night sky during the Southern winter, below approx. 45S with a difference in longitude greater than 120 degrees, can/cannot see Sigma Octanis. Whichever is true falsifies a part of either FE or RE thought.
FE explains this with smoke and mirrors:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=Z6SK7FmNEXc
I am actually lost for words............. I didnt realise that people were so deluded.
They obviously have not travelled to different places in the world, or as i do travel a few hundred miles at a time, and then see the stars from a slightly different vantage point.
That smoke and mirrors attempt bears NO resemblance to what is observed in reality.
He is using flat plane mirrors to describe what he thinks the effect would look like in a concave mirror. Hmmmmm, obviously never done high school experiments with mirrors and lenses and drawing on the paths that the beams of light take. Pretty sad really.
And just in case any FEers are wondering, when you are on the equator you cannot see 2 discs of separate stars, the circumfrance of which meets over your head. It a pretty poor way of what is a pretty rubbish attempt at an explanation of what is seen. The sad thing being anyone on or near the equator can verify that the explanation is pants.
-
Ah, true. So what you would need, would be two people low enough in latitude that days are something like 11 hours or less. Thus, two people on opposite sides of the Earth could see it at once. So something like.
Sigma Octanis
a) FE predicts that Sigma Octanis moves in the sky opposite the sun, thus it could not be seen at the same time by two people more than a certain number of degrees of longitude apart.
b) RE predicts Sigma Octanis is visible to anyone sufficiently far to the south at any time, but the sun makes the sky too bright to see it most of the time.
Conclusion: Two people observing the night sky during the Southern winter, below approx. 45S with a difference in longitude greater than 120 degrees, can/cannot see Sigma Octanis. Whichever is true falsifies a part of either FE or RE thought.
FE explains this with smoke and mirrors:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=Z6SK7FmNEXc
I mean, here's part of why creating falsifiable outcomes for FE is so difficult at times. There's such a wide range of beliefs in how things *could* work. But the Sigma Octanis things is based on a direct quote from a flat Earth believer on the forums. So it might be more representative of things here, but truthfully it might not be. No way to know without them chiming in.
I am a little disappointed there's been zero activity from someone in the FE camp here so far. This seemed like a perfect thread for them to present some of the things they saw/did that made it so clear to them we must be living on a flat plane. Or at least to correct some misconceptions about what the differences should be. Oh well, maybe soon.
-
I am a little disappointed there's been zero activity from someone in the FE camp here so far. This seemed like a perfect thread for them to present some of the things they saw/did that made it so clear to them we must be living on a flat plane. Or at least to correct some misconceptions about what the differences should be. Oh well, maybe soon.
Who is there besides Tom Bishop? This forum is dominated by flat earth critics/cynics. I thought there'd be much more lively defense of the flat earth than I've seen. Don't the more more notable YouTube flat earth personalities ever participate here?
-
I am a little disappointed there's been zero activity from someone in the FE camp here so far. This seemed like a perfect thread for them to present some of the things they saw/did that made it so clear to them we must be living on a flat plane. Or at least to correct some misconceptions about what the differences should be. Oh well, maybe soon.
Who is there besides Tom Bishop? This forum is dominated by flat earth critics/cynics. I thought there'd be much more lively defense of the flat earth than I've seen. Don't the more more notable YouTube flat earth personalities ever participate here?
Benjamin Franklin (who recently said roughly he's 'never seen a result to indicate a round Earth'), Pete Svarrior, Pickel, Tom, Treep. There's a few others about as well, and I'm not making any promises on all of those being 'legit' as it were. But we've had a fair number posting recently. I don't believe any of the YouTube personalities visit either of the FES forums though. Unless they visit under a different pseudonym.
-
Remember "This is literally just a few people talking about it for a brief time every day on their spare time. That’s the flat earth movement" - Tom Bishop...................................maybe one shouldnt expect too much
Takes more effort to shoot and edit a video, and there are hundreds of those by some YouTubers. Hard to believe none of them are inclined to discuss or debate on a forum set up FOR flat earth advocates.
YouTube comment sections seem to be the standard "debate" medium, but it's not really well-designed for threaded discussions. I'd love for PhuketWord or Jeranism to participate here and discuss what they've posted. That's actually what I anticipated when coming here and to the other (sister? rival?) flat earth community forum. Alas, that's not been the case.
(Cool to engage with THE Tom Bishop, though.)
-
Benjamin Franklin (who recently said roughly he's 'never seen a result to indicate a round Earth'), Pete Svarrior, Pickel, Tom, Treep. There's a few others about as well, and I'm not making any promises on all of those being 'legit' as it were. But we've had a fair number posting recently. I don't believe any of the YouTube personalities visit either of the FES forums though. Unless they visit under a different pseudonym.
I'm disappointed there aren't (apparently) any of the notable flat earth proponents participating in this forum; particularly the more prominently YouTube publishers. I had expected this (or the other site's fora) would be fertile ground for good discussion; but both are dominated by globe-earth folks vs. a handful of flat-earth defenders.
I was glad to finally encounter Tom Bishop, but I had anticipated a more robust gathering of flat earth advocates.
I'm not interested much in getting reinforcement from other "globetards." I don't know actually know anyone who thinks the world is (or even might be) flat. So I migrated here thinking this would be the place.
I don't think it is, and that's too bad.
I think people naturally gravitate to groups where they are among those of a like mind; and that's too bad, too.
-
YouTube comment sections seem to be the standard "debate" medium, but it's not really well-designed for threaded discussions.
It also has the disadvantage that if the FEer disagrees with your comment, they're very likely to either delete it or block you.
Others have taken to making all their videos "Comments disabled for this video" ....
-
YouTube comment sections seem to be the standard "debate" medium, but it's not really well-designed for threaded discussions.
It also has the disadvantage that if the FEer disagrees with your comment, they're very likely to either delete it or block you.
Others have taken to making all their videos "Comments disabled for this video" ....
I'm only here as an act of service and education for this society. Why would the authors of those works want to spend all of their time talking to you about the same things day after day, speaking to one noob after another, rehashing the same discussions over and over, when they could be doing something more productive with their lives, or for the cause?
-
^For the same reason Samuel Rowbotham articulates in the preface to the 2nd edition of Earth Not a Globe.
-
I'm only here as an act of service and education for this society. Why would the authors of those works want to spend all of their time talking to you about the same things day after day, speaking to one noob after another, rehashing the same discussions over and over, when they could be doing something more productive with their lives, or for the cause?
Isn't the purpose of the society to persuade people like me of your belief system? I am an educated person with published work, and I could help a lot with your cause, if only you were able to persuade me. You haven't, so far, but happy to listen.
-
Isn't the purpose of the society to persuade people like me of your belief system?
No. We are not here to directly persuade anyone, which is also why few of us ever engage the RE noobs who come here demanding 1-on-1 tuition. You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence.
-
Isn't the purpose of the society to persuade people like me of your belief system?
No. We are not here to directly persuade anyone, which is also why few of us ever engage the RE noobs who come here demanding 1-on-1 tuition. You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence.
... but the home page positively invites anyone to converse in the forum. Why say this if you are so disinterested in conversing with those who come here?
-
Isn't the purpose of the society to persuade people like me of your belief system?
No. We are not here to directly persuade anyone, which is also why few of us ever engage the RE noobs who come here demanding 1-on-1 tuition. You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence.
... but the home page positively invites anyone to converse in the forum. Why say this if you are so disinterested in conversing with those who come here?
You are welcome to come to this forum and converse about the subject. No one is stopping you. If you feel that there are a lack of FE rebuttals in a conversation, then that is an invitation to you to fill in the gap. The conversation will help fill in existing gaps of knowledge, if any. Haven't you ever heard of a debate club?
Per your demands from the few of the old core FE'ers; we are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us.
-
No. We are not here to directly persuade anyone, which is also why few of us ever engage the RE noobs who come here demanding 1-on-1 tuition. You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence.
Per your demands from the few of the old core FE'ers; we are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us.
These posts explain much about the minimal engagement by FE advocates in this community discussion board. Thank you both for these candid responses.
-
... but the home page positively invites anyone to converse in the forum.
I have no issue with conversations - but if you come here aggressively demanding that I cater to your whims or sensibilities without you doing any of the initial groundwork, I'll be thoroughly disinterested.
You mistake an invitation to engage with us for a promise that we'll engage you on any and all terms you can imagine.
Ultimately, we have to make tough decisions about how to manage our time and communications. For example, if I responded to every Twitter DM that demands an answer to something that's already been amply discussed and archived, I'd have to sacrifice all of the time that's currently allocated to sleep - and I do like to sleep in. Sometimes, I respond with nothing but a link to the relevant page - at which point I get lambasted for not writing out each response in my own, unique words.
I purport that, for the average outraged RE'er, there is no such thing as a satisfactory response. And since I'm convinced this is the case, I naturally shift my efforts towards something more productive. This means less bothering with chumps who set their sigs to out-of-context quotes in the hopes of "one-upping" someone, and more attempts at securing widespread coverage, improving the technical backbone of this community, or even just taking a step back and relaxing. Gotta keep your priorities in check, you know?
-
... but the home page positively invites anyone to converse in the forum.
I have no issue with conversations - but if you come here aggressively demanding that I cater to your whims or sensibilities without you doing any of the initial groundwork, I'll be thoroughly disinterested.
You mistake an invitation to engage with us for a promise that we'll engage you on any and all terms you can imagine.
Ultimately, we have to make tough decisions about how to manage our time and communications. For example, if I responded to every Twitter DM that demands an answer to something that's already been amply discussed and archived, I'd have to sacrifice all of the time that's currently allocated to sleep - and I do like to sleep in. Sometimes, I respond with nothing but a link to the relevant page - at which point I get lambasted for not writing out each response in my own, unique words.
I purport that, for the average outraged RE'er, there is no such thing as a satisfactory response. And since I'm convinced this is the case, I naturally shift my efforts towards something more productive. This means less bothering with chumps who set their sigs to out-of-context quotes in the hopes of "one-upping" someone, and more attempts at securing widespread coverage, improving the technical backbone of this community, or even just taking a step back and relaxing. Gotta keep your priorities in check, you know?
You just need to provide your current proof of the shape of the earth and there would be no need for further discussions.
-
You just need to provide your current proof of the shape of the earth and there would be no need for further discussions.
It's already out there and we've discussed it to death - I agree that there is no need for further discussions, but there's no pleasing the malcontents. They'll always demand more; or, as you just did, they'll simply pretend that it never happened.
-
... but the home page positively invites anyone to converse in the forum.
I have no issue with conversations - but if you come here aggressively demanding that I cater to your whims or sensibilities without you doing any of the initial groundwork, I'll be thoroughly disinterested.
You mistake an invitation to engage with us for a promise that we'll engage you on any and all terms you can imagine.
All the 'terms' seem to come from your side; such as the moderator who takes REers to task for 'low-content posting in the upper fora', etc.
I see no REers dictating any terms other than inviting FEers to provide some empirical evidence from their side
... Sometimes, I respond with nothing but a link to the relevant page - at which point I get lambasted for not writing out each response in my own, unique words.
Well, if a REer posts (for instance) a YouTube video without any accompanying commentary, they get taken to task by the moderator for not stating the salient point of the video. So REers are providing some commentary as a result. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, isn't it?
I purport that, for the average outraged RE'er, there is no such thing as a satisfactory response. ...
Just a response would do.
Have you seen the number of threads where REers put forward a proposal, proposition, assertion, to nil response from any FEer? Or the threads where there are six or more pages of RE input, with the occasional post from Tom B, but absolutely nothing from any other FEer?
-
You just need to provide your current proof of the shape of the earth and there would be no need for further discussions.
It's already out there and we've discussed it to death - I agree that there is no need for further discussions, but there's no pleasing ....
Evidently someone, somewhere doesn't hold the same view, or else there would not be this 'debate' forum.
If there's truly no need for further discussion from your side, and you want to put up a sign "We're right. That's it", then what purpose this forum?
-
You just need to provide your current proof of the shape of the earth and there would be no need for further discussions.
It's already out there and we've discussed it to death - I agree that there is no need for further discussions, but there's no pleasing the malcontents. They'll always demand more; or, as you just did, they'll simply pretend that it never happened.
You will have tell us where because a map is key to any proposal.
-
You just need to provide your current proof of the shape of the earth and there would be no need for further discussions.
It's already out there and we've discussed it to death - I agree that there is no need for further discussions, but there's no pleasing the malcontents. They'll always demand more; or, as you just did, they'll simply pretend that it never happened.
Wow. So you've proven it definitively...and yet, somehow, pretty much everyone on earth disputes that.
Maybe your "proof" isn't quite as watertight as you think?
-
All the 'terms' seem to come from your side; such as the moderator who takes REers to task for 'low-content posting in the upper fora', etc.
I see no REers dictating any terms other than inviting FEers to provide some empirical evidence from their side
And what happens when we reject your "invitation"? Outrage, righteous indignation.
How- how very dare they?! It must mean there's not that many of them. No, no, they're just afraid. Yes, that must be it. After all, nobody would pass up on an opportunity to have such a thrilling conversation! They must just not exist.
Your idea of "inviting" someone to do something is very unorthodox. Excuse me if I don't pay too much heed to it.
Well, if a REer posts (for instance) a YouTube video without any accompanying commentary, they get taken to task by the moderator for not stating the salient point of the video. So REers are providing some commentary as a result. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, isn't it?
Again with the false equivalencies. Can you really not appreciate that we're having a candid conversation? Asking people (on both sides) not to start threads that consist of nothing but a YouTube link is very different from posting a link to an answered question in response to an identical question.
Just a response would do.
Actually, you're proving this wrong as we speak - I gave you a response, and you're already rambling about it. I provided an explanation for why FE'ers behave the way they do, but no - it must be contested. After all, how would I possibly know the reasons behind my own conscious decisions? Perhaps if you nitpick it just a little bit, the truth will unfold!
Have you seen the number of threads where REers put forward a proposal, proposition, assertion, to nil response from any FEer? Or the threads where there are six or more pages of RE input, with the occasional post from Tom B, but absolutely nothing from any other FEer?
No - I tend to leave them a few posts in, after realising that it's another one of those threads - righteous RE'ers thinking they're making a difference by raising trifling points and having a circle-jerk about how they all think they're right. That's not a worthwhile debate, we have better things to do with our time.
As an aside, please learn to quote correctly - your use of coloured fonts makes for an extremely poor experience from an accessibility standpoint. If you don't know how to use BBCode, don't use BBCode.
Wow. So you've proven it definitively...and yet, somehow, pretty much everyone on earth disputes that.
Maybe your "proof" isn't quite as watertight as you think?
Knowledge takes time to propagate; and given how rapidly the FE movement is growing, we're doing quite well. Nonetheless, thank you very much for your concern trolling. It's always entertaining.
-
Wow. So you've proven it definitively...and yet, somehow, pretty much everyone on earth disputes that.
Maybe your "proof" isn't quite as watertight as you think?
Knowledge takes time to propagate; and given how rapidly the FE movement is growing, we're doing quite well. Nonetheless, thank you very much for your concern trolling. It's always entertaining.
You say that. Einstein's theories superseded hundreds of years of Newtonian mechanics and fairly quickly revolutionised our understanding of lots of things.
They became adopted because they work. They explain observations, they make predictions which have been confirmed by experimentation.
GPS wouldn't work if they didn't take into account relativistic time dilation effects, for example.
Rowbotham was writing long before Einstein and his ideas have not caught on because they are, to use a technical term, complete horseshit.
You claiming they are proven carries no weight when practically no-one agrees with you.
It is quite endearing that you think your ideas are catching on. The internet has allowed crazies to talk to one another far more efficiently but this is never going to be a mainstream thing. A couple of hundred people in a Jury's Inn in Birmingham where one of the speakers was an NHS Manager does not have the markings of a movement which is sweeping the...disc.
-
Any chance we could nudge this back a bit towards the original topic, rather than where we've gotten? With Pete and Tom both about I would love to have their input on if I've gotten things correct on the listed differences, and ideally if they might have either more, or a different take on just where things stand on what's come up. Obviously they've both found some form of experiment or similar that they have been able to do that produces a result consistent only with a Flat Earth 100% of the time. I'm curious just what that might be.