The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Tontogary on April 11, 2018, 04:52:27 PM
-
Charlatan Rowbotham did not present accurate facts to back up his crackpot theories.
Take the explanation of his attempt to explain why a compass needle is horizontal on about the equator.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za35.htm#page_227
He proudly boasts that on a round earth there can no way be a compass needle aligned horizontal with the earths surface, if the surface were a globe.
He also says and does not argue that the angle of dip of the needle increases in the north lattitude as well as the south, and in fact uses that as an observation that is not denied.
Now on that page is a diagram where he asserts that if the earth were round, then the compass needle will point to north, along a straight line represented by C-N. And makes the jump to the conclusion that it proves that the earth cannot be round.
There is a major flaw with his argument.
The compass needle does not point to a pole directly, lies parallel to the lines of magnetic flux, or force
The lines of magnetic force are represented on the attached picture, but dont believe me, get a magnet and iron filings, and a piece of paper. Zero cost if you have them, and do the experiment yourself.
On the other attached picture is shown the earths round shape and the magnetic field.
Now take this quote from EnaG
“and that the two facts that the compass always points towards the pole and yet on the equator lies without dip, cannot possibly co-exist on a globe. They do co-exist in nature, and are well ascertained and easily proved to do so, therefore the earth cannot possibly be a globe. They can co-exist on a plane with a northern or central region: they do beyond doubt co-exist, therefore, beyond doubt the earth is a plane.”
Taking his first statement, that a compass needle points towards the pole, is correct in a way, but the compass needle lies parallel to the lines of force, so will point north along the lines of longitude, (more or less) but the horizontal angle will be parallel to the lines of flux, and it is seen at the equator will be Horizontal, and dip increases in the north and south latitudes, which Charlatan Rowbotham says are “well ascertained and easily proved to do so” then this actually proves the earth is a globe, and debunks his theory.
This is a classic example of him getting a basic principle wrong, then using it to “prove” his theory, when in fact using the correct principle completely debunks his ideas.
The observation that the needle dips in the north and south equator is accepted and stated as a truth by him, but when you see the lines of force with the round earth placed on it, it is very evident that it does. More interestingly superimpose those lines of force on a plane surface and you cannot ever get the needle to do what it does, and that in fact disproves the flat earth theory!
So having debunked his methods on the first attempt, i can do so on most of his other flawed experiments.
-
Charlatan Rowbotham did not present accurate facts to back up his crackpot theories.
Take the explanation of his attempt to explain why a compass needle is horizontal on about the equator.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za35.htm#page_227
He proudly boasts that on a round earth there can no way be a compass needle aligned horizontal with the earths surface, if the surface were a globe.
He also says and does not argue that the angle of dip of the needle increases in the north lattitude as well as the south, and in fact uses that as an observation that is not denied.
Now on that page is a diagram where he asserts that if the earth were round, then the compass needle will point to north, along a straight line represented by C-N. And makes the jump to the conclusion that it proves that the earth cannot be round.
There is a major flaw with his argument.
The compass needle does not point to a pole directly, lies parallel to the lines of magnetic flux, or force
The lines of magnetic force are represented on the attached picture, but dont believe me, get a magnet and iron filings, and a piece of paper. Zero cost if you have them, and do the experiment yourself.
On the other attached picture is shown the earths round shape and the magnetic field.
Now take this quote from EnaG
“and that the two facts that the compass always points towards the pole and yet on the equator lies without dip, cannot possibly co-exist on a globe. They do co-exist in nature, and are well ascertained and easily proved to do so, therefore the earth cannot possibly be a globe. They can co-exist on a plane with a northern or central region: they do beyond doubt co-exist, therefore, beyond doubt the earth is a plane.”
Taking his first statement, that a compass needle points towards the pole, is correct in a way, but the compass needle lies parallel to the lines of force, so will point north along the lines of longitude, (more or less) but the horizontal angle will be parallel to the lines of flux, and it is seen at the equator will be Horizontal, and dip increases in the north and south latitudes, which Charlatan Rowbotham says are “well ascertained and easily proved to do so” then this actually proves the earth is a globe, and debunks his theory.
This is a classic example of him getting a basic principle wrong, then using it to “prove” his theory, when in fact using the correct principle completely debunks his ideas.
The observation that the needle dips in the north and south equator is accepted and stated as a truth by him, but when you see the lines of force with the round earth placed on it, it is very evident that it does. More interestingly superimpose those lines of force on a plane surface and you cannot ever get the needle to do what it does, and that in fact disproves the flat earth theory!
So having debunked his methods on the first attempt, i can do so on most of his other flawed experiments.
Yes, he did a lot of that. He would quote himself as proof. He would be laughed off the stage at any university in the world today.
-
Actually, Rowbotham is very exact in his wordings:
From ENAG:
If any small object to represent a ship is placed on the equator of an artificial globe and kept at right angles to the meridian lines, it will at once be seen that it cannot be otherwise than as above stated; and that the two facts that the compass always points towards the pole and yet on the equator lies without dip, cannot possibly co-exist on a globe.
He is correct. Those facts cannot coexist on a globe. That is why, in RET, they had to change the theory to declare that the compass did not point at the pole.
-
Actually, Rowbotham is very exact in his wordings:
From ENAG:
If any small object to represent a ship is placed on the equator of an artificial globe and kept at right angles to the meridian lines, it will at once be seen that it cannot be otherwise than as above stated; and that the two facts that the compass always points towards the pole and yet on the equator lies without dip, cannot possibly co-exist on a globe.
He is correct. Those facts cannot coexist on a globe. That is why they had to change the theory to declare that the compass did not point at the pole in RET.
(Magnetic) Compasses do not simply "point towards the pole", they align themselves with the horizontal component of the Earth's magnetic field.
-
(Magnetic) Compasses do not simply "point towards the pole", they align themselves with the horizontal component of the Earth's magnetic field.
And how did they know how to design to magnetic field before the dip reading studies?
Rowbotham is pointing out evidence against the notion that the compass points at the poles.
-
(Magnetic) Compasses do not simply "point towards the pole", they align themselves with the horizontal component of the Earth's magnetic field.
And how did they know how to design to magnetic field before the dip reading studies?
Rowbotham is pointing out evidence against the notion that the compass points at the poles.
Nobody designed the magnetic field, it is an observable natural phenomenon.
-
Oh look, tontogary badmouthing Dr Rowbotham yet again. Anyone would think he's got nothing else to do with his time...
Anyway, how is this 'proof'? It's not. A compass points north and all I've seen from you is speculation. The top scientific boffins of the day couldn't disprove Dr Rowbotham, yet you apparently can now. Hmmm. Tom has already posted a quote that proves Dr Rowbotham correct.
-
these people choose to take 'it points to the pole' quite literally. it suits them.
-
That is why, in RET, they had to change the theory to declare that the compass did not point at the pole.
This is wrong. Knowledge of magnetic field lines predates Rowbotham.
-
That is why, in RET, they had to change the theory to declare that the compass did not point at the pole.
This is wrong. Knowledge of magnetic field lines predates Rowbotham.
It was known that the earth was magnetic in some form, but the properties of the magnetic field were not mapped until the mid 1800's.
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2007-05/1178030012.Sh.r.html
German scientist Carl Gauss is usually credited with being the first to make detailed observations of the field's direction and strength around 1840.
https://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/gauss.htm
The greatest help however came from the British empire, whose "Magnetic Crusade" led by Sir Edward Sabine set up stations from Canada to Tasmania (then known as "Van Diemen's Land"). The vast network not only made possible the first global models of the field, but also demonstrated the world-wide character of magnetic storms.
-
(Magnetic) Compasses do not simply "point towards the pole", they align themselves with the horizontal component of the Earth's magnetic field.
That's correct. magnetic compasses only use the horizontal component of the magnetic field. The vertical component is overcompensated by weight and the mount/suspension point. The mount point is above the center of weight of the compass needle.
Did you ever closely examine a simple compass? The "needle" has a small dome in the middle, so that the suspension point is above the needle, higher than the center of mass of the needle.
Other compasses, e.g. used on ships, have a cardan suspension, also compensated by weight, so that the compass rose (a disk instead o a simple needle) always stays horizontal.
-
Compasses are counter-weighted to compensate for the inclination of Earth's magnetic field.
via Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compass
and Suunto (a compass manufacturer)
http://www.suunto.com/en-US/Support/Compasses-feature-index/Understanding-balancing-zones/
The pivot point can be set above the needle's center of gravity and weights can be added to compensate. High precision compasses are built to compensate based on the area they will be used in.
The magnetic needle itself even has some built-in compensation itself. Monopole magnets aren't really a very common thing and don't even exist naturally. The needle in the compass has a N and S end. The force trying to dip the end pointing toward the Northern is counteracted by the fact that the other end is trying to dip to toward the South in the opposite direction.
Also, there's this thing called a 'Dip circle' (aka 'Dip needle') invented in 1581. Dip circles (also dip needles) are used to measure the angle between the horizon and the Earth's magnetic field (the dip angle). They were used in surveying, mining and prospecting as well as for the demonstration and study of magnetism.
It was invented because some dude actually noticed the needle on a compass dipped in 1544.
Reference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dip_circle
So, pretty much, yeah, that needle dipping thing sort of actually happens. A tool was made to take advantage of it and compasses were being designed to compensate for it (possibly since 1544) .
-
The dip compass was invented in centuries prior, but the magnetic field was not mapped on a wide scale until the mid 1800's around the time of Earth Not a Globe.
-
one might notice that the year 1840 is before the year 1849. so, no
also, did the original 16 pages even talk about compasses
-
Actually, Rowbotham is very exact in his wordings:
From ENAG:
If any small object to represent a ship is placed on the equator of an artificial globe and kept at right angles to the meridian lines, it will at once be seen that it cannot be otherwise than as above stated; and that the two facts that the compass always points towards the pole and yet on the equator lies without dip, cannot possibly co-exist on a globe.
He is correct. Those facts cannot coexist on a globe. That is why, in RET, they had to change the theory to declare that the compass did not point at the pole.
Oh dear Tom, how incredibley selective of you. I show you why the compass will be without dip at the equator, and you then just repeat Charlatan Rowbothams (obviously flawed statement) and say it is good! The first claim, that the needle always points to the pole is more or less correct in the horizontal plane, but clearly untrue in the vertical. And as for the second that there cannot be zero dip at the equator is simply shown in elementary grade science experiments, of which you seem to claim are false, made up etc!
Both conditions do exist on a globe.
Please can you explain how magnetism theory was after changed after EnaG? It is a positive claim and therefore the burden of proof lies with you!
However if you wish to debate the the point please show me the magnetic flux lines drawn on a plane earth, and show how the rate of dip increases with lattitude, a point EnaG uses as a fact and undeniable, and how it is 0 at the equator?
Given that you cannot show any sort of theory on it (Charlatan Rowbotham couldn’t either) it is assumed. Therefore your statement fails under Occams Razor.
A simple experiment, free of charge will demonstrate what i say.
Place a bar magnet next to a compass, in the mid point between the poles, and an inch or so away from the compass with the bar magnet being longer than the compass. The compass can even be a tiny little button compass, in fact this would represent the experiment even better.
Note the direction of the needle is not directly at the pole. Empirical proof!
-
Oh look, tontogary badmouthing Dr Rowbotham yet again. Anyone would think he's got nothing else to do with his time...
Anyway, how is this 'proof'? It's not. A compass points north and all I've seen from you is speculation. The top scientific boffins of the day couldn't disprove Dr Rowbotham, yet you apparently can now. Hmmm. Tom has already posted a quote that proves Dr Rowbotham correct.
Examining the Charlatans flawed statements and providing experiments and actual physics of why they are false is called badmouthing is it?
You should listen to your mentors words, and not be so hypocritical!
“The true business of a critic is to compare what he reads with known and provable data, to treat impartially the evidence he observes, and point out logical deficiencies and inconsistencies with first principles, but never to obtrude his own opinions. He should, in fact, at all times take the place of Astrea, the Goddess of Justice, and firmly hold the scales, in which the evidence is fairly weighed.
I advise all my readers who have become Zetetic not to be content with anything less than this; and also not to look with disfavour upon the objections of their opponents. Should such objections be well or even plausibly founded, they will only tend to free us from error, and to purify and exalt our Zetetic philosophy.”
You should in fact be thanking me for helping your “Zetetic philosophy” understand the real world!
-
(Magnetic) Compasses do not simply "point towards the pole", they align themselves with the horizontal component of the Earth's magnetic field.
And how did they know how to design to magnetic field before the dip reading studies?
Rowbotham is pointing out evidence against the notion that the compass points at the poles.
Magnetic dip was discovered in the mid 14th century, and measured in the late 14th century, way before EnaG was written. It was studied way way before he was born.
The Charlatan himself quoted
“For instance, it is known that the "dipping needle" is horizontal or without "dip" at the equator; and that the "dip" increases on sailing north and south: and is greatest at the magnetic centre.” So you surely have to agree with that?
So let me help with showing a picture of an experiment, and guess what? At the place where the equator will be on a RE, the needle points parallel to the surface, and then gets steeper until it is att maximum at the pole (or magnetic Center) shal i try to superimpose the world onto that picture below for those of you who have problems following simple diagrams, and making the connection betweeen the two?
I am sure Tom or Parallax will say the picture is photoshopped, but it is so very very easy to verify, (empirically) that the needle does NOT point directly to the pole, contrary to Toms assertion that it does.
Tom must be a reincarnation of the Charlatan, “Rowbotham is pointing out evidence against the notion that the compass points at the poles.” Contradicting himself, as i cannot see where the Charlatan argues against the needle pointing directly to north, but also used the fact that it does point directly to north in a diagram used to disprove the round earth!
-
Not all magnets make that shape. A magnet with a North and South pole closer together would make a more circular and radial magnetic field. It was also unknown if there was more than one magnetic element in the earth -- if we introduce the concept of multiple magnets, a whole variety of shapes could be made.
Before the mid 1800's it was known that the earth was magnetic in some form, but the exact layout of the fields was unknown. Your accusation that Rowtham did not know about the layout of the earth's magnetic field is misplaced, since it was just then being studied on a large scale at that time.
Rowbotham's conclusions based on the premises provided are accurate. If a premise is wrong, it means that some Round Earth academic was wrong, since that is where they are taken from.
-
Not all magnets make that shape. A magnet with a North and South pole closer together would make a more circular and radial magnetic field. It was also unknown if there was more than one magnetic element in the earth -- if we introduce the concept of multiple magnets, a whole variety of shapes could be made.
Before the mid 1800's it was known that the earth was magnetic in some form, but the exact layout of the fields was unknown. Your accusation that Rowtham did not know about the layout of the earth's magnetic field is misplaced, since it was just then being studied on a large scale at that time.
Rowbotham's conclusions based on the premises provided are accurate. If a premise is wrong, it means that some Round Earth academic was wrong, since that is where they are taken from.
I hate to use your own link against you. (I'm lying, I actually love it.)
Referencing:
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2007-05/1178030012.Sh.r.html
(That's a link you provided earlier)
English scientist William Gilbert pioneered research into magnetism and electrical attractions. In 'De Magnete' (1600), he was the first to describe the earth's magnetic field and to postulate the relationship between electricity and magnetism. (He introduced the term 'electricity'). He corrected described the Earth as being like a giant bar magnet." [emphasis added]
Carl Gauss is usually credited with being the first to make detailed observations of the field's direction and strength around 1840. Let me re-emphasis both direction and strength. Others observed direction prior to Gauss, other observed strength prior to Gauss. Gauss applied his mathematical genius and created model from the measurements of both direction and strength.
Tom's statement suggesting that the Earth's magnetic field was just being studied on a large scale only beginning around the mid 1800's seems patently false.
Declination and inclination were discovered prior to 1544. It seems that [in Europe] the Earth's magnetic field was correctly being described as a bar magnet since 1600. It seems that the general layout was understood to be a dipole bar magnet slightly inclined to the axis of rotation in 1600. It was only the intensity that was not first measured in 1791, and modeled (detailed) for both direction and strength around 1840.
You know what, just read the article yourself...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_geomagnetism
I don't know what premises Rowbotham based his premises on, it certainly doesn't appear to be the what was actually know about magnetism at the time. Best I can tell his premises are based on ignorance (stated without accusation of intent). Dip needles had bee around for a while, their operation should have been decently understood after 300 years (or so) of use, being they point 90 degrees down at the North pole and (presumably) they would point 90 up at the south. That means in the middle (at the equator) they'd read, what? 0 - aka horizontal, meaning there sum total magnetic inclination at that latitude is 0, meaning the needle on a compass should not dip, irrespective to the shape of the Earth's surface.
Why does it seem like he didn't know about this?
-
I see two observations/claims Rowbotham in this chapter:
- Compass needle always directly points to the mag. North Pole. So - sweeping magnetic field lines under the carpet - a compass at the equator would be pointing straight through the globe to the mag. North Pole, showing a "dip" of about 45°.
- He does not deny the "dip", he even affirms it: For instance, it is known that the "dipping needle" is horizontal or without "dip" at the equator; and that the "dip" increases on sailing north and south: and is greatest at the magnetic centre.
Now let's apply this to the flat earth model:
As the compass needle points directly at the north pole and there's a significant "dip" already for places far away from the geographic North pole, so where's the magn. North Pole? The compass needle is pointing downwards directly to the magn. North Pole! You could even do some triangulation, which would find the magn. North Pole way, way down below the surface.
But now, what's the "dip" at the equator? Sorry, now also with this model the compass needle could no more be horizontal.
Let's say with Rowbotham's words: "... and that the two facts that the compass always points towards the pole and yet on the equator lies without dip, cannot possibly co-exist on a globe plane."
-
Carl Gauss is usually credited with being the first to make detailed observations of the field's direction and strength around 1840. Let me re-emphasis both direction and strength. Others observed direction prior to Gauss, other observed strength prior to Gauss. Gauss applied his mathematical genius and created model from the measurements of both direction and strength.
Tom's statement suggesting that the Earth's magnetic field was just being studied on a large scale only beginning around the mid 1800's seems patently false.
Declination and inclination were discovered prior to 1544. It seems that [in Europe] the Earth's magnetic field was correctly being described as a bar magnet since 1600.
Someone at some time may have had a theory that it was like a bar magnet. But that was not confirmed until the mid-1800's.
It seems that the general layout was understood to be a dipole bar magnet slightly inclined to the axis of rotation in 1600. It was only the intensity that was not first measured in 1791, and modeled (detailed) for both direction and strength around 1840.
You know what, just read the article yourself...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_geomagnetism
I don't know what premises Rowbotham based his premises on, it certainly doesn't appear to be the what was actually know about magnetism at the time.
Nothing was known about the earth's magnetic field until large scale studies were made of it.
Why does it seem like he didn't know about this?
At that time the nature of the magnetic pole was hypothesis, of which there were many. It took large scale study to determine which was the best.
-
Oh look, tontogary badmouthing Dr Rowbotham yet again. Anyone would think he's got nothing else to do with his time...
Anyway, how is this 'proof'? It's not. A compass points north and all I've seen from you is speculation. The top scientific boffins of the day couldn't disprove Dr Rowbotham, yet you apparently can now. Hmmm. Tom has already posted a quote that proves Dr Rowbotham correct.
Examining the Charlatans flawed statements and providing experiments and actual physics of why they are false is called badmouthing is it?
You should listen to your mentors words, and not be so hypocritical!
“The true business of a critic is to compare what he reads with known and provable data, to treat impartially the evidence he observes, and point out logical deficiencies and inconsistencies with first principles, but never to obtrude his own opinions. He should, in fact, at all times take the place of Astrea, the Goddess of Justice, and firmly hold the scales, in which the evidence is fairly weighed.
I advise all my readers who have become Zetetic not to be content with anything less than this; and also not to look with disfavour upon the objections of their opponents. Should such objections be well or even plausibly founded, they will only tend to free us from error, and to purify and exalt our Zetetic philosophy.”
You should in fact be thanking me for helping your “Zetetic philosophy” understand the real world!
Please, I know full well what Dr Rowbotham opened his book with, but all you do it disrespect his memory and badmouth him at every opportunity.
His statements are not flawed. Yours are. He provided facts, equations, and statistics to back up his research. Unlike you, however, who is nothing more than an armchair 'scientist', whose 'experiments' amount to posting some guff on the internet and proclaiming it to be true, while the other round earthers proclaim you to be absolutely correct in all that you say. You've already been proved wrong. Not by me. Not by Tom. By Dr Rowbotham. You have yet to provide one shred of evidence that
1) Dr Rowbotham was a charlatan
2) His experiments were incorrect
3) That earth is round
And yes, you do badmouth him. Calling him 'charlatan Rowbotham' constantly and saying his experiments were wrong is pretty disrespectful. The top scientific minds of the day did not prove him wrong, and neither are you. So post your 'experiments', which is nothing more than a wall of text on a forum. He is remembered today. I somehow doubt you and your 'experiments' will be remembered over 100 years from now, no, you'll simply be lost in the mists of time.
If you are so correct in all that you say, prove one thing. One thing and I will believe you.
Prove to me Dr Rowbotham was a charlatan and not a true flat earth believer.
-
Oh look, tontogary badmouthing Dr Rowbotham yet again. Anyone would think he's got nothing else to do with his time...
Anyway, how is this 'proof'? It's not. A compass points north and all I've seen from you is speculation. The top scientific boffins of the day couldn't disprove Dr Rowbotham, yet you apparently can now. Hmmm. Tom has already posted a quote that proves Dr Rowbotham correct.
Examining the Charlatans flawed statements and providing experiments and actual physics of why they are false is called badmouthing is it?
You should listen to your mentors words, and not be so hypocritical!
“The true business of a critic is to compare what he reads with known and provable data, to treat impartially the evidence he observes, and point out logical deficiencies and inconsistencies with first principles, but never to obtrude his own opinions. He should, in fact, at all times take the place of Astrea, the Goddess of Justice, and firmly hold the scales, in which the evidence is fairly weighed.
I advise all my readers who have become Zetetic not to be content with anything less than this; and also not to look with disfavour upon the objections of their opponents. Should such objections be well or even plausibly founded, they will only tend to free us from error, and to purify and exalt our Zetetic philosophy.”
You should in fact be thanking me for helping your “Zetetic philosophy” understand the real world!
Please, I know full well what Dr Rowbotham opened his book with, but all you do it disrespect his memory and badmouth him at every opportunity.
His statements are not flawed. Yours are. He provided facts, equations, and statistics to back up his research. Unlike you, however, who is nothing more than an armchair 'scientist', whose 'experiments' amount to posting some guff on the internet and proclaiming it to be true, while the other round earthers proclaim you to be absolutely correct in all that you say. You've already been proved wrong. Not by me. Not by Tom. By Dr Rowbotham. You have yet to provide one shred of evidence that
1) Dr Rowbotham was a charlatan
2) His experiments were incorrect
3) That earth is round
And yes, you do badmouth him. Calling him 'charlatan Rowbotham' constantly and saying his experiments were wrong is pretty disrespectful. The top scientific minds of the day did not prove him wrong, and neither are you. So post your 'experiments', which is nothing more than a wall of text on a forum. He is remembered today. I somehow doubt you and your 'experiments' will be remembered over 100 years from now, no, you'll simply be lost in the mists of time.
If you are so correct in all that you say, prove one thing. One thing and I will believe you.
Prove to me Dr Rowbotham was a charlatan and not a true flat earth believer.
There are measurements and maps that prove a round earth. Do you understand the WGS model? The path of the sun across the earth proves a round earth.
-
Dr Rowbotham already conducted an experiment to determine the true distance of the sun. A 2D map does not prove a round earth I'm afraid.
-
Oh look, tontogary badmouthing Dr Rowbotham yet again. Anyone would think he's got nothing else to do with his time...
Anyway, how is this 'proof'? It's not. A compass points north and all I've seen from you is speculation. The top scientific boffins of the day couldn't disprove Dr Rowbotham, yet you apparently can now. Hmmm. Tom has already posted a quote that proves Dr Rowbotham correct.
Examining the Charlatans flawed statements and providing experiments and actual physics of why they are false is called badmouthing is it?
You should listen to your mentors words, and not be so hypocritical!
“The true business of a critic is to compare what he reads with known and provable data, to treat impartially the evidence he observes, and point out logical deficiencies and inconsistencies with first principles, but never to obtrude his own opinions. He should, in fact, at all times take the place of Astrea, the Goddess of Justice, and firmly hold the scales, in which the evidence is fairly weighed.
I advise all my readers who have become Zetetic not to be content with anything less than this; and also not to look with disfavour upon the objections of their opponents. Should such objections be well or even plausibly founded, they will only tend to free us from error, and to purify and exalt our Zetetic philosophy.”
You should in fact be thanking me for helping your “Zetetic philosophy” understand the real world!
Please, I know full well what Dr Rowbotham opened his book with, but all you do it disrespect his memory and badmouth him at every opportunity.
His statements are not flawed. Yours are. He provided facts, equations, and statistics to back up his research. Unlike you, however, who is nothing more than an armchair 'scientist', whose 'experiments' amount to posting some guff on the internet and proclaiming it to be true, while the other round earthers proclaim you to be absolutely correct in all that you say. You've already been proved wrong. Not by me. Not by Tom. By Dr Rowbotham. You have yet to provide one shred of evidence that
1) Dr Rowbotham was a charlatan
2) His experiments were incorrect
3) That earth is round
And yes, you do badmouth him. Calling him 'charlatan Rowbotham' constantly and saying his experiments were wrong is pretty disrespectful. The top scientific minds of the day did not prove him wrong, and neither are you. So post your 'experiments', which is nothing more than a wall of text on a forum. He is remembered today. I somehow doubt you and your 'experiments' will be remembered over 100 years from now, no, you'll simply be lost in the mists of time.
If you are so correct in all that you say, prove one thing. One thing and I will believe you.
Prove to me Dr Rowbotham was a charlatan and not a true flat earth believer.
If you know full well what he opened the book with, and are a follower of his writings, surely you should follow them all, or do you get to choose which bits to follow? I do not have to respect a person who also in turn disrespects almost every eminent scientist mentioned in his book. Newton being a chief among them, along with Herschel, and a bunch of others. I am doing what he says, critiquing the statements and experiments, and showing why such statements as the needle always points directly to the pole are flawed.
I have already been warned by Junker to stoop using that term, but i guess it is relative to your question, i will answer it, but cannot understand however, why you never get warned for personal attacks, and ranting, i am led to believe that you are an ALT of Junker; but in this context i am answering your question.
From the dictionary;
Charlatan;
a person falsely claiming to have a special knowledge or skill.”
synonyms: quack, mountebank, sham, fraud, fake, humbug, impostor, pretender, masquerader, hoodwinker, hoaxer, cheat, deceiver, dissembler, double-dealer, double-crosser, trickster, confidence trickster, cheater, swindler, fraudster, racketeer.
Which is pretty much an apt description of him, in my OPINION.
If your OPINION of him was that he was a doctor, without any proof, then MY OPINION of him is the term I used. I never anywhere said that he was not a flat earth believer. He may have believed in a flat earth, but certainly he claimed to have a special knowledge about the earth being flat, when all the empirical evidence points to it being round, so yes i think my Opinion is correct.
Which gets us knowhere. I agreed to stop using the term to avoid arguments and bans, and would hoped you would do the same, but it looks like you have a get out of jail free card, and are able to use whatever language you wish. It’s like tying to debate and being only allowed a 1/4 of the dictionary.
Anyway on to the topic;
I am exploring the “proofs” provided in EnaG and was hoping for a rational discussion, other than “He was true, you are wrong.” That does not add anything to the discussion at all.
Exploring why someone is wrong is not disrespectful. Again i refer you to his preface that i copied, and you copied.
As for providing evidence that experiments in EnaG are flawed, I am pretty certain I did. The pictures of the magnetic field around a bar magnet and the picture provided in ENAG along with his assertion that the needle points directly to the pole are evidence that his statement is incorrect, and therefore flawed at 1st principles.
This then can be taken (in the same way he uses the argument) that the “earth cannot be plane so must be global”.
I see yourself have not advanced any theories yourself other than EnaG proves xxxx or yyyy.
When you can back up your slavish beliefs of dodgy annecdotal experiments heavily reliant on 3rd party accounts taken from articles written in journals or magazines, with modern day observations and accurate measurements i will take you more seriously.
As for Tom Bishops statements i will address that in another post.
-
Not all magnets make that shape. A magnet with a North and South pole closer together would make a more circular and radial magnetic field. It was also unknown if there was more than one magnetic element in the earth -- if we introduce the concept of multiple magnets, a whole variety of shapes could be made.
Before the mid 1800's it was known that the earth was magnetic in some form, but the exact layout of the fields was unknown. Your accusation that Rowtham did not know about the layout of the earth's magnetic field is misplaced, since it was just then being studied on a large scale at that time.
Rowbotham's conclusions based on the premises provided are accurate. If a premise is wrong, it means that some Round Earth academic was wrong, since that is where they are taken from.
So if there was little known about magnetism why were ships using compasses to navigate for centuries before?
You do however concede that large scale studies were done in Mid 1800s, but as normal, you wont admit to the date, as it somewhat dispels your argument. It was 1840, a full decade before the first 16 page “pamphlet was written, and a full 30 years before the edition of EnaG that i am reading was published.
If he didnt take into account modern “at that time” scientific studies, then he cannot have been availing himself of the latest information, however the simple experiments to place a small compass needle next to a bar magnet was done and understood in the 15th century, so yes it was known.
As for your statements about the magnetic field, I would challenge you to come upo with a theory, or show in EnaG where it describes 2 poles? Other magnetic influences? And how that produces the result that was stated in EnaG, that the “dip at the equator is 0 and increases with lattitude until it becomes maximum at the Center.” This statement is taken in the book to be easily shown and without doubt.
As no evidence, theory or otherwise is put forward, there is no evidence to dispel RE theory.
Multiple poles? (Other than N in the Artic, and S in the Antarctic) That would be interesting, and i would love to see how that works, along with flux diagrams and how it works. Also how does that affect compasses used in navigation, air as well as marine compasses? They are used to navigate the world, and if there are random magnetic fields putting things out of whack, there should have been many many more ships and aircraft lost!
Radial earths magnetism, interesting hypothesis, but how does that work, or is this just another case of throwing different multiple theories, all of which are unproven and contradictory in order to confuse the debate? I am afraid you cannot just throw random theories into a debate, with nothing to back them up, and expect to be taken seriously.
The drawing in Enag clearly shows that he was wrong, and if a first principle is wrong, then the entire experiment is invalid.
As for a shorter bar magnet, you are correct, however if the bar is shorter the field produced will still be horizontal at the equator, but weaker. When the dip goes from N seeking down, then to N seeking up, there MUST be a point where the 2 vertical forces are 0 producing a horizontal only force.
-
If you know full well what he opened the book with, and are a follower of his writings, surely you should follow them all, or do you get to choose which bits to follow? I do not have to respect a person who also in turn disrespects almost every eminent scientist mentioned in his book. Newton being a chief among them, along with Herschel, and a bunch of others. I am doing what he says, critiquing the statements and experiments, and showing why such statements as the needle always points directly to the pole are flawed.
I have already been warned by Junker to stoop using that term, but i guess it is relative to your question, i will answer it, but cannot understand however, why you never get warned for personal attacks, and ranting, i am led to believe that you are an ALT of Junker; but in this context i am answering your question.
From the dictionary;
Charlatan;
a person falsely claiming to have a special knowledge or skill.”
synonyms: quack, mountebank, sham, fraud, fake, humbug, impostor, pretender, masquerader, hoodwinker, hoaxer, cheat, deceiver, dissembler, double-dealer, double-crosser, trickster, confidence trickster, cheater, swindler, fraudster, racketeer.
Which is pretty much an apt description of him, in my OPINION.
If your OPINION of him was that he was a doctor, without any proof, then MY OPINION of him is the term I used. I never anywhere said that he was not a flat earth believer. He may have believed in a flat earth, but certainly he claimed to have a special knowledge about the earth being flat, when all the empirical evidence points to it being round, so yes i think my Opinion is correct.
Which gets us knowhere. I agreed to stop using the term to avoid arguments and bans, and would hoped you would do the same, but it looks like you have a get out of jail free card, and are able to use whatever language you wish. It’s like tying to debate and being only allowed a 1/4 of the dictionary.
Anyway on to the topic;
I am exploring the “proofs” provided in EnaG and was hoping for a rational discussion, other than “He was true, you are wrong.” That does not add anything to the discussion at all.
Exploring why someone is wrong is not disrespectful. Again i refer you to his preface that i copied, and you copied.
As for providing evidence that experiments in EnaG are flawed, I am pretty certain I did. The pictures of the magnetic field around a bar magnet and the picture provided in ENAG along with his assertion that the needle points directly to the pole are evidence that his statement is incorrect, and therefore flawed at 1st principles.
This then can be taken (in the same way he uses the argument) that the “earth cannot be plane so must be global”.
I see yourself have not advanced any theories yourself other than EnaG proves xxxx or yyyy.
When you can back up your slavish beliefs of dodgy annecdotal experiments heavily reliant on 3rd party accounts taken from articles written in journals or magazines, with modern day observations and accurate measurements i will take you more seriously.
As for Tom Bishops statements i will address that in another post.
No, I don't cherry pick what Dr Rowbotham says, I've been very fair to people here. You, on the other hand, are different. You personally disrespect the memory of Dr Rowbotham and post 'experiments' which are nothing more than a post on a forum. That's not an experiment, it's a message board post.
And it's also outrageous how you imply he's a charlatan. Now I've called you out you backtrack and say it's your opinion, which is still incorrect. You say he's not a Dr, yet can provide no proof whatsoever to back up those claims. We can at least point to his grave, what have you got? Oh yeah, he didn't go to uni in Germany or America. Because as we know, all doctors in those days went to Germany and America, none of them qualified domestically ::)
And nowhere in his book does he claim to have 'special knowledge'. That's a claim you've simply made up right now.
If you simply disagreed with him, that's fine. But constantly calling him charlatan is not respectful.
The evidence in his book was logically sound and the facts are irrefutable. Earth is not a globe.
I can see that you've not proved anything, and instead spouted out what amounts to
"Charlatan Rowbotham was wrong, I've sailed around the world (apparently) so I am right"
The articles he mentioned were referred to, his outright experiments did not rely on newspaper sources. You'd know this if you read his book properly. You have yet to prove him wrong.
Perhaps you should get out of the armchair, rethink your slavish beliefs, and maybe, just maybe, you'll start to think for yourself. The evidence points to earth being flat, though I doubt it. You are so blinkered in your views that nothing whatsoever would sway you. We could take to to space and show you the earth being flat and you still wouldn't believe.
There are none so blind as those who cannot see.
-
You say he's not a Dr, yet can provide no proof whatsoever to back up those claims. We can at least point to his grave, what have you got?
How are you expecting anyone to prove a negative?
Rowbotham proclaiming himself a doctor, him putting it on his gravestone and other people calling him a doctor is not proof he was one.
Do you think Dr Dre has a PHd?
He might well have just claimed to be a doctor in order to give credence to his theories.
If you claim he really was a doctor then it shouldn't be hard to look at records from the time to establish where he studied, from looking at previous debates on here about this it seems no records of him studying where he claimed to have been found. Now, that doesn't prove he's a charlatan, from what I've read the searches were not exhaustive, but it doesn't prove he was a doctor either.
Even if he was a doctor, was his doctorate in a subject which gives him any authority in the scientific fields he was discussing?
Honestly, I don't care whether he was a doctor or not. All modern science shows Rowbotham to be wrong.
There is no flat earth map or model which in any way works and matches observations. The globe earth has been observed.
There are none so blind as those who cannot see.
Finally, you've written something I agree with...
-
Perhaps you should get out of the armchair,.
That is genuinely hilarious. Talking to someone who has literally navigated around the world and telling them to get out of their armchair. Yeah, stop going around the world measuring things for yourself. Read a book and watch some YouTube videos! That navigation is just going to mislead you.
It's becoming increasingly obvious what Parallax is up to, but I don't thing the FE community have clocked it yet.
-
Dr Rowbotham already conducted an experiment to determine the true distance of the sun. A 2D map does not prove a round earth I'm afraid.
2D map doesn't prove any Earth.
It is just projection as close as can be after conversion from curved ground to flat paper.
If it was "flat ground to flat paper" there wouldn't be any distortions and making Accurate Flat Earth Map would be a piece of cake.
"Dr" Rowbotham conducted "experiment" that skips the spectrum of the Sun. (Let's ignore other flaws for now.)
Spectral analysis shows exactly what is happening there: nuclear fusion of hydrogen.
Spectral lines also show which other elements are there and in what percentage.
Experiments with hydrogen bomb back in 50s taught us what pressure is needed for hydrogen fusion.
It is easy to calculate what mass/volume is needed to achieve that pressure.
The pressure in 45 kilometers Sun is not even close to be enough.
Pressure in 1 391 400 kilometers Sun is just about right.
For Sun that big to have angular diameter of 0.53 degrees, you need distance of about 150 million kilometers.
Now try to tell us that it would be a "problem for Almighty" to make Sun that big and that far. :)
-
If you know full well what he opened the book with, and are a follower of his writings, surely you should follow them all, or do you get to choose which bits to follow? I do not have to respect a person who also in turn disrespects almost every eminent scientist mentioned in his book. Newton being a chief among them, along with Herschel, and a bunch of others. I am doing what he says, critiquing the statements and experiments, and showing why such statements as the needle always points directly to the pole are flawed.
I have already been warned by Junker to stoop using that term, but i guess it is relative to your question, i will answer it, but cannot understand however, why you never get warned for personal attacks, and ranting, i am led to believe that you are an ALT of Junker; but in this context i am answering your question.
From the dictionary;
Charlatan;
a person falsely claiming to have a special knowledge or skill.”
synonyms: quack, mountebank, sham, fraud, fake, humbug, impostor, pretender, masquerader, hoodwinker, hoaxer, cheat, deceiver, dissembler, double-dealer, double-crosser, trickster, confidence trickster, cheater, swindler, fraudster, racketeer.
Which is pretty much an apt description of him, in my OPINION.
If your OPINION of him was that he was a doctor, without any proof, then MY OPINION of him is the term I used. I never anywhere said that he was not a flat earth believer. He may have believed in a flat earth, but certainly he claimed to have a special knowledge about the earth being flat, when all the empirical evidence points to it being round, so yes i think my Opinion is correct.
Which gets us knowhere. I agreed to stop using the term to avoid arguments and bans, and would hoped you would do the same, but it looks like you have a get out of jail free card, and are able to use whatever language you wish. It’s like tying to debate and being only allowed a 1/4 of the dictionary.
Anyway on to the topic;
I am exploring the “proofs” provided in EnaG and was hoping for a rational discussion, other than “He was true, you are wrong.” That does not add anything to the discussion at all.
Exploring why someone is wrong is not disrespectful. Again i refer you to his preface that i copied, and you copied.
As for providing evidence that experiments in EnaG are flawed, I am pretty certain I did. The pictures of the magnetic field around a bar magnet and the picture provided in ENAG along with his assertion that the needle points directly to the pole are evidence that his statement is incorrect, and therefore flawed at 1st principles.
This then can be taken (in the same way he uses the argument) that the “earth cannot be plane so must be global”.
I see yourself have not advanced any theories yourself other than EnaG proves xxxx or yyyy.
When you can back up your slavish beliefs of dodgy annecdotal experiments heavily reliant on 3rd party accounts taken from articles written in journals or magazines, with modern day observations and accurate measurements i will take you more seriously.
As for Tom Bishops statements i will address that in another post.
No, I don't cherry pick what Dr Rowbotham says, I've been very fair to people here. You, on the other hand, are different. You personally disrespect the memory of Dr Rowbotham and post 'experiments' which are nothing more than a post on a forum. That's not an experiment, it's a message board post.
And it's also outrageous how you imply he's a charlatan. Now I've called you out you backtrack and say it's your opinion, which is still incorrect. You say he's not a Dr, yet can provide no proof whatsoever to back up those claims. We can at least point to his grave, what have you got? Oh yeah, he didn't go to uni in Germany or America. Because as we know, all doctors in those days went to Germany and America, none of them qualified domestically ::)
And nowhere in his book does he claim to have 'special knowledge'. That's a claim you've simply made up right now.
If you simply disagreed with him, that's fine. But constantly calling him charlatan is not respectful.
The evidence in his book was logically sound and the facts are irrefutable. Earth is not a globe.
I can see that you've not proved anything, and instead spouted out what amounts to
"Charlatan Rowbotham was wrong, I've sailed around the world (apparently) so I am right"
The articles he mentioned were referred to, his outright experiments did not rely on newspaper sources. You'd know this if you read his book properly. You have yet to prove him wrong.
Perhaps you should get out of the armchair, rethink your slavish beliefs, and maybe, just maybe, you'll start to think for yourself. The evidence points to earth being flat, though I doubt it. You are so blinkered in your views that nothing whatsoever would sway you. We could take to to space and show you the earth being flat and you still wouldn't believe.
There are none so blind as those who cannot see.
Sounds like an angry rant to me!
Firstly i have provided my credentials in a previous thread, so they should be in no doubt, you dont get a Master Mariners licence by sitting in an armchair, but just to wipe the smug smile off your face;
My last 2 noon reports sent to my company show that we were as follows,
Yesterday 21 49.5N 126 51.2E and today 15 25.6N 127 25.8E we are travelling from Asia to Australia, i am afraid i cannot give out precise details of my vessels name exact route or other data due to security.
I am not in an armchair but on a ship.
I have been making observations and providing proof, but all you do is insult me personally, and try to discredit me, well I ain’t going anywhere, and i will continue to explore EnaG. I will quote him as often as i like, it is you who disrespect him and his memory by refusing to follow his words, and having a closed mind to any possibility of being wrong.
However it is also not you, your sum total to the forums so far as i can see is saying anyone who does not agree with you is wrong, and yet you do not offer ANY single idea, proof or evidence other than EnaG proves it.
I stopped calling that person a Charlatan to avoid a ban by Junker, nothing to do with you. I really could not give 2 hoots what you think he was, i have my opinion and you, yours, and yes they are both opinions. You prove a positive I will agree. You provide no proof, sorry tough for you.
I have provided explanations as to why his observations on magnetic force and direction is wrong, but you say I have not, seems like you dont want to know rational descriptions and understandable repeatable evidence.
I can only conclude your throwing your toys out of the Pham, and personal insults are aimed at trying to get me banned, as i am getting too close to providing the irrefutable proofs needed to burst the FE bubble, sorry it wont work, and on that note I will go onto explore a further “proof” laid out in EnaG....
-
So Enag does not refer to newspapers??
Maybe you should consult the list on page 426, which is titled
List of Works, Newspapers, periodicals, public correspondence,and (scripture texts??) reffered to or quoted from[/u]
Just glancing down I see;
Boston post 1856, P 92,
Brighton Examiner, 1870, P107,
Cheltenham Examiner, 1865, P95,
Liverpool Mercury, 1867, P97,
Etc etc etc.
The list of newspapers is quite long.
Care to continue claiming he didnt refer to newspaper articles for his “proofs”??
Maybe you should actually read the book, and understand what is written before making false claims that you cannot substantiate.
-
If you know full well what he opened the book with, and are a follower of his writings, surely you should follow them all, or do you get to choose which bits to follow? I do not have to respect a person who also in turn disrespects almost every eminent scientist mentioned in his book. Newton being a chief among them, along with Herschel, and a bunch of others. I am doing what he says, critiquing the statements and experiments, and showing why such statements as the needle always points directly to the pole are flawed.
I have already been warned by Junker to stoop using that term, but i guess it is relative to your question, i will answer it, but cannot understand however, why you never get warned for personal attacks, and ranting, i am led to believe that you are an ALT of Junker; but in this context i am answering your question.
From the dictionary;
Charlatan;
a person falsely claiming to have a special knowledge or skill.”
synonyms: quack, mountebank, sham, fraud, fake, humbug, impostor, pretender, masquerader, hoodwinker, hoaxer, cheat, deceiver, dissembler, double-dealer, double-crosser, trickster, confidence trickster, cheater, swindler, fraudster, racketeer.
Which is pretty much an apt description of him, in my OPINION.
If your OPINION of him was that he was a doctor, without any proof, then MY OPINION of him is the term I used. I never anywhere said that he was not a flat earth believer. He may have believed in a flat earth, but certainly he claimed to have a special knowledge about the earth being flat, when all the empirical evidence points to it being round, so yes i think my Opinion is correct.
Which gets us knowhere. I agreed to stop using the term to avoid arguments and bans, and would hoped you would do the same, but it looks like you have a get out of jail free card, and are able to use whatever language you wish. It’s like tying to debate and being only allowed a 1/4 of the dictionary.
Anyway on to the topic;
I am exploring the “proofs” provided in EnaG and was hoping for a rational discussion, other than “He was true, you are wrong.” That does not add anything to the discussion at all.
Exploring why someone is wrong is not disrespectful. Again i refer you to his preface that i copied, and you copied.
As for providing evidence that experiments in EnaG are flawed, I am pretty certain I did. The pictures of the magnetic field around a bar magnet and the picture provided in ENAG along with his assertion that the needle points directly to the pole are evidence that his statement is incorrect, and therefore flawed at 1st principles.
This then can be taken (in the same way he uses the argument) that the “earth cannot be plane so must be global”.
I see yourself have not advanced any theories yourself other than EnaG proves xxxx or yyyy.
When you can back up your slavish beliefs of dodgy annecdotal experiments heavily reliant on 3rd party accounts taken from articles written in journals or magazines, with modern day observations and accurate measurements i will take you more seriously.
As for Tom Bishops statements i will address that in another post.
No, I don't cherry pick what Dr Rowbotham says, I've been very fair to people here. You, on the other hand, are different. You personally disrespect the memory of Dr Rowbotham and post 'experiments' which are nothing more than a post on a forum. That's not an experiment, it's a message board post.
And it's also outrageous how you imply he's a charlatan. Now I've called you out you backtrack and say it's your opinion, which is still incorrect. You say he's not a Dr, yet can provide no proof whatsoever to back up those claims. We can at least point to his grave, what have you got? Oh yeah, he didn't go to uni in Germany or America. Because as we know, all doctors in those days went to Germany and America, none of them qualified domestically ::)
And nowhere in his book does he claim to have 'special knowledge'. That's a claim you've simply made up right now.
If you simply disagreed with him, that's fine. But constantly calling him charlatan is not respectful.
The evidence in his book was logically sound and the facts are irrefutable. Earth is not a globe.
I can see that you've not proved anything, and instead spouted out what amounts to
"Charlatan Rowbotham was wrong, I've sailed around the world (apparently) so I am right"
The articles he mentioned were referred to, his outright experiments did not rely on newspaper sources. You'd know this if you read his book properly. You have yet to prove him wrong.
Perhaps you should get out of the armchair, rethink your slavish beliefs, and maybe, just maybe, you'll start to think for yourself. The evidence points to earth being flat, though I doubt it. You are so blinkered in your views that nothing whatsoever would sway you. We could take to to space and show you the earth being flat and you still wouldn't believe.
There are none so blind as those who cannot see.
Sounds like an angry rant to me!
Firstly i have provided my credentials in a previous thread, so they should be in no doubt, you dont get a Master Mariners licence by sitting in an armchair, but just to wipe the smug smile off your face;
My last 2 noon reports sent to my company show that we were as follows,
Yesterday 21 49.5N 126 51.2E and today 15 25.6N 127 25.8E we are travelling from Asia to Australia, i am afraid i cannot give out precise details of my vessels name exact route or other data due to security.
I am not in an armchair but on a ship.
I have been making observations and providing proof, but all you do is insult me personally, and try to discredit me, well I ain’t going anywhere, and i will continue to explore EnaG. I will quote him as often as i like, it is you who disrespect him and his memory by refusing to follow his words, and having a closed mind to any possibility of being wrong.
However it is also not you, your sum total to the forums so far as i can see is saying anyone who does not agree with you is wrong, and yet you do not offer ANY single idea, proof or evidence other than EnaG proves it.
I stopped calling that person a Charlatan to avoid a ban by Junker, nothing to do with you. I really could not give 2 hoots what you think he was, i have my opinion and you, yours, and yes they are both opinions. You prove a positive I will agree. You provide no proof, sorry tough for you.
I have provided explanations as to why his observations on magnetic force and direction is wrong, but you say I have not, seems like you dont want to know rational descriptions and understandable repeatable evidence.
I can only conclude your throwing your toys out of the Pham, and personal insults are aimed at trying to get me banned, as i am getting too close to providing the irrefutable proofs needed to burst the FE bubble, sorry it wont work, and on that note I will go onto explore a further “proof” laid out in EnaG....
Oh don't worry, you haven't wiped any 'smug smile' off my face. I don't have one for starters.
You claim to be on a ship... well I suppose we'll just have to take your word for that then.
I'm not disrespecting his memory. In fact I honour Dr Rowbotham by following his work. I know it to be absolutely irrefutable proof of the earths lack of roundness, and happily debate with other people. You, on the other hand, make false claims about him being a charlatan, say his experiments were conducted incorrectly leading to incorrect results, and question him being a Dr. And you dare to question my respect? I happily question others, but you are downright insulting to his memory.
Though its hilarious how you claim to be close to providing irrefutable proof earth is round. You on a crusade or something? Again, Dr Rowbotham conducted his experiments over many years. You on the other hand, claim to conduct 'experiments', but its nothing more than a forum post on a website. That's not an experiment, that's typing guff on a keyboard. Dr Rowbotham was a well respected expert, remembered 134 years after his death. Who are you? You're nobody. I'd say you'd be lost to the mists of time, but hell, they've already engulfed you.
So Enag does not refer to newspapers??
Maybe you should consult the list on page 426, which is titled
List of Works, Newspapers, periodicals, public correspondence,and (scripture texts??) reffered to or quoted from[/u]
Just glancing down I see;
Boston post 1856, P 92,
Brighton Examiner, 1870, P107,
Cheltenham Examiner, 1865, P95,
Liverpool Mercury, 1867, P97,
Etc etc etc.
The list of newspapers is quite long.
Care to continue claiming he didnt refer to newspaper articles for his “proofs”??
Maybe you should actually read the book, and understand what is written before making false claims that you cannot substantiate.
I said he didn't rely on newspaper sources. Rely. He didn't. I know he referenced them.
Go back to your armchair, nobody.
-
Dr Rowbotham conducted his experiments over many years.
...and recorded the results in his writings
You on the other hand, claim to conduct 'experiments', but its nothing more than a forum post on a website. That's not an experiment, that's typing guff on a keyboard.
...as opposed to Rowbotham's guff in a book?
What do you have of Rowbotham's 'experiments' apart from his writings?
-
Dr Rowbotham conducted his experiments over many years.
...and recorded the results in his writings
You on the other hand, claim to conduct 'experiments', but its nothing more than a forum post on a website. That's not an experiment, that's typing guff on a keyboard.
...as opposed to Rowbotham's guff in a book?
What do you have of Rowbotham's 'experiments' apart from his writings?
Again with the disrespect. These round earth heretics are bang out of order.
Dr Rowbotham produced actual tried and tested experiments. They can be recreated today and the results come out the same, unless you use some flawed round earth method which gives God only knows what results.
-
Yeah A Nobody i like that, i dont want to be remembered if a tenth of what is written about him is true! Embarrassing !
Makes you sort of the sheep. Can’t think for yourself can you? only insult others who have the temerity to question your great leaders preachings, not matter they are flawed.
I on the other hand am able to show by observatiuons and experience that he was flawed in his arguments and used incorrect data. I have provided credentials, so where are yours? I would be classed as a subject matter expert in a court, so feel thats i do actually have the knowledge and experience to debate the points.
You on the other hand stoop to childish name calling that has no place in the forum.
I am still waiting for Junker to say boo to you, but I think you are one and the same.
As for providing proof i have done so, but see you are not prepared to debate the science behind it? Care to elaboorate that for me? Why not? Oh cos it doesn’t say how to in EnaG so you cant. I on the other hand can, and will continue to explore and critique his assumptions.
I have shown earths magnetic field resulting from a bar magnet, explained Dip, and shown why his first principle is wrong.
EnaG does Rely on newspaper articles, the data retrieved from them he used to try to prop up some of his arguments, but it is laughable really when you read the accounts of such and such who claimed in a newspaper did this, and saw that, or this, and then those figures or experiences are used as irrefutable proof and data is taken from them to show his workings.
Very unscientific, and would be laughed at in todays scientific community for the lack of proper method, and his approach to some of his experiments.
Anyway as I dont have an armchair i will retire for the night, i was going to take a series of altitudes of Polaris this evening , but it was cloudy, so couldn’t, but will persevere in exploring the science.
I suggest you climb back into your playpen!
-
Yeah your constant disrespect and clear obsession of Dr Rowbotham is pretty embarrassing.
I can think for myself, thanks. I was round earth, but then I questioned everything and found Dr Rowbothams work. It was revolutionary, truly eye opening. If I'm a sheep for accepting the work of a visionary such as Dr Rowbotham, then I guess I'm a sheep.
And its a bit hypocritical to question 'childish name calling' when you only stopped saying 'charlatan Rowbotham' because you didn't want Junkers banhammer brought down.
Also you haven't provided any proof. You conducted zero experiments, simply posted some stuff on a forum, and proclaimed it true. For God's sake, you've even claimed to be close to providing 'irrefutable proof' that the earth is round. Some messiah complex you got there.
Dr Rowbotham didn't rely on newspaper articles either. He referred to them sometimes, and referenced them, but he didn't rely on them at all. Most of his experiments did not reference them. Though its hilarious how if Dr Rowbotham referenced an article, he's useless. Yet this forum is full of round earth heretics quoting some website, and its totally fine. Hmmm....
So enjoy your night. Your nothing more than a nobody who isn't even worth of being mentioned in the same breath as Dr Samuel Rowbotham. Your a nobody, and deserve to be treated like the arrogant, disrespectful little worm you are.
-
Wait, are we talking about the same clown who drew the pictures found here https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect ? Ha ha ha, what an embarrassment. You do realize that he just made this up, right, just to plug another hole in this crappy theory? He provides exactly 0 evidence or explanation for why point H in the 2nd picture is magically lower than in the the 1st, and all the flattards bow down and take his word on faith.
What has this liar done to earn any respect?
Yeah your constant disrespect and clear obsession of Dr Rowbotham is pretty embarrassing.
I can think for myself, thanks. I was round earth, but then I questioned everything and found Dr Rowbothams work. It was revolutionary, truly eye opening. If I'm a sheep for accepting the work of a visionary such as Dr Rowbotham, then I guess I'm a sheep.
And its a bit hypocritical to question 'childish name calling' when you only stopped saying 'charlatan Rowbotham' because you didn't want Junkers banhammer brought down.
Also you haven't provided any proof. You conducted zero experiments, simply posted some stuff on a forum, and proclaimed it true. For God's sake, you've even claimed to be close to providing 'irrefutable proof' that the earth is round. Some messiah complex you got there.
Dr Rowbotham didn't rely on newspaper articles either. He referred to them sometimes, and referenced them, but he didn't rely on them at all. Most of his experiments did not reference them. Though its hilarious how if Dr Rowbotham referenced an article, he's useless. Yet this forum is full of round earth heretics quoting some website, and its totally fine. Hmmm....
So enjoy your night. Your nothing more than a nobody who isn't even worth of being mentioned in the same breath as Dr Samuel Rowbotham. Your a nobody, and deserve to be treated like the arrogant, disrespectful little worm you are.
-
Carl Gauss is usually credited with being the first to make detailed observations of the field's direction and strength around 1840. Let me re-emphasis both direction and strength. Others observed direction prior to Gauss, other observed strength prior to Gauss. Gauss applied his mathematical genius and created model from the measurements of both direction and strength.
Tom's statement suggesting that the Earth's magnetic field was just being studied on a large scale only beginning around the mid 1800's seems patently false.
Declination and inclination were discovered prior to 1544. It seems that [in Europe] the Earth's magnetic field was correctly being described as a bar magnet since 1600.
Someone at some time may have had a theory that it was like a bar magnet. But that was not confirmed until the mid-1800's.
You're making baseless citations, Tom. I cite Halley's expedition 1698-1700, the one where he set out to locate 4 magnetic poles. Obviously, he was not successful and confirmed a dipole model.
It seems that the general layout was understood to be a dipole bar magnet slightly inclined to the axis of rotation in 1600. It was only the intensity that was not first measured in 1791, and modeled (detailed) for both direction and strength around 1840.
You know what, just read the article yourself...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_geomagnetism
I don't know what premises Rowbotham based his premises on, it certainly doesn't appear to be the what was actually know about magnetism at the time.
Nothing was known about the earth's magnetic field until large scale studies were made of it.
How do you know what was known, in 18xx. Where you there? No? Then you have an opinion. Your opinion is "Nothing was known about the earth's magnetic field until large scale studies were made of it." However, there sure was a lot of work done and documented on it before 18xx. Halley had the Earth magnetic field mapped for declination by 1701.
Why does it seem like he didn't know about this?
At that time the nature of the magnetic pole was hypothesis, of which there were many. It took large scale study to determine which was the best.
So what your saying is Rowbotham's hypothesis was just one of many and the large scale study shows it's not the best?
Do you even read, Bro?
Magnetism has been known since prehistory, but knowledge of the Earth's field developed slowly. The horizontal direction of the Earth's field was first measured in the fourth century BC but the vertical direction was not measured until 1544 AD and the intensity was first measured in 1791. At first, compasses were thought to point towards locations in the heavens, then towards magnetic mountains. A modern experimental approach to understanding the Earth's field began with de Magnete, a book published by William Gilbert in 1600.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Magnete
In his work, Gilbert described many of his experiments with his model Earth called the terrella.
5. Magnetic dip. The angle of inclination (dip) of a compass to the horizon differs according to latitude. He shows how to construct a dip instrument. At the equator it is level and increases towards the poles as he has shown earlier with his terrella.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrella
A terrella (Latin for "little earth") is a small magnetised model ball representing the Earth, that is thought to have been invented by the English physician William Gilbert while investigating magnetism[...]
[...]
William Gilbert, the royal physician to Queen Elizabeth I, devoted much of his time, energy and resources to the study of the Earth's magnetism. It had been known for centuries that a freely suspended compass needle pointed north. Earlier investigators (including Christopher Columbus) found that direction deviated somewhat from true north, and Robert Norman showed the force on the needle was not horizontal but slanted into the Earth.
William Gilbert's explanation was that the Earth itself was a giant magnet, and he demonstrated this by creating a scale model of the magnetic Earth, a "terrella", a sphere formed out of a lodestone. Passing a small compass over the terrella, Gilbert demonstrated that a horizontal compass would point towards the magnetic pole, while a dip needle, balanced on a horizontal axis perpendicular to the magnetic one, indicated the proper "magnetic inclination" between the magnetic force and the horizontal direction. Gilbert later reported his findings in De Magnete, Magneticisque Corporibus, et de Magno Magnete Tellure, published in 1600.
This wasn't thought experiment theory, these where findings discovered through observational science, using a model of the Earth magnetic field. More importantly, it was know since 1600 that a dig needle would lay horizontal at the Equator (and therefore a compass would as well).
Tom, just to verify, you basic position is:
That Gilbert, Norman, Nautonier, Borough, Guenter, Gellibrand, Bond, Perkins, Halley and others contributed nothing to the understanding of the geomagnetism throughout the 1600's. You 'know' what people knew in 18xx, because, you were there, [or possibly you have opinions, but then that isn't 'knowing' is it?]. Nobody knew nothing about magnetic fields before Gauss, including Rowbotham. And Gauss show's us Rowbotham's theory, one of many at the time, is not the best.
Correct?
[sarcasm]
[Validly] None of us know [except Tom, apparently he was there] what the exact understanding of the Earth Magnetic field was in 18xx [that would be 18-whatever] or the speed at which such information was disseminated.
Perhaps, Rowbotham made the best observations with the best equipment available to him and the best understanding he had.
Perhaps since {via Tom] "Nothing was known about the earth's magnetic field until large scale studies were made of it." [in the 1840s] he thought a compass needle was a mono-pole, and would only be subject to a dipping force from the Northerly direction, in which case his conclusion is correct, the needle should dip at the horizon.
Guess that's not bad seeing as [according to Tom] until Gauss in 1840 [despite a lot of evidence indicating geomagnetism was known to possess both horizontal and vertical components since 1544, and a global magnetic field was mapped for declination by 1701] nothing was previously known about the magnetic field, shouldn't we all realize that Rowbotham's conclusion, while a valiant effort for it's time, was incorrect.
Now that we know about magnet fields and stuff [thanks Gauss, screw all the other people that didn't contribute. Yeah I'm talking to you Gilbert, Norman, Nautonier, Borough, Guenter, Gellibrand, Bond, Perkins and Halley, among other, all the work yinz did before 1700 don't amount 541T, you are all notable for discovering NOTHING!!!!] If Rowbotham had access to the Gauss model, he clearly would have correctly assessed that the needle should, in fact be horizontal at the Equator. [Because it really takes a detailed study of of direction and strength to validate that such a simple thing being observed since 1544, actually happen]
[ /sarcasm]
-
Also you haven't provided any proof. You conducted zero experiments, simply posted some stuff on a forum, and proclaimed it true. For God's sake, you've even claimed to be close to providing 'irrefutable proof' that the earth is round. Some messiah complex you got there.
How is that any different than what you're doing?
I've yet to see any experiments from you or any evidence that isn't just "Dr. Rowbotham said".
Going by your logic all of your proofs are just "posts on a forum".
-
So enjoy your night. Your nothing more than a nobody who isn't even worth of being mentioned in the same breath as Dr Samuel Rowbotham. Your a nobody, and deserve to be treated like the arrogant, disrespectful little worm you are.
This is primarily sad. OK, it's idiotic, and rude, and unpleasant, but I'd be very surprised if Tontogary were to lose a moment's sleep over it. It's just noise really.
The sad part is that Parallax is nominally someone with an interest in science, in inquiry, in learning about how the Earth works. He insists that he wants to investigate things for himself, that he has an independent viewpoint.
And here we have someone who spends his time actually navigating around the world. He takes ships thousands of miles, over open sea with no land in sight, and they arrive at the correct destination. He's actually come on here giving of his time to explain how this works - how he actually figures out where on the planet he is.
Now, as someone with an interest in the subject, I recognise how privileged I am to have access to this. It's by far the most interesting thing to be posted on this forum since I first encountered it. It's a source of actual hard data. Isn't that fantastic?
But Parallax, the supposed free-spirited enquirer, has no interest in that kind of thing. He doesn't want to know about actual measurements taken by an actual person he can talk to. He's just as free-spirited and open-minded as any religious fundamentalist. If the holy text is contradicted by someone's first-hand observation, too bad for first-hand observation.
So what would convince someone like Parallax? He's not convinced by testimony from actual people. He has no intention of doing any actual research of his own. He's easily convinced by the nonsensical ramblings of the likes of pbrane, who was on the point of understanding basic optics, but then retreated into confusion and obfuscation about "perspective".
Obviously those of us who are actually independent thinkers instead of saying "I am an independent thinker"* would welcome as much information as possible - especially first-hand information. And we'd welcome information that challenges our assumptions. If a flat Earther comes up with an anomaly which appears to contradict the wealth of information that supports the shape of the globe, we should welcome it. It's not that we expect it to overturn the theory. It's that it will be inherently of interest, and if there are genuine observations that need to be explained, then we'll end up wiser from addressing them.
Of course, everybody posting here will proudly proclaim that they're an independent thinker. One can just the truth of the claim by their willingness to test their beliefs against reality.
-
I slept very well last night, was a calm night, and when i got up this morning i saw we had proceeded further along out track.
I wonder how we do it? As we obviously dont know what we are doing?
I think the best thing to do with Parallax is to ignore his personal attacks and insults. It is obvious he is one of the chosen ones who can insult people, spout racial abuse, and get away with it on this forum.
Back to the subject at hand;
This link takes you to a paper on what was known, when and different studies, and certainly by the time EnaG was published in 1881 there was an awful lot known about magnetism, and later studies were supporting what was widely accepted, and disproved others. Part of the Smithsonian institute papers. It’s authenticity will be no doubt will be questioned.
https://repository.si.edu/bitstream/handle/10088/2448/SSHT-0048_Lo_res.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y
It was known that the needle aligns itself with the magnetic lines of flux, and not directly at the pole by the time EnaG was written, so therefore to make the assumption that it did is an error of principle, that renders the statements in the chapter as untrustworthy, or cannot be relied upon.
-
Rowbotham didn't rely on newspaper articles either. He referred to them sometimes, and referenced them, but he didn't rely on them at all. Most of his experiments did not reference them. Though its hilarious how if Dr Rowbotham referenced an article, he's useless. Yet this forum is full of round earth heretics quoting some website, and its totally fine. Hmmm....
Please see below lifted directly from Enag, clearly he takes distances written in letters to newspapers, and uses that to develop his proof, the distances are wrong by the way!
If the data he scalped from newspapers is wrong, then his conclusion is wrong. It follows the old saying “Garbage in Garbage out”!
“The following extract furnishes additional evidence upon this important point:--
"EXTRAORDINARY VOYAGE.--Every yachtsman (says the Dublin Express), will share in the pride with which, a correspondent relates a brilliant, and, we believe, unexampled exploit which has just been performed by a small yacht of only 25 tons, which is not a stranger to the waters of Dublin Bay. The gallant little craft set out from Liverpool for the antipodes, and arrived safely in Sydney after a splendid run, performing the entire distance, 16,000 miles, in 130 days. Such an achievement affords grounds for reasonable exultation, not more as a proof of the nautical skill of our amateurs, than of their adventurous spirit, which quite casts in the shade the most daring feats of Alpine climbers." 1
A s the distance from Melbourne to Cape of Good Hope is 7140 nautical miles, as shown by the log of the Great Britain, and as the whole distance from Melbourne to Liverpool was 14,688 nautical miles, it follows that, deducting 7140 from 14,688, that the passage from the Cape of Good Hope to Liverpool was 7548 nautical miles. If we take this distance from the 16,000 miles, which the
p. 96
above mentioned yacht sailed to Sydney, we have as the distance between Cape of Good Hope and Sydney, 8452 nautical, or 9860 statute miles.
In a letter from Adelaide which appeared in the Leeds Mercury for April 20th, 1867, speaking of certain commercial difficulties which had existed there, the following incidental passage occurs:--
"Just as our harvest was being concluded, the first news arrived of anticipated dearth of breadstuffs at home. The times. were so hopelessly dull, money was so scarce, and the operation of shipping wheat a distance of 14,000 miles so dangerous, that for a long time the news had no practical effect."
From England to Adelaide is here stated as 14,000 nautical, or 16,333 statute miles; and as the difference of longitude between Adelaide and Sydney is 23 degrees, equal to 1534 statute miles, we find that from England to Sydney the distance is 17,867 statute miles. Taking from this the 7548 nautical, or 8806 statute miles, we have again 9061 statute miles as the distance between the Cape of Good Hope and Sydney.”
-
I slept very well last night, was a calm night, and when i got up this morning i saw we had proceeded further along out track.
I wonder how we do it? As we obviously dont know what we are doing?
I think the best thing to do with Parallax is to ignore his personal attacks and insults. It is obvious he is one of the chosen ones who can insult people, spout racial abuse, and get away with it on this forum.
Back to the subject at hand;
This link takes you to a paper on what was known, when and different studies, and certainly by the time EnaG was published in 1881 there was an awful lot known about magnetism, and later studies were supporting what was widely accepted, and disproved others. Part of the Smithsonian institute papers. It’s authenticity will be no doubt will be questioned.
https://repository.si.edu/bitstream/handle/10088/2448/SSHT-0048_Lo_res.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y
It was known that the needle aligns itself with the magnetic lines of flux, and not directly at the pole by the time EnaG was written, so therefore to make the assumption that it did is an error of principle, that renders the statements in the chapter as untrustworthy, or cannot be relied upon.
Racial abuse? You see, that's just completely made up, I have done nothing of the sort.
Rowbotham didn't rely on newspaper articles either. He referred to them sometimes, and referenced them, but he didn't rely on them at all. Most of his experiments did not reference them. Though its hilarious how if Dr Rowbotham referenced an article, he's useless. Yet this forum is full of round earth heretics quoting some website, and its totally fine. Hmmm....
Please see below lifted directly from Enag, clearly he takes distances written in letters to newspapers, and uses that to develop his proof, the distances are wrong by the way!
If the data he scalped from newspapers is wrong, then his conclusion is wrong. It follows the old saying “Garbage in Garbage out”!
“The following extract furnishes additional evidence upon this important point:--
"EXTRAORDINARY VOYAGE.--Every yachtsman (says the Dublin Express), will share in the pride with which, a correspondent relates a brilliant, and, we believe, unexampled exploit which has just been performed by a small yacht of only 25 tons, which is not a stranger to the waters of Dublin Bay. The gallant little craft set out from Liverpool for the antipodes, and arrived safely in Sydney after a splendid run, performing the entire distance, 16,000 miles, in 130 days. Such an achievement affords grounds for reasonable exultation, not more as a proof of the nautical skill of our amateurs, than of their adventurous spirit, which quite casts in the shade the most daring feats of Alpine climbers." 1
A s the distance from Melbourne to Cape of Good Hope is 7140 nautical miles, as shown by the log of the Great Britain, and as the whole distance from Melbourne to Liverpool was 14,688 nautical miles, it follows that, deducting 7140 from 14,688, that the passage from the Cape of Good Hope to Liverpool was 7548 nautical miles. If we take this distance from the 16,000 miles, which the
p. 96
above mentioned yacht sailed to Sydney, we have as the distance between Cape of Good Hope and Sydney, 8452 nautical, or 9860 statute miles.
In a letter from Adelaide which appeared in the Leeds Mercury for April 20th, 1867, speaking of certain commercial difficulties which had existed there, the following incidental passage occurs:--
"Just as our harvest was being concluded, the first news arrived of anticipated dearth of breadstuffs at home. The times. were so hopelessly dull, money was so scarce, and the operation of shipping wheat a distance of 14,000 miles so dangerous, that for a long time the news had no practical effect."
From England to Adelaide is here stated as 14,000 nautical, or 16,333 statute miles; and as the difference of longitude between Adelaide and Sydney is 23 degrees, equal to 1534 statute miles, we find that from England to Sydney the distance is 17,867 statute miles. Taking from this the 7548 nautical, or 8806 statute miles, we have again 9061 statute miles as the distance between the Cape of Good Hope and Sydney.”
Once again, you are missing what I am saying. I have already acknowledged Dr Rowbotham referenced newspaper articles. I said he didn't outright rely on them, and the fact the overwhelming majority of his book doesn't refer to them is proof. All he did was use them after some initial experiments, to do some more calculations based on what has been written. You are making out like his entire book is based on newspaper articles which is not the case.
So enjoy your night. Your nothing more than a nobody who isn't even worth of being mentioned in the same breath as Dr Samuel Rowbotham. Your a nobody, and deserve to be treated like the arrogant, disrespectful little worm you are.
This is primarily sad. OK, it's idiotic, and rude, and unpleasant, but I'd be very surprised if Tontogary were to lose a moment's sleep over it. It's just noise really.
The sad part is that Parallax is nominally someone with an interest in science, in inquiry, in learning about how the Earth works. He insists that he wants to investigate things for himself, that he has an independent viewpoint.
And here we have someone who spends his time actually navigating around the world. He takes ships thousands of miles, over open sea with no land in sight, and they arrive at the correct destination. He's actually come on here giving of his time to explain how this works - how he actually figures out where on the planet he is.
Now, as someone with an interest in the subject, I recognise how privileged I am to have access to this. It's by far the most interesting thing to be posted on this forum since I first encountered it. It's a source of actual hard data. Isn't that fantastic?
But Parallax, the supposed free-spirited enquirer, has no interest in that kind of thing. He doesn't want to know about actual measurements taken by an actual person he can talk to. He's just as free-spirited and open-minded as any religious fundamentalist. If the holy text is contradicted by someone's first-hand observation, too bad for first-hand observation.
So what would convince someone like Parallax? He's not convinced by testimony from actual people. He has no intention of doing any actual research of his own. He's easily convinced by the nonsensical ramblings of the likes of pbrane, who was on the point of understanding basic optics, but then retreated into confusion and obfuscation about "perspective".
Obviously those of us who are actually independent thinkers instead of saying "I am an independent thinker"* would welcome as much information as possible - especially first-hand information. And we'd welcome information that challenges our assumptions. If a flat Earther comes up with an anomaly which appears to contradict the wealth of information that supports the shape of the globe, we should welcome it. It's not that we expect it to overturn the theory. It's that it will be inherently of interest, and if there are genuine observations that need to be explained, then we'll end up wiser from addressing them.
Of course, everybody posting here will proudly proclaim that they're an independent thinker. One can just the truth of the claim by their willingness to test their beliefs against reality.
I do think for myself. Instead I have had to put up with condescending remarks from tontogary, but hey, that's okay apparently.
The experiments here are nothing of the sort. We have a man claiming to be on a ship somewhere. Doesn't make it true.
-
No, me claiming to be on a ship it doesn’t make it true, but on this occasion it is.
I have posted a copy of my credentials, i have given details of where i am, but no matter what i provide you would never believe me, so it does not matter what’s you think.
As for the anti Semitic comments, i have searched for the thread, but it has been deleted along with my reply to your remarks. (Anti semetism is racism)
I can see the trend in this discussion is to turn it into a personal attack on me, to distract from a very real attempt at allowing you to debate the topic at hand, ie the earths magnetic field, and how it fits in with FE theory, which it does not.
The only point of discussion that has been offered is Toms assertion that nothing was known about magnetism before Enag was published, and a claim that magnetic theory was changed because it was too inconvenient.
I would love to hear how the lines of force fit in with the flat earth, if there is a bar magnet, a radial magnet, and the lines of force, but while charts showing dip, variation and intensity have all been provided so far to support the RE theory, not a jot of Empirical evidence has been presented by anyone.
As this does not further the discusssion, there is no point in conversing with you further.
I have posted details of experiments which can be tried simply, and cheaply that can be replicated, so can i suggest they are actually tried. It wont take you more than 5 minutes, and no money if you have a little compass and magnet, and would be fascinated and genuinely thrilled if anyone were able to produce alternate results.
-
Not sure why i am posting this pic other than to provide more credentials.
The attached pic was taken a few minutes ago, it shows the sea, and outside of the ship in the background, sorry for the quality, but its the best i could do, along with the vessels position, and importantly GMT time and date on the GPS display.
I dont think anyone could have scalped pictures that fast, and photoshopped them!
-
It's becoming increasingly obvious what Parallax is up to, but I don't thing the FE community have clocked it yet.
We tend to ignore obvious trolls. It's you guys who keep feeding them.
-
No, me claiming to be on a ship it doesn’t make it true, but on this occasion it is.
I have posted a copy of my credentials, i have given details of where i am, but no matter what i provide you would never believe me, so it does not matter what’s you think.
As for the anti Semitic comments, i have searched for the thread, but it has been deleted along with my reply to your remarks. (Anti semetism is racism)
I can see the trend in this discussion is to turn it into a personal attack on me, to distract from a very real attempt at allowing you to debate the topic at hand, ie the earths magnetic field, and how it fits in with FE theory, which it does not.
The only point of discussion that has been offered is Toms assertion that nothing was known about magnetism before Enag was published, and a claim that magnetic theory was changed because it was too inconvenient.
I would love to hear how the lines of force fit in with the flat earth, if there is a bar magnet, a radial magnet, and the lines of force, but while charts showing dip, variation and intensity have all been provided so far to support the RE theory, not a jot of Empirical evidence has been presented by anyone.
As this does not further the discusssion, there is no point in conversing with you further.
I have posted details of experiments which can be tried simply, and cheaply that can be replicated, so can i suggest they are actually tried. It wont take you more than 5 minutes, and no money if you have a little compass and magnet, and would be fascinated and genuinely thrilled if anyone were able to produce alternate results.
I never said you weren't on a ship. I said you claimed to be. Your photo is good enough for me to accept you are being truthful.
I accept Dr Rowbothams experiments. People here call me a troll, because apparently nobody could accept Earth not a globe as truthful work unless they are a troll ::) Apparently.
Maybe I have been too harsh on you. I apologise for that. At the end of the day you post your theories, I refer to Dr Rowbotham. That's how it is.
And pointing out Israel gets away with, quite literally, murder in Palestine is not anti semitism.
-
It's becoming increasingly obvious what Parallax is up to, but I don't thing the FE community have clocked it yet.
We tend to ignore obvious trolls. It's you guys who keep feeding them.
I think you'll find that when Parallax claimed that a set of well-known power cables didn't even exist, he was applauded by Tom Bishop for his insight.
-
No, me claiming to be on a ship it doesn’t make it true, but on this occasion it is.
I have posted a copy of my credentials, i have given details of where i am, but no matter what i provide you would never believe me, so it does not matter what’s you think.
As for the anti Semitic comments, i have searched for the thread, but it has been deleted along with my reply to your remarks. (Anti semetism is racism)
I can see the trend in this discussion is to turn it into a personal attack on me, to distract from a very real attempt at allowing you to debate the topic at hand, ie the earths magnetic field, and how it fits in with FE theory, which it does not.
The only point of discussion that has been offered is Toms assertion that nothing was known about magnetism before Enag was published, and a claim that magnetic theory was changed because it was too inconvenient.
I would love to hear how the lines of force fit in with the flat earth, if there is a bar magnet, a radial magnet, and the lines of force, but while charts showing dip, variation and intensity have all been provided so far to support the RE theory, not a jot of Empirical evidence has been presented by anyone.
As this does not further the discusssion, there is no point in conversing with you further.
I have posted details of experiments which can be tried simply, and cheaply that can be replicated, so can i suggest they are actually tried. It wont take you more than 5 minutes, and no money if you have a little compass and magnet, and would be fascinated and genuinely thrilled if anyone were able to produce alternate results.
I never said you weren't on a ship. I said you claimed to be. Your photo is good enough for me to accept you are being truthful.
I accept Dr Rowbothams experiments. People here call me a troll, because apparently nobody could accept Earth not a globe as truthful work unless they are a troll ::) Apparently.
Maybe I have been too harsh on you. I apologise for that. At the end of the day you post your theories, I refer to Dr Rowbotham. That's how it is.
And pointing out Israel gets away with, quite literally, murder in Palestine is not anti semitism.
Point accepted, i will honour my previous agreement to refrain from describing Rowbotham in terms that some may take offence to, but will explore his writings in a scientific way, using my knowledge and experiences.
Let’s move forward will valid points for discussion.
-
Not sure why i am posting this pic other than to provide more credentials.
The attached pic was taken a few minutes ago, it shows the sea, and outside of the ship in the background, sorry for the quality, but its the best i could do, along with the vessels position, and importantly GMT time and date on the GPS display.
I dont think anyone could have scalped pictures that fast, and photoshopped them!
You could post a little sign with the sea in the background saying "Hi Parallax", I suppose. But it doesn't matter. You can show in great detail the measurements you're doing, and they will be proclaimed an "obvious fake". Rowbotham's account of his experiments will continue to outweigh everything done by everyone else.
-
Your nothing more than a nobody who isn't even worth of being mentioned in the same breath as Dr Samuel Rowbotham. Your a nobody, and deserve to be treated like the arrogant, disrespectful little worm you are.
Don't do that. Stick to arguments, not personal attacks. Warned.
-
I think you'll find that when Parallax claimed that a set of well-known power cables didn't even exist, he was applauded by Tom Bishop for his insight.
in fairness to Parallax, it was Thork (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8220.msg136236#msg136236)who made that claim
point stands imo
-
Not sure why i am posting this pic other than to provide more credentials.
The attached pic was taken a few minutes ago, it shows the sea, and outside of the ship in the background, sorry for the quality, but its the best i could do, along with the vessels position, and importantly GMT time and date on the GPS display.
I dont think anyone could have scalped pictures that fast, and photoshopped them!
You could post a little sign with the sea in the background saying "Hi Parallax", I suppose. But it doesn't matter. You can show in great detail the measurements you're doing, and they will be proclaimed an "obvious fake". Rowbotham's account of his experiments will continue to outweigh everything done by everyone else.
I already acknowledged the photo as proof.
-
Your nothing more than a nobody who isn't even worth of being mentioned in the same breath as Dr Samuel Rowbotham. Your a nobody, and deserve to be treated like the arrogant, disrespectful little worm you are.
Don't do that. Stick to arguments, not personal attacks. Warned.
Doesn't really bother me but I find it odd I get warned after I apologise for it and we both move on.
-
Your nothing more than a nobody who isn't even worth of being mentioned in the same breath as Dr Samuel Rowbotham. Your a nobody, and deserve to be treated like the arrogant, disrespectful little worm you are.
Don't do that. Stick to arguments, not personal attacks. Warned.
Doesn't really bother me but I find it odd I get warned after I apologise for it and we both move on.
And was accepted, and move on.
-
I think you'll find that when Parallax claimed that a set of well-known power cables didn't even exist, he was applauded by Tom Bishop for his insight.
in fairness to Parallax, it was Thork (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8220.msg136236#msg136236)who made that claim
point stands imo
My apologies!
Though the general point still stands.
-
I think you'll find that when Parallax claimed that a set of well-known power cables didn't even exist, he was applauded by Tom Bishop for his insight.
in fairness to Parallax, it was Thork (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8220.msg136236#msg136236)who made that claim
point stands imo
My apologies!
Though the general point still stands.
Thork demonstrated that the images were likely doctored to show curvature. He also speculated on whether the cable lines even existed at all, but that was not the bulk of his argument.
-
can we keep discussion of that thread in that thread (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8220.0) please, no reason to rehash it here. WP referred to it to rebut pizaavarrior's comment, which was off topic enough already
the last on-topic comment was this:
The only point of discussion that has been offered is Toms assertion that nothing was known about magnetism before Enag was published, and a claim that magnetic theory was changed because it was too inconvenient.
I would love to hear how the lines of force fit in with the flat earth, if there is a bar magnet, a radial magnet, and the lines of force, but while charts showing dip, variation and intensity have all been provided so far to support the RE theory, not a jot of Empirical evidence has been presented by anyone.
...
I have posted details of experiments which can be tried simply, and cheaply that can be replicated, so can i suggest they are actually tried. It wont take you more than 5 minutes, and no money if you have a little compass and magnet, and would be fascinated and genuinely thrilled if anyone were able to produce alternate results.
I'm also interested in exploring Tom's suggestion that a flat Earth could act like a radial magnet, since radial magnets have an open area in the center that is completely surrounded by the inner pole. I think compasses would behave erratically inside that area, in ways not observed in the real world, so some experimentation could clear that up.
-
The idea that Maxwell's Equations were "changed" to support FE is ridiculous on its face. Give it a break and come up with something else. These equations clearly work in modern-day electronics and power transmission and in your fridge magnets. Do you deny these things? If you do, then you're a stubborn denialist, but that doesn't mean that you can't replicate the same experiments that Gauss, Faraday, and Maxwell did instead of just spouting nonsense and asserting it to be true.
Magnetic compasses align with the Earth's magnetic field lines, which are not parallel to Earth's surface. Hence the corrections that need to be made. It's that simple. Of course, actually calculating the corrections is complicated, but understanding why they need to be made is extremely simple. That causes compass dip. No idea how this would happen on a flat Earth (probably some junk pseudoscientific explanation), but from a pedagogical point of view, it's best to stop this Gish Gallop and focus on the obvious disproofs of the flatness of the Earth (intuitive ones). Round Earth should let this compass business go because it's bringing in far too much.
And just a quick note about intellectual dishonesty: Thork didn't demonstrate them to be faked. What he said amounted to asserting that faking them was possible.
Of course, this is true with modern CGI (faking videos from an actual camera held in hand is extremely expensive; faking carefully-selected still frames can be done with Photoshop). Now, pray tell me, who in their right mind would spend $10,000+ to fake a video that can so obviously be disproven by actually showing up to the location in question?
-
And just a quick note about intellectual dishonesty: Thork didn't demonstrate them to be faked. What he said amounted to asserting that faking them was possible.
Of course, this is true with modern CGI (faking videos from an actual camera held in hand is extremely expensive; faking carefully-selected still frames can be done with Photoshop). Now, pray tell me, who in their right mind would spend $10,000+ to fake a video that can so obviously be disproven by actually showing up to the location in question?
That's the point about the claim about the visible curvature with the power lines - if you're going to deny something that anyone can turn up and see for themselves, you might as well deny the existence of the powerlines. We know that no FE advocate will go there to look for themselves, even if they live just down the road. So when you're denying something that people can just go to see for themselves, why not just deny the powerlines exist in the first place. It won't dent credibility for more than a day or two.
-
The idea that Maxwell's Equations were "changed" to support FE is ridiculous on its face. Give it a break and come up with something else. These equations clearly work in modern-day electronics and power transmission and in your fridge magnets. Do you deny these things? If you do, then you're a stubborn denialist, but that doesn't mean that you can't replicate the same experiments that Gauss, Faraday, and Maxwell did instead of just spouting nonsense and asserting it to be true.
Magnetic compasses align with the Earth's magnetic field lines, which are not parallel to Earth's surface. Hence the corrections that need to be made. It's that simple. Of course, actually calculating the corrections is complicated, but understanding why they need to be made is extremely simple. That causes compass dip. No idea how this would happen on a flat Earth (probably some junk pseudoscientific explanation), but from a pedagogical point of view, it's best to stop this Gish Gallop and focus on the obvious disproofs of the flatness of the Earth (intuitive ones). Round Earth should let this compass business go because it's bringing in far too much.
And just a quick note about intellectual dishonesty: Thork didn't demonstrate them to be faked. What he said amounted to asserting that faking them was possible.
Of course, this is true with modern CGI (faking videos from an actual camera held in hand is extremely expensive; faking carefully-selected still frames can be done with Photoshop). Now, pray tell me, who in their right mind would spend $10,000+ to fake a video that can so obviously be disproven by actually showing up to the location in question?
Sorry JohnAdams, I dont agree.
Magnetic force, lines of force and fields are very relevant to the disproving of a FE.
The effects of magnetic lines of force are easy and cheap to see using a compass, a little harder with a dipping compass, and without other magnets, or electrical fields are predictable and have been mapped with relation to the earth that we know, ( or REers know)
FE theory cannot explain what we see in our (my) everyday life on a vessel, and i am genuinely interested in how they can explain the effect on a compass needle, that is accepted by their go to author, as a FACT.
A unipole magnet does not exist in nature, and a radial magnet is man made, but both do not explain the accepted results of many many observations.
Apart from Toms sad remark, there have been no other attempts to try to enlighten me on the lines of force of a radial magnet, or even how many poles the earth has, apart from “maybe 2, or it maybe radial” which as normally happens was an attempt to derail the discussion and muddy the waters with false statements.
In the face of deafening silence and lack of any further data, ideas, or empirical evidence i therefore have to conclude that according to the laws of physics, what we know, observations and charted effects of the earths magnetic field the earth cannot be flat, and can only be spherical.