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.