*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Offline Parallax

  • *
  • Posts: 253
  • Disciple of Dr Rowbotham
    • View Profile
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.

Offline Parallax

  • *
  • Posts: 253
  • Disciple of Dr Rowbotham
    • View Profile
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.

Offline Tontogary

  • *
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
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.



Also, if you haven't heard of bronies before, that reflects poorly on your understanding of the world that surrounds you. It's practically impossible not to know about them.

Offline Tontogary

  • *
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
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.

Also, if you haven't heard of bronies before, that reflects poorly on your understanding of the world that surrounds you. It's practically impossible not to know about them.

Offline Parallax

  • *
  • Posts: 253
  • Disciple of Dr Rowbotham
    • View Profile
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.

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
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.

Quote
There are none so blind as those who cannot see.
Finally, you've written something I agree with...
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

Offline Westprog

  • *
  • Posts: 213
    • View Profile

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.

Macarios

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. :)

Offline Tontogary

  • *
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
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....

Also, if you haven't heard of bronies before, that reflects poorly on your understanding of the world that surrounds you. It's practically impossible not to know about them.

Offline Tontogary

  • *
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
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.

Also, if you haven't heard of bronies before, that reflects poorly on your understanding of the world that surrounds you. It's practically impossible not to know about them.

Offline Parallax

  • *
  • Posts: 253
  • Disciple of Dr Rowbotham
    • View Profile
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.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
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? 
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

Offline Parallax

  • *
  • Posts: 253
  • Disciple of Dr Rowbotham
    • View Profile
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.

Offline Tontogary

  • *
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
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!

Also, if you haven't heard of bronies before, that reflects poorly on your understanding of the world that surrounds you. It's practically impossible not to know about them.

Offline Parallax

  • *
  • Posts: 253
  • Disciple of Dr Rowbotham
    • View Profile
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
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

Quote
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

Quote
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]

Offline jcks

  • *
  • Posts: 89
    • View Profile

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".