281
Flat Earth Community / Re: Samuel Birley aka Rowbotham
« on: January 11, 2019, 08:02:05 PM »
I can find no referenced source that says he actually dropped out of school at the age of 9. Seems a bit ludicrous.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
282
Flat Earth Community / Re: Samuel Birley aka Rowbotham
« on: January 11, 2019, 07:59:28 PM »
https://lra.le.ac.uk/bitstream/2381/31042/1/U601161.pdf
Also this paper which was published in 2001 at the University at Leicester references Wolfson.
"H Ossipoff Wolfson: ‘Our Paradox Column’ Knowledge 5 (4 April 1884),
233; R A Proctor: ‘Note’ Knowledge 5(1 6 May 1884), 355."
Also this paper which was published in 2001 at the University at Leicester references Wolfson.
"H Ossipoff Wolfson: ‘Our Paradox Column’ Knowledge 5 (4 April 1884),
233; R A Proctor: ‘Note’ Knowledge 5(1 6 May 1884), 355."
283
Flat Earth Community / Re: Samuel Birley aka Rowbotham
« on: January 11, 2019, 07:55:16 PM »
I found this eBook, as well.
https://www.cantab.net/users/michael.behrend/ebooks/PlaneTruth/pages/index.html
https://www.cantab.net/users/michael.behrend/ebooks/PlaneTruth/pages/index.html
284
Flat Earth Community / Re: Samuel Birley aka Rowbotham
« on: January 11, 2019, 07:44:48 PM »
No intentions on condemning his flat earth claims as false. I have just been doing quite a lot of research into all aspects of your community and stumbling upon this kind of caught me by surprise. And yes, the New Yorker article is where I first saw the name of Wolfson.
285
Flat Earth Community / Samuel Birley aka Rowbotham
« on: January 11, 2019, 06:43:00 PM »
So, I tried to use the search function to find anyone talking about the former secretary of the Zetetic Society, Henry Ossipoff Wolfson. Apparently, he wrote a expose on Rowbotham positing that he was a snake oil salesman, in short. He claimed that Rowbotham went by the name of Dr. Samuel Birley, and that Rowbotham was merely using the Flat Earth theory as a cover to hoodwink people. Is there any truth to this story being true, and is there any truth to the claims of Mr. Wolfson (if said story is true)?
286
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Seeing the curvature of the Earth directly
« on: January 11, 2019, 03:39:07 PM »
The thing that baffles me is that it is openly admitted that other planets are round. Of course, their argument is that the earth is not a planet and is unique. Why is this so? Why wouldnt there be other planets that are flat?
287
Flat Earth Projects / Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« on: January 11, 2019, 03:36:40 PM »
Also, from rereading the earlier posts in this topic, I want to try and further understand UA. Not trying to discredit the theory. But there seems to be information missing from the Wiki. Unless I misread the wiki.
UA is a universal acceleration. It is not dependent on anything related to the objects it is acting upon. Thats what I gather. Because if it did depend on the size and mass of the object, we would have RE gravity. And we would have things moving at different speeds. Given that, if we reach a high enough altitude or go into outer space itself, would we ourselves not be subject to UA? Why is it explained as celestial gravitation (aka other bodies having gravitational pull, but not the earth)?
But then we have to consider this "dome" that supposedly covers the earth. Does that prevent the UA from acting upon us? Or is it more of a boundary layer effect as in fluid mechanics where the current of the UA doesnt fully wrap around the edges of the flat earth? If it prevents the UA from acting upon us due to a literal dome, why would celestial gravitation have an effect on us at different altitudes? Didn't I read somewhere that rockets dont actually go into space, that they just hit the dome?
UA is a universal acceleration. It is not dependent on anything related to the objects it is acting upon. Thats what I gather. Because if it did depend on the size and mass of the object, we would have RE gravity. And we would have things moving at different speeds. Given that, if we reach a high enough altitude or go into outer space itself, would we ourselves not be subject to UA? Why is it explained as celestial gravitation (aka other bodies having gravitational pull, but not the earth)?
But then we have to consider this "dome" that supposedly covers the earth. Does that prevent the UA from acting upon us? Or is it more of a boundary layer effect as in fluid mechanics where the current of the UA doesnt fully wrap around the edges of the flat earth? If it prevents the UA from acting upon us due to a literal dome, why would celestial gravitation have an effect on us at different altitudes? Didn't I read somewhere that rockets dont actually go into space, that they just hit the dome?
288
Flat Earth Projects / Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« on: January 11, 2019, 03:16:47 PM »
You are asking me to explain why mass gets to double dip. This is explained by Einsteins theory of general relativity and the bending of space time. But what you want me to really say is that Einstein posited that gravity isnt actually a force but an acceleration, which gives credit to your theory of UA. In reality though, UA is not dependent on mass, and is some unknown aether that has no evidence of existing and cannot be connected to general relativity.
289
Flat Earth Projects / Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« on: January 11, 2019, 02:52:06 PM »
Yes, it is sufficient. That's how basic engineering works. You develop two equations based off observations (inertial and gravitational) based on Force, then you equate the two.
290
Flat Earth Projects / Re: Wiki entry for Universal Acceleration
« on: January 11, 2019, 01:00:12 PM »
Tom,
F = m*a for inertia, correct? Newton developed the equation for the acceleration or force of gravity which is F = G*(m1*m2/r^2).
Equating the two cancels out the mass for the first object. Mass is therefore irrelevant in determining how fast an object will fall - until the surface area of the object becomes an impediment to that, aka drag force.
I think I saw mention earlier in the post or maybe in another post that the force of gravity is not constant and changes with altitude, and that was a point of concern. Well, according to the Fgravity equation, that is not an issue.
F = m*a for inertia, correct? Newton developed the equation for the acceleration or force of gravity which is F = G*(m1*m2/r^2).
Equating the two cancels out the mass for the first object. Mass is therefore irrelevant in determining how fast an object will fall - until the surface area of the object becomes an impediment to that, aka drag force.
I think I saw mention earlier in the post or maybe in another post that the force of gravity is not constant and changes with altitude, and that was a point of concern. Well, according to the Fgravity equation, that is not an issue.
291
Flat Earth Theory / Re: 2019 Total Lunar Eclipse
« on: January 10, 2019, 09:01:26 PM »
Although the term "slight" is used in reference to a slight bending of the light of the sun, and the quantitative amount of atmospheric refraction is small, itself, the actual observed effect is quite large. Henceforth, the following rest of the paragraph that you did not quote:
"At sunrise, the top rim of the apparent sun has been above the local horizon 4 minutes before the center of the actual sun would have reached the horizon without an atmosphere. Likewise at sunset, the sun appears to remain above the horizon for an additional 4 minutes, when in fact the solar disc has already disappeared."
"At sunrise, the top rim of the apparent sun has been above the local horizon 4 minutes before the center of the actual sun would have reached the horizon without an atmosphere. Likewise at sunset, the sun appears to remain above the horizon for an additional 4 minutes, when in fact the solar disc has already disappeared."
292
Flat Earth Theory / Re: 2019 Total Lunar Eclipse
« on: January 10, 2019, 08:23:06 PM »
The selenehelion is already explained as possible due to atmospheric refraction. A topic on which you agree occurs.
293
Flat Earth Community / Re: Why do you believe in the FE?
« on: January 10, 2019, 08:18:35 PM »
I had a similar thought that is it possible to have the earth exist in two different dimensions where it is both flat and round at the same time? I know thats way out there in any theory, and in no way is it meant to silence any debate on whether the earth is round or flat. Just a thought that occurred to me.
294
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Distance from Australia to Argentina dilemma
« on: January 10, 2019, 07:35:45 PM »
Totallackey, would you like me to send you the AutoCAD file I drew to verify allaroundtheworlds results? I can also take screen shots of the google map distances and send those, as well. I am not trying to be pretentious or anything. I am trying to show willingness to provide further evidence above and beyond.
295
Flat Earth Community / Re: Why do you believe in the FE?
« on: January 10, 2019, 05:39:39 PM »
Its a contradictory statement given the fact that Tom himself says you cannot rely on direct observation. For example, the real size of the sun - his whole apparent and projection claims. So if observation of the sun cannot be relied on, then how can observation out a window to determine if the world is flat be relied upon?
296
Flat Earth Community / Re: Why do you believe in the FE?
« on: January 10, 2019, 05:15:01 PM »
Observation does not always equate to the truth. Tom, you specifically stated in other topics that the human eye can be deceived by optical illusions. The brain can also be deceived as to what color it is seeing (color blindness). So how is direct observation equate to truth in these instances?
297
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Apparent size of the sun
« on: January 10, 2019, 03:35:51 PM »
I contest that the glasses shown in the youtube video from the wiki page here is not a good product and possibly a scam.
Here is a video of a visor attachment showing a polarized lens and it reduces the apparent size of the headlights. Go to about 44 second mark.
Here is a video of a visor attachment showing a polarized lens and it reduces the apparent size of the headlights. Go to about 44 second mark.
298
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Models vs patterns
« on: January 09, 2019, 04:00:42 PM »
Word choice affects how your point is perceived.
But did the science at the time know that Thales proposal was absolutely wrong or did they just not have the knowledge.
The key point here is that your OP should state that a model based on limited knowledge is preferred over no model, and that models based on deliberate lies should be ignored outright.
But did the science at the time know that Thales proposal was absolutely wrong or did they just not have the knowledge.
The key point here is that your OP should state that a model based on limited knowledge is preferred over no model, and that models based on deliberate lies should be ignored outright.
299
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Models vs patterns
« on: January 09, 2019, 03:24:14 PM »
Pete, can you clarify what the logical contradiction is? I believe you were the one to say it is a logical contradiction by interjecting your opinion that a false model is not superior to no model. And I believe it is a false equivalency to say that a false model is a deception. A false model can be a deception, but a false model can also be based on lack of knowledge. Once that knowledge is gained, then the false model is either corrected or thrown out and replaced by a new one, which happens all the time in science. I am of the opinion that the word false in the OP is meant to mean an incorrect one, not meaning false as in a lie. AKA faulty, lack of data, or bad data, etc.
Can you also clarify what you mean by deception? Are you indicating nefarious groups? Or are you talking about cherry picking data or fudging numbers, or what?
Can you also clarify what you mean by deception? Are you indicating nefarious groups? Or are you talking about cherry picking data or fudging numbers, or what?
300
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Dark Side of the Moon
« on: January 08, 2019, 04:49:28 PM »
I can literally say to you, Do you have evidence that George Washington existed? And I can reply that it is fake or a lie, because its just a history book or a historical document. Did you go dig up his bones? No, they won't let you. Why? It must be a conspiracy to keep the truth of George Washington not actually existing from you. Sound a bit like the ice wall and government conspiracy to keep you from it???