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.
Rowbotham was called a doctor by his contemporaries and enemies and sources cite him as running a legitimate medical practice.
Oh well if Google says so it must be true.
Dr Rowbotham already said it drops only a foot. That's it. End of.
Funny, cos man saying so on a forum isn't evidence.Now I understand what you are saying.I suspect it to be futile, but have you any evidence of your claim? A man saying so in a book is not evidence.
Yes, the airport is built on higher land a couple of miles away. The Nile only falls a foot.
Dam quite conclusively proves otherwise, regardless of the state of the airport. Denial only shows you for either a troll or not understanding how a dam works. Personally still going with choice number 1.
Dr Rowbotham was astute in his experiments. The Nile drops only a foot.
Now I understand what you are saying.
Yes, the airport is built on higher land a couple of miles away. The Nile only falls a foot.
I can't speak to that. I don't know what they were or were not saying about the video. I don't follow them every day. In the video I provided they claim to have just been saying "lets wait and learn more."
Take a look at channel "Astro Not"
Three days ago, "Hi-Tech Science Documentary proves FLAT Earth" - "Irrefutable scientific proof: our Earth is FLAT.
The Results from the experiments of the Terra Convexa Documentary "
Today "Convex Earthers interview Alien in a bush - hilarious!" - mocking the SAME 'documentary' team.... with no attempt to delete the previous video, apparently ...
That tells me that they were able to self correct and conduct their investigations reasonably.
Perhaps most flat earthers are just honest and its not all a big hoax?
What it shows is a complete lack of ability (or will) to carry out basic research on sources of 'information' that support their bias.
Perhaps flat earth is just a hoax by a few a-holes that relies on the lack of judgement present in FE followers?
What are you talking about? I posted the trailer that I found and we researched into its background here on this forum. You saw it for yourself.
What sort of comment is that? So they didn't go, have you? They researched what had been recorded, just like you do now.The Nile only drops in height a foot. It does not drop any further. This is proof of a flat earth.
Dr Rowbotham mentioned it, as did WM Carpenter.
It falls a foot, no crappy diagram is going to change that.
What do you mean by 'it falls a foot'? Could you produce a diagram, crappy or otherwise, that illustrates what it is you mean, and maybe explain why it is a problem for GE?
And am I right when I assume that you have no intention whatsoever of addressing my original topic, the expected straight horizon? Am I right when I assume that you have dug in, and it's going to be 'the Nile drops one foot' from here on out?
As for the original comment, the horizon should curve on a globe earth. If earth is a globe then the horizon would curve, instead it does not. Proof is the fact the horizon always rises to eye level, only on a flat earth would this happen.
Well duh, it's flat !
https://www.infowars.com/shock-poll-1-3-of-millennials-not-sure-if-earth-is-round/
I can't speak to that. I don't know what they were or were not saying about the video. I don't follow them every day. In the video I provided they claim to have just been saying "lets wait and learn more."
Take a look at channel "Astro Not"
Three days ago, "Hi-Tech Science Documentary proves FLAT Earth" - "Irrefutable scientific proof: our Earth is FLAT.
The Results from the experiments of the Terra Convexa Documentary "
Today "Convex Earthers interview Alien in a bush - hilarious!" - mocking the SAME 'documentary' team.... with no attempt to delete the previous video, apparently ...
That tells me that they were able to self correct and conduct their investigations reasonably.
Perhaps most flat earthers are just honest and its not all a big hoax?
No. What happened is that I provided evidence that the horizon rose upwards when the altitude increased. When the drone increased its altitude, the horizon rose upwards in reference to the buildings.
... but didn't someone point out to you that the horizon stayed pretty much in place in the frame, and the building merely moved in the foreground as the drone rose?
Yes, the horizon pretty much stayed in the same place while the buildings fell beneath it. The horizon line was keeping level with the rising observer. It rose with the observer.
Under the Ancient Greek continuous perspective model the horizon should have dropped along with everything else.
AllAroundTheWorld predicted that it would fall rather than rise, and he was wrong. The entire premise of his thread was shown to be fallacious. Rather than addressing this failing he and others started harping on some other Youtube video about a water device and eyeballing its position with the horizon. The premise in the OP was busted. The traditional theory of perspective shown to be untrue, and all he can do is distract.
No one even knows what the mechanism for gravity is. There are only theories for how it works.
Yet we can measure it to the Nth degree, and calibrate measuring instruments to it...
And this tells you what it is or where it is coming from?No one even knows what the mechanism for gravity is. There are only theories for how it works.So?
There’s a bunch of things you have no idea about in your model, you don’t even seem to have theories.
You don’t even have a map you can agree on.
What exactly are you expecting from a budget of $0?
No one even knows what the mechanism for gravity is. There are only theories for how it works.
I'm not 'making it up', the force of gravity is not scientifically proven to come from the core, its a theory. It is actually spread evenly underneath the earth, pulling down together. It is not only pulling down from the earths core.No it doesn't, there's no definite proof gravity pulls things into a ball, it's only a theory and cannot be proved because it's an incorrect theory. The force of gravity does not only come from the centre, it exists all underneath the world, so with the force pulling down on all points it cannot possibly pull everything into a ball because the force of gravity is spread evenly across the world.It was interesting, but certainly the second half dropped off a bit. I'm still not sure how they concluded there was another continent, but they said they want to find it so if they could it would be a manor discovery. However, I don't believe they will find anything.
As for the earth being convex, I'm still not sure how they came to that reasoning, nor where they got that design of the earth from. The continent's were sort of jumbled up and it looked untidy.
Despite being a flat earther, I do believe in gravity. Believe it or not, it does not disprove the FET. It seems to be a more modern thing that gravity doesn't exist, it really does.
Yes, gravity certainly does disprove FET. Why else would folks need to come up with something as wild as UA?
Even Dr Rowbotham didn't disprove gravity, he acknowledged it's existence.
Gravity (using the commonly accepted definition of gravity) certainly does go against FET.
If you are unilaterally going to make up a force with different properties to those ascribed to gravity and name it gravity as well that's up to you, but you can't expect others to just go along with that.
No it doesn't, there's no definite proof gravity pulls things into a ball, it's only a theory and cannot be proved because it's an incorrect theory. The force of gravity does not only come from the centre, it exists all underneath the world, so with the force pulling down on all points it cannot possibly pull everything into a ball because the force of gravity is spread evenly across the world.It was interesting, but certainly the second half dropped off a bit. I'm still not sure how they concluded there was another continent, but they said they want to find it so if they could it would be a manor discovery. However, I don't believe they will find anything.
As for the earth being convex, I'm still not sure how they came to that reasoning, nor where they got that design of the earth from. The continent's were sort of jumbled up and it looked untidy.
Despite being a flat earther, I do believe in gravity. Believe it or not, it does not disprove the FET. It seems to be a more modern thing that gravity doesn't exist, it really does.
Yes, gravity certainly does disprove FET. Why else would folks need to come up with something as wild as UA?
Even Dr Rowbotham didn't disprove gravity, he acknowledged it's existence.
I haven't watched any of it yet, but if the final conclusion, based on the title, is that we are on a convex Earth, then why aren't FEers denying it?
Surely the two are mutually exclusive? If it's flat, it can't be convex, and vice versa?
Tom - given your strong moral stance on lying to children are you going to add something to the Wiki about Santa Claus not being real either?Why would he do that? Does the Wiki contain any mentions of Santa Claus that need rectifying?
Anyway, going back to your quote there is a fundamental difference there between "The Amazing Randi" and that guy -- Urandir, as claimed by your own quote, didn't do it for entertainment. He did it to trick people into joining his sect.
As far as we know he is just operating a fun adventure theme park on his ranch for the people of Brazil to escape into. That's basically what magicians do -- provide escapism from the boring real world.
Maybe the people of Brazil just go there for fun like we go see magic shows here for fun. Have you ever thought about that?QuoteYou're digging yourself deeper if you want to bring Randi's organization into this -- it was created solely to disprove the claims of psychics and other paranormals. The organization had absolutely nothing to do with entertainment.
Its a form of entertainment. That is why Randi is featured on talk shows and speaks of big prizes, rather than writing any scientific papers or engaging in scientific research. I don't see any other scientists appearing on talk shows and announcing "prove me wrong, you'll win big money!"
There are numerous accusations that Randi does not let the people who accept his challenge even perform their feat as they claim to be able to perform it. Things along the line of "Oh you claim to be able to use a dousing rod to find water wells? Well, we've hidden a bottle of water somewhere in this building. Find it!" There is no real scientific examination of the claims.
Ohh, I get it.
If I pay The Amazing Randi to perform some feats for me, which he explains with as "magic", its a social contract. But if I pay one of the people he doesn't like all that much to perform some feats, which they describe as "magic", they are frauds. Got it!