[metalgearxd]

Hi all, I'm interested in this forum and really attracts attention with regard to those who say that the earth is flat

What arguments or evidence shows that true?

[jroa]

Have you looked out your window lately? 

[metalgearxd]

Watching the window shows nothing, which is not about a reply

[Thork]

No one is going to give you a synopsis of flat earth theory. You might as well go to NASA and say tell me about space exploration. The topic is too broad.

We have a wiki. It gives you the basics. Pick out something that interests you and ask about that or something you know conclusively proves earth to be round. Be careful, you may need to be a little bit obscure. We get all the obvious ones all the time.

And welcome to the Flat Earth Society

[Tau]

If you're purely asking for experimental evidence, I would recommend Dr. Samuel Rowbotham's Earth Not a Globe , a treatise on that very subject. It's a bit old (19th century), but it's still a good introduction to Flat Earth Theory.

[Gulliver]

If you're purely asking for experimental evidence, I would recommend Dr. Samuel Rowbotham's Earth Not a Globe , a treatise on that very subject. It's a bit old (19th century), but it's still a good introduction to Flat Earth Theory.

Yes, and in particular note that Rowbotham doesn't understand the simple physics concept of inertia.

Wind travels East to West or West to East, so of course shooting from North to South would be more accurate than shooting East to West.

Irrelevant. Robotham erred in claiming that the cannonball should have travelled more than a mile because the RE is spinning. He forgot about the concept of momentum. He failed. His conclusion that the Earth doesn't spin based on the cannon experiment is without merit.

Since you've failed for days to address this obvious and clear failure and now dodge it with distractions, I'm sure everyone is convinced by now that you're not able to assist Rowbotham survive this critique.

[Saddam Hussein]

There's no need to heroically rush in and try to convince this newcomer that the earth is round, Gulliver.  I'm sure he already thinks that, and more to the point, has his own brain and can do his own thinking.

[Thork]

You'd think we were spreading ideas like radical Islam or something the way some of the round earthers go on. as though our dangerous ideas are a threat to humanity. The irony is of course, the truth sets you free.

[Gulliver]

There's no need to heroically rush in and try to convince this newcomer that the earth is round, Gulliver.  I'm sure he already thinks that, and more to the point, has his own brain and can do his own thinking.

That's rich. So pointing someone to EnaG is okay, but pointing to its critique is too heroic?

[Thork]

There's no need to heroically rush in and try to convince this newcomer that the earth is round, Gulliver.  I'm sure he already thinks that, and more to the point, has his own brain and can do his own thinking.

That's rich. So pointing someone to EnaG is okay, but pointing to its critique is too heroic?

Its critique? You mean your objections to it? Who on earth do you think you are? Dr Samuel Rowbotham was an acclaimed academic. A man holding a doctorate, several patents, a multi-millionaire, author of several books, a distinguished speaker, a celebrity. And then you read a few passages from his book, squeal a bit about how you disagree and that is a critique? Rowbotham's work was peer reviewed by the Royal Astronomical Society on the evening of Dec. 8, 1848. Not a troll in his bedroom on the 19th May 2014.

[Gulliver]

There's no need to heroically rush in and try to convince this newcomer that the earth is round, Gulliver.  I'm sure he already thinks that, and more to the point, has his own brain and can do his own thinking.

That's rich. So pointing someone to EnaG is okay, but pointing to its critique is too heroic?

Its critique? You mean your objections to it? Who on earth do you think you are? Dr Samuel Rowbotham was an acclaimed academic. A man holding a doctorate, several patents, a multi-millionaire, author of several books, a distinguished speaker, a celebrity. And then you read a few passages from his book, squeal a bit about how you disagree and that is a critique? Rowbotham's work was peer reviewed by the Royal Astronomical Society on the evening of Dec. 8, 1848. Not a troll in his bedroom on the 19th May 2014.

So appeal to authority and ad hominem fallacies are the best you can do? Really?

I understand that physics is a difficult subject for you ("The ISS doesn't accelerate."), but you really could discuss the topic of the critique. Why did Rowbotham ignore the inertial of the cannonball? Since he based his conclusion that the Earth was flat based on his conclusion that the Earth was not rotating based on this misconception, the entire EnaG fails--regardless of how much you like him.

[Thork]

The ISS doesn't accelerate. It is subject to an angular velocity. Not an angular acceleration.

Rowbotham ignored Coriolis effects of a cannon ball because there is none. The earth does not spin. This is why toilets don't flush in the opposite direction in the southern hemisphere, smoke doesn't spiral in the opposite direction, shot putters don't demand to throw east to west to break world records and ocean currents go anywhere they damned well please.

[Gulliver]

The ISS doesn't accelerate. It is subject to an angular velocity. Not an angular acceleration.

Rowbotham ignored Coriolis effects of a cannon ball because there is none. The earth does not spin. This is why toilets don't flush in the opposite direction in the southern hemisphere, smoke doesn't spiral in the opposite direction, shot putters don't demand to throw east to west to break world records and ocean currents go anywhere they damned well please.

Aweome! Thanks for the fodder.

1) ISS does it accelerate? The argument that since it has angular acceleration that it must not have (linear) acceleration is simply an excluded middle fallacy. Please try again. You might do well to go back to the definition of acceleration and then determine it the direction (or magnitude) of the ISS changes. (Hint: It's obvious that the ISS has a varying linear velocity throughout its orbit.)

2) Does Rowbotham ignore the effect? Rowbotham is hardly ignoring it. He argues, in error, that the experiment demonstrates that Earth does not rotate. His argument that since the cannonball before landing did not travel over a mile from the launch point, the Earth doesn't rotate. Since he relies inherently on his conclusion regarding this experiment to conclude the Earth is flat, EnaG fails to show that the Earth is flat.

Oh, and your graph is irrelevant. Concentrate on the critique. Rowbotham is a failure.

Oh, and please provide the peer review you mentioned. I'd love to read it. By the way, that an article (or a book) has been peer-reviewed does not improve the validity of an article. The review could have dismissed as wrong the article, for example.

[Thork]

1) You should probably open a dictionary and look up the word velocity.

2) No, you fail to understand the experiment. There is a world of difference.

Regarding the peer review, I have posted it on this site, the old site and of course it is available via google. A little research of your own wouldn't kill you. The spoon feeding is tedious.

[Gulliver]

1) You should probably open a dictionary and look up the word velocity.

2) No, you fail to understand the experiment. There is a world of difference.

Regarding the peer review, I have posted it on this site, the old site and of course it is available via google. A little research of your own wouldn't kill you. The spoon feeding is tedious.

1) I know the definition. How is that relevant? Have I in anyway at any time misused the word?
2) How do you know that I fail to understand the experiment? What have I ever post about the experiment that was wrong
3*) So you don't have the peer review. I expected as much. How sad. How typical.

By the way, you're doing a great job of demonstrating FEers' failure for the newcomer. Thanks.

[Saddam Hussein]

Permanoobery in action.  A newcomer shows up and asks questions about FET.  Gulliver dives in and quickly makes it all about him.

[Thork]

1) You should probably open a dictionary and look up the word velocity.

2) No, you fail to understand the experiment. There is a world of difference.

Regarding the peer review, I have posted it on this site, the old site and of course it is available via google. A little research of your own wouldn't kill you. The spoon feeding is tedious.

1) I know the definition. How is that relevant? Have I in anyway at any time misused the word?
2) How do you know that I fail to understand the experiment? What have I ever post about the experiment that was wrong
3*) So you don't have the peer review. I expected as much. How sad. How typical.

By the way, you're doing a great job of demonstrating FEers' failure for the newcomer. Thanks.

1) flogging a dead horse. Can you try to be more interesting, please? New topics, actually contributing content, that kind of thing?
2) If you still think the earth is round, you haven't understood the experiment. I can work back from that point.
3) Your loss. I gave you Rowbotham, the society and the exact date. I'm not going to give you the link as well. Your total lack of will to do any research means if I give you the link, you'll skim read the first paragraph, make some pompous remarks and give me nothing in return.

[Gulliver]

1) You should probably open a dictionary and look up the word velocity.

2) No, you fail to understand the experiment. There is a world of difference.

Regarding the peer review, I have posted it on this site, the old site and of course it is available via google. A little research of your own wouldn't kill you. The spoon feeding is tedious.

1) I know the definition. How is that relevant? Have I in anyway at any time misused the word?
2) How do you know that I fail to understand the experiment? What have I ever post about the experiment that was wrong
3*) So you don't have the peer review. I expected as much. How sad. How typical.

By the way, you're doing a great job of demonstrating FEers' failure for the newcomer. Thanks.

1) flogging a dead horse. Can you try to be more interesting, please? New topics, actually contributing content, that kind of thing?
2) If you still think the earth is round, you haven't understood the experiment. I can work back from that point.
3) Your loss. I gave you Rowbotham, the society and the exact date. I'm not going to give you the link as well. Your total lack of will to do any research means if I give you the link, you'll skim read the first paragraph, make some pompous remarks and give me nothing in return.

1) Saying that you're covered it, doesn't make it true. Rowbotham screwed up the experiment by forgetting that the cannonball has momentum. The newcomer, and most any other open-minded person, will see that and reject EnaG as faulty.
2) The experiment's failure did not make me believe that the Earth is round. This failure did convince me the EnaG is built or a faulty experiment as it worthless. I'm sure newcomers will see that too. Complain all you want, but the damage of Rowbotham's failure remains.
3) What did I lose? You're the once making an reference without citation. How would any newcomer start to believe you when fail to document and cite your sources? You fail, again.

So what about the cannonball's momentum? Did Rowbotham err in forgetting it when making the claim about the cannonball. He says that since it didn't travel a mile then the Earth is not rotating at the RET-predicted speed. Was he wrong?

[Rama Set]

Permanoobery in action.  A newcomer shows up and asks questions about FET.  Gulliver dives in and quickly makes it all about him.

If Gulliver didn't, Thork would.

1) You should probably open a dictionary and look up the word velocity.

2) No, you fail to understand the experiment. There is a world of difference.

Regarding the peer review, I have posted it on this site, the old site and of course it is available via google. A little research of your own wouldn't kill you. The spoon feeding is tedious.

1) I know the definition. How is that relevant? Have I in anyway at any time misused the word?
2) How do you know that I fail to understand the experiment? What have I ever post about the experiment that was wrong
3*) So you don't have the peer review. I expected as much. How sad. How typical.

By the way, you're doing a great job of demonstrating FEers' failure for the newcomer. Thanks.

1) flogging a dead horse. Can you try to be more interesting, please? New topics, actually contributing content, that kind of thing?
2) If you still think the earth is round, you haven't understood the experiment. I can work back from that point.
3) Your loss. I gave you Rowbotham, the society and the exact date. I'm not going to give you the link as well. Your total lack of will to do any research means if I give you the link, you'll skim read the first paragraph, make some pompous remarks and give me nothing in return.

Thork-You should not embellish the truth.  You do not have the peer-review, you have the record that Rowbotham presented to the Society.  For all you know, he was laughed out of the building.

[Gulliver]

Thork-You should not embellish the truth.  You do not have the peer-review, you have the record that Rowbotham presented to the Society.  For all you know, he was laughed out of the building.

To be fair, the newspaper's review of the presentation was favorable, but you're spot on: Thork lies. There was no peer review.