[Westprog]

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.

This is primarily sad. OK, it's idiotic, and rude, and unpleasant, but I'd be very surprised if Tontogary were to lose a moment's sleep over it. It's just noise really.

The sad part is that Parallax is nominally someone with an interest in science, in inquiry, in learning about how the Earth works. He insists that he wants to investigate things for himself, that he has an independent viewpoint.

And here we have someone who spends his time actually navigating around the world. He takes ships thousands of miles, over open sea with no land in sight, and they arrive at the correct destination. He's actually come on here giving of his time to explain how this works - how he actually figures out where on the planet he is.

Now, as someone with an interest in the subject, I recognise how privileged I am to have access to this. It's by far the most interesting thing to be posted on this forum since I first encountered it. It's a source of actual hard data. Isn't that fantastic?

But Parallax, the supposed free-spirited enquirer, has no interest in that kind of thing. He doesn't want to know about actual measurements taken by an actual person he can talk to. He's just as free-spirited and open-minded as any religious fundamentalist. If the holy text is contradicted by someone's first-hand observation, too bad for first-hand observation.

So what would convince someone like Parallax? He's not convinced by testimony from actual people. He has no intention of doing any actual research of his own. He's easily convinced by the nonsensical ramblings of the likes of pbrane, who was on the point of understanding basic optics, but then retreated into confusion and obfuscation about "perspective".

Obviously those of us who are actually independent thinkers instead of saying "I am an independent thinker"* would welcome as much information as possible - especially first-hand information. And we'd welcome information that challenges our assumptions. If a flat Earther comes up with an anomaly which appears to contradict the wealth of information that supports the shape of the globe, we should welcome it. It's not that we expect it to overturn the theory. It's that it will be inherently of interest, and if there are genuine observations that need to be explained, then we'll end up wiser from addressing them.

Of course, everybody posting here will proudly proclaim that they're an independent thinker. One can just the truth of the claim by their willingness to test their beliefs against reality.

[Tontogary]

I slept very well last night, was a calm night, and when i got up this morning i saw we had proceeded further along out track.
I wonder how we do it? As we obviously dont know what we are doing?

I think the best thing to do with Parallax is to ignore his personal attacks and insults. It is obvious he is one of the chosen ones who can insult people, spout racial abuse, and get away with it on this forum.

Back to the subject at hand;

This link takes you to a paper on what was known, when and different studies, and certainly by the time EnaG was published in 1881 there was an awful lot known about magnetism, and later studies were supporting what was widely accepted, and disproved others. Part of the Smithsonian institute papers. It’s authenticity will be no doubt will be questioned.

https://repository.si.edu/bitstream/handle/10088/2448/SSHT-0048_Lo_res.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y

It was known that the needle aligns itself with the magnetic lines of flux, and not directly at the pole by the time EnaG was written, so therefore to make the assumption that it did is an error of principle, that renders the statements in the chapter as untrustworthy, or cannot be relied upon.

[Tontogary]

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....

Please see below lifted directly from Enag, clearly he takes distances written in letters to newspapers, and uses that to develop his proof, the distances are wrong by the way!

If the data he scalped from newspapers is wrong, then his conclusion is wrong. It follows the old saying “Garbage in Garbage out”!



“The following extract furnishes additional evidence upon this important point:--

"EXTRAORDINARY VOYAGE.--Every yachtsman (says the Dublin Express), will share in the pride with which, a correspondent relates a brilliant, and, we believe, unexampled exploit which has just been performed by a small yacht of only 25 tons, which is not a stranger to the waters of Dublin Bay. The gallant little craft set out from Liverpool for the antipodes, and arrived safely in Sydney after a splendid run, performing the entire distance, 16,000 miles, in 130 days. Such an achievement affords grounds for reasonable exultation, not more as a proof of the nautical skill of our amateurs, than of their adventurous spirit, which quite casts in the shade the most daring feats of Alpine climbers." 1

A s the distance from Melbourne to Cape of Good Hope is 7140 nautical miles, as shown by the log of the Great Britain, and as the whole distance from Melbourne to Liverpool was 14,688 nautical miles, it follows that, deducting 7140 from 14,688, that the passage from the Cape of Good Hope to Liverpool was 7548 nautical miles. If we take this distance from the 16,000 miles, which the

p. 96

above mentioned yacht sailed to Sydney, we have as the distance between Cape of Good Hope and Sydney, 8452 nautical, or 9860 statute miles.

In a letter from Adelaide which appeared in the Leeds Mercury for April 20th, 1867, speaking of certain commercial difficulties which had existed there, the following incidental passage occurs:--

"Just as our harvest was being concluded, the first news arrived of anticipated dearth of breadstuffs at home. The times. were so hopelessly dull, money was so scarce, and the operation of shipping wheat a distance of 14,000 miles so dangerous, that for a long time the news had no practical effect."

From England to Adelaide is here stated as 14,000 nautical, or 16,333 statute miles; and as the difference of longitude between Adelaide and Sydney is 23 degrees, equal to 1534 statute miles, we find that from England to Sydney the distance is 17,867 statute miles. Taking from this the 7548 nautical, or 8806 statute miles, we have again 9061 statute miles as the distance between the Cape of Good Hope and Sydney.”

[Parallax]

I slept very well last night, was a calm night, and when i got up this morning i saw we had proceeded further along out track.
I wonder how we do it? As we obviously dont know what we are doing?

I think the best thing to do with Parallax is to ignore his personal attacks and insults. It is obvious he is one of the chosen ones who can insult people, spout racial abuse, and get away with it on this forum.

Back to the subject at hand;

This link takes you to a paper on what was known, when and different studies, and certainly by the time EnaG was published in 1881 there was an awful lot known about magnetism, and later studies were supporting what was widely accepted, and disproved others. Part of the Smithsonian institute papers. It’s authenticity will be no doubt will be questioned.

https://repository.si.edu/bitstream/handle/10088/2448/SSHT-0048_Lo_res.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y

It was known that the needle aligns itself with the magnetic lines of flux, and not directly at the pole by the time EnaG was written, so therefore to make the assumption that it did is an error of principle, that renders the statements in the chapter as untrustworthy, or cannot be relied upon.

Racial abuse? You see, that's just completely made up, I have done nothing of the sort.

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....

Please see below lifted directly from Enag, clearly he takes distances written in letters to newspapers, and uses that to develop his proof, the distances are wrong by the way!

If the data he scalped from newspapers is wrong, then his conclusion is wrong. It follows the old saying “Garbage in Garbage out”!



“The following extract furnishes additional evidence upon this important point:--

"EXTRAORDINARY VOYAGE.--Every yachtsman (says the Dublin Express), will share in the pride with which, a correspondent relates a brilliant, and, we believe, unexampled exploit which has just been performed by a small yacht of only 25 tons, which is not a stranger to the waters of Dublin Bay. The gallant little craft set out from Liverpool for the antipodes, and arrived safely in Sydney after a splendid run, performing the entire distance, 16,000 miles, in 130 days. Such an achievement affords grounds for reasonable exultation, not more as a proof of the nautical skill of our amateurs, than of their adventurous spirit, which quite casts in the shade the most daring feats of Alpine climbers." 1

A s the distance from Melbourne to Cape of Good Hope is 7140 nautical miles, as shown by the log of the Great Britain, and as the whole distance from Melbourne to Liverpool was 14,688 nautical miles, it follows that, deducting 7140 from 14,688, that the passage from the Cape of Good Hope to Liverpool was 7548 nautical miles. If we take this distance from the 16,000 miles, which the

p. 96

above mentioned yacht sailed to Sydney, we have as the distance between Cape of Good Hope and Sydney, 8452 nautical, or 9860 statute miles.

In a letter from Adelaide which appeared in the Leeds Mercury for April 20th, 1867, speaking of certain commercial difficulties which had existed there, the following incidental passage occurs:--

"Just as our harvest was being concluded, the first news arrived of anticipated dearth of breadstuffs at home. The times. were so hopelessly dull, money was so scarce, and the operation of shipping wheat a distance of 14,000 miles so dangerous, that for a long time the news had no practical effect."

From England to Adelaide is here stated as 14,000 nautical, or 16,333 statute miles; and as the difference of longitude between Adelaide and Sydney is 23 degrees, equal to 1534 statute miles, we find that from England to Sydney the distance is 17,867 statute miles. Taking from this the 7548 nautical, or 8806 statute miles, we have again 9061 statute miles as the distance between the Cape of Good Hope and Sydney.”

Once again, you are missing what I am saying. I have already acknowledged Dr Rowbotham referenced newspaper articles. I said he didn't outright rely on them, and the fact the overwhelming majority of his book doesn't refer to them is proof. All he did was use them after some initial experiments, to do some more calculations based on what has been written. You are making out like his entire book is based on newspaper articles which is not the case.

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.

This is primarily sad. OK, it's idiotic, and rude, and unpleasant, but I'd be very surprised if Tontogary were to lose a moment's sleep over it. It's just noise really.

The sad part is that Parallax is nominally someone with an interest in science, in inquiry, in learning about how the Earth works. He insists that he wants to investigate things for himself, that he has an independent viewpoint.

And here we have someone who spends his time actually navigating around the world. He takes ships thousands of miles, over open sea with no land in sight, and they arrive at the correct destination. He's actually come on here giving of his time to explain how this works - how he actually figures out where on the planet he is.

Now, as someone with an interest in the subject, I recognise how privileged I am to have access to this. It's by far the most interesting thing to be posted on this forum since I first encountered it. It's a source of actual hard data. Isn't that fantastic?

But Parallax, the supposed free-spirited enquirer, has no interest in that kind of thing. He doesn't want to know about actual measurements taken by an actual person he can talk to. He's just as free-spirited and open-minded as any religious fundamentalist. If the holy text is contradicted by someone's first-hand observation, too bad for first-hand observation.

So what would convince someone like Parallax? He's not convinced by testimony from actual people. He has no intention of doing any actual research of his own. He's easily convinced by the nonsensical ramblings of the likes of pbrane, who was on the point of understanding basic optics, but then retreated into confusion and obfuscation about "perspective".

Obviously those of us who are actually independent thinkers instead of saying "I am an independent thinker"* would welcome as much information as possible - especially first-hand information. And we'd welcome information that challenges our assumptions. If a flat Earther comes up with an anomaly which appears to contradict the wealth of information that supports the shape of the globe, we should welcome it. It's not that we expect it to overturn the theory. It's that it will be inherently of interest, and if there are genuine observations that need to be explained, then we'll end up wiser from addressing them.

Of course, everybody posting here will proudly proclaim that they're an independent thinker. One can just the truth of the claim by their willingness to test their beliefs against reality.

I do think for myself. Instead I have had to put up with condescending remarks from tontogary, but hey, that's okay apparently.

The experiments here are nothing of the sort. We have a man claiming to be on a ship somewhere. Doesn't make it true.

[Tontogary]

No, me claiming to be on a ship it doesn’t make it true, but on this occasion it is.
I have posted a copy of my credentials, i have given details of where i am, but no matter what i provide you would never believe me, so it does not matter what’s you think.

As for the anti Semitic comments, i have searched for the thread, but it has been deleted along with my reply to your remarks. (Anti semetism is racism)

I can see the trend in this discussion is to turn it into a personal attack on me, to distract from a very real attempt at allowing you to debate the topic at hand, ie the earths magnetic field, and how it fits in with FE theory, which it does not.

The only point of discussion that has been offered is Toms assertion that nothing was known about magnetism before Enag was published, and a claim that magnetic theory was changed because it was too inconvenient.

I would love to hear how the lines of force fit in with the flat earth, if there is a bar magnet, a radial magnet, and the lines of force, but while charts showing dip, variation and intensity have all been provided so far to support the RE theory, not a jot of Empirical evidence has been presented by anyone.

As this does not further the discusssion, there is no point in conversing with you further.

I have posted details of experiments which can be tried simply, and cheaply that can be replicated, so can i suggest they are actually tried. It wont take you more than 5 minutes, and no money if you have a little compass and magnet, and would be fascinated and genuinely thrilled if anyone were able to produce alternate results.

[Tontogary]

Not sure why i am posting this pic other than to provide more credentials.

The attached pic was taken a few minutes ago, it shows the sea, and outside of the ship in the background, sorry for the quality, but its the best i could do, along with the vessels position, and importantly GMT time and date on the GPS display.

I dont think anyone could have scalped pictures that fast, and photoshopped them!

[Pete Svarrior]

It's becoming increasingly obvious what Parallax is up to, but I don't thing the FE community have clocked it yet.

We tend to ignore obvious trolls. It's you guys who keep feeding them.

[Parallax]

No, me claiming to be on a ship it doesn’t make it true, but on this occasion it is.
I have posted a copy of my credentials, i have given details of where i am, but no matter what i provide you would never believe me, so it does not matter what’s you think.

As for the anti Semitic comments, i have searched for the thread, but it has been deleted along with my reply to your remarks. (Anti semetism is racism)

I can see the trend in this discussion is to turn it into a personal attack on me, to distract from a very real attempt at allowing you to debate the topic at hand, ie the earths magnetic field, and how it fits in with FE theory, which it does not.

The only point of discussion that has been offered is Toms assertion that nothing was known about magnetism before Enag was published, and a claim that magnetic theory was changed because it was too inconvenient.

I would love to hear how the lines of force fit in with the flat earth, if there is a bar magnet, a radial magnet, and the lines of force, but while charts showing dip, variation and intensity have all been provided so far to support the RE theory, not a jot of Empirical evidence has been presented by anyone.

As this does not further the discusssion, there is no point in conversing with you further.

I have posted details of experiments which can be tried simply, and cheaply that can be replicated, so can i suggest they are actually tried. It wont take you more than 5 minutes, and no money if you have a little compass and magnet, and would be fascinated and genuinely thrilled if anyone were able to produce alternate results.

I never said you weren't on a ship. I said you claimed to be. Your photo is good enough for me to accept you are being truthful.

I accept Dr Rowbothams experiments. People here call me a troll, because apparently nobody could accept Earth not a globe as truthful work unless they are a troll  Apparently.

Maybe I have been too harsh on you. I apologise for that. At the end of the day you post your theories, I refer to Dr Rowbotham. That's how it is.

And pointing out Israel gets away with, quite literally, murder in Palestine is not anti semitism.

[Westprog]

It's becoming increasingly obvious what Parallax is up to, but I don't thing the FE community have clocked it yet.

We tend to ignore obvious trolls. It's you guys who keep feeding them.

I think you'll find that when Parallax claimed that a set of well-known power cables didn't even exist, he was applauded by Tom Bishop for his insight.

[Tontogary]

No, me claiming to be on a ship it doesn’t make it true, but on this occasion it is.
I have posted a copy of my credentials, i have given details of where i am, but no matter what i provide you would never believe me, so it does not matter what’s you think.

As for the anti Semitic comments, i have searched for the thread, but it has been deleted along with my reply to your remarks. (Anti semetism is racism)

I can see the trend in this discussion is to turn it into a personal attack on me, to distract from a very real attempt at allowing you to debate the topic at hand, ie the earths magnetic field, and how it fits in with FE theory, which it does not.

The only point of discussion that has been offered is Toms assertion that nothing was known about magnetism before Enag was published, and a claim that magnetic theory was changed because it was too inconvenient.

I would love to hear how the lines of force fit in with the flat earth, if there is a bar magnet, a radial magnet, and the lines of force, but while charts showing dip, variation and intensity have all been provided so far to support the RE theory, not a jot of Empirical evidence has been presented by anyone.

As this does not further the discusssion, there is no point in conversing with you further.

I have posted details of experiments which can be tried simply, and cheaply that can be replicated, so can i suggest they are actually tried. It wont take you more than 5 minutes, and no money if you have a little compass and magnet, and would be fascinated and genuinely thrilled if anyone were able to produce alternate results.

I never said you weren't on a ship. I said you claimed to be. Your photo is good enough for me to accept you are being truthful.

I accept Dr Rowbothams experiments. People here call me a troll, because apparently nobody could accept Earth not a globe as truthful work unless they are a troll  Apparently.

Maybe I have been too harsh on you. I apologise for that. At the end of the day you post your theories, I refer to Dr Rowbotham. That's how it is.

And pointing out Israel gets away with, quite literally, murder in Palestine is not anti semitism.

Point accepted, i will honour my previous agreement to refrain from describing Rowbotham in terms that some may take offence to, but will explore his writings in a scientific way, using my knowledge and experiences.

Let’s move forward will valid points for discussion.

[Westprog]

Not sure why i am posting this pic other than to provide more credentials.

The attached pic was taken a few minutes ago, it shows the sea, and outside of the ship in the background, sorry for the quality, but its the best i could do, along with the vessels position, and importantly GMT time and date on the GPS display.

I dont think anyone could have scalped pictures that fast, and photoshopped them!

You could post a little sign with the sea in the background saying "Hi Parallax", I suppose. But it doesn't matter. You can show in great detail the measurements you're doing, and they will be proclaimed an "obvious fake". Rowbotham's account of his experiments will continue to outweigh everything done by everyone else.

[juner]

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.

Don't do that. Stick to arguments, not personal attacks. Warned.

[xenotolerance]

I think you'll find that when Parallax claimed that a set of well-known power cables didn't even exist, he was applauded by Tom Bishop for his insight.

in fairness to Parallax, it was Thork who made that claim

point stands imo

[Parallax]

Not sure why i am posting this pic other than to provide more credentials.

The attached pic was taken a few minutes ago, it shows the sea, and outside of the ship in the background, sorry for the quality, but its the best i could do, along with the vessels position, and importantly GMT time and date on the GPS display.

I dont think anyone could have scalped pictures that fast, and photoshopped them!

You could post a little sign with the sea in the background saying "Hi Parallax", I suppose. But it doesn't matter. You can show in great detail the measurements you're doing, and they will be proclaimed an "obvious fake". Rowbotham's account of his experiments will continue to outweigh everything done by everyone else.

I already acknowledged the photo as proof.

[Parallax]

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.

Don't do that. Stick to arguments, not personal attacks. Warned.

Doesn't really bother me but I find it odd I get warned after I apologise for it and we both move on.

[Tontogary]

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.

Don't do that. Stick to arguments, not personal attacks. Warned.

Doesn't really bother me but I find it odd I get warned after I apologise for it and we both move on.

And was accepted, and move on.

[Westprog]

I think you'll find that when Parallax claimed that a set of well-known power cables didn't even exist, he was applauded by Tom Bishop for his insight.

in fairness to Parallax, it was Thork who made that claim

point stands imo

My apologies!

Though the general point still stands.

[Tom Bishop]

I think you'll find that when Parallax claimed that a set of well-known power cables didn't even exist, he was applauded by Tom Bishop for his insight.

in fairness to Parallax, it was Thork who made that claim

point stands imo

My apologies!

Though the general point still stands.

Thork demonstrated that the images were likely doctored to show curvature. He also speculated on whether the cable lines even existed at all, but that was not the bulk of his argument.

[xenotolerance]

can we keep discussion of that thread in that thread please, no reason to rehash it here. WP referred to it to rebut pizaavarrior's comment, which was off topic enough already

the last on-topic comment was this:

The only point of discussion that has been offered is Toms assertion that nothing was known about magnetism before Enag was published, and a claim that magnetic theory was changed because it was too inconvenient.

I would love to hear how the lines of force fit in with the flat earth, if there is a bar magnet, a radial magnet, and the lines of force, but while charts showing dip, variation and intensity have all been provided so far to support the RE theory, not a jot of Empirical evidence has been presented by anyone.
...
I have posted details of experiments which can be tried simply, and cheaply that can be replicated, so can i suggest they are actually tried. It wont take you more than 5 minutes, and no money if you have a little compass and magnet, and would be fascinated and genuinely thrilled if anyone were able to produce alternate results.

I'm also interested in exploring Tom's suggestion that a flat Earth could act like a radial magnet, since radial magnets have an open area in the center that is completely surrounded by the inner pole. I think compasses would behave erratically inside that area, in ways not observed in the real world, so some experimentation could clear that up.

[JohnAdams1145]

The idea that Maxwell's Equations were "changed" to support FE is ridiculous on its face. Give it a break and come up with something else. These equations clearly work in modern-day electronics and power transmission and in your fridge magnets. Do you deny these things? If you do, then you're a stubborn denialist, but that doesn't mean that you can't replicate the same experiments that Gauss, Faraday, and Maxwell did instead of just spouting nonsense and asserting it to be true.

Magnetic compasses align with the Earth's magnetic field lines, which are not parallel to Earth's surface. Hence the corrections that need to be made. It's that simple. Of course, actually calculating the corrections is complicated, but understanding why they need to be made is extremely simple. That causes compass dip. No idea how this would happen on a flat Earth (probably some junk pseudoscientific explanation), but from a pedagogical point of view, it's best to stop this Gish Gallop and focus on the obvious disproofs of the flatness of the Earth (intuitive ones). Round Earth should let this compass business go because it's bringing in far too much.


And just a quick note about intellectual dishonesty: Thork didn't demonstrate them to be faked. What he said amounted to asserting that faking them was possible.

Of course, this is true with modern CGI (faking videos from an actual camera held in hand is extremely expensive; faking carefully-selected still frames can be done with Photoshop). Now, pray tell me, who in their right mind would spend $10,000+ to fake a video that can so obviously be disproven by actually showing up to the location in question?