[Thork]

What verifiable objective experiment consistently suggest that the earth is flat?

The Bedford Level experiments. Twice proved earth was flat, once gave an inconclusive result due to fraudulent wager activities by round earthers.

How is Bedford Level verifiable? Daniel tried and failed, and he's the leader of the society. How would any experiment prove something true? What citations do you have to back up your claims that those experiments were objective?

Daniel is an idiot. He can't even post a T-shirt to someone, let alone conduct a scientific experiment or that nature. As for citations there is much documentation in ENaG. Feel free to read it some time.

Then I invite you to reproduce it yourself, replete with zetetic accuracy. I refer you to our thread critiquing the hell out of EnaG. R didn't even understand momentum. Failure is the only thing I see in EnaG.

It isn't my fault if the content extends beyond your cognitive capacity.

I never claimed it was your fault. It's R's. He can't even deal with Galilean concepts.

Rowbowtham actually leans very heavily on Galileo and uses Galileo's theory on tides as his starting point. You know, Galileo's 'sloshing' theory.

[Gulliver]

Rowbowtham actually leans very heavily on Galileo and uses Galileo's theory on tides as his starting point. You know, Galileo's 'sloshing' theory.

I'm sure you're trying to make a point. Are you saying that R was right about the cannonball's lack of momentum? Reference EnaG, figure 49, pages 66 and passim.

[Thork]

Rowbowtham actually leans very heavily on Galileo and uses Galileo's theory on tides as his starting point. You know, Galileo's 'sloshing' theory.

I'm sure you're trying to make a point. Are you saying that R was right about the cannonball's lack of momentum? Reference EnaG, figure 49, pages 66 and passim.

You will have to excuse my confusion, but you are all over the place. Newton discovered the laws of momentum, not Galileo. That's why it is known as Newtonian mechanics and the units for momentum are N s.

I think you need to do a little basic physics reading and come back when you are more qualified to talk on the matter. 

[inquisitive]

What verifiable objective experiment consistently suggest that the earth is flat?

The Bedford Level experiments. Twice proved earth was flat, once gave an inconclusive result due to fraudulent wager activities by round earthers.

How is Bedford Level verifiable? Daniel tried and failed, and he's the leader of the society. How would any experiment prove something true? What citations do you have to back up your claims that those experiments were objective?

Daniel is an idiot. He can't even post a T-shirt to someone, let alone conduct a scientific experiment or that nature. As for citations there is much documentation in ENaG. Feel free to read it some time.

Then I invite you to reproduce it yourself, replete with zetetic accuracy. I refer you to our thread critiquing the hell out of EnaG. R didn't even understand momentum. Failure is the only thing I see in EnaG.

It isn't my fault if the content extends beyond your cognitive capacity.

What is the problem with repeating the experiment?

[Thork]

What verifiable objective experiment consistently suggest that the earth is flat?

The Bedford Level experiments. Twice proved earth was flat, once gave an inconclusive result due to fraudulent wager activities by round earthers.

How is Bedford Level verifiable? Daniel tried and failed, and he's the leader of the society. How would any experiment prove something true? What citations do you have to back up your claims that those experiments were objective?

Daniel is an idiot. He can't even post a T-shirt to someone, let alone conduct a scientific experiment or that nature. As for citations there is much documentation in ENaG. Feel free to read it some time.

Then I invite you to reproduce it yourself, replete with zetetic accuracy. I refer you to our thread critiquing the hell out of EnaG. R didn't even understand momentum. Failure is the only thing I see in EnaG.

It isn't my fault if the content extends beyond your cognitive capacity.

What is the problem with repeating the experiment?

I don't live near Bedford? If you have unlimited resources, feel free.

[Gulliver]

Rowbowtham actually leans very heavily on Galileo and uses Galileo's theory on tides as his starting point. You know, Galileo's 'sloshing' theory.

I'm sure you're trying to make a point. Are you saying that R was right about the cannonball's lack of momentum? Reference EnaG, figure 49, pages 66 and passim.

You will have to excuse my confusion, but you are all over the place. Newton discovered the laws of momentum, not Galileo. That's why it is known as Newtonian mechanics and the units for momentum are N s.

I think you need to do a little basic physics reading and come back when you are more qualified to talk on the matter.

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Concerning_the_Two_Chief_World_Systems Where did I claim that Galileo discovered the laws of momentum anyway?

Oh and again: Are you saying that R was right about the cannonball's lack of momentum? Reference EnaG, figure 49, pages 66 and passim.

[inquisitive]

What verifiable objective experiment consistently suggest that the earth is flat?

The Bedford Level experiments. Twice proved earth was flat, once gave an inconclusive result due to fraudulent wager activities by round earthers.

How is Bedford Level verifiable? Daniel tried and failed, and he's the leader of the society. How would any experiment prove something true? What citations do you have to back up your claims that those experiments were objective?

Daniel is an idiot. He can't even post a T-shirt to someone, let alone conduct a scientific experiment or that nature. As for citations there is much documentation in ENaG. Feel free to read it some time.

Then I invite you to reproduce it yourself, replete with zetetic accuracy. I refer you to our thread critiquing the hell out of EnaG. R didn't even understand momentum. Failure is the only thing I see in EnaG.

It isn't my fault if the content extends beyond your cognitive capacity.

What is the problem with repeating the experiment?

I don't live near Bedford? If you have unlimited resources, feel free.

Ask why it has not been repeated anywhere.  Because it proves a round earth.

[Tintagel]

What verifiable objective experiment consistently suggest that the earth is flat?

The Bedford Level experiments. Twice proved earth was flat, once gave an inconclusive result due to fraudulent wager activities by round earthers.

How is Bedford Level verifiable? Daniel tried and failed, and he's the leader of the society. How would any experiment prove something true? What citations do you have to back up your claims that those experiments were objective?

Daniel is an idiot. He can't even post a T-shirt to someone, let alone conduct a scientific experiment or that nature. As for citations there is much documentation in ENaG. Feel free to read it some time.

Then I invite you to reproduce it yourself, replete with zetetic accuracy. I refer you to our thread critiquing the hell out of EnaG. R didn't even understand momentum. Failure is the only thing I see in EnaG.

It isn't my fault if the content extends beyond your cognitive capacity.

What is the problem with repeating the experiment?

I don't live near Bedford? If you have unlimited resources, feel free.

Ask why it has not been repeated anywhere.  Because it proves a round earth.

The Bedford Level experiment has certainly been repeated, both at Bedford and in other places, such as the Old Illinois Drainage Canal.  Really, it doesn't take much research to find these things.

[Gulliver]

The Bedford Level experiment has certainly been repeated, both at Bedford and in other places, such as the Old Illinois Drainage Canal.  Really, it doesn't take much research to find these things.

Did you think that a drainage canal doesn't drain? The first clue is in its name. Did you think that drainage canals are level?

Also: Remember the challenge VOE. Can its evidence be objectively verified. You know, like talking to the person who took saw the earthrise in the famous photo here: http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1249.html

[Pete Svarrior]

Can its evidence be objectively verified. You know, like talking to the person

Ah, yes, because conversations are an objective proof of things.

C'mon Gulliver, let's try to fix this embarrassing trend of yours. Let's play a fun game. Before you next post, take a deep breath, count to three, picture something unrelated in your mind, count to three again, breathe out, and then read what you said out loud. Only after you've done so and thought "yep, that's good to go", click "post".

[Gulliver]

Can its evidence be objectively verified. You know, like talking to the person

Ah, yes, because conversations are an objective proof of things.

C'mon Gulliver, let's try to fix this embarrassing trend of yours. Let's play a fun game. Before you next post, take a deep breath, count to three, picture something unrelated in your mind, count to three again, breathe out, and then read what you said out loud. Only after you've done so and thought "yep, that's good to go", click "post".

Yes, a conversation can indeed be a form of objective verification. I never claimed it was an example of proof. https://books.google.com/books?id=ef1S81lVT-YC&pg=PA249&lpg=PA249&dq=conversation+as+objective+evidence&source=bl&ots=1hEnw6GWlc&sig=LWCq96ZhlmRODfe6I6cqdfsxOKE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DiusVIymDc_8yQTSj4GwCQ&ved=0CEkQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=conversation%20as%20objective%20evidence&f=false

[Pete Svarrior]

Yes, a conversation can indeed be a form of objective verification.

*sigh*

[Thork]

Where did I claim that Galileo discovered the laws of momentum anyway?

Then I invite you to reproduce it yourself, replete with zetetic accuracy. I refer you to our thread critiquing the hell out of EnaG. R didn't even understand momentum. Failure is the only thing I see in EnaG.

It isn't my fault if the content extends beyond your cognitive capacity.

I never claimed it was your fault. It's R's. He can't even deal with Galilean concepts.

Rowbowtham actually leans very heavily on Galileo and uses Galileo's theory on tides as his starting point. You know, Galileo's 'sloshing' theory.

At which point I assume you have changed the subject as you moved from momentum to Galileo ... but no, you persist ...

Rowbowtham actually leans very heavily on Galileo and uses Galileo's theory on tides as his starting point. You know, Galileo's 'sloshing' theory.

I'm sure you're trying to make a point. Are you saying that R was right about the cannonball's lack of momentum? Reference EnaG, figure 49, pages 66 and passim.

But no, you compound your misconception by asking again.

So, do you wish to talk about Galilean concepts and Rowbotham, or momentum? Or are you going to just keep throwing in nonsensical and unrelated topics in the hope that by answering one question you can point out I avoided another unrelated reference to something somewhere?

[Gulliver]

Where did I claim that Galileo discovered the laws of momentum anyway?

Then I invite you to reproduce it yourself, replete with zetetic accuracy. I refer you to our thread critiquing the hell out of EnaG. R didn't even understand momentum. Failure is the only thing I see in EnaG.

It isn't my fault if the content extends beyond your cognitive capacity.

I never claimed it was your fault. It's R's. He can't even deal with Galilean concepts.

Rowbowtham actually leans very heavily on Galileo and uses Galileo's theory on tides as his starting point. You know, Galileo's 'sloshing' theory.

At which point I assume you have changed the subject as you moved from momentum to Galileo ... but no, you persist ...

Rowbowtham actually leans very heavily on Galileo and uses Galileo's theory on tides as his starting point. You know, Galileo's 'sloshing' theory.

I'm sure you're trying to make a point. Are you saying that R was right about the cannonball's lack of momentum? Reference EnaG, figure 49, pages 66 and passim.

But no, you compound your misconception by asking again.

So, do you wish to talk about Galilean concepts and Rowbotham, or momentum? Or are you going to just keep throwing in nonsensical and unrelated topics in the hope that by answering one question you can point out I avoided another unrelated reference to something somewhere?

Momentum is a Galilean concepts. I pointed you to his famous work that recorded his explanation of it.

The term momentum (in Italian, momento) was introduced by Galileo Galilei as the “virtue” of a moving object which keeps it moving. He expressed it as the product of weight and velocity.

I'm perfectly happy to discuss Rowbotham's ignorance about momentum, especially in regards to his sophomoric error starting on p. 66 of EnaG, dealing with his firing of a cannon upward.