[StinkyOne]

Rowbotham:
FIRST. The earth floats on the waters of the "great deep."

That it thus floats is concluded from the fact that it is surrounded with water, in which it fluctuates; and that if limited in extent, water could not surround it without also gathering underneath it. If not limited in extent, then it extends downwards for ever. If so, it could not fluctuate in a limited mass of water. It does fluctuate, therefore it floats, and hence there must be "waters under the earth."

Really - do any FEers think that the Earth floats on water? Rowbotham seems to be held in very high regard here. Given his rudimentary understanding of geology, it is forgivable that he wouldn't understand plate tectonics (the fluctuating he refers to), but that just further points out how easy it is to get things VERY wrong when you lack some education on a topic. Or am I misreading his fluctuating comment? Did he just think the Earth sorta bobbed along?

[Scroogie]

I believe you may be misreading his concept of "fluctuating". It seems to me that some or all FEers evoke this to explain the tides, eliminating the need for gravitational forces of the moon and sun.

Referring to his as a "rudimentary understanding of geology" is, in my view, being overly generous.

Empirical evidence - every single that time I throw dirt, sand, rock, clay or similar into water it immediately sinks to the bottom (larger particles) or simply disperses, later sinking to the bottom (smaller particles). Unfortunately, I have yet to figure out how to throw a continent into a container of water, so I can't comment on continents vis a vis their buoyancy on water.

[TomInAustin]

Rowbotham:
FIRST. The earth floats on the waters of the "great deep."

That it thus floats is concluded from the fact that it is surrounded with water, in which it fluctuates; and that if limited in extent, water could not surround it without also gathering underneath it. If not limited in extent, then it extends downwards for ever. If so, it could not fluctuate in a limited mass of water. It does fluctuate, therefore it floats, and hence there must be "waters under the earth."

Really - do any FEers think that the Earth floats on water? Rowbotham seems to be held in very high regard here. Given his rudimentary understanding of geology, it is forgivable that he wouldn't understand plate tectonics (the fluctuating he refers to), but that just further points out how easy it is to get things VERY wrong when you lack some education on a topic. Or am I misreading his fluctuating comment? Did he just think the Earth sorta bobbed along?

Just a guess, but i think FEers are much like religious people that take some silly old texts as gospel and others are ignored.

[Tom Haws]

Rowbotham:
FIRST. The earth floats on the waters of the "great deep."

Kudos to StinkyOne for going to Rowbotham. Stick with it and preach it. "The earth floats on the waters...." Say it loud and long.

[Rounder]

The following is a list (with links) of a few of the most preposterous things in Earth Not a Globe:

A) The landmasses of the earth float on the sea, and are restrained from wandering about by giant fingers of land anchoring them to the southern ice
B) The ocean, in turn, floats on a bed of steam above the Biblical lake of fire
C) Ocean water is not as salty out at sea as it is near the shore
D) The far south is in perpetual darkness
E) The South Georgia islands are under many fathoms of snow in the summer
F) Sunlight puts out fire
G) Moonlight has heat sucking powers

Any ONE of these ludicrous propositions is enough to discredit him; the fact that they're all in the same book makes one wonder if he was trying to let people know it was all a big joke. 

It reminds me of an email scam.  Those are usually made intentionally unreasonable and ridiculous, to weed out everybody except the very stupid and horribly gullible.  Email scammers specifically don’t want even modestly smart people responding, because those are people who will eventually balk at requests for money and personal details, thus wasting the scammer’s time.

[Tom Haws]

Rounder, I think we need a wiki. That's really good research and summary. If I get enough votes of support, I will open a Wiki at Wikia (now Fandom). I want good research like that at my fingertips in BBCode every time junker tells a newcomer to "Read the FAQ. Read the Wiki." Nope. Save your time. We have curated it for you.

[Rounder]

We sorta have one, actually.  In the Flat Earth Information Repository section, the hosts have allowed this thread: Round Earth Information Repository

[Tom Haws]

We sorta

"Sorta". I haven't seen anybody linking discussions or signature lines to it.

[Roger G]

[/quote]
Any ONE of these ludicrous propositions is enough to discredit him; the fact that they're all in the same book makes one wonder if he was trying to let people know it was all a big joke. 

It reminds me of an email scam.  Those are usually made intentionally unreasonable and ridiculous, to weed out everybody except the very stupid and horribly gullible.  Email scammers specifically don’t want even modestly smart people responding, because those are people who will eventually balk at requests for money and personal details, thus wasting the scammer’s time.[/size]
[/quote]

I think you have hit the nail on the head and exactly what I have said a number of times regarding this forum. It is great fun and a source of entertainment, but nearly all the discussion and serious comments are from REs. Tom is the only one who bothers to put regular arguments in place, (with the very occasional interjection from a couple of others), but they are carefully and intelligently structured to divert away from the actual discussion. Like Rowbotham whom he bases most of his arguments on, his knowledge in many areas is limited and flawed and he frequently refers to Rowbotham work as evidence which it clearly isn't. In spite of that, I find Tom's input fascinating and entertaining, which is why I stick with the forum. The forum is for fun, and like 'The Earth Is Not A Globe', is an interesting source of discussion for those capable of it and a magnet for various folks not so well able to think for themselves.

Roger

[Tom Haws]

In all seriousness, I think it is highly educational, and I appreciate the fundamental physical insights by some solid thinkers here. Of recent recall: UA 1000G, 4 cities can't be mapped flat, Just climb a crow's nest, where's sunset on equinox?

[Roger G]

In all seriousness, I think it is highly educational, and I appreciate the fundamental physical insights by some solid thinkers here. Of recent recall: UA 1000G, 4 cities can't be mapped flat, Just climb a crow's nest, where's sunset on equinox?

Well one of the forum's suggestions is that people use their powers of observation, although it does seem that REs are doing most of that, or alternatively new FEs are taking that advice and thinking 'OH YEAH', then we never see them again once they get their heads out of Youtube into the real world.

In direct response to the OP, I have downloaded EINAG and will spend some time when work quietens down to plough through some of the nonsense to analyse it myself. I also intend to carry out a Bedford Levels experiment in the Spring as I live about 15 miles from it. It does seem that robustly refuting what Rowbotham infers, is the best way to pull the rug from under the FE world. Then of course there is always the Bible to fall back on for FEs!

Roger

Roger

[Tom Haws]

Yeah. But frustratingly, where would you post/publish your review? I chose what appears to be the shortest and most transparent of the Wiki articles, the one on Eratosthenes, and posted about it in the Suggestions and Concerns thread out of a sincere desire to be helpful; I hate to see people make fools of themselves. I was told it needed to go in a Debate forum. So I put it there. Any answer? Nope.

It seems to me the only service that can be rendered here is to be a reasonable welcoming presence like CuriousSquirrel for newcomers.

[Rounder]

I also intend to carry out a Bedford Levels experiment in the Spring as I live about 15 miles from it. It does seem that robustly refuting what Rowbotham infers, is the best way to pull the rug from under the FE world.

Photos if you do!  Also, get air temperature measurements, the results of a Bedford style experiment are affected by air and water temperature, refraction can make it look like a win for the FE side.

[Roger G]

Yeah. But frustratingly, where would you post/publish your review? I chose what appears to be the shortest and most transparent of the Wiki articles, the one on Eratosthenes, and posted about it in the Suggestions and Concerns thread out of a sincere desire to be helpful; I hate to see people make fools of themselves. I was told it needed to go in a Debate forum. So I put it there. Any answer? Nope.

It seems to me the only service that can be rendered here is to be a reasonable welcoming presence like CuriousSquirrel for newcomers.

Well I would certainly publish it here and hopefully new visitors will be able to get the opportunity of looking at real world evidence rather than just the usual claptrap. I think that is probably why many round earthers are here, to educate people into looking for themselves.

I also intend to carry out a Bedford Levels experiment in the Spring as I live about 15 miles from it. It does seem that robustly refuting what Rowbotham infers, is the best way to pull the rug from under the FE world.

Photos if you do!  Also, get air temperature measurements, the results of a Bedford style experiment are affected by air and water temperature, refraction can make it look like a win for the FE side.

Conveniently, I am a professional photographer and videographer, so will get some good images, including some interesting high magnification telephoto shots to show how things truly start to disappear over the horizon. I will also have a few reliable witnesses and equipment to measure temperatures and pressure. The experiment will also be carried out on at least two days separated by a week or so. I will also be carrying out an experiment with synchronised video camera at the coast, one on the cliffs and one on the beach to show the different view of ships just on the horizon in both wide and close angles. I may actually do that one at Dover as I will be able to see the French coast from the cliffs but not the beach.

Roger

[Tom Haws]

Roger, some questions about Bedford Levels:

1. Does the canal have any slope/flow in either direction?

2. Have you checked the Geoid contours at that location to be sure that gravity vectors approximate a round earth?

[Roger G]

Roger, some questions about Bedford Levels:

1. Does the canal have any slope/flow in either direction?

2. Have you checked the Geoid contours at that location to be sure that gravity vectors approximate a round earth?

Hi Tom,

The Bedford Levels river is basically an overflow and flood channel. It has very little actual flow apart from during floods, when it is used to divert water from the nearby River Ouse. There will be a slight incline towards the east where any outflow would be released through sluices to drain towards the Wash and North Sea.

I haven't checked for Geoid contours as I wouldn't have even thought of it. The entire region though is reclaimed marshy land on very peaty soil, so whether that has any bearing on Geoid contours I wouldn't know. I do though have a friend who is a survey that I will rope into taking part, so I'm sure he would have access to that information.

Roger

[Tom Haws]

I haven't checked for Geoid contours as I wouldn't have even thought of it. The entire region though is reclaimed marshy land on very peaty soil, so whether that has any bearing on Geoid contours I wouldn't know. I do though have a friend who is a survey that I will rope into taking part, so I'm sure he would have access to that information.

Could be important. We don't know enough about subsurface geology to know what causes the geoid anomalies, and they could be anywhere. You ought to Google the Indian Ocean depression. The ocean south of India is actually depressed as much at 100 meters! I haven't yet done the calculation to predict how far you would be able to see across this ocean depression. Ignorance of a depression can lead to misleading interpretations of results. I have NO information to confirm or debunk the following hypothesis, but I have wondered whether Tom Bishop's Monterrey Bay observation may have been affected by a geoid depression.

Bottom line: Earth is Not A Globe. :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D  Who knew?

[Rama Set]

Not that I find Rowbotham to be a particularly great source but it’s nit fair to discredit all of his ideas based on some ludicrous ideas. If that were the case you would be forced to dismiss Newton because of his occultic and alchemical beliefs. ENaG should be, and largely has been, debunked piece by piece. To do otherwise merely gives Tom Bishop ammunition.

[Roger G]

Not that I find Rowbotham to be a particularly great source but it’s nit fair to discredit all of his ideas based on some ludicrous ideas. If that were the case you would be forced to dismiss Newton because of his occultic and alchemical beliefs. ENaG should be, and largely has been, debunked piece by piece. To do otherwise merely gives Tom Bishop ammunition.

The trouble is that no matter how comprehensively one of Rowbothams pieces is debunked, Tom will simply ignore it and quote exactly the same source in another thread as evidence.

Roger

[TheCatInTheHat]

The Earth is actually a pyramidal shape. It floats in the sands of space. The great Sphinx will someday consume our souls for Brunch. Amen.