The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Globe_Earther on March 22, 2018, 01:52:34 AM
-
I'm new to the forums, and to FE's challenge of Earth's rotundity. I'll admit, right now I wholeheartedly accept the view that the Earth is round, due to its plausibility in relation to my understanding of science and physics. I'm sure I'll be met with the argument that I've been brainwashed, and rightfully so. From a young age, society has fed it's members an understanding of the universe that would support the round Earth. The concept of a round Earth has become so ingrained in people's minds, that few would think to challenge it. That's not what I have an issue with, however. The Earth could very well be flat, and I wouldn't know it. I've associated myself with FE's belief that something can only be true if you see it for yourself. That's why I'm not denying the possibility of a FE by any means, however, I'm not downplaying my belief in a RE. I don't have the resources to prove the existence of a FE to myself, and it's doubtful I ever will. I present a challenge to the theory that NASA and other space-capable nations have conspired against the rest of the International community to hide the existence of a FE. The simple reasoning I have comes in the form of a question. What would be the goal of this conspiracy? If Earth is really accelerating upwards at a speed of 9.8 m/s^2, then what is the motive to hide this fact? If the sun is only 36 miles across, why cover it up? What's the point? Through all my perusal of FE forums and other resources, I have found no plausible motive. I'd appreciate an explanation, so I can decide for myself whether or not the FE is something I should really believe in.
-
As with all conspiracies, the motive is money. Some have hypothesised that there are immeasurably valuable resources close to the edge. Personally, I think that it started with a space travel conspiracy used to funnel money to the NASA, especially during the cold war. Nowadays the conspiracy might not be necessary anymore, except that confessing that we have collectively been lied to for such a long time about something so fundamental as the shape of our planet could well topple most of the current governments.
Hence, the goal now is to preserve a relative stable and peaceful climate. If there is ever a big shift in governing bodies ( e.g. due to WW III), I believe chances are high that the truth will finally come out.
-
That's another issue I have, if the only motive for the conspiracy is based on a hypothesis, then doesn't that challenge the validity of the conspiracy theory?
-
That's another issue I have, if the only motive for the conspiracy is based on a hypothesis, then doesn't that challenge the validity of the conspiracy theory?
What Dr Samuel Rowbotham revealed to the world was the revelation that earth was not round but infact was flat. But the scientific community just dismissed it. However, when the cold war was in full swing, technology had massively advanced. But what they found would have blown science apart. The Antarctic treaty was created to hide it. NASA kept being funded to astronomical sums and the government's kept a secret. It wasn't hid for money, it was hid because of how much the science books would have to have been rewritten.
-
That's another issue I have, if the only motive for the conspiracy is based on a hypothesis, then doesn't that challenge the validity of the conspiracy theory?
What Dr Samuel Rowbotham revealed to the world was the revelation that earth was not round but infact was flat. But the scientific community just dismissed it. However, when the cold war was in full swing, technology had massively advanced. But what they found would have blown science apart. The Antarctic treaty was created to hide it. NASA kept being funded to astronomical sums and the government's kept a secret. It wasn't hid for money, it was hid because of how much the science books would have to have been rewritten.
So wait, they hid it and spent trillions so they didn't have to change science books?? Well, that certainly is a novel theory. (pun intended)
No, Rowbotham wrote a book that was wrong in almost every assertion and wasn't remotely well researched. If it had merit, the scientific community would have picked it up and run with it. That is how science works. No, he just rehashed ancient theories and proved nothing.
Here are the articles of the Antarctic Treaty. What part of it is related to a flat Earth???
Article 1 – The area is to be used for peaceful purposes only; military activity, such as weapons testing, is prohibited but military personnel and equipment may be used for scientific research or any other peaceful purpose;
Article 2 – Freedom of scientific investigations and cooperation shall continue;
Article 3 – Free exchange of information and personnel in cooperation with the United Nations and other international agencies;
Article 4 – The treaty does not recognize, dispute, nor establish territorial sovereignty claims; no new claims shall be asserted while the treaty is in force;
Article 5 – The treaty prohibits nuclear explosions or disposal of radioactive wastes;
Article 6 – Includes under the treaty all land and ice shelves but not the surrounding waters south of 60 degrees 00 minutes south;
Article 7 – Treaty-state observers have free access, including aerial observation, to any area and may inspect all stations, installations, and equipment; advance notice of all activities and of the introduction of military personnel must be given;
Article 8 – Allows for good jurisdiction over observers and scientists by their own states;
Article 9 – Frequent consultative meetings take place among member nations;
Article 10 – All treaty states will discourage activities by any country in Antarctica that are contrary to the treaty;
Article 11 – All disputes to be settled peacefully by the parties concerned or, ultimately, by the International Court of Justice;
Articles 12, 13, 14 – Deal with upholding, interpreting, and amending the treaty among involved nations.
-
Dr Rowbotham wrote a revolutionary book but science dismissed it because science dismisses anything that isn't part of the status quo. He researched it over many years, in great detail, and dedicated his life to it.
And yes, they spent trillions, its about control. They can't have the science books rewritten, not during a space race especially.
And notice you mentioned military in that treaty. I never said they were weapons testing, proving my point that they are there.
-
Dr Rowbotham wrote a revolutionary book but science dismissed it because science dismisses anything that isn't part of the status quo. He researched it over many years, in great detail, and dedicated his life to it.
And yes, they spent trillions, its about control. They can't have the science books rewritten, not during a space race especially.
And notice you mentioned military in that treaty. I never said they were weapons testing, proving my point that they are there.
That's not how science works. Countless experiments have been done to try and disprove Einstein's theory of relativity, for example. Challenging assertions/findings is how science moves forward.
The FET community is welcome to do the same by putting forth papers for peer review.
-
Dr Rowbotham wrote a revolutionary book but science dismissed it because science dismisses anything that isn't part of the status quo. He researched it over many years, in great detail, and dedicated his life to it.
And yes, they spent trillions, its about control. They can't have the science books rewritten, not during a space race especially.
And notice you mentioned military in that treaty. I never said they were weapons testing, proving my point that they are there.
That's not how science works. Countless experiments have been done to try and disprove Einstein's theory of relativity, for example. Challenging assertions/findings is how science moves forward.
The FET community is welcome to do the same by putting forth papers for peer review.
Yes that's true, but Dr Rowbotham challenged something that was regarded as fact and its easier to ridicule it. Almost like it wasn't worth the effort for them to do it, but clearly worth yours.
And Eric Dubay, the leader of the flat earth movement, has put forth many arguments blowing the doors off arguments by 'experts' such as Tyson.
-
Dr Rowbotham wrote a revolutionary book but science dismissed it because science dismisses anything that isn't part of the status quo. He researched it over many years, in great detail, and dedicated his life to it.
And yes, they spent trillions, its about control. They can't have the science books rewritten, not during a space race especially.
And notice you mentioned military in that treaty. I never said they were weapons testing, proving my point that they are there.
That's not how science works. Countless experiments have been done to try and disprove Einstein's theory of relativity, for example. Challenging assertions/findings is how science moves forward.
The FET community is welcome to do the same by putting forth papers for peer review.
Yes that's true, but Dr Rowbotham challenged something that was regarded as fact and its easier to ridicule it. Almost like it wasn't worth the effort for them to do it, but clearly worth yours.
And Eric Dubay, the leader of the flat earth movement, has put forth many arguments blowing the doors off arguments by 'experts' such as Tyson.
If the evidence is so strong, I would suggest that Mr. Dubay puts forth his evidence for peer review.
-
Dr Rowbotham wrote a revolutionary book but science dismissed it because science dismisses anything that isn't part of the status quo. He researched it over many years, in great detail, and dedicated his life to it.
And yes, they spent trillions, its about control. They can't have the science books rewritten, not during a space race especially.
And notice you mentioned military in that treaty. I never said they were weapons testing, proving my point that they are there.
Saying science dismisses anything that isn't part of the status quo shows you literally have NO CLUE what you're talking about. Go read a book on science history and you'll be treated to battle after battle of ideas, data, and egos. Rowbotham was a joke. I read ENAG. It is poorly written, poorly researched, and contains error after error. I suppose you think moonlight makes things cooler...
Given that both sides would have known, you space race comment makes no sense. It would have been more advantageous to build systems that take advantage of how the Earth is really shaped. (which they did)
I never mentioned anything. I copy and pasted the treaty. It says the military CAN be there for PEACEFUL reasons. Doesn't say they are or aren't. Nor is it relevant to FEH.
-
Dr Rowbotham wrote a revolutionary book but science dismissed it because science dismisses anything that isn't part of the status quo. He researched it over many years, in great detail, and dedicated his life to it.
And yes, they spent trillions, its about control. They can't have the science books rewritten, not during a space race especially.
And notice you mentioned military in that treaty. I never said they were weapons testing, proving my point that they are there.
That's not how science works. Countless experiments have been done to try and disprove Einstein's theory of relativity, for example. Challenging assertions/findings is how science moves forward.
The FET community is welcome to do the same by putting forth papers for peer review.
Yes that's true, but Dr Rowbotham challenged something that was regarded as fact and its easier to ridicule it. Almost like it wasn't worth the effort for them to do it, but clearly worth yours.
And Eric Dubay, the leader of the flat earth movement, has put forth many arguments blowing the doors off arguments by 'experts' such as Tyson.
If the evidence is so strong, I would suggest that Mr. Dubay puts forth his evidence for peer review.
A little difficult to be taken seriously when the status quo don't want to even acknowledge you.
Dr Rowbotham wrote a revolutionary book but science dismissed it because science dismisses anything that isn't part of the status quo. He researched it over many years, in great detail, and dedicated his life to it.
And yes, they spent trillions, its about control. They can't have the science books rewritten, not during a space race especially.
And notice you mentioned military in that treaty. I never said they were weapons testing, proving my point that they are there.
Saying science dismisses anything that isn't part of the status quo shows you literally have NO CLUE what you're talking about. Go read a book on science history and you'll be treated to battle after battle of ideas, data, and egos. Rowbotham was a joke. I read ENAG. It is poorly written, poorly researched, and contains error after error. I suppose you think moonlight makes things cooler...
Given that both sides would have known, you space race comment makes no sense. It would have been more advantageous to build systems that take advantage of how the Earth is really shaped. (which they did)
I never mentioned anything. I copy and pasted the treaty. It says the military CAN be there for PEACEFUL reasons. Doesn't say they are or aren't. Nor is it relevant to FEH.
They dismissed Dr Rowbotham at the time. They dismiss him now. They dismiss flat earth out of hand and say its a load of rubbish yet won't shut up about it.
Dr Rowbotham created a revolutionary book that was expertly researched and conducted. By 'poorly written', I'm assuming you are unaware that they wrote books that way in 19th century Britain. So it's not. And I'd like to see error after error.
As for moonlight, Dr Rowbotham only wrote the facts. He didn't make any errors. The man was a visionary, and should be respected as such.
-
Dr Rowbotham wrote a revolutionary book but science dismissed it because science dismisses anything that isn't part of the status quo. He researched it over many years, in great detail, and dedicated his life to it.
And yes, they spent trillions, its about control. They can't have the science books rewritten, not during a space race especially.
And notice you mentioned military in that treaty. I never said they were weapons testing, proving my point that they are there.
That's not how science works. Countless experiments have been done to try and disprove Einstein's theory of relativity, for example. Challenging assertions/findings is how science moves forward.
The FET community is welcome to do the same by putting forth papers for peer review.
Yes that's true, but Dr Rowbotham challenged something that was regarded as fact and its easier to ridicule it. Almost like it wasn't worth the effort for them to do it, but clearly worth yours.
And Eric Dubay, the leader of the flat earth movement, has put forth many arguments blowing the doors off arguments by 'experts' such as Tyson.
If the evidence is so strong, I would suggest that Mr. Dubay puts forth his evidence for peer review.
A little difficult to be taken seriously when the status quo don't want to even acknowledge you.
Dr Rowbotham wrote a revolutionary book but science dismissed it because science dismisses anything that isn't part of the status quo. He researched it over many years, in great detail, and dedicated his life to it.
And yes, they spent trillions, its about control. They can't have the science books rewritten, not during a space race especially.
And notice you mentioned military in that treaty. I never said they were weapons testing, proving my point that they are there.
Saying science dismisses anything that isn't part of the status quo shows you literally have NO CLUE what you're talking about. Go read a book on science history and you'll be treated to battle after battle of ideas, data, and egos. Rowbotham was a joke. I read ENAG. It is poorly written, poorly researched, and contains error after error. I suppose you think moonlight makes things cooler...
Given that both sides would have known, you space race comment makes no sense. It would have been more advantageous to build systems that take advantage of how the Earth is really shaped. (which they did)
I never mentioned anything. I copy and pasted the treaty. It says the military CAN be there for PEACEFUL reasons. Doesn't say they are or aren't. Nor is it relevant to FEH.
They dismissed Dr Rowbotham at the time. They dismiss him now. They dismiss flat earth out of hand and say its a load of rubbish yet won't shut up about it.
Dr Rowbotham created a revolutionary book that was expertly researched and conducted. By 'poorly written', I'm assuming you are unaware that they wrote books that way in 19th century Britain. So it's not. And I'd like to see error after error.
As for moonlight, Dr Rowbotham only wrote the facts. He didn't make any errors. The man was a visionary, and should be respected as such.
Have you considered that it may not have been dismissed out of hand, and was instead particularly easy to disprove?
And if you think moonlight cools things off because Rowbotham said so I thinl you may be beyond help.
-
Not really, it's just dismissed. In fact Dr Rowbotham was dismissed out of hand.
-
spiritual
-
It was disregarded because we know otherwise. We have proof of otherwise. We have documented otherwise extensively, there is no logical reason to believe the earth isn't round*.
Rowbotham wasn't a genius, he was a twit unwilling to trust the proven and solved.
The only reason that notion exists here is that all that proof and documentation and knowledge is thrown away dismissively (sound familiar?) because the people whose job it is to research space had the gall to research space and communicate what they found. Shame on them. ;)
*The only logic I've found is 'it looks flat' and nothing more. Not exactly earthshaking evidence, is it?
-
It was disregarded because we know otherwise. We have proof of otherwise. We have documented otherwise extensively, there is no logical reason to believe the earth isn't round*.
Rowbotham wasn't a genius, he was a twit unwilling to trust the proven and solved.
The only reason that notion exists here is that all that proof and documentation and knowledge is thrown away dismissively (sound familiar?) because the people whose job it is to research space had the gall to research space and communicate what they found. Shame on them. ;)
*The only logic I've found is 'it looks flat' and nothing more. Not exactly earthshaking evidence, is it?
Also, it was never actually discarded out of hand. Rowbotham made his name by constantly arguing and debating his points. When he lost he tended to run from the debate, or claim that he was right regardless of the evidence proving him wrong, but there wouldn't be an ENaG if his ideals were discarded immediately.
-
As for moonlight, Dr Rowbotham only wrote the facts. He didn't make any errors. The man was a visionary, and should be respected as such.
You trolled too hard on that one. You were doing ok for awhile, but now you've blown your hand and made it clear you're just trolling. Later.
-
It was disregarded because we know otherwise. We have proof of otherwise. We have documented otherwise extensively, there is no logical reason to believe the earth isn't round*.
Rowbotham wasn't a genius, he was a twit unwilling to trust the proven and solved.
The only reason that notion exists here is that all that proof and documentation and knowledge is thrown away dismissively (sound familiar?) because the people whose job it is to research space had the gall to research space and communicate what they found. Shame on them. ;)
*The only logic I've found is 'it looks flat' and nothing more. Not exactly earthshaking evidence, is it?
Also, it was never actually discarded out of hand. Rowbotham made his name by constantly arguing and debating his points. When he lost he tended to run from the debate, or claim that he was right regardless of the evidence proving him wrong, but there wouldn't be an ENaG if his ideals were discarded immediately.
Actually, he didn't run from the debate at all, I don't know where you got that from. In fact, he showed up many in the scientific community to be rattled and poor at handling someone who holds their own on controversial topics.
As for moonlight, Dr Rowbotham only wrote the facts. He didn't make any errors. The man was a visionary, and should be respected as such.
You trolled too hard on that one. You were doing ok for awhile, but now you've blown your hand and made it clear you're just trolling. Later.
Why is it trolling? Because I respect Dr Rowbotham? There is no trolling whatsoever thanks.
-
Yes that's true, but Dr Rowbotham challenged something that was regarded as fact and its easier to ridicule it.
As did Einstein, as have many people over the centuries who have completely changed our thinking about how the world and universe works.
Otherwise we'd still be thinking that everything is made of the 4 elements earth, air, water and fire.
Lots of people have come along and revolutionised science and understanding of things, Newton and Einstein are but too.
Rowbotham COULD have been one, his ideas were indeed revolutionary. Trouble is they were demonstrably wrong.
And there's the difference, Newton and Einstein's ideas stood up to scrutiny so became accepted, Rowbotham's didn't so he was consigned to relative obscurity.
There's no conspiracy here. I know you guys love a good conspiracy but his ideas were simply and demonstrably wrong.
-
spiritual
Last warning.
-
Yes that's true, but Dr Rowbotham challenged something that was regarded as fact and its easier to ridicule it.
As did Einstein, as have many people over the centuries who have completely changed our thinking about how the world and universe works.
Otherwise we'd still be thinking that everything is made of the 4 elements earth, air, water and fire.
Lots of people have come along and revolutionised science and understanding of things, Newton and Einstein are but too.
Rowbotham COULD have been one, his ideas were indeed revolutionary. Trouble is they were demonstrably wrong.
And there's the difference, Newton and Einstein's ideas stood up to scrutiny so became accepted, Rowbotham's didn't so he was consigned to relative obscurity.
There's no conspiracy here. I know you guys love a good conspiracy but his ideas were simply and demonstrably wrong.
Dr Rowbothams ideas were scientifically and mathematically accurate. If you read his work you should know that, but then these round earthers seem to believe whatever NASA spew. Einstein may be regarded as a genius now, but Dr Rowbotham changed the science books, yet when the technology was available for the elite to see for themselves, they covered it all up.
-
Yes that's true, but Dr Rowbotham challenged something that was regarded as fact and its easier to ridicule it.
As did Einstein, as have many people over the centuries who have completely changed our thinking about how the world and universe works.
Otherwise we'd still be thinking that everything is made of the 4 elements earth, air, water and fire.
Lots of people have come along and revolutionised science and understanding of things, Newton and Einstein are but too.
Rowbotham COULD have been one, his ideas were indeed revolutionary. Trouble is they were demonstrably wrong.
And there's the difference, Newton and Einstein's ideas stood up to scrutiny so became accepted, Rowbotham's didn't so he was consigned to relative obscurity.
There's no conspiracy here. I know you guys love a good conspiracy but his ideas were simply and demonstrably wrong.
Dr Rowbothams ideas were scientifically and mathematically accurate. If you read his work you should know that, but then these round earthers seem to believe whatever NASA spew. Einstein may be regarded as a genius now, but Dr Rowbotham changed the science books, yet when the technology was available for the elite to see for themselves, they covered it all up.
Incorrect. Care to try again? I've read the book. It's a load of bollocks backed up with confirmation bias, a touch of truth, and ignoring anything that disagrees with his already formed conclusions. Again though, I would be more than happy to go into greater detail in a thread devoted to the subject if you so desire, but it doesn't seem particularly appropriate here.
-
Yes that's true, but Dr Rowbotham challenged something that was regarded as fact and its easier to ridicule it.
As did Einstein, as have many people over the centuries who have completely changed our thinking about how the world and universe works.
Otherwise we'd still be thinking that everything is made of the 4 elements earth, air, water and fire.
Lots of people have come along and revolutionised science and understanding of things, Newton and Einstein are but too.
Rowbotham COULD have been one, his ideas were indeed revolutionary. Trouble is they were demonstrably wrong.
And there's the difference, Newton and Einstein's ideas stood up to scrutiny so became accepted, Rowbotham's didn't so he was consigned to relative obscurity.
There's no conspiracy here. I know you guys love a good conspiracy but his ideas were simply and demonstrably wrong.
Dr Rowbothams ideas were scientifically and mathematically accurate. If you read his work you should know that, but then these round earthers seem to believe whatever NASA spew. Einstein may be regarded as a genius now, but Dr Rowbotham changed the science books, yet when the technology was available for the elite to see for themselves, they covered it all up.
Incorrect. Care to try again? I've read the book. It's a load of bollocks backed up with confirmation bias, a touch of truth, and ignoring anything that disagrees with his already formed conclusions. Again though, I would be more than happy to go into greater detail in a thread devoted to the subject if you so desire, but it doesn't seem particularly appropriate here.
The "crown jewel" of his experiments -- the Bedford Level experiment -- was done several times after he initially completed it. In fact, one of his supporters lost a bet against Alfred Russel Wallace (a surveyor) repeating the same exact experiment in the same exact place. It was ruled by all observers, including a referee decided upon by both contestants, that Wallace was correct and that the Bedford Level experiment showed, in fact, that the earth was curved.
Variations of the experiment were done several times over the following years, and they all showed that the earth was curved. The only peope to come to the conclusion that the earth was flat via the Bedford Level experiment were Rowbotham (note that I did not call him "Dr Rowbotham," as he never received a doctorate of any sort. Liking someone's views does not make them a doctor, no matter how much you want it to be so) and Lady Blount.
Curiously enough, not taking into account refraction (which is often used by FE theorists as an explanation for phenomena that does not line up with their world view) is the reason Rowbotham and Blount were incorrect.
-
Yes that's true, but Dr Rowbotham challenged something that was regarded as fact and its easier to ridicule it.
As did Einstein, as have many people over the centuries who have completely changed our thinking about how the world and universe works.
Otherwise we'd still be thinking that everything is made of the 4 elements earth, air, water and fire.
Lots of people have come along and revolutionised science and understanding of things, Newton and Einstein are but too.
Rowbotham COULD have been one, his ideas were indeed revolutionary. Trouble is they were demonstrably wrong.
And there's the difference, Newton and Einstein's ideas stood up to scrutiny so became accepted, Rowbotham's didn't so he was consigned to relative obscurity.
There's no conspiracy here. I know you guys love a good conspiracy but his ideas were simply and demonstrably wrong.
Dr Rowbothams ideas were scientifically and mathematically accurate. If you read his work you should know that, but then these round earthers seem to believe whatever NASA spew. Einstein may be regarded as a genius now, but Dr Rowbotham changed the science books, yet when the technology was available for the elite to see for themselves, they covered it all up.
Incorrect. Care to try again? I've read the book. It's a load of bollocks backed up with confirmation bias, a touch of truth, and ignoring anything that disagrees with his already formed conclusions. Again though, I would be more than happy to go into greater detail in a thread devoted to the subject if you so desire, but it doesn't seem particularly appropriate here.
This is outrageous. Fair enough you don't believe it, but at least show Dr Rowbotham and his work the proper respect. It seems you have difficulty understanding his experiments and reasoning, he uses many different situations and takes various factors into account. A decade long study produced what is probably the most important scientific book ever written.
Yes that's true, but Dr Rowbotham challenged something that was regarded as fact and its easier to ridicule it.
As did Einstein, as have many people over the centuries who have completely changed our thinking about how the world and universe works.
Otherwise we'd still be thinking that everything is made of the 4 elements earth, air, water and fire.
Lots of people have come along and revolutionised science and understanding of things, Newton and Einstein are but too.
Rowbotham COULD have been one, his ideas were indeed revolutionary. Trouble is they were demonstrably wrong.
And there's the difference, Newton and Einstein's ideas stood up to scrutiny so became accepted, Rowbotham's didn't so he was consigned to relative obscurity.
There's no conspiracy here. I know you guys love a good conspiracy but his ideas were simply and demonstrably wrong.
Dr Rowbothams ideas were scientifically and mathematically accurate. If you read his work you should know that, but then these round earthers seem to believe whatever NASA spew. Einstein may be regarded as a genius now, but Dr Rowbotham changed the science books, yet when the technology was available for the elite to see for themselves, they covered it all up.
Incorrect. Care to try again? I've read the book. It's a load of bollocks backed up with confirmation bias, a touch of truth, and ignoring anything that disagrees with his already formed conclusions. Again though, I would be more than happy to go into greater detail in a thread devoted to the subject if you so desire, but it doesn't seem particularly appropriate here.
The "crown jewel" of his experiments -- the Bedford Level experiment -- was done several times after he initially completed it. In fact, one of his supporters lost a bet against Alfred Russel Wallace (a surveyor) repeating the same exact experiment in the same exact place. It was ruled by all observers, including a referee decided upon by both contestants, that Wallace was correct and that the Bedford Level experiment showed, in fact, that the earth was curved.
Variations of the experiment were done several times over the following years, and they all showed that the earth was curved. The only peope to come to the conclusion that the earth was flat via the Bedford Level experiment were Rowbotham (note that I did not call him "Dr Rowbotham," as he never received a doctorate of any sort. Liking someone's views does not make them a doctor, no matter how much you want it to be so) and Lady Blount.
Curiously enough, not taking into account refraction (which is often used by FE theorists as an explanation for phenomena that does not line up with their world view) is the reason Rowbotham and Blount were incorrect.
Have you read his book? I'm going to assume not, be because if you did you'd be aware that Dr Rowbotham went into immense detail with regards to how he took refraction into account with the Bedford level experiment. Wallace got a different result, but his experiment was flawed from the start thereby rendering the end result incorrect.
-
If by "flawed from the start" you mean "correctly took refraction into account" then you are correct.
-
If by "flawed from the start" you mean "correctly took refraction into account" then you are correct.
Dr Rowbotham took it into account and his result ended up being scientifically correct.
-
If by "flawed from the start" you mean "correctly took refraction into account" then you are correct.
Dr Rowbotham took it into account and his result ended up being scientifically correct.
All right. Whoever this made up "Dr Rowbotham" is might have done so in some sort of fictional story. I can assure you that Samuel Rowbotham did not do so correctly
-
If by "flawed from the start" you mean "correctly took refraction into account" then you are correct.
Dr Rowbotham took it into account and his result ended up being scientifically correct.
All right. Whoever this made up "Dr Rowbotham" is might have done so in some sort of fictional story. I can assure you that Samuel Rowbotham did not do so correctly
I can assure you Dr Rowbotham took everything into account and produced the correct result.
-
Please refer to the specific piece of writing you're talking about, where Rowbotham explained in detail how he accounted for refraction.
-
Yes that's true, but Dr Rowbotham challenged something that was regarded as fact and its easier to ridicule it.
As did Einstein, as have many people over the centuries who have completely changed our thinking about how the world and universe works.
Otherwise we'd still be thinking that everything is made of the 4 elements earth, air, water and fire.
Lots of people have come along and revolutionised science and understanding of things, Newton and Einstein are but too.
Rowbotham COULD have been one, his ideas were indeed revolutionary. Trouble is they were demonstrably wrong.
And there's the difference, Newton and Einstein's ideas stood up to scrutiny so became accepted, Rowbotham's didn't so he was consigned to relative obscurity.
There's no conspiracy here. I know you guys love a good conspiracy but his ideas were simply and demonstrably wrong.
Dr Rowbothams ideas were scientifically and mathematically accurate. If you read his work you should know that, but then these round earthers seem to believe whatever NASA spew. Einstein may be regarded as a genius now, but Dr Rowbotham changed the science books, yet when the technology was available for the elite to see for themselves, they covered it all up.
Incorrect. Care to try again? I've read the book. It's a load of bollocks backed up with confirmation bias, a touch of truth, and ignoring anything that disagrees with his already formed conclusions. Again though, I would be more than happy to go into greater detail in a thread devoted to the subject if you so desire, but it doesn't seem particularly appropriate here.
This is outrageous. Fair enough you don't believe it, but at least show Dr Rowbotham and his work the proper respect. It seems you have difficulty understanding his experiments and reasoning, he uses many different situations and takes various factors into account. A decade long study produced what is probably the most important scientific book ever written.
Ah, my favorite. "You're obviously too stupid to understand" is your excuse now? Alright, I've got some time this weekend. Let's go through the waste of space that is his book. We can take a look at what he did wrong, what he hasn't done, and why his conclusions are either erroneous, or cannot be trusted, and perhaps we can squeeze in some discussion on the biases and fallacies riddling his work as well.
-
Please refer to the specific piece of writing you're talking about, where Rowbotham explained in detail how he accounted for refraction.
It's in the book, I'm not typing it out here. I'm sure you could find it online.
-
Please refer to the specific piece of writing you're talking about, where Rowbotham explained in detail how he accounted for refraction.
It's in the book, I'm not typing it out here. I'm sure you could find it online.
I also could not find it with these various Bedford level experiments in EnaG.
Found it at http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za14.htm (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za14.htm)
But obviously the author has a false understanding of atmospheric refraction, which is quite different to normal refraction.
-
No he doesn't, he understood it perfectly.
-
No he doesn't, he understood it perfectly.
please compare
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za14.htm (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za14.htm)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refraction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refraction)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction)
-
No he doesn't, he understood it perfectly.
please compare
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za14.htm (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za14.htm)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refraction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refraction)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction)
Dr Rowbotham understood it perfectly.
-
No he doesn't, he understood it perfectly.
please compare
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za14.htm (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za14.htm)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refraction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refraction)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction)
Dr Rowbotham understood it perfectly.
All right. Definitely entering confirmed troll territory here.
Most of the members here will at least try to provide evidence for their claims. Or just not make claims.
-
I ask for clarity of reference because he wrote more than one book. Not asking for a full quote, just something more specific than 'the book.'
Okay, I looked through the first one credited to Rowbotham in the library, Experimental Proofs, that reviews the wager about the Bedford canal. He addresses refraction in a paragraph at the top of page 20, after quoting a Britannica article on levelling. Unsurprisingly, he says it can be ignored.
It's clear he did not, in fact, take refraction into account. Quite the opposite; he claims he didn't need to.
Did you not read this?
-
Another nice experiment from EnaG, where Rowbotham ignored refraction:
Experiment 6, conducted between two sea piers at Brighton/Worthing.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za11.htm (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za11.htm)
But he did not only ignore refraction, he also ignored tides.
This is English Channel, well known or high tides.
Tide tables for Brighton give 6 meters (20 feet) between low and high tide.
Water level could change 5 feet each hour.
There's neither a hint for state of the tide during the experiment, nor how long the experiment lasted, nor what was the position of the mast top referenced to the theodolite at the destination/end of experiment.
-
Another nice experiment from EnaG, where Rowbotham ignored refraction:
Experiment 6, conducted between two sea piers at Brighton/Worthing.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za11.htm (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za11.htm)
But he did not only ignore refraction, he also ignored tides.
This is English Channel, well known or high tides.
Tide tables for Brighton give 6 meters (20 feet) between low and high tide.
Water level could change 5 feet each hour.
There's neither a hint for state of the tide during the experiment, nor how long the experiment lasted, nor what was the position of the mast top referenced to the theodolite at the destination/end of experiment.
Rowbotham does account for refraction in his experiments. See Experiment 9 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za14.htm).
-
Another nice experiment from EnaG, where Rowbotham ignored refraction:
Experiment 6, conducted between two sea piers at Brighton/Worthing.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za11.htm (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za11.htm)
But he did not only ignore refraction, he also ignored tides.
This is English Channel, well known or high tides.
Tide tables for Brighton give 6 meters (20 feet) between low and high tide.
Water level could change 5 feet each hour.
There's neither a hint for state of the tide during the experiment, nor how long the experiment lasted, nor what was the position of the mast top referenced to the theodolite at the destination/end of experiment.
Rowbotham does account for refraction in his experiments. See Experiment 9 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za14.htm).
Refraction is mentioned in but 3 of his experiments, and one of them is using it as a way to assert a theodolite is inaccurate to such a degree that is cannot be relied upon to observe angles. The other contains almost no notes on anything beyond claiming to have seen X when he expected Y. But neither X nor Y are particularly well defined, and neither is the area of the supposed experiment.
-
Another nice experiment from EnaG, where Rowbotham ignored refraction:
Experiment 6, conducted between two sea piers at Brighton/Worthing.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za11.htm (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za11.htm)
But he did not only ignore refraction, he also ignored tides.
This is English Channel, well known or high tides.
Tide tables for Brighton give 6 meters (20 feet) between low and high tide.
Water level could change 5 feet each hour.
There's neither a hint for state of the tide during the experiment, nor how long the experiment lasted, nor what was the position of the mast top referenced to the theodolite at the destination/end of experiment.
Rowbotham does account for refraction in his experiments. See Experiment 9 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za14.htm).
Why do you believe Rowbotham to be more accurate that the measurements and models we have today which are highly accurate? eg. WGS-84
-
Another nice experiment from EnaG, where Rowbotham ignored refraction:
Experiment 6, conducted between two sea piers at Brighton/Worthing.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za11.htm (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za11.htm)
But he did not only ignore refraction, he also ignored tides.
This is English Channel, well known or high tides.
Tide tables for Brighton give 6 meters (20 feet) between low and high tide.
Water level could change 5 feet each hour.
There's neither a hint for state of the tide during the experiment, nor how long the experiment lasted, nor what was the position of the mast top referenced to the theodolite at the destination/end of experiment.
Rowbotham does account for refraction in his experiments. See Experiment 9 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za14.htm).
Why do you believe Rowbotham to be more accurate that the measurements and models we have today which are highly accurate? eg. WGS-84
What does that have to so with what you quoted? Please stop butting into our conversations.
-
Rowbotham does account for refraction in his experiments. See Experiment 9 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za14.htm).
A very little reflection, however, will show that the cases are not parallel; for instance, if the object (a shilling or other coin) is placed in a basin without water there is no refraction. Being surrounded with atmospheric air only, and the observer being in the same medium, there is no bending or refraction of the eye line. Nor would there be any refraction if the object and the observer were both surrounded with water. Refraction can only exist when the medium surrounding the observer is different to that in which the object is placed.
Sorry, this is "Refraction", which is a quite different case than "Atmospheric Refraction".
Atmospheric Refraction is caused by a vertical density change of the air, all along the line of sight. So measuring parameters only at observer's and target's position is pointless. You have to evaluate a vertical air density profile all along the line of sight.
-
That's another issue I have, if the only motive for the conspiracy is based on a hypothesis, then doesn't that challenge the validity of the conspiracy theory?
What Dr Samuel Rowbotham revealed to the world was the revelation that earth was not round but infact was flat. But the scientific community just dismissed it. However, when the cold war was in full swing, technology had massively advanced. But what they found would have blown science apart. The Antarctic treaty was created to hide it. NASA kept being funded to astronomical sums and the government's kept a secret. It wasn't hid for money, it was hid because of how much the science books would have to have been rewritten.
So you are claiming that science covers up anything that disagrees with their opinion?
About the same time as Rowbotham was dreaming up his crackpot ideas, Darwin published “the origin of Species” which flew in the face of at the time current thinking, and was peer reviewed and accepted, but there were many challenges, however his theories stood the test of time.
At the time there was money enough around for funding experiments, and explorers, most likely this was an incentive to Rowbotham, to get a slice of the action.....
As for the space race, and the Cold War, Do you actually understand what that was about? 2 superpower who were at each other’s throats to the point of nuclear war, and to talk annihilation of the world people, who were using the race as a propaganda tool. USSR was winning it, 1st satellite (oh i forgot sputnik didnt exist did it?) 1st person in space, and until about 1963 or so was winning the moon landings preparation. Do you really think that at that time they got together and were capable of concocting a conspiracy between them that had the aim of USSR losing the race??
USSR at the time would have just defied the agreement to win, as would the USA. Obviously world history is not among your strong points, along with debating, mathematics etc.
Also who sent the first rocket into Space?
Nazi Germany did in 1941 (or 1942) as part of their V rocket programme. The V2 were the first ballistic missiles. Was Germany in collusion with the Allies (USA, USSR, UK, To name a few) in that it was all a hoax? Being in a total war that ruined many economies for decades and killed millions of people is a bit of an extreme was to cover something up dont you think?