The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: kasai on April 10, 2018, 05:58:17 PM
-
If you think about it, non of the things we have for flat-earth or round earth are even scientific laws. We don't know if it's flat, or round, we simply don't know. We are all assuming, I'm a flat-earther, but just looking at all the facts, we have a much better theory when it comes to flat or round debates, we have more facts, more knowledge of how the Earth actually works.
-
we have a much better theory when it comes to flat or round debates, we have more facts, more knowledge of how the Earth actually works.
Can you explain how flat earth THEORY has more facts and knowledge of how the earth works?
-
If you think about it, non of the things we have for flat-earth or round earth are even scientific laws. We don't know if it's flat, or round, we simply don't know. We are all assuming, I'm a flat-earther, but just looking at all the facts, we have a much better theory when it comes to flat or round debates, we have more facts, more knowledge of how the Earth actually works.
There's a significant difference between a "normal" theory (in science known as a hypothesis) and a scientific theory.
I recommend you watch this: https://youtu.be/lqk3TKuGNBA (https://youtu.be/lqk3TKuGNBA)
In short, a scientific theory is the best description of how reality works we have at the time. It has to explain all observed facts and it mustn't contradict any of them. We also have to have a very good reason to believe it is real and it is the correct/best one among all other theories.
That's why the flat earth hypothesis didn't stand the test.
-
bates, we have more facts, more knowledge of how the Earth actually works.
I'd disagree. The globe Earth model allows us to accurately calculate the movement of celestial bodies, phases of the Moon, daylight, eclipses, seasons, tides, and so on. I've yet to come across accurate calculations of these things which would be based on a flat Earth.
-
We don't know if it's flat, or round, we simply don't know. We are all assuming
See, this is where I'm going to disagree.
The earth has been observed from space, many humans have witnessed it.
We have GPS and satellite TV which prove that we have launched things into orbit. These things demonstrably work
The round earth model works, there is no flat earth model which does.
There are some debates in science right now, this isn't one and hasn't been for thousands of years.
-
We don't have theories, we have solid facts. Dr Rowbotham was able to prove how flat earth works. His experiments were solid and this is proved in calculating the true distance of the sun and moon.
-
We don't have theories, we have solid facts. Dr Rowbotham was able to prove how flat earth works. His experiments were solid and this is proved in calculating the true distance of the sun and moon.
Well then, please provide us an accurate flat Earth map.
-
We don't have theories, we have solid facts. Dr Rowbotham was able to prove how flat earth works. His experiments were solid and this is proved in calculating the true distance of the sun and moon.
Well then, please provide us an accurate flat Earth map.
(https://pictures.abebooks.com/SANDCAT/20793253712.jpg)
-
We don't have theories, we have solid facts. Dr Rowbotham was able to prove how flat earth works. His experiments were solid and this is proved in calculating the true distance of the sun and moon.
Well then, please provide us an accurate flat Earth map.
(https://pictures.abebooks.com/SANDCAT/20793253712.jpg)
It's really hard to make out the scale. The radius of the equator on that map is something around 6100-6300 km, am I right?
-
Says its a projection, clearly distances and flight paths wrong.
-
We don't have theories, we have solid facts. Dr Rowbotham was able to prove how flat earth works. His experiments were solid and this is proved in calculating the true distance of the sun and moon.
Ever taken a crack at calculating that distance yourself? Dr Rowbotham claimed that the sun couldn't be more than 800 miles from the surface of the earth. This FE blogger however, figured it to be 6,200 miles:
https://savageplane.wordpress.com/2017/03/28/calculating-the-distance-to-the-sun/
Would love to see your take.
-
Dr Rowbotham or a blogger? Yeah, I'm going with Dr Rowbotham.
Also it is less than 700 miles.
-
Mr Rowbowtham or all of modern science?
Yes, it is a real head-scratcher, that one.
The globe earth has been observed. This is not a theory or matter of debate.
-
Dr Rowbotham or a blogger? Yeah, I'm going with Dr Rowbotham.
Also it is less than 700 miles.
Classic argument ad hominem. If the blogger is right then he's right, if he's not he's not. Having "Dr" before your name doesn't mean you are always right or better than someone who is "just" a blogger. The argument itself is independant of its "creator".
-
Having "Dr" before your name doesn't mean you are always right or better than someone who is "just" a blogger.
Well, there's a good possibility that he was never a doctor anyway and just claimed to be because he thought it added some credibility to his ridiculous arguments.
Probably worked quite well back in the day when doctors would have been more respected than they are now.
Bit sad that people are still falling for it now though.
-
Dr Rowbotham or a blogger? Yeah, I'm going with Dr Rowbotham.
Also it is less than 700 miles.
Classic argument ad hominem. If the blogger is right then he's right, if he's not he's not. Having "Dr" before your name doesn't mean you are always right or better than someone who is "just" a blogger. The argument itself is independant of its "creator".
Dr Rowbotham was a respected doctor who was able to provide scientific research to back up his experiments. In this case, Dr Rowbotham is correct.
-
Dr Rowbotham or a blogger? Yeah, I'm going with Dr Rowbotham.
Also it is less than 700 miles.
Classic argument ad hominem. If the blogger is right then he's right, if he's not he's not. Having "Dr" before your name doesn't mean you are always right or better than someone who is "just" a blogger. The argument itself is independant of its "creator".
Dr Rowbotham was a respected doctor who was able to provide scientific research to back up his experiments. In this case, Dr Rowbotham is correct.
Please explain how measurements today prove him wrong. If it was 700 miles high then angle from different parts of eg. US would be very different.
-
Says its a projection, clearly distances and flight paths wrong.
It takes about ten minutes research of flight paths and times to show that this map doesn't work. But the interesting thing is that this doesn't matter to Parallax. He'd rather have a map that clearly doesn't work to one that explains all the data. That's the really interesting thing.
There's no real argument about whether the Earth is flat or not, but the ability of Parallax to continue to believe it is - that's interesting.
-
Dr Rowbotham or a blogger? Yeah, I'm going with Dr Rowbotham.
Also it is less than 700 miles.
Classic argument ad hominem. If the blogger is right then he's right, if he's not he's not. Having "Dr" before your name doesn't mean you are always right or better than someone who is "just" a blogger. The argument itself is independant of its "creator".
Dr Rowbotham was a respected doctor who was able to provide scientific research to back up his experiments. In this case, Dr Rowbotham is correct.
Dr Rowbotham or a blogger? Yeah, I'm going with Dr Rowbotham.
Also it is less than 700 miles.
Classic argument ad hominem. If the blogger is right then he's right, if he's not he's not. Having "Dr" before your name doesn't mean you are always right or better than someone who is "just" a blogger. The argument itself is independant of its "creator".
Dr Rowbotham was a respected doctor who was able to provide scientific research to back up his experiments. In this case, Dr Rowbotham is correct.
Charlatan Rowbotham did not present accurate facts to back up his crackpot theories.
Take the explanation of his attempt to explain why a compass needle is horizontal on about the equator.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za35.htm#page_227
He proudly boasts that on a round earth there can no way be a compass needle aligned horizontal with the earths surface, if the surface were a globe.
He also says and does not argue that the angle of dip of the needle increases in the north lattitude as well as the south, and in fact uses that as an observation that is not denied.
Now on that page is a diagram where he asserts that if the earth were round, then the compass needle will point to north, along a straight line represented by C-N. And makes the jump to the conclusion that it p[roves that the earth cannot be round.
There is a major flaw with his argument.
The compass needle does not point to a pole directly, lies parallel to the lines of magnetic flux, or force
The lines of magnetic force are represented on the attached picture, but dont believe me, get a magnet and iron filings, and a piece of paper. Zero cost if you have them, and do the experiment yourself.
On the other attached picture is shown the earths round shape and the magnetic field.
Now take this quote from EnaG
“and that the two facts that the compass always points towards the pole and yet on the equator lies without dip, cannot possibly co-exist on a globe. They do co-exist in nature, and are well ascertained and easily proved to do so, therefore the earth cannot possibly be a globe. They can co-exist on a plane with a northern or central region: they do beyond doubt co-exist, therefore, beyond doubt the earth is a plane.”
Taking his first statement, that a compass needle points towards the pole, is correct in a way, but the compass needle lies parallel to the lines of force, so will point north along the lines of longitude, (more or less) but the horizontal angle will be parallel to the lines of flux, and it is seen at the equator will be Horizontal, and dip increases in the north and south latitudes, which Charlatan Rowbotham says are “well ascertained and easily proved to do so” then this actually proves the earth is a globe, and debunks his theory.
This is a classic example of him getting a basic principle wrong, then using it to “prove” his theory, when in fact using the correct principle completely debunks his ideas.
The observation that the needle dips in the north and south equator is accepted and stated as a truth by him, but when you see the lines of force with the round earth placed on it, it is very evident that it does. More interestingly superimpose those lines of force on a plane surface and you cannot ever get the needle to do what it does, and that in fact disproves the flat earth theory!
So having debunked his methods on the first attempt, i can do so on most of his other flawed experiments.
-
Dr Rowbotham or a blogger? Yeah, I'm going with Dr Rowbotham.
Also it is less than 700 miles.
Prove it. Shouldn't take long.
-
(https://pictures.abebooks.com/SANDCAT/20793253712.jpg)
This is a projection from the round earth, called the "Azimuthal equidistant projection" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection).
Yeah, you read it right. It's made FROM the ROUND earth. So, no ROUND EARTH, no FLAT EARTH map (at least not this one).
Please do some research before posting.
-
(https://pictures.abebooks.com/SANDCAT/20793253712.jpg)
You sure you want to stick with this map? If so, can you explain to everyone why the Sun doesn't race across the sky in the southern hemisphere. The Sun supposedly orbits the north pole and just like the rim of a wheel moves faster than the axle, the Sun would have to move faster the further south you go.
You also stated the sun is 700 miles up. You're going to need to explain how the sun can appear overhead in Sydney, Australia. And while on the subject of Australia, do you want to claim that it is 3x the size of Canada.
-
We don't have theories, we have solid facts. Dr Rowbotham was able to prove how flat earth works. His experiments were solid and this is proved in calculating the true distance of the sun and moon.
Well then, please provide us an accurate flat Earth map.
(https://pictures.abebooks.com/SANDCAT/20793253712.jpg)
So this is what you call an accurate map? Care to debate it?
-
Dr Rowbotham or a blogger? Yeah, I'm going with Dr Rowbotham.
Also it is less than 700 miles.
Prove it. Shouldn't take long.
It appears that Parallax is a troll.
-
We don't have theories, we have solid facts. Dr Rowbotham was able to prove how flat earth works. His experiments were solid and this is proved in calculating the true distance of the sun and moon.
Haha he can give the distance to the sun and moon but not the one between Paris and New York.....
-
We don't have theories, we have solid facts. Dr Rowbotham was able to prove how flat earth works. His experiments were solid and this is proved in calculating the true distance of the sun and moon.
Well then, please provide us an accurate flat Earth map.
(https://pictures.abebooks.com/SANDCAT/20793253712.jpg)
So this is what you call an accurate map? Care to debate it?
It seems fine to me. I mean, we all know that the quickest route from Japan to Chile is via Alaska.
-
We don't have theories, we have solid facts. Dr Rowbotham was able to prove how flat earth works. His experiments were solid and this is proved in calculating the true distance of the sun and moon.
True but Theories have facts supporting it, we don't actually know, because a flat-earther hasn't gone into space, but yes I agree with you.
-
we have a much better theory when it comes to flat or round debates, we have more facts, more knowledge of how the Earth actually works.
Can you explain how flat earth THEORY has more facts and knowledge of how the earth works?
JUST OPEN YOUR EYES AND LOOK AT THE EARTH ON THE INSIDE, IT'S LIKE SOMEONE SHOVING YOU INSIDE OF A BOX, AND THEN YOU WAKE UP AND REALIZE YOU'RE IN A BOX. IT'S NOT THAT HARD TO REALIZE AND UNDERSTAND YOU'RE IN A FLAT CIRCLE.
-
We don't have theories, we have solid facts. Dr Rowbotham was able to prove how flat earth works. His experiments were solid and this is proved in calculating the true distance of the sun and moon.
True but Theories have facts supporting it, we don't actually know, because a flat-earther hasn't gone into space, but yes I agree with you.
A flat Earther can go into space, but a flat Earther can't come back down.
-
we have a much better theory when it comes to flat or round debates, we have more facts, more knowledge of how the Earth actually works.
Can you explain how flat earth THEORY has more facts and knowledge of how the earth works?
JUST OPEN YOUR EYES AND LOOK AT THE EARTH ON THE INSIDE, IT'S LIKE SOMEONE SHOVING YOU INSIDE OF A BOX, AND THEN YOU WAKE UP AND REALIZE YOU'RE IN A BOX. IT'S NOT THAT HARD TO REALIZE AND UNDERSTAND YOU'RE IN A FLAT CIRCLE.
WOah there whippersnapper, hold your horses.
JUST OPEN YOUR EYES AND LOOK AT THE EARTH ON THE OUTSIDE, IT'S LIKE SOMEONE PUTTING YOU ON A SHELF, THEN YOU WAKE UP AND REALIZE YOU'RE ON A SHELF. IT'S NOT HARD TO REALIZE AND UNDERSTAND YOU'RE ON A ROUND GLOBE.
Not the most comprelling argument?
That's what you're sounding like.
We don't have theories, we have solid facts. Dr Rowbotham was able to prove how flat earth works. His experiments were solid and this is proved in calculating the true distance of the sun and moon.
True but Theories have facts supporting it, we don't actually know, because a flat-earther hasn't gone into space, but yes I agree with you.
Theories have facts.
If your flat earth is well-off in that department, care to present some?
As for the round home team, we have numerous photos from space, amature balloon footage, retroreflectors on the moon, if you'd care to disute them feel free, but they are indeed factual.
We don't have theories, we have solid facts. Dr Rowbotham was able to prove how flat earth works. His experiments were solid and this is proved in calculating the true distance of the sun and moon.
True but Theories have facts supporting it, we don't actually know, because a flat-earther hasn't gone into space, but yes I agree with you.
A flat Earther can go into space, but a flat Earther can't come back down.
They can't go up in the first place. They'll be stopped by a dome ;)
-
we have a much better theory when it comes to flat or round debates, we have more facts, more knowledge of how the Earth actually works.
Can you explain how flat earth THEORY has more facts and knowledge of how the earth works?
JUST OPEN YOUR EYES AND LOOK AT THE EARTH ON THE INSIDE, IT'S LIKE SOMEONE SHOVING YOU INSIDE OF A BOX, AND THEN YOU WAKE UP AND REALIZE YOU'RE IN A BOX. IT'S NOT THAT HARD TO REALIZE AND UNDERSTAND YOU'RE IN A FLAT CIRCLE.
It's certainly possible to go by the idea that you just go by what you can see, and apply common sense. In that case, you believe that you're on a disc about sixty miles across.
If you accept this, then you'll pretty much discount all the stuff about other continents and planets and the rotation of the Earth and so on as being all a big fake. If, however, youdo accept the existence of Australia and Saturn and Southern constellations, then you have to accept that the Earth isn't how it looks. It's much, much bigger than we can see, even from the highest vantage point. So it's then a matter of looking for the best theory that explains all the observations.
The flat Earth theories we get nowadays are bizarre and exotic. They have nothing to do with common-sense observations. They involve magic Suns that stay the same size as they recede into the distance, ships half disappearing according to mystical rules of "perspective" that nobody can explain or, indeed, understand. Flat Earth theory involves denying the evidence of our own eyes, and taking experiments performed hundreds of years ago on faith.
-
we have a much better theory when it comes to flat or round debates, we have more facts, more knowledge of how the Earth actually works.
Can you explain how flat earth THEORY has more facts and knowledge of how the earth works?
JUST OPEN YOUR EYES AND LOOK AT THE EARTH ON THE INSIDE, IT'S LIKE SOMEONE SHOVING YOU INSIDE OF A BOX, AND THEN YOU WAKE UP AND REALIZE YOU'RE IN A BOX. IT'S NOT THAT HARD TO REALIZE AND UNDERSTAND YOU'RE IN A FLAT CIRCLE.
Look at the Earth on the inside? I don't think going in a cave will help determine the shape of the earth. Can you please answer the original question.