*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6547
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Merely mistaken
« Reply #20 on: September 25, 2016, 04:58:52 PM »
Rabinoz, I support the Bi-Polar model, so I don't know what you are trying to prove to me there.
So the various Flat Earth Societies still can't agree on the shape of the flat earth, how interesting?
And, Rowbotham was completely wrong on this!
But if Rowbotham was so much in error on the very layout of the continents on the flat earth, how are we to know when his other explanations are valid and when they are not?

But really, the bipolar map has more ridiculous shapes of continents than the "Ice-Wall" map.

Another alternative model descripting Antarctica as a distinct continent.
There is still an "ice wall" in this model, but it not Antarctica.
Beyond the rays of the sun the waters will naturally freeze.

Australia, USA and Canada are certainly not that shape.

   




That map raises many more questions than it answers, such as why would QANTAS fly across the Pacific from Sydney to Santiago, when it would be far closer to fly across Antarctica to South Africa?
How did Magellan sail across the Pacific to the Philipines?

I think it best if you refer to some written material on this quite different Flat Earth model, otherwise you will be wasting your time answering numerous questions.
Obvious questions that need answering include:

What is the path and height of the sun in this model? Especially before, at and after an equinox.

How is the latitude and longitude determined from the sun path? We know that they can be determined once we have an accurate time.

What is the diameter of this Flat Earth?

How does one determine directions (North, South, East and West) in a way that fits with the known locations of the Magnetic Poles?

Undoubtedly many more questions will arise,
so if you point me to a good write-up, I'll keep out of your way (on this topic) for a while.

The South Pole was not yet discovered when Rowbotham wrote Earth Not a Globe. It is understandable why he might depict the earth without it.

The Bi-Polar model is first advocated in the book The Sea-Earth Globe and and its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions, (Zetetes, 1918). However, the layout of the continents is left ambiguous due to lack of data. The layout and dimensions of the continents in our picture may be different as well. Someone apparently just found a map projection of a globe that looked similar for illustrative purposes.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2016, 05:01:17 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Merely mistaken
« Reply #21 on: September 25, 2016, 05:00:43 PM »
Supporting free expression is great, but here's the thing: the earth has ONLY ONE true shape.  You don't see a bunch of personal RE models, but everybody on the FE side seems to be developing a new model, slightly or vastly different from each other.  Why do you suppose that is?  Each new FE model attempts to accomodate one observed flaw in the Gleason flat earth, but the problem is that each attempt introduces more problems than it solves.  The bipolar map has so many points of disagreement with observation that I can't remember what it was trying to solve.

FET is still in its infancy.  Perhaps in time, most of us will agree that the science supports one model.

Quote
Wrong, wrong!  If the earth is actually flat, and paper is actually flat, you should be able to PERFECTLY represent the actual shapes of the flat continents on a flat paper!  The fact that it cannot be done should be enough, all by itself, to make people question the flat earth model(s)

I didn't say we couldn't.  We just haven't at this point in time.
Mapping the earth has been happening for centuries, where has it been done incorrectly?

Who is this 'we' you write about?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6547
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Merely mistaken
« Reply #22 on: September 25, 2016, 05:05:10 PM »
Mapping the earth has been happening for centuries, where has it been done incorrectly?

Who is this 'we' you write about?

It is conveniently forgotten that for over 300 years California was depicted in maps as an island off the coast of the United States. All the map mapers and cartographers blindly copied each other. Entire generations of educated people lived and died thinking that they were living on an island. You will have to excuse us if we don't think highly of their superior mapping ability.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2016, 05:11:00 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Merely mistaken
« Reply #23 on: September 25, 2016, 05:09:59 PM »
Mapping the earth has been happening for centuries, where has it been done incorrectly?

Who is this 'we' you write about?

For over 300 years California was depicted in maps as an island off the coast of the United States. All the map mapers and cartographers blindly copied each other. Entire generations of educated people lived and died thinking that they were living on an island. You will have to excuse us if we don't think highly of their superior mapping ability.
300 years from when to when?

Please give examples of incorrect mapping today.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6547
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Merely mistaken
« Reply #24 on: September 25, 2016, 05:15:31 PM »
300 years from when to when?

From the 1500's to the 1800's California was depicted as an island in all maps of the world:

18 Maps From When the World Thought California Was an Island

Quote
GLEN MCLAUGHLIN WANDERED into a London map shop in 1971 and discovered something strange. On a map from 1663 he noticed something he’d never seen before: California was floating like a big green carrot, untethered to the west coast of North America.

He bought the map and hung it in his entryway, where it quickly became a conversation piece. It soon grew into an obsession. McLaughlin began to collect other maps showing California as an island.

“At first we stored them under the bed, but then we were concerned that the cat would pee on them,” he said. Ultimately he bought two cases like the ones architects use to store blueprints, and over the next 40 years filled them up with more than 700 maps, mostly from the 17th and 18th centuries. In 2011, he partly sold and partly donated his collection to Stanford University, which has digitized the maps and created an online exhibition.

The old maps represent an epic cartographic blunder, but they also contain a kernel of truth, the writer Rebecca Solnit argued in a recent essay. “An island is anything surrounded by difference,” she wrote. And California has always been different — isolated by high mountains in the east and north, desert in the south, and the ocean to the west, it has a unique climate and ecology. It’s often seemed like a place apart in other ways too, from the Gold Rush, to the hippies, to the tech booms of modern times.

The idea of California as an island existed in myth even before the region had been explored and mapped. “Around the year 1500 California made its appearance as a fictional island, blessed with an abundance of gold and populated by black, Amazon-like women, whose trained griffins dined on surplus males,” Philip Hoehn, then-map librarian at UC Berkley wrote in the foreword to a catalog of the maps that McLaughlin wrote.

Maps in the 1500s depicted California as a peninsula, which is closer to the truth (the Baja peninsula extends roughly a 1,000 miles south from the present-day Golden State). Spanish expeditions in the early 1600s concluded, however, that California was cut off from the mainland. Maps in those days were carefully guarded state secrets, McLaughlin says. “The story is, the Dutch raided a Spanish ship and found a secret Spanish map and brought it back to Amsterdam and circulated it from there,” he said.

In 1622, the British mathematician Henry Briggs published an influential article accompanied by a map that clearly showed California as an island. Briggs’ map was widely copied by European cartographers for more than a century.

The beginning of the end of California’s island phase came when a Jesuit priest, Eusebio Kino, led an overland expedition across the top of the Sea of Cortez. He wrote a report accompanied by a map in 1705 that cast serious doubt on the idea of California as an island. It took more exploration, but by 1747 King Ferdinand VI of Spain was convinced. He issued a decree stating that California was — once and for all — not an island. It took another century for cartographers to completely abandon the notion.

McLaughlin, who’s now 80, spent most of his career as a venture capitalist in Silicon Valley. He says the maps dominated his home decor for much of the past four decades. But no more. “I do miss them, but it’s time to let them go,” he said. “I’ve had a good long run with them.”
« Last Edit: September 25, 2016, 05:19:29 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Merely mistaken
« Reply #25 on: September 25, 2016, 05:22:17 PM »
300 years from when to when?

From the 1500's to the 1800's California was depicted as an island in all maps of the world:

18 Maps From When the World Thought California Was an Island

Quote
GLEN MCLAUGHLIN WANDERED into a London map shop in 1971 and discovered something strange. On a map from 1663 he noticed something he’d never seen before: California was floating like a big green carrot, untethered to the west coast of North America.

He bought the map and hung it in his entryway, where it quickly became a conversation piece. It soon grew into an obsession. McLaughlin began to collect other maps showing California as an island.

“At first we stored them under the bed, but then we were concerned that the cat would pee on them,” he said. Ultimately he bought two cases like the ones architects use to store blueprints, and over the next 40 years filled them up with more than 700 maps, mostly from the 17th and 18th centuries. In 2011, he partly sold and partly donated his collection to Stanford University, which has digitized the maps and created an online exhibition.

The old maps represent an epic cartographic blunder, but they also contain a kernel of truth, the writer Rebecca Solnit argued in a recent essay. “An island is anything surrounded by difference,” she wrote. And California has always been different — isolated by high mountains in the east and north, desert in the south, and the ocean to the west, it has a unique climate and ecology. It’s often seemed like a place apart in other ways too, from the Gold Rush, to the hippies, to the tech booms of modern times.

The idea of California as an island existed in myth even before the region had been explored and mapped. “Around the year 1500 California made its appearance as a fictional island, blessed with an abundance of gold and populated by black, Amazon-like women, whose trained griffins dined on surplus males,” Philip Hoehn, then-map librarian at UC Berkley wrote in the foreword to a catalog of the maps that McLaughlin wrote.

Maps in the 1500s depicted California as a peninsula, which is closer to the truth (the Baja peninsula extends roughly a 1,000 miles south from the present-day Golden State). Spanish expeditions in the early 1600s concluded, however, that California was cut off from the mainland. Maps in those days were carefully guarded state secrets, McLaughlin says. “The story is, the Dutch raided a Spanish ship and found a secret Spanish map and brought it back to Amsterdam and circulated it from there,” he said.

In 1622, the British mathematician Henry Briggs published an influential article accompanied by a map that clearly showed California as an island. Briggs’ map was widely copied by European cartographers for more than a century.

The beginning of the end of California’s island phase came when a Jesuit priest, Eusebio Kino, led an overland expedition across the top of the Sea of Cortez. He wrote a report accompanied by a map in 1705 that cast serious doubt on the idea of California as an island. It took more exploration, but by 1747 King Ferdinand VI of Spain was convinced. He issued a decree stating that California was — once and for all — not an island. It took another century for cartographers to completely abandon the notion.

McLaughlin, who’s now 80, spent most of his career as a venture capitalist in Silicon Valley. He says the maps dominated his home decor for much of the past four decades. But no more. “I do miss them, but it’s time to let them go,” he said. “I’ve had a good long run with them.”
All very interesting, but 'you' have not shown any errors in mapping/cartography today.

The book is an introduction to cartography and the use of projections to depict a round earth.  Sadly, not what you want it to be.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2016, 05:25:58 PM by inquisitive »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6547
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Merely mistaken
« Reply #26 on: September 25, 2016, 05:23:32 PM »
Quote
Please give examples of incorrect mapping today.]Please give examples of incorrect mapping today.

It is well admitted that map making is a casual science, filled with lots of error and inaccuracy. No cartographer is going around saying that their maps are accurate.

See the book How to Lie with Maps by Mark Monmonier

Quote
Originally published to wide acclaim, this lively, cleverly illustrated essay on the use and abuse of maps teaches us how to evaluate maps critically and promotes a healthy skepticism about these easy-to-manipulate models of reality. Monmonier shows that, despite their immense value, maps lie. In fact, they must.

The second edition is updated with the addition of two new chapters, 10 color plates, and a new foreword by renowned geographer H. J. de Blij. One new chapter examines the role of national interest and cultural values in national mapping organizations, including the United States Geological Survey, while the other explores the new breed of multimedia, computer-based maps.

To show how maps distort, Monmonier introduces basic principles of mapmaking, gives entertaining examples of the misuse of maps in situations from zoning disputes to census reports, and covers all the typical kinds of distortions from deliberate oversimplifications to the misleading use of color.

"Professor Monmonier himself knows how to gain our attention; it is not in fact the lies in maps but their truth, if always approximate and incomplete, that he wants us to admire and use, even to draw for ourselves on the facile screen. His is an artful and funny book, which like any good map, packs plenty in little space."—Scientific American

"A useful guide to a subject most people probably take too much for granted. It shows how map makers translate abstract data into eye-catching cartograms, as they are called. It combats cartographic illiteracy. It fights cartophobia. It may even teach you to find your way. For that alone, it seems worthwhile."—Christopher Lehmann-Haupt, The New York Times

". . . witty examination of how and why maps lie. [The book] conveys an important message about how statistics of any kind can be manipulated. But it also communicates much of the challenge, aesthetic appeal, and sheer fun of maps. Even those who hated geography in grammar school might well find a new enthusiasm for the subject after reading Monmonier's lively and surprising book."—Wilson Library Bulletin

"A reading of this book will leave you much better defended against cheap atlases, shoddy journalism, unscrupulous advertisers, predatory special-interest groups, and others who may use or abuse maps at your expense."—John Van Pelt, Christian Science Monitor

"Monmonier meets his goal admirably. . . . [His] book should be put on every map user's 'must read' list. It is informative and readable . . . a big step forward in helping us to understand how maps can mislead their readers."—Jeffrey S. Murray, Canadian Geographic
« Last Edit: September 25, 2016, 05:25:35 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Merely mistaken
« Reply #27 on: September 25, 2016, 05:25:50 PM »
The world is merely mistaken that the earth is a globe.
Man does not have an incentive to publish the truth about the true layout of the world around himself. 
watch?v=xhcVJcINzn8

Re: Merely mistaken
« Reply #28 on: September 25, 2016, 05:29:53 PM »
Please give examples of incorrect mapping today.  Not the representation of detail as the book mentions but any distances that you know are incorrect.

Not the use of maps but actual measured distances between places on earth.  We know they prove the earth is a (near) sphere.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2016, 05:33:52 PM by inquisitive »

Re: Merely mistaken
« Reply #29 on: September 25, 2016, 05:34:07 PM »
Please give examples of men rich enough to finance the mapping of the world around themselves only to provide an accurate map to the everybody around themselves for free. 







Message to sane true earthers: 
You do not have to jump through every single rabbit-hole dug by the shills. 
watch?v=xhcVJcINzn8

Re: Merely mistaken
« Reply #30 on: September 25, 2016, 05:41:18 PM »
Please give examples of men rich enough to finance the mapping of the world around themselves only to provide an accurate map to the everybody around themselves for free. 

Message to sane true earthers: 
You do not have to jump through every single rabbit-hole dug by the shills.
Just start with distance from Sydney to Cape Town.

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1436
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Merely mistaken
« Reply #31 on: September 25, 2016, 10:57:20 PM »
I think it best if you refer to some written material on this quite different Flat Earth model, otherwise you will be wasting your time answering numerous questions.
Obvious questions that need answering include:

What is the path and height of the sun in this model? Especially before, at and after an equinox.

How is the latitude and longitude determined from the sun path? We know that they can be determined once we have an accurate time.

What is the diameter of this Flat Earth?

How does one determine directions (North, South, East and West) in a way that fits with the known locations of the Magnetic Poles?

Undoubtedly many more questions will arise,
so if you point me to a good write-up, I'll keep out of your way (on this topic) for a while.

The South Pole was not yet discovered when Rowbotham wrote Earth Not a Globe. It is understandable why he might depict the earth without it.

The Bi-Polar model is first advocated in the book The Sea-Earth Globe and and its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions, (Zetetes, 1918). However, the layout of the continents is left ambiguous due to lack of data. The layout and dimensions of the continents in our picture may be different as well. Someone apparently just found a map projection of a globe that looked similar for illustrative purposes.

  • You give no mention where we can get details of the bi-polar model to find answers to these and other questions.

  • As for not knowing the shapes and sizes of continents, that is simple untrue. The knowledge of the detail has gradually  improved. Even things like California being thought an island does not affect the overall layout or dimensions of North America.

    It is not until detailed geodetic surveys are done that many of these details are resolved, but the general shape and size of major regions have been known for centuries.

    And what is very significant is these maps, some from as far back as the late 1700's (eg India, France and the UK) and most from the latter part of the nineteenth century are almost identical to modern maps based on satellite imagery, aerial photos and laser measurement.

    Take for example the 1855 Australian map and the 1887/88 US maps I used. They are in complete agreement with modern maps to within the accuracy of the methods of the time.

When it comes to Antarctica, it may not have been explored, but it was circumnavigated by James Cook during his 1772-1775 voyage, and the whole voyage lasted about three years.

The route of Cook's second voyage

So the bounds of Antarctica were known well before even Rowbotham's time, and was known that circumnavigation was nowhere near that required of Antarctica for Rowbotham's "map", so even had no excuse to propose such an unrealistic continental layout.

Then, well before 1918 the shapes and relative locations of all major regions was well known. So I see not the slightest justification for anything like the continental shapes on your bipolar map.

By the way, why is there virtually no mention of the "Bipolar Flat Earth Model" in "the Wiki", especially since it is espoused by such a prominent member as yourself?

I find it unbelievable that 131 years after the publication of ENAG, that the layout of the Flat Earth is not yet decided. The information is all there, it agrees with experience everywhere I have been and measuring it again won't change it.

geckothegeek

Re: Merely mistaken
« Reply #32 on: September 26, 2016, 12:40:45 AM »
I think one of the greatest faults of The  Flat Earth Society is the constant reference to the works of one Samuel Birley Rowbotham as an authority.
IMHO this makes The Flat Earth Society look even more foolish than it already is. This is the 21st Century.......Not the 19 Century !

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6547
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Merely mistaken
« Reply #33 on: September 26, 2016, 02:08:59 AM »
You give no mention where we can get details of the bi-polar model to find answers to these and other questions.

I believe I mentioned a book.

Quote
As for not knowing the shapes and sizes of continents, that is simple untrue. The knowledge of the detail has gradually  improved. Even things like California being thought an island does not affect the overall layout or dimensions of North America.

It is not until detailed geodetic surveys are done that many of these details are resolved, but the general shape and size of major regions have been known for centuries.

And what is very significant is these maps, some from as far back as the late 1700's (eg India, France and the UK) and most from the latter part of the nineteenth century are almost identical to modern maps based on satellite imagery, aerial photos and laser measurement.

Take for example the 1855 Australian map and the 1887/88 US maps I used. They are in complete agreement with modern maps to within the accuracy of the methods of the time.

Cartography is not a licensed profession. I don't understand the credulity. Anyone can make a map.





Quote
When it comes to Antarctica, it may not have been explored, but it was circumnavigated by James Cook during his 1772-1775 voyage, and the whole voyage lasted about three years.

The route of Cook's second voyage

So the bounds of Antarctica were known well before even Rowbotham's time, and was known that circumnavigation was nowhere near that required of Antarctica for Rowbotham's "map", so even had no excuse to propose such an unrealistic continental layout.

Then, well before 1918 the shapes and relative locations of all major regions was well known. So I see not the slightest justification for anything like the continental shapes on your bipolar map.

By the way, why is there virtually no mention of the "Bipolar Flat Earth Model" in "the Wiki", especially since it is espoused by such a prominent member as yourself?

I find it unbelievable that 131 years after the publication of ENAG, that the layout of the Flat Earth is not yet decided. The information is all there, it agrees with experience everywhere I have been and measuring it again won't change it.

It also took Ross over THREE YEARS to make that journey. Rowbotham talks about him a lot in Earth Not a Globe.

geckothegeek

Re: Merely mistaken
« Reply #34 on: September 26, 2016, 02:40:42 AM »
You give no mention where we can get details of the bi-polar model to find answers to these and other questions.

I believe I mentioned a book.

Quote
As for not knowing the shapes and sizes of continents, that is simple untrue. The knowledge of the detail has gradually  improved. Even things like California being thought an island does not affect the overall layout or dimensions of North America.

It is not until detailed geodetic surveys are done that many of these details are resolved, but the general shape and size of major regions have been known for centuries.

And what is very significant is these maps, some from as far back as the late 1700's (eg India, France and the UK) and most from the latter part of the nineteenth century are almost identical to modern maps based on satellite imagery, aerial photos and laser measurement.

Take for example the 1855 Australian map and the 1887/88 US maps I used. They are in complete agreement with modern maps to within the accuracy of the methods of the time.

Cartography is not a licensed profession. I don't understand the credulity. Anyone can make a map.





Quote
When it comes to Antarctica, it may not have been explored, but it was circumnavigated by James Cook during his 1772-1775 voyage, and the whole voyage lasted about three years.

The route of Cook's second voyage

So the bounds of Antarctica were known well before even Rowbotham's time, and was known that circumnavigation was nowhere near that required of Antarctica for Rowbotham's "map", so even had no excuse to propose such an unrealistic continental layout.

Then, well before 1918 the shapes and relative locations of all major regions was well known. So I see not the slightest justification for anything like the continental shapes on your bipolar map.

By the way, why is there virtually no mention of the "Bipolar Flat Earth Model" in "the Wiki", especially since it is espoused by such a prominent member as yourself?

I find it unbelievable that 131 years after the publication of ENAG, that the layout of the Flat Earth is not yet decided. The information is all there, it agrees with experience everywhere I have been and measuring it again won't change it.
ù
It also took Ross over THREE YEARS to make that journey. Rowbotham talks about him a lot in Earth Not a Globe.

Evidently Tom Bishop hasn't got the word about quoting Rowbotham  ! Not the best idea LOL !
Let us give the benefit of a doubt to Mr. Bishop. If he thinks the earth is a flat diisc, he is the one who is "merely mistaken".
Tell this to the Marines "The earth is flat". They are part of the Navy, you know.
It is useless to carry on an intelligent conversation with any flat earther anyway.
The earth is a globe. There is no doubt about that !
« Last Edit: September 26, 2016, 02:54:09 AM by geckothegeek »

Re: Merely mistaken
« Reply #35 on: September 26, 2016, 02:45:59 AM »
here's a pretty decent primer on the experimental basis behind spectroscopy.
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

geckothegeek

Re: Merely mistaken
« Reply #36 on: September 26, 2016, 03:01:49 AM »
here's a pretty decent primer on the experimental basis behind spectroscopy.

There are many sources for information on cartography, too.

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1436
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Merely mistaken
« Reply #37 on: September 26, 2016, 04:11:24 AM »
You give no mention where we can get details of the bi-polar model to find answers to these and other questions.
I believe I mentioned a book.
A 1918 book!

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Quote
As for not knowing the shapes and sizes of continents, that is simple untrue. The knowledge of the detail has gradually  improved. Even things like California being thought an island does not affect the overall layout or dimensions of North America.

It is not until detailed geodetic surveys are done that many of these details are resolved, but the general shape and size of major regions have been known for centuries.

And what is very significant is these maps, some from as far back as the late 1700's (eg India, France and the UK) and most from the latter part of the nineteenth century are almost identical to modern maps based on satellite imagery, aerial photos and laser measurement.

Take for example the 1855 Australian map and the 1887/88 US maps I used. They are in complete agreement with modern maps to within the accuracy of the methods of the time.

Cartography is not a licensed profession. I don't understand the credulity. Anyone can make a map.

Yes, country borders are fluid, but the shapes of continents are not changed.

Anybody might be able to draw a map, but not everybody can class themselves as "land surveyors". At the present time that is certainly a registered profession.
The results of official surveys is recognized in law, certainly here, and I assume in the USA, even if only "common law"
Stop simply wasting time, you know full well that we know the shapes of the continents.

I know that at the very least the overall dimensions of Australia on that map are correct.
You would be in a good position to check the same on the US map, no great accuracy is needed.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Quote
When it comes to Antarctica, it may not have been explored, but it was circumnavigated by James Cook during his 1772-1775 voyage, and the whole voyage lasted about three years.

The route of Cook's second voyage

So the bounds of Antarctica were known well before even Rowbotham's time, and was known that circumnavigation was nowhere near that required of Antarctica for Rowbotham's "map", so even had no excuse to propose such an unrealistic continental layout.

Then, well before 1918 the shapes and relative locations of all major regions was well known. So I see not the slightest justification for anything like the continental shapes on your bipolar map.

By the way, why is there virtually no mention of the "Bipolar Flat Earth Model" in "the Wiki", especially since it is espoused by such a prominent member as yourself?

I find it unbelievable that 131 years after the publication of ENAG, that the layout of the Flat Earth is not yet decided. The information is all there, it agrees with experience everywhere I have been and measuring it again won't change it.

It also took Ross over THREE YEARS to make that journey. Rowbotham talks about him a lot in Earth Not a Globe.

Really, have you looked at what Ross did in that time? He did not simply circumnavigate Antarctica. He spent time exploring, looking for passages (a sea passage to the Magnetic Pole for one thing) being stuck in the ice-pack and repairing damage from a collision.

But, you yourself, have admitted that Rowbotham was completely mistaken about Antarctica. A fact the rest of us have known from long ago.

Offline kjoy

  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: Merely mistaken
« Reply #38 on: October 02, 2016, 11:10:22 PM »
These beliefs took hold and were passed down from generation to generation, brainwashed into children from the cradle. Scientific interpretations about the world are skewed under the dogma of a round earth, and elaborate
phenomena and explanations are invented whenever an observation contradicts the status quo.

Why, for what purpose, would this dogmatic belief develop and proliferate? While the idea of a round Earth has existed since Hellenistic times, it's not universal throughout history since then. Early medieval scholars, for example, certainly had knowledge of a spherical Earth, but there were also some (a minority) who characterized it as a flat, round disk. The Islamic world introduced spherical trigonometry to Europe. Those two cultures quite obviously hated and competed fiercely with each other and had no reason to enforce each other's dogma. So why did the exchange of knowledge occur if it was just a dogmatic theory without supporting evidence nor practical value?

I'd like to see your evidence that flat Earth theories were actively and maliciously suppressed. There's been thousands of states since the Greeks, and a multitude of new religions and ideologies. Our scientific theories weren't  all decided by a single governing body. They couldn't have all been working together in a coordinated effort to prop up a false idea.

You're taking a somewhat small and narrow view of history with that claim.

Quote
Astronomy

Astronomers observe the heavens and interpret, just as the Astrologer does. There is no real proof for their theories. The universe is not put under controlled conditions to come the the truth of a matter. The necessity of controlled experimentation is denied entirely. A Chemist is expected to create controlled tests to determine a truth. But Stephen Hawking gets away with building theory upon theory, a house of cards model of the universe which "stands on the shoulders of giants". Hawking performs zero experimentation on the universe before coming up with a theory like the metric expansion of space.

Historic parallax observations which compute the sun to be millions of miles distant on a Round Earth also say that it is thousands of miles distant under the interpretation of a flat one. The theory of gravity doesn't seem to work at large distances in space, causing the necessity for elaborate Dark Matter and Dark Energy theories which comprise 98% of the universe. The lunar eclipse and other celestial events are predicted by the analyzing patterns of past observations -- the same way the Ancient Babylonians, a Flat Earth society, predicted them.

So what you're basically claiming here is that purely observational study is not valid science, which is patently ridiculous. Calculating the population of a certain insect doesn't involve an experiment, and it occurs in an uncontrolled natural environment. Yet this is still science. Documenting a new species doesn't involve an experiment, and it occurs in an uncontrolled natural environment. Yet this is still science. I could go on and on. An enormous percentage of our scientific knowledge comes from simple observation of the natural world.

Observational study doesn't remove the burden for evidence at all. Astronomical theories are supported by mathematics and their compliance with data we have from repeated observation. Plenty of examples of this evidence have been given in this thread already, you just simply choose to deny it.

There's also nothing inherently wrong with build new theories off of existing ones, so long as the older theory continues to be upheld by evidence.

Quote
Satellite Communication Companies

Satellite communication companies aren't in the business of putting satellites into orbit. Do you think Direct TV has launch capabilities and access to restricted orbital rocket technologies which are 98% similar to an ICBM? They rely on the government putting up communication satellites for them and giving them a way to feed in their signal.

Again, this is taking a small and narrow view of the world. Twelve different countries have launched satellites into orbit, using their own indigenously developed vehicles. "The government" (you're from the US, I presume) isn't the only entity that has that capability.

Quote
The motivation is simple. NASA must exist for reasons of national security. Having the ability to launch rockets into orbit also means the ability to put weapons into orbit and obliterate any country at the push of a button.

The US can obliterate other countries with the push of a button using IRBMs and ICBMs without the need to "fake" space travel. Also launching nuclear weapons from spacecraft is banned by international treaties and there's no evidence that the US has broken them, so that's not much of a scare factor.

Quote
Following WWII the race to space lasted for 12 years, with one infamous failure and rocket disaster after another.

Experimentation typically results in failure many times before success is achieved, so I'm not sure how that's supposed to disprove anything.

Quote
Don't you think it's a coincidence that within three months of the USSR claiming to have launched Sputnik into orbit, the US claimed to put a satellite into orbit as well?

No it wasn't a coincidence, this was during the Cold War which involved fierce competition between the USSR and the United States. So it only makes sense that they were racing to develop better technology and ended up being neck-in-neck at times. The building and launching of Sputnik, and the first US satellite is well-documented public information if you'd like to read about it for yourself.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2016, 11:17:12 PM by kjoy »

*

Offline Rounder

  • *
  • Posts: 779
  • What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
    • View Profile
Re: Merely mistaken
« Reply #39 on: October 03, 2016, 02:06:52 AM »
I'd like to see your evidence that flat Earth theories were actively and maliciously suppressed.
The fact that there is no evidence...IS THE EVIDENCE!!!  Wake up, sheeple!
Proud member of İntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice