Morgenstund

Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
« Reply #80 on: April 16, 2018, 05:29:11 PM »
You mention the blurred horizon caused by atmospheric diffraction. Do you agree that on a flat Earth there would be no crisp and clear horizon as the one we can actually observe?
For me the crisp and clear horizon out at sea is a clear evidence for the curvature on a sphere. I guess on a flat earth there would be no such crisp line. I didn't make a claim from it, as I found no bullet proof evidence, lacking an example ;)
some hints
e.g. out at sea sometimes you cannot find the horizon line, due to haze, when too much vapor in the air don't let you see so far, or atmospheric refraction will blur the scene with mirage effects or similar.
e.g. FE themselves claim with the "law of perspective", that horizon is there, where eye resolution "ends". So what else than a blur would result. Btw. I still cannot understand, why with "law of perspective" the distance to the horizon depends on observers hight. Ok for all objects smaller than observers hight, but what for objects larger than observers hight, or high contrast objects, like the bright light of a lighthouse or even better the stars at night. Now where's the horizon?

I started another thread where I asserted that there would be no horizon on a flat Earth, using all the arguments you do. Once your range of vision is shorter than the distance to the horizon it is obvious that you can't see the horizon, and no amount of 'it's all about the perspective' mumbo jumbo will ever explain anything.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2018, 05:54:53 PM by Morgenstund »

Morgenstund

Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
« Reply #81 on: April 16, 2018, 05:53:48 PM »
Read Earth Not a Globe on how perspective limits the distance seen.
Not a chance. The ramblings from a Victorian Showboatman are not going to be relevant... ever. No, you explain, in your own words, what the 'horizon' is on a flat Earth.

Let me use this simple image again:


The top image shows how the horizon is 'created' on a spherical Earth. Sky above the red line, ground below it. Everything is honky dory.
The bottom is the flat Earth model. Let's say Stickman's range of vision is where the red line touches the ground. You claim that that's where the horizon forms. But if you follow his line of sight above the red line, the ground is still in his field of vision. What if I placed a giant, 100km*100km*100km, black cube right behind the point where you claim the horizon appears. Would that black cube be invisible and I would see only blue sky and clouds? Of course not.

Your turn: 
« Last Edit: April 16, 2018, 05:57:28 PM by Morgenstund »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6522
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
« Reply #82 on: April 16, 2018, 06:28:19 PM »
Read Earth Not a Globe on how perspective limits the distance seen.
Not a chance. The ramblings from a Victorian Showboatman are not going to be relevant... ever. No, you explain, in your own words, what the 'horizon' is on a flat Earth.

Let me use this simple image again:


The top image shows how the horizon is 'created' on a spherical Earth. Sky above the red line, ground below it. Everything is honky dory.
The bottom is the flat Earth model. Let's say Stickman's range of vision is where the red line touches the ground. You claim that that's where the horizon forms. But if you follow his line of sight above the red line, the ground is still in his field of vision. What if I placed a giant, 100km*100km*100km, black cube right behind the point where you claim the horizon appears. Would that black cube be invisible and I would see only blue sky and clouds? Of course not.

Your turn:

The explanation for why we don't see to infinity and why the horizon doesn't fade out is in Earth Not a Globe. I think you should probably read it and then get back to us about what you found wrong.

*

Offline xenotolerance

  • *
  • Posts: 307
  • byeeeeeee
    • View Profile
    • flat Earth visualization
Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
« Reply #83 on: April 16, 2018, 06:42:57 PM »
just about everything is wrong with Rowbotham's explanation of the horizon

not a one of his observations is accurate, his math is garbage, his reasoning is built all but entirely of leaps and fallacies...

that's why, I imagine, he's asking you to explain it in your own words. Rowbotham is too broad and too wrong to easily identify a single point of debate.

Morgenstund

Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
« Reply #84 on: April 16, 2018, 07:06:35 PM »
Read Earth Not a Globe on how perspective limits the distance seen.
Not a chance. The ramblings from a Victorian Showboatman are not going to be relevant... ever. No, you explain, in your own words, what the 'horizon' is on a flat Earth.

Let me use this simple image again:


The top image shows how the horizon is 'created' on a spherical Earth. Sky above the red line, ground below it. Everything is honky dory.
The bottom is the flat Earth model. Let's say Stickman's range of vision is where the red line touches the ground. You claim that that's where the horizon forms. But if you follow his line of sight above the red line, the ground is still in his field of vision. What if I placed a giant, 100km*100km*100km, black cube right behind the point where you claim the horizon appears. Would that black cube be invisible and I would see only blue sky and clouds? Of course not.

Your turn:

The explanation for why we don't see to infinity and why the horizon doesn't fade out is in Earth Not a Globe. I think you should probably read it and then get back to us about what you found wrong.

Are you saying that you're not able to explain it in your own words? You need to understand that I am not going to read that Bib... book you all refer to all the time. Others, who have a far greater understaning of all this than I do, apparently have read it, and their verdict is clear. I will not waste my time reading out of date material. Just like I wouldn't read 'On the origins of species' if I wanted to learn about evolution.

So again, I want to hear the explanations from you. And if you can't explain it, then either you don't understand it, or it doesn't make sense. Or maybe both...

HorstFue

Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
« Reply #85 on: April 16, 2018, 08:06:11 PM »
The explanation for why we don't see to infinity and why the horizon doesn't fade out is in Earth Not a Globe. I think you should probably read it and then get back to us about what you found wrong.

Are you saying that you're not able to explain it in your own words? You need to understand that I am not going to read that Bib... book you all refer to all the time. Others, who have a far greater understaning of all this than I do, apparently have read it, and their verdict is clear. I will not waste my time reading out of date material. Just like I wouldn't read 'On the origins of species' if I wanted to learn about evolution.

So again, I want to hear the explanations from you. And if you can't explain it, then either you don't understand it, or it doesn't make sense. Or maybe both...

"you don't understand, may implicate "it doesn't make sense".
Meanwhile I have a suspicion that even Rowbotham did not fully understand it, because he is inconsistent in his description.

Quote from: Rowbotham, chap. 16 in EnaG
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm
Let A, B, and C, D, represent two lines parallel but not equidistant from the eye-line E, H. To an observer at E, the vanishing point of C, D, would be at H, because the lines C, D, and E, H, would come together at H, at an angle of one minute of a degree. But it is evident from a single glance at the diagram that H cannot be the vanishing point of A, B, because the distance E, A, being greater than E, C, the angle A, H, E, is also greater than C, H, E--is, in fact, considerably more than one minute of a degree. Therefore the line A, B, cannot possibly have its vanishing point on the line E, H, unless it is carried forward towards W.
or
Watch point W!

Quote from: Rowbotham, chap. 9 in EnaG
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za27.htm
Let A, B, represent the altitude throughout of a long row of lamps, standing on the horizontal ground E, D; and C, H, the line of sight of an observer at C. The ordinary principles of perspective will cause an apparent rising of the ground E, D, to the eye-line C, H, meeting it at H; and an apparent descent of each subsequent lamp, from A, to H, towards the same eye-line, also meeting at H. The point H, is the horizon, or the true "vanishing point," at which the last visible lamp, although it has really the altitude D, B, will disappear.
Now there's no point W.

Else - with the first diagram - he could not tell us this story about a sun cruising 700 miles above the surface:
Quote from: Rowbotham, chap. 9 in EnaG
Bearing in mind the above phenomena it will easily be seen how the sun, although always above and parallel to the earth's surface, must appear to ascend from the morning horizon to the noonday or meridian position; and thence to descend to the evening horizon.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1391
    • View Profile
Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
« Reply #86 on: April 17, 2018, 10:46:15 AM »
The list of 'experiments' in ENaG all appear to consist only of a line drawing, and a commentary.

Is this all that's required to prove the experiment was carried out as described?
==============================
==============================
Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6522
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
« Reply #87 on: April 17, 2018, 05:17:15 PM »
Are you saying that you're not able to explain it in your own words? You need to understand that I am not going to read that Bib... book you all refer to all the time. Others, who have a far greater understaning of all this than I do, apparently have read it, and their verdict is clear. I will not waste my time reading out of date material. Just like I wouldn't read 'On the origins of species' if I wanted to learn about evolution.

So again, I want to hear the explanations from you. And if you can't explain it, then either you don't understand it, or it doesn't make sense. Or maybe both...

You need to read the material and base your arguments off of that, not your own personal idea of what FET is. If you are not willing to read the studies that the society has written for you, then there isn't going to be any progress.

The list of 'experiments' in ENaG all appear to consist only of a line drawing, and a commentary.

Is this all that's required to prove the experiment was carried out as described?

Are you assuming that everything posted about this subject is a lie? Why are you here trying to engage us then?

Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
« Reply #88 on: April 17, 2018, 05:31:30 PM »
The list of 'experiments' in ENaG all appear to consist only of a line drawing, and a commentary.

Is this all that's required to prove the experiment was carried out as described?

Are you assuming that everything posted about this subject is a lie? Why are you here trying to engage us then?
Any number of reasons to engage, even if one believes the other side isn't presenting good evidence. But I think he's more wondering why EnaG is practically treated as gospel on the site, and doesn't really come close to the level of evidence demanded of a fair bit of information presented by RE. Doubly so when anyone doing similar (documenting observations) and presenting it is all but ignored in many cases. You yourself have stated that "My friends and I have done X and observed Y" isn't a good enough argument for you, when that's all EnaG is.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6522
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
« Reply #89 on: April 17, 2018, 06:39:18 PM »
The list of 'experiments' in ENaG all appear to consist only of a line drawing, and a commentary.

Is this all that's required to prove the experiment was carried out as described?

Are you assuming that everything posted about this subject is a lie? Why are you here trying to engage us then?
Any number of reasons to engage, even if one believes the other side isn't presenting good evidence. But I think he's more wondering why EnaG is practically treated as gospel on the site, and doesn't really come close to the level of evidence demanded of a fair bit of information presented by RE. Doubly so when anyone doing similar (documenting observations) and presenting it is all but ignored in many cases. You yourself have stated that "My friends and I have done X and observed Y" isn't a good enough argument for you, when that's all EnaG is.

We are telling you to read it because you are walking into a movie theater that is playing a sequel to a movie and you keep turning to ask us what happened in the first one.

You don't have to treat it as gospel, or even believe it. But it is the study this theory is based on. If you want to understand the basics then we highly recommend that you read the book. Otherwise you will be arguing on basis of your own idea of what Flat Earth Theory is. ENAG is basically required reading if you want to engage in any productive debate with us. It has enough to cover the basics.

There were additional and significant Flat Earth works published after ENAG from the Zetetic society that continued on after Rowbotham, with covered more advanced topics. These may come into play at times in some discussions, but I wouldn't say that those works are required reading, or that one should even start with those. Those works assume that you have read Earth Not a Globe as well.

Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
« Reply #90 on: April 17, 2018, 07:16:44 PM »
The list of 'experiments' in ENaG all appear to consist only of a line drawing, and a commentary.

Is this all that's required to prove the experiment was carried out as described?

Are you assuming that everything posted about this subject is a lie? Why are you here trying to engage us then?
Any number of reasons to engage, even if one believes the other side isn't presenting good evidence. But I think he's more wondering why EnaG is practically treated as gospel on the site, and doesn't really come close to the level of evidence demanded of a fair bit of information presented by RE. Doubly so when anyone doing similar (documenting observations) and presenting it is all but ignored in many cases. You yourself have stated that "My friends and I have done X and observed Y" isn't a good enough argument for you, when that's all EnaG is.

We are telling you to read it because you are walking into a movie theater that is playing a sequel to a movie and you keep turning to ask us what happened in the first one.

You don't have to treat it as gospel, or even believe it. But it is the study this theory is based on. If you want to understand the basics then we highly recommend that you read the book. Otherwise you will be arguing on basis of your own idea of what Flat Earth Theory is. ENAG is basically required reading if you want to engage in any productive debate with us. It has enough to cover the basics.

There were additional and significant Flat Earth works published after ENAG from the Zetetic society that continued on after Rowbotham, with covered more advanced topics. These may come into play at times in some discussions, but I wouldn't say that those works are required reading, or that one should even start with those. Those works assume that you have read Earth Not a Globe as well.
You seem to fail to understand that most of us that have been here for a while HAVE read it. The reason many bring 'ask what happened in the first one' is because the information is generally poorly documented (if at all) comes to conclusions that are simply rationalizations in many cases, and often people can be curious just why you believe the book, or how your thoughts differ. Because the DO differ, each of you cherry picks from his book in some way, other than Parallax whom I'm 90% is simply a troll.

But none of that has relevance on the question of, why do you put so much stock in Rowbotham, when his 'experiments' are no better documented or given better proof than 'this is what I saw' followed by rationalizing how it works with a flat Earth, when 90% of the time you won't accept that from others?

He asked you what proof you require to know an experiment was carried out as described. Why a line drawing and some commentary are enough to convince you it's 100% accurate, when you often won't accept anything of the sort from an experiment that doesn't show what you expect (see the water tubes). Which you still have not answered, and none of which have any bearing on whether we've read the book, as if we're discussing what's in it's pages it should be clear they have.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1391
    • View Profile
Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
« Reply #91 on: April 17, 2018, 08:23:35 PM »
He (Tumeni) asked you what proof you require to know an experiment was carried out as described. Why a line drawing and some commentary are enough to convince you it's 100% accurate, when you often won't accept anything of the sort from an experiment that doesn't show what you expect (see the water tubes).

That's exactly what I'm asking.

Tom, you took someone to task elsewhere (back in a couple of minutes with the exact thread (EDIT in topic Re: Using airline flight data. Reply #422 Today at 07:53:28 AM, Tom said "There are no experiments in that link.")) for not providing evidence of any experiment at a link they provided, but the only evidence in ENaG is line drawings and the author's commentary. If this is sufficient evidence to satisfy you of both the experiment and the result in all cases (for RE as well as FE experiments), please say so.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2018, 10:35:28 PM by Tumeni »
==============================
==============================
Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6522
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
« Reply #92 on: April 17, 2018, 11:49:22 PM »
He (Tumeni) asked you what proof you require to know an experiment was carried out as described. Why a line drawing and some commentary are enough to convince you it's 100% accurate, when you often won't accept anything of the sort from an experiment that doesn't show what you expect (see the water tubes).

That's exactly what I'm asking.

Tom, you took someone to task elsewhere (back in a couple of minutes with the exact thread (EDIT in topic Re: Using airline flight data. Reply #422 Today at 07:53:28 AM, Tom said "There are no experiments in that link.")) for not providing evidence of any experiment at a link they provided, but the only evidence in ENaG is line drawings and the author's commentary. If this is sufficient evidence to satisfy you of both the experiment and the result in all cases (for RE as well as FE experiments), please say so.

ENAG contains numerous experiments, whether right or wrong. Referencing ENAG is a whole different level than merely stating that "studies have been done."

That is all I am asking for: To see the research behind your claims. Saying "there is evidence" is not good enough. Show the evidence. Whether it is right or wrong, you need to show the evidence. If you can't show evidence for your claim, then your claim isn't very strong.

Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
« Reply #93 on: April 18, 2018, 12:01:04 AM »
He (Tumeni) asked you what proof you require to know an experiment was carried out as described. Why a line drawing and some commentary are enough to convince you it's 100% accurate, when you often won't accept anything of the sort from an experiment that doesn't show what you expect (see the water tubes).

That's exactly what I'm asking.

Tom, you took someone to task elsewhere (back in a couple of minutes with the exact thread (EDIT in topic Re: Using airline flight data. Reply #422 Today at 07:53:28 AM, Tom said "There are no experiments in that link.")) for not providing evidence of any experiment at a link they provided, but the only evidence in ENaG is line drawings and the author's commentary. If this is sufficient evidence to satisfy you of both the experiment and the result in all cases (for RE as well as FE experiments), please say so.

ENAG contains numerous experiments, whether right or wrong. Referencing ENAG is a whole different level than merely stating that "studies have been done."

That is all I am asking for: To see the research behind your claims. Saying "there is evidence" is not good enough. Show the evidence. Whether it is right or wrong, you need to show the evidence. If you can't show evidence for your claim, then your claim isn't very strong.
It contains a claim of an experiment done, and rationalization for how it works on a flat Earth. When offered things such as observations to corroborate something (accuracy of timeanddate, you essentially said giving observations done by myself and a group of friends and family were irrelevant) or when shown an experiment whose parameters are self consistent to show what it sets out to show (water in a circular pipe finding it's own level to show 'eye level' as you ascend) and other scenarios you demand a much higher standard of evidence than contained within EnaG. Why do you trust EnaG when it presents a much lower standard, than you appear to demand of anyone offering a RE supporting idea? Or is a brief description of what was done, and maybe some sketches enough evidence? Give us a standard of evidence Tom. This has been a question you've avoided since day 1 of me being here. What is your standard of evidence that needs to be met. Lay it out clearly for once.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6522
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
« Reply #94 on: April 18, 2018, 03:29:42 AM »
It contains a claim of an experiment done, and rationalization for how it works on a flat Earth. When offered things such as observations to corroborate something (accuracy of timeanddate, you essentially said giving observations done by myself and a group of friends and family were irrelevant) or when shown an experiment whose parameters are self consistent to show what it sets out to show (water in a circular pipe finding it's own level to show 'eye level' as you ascend) and other scenarios you demand a much higher standard of evidence than contained within EnaG. Why do you trust EnaG when it presents a much lower standard, than you appear to demand of anyone offering a RE supporting idea? Or is a brief description of what was done, and maybe some sketches enough evidence? Give us a standard of evidence Tom. This has been a question you've avoided since day 1 of me being here. What is your standard of evidence that needs to be met. Lay it out clearly for once.

The experiments in ENAG were peer reviewed by journal The Earth Not a Globe Review. They were also peer reviewed on numerous occasions by the Flat Earth movement that followed Rowbotham. Its not just spurious claims in a book. Today can also see similar convexity experiments on YouTube.

The Round Earth Theory is said to have "mountains" of evidence behind it. What is the problem with me asking to see a similar level of evidence for the claims posted to this forum?

*

Offline Stagiri

  • *
  • Posts: 146
  • You can call me Peter
    • View Profile
    • Stagiri Blog
Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
« Reply #95 on: April 18, 2018, 04:08:20 AM »
It contains a claim of an experiment done, and rationalization for how it works on a flat Earth. When offered things such as observations to corroborate something (accuracy of timeanddate, you essentially said giving observations done by myself and a group of friends and family were irrelevant) or when shown an experiment whose parameters are self consistent to show what it sets out to show (water in a circular pipe finding it's own level to show 'eye level' as you ascend) and other scenarios you demand a much higher standard of evidence than contained within EnaG. Why do you trust EnaG when it presents a much lower standard, than you appear to demand of anyone offering a RE supporting idea? Or is a brief description of what was done, and maybe some sketches enough evidence? Give us a standard of evidence Tom. This has been a question you've avoided since day 1 of me being here. What is your standard of evidence that needs to be met. Lay it out clearly for once.

The experiments in ENAG were peer reviewed by journal The Earth Not a Globe Review. They were also peer reviewed on numerous occasions by the Flat Earth movement that followed Rowbotham. Its not just spurious claims in a book. Today can also see similar convexity experiments on YouTube.
(...)
(...)
The fact that NASA is involved in the air traffic control systems in Australia creates distrust with the accuracy of Australian flight data.

You distrust Airservices Australia just because they've collaborated with NASA yet don't get suspicious when Rowbotham's work is reviewed by journal The Earth Not a Globe Review?
Dr Rowbotham was accurate in his experiments.
How do you know without repeating them?
Because they don't need to be repeated, they were correct.

Offline hexagon

  • *
  • Posts: 192
    • View Profile
Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
« Reply #96 on: April 18, 2018, 07:26:48 AM »
May I asked what "round earth theory" is? Even after doing science for over 20 year now, I never met someone studying "round earth theory", never been at a university or institute offering this as a course, lecture or seminar, not even seen a book about this...

Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
« Reply #97 on: April 18, 2018, 07:29:55 AM »
The Round Earth Theory is said to have "mountains" of evidence behind it. What is the problem with me asking to see a similar level of evidence for the claims posted to this forum?
That is fairly reasonable. The problem is every time you're shown that evidence and shown experiments which PROVE you to be wrong you dismiss them or call them fake without basis. Your reasoning is based on this Wiki page.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Place_of_the_Conspiracy_in_FET

You declare a flat earth an "obvious truth" (you give no basis for claiming it as such) so then just say
"If personally unverifiable evidence contradicts an obvious truth then the evidence is fabricated".

Which means you're not actually interested in experiments which show you to be wrong, because you can't personally verify them you're declaring them fake.
It's just denial.
And when you are shown simple experiments you could reproduce yourself at little or no cost you refuse to do so.

Quote
The experiments in ENAG were peer reviewed by journal The Earth Not a Globe Review. They were also peer reviewed on numerous occasions by the Flat Earth movement that followed Rowbotham.

In other news, the idea that The Spice Girls are the greatest musical act of all time was ratified by the Spice Girls Monthly magazine.
Do you not see how silly this sounds? You spent two pages in the thread about that laser misunderstanding the experiment and claiming that they just claimed the results that they expected from a round earth calculator - a claim which if you actually understand the experiment you'll realise are spurious.
Now you're saying that a load of people who thought the earth was flat agreed with Rowbotham's claims that the earth is flat. Case closed!
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1391
    • View Profile
Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
« Reply #98 on: April 18, 2018, 08:30:59 AM »
The experiments in ENAG were peer reviewed by journal The Earth Not a Globe Review. They were also peer reviewed on numerous occasions by the Flat Earth movement that followed Rowbotham. Its not just spurious claims in a book. Today can also see similar convexity experiments on YouTube.

So all the peer reviews were conducted by folks who agreed with the overall premise before conducting the peer review?

The Round Earth Theory is said to have "mountains" of evidence behind it. What is the problem with me asking to see a similar level of evidence for the claims posted to this forum?

The problem is that I/we are reluctant to present stuff which you will hand-wave away, even though you seem happy to accept a line drawing with single paragraph of commentary as gospel from ENaG, and now claim above that unspecified individuals have proof-read and repeated its content at some unspecified time.

Will you state here and now that you will, in future, engage in meaningful discussion of the specifics of any proof presented here or in other threads for a Globe Earth, without reference to ENaG, and without hand-waving it away?
==============================
==============================
Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
« Reply #99 on: April 18, 2018, 12:41:59 PM »
It contains a claim of an experiment done, and rationalization for how it works on a flat Earth. When offered things such as observations to corroborate something (accuracy of timeanddate, you essentially said giving observations done by myself and a group of friends and family were irrelevant) or when shown an experiment whose parameters are self consistent to show what it sets out to show (water in a circular pipe finding it's own level to show 'eye level' as you ascend) and other scenarios you demand a much higher standard of evidence than contained within EnaG. Why do you trust EnaG when it presents a much lower standard, than you appear to demand of anyone offering a RE supporting idea? Or is a brief description of what was done, and maybe some sketches enough evidence? Give us a standard of evidence Tom. This has been a question you've avoided since day 1 of me being here. What is your standard of evidence that needs to be met. Lay it out clearly for once.

The experiments in ENAG were peer reviewed by journal The Earth Not a Globe Review. They were also peer reviewed on numerous occasions by the Flat Earth movement that followed Rowbotham. Its not just spurious claims in a book. Today can also see similar convexity experiments on YouTube.
I've only read the first issue of the Review, and I'm already calling bollocks on these guys being trustworthy in any manner. Even presuming they print them repeating any of Rowbotham's experiments, it would be a 'peer review' in name only. The Review appears to believe the Earth is flat because the bible says so. They would be going into these experiments, not only already knowing what result they expect, but knowing what result they want, I would almost say need to see for their beliefs. This is NOT a peer review group. These are sycophants at best. So no, EnaG has never been peer reviewed if that's the best you have to offer, and it is indeed simply spurious claims in a book.

On a small side note, why is the Review not in your wiki/library? Amazon has it for sale for $0.99 at worst, but it wasn't hard to track down a free PDF. It's referenced briefly in a few wiki pages, but that's about it.

Quote
The Round Earth Theory is said to have "mountains" of evidence behind it. What is the problem with me asking to see a similar level of evidence for the claims posted to this forum?
Similar to what? Claims in a book with some sketches? Because we can do that all day. First hand accounts of things? I believe we've a licensed sailor(seaman?) posting on the forums right now about what he is seeing in regards to some claims. So what are your standards of evidence Tom?