[Parallax]

Dr Rowbotham was accurate in his experiments.

[inquisitive]

Dr Rowbotham was accurate in his experiments.

How do you know without repeating them?

[Rama Set]

Dr Rowbotham was accurate in his experiments.

The 700 mile altitude of the sun was it an experiment but rather a bad method of measurement. His Bedford Level experiment was not accurate as it introduced sources of error that any surveying professional would avoid.

[Parallax]

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.

Dr Rowbotham was accurate in his experiments.

The 700 mile altitude of the sun was it an experiment but rather a bad method of measurement. His Bedford Level experiment was not accurate as it introduced sources of error that any surveying professional would avoid.

Bedford level experiment was accurate and it had no error. Dr Rowbotham took different things into account when conducting it.

[Dither]

The numbers seem inflated on this poll,
I just don't meet FEers in real life, nobody seems interested in even discussing it.
I know one other person, that's it...

[inquisitive]

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.

Dr Rowbotham was accurate in his experiments.

The 700 mile altitude of the sun was it an experiment but rather a bad method of measurement. His Bedford Level experiment was not accurate as it introduced sources of error that any surveying professional would avoid.

Bedford level experiment was accurate and it had no error. Dr Rowbotham took different things into account when conducting it.

Seriously, 700 miles above the earth?  Does not fit in with any measurements and observations.

[Macarios]

Well we know the sun orbits the earth, how far its true distance is...

When one starts learning about spectroscopy and spectral lines, they can understand how can
spectral measurements show which elements are present in Sun and what is happening there.
That's where the whole idea of fusion of hydrogen came from: the Sun's source of energy.

Experiments with hydrogen fusion show what pressure is needed to start and sustain fusion inside the Sun.
It is not hard to calculate what size is needed to achieve that pressure, and what mass is needed to keep it going for such long time.
Clearly, we can calculate what would be the minimal size required for the Sun to have spectrum as measured.
(Let that sink in: spectrum as measured.)

And obviously, the size is much greater than few tens of miles.

Direct measurements show that Sun can not be smaller than 1.3914 million kilometers in diameter,
therefore can't be closer than 147.104 million kilometers at perihelion, or 152.093 million kilometers at aphelion.

Now, call some books from 19th century to explain nuclear fusion of hydrogen.

[Morgenstund]

It's 'science' and the stuff they brainwash... sorry, 'teach' in schools that is the problem. All we are seeing now is an awakening of people that are questioning things that we are told not to question.

We are taught how to learn and understand. I understand that Earth is a spheroid orbiting the Sun, and I know why it is true.

Oh but 'science' says it, therefore it MUST be true. No, its not.

Science is a method, and using the scientific method we can determine that Earth is not flat.

[Treep Ravisarras]

Well duh, it's flat !

https://www.infowars.com/shock-poll-1-3-of-millennials-not-sure-if-earth-is-round/

So, what is the point. That the majority of people are not flat earthers as we are? Not very helpful.

Or is the point like that counting on winning the lottery is a very good retirement plan, in fact?

20 of 100 Americans are counting on winning the lottery for their retirement.

Unsure what you are trying to say. Perhaps use some more words might help us.

His experiment was flawless.

How can you say this if you weren't thare? Don't you know that our knowledge is limited to what we can see and experience? We can either be shown something, or we leave it as unknown.

A statement like yours is basically rationalization - conjecture and speculation.

It also does not stand up to Occams Razor. Not helping our cause.

[Edgar Alan Hoe]

Well duh, it's flat !

https://www.infowars.com/shock-poll-1-3-of-millennials-not-sure-if-earth-is-round/

Only 1/3?

So millennials aren't as stupid as I thought after all...

[JHelzer]

The numbers seem inflated on this poll,
I just don't meet FEers in real life, nobody seems interested in even discussing it.
I know one other person, that's it...

I agree.  The numbers are inflated.  I know zero flat earth believers among all my acquaintances. 

I have shown interest in the subject and invited discussion.  The best I can get is about an hour of confusion about the possibility that some experiments could show the Earth is flat.  But after that, they all realize that there are flaws in every flat Earth argument and won't believe it any more.  But it is a fun hour.

[darkensign]

His experiment was flawless.

Wrong.

• He failed to detail how he measured the angle of the sun in either location.
• He performed the test at noon, not midday.
• He failed to pinpoint the location of the Brighton coast measurement.
• His measurements suggested the sun was directly over the middle of France which is impossible.

In science, any test, no matter how certain we are of its outcome, should be repeated several times.

[Macarios]

It's 'science' and the stuff they brainwash... sorry, 'teach' in schools that is the problem.

Teaching is not a problem.
Problem is deliberate ignorance some students choose to show that "they already know everything and it is insult for them to learn more".
Most often cause for that is either laziness, or excessive vanity.

All we are seeing now is an awakening of people that are questioning things that we are told not to question.

What you describe here actually happened some 400 years ago when people had to fight Dogma for knowledge and progress to take place.
Giordano Bruno was burnt at stake, Galileo forced to forever reject his and Copernicus' teachings (and imprisoned at home for life)...

Oh but 'science' says it, therefore it MUST be true. No, its not.

Here you are absolutely right.
There are no personal authorities in science.
The only authority are observations and measurements.
Facts and figures.

Science isn't "belief system".
It is tool, to be used and improved.
You don't "worship" science and "light candles in front of it".
Just like every tool, you have to learn how to use it, and you have to maintain and improve it when you can.

Unlike Dogma, you DO look and question science from every angle and point of view.
You never say "it is perfect" while it's not even close.
There is plenty of room for improvements and humanity will advance, not revert back to Christian Dark Age.

Don't pray for things, learn how and then do them instead.
Tesla's father was Serbian Orthodox priest in south-eastern Austria-Hungary (that part today is Croatia), but Tesla didn't pray for this electricity we use today.
He made it.

"Don't make a wish, make an effort."

[hexagon]

Science is not about truth, that's something for philosophers. Science is about finding the best explanation for a certain observation that is consistent with all the other explanations already found for past observations and that allows you to predict the outcome of observations not yet done.

And this explanation is given in form of a model written down in the language of mathematics. And this process of modeling the observations is not static, it undergoes an infinite process of refinement based on new, more precise observations, better tools, both, experimental and mathematical, and an overall progress in understanding. And this process of refinement is not linear, sometimes you have to go back a part of the way and change your direction. That's what science is all about.       

[Pickel B Gravel]

Well duh, it's flat !

https://www.infowars.com/shock-poll-1-3-of-millennials-not-sure-if-earth-is-round/

It's a start. I would like to see more people question what they're told about the earth 's shape.

[inquisitive]

Well duh, it's flat !

https://www.infowars.com/shock-poll-1-3-of-millennials-not-sure-if-earth-is-round/

It's a start. I would like to see more people question what they're told about the earth 's shape.

They can do some simple experiments.

[AATW]

Yes. Questioning is a good thing.
Denial of anything which doesn't fit your world view and refusal to experiment to take any observations, not so much.

[Tumeni]

It's a start. I would like to see more people question what they're told about the earth 's shape.

Why? Humankind is now up to 70 years' worth of launching orbital craft around our planet.

You can't have an orbit without an orb, globe or sphere to orbit around

[Martincg]

It's obvious that the Earth is flat, but there's one thing that bothers me. Why does a photo of the moon taken in the Antarctic show the moon is upside down compared to one taken in the Arctic? And a photo taken in the Galapagos Islands for example has the moon rotated half way round?

[Tontogary]

His experiment was flawless.

Wrong.

• He failed to detail how he measured the angle of the sun in either location.
• He performed the test at noon, not midday.
• He failed to pinpoint the location of the Brighton coast measurement.
• His measurements suggested the sun was directly over the middle of France which is impossible.

In science, any test, no matter how certain we are of its outcome, should be repeated several times.

He fails to describe how he accurately measured the apparent altitude of the sun at London Bridge, as there is no true horizon from London Bridge, it is doubtful that he could get an accurate measurement, unless her was able to describe how he obtained the measurement it casts doubt over the entire experiment.
Very strange that he has only measured the angles to whole degrees. Not better accuracy than that. I would not like to say how he arrives at the angles, but i would suggest it might even be with his plumb bob and protractor method he uses elsewhere!
He quotes the altitude of the sun as 64 degrees at London, now taking the declination of the sun of about 22N in early July, his apparent altitude is within 1/2 degrees correct more or less given the lattitude of London. (51.5N)
However given his altitude of the sun at Brighton of 64 degrees, he cocks that up. Using The same declination and Brighton’s lattitude (50.8N) he would have read the suns altitude as about 61.7 degrees, a whole 2.3 degrees in error, which considering he is trying to base his calculations on a 3 degree difference, to have an error of 2.3 degrees is pretty bad!

He takes 50 miles as the linear distance from London Bridge to Brighton, which is basically the accepted road distance on signposts, Not the linear distance required for this experiment.

His (incorrect) answer puts the suns declination about 5 degrees lower than London, or about 46.5N, plainly in error.

So far there is not any real accuracy that can be shown to his calculations, and real howlers of mistakes. Therefore his whole experiment is a sham, and his answer would have easily been seen to be false if he had asked someone in Gibraltar if the sun at ANY TIME of the year was bearing north at noon.

All in all Rowbotham experiment(s) are plainly a waste of ink and paper.