simple gravity test disproves FE

No, I accept where I am wrong, and work to amend my beliefs based on it.  Your assertion was without reason.

Are you just trying to pick a fight or something? 

I don't think it was without reason. You continue to play the FE game. Now it's couched under "Well I'm trying to learn so don't criticize me." You seem fairly well educated and curious about science. You know the earth isn't flat and all the zillions of ways we know it's not flat.

I believe the earth is flat and am working to unify my belief with the sciences.  Is that so wrong?

No. But let me ask you this: why do you believe the earth is flat? I know Tom B. says it's because he looked out the window and didn't see the sea drop 6 feet over 20 miles or whatever. What's your reason?

An combination of everyday observation and mystical personal revelations.

Tell me about the everyday observations.

When I was younger I traveled fairly often via plane.  Having always looked for the roundness of the earth and having never seen it started me down the path (though now in retrospect its obvious why I couldn't see it.)  I probably wouldn't have made anything of any of it without said mystical experiences though.  Likely I would have shrugged it off as something silly or sophomoric otherwise.  However, when the apparent lack of everyday observations for a round earth combined with the sense of knowledge and insight gained from my experiences - I had little choice.  We *could* be wrong about the earth, I mean how many times have we been wrong about other things in the past?  How many religions hold somewhere that the earth is flat? 

Could they all be wrong?  Is it any more absurd than believing in a universal flood?

An interesting note, one should check out "The Will to believe" by William James.  It talks about our right to believe without evidence and how it leads to evidence to verify our beliefs that would not have come without making that initial jump.

You cannot discern the curvature of the earth from a commercial flight. It's not high enough. This can be shown mathematically and has been done on these forums before. Any smooth surface looks flat sufficiently close. In an airplane, you are sufficiently close. Your observations are not  evidence against round earth. Period. There is no legitimate basis for claiming otherwise.

Sure, we could be wrong. Anything's possible. In fact, the couch I'm sitting on may not really be here. The laptop screen in front of me could just be a figment of my imagination, or an illusion. You might as well throw out the window all the science you're presently trying to understand if the earth is in fact flat. For that to be true, the world as we experience it would have to be very Matrix-like indeed. 

You might as well throw out the window all the science you're presently trying to understand if the earth is in fact flat. For that to be true, the world as we experience it would have to be very Matrix-like indeed.

I don't know why you cling to your science so tightly. After all, much of theoretical science is contradictory, lacking a Grand Unified Theory.

I don't know why you cling to your science so tightly. After all, much of theoretical science is contradictory, lacking a Grand Unified Theory.

Just stop with the silliness Tom.  Everyone knows you are a troll.  The gig's up.

Quote

You might as well throw out the window all the science you're presently trying to understand if the earth is in fact flat. For that to be true, the world as we experience it would have to be very Matrix-like indeed.

I don't know why you cling to your science so tightly. After all, much of theoretical science is contradictory, lacking a Grand Unified Theory.

I don't know why you cling to your EnaG so tightly. After all, much of his work is contradictory, lacking any sense of consistency and lacking a Grand Unified Theory.

Just stop with the silliness Tom.  Everyone knows you are a troll.  The gig's up.

By following science so blindly you are demonstrating that it is nothing more than a religion just like Dr. Rowbotham said 150 years ago. Instead of beginning to think for yourself and seek to unravel the true mysteries of the universe you are stuck in a world of unprovables, forever following media hype like a dog to the whistle.

Anyone introduced to science knows that there are more things we don't know than they are things we do know. And the things we do know may very well be wrong, waiting for another theory to supersede. There is nothing which demonstrates that the science taught in schools is fact. Even the cursory look into astrophysics will reveal endless hypothetical forces and particles which completely lack evidence and demonstration. When science cannot even tell me whether or not time even exists, we see that science is still a work in progress, incomplete and not to be taken as fact.

Quote

You might as well throw out the window all the science you're presently trying to understand if the earth is in fact flat. For that to be true, the world as we experience it would have to be very Matrix-like indeed.

I don't know why you cling to your science so tightly. After all, much of theoretical science is contradictory, lacking a Grand Unified Theory.

Tom, shuttup.

You cannot discern the curvature of the earth from a commercial flight. It's not high enough.

Yes, I said this in my post.

Your observations are not  evidence against round earth. Period. There is no legitimate basis for claiming otherwise.

I didn't say they were. Perhaps I should have spoken plainer.  If so, sorry.  Its more the lack of observational evidence either way in everyday life coupled with my personal experience that has lead to my beliefs.

Sure, we could be wrong. Anything's possible. In fact, the couch I'm sitting on may not really be here. The laptop screen in front of me could just be a figment of my imagination, or an illusion. You might as well throw out the window all the science you're presently trying to understand if the earth is in fact flat. For that to be true, the world as we experience it would have to be very Matrix-like indeed. 

I disagree, and I have cited a very reliable source.  However, your opinion is noted.

Quote

Just stop with the silliness Tom.  Everyone knows you are a troll.  The gig's up.

By following science so blindly you are demonstrating that it is nothing more than a religion just like Dr. Rowbotham said 150 years ago. Instead of beginning to think for yourself and unraveling the true mysteries of the universe you are stuck in a world of unprovables, forever following media hype like a dog to the whistle.

Anyone introduced to science knows that there are more things we don't know than they are things we know. And the things we do know may very well be wrong, waiting for another theory to supersede. There is nothing which demonstrates that the science taught in schools is fact. Even the cursory look into astrophysics will reveal endless hypothetical forces and particles which completely lack evidence and deomonstration. When science cannot even tell me whether or not time even exists, we see that science is still a work in progress, incomplete and not to be taken as fact.

My, TomB, how sad. If anyone is blinding following anything it's you to Rowbotham. His whistle blows and you go running, drooling all of the way.

Yes, theories supersede others and each theory must be ready to give way to a simpler theory that makes better predictions. So must FE yield to RE.

No, there are not endless hypothetical forces and particles. No, they do not lack evidence.

Yes, science says time exists.

Yes, science is, and always will be, a work in progress. I'm glad that every scientist believes so.

Quote from: emailking on October 06, 2007, 02:17:09 PM

You cannot discern the curvature of the earth from a commercial flight. It's not high enough.

Yes, I said this in my post.

Quote

Your observations are not  evidence against round earth. Period. There is no legitimate basis for claiming otherwise.

I didn't say they were. Perhaps I should have spoken plainer.  If so, sorry.  Its more the lack of observational evidence either way in everyday life coupled with my personal experience that has lead to my beliefs.

Quote

Sure, we could be wrong. Anything's possible. In fact, the couch I'm sitting on may not really be here. The laptop screen in front of me could just be a figment of my imagination, or an illusion. You might as well throw out the window all the science you're presently trying to understand if the earth is in fact flat. For that to be true, the world as we experience it would have to be very Matrix-like indeed. 

I disagree, and I have cited a very reliable source.  However, your opinion is noted.

You don't have everyday observations that support the existence of black holes, now do you? But you seem to believe they exist. You've read the threads on these boards. You've seen the myriads of evidence that has been presented that the earth is round. I know you understand this. You leave me with no choice at this point but to conclude you are a troll.

I didn't have a mystical experience concerning the nature of black holes though, I had one concerning the shape of the earth.

Care to tell?

Its personal.  It wouldn't transcribe well anyways.

How convenient.

Want to look through my underwear drawer too?

By following science so blindly you are demonstrating that it is nothing more than a religion just like Dr. Rowbotham said 150 years ago. Instead of beginning to think for yourself and seek to unravel the true mysteries of the universe you are stuck in a world of unprovables, forever following media hype like a dog to the whistle.

Anyone introduced to science knows that there are more things we don't know than they are things we do know. And the things we do know may very well be wrong, waiting for another theory to supersede. There is nothing which demonstrates that the science taught in schools is fact. Even the cursory look into astrophysics will reveal endless hypothetical forces and particles which completely lack evidence and demonstration. When science cannot even tell me whether or not time even exists, we see that science is still a work in progress, incomplete and not to be taken as fact.

Wow Tom.  This is quite revealing.  You have hurled a string of accusations that me that...make no sense!  I get this sneaking suspicion that you just copy and pasted some generic complaints that you harbor against the scientific method and/or the people harassing you endlessly on this forum, found an opportunity to use them, and hurled them at me.  I'm like this guy walking down the street, getting hit by pie that you intended for some boogeyman standing behind me.  I haven't even been on this forum long enough to garner these accusations.  So please, rather than just insult me with these venemous claims, pray tell show me the exact quotes in which I have committed sins.  I think you owe me.  In polite debate, you definitely owe me that courtesy.  I don't thing this is courteous debate, but you still owe me.  When I lambaste you, I provide the context and a reason, and usually a specific quote or two or three or four.

Either way, this doesn't seem very fun for you.  Why do you keep doing it?  (I can only think of one answer and I think you know what it is.)

Your second paragraph is as much ranting nonsense, but I will agree with you that science is a work in progress.  And my friend, the day it stops being so, is the day our species is no longer here, or no longer deserves to be so.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 06, 2007, 02:31:49 PM

I don't know why you cling to your science so tightly. After all, much of theoretical science is contradictory, lacking a Grand Unified Theory.

Just stop with the silliness Tom.  Everyone knows you are a troll.  The gig's up.

Ah, but the next crop of newbs will be just as green as you were initially.  And there will be a next crop of newbs.  The gig is never up here.

Yes, theories supersede others and each theory must be ready to give way to a simpler theory that makes better predictions. So must FE yield to RE.

FE reflects the observable and apparent. RE asks us to do away with our senses and make believe that we are living on a really big ball.

No, there are not endless hypothetical forces and particles. No, they do not lack evidence.

Perhaps you can give me evidence for the existence of gravitons, then?

Yes, science say time exists.

Discover Magazine says that science doesn't know whether or not time exists.

If science does not even know whether or not time exists, how can we trust it for anything?

Wow Tom.  This is quite revealing.  You have hurled a string of accusations that me that...make no sense!  I get this sneaking suspicion that you just copy and pasted some generic complaints that you harbor against the scientific method and/or the people harassing you endlessly on this forum, found an opportunity to use them, and hurled them at me.  I'm like this guy walking down the street, getting hit by pie that you intended for some boogeyman standing behind me.  I haven't even been on this forum long enough to garner these accusations.  So please, rather than just insult me with these venemous claims, pray tell show me the exact quotes in which I have committed sins.  I think you owe me.  In polite debate, you definitely owe me that courtesy.  I don't thing this is courteous debate, but you still owe me.  When I lambaste you, I provide the context and a reason, and usually a specific quote or two or three or four.

What I've posted is basically the premise of the Flat Earth Society; a society of scientific skepticism. Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham maintained a philosophy of never taking anything for granted, to begin to inquire beyond all else and never to follow any particular idea blindly without having seen evidence firsthand. Rowbotham promoted the Zetetic idea of putting every theory aside and conducting tests and trials from the ground up, to do away with prejudice and let experimental results speak for themselves no matter the outcome. This is how he proved beyond all power of doubt through experimentation that the earth is flat.

Dr. Rownotham paraded his results all around Europe, giving lectures at many colleges and universities. In his time Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham was hailed by many as greater than Newton himself:

"'PARALLAX' ON ZETETIC ASTRONOMY.--The gentleman who has adopted this noon de plume delivered his first lecture on Monday evening last There was a large and highly respectable audience--the hall being crowded. The lecture was a clear and elaborate exposition, &c. If we may judge by the applause by which some of the lecturer's arguments were confirmed, we should say that many of those present were ready to exclaim: 'Behold, a greater than Newton is here!' A hot discussion followed, in which the Dr. Nixon Porter and other gentlemen took part, but Parallax' maintained his ground."--Warrington Guardian, March 24th, 1866.

"ZETETIC ASTRONOMY.--Three lectures were delivered on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday evenings last, at the Lecture Hall in this town, by a gentleman adopting the name of 'Parallax,' to prove modern astronomy unreasonable and contradictory--that the earth is a plane, or a disc, and not a globe--the sun, moon, and stars, self-luminous, &c., &c. The lectures were delivered in a manner which could not fail to be comprehended, and which left no doubt that the lecturer was thoroughly acquainted with the subject he was discussing. We have seldom heard a man with stronger argumentative powers, sounder logic, or more convincive reasoning. The revelations of the lecturer appeared to completely astound his audiences, who, for the greater part, left with a strong impression that the previous teachers of astronomy must have been greatly in error. 'Parallax' is undoubtedly a gentleman of no mean intellect, and must have studied deeply to have reached such scientific attainments."--Croydon Chronicle, January 24th, 1857.

"'PARALLAX' AT BRADFORD.--So long have astronomers averred the earth's rotundity and its motion round the sun, that when 'Parallax' was announced to lecture we went to see the man who had ventured to controvert facts so long settled by the most recherché students in celestial science. To our surprise every position taken seemed fortified with keen logical reasoning, and an easy explanation was given of many of the tests previously considered absolute proofs of the earth's rotundity. The lecturer contends. By many illustrations he disproved this rotundity, and astonished his audiences by showing how little there is to be relied on in what has been hitherto received as demonstration itself. 'Parallax' is unquestionably a very acute reasoner, a paragon of courtesy, good temper, and masterly skill in debate; and, by his frank and ingenuous manner, won largely on the convictions of his audience. Seldom have we seen an assembly so much absorbed in their subject; and the interest was maintained to the close. We feel it due to say that, if the data given are correct, there is no resisting the conclusions arrived at."--Bradford Advertiser, July 6th and 13th, 1867.

"'PARALLAX' AT THE LECTURE HALL.--This talented lecturer is again in Greenwich, rivetting the attention of his audiences, and compelling them to submit to the facts which he brings before them--we say submit, for this they do; it seems impossible for any one to battle with him, so powerful are the weapons he uses. Mathematicians argue with him at the conclusion of his lectures, but it would seem as though they held their weapons by the blade and fought with the handle, for sure enough they put the handle straight into the lecturer's hand, to their own utter discomfiture and chagrin. It remains yet to be seen whether any of our Royal Astronomers will have courage enough to meet him in discussion, or whether they will quietly allow him to give the death-blow to the Newtonian theory, and make converts of our townspeople to his own Zetetic philosophy. If 'Parallax' be wrong, for Heaven's sake let some of our Greenwich stars twinkle at the Hall, and dazzle, confound, or eclipse altogether this wandering one, who is turning men, all over England, out of the Newtonian path. 'Parallax' is making his hearers disgusted with the Newtonian and every other theory, and turning them to a consideration of facts and first principles, from which they know not how to escape. Again we beg and trust that some of our Royal Observatory gentlemen will try to save us, and prevent anything like a Zetetic epidemic prevailing amongst us."--Greenwich Free Press, May 19th, 1862.

Want to look through my underwear drawer too?

Username you've admitted your everyday experiences are not evidence against round earth. With all the legitimate evidence that exists in FAVOR of RE, you base your entire FE on some mystical experience. A mystical experience could be result from drug use or mental illness. Without giving any details, a rational person can only conclude that you are insane or are a troll. Since you don't seem insane to me (although this can sometimes be hidden very well) I believe I am giving you the benefit of the doubt by labeling you a troll.

Edit: Accidentally called you Gulliver instead of Username. Sorry to both.

Quote

Yes, theories supersede others and each theory must be ready to give way to a simpler theory that makes better predictions. So must FE yield to RE.

FE reflects the observable and apparent. RE asks us to do away with our senses and make believe that we are living on a really big ball.

False. Read The RE Primer for how your senses can tell you that the Earth is a globe.

Quote

No, there are not endless hypothetical forces and particles. No, they do not lack evidence.

Perhaps you can give me evidence for the existence of gravitons, then?

Drop a pencil. Now about that endless list you owe us?

Quote

Yes, science say time exists.

Discover Magazine says that science doesn't know whether or not time exists.

False. The article say no such thing.

If science does not even know whether or not time exists, how can we trust it for anything?
...

"'PARALLAX' ON ZETETIC ASTRONOMY.--The gentleman who has adopted this noon de plume delivered his first lecture on Monday evening last There was a large and highly respectable audience--the hall being crowded. The lecture was a clear and elaborate exposition, &c. If we may judge by the applause by which some of the lecturer's arguments were confirmed, we should say that many of those present were ready to exclaim: 'Behold, a greater than Newton is here!' A hot discussion followed, in which the Dr. Nixon Porter and other gentlemen took part, but Parallax' maintained his ground."--Warrington Guardian, March 24th, 1866.

"ZETETIC ASTRONOMY.--Three lectures were delivered on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday evenings last, at the Lecture Hall in this town, by a gentleman adopting the name of 'Parallax,' to prove modern astronomy unreasonable and contradictory--that the earth is a plane, or a disc, and not a globe--the sun, moon, and stars, self-luminous, &c., &c. The lectures were delivered in a manner which could not fail to be comprehended, and which left no doubt that the lecturer was thoroughly acquainted with the subject he was discussing. We have seldom heard a man with stronger argumentative powers, sounder logic, or more convincive reasoning. The revelations of the lecturer appeared to completely astound his audiences, who, for the greater part, left with a strong impression that the previous teachers of astronomy must have been greatly in error. 'Parallax' is undoubtedly a gentleman of no mean intellect, and must have studied deeply to have reached such scientific attainments."--Croydon Chronicle, January 24th, 1857.

"'PARALLAX' AT BRADFORD.--So long have astronomers averred the earth's rotundity and its motion round the sun, that when 'Parallax' was announced to lecture we went to see the man who had ventured to controvert facts so long settled by the most recherché students in celestial science. To our surprise every position taken seemed fortified with keen logical reasoning, and an easy explanation was given of many of the tests previously considered absolute proofs of the earth's rotundity. The lecturer contends. By many illustrations he disproved this rotundity, and astonished his audiences by showing how little there is to be relied on in what has been hitherto received as demonstration itself. 'Parallax' is unquestionably a very acute reasoner, a paragon of courtesy, good temper, and masterly skill in debate; and, by his frank and ingenuous manner, won largely on the convictions of his audience. Seldom have we seen an assembly so much absorbed in their subject; and the interest was maintained to the close. We feel it due to say that, if the data given are correct, there is no resisting the conclusions arrived at."--Bradford Advertiser, July 6th and 13th, 1867.

"'PARALLAX' AT THE LECTURE HALL.--This talented lecturer is again in Greenwich, rivetting the attention of his audiences, and compelling them to submit to the facts which he brings before them--we say submit, for this they do; it seems impossible for any one to battle with him, so powerful are the weapons he uses. Mathematicians argue with him at the conclusion of his lectures, but it would seem as though they held their weapons by the blade and fought with the handle, for sure enough they put the handle straight into the lecturer's hand, to their own utter discomfiture and chagrin. It remains yet to be seen whether any of our Royal Astronomers will have courage enough to meet him in discussion, or whether they will quietly allow him to give the death-blow to the Newtonian theory, and make converts of our townspeople to his own Zetetic philosophy. If 'Parallax' be wrong, for Heaven's sake let some of our Greenwich stars twinkle at the Hall, and dazzle, confound, or eclipse altogether this wandering one, who is turning men, all over England, out of the Newtonian path. 'Parallax' is making his hearers disgusted with the Newtonian and every other theory, and turning them to a consideration of facts and first principles, from which they know not how to escape. Again we beg and trust that some of our Royal Observatory gentlemen will try to save us, and prevent anything like a Zetetic epidemic prevailing amongst us."--Greenwich Free Press, May 19th, 1862.

Please note that all of these "quotes" cannot be verified. TomB can't produce primary references. His source is Rowbotham's own book, so these are just self-serving clippings--probably just advertisement that Rowbotham paid for himself.

A mystical experience could be result from drug use or mental illness.

This is not valid reason to dismiss the fruits of it.  See the landmark book, which has been a standard in the field for the last 100+ years, The Varieties of Religious Experience, again by William James.

Also should be noted that mystical experience do not only happen as a result of drug use or mental illness.  I'll leave it up to you to decide how I had mine, as I don't really want to air my private mystical experience in public, for personal reasons.

Edit: Here is a link http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/621

Username, I dismiss a "mystical experience" on the grounds that it is by definition outside of the realm of science. Now it's possible you really did experience something, and if you'd talk about it, we could perhaps resolve the issue. But whatever you experienced, there exists a logical explanation that is consistent with RE. That is for sure.

Username, I dismiss a "mystical experience" on the grounds that it is by definition outside of the realm of science. Now it's possible you really did experience something, and if you'd talk about it, we could perhaps resolve the issue. But whatever you experienced, there exists a logical explanation that is consistent with RE. That is for sure.

Can you backup your claim that it is outside "the realm of science" as I have backed up that it is my right to use it for this means in my cited literature?

If you would like a better description, I will do my best without getting too in depth to the personal nature of it.

It was a moment that seemed like eternal enlightenment, in but a second that lasted for what seemed like forever.  I could sense truth.  I had little control over the experience.  It was much more than my senses.  I knew that the world was wrong, but this knowledge was beyond me, and greater than me.