This site's a joke, right?

  • 41 Replies
  • 15584 Views
Re: This site's a joke, right?
« Reply #30 on: July 13, 2012, 09:32:41 AM »
The universe does not exist. The stars and galaxies are tiny specs of light and chemical action in the sky.

Out of curiosity, do you believe that astronomers are part of the conspiracy, or just that they're too stupid to notice how wrong they are?

The ones who work for NASA who claim to be running space probes are liars, the ones throughout history who created the RE model and who work in observatories are wrong.

Do you know why?

Regardless of what you say are invention and personal views of what you don't know, I think you know why.
Life is a big trick.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: This site's a joke, right?
« Reply #31 on: July 15, 2012, 01:35:09 PM »
Please read Earth Not a Globe. Astronomers are wrong for many reasons.

Re: This site's a joke, right?
« Reply #32 on: July 15, 2012, 03:50:49 PM »
Please read Earth Not a Globe

Please read "How Did We Find Out the Earth is Round?"

Re: This site's a joke, right?
« Reply #33 on: July 16, 2012, 02:29:06 PM »
Please read Earth Not a Globe. Astronomers are wrong for many reasons.

I have.  It's a joke.  Pick a section.

ENaG is riddled with errors, and his astronomical 'observations' are almost exclusively hearsay.  He doesn't reproduce any of his observations in any way.  Nothing that he writes can be verified, and to my knowledge it hasn't survived any meaningful peer review.  Yes, I understand that his friends all thought it was quite genius, but that's obviously not what I mean by peer review.  The entire text is little more than speculation and assertion.  It does not lead to any useful or meaningful understanding of the world around us.  Modern astronomy is the opposite of those things.

I find it hilarious that the only people who seem to have a problem with the accuracy of modern astronomy are those who know the least about it.  All of the other thousands of people who actually study the subject, its foundations, its proofs, and its predictions, seem to have no issues with its logic.  Weird.
Also, the people on your websites are specifically framing their claims, not to learn the truth of the matter, but because they want to "debunk" Apollo Hoax claims --

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: This site's a joke, right?
« Reply #34 on: July 16, 2012, 09:54:05 PM »
I have.  It's a joke.  Pick a section.

ENaG is riddled with errors, and his astronomical 'observations' are almost exclusively hearsay.  He doesn't reproduce any of his observations in any way.  Nothing that he writes can be verified, and to my knowledge it hasn't survived any meaningful peer review.

Perhaps you missed the journal Earth Not a Globe Review which ran for over 75 issues of 200 to 400 pages each.

Quote
Yes, I understand that his friends all thought it was quite genius, but that's obviously not what I mean by peer review.  The entire text is little more than speculation and assertion.  It does not lead to any useful or meaningful understanding of the world around us.  Modern astronomy is the opposite of those things.

What speculation?

Direct claims and observations are given which demolish Round Earth astronomy. It is not "heresy". It is direct evidence that the Round Earth model is wrong. The observations are often corroborated by multiple independent observers.

Quote
I find it hilarious that the only people who seem to have a problem with the accuracy of modern astronomy are those who know the least about it.  All of the other thousands of people who actually study the subject, its foundations, its proofs, and its predictions, seem to have no issues with its logic.  Weird.

You will find that the FE'ers on this forum know far more about astronomy than the RE'ers who visit here.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2012, 10:33:25 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

Cat Earth Theory

  • 1614
  • I practise the Zetetic Method!
Re: This site's a joke, right?
« Reply #35 on: July 16, 2012, 10:13:29 PM »
Direct claims and observations are given which demolish Round Earth astronomy.It is not "heresy". It is direct evidence that the Round Earth model is wrong. The observations are often corroborated by multiple independent observers.

I've yet to see anything but Rowbotham's credibility demolished after reading ENaG.  Perhaps you could point out the relevant passages where he accomplishes this astonishing feat.
If you focus on the cloud, and conceive of it just as you would a dream you are trying to interpret, with practice its meanings and memories will be revealed to you.

?

squevil

  • Official Member
  • 3184
  • Im Telling On You
Re: This site's a joke, right?
« Reply #36 on: July 17, 2012, 06:38:40 AM »
if it was peer reviewed for so long they do you and others admit that parts of the book is wrong? did they miss a bit or what?

Re: This site's a joke, right?
« Reply #37 on: July 17, 2012, 11:39:28 AM »
...and to my knowledge it hasn't survived any meaningful peer review.

Perhaps you missed the journal Earth Not a Globe Review which ran for over 75 issues of 200 to 400 pages each.

You missed forum user Garygreen's key-word 'meaningful'.

Please show how Rowbotham's book 'Earth Not a Globe' was subjected to the academic or scholarly peer review process by 'Earth Not a Globe Review.'   

Here is a pdf of the first issue from 1893 - Whatever it is doing, it does not meet the modern criteria of peer review as defined here
« Last Edit: July 17, 2012, 11:57:24 AM by Kendrick »

Re: This site's a joke, right?
« Reply #38 on: July 17, 2012, 03:09:31 PM »
I have.  It's a joke.  Pick a section.

ENaG is riddled with errors, and his astronomical 'observations' are almost exclusively hearsay.  He doesn't reproduce any of his observations in any way.  Nothing that he writes can be verified, and to my knowledge it hasn't survived any meaningful peer review.

Perhaps you missed the journal Earth Not a Globe Review which ran for over 75 issues of 200 to 400 pages each.

Again, I understand that his friends were super keen on his ideas.  The mere fact that he published a magazine (that's all it is) doesn't at all indicate that his work has withstood serious scrutiny.  And, it still doesn't even come close to rivaling the scrutiny modern astronomy faces on a daily basis.  It is reviewed daily by thousands of astronomers and students who test it, work through its proofs, and verify its predictions.

I've only been able to find a single copy of the ENaG Review, and I'm guessing that you're the domain owner: http://www.earthnotaglobe.com/library/The_Earth_Not_A_Globe_Review_(Number_1_January_1893).pdf

If this issue is representative of the rest, then I can't imagine how you find it trustworthy.  It's just a magazine.  They said themselves that they created it to promote a literalist interpretation of the Bible.  Its bias and agenda are stated explicitly in the introduction.

What speculation?

Direct claims and observations are given which demolish Round Earth astronomy. It is not "heresy". It is direct evidence that the Round Earth model is wrong. The observations are often corroborated by multiple independent observers.

So he says.  It's entirely hearsay.  He doesn't reproduce any of his own findings, and in most chapters he merely describes what someone else told him about an experiment or demonstration he didn't see himself.  I have yet to see any reproductions of any of the tests or experiments in ENaG.  By all means, point me to what I'm missing.

It's hard to be more specific without talking about particular sections.  I'm happy to point out particulars if you'd like.

You will find that the FE'ers on this forum know far more about astronomy than the RE'ers who visit here.

That's obviously not the comparison I was making, but whatever.  I would be shocked to find out that you've ever gazed though anything more powerful than a standard pair of binoculars.  Maybe you've looked at the Moon with a Newtonian a couple of times.

Either way, I'm 100% certain you're unqualified to assert that "the stars and galaxies are tiny specs of light and chemical action in the sky," not only because that is literally impossible, but also because you have yet to display that your understanding of light, optics, or photography goes beyond what's written on Wikipedia. 

Remember when you said that astronomy has no method to calculate the positions of the planets?
Also, the people on your websites are specifically framing their claims, not to learn the truth of the matter, but because they want to "debunk" Apollo Hoax claims --

Re: This site's a joke, right?
« Reply #39 on: July 17, 2012, 07:19:03 PM »
And still! We have no explanation for the huge discrepancy in the calculated distance between Sydney and Adelaide under the Flat Earth Hypothesis and the measured distance in the REAL WORLD.

Flat Earth Hypothesis? Calculated by determining the circumference of the disk at the latitude of the two cities and then the ratio of the circumference against the longitude delta between the two cities.

Flat Earth Hypothesis calculation: 1878 miles (3005 km)

Real world. Maps are published with this info. These maps are used EVERY DAY by people traveling about Australia.

Real World: 740 miles (1184 km)

Re: This site's a joke, right?
« Reply #40 on: July 17, 2012, 09:36:38 PM »
I had hoped that Bishop would have responded when I told him to read "How Did We Find Out the Earth is Round?" but oh well.

Just a quote from http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/index.htm (it's long, but the second paragraph is more important):
Quote
Rowbotham never adequately explains his alternative astronomy. If the Copernican theory so adequately explains planetary motions, why discard it, and what would he use in its place? What is the sun orbiting around once a day and how does it work like a spotlight, not a 'point source'? If the moon is self-luminous, what creates its phases? If gravity appears to work here on earth, why doesn't it apply to the celestial objects just a few hundred miles up?

To make his system work he had to throw out a great deal of science, including the scientific method itself, using instead what he calls a 'Zetetic' method. As far as I can see this is simply a license to employ circular reasoning (e.g., the earth is flat, hence we can see distant lighthouses, hence the earth is flat).

Re: This site's a joke, right?
« Reply #41 on: February 10, 2014, 05:29:19 AM »

Quote
Why can high altitude photos only see certain continents if the Earth is flat?

Quote
The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent.


Honestly, the atmosphere is made of the same gasses the as on the surface except for ozone, and if gasses are not 100% transparent, what about the left out parts of the world?