[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff

I've made it clear than I'm open to Geocentrism. So, please don't lump me in with the 'spinning ball zealots.'

Huh? What does someone's religious views have to do with whether or not they are competent scientists?

(For the record, I'm NOT saying he isn't a competent scientist. I'm not familiar with him.)

No thoughts on what? That dumb diagram?

Here are some thoughts:

How did he measure the angles?
Was it at the same time of day?
Was it on the same day of the year?

If we establish he had a reliable way of measuring the angles, and it was at the same time of day, and on the same day of the year, then there might be something interesting to look at. Otherwise, the rotation of the earth around its axis and the orbit of the Earth around the sun are "compounding" variables, as you'd say, and he's simply a priori assuming a flat Earth and stationary sun - much like you, assuming the thing he's purporting to be proving.

Coward.

Billy, in case I forgot to mention it for a while - whatever shape our planet/plane happens to be, you are without question the single absolute dumbest mother****er on it, by some stretch. You are at the absolute zero of intelligence.

He's not dumber than bahbah.

I've spent enough time interacting with both to respectfully disagree. In fact, bahbah is only third, even Victor is dumber than bahbah.

I suppose it was just a matter of time before I had to pass the torch.

I think it's like bahbah < flat earth guy < Vic

Why is 90% of your posting ad hom raging and 10% stupid? Reasonable content from d2 is but a rounding error.

*Implying* is not the same as *requiring*. Learn English for heavens sake. And science, learn science, please. 10 yr olds have more acumen than you do. An experiment is necessary for scientific evidence. If i had said the aether was a proven hypothesis (a word you need to learn) then go ahead and demand the experiment (learn the word) proving it. And please do not embarass us all pretending you know what Maxwell's equations require or do not require.

These questions are beyond foolish. You are doubting the angles of elevation to the Sun from two towns 50 miles apart and querying the time of day! He used a clinometer of course. Follow the link for the details. Or just **** off and let someone else reply, someone with sense perhaps.

The interesting thing is, for those who need it spelling out, is that geometric proofs such as Eratosphenes are regurgitated wholesale without a second thought while Rowbotham's is rejected for no good reason.

Considering that his results for the distance of the sun are off by about 7 orders of magnitude, I think it's fair to say he probably made an elementary error or two somewhere along the line, yes. And why would the distance between the towns matter? If he was doing it himself he would need to travel those 50 miles, and so he would in fact be doing it at different times of day.

I'm not familiar with this tool but a quick google search tells me that it's used in surveying for measuring the angle of slopes. How does one use this tool to measure the angle to the sun?

Ok, how do Maxwell's equations "imply" the aether, pray tell?

Ah, I see, so you are now saying that your claim that the aether exists is not a scientific claim, because you didn't say "it is a proven hypothesis that the aether exists". Gotcha. Twat.

No good reason at all. ****ing mystery indeed.

Hey guys, the earth is round. I didn't say the magic words "it is a proven hypothesis that the earth is round", so I don't need to prove it scientifically, because it's not a scientific claim ldo. But some equations imply it, so trust me bro.

Can't really argue with that.

The one BIG thing that Victor gets right is that both political parties are beyond awful.

Obviously the sun is on a slope, you nitwit!

So he obviously had assistance you fool! What a question. A clinometer can also be used to measure elevation angles. Such as the height of buildings, natural objects. Or celestial bodies. You can make a primitive version with nothing more than a protractor and plumb line.

Of course you still havent read the link. Commenting on things of which you know nothing, the dunning kruger is permanent with this one.

It comes as no surprise the measured angles are about correct. As is predicted and confirmed with any reasonable model, including your incoherent sphere belief system.

Rowbotham assumes a flat earth as you rightly assert. This is no problem for the author, he has already proven this in the first few chapters, independently of the solar distance calculation. But let us pretend he has not proved flatness, the reverse assumption was made by Eratosphenes and yet his is parroted as proof of sphericity. It is not, only the measurement of a presupposed sphere, the observational evidence does not require a sphere. As anybody familiar with the proof knows full well.

Hence Rowbotham is on secure logical footing.

You may now present your evidence of solar distance being 7 magnitudes greater. I await, with popcorn at the ready.

Fascinating, earth is flat and sun is 1,000 miles away.

I don't really feel like wasting time on you today, but the good news is that you're currently using a device which will facilitate your search of this evidence. I direct you to the magic of Google and/or Wikipedia. If you insist on waiting for me to produce it, I might do so over the next few days if I feel like it.

How little do you know? Do you understand that light can be modelled as an electromagnetic wave?

For further interest, Einstein had this to say, "More careful reflection teaches us however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether."

In the meantime, why don't you work on explaining to us the difference between saying "x is true" and "it is a proven hypothesis that x is true", and also how Maxwell's equations imply the luminiferous aether.