My Thoughts on your Theories (Very Long Post)

I’ve wanted to comment on your theories for quite some time now, but have been fearful for lack of respect. I have been to several websites where the writer would pick and choose various facts of the round (I prefer spherical) Earth theory and leave out other parts in an attempt to discredit the spherical Earth (Round Earth) theory.

I am not an astrophysicist or physics major. I am a producer and marketing contractor. You said that Round Earth can be disproved using common sense. However, I say that using common sense, only strengthens the Round Earth argument even more.

So I am going to summarize some key points in the hopes of showing you where I find faults in your theory.



Point 1) The Conspiracy and Burden of Proof

That’s a really big accusation. A huge one… You’re saying that the entire planet, all of the companies and governments are all conspiring to hide the fact we live in a Flat Earth. I have lots of questions.

Why would warring governments or enemy governments agree to this?
What do our governments and companies have to gain from this?
How do they do such a good job of covering it up?

You also say that the burden of proof is on the Round Earthers to prove that the Earth is in fact spherical. However, you are wrong. The burden of proof is on both parties to substantiate their case.

The Round Earth theorists have shown their proof in the form of photos, video and countless other ways. You claim it is all a conspiracy.

You however have no proof other than unproven theories. No images, no videos, nothing.



Point 2) Falling off of Round Earth

One of the biggest is the gravitation of the spherical Earth, or better known as “gravity”. Some people will say that, “If someone is on the bottom end of Earth, why don’t they fall off? Or if they’re on the sides of the Earth, how come they don’t fall off?”

This is just ludicrous. You can’t just take in half of the equation. Gravitation pulls inward to mass, even Flat Earth agrees on this one. Earth is round, contains lots of mass, and us being on it is getting pulled in toward Earth. Does this not equate?

Technically speaking, there is no top or bottom of Earth; it’s all just relative to our own perspective. What I mean to say by that is, if we assume one end is the top end of Earth, we assume the opposite end must be the bottom. But that is a logical fallacy. What is truly "up" in the universe and "down" in the universe, one cannot answer that question.

This whole assumption is just plain rude. You’re only taking in half of the theory, and that just further discredits your own stance.



Point 3) Atmosphere

You state that the oceans and rivers and streams and lakes all stay in place because the Earth acts as a bowl with the ice ring holding everything in place. That wraps it up nicely.

What about our atmosphere. The air we breathe. Why doesn’t this leak off the sides of the ever accelerating upwards Earth? Air has mass and can fall off the sides of Earth just like any human can. How does our atmosphere stay in place?

On a Round Earth, the gravitation of Earth holds it all in place, as well as the water.

Flat Earth has what seems to be a fairly tale to me, please forgive me if this sounds rude, but this theory contains nothing to give me anything to agree on. Flat Earth’s “Atmolayer Lip Hypothesis”, says that the Atmosphere is held in place by pressure changes. I’m sorry, but that just makes no sense. Show me this theory in action.

The Dark Energy Field theory says that some unknown reaction our atmosphere or “atmolayer” has with the dark energy streams next to the planet cause it to stay in place. This to me, sounds like another fairy tale with no basis on any facts.

We don’t have any proof that dark energy, or dark matter exists, except for it’s effects on the universe. Yet you base so much of your most basic theories on this unknown and unproven stuff.



Point 4) Gravitational Variance

Why does the effect of gravity lessen when you are higher in altitude?

According to Flat Earth, it is because the moon and stars emit gravitation and pull you upwards.
According to Round Earth is because the effects of gravitation lessen the further away you are from the majority of the objects mass.

Let me speak more on the subject of gravitation. Earth doesn’t emit “Gravity”, because of some grudge against the term “gravity”. However, it does still have gravitation on a Flat Earth because it contains mass, however it is not concentrated nearly enough to be noticeable, because it is spread out over a VERY large area.  This makes a lot more sense than the non-sequitur argument, stating that Earth isn’t like the sun, moon, and stars and doesn’t have gravitation. I came up with that conclusion myself; feel free to use it in your defense.



Point 5) Earth Magnetic Field

According to Round Earth, the Earth emits a magnetic field that protects us all from deadly radiation. It is tear drop shaped, facing inward toward the direction of the sun, because the sun blasts the magnetosphere causing it to compress on one end, and stretch on the opposite end.

In the Flat Earth theory, do these bodies not emit radiation? Is there no need for a protective magnetosphere? Or do we even have one?

If the Flat Earth has a magnetosphere, how do you propose that it is shaped, or for the matter, emitted and held in place?



Part 6) Modern Life

Flat Earth dictates that everything is run on undersea cables, and microwave towers.

Round Earth dictates that our modern society is run on the aforementioned undersea cables and microwave towers, but also on manmade satellites that send and receive information.

So what's the problem? The problem is that on a since we are accelerating upwards on a Flat Earth, we cannot maintain an orbit or stay up in the air without a constant means of propulsion. So satellites would fall back to earth.

How can we have satellite television, GPS and long range communication from rural areas without satellites? What are those little satellite dishes pointing at from on top of all those houses?

Before you answer these questions let me debunk some myths.

You don’t need satellites to have GPS, you can gather approximate location information from microwave towers. Correct, you can gather approximate information from microwave towers. However, the key word is approximate. I have a first generation iPhone like many people, and I can load up my map software and look at my GPS like anyone else. However 100/100 times I have it find my location, it is off by 20 feet or more, and has been inaccurate by up to 1000 feet.

I also own a Magellan. Modern GPS systems can determine your location down to a foot and perhaps even more precisely, they can track you in real time and get accurate speed information, and with a 4th satellite in play it can determine you’re altitude. Microwave towers absolutely cannot do that. Please explain how this works.

There are phones that carry their signal through satellites from extremely rural areas where there are no microwave towers for miles and miles. Can you explain that?

You would figure with our fake reliance on satellites, the world would figure it out, and there would be more credence to your conspiracy theory. However, there is very little evidence proving that there is a  government conspiracy saying the Earth is round. The burden of proof is on you to prove that all of the governments in the world are conspiring for a Round Earth.



Part 7) Astrophysics (You barely covered this subject.)

Since I am not an astrophysicist, I’ll save myself the embarrassment of arguing with you too much about this subject. So I’ll just talk about it in common sense.

Let’s start with your “star movement” theory. The stars rotate on cogs, or gears. Not literally, granted. But that’s the general idea. How do they move and maintain their rotation?

Gravitation? Well according to the Flat Earth theory the stars don’t really have enough mass to rotate the stars quite that fast.

Universal acceleration? Ok, let’s talk about this logically. If the stars can rotate in all direction because of the universal accelerant called “dark mass”, you are saying that dark mass can accelerate objects in any direction. Why would dark mass always push the the planet upwards? Why doesn’t it push us downwards, or sideways?

Do the stars rotate magically on these gears?



Part 8) Ice Wall

You have the ice wall broken up into several sections; with names like the “Filchner Ice Wall”, “Riiser-Larsen Ice Wall”, “Ross Ice Wall” and the “Shackleton Ice Wall”. Well some research shows that these are the names of the various Ice Shelves.

Filchner Ice Wall = Filchner Ice Shelf or Filchner-Ronne Ice Shelf
Riiser-Larsen Ice Wall = Larsen Ice Shelf
Shackleton Ice Wall = Shackleton Ice Shelf

This makes sense for the ice wall segments to contain the same names as the ice shelf segments since, really they are the same thing. However, I have been shown no proof that the Ice Shelves are actually walls that surround the Earth and hold all of the water in place. You can show me pictures of the ice shelves, and claim they are from the ice wall, however this actually proves nothing, since one can easily say "No, that is just an ice shelf!"



Part 9) Formation of Earth

How did Earth come into existence? You don’t even have an explanation for that, none at all. Has it always been in existence? Did it form somehow?

Round Earth dictates that it was formed from a huge cataclysmic event of millions or billions of asteroids and comets colliding together to form together and make enough mass to pull more in, and create our planet. The moon was created from a very large event that blew off a chunk of the Earth and the debris gathered in orbit around the Earth to form the moon.

There is evidence of this in the Khyber belt. Although you’ll claim that this is just part of the conspiracy, it still gives some explanation that coincides with their theory, more than you give us.


Part 10) Pictures (I have them)
From your own link, let me demonstrate to you that the Earth is actually round.

http://www.theflatEarthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=High+Altitude+Photographs
Points to http://www.natrium42.com/halo/flight2/ from there, I went to photographs and yanked these photos for demonstrative purposes.

This image demonstrates that if the Earth was flat, that a straight line would follow the surface. However, it does not.


This image demonstrates the same idea as the previous.


This image demonstrates the same idea as the previous 2.

Note that on the final square, I demonstrate the difference in the straight line vs the curve.

Now if you tell me to go on that page and look at the panorama's, you just don't know how panorama camera's work. Or how panorama's skew the image. But Panorama's simply do not work for proving or disproving both flat or round earth. So again, Panorama's simply do not work to prove anything. If you want more information, I can try to explain how a panorama works, but we are all fairly educated and can probably do our own research on this.

I am a producer and marketing contractor.

With all due respect, why is someone in marketing interested in the truth?  Many of your questions are answered in the faq, including the fact that pictures prove nada, but it was a beautifully formatted and thoughtful post; however, I have no idea why you wrote it.

Perhaps you should switch sides.

I'm moving this to Q&A, as really it's too wide in scope for the debate board.

I was debating parts that made no sense to me. You said that everything can be proven using common sense, however common sense tells me how you are very wrong. You have less proof, real or fake. You said that the answers are in the FAQ, however there are no answers, just blind assumptions.

I am an open minded person. I am open to new ideas. However, this flat earth theory just doesn't add up with common sense.

In the wiki you mentioned Ockham'z Razor. The simplest solution is usually the right one. Let's use that as our basis.

What's the simplest explanation; that my experience of existing upon a plane wherever I go and whatever I do is a massive illusion, that my eyes are constantly deceiving me and that I am actually looking at the enormous sphere of the earth spinning through space at tens of thousands of miles an hour, whirling in perpetual epicycles around the universe; or is the simplest explanation that my eyes are not playing tricks on me and that the earth is exactly as it appears?

As usual, you bastardize the concept and glorify your own. Let's use Ockam's Razor now.

--

What makes more sense?

That we have a heliocentric orbit, and that all mass has gravitation. Which is why we stay on earth, and why we rotate around the sun.

Or that we are accelerating upwards with the sun and anti sun beneath us at a constant and very precise, unchanging rate because of a completely unproven dark matter?

Point goes to RE

--

What makes more sense?

That we have an atmosphere held in place by said Gravitation.

Or that the atmosphere is magically held in place using "pressure changes" or something resembling a dark matter wall.

Point goes to RE

--

What makes more sense?

That we actually do live on a Spherical Planet and our modern life really is based on Satellites that orbit the planet.

Or that all of the world's governments and large corporations are in on a huge conspiracy to fool the people for no foreseeable gain.

Point goes to RE

--

What makes more sense?

That when you go higher in altitude the effect's of Earth's Gravitation lessen because you are further away from it's mass, thus lessening it's gravitational grip on you.

Or that you come closer to the small sun and very tiny stars and they pull you upwards with their extremely weak gravitational field.

Point goes to RE

--

What makes more sense?

The planet rotates and revolves around the sun, thus changing our perspective on the stars.

Or that the stars rotate around on gears.

Point goes to RE

--

What makes more sense?

That the earth is in fact spherical, and the photos taken by amateur photographers to prove this are real.

Or that our eyes play tricks on us and the curve is nothing more than an optical illusion.

Point goes to both, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one.

--

RE = 6
FE = 1

The common sense score results are in. Ockams razor favors Round Earth.

Your assessments are wholly biased due to your fervent globularism and misunderstanding of basic concepts related to FET.

I like how they go for personal attacks and assumptions when they can't actually respond logically. This guy is currently disporving your idea, as you are unable to provide any valid counter arguments. The same with the sextant thread.

Status for FE theory: Currently disproved.

I like how they go for personal attacks and assumptions when they can't actually respond logically. This guy is currently disporving your idea, as you are unable to provide any valid counter arguments. The same with the sextant thread.

Status for FE theory: Currently disproved.

He hasn't disproved anything. He's just made a series of statements without bothering to make an argument or back up his points. For example:

What makes more sense?

That we have a heliocentric orbit, and that all mass has gravitation. Which is why we stay on earth, and why we rotate around the sun.

Or that we are accelerating upwards with the sun and anti sun beneath us at a constant and very precise, unchanging rate because of a completely unproven dark matter?

Point goes to RE

What is the basis for that conclusion? The fact is, the mechanism for gravitation is just as unknown as that of the UA, so I really don't see why or how one can conclude that the former makes more sense than the latter. For that reason, I am inclined to think that his conclusion is a product of his bias.

He hasn't disproved anything. He's just made a series of statements without bothering to make an argument or back up his points.

You do the exact same thing in every single "explanation" that you employ, that is what I have a problem with. Nothing you say in the wiki is backed by any fact, proof or evidence, it's all just blind assumptions without any fact or reference to back it up.

You do the exact same thing in every single "explanation" that you employ, that is what I have a problem with. Nothing you say in the wiki is backed by any fact, proof or evidence, it's all just blind assumptions without any fact or reference to back it up.

So you're admitting that your argument lacks "any fact, proof or evidence" and is "all just blind assumptions without any fact or reference to back it up". You know, there was a time when we had to debunk RE'er arguments, but these days you guys seem to be doing that yourselves. It's like self-service, FES style. Oh, and before I forget:


Another victory for FE!

Quote from: ultimateq on March 09, 2010, 01:14:02 PM

You do the exact same thing in every single "explanation" that you employ, that is what I have a problem with. Nothing you say in the wiki is backed by any fact, proof or evidence, it's all just blind assumptions without any fact or reference to back it up.

So you're admitting that your argument lacks "any fact, proof or evidence" and is "all just blind assumptions without any fact or reference to back it up". You know, there was a time when we had to debunk RE'er arguments, but these days you guys seem to be doing that yourselves. It's like self-service, FES style. Oh, and before I forget:


Another victory for FE!

Wilmore, You're assessments are wholly biased due to your fervent flatism and misunderstanding of basic concepts related to RET.

C what i did dar?

Way to address his points. And nice spelling as well.

For the atmosphere one, according to the FAQ, magnetic fields interact with DET and the 4th Dimension

1. How does FET have a magnetic field?
2. How does this even work? Is it just a theory that might work?
3. What is DET or Fourth Dimension?

Way to address his points.

My point is that he has no point. You can't address something that isn't there.

And nice spelling as well.

What's wrong with my spelling?

Quote from: ugaboga313 on March 09, 2010, 04:09:28 PM

Way to address his points.

My point is that he has no point. You can't address something that isn't there.

Quote from: ugaboga313 on March 09, 2010, 04:09:28 PM

And nice spelling as well.

What's wrong with my spelling?

You're assumptions? Also, why not be anymore specific. What you said perfectly describes you as well. Should no one address you? Why not address my points? I am curious of the FAQ.

Quote from: ultimateq on March 09, 2010, 01:14:02 PM

You do the exact same thing in every single "explanation" that you employ, that is what I have a problem with. Nothing you say in the wiki is backed by any fact, proof or evidence, it's all just blind assumptions without any fact or reference to back it up.

So you're admitting that your argument lacks "any fact, proof or evidence" and is "all just blind assumptions without any fact or reference to back it up". You know, there was a time when we had to debunk RE'er arguments, but these days you guys seem to be doing that yourselves. It's like self-service, FES style. Oh, and before I forget:


Another victory for FE!

Wow guy, real mature. You're own blatant immaturity and unwillingness to have an adult conversation discredits your stance. (watch him pick this sentence to argue with, instead of any of the points that I made)

You have yet to disprove anything that RE claims or prove anything that you are trying to claim. Another victory for RE.

You're assumptions?

Oh, you meant in a different post. My psychic powers must be on the blink. Incidentally, spelling and grammar are two different things...

Also, why not be anymore specific. What you said perfectly describes you as well. Should no one address you? Why not address my points? I am curious of the FAQ.

...as this perfectly spelled post demonstrates. =)

Quote from: ugaboga313 on March 09, 2010, 04:35:09 PM

You're assumptions?

Oh, you meant in a different post. My psychic powers must be on the blink. Incidentally, spelling and grammar are two different things...

Quote from: ugaboga313 on March 09, 2010, 04:35:09 PM

Also, why not be anymore specific. What you said perfectly describes you as well. Should no one address you? Why not address my points? I am curious of the FAQ.

...as this perfectly spelled post demonstrates. =)

Can we focus on the topic? How does this DET work? What is DE? What is the 4th Dimension? How does the FE's magnetic fields work?

Oh, don't worry, I'll baby feed you the points because you have the comprehension level of a bipolar toddler.

1: Conspiracy. Prove that it exists. What do all of the worlds governments gain by lying to the people about the shape of earth and the nature of the universe? Since you are the accuser, the burden of proof is on you to prove this conspiracy.

2: Atmosphere. How is the atmosphere held in place. I want facts and proof, not fairy tells and made up guesses. Give me actual numbers that I can process myself. You're "pressure changes" theory doesn't hold any truth in science, and your dark matter wall makes no sense at all, since dark matter isn't even proven to exist.

3: Gravitational Variance. The stars and sun are all very small on the FET, prove to me with numbers that they have enough mass to pull you up when you are higher in altitude, enough to overcome earth's acceleration slightly. I want numbers, actual real numbers, not blind guesses.

4: Earth's magnetic field. Does the FET not have one? Refer to my main post for more information.

5: Modern Life. Refer to my main post again, it's a longer one.

6: Star Rotation is just too absurd to let go. This is a blind guess with no real science or evidence to back up. In the wiki there is hilarious picture, and some poorly thrown together paragraphs with bad spelling. Give me some real information.

7: The Ice wall. Give me pictures of people at the edge of the planet. It shouldn't be too hard.

8: How was the earth formed, do you even have a theory for that?

I want real proof. If you tell me to refer to the FAQ, that will be considered a victory for RE. Because your FAQ cannot give me any real information.

You're still not answering the questions. Thread still disproving your theory.

What is the basis for that conclusion? The fact is, the mechanism for gravitation is just as unknown as that of the UA, so I really don't see why or how one can conclude that the former makes more sense than the latter. For that reason, I am inclined to think that his conclusion is a product of his bias.

There is really no parity between UA and GR in terms of predictive power and scope. The problems with the mechanism are similar, but the conclusion drawn is completely different because they cover a very different set of observations. UA explains why objects stick to the Earth and why we feel gravitational forces. GR predicts that, as well as stellar observations.

Of course there is a certain set of extremely distant stellar observations that GR has trouble with such as the expansion/contraction of the universe at large, however it works very well with nearby solar systems and objects within our solar system. UA says nothing about these objects, a separate theory of photoelectric suspension or other theory is required to explain these things. In that way GR has a very different scope and predictive power than UA. They may overlap in the near observable space around us (a few km), but beyond that they diverge.