If the 'flat earth' is so well hidden, how did you find out about it?

Its in the subject.

If the earth is flat, there must be a conspiracy.

If the earth is flat, there must be a conspiracy.

That wasn't the question... 

I want to know why you all spurned the round earth explanations for apparent lack of roundness etc., when the flat earth side (of the argument) is so complicated. 

Oh, I this forum is usually dedicated to conspiracy questions. Sorry.

Most FE'ers claim it's because their zetetic meditation led them to this conclusion. I think many will also refer you to the Bedford Experiment and tell you to read Earth Not A Globe.

Don't let this site fool you though. Most of the FE debators here are actually trolls and doesn't really believe in a FE.

Oh, I this forum is usually dedicated to conspiracy questions. Sorry.

Most FE'ers claim it's because their zetetic meditation led them to this conclusion. I think many will also refer you to the Bedford Experiment and tell you to read Earth Not A Globe.

Don't let this site fool you though. Most of the FE debators here are actually trolls and doesn't really believe in a FE.

No problem 

Although, I never realised that zetetic meditation could count as a scientific method...

Well, good luck to FEers proving their theories...

Zeteticism is considered more correct by FE'ers than the scientific method.

Zeteticism is considered more correct by FE'ers than the scientific method.

It's also considered more retarded by the general population.

Quote from: Catchpa on July 08, 2010, 06:22:00 AM

Zeteticism is considered more correct by FE'ers than the scientific method.

It's also considered more retarded by the general population.

sounds to me like they bumped their head on the ice wall.

Quote from: Catchpa on July 08, 2010, 06:22:00 AM

Zeteticism is considered more correct by FE'ers than the scientific method.

It's also considered more retarded by the general population.

Actually it's considered not at all by the general population.

Quote from: sillyrob on July 08, 2010, 06:39:37 AM

Quote from: Catchpa on July 08, 2010, 06:22:00 AM

Zeteticism is considered more correct by FE'ers than the scientific method.

It's also considered more retarded by the general population.

Actually it's considered not at all by the general population.

The troll population has gone down tho. When I was here over a year ago, there wer way less anti-trolls. I take this as further evidence that their are very few actual believers, as most trolls give up circa 1000 posts or fewer

The easiest way to determine the earth is not round is to simply view the data.  From there, later one comes to the realization that the most reasonable model in lieu of this is that the earth is flat.

The easiest way to determine the earth is not round is to simply view the data.  From there, later one comes to the realization that the most reasonable model in lieu of this is that the earth is flat.

This is incorrect. Most people view the data as seeing that the earth is round.
I haven't yet seen a single post that says why the earth can't be round. All I have seen is lol theories, that talk about how gravity is impossible and how a round Earth would violate the laws of motion. Oh yeah, lets not forget that because in some abstract mathematical constructs, that addition changes so that 1+1=1, that means the earth can't be round, or that because birds don't take the great circle, the earth can't be round

Quote from: John Davis on July 08, 2010, 02:09:49 PM

The easiest way to determine the earth is not round is to simply view the data.  From there, later one comes to the realization that the most reasonable model in lieu of this is that the earth is flat.

This is incorrect. Most people view the data as seeing that the earth is round.
I haven't yet seen a single post that says why the earth can't be round. All I have seen is lol theories, that talk about how gravity is impossible and how a round Earth would violate the laws of motion

Simply measure gravitational pull fairly at different altitudes, visit rock city, or visit the bedford canal.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on July 08, 2010, 02:32:18 PM

Quote from: John Davis on July 08, 2010, 02:09:49 PM

The easiest way to determine the earth is not round is to simply view the data.  From there, later one comes to the realization that the most reasonable model in lieu of this is that the earth is flat.

This is incorrect. Most people view the data as seeing that the earth is round.
I haven't yet seen a single post that says why the earth can't be round. All I have seen is lol theories, that talk about how gravity is impossible and how a round Earth would violate the laws of motion

Simply measure gravitational pull fairly at different altitudes, visit rock city, or visit the bedford canal.

other people have done these expirements, and came up with the fact that the earth is round. Also, other people have say, gone to th south pole. FEH relies on denial of modern science. I've only denied a bunch of 19th century books

Here is an experiment for John to try:
Visit Norway(Next summer since you probably won't be able to have the funds for a trip in time) sometime between june 12-july 1.

From there you should be able to observe the Midnight sun.
Seeing as this isn't possible on the Icewall model(or any other model i have seen) it is a disproof for FE.

Here is an experiment for John to try:
Visit Norway(Next summer since you probably won't be able to have the funds for a trip in time) sometime between june 12-july 1.

From there you should be able to observe the Midnight sun.
Seeing as this isn't possible on the Icewall model(or any other model i have seen) it is a disproof for FE.

Actually, John is also developing a model to explain phenomona associated with light, currently known as Aetheric Eddification Theory. I'm sure he has considered light distribution at the poles as part of this.

Indeed I have, and have gathered first hand data from the widdershins of our little home.

Quote from: The Question1 on July 08, 2010, 06:53:18 PM

Here is an experiment for John to try:
Visit Norway(Next summer since you probably won't be able to have the funds for a trip in time) sometime between june 12-july 1.

From there you should be able to observe the Midnight sun.
Seeing as this isn't possible on the Icewall model(or any other model i have seen) it is a disproof for FE.

Actually, John is also developing a model to explain phenomona associated with light, currently known as Aetheric Eddification Theory. I'm sure he has considered light distribution at the poles as part of this.

Color me surprised... Does John have a theory for light at both poles? Even for when the Sun appears from the opposite direction and from beyond the Rim? Wow! That'll be something to read!

You join the growing ranks who eagerly await John's forthcoming work.

You join the growing ranks who eagerly await John's forthcoming work.

I'm just thrilled to see that FET now has two poles, just as any REer would be!

In the model I support, the Earth actually does have two poles in a sense recognisable to RE'ers. I believe John subscribes to the traditional FE configuration, so forgive me if I lapsed into terminology more suited to my geographic model than his.

In the model I support, the Earth actually does have two poles in a sense recognisable to RE'ers. I believe John subscribes to the traditional FE configuration, so forgive me if I lapsed into terminology more suited to my geographic model than his.

Really where is the other pole in the model you support?

Quote from: The Question1 on July 08, 2010, 06:53:18 PM

Here is an experiment for John to try:
Visit Norway(Next summer since you probably won't be able to have the funds for a trip in time) sometime between june 12-july 1.

From there you should be able to observe the Midnight sun.
Seeing as this isn't possible on the Icewall model(or any other model i have seen) it is a disproof for FE.

Actually, John is also developing a model to explain phenomona associated with light, currently known as Aetheric Eddification Theory. I'm sure he has considered light distribution at the poles as part of this.

Then i await his data.

Indeed I have, and have gathered first hand data from the widdershins of our little home.

Although....
Define Aether and Widdershins,i have no idea what these are.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on July 08, 2010, 07:19:18 PM

In the model I support, the Earth actually does have two poles in a sense recognisable to RE'ers. I believe John subscribes to the traditional FE configuration, so forgive me if I lapsed into terminology more suited to my geographic model than his.

Really where is the other pole in the model you support?

Depends what kind of pole you're talking about, but if geographic, then one is the Arctic and the other is in Antarctica. You can find a rough representation of this model in the FAQ.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on July 08, 2010, 06:56:38 PM

Quote from: The Question1 on July 08, 2010, 06:53:18 PM

Here is an experiment for John to try:
Visit Norway(Next summer since you probably won't be able to have the funds for a trip in time) sometime between june 12-july 1.

From there you should be able to observe the Midnight sun.
Seeing as this isn't possible on the Icewall model(or any other model i have seen) it is a disproof for FE.

Actually, John is also developing a model to explain phenomona associated with light, currently known as Aetheric Eddification Theory. I'm sure he has considered light distribution at the poles as part of this.

Then i await his data.

Quote from: John Davis on July 08, 2010, 06:57:30 PM

Indeed I have, and have gathered first hand data from the widdershins of our little home.

Although....
Define Aether and Widdershins,i have no idea what these are.

Apologies, widdershins is not the correct term.  Brain fart.  I meant rimward.

Quote from: The Question1 on July 08, 2010, 06:53:18 PM

Here is an experiment for John to try:
Visit Norway(Next summer since you probably won't be able to have the funds for a trip in time) sometime between june 12-july 1.

From there you should be able to observe the Midnight sun.
Seeing as this isn't possible on the Icewall model(or any other model i have seen) it is a disproof for FE.

Actually, John is also developing a model to explain phenomona associated with light, currently known as Aetheric Eddification Theory. I'm sure he has considered light distribution at the poles as part of this.

I would like to point out that this is exactly what FE does:
It takes something that is impossible on a Flat Earth and makes up some theory to explain it away.  Aetheric Eddification Theory doesn't even make sense.  If I'm reading it right (because eddification isn't a word) you're theory is that Aether has flows that go against the normal flow of Aether.  This doesn't explain anything as Aether is said to be a colorless, tasteless, intangible medium that light goes through.  Or it was until it was disproven.

The easiest way to determine the earth is not round is to simply view the data.  From there, later one comes to the realization that the most reasonable model in lieu of this is that the earth is flat.

I've watched the sun set below the horizon a number of times and I have yet to see an FE model from any FE'er (including you) that explains this phenomenon better and more simply than the standard round earth model.

Well well. Another theory that just takes reality and the predictions of a round earth, and forces them to happen on a flat earth. Just let it be known that I was inb4 bendy space and bendy magnetic field lines, and infinite loop plane theory

Quote from: ClockTower on July 08, 2010, 07:20:28 PM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on July 08, 2010, 07:19:18 PM

In the model I support, the Earth actually does have two poles in a sense recognisable to RE'ers. I believe John subscribes to the traditional FE configuration, so forgive me if I lapsed into terminology more suited to my geographic model than his.

Really where is the other pole in the model you support?

Depends what kind of pole you're talking about, but if geographic, then one is the Arctic and the other is in Antarctica. You can find a rough representation of this model in the FAQ.

Do tell me where. I don't see two poles in any diagram in the FAQ. Thanks.

Definitions of pole on the Web:

• a long (usually round) rod of wood or metal or plastic
• a native or inhabitant of Poland
• one of two divergent or mutually exclusive opinions; "they are at opposite poles"; "they are poles apart"
• perch: a linear measure of 16.5 feet
• perch: a square rod of land
• one of two points of intersection of the Earth's axis and the celestial sphere
• punt: propel with a pole; "pole barges on the river"; "We went punting in Cambridge"
• terminal: a contact on an electrical device (such as a battery) at which electric current enters or leaves
• support on poles; "pole climbing plants like beans"
• a long fiberglass sports implement used for pole vaulting
• deoxidize molten metals by stirring them with a wooden pole
• one of the two ends of a magnet where the magnetism seems to be concentrated
  wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
• DNA polymerase epsilon catalytic subunit A is an enzyme that in humans is encoded by the POLE gene.
  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POLE
• In the mathematical field of complex analysis, a pole of a meromorphic function is a certain type of singularity that behaves like the singularity of at z = 0. This means that, in particular, a pole of the function f(z) is a point a such that f(z) approaches infinity as z approaches a.
  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pole_(complex_analysis)
• The rod is a unit of length equal to 5.5 yards, 5.0292 metres, 16.5 feet, or of a statute mile. A rod is the same length as a perch and a pole. The lengths of the perch (one rod) and chain (four rods) were standardized in 1607 by Edmund Gunter. In old English, the term lug is also used.
  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pole_(unit_of_length)

Or it was until it was disproven.

When did that happen?