FAQ Discussion

Often do FE defenders tell us to search for answers...and don't worry Junker I will not name anyone....
We are told to have a  look at the FAQ or search for topics. I did not find a topic which refutes the FAQ point by point, so here goes.

According to Flat Earth Theory, the Earth and other planets are not really the same type of celestial body. To put it another way, which I'm sure everyone everywhere will take offense to, the Earth is different.

The big question. WHY? Why would you think the earth is different. What are the grounded reasons?
I see no answer to that.

This is the first of a trend in this video, in which Henry (the host of MinutePhysics, for those not subscribed) assumes that the Flat Earth is exactly the same as the Round Earth in every way except for shape. The sun works in a manner similar to a spotlight in Flat Earth Theory, which is why time zones exist. When the Sun isn't pointing overhead, it's nighttime.

This issue has been raised a lot. If the sun were a sunlight it would look like the following video.  On a flat earth the south will always be dark at some time of the day This totally contradicts real world observations where (depending on the seasons) either the north pole or south pole receives 24/7 light.
Flat disc

Once again, Henry is making assumptions. There are a few differing opinions about this, as Flat Earth Theory is not a unified theory. Some people doubt the existence of Coriolis as anything more than a theorized force, as the evidence for it is largely contrived. Others have various explanations for it, such as the Shadow of the Aetheric Wind theorized by myself.

No explanation as what this effect is, the Aetheric winds or anything. On the other hand there are perfect explanations of the Coriolis effect which match our observations, like this one #" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">coriolis effect (2-11)

4. Triangles

This is little more than conjecture. It is literally impossible to perform this experiment on the scale required.

Although it is hard to actually test yourself there is no reason to doubt it wouldn't work on a larger scale. If it works on a smaller scale, why wouldn't it work on a larger scale? There are other indications which show we live on a spherical earth, so the RET is not dependent on this reason.  For example the travel time below the equator do not differ from those above the equator.

Henry is assuming again. The Sun's apparent movement is caused by the Sun actually moving. As for Eratosthenes's famous experiment to measure the diameter of the Earth, that assumes a Round Earth. If we assume a Flat Earth , the same experiment gives us the distance to the Sun.

Henry is not assuming anything, but is using grounded reasons to proof his right. On the other hand...the highlighted part says it all.."If we assume a flat earth..."

"If we assume pink flying hippos....."

6. Stars Change

Another assumption. This time, he's assuming that FE geography is just a Mercator map. It's not. The Earth is a disk centered around the North Pole, which would provide the same effect.

  On a disc I have the same night sky as someone standing somewhere else. Here is a simple diagram to show you just that. Person A sees the same thing as Person B.

Again, the Earth isn't in the shape of a Mercator map. That would be silly. Magellan and many others simply made a circle around the disk of the Earth.

Only thing I can say is true. If you make a 360 degree on a disc you can end up at the same spot you started. However on a sphere any direction you go will get you back to the starting point. There are no commercial flights across the south pole, but other indications such as the different stars viewable at the night sky at different locations show you the earth is a sphere.

This is just a perspective effect. First of all, apparently large waves will obscure apparently small objects. Therefore, looking out long distances over water you will of course be unable to see land on the other side. In addition, refraction has an effect. Some flat Earthers theorize an electromagnetic acceleration which appears to bend light upward.

Do buildings qualify as small objects? Not true, since we can see the top. The base is not smaller than the top, in the contrary. The base is often wider

Eclipses are caused by the sun going behind the moon, or vice versa. It's that simple. Once again, Henry is assuming everything is exactly the same.

If the moon is going behind the sun, we wouldn't be able to see it. There wouldn't be a lunar eclipse as we know it if the sun is in front of the moon. And if the moon is below the earth we wouldn't be able to see it either, because we are said to be living only on the top.  If the moon is above us and the sun is below the earth, the sun wouldn't be able to do this either. The sun would need to be so powerful and so large to allow some of its light pass along the disc towards the moon for it to have an orange-like colour. This would be problematic since if the sun is above the earth's surface, the entire surface would be lit up. This contradicts real world observations of night/day. The sun would magically have to dim as it sets above the horizon.

Most photographic evidence actually demonstrates what we would expect to see on a disk shaped, flat Earth: a circle with little to no apparent curvature. Add in camera distortion, and that's our explanation for low Earth photos. As for photos like the famous Blue Marble, that the space agencies of the World are involved in a conspiracy is depressingly obvious if you look at the evidence.

If you do not want to believe photographic evidence, then do not use it in your arguements to proof a flat earth. However, if you only think NASA is on a conspiracy, think of all the videos out there of amateurs who have sent up weather balloons with cameras. Amateurs...
This is an easy experiment for anyone to do and not a costly one if you want to have your own proof.

Moved to FEG.

Often do FE defenders tell us to search for answers...and don't worry Junker I will not name anyone....
We are told to have a  look at the FAQ or search for topics. I did not find a topic which refutes the FAQ point by point, so here goes.

Quote

According to Flat Earth Theory, the Earth and other planets are not really the same type of celestial body. To put it another way, which I'm sure everyone everywhere will take offense to, the Earth is different.

The big question. WHY? Why would you think the earth is different. What are the grounded reasons?
I see no answer to that.

Quote

This is the first of a trend in this video, in which Henry (the host of MinutePhysics, for those not subscribed) assumes that the Flat Earth is exactly the same as the Round Earth in every way except for shape. The sun works in a manner similar to a spotlight in Flat Earth Theory, which is why time zones exist. When the Sun isn't pointing overhead, it's nighttime.

This issue has been raised a lot. If the sun were a sunlight it would look like the following video.  On a flat earth the south will always be dark at some time of the day This totally contradicts real world observations where (depending on the seasons) either the north pole or south pole receives 24/7 light.
Flat disc

Quote

Once again, Henry is making assumptions. There are a few differing opinions about this, as Flat Earth Theory is not a unified theory. Some people doubt the existence of Coriolis as anything more than a theorized force, as the evidence for it is largely contrived. Others have various explanations for it, such as the Shadow of the Aetheric Wind theorized by myself.

No explanation as what this effect is, the Aetheric winds or anything. On the other hand there are perfect explanations of the Coriolis effect which match our observations, like this one #" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">coriolis effect (2-11)

Quote

4. Triangles

This is little more than conjecture. It is literally impossible to perform this experiment on the scale required.

Although it is hard to actually test yourself there is no reason to doubt it wouldn't work on a larger scale. If it works on a smaller scale, why wouldn't it work on a larger scale? There are other indications which show we live on a spherical earth, so the RET is not dependent on this reason.  For example the travel time below the equator do not differ from those above the equator.

Quote

Henry is assuming again. The Sun's apparent movement is caused by the Sun actually moving. As for Eratosthenes's famous experiment to measure the diameter of the Earth, that assumes a Round Earth. If we assume a Flat Earth , the same experiment gives us the distance to the Sun.

Henry is not assuming anything, but is using grounded reasons to proof his right. On the other hand...the highlighted part says it all.."If we assume a flat earth..."

"If we assume pink flying hippos....."

Quote

6. Stars Change

Another assumption. This time, he's assuming that FE geography is just a Mercator map. It's not. The Earth is a disk centered around the North Pole, which would provide the same effect.

  On a disc I have the same night sky as someone standing somewhere else. Here is a simple diagram to show you just that. Person A sees the same thing as Person B.

Quote

Again, the Earth isn't in the shape of a Mercator map. That would be silly. Magellan and many others simply made a circle around the disk of the Earth.

Only thing I can say is true. If you make a 360 degree on a disc you can end up at the same spot you started. However on a sphere any direction you go will get you back to the starting point. There are no commercial flights across the south pole, but other indications such as the different stars viewable at the night sky at different locations show you the earth is a sphere.

Quote

This is just a perspective effect. First of all, apparently large waves will obscure apparently small objects. Therefore, looking out long distances over water you will of course be unable to see land on the other side. In addition, refraction has an effect. Some flat Earthers theorize an electromagnetic acceleration which appears to bend light upward.

Do buildings qualify as small objects? Not true, since we can see the top. The base is not smaller than the top, in the contrary. The base is often wider

Quote

Eclipses are caused by the sun going behind the moon, or vice versa. It's that simple. Once again, Henry is assuming everything is exactly the same.

If the moon is going behind the sun, we wouldn't be able to see it. There wouldn't be a lunar eclipse as we know it if the sun is in front of the moon. And if the moon is below the earth we wouldn't be able to see it either, because we are said to be living only on the top.  If the moon is above us and the sun is below the earth, the sun wouldn't be able to do this either. The sun would need to be so powerful and so large to allow some of its light pass along the disc towards the moon for it to have an orange-like colour. This would be problematic since if the sun is above the earth's surface, the entire surface would be lit up. This contradicts real world observations of night/day. The sun would magically have to dim as it sets above the horizon.

Quote

Most photographic evidence actually demonstrates what we would expect to see on a disk shaped, flat Earth: a circle with little to no apparent curvature. Add in camera distortion, and that's our explanation for low Earth photos. As for photos like the famous Blue Marble, that the space agencies of the World are involved in a conspiracy is depressingly obvious if you look at the evidence.

If you do not want to believe photographic evidence, then do not use it in your arguements to proof a flat earth. However, if you only think NASA is on a conspiracy, think of all the videos out there of amateurs who have sent up weather balloons with cameras. Amateurs...
This is an easy experiment for anyone to do and not a costly one if you want to have your own proof.

95% of your post can be explained by theory that light bends and/or perspective.  To what degree is currently not known.  There are also some who do not subscribe to that.  They can answer your points if they so choose.

95% of your post can be explained by theory that light bends and/or perspective.  To what degree is currently not known.  There are also some who do not subscribe to that.  They can answer your points if they so choose.

It can be explained, but then again it cannot? It would work if one could apply one set of rules, but as Scintific Method pointed out, the light would have to bend in the strangest ways. The exact post can be read here http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58042.0.html#.UaGgBNi0stk

So to say that 95% of my post can be 'explained' by the theory that light bends....I wouldn't win the nobel prize with that.

That's what I mean when there are no answers. All is being 'explained' by unknown things which already have names, that much is clear. "We don't know, but it is bendy light", "we don't know but it is dark energy"  "we don't know but it is a dome that keeps the air in".

So to say that 95% of my post can be 'explained' by the theory that light bends....I wouldn't win the nobel prize with that.

That's what I mean when there are no answers. All is being 'explained' by unknown things which already have names, that much is clear. "We don't know, but it is bendy light", "we don't know but it is dark energy"  "we don't know but it is a dome that keeps the air in".

I imagine you won't be in the running for a Nobel Prize in any subject.

"We don't know, but there is a graviton," "we don't know but it is dark matter," "we don't know,"... etc.

Quote from: Lolflatdisc on May 25, 2013, 10:58:27 PM

So to say that 95% of my post can be 'explained' by the theory that light bends....I wouldn't win the nobel prize with that.

That's what I mean when there are no answers. All is being 'explained' by unknown things which already have names, that much is clear. "We don't know, but it is bendy light", "we don't know but it is dark energy"  "we don't know but it is a dome that keeps the air in".

I imagine you won't be in the running for a Nobel Prize in any subject.

"We don't know, but there is a graviton," "we don't know but it is dark matter," "we don't know,"... etc.

I thought you would come up with that, but none of the RETs have any contradicting information and all of the RETs can be explained in more details if you wish.

Quote from: Lolflatdisc on May 25, 2013, 10:58:27 PM

So to say that 95% of my post can be 'explained' by the theory that light bends....I wouldn't win the nobel prize with that.

That's what I mean when there are no answers. All is being 'explained' by unknown things which already have names, that much is clear. "We don't know, but it is bendy light", "we don't know but it is dark energy"  "we don't know but it is a dome that keeps the air in".

I imagine you won't be in the running for a Nobel Prize in any subject.

"We don't know, but there is a graviton," "we don't know but it is dark matter," "we don't know,"... etc.

Those at least somewhat agree with previously explained theories. With bendy light, it needs to bend a lot, then not much, and only light from celestial objects, not anything else. Not anything else reproducible in a lab...

I thought you would come up with that, but none of the RETs have any contradicting information and all of the RETs can be explained in more details if you wish.

Believe it or not, nobody comes to the Flat Earth Society to learn about round Earth theory.  You have a lot going on in the OP and this makes for a very confusing and boring thread.  Why don't we handle your objections one a time.  I'm going to pick this one and we can choose another after you are satisfied.

Only thing I can say is true. If you make a 360 degree on a disc you can end up at the same spot you started. However on a sphere any direction you go will get you back to the starting point. There are no commercial flights across the south pole, but other indications such as the different stars viewable at the night sky at different locations show you the earth is a sphere.

Yes, this would be possible on a large sphere.  However, every circumnavigational trip that I have come across has been conducted in a east to west or west to east direction.  You say that this is possible, but this does not prove anything.

Quote from: Lolflatdisc on May 25, 2013, 11:43:01 PM

I thought you would come up with that, but none of the RETs have any contradicting information and all of the RETs can be explained in more details if you wish.

Believe it or not, nobody comes to the Flat Earth Society to learn about round Earth theory.  You have a lot going on in the OP and this makes for a very confusing and boring thread.  Why don't we handle your objections one a time.  I'm going to pick this one and we can choose another after you are satisfied.

If you would show real interest in what I wrote you would see yourself what is wrong with the FET.I took the time to refute the points mentioned in the FAQ, now I would like  you to take time to refute all the points I mentioned. If you don't want to do it, or you can't do it, don't bother to answer.

This isn't the FAQ, by the way.  It's simply a response to the minutephysics video.

Quote from: jroa on May 26, 2013, 12:25:22 AM

Quote from: Lolflatdisc on May 25, 2013, 11:43:01 PM

I thought you would come up with that, but none of the RETs have any contradicting information and all of the RETs can be explained in more details if you wish.

Believe it or not, nobody comes to the Flat Earth Society to learn about round Earth theory.  You have a lot going on in the OP and this makes for a very confusing and boring thread.  Why don't we handle your objections one a time.  I'm going to pick this one and we can choose another after you are satisfied.

If you would show real interest in what I wrote you would see yourself what is wrong with the FET.I took the time to refute the points mentioned in the FAQ, now I would like  you to take time to refute all the points I mentioned. If you don't want to do it, or you can't do it, don't bother to answer.

I will discuss every point that you brought up.  I can't discuss every twisted idea that comes into your head at the same time, however.  If you can't refute what I have said, then let's move on to another of your statements.  I'll let you pick the next one.

Also, this.

This isn't the FAQ, by the way.  It's simply a response to the minutephysics video.

Quote from: Lolflatdisc on May 26, 2013, 07:58:21 AM

Quote from: jroa on May 26, 2013, 12:25:22 AM

Quote from: Lolflatdisc on May 25, 2013, 11:43:01 PM

I thought you would come up with that, but none of the RETs have any contradicting information and all of the RETs can be explained in more details if you wish.

Believe it or not, nobody comes to the Flat Earth Society to learn about round Earth theory.  You have a lot going on in the OP and this makes for a very confusing and boring thread.  Why don't we handle your objections one a time.  I'm going to pick this one and we can choose another after you are satisfied.

If you would show real interest in what I wrote you would see yourself what is wrong with the FET.I took the time to refute the points mentioned in the FAQ, now I would like  you to take time to refute all the points I mentioned. If you don't want to do it, or you can't do it, don't bother to answer.

I will discuss every point that you brought up.  I can't discuss every twisted idea that comes into your head at the same time, however.  If you can't refute what I have said, then let's move on to another of your statements.  I'll let you pick the next one.

If it is twisted according to you, you should have no problem to refute it.

It had come to my attention that it was not the real FAQ being discussed, but some parts of the FAQ are also in this discussion. For the completeness I will now also address the other points addressed in the FAQ so that the topic title matches the content of the topic. All quotes are derived from the FAQ unless stated otherwise.

The most commonly accepted explanation of this is that the space agencies of the world are involved in a conspiracy faking space travel and exploration. This likely began during the Cold War's 'Space Race', in which the U.S.S.R and USA were obsessed with beating each other into space to the point that each faked their accomplishments in an attempt to keep pace with the others supposed achievements.

The highlighted parts of the answer I would like to focus on. The word "likely" actually says it all. You assume, but you carry no proof to base your assumption on.

Also if the U.S.S.R And the USA would be obsessed in beating each other that they faked their accomplishments, they would be very keen to unravel the fakery in each other's programs. The absence of that being said and the fact the FES does not carry any proof they fake what they are doing, makes the statement nonsense.

This also becomes clear from the same answer in which the FES tries to back out what they said before. In other words it says "If it is not that what we said before, it should be this"

In light of the above, please note that we are not suggesting that space agencies are aware that the earth is flat and actively covering the fact up. They depict the earth as being round simply because that is what they expect it to be.

They do not depict the earth as being round, because that is what they expect it to be, but they depict the earth is round because all observations proof that the earth is round. There is no reason to think otherwise, since all we do using a round model works perfectly fine in practice. For example with navigation. Taking into consideration the round earth model and applying this when plotting a course, will take you where you want to be. As is explained in full detail on this website http://www.free-online-private-pilot-ground-school.com/navigation-basics.html

Day and night cycles are easily explained on a flat earth. The sun moves in circles around the North Pole. When it is over your head, it's day. When it's not, it's night. The sun acts like a spotlight and shines downward as it moves. The picture below illustrates how the sun moves and also how seasons work on a flat earth:
When the sun is further away from the North Pole, it's winter in the northern hemiplain (or hemisphere) and summer in the south.  A more simplistic picture can be found below. 

 

The video I have posted in OP shows the problem. In winter the south pole will receive light 24/7. With a sun the FES depicts, the south will always be dark at some time of the day. This contradicts the real world observations. The observations can only be matched when using a spherical earth, tilted on its axis as the following video depicts

Sphere

The earth isn't pulled into a sphere because the force known as gravity doesn't exist or at least exists in a greatly diminished form than is commonly taught. The earth is constantly accelerating up at a rate of 32 feet per second squared (or 9.8 meters per second squared). This constant acceleration causes what you think of as gravity. Imagine sitting in a car that never stops speeding up. You will be forever pushed into your seat. The earth works much the same way. It is constantly accelerating upwards being pushed by a universal accelerator (UA) known as dark energy or aetheric wind. This acceleration does not violate physics and according to Einstein's theory of special relativity, we can accelerate forever without reaching the speed of light.

 

Although the initial idea can work perfectly fine. An ever upward accelerating earth will make things fall to the ground. This however contradicts the measurements done by various organizations about the gravitational pull, in which the gravitational pull differs from location to location. An ever accelerating upward disc with different speeds would eventually rip apart.

There are also other theories of flat earth thought that maintain that the earth sits on an infinite plane, with the sun moving overhead. Gravity works much like it does in a round-earth model, and the earth will never form into a sphere because the plane is endless.

An infinite plane means that  nothing that we see above us can move below us. The sun sets and rises below the horizon. This contradicts an infinite plane.

As seen in the diagrams above, the earth is in the form of a disk with the North Pole in the center and Antarctica as a wall around the edge. This is the generally accepted model among members of the society. In this model, circumnavigation is performed by moving in a great circle around the North Pole.

The circumnavigation from west to east or vice versa would still work, however as has been raised before. Someone travelling from Australia to South Africa for example would take much longer to travel then someone who would for example travel from London to Hawaii, yet the flying time is almost the same. (The London --> Hawaii flight would even take longer while the distance on the flat disc is shorter)

If it is twisted according to you, you should have no problem to refute it.

By twisted, I mean that your mind goes in a dozen different directions at once.  I would like to have a discussion with you, but please bring up one topic to discuss at a time.

Quote

The most commonly accepted explanation of this is that the space agencies of the world are involved in a conspiracy faking space travel and exploration. This likely began during the Cold War's 'Space Race', in which the U.S.S.R and USA were obsessed with beating each other into space to the point that each faked their accomplishments in an attempt to keep pace with the others supposed achievements.

The highlighted parts of the answer I would like to focus on. The word "likely" actually says it all. You assume, but you carry no proof to base your assumption on.

You are asking us to provide proof that something does not exist.  It is like me asking you for proof that ghosts or fairies don't exist.  I can't prove that anything does not exist.  The word "likely" means that someone thinks it is probable.

Also if the U.S.S.R And the USA would be obsessed in beating each other that they faked their accomplishments, they would be very keen to unravel the fakery in each other's programs. The absence of that being said and the fact the FES does not carry any proof they fake what they are doing, makes the statement nonsense.

This also becomes clear from the same answer in which the FES tries to back out what they said before. In other words it says "If it is not that what we said before, it should be this"

The USA and USSR actually worked together on many supposed space projects.  Also, if each knew that the other was lying about something, what would be the motivation for them to tell the world?  If the USA told on the USSR, then the USSR would tell the world about the lies of the USA.  Seems to me like this would be motivation enough to not spill the beans, so to say.

And, what do you mean by backing out of what we say?  Can you quote an instance where I backed out of what I said?

Part two of this jumbled up mess of a discussion.

Quote

In light of the above, please note that we are not suggesting that space agencies are aware that the earth is flat and actively covering the fact up. They depict the earth as being round simply because that is what they expect it to be.

They do not depict the earth as being round, because that is what they expect it to be, but they depict the earth is round because all observations proof that the earth is round. There is no reason to think otherwise, since all we do using a round model works perfectly fine in practice. For example with navigation. Taking into consideration the round earth model and applying this when plotting a course, will take you where you want to be. As is explained in full detail on this website http://www.free-online-private-pilot-ground-school.com/navigation-basics.html

I have yet to see indisputable proof that the Earth is round.  Please share it if you have it.

Quote

Day and night cycles are easily explained on a flat earth. The sun moves in circles around the North Pole. When it is over your head, it's day. When it's not, it's night. The sun acts like a spotlight and shines downward as it moves. The picture below illustrates how the sun moves and also how seasons work on a flat earth:
When the sun is further away from the North Pole, it's winter in the northern hemiplain (or hemisphere) and summer in the south.  A more simplistic picture can be found below. 

 

The video I have posted in OP shows the problem. In winter the south pole will receive light 24/7. With a sun the FES depicts, the south will always be dark at some time of the day. This contradicts the real world observations. The observations can only be matched when using a spherical earth, tilted on its axis as the following video depicts

Sphere

For Christ's sake, please discuss one thing at a time.  Make a new thread for this.

Quote

The earth isn't pulled into a sphere because the force known as gravity doesn't exist or at least exists in a greatly diminished form than is commonly taught. The earth is constantly accelerating up at a rate of 32 feet per second squared (or 9.8 meters per second squared). This constant acceleration causes what you think of as gravity. Imagine sitting in a car that never stops speeding up. You will be forever pushed into your seat. The earth works much the same way. It is constantly accelerating upwards being pushed by a universal accelerator (UA) known as dark energy or aetheric wind. This acceleration does not violate physics and according to Einstein's theory of special relativity, we can accelerate forever without reaching the speed of light.

 

Although the initial idea can work perfectly fine. An ever upward accelerating earth will make things fall to the ground. This however contradicts the measurements done by various organizations about the gravitational pull, in which the gravitational pull differs from location to location. An ever accelerating upward disc with different speeds would eventually rip apart.

Things do actually fall to the ground.  But, how can you say for sure that the reason gravity varies at different locations is due to the Earth being round?  I could point out that this actually makes a round Earth seem unlikely.

However, I think we will just keep disagreeing until someone can provide actual proof that gravity is not constant.

Quote

There are also other theories of flat earth thought that maintain that the earth sits on an infinite plane, with the sun moving overhead. Gravity works much like it does in a round-earth model, and the earth will never form into a sphere because the plane is endless.

An infinite plane means that  nothing that we see above us can move below us. The sun sets and rises below the horizon. This contradicts an infinite plane.

Did you even actually read the FAQ?

Quote

As seen in the diagrams above, the earth is in the form of a disk with the North Pole in the center and Antarctica as a wall around the edge. This is the generally accepted model among members of the society. In this model, circumnavigation is performed by moving in a great circle around the North Pole.

The circumnavigation from west to east or vice versa would still work, however as has been raised before. Someone travelling from Australia to South Africa for example would take much longer to travel then someone who would for example travel from London to Hawaii, yet the flying time is almost the same. (The London --> Hawaii flight would even take longer while the distance on the flat disc is shorter)

Proof, please.

By twisted, I mean that your mind goes in a dozen different directions at once.  I would like to have a discussion with you, but please bring up one topic to discuss at a time.

I get your point. To understand the issues with the FET you sometimes need to link the different pieces together. That is what I wanted to do with this topic, bring everything together. I understand that a more simplified discussion would work better.

You are asking us to provide proof that something does not exist.  It is like me asking you for proof that ghosts or fairies don't exist.  I can't prove that anything does not exist.  The word "likely" means that someone thinks it is probable.

I am asking for proof to why that would be likely.
Likely there are ghosts and fairies. I have never seen them though, so why would you consider it likely?

Do you get what I mean? Is there a reason to assume it?

The USA and USSR actually worked together on many supposed space projects.  Also, if each knew that the other was lying about something, what would be the motivation for them to tell the world?  If the USA told on the USSR, then the USSR would tell the world about the lies of the USA.  Seems to me like this would be motivation enough to not spill the beans, so to say.

And, what do you mean by backing out of what we say?  Can you quote an instance where I backed out of what I said?

Do you hold proof they worked together on many space projects? Pretty much  all they did with their space program was classified information. I will give you another example why they would tell the world.

If a nation claims it has weapons which could destroy entire cities. They make videos to show what their super weapon does to a city. In fact they just used some camera tricks and lied about a super weapon they have. The entire world would be frightened if they were going to believe what that nation says. If you find out they are lying you could tell your people and they could feel relaxed and safe, knowing that there is not such a weapon.

The same with Iran. They claimed to have launched a monkey into space at the beginning of this year. The rest of the world had a good look and said "No Iran, it does not like you actually did". If Iran could send a rocket up in space, this would mean it could send up spy satellites up and gps satellites. GPS satellites you would need to fire nucleair missiles, to guide them exactly to the intended location. It would mean a lot of they could, but now we know they didn't we can be relieved about that fact.

 

Quote from: jroa on May 26, 2013, 05:52:36 PM

By twisted, I mean that your mind goes in a dozen different directions at once.  I would like to have a discussion with you, but please bring up one topic to discuss at a time.

I get your point. To understand the issues with the FET you sometimes need to link the different pieces together. That is what I wanted to do with this topic, bring everything together. I understand that a more simplified discussion would work better.

Finally, we can actually agree on something.   

Quote from: jroa on May 26, 2013, 05:52:36 PM

You are asking us to provide proof that something does not exist.  It is like me asking you for proof that ghosts or fairies don't exist.  I can't prove that anything does not exist.  The word "likely" means that someone thinks it is probable.

I am asking for proof to why that would be likely.
Likely there are ghosts and fairies. I have never seen them though, so why would you consider it likely?

Do you get what I mean? Is there a reason to assume it?

It is likely because proof of actual space flight does not seem likely.  Space flight theory is full of unfillable holes.  Pictures have been faked, lies have been revealed, and cover-ups have been discovered.  We have plenty of threads that discuss the mountain of evidence that proves this.  If you want me or anyone else to feed you more information, make a new thread.

Quote from: jroa on May 26, 2013, 05:52:36 PM

The USA and USSR actually worked together on many supposed space projects.  Also, if each knew that the other was lying about something, what would be the motivation for them to tell the world?  If the USA told on the USSR, then the USSR would tell the world about the lies of the USA.  Seems to me like this would be motivation enough to not spill the beans, so to say.

And, what do you mean by backing out of what we say?  Can you quote an instance where I backed out of what I said?

Do you hold proof they worked together on many space projects? Pretty much  all they did with their space program was classified information. I will give you another example why they would tell the world.

Here is the first publicly announced one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo%E2%80%93Soyuz_Test_Project

If a nation claims it has weapons which could destroy entire cities. They make videos to show what their super weapon does to a city. In fact they just used some camera tricks and lied about a super weapon they have. The entire world would be frightened if they were going to believe what that nation says. If you find out they are lying you could tell your people and they could feel relaxed and safe, knowing that there is not such a weapon.

The same with Iran. They claimed to have launched a monkey into space at the beginning of this year. The rest of the world had a good look and said "No Iran, it does not like you actually did". If Iran could send a rocket up in space, this would mean it could send up spy satellites up and gps satellites. GPS satellites you would need to fire nucleair missiles, to guide them exactly to the intended location. It would mean a lot of they could, but now we know they didn't we can be relieved about that fact.

The USA did not tell Japan it had nuclear weapons and then threaten to blow up its cities.  It just went across the ocean and did it.  Talk is cheap.  Actions make a point.

Iran faking space flight or Korea threatening to blow up the US is laughable.  They are like children talking about how good they are at fighting and never actually doing it.

Part two of this jumbled up mess of a discussion.

They do not depict the earth as being round, because that is what they expect it to be, but they depict the earth is round because all observations proof that the earth is round. There is no reason to think otherwise, since all we do using a round model works perfectly fine in practice. For example with navigation. Taking into consideration the round earth model and applying this when plotting a course, will take you where you want to be. As is explained in full detail on this website http://www.free-online-private-pilot-ground-school.com/navigation-basics.html

I have yet to see indisputable proof that the Earth is round.  Please share it if you have it.

I did. It is in that link. It is what pilots for example need to take care of when navigating around the globe.

Things do actually fall to the ground.  But, how can you say for sure that the reason gravity varies at different locations is due to the Earth being round?  I could point out that this actually makes a round Earth seem unlikely.

However, I think we will just keep disagreeing until someone can provide actual proof that gravity is not constant.

How they can be sure it differs is because they use the same things to measure gravity. If you take a ruler or a tape measure and you go measure your desk for example it will tell you how big it is. Now measure with that same tape measure your computer for example. Did you get the same result? I guess not.

Your ruler or tape measure did not change when you measured one thing or the other. But you now have two different results from using the same method. It tells you that your desk has a different width than your computer.

If you take the same measuring device to measure the gravitational pull and you measure it for one location to be for example 9.9 in one place and then for another 9.8 at another place, it tells you that it differs per location. This report is such a scientific report. http://www.ncg.knaw.nl/Publicaties/Geodesy/pdf/50Crombaghs.pdf

In the introduction it says

The worldwide mean gravity value equals 980000 milligal
(9.80 ms-2), with variations up to 5000 milligal. In The Netherlands gravity values
increase from south to north with about 1 milligal per kilometer. Smallest values occur in Limburg (981100 milligal), while the largest values occur in Groningen (981350milligal).

So in my country the south has a gravitational pull of 9,811 while the north has as gravitational pull of 9,813

The circumnavigation from west to east or vice versa would still work, however as has been raised before. Someone travelling from Australia to South Africa for example would take much longer to travel then someone who would for example travel from London to Hawaii, yet the flying time is almost the same. (The London --> Hawaii flight would even take longer while the distance on the flat disc is shorter)

Proof, please.

Go to the website of Qantas
Select start city Perth, destination Johannesburg. The flight from Perth to Johannesburg takes you 11 h 20 minutes.

Go to the website of United Airlines
For London to Los Angeles (there were no direct flights to Honolulu) it is about the same length as Perth to Johannesburg. It takes you 11hr 25min. If you have a look at the flat earth map. The distance London --> Los Angeles is shorter (yellow line) than the distance from Perth to Johannesburg (red line).

It is likely because proof of actual space flight does not seem likely.  Space flight theory is full of unfillable holes.  Pictures have been faked, lies have been revealed, and cover-ups have been discovered.  We have plenty of threads that discuss the mountain of evidence that proves this.  If you want me or anyone else to feed you more information, make a new thread.

About this. I have seen the ISS up in space, just like so many others did. Others have captured the reentry of the space shuttle. Others have witnessed launches of space shuttle. How could you say that it is faked as the best evidence is right there to see with your own eyes.

Here is the first publicly announced one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo%E2%80%93Soyuz_Test_Project

I was well aware of that, but did you noted the date? July 1975. Both nations were pretty much at the end of their space race. During the space race they were sworn enemies. If you have actual proof of them co-operating during that period, you have a point. Now you assume they cooperated before because they did in July 1975. The germans also cooperated in the predecessor of the EU right after World War 2, while during the war they were enemies and shot at the allies.

Perhaps I get in too many directions for you now, but in 1962 the Americans and the Soviets were in a missile crisis. They almost blew themselves up because of a conflict. In 1961 the first man of the Soviets walked in space. If they would have lied about it, the USA would have told so.

The USA did not tell Japan it had nuclear weapons and then threaten to blow up its cities.  It just went across the ocean and did it.  Talk is cheap.  Actions make a point.

Iran faking space flight or Korea threatening to blow up the US is laughable.  They are like children talking about how good they are at fighting and never actually doing it.

The USA did tell Japan it had nuclear weapons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

Together with the United Kingdom and the Republic of China, the United States called for a surrender of Japan in the Potsdam Declaration on 26 July 1945, threatening Japan with "prompt and utter destruction". The Japanese government ignored this ultimatum. American airmen dropped Little Boy on the city of Hiroshima on 6 August 1945, followed by Fat Man over Nagasaki on 9 August.

I do not know what the Japanese were thinking, perhaps they ignored it and thought it was fake. Untill the USA did what they said and right after the nucleair bombs Japan surrendered. So it does matter if you tell the thruth or not and nations would want to know it. If you know the other is in fact lying, you will not be worried.

Any thoughts from the flatties?

The only defense I've heard about the distance discrepancy in the southern hemisphere was that all distances had been written down wrong. Yeah.

That must be why airplanes keep arriving at the wrong places! oh....wait....that never happens....

The evidence is here. It is  explained why we can't be believing on a flat earth.  End of story.

The evidence is here. It is  explained why we can't be believing on a flat earth.  End of story.

I am fairly certain that the act of believing can be achieved on a flat Earth.

I am fairly certain that the act of believing can also be achieved on a round earth.

It can be achieved on both.  So I don't know why you brought the point up to begin with.