1

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Newton

« on: September 03, 2012, 08:15:59 PM »

Newton's equations are correct for what they are intended for.

2

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Newton

« on: September 03, 2012, 12:56:16 PM »

Can FEers mathematically or empirically prove Newton wrong? or all they can do is assume that Newton was wrong ?

3

Flat Earth General / Re: How do Flat Earth Theorists explain Yuri Gagarin?

« on: August 21, 2012, 09:10:09 AM »

So far FEers aren't even attempting to explain how Yuri Gagarin orbited earth.

They just say it is a hoax, as they always do with everything they can't understand.

4

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Explanation of FE gravity requested

« on: August 20, 2012, 10:33:15 PM »

lol universal accelerator.  Is there any proof of a universal accelerator that trumps proof that... you know... the world is round?  I mean, real proof.  Not circumstantial proof.

Step off a chair. Do you see graviton particles/bending space or do you see the earth rise upwards to meet you?

I feel that I am going towards the floor. Also, I would never be able to see graviton particles affecting my body, since my eyes aren't capable of detecting sub-atomic objects.

Even if I was living in the bizarro world where earth was flat and UA existed, I don't think you would actually be able to notice a difference between the floor going up or me going down.

5

Flat Earth General / Re: How do Flat Earth Theorists explain Yuri Gagarin?

« on: August 20, 2012, 10:29:37 PM »

Or, I don't know, maybe you could try to support your statement.  Or, you could learn what aether is so that your trolling would seem less obvious.

Aether is yet isn't air. It's the same thing, but not. It's like a car but more like an SUV but it still has four wheels it's just us wee folk can't afford the bigger package. You know.

That is a terrible attempt of trolling. It isn't even funny.

6

Flat Earth General / Re: How do Flat Earth Theorists explain Yuri Gagarin?

« on: August 20, 2012, 05:57:04 PM »

Yuri momentarily rode the aether currents that keep the Sun and Moon in rotation above the disc.

Can you prove mathematically or with empiric data that this "Aether" exists?

Breathe in, now, breathe out.

Are you saying the atmosphere holds the sun and the moon up in space, and it also makes them rotate?

7

Flat Earth General / Re: How do Flat Earth Theorists explain Yuri Gagarin?

« on: August 20, 2012, 04:25:54 PM »

Yuri momentarily rode the aether currents that keep the Sun and Moon in rotation above the disc.

Can you prove mathematically or with empiric data that this "Aether" exists?

8

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Dark Energy & the UA

« on: August 17, 2012, 06:39:50 PM »

Dark Matter and Dark Energy as just place holder names for the physical phenomena they can't explain yet.

9

Flat Earth Debate / Re: FE Theory and the Bible

« on: August 17, 2012, 06:38:26 PM »

The catholic church did try their best to keep the Flat Earth hypothesis going on for as long they could. So it is fair to assume that the modern FE community was somehow influenced by early catholic FE apologists. 

10

Flat Earth Debate / Re: FE Theory and the Bible

« on: August 16, 2012, 11:11:32 PM »

FET is not based in Biblical literalism.

But FEers do behave just like religious people.

They make claims that have no scientific base, and refuse to accept scientifically based concepts that challenge the FET lore.

11

Flat Earth General / Re: What is the FEH explanation for lunar eclipses?

« on: August 15, 2012, 11:31:39 PM »

Aren't you the one that was criticizing people for posting in the vein of "it could be, therefor it is"

Show me evidence of this life, or you're just making stuff up.

James has been in telepathic contact with the life forms. You can read his posts in the Flat Earth Believer's forum. 

why not? why wouldn't a telescope be able to see this lifeform that is SO LUMINESCENT that we can see it with the naked eye?  Also, wouldn't the "googled distance" of the moon make it impossibly far away from a flat earth?  If I accept that distance wouldn't it disprove the Flat Earth Hypothesis?

The bacteria life forms are simply too small for a telescope to see in great detail. The distance google states for the moon is generally accepted. Some FE'ers believe the Moon to be much closer and smaller. I believe it to be the scientific distance. If you have any problems you would like to point out, please do so.

This answer is one of the best  FEer responses I have ever seen.

He isn't even attempting to rationalize a reason for this response, or achieve the minimum level of  logic  that  a sentence is required to have in order to make any sense. It sounds like he is just putting random words in a bowl and picking it up and writing in the very same order he gets it.

12

Flat Earth General / Re: Independent Evidence of Apollo Missions

« on: August 13, 2012, 11:18:19 PM »

Garygreen and a few other guys presented some amazing scientific evidence here proving that it was indeed possible to follow the astronauts going to the moon. So the FEers instead of acknowledge/deny/discuss the evidence presented, they just changed the subjected and started to talk how evil Nasa really is.

When in fact, they simply cannot refute the evidence presented here so far. That is was possible for people outside the space programs to build a radio and follow the astronauts going to the moon.

It is still possible, since there are plenty of people intercepting space/earth communication all the time.

 



 

13

Flat Earth General / Re: Independent Evidence of Apollo Missions

« on: August 08, 2012, 03:44:43 PM »

The level of denial of the FEers is almost pathological.

All I am seeing here is FEers denying evidences based on their own ignorance and assumptions. They seems incapable of actually presenting evidence that supports their claims.

14

Flat Earth General / Re: People's Reactions when Discussing Flat Earth

« on: May 11, 2012, 10:20:36 PM »

I have actually tried to bring this topic to some friends, but they usually laugh in totally disbelief.

It is the same as trying to talk about big foot, which is a shame, I really like the big foot subject.

15

Flat Earth General / Re: Lunar Laser Ranging

« on: May 11, 2012, 10:17:18 PM »

If Nasa is this good in faking things, they deserve some credit for being totally awesome in creating and managing a conspiracy of this magnitude.

Now, of course that even if Nasa was faking its missions, we have tons of other space agencies in the world sending stuff into space. So, the argument that Nasa is fake therefore space missions are fake, just doesn't hold ground.

16

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Hubble data

« on: May 11, 2012, 10:09:49 PM »

FET has some weird notions of how the universe works.

They kind believe in the Universe, but they think everything is really really tiny.

I think they believe the telescope data is real, but that RET (real science) is not interpreting correctly.

17

Flat Earth General / Re: FET Concepts

« on: May 11, 2012, 09:59:00 PM »

I am working on a list of concepts that represent pillars of FET as they compare with RET. It is just the start of what will be a long list and other members can add to the list, also.

1). The Earth is flat according to religious weltanschauung:

There are some in FET that make a compelling case for FET inclusion in the texts of Holy Books. This pillar is not about individual belief in faith, agnosticism, or atheism. The issue is that the Earth is flat when viewed from the perspective of religious weltanschauung.

2). The Earth is historically flat.

Take a good look at a FET/RET timeline. RET is only a recent entry into the long historical Earth shape record that was not in need of said recent entry.

3). The Earth is logically flat:

The first thing learned in the training of future scientists is that there is no truth in science. Hypothesis testing is offered as the best tool for determining a reality and that the process can not resolve in a definitive conclusion.  FET has truth. RET does not. Can mathematics come to the rescue of RET? No, is the correct answer. You can spend all day or a lifetime factoring equations to show that a ball is mathematically rounded. This has no relevance to Earth shape. It is a classroom dynamic, only.

The same RET is translated into all languages, printed in books and distributed throughout all countries. The infamous globe toys are evident in (probably) all countries, as well. Add a couple videos and pictures that are used over and over and that’s about it for the story of RET.  What is missing from that story is any actual proof of the claims made. 


4). The Earth is legally flat.

The evidence for FET rises to a level far exceeding that in RET. In a court of law, FET advocates prove a true Earth shape beyond any reasonable doubt. RET can maybe rise to the level of reasonable suspicion at best (see #3). The subsequent levels of probable cause and preponderance of evidence are unattainable within the framework of RET, unlike that of FET.  Therefore, FET sets legal precedence in Earth shape reality.

1) Earth is flat according to some fundamentalists; FET isn't common belief in Christianism.

2) Being wrong for a longer period of time isn't superior to being right for a shoerter period of time.

3) The Earth is logically round: if you put all the elements that modern science gives us, it cannot be anything that logically round.

4) Legally, the Earth can be whichever shape you choose it to be, even at the expense of your syllogism.

This guy is right.

If you use modern science, the only obvious conclusion is that earth is flat.

If you use out dated science and a lot of bias, you can come up to any conclusion you feel like.

18

Flat Earth General / Re: How did FET predict the super moon?

« on: May 11, 2012, 09:51:30 PM »

I am a newcomer, so apologies if this question has been answered elsewhere.  I read through some of the moon threads, but I didn't see this issue come up.

My question is this: If all of the predictions of the super moon are generated by proponents of a round earth and their physical theories, why do flat earth theorists treat the prediction as true?  Does FET make its own predictions about the timing of super moons?

FET is unable to make any sort of mathematical prediction whatsoever.

FET is not based on mathematics or science, it is more like a faith based belief system. Where you believe in their claims regardless of available evidence.

19

Flat Earth General / Re: Evidence of infinite earth in the bible

« on: April 13, 2012, 07:18:23 PM »

So the word of God is less credible then a word of a scientist?

Based on history (if the bible is accepted as an historical account), I'd say many scientists knew what they was doing more often than God did.

Examples please

God flooded the whole planet because He wanted to. Scientists decided not to do that, since it would be unethical to do so.

You gotta be kidding me? Scientists cannot flood the whole planet because they can't, there simply is no technology to do so. God didn't flood the planet because he wanted to but because people deserved it. Please read the account of Noah's flood to understand why it took place.

Are you really going to make an argument that God is evil and science is benevolent? How many examples do you want where science was infect very unethical. Does Nazi Germany ring the bell? Or may be the atomic bomb? So big deal science gave you internet and HDTV. God gave you the breath of life, is that also unethical in your view?

Now to address some other issues; The RET theory much like the bible is also taken on faith. Particularly faith in ancient Greek cosmology and now faith in NASA. No average citizen has ever and I do mean ever witnessed the curvature of the earth. I personally was on hundreds of airplane flights, I saw the world from the highest points created by man such as Sears Tower in Chicago and Stratosphere Tower in Vegas and I saw no curvature.  So therefore we must accept the RET by faith in science, correct?

Actually you can go look at the ISS.

Or ...

I.   Horizon
A.   Flat Horizon—An observer on the surface of a still ocean viewing sees the horizon as flat.
B.   Rounded Horizon—An observer on the surface of a still ocean viewing at a great height sees the horizon as rounded. It appears to be highest directly ahead of the viewing angle and drops equally away to both sides at a constant predicted rate, regardless of the viewing angle.
C.   The Higher, the Farther—An observer on a middle floor of a tall building watching a departing ship disappear over a clear horizon can climb to the top floor and again view the ship.
D.   Tops First—An observer on a ship approaching a port with skyscrapers will first see the tops of the tallest buildings then the rest of the city’s skyline as the ship comes further into port.
E.   Horizon below Eye Level—An observer will see the horizon is below eye level when viewing from a height above the Earth of 10,000 feet or more.
II.   Earth Based Astronomy
A.   Apparent size of the Sun—Regardless of the season, the time of day, or viewing location, an observer views the Sun in the sky as same shape and size.
B.   Sunrise and sunset—An observer sees the sun set and rise as a disk sliding over the horizon at a predicted time and angle.
C.   Phases of the Moon—An observer sees the Moon go through predicted phases (with the illuminated face facing the Sun when both are visible in the sky).
D.   Moonrise and Moonset—An observer sees the Moon rise and set at the predicted time and angle.
E.   Shadows on the Moon—At the first quarter and third quarter of the lunar phases, an observer sees shadows of features of the moon pointing in opposite direction, but always away from the Sun.
F.   Total Solar Eclipse—An observer sees a total solar eclipse at a predicted time and location.
G.   Annular Solar Eclipse—An observer sees an annular solar eclipse at a predicted time and location.
H.   Lunar Eclipse—An observer sees a total lunar eclipse at a predicted time and location.
I.   Retrograde Motion of Mars—At the predicted times, an observer sees that Mars apparently reverses its motion in the sky.
J.   Retrograde Motion of Jupiter—At the predicted times, an observer sees that Jupiter apparently reverses its motion in the sky.
K.   Retrograde Motion of Saturn—At the predicted times, an observer sees that Saturn apparently reverses it motion in the sky.
L.   Retrograde Motion of Uranus—At the predicted times, an observer sees that Uranus apparently reverse its motion in the sky.
M.   Transit of Mercury—An observer sees Mercury transit the Sun at the predicted time and along the predicted path.
N.   Phases of Mercury—An observer sees Mercury as predicted as a partially illuminated disk with the illuminated portion facing the Sun.
O.   Transit of Venus—An observer sees Venus transit the Sun at the predicted time and along the predicted path.
P.   Phases of Venus—An observer sees Venus as predicted as a partially illuminated disk with the illuminated portion facing the Sun.
III.   Radio
A.   Ham Radio Distance—A listener can hear ham radio stations from around the world.
B.   Commercial Radio Distance—A listener cannot hear commercial radio stations beyond a predicted distance during daylight.
C.   Nighttime Distance—A listener can hear commercial radio stations during nighttime that he or she could not hear during daylight.
IV.   Foucault Pendulum—An observer will see that a Foucault Pendulum’s motion rotates predictably over the course of a day based on latitude.
V.   Parallax
A.   Moon Distance—Two coordinated observers separated by large distance will obtain predicted angles to consistently determine the distance to the Moon.
B.   Sun Distance— Two coordinated observers separated by large distance will obtain predicted angles to consistently determine the distance to the Sun.
C.   ISS Distance—Two coordinated observers separated by large distance will obtain predicted angles to consistently determine the distance to the ISS.
D.   Iridium Flash Distance—Two coordinated observers separated by large distance will obtain predicted angles to consistently determine the distance to the flash off one of the antenna dishes of an Iridium satellite.
VI.   Rotation of the sky
A.   Northern Sky Rotation—An observer will not that stars appear to rotate about a fixed point in the northern sky.
B.   Southern Sky Rotation—An observer will note that stars appear to rotate about a fixed point in the southern sky.
VII.   Angle of Polaris
A.   North Pole—An observer at the North Pole will see Polaris directly overhead.
B.   45 Degrees—An observer at 45° North will see Polaris at 45° above the horizon.
C.   Equator—An observer at the Equator will see Polaris at the horizon.
D.   South—An observer south of the Equator will not see Polaris.
VIII.   Angle of Sigma Octantis
A.   South Pole—An observer at the South Pole will see Sigma Octantis directly overhead.
B.   45 Degrees—An observer at 45° South will see Sigma Octantis at 45° above the horizon.
C.   Equator—An observer at the Equator will see Sigma Octantis at the horizon.
D.   North—An observer north of the Equator will not see Sigma Octantis.
IX.   Intensity of the Sun—An observer will measure the predicted solar intensity on a cloudless day, regardless of the time of day or season.
X.   Cavendish Experiments—An observer will measure the same value of G for any sizes or shapes or materials used in a Cavendish device.
XI.   Lake—An observer will measure the predicted angle of deviation from level of a line of sight over a given, large distance over a still body of water
XII.   Zodiac—An observer will determine that the Sun appears to moves in relation to the Zodiac in the predicted manner.
XIII.   Photographs—The observer will see the Earth as a sphere in photographs taken for sufficiently high altitudes.
XIV.   Man to moon
A.   Earthrise—The observer on the Moon will see the earthrise at the predicted time and angle.
B.   Distance—Using the equipment left on the moon by the Apollo project, an observer will accurately measure the predicted distance to the Moon.
XV.   Transits of the ISS
A.   Sun—An observer will see the ISS transit the Sun at the predicted time and along the predicted path.
B.   Moon— An observer will see the ISS transit the Moon at the predicted time and along the predicted path.
XVI.   Launch—An observer will see in the sky a satellite following a successful space launch following the predicted course.
XVII.   Meteors—An observer will see the meteors from a predicted shower or storm radiate from a predicted point in the sky.
XVIII.   Lunar Eclipse Shadow—An observer will always see a round edge to the shadow on the Moon during a Lunar Eclipse.
XIX.   Commercial flights
A.   Great circle—An observer will notice that long commercial flights travel mostly along great circle routes.
B.   Times—An observer will notice that commercial flight times will not be less than a predicted minimum.
XX.   Transverse the Globe—An observer may circumnavigate the globe in any direction.
XXI.   Surveyors—When surveying large features, surveyors must account for the curvature of the Earth.
XXII.   Mountaintops—A pair of coordinated observers on two distant mountain tops within visual range of each other will both measure by line of sight the other’s position to be lower than it is measured by the other.
XXIII.   Latitude Lines—An observer will notice that latitude lines are always straight and equidistant.
XXIV.   Longitude Lines—An observer will notice that longitude lines are always straight and diverge and then converge, going north to south (or vice versa).
XXV.   Tides
A.   Daily—An observer will notice that there are two high tides and two low tides at predicted times and the Moon is high is the sky during one high tides each day and low on the horizon at all low tides at many locations.
B.   Monthly—An observer will notice spring and neap tides each twice during the lunar month, with spring tide during new and full moons and neap tide during the first and third quarter at many locations.
XXVI.   Auroras—An observer will notice auroras near the poles, and they will occur at around both poles with nearly the same intensity and duration.
XXVII.   Modern navigation
A.   Gyroscopes—An observer will note that modern navigation when aided by gyroscopes provide readings consistent with predicted results.
B.   GPS—An observer will note that modern navigation when aided by GPS provide readings consistent with predicted results.
XXVIII.   Weather patterns
A.   Weather Fronts
1.   Speed—An observer will note that weather fronts move with about the same speed in either hemisphere and in line with their internal wind speeds.
2.   Polar Originations—An observer will note that weather fronts originate from both poles with approximately the same frequency and intensity.
B.   Trade winds—An observer will note that the trade winds in both hemispheres blow at approximately the same speed, but in opposite directions.
C.   Large Storm Systems
1.   Speed—An observer will note that large storm systems move with about the same speed in either hemisphere and arrive predictably across great distances.
2.   Direction—An observer will note that large storm systems are about of equal intensity in either hemisphere, but tend to move in opposite east versus west directions within the same latitude bands.
XXIX.   Aberration—An observer will notice an apparent displacement of the position of a celestial body in the direction of the Earth’s predicted motion about the Sun.
XXX.   Earthquakes—Seismographs record earthquakes with results that imply that the Earth is spherical.
XXXI.   Sigma Octantis--Viewing of Sigma Octantis (near Crux) from several longitudes in the Southern Hemisphere means Sigma Octantis (and Crux) is in several places at the same time.

Your examples again are based on what science claims is reality. An average citizen has no access to outer space and even most astronomic observatories here on earth. Our experience day to day suggest that the earth is flat.

Just because someone doesn't understand the evidence, it doesn't mean the evidence is false.

20

Flat Earth General / Re: North Korea foiled by UA

« on: April 13, 2012, 12:47:32 PM »

No I meant built improperly, like containing a fault, I am not speaking about their blueprints, I am suggesting a possible variation with those.  All you need is one bolt to fail, or a second stage to fail to ignite.

Why is it so hard for you to admit that its even possible you are wrong.  There are more possible explanations than just "IT CAAAAN"T BE DUUUNN!", and yet you claim to know the exact reason.

North Korea is intentionally starving its people to it can pour untold millions into super weapons.

They've been failing to reach orbit for years. They have successfully tested long range rockets in the past. It isn't a technology problem.

This is certainly a way to interpret the situation in North Korea, but it is hard to take this interpretation as a real fact without any sort of  evidence to support its veracity.

21

Flat Earth General / Re: North Korea foiled by UA

« on: April 13, 2012, 10:13:42 AM »

We have many different space programs all around the world that successfully sent satellites and rockets in orbit. But because one country, failed to achieve such feat, this means all space programs are a fake?

I really don't understand the logic.

Not to mention, that North Korea is so poor that they can't even feed their own people. 

Maybe the scientists screwed up because they were too hungry to concentrate?

22

Flat Earth General / Re: Evidence of infinite earth in the bible

« on: April 13, 2012, 09:45:38 AM »

I was always under the impression that FET was trying to prove itself in the scientific realm. If FET is a science it should be discussed as a science, not as a religion.

So the word of God is less credible then a word of a scientist?

Nothing wrong in believing in the world of god, but then we run into a problem.

First of all, religion is based on faith (belief without evidence), so if you mix FET and religion, this means to me you don't need any scientific evidence whatsoever to believe in FET, because your faith says earth is flat. All scientific discussion becomes pointless.

Second, that particular verse you is extremely subjective to interpretation. I do believe in the bible and I interpreted differently, but I completely disagree with the OP interpretation.
My interpretation is this. In RET, when the planets were being formed, the planets were just a formless mass of a variety of different substances, and slowly gravity pulls all that mass together and creates the round form the planet has today.

However, I still think that the bible just have no saying in the scientific realm. Unless whatever is said is proven scientifically.

This doesn't mean I don't believe in the word of god, it means I believe that if you want discuss something scientifically you should keep everything under scientific perspective.

23

Flat Earth General / Re: Evidence of infinite earth in the bible

« on: April 13, 2012, 08:27:53 AM »

I was always under the impression that FET was trying to prove itself in the scientific realm. If FET is a science it should be discussed as a science, not as a religion.

24

Flat Earth General / Re: Evidence of infinite earth in the bible

« on: April 12, 2012, 08:04:16 PM »

I fail to understand how a bible verse can be used as evidence to prove FET.

25

Flat Earth General / Re: Proving Flat Earth

« on: April 12, 2012, 11:32:18 AM »

I'm still curious to see a FEers present a experiment that can be done to prove a FET hypotheses.

Of course the experiment would have to be extremely detailed so other people could also do it and confirm/disprove the results.

26

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Intelligence in Debate

« on: April 09, 2012, 08:51:49 PM »

so how can you say there is a edge at all?

FEers say the earth is flat because they  see the flatness of earth with their own eyes, therefore earth is flat.

So how can you tell there is a icewall edge at all if FEers have not seen it?

at the most southern point on the plane there is ice. thats the ice wall.
nobody has seen whats beyond. some people do say that there is no edge, nut most believe there is an edge. but the shape of the world has not been descovered

So the argument " I only believe only in what I see" doesn't hold ground.

I doubt any FEers in this forum has even been in Antarctica. So as far you guys know, there is no ice wall.

I mean, it has to be a wall tall enough to hold earth's atmosphere in it. This ice wall should be visible from any point in this planet.

With powerful telescope a FEer could easily prove the earth is flat by observing the ice wall.

27

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Intelligence in Debate

« on: April 09, 2012, 10:13:56 AM »

so how can you say there is a edge at all?

FEers say the earth is flat because they  see the flatness of earth with their own eyes, therefore earth is flat.

So how can you tell there is a icewall edge at all if FEers have not seen it?

28

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Intelligence in Debate

« on: April 08, 2012, 08:20:11 PM »

I believe clouds are made of cotton candy because clouds look like cotton candy. Therefore I must conclude clouds are in fact made of cotton candy, because my eyes tell me they are similar to cotton candy.

I don't need science to tell me what clouds are made for, I have my eyes.

Clouds are observable from the inside using nothing more complex than a hot air balloon. And they do not resemble cotton candy. Your analogy is flawed.

You are wrong.

Balloons don't actually work. Human flight is in fact impossible.

There is a giant conspiracy that want make you believe flight it is possible.

Your arguments are unsound, but I hardly can expect better from a Round Earther.

Now you know exactly how REers feel about the FET arguments and the Nasa conspiracy theory.

 

29

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Intelligence in Debate

« on: April 08, 2012, 06:59:12 PM »

I believe clouds are made of cotton candy because clouds look like cotton candy. Therefore I must conclude clouds are in fact made of cotton candy, because my eyes tell me they are similar to cotton candy.

I don't need science to tell me what clouds are made for, I have my eyes.

Clouds are observable from the inside using nothing more complex than a hot air balloon. And they do not resemble cotton candy. Your analogy is flawed.

You are wrong.

Balloons don't actually work. Human flight is in fact impossible.

There is a giant conspiracy that want make you believe flight it is possible.

30

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Intelligence in Debate

« on: April 08, 2012, 06:46:14 PM »

I believe clouds are made of cotton candy because clouds look like cotton candy. Therefore I must conclude clouds are in fact made of cotton candy, because my eyes tell me they are similar to cotton candy.

I don't need science to tell me what clouds are made for, I have my eyes.