The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: rad_creeper on March 03, 2012, 01:10:29 PM
-
I have yet to see a solid piece of evidence proving your theory, all I have seen is people who can type half of a page about the wording or grammar of the post, so please just give my some solid evidence of this flat earth.
-
Have you absorbed the information in Tom Bishop's signature-links?
-
I have yet to see a solid piece of evidence proving your theory, all I have seen is people who can type half of a page about the wording or grammar of the post, so please just give my some solid evidence of this flat earth.
Look out your window.
-
I have yet to see a solid piece of evidence proving your theory, all I have seen is people who can type half of a page about the wording or grammar of the post, so please just give my some solid evidence of this flat earth.
Look out your window.
Okay. Why do you suggest that? Are you arguing something in the least bit relevant?
-
I have yet to see a solid piece of evidence proving your theory, all I have seen is people who can type half of a page about the wording or grammar of the post, so please just give my some solid evidence of this flat earth.
Look out your window.
I see trees, a parking lot, and a cloudy sky. Now what?
-
I have yet to see a solid piece of evidence proving your theory, all I have seen is people who can type half of a page about the wording or grammar of the post, so please just give my some solid evidence of this flat earth.
Look out your window.
I see exactly what I'd expect on a giant sphere, due to a sharp horizon with objects like the sun and moon being obscured by it. Not what you would expect to see on a flat plane. The earth does not look flat.
-
I have yet to see a solid piece of evidence proving your theory, all I have seen is people who can type half of a page about the wording or grammar of the post, so please just give my some solid evidence of this flat earth.
I'm not sure about other posters you have encountered, but I assure you that I have beaten no bushes or around them for that matter.
-
I have yet to see a solid piece of evidence proving your theory, all I have seen is people who can type half of a page about the wording or grammar of the post, so please just give my some solid evidence of this flat earth.
I'm not sure about other posters you have encountered, but I assure you that I have beaten no bushes or around them for that matter.
I see what you did there, cool story bro, how about a quality post retorting his comment?
Look out your window your five senses are the supreme beings of understanding the truth of the universe around you, we can't see air so its obviously not there, we see in color so its obvious that objects in reality are colored and their colors arent based off the reflected light that goes into and get processed by our eyes.
Look outside and the world look flat therefore it is flat. As Bill O'Rielly would say to RE'rs: You can't explain that!
-
I have yet to see a solid piece of evidence proving your theory, all I have seen is people who can type half of a page about the wording or grammar of the post, so please just give my some solid evidence of this flat earth.
I'm not sure about other posters you have encountered, but I assure you that I have beaten no bushes or around them for that matter.
I see what you did there, cool story bro, how about a quality post retorting his comment?
Look out your window your five senses are the supreme beings of understanding the truth of the universe around you, we can't see air so its obviously not there, we see in color so its obvious that objects in reality are colored and their colors arent based off the reflected light that goes into and get processed by our eyes.
Look outside and the world look flat therefore it is flat. As Bill O'Rielly would say to RE'rs: You can't explain that!
Stop with the "it looks flat" phrase, because it doesn't. If it looked flat it would not ever have a sharp horizon and celestial objects would not be obscured by the horizon. It doesn't even look f*cking flat. The horizon prevents it from having the appearance of a flat plane. Anyone who babbles "it looks flat" ought to compare it with any other flat surface and note the difference in appearance.
-
Bedford.
-
Bedford.
Which experiments? Just the ones you agree with?
-
Bedford.
Which experiments? Just the ones you agree with?
All of the ones that weren't faked. Rowbotham, Blount, Daniel.
-
Bedford.
Which experiments? Just the ones you agree with?
All of the ones that weren't faked. Rowbotham, Blount, Daniel.
So just the ones you agree with. Got it.
-
Bedford.
Which experiments? Just the ones you agree with?
All of the ones that weren't faked. Rowbotham, Blount, Daniel.
So just the ones you agree with. Got it.
Right. All of the one's that weren't obviously fake support FET. What a coincidence.
-
Bedford.
Which experiments? Just the ones you agree with?
All of the ones that weren't faked. Rowbotham, Blount, Daniel.
So just the ones you agree with. Got it.
Right. All of the one's that weren't obviously fake support FET. What a coincidence.
Correction. All the ones that you say you think weren't obviously fake. Big difference. Please be honest.
-
Bedford.
Which experiments? Just the ones you agree with?
All of the ones that weren't faked. Rowbotham, Blount, Daniel.
Lol, how predictable. Unless you have some actual proof that they were faked, the Bedford Level isn't evidence.
What's mysterious to me is that the Rowbotham/Blount experiments are fairly easy to do, so why haven't the results been reproduced? If the earth is truly flat it should be quite easy to get the same results in any other slow-moving body of water. It would clear things up so nicely. We wouldn't have to have all these arguments over who cheated and who didn't over a hundred years ago.
-
Bedford.
Which experiments? Just the ones you agree with?
All of the ones that weren't faked. Rowbotham, Blount, Daniel.
So just the ones you agree with. Got it.
Right. All of the one's that weren't obviously fake support FET. What a coincidence.
Correction. All the ones that you say you think weren't obviously fake. Big difference. Please be honest.
If you consider the Hampden/Wallace trial to have been evidence of RET, you must truly be desperate. And Oldham was his only witness as he took his pictures (which have yet to be produced by an RE'er, I might add) where Rowbotham and Blount had plenty. If this were a court case, I think we all know who would win.
-
Bedford.
Which experiments? Just the ones you agree with?
All of the ones that weren't faked. Rowbotham, Blount, Daniel.
Lol, how predictable. Unless you have some actual proof that they were faked, the Bedford Level isn't evidence.
What's mysterious to me is that the Rowbotham/Blount experiments are fairly easy to do, so why haven't the results been reproduced? If the earth is truly flat it should be quite easy to get the same results in any other slow-moving body of water. It would clear things up so nicely. We wouldn't have to have all these arguments over who cheated and who didn't over a hundred years ago.
Daniel Shenton, our president, performed it successfully a couple of years ago. If I'm ever in the area, I'll do it myself.
-
Bedford.
Which experiments? Just the ones you agree with?
All of the ones that weren't faked. Rowbotham, Blount, Daniel.
Lol, how predictable. Unless you have some actual proof that they were faked, the Bedford Level isn't evidence.
What's mysterious to me is that the Rowbotham/Blount experiments are fairly easy to do, so why haven't the results been reproduced? If the earth is truly flat it should be quite easy to get the same results in any other slow-moving body of water. It would clear things up so nicely. We wouldn't have to have all these arguments over who cheated and who didn't over a hundred years ago.
Daniel Shenton, our president, performed it successfully a couple of years ago. If I'm ever in the area, I'll do it myself.
Did he take any pictures? Is there a link where I could learn more about it?
-
Ah, I think I found the right thread:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=31522.0 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=31522.0)
edit: Just read the whole thread.... and nothing :(
-
Bedford.
Which experiments? Just the ones you agree with?
All of the ones that weren't faked. Rowbotham, Blount, Daniel.
Lol, how predictable. Unless you have some actual proof that they were faked, the Bedford Level isn't evidence.
What's mysterious to me is that the Rowbotham/Blount experiments are fairly easy to do, so why haven't the results been reproduced? If the earth is truly flat it should be quite easy to get the same results in any other slow-moving body of water. It would clear things up so nicely. We wouldn't have to have all these arguments over who cheated and who didn't over a hundred years ago.
Daniel Shenton, our president, performed it successfully a couple of years ago. If I'm ever in the area, I'll do it myself.
Did he take any pictures? Is there a link where I could learn more about it?
Considering that the original river-based canal hasn't existed for years, you might want to give Ts an easier task first: show us a picture of the river involved. Then tell us the reason we should expect a river to be level to the RE surface. Then show us a photo better than this counter-example.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_iKawzGKhsv0/TSp7DbEIDFI/AAAAAAAAHYM/vqKglvt1hJs/s400/TorontoSkylineAcrossLakeOnt.jpg)
Reference: http://www.orcawatcher.com/2011/01/niagara-falls.html (http://www.orcawatcher.com/2011/01/niagara-falls.html)
Ah, I think I found the right thread:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=31522.0 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=31522.0)
Yep, that looks like the failure. Isn't odd that Ts claims it's a success?
-
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_iKawzGKhsv0/TSp7DbEIDFI/AAAAAAAAHYM/vqKglvt1hJs/s400/TorontoSkylineAcrossLakeOnt.jpg)
The city is obviously being obscured by the waves.
-
Yep, that looks like the failure. Isn't odd that Ts claims it's a success?
Yeah, I don't see any results in that thread. I wonder why?
Maybe there are more pictures on facebook, but I don't have access.
-
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_iKawzGKhsv0/TSp7DbEIDFI/AAAAAAAAHYM/vqKglvt1hJs/s400/TorontoSkylineAcrossLakeOnt.jpg)
The city is obviously being obscured by the waves.
It's not obvious to me.
-
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_iKawzGKhsv0/TSp7DbEIDFI/AAAAAAAAHYM/vqKglvt1hJs/s400/TorontoSkylineAcrossLakeOnt.jpg)
The city is obviously being obscured by the waves.
It's not obvious to me.
We are all aware of your handicapped perception abilities, Markjo. It is not necessary to admit them in every thread.
-
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_iKawzGKhsv0/TSp7DbEIDFI/AAAAAAAAHYM/vqKglvt1hJs/s400/TorontoSkylineAcrossLakeOnt.jpg)
The city is obviously being obscured by the waves.
It's not obvious to me.
We are all aware of your handicapped perception abilities, Markjo. It is not necessary to admit them in every thread.
Please refrain from personal attacks.
-
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_iKawzGKhsv0/TSp7DbEIDFI/AAAAAAAAHYM/vqKglvt1hJs/s400/TorontoSkylineAcrossLakeOnt.jpg)
The city is obviously being obscured by the waves.
It's not obvious to me.
Are you honestly saying that you don't see the waves on the horizon in that image?
-
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_iKawzGKhsv0/TSp7DbEIDFI/AAAAAAAAHYM/vqKglvt1hJs/s400/TorontoSkylineAcrossLakeOnt.jpg)
The city is obviously being obscured by the waves.
It's not obvious to me.
Are you honestly saying that you don't see the waves on the horizon in that image?
Are these waves 20 feet high?
-
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_iKawzGKhsv0/TSp7DbEIDFI/AAAAAAAAHYM/vqKglvt1hJs/s400/TorontoSkylineAcrossLakeOnt.jpg)
The city is obviously being obscured by the waves.
It's not obvious to me.
Are you honestly saying that you don't see the waves on the horizon in that image?
What does seeing the waves on the horizon have to do with your outlandish claim that the city is obviously being obscured by the waves? Are you saying that only the waves are obscuring the missing part of the Toronto skyline?
-
Bedford.
Which experiments? Just the ones you agree with?
All of the ones that weren't faked. Rowbotham, Blount, Daniel.
So essentially all of the people that misinterpreted Bedford's experiments?
-
When at sea it is possible to see high mountains or elevated lights in the distance before lower lying ground and the masts of boats before the hull. It is also possible to see further by climbing higher in the ship, or, when on land, on high cliffs.
The sun is lower in the sky as you travel north, but stars such as Polaris, the north star, are higher in the sky. Other bright stars such as Canopus, visible in Egypt, disappear from the sky.
The earth throws a circular shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse.
The times reported for lunar eclipses (which are seen simultaneously) are many hours later in the east (e.g. India) than in the west (e.g. Europe). Local times are confirmed later by travel using chronometers and telegraphic communication.
When you travel far south, to Ethiopia or India, the sun throws a shadow south at certain times of the year. Even further (e.g. Argentina) and the shadow is always in the south.
It is possible to circumnavigate the world; that is, to travel around the world and return to where you started.
Travelers who circumnavigate the earth observe the gain or loss of a day relative to those who did not. See also International Date Line.
An artificial satellite can circle the earth continuously and even be geostationary.
The earth appears as a disc on photographs taken from space, regardless of the vantage point.
-
So essentially all of the people that misinterpreted Bedford's experiments?
A better question; How do we know those were faked?
Or vice versa; How do we know those weren't faked?
-
For all round earthers the reality is unanimous, but for flat earthers you squabble about theories each more ridiculous than the last: infinite plane with sun illuminating only some of it, ever replenishing oceans, and a gigantic wall of ice that has lasted billions of years without melting or being discovered. And against real evidence all you guys have is speculation and no proof
-
Anyone?
-
I have yet to see a solid piece of evidence proving your theory, all I have seen is people who can type half of a page about the wording or grammar of the post, so please just give my some solid evidence of this flat earth.
I'm not sure about other posters you have encountered, but I assure you that I have beaten no bushes or around them for that matter.
I see what you did there, cool story bro, how about a quality post retorting his comment?
Look out your window your five senses are the supreme beings of understanding the truth of the universe around you, we can't see air so its obviously not there, we see in color so its obvious that objects in reality are colored and their colors arent based off the reflected light that goes into and get processed by our eyes.
Look outside and the world look flat therefore it is flat. As Bill O'Rielly would say to RE'rs: You can't explain that!
Stop with the "it looks flat" phrase, because it doesn't. If it looked flat it would not ever have a sharp horizon and celestial objects would not be obscured by the horizon. It doesn't even look f*cking flat. The horizon prevents it from having the appearance of a flat plane. Anyone who babbles "it looks flat" ought to compare it with any other flat surface and note the difference in appearance.
You know I was being sarcastic.... right? I thought it was pretty obvious lol
-
I have yet to see a solid piece of evidence proving your theory, all I have seen is people who can type half of a page about the wording or grammar of the post, so please just give my some solid evidence of this flat earth.
I'm not sure about other posters you have encountered, but I assure you that I have beaten no bushes or around them for that matter.
I see what you did there, cool story bro, how about a quality post retorting his comment?
Look out your window your five senses are the supreme beings of understanding the truth of the universe around you, we can't see air so its obviously not there, we see in color so its obvious that objects in reality are colored and their colors arent based off the reflected light that goes into and get processed by our eyes.
Look outside and the world look flat therefore it is flat. As Bill O'Rielly would say to RE'rs: You can't explain that!
Stop with the "it looks flat" phrase, because it doesn't. If it looked flat it would not ever have a sharp horizon and celestial objects would not be obscured by the horizon. It doesn't even look f*cking flat. The horizon prevents it from having the appearance of a flat plane. Anyone who babbles "it looks flat" ought to compare it with any other flat surface and note the difference in appearance.
You know I was being sarcastic.... right? I thought it was pretty obvious lol
Yes I do know, however I have a beef with anyone treating the phrase "it looks flat" as if it's accurate. The simple fact is that RE'ers make life difficult for themselves by agreeing with the FE'er assertion that what we see looks like we're on a flat plane, as to do so is to accept a false statement. Your sarcasm worked from the false premise "it looks flat but that doesn't mean it is" rather than the true premise "it doesn't look flat, which means it probably isn't."
-
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_iKawzGKhsv0/TSp7DbEIDFI/AAAAAAAAHYM/vqKglvt1hJs/s400/TorontoSkylineAcrossLakeOnt.jpg)
The city is obviously being obscured by the waves.
It's not obvious to me.
Are you honestly saying that you don't see the waves on the horizon in that image?
From that photograph, I would characterize the sea state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_state#World_Meteorological_Organization_sea_state_code) to be smooth to slight. Not nearly significant enough to affect the view at the horizon.
-
Can anyone answer my reply outlining some basic evidence against Fe? because if you cannot refute those simple points, surely you cannot claim your theory is legitimate.
-
Can anyone answer my reply outlining some basic evidence against Fe? because if you cannot refute those simple points, surely you cannot claim your theory is legitimate.
They could before?
-
Can anyone answer my reply outlining some basic evidence against Fe? because if you cannot refute those simple points, surely you cannot claim your theory is legitimate.
They could before?
touché
-
If the world was round, I could drop a marble on the floor and it would roll downhill. Forever. Seeing as how marbles don't do that, the earth must be flat.
-
If the world was round, I could drop a marble on the floor and it would roll downhill. Forever. Seeing as how marbles don't do that, the earth must be flat.
Seeing as how gravity acts as a force perpendicular to the circumference of the planet, I'd have to laugh at that statement.
-
If the world was round, I could drop a marble on the floor and it would roll downhill. Forever.
Are you saying that there is no difference between a hill and a sphere? ???
-
If the world was round, I could drop a marble on the floor and it would roll downhill. Forever.
Are you saying that there is no difference between a hill and a sphere? ???
down·hill (dounhl)
adv.
1. Down the slope of a hill.
2. Toward a lower or worse condition: The alcoholic's health went downhill fast.
adj. (dounhl)
1. Sloping downward; descending.
"The more you know!"
-
down·hill (dounhl)
adv.
1. Down the slope of a hill.
2. Toward a lower or worse condition: The alcoholic's health went downhill fast.
adj. (dounhl)
1. Sloping downward; descending.
"The more you know!"
I find this hilarious.
I sincerely hope you are not serious.
Please, know more about what you are arguing for.
Sun Tzu says; Know yourself and know your enemy.
-
down·hill (dounhl)
adv.
1. Down the slope of a hill.
2. Toward a lower or worse condition: The alcoholic's health went downhill fast.
adj. (dounhl)
1. Sloping downward; descending.
"The more you know!"
I find this hilarious.
I sincerely hope you are not serious.
Please, know more about what you are arguing for.
Sun Tzu says; Know yourself and know your enemy.
Why do you wish us to be enemies? We are a community, not a battleground. Please take your warmongering elsewhere.
-
If the world was round, I could drop a marble on the floor and it would roll downhill. Forever.
Are you saying that there is no difference between a hill and a sphere? ???
down·hill (dounhl)
adv.
1. Down the slope of a hill.
2. Toward a lower or worse condition: The alcoholic's health went downhill fast.
adj. (dounhl)
1. Sloping downward; descending.
"The more you know!"
Wow being ignored when you're right is just delicious lol
-
If the world was round, I could drop a marble on the floor and it would roll downhill. Forever.
Are you saying that there is no difference between a hill and a sphere? ???
down·hill (dounhl)
adv.
1. Down the slope of a hill.
2. Toward a lower or worse condition: The alcoholic's health went downhill fast.
adj. (dounhl)
1. Sloping downward; descending.
"The more you know!"
Wow being ignored when you're right is just delicious lol
Not quite as delicious as you thinking you are right.
-
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_iKawzGKhsv0/TSp7DbEIDFI/AAAAAAAAHYM/vqKglvt1hJs/s400/TorontoSkylineAcrossLakeOnt.jpg)
The city is obviously being obscured by the waves.
It's not obvious to me.
Are you honestly saying that you don't see the waves on the horizon in that image?
Are these waves 20 feet high?
In comparison to the city? Easily.
-
Bedford.
Which experiments? Just the ones you agree with?
All of the ones that weren't faked. Rowbotham, Blount, Daniel.
So essentially all of the people that misinterpreted Bedford's experiments?
Citation needed
-
If the world was round, I could drop a marble on the floor and it would roll downhill. Forever.
Are you saying that there is no difference between a hill and a sphere? ???
down·hill (dounhl)
adv.
1. Down the slope of a hill.
2. Toward a lower or worse condition: The alcoholic's health went downhill fast.
adj. (dounhl)
1. Sloping downward; descending.
"The more you know!"
Wow being ignored when you're right is just delicious lol
Not quite as delicious as you thinking you are right.
Usually people would have evidence to the contrary, but I see FE'rs need some time to make up more stuff :)
-
Love how this turns into a debate about an errant comment and semantics. You FE'ers are just avoiding having to answer anything, because you CAN'T!
-
For all round earthers the reality is unanimous, but for flat earthers you squabble about theories each more ridiculous than the last: infinite plane with sun illuminating only some of it, ever replenishing oceans, and a gigantic wall of ice that has lasted billions of years without melting or being discovered. And against real evidence all you guys have is speculation and no proof
Reality is far from unanimous for RE'ers. And as I tell everyone here at least five times, we don't have funding and are therefore content with providing as many working theories as we can.
-
Love how this turns into a debate about an errant comment and semantics. You FE'ers are just avoiding having to answer anything, because you CAN'T!
I suggest you take a look at who started that (spoiler: it was Markjo, an RE'er)
-
down·hill (dounhl)
adv.
1. Down the slope of a hill.
2. Toward a lower or worse condition: The alcoholic's health went downhill fast.
adj. (dounhl)
1. Sloping downward; descending.
"The more you know!"
I find this hilarious.
I sincerely hope you are not serious.
Please, know more about what you are arguing for.
Sun Tzu says; Know yourself and know your enemy.
Why do you wish us to be enemies? We are a community, not a battleground. Please take your warmongering elsewhere.
That depends on your definition of enemy.
If I disagree with you, we are in some form or another enemies, are we not?
Though, I am not directly referring myself, rather the RET in general.
In any case, it does not excuse your ignorance.
-
If I disagree with you, we are in some form or another enemies, are we not?
And that's why America is so far in debt
-
Bedford.
Which experiments? Just the ones you agree with?
All of the ones that weren't faked. Rowbotham, Blount, Daniel.
So essentially all of the people that misinterpreted Bedford's experiments?
Citation needed
Your society needs a citation. Seeing as the whole thing is based on the misconception of Rowbotham, who definitely misinterpreted the experiments
-
That depends on your definition of enemy.
If I disagree with you, we are in some form or another enemies, are we not?
Though, I am not directly referring myself, rather the RET in general.
In any case, it does not excuse your ignorance.
I suggest you find the definition of enemy and then come back to tell me what you have learned. While you're at it, find the definition of irony as well.
Seeing as the whole thing is based on the misconception of Rowbotham, who definitely misinterpreted the experiments
Go ahead, stick your head in the sand, we will continue on without you.
-
Rowbotham, who definitely misinterpreted the experiments
Citation needed
-
down·hill (dounhl)
adv.
1. Down the slope of a hill.
2. Toward a lower or worse condition: The alcoholic's health went downhill fast.
adj. (dounhl)
1. Sloping downward; descending.
"The more you know!"
I find this hilarious.
I sincerely hope you are not serious.
Please, know more about what you are arguing for.
Sun Tzu says; Know yourself and know your enemy.
Why do you wish us to be enemies? We are a community, not a battleground. Please take your warmongering elsewhere.
That depends on your definition of enemy.
If I disagree with you, we are in some form or another enemies, are we not?
Though, I am not directly referring myself, rather the RET in general.
In any case, it does not excuse your ignorance.
I suggest you find the definition of enemy and then come back to tell me what you have learned. While you're at it, find the definition of irony as well.
Coming from the marble guy?????
-
This thread is quite chaotic.
-
This thread is quite chaotic.
This thread is a representation of RET.
-
If I disagree with you, we are in some form or another enemies, are we not?
And that's why America is so far in debt
Elaborate, if you would.
I suggest you find the definition of enemy and then come back to tell me what you have learned. While you're at it, find the definition of irony as well.
I am referring to your rather silly theory that if the earth was round, and you dropped a marble, it would roll forever downhill.
Still, according to google; Irony is :"The expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect."
Enemy is: "1.A person who is actively opposed or hostile to someone or something."
Depending on how you look at it, I'd say FET and RET are enemies in some form or another.
-
If I disagree with you, we are in some form or another enemies, are we not?
And that's why America is so far in debt
Elaborate, if you would.
I suggest you find the definition of enemy and then come back to tell me what you have learned. While you're at it, find the definition of irony as well.
I am referring to your rather silly theory that if the earth was round, and you dropped a marble, it would roll forever downhill.
Still, according to google; Irony is :"The expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect."
Enemy is: "1.A person who is actively opposed or hostile to someone or something."
Depending on how you look at it, I'd say FET and RET are enemies in some form or another.
I am not hostile. Are you?
-
This thread is quite chaotic.
This thread is a representation of RET.
Seeing as how RET is generally accepted and agreed upon by many, I would say the thousand different models of a "working" Flat Earth is the idea that represents chaos.
-
This thread is quite chaotic.
This thread is a representation of RET.
This thread is a representation of flat earthers trying to buy time while they come up with fantastical reasons for why the earth is flat, if you disagree answer the stuff i posted on page 2 or 3
-
I am not hostile. Are you?
As stated; Not you nor I, but rather FET and RET in general.
Yes, they are hostile towards one another.
As for myself, I am a neutralist.
-
This thread is quite chaotic.
This thread is a representation of RET.
This thread is a representation of flat earthers trying to buy time while they come up with fantastical reasons for why the earth is flat, if you disagree answer the stuff i posted on page 2 or 3
There's too much going on here. I'll look for it
-
If the world was round, I could drop a marble on the floor and it would roll downhill. Forever.
Are you saying that there is no difference between a hill and a sphere? ???
down·hill (dounhl)
adv.
1. Down the slope of a hill.
2. Toward a lower or worse condition: The alcoholic's health went downhill fast.
adj. (dounhl)
1. Sloping downward; descending.
"The more you know!"
Great, now how does this relate to a sphere?
-
You will find there is no hostile FE'er on this forum. Only hostile RE'ers. It is like a classroom environment. We are gentle, calm teachers trying to teach a horde of unruly students. This does not make us enemies, unless you consider every teacher you have ever had to be your enemy. The only difference is that we are a science teacher in a church, full of brainwashed kids which will defend their ridiculous ideas to the very last inch.
-
You will find there is no hostile FE'er on this forum. Only hostile RE'ers. It is like a classroom environment. We are gentle, calm teachers trying to teach a horde of unruly students. This does not make us enemies, unless you consider every teacher you have ever had to be your enemy. The only difference is that we are a science teacher in a church, full of brainwashed kids which will defend their ridiculous ideas to the very last inch.
For projecting a "mature" teacher image you're acting pretty immature that your making such comparisons when FE'rs themselves admit they don't have all the answers. So if we really are students, as a student I find it insulting for someone who doesn't know what they're talking about to try to tell me something is true when I see for myself that it isn't.
So please go back to your FE university and bring back your best Professor because then maybe he'll have a chance at not making himself seem like a fool.
-
You will find there is no hostile FE'er on this forum. Only hostile RE'ers. It is like a classroom environment. We are gentle, calm teachers trying to teach a horde of unruly students. This does not make us enemies, unless you consider every teacher you have ever had to be your enemy. The only difference is that we are a science teacher in a church, full of brainwashed kids which will defend their ridiculous ideas to the very last inch.
Beside the point. But if anything it would be the other way around
-
When at sea it is possible to see high mountains or elevated lights in the distance before lower lying ground and the masts of boats before the hull. It is also possible to see further by climbing higher in the ship, or, when on land, on high cliffs.
Perspective. The higher you are, the more easily you can see over the waves.
The sun is lower in the sky as you travel north, but stars such as Polaris, the north star, are higher in the sky. Other bright stars such as Canopus, visible in Egypt, disappear from the sky.
Please elaborate.
The earth throws a circular shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse.
Lunar migrations.
The times reported for lunar eclipses (which are seen simultaneously) are many hours later in the east (e.g. India) than in the west (e.g. Europe). Local times are confirmed later by travel using chronometers and telegraphic communication.
Perspective.
When you travel far south, to Ethiopia or India, the sun throws a shadow south at certain times of the year. Even further (e.g. Argentina) and the shadow is always in the south.
Please elaborate.
It is possible to circumnavigate the world; that is, to travel around the world and return to where you started.
Cool story, bro. Lurk moar and read the FAQ
Travelers who circumnavigate the earth observe the gain or loss of a day relative to those who did not. See also International Date Line.
And?
An artificial satellite can circle the earth continuously and even be geostationary.
No, it can't
The earth appears as a disc on photographs taken from space, regardless of the vantage point.
This is evidence of FET, not RET.
-
An artificial satellite can circle the earth continuously and even be geostationary.
No, it can't
The earth appears as a disc on photographs taken from space, regardless of the vantage point.
This is evidence of FET, not RET.
For the first one we cannot even argue because one would have to fully accept the others belief in order to agree. Secondly if the earth appears as a disc regardless of the vantage point, that would be proof for RET because as you go around the earth taking images from different vantage points, it remains a disc, indicating that it is a sphere, however if the FE model is true, at certain points the earth would look like a cylinder.
-
An artificial satellite can circle the earth continuously and even be geostationary.
No, it can't
The earth appears as a disc on photographs taken from space, regardless of the vantage point.
This is evidence of FET, not RET.
For the first one we cannot even argue because one would have to fully accept the others belief in order to agree. Secondly if the earth appears as a disc regardless of the vantage point, that would be proof for RET because as you go around the earth taking images from different vantage points, it remains a disc, indicating that it is a sphere, however if the FE model is true, at certain points the earth would look like a cylinder.
Only if you could take pictures from beyond the Earth, which no one ever has. As such, you can only see the face of the cylinder, which is a disk.
-
You will find there is no hostile FE'er on this forum. Only hostile RE'ers. It is like a classroom environment. We are gentle, calm teachers trying to teach a horde of unruly students. This does not make us enemies, unless you consider every teacher you have ever had to be your enemy. The only difference is that we are a science teacher in a church, full of brainwashed kids which will defend their ridiculous ideas to the very last inch.
Funny, from what I've seen, I find that both parties are relatively the same.
You lot are far from gentle teachers. And they are far from unruly students.
The only major difference is that FET refuses any information contrary to their beliefs.
Then again, so does RET.