The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: tunu on August 14, 2012, 12:38:11 AM
-
Can anyone that supports the flat earth hypothesis tell me what the creation myth for the flat earth is?
RET scientists have model for how all celestial bodies (including the earth) are formed. Does FEH agree with how "other" celestial bodies are formed? Either way, how was the planar earth formed?
thanks.
-
http://britishfood.about.com/od/pancakeday/r/pancakes.htm (http://britishfood.about.com/od/pancakeday/r/pancakes.htm)
-
http://britishfood.about.com/od/pancakeday/r/pancakes.htm (http://britishfood.about.com/od/pancakeday/r/pancakes.htm)
Watch the low-content posting.
The non-religious FEers don't believe in myths. To fabricate some kind of fantastic story regarding the Earth's origin would be considered deeply unzetetic.
The religious FEers, of course, would point you to their holy book of choice for an answer.
-
Is Earth the only flat stellar object in FET? Are there any other ones?
-
http://britishfood.about.com/od/pancakeday/r/pancakes.htm (http://britishfood.about.com/od/pancakeday/r/pancakes.htm)
Watch the low-content posting.
The non-religious FEers don't believe in myths. To fabricate some kind of fantastic story regarding the Earth's origin would be considered deeply unzetetic.
The religious FEers, of course, would point you to their holy book of choice for an answer.
Sorry roundy, I couldn't resist seen as this post clearly did not get a reply for ages.
-
Is Earth the only flat stellar object in FET? Are there any other ones?
It's the only flat object discovered so far.
-
Uhhhh no one "discovered" that the Earth is flat. So as of right now, no planet or star is considered flat.
-
All celestial bodies appear flat, while stars appear to be nothing more than points of light.
-
All celestial bodies appear flat, while stars appear to be nothing more than points of light.
Again on the ame line of defense: it looks flat, therefore...?
FET has nothing to gain from this kind of anti-scientifical argument.
-
All celestial bodies appear flat, while stars appear to be nothing more than points of light.
Again on the ame line of defense: it looks flat, therefore...?
FET has nothing to gain from this kind of anti-scientifical argument.
Have you been to the celestial bodies and gathered evidence to show that they are not what they appear to be?
-
All celestial bodies appear flat, while stars appear to be nothing more than points of light.
Again on the ame line of defense: it looks flat, therefore...?
FET has nothing to gain from this kind of anti-scientifical argument.
Have you been to the celestial bodies and gathered evidence to show that they are not what they appear to be?
There is such a thing as indirect evidence.
-
There is such a thing as indirect evidence.
No, there is not.
-
There is such a thing as indirect evidence.
there is?
yes, rushy. You didn't know? you learn something new everyday.
-
All celestial bodies appear flat, while stars appear to be nothing more than points of light.
Again on the ame line of defense: it looks flat, therefore...?
FET has nothing to gain from this kind of anti-scientifical argument.
Have you been to the celestial bodies and gathered evidence to show that they are not what they appear to be?
Second lousiest line of defense: "have you been there?.
Kindergarten science.
-
Have you been to the celestial bodies and gathered evidence to show that they are not what they appear to be?
Second lousiest line of defense: "have you been there?.
Kindergarten science.
So, you haven't been there, noted. How, then, do you know they are more than what they appear to be?
-
Have you been to the celestial bodies and gathered evidence to show that they are not what they appear to be?
Second lousiest line of defense: "have you been there?.
Kindergarten science.
So, you haven't been there, noted. How, then, do you know they are more than what they appear to be?
Space probes, to start with.
What's this childish way of saying: "So, you haven't been there, noted."? I've never been to Australia but it exists. Now you can say: "So, you haven't been there, noted." Does it imply anything on the nature of Australia?
-
Space probes, to start with.
What's this childish way of saying: "So, you haven't been there, noted."? I've never been to Australia but it exists. Now you can say: "So, you haven't been there, noted." Does it imply anything on the nature of Australia?
You could go to Australia if you wanted. All the desire in the world isn't going to plant you on a celestial object.
-
Space probes, to start with.
What's this childish way of saying: "So, you haven't been there, noted."? I've never been to Australia but it exists. Now you can say: "So, you haven't been there, noted." Does it imply anything on the nature of Australia?
You could go to Australia if you wanted. All the desire in the world isn't going to plant you on a celestial object.
The fact is I don't need to go to Australia to prove its existence.
-
The fact is I don't need to go to Australia to prove its existence.
Of course not, there are plenty of people that have been to Australia that you can talk to. I doubt you know a great deal that have been to Jupiter, however.
-
The fact is I don't need to go to Australia to prove its existence.
Of course not, there are plenty of people that have been to Australia that you can talk to. I doubt you know a great deal that have been to Jupiter, however.
Probes?
-
Probes?
Have you talked to any probes recently? I certainly hope not.
-
Probes?
Have you talked to any probes recently? I certainly hope not.
No FEer ever gave me a reason to doubt data collected by telescopes, probes and space exploration.
-
No FEer ever gave me a reason to doubt data collected by telescopes, probes and space exploration.
Modern technology has trouble transporting a few packets of data over a few hundred miles without it decaying. What makes you think data can remain intact of millions of miles and still give viable information? Furthermore, do you have evidence to show that the probes actually existed? I don't recall any of them coming back.
-
No FEer ever gave me a reason to doubt data collected by telescopes, probes and space exploration.
Modern technology has trouble transporting a few packets of data over a few hundred miles without it decaying. What makes you think data can remain intact of millions of miles and still give viable information? Furthermore, do you have evidence to show that the probes actually existed? I don't recall any of them coming back.
You should be more aware of what modern technology is capable of doing.
And even if the data is corrupted, it doesn't mean it's unusable.
No FEer gave me ever evidence that the probes don' exist. Oh, they never came back? It must be an absolute proof of their non existence.
One day you won't be on this website any more and it will prove that you never existed (and you data were so corrupted that they weren't viable information).
-
You should be more aware of what modern technology is capable of doing.
And even if the data is corrupted, it doesn't mean it's unusable.
No FEer gave me ever evidence that the probes don' exist. Oh, they never came back? It must be an absolute proof of their non existence.
One day you won't be on this website any more and it will prove that you never existed (and you data were so corrupted that they weren't viable information).
If data is corruptible then the whole should be scrapped, as you don't know the actual amount that is corrupted. Yes, if I left this site and all my posts were corrupted then there would be no evidence I ever existed. I'm not sure why you thought that was relevant, though. Also,
No FEer gave me ever evidence that the probes don' exist.
It is like when someone says "prove mermaids don't exist!" We're done here, you're not even trying anymore.
-
No FEer gave me ever evidence that the probes don' exist.
It is like when someone says "prove mermaids don't exist!" We're done here, you're not even trying anymore.
Whenever someone makes a claim, even a negative claim, that person bears the burden to support that claim.
-
I don't get why collecting light from Jupiter with a telescope is qualitatively different than collecting light from Australia with my eyes.
-
I don't get why collecting light from Jupiter with a telescope is qualitatively different than collecting light from Australia with my eyes.
It is not. Why do you think that it is?
-
You should be more aware of what modern technology is capable of doing.
And even if the data is corrupted, it doesn't mean it's unusable.
No FEer gave me ever evidence that the probes don' exist. Oh, they never came back? It must be an absolute proof of their non existence.
One day you won't be on this website any more and it will prove that you never existed (and you data were so corrupted that they weren't viable information).
If data is corruptible then the whole should be scrapped, as you don't know the actual amount that is corrupted. Yes, if I left this site and all my posts were corrupted then there would be no evidence I ever existed. I'm not sure why you thought that was relevant, though. Also,
No FEer gave me ever evidence that the probes don' exist.
It is like when someone says "prove mermaids don't exist!" We're done here, you're not even trying anymore.
1. You don't know what you're talking about, so why are you speculating and saing we should note use the debate.
2. Probes exist, We have millions of informations to prove it. Mars Rover, right now. And disproving the existence of something real isn't the same as disproving the existence of something which doesn't exist.
3. I like your way of thinking: the probes aren't real and furthermore their data is corrupted. I'm sure you have a latin term for this.
-
I don't get why collecting light from Jupiter with a telescope is qualitatively different than collecting light from Australia with my eyes.
It is not. Why do you think that it is?
stop trying to shift the burden.
why are you implying it is?
-
I don't get why collecting light from Jupiter with a telescope is qualitatively different than collecting light from Australia with my eyes.
It is not. Why do you think that it is?
stop trying to shift the burden.
why are you implying it is?
I did not imply that it is. That is why I asked him why he thinks that. He did, afterall, make a statement, not ask a question.
-
I don't get why collecting light from Jupiter with a telescope is qualitatively different than collecting light from Australia with my eyes.
It is not. Why do you think that it is?
stop trying to shift the burden.
why are you implying it is?
I did not imply that it is. That is why I asked him why he thinks that. He did, afterall, make a statement, not ask a question.
He didn't think it; It is clear that he thought that that was what you were implying.
I can think of many posts where you accuse someone of thinking something, when in fact it is clear that they think you are implying it.
-
He didn't think it; It is clear that he thought that that was what you were implying.
I can think of many posts where you accuse someone of thinking something, when in fact it is clear that they think you are implying it.
It is you who are looking for these nefarious implied subjects. Read his post. He clearly states that the light is different between Australia and Jupiter. What more could I do other than politely ask why he thinks that?
-
2. Probes exist, We have millions of informations to prove it. Mars Rover, right now. And disproving the existence of something real isn't the same as disproving the existence of something which doesn't exist.
Sure, they exist just like R2D2 exists. I could go and touch the robot known as R2D2, but that does not mean that it can beep languages at me or that Naboo existed. Mars rovers cannot explore Mars any more than R2D2 can fly and their existence certainly does not prove that Mars is rove-able.
-
2. Probes exist, We have millions of informations to prove it. Mars Rover, right now. And disproving the existence of something real isn't the same as disproving the existence of something which doesn't exist.
Sure, they exist just like R2D2 exists. I could go and touch the robot known as R2D2, but that does not mean that it can beep languages at me or that Naboo existed. Mars rovers cannot explore Mars any more than R2D2 can fly and their existence certainly does not prove that Mars is rove-able.
Disprove then the images send by all the probes which have been sent to Mars instead of talking nonsense.
-
What makes you think data can remain intact of millions of miles and still give viable information?
Before transmission the data is encoded so that, even if it is corrupted, the original data can be recovered within probabilistic limits. It's called Coding Theory and the first such code has been around since 1950. (See Hamming code in Wikipedia.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coding_theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coding_theory)
-
Disprove then the images send by all the probes which have been sent to Mars instead of talking nonsense.
Prove that the Star Wars series wasn't based on a true story.
What makes you think data can remain intact of millions of miles and still give viable information?
Before transmission the data is encoded so that, even if it is corrupted, the original data can be recovered within probabilistic limits. It's called Coding Theory and the first such code has been around since 1950. (See Hamming code in Wikipedia.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coding_theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coding_theory)
Irrelevant, if any part of the data is corrupted then it must be discarded, regardless of the fact that you know which parts were corrupted. I'm not going to use my car when I know a part is broken.
-
Disprove then the images send by all the probes which have been sent to Mars instead of talking nonsense.
Prove that the Star Wars series wasn't based on a true story.
You don't want to disprove the data collected by the probes? Or you can't?
-
Disprove then the images send by all the probes which have been sent to Mars instead of talking nonsense.
Prove that the Star Wars series wasn't based on a true story.
You don't want to disprove the data collected by the probes? Or you can't?
Disprove God. See how silly that sounds? I don't need to disprove things, you need to prove them, and you have never done so.
-
Disprove then the images send by all the probes which have been sent to Mars instead of talking nonsense.
Prove that the Star Wars series wasn't based on a true story.
You don't want to disprove the data collected by the probes? Or you can't?
Disprove God. See how silly that sounds? I don't need to disprove things, you need to prove them, and you have never done so.
Actually this is not always true: science is based on falsification and in argumentation the burden is on the claimant. I am not sure who claimant is, here.
Saying either prove or disprove god is absurd because god is unfalsifiable.
-
I don't get why collecting light from Jupiter with a telescope is qualitatively different than collecting light from Australia with my eyes.
It is not. Why do you think that it is?
stop trying to shift the burden.
why are you implying it is?
I did not imply that it is. That is why I asked him why he thinks that. He did, afterall, make a statement, not ask a question.
The statement was very clearly rhetorical.
-
What makes you think data can remain intact of millions of miles and still give viable information?
Before transmission the data is encoded so that, even if it is corrupted, the original data can be recovered within probabilistic limits. It's called Coding Theory and the first such code has been around since 1950. (See Hamming code in Wikipedia.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coding_theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coding_theory)
Irrelevant, if any part of the data is corrupted then it must be discarded, regardless of the fact that you know which parts were corrupted. I'm not going to use my car when I know a part is broken.
Fortunately for us the world doesn't work around what you consider irrelevant. Coding theory works and the fact that you can't accept this speaks volumes about your arrogance and ignorance.
Try studying this book or a similar one and then come back and talk to me.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Course-Applied-Mathematics-Computing-Science/dp/0198538030 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Course-Applied-Mathematics-Computing-Science/dp/0198538030)
-
What makes you think data can remain intact of millions of miles and still give viable information?
Before transmission the data is encoded so that, even if it is corrupted, the original data can be recovered within probabilistic limits. It's called Coding Theory and the first such code has been around since 1950. (See Hamming code in Wikipedia.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coding_theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coding_theory)
Irrelevant, if any part of the data is corrupted then it must be discarded, regardless of the fact that you know which parts were corrupted. I'm not going to use my car when I know a part is broken.
Fortunately for us the world doesn't work around what you consider irrelevant. Coding theory works and the fact that you can't accept this speaks volumes about your arrogance and ignorance.
Try studying this book or a similar one and then come back and talk to me.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Course-Applied-Mathematics-Computing-Science/dp/0198538030 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Course-Applied-Mathematics-Computing-Science/dp/0198538030)
I don't think coding theory does what you think it does.
-
I don't think coding theory does what you think it does.
Why do you say that? What do you think that it does?
-
I don't think coding theory does what you think it does.
I don't think what Coding Theory does; I know what Coding Theory does having studied it. The link in my previous post was the text book for the course I studied. The first sentence of chapter 1 reads:
Error-correcting codes are used to correct errors when messages are transmitted through a noisy communication channel. (My emphasis.)
I did make a mistake in a previous post when I said that Coding Theory has been around since 1950, it's actually been around since 1948.
-
still waiting on the creation myth for the flat earth hypothesis.
anyone?
-
still waiting on the creation myth for the flat earth hypothesis.
anyone?
The myth is that all matter was condensed in to the volume of a match head. Then it exploded and the universe formed.
The truth is God created the heaven and the earth.
Not many FE'ers believe what I have just said, however I believe it to be the truth.
-
still waiting on the creation myth for the flat earth hypothesis.
anyone?
The myth is that all matter was condensed in to the volume of a match head. Then it exploded and the universe formed.
The truth is God created the heaven and the earth.
Not many FE'ers believe what I have just said, however I believe it to be the truth.
You also believe (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55526.msg1388257.html#msg1388257) that God took time out of his busy schedule to give you hiccups for 4 days last week.
I'm not sure if there is an official society line for this. The end of the earth is predicted by Samuel Rowbotham and he predicts that the earth shall perish in fire.
I've seen a suggestion that the big bang may have been applicable to Flat Earth theory and an early earth without an atmosphere was literally hammered flat by early cosmic debris as it gained speed, driven by dark matter. As it hurtled its way past rock and ice its surface was blasted into a flat disk. The force of aether / dark energy pushing the rock in one direction and the obstacles squashing it flat from the other. It was literally pancaked between the force that drives it and the rock that got in the way.
Another theory is that it formed much like a galaxy. Spinning very very fast a soft and semi-molten (pliable) earth was pulled into a flat plate. The centripetal force of the rapidly spinning body of soft rock being enough to pull it into a nice plate shape before the rock cooled and ceased spinning, now in this new shape.
No one really knows how the universe and earth were created round earth or flat earth, so pick the one you like best. I wouldn't get too hung up on it.
-
I didn't say God gave me the hiccups, you did.
-
Potatoes/potatoes.
-
still waiting on the creation myth for the flat earth hypothesis.
anyone?
Why do you assume that there must be a myth to explain the flat-earth? There is nothing saying it couldn't have come about through entirely natural processes. If you NEED a myth, there is one about elephants and a turtle you may enjoy.
Also, it's called flat-earth theory, not flat-earth hypothesis.
-
still waiting on the creation myth for the flat earth hypothesis.
anyone?
Why do you assume that there must be a myth to explain the flat-earth? There is nothing saying it couldn't have come about through entirely natural processes. If you NEED a myth, there is one about elephants and a turtle you may enjoy.
Also, it's called flat-earth theory, not flat-earth hypothesis.
no, this is a hypothesis, definitely NOT a theory. It's not your fault, most people don't know what the word theory means, you've fallen into the same trap as countless millions. (in order for it to be a "theory" you'd have to be able to point to peer-reviewed, repeatable, falsifiable tests, that provide evidence for a flat earth. As you absolutely cannot do this, the idea that the earth is flat remains a hypothesis.)
I'm still waiting for an explanation as to how a flat earth could have been created without violating simple, testable, falsifiable physics.
-
still waiting on the creation myth for the flat earth in order for it to be a "theory" you'd have to be able to point to peer-reviewed, repeatable, falsifiable tests, that provide evidence for a flat earth.
You apparently haven't lurked here very long. Check out the literature in my signature. Start with Earth Not a Globe.
-
still waiting on the creation myth for the flat earth hypothesis.
anyone?
Why do you assume that there must be a myth to explain the flat-earth? There is nothing saying it couldn't have come about through entirely natural processes. If you NEED a myth, there is one about elephants and a turtle you may enjoy.
Also, it's called flat-earth theory, not flat-earth hypothesis.
no, this is a hypothesis, definitely NOT a theory. It's not your fault, most people don't know what the word theory means, you've fallen into the same trap as countless millions. (in order for it to be a "theory" you'd have to be able to point to peer-reviewed, repeatable, falsifiable tests, that provide evidence for a flat earth. As you absolutely cannot do this, the idea that the earth is flat remains a hypothesis.)
I'm still waiting for an explanation as to how a flat earth could have been created without violating simple, testable, falsifiable physics.
This is like me asking you to describe a theory for time travel that does not violate Newtonian physics. It cannot be done, but does this mean that time travel is impossible?
Also, your definition of "theory" is unlike any I've ever seen. What dictionary are you using?
-
The fact is I don't need to go to Australia to prove its existence.
Of course not, there are plenty of people that have been to Australia that you can talk to. I doubt you know a great deal that have been to Jupiter, however.
I just want to point out, "talking to someone that has been to Australia" is, by definition, "indirect evidence", which you suggest CANNOT exist. So now we're back to "Australia doesn't exist because YOU haven't been there." Anything short of YOU going there is indirect evidence. So, now I have to ask, what's the difference between your belief that Australia exists and my belief that the moon exists?