The end of the flat earth theory. Everyone can go home and find a new hobby

Heh, we all know they basically come up with some random explication for an observation, without making sure that the implications of their explications are true. ANYONE can come up with explications to anything they can observe if they have the time and if they can look far enough so it doesn't go against other easy observations. It's not because you can come up with an explication that doesn't contradict what can be observable by the common people that it's true. The FET works because of circular logic. Basically, they create their own "science" without going through the whole elementary process you must do first. What I mean is that they can't prove their explications all the way back, they always use unproven or unexplained elements in their explications, rather than using 100% true elements. Or they always ignore something.

And then, we can't really prove several things, because they take into account hundreds and hundreds of years of things proven by science. And since most are not scientific, we'd have to prove them every single element of an explication, and then these elements could go down to another concept to demonstrate with several other elements. So it's much easier to simply ignore something which can't be "proven" by a 10 y-o kid messing with numbers and geometrical figures.

Quote from: Omega on April 22, 2011, 11:26:17 AM

I won't bring up life on the sun (or the moon) if you won't. So that's fine with me.

Ya, the thread entitled "Solar Shrimp" is a by RE'er that made that thread for lulz I assume.

Quote from: Omega on April 22, 2011, 11:26:17 AM

As for your question regarding option 2:

This would require all scientists in every country to receive their data from a centralized source. This is in itself impossible. It would require EVERY machine, computer, what have you, to be compromised. This includes the ones they build themselves.

It also requires the Source to have an incredible simulation of the world and the solar system, actually the entire Universe that not only models every thing that is supposedly faked, but also can send out the data to all the science experiments and take into account every scientific principle, location of the scientists, basically EVERYTHING and a la carte serve this info at the exact time that any scientist (pro or amateur) does an experiment.

Honestly, didn't you think it through?

It would be more likely that we live in a computer generated Matrix than that this is actually working in the real world.

When has anyone ever stated that every single experiment that takes place in the world has its results faked? 

No one is stating that the results from the massive hadron collider in Switzerland are faked, for example.

So it's just all the satellites, dishes, computers, pendulums, camera's, surveying equipment, seismographs gps receivers, airplanes and weather balloons? Ah, yes, that's a whole lot easier...

So it's just all the satellites, dishes, computers, pendulumns, camera's, surveying equipment, seismographs gps receivers, airplanes and weather balloons? Ah, yes, that's a whole lot easier...

When have anyone stated all of those are faked? If you lurk, the majority of them have explanations. Some don't even deserve explanations. Surveying equipment? What?

Quote from: Omega on April 22, 2011, 01:30:55 PM

So it's just all the satellites, dishes, computers, pendulumns, camera's, surveying equipment, seismographs gps receivers, airplanes and weather balloons? Ah, yes, that's a whole lot easier...

When have anyone stated all of those are faked? If you lurk, the majority of them have explanations. Some don't even deserve explanations. Surveying equipment? What?

Three words: Bedford Level Experiment.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on April 22, 2011, 01:32:47 PM

Quote from: Omega on April 22, 2011, 01:30:55 PM

So it's just all the satellites, dishes, computers, pendulumns, camera's, surveying equipment, seismographs gps receivers, airplanes and weather balloons? Ah, yes, that's a whole lot easier...

When have anyone stated all of those are faked? If you lurk, the majority of them have explanations. Some don't even deserve explanations. Surveying equipment? What?

Three words: Bedford Level Experiment.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment

Two Words: Lurk moar

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Bedford+Level+Experiment

Quote from: Omega on April 22, 2011, 01:40:01 PM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on April 22, 2011, 01:32:47 PM

Quote from: Omega on April 22, 2011, 01:30:55 PM

So it's just all the satellites, dishes, computers, pendulumns, camera's, surveying equipment, seismographs gps receivers, airplanes and weather balloons? Ah, yes, that's a whole lot easier...

When have anyone stated all of those are faked? If you lurk, the majority of them have explanations. Some don't even deserve explanations. Surveying equipment? What?

Three words: Bedford Level Experiment.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment

Two Words: Lurk moar

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Bedford+Level+Experiment

One word: WRONG.

Quote from: Omega on April 22, 2011, 01:40:01 PM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on April 22, 2011, 01:32:47 PM

Quote from: Omega on April 22, 2011, 01:30:55 PM

So it's just all the satellites, dishes, computers, pendulumns, camera's, surveying equipment, seismographs gps receivers, airplanes and weather balloons? Ah, yes, that's a whole lot easier...

When have anyone stated all of those are faked? If you lurk, the majority of them have explanations. Some don't even deserve explanations. Surveying equipment? What?

Three words: Bedford Level Experiment.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment

Two Words: Lurk moar

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Bedford+Level+Experiment

Where are the pictures?

Berny
Been waiting for awhile

Case closed, end of argument. Just admit that you are wrong and you only choose to believe in this garbage because it gives you some sense of responsibility in your completely boring and pathetic life. So you come on places like this to preach the word of the FET because you get some kind of ridiculous pleasure out of it. Or maybe you know its all trash in the first place but you are just have one of those personalities of a cult leader where you get off feeding weak minded individuals false information just for the pleasure of seeing how many followers you can achieve. However I will give you your chance to try and convince me that the earth is indeed flat. If you can, without pointing me to some ridiculous link or a forum on this page that someone else other than you wrote. I want YOU and only YOU to tell me why you believe this crap, and I will hear you out. Give me one legitmate fact that proves beyond the sphereical shadow of a doubt that the earth is not round.

How dare you insinuate that I am some cellar-dwelling moron. I've never even heard of you. You are an angry, misguided globularist of the worst kind. The fact that you are here demonstrates that you are trying to argue with yourself. You know FE to be true, and are clearly struggling to come to terms with this epiphany.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on April 22, 2011, 02:12:50 PM

Quote from: Omega on April 22, 2011, 01:40:01 PM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on April 22, 2011, 01:32:47 PM

Quote from: Omega on April 22, 2011, 01:30:55 PM

So it's just all the satellites, dishes, computers, pendulumns, camera's, surveying equipment, seismographs gps receivers, airplanes and weather balloons? Ah, yes, that's a whole lot easier...

When have anyone stated all of those are faked? If you lurk, the majority of them have explanations. Some don't even deserve explanations. Surveying equipment? What?

Three words: Bedford Level Experiment.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment

Two Words: Lurk moar

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Bedford+Level+Experiment

Where are the pictures?

Berny
Been waiting for awhile

Daniel posted some from a while back a believe.

One word: WRONG.

Good to see your only response is, "Nuh uh!"

Quote from: Omega on April 22, 2011, 02:15:33 PM

One word: WRONG.

Good to see your only response is, "Nuh uh!"

Well, basically I enjoyed the rhythm: three words, two words, one word :-)

You point at an edited version of the same wikipedia article that leaves out the part where Rowbotham "et al" was definitively proven wrong. Basically you just follow the pattern: whenever an argument is made that doesn't fit your belief you point at the same documents that are demonstratively incorrect. Whenever someone shows the errors to you, you first take it out of context and focus on the least important part, until you are cornered again and point at the same documents.

Prediction: you will respond with "You think they are least important, but in fact they are the most important"

The existence of Venus is irrelevant to FET. As is its rotation around the sun.

The existence of everything above, on and under the flat Earth is irrelevant to FET. The only thing that interests FET is FET.

On the other hand, everything is relevant to real science. The existence of Venus, and the phases of Venus were of a huge interest to real scientists until they were explained beyond a shadow of scientific doubt, and Venus continues to be a hot topic of research even today.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on April 22, 2011, 03:05:59 PM

Quote from: Omega on April 22, 2011, 02:15:33 PM

One word: WRONG.

Good to see your only response is, "Nuh uh!"

Well, basically I enjoyed the rhythm: three words, two words, one word :-)

You point at an edited version of the same wikipedia article that leaves out the part where Rowbotham "et al" was definitively proven wrong. Basically you just follow the pattern: whenever an argument is made that doesn't fit your belief you point at the same documents that are demonstratively incorrect. Whenever someone shows the errors to you, you first take it out of context and focus on the least important part, until you are cornered again and point at the same documents.

Prediction: you will respond with "You think they are least important, but in fact they are the most important"

No he wasn't. You missed the part were later in your own article a woman reproduced his results.

How typical of RE'ers. When something comes to challenge their beliefs, they then go and try to make up an alternate explanation for what had happened. All that happened is that some made the light curve so much that something that was once impossible to see, possible!

Quote from: Omega on April 22, 2011, 03:20:27 PM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on April 22, 2011, 03:05:59 PM

Quote from: Omega on April 22, 2011, 02:15:33 PM

One word: WRONG.

Good to see your only response is, "Nuh uh!"

Well, basically I enjoyed the rhythm: three words, two words, one word :-)

You point at an edited version of the same wikipedia article that leaves out the part where Rowbotham "et al" was definitively proven wrong. Basically you just follow the pattern: whenever an argument is made that doesn't fit your belief you point at the same documents that are demonstratively incorrect. Whenever someone shows the errors to you, you first take it out of context and focus on the least important part, until you are cornered again and point at the same documents.

Prediction: you will respond with "You think they are least important, but in fact they are the most important"

No he wasn't. You missed the part were later in your own article a woman reproduced his results.

How typical of RE'ers. When something comes to challenge their beliefs, they then go and try to make up an alternate explanation for what had happened. All that happened is that some made the light curve so much that something that was once impossible to see, possible!

I know many people who would not be able to see if light did not bend in such ways.

Man, I am totally one of those people. 

Oh is that the wall that's meant to keep in all our atmosphere?

Quote from: Omega on April 22, 2011, 04:47:04 AM

Is the sun a spotlight? No of course not.

I can see objects revolving around the sun, and see how they are lit. Venus is a prime example of this: the phases of Venus are visible with a cheap telescope. If things are visibly revolving around the sun and lit accordingly, the sun is obviously not a spotlight. Or did NASA tamper with my telescope?

You assume that what you see is Venus, or what NASA tells you it is. You're underpinning one assumption with another.

Uh, are you aware that Venus has been known since ancient times? One doesn't need anything remotely connected to NASA to locate it. And you can see it with a naked eye. The phases of Venus were first observed in the 1600s, well before NASA was around.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 22, 2011, 07:48:30 AM

Quote from: Omega on April 22, 2011, 04:47:04 AM

Is the sun a spotlight? No of course not.

I can see objects revolving around the sun, and see how they are lit. Venus is a prime example of this: the phases of Venus are visible with a cheap telescope. If things are visibly revolving around the sun and lit accordingly, the sun is obviously not a spotlight. Or did NASA tamper with my telescope?

You assume that what you see is Venus, or what NASA tells you it is. You're underpinning one assumption with another.

Uh, are you aware that Venus has been known since ancient times? One doesn't need anything remotely connected to NASA to locate it. And you can see it with a naked eye. The phases of Venus were first observed in the 1600s, well before NASA was around.

Indeed. I have observed the phases of Venus myself, and NASA had nothing to do with it.

Oh is that the wall that's meant to keep in all our atmosphere?

No.

Provide evidence that FET is dumb.

 

Quote from: Puttah on May 01, 2011, 09:20:25 PM

Oh is that the wall that's meant to keep in all our atmosphere?

No.

Then why were we provided with a picture of something else? Oh you mean FES are trolls?

hi, first post, and it's as a result of much lurking, and loling if I am honest.

I have a question regarding those behind the conspiracy who are guarding the ice wall and preventing, or killing anyone from exploring it, or even seeing it.

You state that the government are not actually behind this 'Conspiracy', and it's the space agencies like NASA, in order to grab loads of cash, but you're not really sure, but the governments themselves are not behind it, anyways, I digress. The point I am making is this; what's to stop the governments, with their armies, and huge resources, from confronting the space agencies and their blockades at the ice wall? after all, the agencies seem to be the smaller fish who rely upon the governmental might to generate the funding they require? in fact, why don't they use this uniquely advantageous piece of info to rule the world themselves? y'know, take power like the megalomaniacs they must be to be pulling such a stunt as to build the simulation of reality around us, and have us live using a separate set of physical laws to that which is projected. it's a master stroke if true, and one unlikely to not be taken advantage off.

I am also aware that such is the fragility of your arguments that this is in fact a troll forum, and one I must doft my cap to, how you keep it up is beyond me, and if it's not trolling, and you're all actually convinced of this it is sad that you need to form what you call a 'brotherhood' as a way to create a fantasy world to escape to because your own lives are something you need to get away from, like some kind of hope, either way, it's pretty messed up that you are all so convinced of the mad things you write, and the eternal twisting into knots as you reach for even more ludicrous stories to explain stuff that you simply just don't understand; the intelligence required is missing, but you think it's there, and FET is one of the results..

just one more though, matter will take to the shape that offers least resistance, and a huge disc requires some form of energy to keep it in that shape, and not crumple into a ball, which is the shape of least resistance btw, you might have noticed this a lot with fluid matter, stars and stuff etc, so can someone please also explain this, and without reference to a crackpot post on this forum, or that nutters book you seem to think is some kind of unequivocal font of evidence kthnxbie

I am also aware that such is the fragility of your arguments that this is in fact a troll forum, and one I must doft my cap to, how you keep it up is beyond me, and if it's not trolling, and you're all actually convinced of this it is sad that you need to form what you call a 'brotherhood' as a way to create a fantasy world to escape to because your own lives are something you need to get away from, like some kind of hope, either way, it's pretty messed up that you are all so convinced of the mad things you write, and the eternal twisting into knots as you reach for even more ludicrous stories to explain stuff that you simply just don't understand; the intelligence required is missing, but you think it's there, and FET is one of the results..

This forum is a place to troll and play devil's advocate on the most absurd ideas possible. It's a place where a grown person's imagination can run wild and in which those without a great deal of scientific knowledge would rather believe what the Earth is by looking out the window than taking any physics courses. And why they choose to start thinking about such fundamental concepts (such as that of the Earth's shape, the way the universe works, etc.) is because they hate the government. They think that because the government lies, it is also lying to us about how our world works.

just one more though, matter will take to the shape that offers least resistance, and a huge disc requires some form of energy to keep it in that shape, and not crumple into a ball, which is the shape of least resistance btw, you might have noticed this a lot with fluid matter, stars and stuff etc, so can someone please also explain this, and without reference to a crackpot post on this forum, or that nutters book you seem to think is some kind of unequivocal font of evidence kthnxbie

Yeah, the energy is supposedly the UA (universal accelerator) that has accelerated us upwards since the beginning of time at g.

Then why were we provided with a picture of something else? Oh you mean FES are trolls?

The picture was posted by a RE'er, and not an FES member. Why are you trying to discredit us by misattributing it to us?

a ball, which is the shape of least resistance

What exactly is there to resist in space?

I'm going to go ahead and assume that for SOME REASON you think there are considerable amounts of air in outer space. inb4 pedantry
Here is an example of a shape less resistant to air than a sphere as long as motion in one direction (like UA) is considered:


Therefore, I claim it is more likely for the Earth to be Honda-shaped than spherical.

erm, gravity is what it needs to resist, y'know, that universally force that all objects with mass are affected by, and have, like, say, planets & stars etc, ever notice the nice round ball like shape they assume? that's the shape of least resistance.

there is no air in space by the way, hope that helps

Quote from: Puttah on May 03, 2011, 12:06:11 AM

Then why were we provided with a picture of something else? Oh you mean FES are trolls?

The picture was posted by a RE'er, and not an FES member. Why are you trying to discredit us by misattributing it to us?

The picture is irrelevant, since you don't have one because the conspiracy is guarding it etc. But the concept of the wall isn't. How high is the wall again? I still fail to see what is keeping our atmosphere in.

erm, gravity is what it needs to resist, y'know, that universally force that all objects with mass are affected by, and have, like, say, planets & stars etc, ever notice the nice round ball like shape they assume? that's the shape of least resistance.

there is no air in space by the way, hope that helps

Except gravity is not actually a force. Quite simply it isn't real. And this isn't just some loony idea either, many mainstream physicists feel the same way.

I still fail to see what is keeping our atmosphere in.

Please read ENaG  the FAQ  the Wiki.

No one else has seen what is keeping the "atmolayer" in either, which makes you wonder why these people claim they know what it is.

Quote from: karl on May 03, 2011, 09:42:27 AM

erm, gravity is what it needs to resist, y'know, that universally force that all objects with mass are affected by, and have, like, say, planets & stars etc, ever notice the nice round ball like shape they assume? that's the shape of least resistance.

there is no air in space by the way, hope that helps

Except gravity is not actually a force. Quite simply it isn't real. And this isn't just some loony idea either, many mainstream physicists feel the same way.

there is not one mainstream, nor respected physicist who feels the same, not one, nada, zero, none, and I challenge you to present one that you haven't pulled out of a Flash Gordon novel. I actually lol'd at the quite simply it isn't real part