1

Flat Earth Q&A / orbitting moon

« on: July 23, 2010, 01:48:02 PM »

FE states satelites in orbit are impossible. FE states earth doesn't "have" gravity. FE states the moon does have gravitational pull.

If all the above is true, then why didn't NASA shoot up satelites to orbit the moon? One could make it orbit the moon in such a way that the satelite is always looking "down" at the FE.
The reason I am asking this is because a lot of assumptions are made on the basis of a FE not being able to support satelites in orbit. Yet as we can see it isn't neccesary to have satelites orbit earth to snapshot the earth from above.

2

Flat Earth General / Did you know...

« on: July 18, 2010, 07:05:05 AM »

...that satelites can be seen from earth? One can also see irridium flares which are caused by satelites.

3

Flat Earth General / Doing it for the lulz?

« on: July 17, 2010, 06:53:31 PM »

http://www.aero.org/publications/crosslink/winter2002/images/01_07.jpg

I was on the internet and stumbled upon that, which made me wonder what the FE'ers stance is on military satelite usage. How do they communicate and determine their positions in hostile territory if there are no satelites? Also, is all that equipment (example shown in the picture) made for funzies? Discuss.

4

Flat Earth General / Just found this...

« on: July 17, 2010, 03:57:17 PM »

...and I consider it pretty sweet, basically it is TB putting all his ideas through a shredder. Just goes to show how serious the world is taking him (and how serious he wishes to be taken considering it is a website for some silly game). Can't wait to see him on Oprah or the likes.

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=52866&sid=faed07a7b17ea994ec8bd769b11fea00

5

Flat Earth Q&A / Clouds?

« on: July 10, 2010, 10:44:43 AM »

How?

Edit: RE win.

6

Flat Earth General / Conspiracy conspiring for its own exsistence.

« on: July 04, 2010, 06:30:16 AM »

I really do not understand why the whole forum is filled with all these experiments and scientific proofs yadayada when it still has not been shown why there is a conspiracy. To put it in really simple terms:

The earth is either flat or round (on these forums, possible other shapes are irrelevant at this moment)
Why do companies, agencies and goverments decide to "hide" a flat earth in favour of a round earth? How can one possibly benefit from having 99% of the earths population think the earth is a globe? Life would be exactly the same if the earth were flat, well except for the fact that the everyone would be talking about a flat earth rather than a round one.
The "America did 9/11" conspiracy at least makes sense in that it gives a reason as to why it happened, to justify a war for oil. So again, what is the point of spending billions to "fake" a round earth?

7

The Lounge / copypaste

« on: June 29, 2010, 02:53:34 PM »

You are not paying attention, sigh. How does anything in your quote above lead you to J?s claim: ?glass is part of most airplane window deployments.??
Your quote says the opposite: ?Jet airliner cabin windows are usually acrylic.?

It was such a short reply, did you really have to copypaste it and turn it into such a headache-inducing eyesore?

What, like what you do in your (over) 16000 posts?

I never copypaste.  I consider it rude to do so because it looks like shit, like that post I quoted.

short reply

headache-inducing eyesore

Is something that describes a lot of your posts.

You are right in that you do not "copy paste", that is why your posts are quite often hard to understand, we just don't have the foggiest idea what you are talking about.

This doesn't mean you should copy paste wiki, but then again he didn't.

8

Flat Earth Q&A / How did I do it?

« on: June 29, 2010, 09:31:28 AM »

I travelled the around the world today and ended up on the same spot I started. I did not go west-east, instead I went north-south. I was in a plane fitted with two gyroscopes, the gyroscopes only ever turned on its west-east axis. After take-off the planes AI remained level and its altitude was the same throughout the journey. How did I do it?

9

Flat Earth Q&A / What is causing...

« on: June 18, 2010, 08:53:32 AM »

...the moon and sun to go in circles above earth(FET)? Their speed vector is constantly changing, that means a force has to be affecting it continuously. In the RET it is gravity causing the earth to orbit the sun and the moon around the earth.

What is it in the FET? NASA people steering the moon in circles are they?

10

Flat Earth Q&A / Earth's diameter etc. etc..

« on: June 18, 2010, 08:48:27 AM »

Physics

Q: "What is the circumference and diameter of the Earth?"

Circumference: 125,891 km (78,225 miles)
Diameter: 40,073 km (24,900 miles)

How do you know this, I though there was a ginormous guarded icewall?

11

Flat Earth Debate / UA vs gravity

« on: June 18, 2010, 04:14:38 AM »

UA states that earth rushes up towards us at roughly 9.8 m/s^2. The RE theory states that we are being "pulled down" by earth's gravity at roughly the same number. Now to get to the point, if I go out and measure the acceleration of a falling object on earth, I can observe that the number differs from area to area. This observation is easily explained with the RE'ers gravity, as the earth's "pull" is weaker or stronger depending on the distance to the earth's core. So on the northpole the acceleration is higher than on the eqautor, which holds true to our observations and measurements.

In the aformentioned FET however it would mean that different parts of the disc are accelerating at different speeds. The disc shape therefor disappears over time and (according to the FE map) the world would have a sinusoid like shape when a crossection is viewed from the side. In fact over a period of time the disc would just disintegrate (the earth can only "stretch" so far).

Please explain this to us, FE'ers.

12

Flat Earth General / Is this how a FE'er treats people?

« on: June 16, 2010, 02:33:53 PM »

I am rather astounded by the reactions I have received from Tom Bishop in this thread:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39740.20

It is plain rude and undermines his position as "Flat Earth Proponent"





I find things like this quite unacceptable really, it has no place on a forum for debate.

I would like to note that I am not trying to generalize this to ALL FE'ers

13

Flat Earth General / Answers from FE'ers

« on: June 16, 2010, 01:40:15 PM »

I would like to see some answers from FE'ers on a lot of threads in this forum please. As of yet I am not seeing any answers and just a lot of this:



Along with "NOU's"

14

Flat Earth General / UA vs Gravity

« on: June 16, 2010, 01:26:29 PM »

UA states that earth rushes up towards us at roughly 9.8 m/s^2. The RE theory states that we are being "pulled down" by earth's gravity at roughly the same number. Now to get to the point, if I go out and measure the acceleration of a falling object on earth, I can observe that the number differs from area to area. This observation is easily explained with the RE'ers gravity, as the earth's "pull" is weaker or stronger depending on the distance to the earth's core. So on the northpole the acceleration is higher than on the eqautor, which holds true to our observations and measurements.

In the aformentioned FET however it would mean that different parts of the disc are accelerating at different speeds. The disc shape therefor disappears over time and (according to the FE map) the world would have a sinusoid like shape when a crossection is viewed from the side. In fact over a period of time the disc would just disintegrate (the earth can only "stretch" so far).

Please explain this to us FE'ers.

15

Flat Earth General / No FE'ers on a FE forum?

« on: June 16, 2010, 05:46:54 AM »

I haven't had a single answer from a FE'er to any of these questions/concepts:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39735.0
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39760.0
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39742.0

The exception being John Davis on the conspiracy topic, yet he agrees that the conspiracy is untrue. I would like to see a FE'er explain how any and all of the questions/concepts would be possible/fit in the FET. Are there so few FE'ers here that the response is so meager?

16

Flat Earth General / Devil's advocates

« on: June 16, 2010, 02:25:35 AM »

I get the feeling there are a lot of them on these forums. They don't seem to understand "their own" laws and theories that go along with the FET and just shout "No!" to every possible argument for a RE. They will argue on small matters which are disputable (seeing curvature of the earth with the naked eye at sealevel), but the moment a more "scientific" argument for a RE is presented they are nowhere to be found. Again, there are exceptions, you have FE'ers who "know their theories" and are able to defend them. Yet the number of people who are defending the FET without believing in it or knowing even half about it seem to be the majority.

17

Suggestions & Concerns / Forum

« on: June 15, 2010, 02:46:21 PM »

After sniffing around the forum for a bit now I have come to wonder one thing.

Why bother?

Why bother with a forum? The point of a forum is discussion, something that I get the feeling is not wanted here.

This is an example of Tim Bishop basically just saying "No!" without solid arguments:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=27426.120

If you don't want to hear or even consider that the FET may be incorrect then why bother setting up a forum that can be joined by anyone? The forum is named "Flat Earth Discussion Forums". Yet I see no discussion, all I see are RE'ers giving theories or concepts which are in contradiction with the FET, which are then followed by a FE'er going basically NOU! (see above link for what I mean). Ofcourse there are exceptions to this, where a FE'er actually gives valid arguments as to why the earth could/should (up to you to decide) be considered flat. However, exceptions confirm the rule. So again, why bother with a forum?

18

Flat Earth Q&A / "Look out of your window"

« on: June 15, 2010, 12:38:39 PM »

Why am I seeing this argument everywhere?

"Look out of your window and you will see the earth is flat"

Are FE'ers trying to destroy their own credibilty and believability with such statements? I don't see atoms when I look out of my window, I don't see the "antimoon", I don't see evolution, I don't see wind, I can't see air, I can't see heat, I can't see radiation... Get the point? Can't see a lot of things, they are all there though. Except the antimoon imo, but I used that, to show that something as essential to the FET as the antimoon can't "be seen" either. 

EDIT: Don't discuss the essentiality of the antimoon for the FET here, start a new topic for that.

19

Flat Earth Q&A / Gyroscope?

« on: June 15, 2010, 09:18:48 AM »

If I fire up a gyroscope (a proper one, not a Toys'r'us model), on lets say the equator ,it shows the earth's rotation according to the RET. The gyroscope turning (or rather, standing still), in relation to the earth it is on, shows that the direction of motion of the earth is changing. This is easily explained by the RET as the gyroscope is on a spinning globe.
If I were to use the same gyroscope on the northpole it would not do this (not noticably). Again this fits in the RET that the earth is a globe spinning around an axis.

Now if I were to do this on the FE according to the FET my gyroscope should be doing nothing, anywhere, so long as I don't touch it. The FE is, afterall a disc that is doing nothing but going up. This is however in contradiction to what my gyroscope is doing.

How does the FET explain this?

EDIT:

One could also prove the curvature of the earth with this concept, One takes a gyroscope and you fit it to a ship (the gyroscope has to be able to spin freely in every direction). Now you take the ship, put it on a large body of water, and head straight north (making sure there are no land obstacles you would have to go around). The gyroscope would now not only tilt on its west-east alignment according to the rotation of the earth, it would also tilt on its north-south alignment according to the curvature of the earth.

20

Flat Earth Q&A / Solar eclipse?

« on: June 15, 2010, 12:47:12 AM »

Q: "What about the stars, sun and moon and other planets? Are they flat too? What are they made of?"

A: The sun and moon, each 32 miles in diameter, rotate at a height of 3,000 miles above sea level. As they are spotlights, they only illuminate certain places. This explains why there are nights and days on Earth. The stars are at a height of 3,100 miles above sea level, which is as far as from San Francisco to Boston. In the dark energy model, the celestial bodies are spherical and are made of ordinary matter. These spheres are being held above the Earth by DE.

How can we observe a solar eclipse with this model?

EDIT: Could this be moved to "The flat earth debate forum" by a moderator, because I am quite interested in the FET's explanation to this. Alternative ideas that challenge set ideas keep the mind busy in a very positive manner after all.

21

Flat Earth General / Question regarding the conspiracy

« on: June 14, 2010, 01:49:06 PM »

I am confronted by FE'ers that RE is a conspiracy. What is the point in having most of the world believe the world is round over flat? Why invest billions into a this "play" unless it has some benefit. The answer to this I can give myself; there isn't a reason to unless there IS a benefit or greater plot. My question is: What is the benefit or reason for this conspiracy? Please don't tell me the government is doing it for the lulz...

22

Flat Earth Q&A / Stepping of chair experiment?

« on: June 14, 2010, 12:26:31 PM »

Was reading about the experiment and the one thing that kept bugging me was the following:

Tom bishop uses the number 9.81 m/s^2, I find this rather comical and ironic, I will tell you why. This number is the standard gravity, it is an average of the earths gravity. It was determined by RE'ers who used the following formulas:

    F = G*((m1*m2)/r^2)

    F = m2*g

Substituting one into the other gives us:

    g=G*(m1/r^2)

Low and behold, it uses the earths radius. A FE'er used a number, which was determined by a formula, which was based on a RE? Or TB jump of his chair and "feel" that it was 9.81 m/s^2 ?

23

Flat Earth General / Angular diameter

« on: June 14, 2010, 10:14:20 AM »

The angular diameter of the sun (from earth) is 0.53 degrees. This can be measured from earth with the right equipment, you don't need a billion dollar budget to accomplish it. This means that the number 0.53 can be verified by basicaly anyone with some time, knowledge and ofcourse at least some ammount of money. The point being that this isn't some fictional made up number by NASA (or any other agency for that matter). The next point I would like to bring up is the formula for the angular diameter:

    angdiameter = 2 * arctan ( 1/2 d/D)

In which d and D are the diameter (visual), and distance respectively. This formula can be verified on a "earthly" scale. For example: take a football of known diameter and put it at X distance from you and measure the angular diameter. You will see that the measurements and calculations are the same (depending on your accuracy ofcourse). So again, something that was not "made up" by NASA and can be verified by anyone if they wish to do so. 

So if you know the distance to the spherical object and have measured the angular diameter, one can calculate the size of the said object. I have shown that both the formula and angular diameter can not really be tampered with and are not "fiction". Now you may point out that there is still a other variable that COULD be made up: the distance. However the distance is not that hard to determine. All you need to do is measure the angular diameter from 2 different heights (thus 2 different distances), since the distance correlates with the angular diameter one can determine the distance to the object. A little drawing to clarify (excuse my mspaint skills):



Now to get to the point, if one uses the distance and angular diameter as mentioned above one will come to the size of the sun as approx. 1.392×10^6 km (diameter). According to FE'ers however, the size of the sun is 32 miles, a slight difference.

Now, if you do find a flaw in my post (besides grammar ) I would like to point out something that is slightly harder to fault. As said before, both the formula and the measuring of an angular diameter can be verified by anyone, therefor they can be applied in both the "universe" of FE'ers and RE'ers. I have also already stated that the angular diameter is 0.53 degrees. This holds true if one uses the RE'ers data (for lack of a better word :/ ). However if I use the data provided by FE'ers (d=32 miles and D=3000 miles) one ends up with a angular diameter of 0.61 degrees. "that is only 0.08 degrees difference" you may say, but on the scale we are talking about that is quite significant. This last might not "debunk" the FET, it shows however that the data you provide with it is inaccurate. The inaccuracy leads to believe that it is made up and at the very least takes away some credibility in regard to how much of the other data is true or false. Ofcourse you could now say that the given numbers were estimates and now give me numbers that DO fit, but one could do that with everything. Changing your facts to fit, after it has been shown where and how they didn't fit in the first place, damages the believability of the FET. It makes the FET look more like a conspiracy than the RET is according to you.

(my apologies if this is TL;DR, if you read it; discuss. If not, don't bother the rest of us with obvious and or childish remarks)

EDIT: Also, if you see any really weird sentence constructions or flaws in logic or anything else of the kind, please just point it out, readability goes above al else on fora.

24

Flat Earth Q&A / Lunar eclipse?

« on: June 13, 2010, 02:42:41 PM »

Quite simple really, during the lunar eclipse the shadow of our earth is round, if the earth were flat the shadow could be anything from round, to oval, to a mere line. However all observations of the earths shadow during the lunar eclipse have shown it to be round. How is this possible if the earh is flat?

EDIT: Hold on, just read the bit about the antimoon in the FAQ (missed it the first time ). I will read it now and come back with an altered argument.

Hmm, read the antimoon bit and it doesn't make sense to me. You are trying to tell me an invisible sphere is inbetween the earth an the moon AND are perfectly aligned every time a lunar eclipse would happen?

25

Flat Earth Q&A / Flawed FAQ

« on: June 13, 2010, 01:34:16 PM »

I was reading the FAQ and stumbled upon this:

Q: "Why has no one taken a photo of the Earth that proves it is flat?"

A: Only those connected to the Conspiracy have access to heights from which the shape of the Earth can be discerned.  Also, nobody has been to the edge of the Earth and lived; conditions on the Ice Wall get increasingly treacherous the further you get out, and navigation methods become unreliable that far south.  It is also possible that the Conspiracy is guarding the edge to prevent people from getting too close to the truth.

Q: "How did NASA create these images with the computer technology available at the time?"

A: NASA did not send rockets into space; instead, they spent a fraction of their funding on developing increasingly advanced computers and imaging software to cover their lies.

PLEASE NOTE: This means that pictures confirming the roundness or flatness of the Earth DO NOT CONSTITUTE VALID PROOF.

The last line caught my intention. You are making up your own set of rules to protect what you believe. It is like a man being trialed for murder, who is claiming he is innocent, saying that any murderweapon found is invalid, for he is (in his mind) innocent. It makes a civilized debate on the topic impossible, in this case it is only about pictures, but one could expand it to all forms of proof. On a side note, the burden of proof is on the party trying to prove (or disprove) a certain point (something also said on this fora). It is therefor your obligation to prove that the pictures of NASA are fake,rather than just claiming it (if claiming things makes it come true then I am Go.. oh nvmnd). Untill you have done so there is no reason to believe they are fake in any manner whatsoever.

26

Flat Earth General / Serious or not?

« on: June 13, 2010, 12:17:36 PM »

Hi there, just registered so I could post this. Read a few posts here on the forum and I am trying to figure out if this is a failed attempt at trolling, or a failed attempt to convince people that the world is flat? By the name of the site I would assume the latter, by the nature of most posts the first. So please enlighten me.