Questions without answers

Ok, heres my new post. I will ask things that are simple to answer.

1) Do you have ANY proof backing your belief/theory that the Earth is flat?

Valid proof may include a picture of the 'Flat Earth'

Some proof that the Earth is round -     
 For instance, when a sailing ship heads into port, the first part that becomes visible is the crow’s-nest, followed by the sails, and then the bow of the ship. If the Earth were flat, the entire ship would come into view at once as soon as it came close enough to shore.

       The Greek philosopher Aristotle provided two more reasons why the Earth was round. First, he noted that Earth’s shadow always took a circular bite out of the moon during a lunar eclipse, which would only be possible with a spherical Earth. (If the Earth were a disk, its shadow would appear as an elongated ellipse at least during part of the eclipse.) Second, Aristotle knew that people who journeyed north saw the North Star ascend higher in the sky, while those heading south saw the North Star sink. On a flat Earth, the positions of the stars wouldn’t vary with a person’s location.




2) Why would anybody go through the trouble to hide the fact the Earth is flat?

3) Do you have any explanation for Volcanoes?

It has been accepted that at the centre of the Earth is the 'Core'.

core/kɔr, koʊr/ [kawr, kohr] noun, the central, innermost, or most essential part of anything.

"The inner part of the earth is the core. This part of the earth is about 1,800 miles (2,900 km) below the earth's surface. The core is a dense ball of the elements iron and nickel. It is divided into two layers, the inner core and the outer core. The inner core - the center of earth - is solid and about 780 miles (1,250 km) thick. The outer core is so hot that the metal is always molten, but the inner core pressures are so great that it cannot melt, even though temperatures there reach 6700ºF (3700ºC). The outer core is about 1370 miles (2,200 km) thick."

The 'Flat Earth' belief/theory seems to have no explanation for the core, yet, it cannot be denied that it exists - Volcanoes are 100% proof.

"The outer layer of the earth has some weak spots and cracks in it. When the magma in the mantle pushes finds those weak spots, it pokes through, forming a volcano."

Ok, heres my new post. I will ask things that are simple to answer.

1) Do you have ANY proof backing your belief/theory that the Earth is flat?

Well, when I hold something in my hand and let go of it, the earth accelerates up to it.

Valid proof may include a picture of the 'Flat Earth'

Some proof that the Earth is round -     
 For instance, when a sailing ship heads into port, the first part that becomes visible is the crow’s-nest, followed by the sails, and then the bow of the ship. If the Earth were flat, the entire ship would come into view at once as soon as it came close enough to shore.

Refraction and condensed water vapor.

2) Why would anybody go through the trouble to hide the fact the Earth is flat?

I've hit my 24 hour quota for answering this EXACT question.

3) Do you have any explanation for Volcanoes?

Yea: pressure needs to escape, magma shoots out of big holes in the earth, you know, just like the RE.

It has been accepted that at the centre of the Earth is the 'Core'.

Yep, even by me.

The 'Flat Earth' belief/theory seems to have no explanation for the core, yet, it cannot be denied that it exists - Volcanoes are 100% proof.

No one disputed that there was a core, so your point is moot.

Volcanoes are 100% proof.

"The outer layer of the earth has some weak spots and cracks in it. When the magma in the mantle pushes finds those weak spots, it pokes through, forming a volcano."

not really proof of the core. seismic waves are, though. the spherical liquid inner core causes a shadow zone. the FE model does not explain shadow zones.


and of course, there are lunar eclipses.............

Dear 'TheEngineer'

You seem have come up with some kind of explanation for MOST of my post, however you have not commented on the following

 "The Greek philosopher Aristotle provided two more reasons why the Earth was round. First, he noted that Earth’s shadow always took a circular bite out of the moon during a lunar eclipse, which would only be possible with a spherical Earth. (If the Earth were a disk, its shadow would appear as an elongated ellipse at least during part of the eclipse.) Second, Aristotle knew that people who journeyed north saw the North Star ascend higher in the sky, while those heading south saw the North Star sink. On a flat Earth, the positions of the stars wouldn’t vary with a person’s location. "

I have seen this picture used often to show how the 'Flat Earth' should look.
My problem - The position of the sun clearly shows that all the continents should be recieving sunlight. However, you cannot deny the truth that while some continents have day others have night. (Hope you understand what I mean)

The sun in the FE model acts as a spotlight, therefore, only portions of the earth recieve light at the same time.

Then why does it appear to disappear over the horizon? And don't quote the FAQ saying "It's an illusion". We all want a proper explanation. The "Optical Illusion" card is getting just as annoying as the "it's a conspiracy" line for every piece of evidence you can't explain.

The sun going away from us seems to meet the horizon in the same way that train tracks "seem" to meet.  You don't really believe that tracks meet, do you?  As the sun gets further away, refraction takes place which alters the image of the sun.  This is all the same as in the RE model.

I differ from others I have read from on this site in that I don't believe in an ice wall or that it's accelerating upwards.  I believe the Earth is limitless and imoveable.  The ice surrounding the known world is ice because the sun doesn't shine above it.  The water that surrounds the known dry land therefore is ice as far as you can go.  But as you can imagine, one cannot go too far, as one would freeze to death.

As for the reason the FE is suppressed, it is because the atheists (and satanists) had to come up with an explanation for our existence without God in the picture.  

AND, no one has ever seen a ship's mast appear first on the horizon.  That is a much-repeated cliche, by people who have never experienced it.  Rowbotham disproved that fallacy, anyway.  Besides, refraction and mist would interfere with vision at that great a distance.

Trust your eyes instead of the science religion priests.

The sun going away from us seems to meet the horizon in the same way that train tracks "seem" to meet.  You don't really believe that tracks meet, do you?  As the sun gets further away, refraction takes place which alters the image of the sun.  This is all the same as in the RE model.

This doesn't explain the sun sinking below the horizon.

I differ from others I have read from on this site in that I don't believe in an ice wall or that it's accelerating upwards.  I believe the Earth is limitless and imoveable.  The ice surrounding the known world is ice because the sun doesn't shine above it.  The water that surrounds the known dry land therefore is ice as far as you can go.  But as you can imagine, one cannot go too far, as one would freeze to death.

What causes gravity and holds in the atmosphere, then?

As for the reason the FE is suppressed, it is because the atheists (and satanists) had to come up with an explanation for our existence without God in the picture.

Right, because the world governments are all atheists and satanists. :roll:

AND, no one has ever seen a ship's mast appear first on the horizon.  That is a much-repeated cliche, by people who have never experienced it.  Rowbotham disproved that fallacy, anyway.  Besides, refraction and mist would interfere with vision at that great a distance.

Um, douchebag, many people, INCLUDING MYSELF, have witnessed that very effect. Rowbotham's explanation is utterly fallacious.

AND, no one has ever seen a ship's mast appear first on the horizon. That is a much-repeated cliche, by people who have never experienced it. Rowbotham disproved that fallacy, anyway. Besides, refraction and mist would interfere with vision at that great a distance.

Rowbotham's exact theory isn't used anymore; to quote the page linked to on the faq:

"Rowbotham believed that the earth is flat. The contients float on an infinite ocean which somehow has a layer of fire underneath it. The lands we know are surrounded by an infinite wilderness of ice and snow, beyond the Antarctic ocean, bordered by an immense circular ice-cliff. What we call the North Pole is in the center of the earth."

Sure doesn't sound like the model described in the same faq, so let's not bring him into this debate.

And while you've probably never seen a ship's mast disappear, everyone's seen the same phenomenom with buildings; a skyscraper's top can be seen from a much greater distance than its base, even if there are no other tall buildings surrounding it.

The sun going away from us seems to meet the horizon in the same way that train tracks "seem" to meet. You don't really believe that tracks meet, do you? As the sun gets further away, refraction takes place which alters the image of the sun. This is all the same as in the RE model.

Coincidentally, this meeting is an effect of the curvature of the Earth's surface.

Then why does it appear to disappear over the horizon? And don't quote the FAQ saying "It's an illusion". We all want a proper explanation. The "Optical Illusion" card is getting just as annoying as the "it's a conspiracy" line for every piece of evidence you can't explain.

Here's a tip: If the answer in the FAQ is not to your liking, Don't ask for a different one. If they had a "proper explanation", it would be added to the FAQ. THE ANSWERS IN THE FAQ ARE THE ANSWERS YOU GET HERE.....

This doesn't explain the sun sinking below the horizon.

     It's called perspective.  You should have learned about somewhere in your school, you know the place that you went to on the short bus.



What causes gravity and holds in the atmosphere, then?

     Gravity is just a name given to a fact of nature.  Up is up and down is down.  There is no force holding us down like magnets.  If the Earth were spinning 1000 mph, and the reason we don't get flung off is "gravity," then if it were so strong as to keep us firm on the Earth, we would not be able to even lift our feet to take a step.  Also, if space is a vacuum, then the atmosphere would be sucked into space.  Any science experiment involving a vacuum will prove what happens when the vaccum's seal is broken.  Air gets sucked into it (much in the way that you have been sucked into the spinning ball theory).  
     Not to mention that if the sun's gravitational pull (in the RE model) were strong enough to prevent the Earth from going off in one direction, then it woud pull the Earth toward itself and burn it up.  It wouldn't keep the Earth in orbit, as if it had a on/off switch that would let go of the Earth at times and the turn on the pull at other times.  It's silly when you think about it.


Um, douchebag, many people, INCLUDING MYSELF, have witnessed that very effect. Rowbotham's explanation is utterly fallacious.[/quote]

     First of all, you are a real class act.  Secondly, I doubt you stood on a beach just waiting all day for a ship to happen to travel directly at you over the horizon.  Thirdly, if you did, then surely the swells of the ocean would have obstructed your view of the base of the ship until it came closer to you.  Again, the water vapor in the air and light refraction over that distance with such a small object would prevent a clear picture of reality.

Rowbotham's exact theory isn't used anymore; to quote the page linked to on the faq:
Sure doesn't sound like the model described in the same faq, so let's not bring him into this debate.

     I don't necessarily agree with the other FE'ers on this site.  I tend to agree with Rowbotham.  

And while you've probably never seen a ship's mast disappear, everyone's seen the same phenomenom with buildings; a skyscraper's top can be seen from a much greater distance than its base, even if there are no other tall buildings surrounding it.

     If you can tell me of a skyscraper that has no other buildings around it, no trees, no hills (on a totally flat plain), no houses, no other objects of any kind between it and you when you stand at a distance away from it equal to the horizon, please tell me where it is.  This would truly be an anomaly.  This could be such a great experiment!  However, I bet you can't.  I bet any skyscraper would have those kinds of things in the way, obstructing its base.  I bet you just repeated another worthless bit of propaganda you learned from the spinning ball science religion.  Too bad!

Coincidentally, this meeting is an effect of the curvature of the Earth's surface. [/quote]

I forgot to respond to the "Coincidentally, this meeting is an effect of the curvature of the Earth's surface. "

Everyone knows that the train tracks meeting illusion is due to perspective, not curvature.  Where did you get that idea?  Not even RE'ers believe that!

If the sun orbits the earth at 3000km at the equator, then there will be a minimum angle of 9.13 degrees between the sun and ground level. This is at the north pole. At most points on the earth's surface, the agnle will be much greater, for example, at the equator, it will be as great as 25 degrees. Angles this great will not appear to converge at distance. For this to happen, the lines have to be almost exactly parallel.

And your theories on gravity are fundamentally flawed. The centripetal acceleration required to keep something on earth as it spins is only 3 cm/second^2 at the equator, and the gravitational force is about 9.8 m/second^2.

This acceleration due to gravity causes weight, and a gravitiaitonal acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2 causes your average person to weigh about 65kg in my case. This is a fine amount to weigh. I can lift my legs to walk, but I cannot escape the earth's gravitational field using only muscle power.

Didn't want to start a new thread because all the ones on this site are essentially the same, prove this, prove that.

Anyway, how come clouds don't just float off into space or crash into us as we move upwards in accordance with this, 'Well, when I hold something in my hand and let go of it, the earth accelerates up to it. ' which no offence to the writer but had me rolling around on the floor in laughter.

EDIT:

The atmosphere, does the flat earth theory say it covers only the top of the earth or does it encompass the whole thing? If only the top  then surley it would be thinner at the edges infitting with a dome over the top of the surface, because this would mean that area that is thinly covered would be hotter than any over part as it has less protection, so these ice walls you talk about would melt?

EDIT 2:

This whole theory seems like guess work depending on the circumstances to support the earth is flat.

Its like,
The earth is flat:
-Why aren't we told this? - Its a conspiracy, all world governments are in on it.
-Wheres the evidence? - The evidence is witheld by world governments. (ie we haven't got any)
-What about gravity? - err oo, we're....flying up, through space, everything is, and that makes gravity, see?
-Why doesn't the water just run off the sides? - err, erm...you see....theres this big ICE WALL around the edge of the earth, that stops all the water falling off, see?

All these explanations are very convenient, it does sound to an outsider that someone has come up with a wacky idea and had to come up with some reasons to support his claim, on the spot and has come out with flawed explanations.

Well, when I hold something in my hand and let go of it, the earth accelerates up to it.

If I am in a plane (In the air) at the time the above statement it tested. My altitude should decrease, and I should be closer to the ground.

Why does the Earth not accelerate up to Aircraft?

How does it know to accelerate up to the heavier object first if the two are dropped at exactly the same time?

Quote

Well, when I hold something in my hand and let go of it, the earth accelerates up to it.

If I am in a plane (In the air) at the time the above statement it tested. My altitude should decrease, and I should be closer to the ground.

Why does the Earth not accelerate up to Aircraft?

How does it know to accelerate up to the heavier object first if the two are dropped at exactly the same time?

Um, wow, you are ignorant. The Earth doesn't accelerate up to aircraft because the aircraft's wings generate lift the same as on an RE. And heavier objects do not fall faster than lighter objects, as Galileo proved quite conclusively several centuries ago.

First of all, you are a real class act. Secondly, I doubt you stood on a beach just waiting all day for a ship to happen to travel directly at you over the horizon. Thirdly, if you did, then surely the swells of the ocean would have obstructed your view of the base of the ship until it came closer to you. Again, the water vapor in the air and light refraction over that distance with such a small object would prevent a clear picture of reality.

Once again, you can and most likely have observed the same effect by approaching a tall building. You can do it on a hot, dry day just to make sure light refraction is minimal. Or are skyscrapers faked too now?

'Well, when I hold something in my hand and let go of it, the earth accelerates up to it. ' which no offence to the writer but had me rolling around on the floor in laughter.

Laughing at your own ignorance?

How does it know to accelerate up to the heavier object first if the two are dropped at exactly the same time?

 :shock:  
Please tell me you are not in high school yet.

Quote from: "LiamH"

How does it know to accelerate up to the heavier object first if the two are dropped at exactly the same time?

 :shock:  
Please tell me you are not in middle school yet.

fix'd

I thought I would give him a little credit (although I don't know why).

TheEngineer said:

Please tell me you are not in high school yet.

You believe that the Earth is flat? Please, please tell me you're in a mental home.

Patient Profile: TheEngineer
Id Code: L05ER

Doctors notes: Patient is under the belief the Earth is flat.

Recommended treatment - 4 doses of Reality a day. Followed by regular exposure to the fact its 2006.

If the problems pesist the patient should seek the following -

1)A life
2)Friends
3)A 21st century education

Under no circumstances should the patient be allowed contact with the outside world. 'Flat Earth Sindrome' can be passed on to others. It affects the following groups -

1)Geeks
2)Losers
3)Dumb Asses


Anybody who tries to reuse this form of joke in anyway in this forum will be branded a NOOB - think of your own material to use.

If the only data available to me on which to judge the shape of the Earth were your statements and TheEngineer's, I should instantly be more-or-less convinced the Earth was flat. The idea of a Flat-Earth is so preposterous that I find it incredibly shameful when an REer cannot even summon a correct argument against it. Your statements show you to not even have a junior-highschool understanding of science.

TheEngineer said:

Quote

Please tell me you are not in high school yet.

You believe that the Earth is flat? Please, please tell me you're in a mental home.

Patient Profile: TheEngineer
Id Code: L05ER

Doctors notes: Patient is under the belief the Earth is flat.

Recommended treatment - 4 doses of Reality a day. Followed by regular exposure to the fact its 2006.

If the problems pesist the patient should seek the following -

1)A life
2)Friends
3)A 21st century education

Under no circumstances should the patient be allowed contact with the outside world. 'Flat Earth Sindrome' can be passed on to others. It affects the following groups -

1)Geeks
2)Losers
3)Dumb Asses

 


MAN LIAM YOU DISSSSED THIS ENGINEER GUY BIG TIME HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Quote from: "LiamH"

TheEngineer said:

Quote

Please tell me you are not in high school yet.

You believe that the Earth is flat? Please, please tell me you're in a mental home.

Patient Profile: TheEngineer
Id Code: L05ER

Doctors notes: Patient is under the belief the Earth is flat.

Recommended treatment - 4 doses of Reality a day. Followed by regular exposure to the fact its 2006.

If the problems pesist the patient should seek the following -

1)A life
2)Friends
3)A 21st century education

Under no circumstances should the patient be allowed contact with the outside world. 'Flat Earth Sindrome' can be passed on to others. It affects the following groups -

1)Geeks
2)Losers
3)Dumb Asses

 


MAN LIAM YOU DISSSSED THIS ENGINEER GUY BIG TIME HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Liam should seek a highschool education.

     If you can tell me of a skyscraper that has no other buildings around it, no trees, no hills (on a totally flat plain), no houses, no other objects of any kind between it and you when you stand at a distance away from it equal to the horizon, please tell me where it is.  This would truly be an anomaly.  This could be such a great experiment!  However, I bet you can't.  

[/quote]

u can go to parts of Kansas that are extremely flat, and see the top of a grain elevator in the distance.  a huge grain elevator is the size of a skyscraper, with nothing between it and you to obstruct the view.  as u get closer, u finally see the few structures that are next to it at ground level.  US highway 54 in Kansas is a good place to notice this.  also, you can drive westbound towards the rocky mountains and they will seem to rise out of the horizon.  u can see the tops before u see the base.  this could be illusion according to fe theory, i'm merely stating that there are places u can see this effect, without resorting to the "masts of a ship" argument continually.

MAN LIAM YOU DISSSSED THIS ENGINEER GUY BIG TIME HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Maybe it would be funny if LiamH had not made this statement:

How does it know to accelerate up to the heavier object first if the two are dropped at exactly the same time?

It also might have been funnier had he not made this statement:

Doctors notes: Patient is under the belief the Earth is flat.