The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: Lorcan on July 22, 2007, 07:53:45 PM
-
I'm new to this board. I am a research scientist and I have a lot of problems with this theory about a flat Earth. I've read through the FAQ to see if it would answer any of the natural questions that would arise when confronted with such a theory, and it seems to offer very little information at all. In fact, the FAQ didn't answer many questions and only left me with many, many more.
First:
What scientific evidence do you have which strongly supports the theory of a flat Earth? And how much has this "evidence" been scrutinized by the scientific community? If you are going to base your belief in a flat Earth on some scientific experiments and data, this data had damn well better stand up to peer review. I am unaware of the publishing of any of these studies in any legitimate scientific journals. I am also unaware of any scientists who believe in such a theory.
The things listed under The Earth in Space portion of the FAQ offer some totally bogus "facts" and data about Earth and the sun and the moon. And this is not even to mention the outstandingly ridiculous explanations of a sunset or Universal Acceleration. So this brings me to question these things as well. What is the scientific evidence behind this? Feel free to enlighten me. Explain it as in depth as necessary, and do not hide any of its complexity. I would love to hear how it was discovered that Earth and the sun and stars are all accelerating upward due to this Universal Acceleration.
At the end of that section it goes on to say that sustained spaceflight is not possible. This is the most bizarre and perplexing lie I have heard. My current research is on the Galilean moons of Jupiter and how they effect the radio wave enhancement of Jupiter through interactions within Jupiter's plasma field. In order to study this, we use data collected from the Cassini spacecraft during its flyby of Jupiter back in 2000-2001. Do not even try to tell me that I make up bogus data to analyze and study, or that I am "fed" some bogus data, because I get the data directly from the spacecraft's data processing unit.
You mention that gravitational variation with altitude is possibly a myth, but it is not. It has been experimentally verified not hundreds, but thousands of times by practicing scientists all over the world.
Secondly:
You claim that the whole "round Earth" theory is a conspiracy perpetuated by all of the world governments. This is a laughable argument at best. Like all conspiracy theories, surely you've got some kind of evidence to try to back this up, right? I saw no mention of evidence of this conspiracy in that section of the FAQ, which leads me to believe it does not exist. A conspiracy may exist when you find mountains of undeniable evidence pointing to a conspiracy. But I'll tell you what does not constitute evidence: the fact that every government on the planet disagrees with your medieval, pseudo-scientific stance. That is simply a case of Flat Earth proponents making more far-out, totally outlandish statements supported by no facts. "They disagree with something that we believe to be true, therefore there must be a conspiracy among all of them to hide the truth." That's an absolutely painfully irrational and illogical move to make. I understand that the support for this theory lies on logical fallacies, but that one is just too blatant!
You also fail to offer any sort of motive for this conspiracy. What would these world governments possibly have to gain from us "wrongfully" believing the world to be spherical? You threw out the idea of money, as if it was the safe standard to assume in the case of a conspiracy. But can you hypothesize how there would be monetary gain from such misleading of the public?
Third:
The ice wall. What is the scientific evidence for this invisible ice wall? It appears to just be a mechanism invented by Flat Earthers to try to explain phenomena that would be totally impossible if a flat Earth really existed.
Fourth:
An example of hypocrisy was found in your explanation for the Ice Wall and Global Warming.
A2: Global Warming doesn't happen. It and its counter-theory (Global Cooling) are effects that cancel each other out. Remember, these "greenhouse gasses" can reflect heat back out into space as well as keep it on Earth. Yes, there are recorded rises in temperature, but the only records we have go back, at most, around 150 years. This is very likely an occurrence that happens every [x>150] years, that's happened before (perhaps many times), and that the Earth has thus survived before.
A3: Global Warming is damaging the Ice Wall and will, if unchecked, eventually drain the Earth's atmolayer and oceans.
I'd like to understand how this contradiction is explained.
Fifth:
Q: "When traveling in a straight direction, you will always reach the same point on the globe from where you started. How can this happen if the world is flat?"
A: You need to have evidence for this to be true.
Ironic that you answer with this statement, considering the curious complete lack of evidence for the stance you are taking. And there, of course, is mountains of evidence for this. Airline pilots do this quite often.
This is a summary of the questions I had when reading the FAQ. I'm interested to read the answers anyone can offer.
-
It may be that these things have been explained. If they have, forgive me. Please show me where. I will do a search now to try to find the answers.
-
In my search I was only able to find a few threads concerning the things I brought up.
There were some questions similar to mine and the ones in the FAQ but I don't believe I saw any actual answers.
-
In my search I was only able to find a few threads concerning the things I brought up.
There were some questions similar to mine and the ones in the FAQ but I don't believe I saw any actual answers.
Welcome. It's great to have a research scientist posting here.
I believe that you'll find that the FEers will not address your concerns, beyond a few glancing attacks. They've pretty much stopped posting here. Tom Bishop and narcberry are not worthy of your time.
I'd greatly appreciate it if you'd critique (and possible contribute) to the RE Primer. It's our consensus of arguments for RE. We believe that it's now so persuasive as to render FE without support. You can also find a link to the current version of the RE Primer in my signature, as you'll see below. Again, welcome.
-
I'm new to this board. I am a research scientist and I have a lot of problems with this theory about a flat Earth. I've read through the FAQ to see if it would answer any of the natural questions that would arise when confronted with such a theory, and it seems to offer very little information at all. In fact, the FAQ didn't answer many questions and only left me with many, many more.
First:
What scientific evidence do you have which strongly supports the theory of a flat Earth? And how much has this "evidence" been scrutinized by the scientific community? If you are going to base your belief in a flat Earth on some scientific experiments and data, this data had damn well better stand up to peer review. I am unaware of the publishing of any of these studies in any legitimate scientific journals. I am also unaware of any scientists who believe in such a theory.
The things listed under The Earth in Space portion of the FAQ offer some totally bogus "facts" and data about Earth and the sun and the moon. And this is not even to mention the outstandingly ridiculous explanations of a sunset or Universal Acceleration. So this brings me to question these things as well. What is the scientific evidence behind this? Feel free to enlighten me. Explain it as in depth as necessary, and do not hide any of its complexity. I would love to hear how it was discovered that Earth and the sun and stars are all accelerating upward due to this Universal Acceleration.
At the end of that section it goes on to say that sustained spaceflight is not possible. This is the most bizarre and perplexing lie I have heard. My current research is on the Galilean moons of Jupiter and how they effect the radio wave enhancement of Jupiter through interactions within Jupiter's plasma field. In order to study this, we use data collected from the Cassini spacecraft during its flyby of Jupiter back in 2000-2001. Do not even try to tell me that I make up bogus data to analyze and study, or that I am "fed" some bogus data, because I get the data directly from the spacecraft's data processing unit.
You mention that gravitational variation with altitude is possibly a myth, but it is not. It has been experimentally verified not hundreds, but thousands of times by practicing scientists all over the world.
Secondly:
You claim that the whole "round Earth" theory is a conspiracy perpetuated by all of the world governments. This is a laughable argument at best. Like all conspiracy theories, surely you've got some kind of evidence to try to back this up, right? I saw no mention of evidence of this conspiracy in that section of the FAQ, which leads me to believe it does not exist. A conspiracy may exist when you find mountains of undeniable evidence pointing to a conspiracy. But I'll tell you what does not constitute evidence: the fact that every government on the planet disagrees with your medieval, pseudo-scientific stance. That is simply a case of Flat Earth proponents making more far-out, totally outlandish statements supported by no facts. "They disagree with something that we believe to be true, therefore there must be a conspiracy among all of them to hide the truth." That's an absolutely painfully irrational and illogical move to make. I understand that the support for this theory lies on logical fallacies, but that one is just too blatant!
You also fail to offer any sort of motive for this conspiracy. What would these world governments possibly have to gain from us "wrongfully" believing the world to be spherical? You threw out the idea of money, as if it was the safe standard to assume in the case of a conspiracy. But can you hypothesize how there would be monetary gain from such misleading of the public?
Third:
The ice wall. What is the scientific evidence for this invisible ice wall? It appears to just be a mechanism invented by Flat Earthers to try to explain phenomena that would be totally impossible if a flat Earth really existed.
Fourth:
An example of hypocrisy was found in your explanation for the Ice Wall and Global Warming.
A2: Global Warming doesn't happen. It and its counter-theory (Global Cooling) are effects that cancel each other out. Remember, these "greenhouse gasses" can reflect heat back out into space as well as keep it on Earth. Yes, there are recorded rises in temperature, but the only records we have go back, at most, around 150 years. This is very likely an occurrence that happens every [x>150] years, that's happened before (perhaps many times), and that the Earth has thus survived before.
A3: Global Warming is damaging the Ice Wall and will, if unchecked, eventually drain the Earth's atmolayer and oceans.
I'd like to understand how this contradiction is explained.
Fifth:
Q: "When traveling in a straight direction, you will always reach the same point on the globe from where you started. How can this happen if the world is flat?"
A: You need to have evidence for this to be true.
Ironic that you answer with this statement, considering the curious complete lack of evidence for the stance you are taking. And there, of course, is mountains of evidence for this. Airline pilots do this quite often.
This is a summary of the questions I had when reading the FAQ. I'm interested to read the answers anyone can offer.
tl;dr
-
I'm new to this board. I am a research scientist and I have a lot of problems with this theory about a flat Earth. I've read through the FAQ to see if it would answer any of the natural questions that would arise when confronted with such a theory, and it seems to offer very little information at all. In fact, the FAQ didn't answer many questions and only left me with many, many more.
First:
What scientific evidence do you have which strongly supports the theory of a flat Earth? And how much has this "evidence" been scrutinized by the scientific community? If you are going to base your belief in a flat Earth on some scientific experiments and data, this data had damn well better stand up to peer review. I am unaware of the publishing of any of these studies in any legitimate scientific journals. I am also unaware of any scientists who believe in such a theory.
The compilation of actual evidence for the Flat Earth is located in a book called Earth: Not a Globe. The evidence in this book, however, has been torn to shreads by those in this community. Even if the various RE'ers didn't tear them to shreads, many in history have repeated this experiment, and these repititions have shown a Round Earth or a Flat Earth, which shows that the invalidity of these experiments. You will find, however, that the FE'ers ignore all evidence against them, and will ignore these repetitions. As for publishings, the founder of the society had a newsletter, which I believe can be found in the Repository. THere are no scientists that believe in this theory today (that I know of, so you can buzz off Tom, I know what you were thinking). Sorry about that.
The things listed under The Earth in Space portion of the FAQ offer some totally bogus "facts" and data about Earth and the sun and the moon. And this is not even to mention the outstandingly ridiculous explanations of a sunset or Universal Acceleration. So this brings me to question these things as well. What is the scientific evidence behind this? Feel free to enlighten me. Explain it as in depth as necessary, and do not hide any of its complexity. I would love to hear how it was discovered that Earth and the sun and stars are all accelerating upward due to this Universal Acceleration.
The Universal Acceleration is one of the frequently discussed topics here, and has been argued to a standstill. AS for sunsets, you will find Tom posting copies of his former posts that say things that have been disproved many times again. Tom, however, still posts them, and turns a blind eye to the posts that prove him wrong. THe theory is that the air causes the sunlight to be seen as larger due to the large amount of it between us and the Sun. However, at the height of the Sun, the amount of air between the SUn and the ground would vary almost none, due to the very low altitude at which the air thins out. At heights of about five miles, the air is very thin, and things can be seen very clearly at very long distances. No scientific evidence exists for this.
At the end of that section it goes on to say that sustained spaceflight is not possible. This is the most bizarre and perplexing lie I have heard. My current research is on the Galilean moons of Jupiter and how they effect the radio wave enhancement of Jupiter through interactions within Jupiter's plasma field. In order to study this, we use data collected from the Cassini spacecraft during its flyby of Jupiter back in 2000-2001. Do not even try to tell me that I make up bogus data to analyze and study, or that I am "fed" some bogus data, because I get the data directly from the spacecraft's data processing unit.
It is maintained that any and all spaceflight is a Conspiracy. Therefore, all that you are posting is information from the NASA, no matter how much of it you got yourself. THey maintain this in spite of all logic and evidence to the contrary.
You mention that gravitational variation with altitude is possibly a myth, but it is not. It has been experimentally verified not hundreds, but thousands of times by practicing scientists all over the world.
I think that the accepted theory is that it does exist and that the SUn and Moon have a slight gravitational pull, causing this. This would cause many things that they also believe to not be true, but they continue to believe conflicting theories.
Secondly:
You claim that the whole "round Earth" theory is a conspiracy perpetuated by all of the world governments. This is a laughable argument at best. Like all conspiracy theories, surely you've got some kind of evidence to try to back this up, right? I saw no mention of evidence of this conspiracy in that section of the FAQ, which leads me to believe it does not exist. A conspiracy may exist when you find mountains of undeniable evidence pointing to a conspiracy. But I'll tell you what does not constitute evidence: the fact that every government on the planet disagrees with your medieval, pseudo-scientific stance. That is simply a case of Flat Earth proponents making more far-out, totally outlandish statements supported by no facts. "They disagree with something that we believe to be true, therefore there must be a conspiracy among all of them to hide the truth." That's an absolutely painfully irrational and illogical move to make. I understand that the support for this theory lies on logical fallacies, but that one is just too blatant!
Absolutly no evidence exists for the Conspiracy. I myself made a thread a little while back, and the only response I got was that one of the shuttles exploded on reentry.
You also fail to offer any sort of motive for this conspiracy. What would these world governments possibly have to gain from us "wrongfully" believing the world to be spherical? You threw out the idea of money, as if it was the safe standard to assume in the case of a conspiracy. But can you hypothesize how there would be monetary gain from such misleading of the public?
Money. That is the motive, however under scrutiny if fails to be a profitable business to run a Conspiracy. No other motives have been considered because the FE'ers turn a blind eye to all contrary evidence.
Third:
The ice wall. What is the scientific evidence for this invisible ice wall? It appears to just be a mechanism invented by Flat Earthers to try to explain phenomena that would be totally impossible if a flat Earth really existed.
Tom will post a picture of a the Ross Ice SHelf. However it cannot be proven.
Fourth:
An example of hypocrisy was found in your explanation for the Ice Wall and Global Warming.
A2: Global Warming doesn't happen. It and its counter-theory (Global Cooling) are effects that cancel each other out. Remember, these "greenhouse gasses" can reflect heat back out into space as well as keep it on Earth. Yes, there are recorded rises in temperature, but the only records we have go back, at most, around 150 years. This is very likely an occurrence that happens every [x>150] years, that's happened before (perhaps many times), and that the Earth has thus survived before.
A3: Global Warming is damaging the Ice Wall and will, if unchecked, eventually drain the Earth's atmolayer and oceans.
I'd like to understand how this contradiction is explained.
They are supposed to be two seperate answers. One or the other, not combined
Fifth:
Q: "When traveling in a straight direction, you will always reach the same point on the globe from where you started. How can this happen if the world is flat?"
A: You need to have evidence for this to be true.
Ironic that you answer with this statement, considering the curious complete lack of evidence for the stance you are taking. And there, of course, is mountains of evidence for this. Airline pilots do this quite often.
Tom will require posting of the evidence for him to even acknowledge a challenge. However, you are quite right
This is a summary of the questions I had when reading the FAQ. I'm interested to read the answers anyone can offer.
I hope this answers your questions from an RE standpoint. WHen in doubt, argue against the arguement that Tom does not support. Good luck helping us disprove FE.
-
In my search I was only able to find a few threads concerning the things I brought up.
There were some questions similar to mine and the ones in the FAQ but I don't believe I saw any actual answers.
Welcome. It's great to have a research scientist posting here.
I believe that you'll find that the FEers will not address your concerns, beyond a few glancing attacks. They've pretty much stopped posting here. Tom Bishop and narcberry are not worthy of your time.
I'd greatly appreciate it if you'd critique (and possible contribute) to the RE Primer. It's our consensus of arguments for RE. We believe that it's now so persuasive as to render FE without support. You can also find a link to the current version of the RE Primer in my signature, as you'll see below. Again, welcome.
Will you stop just posting links to the f'ing Primer? Its a compilation, not a cure for AIDS!
-
In my search I was only able to find a few threads concerning the things I brought up.
There were some questions similar to mine and the ones in the FAQ but I don't believe I saw any actual answers.
Welcome. It's great to have a research scientist posting here.
I believe that you'll find that the FEers will not address your concerns, beyond a few glancing attacks. They've pretty much stopped posting here. Tom Bishop and narcberry are not worthy of your time.
I'd greatly appreciate it if you'd critique (and possible contribute) to the RE Primer. It's our consensus of arguments for RE. We believe that it's now so persuasive as to render FE without support. You can also find a link to the current version of the RE Primer in my signature, as you'll see below. Again, welcome.
Will you stop just posting links to the f'ing Primer? Its a compilation, not a cure for AIDS!
Did you miss the welcome message and the warning about TomB and narc, perhaps?
-
Run while you're still smart.
-
Evidence in favor of the conspiracy:
Evidence of motive.
Evidence of ability.
Evidence of similar conspiracies in the past.
Of course their is no direct evidence of the conspiracy, what point would the conspiracy serve?
Much more information in the FAQ and any of Tom's Links. Enjoy your stay, we'll make an FE'er of you!
-
I doubt that.
-
I doubt that.
... and that's why it's alive and kicking.
-
I doubt that.
... and that's why it's alive and kicking.
It's actually trying to bite me, because we've cut off its arms and legs with a really cool sword while riding our coconut horse.
-
Well Lorcan, upon realising that the FAQ is bullshit, you may have tried to look through popular threads and seen the actual answers to your questions. While FE has many alternative ways of looking at RE concepts, it has no better ways, only equakl or worse ones. Any flaws pointed out in RE are either not flaws and just idiot FE bullshit or are not explained any better by FE. The same is true for FE, except that all flaws in FE can be explained by RE.
FE is essentially a religion, because it has been proven wrong but people's faith in it allows them to contiinue with the cause.
Anyone who tries to argue conspiracy with a deductive arguement is not worth listening to.
-
I appreciate the responses, everyone. And a special thanks to Ulrichomega for taking the time to go through my entire post and respond to each part. The responses you offered were the answers I was suspecting in the first place.
It's good to see there are "Round Earthers" here debating with "Flat Earthers". I initially assumed my first post would be under heavy attack, wrongfully thinking the majority of people here would be of the Flat Earth Society. I'm a little curious as to why no Flat Earthers have responded to answer any of my questions.
I suppose, just maybe, there are no answers...
-
There is that, but its mainly that there's only about 3 people here who both regularly post AND believe the Earth is flat.
-
There is that, but its mainly that there's only about 3 people here who both regularly post AND believe the Earth is flat.
I've only seen 2 of them...
-
Evidence in favor of the conspiracy:
Evidence of motive.
Evidence of ability.
Evidence of similar conspiracies in the past.
Sounds exactly like a lawsuit.
However, the burden of proof is upon you.
You, FE-ers, have to prove, beyond any reasonable doubt that a) the RE model is false and that b) the FE model is valid.
-
Evidence in favor of the conspiracy:
Evidence of motive.
Evidence of ability.
Evidence of similar conspiracies in the past.
Sounds exactly like a lawsuit.
However, the burden of proof is upon you.
You, FE-ers, have to prove, beyond any reasonable doubt that a) the RE model is false and that b) the FE model is valid.
It is not our burden to disprove all other popular and contradictory models. We only need to support our own model, which we have done. The weakest aspect of the FE model is anything having to do with the conspiracy. We do not reference the conspiracy to prove our model. We do so to explain our lack of proof in a few small areas. These few small areas are the areas of focus, and rightly so, by both parties.
-
Evidence in favor of the conspiracy:
Evidence of motive.
Evidence of ability.
Evidence of similar conspiracies in the past.
Sounds exactly like a lawsuit.
However, the burden of proof is upon you.
You, FE-ers, have to prove, beyond any reasonable doubt that a) the RE model is false and that b) the FE model is valid.
It is not our burden to disprove all other popular and contradictory models. We only need to support our own model, which we have done. The weakest aspect of the FE model is anything having to do with the conspiracy. We do not reference the conspiracy to prove our model. We do so to explain our lack of proof in a few small areas. These few small areas are the areas of focus, and rightly so, by both parties.
Don't forget the FE is weak in science.
-
FE can't prove itself right though, whereas we can show that you are wrong.
-
First:
What scientific evidence do you have which strongly supports the theory of a flat Earth? And how much has this "evidence" been scrutinized by the scientific community? If you are going to base your belief in a flat Earth on some scientific experiments and data, this data had damn well better stand up to peer review. I am unaware of the publishing of any of these studies in any legitimate scientific journals. I am also unaware of any scientists who believe in such a theory.
We have lots of evidence that strongly supports the Flat Earth Fact, read the Bible! It is ignorant to accept science as facts when it so clearly contradicts the Bible. The Bible proves the Earth is flat, so it is.
-
Noone is taking you seriously.
-
First:
What scientific evidence do you have which strongly supports the theory of a flat Earth? And how much has this "evidence" been scrutinized by the scientific community? If you are going to base your belief in a flat Earth on some scientific experiments and data, this data had damn well better stand up to peer review. I am unaware of the publishing of any of these studies in any legitimate scientific journals. I am also unaware of any scientists who believe in such a theory.
We have lots of evidence that strongly supports the Flat Earth Fact, read the Bible! It is ignorant to accept science as facts when it so clearly contradicts the Bible. The Bible proves the Earth is flat, so it is.
Read my sig and then never post again.
-
First:
What scientific evidence do you have which strongly supports the theory of a flat Earth? And how much has this "evidence" been scrutinized by the scientific community? If you are going to base your belief in a flat Earth on some scientific experiments and data, this data had damn well better stand up to peer review. I am unaware of the publishing of any of these studies in any legitimate scientific journals. I am also unaware of any scientists who believe in such a theory.
We have lots of evidence that strongly supports the Flat Earth Fact, read the Bible! It is ignorant to accept science as facts when it so clearly contradicts the Bible. The Bible proves the Earth is flat, so it is.
Since when is the Bible proof? It's a collection of story's, made by humans... I can't find any experimental data in the Bible, proving the world is flat...
-
No, but if you are a Fundie you take everything literally, so quotes mentioning 'four corners of the Earth' etc imply a flat Earth.
-
well, that doesn't change the fact the Bible was made by humans, you can't use it as proof... however hard 'fundie's' will try :P
-
Bibleistrue is a provocateur, just as were the dozen or so before him (if they are not all the same). It is an ancient and common practice used to discredit people, religions, politics, etc. You know, Trolls. They usually have only the one string on their ukelele.
-
Yeah, Skeptical... sokarul... you both really should know better. ::)
-
I know better, I choose to beat the Fundies down. Its fun.
-
I know better, I choose to beat the Fundies down. Its fun.
I give up.
-
I know better, I choose to beat the Fundies down. Its fun.
He's not a Fundie. He's a troll. ::)
-
Well ok. I like stomping trolls.
-
You're not stomping him. You're feeding him. You're only making him stronger. He does not have a serious position to make, so every time he makes you actually think, he wins. He's been beating you down since he first came here (as Daniel PZC).
-
Roundy, you've never been obtuse.
-
However, as I know he doesn't have a serious position, and I enjoy the ego boost I get from winning (in my head, since in reality there was never an arguement) and therefore its worth feeding thelittle idiots who have nothing better to do than insult people.
-
Roundy, you've never been obtuse.
;D I've been accused of being oblique.
It's a quote from the TV show that my new avatar and name come from. I find it enormously appropriate to the FE debate.
-
You're not / either!
-
Oops - I responded but accidentally posted in a different thread. Here goes:
Flat Earther reporting for duty. Your post was pretty huge, but I'll give some of it a crack.
Sorry, by the way, about the low level of FE response, but as has been already pointed out, there are about 10 of us who believe here, about 3 of whom have posted in the last couple of months or so.
What scientific evidence do you have which strongly supports the theory of a flat Earth? And how much has this "evidence" been scrutinized by the scientific community? If you are going to base your belief in a flat Earth on some scientific experiments and data, this data had damn well better stand up to peer review. I am unaware of the publishing of any of these studies in any legitimate scientific journals. I am also unaware of any scientists who believe in such a theory.
For me, it is not only the strength of arguments for the Flat Earth, but also the weakness of arguments for a Round Earth. To my mind, since the Earth appears flat, it rests with globularists to prove their outlandish claims, which so far they have failed to adequately do (despite the best efforts of the Conspiracy).
In the way of strong evidence FOR the FE, Earth: Not a Globe is definitely worth a read (despite what the resident globularists have said about it in this thread). "Torn to shreds" is a huge overstatement - as far as I know, none of them have replicated even a single one of the experiments in that book.
There's also plenty of evidence (some presented on this site) for the existence of the Conspiracy. If the Earth wasn't flat, why would the Conspiracy exist? I've posted quite a few phenomena which testify to its existence (and the subsequent true shape of the Earth).
The things listed under The Earth in Space portion of the FAQ offer some totally bogus "facts" and data about Earth and the sun and the moon. And this is not even to mention the outstandingly ridiculous explanations of a sunset or Universal Acceleration. So this brings me to question these things as well. What is the scientific evidence behind this? Feel free to enlighten me. Explain it as in depth as necessary, and do not hide any of its complexity. I would love to hear how it was discovered that Earth and the sun and stars are all accelerating upward due to this Universal Acceleration.
There's a 14 page stickied thread on the subject - with more material soon to be added by yours truly (an article by an associate on the photoelectric theory of solar suspension).
It was discovered that the Earth was accelerating because things appear to fall to the Earth when dropped. Actually, the Earth is "falling" towards the objects. Round Earthers explain this with the theory of gravity - an invisible, never-observed, mystical force. If gravity actually existed, it would scrunch the Earth into a sphere. It hasn't.
At the end of that section it goes on to say that sustained spaceflight is not possible. This is the most bizarre and perplexing lie I have heard. My current research is on the Galilean moons of Jupiter and how they effect the radio wave enhancement of Jupiter through interactions within Jupiter's plasma field. In order to study this, we use data collected from the Cassini spacecraft during its flyby of Jupiter back in 2000-2001. Do not even try to tell me that I make up bogus data to analyze and study, or that I am "fed" some bogus data, because I get the data directly from the spacecraft's data processing unit.
You told me not to, but...
How do you know you're getting data straight from the "craft"? How would you know that the Conspiracy wasn't sending you it from Earth?
You mention that gravitational variation with altitude is possibly a myth, but it is not. It has been experimentally verified not hundreds, but thousands of times by practicing scientists all over the world.
So why doesn't this variation show up when I, and others, test it? Is it only observable by Round Earthers?
You claim that the whole "round Earth" theory is a conspiracy perpetuated by all of the world governments.
Only the ones with major space programs. Various scientific and business groups are also involved, but government involvement probably only occurs in nations such as the USA (and the former USSR) as well as a few others.
This is a laughable argument at best. Like all conspiracy theories, surely you've got some kind of evidence to try to back this up, right? I saw no mention of evidence of this conspiracy in that section of the FAQ, which leads me to believe it does not exist. A conspiracy may exist when you find mountains of undeniable evidence pointing to a conspiracy. But I'll tell you what does not constitute evidence: the fact that every government on the planet disagrees with your medieval, pseudo-scientific stance. That is simply a case of Flat Earth proponents making more far-out, totally outlandish statements supported by no facts. "They disagree with something that we believe to be true, therefore there must be a conspiracy among all of them to hide the truth." That's an absolutely painfully irrational and illogical move to make. I understand that the support for this theory lies on logical fallacies, but that one is just too blatant!
A good place to start is the murder of Scott of the Antarctic. After that, there's a tonne of posts on this site which address individual components of the body of evidence which exists for the Conspiracy, and a few searchs for relevent terms should turn some up.
You also fail to offer any sort of motive for this conspiracy. What would these world governments possibly have to gain from us "wrongfully" believing the world to be spherical? You threw out the idea of money, as if it was the safe standard to assume in the case of a conspiracy. But can you hypothesize how there would be monetary gain from such misleading of the public?
The combined budgets of the world's space programs are tremendous. Vertical space travel is a physical impossibility. You do the maths.
The ice wall. What is the scientific evidence for this invisible ice wall? It appears to just be a mechanism invented by Flat Earthers to try to explain phenomena that would be totally impossible if a flat Earth really existed.
Scott of the Antarctic's murder is a good pointer that there's something fishy in Antarctica. The Conspiracy systematically murders or bribes everybody who reaches the Ice Wall, Scott being the first.
I'd like to understand how this contradiction is explained.
Those are alternative possible explanations, believed by different FE factions.
Ironic that you answer with this statement, considering the curious complete lack of evidence for the stance you are taking. And there, of course, is mountains of evidence for this. Airline pilots do this quite often.
Yeah, that particular FAQ answer is a rather twatish and unhelpful one. Sorry for that. The key to answering the question posed lies in the geography of the Flat Earth. A cursory glance at one of our maps will make the answer to the "over the edge" criticism glaringly obvious.
I think that the accepted theory is that it does exist and that the SUn and Moon have a slight gravitational pull, causing this. This would cause many things that they also believe to not be true, but they continue to believe conflicting theories.
It's impossible for these bodies to exert gravitational pull, because gravity does not exist! I still hold that no serious Flat Earther truly believes in this contradictory and absurd claim.
Well, that's it. Hope I was of some help. I'm also sorry that my answers aren't more lengthy or comprehensive, there was a lot to deal with in a single post. However, I guarantee that almost all questions or criticisms will have "precedent" on these forums already - previous posts are a valuable resource in finding rebuttals, counter-rebuttals, counter-counter-rebuttals, etc., etc.
-
We have lots of evidence that strongly supports the Flat Earth Fact, read the Bible! It is ignorant to accept science as facts when it so clearly contradicts the Bible. The Bible proves the Earth is flat, so it is.
[/quote]
First time poster here guys :) Round Earther! Ive even seen spacestations from a few telescopes which was cool...anyway. I'm not religious, but I dont go slating people for it either. Just thought the quote i saw on "Four Corners of the Earth", and wanted to browse for a laugh. It was a laugh.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c017.html
The link is a Christian debate on that quote alone and doesnt disprove but i think everyone worldwide knows the bible has been written, re-written, translated, re-written, edited then wrote down again. Hebrew, French, Arabic, English, all of the words in all these languages and more can be translated and mean something completly different again.
I have a basic knowledge of science, I don't claim at all to be a know-it all. How about we talk about another great phenonemon which supports the RE's...The Compass...which also has four corners.
-
What scientific evidence do you have which strongly supports the theory of a flat Earth? And how much has this "evidence" been scrutinized by the scientific community? If you are going to base your belief in a flat Earth on some scientific experiments and data, this data had damn well better stand up to peer review. I am unaware of the publishing of any of these studies in any legitimate scientific journals. I am also unaware of any scientists who believe in such a theory.
For me, it is not only the strength of arguments for the Flat Earth, but also the weakness of arguments for a Round Earth. To my mind, since the Earth appears flat, it rests with globularists to prove their outlandish claims, which so far they have failed to adequately do (despite the best efforts of the Conspiracy).
In the way of strong evidence FOR the FE, Earth: Not a Globe is definitely worth a read (despite what the resident globularists have said about it in this thread). "Torn to shreds" is a huge overstatement - as far as I know, none of them have replicated even a single one of the experiments in that book.
There's also plenty of evidence (some presented on this site) for the existence of the Conspiracy. If the Earth wasn't flat, why would the Conspiracy exist? I've posted quite a few phenomena which testify to its existence (and the subsequent true shape of the Earth).
The fact that nothing that supports a flat Earth theory has ever been published in any scientific journals (and I've looked) or undergone relentless scrutiny or peer review severely impairs any claims the theory has that it is sustained by actual scientific evidence. From everything I've read that attempts to explain how the Earth could possibly be flat, it's a fair assessment to say that it is nothing but pseudo-science perpetrated by those who misunderstand the most basic implications of natural phenomena, and those with such a poor understanding of basic science that they will believe whatever they are told.
I am curious what you mean by a "weak" argument for round Earth, when there are quite literally mountains of evidence, proof, and a number of simple experiments anyone can perform that direct one to conclude that the results would be impossible with a flat Earth. It is not a weak argument by any means, rather it is the unwillingness of flat Earthers to accept evidence that so blatantly tears their theory apart. It is merely from your perspective that you somehow perceive the evidence for a round Earth to be flawed. This is not because it is flawed, but it is a result of ignorance and misinterpretation. I mean no offense in anything I say, so do not take it that way. But ignorance is an issue here, because the fact that our Earth is round makes a lot of things work that would simply be impossible with a flat Earth. But if one is not familiar or experienced with these things which so clearly point to a round Earth, one will not find it so necessary to accept the round Earth. But for that person to vehemently argue that the Earth cannot be round, simply due to ignorance on the facts, is irrational. And to argue against it based on misinterpretation of science is a whole other story.
The things listed under The Earth in Space portion of the FAQ offer some totally bogus "facts" and data about Earth and the sun and the moon. And this is not even to mention the outstandingly ridiculous explanations of a sunset or Universal Acceleration. So this brings me to question these things as well. What is the scientific evidence behind this? Feel free to enlighten me. Explain it as in depth as necessary, and do not hide any of its complexity. I would love to hear how it was discovered that Earth and the sun and stars are all accelerating upward due to this Universal Acceleration.
There's a 14 page stickied thread on the subject - with more material soon to be added by yours truly (an article by an associate on the photoelectric theory of solar suspension).
It was discovered that the Earth was accelerating because things appear to fall to the Earth when dropped. Actually, the Earth is "falling" towards the objects. Round Earthers explain this with the theory of gravity - an invisible, never-observed, mystical force. If gravity actually existed, it would scrunch the Earth into a sphere. It hasn't.
This is a bogus hypothesis. Not simply because it isn't true, but because there's no evidence for it. For Earth to be accelerating through space there needs to be a constant force acting upon it. What is the mechanism driving this acceleration? This was not addressed in the FAQ at all.
Also, your take on gravity is incorrect. Other than being so bold as to declare that some of history's greatest thinkers (Newton, and Einstein for example) were just completely wrong, it's a little bold to call it a never-observed, mystical force. Gravity is not a never-observed, mystical force. Again, (it appears I'm going to have to keep saying this though I really shouldn't have to) there have been a large number of experiments that have verified the existence of gravity, and thus offer more evidence for it than one could even read in a lifetime. Einstein's theory of relativity made predictions concerning gravity that have since been verified: the gravitational bending of light, the precession of Mercury's orbit about the sun, the gravitational slowing of time/gravitational redshifts, and continues to pass with flying colors every time a study is done to see if this theory really works. Is gravity totally understood? No, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. That means our model of gravity has some work. But every day, across the world, there are scientists working on this. And thus far, our model for gravity has proved to be very accurate. But your statement about the Earth being crunched into a sphere if gravity exists is correct. That's how we have our beautiful spherical Earth that we have today.
At the end of that section it goes on to say that sustained spaceflight is not possible. This is the most bizarre and perplexing lie I have heard. My current research is on the Galilean moons of Jupiter and how they effect the radio wave enhancement of Jupiter through interactions within Jupiter's plasma field. In order to study this, we use data collected from the Cassini spacecraft during its flyby of Jupiter back in 2000-2001. Do not even try to tell me that I make up bogus data to analyze and study, or that I am "fed" some bogus data, because I get the data directly from the spacecraft's data processing unit.
You told me not to, but...
How do you know you're getting data straight from the "craft"? How would you know that the Conspiracy wasn't sending you it from Earth?
All references to "the conspiracy" are null and void as far as this discussion is concerned, seeing as how this idea is merely a crutch and a very transparent attempt at rationalizing why technologically advanced civilizations and governments disagree with this archaic idea of a flat Earth. I don't mean to insult those who believe in the conspiracy, but it's easy to see that this idea was created only out of paranoia when confronted with the unfortunate circumstances that no advanced civilizations would ever dream of buying into an idea this baseless, undeveloped, and outdated. There was no initial evidence of a conspiracy. But anyone can find some vague scrap of something resembling evidence of some concocted conspiracy if they are willing to misinterpret ideas and misunderstand things to such a severe degree that it distorts their grasp on reality and allows them to further their agenda.
I know beyond the shadow of a doubt that the data and information I work with is directly from the spacecraft. I work with those who developed and built the actual spacecraft, I understand every aspect of how it operates and how its scientific instruments operate down to the finest detail. All who hold onto this conspiracy idea really give NASA more credit than they're due. I've worked for them and currently work with them, and have got to say that regardless of the kind of reputation they have, they get careless and messy with things quite often. There's absolutely no way they could pull off a conspiracy like this. It is absolutely, beyond question, impossible. Until anyone here with more experience with and knowledge of NASA than myself can tell me (and show me) differently, I'll continue to believe the truth.
You mention that gravitational variation with altitude is possibly a myth, but it is not. It has been experimentally verified not hundreds, but thousands of times by practicing scientists all over the world.
So why doesn't this variation show up when I, and others, test it? Is it only observable by Round Earthers?
I don't know what kind of equipment you use to test this, nor by which methods. But depending on the different altitudes at which you undertake this experiment, and depending on what kinds of methods you choose to make the measurements, you will need to have equipment that will allow you to accurately measure differences in thousandths of seconds. Or hundredths of pounds. And you won't even notice this unless your altitude changes by about a kilometer. Otherwise you're going to need to measure to an even further out decimal place. And let's not forget reducing human error. Your experimental set up could be quite susceptible to human error, and therefore no change may be noticed. Or the variation of altitude might be insignificant. Let's keep in mind the large radius of the Earth, which is about 6,378 km. The mass is about 5.98*10^24 kg. But the Earth's mass and radius are not the only factors that need to be considered when making this measurement. It must be kept in mind that different locations on Earth have different distribution of mass, and therefore, regardless of altitude, can have slight effects on gravitational value measured.
I don't know why it hasn't worked for you, but it's much easier to mess this measurement up than it is to do it right. It requires very fine precision and any lack of it will show you absolutely no change. Performing an experiment unsuccessfully is not support for a flat Earth.
You claim that the whole "round Earth" theory is a conspiracy perpetuated by all of the world governments.
Only the ones with major space programs. Various scientific and business groups are also involved, but government involvement probably only occurs in nations such as the USA (and the former USSR) as well as a few others.
I'm not addressing this further, right now.
This is a laughable argument at best. Like all conspiracy theories, surely you've got some kind of evidence to try to back this up, right? I saw no mention of evidence of this conspiracy in that section of the FAQ, which leads me to believe it does not exist. A conspiracy may exist when you find mountains of undeniable evidence pointing to a conspiracy. But I'll tell you what does not constitute evidence: the fact that every government on the planet disagrees with your medieval, pseudo-scientific stance. That is simply a case of Flat Earth proponents making more far-out, totally outlandish statements supported by no facts. "They disagree with something that we believe to be true, therefore there must be a conspiracy among all of them to hide the truth." That's an absolutely painfully irrational and illogical move to make. I understand that the support for this theory lies on logical fallacies, but that one is just too blatant!
A good place to start is the murder of Scott of the Antarctic. After that, there's a tonne of posts on this site which address individual components of the body of evidence which exists for the Conspiracy, and a few searchs for relevent terms should turn some up.
Who is Scott of the Antarctic? Are you referring to Robert Scott, who froze to death in Antarctica? There was no murder of him, so I don't know what you're talking about. But I've searched this site and have yet to find any evidence of a conspiracy.
You also fail to offer any sort of motive for this conspiracy. What would these world governments possibly have to gain from us "wrongfully" believing the world to be spherical? You threw out the idea of money, as if it was the safe standard to assume in the case of a conspiracy. But can you hypothesize how there would be monetary gain from such misleading of the public?
The combined budgets of the world's space programs are tremendous. Vertical space travel is a physical impossibility. You do the maths.
Correct on the combined budgets. But you are very incorrect about vertical space travel. Though, I'd like to see an explanation of how vertical space travel is physically impossible. My years of formal education in physics tell me differently. I'd love to see your argument.
The ice wall. What is the scientific evidence for this invisible ice wall? It appears to just be a mechanism invented by Flat Earthers to try to explain phenomena that would be totally impossible if a flat Earth really existed.
Scott of the Antarctic's murder is a good pointer that there's something fishy in Antarctica. The Conspiracy systematically murders or bribes everybody who reaches the Ice Wall, Scott being the first.
Clearly I must be thinking of a different Scott of the Antarctic, because the one I know of was not murdered.
I'd like to understand how this contradiction is explained.
Those are alternative possible explanations, believed by different FE factions.
Turning this belief into something with different factions renders it even a little bit more hopeless in terms of scientific theory. The two answers blatantly disagree with one another, indicating that this theory harbors self-contradictions. If it is based on science there should be no separate factions. If the science shows one thing, it cannot be reasonable to draw conclusions that disagree with that thing. If it is the so-called science itself that is conflicting, well then that's not something that's advisable to build a theory on.
I think that the accepted theory is that it does exist and that the SUn and Moon have a slight gravitational pull, causing this. This would cause many things that they also believe to not be true, but they continue to believe conflicting theories.
It's impossible for these bodies to exert gravitational pull, because gravity does not exist! I still hold that no serious Flat Earther truly believes in this contradictory and absurd claim.
Disagreed.
Well, that's it. Hope I was of some help. I'm also sorry that my answers aren't more lengthy or comprehensive, there was a lot to deal with in a single post. However, I guarantee that almost all questions or criticisms will have "precedent" on these forums already - previous posts are a valuable resource in finding rebuttals, counter-rebuttals, counter-counter-rebuttals, etc., etc.
Thanks for taking the time to respond so completely. Although I strongly disagree with much of what you said, I appreciate your time and effort. I apologize if I came off at all a little aggravated or harsh.
-
This whole site is sad, they are still in denial about our round world. All they do is look for grammatical errors to make themselves feel better.
I didn't know all of the strong space program governments were all in cahoots with eachother. I want proof of how they are doing this. I know "they are doing it for financial gain.", but show me direct evidence that they are doing all of this.
-
This whole site is sad, they are still in denial about our round world. All they do is look for grammatical errors to make themselves feel better.
I didn't know all of the strong space program governments were all in cahoots with eachother. I want proof of how they are doing this. I know "they are doing it for financial gain.", but show me direct evidence that they are doing all of this.
You want direct evidence for a conspiracy?
Look up the word. Then, re-read your question.
-
I'd like to see an explanation of how vertical space travel is physically impossible. My years of formal education in physics tell me differently. I'd love to see your argument.
This is quite easy. If the Earth is accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s/s, a ship would have to constantly eject mass to stay above it in space. Once the ship runs out of mass, it would wait until the Earth hit it and 'land'. Sustained vertical space flight is impossible.
-
Just a question: does the FET 'say' that the FE spins around the North Pole center/axis?
-
This whole site is sad, they are still in denial about our round world. All they do is look for grammatical errors to make themselves feel better.
I didn't know all of the strong space program governments were all in cahoots with eachother. I want proof of how they are doing this. I know "they are doing it for financial gain.", but show me direct evidence that they are doing all of this.
It is precisely the fact that you find it so outlandish that such a conspiracy could exist, that allows the conspiracy to exist as easily as it does.
Think about it. Is it a crime to question authority? I don't think we question authority enough in this world. Consider what happened to the Nazi war criminals in Nuremberg who were "just following orders". If they had questioned authority they would never have been hanged. And here you'd rather give the insidious conspirers the benefit of the doubt. You make me sick.
Talk about being in denial. ::)
-
Just a question: does the FET 'say' that the FE spins around the North Pole center/axis?
In FET, the FE does not spin. In the RE Primer there is a mathematical exercise that proves the FE can't spin at one revolution per day or faster.
-
Just a question: does the FET 'say' that the FE spins around the North Pole center/axis?
To answer the question you actually asked: no, they don't. They make no such claim.
::) @ Gulliver.
-
Haha.
-
I'd like to see an explanation of how vertical space travel is physically impossible. My years of formal education in physics tell me differently. I'd love to see your argument.
This is quite easy. If the Earth is accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s/s, a ship would have to constantly eject mass to stay above it in space. Once the ship runs out of mass, it would wait until the Earth hit it and 'land'. Sustained vertical space flight is impossible.
The operative word here being "if". Yes, if the Earth is accelerating in one direction at a constant rate then this would be an issue and perhaps a reasonable attempt to explain it. However, this does not work. This explanation relies on the creation of an imagined phenomenon which no experimental or observational evidence suggests the existence of. I should have been more clear in my request for an explanation. I wished to hear an explanation using non-fictitious mechanisms that have a solid foundation in scientific understanding and application, rather than unstable ideas dreamed up in total isolation from natural reality. It becomes quite necessary that, in all matters as complex as something like flight or space travel, real science is to be used instead of invented ideas that are not supported by anything.
-
Exactly, Lorcan. A FE'er can say sustained vertical space flight is impossible because it is in their model. Thanks for following along!
-
Exactly, Lorcan. A FE'er can say sustained vertical space flight is impossible because it is in their model. Thanks for following along!
That is true.
I just have trouble with that, because the point I've been hitting at from day one is that the model makes no sense from a scientific standpoint. Anyone can have a model that means nothing and 'explains everything' if it's based in fiction.
-
Exactly, Lorcan. A FE'er can say sustained vertical space flight is impossible because it is in their model. Thanks for following along!
That is true.
I just have trouble with that, because the point I've been hitting at from day one is that the model makes no sense from a scientific standpoint. Anyone can have a model that means nothing and 'explains everything' if it's based in fiction.
Which is why we must be patient and wait for Dogplatter's model.
-
That is true.
I just have trouble with that, because the point I've been hitting at from day one is that the model makes no sense from a scientific standpoint. Anyone can have a model that means nothing and 'explains everything' if it's based in fiction.
You're denying the antecedent with your prior argument. Your train of reasoning runs - Spaceflight cannot be ruled out in an FE model because I don't agree with the FE model. You haven't knocked down the idea that Spaceflight-impossibility is legitimate IF we assume a Flat Earth, which was what you were originally trying to do (I think).
-
Well, sort of. But there was a misunderstanding, at least on my part. Since I was assuming a round earth model when discussing spaceflight that has actually occurred (because when I refer to the earth or space or anything having to do with our universe, unless specified otherwise, I am referring to a round earth model), I was somewhat under the impression that the notion that spaceflight was impossible was also being applied to a round earth. But using a model that has, so far, proven physically unlikely and that is not supported by actual science to argue that spaceflight is an impossibility is a fallacy. You cannot base a scientific argument on a model or theory that science invalidates.
What I think would be a reasonable follow up question is: why do you choose to believe in a universal accelerator rather than gravity, when the effects of gravity are, if nowhere else, observed in space as a fundamental interaction between all matter? Does it not strike you as odd that, using the current model of gravity, one is able to make accurate calculations and predictions about the motions of all observable objects in our solar system? I've asked this before, but what kinds of calculations and predictions can the universal accelerator allow with these bodies? It appears to only apply to Earth, and therefore it is inherent to all of our observational locations of study. If you claim spaceflight is impossible, then it would be impossible for us to make observations from outside of our frame of reference to verify this universal accelerator. The only evidence for it is the apparent gravitational effect, with objects falling to the earth. But we see similar effects of gravity out in space. How are these accounted for?