http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7794834.stm
If the government doesn't even know how far away space is, what makes you think that they've been there?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7794834.stm
If the government doesn't even know how far away space is, what makes you think that they've been there?
How does a data from a military satellite prove that sustained space flight is impossible? ???
Where did I say that the article proved that sustained space flight was impossible?
If the government doesn't even know how far away space is, what makes you think that they've been there?
If you didn't say it, you sure implied it.
Private companies have also.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7794834.stmThe atmosphere fades into space. There is no distinct distance at which space begins.
If the government doesn't even know how far away space is, what makes you think that they've been there?
QuotePrivate companies have also.
Do you mean government contractors?
QuotePrivate companies have also.
Do you mean government contractors?
Actually they offer their services to anybody, not just the government. If a company wishes to put a new satellite into orbit for say their new sat radio service. They could now go through a private company.
but the article said the company in charge of the new space vehicle is the co-founder of paypal.
QuoteActually they offer their services to anybody, not just the government. If a company wishes to put a new satellite into orbit for say their new sat radio service. They could now go through a private company.
Government contractors have been claiming to put things into space for the last 40 years. Ever heard of Lockheed Martin?
The difference is Lockheed is contracted to build equipment for NASA that goes into space. SpaceX conducts the actual mission, and builds the equipment to do it.
Let me ask you something, if I own a satellite TV company and I build a proprietary satellite with proprietary software, and I pay SpaceX to put it into geosynchronous orbit. How would spaceX fake this?
QuoteThe difference is Lockheed is contracted to build equipment for NASA that goes into space. SpaceX conducts the actual mission, and builds the equipment to do it.
Space X's last mission was to put up a satellite for the pentagon. Doesn't exactly sound like a private mission to me.QuoteLet me ask you something, if I own a satellite TV company and I build a proprietary satellite with proprietary software, and I pay SpaceX to put it into geosynchronous orbit. How would spaceX fake this?
By taking your money and putting up a cheaper pseudolite instead.
By taking your money and putting up a cheaper pseudolite instead.
I believe the costs of creating and maintaining the legion of pseudolites required would be far in excess that of a single geosynchronous satellite.
QuoteI believe the costs of creating and maintaining the legion of pseudolites required would be far in excess that of a single geosynchronous satellite.
First of all, not all pseudolites are stratellites. A pseudolite is just a satellite-alternative, which can be anything.
Secondly, a fleet of stratellites built at $50,000 a piece and launched from the ground is probably less expensive than one satellite launched by rocket. If we go by what NASA says about its satellites, the actual satellite is the cheapest part. The vast majority of the money goes into just getting it up there.
http://www.howstuffworks.com/satellite8.htm"According to this report, a satellite launch can cost anywhere between $50 million and $400 million."
QuoteLet me ask you something, if I own a satellite TV company and I build a proprietary satellite with proprietary software, and I pay SpaceX to put it into geosynchronous orbit. How would spaceX fake this?
By taking your money and putting up a cheaper pseudolite instead.
QuoteLet me ask you something, if I own a satellite TV company and I build a proprietary satellite with proprietary software, and I pay SpaceX to put it into geosynchronous orbit. How would spaceX fake this?
By taking your money and putting up a cheaper pseudolite instead.
If SpaceX (or anyone else) were to secretly replace a customer's single geostationary satellite with one or more pseudolites, the customer would notice.
QuotePrivate companies have also.
Do you mean government contractors?
the actual satellite is the cheapest part. The vast majority of the money goes into just getting it up there.
The best stratellites will only be able to cover a ground area with a 200 mile diameter.
Let me put it this way, SpaceX is offering their service for anywhere between 8 - 11 million. It would cost them FAR more than that to fake the launch and instead put up hundreds if not more stratellites (each twice as large as a blue wale) to give the same coverage. Where did you get 50 thousand from?
If SpaceX (or anyone else) were to secretly replace a customer's single geostationary satellite with one or more pseudolites, the customer would notice.
But the actual satellite is the only part that can be faked. Everyone still observes the companies fire expensive rockets up into space, and thus the companies still need to pay for the rocket. Creating and maintaining the fleet of pseudolites would cost far more than the amount of money they have available.
If SpaceX (or anyone else) were to secretly replace a customer's single geostationary satellite with one or more pseudolites, the customer would notice.
I told you already. Pseudolites are more than just stratellites. Radio towers, bouncing signals off of the ionsphere with sat dishes, and craft that orbit the earth's hub are also possibilities.
QuoteBut the actual satellite is the only part that can be faked. Everyone still observes the companies fire expensive rockets up into space, and thus the companies still need to pay for the rocket. Creating and maintaining the fleet of pseudolites would cost far more than the amount of money they have available.
The rocket is just a light construction prop which blasts off into the atmosphere until it can no longer be seen. I've made water bottle rockets out of a few dollars of materials that could blast off into the atmosphere until it could no longer be seen.
I've made water bottle rockets out of a few dollars of materials that could blast off into the atmosphere until it could no longer be seen.
Maybe a pseudolite could fool the satellite TV customers, but it would not fool the customer who paid to have their TV satellite launched in the first place. If I'm paying SpaceX $10 million or more to put a satellite into a particular orbit for me, they had better know that I have ways of knowing if they put up a pseudolite instead.
That is a whether balloon, hardly capable of sustained geosynchronous flight, maneuverability, landing capabilities, and sophisticated signal capabilities, that is a camera and some sensory equipment attached to a helium balloon. Not even a small blimp has all of that and it is still 2 million dollars.
Really? You point a satellite dish at a certain area of the sky. How could you tell that the signal is coming from a satellite, radio signal bounced off of the ionosphere, or a craft rotating around the hub of the earth like the sun and moon?
QuoteMaybe a pseudolite could fool the satellite TV customers, but it would not fool the customer who paid to have their TV satellite launched in the first place. If I'm paying SpaceX $10 million or more to put a satellite into a particular orbit for me, they had better know that I have ways of knowing if they put up a pseudolite instead.
Really? You point a satellite dish at a certain area of the sky. How could you tell that the signal is coming from a satellite, radio signal bounced off of the ionosphere, or a craft rotating around the hub of the earth like the sun and moon?
Tom, it's my satellite. I built it to my custom specifications. I programmed it with my custom software. I'm the one that told the launch company the orbit that it needs to go into. I'm the one that tells my customers where to aim their dishes. Do you honestly think that someone is going to be able to reverse engineer my satellite hardware and software and secretly replace it with a fleet of pseudolites (that they would have to build, test and maintain) in a manner that is transparent even to me (the one who built the satellite in the first place)?
All they would need to do is take your antenna and circuit board an attach it to their pseudolite. It isn't exactly brain surgery.
What if they launch these satellites and land them on the moon? Then they can just hang tight there and send signals. This is though contingent that the rocket gets to outer space unless that is, the moon isn't in space but on earth.
QuoteTom, it's my satellite. I built it to my custom specifications. I programmed it with my custom software. I'm the one that told the launch company the orbit that it needs to go into. I'm the one that tells my customers where to aim their dishes. Do you honestly think that someone is going to be able to reverse engineer my satellite hardware and software and secretly replace it with a fleet of pseudolites (that they would have to build, test and maintain) in a manner that is transparent even to me (the one who built the satellite in the first place)?
All they would need to do is take your antenna and circuit board an attach it to their pseudolite. It isn't exactly brain surgery.
QuoteThe best stratellites will only be able to cover a ground area with a 200 mile diameter.
Did you forget that a stratellite could see farther if the earth were flat?
QuoteLet me put it this way, SpaceX is offering their service for anywhere between 8 - 11 million. It would cost them FAR more than that to fake the launch and instead put up hundreds if not more stratellites (each twice as large as a blue wale) to give the same coverage. Where did you get 50 thousand from?
These guys were able to make a stratellite and send it up to look down at the circular spotlight of the sun for less than a couple hundred dollars: http://www.natrium42.com/halo/flight2/
markjo its very possible that NASA has advanced decompilers that make converting "real" satellites into pseudollites easy
It is when NASA is earning billions in profits.
SpaceX has never successfully launched a "satellite", your point?
On September 28, 2008, SpaceX made history when its Falcon 1, designed and manufactured from the ground up by SpaceX, became the first privately-developed liquid fuel rocket to orbit the Earth.
You are right it isn't brain surgery. Brain Surgery would be simpler. The key difficulty with brain surgery is to keep a steady hand, actually knowing what part to cut out is mostly handled by machines now, or by trial and error (during brain surgery they keep the patients conscious so they can actually test out what each part of the brain around the surgery site does, so they know what they are cutting into).QuoteTom, it's my satellite. I built it to my custom specifications. I programmed it with my custom software. I'm the one that told the launch company the orbit that it needs to go into. I'm the one that tells my customers where to aim their dishes. Do you honestly think that someone is going to be able to reverse engineer my satellite hardware and software and secretly replace it with a fleet of pseudolites (that they would have to build, test and maintain) in a manner that is transparent even to me (the one who built the satellite in the first place)?
All they would need to do is take your antenna and circuit board an attach it to their pseudolite. It isn't exactly brain surgery.
SpaceX has never successfully launched a "satellite", your point?
Yes, they have (if you believe them, that is):Quote from: http://www.spacex.com/F1-004-summary.phpOn September 28, 2008, SpaceX made history when its Falcon 1, designed and manufactured from the ground up by SpaceX, became the first privately-developed liquid fuel rocket to orbit the Earth.
Sorry, I forgot to say "commercial".SpaceX has never successfully launched a "satellite", your point?
Yes, they have (if you believe them, that is):Quote from: http://www.spacex.com/F1-004-summary.phpOn September 28, 2008, SpaceX made history when its Falcon 1, designed and manufactured from the ground up by SpaceX, became the first privately-developed liquid fuel rocket to orbit the Earth.
Arianespace is a french company that occording to wikipedia "As of 2004[update] Arianespace held more than 50 percent of the world market for boosting satellites to geostationary transfer orbit (GTO)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianespace
Are you talking only about manned flights?
These guys were able to make a stratellite and send it up to look down at the circular spotlight of the sun for less than a couple hundred dollars: http://www.natrium42.com/halo/flight2/The only diagrams FE'ers have presented us with that remotely match up with observation do not show the sun's spotlight as circular. Not only that, but curvature (even before the horizon) is clearly visible in all of those photos.
Are you talking only about manned flights?
According to your source, the Wikipedia:
"A Low Earth Orbit (LEO) is generally defined as an orbit within the locus extending from the Earth?s surface up to an altitude of 2,000 km. Given the rapid orbital decay of objects below approximately 200 km, the commonly accepted definition for LEO is between 160 - 2000 km (100 - 1240 miles) above the Earth's surface.[1][2]
With the exception of the lunar flights of the Apollo program, and the sub-orbital flights of the Mercury program and the X-15 and SpaceShipOne rocket planes, all human spaceflights have been in LEO, including all Space Shuttle and space station missions. The altitude record for a human spaceflight in LEO was Gemini 11 with an apogee of 1374.1 km."
Now, SpaceShipOne went to a maximum of 112 KM, according to the SpaceX site. The sub orbital flight are even lower than LEO. Only the lunar flights broke that distance.
SpaceX has never successfully launched a "satellite", your point?
Yes, they have (if you believe them, that is):Quote from: http://www.spacex.com/F1-004-summary.phpOn September 28, 2008, SpaceX made history when its Falcon 1, designed and manufactured from the ground up by SpaceX, became the first privately-developed liquid fuel rocket to orbit the Earth.
That's a rocket, designed to lift things into orbit and come back, SpaceX still has not put anything into space and left it there. They have flown to and near the Karman line several times, but they have yet to put a anything of their own design into space and leave it there.
They (Sorry I forgot the exact date they were going to do it...) are about to or have recently lifted a DoD satellite into space, but that was not theirs, it was built by the government.
You really do need to keep up Ravenwood. SpaceX (Falcon 1) is not Scaled Composites (Space Ship One/Two). Please check the links that I provide before responding. You will look a lot less foolish that way.
QuoteYou really do need to keep up Ravenwood. SpaceX (Falcon 1) is not Scaled Composites (Space Ship One/Two). Please check the links that I provide before responding. You will look a lot less foolish that way.
Which of those companies are government contractors, and which are not?
They just signed contracts to suppy "ISS".QuoteYou really do need to keep up Ravenwood. SpaceX (Falcon 1) is not Scaled Composites (Space Ship One/Two). Please check the links that I provide before responding. You will look a lot less foolish that way.
Which of those companies are government contractors, and which are not?
What has goverment ordered from SpaceX ? Not that it matters because you have failed to respond to other arguments considering the financial feasibility of launching numerous pseudolites instead of satellites.
Also SpaceX has never launched a proprietary non-spacex satellite successfully.
Actually, even spaceX doesn't claim they have.
Also SpaceX has never launched a proprietary non-spacex satellite successfully.
Again, only if you believe in conspiracies.
Looks like you're the one out of ammunition.
So what about Sea Launch?They just signed contracts to suppy "ISS".QuoteYou really do need to keep up Ravenwood. SpaceX (Falcon 1) is not Scaled Composites (Space Ship One/Two). Please check the links that I provide before responding. You will look a lot less foolish that way.
Which of those companies are government contractors, and which are not?
What has goverment ordered from SpaceX ? Not that it matters because you have failed to respond to other arguments considering the financial feasibility of launching numerous pseudolites instead of satellites.
Also SpaceX has never launched a proprietary non-spacex satellite successfully.
RE is out of ammunition here...
QuoteThe best stratellites will only be able to cover a ground area with a 200 mile diameter.
Did you forget that a stratellite could see farther if the earth were flat?
QuoteTom, it's my satellite. I built it to my custom specifications. I programmed it with my custom software. I'm the one that told the launch company the orbit that it needs to go into. I'm the one that tells my customers where to aim their dishes. Do you honestly think that someone is going to be able to reverse engineer my satellite hardware and software and secretly replace it with a fleet of pseudolites (that they would have to build, test and maintain) in a manner that is transparent even to me (the one who built the satellite in the first place)?
All they would need to do is take your antenna and circuit board an attach it to their pseudolite. It isn't exactly brain surgery.
Not by much. If the earth was flat wouldnt the Goverments and other Commercial and Media companies just build one large satelite to cover the whole earth? instead of 4 or 5 to cover the entire planet/disc?
QuoteNot by much. If the earth was flat wouldnt the Goverments and other Commercial and Media companies just build one large satelite to cover the whole earth? instead of 4 or 5 to cover the entire planet/disc?
One stratellite wouldn't work because the atmosphere isn't perfectly transparent and it takes more power to send a signal farther.
Im sure Engeneers could figure out a powerfull enough satelite to beam to the whole FE.
Would bendy light also effect satellite signals?
What would the consequences of this be. I don't have a good understanding of bendy light.
What is so hard to understand about it? It is such a simple theory, if it can not be explained by the FE model then it must be bendy light.What would the consequences of this be. I don't have a good understanding of bendy light.
I'm not sure either. It seems that nobody really understands bendy light (bendy EMR?), even the people who support it.
What is so hard to understand about it? It is such a simple theory, if it can not be explained by the FE model then it must be bendy light.What would the consequences of this be. I don't have a good understanding of bendy light.
I'm not sure either. It seems that nobody really understands bendy light (bendy EMR?), even the people who support it.
You FEers are the ones defending your theory here so that means the burden of proof is on you, why don't you act like it?The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Our position is the default position which may be verified simply by looking out of one's window.
You FEers are the ones defending your theory here so that means the burden of proof is on you, why don't you act like it?The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Our position is the default position which may be verified simply by looking out of one's window.
How does the fact that our eyes are limited prove the earth is a globe? ???You FEers are the ones defending your theory here so that means the burden of proof is on you, why don't you act like it?The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Our position is the default position which may be verified simply by looking out of one's window.
There are loads of evidence that support the RE-model but none that support the FE-model. The horizon that you see when you look out of your window proves that earth is a globe. The FE-explanation for the horizon is that light bends upward which makes the earth only seem like a globe. In either case earth looks like a globe which makes it the default position.
but it's true, henry light is also crap, light does not bend, If u know how em radiation works than u know what I'm talking about, it is impossible for light to "bend" light appears to bend when it passes objects of extreme mass, this is because space-time is bent and therefore light is simply following the shape of space-time.Relative to an inertial observer, the path of light remains constant. Relative to a non-inertial observer, the path of light bends. When gravitation=acceleration, a beam of light bends relative to a non-inertial observer inside an accelerating elevator. Therefore, gravitation bends light. You believe light does not bend because you are just looking at light from an inertial frame of reference.
Simple laws of perspective. Our eyes are limited by the vanishing point, which is always at level (0 degrees relative to the eye). Going to a high altitude and using a level shows the horizon several degrees below level, which means that the horizon is not at the vanishing point, and eye limitations have nothing to do with the observed horizon.How does the fact that our eyes are limited prove the earth is a globe? ???You FEers are the ones defending your theory here so that means the burden of proof is on you, why don't you act like it?The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Our position is the default position which may be verified simply by looking out of one's window.
There are loads of evidence that support the RE-model but none that support the FE-model. The horizon that you see when you look out of your window proves that earth is a globe. The FE-explanation for the horizon is that light bends upward which makes the earth only seem like a globe. In either case earth looks like a globe which makes it the default position.
Ok that entire statement is crapThe statement is crap, because you don't understand it?
and even so, assing it's true, light appearing to bend is not the same as light bendingSo by your logic, from an inertial observer's point of view, light appearing not to bend is not the same as light does not bend? Sorry, but Einstein relativity does not work that way. It all depends on your frame of reference, which is the framework of his theory. There is no absolute FoR to tell whether the path of light is bent or not.
There is no absolute FoR to tell whether the path of light is bent or not.
Talk to a Particle Physicist and he will be happy to show you how you are wrong and how we have built upon Einstein's TheoriesThere is no absolute FoR to tell whether the path of light is bent or not.
So, from your frame of reference, how do you know that light does not bend even though it appears to be bending? Sounds like magic to me.You take the math from the Inertial Frame and then you take the math from any outside frame and then you can use those 2 to make your math Frame Invariant, which is how physicists study the effects from particle accelerators
Are you saying that an absolute FoR exists?Talk to a Particle Physicist and he will be happy to show you how you are wrong and how we have built upon Einstein's TheoriesThere is no absolute FoR to tell whether the path of light is bent or not.
So, from your frame of reference, how do you know that light does not bend even though it appears to be bending? Sounds like magic to me.You take the math from the Inertial Frame and then you take the math from any outside frame and then you can use those 2 to make your math Frame Invariant, which is how physicists study the effects from particle accelerators
How about answering my question?
I just did, look up the definition of frame inavariant. It is something you learn in the first days of any particle physics course since relativity plays a big role when you study the effecs of subatomic particlesHow about answering my question?
So, from your frame of reference, how do you know that light does not bend even though it appears to be bending?
look up frame invariance again and you will understand a bit betterI know what frame invariance is. The "invariance" is the key word. I just explained it.
but if it is measure straight in a frame invariant state then it will be straight in all frames inertial and non-inertial.Now you're mixing things up. Frame invariance does not mean an inertial frame is equivalent to a non-inertial frame. According to frame invariance in SR, light will be straight when taken from all inertial frames of reference. It will not be straight when taken from a non-inertial frame of reference. In GR, not only does all inertial frames are equivalent, but all non-inertial frames are also equivalent.
try again or explain how a physicist can study a particle moving at .99c and understand what is happening inside that particle and determine all the resulting vectors and the amount of energy released/gained during the interactionlook up frame invariance again and you will understand a bit betterI know what frame invariance is. The "invariance" is the key word. I just explained it.but if it is measure straight in a frame invariant state then it will be straight in all frames inertial and non-inertial.Now you're mixing things up. Frame invariance does not mean an inertial frame is equivalent to a non-inertial frame. According to frame invariance in SR, light will be straight when taken from all inertial frames of reference. It will not be straight when taken from a non-inertial frame of reference. In GR, not only does all inertial frames are equivalent, but all non-inertial frames are also equivalent.
A particle physicist will tell me that light bends relative to a non-inertial observer.
That's irrelevant to what we are talking about. I stand by my statement.But how does it bend? does it bend as gravitation will predict or does it bend in some other direction. and as I stated that way we would test this would be to use frame invariance. So it is pretty easy to disregard the Bendy light theoryQuoteA particle physicist will tell me that light bends relative to a non-inertial observer.
I'm not talking about the Bendy Light theory. I'm talking the bending of light according to GR and its concepts of non-inertial reference frames. For example, gravitational lensing.We can demonstrate Gravitation as the cause of the lensing based upon the predictions made by gravity and how it is a non-uniform field
Oh my god how many times does it have to b said, light does not bend, of follows spacetime, gravitational lensing is not an effect of bent light:-\..
Like explain to me how dark energy can propel something through space at a constant acceleration rate?Relative to what?
Relative to anything I don't care
There's no such thing as an absolute frame of reference. Relative to me, the Earth's acceleration remains at 9.8m/s2. Relative to an inertial observer in the universe, the Earth's acceleration decreases as it approaches the speed of light asymptote.
How does the fact that our eyes are limited prove the earth is a globe? ???You FEers are the ones defending your theory here so that means the burden of proof is on you, why don't you act like it?The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Our position is the default position which may be verified simply by looking out of one's window.
There are loads of evidence that support the RE-model but none that support the FE-model. The horizon that you see when you look out of your window proves that earth is a globe. The FE-explanation for the horizon is that light bends upward which makes the earth only seem like a globe. In either case earth looks like a globe which makes it the default position.
You come to the Flat Earth Society forums and declare the earth to be round. How is the burden of proof not on you? ???
You come to the Flat Earth Society forums and declare the earth to be round. How is the burden of proof not on you? ???Good one. How about this - you put your forum which is on web server which resides in earth which in common belief is round and you claim that earth is flat. In this logic the burden of proof is on you.
Good one. How about this - you put your forum which is on web server which resides in earth which in common belief is round and you claim that earth is flat. In this logic the burden of proof is on you.The forum has to be internet based to allow all FE'ers reasonably available access to the society. Making it a public allows for FE'ers that are not known to the FES group to join. The site makes no declaration about the majority of beliefs beyond it, but based on its perspective it is only a logical implication. For example, if a site promoting Islam is launched, and Christians came to their site to tell them they were wrong they would need reasoning. Now if one of those Christians claimed that it was there responsibility to prove themselves to the majority of people, because the majority religion is Christianity, would the smaller religion really need to prove themselves? No. The same applies to this society.
But as the Official Flat Earth Society site should the responsibility be on you to help educate so if someone who may believe different says you are wrong you can then supply them with the knowledge that they need to see. Usong your example if I went to the Islam site and i told them they were wrong the Sheik would probably then start a conversation asking me why I felt that way and then he would try to educate me. Of course at a certain point if I was being rude or condesending then he would have every right to tell me to f**k off same as here I fell that it is your responsibility to help educate people about your theory with anyone who wants to have an intelligent conversation about it.Good one. How about this - you put your forum which is on web server which resides in earth which in common belief is round and you claim that earth is flat. In this logic the burden of proof is on you.The forum has to be internet based to allow all FE'ers reasonably available access to the society. Making it a public allows for FE'ers that are not known to the FES group to join. The site makes no declaration about the majority of beliefs beyond it, but based on its perspective it is only a logical implication. For example, if a site promoting Islam is launched, and Christians came to their site to tell them they were wrong they would need reasoning. Now if one of those Christians claimed that it was there responsibility to prove themselves to the majority of people, because the majority religion is Christianity, would the smaller religion really need to prove themselves? No. The same applies to this society.
This site makes no official reference to others, and there will always be conflicting sites on the internet if you look for them. Popular perspectives doesn't mean it is more correct or more deserving. We have no responsibility to prove ourselves to the masses.
But as the Official Flat Earth Society site should the responsibility be on you to help educate so if someone who may believe different says you are wrong you can then supply them with the knowledge that they need to see. Usong your example if I went to the Islam site and i told them they were wrong the Sheik would probably then start a conversation asking me why I felt that way and then he would try to educate me. Of course at a certain point if I was being rude or condesending then he would have every right to tell me to f**k off same as here I fell that it is your responsibility to help educate people about your theory with anyone who wants to have an intelligent conversation about it.The Sheikh would have to care what you believe in for him to take the time to convince you otherwise. I do not care what RE'ers believe. ;)
Well then maybe you should no longer be a moderator on the official flat earth society website because you have a responsibility to help your society educate the uninformed with the exception of those that are out there that wish to ask question to be mean spirited and it also does not mean that the burden is on you to prove your thinking but the burden is on you to properly explain the theories and models of the flat earth society and if you are going to take up these questions in the debate and discussion portion of your site then you had better be prepared to do just that, if you do not care that is fine but then you should avoid this section.But as the Official Flat Earth Society site should the responsibility be on you to help educate so if someone who may believe different says you are wrong you can then supply them with the knowledge that they need to see. Usong your example if I went to the Islam site and i told them they were wrong the Sheik would probably then start a conversation asking me why I felt that way and then he would try to educate me. Of course at a certain point if I was being rude or condesending then he would have every right to tell me to f**k off same as here I fell that it is your responsibility to help educate people about your theory with anyone who wants to have an intelligent conversation about it.The Sheikh would have to care what you believe in for him to take the time to convince you otherwise. I do not care what RE'ers believe. ;)
it also does not mean that the burden is on you to prove your thinking but the burden is on you to properly explain the theories and models of the flat earth society and if you are going to take up these questions in the debate and discussion portion of your site then you had better be prepared to do just that, if you do not care that is fine but then you should avoid this section.I only clarified a mistake that zork made, when telling us we had the burden of proof. If you have questions about the model, that is a different issue. What would you like to know of the FE model?
I would love to know why there is no real model, it seems that what you have as your official model does not apply anymore and whatever model there is seems to change by the minute. Whether someone agrees or disagrees with your view there should be some sort fo official model of the earthit also does not mean that the burden is on you to prove your thinking but the burden is on you to properly explain the theories and models of the flat earth society and if you are going to take up these questions in the debate and discussion portion of your site then you had better be prepared to do just that, if you do not care that is fine but then you should avoid this section.I only clarified a mistake that zork made, when telling us we had the burden of proof. If you have questions about the model, that is a different issue. What would you like to know of the FE model?
I only clarified a mistake that zork made, when telling us we had the burden of proof. If you have questions about the model, that is a different issue. What would you like to know of the FE model?I didn't tell exactly that the burden of proof is you. I said that in your logic it can also be on you. You say that RE people come to your site and so the burden of proof for RE is on them. But you put your server on round earth(it's also not belief actually but scientifically proven fact) and so you claim otherwise and burden of proof is on you. My point actually is that this is not nice to evade always with this "burden of proof" thing. This only shows that you evade explaining things and don't have enough data or evidence do show otherwise.
I would love to know why there is no real model, it seems that what you have as your official model does not apply anymore and whatever model there is seems to change by the minute. Whether someone agrees or disagrees with your view there should be some sort fo official model of the earthWhat model and problems are you referring to?
The majority of the FAQ does not seem to represent the current accepted theories about most things from why ships appear to sink over the horizon to the size and scope of the conspiracyI would love to know why there is no real model, it seems that what you have as your official model does not apply anymore and whatever model there is seems to change by the minute. Whether someone agrees or disagrees with your view there should be some sort fo official model of the earthWhat model and problems are you referring to?
The majority of the FAQ does not seem to represent the current accepted theories about most things from why ships appear to sink over the horizon to the size and scope of the conspiracyAh, so you're suggesting that the FAQ is overdue for an update.
The majority of the FAQ does not seem to represent the current accepted theories about most things from why ships appear to sink over the horizon to the size and scope of the conspiracyAh, so you're suggesting that the FAQ is overdue for an update.
Very much so. I think that if you are going to have a debate section and you guys want to keep it serious then the FAQ should be current and clear that way we have an idea what will be brought up so we can provide our own evidence to support/refute that argument. and not the way it currently is which is whatever a FE'ers thinks up at that moment is the FE model. You may also want to think abou adding a section for the new ideas so these guys have a place to discuss those ideas that pop into their headsThe majority of the FAQ does not seem to represent the current accepted theories about most things from why ships appear to sink over the horizon to the size and scope of the conspiracyAh, so you're suggesting that the FAQ is overdue for an update.
Very much so. I think that if you are going to have a debate section and you guys want to keep it serious then the FAQ should be current and clear that way we have an idea what will be brought up so we can provide our own evidence to support/refute that argument. and not the way it currently is which is whatever a FE'ers thinks up at that moment is the FE model. You may also want to think abou adding a section for the new ideas so these guys have a place to discuss those ideas that pop into their headsThe majority of the FAQ does not seem to represent the current accepted theories about most things from why ships appear to sink over the horizon to the size and scope of the conspiracyAh, so you're suggesting that the FAQ is overdue for an update.
I bolded the part I have a problem with you guys should narrow it down to 1 model and call that the official model, if people want to float around different theories for the mechanisms that cause the model to behave that way that would be fineVery much so. I think that if you are going to have a debate section and you guys want to keep it serious then the FAQ should be current and clear that way we have an idea what will be brought up so we can provide our own evidence to support/refute that argument. and not the way it currently is which is whatever a FE'ers thinks up at that moment is the FE model. You may also want to think abou adding a section for the new ideas so these guys have a place to discuss those ideas that pop into their headsThe majority of the FAQ does not seem to represent the current accepted theories about most things from why ships appear to sink over the horizon to the size and scope of the conspiracyAh, so you're suggesting that the FAQ is overdue for an update.
Ah but soon the FES wiki will be operational, and that should be the definitive storehouse for all FE models
Friendly neighborhood mod
Cinlef