The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: Thucydides on June 21, 2010, 08:29:11 PM
-
Hello all this is my first post here.
I have looked through your FAQ and have a few questions to pose regarding FE theory.
The first is this:
When you look out at the horizon, say the ocean, at a ship receding into the distance, why does it appear to "sink" below the horizon?
Second, do you disagree that we have sufficient technology to travel 3,100 miles into space? If you agree that we do, what do you suppose would be seen at that altitude?
Third, what do you say to those who have travelled on Trans-Antarctic expeditions, crossing the continent via land? Why didn't they fall off the edge as it were? Surely not flawed compasses? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Trans-Antarctic_Expedition)
I suppose a related question is: how far into Antarctica do you suppose you must go before the edge of it is reached?
Fourth, how do you explain the loss of radio contact that occurs when one goes to "other side of the world" in the spherical model? Were the earth flat, this would not be a problem, would it?
Fifth, why do planes and ships use great circle routes to reach their destinations? Would these not take longer on a flat earth?
Sixth, what is the primary reason you have for not believing in a round Earth? I mean specifically, why do you not believe that NASA has been truthful?
Seventh, what do you believe happens to the rockets that are sent up routinely with "satellites" aboard? If they do not remain in space (orbit), then where do they go? Surely we would more often see falling rockets? In fact, please elaborate on how you believe satellites are faked.
Lastly I would just like to ask you all to point out flaws in the RE conspiracy, chinks in the armor if you will.
If the conspiracy is as broad as it seems you suggest, there must surely be inconsistencies somewhere, so please point them out.
Thanks for your time!
-
Hello all this is my first post here.
I have looked through your FAQ and have a few questions to pose regarding FE theory.
The first is this:
When you look out at the horizon, say the ocean, at a ship receding into the distance, why does it appear to "sink" below the horizon?
The farther something is away, the smaller it appears, the smaller it appears, the more likely something closer such as a wave is bloacking it.
Third, what do you say to those who have travelled on Trans-Antarctic expeditions, crossing the continent via land? Why didn't they fall off the edge as it were? Surely not flawed compasses? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Trans-Antarctic_Expedition)
None of them have never travelled across the middle of the pole. They have all gone at most 40% of the way to the "middle" This agrees that you cannot reach the edge.
I suppose a related question is: how far into Antarctica do you suppose you must go before the edge of it is reached?
The Icewall would impead your journey.
Fourth, how do you explain the loss of radio contact that occurs when one goes to "other side of the world" in the spherical model? Were the earth flat, this would not be a problem, would it?
The further you are away, the more likely there is stuff in the way to block or interrupt the signal.
Sixth, what is the primary reason you have for not believing in a round Earth? I mean specifically, why do you not believe that NASA has been truthful?
I don't believe in RE because the Earth is flat. Doing otherwise would be silly.
Lastly I would just like to ask you all to point out flaws in the RE conspiracy, chinks in the armor if you will.
For all the ones's I deleted, this answer also applies to all of them. Lurk moar.
If the conspiracy is as broad as it seems you suggest, there must surely be inconsistencies somewhere, so please point them out.
Thanks for your time!
-
Actually I have two further questions:
8) How do you explain all the observations and science that has gone into observations of the Sun? Let me elaborate:
Scientists believe that the Sun is a fusion reaction, essentially. This reaction could only occur if it was very massive, thousands of times the diameter of the Earth. How can the Sun you propose heat the Earth as it does? What is your model for what the Sun actually is? Same goes for the stars, what are they if not other Suns very far away?
8b) Further, what is the explanation for the stars' movement over time in space? For telescopic observations? If these things are very tiny things all 3100 miles above us as you suggest, what is your physical explanation for what we observe (supernovae etc). How could those phenomena occur at such small scales? Further, what is your explanation for the different stars observed in the Southern hemisphere vs the north?
9) What is your explanation for precession (or do you deny it)?
10) What is your explanation for asteroids?
11) What is your explanation for the sidereal day phenomenon (related to question 8b)
12) Finally, what is your model for the origin of the Earth and its surroundings, and for the origin of mankind?
-
So I consider the question about the horizon, radio signals, and the Trans-Antarctic expedition answered, but please answer the others. I do not think I understand what you mean by lurk moar... but I would like to say that I am genuinely curious in your answers to all of my questions.
Also I would like to revise my question about the distance to the edge to how far must you go before you reach the icewall? Has anyone ever been near the icewall? If not, why not?
-
I do not think I understand what you mean by lurk moar... but I would like to say that I am genuinely curious in your answers to all of my questions.
Lurk moar means that there is already one or more threads existing in whihc you can find your answer; use the search function.
Also I would like to revise my question about the distance to the edge to how far must you go before you reach the icewall? Has anyone ever been near the icewall? If not, why not?
Nobody has been to the ice wall for the mere reason nobody has ever traveled to going there.
Actually I have two further questions:
8) How do you explain all the observations and science that has gone into observations of the Sun? Let me elaborate:
Scientists believe that the Sun is a fusion reaction, essentially. This reaction could only occur if it was very massive, thousands of times the diameter of the Earth. How can the Sun you propose heat the Earth as it does? What is your model for what the Sun actually is? Same goes for the stars, what are they if not other Suns very far away?
It is unknown how the sun produces it's heat. Though, if you lurk, you'd find that we do not believe the sun works the same way other stars do.
8b) Further, what is the explanation for the stars' movement over time in space? For telescopic observations? If these things are very tiny things all 3100 miles above us as you suggest, what is your physical explanation for what we observe (supernovae etc). How could those phenomena occur at such small scales? Further, what is your explanation for the different stars observed in the Southern hemisphere vs the north?
Why would they not be able to move? ??? Also, I do not submit to the idea that everything is only 3100 miles away, so there very well could be super nova in the distance. There is an entire thread talking sole about the discrepancy with the southern cross if you search.
9) What is your explanation for precession (or do you deny it)?
10) What is your explanation for asteroids?
What about them?
11) What is your explanation for the sidereal day phenomenon (related to question 8b)
12) Finally, what is your model for the origin of the Earth and its surroundings, and for the origin of mankind?
I see the Earth forming by natural means, though the original mechanism is unknown. Abiogenisis for mankind.