The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: TheUnseenForce on December 08, 2010, 01:34:22 PM
-
I have read many things on this site that I know are blatant lies. I fail to comprehend many of these "believer's" logic. I am writing this to prove that many things which have been said on this site are not true.
Also if satellites are not in space but still in the atmosphere, there is friction. So without propulsion how do they keep their speed up? We are told that they are in space so they don't need to be propelled, they just keep going in an orbit. But the atmosphere extends way above satellites. Why on earth is the world buying this story? Satellites don't exist! >:(
If satellites do not exist, can you please explain why I can watch satellite TV, why satellite phones work, and why I can use a GPS to get directions to a location? Also, if I open up Google Earth and zoom in on my house, I can see my house as it would look from the sky. The same is true for all of the houses I have seen. How do you think they get these pictures? They can not fly an airplane around the whole earth taking pictures of the houses below, that would be unnecessary. They used satellite imaging to get a bird's eye view of the whole world.
1. The Sun is a sphere. It is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.
If the sun is a sphere, simple logic tells us that the physics required to make a spherical sun would be the same physics that would be applied to the earth, thus creating a spherical earth. This law of physics is called gravity. The problem with your constantly-accelerating-earth deal is that the sun would have to be accelerating also. The probability of such an event would be extremely low.
Another simple way to prove that the earth is flat is to look at the stars. We know from observation that the constellations in the sky are different if you go south of the equator or north of the equator. This would not be true on a flat earth, because the same stars would be visible no matter where you were on the earth.
If the Earth was flat, shouldnt there be a be a drop off point of where you just fall?
Not a single one of you "believers" were able to answer this question. As far as I know, no one has found a point where you can simply “drop off” the earth. The easiest explanation would be that you loop around the flat earth, but that almost certainly means the earth is a sphere.
Reputation of author: http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/0102.html (http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/0102.html).
It says that he is an author of fiction.
Really? Of all people I think Isaac Asimov knows what he is talking about. To be honest it is a bit strange you have never heard of him.
I’m sure all of you here can see the truth in my statements. All it takes to figure out the earth is round is logic and some prior knowledge. I am sure someone will discredit my observations claiming “You have no conclusive evidence.” All I have to say is, “Do you?”
-
Also if satellites are not in space but still in the atmosphere, there is friction. So without propulsion how do they keep their speed up? We are told that they are in space so they don't need to be propelled, they just keep going in an orbit. But the atmosphere extends way above satellites. Why on earth is the world buying this story? Satellites don't exist! >:(
If satellites do not exist, can you please explain why I can watch satellite TV, why satellite phones work, and why I can use a GPS to get directions to a location? Also, if I open up Google Earth and zoom in on my house, I can see my house as it would look from the sky. The same is true for all of the houses I have seen. How do you think they get these pictures? They can not fly an airplane around the whole earth taking pictures of the houses below, that would be unnecessary. They used satellite imaging to get a bird's eye view of the whole world.
Search, "Pseudolites". Google Earth actually uses high altitude airplanes to take their pictures. Google does not deny this. The rest of the Earth that has not been photographed is merely an artist's rendition.
1. The Sun is a sphere. It is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.
If the sun is a sphere, simple logic tells us that the physics required to make a spherical sun would be the same physics that would be applied to the earth, thus creating a spherical earth. This law of physics is called gravity. The problem with your constantly-accelerating-earth deal is that the sun would have to be accelerating also.
Another simple way to prove that the earth is flat is to look at the stars. We know from observation that the constellations in the sky are different if you go south of the equator or north of the equator. This would not be true on a flat earth, because the same stars would be visible no matter where you were on the earth.
How is there an issue with the Sun accelerating also? There is no reason why the Earth cannon exhibit gravity while the Sun can. Would you not expect to see different constellations as you move around the Earth? You are looking at them from completely different angles.
If the Earth was flat, shouldnt there be a be a drop off point of where you just fall?
Not a single one of you "believers" were able to answer this question. As far as I know, no one has found a point where you can simply “drop off” the earth. The easiest explanation would be that you loop around the flat earth, but that almost certainly means the earth is a sphere.
What are you talking about? Saddam answered it. There is a drop off point. It is deep in Antarctica. You would have to get pass the Ice Wall but after that there is nothing stopping you from going off the edge.
Reputation of author: http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/0102.html (http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/0102.html).
It says that he is an author of fiction.
Really? Of all people I think Isaac Asimov knows what he is talking about. To be honest it is a bit strange you have never heard of him.
I’m sure all of you here can see the truth in my statements. All it takes to figure out the earth is round is logic and some prior knowledge. I am sure someone will discredit my observations claiming “You have no conclusive evidence.” All I have to say is, “Do you?”
No I cannot see any truth in your statements. Most of them were due to ignorance from not lurking, or straight up lying such as in Saddam's case.
-
What are you talking about? Saddam answered it. There is a drop off point. It is deep in Antarctica. You would have to get pass the Ice Wall but after that there is nothing stopping you from going off the edge.
Considering humans have a base at the south pole, I highly doubt "you can fall off the edge".
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_FaB7ozXA3Uk/SxCl_iDLmBI/AAAAAAAAABo/D0oFDOf-vvY/s1600/Antarctica_map.gif
There is a confirmed base at the south pole. (Amundsen-Scott, USA)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amundsen%E2%80%93Scott_South_Pole_Station
-
What are you talking about? Saddam answered it. There is a drop off point. It is deep in Antarctica. You would have to get pass the Ice Wall but after that there is nothing stopping you from going off the edge.
Considering humans have a base at the south pole, I highly doubt "you can fall off the edge".
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_FaB7ozXA3Uk/SxCl_iDLmBI/AAAAAAAAABo/D0oFDOf-vvY/s1600/Antarctica_map.gif
There is a confirmed base at the south pole. (Amundsen-Scott, USA)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amundsen%E2%80%93Scott_South_Pole_Station
The earth disk has a diameter of approximately 40,000 km, however this is only the internal diameter of the earth up to the ice wall. No-one knows how far the ice wall may extend beyond this distance. As far as we know, no-one has yet reached the edge. This base you speak of could easily be in the icy tundra surrounding the ice wall.
-
The earth disk has a diameter of approximately 40,000 km, however this is only the internal diameter of the earth up to the ice wall. No-one knows how far the ice wall may extend beyond this distance. As far as we know, no-one has yet reached the edge. This base you speak of could easily be in the icy tundra surrounding the ice wall.
We know that it is the south pole because if you walk in any direction from it you will eventually hit the ocean. The earth's magnetism also shows that they are indeed at the south pole. (And if they were not at the true south pole they would be at the magnetic south, which is close.)
-
The earth's magnetism also shows that they are indeed at the south pole. (And if they were not at the true south pole they would be at the magnetic south, which is close.)
Are you suggesting the Earth's magnetic field is the only thing that can affect magnets?
Besides, the rim is magnetic south, not just one point.
-
The earth's magnetism also shows that they are indeed at the south pole. (And if they were not at the true south pole they would be at the magnetic south, which is close.)
Are you suggesting the Earth's magnetic field is the only thing that can affect magnets?
Besides, the rim is magnetic south, not just one point.
First of all, I was referring to a compass. Just as at the magnetic north, a compass would continuously spin in circles at the south pole. Therefore the scientists were able to show that they had reached the magnetic south when this same event happened. If the magnetic south was along the rim of a "flat earth" then a compass would always point in the same direction anywhere in Antarctica, which is not true. Another way to show that the magnetic south is not along the "rim" is that a field of this shape would no longer be able to deflect asteroids from the bottom side of the earth. The earth would no longer be able to sustain life with no shields from space debris.
-
The earth disk has a diameter of approximately 40,000 km, however this is only the internal diameter of the earth up to the ice wall. No-one knows how far the ice wall may extend beyond this distance. As far as we know, no-one has yet reached the edge. This base you speak of could easily be in the icy tundra surrounding the ice wall.
Lets see a pic of said Icewall.
Nobody has yet come up with one.
Berny
Who's alt are you?
-
The earth disk has a diameter of approximately 40,000 km, however this is only the internal diameter of the earth up to the ice wall. No-one knows how far the ice wall may extend beyond this distance. As far as we know, no-one has yet reached the edge. This base you speak of could easily be in the icy tundra surrounding the ice wall.
We know that it is the south pole because if you walk in any direction from it you will eventually hit the ocean. The earth's magnetism also shows that they are indeed at the south pole. (And if they were not at the true south pole they would be at the magnetic south, which is close.)
Firstly, have people set out in several different directions from this base and all reached the sea? Because if not then I can just claim that an expedition recently discovered the edge of the earth, and it will have just as much validity as your claim.
Secondly, the re may very well be anomalies in the earth's magnetic field in the extreme south. It is quite possible, even likely, that there are one or more localized points in the ice wall that have higher magnetism than their surroundings. Such deviations in the earth's magnetic field are known to exist in nature, caused by localized geological features such as iron ore deposits etc. This base, if indeed it is on the ice wall and not an island, may be subject to this effect, causing compasses to read as if they were at the magnetic south pole.
-
Lets see a pic of said Icewall.
As requested: http://i23.tinypic.com/nwkp5t.jpg
-
Lets see a pic of said Icewall.
As requested: http://i23.tinypic.com/nwkp5t.jpg
How do you know thats just not a glacier like the one thats behind me in my avatar?
How do I even know thats not in the arctic - a more fitting place for the rim.
Berny
I have been to 4 of those eight. (http://travel.ca.msn.com/international/photogallery.aspx?cp-documentid=26645443)
-
Lets see a pic of said Icewall.
As requested: http://i23.tinypic.com/nwkp5t.jpg
So why are pictures like that accepted as proof, but pictures showing that the earth is round not because you can't observe it yourself?
-
Lets see a pic of said Icewall.
As requested: http://i23.tinypic.com/nwkp5t.jpg
Sorry, but walls tend to be taller than deep. A shelf, on the other hand... Well, there's a reason that scientists call it an ice shelf and not ice wall.
-
Lets see a pic of said Icewall.
As requested: http://i23.tinypic.com/nwkp5t.jpg
Who took that picture and how did they take it? Also if all NASA pictures are regarded as fakes why should we believe this picture to be true?
-
Lets see a pic of said Icewall.
As requested: http://i23.tinypic.com/nwkp5t.jpg
Search "icewall" on google images. This picture is on page 6. Nice try.
-
The earth's magnetism also shows that they are indeed at the south pole. (And if they were not at the true south pole they would be at the magnetic south, which is close.)
Are you suggesting the Earth's magnetic field is the only thing that can affect magnets?
Besides, the rim is magnetic south, not just one point.
You will explain why, if it's not just one point, one specific location has been determined as The South Pole. You will explain why it's there and not 100km away along the rim. You will explain where on the FE map that specific point is. You will explain why when you are there you don't see an ice wall and also why nobody can travel further than 90o south. Your time starts now.
Bonus points if you can explain how the sun circles the horizon from there without setting in the summer.
-
Also if satellites are not in space but still in the atmosphere, there is friction. So without propulsion how do they keep their speed up? We are told that they are in space so they don't need to be propelled, they just keep going in an orbit. But the atmosphere extends way above satellites. Why on earth is the world buying this story? Satellites don't exist! >:(
If satellites do not exist, can you please explain why I can watch satellite TV, why satellite phones work, and why I can use a GPS to get directions to a location? Also, if I open up Google Earth and zoom in on my house, I can see my house as it would look from the sky. The same is true for all of the houses I have seen. How do you think they get these pictures? They can not fly an airplane around the whole earth taking pictures of the houses below, that would be unnecessary. They used satellite imaging to get a bird's eye view of the whole world.
Search, "Pseudolites". Google Earth actually uses high altitude airplanes to take their pictures. Google does not deny this. The rest of the Earth that has not been photographed is merely an artist's rendition.
Sure satellites exist. Take a large sphere with gravity. Get an object up where there's no air resistance and moving fast enough so that as it's falling back to Earth, it's speed keeps it at the same altitude. It takes a round Earth to work.
1. The Sun is a sphere. It is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.
If the sun is a sphere, simple logic tells us that the physics required to make a spherical sun would be the same physics that would be applied to the earth, thus creating a spherical earth. This law of physics is called gravity. The problem with your constantly-accelerating-earth deal is that the sun would have to be accelerating also.
Another simple way to prove that the earth is flat is to look at the stars. We know from observation that the constellations in the sky are different if you go south of the equator or north of the equator. This would not be true on a flat earth, because the same stars would be visible no matter where you were on the earth.
How is there an issue with the Sun accelerating also? There is no reason why the Earth cannon exhibit gravity while the Sun can. Would you not expect to see different constellations as you move around the Earth? You are looking at them from completely different angles.
What keeps the sun up if the Earth is accelerating upwards toward it? And why are the other planets and moon all spheres with gravity and accelerating up, but the earth is the only one flat with no gravity and we rely on this upward acceleration theory for our 'gravity'?
I've been to various parts of the US, Europe, Iraq, and Korea. The constellations all look exactly the same from any of those places. I've never been to the Southern hemisphere, but I know the constellations and stars are different down there. If the earth was flat and the southern sky was just the northern sky viewed at a different angle, we'd all see slightly different versions of 'the big dipper' or 'Orion' or whatever as we moved around the earth.
If the Earth was flat, shouldnt there be a be a drop off point of where you just fall?
Not a single one of you "believers" were able to answer this question. As far as I know, no one has found a point where you can simply “drop off” the earth. The easiest explanation would be that you loop around the flat earth, but that almost certainly means the earth is a sphere.
What are you talking about? Saddam answered it. There is a drop off point. It is deep in Antarctica. You would have to get pass the Ice Wall but after that there is nothing stopping you from going off the edge.
Sure, once you get past the security forces (which no one has seen), the 30 mile high wall of ice that holds the atmosphere in (which no one has seen), and then you come to the edge.... (which no one has seen)
Reputation of author: http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/0102.html (http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/0102.html).
It says that he is an author of fiction.
Really? Of all people I think Isaac Asimov knows what he is talking about. To be honest it is a bit strange you have never heard of him.
I’m sure all of you here can see the truth in my statements. All it takes to figure out the earth is round is logic and some prior knowledge. I am sure someone will discredit my observations claiming “You have no conclusive evidence.” All I have to say is, “Do you?”
No I cannot see any truth in your statements. Most of them were due to ignorance from not lurking, or straight up lying such as in Saddam's case.
I've been lurking a bit, and I haven't read anything here yet, or seen anything with my own eyes, to convince me the Earth is flat.
-
I have read many things on this site that I know are blatant lies. I fail to comprehend many of these "believer's" logic. I am writing this to prove that many things which have been said on this site are not true.
Also if satellites are not in space but still in the atmosphere, there is friction. So without propulsion how do they keep their speed up? We are told that they are in space so they don't need to be propelled, they just keep going in an orbit. But the atmosphere extends way above satellites. Why on earth is the world buying this story? Satellites don't exist! >:(
If satellites do not exist, can you please explain why I can watch satellite TV, why satellite phones work, and why I can use a GPS to get directions to a location? Also, if I open up Google Earth and zoom in on my house, I can see my house as it would look from the sky. The same is true for all of the houses I have seen. How do you think they get these pictures? They can not fly an airplane around the whole earth taking pictures of the houses below, that would be unnecessary. They used satellite imaging to get a bird's eye view of the whole world.
1. The Sun is a sphere. It is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.
If the sun is a sphere, simple logic tells us that the physics required to make a spherical sun would be the same physics that would be applied to the earth, thus creating a spherical earth. This law of physics is called gravity. The problem with your constantly-accelerating-earth deal is that the sun would have to be accelerating also. The probability of such an event would be extremely low.
Another simple way to prove that the earth is flat is to look at the stars. We know from observation that the constellations in the sky are different if you go south of the equator or north of the equator. This would not be true on a flat earth, because the same stars would be visible no matter where you were on the earth.
W
If the Earth was flat, shouldnt there be a be a drop off point of where you just fall?
Not a single one of you "believers" were able to answer this question. As far as I know, no one has found a point where you can simply “drop off” the earth. The easiest explanation would be that you loop around the flat earth, but that almost certainly means the earth is a sphere.
Reputation of author: http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/0102.html (http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/0102.html).
It says that he is an author of fiction.
Really? Of all people I think Isaac Asimov knows what he is talking about. To be honest it is a bit strange you have never heard of him.
I’m sure all of you here can see the truth in my statements. All it takes to figure out the earth is round is logic and some prior knowledge. I am sure someone will discredit my observations claiming “You have no conclusive evidence.” All I have to say is, “Do you?”
hello jackson this is AV I made a new account
-
How is there an issue with the Sun accelerating also? There is no reason why the Earth cannon exhibit gravity while the Sun can. Would you not expect to see different constellations as you move around the Earth? You are looking at them from completely different angles.
if the earth is flat what is keeping the sun and moon from crashing into the earth? Last time I checked it cant be our atmosphere because tiny asteroids can puncture it. Also what is keeping the sun and moon from flying into space?
-
has anyone here ever witnessed th drop off?
I personally have been to antartica 4 time and i have never seen any ice wall or drop off.
how thick is the earth?
-
how thick is the earth?
[brilliant quip] Almost as thick as (insert FE'er of choice here) [/brilliant quip]
-
Lets see a pic of said Icewall.
Nobody has yet come up with one.
Certainly if such a "greater" wall exists its location is deep in the inhospitable rim-country. No small surprise there are no pictures available.
There is some debate as to whether or not there is a "greater" ice wall. Dr. Bishop, for example suggests that there is not one and that the "ice wall" is the shelf of Antarctica. I lean towards it's existence merely because it is mentioned almost universally by ancient mythos, but that is hardly conclusive. There is similar debate to whether Dr. Rowbotham held such a belief. James and I think he did, while Tom does not.
-
Lets see a pic of said Icewall.
Nobody has yet come up with one.
Certainly if such a "greater" wall exists its location is deep in the inhospitable rim-country. No small surprise there are no pictures available.
There is some debate as to whether or not there is a "greater" ice wall. Dr. Bishop, for example suggests that there is not one and that the "ice wall" is the shelf of Antarctica. I lean towards it's existence merely because it is mentioned almost universally by ancient mythos, but that is hardly conclusive. There is similar debate to whether Dr. Rowbotham held such a belief. James and I think he did, while Tom does not.
People have been to the southernmost point on earth and seen no icewall. There's no massive physical barrier to travel in Antarctica. Bishop is not a doctor, either of medicine or philosophy - he is the self appointed director of a diploma mill. Samuel Rowbottom was also not a doctor. He was a writer and inventor, though it's possible he was awarded an honorary doctorate from the Bishop Diploma MillTM posthumously.
The zetetic attitude would be to reject the ice wall as there is no direct sensory evidence of it, neither are there any secondhand accounts of it, in fact there is no evidence of it at all except by inference and in myth. According to people like Wilmore, inference is inadmissable as evidence.
-
The zetetic attitude would be to reject the ice wall as there is no direct sensory evidence of it, neither are there any secondhand accounts of it, in fact there is no evidence of it at all except by inference and in myth. According to people like Wilmore, inference is inadmissable as evidence.
The phrases "if such ... exists" "lean towards" and "hardly conclusive" should indicate my level of conviction its existence; that is to say, I hold no such conviction.
People have been to the southernmost point on earth and seen no icewall. There's no massive physical barrier to travel in Antarctica. Bishop is not a doctor, either of medicine or philosophy - he is the self appointed director of a diploma mill. Samuel Rowbottom was also not a doctor. He was a writer and inventor, though it's possible he was awarded an honorary doctorate from the Bishop Diploma MillTM posthumously.
Dr. Rowbotham's tombstone says otherwise. I am willing to give Tom the title he has self-styled as I have no reason to disbelieve him.
-
Lets see a pic of said Icewall.
Nobody has yet come up with one.
Certainly if such a "greater" wall exists its location is deep in the inhospitable rim-country. No small surprise there are no pictures available.
There is some debate as to whether or not there is a "greater" ice wall. Dr. Bishop, for example suggests that there is not one and that the "ice wall" is the shelf of Antarctica. I lean towards it's existence merely because it is mentioned almost universally by ancient mythos, but that is hardly conclusive. There is similar debate to whether Dr. Rowbotham held such a belief. James and I think he did, while Tom does not.
I still cannot see why the Arctic would be the rim and the Antarctic the center. If they Earth where flat that would be much more sensible. Either way as yet there is way to prove it one way or another.
Berny
Does not like blood being taken from his hand.
-
Dr. Rowbotham's tombstone says otherwise.
Does Dr. Rowbotham's tombstone mention who granted him his degree?
I am willing to give Tom the title he has self-styled as I have no reason to disbelieve him.
As near as I can tell, Tom has never claimed to have earned a doctorate of any sort (even when he had an opportunity to set the record straight). Wilmore was the one to refer to him as Doctor without being able to being able to tell us why he deserved the title.
-
Dr. Rowbotham's tombstone says otherwise.
Does Dr. Rowbotham's tombstone mention who granted him his degree?
It does not, though part of the tombstone is eroded to illegibility.
I am willing to give Tom the title he has self-styled as I have no reason to disbelieve him.
As near as I can tell, Tom has never claimed to have earned a doctorate of any sort (even when he had an opportunity to set the record straight). Wilmore was the one to refer to him as Doctor without being able to being able to tell us why he deserved the title.
Perhaps Wilmore is privy to information that you are not.
-
Dr. Rowbotham's tombstone says otherwise.
Does Dr. Rowbotham's tombstone mention who granted him his degree?
It does not, though part of the tombstone is eroded to illegibility.
I am willing to give Tom the title he has self-styled as I have no reason to disbelieve him.
As near as I can tell, Tom has never claimed to have earned a doctorate of any sort (even when he had an opportunity to set the record straight). Wilmore was the one to refer to him as Doctor without being able to being able to tell us why he deserved the title.
Perhaps Wilmore is privy to information that you are not.
So you should also have that information, or else you shouldn't be calling him Dr.
-
Perhaps Wilmore is privy to information that you are not.
Why is he so reluctant to share that information, even when asked directly about it several times? Why does he choose to dance around the question and resort to immature word games?
-
Perhaps I am. It is to be expected members of the movement prefer not to be harassed by the public. To prove one's credentials one would have to divulge names, places of study or work, etc. I have never made any sort of public claim to title as I'd be loathe to expose myself to the harassment that would inevitably follow.
-
The facts are these: There has never been any indication that Bishop has earned the right to be called "Dr.", he has never claimed that title for himself, and even when asked directly, no one has provided any evidence to that effect. So naturally we are skeptical that the title is deserved. I'll ask again:
Why does he choose to dance around the question and resort to immature word games?
-
Perhaps because he doesn't want to deal with the endless harassment that would follow. Oh wait, I said that, and you apparently didn't read it.
-
I believe he once responded with something like 'how do you know that I have not earned that title?' or thereabouts. If the question is asked rhetorically as such, then by definition the answer would be defined as obvious.
-
Wilmore is claiming that Bishop has earned the right to be called "Dr." Why would he be harassed about someone else's PhD?
I believe that proof of a degree would lend a lot more credibility to his arguments rather than lead to harassment, personally.
-
I believe he once responded with something like 'how do you know that I have not earned that title?' or thereabouts. If the question is asked rhetorically as such, then by definition the answer would be defined as obvious.
By who's definition would it be obvious? Tom has repeatedly scorned the traditional higher education system so that would suggest (to me, at least) that he would be unlikely to go to the bother of pursuing a doctorate from such an institution.
-
I've done many things academically and professionally that I scorn.
-
So (if he has a doctorate degree) if he scorns the institutions that aware them, logically he should scorn the title also.
Basically what I want to know is why FE'ers feel the need to refer to Bishop as Dr. We've never gotten a straight answer from any of you.
-
Perhaps Dr. Bishop doesn't consider being a Dr. of great importance in the grand scheme of life.
-
We've never gotten a straight answer from any of you.
-
Dr. Bishop is extremely modest if you've ever met him. Also,
Perhaps Dr. Bishop doesn't consider being a Dr. of great importance in the grand scheme of life.
-
Perhaps you misunderstood what I was asking.
Basically what I want to know is why FE'ers feel the need to refer to Bishop as Dr. We've never gotten a straight answer from any of you.
-
Perhaps Dr. Bishop doesn't consider being a Dr. of great importance in the grand scheme of life.
Perhaps Dr Bishop doesn't consider being a Dr to be true.
BTW in the UK it is illegal to call yourself "doctor" if you are operating a medical service and do not hold either the PhD or medical doctorate.
-
Perhaps you misunderstood what I was asking.
Basically what I want to know is why FE'ers feel the need to refer to Bishop as Dr. We've never gotten a straight answer from any of you.
To get more credits?
-
Perhaps you misunderstood what I was asking.
Basically what I want to know is why FE'ers feel the need to refer to Bishop as Dr. We've never gotten a straight answer from any of you.
If Dr. Bishop wishes to discuss his personal credentials with you, he will at his discretion. It is hardly my place.
-
Still no straight answer from any of you as to why you feel it is appropriate to refer to him as Dr.
-
It is hardly my place.
-
I am merely trying to seek out he truth here, as I am sure you and your zetetic colleagues can appreciate.
-
It is hardly my place.
And apparently you feel it is your place to continue referring to him as a doctor despite his well-known disdain for those organizations that award such degrees. If you do have some information that would lead you to believe he has a doctorate, it would seem logical that he may not want anyone to reveal that, especially if he will not reveal it himself.
-
BTW in the UK it is illegal to call yourself "doctor" if you are operating a medical service and do not hold either the PhD or medical doctorate.
So what do Doctors of Divinity call themselves, poor things? Parson?
-
Pray observe the magnanimity
They display to lace and dimity!
Never was such opportunity
To get married with impunity!
But they give up the felicity
Of unbounded domesticity,
Though a doctor of divinity
Is located in this vicinity
-
BTW in the UK it is illegal to call yourself "doctor" if you are operating a medical service and do not hold either the PhD or medical doctorate.
So what do Doctors of Divinity call themselves, poor things? Parson?
OK amend that to "PhD or equivalent level qualification that confers the title of doctor" and then piss off.
How many DD's do you know that operate a medical service in the UK?
-
BTW in the UK it is illegal to call yourself "doctor" if you are operating a medical service and do not hold either the PhD or medical doctorate.
So what do Doctors of Divinity call themselves, poor things? Parson?
LOL seriously? He said medical service and you couldn't have the common sense to assume he meant PHD?
The guy is not a doctor and if he was he would simply provide evidence which he has chosen not to do.
-
BTW in the UK it is illegal to call yourself "doctor" if you are operating a medical service and do not hold either the PhD or medical doctorate.
So what do Doctors of Divinity call themselves, poor things? Parson?
LOL seriously? He said medical service and you couldn't have the common sense to assume he meant PHD?
The guy is not a doctor and if he was he would simply provide evidence which he has chosen not to do.
To further complicate this exchange, I can make no sense of your reply.
-
BTW in the UK it is illegal to call yourself "doctor" if you are operating a medical service and do not hold either the PhD or medical doctorate.
So what do Doctors of Divinity call themselves, poor things? Parson?
LOL seriously? He said medical service and you couldn't have the common sense to assume he meant PHD?
The guy is not a doctor and if he was he would simply provide evidence which he has chosen not to do.
To further complicate this exchange, I can make no sense of your reply.
The man is not a doctor. If he was he would give proof or at least some details of his credentials.
-
So, back to my question, what do D.D.'s call themselves?
Edit
I will amend my reply. In the U.S., you see, some hospitals are founded and funded by religious organizations and I was curious if some well-educated nun, for example, would be barred from using a deserved title.
-
So, back to my question, what do D.D.'s call themselves?
Edit
I will amend my reply. In the U.S., you see, some hospitals are founded and funded by religious organizations and I was curious if some well-educated nun, for example, would be barred from using a deserved title.
If you have earned a doctorate you can address yourself as Dr. as far as I know. My god-mother is a nun and dr. and she never always goes by sister laurie. TD was referring to people that do not have a medical degree using the word DR. when offering medical services.
-
So, back to my question, what do D.D.'s call themselves?
Doctor, as they have acieved doctorates of theology/divinity.
-
So, back to my question, what do D.D.'s call themselves?
Edit
I will amend my reply. In the U.S., you see, some hospitals are founded and funded by religious organizations and I was curious if some well-educated nun, for example, would be barred from using a deserved title.
Your question was rendered irrelevant, yet you still act as if I never replied and instead respond to someone else who is an easier target.
What happens in the US is irrelevant. My statement referred to the UK and as you can see I have issued an erratum notice to patch it to include Doctors Of Divinity, Music, or anything else relevant to it.
Doctors in the US are called Doogie Howser MD etc.
In the UK you cannot also call yourself a physiotherapist or radiographer if you do not posess the relevant academic qualifications.
-
To my knowledge Dr. Bishop has never claimed to be a physiotherapist or radiographer residing in the UK.
-
To my knowledge Dr. Bishop has never claimed to be a physiotherapist or radiographer residing in the UK.
I, also, have no memory of any such claim made by Dr. Bishop.
-
To my knowledge Dr. Bishop has never claimed to be a physiotherapist or radiographer residing in the UK.
I, also, have no memory of any such claim made by Dr. Bishop.
To my knowledge, Tom Bishop has never claimed to have earned the title Doctor in any way, shape or form.
-
But it's well known that you're just mean. I jest of course. As I don't know him well enough to call him Tom, I'll just continue with the usual requirements of polite society. :)
-
To my knowledge Dr. Bishop has never claimed to be a physiotherapist or radiographer residing in the UK.
He has made as much claim to that as he has to being a Doctor. Therefore, if Peach and others are going to refer to him as Dr Bishop, then I shall refer to him as Tom Bishop DCR(R).
-
To my knowledge Dr. Bishop has never claimed to be a physiotherapist or radiographer residing in the UK.
I, also, have no memory of any such claim made by Dr. Bishop.
I never heard Crack-Junkie Bishop say that he isn't a crack junkie. Still I find it VERY appropriate to give someone stature that I have no idea he deserves.
-
Let's put things this way. According to FEer methodology, I will state my own theory. I want you guys (FEers and REers) to come up with arguments to disprove my claim.
The cube earth theory
(http://www.clivechurch.com/storage/Square%20earth.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1270145359009)
The earth is a cube. This is proved by various scientific facts. For example, if you are in the southern regions of earth, the stars on the night sky are different than in the north. Second, the solar cycle. You can not see the sun at night because it is on the other side of cube earth. Third, how do I prove the earth is a cube? Well, the horizon is always flat. And mountains are actually the edges of cube earth. In fact, when you climb a mountain, then climb down the other side, you will not see the horizon on the other side of the mountain because the earth is a cube and the horizon is at a different angle. Also, when climbing down a mountain, you feel yourself going down hill because you are descending on another side of cube earth. The positions of mountains on maps are actually all a big conspiracy invented by our leaders to make us believe the earth is round or flat, to hide the fact that the earth is a cube. Moreover, not all sides of the earth cube have been explored and all aliens and UFOs come from those unexplored site.
Cube earth theory is also supported by the fact that the durations of night and day vary in winter. This is because cube earth wobbles as it revolves around the sun and some sides are more exposed than others during some periods of the year. Also, the proof that earth is a cube is there for everyone to see. When you wake up in the morning, you see the sun rising from behind a straight flat edge in the distance and moreover, all shadows are straight instead of curved. If the earth were round, shadows would be curved, while if the earth would be flat, sunrise would occur at the same time allover the world.
And there you have it. Which of you can prove with scientific arguments (mythology will not be taken into consideration, as I have proven my theory with scientific facts) that my theory is wrong and yours is right? This is not trolling, it is a good exercise for both FEers and REers to debate their theory from another point of view.
-
Let's put things this way. According to FEer methodology, I will state my own theory. I want you guys (FEers and REers) to come up with arguments to disprove my claim.
The cube earth theory
(http://www.clivechurch.com/storage/Square%20earth.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1270145359009)
The earth is a cube. This is proved by various scientific facts. For example, if you are in the southern regions of earth, the stars on the night sky are different than in the north. Second, the solar cycle. You can not see the sun at night because it is on the other side of cube earth. Third, how do I prove the earth is a cube? Well, the horizon is always flat. And mountains are actually the edges of cube earth. In fact, when you climb a mountain, then climb down the other side, you will not see the horizon on the other side of the mountain because the earth is a cube and the horizon is at a different angle. Also, when climbing down a mountain, you feel yourself going down hill because you are descending on another side of cube earth. The positions of mountains on maps are actually all a big conspiracy invented by our leaders to make us believe the earth is round or flat, to hide the fact that the earth is a cube. Moreover, not all sides of the earth cube have been explored and all aliens and UFOs come from those unexplored site.
Cube earth theory is also supported by the fact that the durations of night and day vary in winter. This is because cube earth wobbles as it revolves around the sun and some sides are more exposed than others during some periods of the year. Also, the proof that earth is a cube is there for everyone to see. When you wake up in the morning, you see the sun rising from behind a straight flat edge in the distance and moreover, all shadows are straight instead of curved. If the earth were round, shadows would be curved, while if the earth would be flat, sunrise would occur at the same time allover the world.
And there you have it. Which of you can prove with scientific arguments (mythology will not be taken into consideration, as I have proven my theory with scientific facts) that my theory is wrong and yours is right? This is not trolling, it is a good exercise for both FEers and REers to debate their theory from another point of view.
I am responding to an original post.
-
But it's well known that you're just mean.
You forgot to point out my poor memory. ;)
-
Let's put things this way. According to FEer methodology, I will state my own theory. I want you guys (FEers and REers) to come up with arguments to disprove my claim.
The cube earth theory
(http://www.clivechurch.com/storage/Square%20earth.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1270145359009)
The earth is a cube. This is proved by various scientific facts. For example, if you are in the southern regions of earth, the stars on the night sky are different than in the north. Second, the solar cycle. You can not see the sun at night because it is on the other side of cube earth. Third, how do I prove the earth is a cube? Well, the horizon is always flat. And mountains are actually the edges of cube earth. In fact, when you climb a mountain, then climb down the other side, you will not see the horizon on the other side of the mountain because the earth is a cube and the horizon is at a different angle. Also, when climbing down a mountain, you feel yourself going down hill because you are descending on another side of cube earth. The positions of mountains on maps are actually all a big conspiracy invented by our leaders to make us believe the earth is round or flat, to hide the fact that the earth is a cube. Moreover, not all sides of the earth cube have been explored and all aliens and UFOs come from those unexplored site.
Cube earth theory is also supported by the fact that the durations of night and day vary in winter. This is because cube earth wobbles as it revolves around the sun and some sides are more exposed than others during some periods of the year. Also, the proof that earth is a cube is there for everyone to see. When you wake up in the morning, you see the sun rising from behind a straight flat edge in the distance and moreover, all shadows are straight instead of curved. If the earth were round, shadows would be curved, while if the earth would be flat, sunrise would occur at the same time allover the world.
And there you have it. Which of you can prove with scientific arguments (mythology will not be taken into consideration, as I have proven my theory with scientific facts) that my theory is wrong and yours is right? This is not trolling, it is a good exercise for both FEers and REers to debate their theory from another point of view.
The Cubist cover-up has been in operation for a long time and I applaud you for having the courage to expose it.
However, I would advise against exposing too many Cubist facts, such as FE theory is just another Government ploy to control and manipulate us.
-
Let's put things this way. According to FEer methodology, I will state my own theory. I want you guys (FEers and REers) to come up with arguments to disprove my claim.
The cube earth theory
(http://www.clivechurch.com/storage/Square%20earth.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1270145359009)
The earth is a cube. This is proved by various scientific facts. For example, if you are in the southern regions of earth, the stars on the night sky are different than in the north. Second, the solar cycle. You can not see the sun at night because it is on the other side of cube earth. Third, how do I prove the earth is a cube? Well, the horizon is always flat. And mountains are actually the edges of cube earth. In fact, when you climb a mountain, then climb down the other side, you will not see the horizon on the other side of the mountain because the earth is a cube and the horizon is at a different angle. Also, when climbing down a mountain, you feel yourself going down hill because you are descending on another side of cube earth. The positions of mountains on maps are actually all a big conspiracy invented by our leaders to make us believe the earth is round or flat, to hide the fact that the earth is a cube. Moreover, not all sides of the earth cube have been explored and all aliens and UFOs come from those unexplored site.
Cube earth theory is also supported by the fact that the durations of night and day vary in winter. This is because cube earth wobbles as it revolves around the sun and some sides are more exposed than others during some periods of the year. Also, the proof that earth is a cube is there for everyone to see. When you wake up in the morning, you see the sun rising from behind a straight flat edge in the distance and moreover, all shadows are straight instead of curved. If the earth were round, shadows would be curved, while if the earth would be flat, sunrise would occur at the same time allover the world.
And there you have it. Which of you can prove with scientific arguments (mythology will not be taken into consideration, as I have proven my theory with scientific facts) that my theory is wrong and yours is right? This is not trolling, it is a good exercise for both FEers and REers to debate their theory from another point of view.
The Cubist cover-up has been in operation for a long time and I applaud you for having the courage to expose it.
However, I would advise against exposing too many Cubist facts, such as FE theory is just another Government ploy to control and manipulate us.
the cubist cover up is actually a red herring generated by the conspiracy to draw attention away from the FE believers who are just getting to darn close to exposing the truth with the irrefutable evidence of FE they have been diligently gathering on this forum, like that 1 book some guy wrote a long time ago
but the conspirators struggle is in vain, any day now the truth will erupt forth into the world thanks to the galliant efforts of the fine scientists who honour this board with their groundbreaking scientific research. I eagerly wait the day when we can tear down the periodic tables in science labs and stick up the FAQ instead, and maybe salute it and think for a minute about the dear brave soldiers of truth who risked everything to end decades of tyranny and deceit by a handful of people from NASA
The joke will be on you einstein when your discredited fantasy physics theories are thrown out the window and replaced by celestial gears and bendy light. Then we can tear that nobel prize off you and hand it to top bishop who really deserves it for his great service furthering the understanding of the universe by looking out his window
Battle on my noble soldiers of reason, the end is in sight
-
Cube earth wasn't even funny the first time it was used, let alone the hundreds of times that followed.
-
My point isn't cube earth, round earth or even flat earth. Its your methodology of argumentation. That's what I wanted to point out in my previous post.
-
Let's put things this way. According to FEer methodology, I will state my own theory. I want you guys (FEers and REers) to come up with arguments to disprove my claim.
The cube earth theory
(http://www.clivechurch.com/storage/Square%20earth.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1270145359009)
The earth is a cube. This is proved by various scientific facts. For example, if you are in the southern regions of earth, the stars on the night sky are different than in the north. Second, the solar cycle. You can not see the sun at night because it is on the other side of cube earth. Third, how do I prove the earth is a cube? Well, the horizon is always flat. And mountains are actually the edges of cube earth. In fact, when you climb a mountain, then climb down the other side, you will not see the horizon on the other side of the mountain because the earth is a cube and the horizon is at a different angle. Also, when climbing down a mountain, you feel yourself going down hill because you are descending on another side of cube earth. The positions of mountains on maps are actually all a big conspiracy invented by our leaders to make us believe the earth is round or flat, to hide the fact that the earth is a cube. Moreover, not all sides of the earth cube have been explored and all aliens and UFOs come from those unexplored site.
Cube earth theory is also supported by the fact that the durations of night and day vary in winter. This is because cube earth wobbles as it revolves around the sun and some sides are more exposed than others during some periods of the year. Also, the proof that earth is a cube is there for everyone to see. When you wake up in the morning, you see the sun rising from behind a straight flat edge in the distance and moreover, all shadows are straight instead of curved. If the earth were round, shadows would be curved, while if the earth would be flat, sunrise would occur at the same time allover the world.
And there you have it. Which of you can prove with scientific arguments (mythology will not be taken into consideration, as I have proven my theory with scientific facts) that my theory is wrong and yours is right? This is not trolling, it is a good exercise for both FEers and REers to debate their theory from another point of view.
The Cubist cover-up has been in operation for a long time and I applaud you for having the courage to expose it.
However, I would advise against exposing too many Cubist facts, such as FE theory is just another Government ploy to control and manipulate us.
the cubist cover up is actually a red herring generated by the conspiracy to draw attention away from the FE believers who are just getting to darn close to exposing the truth with the irrefutable evidence of FE they have been diligently gathering on this forum, like that 1 book some guy wrote a long time ago
but the conspirators struggle is in vain, any day now the truth will erupt forth into the world thanks to the galliant efforts of the fine scientists who honour this board with their groundbreaking scientific research. I eagerly wait the day when we can tear down the periodic tables in science labs and stick up the FAQ instead, and maybe salute it and think for a minute about the dear brave soldiers of truth who risked everything to end decades of tyranny and deceit by a handful of people from NASA
The joke will be on you einstein when your discredited fantasy physics theories are thrown out the window and replaced by celestial gears and bendy light. Then we can tear that nobel prize off you and hand it to top bishop who really deserves it for his great service furthering the understanding of the universe by looking out his window
Battle on my noble soldiers of reason, the end is in sight
You couldn't see that I was only continuing the point in a light manner.
My big problem with the conspiracy is that no FE believer can answer me as to why the deception exists, who gains and how so many global institutions could all collaborate for so many centuries without a single leak?
Once this can be answered, I shall submit some proof of my own findings that the earth is round. Proof enough for everyone with the possible exception of the Zetetics.
-
Let's put things this way. According to FEer methodology, I will state my own theory. I want you guys (FEers and REers) to come up with arguments to disprove my claim.
The cube earth theory
(http://www.clivechurch.com/storage/Square%20earth.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1270145359009)
The earth is a cube. This is proved by various scientific facts. For example, if you are in the southern regions of earth, the stars on the night sky are different than in the north. Second, the solar cycle. You can not see the sun at night because it is on the other side of cube earth. Third, how do I prove the earth is a cube? Well, the horizon is always flat. And mountains are actually the edges of cube earth. In fact, when you climb a mountain, then climb down the other side, you will not see the horizon on the other side of the mountain because the earth is a cube and the horizon is at a different angle. Also, when climbing down a mountain, you feel yourself going down hill because you are descending on another side of cube earth. The positions of mountains on maps are actually all a big conspiracy invented by our leaders to make us believe the earth is round or flat, to hide the fact that the earth is a cube. Moreover, not all sides of the earth cube have been explored and all aliens and UFOs come from those unexplored site.
Cube earth theory is also supported by the fact that the durations of night and day vary in winter. This is because cube earth wobbles as it revolves around the sun and some sides are more exposed than others during some periods of the year. Also, the proof that earth is a cube is there for everyone to see. When you wake up in the morning, you see the sun rising from behind a straight flat edge in the distance and moreover, all shadows are straight instead of curved. If the earth were round, shadows would be curved, while if the earth would be flat, sunrise would occur at the same time allover the world.
And there you have it. Which of you can prove with scientific arguments (mythology will not be taken into consideration, as I have proven my theory with scientific facts) that my theory is wrong and yours is right? This is not trolling, it is a good exercise for both FEers and REers to debate their theory from another point of view.
The Cubist cover-up has been in operation for a long time and I applaud you for having the courage to expose it.
However, I would advise against exposing too many Cubist facts, such as FE theory is just another Government ploy to control and manipulate us.
the cubist cover up is actually a red herring generated by the conspiracy to draw attention away from the FE believers who are just getting to darn close to exposing the truth with the irrefutable evidence of FE they have been diligently gathering on this forum, like that 1 book some guy wrote a long time ago
but the conspirators struggle is in vain, any day now the truth will erupt forth into the world thanks to the galliant efforts of the fine scientists who honour this board with their groundbreaking scientific research. I eagerly wait the day when we can tear down the periodic tables in science labs and stick up the FAQ instead, and maybe salute it and think for a minute about the dear brave soldiers of truth who risked everything to end decades of tyranny and deceit by a handful of people from NASA
The joke will be on you einstein when your discredited fantasy physics theories are thrown out the window and replaced by celestial gears and bendy light. Then we can tear that nobel prize off you and hand it to top bishop who really deserves it for his great service furthering the understanding of the universe by looking out his window
Battle on my noble soldiers of reason, the end is in sight
You couldn't see that I was only continuing the point in a light manner.
My big problem with the conspiracy is that no FE believer can answer me as to why the deception exists, who gains and how so many global institutions could all collaborate for so many centuries without a single leak?
Once this can be answered, I shall submit some proof of my own findings that the earth is round. Proof enough for everyone with the possible exception of the Zetetics.
Obviously this can never be answered as the conspiracy is comically illogical. It is just an artifact of starting with the incorrect axiom that the earth is flat and going from there.
-
Cube earth wasn't even funny the first time it was used, let alone the hundreds of times that followed.
How is it any less funny than a Flat Earth? Or the fact that FE'ers consistently inverse the Poles to keep their NorthCentric viewpoints to keep the South in limbo.
Berny
Didn't even mention HET
-
Cube earth wasn't even funny the first time it was used, let alone the hundreds of times that followed.
But Cube Earth ARE dinosaurs!
-
Cube earth wasn't even funny the first time it was used, let alone the hundreds of times that followed.
But Cube Earth ARE dinosaurs!
Did the evolve from birds?
Berny
A little wiped.
-
Cube earth wasn't even funny the first time it was used, let alone the hundreds of times that followed.
I think it is abundantly clear that fenterb is merely taking the 'Flying Spaghetti Monster' approach (along the lines of: if something cannot be disproven, then it must be given credence).
-
Here FE goes again... changing the subject so they can get out of having to prove their (wrong) theories. As far as I know, no FE-er has been able to produce a good response to 29silhouette's post on the first page. As for Dr. Bishop... it is more likely he is part of a FE conspiracy than NASA being part of a RE conspiracy. It really isn't that hard to see.
-
Holy shit, the voice of reason! Thanks Communist Me, you basically illustrated the foundation on which Flat Earth hypothesis was built. It's just a stupid attempt to troll people while seeming smart. It's completely based off of hypotheses that get more and more ludicrous as an explanation is trying to be formed. For example, I could argue that Leprechauns are real, but nobody sees them because nobody's been to the end of a rainbow. That's basically Flying Spaghetti Monster and Flat Earth "theory" right there, in a nutshell.
-
Holy shit, the voice of reason! Thanks Communist Me, you basically illustrated the foundation on which Flat Earth hypothesis was built. It's just a stupid attempt to troll people while seeming smart. It's completely based off of hypotheses that get more and more ludicrous as an explanation is trying to be formed. For example, I could argue that Leprechauns are real, but nobody sees them because nobody's been to the end of a rainbow. That's basically Flying Spaghetti Monster and Flat Earth "theory" right there, in a nutshell.
No it isn't. Lurk moar.
-
Exactly.
-
The earth's magnetism also shows that they are indeed at the south pole. (And if they were not at the true south pole they would be at the magnetic south, which is close.)
Are you suggesting the Earth's magnetic field is the only thing that can affect magnets?
Besides, the rim is magnetic south, not just one point.
The magnetic south isnt at the south pole, its close to it, but not a perfect match. The same goes for the magnetic north pole. This is why most modern ships (and airplanes etc.) use gyroscopes to keep in track of direction. A gyroscopes is not affected by magnetism, and is based on simple laws of conservation of angular momentum and geometry. It't not an instrument you can fool from a distance. There has also been several flights above and over the south pole, and unledd you suggest teleportation, I don't see how you can explain confirmed airplane tours which cross the south pole, which in your perspective is 40000km, (but on a round earth, from 1000-2500 km) in about three hours?
-
The earth's magnetism also shows that they are indeed at the south pole. (And if they were not at the true south pole they would be at the magnetic south, which is close.)
Are you suggesting the Earth's magnetic field is the only thing that can affect magnets?
Besides, the rim is magnetic south, not just one point.
The magnetic south isnt at the south pole, its close to it, but not a perfect match. The same goes for the magnetic north pole. This is why most modern ships (and airplanes etc.) use gyroscopes to keep in track of direction. A gyroscopes is not affected by magnetism, and is based on simple laws of conservation of angular momentum and geometry. It't not an instrument you can fool from a distance. There has also been several flights above and over the south pole, and unledd you suggest teleportation, I don't see how you can explain confirmed airplane tours which cross the south pole, which in your perspective is 40000km, (but on a round earth, from 1000-2500 km) in about three hours?
There aren't any airplane tours which cross the south pole.
-
This is why most modern ships (and airplanes etc.) use gyroscopes to keep in track of direction. A gyroscopes is not affected by magnetism, and is based on simple laws of conservation of angular momentum and geometry. It't not an instrument you can fool from a distance.
Gyroscopes require constant adjustment.
-
There aren't any airplane tours which cross the south pole.
Actually, there are:
http://www.adventure-network.com/display.asp?navid=1&id=36
http://www.polarexplorers.com/expeditions/southpole-flights.shtml
http://www.polar-quest.com/?SID=1&PID=2&TID=81
-
There aren't any airplane tours which cross the south pole.
Actually, there are:
http://www.adventure-network.com/display.asp?navid=1&id=36
http://www.polarexplorers.com/expeditions/southpole-flights.shtml
http://www.polar-quest.com/?SID=1&PID=2&TID=81
These are dummy sites put out by NASA to keep the conspiracy alive... Plus nobody is interested in going that far south, have you done one of these tours yourself or know someone who has gone on one of these tours? Yeah, I didnt think so.
If you call the phone numbers listed, there's no answer.
Try it!
Tel: +1 (801) 266 4876 / 4982
/scarcasim
/stupidity
-
The earth's magnetism also shows that they are indeed at the south pole. (And if they were not at the true south pole they would be at the magnetic south, which is close.)
Are you suggesting the Earth's magnetic field is the only thing that can affect magnets?
Besides, the rim is magnetic south, not just one point.
The magnetic south isnt at the south pole, its close to it, but not a perfect match. The same goes for the magnetic north pole. This is why most modern ships (and airplanes etc.) use gyroscopes to keep in track of direction. A gyroscopes is not affected by magnetism, and is based on simple laws of conservation of angular momentum and geometry. It't not an instrument you can fool from a distance. There has also been several flights above and over the south pole, and unledd you suggest teleportation, I don't see how you can explain confirmed airplane tours which cross the south pole, which in your perspective is 40000km, (but on a round earth, from 1000-2500 km) in about three hours?
There aren't any airplane tours which cross the south pole.
Oh! So you admit then, that the south pole can be crossed?
We're making progress with the pea brains!
-
There aren't any airplane tours which cross the south pole.
Actually, there are:
http://www.adventure-network.com/display.asp?navid=1&id=36
http://www.polarexplorers.com/expeditions/southpole-flights.shtml
http://www.polar-quest.com/?SID=1&PID=2&TID=81
My mistake. I meant that there are no tours which cross Antarctica, as to demonstrate that it is not an infinite plane.
The South Pole is a series of points 90 degrees south, and is certainly crossable.
-
This is why most modern ships (and airplanes etc.) use gyroscopes to keep in track of direction. A gyroscopes is not affected by magnetism, and is based on simple laws of conservation of angular momentum and geometry. It't not an instrument you can fool from a distance.
Gyroscopes require constant adjustment.
It does not change the fact that you can't fool it from a distance. Also, you have accelerometers, or inertial sensors. These also build up an uncertainty, but they are more than good enough to be used to cross the south pole. And how do you define "constant adjustment"? How often, and how much do you have to adjust it?
Also, there are flights that cross the south pole. In addition, there are cruise ships that go to the south pole.
-
There aren't any airplane tours which cross the south pole.
Actually, there are:
http://www.adventure-network.com/display.asp?navid=1&id=36
http://www.polarexplorers.com/expeditions/southpole-flights.shtml
http://www.polar-quest.com/?SID=1&PID=2&TID=81
My mistake. I meant that there are no tours which cross Antarctica, as to demonstrate that it is not an infinite plane.
The South Pole is a series of points 90 degrees south, and is certainly crossable.
These points should be at the rim, shouldn't it? There are flights that indeed cross the antarctic continent, and according to your FE-map, comes out on "the other side", at the opposite end of the disc.
-
This is why most modern ships (and airplanes etc.) use gyroscopes to keep in track of direction. A gyroscopes is not affected by magnetism, and is based on simple laws of conservation of angular momentum and geometry. It't not an instrument you can fool from a distance.
Gyroscopes require constant adjustment.
typical post: The method isn't 100% acurate, therefore I'm going to pretend that its <50% accurate, and therefore not viable.
:[
-
The South Pole is a series of points 90 degrees south, and is certainly crossable.
Then why has no one recorded a latitude of 91 degrees south?
-
This is why most modern ships (and airplanes etc.) use gyroscopes to keep in track of direction. A gyroscopes is not affected by magnetism, and is based on simple laws of conservation of angular momentum and geometry. It't not an instrument you can fool from a distance.
Gyroscopes require constant adjustment.
typical post: The method isn't 100% acurate, therefore I'm going to pretend that its <50% accurate, and therefore not viable.
:[
Gyroscopes are not reliable navigation guides. A gyroscope in an INS is slaved to another instrument to update the gyro every 15 minutes or so. I would not want to fly with anyone claiming: "This is why most modern ships (and airplanes etc.) use gyroscopes to keep in track of direction."
-
Gyroscopes are not reliable navigation guides. A gyroscope in an INS is slaved to another instrument to update the gyro every 15 minutes or so. I would not want to fly with anyone claiming: "This is why most modern ships (and airplanes etc.) use gyroscopes to keep in track of direction."
I suppose that's why Ring Laser Gyroscopes are replacing mechanical gyroscopes in modern inertial guidance systems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_laser_gyroscope
-
This is why most modern ships (and airplanes etc.) use gyroscopes to keep in track of direction. A gyroscopes is not affected by magnetism, and is based on simple laws of conservation of angular momentum and geometry. It't not an instrument you can fool from a distance.
Gyroscopes require constant adjustment.
typical post: The method isn't 100% acurate, therefore I'm going to pretend that its <50% accurate, and therefore not viable.
:[
Gyroscopes are not reliable navigation guides. A gyroscope in an INS is slaved to another instrument to update the gyro every 15 minutes or so. I would not want to fly with anyone claiming: "This is why most modern ships (and airplanes etc.) use gyroscopes to keep in track of direction."
It still is much more accurate than a magnetic compass. As I have used both for sailing my preference easily falls onto a Gyrocompass than a magnetic one any day of the week - although having a magnetic compass as a backup is always a necessity. And a sextant as a back up as well.
A gyrocompass only needs to be recalibrated once a day using whatever methods are handiest - which even in the middle of the ocean celestial sights are available. Even if not calibrated gyrocompass have a relatively small slippage, measured in percents of a degree.
Which leads to me to wonder how you would navigate if not using INS, Gyrocompass, GPS, or Celestial navigation?
Berny
Vojtek? Vojtek? VOJTEK!
-
There aren't any airplane tours which cross the south pole.
Actually, there are:
http://www.adventure-network.com/display.asp?navid=1&id=36
http://www.polarexplorers.com/expeditions/southpole-flights.shtml
http://www.polar-quest.com/?SID=1&PID=2&TID=81
My mistake. I meant that there are no tours which cross Antarctica, as to demonstrate that it is not an infinite plane.
The South Pole is a series of points 90 degrees south, and is certainly crossable.
The south pole is surrounded by Antarctica, you really need to go back to school. Starting somewhere in and around grade 4.
-
These points should be at the rim, shouldn't it? There are flights that indeed cross the antarctic continent, and according to your FE-map, comes out on "the other side", at the opposite end of the disc.
There are no regular flights or tours which cross the Antarctic continent. You are mistaken.
Then why has no one recorded a latitude of 91 degrees south?
How would they, when the recording instruments only go up to 90.
The south pole is surrounded by Antarctica, you really need to go back to school. Starting somewhere in and around grade 4.
Elementary schools have a well known round earth bias.
-
Then why has no one recorded a latitude of 91 degrees south?
How would they, when the recording instruments only go up to 90.
If south goes to infinity, then why would latitude stop at 90 degrees south?
-
Then why has no one recorded a latitude of 91 degrees south?
How would they, when the recording instruments only go up to 90.
If south goes to infinity, then why would latitude stop at 90 degrees south?
The recording instruments only go up to 90 for the same reason why a wristwatch only goes up to 12: by design.
-
Then why has no one recorded a latitude of 91 degrees south?
How would they, when the recording instruments only go up to 90.
If south goes to infinity, then why would latitude stop at 90 degrees south?
The recording instruments only go up to 90 for the same reason why a wristwatch only goes up to 12 - by design.
Why is it you can find Polar south using a celestial compass in which the stars revolve around a central point which is completely impossible in the current flat earth flat celestial sky.
Berny
Still never explained.
-
Why is it you can find Polar south using a celestial compass in which the stars revolve around a central point which is completely impossible in the current flat earth flat celestial sky.
Proof?
-
Why is it you can find Polar south using a celestial compass in which the stars revolve around a central point which is completely impossible in the current flat earth flat celestial sky.
Proof?
Rotation of stars in a clockwise direction when facing south is from personal experience of using stars as guiding points while sailing.
Rotation of stars in a counter-clockwise direction when facing north - easily scene from outside my window.
Proof of concept - use celestial programs.
Celestial navigation, Astro-compasses and Sextants you can search google on their use, they are fairly common.
Berny
Sextants exasperate seasickness
p.s. Have you paid out on your bet yet? Or did you welch.
-
Why is it you can find Polar south using a celestial compass in which the stars revolve around a central point which is completely impossible in the current flat earth flat celestial sky.
Proof?
South America, South Africa and Australia have observatories which use the same star charts. Tom, are you suggesting thousands of professional astronomers are wrong?
-
Why is it you can find Polar south using a celestial compass in which the stars revolve around a central point which is completely impossible in the current flat earth flat celestial sky.
Proof?
Rotation of stars in a clockwise direction when facing south is from personal experience of using stars as guiding points while sailing.
Rotation of stars in a counter-clockwise direction when facing north - easily scene from outside my window.
Proof of concept - use celestial programs.
Celestial navigation, Astro-compasses and Sextants you can search google on their use, they are fairly common.
Berny
Sextants exasperate seasickness
p.s. Have you paid out on your bet yet? Or did you welch.
So no proof that anyone found the South Pole by looking at the stars then?
Why is it you can find Polar south using a celestial compass in which the stars revolve around a central point which is completely impossible in the current flat earth flat celestial sky.
Proof?
South America, South Africa and Australia have observatories which use the same star charts. Tom, are you suggesting thousands of professional astronomers are wrong?
Did any of those thousands of professional astronomers go to the South Pole by looking at the stars?
-
Why is it you can find Polar south using a celestial compass in which the stars revolve around a central point which is completely impossible in the current flat earth flat celestial sky.
Proof?
South America, South Africa and Australia have observatories which use the same star charts. Tom, are you suggesting thousands of professional astronomers are wrong?
Did any of those thousands of professional astronomers go to the South Pole by looking at the stars?
They didn't need to, they just observed that the celestial compass agreed with the magnetic compass (within given tolerances), and that there's one celestial dome in the whole southern hemiplanesphere.
The heavens is the elephant in the room for FEers. It's how bendy light was born.
-
Why is it you can find Polar south using a celestial compass in which the stars revolve around a central point which is completely impossible in the current flat earth flat celestial sky.
Proof?
Rotation of stars in a clockwise direction when facing south is from personal experience of using stars as guiding points while sailing.
Rotation of stars in a counter-clockwise direction when facing north - easily scene from outside my window.
Proof of concept - use celestial programs.
Celestial navigation, Astro-compasses and Sextants you can search google on their use, they are fairly common.
Berny
Sextants exasperate seasickness
p.s. Have you paid out on your bet yet? Or did you welch.
So no proof that anyone found the South Pole by looking at the stars then?
Nowhere did I ever say anything about finding the South Pole. Merely the fact that you can find Polar south which is a direction. You can find Polar south (the direction) in the same you can find Polar north. The use of stars as navigation south of the equator is in direct contradiction to your FE theory.
Berny
So paid up on your bet or still being a welch?
-
Nowhere did I ever say anything about finding the South Pole. Merely the fact that you can find Polar south which is a direction. You can find Polar south (the direction) in the same you can find Polar north. The use of stars as navigation south of the equator is in direct contradiction to your FE theory.
I have seen no evidence that people in the southern hemiplane can use the stars to find polar south. It's only you who assumes they can.
On a daily basis how make people actually navigate extreme distances by looking at the stars?
Answer: No one.
-
Nowhere did I ever say anything about finding the South Pole. Merely the fact that you can find Polar south which is a direction. You can find Polar south (the direction) in the same you can find Polar north. The use of stars as navigation south of the equator is in direct contradiction to your FE theory.
I have seen no evidence that people in the southern hemiplane can use the stars to find polar south. It's only you who assumes they can.
How makemade? people actually navigate extreme distances by looking at the stars?
Answer: No one.
I will assume you meant many instead of make.
Learn to navigate.
Even I had to learn how to use a sextant while sailing.
Now before the use of electronic navigation - yes they used the stars to guide themselves.
And all I ask is a tall ship and a star to steer her by,
And the wheel's kick and the wind's song and the white sail's shaking,
And a grey mist on the sea's face, and a grey dawn breaking.
I realize you are rather hide-bound, short-sighted and stuck in your own little world without the wherewithal to climb out of your self-built hole to explore the wonders that exist - but really - just because you cannot do not spam your nonsense and nay-saying in a debate forum without actually researching the subject.
And I think it's pretty small that you have to resort to this sort of pettiness to attempt to make some miserable attempts at humour.
Re: An expiremnt to prove the Earth is round. (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=45428.msg1121665#msg1121665)
None of those definitions are for an 'expiremnt'
Berny
Thinks you need to remove something large from one of your smallish orifices.
-
http://yachtpals.com/boating/antarctica-boats
Antarctica circumnavigation Cup Racetrack. Konyukhov came through it all unscathed, returning to King George Sound at 02: 56:50 UTC (10:56:50 WST) today to record a time of 102 days 00 hours 56 minutes 50secs for this 16,400 mile circuit of Antarctica. Let's assume that we use the FE map that has the perimeter ice wall. From (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Eratosthenes+on+Diameter) we get a circumference at the edge of the ocean of 79,969 nautical miles. This man sailed following the coast and ended up at the same point after 102 days and covering a recorded 16,400 mile distance. So either he is lying along with everybody else involved or the diameter of the FE is only 5222 miles.
-
http://yachtpals.com/boating/antarctica-boats
Antarctica circumnavigation Cup Racetrack. Konyukhov came through it all unscathed, returning to King George Sound at 02: 56:50 UTC (10:56:50 WST) today to record a time of 102 days 00 hours 56 minutes 50secs for this 16,400 mile circuit of Antarctica. Let's assume that we use the FE map that has the perimeter ice wall. From (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Eratosthenes+on+Diameter) we get a circumference at the edge of the ocean of 79,969 nautical miles. This man sailed following the coast and ended up at the same point after 102 days and covering a recorded 16,400 mile distance. So either he is lying along with everybody else involved or the diameter of the FE is only 5222 miles.
Much easier to add him to the list of conspirators, no?
-
At this point I am almost want to ask if you FEer's are doing all of this as a joke. We have disproved your entire theory, through a LOT of evidence. Many things today would not work in a flat earth. This must be some sort of mass-hysteria. Seriously, you can't really believe this, can you? Sooner or later this site will go extinct. Just wait untill commercial space travel.
.EPICEPIC............E.................EPICEPICEP........EP...............
.EP...................EPIC.....................EP.............EP...............
.EP.................EP...IC....................EP.............EP...............
.EPICE...........EP......IC...................EP.............EP...............
.EP..............EPICEPICEP.................EP.............EP...............
.EP.............EP...........EP...............EP..............EP...............
.EP............EP.............EP........EPICEPICEP........EPICEPICEP...
-
To answer that post simply, yes. The entire site is a joke. They're just people trying to get a rise out of others by acting like pedantic idiots. Don't let them convince you otherwise.
-
To answer that post simply, yes. The entire site is a joke. They're just people trying to get a rise out of others by acting like pedantic idiots. Don't let them convince you otherwise.
Right, says the guy that has not even been here for two months, and < 300 posts. You are surely insightful about this site.
Troll on, angry noob.
-
UnseenForce, just remember:
Don't let them convince you otherwise.
Also, how does my post count have anything to do with the truth?
-
Fads like RET come and go. This site will be here when the fad is proven otherwise and wears off.
It is interesting that merchandising helps define these fads and is at the root of others like the pet rock or the slinky, etc. With RET it is those 'globes' that you see in the stores that help define it.
One day they will hold a proud place in museums across the whole earth.
-
Fads like RET come and go. This site will be here when the fad is proven otherwise and wears off.
It is interesting that merchandising helps define these fads and is at the root of others like the pet rock or the slinky, etc. With RET it is those 'globes' that you see in the stores that help define it.
One day they will hold a proud place in museums across the whole earth.
Truer words could not have been said.
Very insightful gotham!
-
Fads like RET come and go. This site will be here when the fad is proven otherwise and wears off.
It is interesting that merchandising helps define these fads and is at the root of others like the pet rock or the slinky, etc. With RET it is those 'globes' that you see in the stores that help define it.
One day they will hold a proud place in museums across the whole earth.
Truer words could not have been said.
Very insightful gotham!
Very kind of you, I must say :)
The thread is quite interesting!
-
To answer that post simply, yes. The entire site is a joke. They're just people trying to get a rise out of others by acting like pedantic idiots. Don't let them convince you otherwise.
Right, says the guy that has not even been here for two months, and < 300 posts. You are surely insightful about this site.
Troll on, angry noob.
Truth does not have a minimum post count.
-
To answer that post simply, yes. The entire site is a joke. They're just people trying to get a rise out of others by acting like pedantic idiots. Don't let them convince you otherwise.
Right, says the guy that has not even been here for two months, and < 300 posts. You are surely insightful about this site.
Troll on, angry noob.
Truth does not have a minimum post count.
It appears that RE'ers consider truth to be based on anecdotes. Well, that explains a lot.
-
More generalizations?
-
It appears that General Disarray considers truth to be based on anecdotes. Well, that explains a lot.
-
http://yachtpals.com/boating/antarctica-boats
Antarctica circumnavigation Cup Racetrack. Konyukhov came through it all unscathed, returning to King George Sound at 02: 56:50 UTC (10:56:50 WST) today to record a time of 102 days 00 hours 56 minutes 50secs for this 16,400 mile circuit of Antarctica. Let's assume that we use the FE map that has the perimeter ice wall. From (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Eratosthenes+on+Diameter) we get a circumference at the edge of the ocean of 79,969 nautical miles. This man sailed following the coast and ended up at the same point after 102 days and covering a recorded 16,400 mile distance. So either he is lying along with everybody else involved or the diameter of the FE is only 5222 miles.
the above quote is an anecdote?
-
It appears that General Disarray considers truth to be based on anecdotes. Well, that explains a lot.
I merely pointed out that one's post count alone does not disqualify them from speaking truth. Do you consider everything clovis2 posts to be a lie?
-
It appears that General Disarray considers truth to be based on anecdotes. Well, that explains a lot.
I merely pointed out that one's post count alone does not disqualify them from speaking truth. Do you consider everything clovis2 posts to be a lie?
Not everything. But the posts concerning his belief about FET, yes.
If you check, I have strongly criticized the Zetetic Council making him a FEB on many occasions.
-
It appears that General Disarray considers truth to be based on anecdotes. Well, that explains a lot.
I merely pointed out that one's post count alone does not disqualify them from speaking truth. Do you consider everything clovis2 posts to be a lie?
Not everything. But the posts concerning his belief about FET, yes.
If you check, I have strongly criticized the Zetetic Council making him a FEB on many occasions.
Actually this could be said for most of them.
Levee only has 450 posts
Clovis2 a miserable 41 posts. How he convinced anybody anything in that few is a mystery.
17November 920 posts
Bullhorm 351 Posts
LordByron 116 posts
Iris ... 1 post. lol. 1 post! Must have been very convincing. Here it is.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=36903.msg916829#msg916829
That bought him FEB status! Its a joke.
Raa 951 posts
Chaltier 173 posts
I think the Zetetic council needs a rethink about what FEB means. If it means you make a very, very small contribution and then hide away from questions from the public, then the FEB's are doing a good job. If it means you are researching and spreading FE science to the masses ... Well its time for a shuffle.
I might even go to S&C with this. >:(
-
Daniel: 840 posts ::)
-
Daniel: 840 posts ::)
Yeah, and most of those about lost puppies or late T-shirts.
Anyway I don't fancy a ban. There is enough other FEBs to examine first. I have popped a thread in S&C. This nonsense needs rectifying.
-
It appears that General Disarray considers truth to be based on anecdotes. Well, that explains a lot.
I merely pointed out that one's post count alone does not disqualify them from speaking truth. Do you consider everything clovis2 posts to be a lie?
Not everything. But the posts concerning his belief about FET, yes.
If you check, I have strongly criticized the Zetetic Council making him a FEB on many occasions.
Actually this could be said for most of them.
Levee only has 450 posts
Clovis2 a miserable 41 posts. How he convinced anybody anything in that few is a mystery.
17November 920 posts
Bullhorm 351 Posts
LordByron 116 posts
Iris ... 1 post. lol. 1 post! Must have been very convincing. Here it is.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=36903.msg916829#msg916829
That bought him FEB status! Its a joke.
Raa 951 posts
Chaltier 173 posts
I think the Zetetic council needs a rethink about what FEB means. If it means you make a very, very small contribution and then hide away from questions from the public, then the FEB's are doing a good job. If it means you are researching and spreading FE science to the masses ... Well its time for a shuffle.
I might even go to S&C with this. >:(
I'm glad levee doesn't post more of his bs with 17november right behind it to praise him into the next universe. It's annoying
-
Lurk moar.
The two of them never agree on anything other than the basic shape of earth.
-
how thick is the earth?
[brilliant quip] Almost as thick as (insert FE'er of choice here) [/brilliant quip]
The south pole is surrounded by Antarctica, you really need to go back to school. Starting somewhere in and around grade 4.
Cube earth wasn't even funny the first time it was used, let alone the hundreds of times that followed.
But Cube Earth ARE dinosaurs!
This posting is against the rules. Cease it or face a ban.
-
how thick is the earth?
[brilliant quip] Almost as thick as (insert FE'er of choice here) [/brilliant quip]
The south pole is surrounded by Antarctica, you really need to go back to school. Starting somewhere in and around grade 4.
Cube earth wasn't even funny the first time it was used, let alone the hundreds of times that followed.
But Cube Earth ARE dinosaurs!
This posting is against the rules. Cease it or face a ban.
Can you tell that to people talking about dreaming and having telepathic mind conversation with non-existent moon-shrimp too?
-
I merely pointed out that one's post count alone does not disqualify them from speaking truth. Do you consider everything clovis2 posts to be a lie?
Not everything. But the posts concerning his belief about FET, yes.
If you check, I have strongly criticized the Zetetic Council making him a FEB on many occasions.
They did not make him a FEB. I did before the existence of the ZC. I did so due to the word of a trusted colleague and based off evidence that he was a member of Johnsons' list.
Can you tell that to people talking about dreaming and having telepathic mind conversation with non-existent moon-shrimp too?
If you dislike unorthodox ideas you have come to the wrong place. I cannot and should not control what other members claim to believe. I simply do not have the right to. Nor is it within the spirit of the these forums. These flat earth society forums are open to all, especially those with beliefs that are normally shunned by the mainstream community. This is all I can say about this for now.
If you dislike the argument, ignore it. That is the only solution I can give you.
Lets get back on topic though and stop with this metadiscussion.
-
Back to actual discussion please?
-
What are you talking about? Saddam answered it. There is a drop off point. It is deep in Antarctica. You would have to get pass the Ice Wall but after that there is nothing stopping you from going off the edge.
Funny how you make an infalsifiable assertion and treat it as fact. There is absolutely no evidence of a drop off point. It is pure fantasy, exactly like Russell's Teapot. The lack of evidence of a drop-off point means that we aren't justified in believing in it. What you're saying is "well, it still exists...what are you talking about?" is just circular.
-
What are you talking about? Saddam answered it. There is a drop off point. It is deep in Antarctica. You would have to get pass the Ice Wall but after that there is nothing stopping you from going off the edge.
Funny how you make an infalsifiable assertion and treat it as fact. There is absolutely no evidence of a drop off point. It is pure fantasy, exactly like Russell's Teapot. The lack of evidence of a drop-off point means that we aren't justified in believing in it. What you're saying is "well, it still exists...what are you talking about?" is just circular.
A new person asked me a question as to what FE'ers believe, and where it would be.
If the Earth was flat, shouldnt there be a be a drop off point of where you just fall?
Not a single one of you "believers" were able to answer this question. As far as I know, no one has found a point where you can simply “drop off” the earth. The easiest explanation would be that you loop around the flat earth, but that almost certainly means the earth is a sphere.
What are you talking about? Saddam answered it. There is a drop off point. It is deep in Antarctica. You would have to get pass the Ice Wall but after that there is nothing stopping you from going off the edge.
I am wrong for answering his question?
-
the earth is round there ARE satellites in space that revolve around earth.
every planet in space is round and so is Earth it makes perfect sense
people here are just stupid and ignorant.
there is no "dropoff point" and even so the fact that earth has moving water proves the earth is round.
the water would simply waterfall off the sides of the earth and it would be dry. currents are caused because the earth is round also.
flight planes prove the earth is flat as well.
simply because you can fly west ward and allways go westward. and never fall off then end of the earth.
so say i start in los angeles and i fly west passing tokyo fly over asia over africa past europe and past america back to los angeles. that is proof enough the earth is round.
simple navigators have to make adjustmens when sailing or flying to keep a CURVE in their navigations to go STRAIGHT and save time.
-
Lurk moar.
Read the FAQ
-
Lurk moar.
Read the FAQ
id rather not this site is trash lol
i'm just here to say you are wrong and all idiots
-
Lurk moar.
Read the FAQ
id rather not this site is trash lol
i'm just here to say you are wrong and all idiots
Enough with the low content posting. You have either the option of educating yourself about what you disagree with, or backing down and leaving. You are not the first angry noob to stumble in here and ignorantly spout insults without even understanding the principles of the FE model.
The FAQ (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=13876.0) was compiled for this very reason; opting for laziness is the last way to earn respect.
-
Lurk moar.
Read the FAQ
id rather not this site is trash lol
i'm just here to say you are wrong and all idiots
Enough with the low content posting. You have either the option of educating yourself about what you disagree with, or backing down and leaving. You are not the first angry noob to stumble in here and ignorantly spout insults without even understanding the principles of the FE model.
The FAQ (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=13876.0) was compiled for this very reason; opting for laziness is the last way to earn respect.
Flat earthers are some of the lowest content posters around here.
To be fair, he's not wrong.
-
You know, there is one point that someone brought up that does argue against the Earth being flat. I can make my point by asking two questions. Based on your map, if one traveled in a consistent circle from the tip of Africa to the tip of South America, what would the total distance traveled be? If one traveled that distance at a rate of 100 miles per hour, how long would that take?