The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: thefireproofmatch on September 11, 2011, 07:48:18 AM
-
What causes eclipses?
A. Antimoon
B. Weather patterns on the moon
C. Luna (moonshrimp) migration
How was the Earth formed?
A. God
B. Uni-directional big bang
C. Other
Which is the proper map?
A. The one in the FAQ
B. The one Tom Bishop proposed (I can't find the thread)
How do you explain fossils without continental drift?
A. Intelligent dinosaurs
B. Swimming dinosaurs
What causes moonlight?
A. Luna
B. The sun
C. Other
Does bendy light exist?
A. Yes
B. No
How far away is the sun and moon?
A. 3000 miles
B. Other
Is the earth a disc or infinite plane?
A. Yes
B. No
Does gravitation (not gravity) exist?
A. Only with the stars
B. No
What keeps the atmosphere in?
A. Atmolayer
B. UA
C. Icewall
How do you explain pictures from weather balloons and such?
A. Distortion of the atmosphere
B. Fish-eye lenses
C. You are looking down at a circle
I think you will find at least one member on the upper fora that agrees with any of the answers I have provided.Why can't you guys agree on anything?
note: Correct me if I'm mistaken about any of the explanations.
-
One might ask why RErs can't just agree on simple principles?
Famous retired physics prof Peter Higgs - of boson renown - has stingingly counter-poohpoohed the theories of his equally well known Nobel Prize rival, Stephen Hawking, who has already poohpoohed Higgs' particle concept. The clash of intellects is expected to be settled by particle-punishment results at the Large Hadron Collider.
or this
How Newton's and Einstein's view of gravity differ
Newton taught that masses attract each other with a force.
Here are two examples:
1 - Newton's idea was that planets are held in their orbits around the Sun by a
force due to the mass of the Sun and the planets, and that force is always
pointing inwards (i.e. planets get pulled in the direction of the Sun, and the Sun
gets pulled in the directions of the planets).
2 - Newton said that a person standing on the Earth is being held to the Earth by
a force due to the mass of the Earth and the mass of the person, and that force
is always pointing inwards (i.e. a person gets pulled in the direction toward the
center of the Earth, and the Earth gets pulled in the direction of that person).
Einstein, on the other hand, taught that all things with mass (including the Sun,
Earth, and the rest of the planets) cause spacetime to curve and that this
curvature is an alteration the geometry of spacetime. The direction of the
curvature tends to point toward the center of the largest nearby mass. The closer
to this mass the larger the degree of curvature in that local spacetime.
Additionally, Einstein taught that if there are no external forces acting upon an
object (even those without any mass such as photons) then that object will simply
follow its natural path (geodesic) through the altered geometry of the local
spacetime - regardless of the degree of curvature of that local spacetime. This
implies that if an object is somehow kept from following its natural path (geodesic)
then a net force does exist and is measurable on that object.
Here are two examples:
1 - Einstein's idea is that planets are merely following the curvature of spacetime
caused mostly by the mass of the Sun and to a lesser degree the mass of the
planets, and that no forces are involved in keeping the planets in their orbits.
2 - Einstein said that a person standing on the Earth experiences an upward
force (in a direction pointing away from the center of the Earth) and that force is
what keeps that person from traveling in his/her natural path (geodesic) through
the curvature of spacetime. This curvature is caused mostly by the mass of the
Earth.
or this example of handbags at dawn
The debate between Bohr and Einstein over the interpretation of quantum theory began in 1927 at the fifth Solvay Conference of physicists and ended at Einstein’s death in 1955. The most active phase of the debate ran from 1927 to 1936 when Bohr replied to the EPR paper written by Einstein and two colleagues. The debate took the form of various thought experiments invented by Einstein in which it would be theoretically possible to measure complementary properties such as the position and momentum of a particle or its energy at a certain point in time. If these measurements were possible it would show that Bohr’s idea of complementarity and Heisenburg’s uncertainty principle were wrong and that the quantum theory proposed by Bohr, called the Copenhagen Interpretation, was wrong. Before addressing Einstein’s attack on Bohr’s theory, it is necessary to examine the theory to see what Einstein was objecting to.
I don't know why RErs keep coming to this site assuming RE has all the answers? It doesn't and much of it is far fetched and fanciful.
-
Do you see REr's arguing over which continent goes where? Do you see us debating if the moon orbits the Earth? Have you ever seen a scientist question if the Earth spins? No, you haven't. Your examples of Einstein, Newton, Hawking, etc. are irrelevant. They are not arguing if gravitation causes us to be attracted to the Earth.
-
The very fact many of you have stopped arguing and fall in line with stupefied acceptance is troubling. Its FE's diversity of ideas that ensures it will have all the answers first and why we are light years ahead of you in simple matters such as the shape of the earth.
-
The very fact many of you have stopped arguing and fall in line with stupefied acceptance is troubling. Its FE's diversity of ideas that ensures it will have all the answers first and why we are light years ahead of you in simple matters such as the shape of the earth.
You are too funny Thork. "Diversity of ideas" at the fundamental level of a theory isn't good. It shows there is no logical or obvious way to explain the shortcomings of FET, so everybody comes up with their own unsupported idea. Also, if you are light-years (lol) ahead of us, how come only a small handful of people believe in your crackpot theory? Wouldn't at least some reasonable people have "converted" by now? The number of believers will shrink and shrink and soon none will even consider this theory.
-
Wouldn't at least some reasonable people have "converted" by now?
I must conclude that you are unreasonable.
-
Wouldn't at least some reasonable people have "converted" by now?
I must conclude that you are unreasonable.
So nobody except for the FEr's are reasonable? Nice. And way to avoid my point.
-
What causes eclipses?
A. Antimoon
B. Weather patterns on the moon
C. Luna (moonshrimp) migration
The Sun
Which is the proper map?
A. The one in the FAQ
B. The one Tom Bishop proposed (I can't find the thread)
Know one knows, but I tend to lean to Lord Willmires,
How do you explain fossils without continental drift?
A. Intelligent dinosaurs
B. Swimming dinosaurs
Continental drift is very possible in a spherical or disc earth
What causes moonlight?
A. Luna
B. The sun
C. Other
The Sun
Does bendy light exist?
A. Yes
B. No
Only in very high gravity wells
How far away is the sun and moon?
A. 3000 miles
B. Other
know one knows the exact distance, but i think its a lot closer than 93,000,000 Miles
Is the earth a disc or infinite plane?
A. Yes
B. No
Does gravitation (not gravity) exist?
A. Only with the stars
B. No
yes
What keeps the atmosphere in?
A. Atmolayer
B. UA
C. Icewall
UA
How do you explain pictures from weather balloons and such?
A. Distortion of the atmosphere
B. Fish-eye lenses
C. You are looking down at a circle
C
I think you will find at least one member on the upper fora that agrees with any of the answers I have provided.Why can't you guys agree on anything?
note: Correct me if I'm mistaken about any of the explanations.
The problem with "Flat" Earth Society is that the term flat is so antiquated, get with the 21 century.
We cant believe whole heartedly in one mans research, we must continue to research ourselves, by Zetetism, and not by a FAQ one person wrote.
-
Wouldn't at least some reasonable people have "converted" by now?
I must conclude that you are unreasonable.
So nobody except for the FEr's are reasonable? Nice. And way to avoid my point.
Like RErs we have agreed on the shape of the earth. We unanimously conclude it to be flat. Like RET we have a differing views on the mechanics of the universe. We cannot agree on UA or the atmolayer. You cannot agree on Higgs Bosom or magic. The difference is RET has all the power, money and resources to solve these problems, and we do not. The only obstacle to RET is having the wrong starting point, and a group of rich and powerful individuals who are hell-bent on keeping it that way.
You will find most FErs to be reasonable. They are also all converts who were taught globularism at school. It is only due to sound reasoning and examination of overwhelming evidences that they have shaken off the shroud of ignorance RET has cloaked them in. I hope one day you will accept this gift from me.
-
Like RErs we have agreed on the shape of the earth. We unanimously conclude it to be flat.
True.
Like RET we have a differing views on the mechanics of the universe. We cannot agree on UA or the atmolayer. You cannot agree on Higgs Bosom or magic.
As I said before, the whole Higgs Boson thing isn't fundamental. A fundamental of RET is that gravitation exists and it affects all things, including the Earth. This gravitation caused the Earth to become a sphere. The exact mechanism of gravity is irrelevant to this discussion, gravity has been observed and tested.
The difference is RET has all the power, money and resources to solve these problems, and we do not. The only obstacle to RET is having the wrong starting point, and a group of rich and powerful individuals who are hell-bent on keeping it that way.
So shouldn't the Flattists work together instead of disagreeing on almost every aspect of FET?
You will find most FErs to be reasonable.
James, Tom, John, etc, would never consider changing their ideas about the Earth. They create wild explanations when all evidence is stacked against them, instead of actually considering that their opponents may be right. This is not reasonable.
-
I think that everyone must agree, at least, that there is no way a brachiosaurus could swim across the Atlantic, and therefore dinosaurs must have had the capacity to build boats.
-
The very fact many of you have stopped arguing and fall in line with stupefied acceptance agreed on basic parts of a theory is troubling.
Why?
-
Like RErs we have agreed on the shape of the earth. We unanimously conclude it to be flat.
True.
Indeed. Its flat.
Like RET we have a differing views on the mechanics of the universe. We cannot agree on UA or the atmolayer. You cannot agree on Higgs Bosom or magic.
As I said before, the whole Higgs Boson thing isn't fundamental. A fundamental of RET is that gravitation exists and it affects all things, including the Earth. This gravitation caused the Earth to become a sphere. The exact mechanism of gravity is irrelevant to this discussion, gravity has been observed and tested.
Higgs Boson is fundamental. Without it, gravity could be caused by magic, or God, or the power of thought. Gravity is merely a concept with no proof at all at present. The fact that Higgs (your best guess) failed, should have sent reverberations around the RET scientific community because at some point along the way, someone has got it wrong.
The difference is RET has all the power, money and resources to solve these problems, and we do not. The only obstacle to RET is having the wrong starting point, and a group of rich and powerful individuals who are hell-bent on keeping it that way.
So shouldn't the Flattists work together instead of disagreeing on almost every aspect of FET?
Its FE's diversity of ideas that ensures it will have all the answers first and why we are light years ahead of you in simple matters such as the shape of the earth.
You will find most FErs to be reasonable.
James, Tom, John, etc, would never consider changing their ideas about the Earth. They create wild explanations when all evidence is stacked against them, instead of actually considering that their opponents may be right. This is not reasonable.
Of course they would change their opinion if they knew that they were wrong. They have spent their whole lives searching for the truth. They only want share that wealth of knowledge with others and are always keen to learn more.
I think that everyone must agree, at least, that there is no way a brachiosaurus could swim across the Atlantic, and therefore dinosaurs must have had the capacity to build boats.
I do not subscribe to boat building dinosaurs. I see no reason why continents on a molten bed of flat rock cannot move around on a flat earth. I do not see plate tectonics as a limitation to FE and believe it to be a synchronous theory.
The very fact many of you have stopped arguing and fall in line with stupefied acceptance agreed on basic parts of a theory is troubling.
Why?
I fail to see the point of your word games.
People are not limited to using only 10% of their brains.
You're not born with all of the brain cells you'll have for life.
Gold fish memory is not limited to 3 seconds.
Men do not think about sex every seven seconds.
Your tongue is not split in different taste zones.
Swimming after eating does not cause stomach cramps
Shaving does not cause hair to grow back thicker or darker.
Hair and nails do not keep growing after a person dies.
Swallowed chewing gum does not stay in your system for years.
The color red does not anger bulls.
Meteorites are not hot when they hit Earth.
Danish Pastries do not come from Denmark.
Bats aren't blind.
Napoleon wasn't short.
Chameleons do not change colour to match their surroundings.
A duck’s quack can echo.
The phrase is 'just deserts', not 'just desserts'.
Just because a large portion of the population believe something, does not make it so.
-
Thork, your trolling is rubbish. Just saying, cause you don't realise.
-
Like RET we have a differing views on the mechanics of the universe. We cannot agree on UA or the atmolayer. You cannot agree on Higgs Bosom or magic.
As I said before, the whole Higgs Boson thing isn't fundamental. A fundamental of RET is that gravitation exists and it affects all things, including the Earth. This gravitation caused the Earth to become a sphere. The exact mechanism of gravity is irrelevant to this discussion, gravity has been observed and tested.
Higgs Boson is fundamental. Without it, gravity could be caused by magic, or God, or the power of thought. Gravity is merely a concept with no proof at all at present. The fact that Higgs (your best guess) failed, should have sent reverberations around the RET scientific community because at some point along the way, someone has got it wrong.
Just because the hypothesis was wrong doesn't mean gravity doesn't exist. Gravity has been measured and is accepted by all scientists as fact. They will revise the theory so it makes more sense. Notice how this is your only argument against RET.
-
No, what they measured was UA. They just called it gravity and have no explanation as to how it works.
-
No, what they measured was UA. They just called it gravity and have no explanation as to how it works.
I had no idea UA makes objects other than the earth move! :o
-
You do not understand the equivalence principle. You need to do moar research.
-
Was the Cavendish experiment fake?
-
Was the Cavendish experiment fake?
It demonstrates gravitation in some objects. It does not prove gravity as a universal property of matter.
-
The Cavendish experiment was flawed. This is explained in the thread below using a banana as an example. It is 4 pages of thread but its quite an enjoyable read. You will see why I am not happy with the Cavendish experiment.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=45198.msg1116088#msg1116088
-
Was the Cavendish experiment fake?
It demonstrates gravitation in some objects. It does not prove gravity as a universal property of matter.
Are you saying we should try and measure attraction between every single object in the universe, just to validate gravitation?
-
Was the Cavendish experiment fake?
It demonstrates gravitation in some objects. It does not prove gravity as a universal property of matter.
Are you saying we should try and measure attraction between every single object in the universe, just to validate gravitation?
Not objects, but elements/compounds, certainly. I doubt it will be done, since 'scientists' are so hidebound by their globularist zealotry that they will treat any attempt to perform the experiments with derision and scorn
-
The Cavendish experiment was flawed. This is explained in the thread below using a banana as an example. It is 4 pages of thread but its quite an enjoyable read. You will see why I am not happy with the Cavendish experiment.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=45198.msg1116088#msg1116088
And this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schiehallion_experiment
-
The Cavendish experiment was flawed. This is explained in the thread below using a banana as an example. It is 4 pages of thread but its quite an enjoyable read. You will see why I am not happy with the Cavendish experiment.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=45198.msg1116088#msg1116088
And this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schiehallion_experiment
Did you even read the article?
The experiment had previously been considered, but rejected, by Isaac Newton as a practical demonstration of his theory of gravitation.
-
Irrelevant, it didn't change the results of the experiment.
-
It's clear to see that both models have areas where there are multiple hypothesis present that explain what's going on.
The question I have is: what work are FE proponents doing to find out which FE hypothesis are incorrect?
-
Its FE's diversity of ideas that ensures it will have all the answers first and why we are light years ahead of you in simple matters such as the shape of the earth.
So FET takes a shotgun approach, right? Come up with as many ideas as you can, no matter how implausible, and hope that one of them must be correct?
-
The Cavendish experiment was flawed. This is explained in the thread below using a banana as an example. It is 4 pages of thread but its quite an enjoyable read. You will see why I am not happy with the Cavendish experiment.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=45198.msg1116088#msg1116088
And this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schiehallion_experiment
Did you even read the article?
The experiment had previously been considered, but rejected, by Isaac Newton as a practical demonstration of his theory of gravitation.
Well done for excising "because he thought the mass of a real mountain would not cause enough deflection to measure accurately, something he was mistaken about". Score 1 troll point.
-
The very fact many of you have stopped arguing and fall in line with stupefied acceptance agreed on basic parts of a theory is troubling.
Why?
I fail to see the point of your word games.
People are not limited to using only 10% of their brains.
You're not born with all of the brain cells you'll have for life.
Gold fish memory is not limited to 3 seconds.
Men do not think about sex every seven seconds.
Your tongue is not split in different taste zones.
Swimming after eating does not cause stomach cramps
Shaving does not cause hair to grow back thicker or darker.
Hair and nails do not keep growing after a person dies.
Swallowed chewing gum does not stay in your system for years.
The color red does not anger bulls.
Meteorites are not hot when they hit Earth.
Danish Pastries do not come from Denmark.
Bats aren't blind.
Napoleon wasn't short.
Chameleons do not change colour to match their surroundings.
A duck’s quack can echo.
The phrase is 'just deserts', not 'just desserts'.
Just because a large portion of the population believe something, does not make it so.
That wasn't my point, but it is a nice strawman. My point was that leading RE scientists do not have doubts about basic parts of the theory and they all have a consensus. The same cannot be said for FE zetetics.
-
Not being able to agree on what causes gravity is a basic part of the theory. As there is as much evidence for 'magic' as there is 'Higgs god-particle', you round earthers cannot claim to have solved even basic concepts. And as Higgs and Hawking are having a public tiff, you cannot say they all have a consensus. There are definitely doubts in your ranks.
Famous retired physics prof Peter Higgs - of boson renown - has stingingly counter-poohpoohed the theories of his equally well known Nobel Prize rival, Stephen Hawking, who has already poohpoohed Higgs' particle concept. The clash of intellects is expected to be settled by particle-punishment results at the Large Hadron Collider.
Your argument holds no water.
-
Not being able to agree on what causes gravity is a basic part of the theory. As there is as much evidence for 'magic' as there is 'Higgs god-particle', you round earthers cannot claim to have solved even basic concepts. And as Higgs and Hawking are having a public tiff, you cannot say they all have a consensus. There are definitely doubts in your ranks.
Famous retired physics prof Peter Higgs - of boson renown - has stingingly counter-poohpoohed the theories of his equally well known Nobel Prize rival, Stephen Hawking, who has already poohpoohed Higgs' particle concept. The clash of intellects is expected to be settled by particle-punishment results at the Large Hadron Collider.
Your argument holds no water.
Why do keep copy-pasting the same argument over and over again? We have told you, the important fact in RET is that gravity exists, not that is caused by [Insert theory here].
-
Well I could say the important fact in FE is that UA exists.
What's the difference?
-
Well I could say the important fact in FE is that UA exists.
What's the difference?
No one has ever conducted an experiment to prove UA exists.
-
I just jumped. The earth accelerated at 9.81m/s2 up into me. My experiment is complete. UA exists.
-
Oh sorry Thork, I meant to say
No one has ever conducted an experiment to prove UA exists whose results cannot be easily explained by gravity.
-
Gravity? You mean that made up concept that explains why stuff falls? The same concept that cannot be explained? The same concept that has leading scientists arguing like children? That gravity?
-
Well I could say the important fact in FE is that UA exists.
What's the difference?
You could say that but you would be wrong. The John Davis model says gravity is real.
-
The John Davis model? The model John Davis supports and all the other FErs don't? Why is he correct and the rest all wrong?
-
The John Davis model? The model John Davis supports and all the other FErs don't? Why is he correct and the rest all wrong?
Why are all the rest correct and he is wrong?
-
Are you saying John Davis is a visionary and indeed the only person on earth, who does or has ever known its true form?
-
The John Davis model? The model John Davis supports and all the other FErs don't? Why is he correct and the rest all wrong?
If you are going to go with the majority is right then FE is false.
-
We all agree with John that earth is flat. But gravity has not shown itself to be superior to UA as a theory. It is because I believe it to be inferior, that I do not subscribe to it.
RErs are stuck with gravity. I got to choose. Gravity seems silly. It lost.
-
We all agree with John that earth is flat. But gravity has not shown itself to be superior to UA as a theory. It is because I believe it to be inferior, that I do not subscribe to it.
RErs are stuck with gravity. I got to choose. Gravity seems silly. It lost.
So it's just a matter of opinion?
-
Gravity certainly isn't a matter of fact.
-
Gravity certainly isn't a matter of fact.
More so than UA. Just as you can reduce what causes gravity to magic, I can reduce what causes UA to be magic.
"Of course there's a giant thing of Dark energy under the earth! Isn't it so obvious?"
-
So, its not just FErs that can't agree on fundamental parts of their theory?
-
So, its not just FEr's that can't agree on fundamental parts of their theory?
I wasn't talking about anybody agreeing on anything. I'm just saying it is extremely hypocritical of you to dismiss gravity as magic and praise UA as if it actually had any proof behind it.
-
My point is that the thread criticises FErs for not agreeing on fundamental parts of their theory. I have illustrated this is no different to RET using a gravity/UA example, would you not agree?
-
My point is that the thread criticises FErs for not agreeing on fundamental parts of their theory. I have illustrated this is no different to RET using a gravity/UA example, would you not agree?
Gravity/UA is only one example, and it is a debatable one at best. Do you have any other instances of RE disagreement over basic parts of RET?
-
As mentioned in this thread, the big bang is contested.
So, being as you have agreed that RErs can't agree on fundamental parts of their theory, this thread has been answered and I am happy that FE is again not inferior to RET in any way.
[/thread]
bye.
-
As mentioned in this thread, the big bang is contested.
Hey guess what? Some FE'rs believe in the big bang!
[/thread]
-
The Big Bang has nothing to do with RET they aren't mutually inclusive so basically grouping RET with modern experimentally proven physics. So you just conceded that every leading expert is on our side. If you aren't grouping the two then your Big Band argument is irrelevant.
-
RE WIN!
-
My point is that the thread criticises FErs for not agreeing on fundamental parts of their theory. I have illustrated this is no different to RET using a gravity/UA example, would you not agree?
No, I wouldn't, and I have already explained why.
-
I just jumped. The earth accelerated at 9.81m/s2 up into me. My experiment is complete. UA exists.
Oh dear, looks like in one part of the world you accelerate at that speed, and somewhere else slightly faster, and somewhere else slightly slower. Explain that while I giggle at your feeble trolling.
-
I just jumped. The earth accelerated at 9.81m/s2 up into me. My experiment is complete. UA exists.
Oh dear, looks like in one part of the world you accelerate at that speed, and somewhere else slightly faster, and somewhere else slightly slower. Explain that while I giggle at your feeble trolling.
I suppose you've done this, then?
-
I just jumped. The earth accelerated at 9.81m/s2 up into me. My experiment is complete. UA exists.
Oh dear, looks like in one part of the world you accelerate at that speed, and somewhere else slightly faster, and somewhere else slightly slower. Explain that while I giggle at your feeble trolling.
I suppose you've done this, then?
What, giggle at Thork's trolling?
-
I just jumped. The earth accelerated at 9.81m/s2 up into me. My experiment is complete. UA exists.
Oh dear, looks like in one part of the world you accelerate at that speed, and somewhere else slightly faster, and somewhere else slightly slower. Explain that while I giggle at your feeble trolling.
I suppose you've done this, then?
What, giggle at Thork's trolling?
He's almost as funny as that James fella.
-
You're probably going to get banned (or at least warned) for bandwidth reasons. Nice ducks, though!