The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: Orbisect-64 on June 22, 2015, 11:43:05 AM
-
I'm not one to pre-judge anything. And I make thorough examination of all things. Therefor I've been making an examination of this concept for a little while now.
So far, many things said about the flat-earth concept seem to be... rather difficult to argue.
I began to catalogue all the arguments FOR flat earth, and scientifically examine each one. I have papers which seem to prove flat-earth quite thoroughly and water tight (no pun intended).
But then I came upon one question which I can not get past. And I think this is the "make or break" answer. If it can not be thoroughly explained, then I can not whole souled adopt the theory. If it can not be demonstrated, then it breaks the flat-earth model. However, if it CAN be explained to my satisfaction, I believe it has the potential to win not only me, but many more.
Before I get started... If anyone calls me a shill, they are an idiot, and are unable to have an adult scientific discussion. My question is legitimate and my point is valid. You have to prove me wrong. And you will not do that by being a troll or a jerk. Sorry about this disclaimer, but I know how forums are [as a rule].
Here it goes...
To the best of my knowledge, the star Polaris is not viewable below the equator. It is especially not viewable from the south pole, because that would involve looking through the planet.
If the earth is flat, then Polaris MUST be viewable from the south pole, at least with a telescope.
However, from what I know, they use "the southern cross" in the southern hemisphere, to find north. The stars in the northern hemisphere rotate in a circle, and the stars in the southern hemisphere rotate in a circle, and the stars around the equator move over the earth in near straight lines. This seems in line with a round globe, and is impossible with a flat earth.
Where are photos of the north star from the south pole?
Again, this one argument could win millions of people to your view.
In addition, if this is true, the following argument would be usable against a spherical earth...
If earth is revolving around the sun in an elliptical orbit, and the earth is at a tilt, and the earth is wobbling… How is it possible that Polaris is [always] in the center above the north pole, with only slight variation??? …Considering Polaris is said to be some 390 lightyears from earth (trillions, of trillions, of trillions of miles away).
Can you see how this argument is a make or break as a basis for belief?
As it stands, I've only told two people that I'm even examining this theory. One person is very open minded; and the other is an engineer and a math wiz. At this point, I wish I had said nothing to the engineer. After thinking about it for a few days, she told me that she has concluded that it's not possible, and she doesn't want to hear any more about it... in other words, she cut me off from all further discussion.
So either I'm going to have to tell her that I take back what I said, admit I was wrong, and that I'm convinced of a globe... or I say nothing, and when a flat earth is proven, she will view me as the most intelligent man on the face of the earth. The thing is that all my friends already see me as the most intelligent man they know. Just last night a friend introduced me to someone by saying: "This is [so and so], He's REALLY smart." This is how people define me. I'm not saying this to show off. The point is that a belief like this has the potential to turn you from being a genius in the minds of others, into the biggest idiot, gullible fool, on the planet. And at least with one person, I may have already crossed that line... and it can't be taken back.
And so I come here to ask the big question. Show me Polaris from the south, and this will convince me, and anyone else with a logical mind. Don't prove it, and no one will believe.
—Rx
-
There are multiple excuses offered. For example, atmospheric haze preventing us from seeing things a great distance away, or that stars are spotlights and so can only be seen from a certain angle.
Or some just deny that the stars in question exist.
-
There are multiple excuses offered. For example, atmospheric haze preventing us from seeing things a great distance away, or that stars are spotlights and so can only be seen from a certain angle.
Or some just deny that the stars in question exist.
Sorry, I can't accept any of those answers. Here is my thinking on that (yes I considered these before I posed the question here).
a) Atmospheric haze...
The star is UPWARD from earth in a flat earth model. Therefor, no matter at what place you look up, it will be above. Remember, it's trillions and trillions of miles away, according to astronomy (and there are independent telescopes that aren't tied to NASA). A difference of a few hundred or thousand miles isn't going to make a difference regarding something straight up from the center, and trillions of miles away. The north star will always appear above, and it will always be close to center.
b) Spotlights?
This isn't The Truman Show.
c) Some stars don't exist...
One of the primary arguments for a flat earth is to "believe what you observe, not what you're told." Believing that some stars don't exist would be asking me to believe what I'm told, not what I see. This is unreasonable and unacceptable. Further, I know NASA didn't put Polaris up there, its documented in history, and sailors have navigated by it for ages.
I need a solid explanation. As I said, this one will make or break the deal for me.
—Rx
-
a) Atmospheric haze... The star is UPWARD from earth in a flat earth model. Therefor, no matter at what place you look up, it will be above. Remember, it's trillions and trillions of miles away, according to astronomy (and there are independent telescopes that aren't tied to NASA).
Not true according to FET. They probably measure the distance to the stars in a few thousand km, at most. In that situation, the distance over the land would be greater.
And believe me, you don't want to get into the magnitude of the conspiracy.
Spotlights? This isn't The Truman Show.
Well, spotlight shaped. It's how they say the Sun is, for example: light only coming from one face. Otherwise it would never be night.
Some stars don't exist... One of the primary arguments for a flat earth is to "believe what you observe, not what you're told." Believing that some stars don't exist would be asking me to believe what I'm told, not what I see. This is unreasonable and unacceptable. Further, I know NASA didn't put Polaris up there, its documented in history, and sailors have navigated by it for ages.
This post (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64007.msg1701280#msg1701280) goes into more detail on that idea.
There was one guy who said some stars were really planes though. Don't ask.
-
Re: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za48.htm (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za48.htm)
One of the problems I and others have with believing FE theory, is that no one makes videos demonstrating the experiments which purport to prove the theory. Most of the books where the experiments are demonstrated, are hand drawn pictures. This was good enough back then...
But we live in a society of modern filmography. Why aren't all the experiments duplicated on film?
It's difficult for me to picture what the man in the article above is saying, BECAUSE I LIVE IN AMERICA—I'm not familiar with the references he's using. A video would demonstrate the points better. Otherwise it comes out as gibberish.
Still, where are photos of Polaris from below the equator? This one thing would prove to the entire world that the earth is flat. But it also breaks the flat earth theory in the logical mind, without a damned solid explanation.
-
A very good question, indeed.
“The astronomers' theory of a globular Earth necessitates the conclusion that, if we travel south of the equator, to see the North Star is an impossibility. Yet it is well known this star has been seen by navigators when they have been more than 20 degrees south of the equator. This fact, like hundreds of other facts, puts the theory to shame, and gives us a proof that the Earth is not a globe.” -William Carpenter, “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe”
"For instance, Ursa Major, very close to Polaris, can be seen from 90 degrees North latitude (the North Pole) all the way down to 30 degrees South latitude. The constellation Vulpecula can be seen from 90 degrees North latitude, all the way to 55 degrees South latitude. Taurus, Pisces and Leo can be seen from 90 degrees North all the way to 65 degrees South. Aquarius and Libra can be seen from 65 degrees North to 90 degrees South! The constellation Virgo is visible from 80 degrees North down to 80 degrees South, and Orion can be seen from 85 degrees North all the way to 75 degrees South latitude! An observer on a ball-Earth, regardless of any tilt or inclination, should not logically be able to see this far."
Please refer to my work done on the Tunguska explosion, seen all the way from London, Antwerp, Berlin, Stockholm, instantaneously...
-
A very good question, indeed.
“The astronomers' theory of a globular Earth necessitates the conclusion that, if we travel south of the equator, to see the North Star is an impossibility. Yet it is well known this star has been seen by navigators when they have been more than 20 degrees south of the equator. This fact, like hundreds of other facts, puts the theory to shame, and gives us a proof that the Earth is not a globe.” -William Carpenter, “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe”
If Polaris can be seen 20 degrees south of the equator, then it isn't a very good reference for determining your latitude, is it?
-
A very good question, indeed.
“The astronomers' theory of a globular Earth necessitates the conclusion that, if we travel south of the equator, to see the North Star is an impossibility. Yet it is well known this star has been seen by navigators when they have been more than 20 degrees south of the equator. This fact, like hundreds of other facts, puts the theory to shame, and gives us a proof that the Earth is not a globe.” -William Carpenter, “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe”
"For instance, Ursa Major, very close to Polaris, can be seen from 90 degrees North latitude (the North Pole) all the way down to 30 degrees South latitude. The constellation Vulpecula can be seen from 90 degrees North latitude, all the way to 55 degrees South latitude. Taurus, Pisces and Leo can be seen from 90 degrees North all the way to 65 degrees South. Aquarius and Libra can be seen from 65 degrees North to 90 degrees South! The constellation Virgo is visible from 80 degrees North down to 80 degrees South, and Orion can be seen from 85 degrees North all the way to 75 degrees South latitude! An observer on a ball-Earth, regardless of any tilt or inclination, should not logically be able to see this far."
Please refer to my work done on the Tunguska explosion, seen all the way from London, Antwerp, Berlin, Stockholm, instantaneously...
Equinoxes
-
As much as I want to stay completely neutral on flat-earth subjects... Because [the crab] pissed me off, I'm going to give the flat earth society a piece of ammo. Maybe the crab and his cronies will learn not to piss me off.
EXPERIMENT 1
Take a marker and make a small dot on your ceiling. Place an object in the center of your room. Tie a small laser to the top of a spinning-top, pointing directly upward. Spin said top. Try to make it go in a circle around the stationary object in the center of the room (the sun) in an elliptical orbit. When the top is moving around the stationary object, in an elliptical orbit, and the top is spinning on a tilt, and when the top begins to wobble... try to make it point directly to the dot on the ceiling. If you can make this happen... (lol) ...now find a room with the highest ceiling you can find, and perform the same experiment—can you get the top to point at the dot even ONCE? What, you can't!!! Wow, it's pretty IMPOSSIBLE to make this happen [by chance], isn't it... maybe if there was a very large explosion it will help you (like a “big bang”). Now imagine performing the same experiment, except that the dot is trillions and trillions and trillions of miles away...
Amazingly, the star Polaris, which is the northern star, is said to be some 390 lightyears from earth—trillions, and trillions, and trillions, and trillions of miles away (this distance is no exaggeration, and is in fact a gross simplification).
Earth, which is spinning around at 1,038 miles per hour, is moving around the sun at a speed of 66,000 miles per hour! …in an elliptical orbit… and the earth is on a tilt… and the earth is wobbling!
Considering the above experiment, how is it possible that Polaris is ALWAYS in the center above the north pole, with only very slight variation???
Either you have to conclude that modern science is completely wrong... or an intelligent being/person designed and finely tuned the earth to the northern star.
(Note to the crab and his friends: Only an [intelligent] mind could cause this to happen... and [you] can not... get the point?)
Personally I don't believe the earth wobbles or tilts, because this simple experiment proves that impossible. However, if science wants to use stupid reasoning, I see no reason not to use it to prove God's existence.
"Answer someone stupid according to his foolishness, that he may not become someone wise in his own eyes."—Proverbs 26:5
—Rx
-
Now we're going to show how truly IMPOSSIBLE this really is, because earth has to point at the southern pole-stars at the same time.
EXPERIMENT 2
1) For the next experiment, go to your local crafts store and get one of those foam spheres (this will act as Earth for our experiment).
2) Take a straight stick (like a skewer or a sharp dowel) and poke a hole through the top and bottom, perfectly center.
3) Take two lasers and push one through each end so that they are pointing outward (lasers are cheap these days and can be found at your local convenience store at the counter for a dollar or two).
4) With a marker, make a dot on the ceiling (representing Polaris), and another dot on the floor (representing the southern pole-stars).
5) Turn on the lasers and hold the sphere in the center of the room.
6) Make the lasers point at both points (stars).
7) While TILTING the globe, and making it WOBBLE, try to make the laser point directly at both points (stars) at the same time.
Note: It doesn't matter that the wobble happens slowly in "reality," any wobble will prove the point that it's impossible; For this experiment we have not even made the earth move in an orbit as if around the sun - which would increase the impossibility of the matter - as if "impossibility" can be increased.
I await the video of you making this happen.
With the two experiments above, one of the following has been proved (to people with brains).
a) There is an intelligent creator (God) who tuned the universe so well that earth points at two poles trillions of miles away in each direction, and it does this while moving in orbit, tilting, and wobbling - this is absolutely impossible by chance; and only possible by design and fine tuning.
b) The scientific community has lied to you and me; in which case they are liars and can't be trusted, and therefor you are trusting liars regarding things like evolution and flat-earth.
c) I have just proved science wrong. Now this makes me smarter than NASA and all your scientists... In which case I have to ask: why are you even arguing with someone smarter than all your scientists; and I must ask myself: why would I even bother to carry on a discussion with YOU?
(If you respond that science is wrong about this observable fact, then how can it be right about evolution, which has no observable evidence. You disbelieve what you can see, but believe what you can not see. Further, you have admitted that science is wrong about this simple matter, and now you have no scientific legs to stand upon - you have pulled them out from under yourself. Science can not be trusted - even in the most elementary matters. In choosing option c. that science is wrong, you can not do so without admitting that I am right, and that I am smart enough to figure out what they could not... and yet you're still arguing with me (I find this foolish to the nth). They are what Jesus called "Blind guides." And as he said, a blind guide can not lead another who is blind.)
How much does anyone want to bet that a responder will avoid discussing the experiments - and even more so, attempting to prove it wrong in a video presentation?
“Let them be. Blind guides is what they are. If, then, a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit.”—Matthew 15:14
—Rx
-
And just to throw one more good monkey wrench into the scientific works...
If the speed of light is not constant, then Relativity can not be reliable.
http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/people/hau.cfm (http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/people/hau.cfm)
The common argument against this is that because light can not be exceeded in speed, it is still a constant, regardless of whether it can be slowed down. Ok, Imagine you're using a measuring tape printed on a rubber band. The rubber band can not exceed a set length before it snaps. But would you still consider it to be constant and reliable? Would you use an elastic measuring tool to determine length? What, YOU WOULDN'T? Of course you wouldn't, because if it is flexible and tends to change lengths, it's unreliable.
Just think, years ago they THOUGHT light was a "constant." Today we know more, and we know better. What will we know tomorrow? Who's to say light can not go faster than recorded speeds, when it has already proven not to be a reliable constant? A thing is considered to be true... right up until it is proven untrue.
And for anyone who says something asinine like: "That's because people slowed it down. But it doesn't do that naturally." REALLY? So sure, are we? You were also sure light CAN NOT changed speed. Or are you better than God that YOU can do what he can not. HA!
In over 100 years, relativity has produced NOTHING. It is inapplicable in daily life. Tesla on the other hand has some 700 patents to his name, and millions are based on his groundwork. I can apply his inventions; but I can not apply E=MC2. It only applies to abstract concepts, like wormholes, string theory, black holes, and TIME TRAVEL (lol). Relativity allows large-headed men to give longwinded speeches about nothing.
Just deal with it!
Relativity is a hoax. Its purpose is to fill men's brains with meaningless fluff, to turn idiots out of "schools of higher learning." It's a lie to support other lies, that's it.
"No! GPS could not work if not for GPS."
Give me a break, and spare it for an idiot.
The GPS thing was devised as a last ditch effort to save a dying theory. GPS was developed without using Relativity in its early stages. Then they decided to apply relativity. But it did not fail to work before relativity was applied, and GPS would still work if relativity was removed from the equation.
Basically, if you apply an equation to a system that already works, and then say the system works because of the equation... That's tantamount to measuring your car with a tape measure, then stepping back and proclaiming: "This car runs BECAUSE OF this tape measure!"
Just let relativity die. And eventually, it will.
Modern Scientists Are Disproving Relativity, and Presenting New Theories
http://www.gps.gov/governance/advisory/members/hatch/ (http://www.gps.gov/governance/advisory/members/hatch/)
(http://)
http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2012/10/gps-does-not-require-relativity.html (http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2012/10/gps-does-not-require-relativity.html)
http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_6813.pdf (http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_6813.pdf)
http://alternativephysics.org/book/GPSmythology.htm (http://alternativephysics.org/book/GPSmythology.htm)
http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_6529.pdf (http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_6529.pdf)
http://www.extinctionshift.com/SignificantFindings.htm (http://www.extinctionshift.com/SignificantFindings.htm)
http://debunkingrelativity.com/special-relativity/ (http://debunkingrelativity.com/special-relativity/)
Argument Against Relativity’s Use In Gravitational Lensing
http://milesmathis.com/lens.html (http://milesmathis.com/lens.html)
Light is Not a Constant (therefor relativity can not be reliable)
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/2001/01.24/01-stoplight.html (http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/2001/01.24/01-stoplight.html)
Tesla Vs Einstein
http://www.tomatobubble.com/tesla_einstein.html (http://www.tomatobubble.com/tesla_einstein.html)
—Rx
-
In order to be truly objective you must also consider both sides and look at the evidence in favor of round Earth. Also, the best way to prove a theory is to try to disprove it and fail.
Don't believe me? Watch this:
! No longer available (http://#)
-
Yes, I see your point. Prove flat-earth wrong in order to prove it right. Makes sense!
And I'm going to build a house, and every time I put up a beam or a wall I'm going to knock it down to prove it can't stand before it's built.
I'm going to go to school and tell myself I'm not smart enough to graduate... and all the self confidence I've built up will make me a better student.
I have a business, and I'm going to work my hardest to build up my competitors, while blackballing my own business... and this will make me successful.
What kind of asinine reverse psychology is this? Is this the best you can do, make me doubt, and work against myself? You insult my intelligence... But the real sad thing is that you could get other people to insult their own intelligence by listening to you.
And here's the suspicious part.
I haven't even taken sides on the flat earth debate. But you people make me wonder why you're trying so hard to make sure no progress is made. Sadly, you sound like a shill. "A rose by any other name" is still a rose. Stop acting like a shill, and people won't think it. Why don't you just bugger off and go somewhere else.
-
Yes, I see your point. Prove flat-earth wrong in order to prove it right. Makes sense!
You know that's not what he said, right?
Try to prove something wrong. Try as hard as you can. If it's correct, that shouldn't be possible, ad you'll end up with a secure model. If you manage to locate a flaw however...
-
Yes, I see your point. Prove flat-earth wrong in order to prove it right. Makes sense!
And I'm going to build a house, and every time I put up a beam or a wall I'm going to knock it down to prove it can't stand before it's built.
I didn't say that you have to disprove something to prove it, I said that trying to disproving something and failing is a great way to prove it.
It's like attempting to knock down a house under construction and failing to make sure it's strong enough.
Just watch the video.
-
Yes, I see your point. Prove flat-earth wrong in order to prove it right. Makes sense!
You know that's not what he said, right?
Try to prove something wrong. Try as hard as you can. If it's correct, that shouldn't be possible, ad you'll end up with a secure model. If you manage to locate a flaw however...
And that's what people are trying to do with the spherical earth theory - prove it wrong. Are you afraid they may prove it wrong if they keep poking at it? If you're not, then go away, there's nothing to worry about.
Where are the people trying to prove a globe earth wrong?
...Oh yeah, they're here in the flat earth society.
According to what you just said, I believe they're "following your rules"? ;)
-
And that's what people are trying to do with the spherical earth theory - prove it wrong. Are you afraid they may prove it wrong if they keep poking at it? If you're not, then go away, there's nothing to worry about.
I'm here because it's fun. Why would I go away?
If they successfully disprove RET, that would be great. I have doubts, given the level of scientific knowledge displayed here (see: air doesn't exist, fairies do exist, and clouds are just projections of... something). When serous science happens, that would be interesting. For now, it's just fun.
-
Yes, I see your point. Prove flat-earth wrong in order to prove it right. Makes sense!
You know that's not what he said, right?
Try to prove something wrong. Try as hard as you can. If it's correct, that shouldn't be possible, ad you'll end up with a secure model. If you manage to locate a flaw however...
And that's what people are trying to do with the spherical earth theory - prove it wrong. Are you afraid they may prove it wrong if they keep poking at it? If you're not, then go away, there's nothing to worry about.
Where are the people trying to prove a globe earth wrong?
...Oh yeah, they're here in the flat earth society.
According to what you just said, I believe they're "following your rules"? ;)
Proving something wright by attempting to prove it wrong and failing is the entire basis of the scientific method.
-
Yes, I see your point. Prove flat-earth wrong in order to prove it right. Makes sense!
You know that's not what he said, right?
Try to prove something wrong. Try as hard as you can. If it's correct, that shouldn't be possible, ad you'll end up with a secure model. If you manage to locate a flaw however...
And that's what people are trying to do with the spherical earth theory - prove it wrong. Are you afraid they may prove it wrong if they keep poking at it? If you're not, then go away, there's nothing to worry about.
Where are the people trying to prove a globe earth wrong?
...Oh yeah, they're here in the flat earth society.
According to what you just said, I believe they're "following your rules"? ;)
Proving something wright by attempting to prove it wrong and failing is the entire basis of the scientific method.
I don't follow the scientific method because I am not a liar.
-
I don't follow the scientific method because I am not a liar.
Please point out where this says "lie about the results":
(http://www.cdn.sciencebuddies.org/Files/5084/7/2013-updated_scientific-method-steps_v6_noheader.png)
-
EXPERIMENT 1
...
EXPERIMENT 2
...
And just to throw one more good monkey wrench into the scientific works...
Would you mind bringing all this up in the Discussion forum; the mods say they don't want discussion in the Q&A forum. Maybe start a different thread for each, or one for the two experiments and another for the "monkey wrench", since that appears to be quite a different topic, but that's up to you. If Orbisect won't do this, maybe one of the mods can move it so it can be discussed.
Thanks!
-
I know a lot of their flat earth conclusions are wrong, and I can prove it - so can you. But I don't think working against them is the way to help. I'd rather encourage people to come to proper conclusions, and to be be comfortable with discarding dead-eld conclusions blocking their way to progress.
I don't "believe" in a flat-earth. But some of their conclusions ARE solid... solid enough to make me question why NASA and the Govt. are lying. Maybe they're not lying about flat-earth; but they've uncovered some lies, so they're hiding something greater... I'm just not sure exactly what yet (but I have ideas and intel I won't share here).
What I DO know is that a lot of modern science is a lie. What I wrote above proves earth wobble and tilt wrong. Relativity has produced nothing in over a hundred years. And evolution is a religion built on blind faith - if you take away every piece of "evidence" that has ever been debunked, it leave nothing on the evidence table—this is why they continue to use arguments that their own scientists have proven wrong or fraudulent, because if they remove them all, they're left with nothing. Some of the greatest foundations of science are lies... and they know it.
And we're not even beginning to get into the evidence for a world wide flood: shells on top of mountains, similar flood legends on every continent, mammoths flash frozen with food in their mouths or giving birth, mass amounts of animals and people found cowering together in caves, trees found upside down in multiple layers of rock, iron tools found in solid rock "dating to 10,000 years ago," etcetera.
MOST accepted modern science is a lie. And with the shear amount of lies, I find it difficult to believe the liars. I've been conned out of money before... but you wise up pretty quick afterward. I was conned out of thousands of dollars by a "friend." And NASA and the Govt. are not my friends. Just read my signature: Pronoia... if you want to believe proven con artists, you go girl!
And at the end of the day, should flat earth ever be proven, I'd rather I wasn't one of the people fighting against it. I bet you anything that you opposers would jump right on the bandwagon and say: "YEAH, WE ALWAYS BELIEVED IT!" Half of you would probably claim to have been flat-earthers. If it proved to be true, how many of you would come out and admit how much work you put into discouraging and suppressing the truth? If it proved true in the end, you wouldn't dare speak out, you'd just fade into the shadows.
I've learned this too: "Do not be misled, God is not to be mocked. For whatever a man is sowing, this he will also reap." ...Or as the world puts it simply, you reap what you sow. You think arguing like this is "fun," but you reap what you sow - it will come back and bite your ass.
-
EXPERIMENT 1
...
EXPERIMENT 2
...
And just to throw one more good monkey wrench into the scientific works...
Would you mind bringing all this up in the Discussion forum; the mods say they don't want discussion in the Q&A forum. Maybe start a different thread for each, or one for the two experiments and another for the "monkey wrench", since that appears to be quite a different topic, but that's up to you. If Orbisect won't do this, maybe one of the mods can move it so it can be discussed.
Thanks!
I already know the way your minds work.
Regarding the two experiments, you or one of you will say: "that's not a scientific method." And to that I will reply: "Then you don't know how science is proven. It's not all mathematical. A lot of it is based on demonstrations like the one I put forth. I put forth the test, and it is easily demonstrated; therefor science has to prove it wrong."
But in the end, a lot of words will be spoken, and no one will even touch the actual experiments in discussion; they will skirt around them and discuss typos and similar word errors.
Then regarding the Relativity thing, someone will produce 100 links to pages that all say the same thing over and over in different words - believe me, I've read them all, and they all say the same thing. But you will claim that the shear NUMBER of links (saying the same thing) proves me wrong. I've been through this discussion before. You won't agree with me, and I won't agree with you. But at the end of the day, relativity has not produced anything in over 100 years.
So I don't see the point in posting it for discussion. I looked up your comments, and I know where you stand here.
I would LOVE to discuss those topics with open minded people... See what new conclusions we can reach together by challenging the status quo!
But open minded people are not people who just believe what they were taught, believe what everyone else believes, and what the status quo believes - if you believe that is open-mindedness, then you need to first get a grasp on intelligence.
-
I would LOVE to discuss those topics with open minded people... See what new conclusions we can reach together by challenging the status quo!
But open minded people are not people who just believe what they were taught, believe what everyone else believes, and what the status quo believes - if you believe that is open-mindedness, then you need to first get a grasp on intelligence.
Well, good! So move them to where discussion is allowed. If you won't re-post them, maybe the mods will move them; they're not here 24/7, so let's give them a chance. If not, I'll quote the posts in new threads in the Discussion forum and go from there.
You can participate or not as you wish.
-
Oh, the hypocracy. Roudies never try to prove the Earth is not round. They simply spout out whatever they can find on Google that they could possibly try to manipulate into something that they try to pass off as proof of a round Earth. What is wrong with you people? Is NASA not paying you enough for your lies? Has it really come to this?
-
I would LOVE to discuss those topics with open minded people... See what new conclusions we can reach together by challenging the status quo!
But open minded people are not people who just believe what they were taught, believe what everyone else believes, and what the status quo believes - if you believe that is open-mindedness, then you need to first get a grasp on intelligence.
Well, good! So move them to where discussion is allowed. If you won't re-post them, maybe the mods will move them; they're not here 24/7, so let's give them a chance. If not, I'll quote the posts in new threads in the Discussion forum and go from there.
You can participate or not as you wish.
I don’t know your intentions; but I don’t like people who give me no options - “DO THIS! or else it will be done with or without your permission.”
My failure to put a circa symbol © on everything I write doesn't make my works non copyrighted. By law, the moment I put the idea in readable form, it's copyrighted. It wouldn't matter if I had written it on a napkin. Even if a work is not officially registered, it can be defended upon proof of ownership (a copy of a web page with a time-date stamp is proof).
I officially give no one here permission to copy my works in whole or in part. If a moderator wants to move the entire subject, so be it.
I have officially copyrighted works, so I make it my business to know the law.
http://copyright.gov/title17/ (http://copyright.gov/title17/)
And believe me, every time I write anything about my ideas and theories, I copy the web pages... because someone's bound to take my ideas and cash in on them. :P
If I could read your mind, I may know your intentions. But I can't.
-
I would LOVE to discuss those topics with open minded people... See what new conclusions we can reach together by challenging the status quo!
But open minded people are not people who just believe what they were taught, believe what everyone else believes, and what the status quo believes - if you believe that is open-mindedness, then you need to first get a grasp on intelligence.
Well, good! So move them to where discussion is allowed. If you won't re-post them, maybe the mods will move them; they're not here 24/7, so let's give them a chance. If not, I'll quote the posts in new threads in the Discussion forum and go from there.
You can participate or not as you wish.
I don’t know your intentions; but I don’t like people who give me no options - “DO THIS! or else it will be done with or without your permission.”
My failure to put a circa symbol © on everything I write doesn't make my works non copyrighted. By law, the moment I put the idea in readable form, it's copyrighted. It wouldn't matter if I had written it on a napkin. Even if a work is not officially registered, it can be defended upon proof of ownership (a copy of a web page with a time-date stamp is proof).
I officially give no one here permission to copy my works in whole or in part. If a moderator wants to move the entire subject, so be it.
I have officially copyrighted works, so I make it my business to know the law.
http://copyright.gov/title17/ (http://copyright.gov/title17/)
And believe me, every time I write anything about my ideas and theories, I copy the web pages... because someone's bound to take my ideas and cash in on them. :P
If I could read your mind, I may know your intentions. But I can't.
Dude. This is the Q&A forum. Go post this nonsense in the discussion forums.
-
I tend to agree. If you are trying to incite a debate, then please do not do it in the Q&A forum.
-
Oh, the hypocracy. Roudies never try to prove the Earth is not round. They simply spout out whatever they can find on Google that they could possibly try to manipulate into something that they try to pass off as proof of a round Earth. What is wrong with you people? Is NASA not paying you enough for your lies? Has it really come to this?
Have you provided details of satellite dish setup?
-
Orbisect, you have to consider arguments for both sides in order to make an educated decision. Don't you agree?
-
Orbisect, you have to consider arguments for both sides in order to make an educated decision. Don't you agree?
He is considering arguments for both sides. Why do you think he's (assuming a male) saying what he's saying.
He talks a lot of sense and is being rational. It's good to see another take on things in this way. It beats the hell out of you people parroting the same stuff about stuff we can all reads in ready made textbooks.
-
I tend to agree. If you are trying to incite a debate, then please do not do it in the Q&A forum.
You're welcome to move the entire post to another forum. I don't feel like copy/pasting the parts they want to argue about. :)
Thing is, I've already argued all these points with other people on other forums. I know their arguments, and their arguments NEVER change (they're never original, and they all sound like preprogrammed robots). I've discussed the two experiments in regards to evolution as evidence for the existence of God. And I've even discussed the relativity matter with close friends. People have such an emotional attachment to relativity, that they can't fathom having to let go of it—although they've never once used it for anything! And when you ask them if the world would change if relativity suddenly disappeared, would life get more difficult, would life as we know it cease to exist? they admit that it wouldn't make any difference; and yet, because they grew up with it, they're emotionally attached, and they want to defend it like it's their mother... And this is what they do with flat earth as well, but for a very small group, NO ONE wants to challenge what they've been taught from infancy—modern science is their mother, and their god. Truth is, scientists are mothers, and science is their god.
But because we reap what we sow, there are penalties when men make science their god. (Romans 1:18-32)
My question to you, seeing your a moderator, and thus I presume you're on the flat-earth side: Is there another website for flat-earthers that is more controlled, where they don't let in enemies of the thing they're trying to investigate?
You know, generals and leaders don't let enemies in their planning chambers—and I'm quite sure evolutionists don't invite religious oriented people into their inner circles. It's counterproductive in so many ways. THEY don't stand for it... and yet the FES does.
-
Orbisect, you have to consider arguments for both sides in order to make an educated decision. Don't you agree?
He is considering arguments for both sides. Why do you think he's (assuming a male) saying what he's saying.
He talks a lot of sense and is being rational. It's good to see another take on things in this way. It beats the hell out of you people parroting the same stuff about stuff we can all reads in ready made textbooks.
Exactly! You hit the nail on the head.
We already know what the textbooks say. I'm told all the time to say something original that I didn't read somewhere else... Here I present just that, and the same kind of people reverse the argument that I should "parrot the things already written."
They don't understand what true "Critical Thinking" is. Their view of critical thinking, which they've been taught, is acquiescence, compliance, complaisance, commonality, DOCILE CONFORMITY.
They're not taught to question, they're taught not to question, they're taught to conform to the collective. They're robots. And they don't even realize their freewill has been stolen.
-
What are you babbling on about?
-
Orbisect, you have to consider arguments for both sides in order to make an educated decision. Don't you agree?
He is considering arguments for both sides. Why do you think he's (assuming a male) saying what he's saying.
He talks a lot of sense and is being rational. It's good to see another take on things in this way. It beats the hell out of you people parroting the same stuff about stuff we can all reads in ready made textbooks.
Nice assertions. Now do you have anything besides "he's talks a lot of sense because he's making shit up on the spot"
-
He is considering arguments for both sides.
Oh really?
I began to catalogue all the arguments FOR flat earth, and scientifically examine each one.
And he's clearly neglecting to look at arguments AGAINST flat Earth, which is necessary to make an educated decision. If you only look at one side of the argument you can't make an informed decision, in fact propaganda works by ignoring the opposing side and that's why it's so persuasive.
He could do that simply by running his pro flat earth arguments past me, I have a fair bit of experience debunking flat Earth "proofs".
-
He is considering arguments for both sides.
Oh really?
I began to catalogue all the arguments FOR flat earth, and scientifically examine each one.
And he's clearly neglecting to look at arguments AGAINST flat Earth, which is necessary to make an educated decision. If you only look at one side of the argument you can't make an informed decision, in fact propaganda works by ignoring the opposing side and that's why it's so persuasive.
He could do that simply by running his pro flat earth arguments past me, I have a fair bit of experience debunking flat Earth "proofs".
Clearly, you are clarvoyant and can read his mind, seeing as you know what he is thinking without him having to actually say it. ::)
-
They don't understand what true "Critical Thinking" is. Their view of critical thinking, which they've been taught, is acquiescence, compliance, complaisance, commonality, DOCILE CONFORMITY.
They're not taught to question, they're taught not to question, they're taught to conform to the collective. They're robots. And they don't even realize their freewill has been stolen.
When you taught to conform to the collective, do you mean only using science that is demonstrably and repeatably correct?
Do you conform to the doctrin that 2+2=4, or are you a free thinker that puts forward that 2+2=5214?
-
I'm 45 years old.
I have been viewing evidence for a spherical earth for 45 years.
I have been studying the modern scientific view for just about as long.
I don't need to examine the evidence for a round earth, because I've already done it my whole life... I would only be RE-examining what's already written in textbooks. There's nothing you can tell me that I haven't already considered, or that I'm not smart enough to figure out without you holding my hand.
The only thing I HAVEN'T examined/studied, is any view other than the global earth model.
And the sheer amount of trolls on [this site], claiming to be FOR flat earth believers, puts up very clear red flags... someone doesn't want anyone digging for information on the subject. Someone doesn't want anyone to investigate and examine ALL the evidence. In a legal proceeding, all evidence for both sides must be examined, no matter how small. If evidence is ignored, then we as individuals can see that the court is rigged... And the people here are telling me not to consider all the evidence (and where o' where are the flat-earthers coming to my side to aid me? ...they aren't on this site, and that is clearly evident) ... (And before anyone tells me "yes you can make investigation, but in a court the evidence must also be cross-examined" ...yes this is true, and for that we have scientific textbooks... and again, I don't need YOU to hold my hand—are you a scientists that you should school me on science? or will you not run to the textbooks for answers. Aren't your scientists and the writers of your textbooks sufficient? Yes, they are, so shut up and leave [us] alone as we make examination ...but YOU are trying to hinder examination itself).
"When anyone is replying to a matter before he hears it, that is foolishness on his part and a humiliation."—Prov. 18:13
—Rx
-
I don’t know your intentions; but I don’t like people who give me no options - “DO THIS! or else it will be done with or without your permission.”
My failure to put a circa symbol © on everything I write doesn't make my works non copyrighted. By law, the moment I put the idea in readable form, it's copyrighted. It wouldn't matter if I had written it on a napkin. Even if a work is not officially registered, it can be defended upon proof of ownership (a copy of a web page with a time-date stamp is proof).
I officially give no one here permission to copy my works in whole or in part. If a moderator wants to move the entire subject, so be it.
Please note that your avatar uses an image from Michel Granger:
(http://medias.granger-michel.com/2012/10/disc-cover-granger_8.jpg)
http://www.granger-michel.com/project/disque-jean-michel-jarre-cover4/ (http://www.granger-michel.com/project/disque-jean-michel-jarre-cover4/)
As you seem very sensitive to copyrighted material, you should apply the same standards to other people's work.
-
I don’t know your intentions; but I don’t like people who give me no options - “DO THIS! or else it will be done with or without your permission.”
My failure to put a circa symbol © on everything I write doesn't make my works non copyrighted. By law, the moment I put the idea in readable form, it's copyrighted. It wouldn't matter if I had written it on a napkin. Even if a work is not officially registered, it can be defended upon proof of ownership (a copy of a web page with a time-date stamp is proof).
I officially give no one here permission to copy my works in whole or in part. If a moderator wants to move the entire subject, so be it.
Please note that your avatar uses an image from Michel Granger:
(http://medias.granger-michel.com/2012/10/disc-cover-granger_8.jpg)
http://www.granger-michel.com/project/disque-jean-michel-jarre-cover4/ (http://www.granger-michel.com/project/disque-jean-michel-jarre-cover4/)
As you seem very sensitive to copyrighted material, you should apply the same standards to other people's work.
Sue me
-
HOW COVERT AGENTS INFILTRATE THE INTERNET TO MANIPULATE, DECEIVE, AND DESTROY REPUTATIONS
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/ (https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/)
Federal government routinely hires internet trolls, shills to monitor chat rooms, disrupt article comment sections
http://www.naturalnews.com/042093_internet_trolls_chat_rooms_federal_government.html (http://www.naturalnews.com/042093_internet_trolls_chat_rooms_federal_government.html)
-
There's nothing you can tell me that I haven't already considered, or that I'm not smart enough to figure out without you holding my hand.
Let's test that theory.
I have studied the flat Earth model too, it's kind of hard no to do on this forum. I have come to the conclusion that it's false, and the reasons why are countless.
First of all, look at the links in my signature which lead to a video proving that Earth is round and an experiment I did which proved that Earth is round. There are also things like sunsets which can't be explained on a flat Earth, pole stars don't work on a flat Earth (http://), faking even just the Apollo missions would take at least 1,000,000 people and that's a conservative estimate, flight times don't make sense on a flat Earth especially on a southern hemisphere, everyone sees the Moon from the same angle no matter where they are on Earth so the Moon can't be as close as flat earthers say, at the same time the Moon can only be seen from half of the world so the only explanation is that the Earth is round, ships appear to disappear below the horizon as they get further away which is only possible on a round Earth, I can't see the Sun at night even though flat Earth theory says that it should be above the horizon, stars have a constant angular distance and a constant size from everywhere on Earth which wouldn't make sense if they were really close, and I could go on but I have things to do.
-
There's nothing you can tell me that I haven't already considered, or that I'm not smart enough to figure out without you holding my hand.
Let's test that theory.
I have studied the flat Earth model too, it's kind of hard no to do on this forum. I have come to the conclusion that it's false, and the reasons why are countless.
First of all, look at the links in my signature which lead to a video proving that Earth is round and an experiment I did which proved that Earth is round. There are also things like sunsets which can't be explained on a flat Earth, pole stars don't work on a flat Earth (http://), faking even just the Apollo missions would take at least 1,000,000 people and that's a conservative estimate, flight times don't make sense on a flat Earth especially on a southern hemisphere, everyone sees the Moon from the same angle no matter where they are on Earth so the Moon can't be as close as flat earthers say, at the same time the Moon can only be seen from half of the world so the only explanation is that the Earth is round, ships appear to disappear below the horizon as they get further away which is only possible on a round Earth, I can't see the Sun at night even though flat Earth theory says that it should be above the horizon, stars have a constant angular distance and a constant size from everywhere on Earth which wouldn't make sense if they were really close, and I could go on but I have things to do.
you have nothing to do but bullshiting here in the forum you are unemployed little liar your whole life is this forum and debunking flat earth.
you are in flat earth forum try to think about how to settle your problems with flat earth not how to say the world is round, why you don't do it you little hero ? because the agenda preventing you to do this, you want the earth to be round, your sick clumsy god knows why.
try explain flat earth and settle your problems with flat earth and then you have place here otherwise go to your friends in geometry forums.
-
your whole life is this forum and debunking flat earth.
Then how do you explain the >90% of my time that I spend not on this forum?
-
your whole life is this forum and debunking flat earth.
Then how do you explain the >90% of my time that I spend not on this forum?
Wow when ? even in your facebook the only photo aside the fake photo of yours is the globe.
-
your whole life is this forum and debunking flat earth.
Then how do you explain the >90% of my time that I spend not on this forum?
Wow when ? even in your facebook the only photo aside the fake photo of yours is the globe.
That's a fake image of a globe I made in Blender. I have more images there if you cared to look most of them are more things I have done on Blender. You could also look at the hundreds of photos I am tagged in, but again, you are either too lazy to look or you are so bent on thinking that I am a bot that you don't want to believe anything different.
-
This isnt about the question asked but in reply to the first set of awnsers the writer of this forum replied "B. This isn't the truman show"
This doesnt have much proof to back it up but i have this hypothesis (im not set on it, infact i have many) that the whole planet is the bottom of a giant cage built by an alien race as an
"experiment" a bit like the truman show but for science not entertainment
I hypothesise that this race is trying to study evolving creatures on the plane of earth and after a certain amount of time they reset the experiment eg; extinction of dinosaurs and the great flood as depicted in the story of "noah." i also therorise that the stories of this alien race have been diluted and altered until now where they are called 'gods' And have sparked religions
(note: this is NOT trying to tell people who belive in a god that it is all false and is wrong, i have nothing against religion, it is just plainly a hypothesis).
Also that it seems odd that if you dig down it becomes unbearably hot and if you walk outwards it becomes unbearibly cold, seems to me like some kind of boundaries. But up?
anyway thanks for reading and please reply sensibly
Im fully aware that i have next to no proof and that i could be completely wrong but as i said;
its just a hypothesis.
-
Does reality even exsist if nobody's around to perceive it? If someone or something happened to create our world, that would mean they have technology far beyond our understanding of science. Our reality takes place in our head as an interpretation of signals for the outside world. I recommend taking some DMT and simply asking for an answer. You may just find an elf who's willing to talk lol.
-
I don’t know your intentions; but I don’t like people who give me no options - “DO THIS! or else it will be done with or without your permission.”
My failure to put a circa symbol © on everything I write doesn't make my works non copyrighted. By law, the moment I put the idea in readable form, it's copyrighted. It wouldn't matter if I had written it on a napkin. Even if a work is not officially registered, it can be defended upon proof of ownership (a copy of a web page with a time-date stamp is proof).
I officially give no one here permission to copy my works in whole or in part. If a moderator wants to move the entire subject, so be it.
What the heck did I just read? Is this guy pretending that his ..."work" is something important and that he "figure it out" , where other scientists have failed?
45 years old you said? Wow ! How is life in the cave you are living .. these days?
-
A very good question, indeed.
“The astronomers' theory of a globular Earth necessitates the conclusion that, if we travel south of the equator, to see the North Star is an impossibility. Yet it is well known this star has been seen by navigators when they have been more than 20 degrees south of the equator. This fact, like hundreds of other facts, puts the theory to shame, and gives us a proof that the Earth is not a globe.” -William Carpenter, “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe”
"For instance, Ursa Major, very close to Polaris, can be seen from 90 degrees North latitude (the North Pole) all the way down to 30 degrees South latitude. The constellation Vulpecula can be seen from 90 degrees North latitude, all the way to 55 degrees South latitude. Taurus, Pisces and Leo can be seen from 90 degrees North all the way to 65 degrees South. Aquarius and Libra can be seen from 65 degrees North to 90 degrees South! The constellation Virgo is visible from 80 degrees North down to 80 degrees South, and Orion can be seen from 85 degrees North all the way to 75 degrees South latitude! An observer on a ball-Earth, regardless of any tilt or inclination, should not logically be able to see this far."
Please refer to my work done on the Tunguska explosion, seen all the way from London, Antwerp, Berlin, Stockholm, instantaneously...
The polaris isn't exactly over the north pole, and if you are on the ocean you can "see over the edge" on a globe earth, and the light is somewhat deflected because of the atmosphere (the further south you are the more air the light from polaris has to travel through, increasing the deflection of the light.