The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: Dark_Relix on February 27, 2007, 08:22:56 PM

Title: Simple Truth
Post by: Dark_Relix on February 27, 2007, 08:22:56 PM
OK.. So I've read a few posts about what is at the end of this.. 'Flat Earth'.. In any case, wouldn't NASA see what the world is? Or Russia's 'NASA'.. Im sure if they are lieing there are a few political parties that would want to gain fame for exposing the world as it apparently is. Also if the world was flat.. How is there gravity? Gravity exists through large 'mass.' All the earth would be is a flat surface area.

Another little funny thing.. How can volcanoes exist.. Anyone care to debate the obvious truth? Prove to me my government is lying about nothing. Also.. If there is another side to the world.. Wouldn't there be people on the other side doing stuff, or something? lol
Title: Re: Simple Truth
Post by: Closso on February 27, 2007, 08:24:30 PM
Seriously, they tell you to read the FAQ first for a reason...
Title: Re: Simple Truth
Post by: Pyrochimp on February 27, 2007, 08:24:50 PM
The whole NASA thing?  It's a conspiracy, according to them.  I'd believe the Earth is flat if it weren't for a ridiculous worldwide conspiracy, but alas, there is.
Title: Re: Simple Truth
Post by: sokarul on February 27, 2007, 08:27:00 PM
OK.. So I've read a few posts about what is at the end of this.. 'Flat Earth'.. In any case, wouldn't NASA see what the world is? Or Russia's 'NASA'.. Im sure if they are lieing there are a few political parties that would want to gain fame for exposing the world as it apparently is. Also if the world was flat.. How is there gravity? Gravity exists through large 'mass.' All the earth would be is a flat surface area.

Another little funny thing.. How can volcanoes exist.. Anyone care to debate the obvious truth? Prove to me my government is lying about nothing. Also.. If there is another side to the world.. Wouldn't there be people on the other side doing stuff, or something? lol

They dont like the obvious here.  You could take them in space and they would still thinkt he Earth is flat.  You have no idea how much I wish I had never found this thread.  It makes me so mad that people can think something which was dispovene over 500 years ago. 
Title: Re: Simple Truth
Post by: Dark_Relix on February 27, 2007, 08:34:11 PM
Also.. I do believe I've read the stupid FAQ. Also people that have been doing Global Warming campaigns and PETA.. Oh god. PETA would jump all over that like no tommorow.

So if there is massive ice wall.. Wouldn't ONE or TWO people OUT OF the whole population in the world stumple upon it and come back with knowledge, like give us a break.. NASA hasn't been out that long, or w.e they came up with to block us from seeing it.. America and w.e has only been really strong for the past hundred years. Im sure it would've been out and everyone knew about if it was true from before facts. I don't think it could be a secret for this long.
Title: Re: Simple Truth
Post by: sokarul on February 27, 2007, 08:36:08 PM
You would think that someone would find the wall, yet no one ever has.  All the planes just happen to miss it.  All the expeditions to the south pole never found a wall.  You have no idea what you got yourself into posting here lol
Title: Re: Simple Truth
Post by: Dark_Relix on February 27, 2007, 08:38:34 PM
.. So basically this forum is about taking the obvious and saying, THERES A CHANCE THEY NEVA SAW DAT! or.. DAT GOVERNMENT RECKON BE BLOCK US A I RECKON THEY GETTIN' SOMETIN ELSE IN DER MIND!

Correcto mondo?
Title: Re: Simple Truth
Post by: sokarul on February 27, 2007, 08:40:57 PM
yeah  pretty much. 
Title: Re: Simple Truth
Post by: unclegravy on February 27, 2007, 09:44:04 PM
Tsk, now you've given them a chance to have a go at your intellectual capacity.
Title: Re: Simple Truth
Post by: Pappy on February 27, 2007, 09:51:10 PM
nasa isnt a conspircy
Title: Re: Simple Truth
Post by: Mr_CaLhOuN7891 on February 27, 2007, 09:54:33 PM
nasa isnt a conspircy
yes it is, tom bishop says so, go read the faq.

NASA pwns u

and so does Tom Bishop.... if the earth was a Final Fantasy game anyway


im joking by the way.
Title: Re: Simple Truth
Post by: Pappy on February 27, 2007, 09:56:34 PM
fuck tom bishop
Title: Re: Simple Truth
Post by: Midnight on February 27, 2007, 10:01:21 PM
fuck tom bishop

TMI
Title: Re: Simple Truth
Post by: avaholik on February 27, 2007, 10:01:42 PM
Tsk, now you've given them a chance to have a go at your intellectual capacity.

what's with them and always correcting people's spelling and grammar? This isn't an english class! Seems like anytime they can't answer a question, they look at your spelling errors, and point out how stupid we are.

Well, we might not be able to spell but at least we're not stupid enough to believe the earth is flat!

Ever stop to think english is not everybody's first language?
Title: Re: Simple Truth
Post by: Pappy on February 27, 2007, 10:02:40 PM
Tsk, now you've given them a chance to have a go at your intellectual capacity.

what's with them and always correcting people's spelling and grammar? This isn't an english class! Seems like anytime they can't answer a question, they look at your spelling errors, and point out how stupid we are.

Well, we might not be able to spell but at least we're not stupid enough to believe the earth is flat!

Ever stop to think english is not everybody's first language?

fo real, finally a post that i can understand and agree with
Title: Re: Simple Truth
Post by: Mr_CaLhOuN7891 on February 27, 2007, 10:03:50 PM
Tsk, now you've given them a chance to have a go at your intellectual capacity.

what's with them and always correcting people's spelling and grammar? This isn't an english class! Seems like anytime they can't answer a question, they look at your spelling errors, and point out how stupid we are.

Well, we might not be able to spell but at least we're not stupid enough to believe the earth is flat!

Ever stop to think english is not everybody's first language?

your first language was bleeps and bloops, and some other sound effects,  wasnt it? lol, just messing man
Title: Re: Simple Truth
Post by: unclegravy on February 27, 2007, 10:36:55 PM
what's with them and always correcting people's spelling and grammar? This isn't an english class! Seems like anytime they can't answer a question, they look at your spelling errors, and point out how stupid we are.

Well, we might not be able to spell but at least we're not stupid enough to believe the earth is flat!

Ever stop to think english is not everybody's first language?
Hey, I'm just saying they'll take every chance to have a go at you.
I'm not saying RE'ers don't do this either, mind.
Title: Re: Simple Truth
Post by: Dioptimus Drime on February 27, 2007, 10:44:58 PM
OK.. So I've read a few posts about what is at the end of this.. 'Flat Earth'.. In any case, wouldn't NASA see what the world is?
Yes.

Quote
Or Russia's 'NASA'..
RASA.

Quote
Im sure if they are lieing there are a few political parties that would want to gain fame for exposing the world as it apparently is.
But they don't know.

Quote
Also if the world was flat.. How is there gravity? Gravity exists through large 'mass.' All the earth would be is a flat surface area.

Gravity doesn't exist.
Also, the Earth is not 2D, just flat.

Quote
Another little funny thing.. How can volcanoes exist..
Well...You see under the Earth, there's this stuff called "Magma." It doesn't like being shoved underneath there and so every once in a while it gets pissed off and turns into lava, squirting all over the place.

Quote
Anyone care to debate the obvious truth? Prove to me my government is lying about nothing.
That's silly. Why would they lie about nothing?

Quote
Also.. If there is another side to the world.. Wouldn't there be people on the other side doing stuff, or something? lol
There isn't another side. Who told you that?

~D-Draw
Title: Re: Simple Truth
Post by: avaholik on February 27, 2007, 11:00:15 PM
There isn't another side. Who told you that?

~D-Draw

So you've been to the other side and seen this for yourself?

Title: Re: Simple Truth
Post by: Dioptimus Drime on February 27, 2007, 11:05:06 PM
.. So basically this forum is about taking the obvious and saying, THERES A CHANCE THEY NEVA SAW DAT! or.. DAT GOVERNMENT RECKON BE BLOCK US A I RECKON THEY GETTIN' SOMETIN ELSE IN DER MIND!

Correcto mondo?
I'm pretty sure that no one on this site has said that.

On a sidenote:
fuck tom bishop

TMI
Lol.

~D-Draw
Title: Re: Simple Truth
Post by: Humble Philosopher on February 27, 2007, 11:07:56 PM
There isn't another side. Who told you that?

~D-Draw

So you've been to the other side and seen this for yourself?


I agree, who's to say there isn't another side of your FE that's populated by another dominant species?

Earth could be a cylinder, being propelled through the universe to a single point infinitely far away by a force that only effects the earth and nothing else. Something like a magnet, originating from the center of the cylinder.  Oh yeah, and it cant be observed in any way.

Why not?
Title: Re: Simple Truth
Post by: TheEngineer on February 27, 2007, 11:10:03 PM

I agree, who's to say there isn't another side of your FE that's populated by another dominant species?

Earth could be a cylinder, being propelled through the universe to a single point infinitely far away by a force that only effects the earth and nothing else. Something like a magnet, originating from the center of the cylinder.  Oh yeah, and it cant be observed in any way.

Why not?
Wow, would life suck for them, seeing as how 'gravity' would be trying to rip them off the face of the earth.
Title: Re: Simple Truth
Post by: The Philosopher on February 27, 2007, 11:14:46 PM
Wow, would life suck for them, seeing as how 'gravity' would be trying to rip them off the face of the earth.

But what if this force was also the reason that dominant species - as well as humans - was attracted to the earth in the first place?  The force I was describing propels us to that point infinitely far away at a constant velocity, therefore eliminating acceleration.  The beginning of the earth was marked by the acceleration to this velocity.

I should start the cylindrical earth society, right?

Edit: This is Humble Philosopher, I just decided to change to a simpler name
Title: Re: Simple Truth
Post by: TheEngineer on February 27, 2007, 11:18:42 PM
If the earth has a constant velocity, why does it even need to be moving?
Title: Re: Simple Truth
Post by: The Philosopher on February 27, 2007, 11:23:47 PM
If the earth has a constant velocity, why does it even need to be moving?

You're right, why DOES it have to be moving?

Why does the earth need to be moving in a completely illogical manner when a much simpler explanation would make more sense? I wonder...
Title: Re: Simple Truth
Post by: TheEngineer on February 27, 2007, 11:24:53 PM
I can see why it needs to be accelerating, but not traveling at a constant velocity.
Title: Re: Simple Truth
Post by: The Philosopher on February 27, 2007, 11:31:13 PM
I can see why it needs to be accelerating, but not traveling at a constant velocity.

I'd really like to know why it NEEDS to be accelerating.  Why is it NECESSARY to explain the phenomena we experience on the surface of the earth with a new force and model for our planet that is an anomaly to every pattern we can observe in the rest of the universe?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor

The FE model requires you to assume far too much.
Title: Re: Simple Truth
Post by: Rick_James on February 27, 2007, 11:38:13 PM
OK.. So I've read a few posts about what is at the end of this.. 'Flat Earth'.. In any case, wouldn't NASA see what the world is? Or Russia's 'NASA'.. Im sure if they are lieing there are a few political parties that would want to gain fame for exposing the world as it apparently is. Also if the world was flat.. How is there gravity? Gravity exists through large 'mass.' All the earth would be is a flat surface area.

Another little funny thing.. How can volcanoes exist.. Anyone care to debate the obvious truth? Prove to me my government is lying about nothing. Also.. If there is another side to the world.. Wouldn't there be people on the other side doing stuff, or something? lol

Read a few more posts.
Title: Re: Simple Truth
Post by: Solace on February 28, 2007, 02:32:32 AM
I can see why it needs to be accelerating, but not traveling at a constant velocity.

I'd really like to know why it NEEDS to be accelerating.  Why is it NECESSARY to explain the phenomena we experience on the surface of the earth with a new force and model for our planet that is an anomaly to every pattern we can observe in the rest of the universe?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor

The FE model requires you to assume far too much.

You really like that razor don't you?
Title: Re: Simple Truth
Post by: ChaosRequiem on February 28, 2007, 07:09:29 AM
It's not always accurate, but in cases like this...
Title: Re: Simple Truth
Post by: Solace on February 28, 2007, 07:24:51 AM
the main problem with using Occam's Razor as an arguement comparing Theories, is, its Relative.

the idea of everything moving up at a constant acceleration, sounds pretty simple compared to everything has a gravitational pull according to its size and that pull changes dependant on distance, size of the other object, and the pull of potentially hundreds of other objects near it.

Does that make Occam's Razor favor FE Acceleration over RE Gravity? Maybe. sounds relative to how you look at it to me.
Title: Re: Simple Truth
Post by: Mr. Ireland on February 28, 2007, 08:49:02 AM
the main problem with using Occam's Razor as an arguement comparing Theories, is, its Relative.

the idea of everything moving up at a constant acceleration, sounds pretty simple compared to everything has a gravitational pull according to its size and that pull changes dependant on distance, size of the other object, and the pull of potentially hundreds of other objects near it.

Does that make Occam's Razor favor FE Acceleration over RE Gravity? Maybe. sounds relative to how you look at it to me.

What about all the other topics?  In total, would Occam's Razor favor RE over FE?
Title: Re: Simple Truth
Post by: Solace on February 28, 2007, 08:54:04 AM
the main problem with using Occam's Razor as an arguement comparing Theories, is, its Relative.

the idea of everything moving up at a constant acceleration, sounds pretty simple compared to everything has a gravitational pull according to its size and that pull changes dependant on distance, size of the other object, and the pull of potentially hundreds of other objects near it.

Does that make Occam's Razor favor FE Acceleration over RE Gravity? Maybe. sounds relative to how you look at it to me.

What about all the other topics?  In total, would Occam's Razor favor RE over FE?

Would the number of posters on these forums word themselves to suggest favoritism for RE over FE?
Title: Re: Simple Truth
Post by: Mr. Ireland on February 28, 2007, 08:57:52 AM
the main problem with using Occam's Razor as an arguement comparing Theories, is, its Relative.

the idea of everything moving up at a constant acceleration, sounds pretty simple compared to everything has a gravitational pull according to its size and that pull changes dependant on distance, size of the other object, and the pull of potentially hundreds of other objects near it.

Does that make Occam's Razor favor FE Acceleration over RE Gravity? Maybe. sounds relative to how you look at it to me.

What about all the other topics?  In total, would Occam's Razor favor RE over FE?

Would the number of posters on these forums word themselves to suggest favoritism for RE over FE?

Maybe.
Title: Re: Simple Truth
Post by: sokarul on February 28, 2007, 09:20:52 AM


Would the number of posters on these forums word themselves to suggest favoritism for RE over FE?

yes because 999,999,999/1,000,000,000 people know the Earth is round. 
Title: Re: Simple Truth
Post by: Solace on February 28, 2007, 09:24:30 AM


Would the number of posters on these forums word themselves to suggest favoritism for RE over FE?

yes because 999,999,999/1,000,000,000 people know the Earth is round. 

Then I dare say Occam's Razor has a biased perspective on the FE/RE debate on these forums.
Sounds pretty much like what I was aiming at anyway.
Title: Re: Simple Truth
Post by: sokarul on February 28, 2007, 09:32:01 AM


Would the number of posters on these forums word themselves to suggest favoritism for RE over FE?

yes because 999,999,999/1,000,000,000 people know the Earth is round. 

Then I dare say Occam's Razor has a biased perspective on the FE/RE debate on these forums.
Sounds pretty much like what I was aiming at anyway.

And I say you have to ignore all physics and all other knowledge to believe the Earth is flat.  You worship a giant Ice wall that no one has ever seen, yet if you fly south you will hit it.  You look up and see nothign but round bodies yet you still think the Earth has to be flat. 
Title: Re: Simple Truth
Post by: Solace on February 28, 2007, 09:37:49 AM


Would the number of posters on these forums word themselves to suggest favoritism for RE over FE?

yes because 999,999,999/1,000,000,000 people know the Earth is round. 

Then I dare say Occam's Razor has a biased perspective on the FE/RE debate on these forums.
Sounds pretty much like what I was aiming at anyway.

And I say you have to ignore all physics and all other knowledge to believe the Earth is flat.  You worship a giant Ice wall that no one has ever seen, yet if you fly south you will hit it.  You look up and see nothign but round bodies yet you still think the Earth has to be flat. 

Well, I look up and I see a lot of bright burning objects called stars too, but then I noticed the earth wasn't on fire.
.. I also don't see any other life on other plants, does this mean the earth is devoid of life? ( I borrowed this one from someone in another thread. its a good one. )

Can you prove you went straight south, and never deviated, or did you never go, and its just the supposed inference of what will happen?
Title: Re: Simple Truth
Post by: sokarul on February 28, 2007, 09:41:52 AM
So the noon is on fire?  As is mars, venus and all the other planets we have seen?
There is an asteroid that may or may not contain fossilized bacteria.  There is also going to be a new mars rover that is going to search for the remains of life on mars.  Since they already determined it had water on it. 
I could prove Iím going south using the stars or the GPS.  Some on here said the Icewall if full of GPs transmitters.  All I would have to do is fly right over one.
Title: Re: Simple Truth
Post by: Solace on February 28, 2007, 09:47:38 AM
So the noon is on fire?  As is mars, venus and all the other planets we have seen?
There is an asteroid that may or may not contain fossilized bacteria.  There is also going to be a new mars rover that is going to search for the remains of life on mars.  Since they already determined it had water on it. 
I could prove Iím going south using the stars or the GPS.  Some on here said the Icewall if full of GPs transmitters.  All I would have to do is fly right over one.


go for it. make sure to document your trip well.

the fact the moon ISN'T on fire, or your "other" planets, should be proof enough that just because something else in the universe has a property, doesn't mean it all does.
As for an asteroid that MAY, or MAY NOT contain fossilized bacteria, doesn't really say anything at all.
and NASA is part of the conspiracy. they're enjoying some lavish parties with that money that supposedly went to that "mars rover."
Title: Re: Simple Truth
Post by: sokarul on February 28, 2007, 09:51:27 AM
Ok what about space Imaging, the private company that owns a satellite?  You throw logic and knowledge right out the door in every one of your posts. 
Title: Re: Simple Truth
Post by: Solace on February 28, 2007, 09:54:24 AM
Ok what about space Imaging, the private company that owns a satellite?  You throw logic and knowledge right out the door in every one of your posts. 

Satellites don't exist, so ill go ahead with "Space Imaging" is a puppet company established by the government to lend credibility to the conspiracy.
Title: Re: Simple Truth
Post by: sokarul on February 28, 2007, 09:55:40 AM
Of course it is, and all the employees keep the secret.  You do realize that sound ultra ridiculous?
Title: Re: Simple Truth
Post by: Solace on February 28, 2007, 10:02:19 AM
About as ridiculous as the earth being round.

we can even go a level deeper.
Not everyone in the company would need to know the conspiracy. if your job is only to work on photos supplied to you, then you wouldn't actually KNOW where they came from, would you? you'd assume. if you didn't watch the Satellite go up, if there really was a satellite, would you actually know the difference?

Only the top of the food chain who would actually work on the conspiracy would need to know. probably no more then a handful.
Title: Re: Simple Truth
Post by: sokarul on February 28, 2007, 10:23:55 AM
And none of the other 6.7 billion minus a handful have ever stumbled onto it? Alll those people that race around the oceans?  All the private pilots? 
Title: Re: Simple Truth
Post by: Solace on February 28, 2007, 10:31:08 AM
Guess not.
How many people actually travel to the outer ring ( south pole ) for fun and enjoyment? then hike across miles of ice to get to the icewall to begin with, that aren't part of some exploration team which could easily be controlled by the government?
Title: Re: Simple Truth
Post by: IBuiltTheIceWall on February 28, 2007, 11:18:14 AM
Tsk, now you've given them a chance to have a go at your intellectual capacity.

what's with them and always correcting people's spelling and grammar? This isn't an english class! Seems like anytime they can't answer a question, they look at your spelling errors, and point out how stupid we are.

Well, we might not be able to spell but at least we're not stupid enough to believe the earth is flat!

Ever stop to think english is not everybody's first language?

fo real, finally a post that i can understand and agree with
We correct people because we feel that this site is a place to have intelligent discussions, not show off our ability to lawlz0r. So please gtfo. Zomfg i m tlking n aimspeek lawlawlawlawlawlawlawlawlawl z0mgz0mgomfgomfg
Title: Re: Simple Truth
Post by: sokarul on February 28, 2007, 01:11:15 PM
Guess not.
How many people actually travel to the outer ring ( south pole ) for fun and enjoyment? then hike across miles of ice to get to the icewall to begin with, that aren't part of some exploration team which could easily be controlled by the government?

I don't know, how many?  You have all the answers.  You have single handedly uncovered a government conspiracy that goes back 500 years, in which not one person has slipped up and told someone else the Earth is flat.
Title: Re: Simple Truth
Post by: The Philosopher on February 28, 2007, 01:50:42 PM
the main problem with using Occam's Razor as an arguement comparing Theories, is, its Relative.

the idea of everything moving up at a constant acceleration, sounds pretty simple compared to everything has a gravitational pull according to its size and that pull changes dependant on distance, size of the other object, and the pull of potentially hundreds of other objects near it.

Does that make Occam's Razor favor FE Acceleration over RE Gravity? Maybe. sounds relative to how you look at it to me.

If you take either theory at face value and compare them, as you have just done, then it is relative.

When you look at the complexity of each side's explanation, which are based on the same phenomena that we observe here on earth, then the FE side is far more complex.

Gravitational force, for example, is well documented, observable, and has fixed principles.  These principles are that the gravitational force between two masses is proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the distance between them squared. 

One huge assumption of the FE theory, on the other hand, is that there is a force called 'dark energy' (which has nothing to do with the dark energy referred to in the Big Bang theory) that has completely unknown properties.  It has been invented for the sole purpose of covering a gap in the theory. 

Tell me, which theory is based on fewer assumptions? (assumptions are based on faith, not observable evidence.)

Let me list some of the assumptions of the Flat Earth model:
1) 'Dark Energy'
2) Earth being an anomaly to every pattern we can observe in the universe
3) Every single picture of the earth from space, and everything else having to do with NASA has been an elaborate hoax.
4) The entire world set aside their differences to fool the masses.
5) Sun acting as a spotlight, when no other star we have observed acts in such a way.
6) An ice wall somehow encloses our atmosphere.
7) The sun, moon, and stars are also accelerating with the earth, even though earth supposedly doesn't act the same as them.
8)From the FAQ: "The stars are about as far as San Francisco is from Boston. (3100 miles)"
9)Also from the FAQ regarding sunrises: "It's a perspective effect.  Really, the sun is just getting farther away; it looks like it disappears because everything gets smaller and eventually disappears as it gets farther away." I just noticed that this completely contradicts evidence observable with the naked eye.  The sun does not shrink, it disappears behind the horizon.  So this assumption is not only made without evidence, it is made even in the presence of easily observable contradictory evidence.

There are many more, but no more are coming to me at the moment. 

Quote
Well, I look up and I see a lot of bright burning objects called stars too, but then I noticed the earth wasn't on fire.

Inherent in your argument is a ridiculous assumption.  You're assuming that you cannot categorize anything based on its properties.  That's like saying you've observed a cat, so when you see a monkey you don't understand why it isn't a cat.
(This analogy isn't perfect, but you understand what I mean.  I would elaborate but I have to go somewhere)

Objects have different properties, thus we categorize them and assign a name to them.  Earth happens to be a planet, whereas the sun happens to be a star.  This is based on their observable properties. 

Read up on abstraction, it might do you some good.

Quote
I also don't see any other life on other plants, does this mean the earth is devoid of life? ( I borrowed this one from someone in another thread. its a good one.

I addressed this in the post you're referring to.  The fact that we cannot observe something does not mean it is not there, nor does it mean that it is there.  It is simply unknown.