The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on March 28, 2007, 09:40:03 AM

Title: Wikipedia is awesome!
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on March 28, 2007, 09:40:03 AM
Now that multiple people may look at it, it might change so let me quote it.

"The Flat Earth Society is an organization first based in England and later in Lancaster, California that advocates the belief that the Earth is not a sphere but is flat (see also Flat Earth). No modern scientists or religious groups have published support for this belief. This has exposed the society to much outside ridicule and made it a popular metaphor for dogmatic thinking and unreasoning adherence to tradition, with the term Flat-Earther coming to refer to a person who rejects changes in the scientific consensus, and by extension one who lives in the past."

____________________________________________________________________________
I added the bold tags to the text.  ;)
Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society

Religion is a premise of beliefs. Beliefs without factual evidence is what you (more so Franc) accuse Round Earthers of. While this would constitute being a religion, one major flaw in this logic exists. There is tons and tons of evidence for RE as cited arguments by others and myself. Meanwhile, FE has absolutely none. This extreme lack of evidence has been seen heavily in these forums as well as the rest of the flat earth groups.

Seeing as how a RE is almost completely compatible with known physics and a FE breaks these laws almost in every way, FE is more of a flawed speculation than a theory. Choosing to believe such a theory constitutes as religion.

Might I ask, how are you people personally aware the Earth is flat and that there is a conspiracy? Round Earthers, at least myself, have observed a great deal of evidence firsthand and concluded that the well known fact of a round Earth is in fact true.
Title: Re: Wikipedia is awesome!
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on March 28, 2007, 10:10:46 AM
To elaborate on the compatibility of the theories with known physics: An example would be the creation of the Earth. Strong logical theories have been developed that completely explain such an event without the science behind it being proved wrong. The FE however formed how? The spotlight sun lamp formed how? The Earth is accelerating so much how?
Title: Re: Wikipedia is awesome!
Post by: Flat Earth Master Mint on March 28, 2007, 12:17:21 PM
Wikipedia is not a valid source.
Title: Re: Wikipedia is awesome!
Post by: Vauxhall the Vampire on March 28, 2007, 01:01:55 PM
Wikipedia is not a valid source.

I agree. Post count +1 =)
Title: Re: Wikipedia is awesome!
Post by: cmdshft on March 28, 2007, 01:10:45 PM
Wikipedia is not a valid source.

If college professors will take them as valid sources, then they are valid sources.

Also note that all articles are cited on Wikipedia. That makes them valid sources as well.
Title: Re: Wikipedia is awesome!
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on March 28, 2007, 01:50:17 PM
Wikipedia is not a valid source.

Even if Wikipedia was not a valid source, no evidence on all of this forum has surfaced to support FE. Wikipedia is not much more than a confirmation of such information.  :D
Title: Re: Wikipedia is awesome!
Post by: Vauxhall the Vampire on March 28, 2007, 01:50:56 PM
Wikipedia is not a valid source.

Even if Wikipedia was not a valid source, no evidence on all of this forum has surfaced to support FE. Wikipedia is not much more than a confirmation of such information.  :D

This forum is all about reading between the lines.
Title: Re: Wikipedia is awesome!
Post by: Miss M. on March 28, 2007, 02:01:15 PM
Wikipedia is quite reliable I find for things like History and Classics and English. No reason why it shouldn't be fairly reliable with science as well. (of course, it's controlled by the conspiracy so I guess it isn't a valid source).
Title: Re: Wikipedia is awesome!
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on March 28, 2007, 02:18:19 PM
Wikipedia is quite reliable I find for things like History and Classics and English. No reason why it shouldn't be fairly reliable with science as well. (of course, it's controlled by the conspiracy so I guess it isn't a valid source).

Controlled by the conspiracy? If a conspiracy did exist, it would influence the page indirectly by "brainwashing" a majority of citizens to believe otherwise. However, everyone shapes the overall definitions in Wikipedia. Flat Earthers too. Without presenting evidence on Wikipedia, they can't claim that they have any. That article is proven fact and reliable ideal. And yet, I don't use it as direct evidence anyways. (It confirms my findings throughout all flat Earth sources.)
Title: Re: Wikipedia is awesome!
Post by: Vauxhall the Vampire on March 28, 2007, 02:25:15 PM
Wikipedia is quite reliable I find for things like History and Classics and English. No reason why it shouldn't be fairly reliable with science as well. (of course, it's controlled by the conspiracy so I guess it isn't a valid source).

Controlled by the conspiracy? If a conspiracy did exist, it would influence the page indirectly by "brainwashing" a majority of citizens to believe otherwise. However, everyone shapes the overall definitions in Wikipedia. Flat Earthers too. Without presenting evidence on Wikipedia, they can't claim that they have any. That article is proven fact and reliable ideal. And yet, I don't use it as direct evidence anyways. (It confirms my findings throughout all flat Earth sources.)

You know nothing of the conspiracy.
Title: Re: Wikipedia is awesome!
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on March 28, 2007, 02:43:49 PM
Wikipedia is quite reliable I find for things like History and Classics and English. No reason why it shouldn't be fairly reliable with science as well. (of course, it's controlled by the conspiracy so I guess it isn't a valid source).

Controlled by the conspiracy? If a conspiracy did exist, it would influence the page indirectly by "brainwashing" a majority of citizens to believe otherwise. However, everyone shapes the overall definitions in Wikipedia. Flat Earthers too. Without presenting evidence on Wikipedia, they can't claim that they have any. That article is proven fact and reliable ideal. And yet, I don't use it as direct evidence anyways. (It confirms my findings throughout all flat Earth sources.)

You know nothing of the conspiracy.

Feel free to explain it further.  ::)
Title: Re: Wikipedia is awesome!
Post by: Vauxhall the Vampire on March 28, 2007, 02:53:24 PM
Wikipedia is quite reliable I find for things like History and Classics and English. No reason why it shouldn't be fairly reliable with science as well. (of course, it's controlled by the conspiracy so I guess it isn't a valid source).

Controlled by the conspiracy? If a conspiracy did exist, it would influence the page indirectly by "brainwashing" a majority of citizens to believe otherwise. However, everyone shapes the overall definitions in Wikipedia. Flat Earthers too. Without presenting evidence on Wikipedia, they can't claim that they have any. That article is proven fact and reliable ideal. And yet, I don't use it as direct evidence anyways. (It confirms my findings throughout all flat Earth sources.)

You know nothing of the conspiracy.

Feel free to explain it further.  ::)

Please wait one moment.
Title: Re: Wikipedia is awesome!
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on March 28, 2007, 03:33:22 PM
Sure, I'll check back.  8)
Title: Re: Wikipedia is awesome!
Post by: Dioptimus Drime on March 28, 2007, 05:24:14 PM
A religion isn't only a belief in something. ::) I believe that there are cookies in my oven, but I have no evidence to support it. Does that mean that my belief that there are cookies there are religious? Misinformed, undersourced, and probably incorrect, perhaps, since really, I have no idea if there are cookies in my oven or not and yet I still believe they are, but religious? Hmm...
Religion takes a certain level of piety and devotion as well as adherents and dogma. It's not just a premise of beliefs.


Quote from: L0gic
Seeing as how a RE is almost completely compatible with known physics and a FE breaks these laws almost in every way, FE is more of a flawed speculation than a theory. Choosing to believe such a theory constitutes as religion.
Woah, woah. Slow down there, cowboy.

a) How does gravity fit with known physics? As far as I know, gravity doesn't mesh well at all with things like General Relativity.
b) What laws, exactly, are broken by the presumption of the flat Earth theory? So far, I've yet to come across a serious problem with logical physics, so unless you are to have me believe you're just spouting nonsense, I'd expect to see why you think that any universal laws are broken.

Quote from: L0gic
Might I ask, how are you people personally aware the Earth is flat and that there is a conspiracy?
I'm not one-hundred percent sure of the flat Earth, of course. It's very possible, though. As far as the conspiracy goes, it's simply a logical conclusion of the flat Earth. If the Earth is flat, and everyone "knows" that the Earth is round, then SOMEONE is lying to us, no?

Quote from: L0gic
Round Earthers, at least myself, have observed a great deal of evidence firsthand and concluded that the well known fact of a round Earth is in fact true.
So, you're an authority on this matter, then? What experiments have you done to prove it? What evidence have you conceived FOR YOURSELF that the Earth is round? Have you personally gone to space and seen the Earth is round? Have you personally found evidence that leads you to believe that the Earth is indeed round, or are you just taking your evidence from school textbooks and displaying them as your own personal evidence without follow-up?

~D-Draw
Title: Re: Wikipedia is awesome!
Post by: Miss M. on March 29, 2007, 12:51:35 AM
Wikipedia is quite reliable I find for things like History and Classics and English. No reason why it shouldn't be fairly reliable with science as well. (of course, it's controlled by the conspiracy so I guess it isn't a valid source).

Controlled by the conspiracy? If a conspiracy did exist, it would influence the page indirectly by "brainwashing" a majority of citizens to believe otherwise. However, everyone shapes the overall definitions in Wikipedia. Flat Earthers too. Without presenting evidence on Wikipedia, they can't claim that they have any. That article is proven fact and reliable ideal. And yet, I don't use it as direct evidence anyways. (It confirms my findings throughout all flat Earth sources.)
I was being sarcastic....of course there is no conspiracy. Except perhaps, that some ribena has vitamin C in...that's a lie. (actually proven by some school girls)
Title: Re: Wikipedia is awesome!
Post by: Midnight on March 29, 2007, 01:44:26 AM
Wikipedia is not a valid source.

If college professors will take them as valid sources, then they are valid sources.

Also note that all articles are cited on Wikipedia. That makes them valid sources as well.

A college professor is not Tesla, or Einstein, and makes their living teaching neophytes in their chosen area how to become what they [the professor] would have been, if not a teacher.

So that hardly means anything profound.

Title: Re: Wikipedia is awesome!
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on March 29, 2007, 05:58:37 PM
A religion isn't only a belief in something. ::) I believe that there are cookies in my oven, but I have no evidence to support it. Does that mean that my belief that there are cookies there are religious? Misinformed, undersourced, and probably incorrect, perhaps, since really, I have no idea if there are cookies in my oven or not and yet I still believe they are, but religious? Hmm...
Religion takes a certain level of piety and devotion as well as adherents and dogma. It's not just a premise of beliefs.


Quote from: L0gic
Seeing as how a RE is almost completely compatible with known physics and a FE breaks these laws almost in every way, FE is more of a flawed speculation than a theory. Choosing to believe such a theory constitutes as religion.
Woah, woah. Slow down there, cowboy.

a) How does gravity fit with known physics? As far as I know, gravity doesn't mesh well at all with things like General Relativity.
b) What laws, exactly, are broken by the presumption of the flat Earth theory? So far, I've yet to come across a serious problem with logical physics, so unless you are to have me believe you're just spouting nonsense, I'd expect to see why you think that any universal laws are broken.

Quote from: L0gic
Might I ask, how are you people personally aware the Earth is flat and that there is a conspiracy?
I'm not one-hundred percent sure of the flat Earth, of course. It's very possible, though. As far as the conspiracy goes, it's simply a logical conclusion of the flat Earth. If the Earth is flat, and everyone "knows" that the Earth is round, then SOMEONE is lying to us, no?

Quote from: L0gic
Round Earthers, at least myself, have observed a great deal of evidence firsthand and concluded that the well known fact of a round Earth is in fact true.
So, you're an authority on this matter, then? What experiments have you done to prove it? What evidence have you conceived FOR YOURSELF that the Earth is round? Have you personally gone to space and seen the Earth is round? Have you personally found evidence that leads you to believe that the Earth is indeed round, or are you just taking your evidence from school textbooks and displaying them as your own personal evidence without follow-up?

~D-Draw

You're right in one respect: believing you have cookies in your oven is not a religion. This is because you have logical evidence to support it such as you put them there (so i presume), you saw them, and no known physics would make them randomly disappear. Otherwise it would be in a sense religious or in faith.

Notice I said "RE is almost completely compatible with known physics". Even so, gravity is an continuing field of study that looks more than plausible when expanding upon string theory. I knew ahead of time this topic would be used as I cannot think of another contradiction.

FE laws of physics have no plausible basis whatsoever. A force powerful enough to accelerate the whole planet and everything on it for all of history would seem to do so. Conservation of energy is just the tip of the iceberg. FE theory also claims that a giant spotlight is really the sun. The laws of physics wouldn't apply to the creation of a giant light bulb, unless people built it. To bad that's impossible...

"As far as the conspiracy goes, it's simply a logical conclusion of the flat Earth." ???
What?! With no evidence of a conspiracy, how can you conclude that the Earth is in fact flat? In this respect, if you are saying that the "facts" of a fictitious conspiracy fitting together with that of us not knowing about the fictitious Flat Earth is too much of a coincidence, it's not worth responding to.

To answer your question, I have not been in space. However, I have personally observed:

Solar flares, the curvature of the sun's path at different latitudes, studied weather patterns, seen the curvature of the Earth at the horizon (both from side to side and back and forth), studies the effects of magnets and their strengths, calculated the trajectory of satellites based on radio feeds with the angles of dishes, witnessed Foucault pendulums at multiple latitudes, seen other planets through my telescope at multiple stages in rotation, studied the possibility of stellar fusion in a flat sun, and found an approximation of radiation needed to emanate from this spotlight.

Anything else?  ;)
Title: Re: Wikipedia is awesome!
Post by: Wendy on March 30, 2007, 02:55:41 AM
Wikipedia is not a valid source.

Even if Wikipedia was not a valid source, no evidence on all of this forum has surfaced to support FE. Wikipedia is not much more than a confirmation of such information.  :D

This forum is all about reading between the lines.
This forum is all about a bullshit idea thought up by some dillusional guy in the nineteenth century. Some of these people are actually relying on information that has been stagnant for over a hunred years.
Title: Re: Wikipedia is awesome!
Post by: Midnight on March 30, 2007, 06:24:05 AM
hunred?

Huns were pink.
Title: Re: Wikipedia is awesome!
Post by: cmdshft on March 30, 2007, 09:47:16 AM
We went from Wikipedia to religion.

I need a shot.
Title: Re: Wikipedia is awesome!
Post by: Midnight on March 30, 2007, 09:50:17 AM
We went from Wikipedia to religion.

I need a shot.

Wild Turkey?

Or Cordizone?
Title: Re: Wikipedia is awesome!
Post by: cmdshft on March 30, 2007, 09:59:57 AM
Actually, I like vodka.

Wild Turkey is too strong for me. But then again, I don't like whiskey so much period.
Title: Re: Wikipedia is awesome!
Post by: Midnight on March 30, 2007, 10:02:42 AM
Actually, I like vodka.

Wild Turkey is too strong for me. But then again, I don't like whiskey so much period.

A wise man.
Title: Re: Wikipedia is awesome!
Post by: cmdshft on March 30, 2007, 10:03:35 AM
My girlfriend is lucky. She's all hopped up on liquid Oxycotin.
Title: Re: Wikipedia is awesome!
Post by: Vauxhall the Vampire on March 30, 2007, 11:00:24 AM
My girlfriend is lucky. She's all hopped up on liquid Oxycotin.

Am I going to have to start singing Oxy Cotton?
Title: Re: Wikipedia is awesome!
Post by: Midnight on March 30, 2007, 11:03:43 AM
My girlfriend is lucky. She's all hopped up on liquid Oxycotin.
No. nononono. YOU are lucky she is on Oxycontin. YOU are lucky.... ;D
Title: Re: Wikipedia is awesome!
Post by: cmdshft on March 30, 2007, 11:20:08 AM
My girlfriend is lucky. She's all hopped up on liquid Oxycotin.
No. nononono. YOU are lucky she is on Oxycontin. YOU are lucky.... ;D

I guess I'm missing the joke.  ???
Title: Re: Wikipedia is awesome!
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on March 30, 2007, 11:24:36 AM
A REPOST

A religion isn't only a belief in something. ::) I believe that there are cookies in my oven, but I have no evidence to support it. Does that mean that my belief that there are cookies there are religious? Misinformed, undersourced, and probably incorrect, perhaps, since really, I have no idea if there are cookies in my oven or not and yet I still believe they are, but religious? Hmm...
Religion takes a certain level of piety and devotion as well as adherents and dogma. It's not just a premise of beliefs.


Quote from: L0gic
Seeing as how a RE is almost completely compatible with known physics and a FE breaks these laws almost in every way, FE is more of a flawed speculation than a theory. Choosing to believe such a theory constitutes as religion.
Woah, woah. Slow down there, cowboy.

a) How does gravity fit with known physics? As far as I know, gravity doesn't mesh well at all with things like General Relativity.
b) What laws, exactly, are broken by the presumption of the flat Earth theory? So far, I've yet to come across a serious problem with logical physics, so unless you are to have me believe you're just spouting nonsense, I'd expect to see why you think that any universal laws are broken.

Quote from: L0gic
Might I ask, how are you people personally aware the Earth is flat and that there is a conspiracy?
I'm not one-hundred percent sure of the flat Earth, of course. It's very possible, though. As far as the conspiracy goes, it's simply a logical conclusion of the flat Earth. If the Earth is flat, and everyone "knows" that the Earth is round, then SOMEONE is lying to us, no?

Quote from: L0gic
Round Earthers, at least myself, have observed a great deal of evidence firsthand and concluded that the well known fact of a round Earth is in fact true.
So, you're an authority on this matter, then? What experiments have you done to prove it? What evidence have you conceived FOR YOURSELF that the Earth is round? Have you personally gone to space and seen the Earth is round? Have you personally found evidence that leads you to believe that the Earth is indeed round, or are you just taking your evidence from school textbooks and displaying them as your own personal evidence without follow-up?

~D-Draw

You're right in one respect: believing you have cookies in your oven is not a religion. This is because you have logical evidence to support it such as you put them there (so i presume), you saw them, and no known physics would make them randomly disappear. Otherwise it would be in a sense religious or in faith.

Notice I said "RE is almost completely compatible with known physics". Even so, gravity is an continuing field of study that looks more than plausible when expanding upon string theory. I knew ahead of time this topic would be used as I cannot think of another contradiction.

FE laws of physics have no plausible basis whatsoever. A force powerful enough to accelerate the whole planet and everything on it for all of history would seem to do so. Conservation of energy is just the tip of the iceberg. FE theory also claims that a giant spotlight is really the sun. The laws of physics wouldn't apply to the creation of a giant light bulb, unless people built it. To bad that's impossible...

"As far as the conspiracy goes, it's simply a logical conclusion of the flat Earth." ???
What?! With no evidence of a conspiracy, how can you conclude that the Earth is in fact flat? In this respect, if you are saying that the "facts" of a fictitious conspiracy fitting together with that of us not knowing about the fictitious Flat Earth is too much of a coincidence, it's not worth responding to.

To answer your question, I have not been in space. However, I have personally observed:

Solar flares, the curvature of the sun's path at different latitudes, studied weather patterns, seen the curvature of the Earth at the horizon (both from side to side and back and forth), studies the effects of magnets and their strengths, calculated the trajectory of satellites based on radio feeds with the angles of dishes, witnessed Foucault pendulums at multiple latitudes, seen other planets through my telescope at multiple stages in rotation, studied the possibility of stellar fusion in a flat sun, and found an approximation of radiation needed to emanate from this spotlight.

Anything else?  ;)
Title: Re: Wikipedia is awesome!
Post by: cmdshft on March 30, 2007, 11:26:09 AM
Yeah, why am I lucky she is on Oxycotin?
Title: Re: Wikipedia is awesome!
Post by: Midnight on March 30, 2007, 11:29:49 AM
My girlfriend is lucky. She's all hopped up on liquid Oxycotin.
No. nononono. YOU are lucky she is on Oxycontin. YOU are lucky.... ;D

I guess I'm missing the joke.  ???

You mentioned your recent little one arriving. If that was you. Otherwise I'm insane. A woman who just gave birth is one you want sedated. LOL Been there man. lol
Title: Re: Wikipedia is awesome!
Post by: cmdshft on March 30, 2007, 11:33:17 AM
Ah yes. Well, I wouldn't mind a little Oxy here myself at times.. lol
Title: Re: Wikipedia is awesome!
Post by: Dioptimus Drime on March 30, 2007, 01:40:16 PM
You're right in one respect: believing you have cookies in your oven is not a religion. This is because you have logical evidence to support it such as you put them there (so i presume), you saw them, and no known physics would make them randomly disappear. Otherwise it would be in a sense religious or in faith.
Actually, I don't have logical evidence that they're in there, but I just believe it because I want them to be there. Does that mean that it's a religion? It's morning for me here and I haven't even gone upstairs to look at my oven let alone to see any cookies in there, but what if I were to believe that they were there. Is that a religion? Maybe I should start a church.

Quote
Notice I said "RE is almost completely compatible with known physics". Even so, gravity is an continuing field of study that looks more than plausible when expanding upon string theory. I knew ahead of time this topic would be used as I cannot think of another contradiction.
The String Theory does basically nothing to prove gravity. Plus, it's basically a helluva lot of speculation and "What Ifs," except with complicated mathematic schemes in between in order to make people think that it's important.

Quote
FE laws of physics have no plausible basis whatsoever. A force powerful enough to accelerate the whole planet and everything on it for all of history would seem to do so. Conservation of energy is just the tip of the iceberg. FE theory also claims that a giant spotlight is really the sun. The laws of physics wouldn't apply to the creation of a giant light bulb, unless people built it. To bad that's impossible...
FE laws of physics are exactly the same as the RE model's laws of physics. While we may not know what the force of the Universal Accelerator, I still see no problem with it. And the sun is not a spotlight. It BEHAVES like a spotlight in that it only sheds light on a small area of land because it is small and lower to the ground.

Quote
"As far as the conspiracy goes, it's simply a logical conclusion of the flat Earth." ???
What?! With no evidence of a conspiracy, how can you conclude that the Earth is in fact flat? In this respect, if you are saying that the "facts" of a fictitious conspiracy fitting together with that of us not knowing about the fictitious Flat Earth is too much of a coincidence, it's not worth responding to.

A knows B.
A says C.
A is lying.

Quote
To answer your question, I have not been in space. However, I have personally observed:

Solar flares, the curvature of the sun's path at different latitudes, studied weather patterns, seen the curvature of the Earth at the horizon (both from side to side and back and forth), studies the effects of magnets and their strengths, calculated the trajectory of satellites based on radio feeds with the angles of dishes, witnessed Foucault pendulums at multiple latitudes, seen other planets through my telescope at multiple stages in rotation, studied the possibility of stellar fusion in a flat sun, and found an approximation of radiation needed to emanate from this spotlight.

Anything else?  ;)
I'm not going to personally go through and tell you what's wrong with each of these because they have all been discussed extensively in other threads and--contrary to popular belief--I do have something which somewhat resembles a life.

~D-Draw
Title: Re: Wikipedia is awesome!
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on March 31, 2007, 10:00:10 AM
Actually, I don't have logical evidence that they're in there, but I just believe it because I want them to be there. Does that mean that it's a religion? It's morning for me here and I haven't even gone upstairs to look at my oven let alone to see any cookies in there, but what if I were to believe that they were there. Is that a religion? Maybe I should start a church.

I misunderstood that you simply wanted cookies to exist. In any case, it's irrelevant. Actually believing that they do may not directly fit into the definition of religion but it is just as foolish. :D

Quote
The String Theory does basically nothing to prove gravity. Plus, it's basically a helluva lot of speculation and "What Ifs," except with complicated mathematic schemes in between in order to make people think that it's important.

Oh? And you know this how? String theory causes problems for this speculation of FE so it is instantly discredited. lol. Making up stuff doesn't mean others will fall for it. Besides, it does a lot for gravity. It creates potential solutions for the Grand Unified Theory. Having the laws of physics 'agree' with each other on a micro and macro perspective does a whole hell of a lot for the RE case.

Quote
FE laws of physics are exactly the same as the RE model's laws of physics. While we may not know what the force of the Universal Accelerator, I still see no problem with it.

umm... Conservation of energy? A power source such that it never runs out, and yet undetectable  by technology by any means. lololol.

Quote
And the sun is not a spotlight. It BEHAVES like a spotlight in that it only sheds light on a small area of land because it is small and lower to the ground.

Thanks for clearing that up! Now it disobeys the laws of physics in another way. Shedding light only directly down. Heck, otherwise people far away from it would see it from an angle making it look elliptical.

Quote
Quote
"As far as the conspiracy goes, it's simply a logical conclusion of the flat Earth." ???
What?! With no evidence of a conspiracy, how can you conclude that the Earth is in fact flat? In this respect, if you are saying that the "facts" of a fictitious conspiracy fitting together with that of us not knowing about the fictitious Flat Earth is too much of a coincidence, it's not worth responding to.

A knows B.
A says C.
A is lying.

Um... yes. That is the definition of a lie so to speak. That isn't a valid response though. Lying and us not knowing it doesn't lead to a logical conclusion. Saying that the "facts" of a fictitious conspiracy fitting together with the "fact" that the public is ignorant about the fictitious Flat Earth is too much of a coincidence is ridiculous.

Santa is lying about eating our milk and cookies and he actually shoves them up Rudolf's nostrils. Two elements of fiction. But now that they reinforce each other... ooooh. It must be true!  ::)


Quote
Quote
To answer your question, I have not been in space. However, I have personally observed:

Solar flares, the curvature of the sun's path at different latitudes, studied weather patterns, seen the curvature of the Earth at the horizon (both from side to side and back and forth), studies the effects of magnets and their strengths, calculated the trajectory of satellites based on radio feeds with the angles of dishes, witnessed Foucault pendulums at multiple latitudes, seen other planets through my telescope at multiple stages in rotation, studied the possibility of stellar fusion in a flat sun, and found an approximation of radiation needed to emanate from this spotlight.

Anything else?  ;)
I'm not going to personally go through and tell you what's wrong with each of these because they have all been discussed extensively in other threads and--contrary to popular belief--I do have something which somewhat resembles a life.

~D-Draw

That was in response to my personal experiences after I asked yours. Crappy attempts to disprove, discredit, or alter to support FE also doesn't change the fact that they explain a RE perfectly. The point is I have personal experiences to provide such support as Flat Earthers had none. That is why it can safely be called speculation. I have yet to see a single shred of evidence that contradicts a Round Earth.  ;)
Title: Re: Wikipedia is awesome!
Post by: Dioptimus Drime on March 31, 2007, 10:33:09 PM
I misunderstood that you simply wanted cookies to exist. In any case, it's irrelevant. Actually believing that they do may not directly fit into the definition of religion but it is just as foolish. :D
Right. It's not a religion. A religion is not JUST a premise of beliefs.

Quote
Oh? And you know this how? String theory causes problems for this speculation of FE so it is instantly discredited. lol. Making up stuff doesn't mean others will fall for it. Besides, it does a lot for gravity. It creates potential solutions for the Grand Unified Theory. Having the laws of physics 'agree' with each other on a micro and macro perspective does a whole hell of a lot for the RE case.
I know because the String Theory is basically just a shitload of speculation on HOW things COULD happen IF they did happen certain ways. To the Round Earth theory, sure, it works--albeit lacks any evidence--but if it DIDN'T work out that way, then absolutely nothing would be out of place. If you can prove to me otherwise, I'll concede to the point.

Quote
umm... Conservation of energy? A power source such that it never runs out, and yet undetectable  by technology by any means. lololol.
Oh, so now you know how much energy is present in the universe? And I assume you have some sort of omniscient power which allows you to see this, and piece together that it's not possible? By the way, the sun is an energy source and--as far as I'M aware--it has never run out of energy...Hmm...

As well, it is detectable by many means. If I jump in the air, the Earth is going to be pushed by the source and thus connect me back with the ground.

Quote
Thanks for clearing that up! Now it disobeys the laws of physics in another way. Shedding light only directly down. Heck, otherwise people far away from it would see it from an angle making it look elliptical.
A) It's small and low to the ground...Thusly, it sheds down and sometimes to the sides, but just doesn't extend its reach all the way around the Earth.
B) Why would it appear elliptical? The sun is round.

Quote
Um... yes. That is the definition of a lie so to speak. That isn't a valid response though. Lying and us not knowing it doesn't lead to a logical conclusion. Saying that the "facts" of a fictitious conspiracy fitting together with the "fact" that the public is ignorant about the fictitious Flat Earth is too much of a coincidence is ridiculous.

Santa is lying about eating our milk and cookies and he actually shoves them up Rudolf's nostrils. Two elements of fiction. But now that they reinforce each other... ooooh. It must be true!  ::)
That's completely erroneous, and not relevant. Your example structure is backwards. If you did it the other way: Santa is shoving our milk and cookies up Rudolf's nostrils, then he is lying about eating them. You would be entirely correct. It's completely irrelevant whether one is fictional or not, because it's a logical conclusion.
IF the Earth is flat, THEN somebody's lying to everyone.
The conspiracy relies on the Earth being flat. Whether it is or it's not is debated (hence this site), but the conspiracy is still a logical conclusion of the flat Earth.


Quote
That was in response to my personal experiences after I asked yours. Crappy attempts to disprove, discredit, or alter to support FE also doesn't change the fact that they explain a RE perfectly. The point is I have personal experiences to provide such support as Flat Earthers had none. That is why it can safely be called speculation. I have yet to see a single shred of evidence that contradicts a Round Earth.  ;)
Maybe--just maybe--if you had an unbiased view and didn't WANT to see that the Earth was round (or that it was flat), you'd be able to actually think for yourself.

~D-Draw
Title: Re: Wikipedia is awesome!
Post by: Kom Incense on April 01, 2007, 04:07:15 PM
Now that multiple people may look at it, it might change so let me quote it.

"The Flat Earth Society is an organization first based in England and later in Lancaster, California that advocates the belief that the Earth is not a sphere but is flat (see also Flat Earth). No modern scientists or religious groups have published support for this belief. This has exposed the society to much outside ridicule and made it a popular metaphor for dogmatic thinking and unreasoning adherence to tradition, with the term Flat-Earther coming to refer to a person who rejects changes in the scientific consensus, and by extension one who lives in the past."

The truth is actually the opposite. Nobody believes in a flat earth, and they are goofing on people who would actually argue that point.
Title: Re: Wikipedia is awesome!
Post by: Mr. Ireland on April 02, 2007, 08:38:05 AM
Now that multiple people may look at it, it might change so let me quote it.

"The Flat Earth Society is an organization first based in England and later in Lancaster, California that advocates the belief that the Earth is not a sphere but is flat (see also Flat Earth). No modern scientists or religious groups have published support for this belief. This has exposed the society to much outside ridicule and made it a popular metaphor for dogmatic thinking and unreasoning adherence to tradition, with the term Flat-Earther coming to refer to a person who rejects changes in the scientific consensus, and by extension one who lives in the past."

The truth is actually the opposite. Nobody believes in a flat earth, and they are goofing on people who would actually argue that point.

Tom does.
Title: Re: Wikipedia is awesome!
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 02, 2007, 09:19:02 AM
Right. It's not a religion. A religion is not JUST a premise of beliefs.

No matter what you call it, its still as naive and foolish. The point is the system of beliefs (called religion or not) that is based no facts can't rival scientific findings. Lets not change the discussion to the definition of words so much as their application and use. ;)

Besides, what else does the cookie belief need to become a religion? Divine intervention? A building as a church? A minimal number of followers?

Quote
Quote
Oh? And you know this how? String theory causes problems for this speculation of FE so it is instantly discredited. lol. Making up stuff doesn't mean others will fall for it. Besides, it does a lot for gravity. It creates potential solutions for the Grand Unified Theory. Having the laws of physics 'agree' with each other on a micro and macro perspective does a whole hell of a lot for the RE case.
I know because the String Theory is basically just a shitload of speculation on HOW things COULD happen IF they did happen certain ways. To the Round Earth theory, sure, it works--albeit lacks any evidence--but if it DIDN'T work out that way, then absolutely nothing would be out of place. If you can prove to me otherwise, I'll concede to the point.

Umm... Thats exactly what I was referring to. Discrediting String Theory and calling it a shitload of speculation. It is heavily based on mathematics and I don't see the point in trying to prove a universal negative. If you are in fact fimiliar enough with String Theory to state this, it is much easier for you to tell me the apparent problems with its basis than for me to go through every aspect of it justifying each point. Besides, the point of evidence to back it up applies just as well to Flat Earth itself. Not a single point excluding the possibility of a Round Earth has surfaced.

Quote
Quote
umm... Conservation of energy? A power source such that it never runs out, and yet undetectable  by technology by any means. lololol.
Oh, so now you know how much energy is present in the universe? And I assume you have some sort of omniscient power which allows you to see this, and piece together that it's not possible? By the way, the sun is an energy source and--as far as I'M aware--it has never run out of energy...Hmm...

You are correct in saying that the sun has not burned out yet. However, we understand the source of this energy. It's called stellar fusion. The exact atomic processes undergone in the sun releasing energy are understood and are not infinite. While there is no way to be certain of the amount of energy in the universe, energy such as the universal accelerator is far far greater than that of our sun. The unending energy exceeds the power known by any force. Power of nuclear reactions, fusion, or even super novas are finite and detectable. When I said detectable, I was referring to technologically. Look at my previous post. Radiation in all forms from our sun constitute as detectable. That is how we know our sun is there. That and its gravity. This power source accelerating the whole planet and everything on it is complete speculation for what makes things fall back to earth. The only 'detecting' it is dropping pens. No gamma or radio waves, we can't see it, and no experiment can prove it. This effect is explained by gravity which can be detected and studied when observing celestial orbits. Ignoring NASA with no proof that they should be disregarded only helps defend FE. The UA still has no evidence. As for RE supporters, NASA is a legitimate source of evidence. A rival on the FE side needs to be invented from your brilliant creativity.  ::)

Quote
As well, it is detectable by many means. If I jump in the air, the Earth is going to be pushed by the source and thus connect me back with the ground.

Like I said, you are making an equally strong case for gravity. Except more evidence for gravity exists beyond this.

Quote
Quote
Thanks for clearing that up! Now it disobeys the laws of physics in another way. Shedding light only directly down. Heck, otherwise people far away from it would see it from an angle making it look elliptical.
A) It's small and low to the ground...Thusly, it sheds down and sometimes to the sides, but just doesn't extend its reach all the way around the Earth.
B) Why would it appear elliptical? The sun is round.

Okay, a sphere from the side looks like a circle. A flat sun, or a circle, from the side looks like a line or an ellipse. If you need proof of this, take a piece of paper, draw a circle, and look at it from the side. It appears to stretch and distort into an oval.

Quote
That's completely erroneous, and not relevant. Your example structure is backwards. If you did it the other way: Santa is shoving our milk and cookies up Rudolf's nostrils, then he is lying about eating them. You would be entirely correct. It's completely irrelevant whether one is fictional or not, because it's a logical conclusion.

So you admit the chain of logic is very flawed? Good. Read your own post:
Quote
As far as the conspiracy goes, it's simply a logical conclusion of the flat Earth.
Putting the lying first and the alternative truth expanding on it is wrong. If you meant to say that you did not mean that the Earth was flat because of such a conspiracy then perhaps proofreading your posts might help. I consider it more than possible that posts can be read different than the intent when posted. ???

Quote
The conspiracy relies on the Earth being flat. Whether it is or it's not is debated (hence this site), but the conspiracy is still a logical conclusion of the flat Earth.

Could be read to answer:
1. How is a conspiracy a logical conclusion showing the Earth is flat?
2. How is a conspiracy the conclusion if the Earth was flat?

Quote
IF the Earth is flat, THEN somebody's lying to everyone.
This is the clearest post yet. Which is good. However, I fail to see how that is an argument for a FE. If it isn't, why did you post it?

Quote
Quote
That was in response to my personal experiences after I asked yours. Crappy attempts to disprove, discredit, or alter to support FE also doesn't change the fact that they explain a RE perfectly. The point is I have personal experiences to provide such support as Flat Earthers had none. That is why it can safely be called speculation. I have yet to see a single shred of evidence that contradicts a Round Earth.  ;)
Maybe--just maybe--if you had an unbiased view and didn't WANT to see that the Earth was round (or that it was flat), you'd be able to actually think for yourself.

~D-Draw

What makes you think I haven't? I haven't used or listed a single external source as direct evidence without reason. My findings were on my own. The evidence I find simply supports a RE. I wish I could say the same about a FE, but like I have countlessly mentioned, there is none.
Title: Re: Wikipedia is awesome!
Post by: cmdshft on April 02, 2007, 12:13:24 PM
tl;dr