The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: Raver on June 14, 2010, 01:49:06 PM
-
I am confronted by FE'ers that RE is a conspiracy. What is the point in having most of the world believe the world is round over flat? Why invest billions into a this "play" unless it has some benefit. The answer to this I can give myself; there isn't a reason to unless there IS a benefit or greater plot. My question is: What is the benefit or reason for this conspiracy? Please don't tell me the government is doing it for the lulz...
-
I am confronted by FE'ers that RE is a conspiracy. What is the point in having most of the world believe the world is round over flat? Why invest billions into a this "play" unless it has some benefit. The answer to this I can give myself; there isn't a reason to unless there IS a benefit or greater plot. My question is: What is the benefit or reason for this conspiracy? Please don't tell me the government is doing it for the lulz...
NASA is profiting from the government. Please read the FAQ page on the Conspiracy before posting again on this subject.
-
I am confronted by FE'ers that RE is a conspiracy. What is the point in having most of the world believe the world is round over flat? Why invest billions into a this "play" unless it has some benefit. The answer to this I can give myself; there isn't a reason to unless there IS a benefit or greater plot. My question is: What is the benefit or reason for this conspiracy? Please don't tell me the government is doing it for the lulz...
NASA is profiting from the government. Please read the FAQ page on the Conspiracy before posting again on this subject.
I did and I read this
Who DOES Need to Know:
NASA -- Okay, so the top three (at most) need to know, we'll say. These are the guys who actually are controlling the conspiracy, and maybe some of the profit is divided amongst them, but they don't need to be bribed to shut their mouths, and thus have no leverage amongst the others. If we say about three other people in NASA know about it, who are helping with image editing, video editing, and general coverage, but working closely with the top three.
RASA -- The Russians are just about equal if not more active in space exploration as the US, so we'll say these guys have six people helping out with the conspiracy as well. As a matter of fact, tag one more on, just because I'm generous. That leaves us with thirteen people.
China -- Yes, in 2003, China became the third country to independently send a manned spaceship into outer space. However, their space program isn't all that big. As a (very) liberal estimate, we'll say they need about three people. But why don't we tag on one more just to make sure I'm not cheating. That leaves us with seventeen people from the space exploration crews that need to know.
GPS Manufacturers -- I'm going to say they only need one person for this job. There's not really much to do. Machines make most of the chips, and I doubt all of the bosses of the companies need to even bother. They just need to have one guy saying, "Yup, that's right." This guy could even be one of the NASA or RASA members, honestly, but I'm being nice. This rings up to a comprehensive total of eighteen people.
Public Relations People -- NASA or RASA conspirators could fill this role, too, but again, generosity has the better of me, and I'm going to say that the conspiracy hires people to do this, too, since the guys in the space exploration teams are filled with a bunch of pale, pimply white guys, and therefore aren't good at convincing people of the truth. We'll say they need a couple of these guys, bringing the total up to a whopping twenty people.
People Who Have "Been In Space" -- Yes, they need astronauts saying, "Hey! I was up there!" But they're barely part of the conspiracy, they're just people who have a little bit of leverage, and therefore need a bit of bribing. We'll count them as half-people for this count, since they don't really count as conspirators. So, if we have somewhere around fifty people that have "been in space," that means that it counts for about twenty-five conspirators, therefore bringing our total to forty-five which is not as large as is commonly described.
Ice Wall Guards -- These guys don't need to be paid in full, either, as they're only guarding an ice wall. I believe that it was Erasmus who pulled some mathematics on this one, and showed that not that many people were needed to guard the ice wall. As they don't really have any leverage on the conspiracy, they won't count for this part (I'll go back to it later), since this is mostly about who needs to be paid to shut their mouths.
Who Does NOT Need To Know:
PotUS -- Why would the president need to know? All he knows is that he's giving money to what he thinks is a space exploration team, and then he sees exactly what everyone in the world sees on TV. He doesn't ever need to suspect a damned thing.
Members of Space Teams -- They see exactly what we see as well, but they're sitting on the ground looking at it "Live." That doesn't mean that they know that the people are actually in space, but they can make a really convincing argument towards it, perhaps.
Conclusive Mathematics:
Basically, I'm going to assume that every single person on my list wants to get paid so that they won't talk about the conspiracy. They're going to want a lot of it, too, most likely. Probably enough so that they won't have to work for the rest of their lives? Well, how's about something like one million dollars per year, plus one million in advance. That's far better than most jobs can fetch, and all they have to do is shut up. Minus the top five or so, since they are the runners of the organization.
That brings us to 40 x 1,000,000. Forty million dollars plus forty million every year? Sure, it's plenty of cash, but NASA receives so much more money than that from just governmental funds, and while I don't know much about Russian space teams, I'm sure they do, too. They can easily pay for this, and the undernoted requirements for money, without even breaking a sweat; in fact, they'll be probably pulling a profit, just from the government giving them cash.
Maintenance:
There doesn't need to be all that much maintenance, besides damage control. The space exploration programs have maintenance funds from their respective governments, so they're all self-sufficient without having to spend excess money on maintaining the conspiracy (seeing as all the cash they're not spending on research can be spent on the conspiracy).
The only reason extra money might need to be poured into the conspiracy would be for damage control. If we say that this would cost somewhere around five million per year, that still only leaves us with forty-five million per year.
*UPDATED*
Ice Wall Guarding:
If you would take note of Erasmus's calculations as far as guards go:
Quote from: Erasmus
Supposing for a moment that the government does guard it solely by posting men on it, these men are 150 in the air. From that hight they can see at least 15 miles in every relevant direction (this of course is calculating using the RE model... on a FE they might see farther). Thus you can cover the whole wall with just 78,225/30 = 2608 men.
You can decrease it further by giving them snowmobiles and having them ride between waypoints. If they can ride 10 mph and still keep an eye on things, then in one hour one sixth the previous number -- or 652 men -- can cover the wall in an hour. In fact, doing this gives them better coverage, since this way their 15-mile-radius field of vision doesn't have any holes.
Now take the terrain into account -- much of the Ice Wall is probably unapproachable except by air -- and you can trim down the numbers even further.
Strategically locate some helicopter pads (on the wall or floating) and you can have heavy armament on the scene in thirty minutes. Assuming an Apache helicopter can fly 150 mph, in that time they could fly 75 miles, so we would need to place pads every 150 miles, requiring 521 pads. Obviously, if you don't insist on thirty-minute response time, you can do with fewer. Don't forget that the watchmen can see 15 miles away from the wall, so thirty minutes should be more than enough to intercept any boat that tries to approach, snap pictures, and sail to safety.
Of course, this is all assuming that the only means our governments have of detecting trespassers is by looking with their eyes. We're neglecting radar and high-altitude spyplanes, probably with infrared cameras.
We're also neglecting intelligence. Anybody who wants to travel to the ice wall has to leave from someplace, and these someplaces can be watched by agents as well. There aren't too many good places to set on on such a journey from. Then, such expeditions would also have to be planned, and agents could get words about them before they even start. Once they've started, agents could monitor radio transmissions. If they can discover tresspassers a thousand miles away instead of only fifteen, then maybe they don't need so big a force as you say.
Now, I'm going to take this, and say that we need about one-thousand men guarding the wall, again with two shifts each, if we include cameras, infrared, radar, intelligence, and all that good stuff. This is more than I stated previously, but bear in mind that I had been very generous with the amount those men had been paid. Now, seeing as the men practically have no influence (all they do is guard an ice wall; it's not like it's probable they have a lot of friends at all, let alone ones in high places), they don't necessarily need a very grand rate of pay. Therefore I'm dropping my previous estimate to a simple one-hundred thousand dollars per person. That still leaves us with the same amount of two-million dollars to pay for every guard in the wall forces.
CONSPIRACY MONEY TOTAL = $47,000,000 USD (Forty-Million U.S. Dollars)
Where are the sources for this? Infact I find the part where it is said that astronauts were bribed very disrespectfull, as quite a few died in their cause. It isn't neccesary to "fake" accidents to create a believable space programm, yet they happened. Apollo 1, Challenger and Columbia, all three had their crew killed, yet that's ok because it it didn't really happen according to you and your very unconclusive information (information=/=facts). As it stands there is no more reason to believe the space programm is a conspiracy than that you are a conspiracy.
-
They missed the estimate for an air-tight conspiracy by at least a couple orders of magnitude. Way more people would have to be involved and heavily bribed for it to actually work out.
Plus, any one of the bribees would realize that they could easily hold out for more money lest the entire thing fall apart, and before you know it, the whole thing would blow up.
-
I don't really think that necessarily a conspiracy is mutually inclusive with the earth being flat. It is my opinion that it would be possible for people to simply be misviewing the data. Is it not possible that two models with internally different workings have similar outputs? Its done all the time in engineering with black box re.
-
I don't really think that necessarily a conspiracy is mutually inclusive with the earth being flat. It is my opinion that it would be possible for people to simply be misviewing the data. Is it not possible that two models with internally different workings have similar outputs? Its done all the time in engineering with black box re.
You are wrong, without the conspiracy part of the FET NASA and their spaceprogramm is possible. Therefor without the conspiracy theory pictures of earth from orbit are showing us it is spherical are valid. Without the conspiracy theory the earth is round for if NASA is not conspiring, then they have presented us with undisputable facts (note that not only NASA has done this).
-
I don't really think that necessarily a conspiracy is mutually inclusive with the earth being flat. It is my opinion that it would be possible for people to simply be misviewing the data. Is it not possible that two models with internally different workings have similar outputs? Its done all the time in engineering with black box re.
You are wrong, without the conspiracy part of the FET NASA and their spaceprogramm is possible. Therefor without the conspiracy theory pictures of earth from orbit are showing us it is spherical are valid. Without the conspiracy theory the earth is round for if NASA is not conspiring, then they have presented us with undisputable facts (note that not only NASA has done this).
Can you show that I am wrong or will you just state it?
Just because something appears spherical does not mean it is spherical.
Can you show (mathematically) that there is only one model or system that would show us the same outputs given the same inputs?
-
I don't really think that necessarily a conspiracy is mutually inclusive with the earth being flat. It is my opinion that it would be possible for people to simply be misviewing the data. Is it not possible that two models with internally different workings have similar outputs? Its done all the time in engineering with black box re.
You are wrong, without the conspiracy part of the FET NASA and their spaceprogramm is possible. Therefor without the conspiracy theory pictures of earth from orbit are showing us it is spherical are valid. Without the conspiracy theory the earth is round for if NASA is not conspiring, then they have presented us with undisputable facts (note that not only NASA has done this).
Can you show that I am wrong or will you just state it?
Just because something appears spherical does not mean it is spherical.
Can you show that it is impossible (mathematically) that there is only one model or system that would show us the same outputs given the same inputs?
I didn't "just state it", I told you why I think you are wrong. To start with, no I can't provide you with a mathematical model of a round earth, Nasa however could (to some degree). Secondly I would like to ask you something. You imply that there might be two models (or systems) that show the same output when given the same input. If you did this for every (and I mean every single last one) aspect of the FET and RET and you trully did get the same output then the conclusion would have to be that the FET=RET, correct?
Furthermore my point is not of mathematical nature, NASA has shown us a round earth. The earth is round unless NASA (along with dozens of other agencies) is wrong. The FET does this by saying that the whole thing is a conspiracy. Without the conspiracy there is no reason to believe that the proof showing us that the earth is round is invalid. So again, why would a NASA fake deaths and accidents which are not neccesary? (I alreaddy uttered my opinion on its disrespect, I won't repost my OP).
-
I don't really think that necessarily a conspiracy is mutually inclusive with the earth being flat. It is my opinion that it would be possible for people to simply be misviewing the data. Is it not possible that two models with internally different workings have similar outputs? Its done all the time in engineering with black box re.
You are wrong, without the conspiracy part of the FET NASA and their spaceprogramm is possible. Therefor without the conspiracy theory pictures of earth from orbit are showing us it is spherical are valid. Without the conspiracy theory the earth is round for if NASA is not conspiring, then they have presented us with undisputable facts (note that not only NASA has done this).
Can you show that I am wrong or will you just state it?
Just because something appears spherical does not mean it is spherical.
Can you show that it is impossible (mathematically) that there is only one model or system that would show us the same outputs given the same inputs?
You imply that there might be two models (or systems) that show the same output when given the same input. If you did this for every (and I mean every single last one) aspect of the FET and RET and you trully did get the same output then the conclusion would have to be that the FET=RET, correct?
That is incorrect. All it would mean is that FE and RET have similar qualities. If you are familiar with the film Avatar, you will find that Pandora depicts mountains. It has water. It is round. Does this mean that Earth=Pandora?
-
I don't really think that necessarily a conspiracy is mutually inclusive with the earth being flat. It is my opinion that it would be possible for people to simply be misviewing the data. Is it not possible that two models with internally different workings have similar outputs? Its done all the time in engineering with black box re.
You are wrong, without the conspiracy part of the FET NASA and their spaceprogramm is possible. Therefor without the conspiracy theory pictures of earth from orbit are showing us it is spherical are valid. Without the conspiracy theory the earth is round for if NASA is not conspiring, then they have presented us with undisputable facts (note that not only NASA has done this).
Can you show that I am wrong or will you just state it?
Just because something appears spherical does not mean it is spherical.
Can you show that it is impossible (mathematically) that there is only one model or system that would show us the same outputs given the same inputs?
I didn't "just state it", I told you why I think you are wrong. To start with, no I can't provide you with a mathematical model of a round earth, Nasa however could (to some degree).
I did not ask for a mathematical model of a round earth. I asked for a proof that would show that a model cannot be replicated with different inner workings.
Secondly I would like to ask you something. You imply that there might be two models (or systems) that show the same output when given the same input. If you did this for every (and I mean every single last one) aspect of the FET and RET and you trully did get the same output then the conclusion would have to be that the FET=RET, correct?
I don't see the relevance of your impossible scenario.
Furthermore my point is not of mathematical nature, NASA has shown us a round earth. The earth is round unless NASA (along with dozens of other agencies) is wrong. The FET does this by saying that the whole thing is a conspiracy. Without the conspiracy there is no reason to believe that the proof showing us that the earth is round is invalid. So again, why would a NASA fake deaths and accidents which are not neccesary? (I alreaddy uttered my opinion on its disrespect, I won't repost my OP).
I'd certainly say it is if we are talking about two models. However, I will digress.
I never said they would fake deaths and accidents and the implication that I did is frankly insulting. I also did not claim there was a conspiracy. I did claim NASA and dozens of other agencies as well as a large populace of the earth are wrong. Nasa has shown us images of what appears to be a round earth. That does not necessarily mean it is round, nor does it necessitate that they are lying. People make mistakes.
The evidence they provide is not invalid, their interpretation of said evidence is. This is immediately obvious because it contradicts what we already know.
-
I don't really think that necessarily a conspiracy is mutually inclusive with the earth being flat. It is my opinion that it would be possible for people to simply be misviewing the data. Is it not possible that two models with internally different workings have similar outputs? Its done all the time in engineering with black box re.
You are wrong, without the conspiracy part of the FET NASA and their spaceprogramm is possible. Therefor without the conspiracy theory pictures of earth from orbit are showing us it is spherical are valid. Without the conspiracy theory the earth is round for if NASA is not conspiring, then they have presented us with undisputable facts (note that not only NASA has done this).
Can you show that I am wrong or will you just state it?
Just because something appears spherical does not mean it is spherical.
Can you show that it is impossible (mathematically) that there is only one model or system that would show us the same outputs given the same inputs?
You imply that there might be two models (or systems) that show the same output when given the same input. If you did this for every (and I mean every single last one) aspect of the FET and RET and you trully did get the same output then the conclusion would have to be that the FET=RET, correct?
That is incorrect. All it would mean is that FE and RET have similar qualities. If you are familiar with the film Avatar, you will find that Pandora depicts mountains. It has water. It is round. Does this mean that Earth=Pandora?
No, but that is because not all aspects of earth and pandorra are the same.
I quote myself: "If you did this for every (and I mean every single last one) aspect"
You haven't done this, for instance the atmosphere is not the same on earth as it is on Pandora. This one differene is already enough to say that earth=/=Pandora.
-
I don't really think that necessarily a conspiracy is mutually inclusive with the earth being flat. It is my opinion that it would be possible for people to simply be misviewing the data. Is it not possible that two models with internally different workings have similar outputs? Its done all the time in engineering with black box re.
You are wrong, without the conspiracy part of the FET NASA and their spaceprogramm is possible. Therefor without the conspiracy theory pictures of earth from orbit are showing us it is spherical are valid. Without the conspiracy theory the earth is round for if NASA is not conspiring, then they have presented us with undisputable facts (note that not only NASA has done this).
Can you show that I am wrong or will you just state it?
Just because something appears spherical does not mean it is spherical.
Can you show that it is impossible (mathematically) that there is only one model or system that would show us the same outputs given the same inputs?
You imply that there might be two models (or systems) that show the same output when given the same input. If you did this for every (and I mean every single last one) aspect of the FET and RET and you trully did get the same output then the conclusion would have to be that the FET=RET, correct?
That is incorrect. All it would mean is that FE and RET have similar qualities. If you are familiar with the film Avatar, you will find that Pandora depicts mountains. It has water. It is round. Does this mean that Earth=Pandora?
No, but that is because not all aspects of earth and pandorra are the same.
I quote myself: "If you did this for every (and I mean every single last one) aspect"
You haven't done this, for instance the atmosphere is not the same on earth as it is on Pandora. This one differene is already enough to say that earth=/=Pandora.
Then it is to say that RE does not = FE since the gravity is significantly less on FE than RE. In fact, there isn't any.
-
I don't really think that necessarily a conspiracy is mutually inclusive with the earth being flat. It is my opinion that it would be possible for people to simply be misviewing the data. Is it not possible that two models with internally different workings have similar outputs? Its done all the time in engineering with black box re.
You are wrong, without the conspiracy part of the FET NASA and their spaceprogramm is possible. Therefor without the conspiracy theory pictures of earth from orbit are showing us it is spherical are valid. Without the conspiracy theory the earth is round for if NASA is not conspiring, then they have presented us with undisputable facts (note that not only NASA has done this).
Can you show that I am wrong or will you just state it?
Just because something appears spherical does not mean it is spherical.
Can you show that it is impossible (mathematically) that there is only one model or system that would show us the same outputs given the same inputs?
You imply that there might be two models (or systems) that show the same output when given the same input. If you did this for every (and I mean every single last one) aspect of the FET and RET and you trully did get the same output then the conclusion would have to be that the FET=RET, correct?
That is incorrect. All it would mean is that FE and RET have similar qualities. If you are familiar with the film Avatar, you will find that Pandora depicts mountains. It has water. It is round. Does this mean that Earth=Pandora?
No, but that is because not all aspects of earth and pandorra are the same.
I quote myself: "If you did this for every (and I mean every single last one) aspect"
You haven't done this, for instance the atmosphere is not the same on earth as it is on Pandora. This one differene is already enough to say that earth=/=Pandora.
Then it is to say that RE does not = FE since the gravity is significantly less on FE than RE. In fact, there isn't any.
That is my point
-
By faulty premise your scenario is flawed.
Ignoring this it is again flawed because it is useless. You ignore the fact that we are not all-knowing omniscient beings.
-
I did not ask for a mathematical model of a round earth. I asked for a proof that would show that a model cannot be replicated with different inner workings.
Almost sounds like the NP-problem, yet that isn't the point, even if I did do this it is irrelevant because the RET is not the same model as the FET. One uses a round model of the earth, the other a flat model of the earth.
I don't see the relevance of your impossible scenario.
It shows that if one of the inputs has a different output in a RET than in a FET, and that this output is in line with reality that the RET=/=FET,
I'd certainly say it is if we are talking about two models. However, I will digress.
This is why I am trying to use the above model, to show that we are talking about two models, the FET and the RET. If they are the same according to you they should be indistinguishable and the whole discussion of FET vs RET is pointless
I never said they would fake deaths and accidents and the implication that I did is frankly insulting.
I never said you said this, I was quoting the FAQ which says NASA is a conspiracy, therefor the deaths are either part of the conspiracy or they trully happened (but why would they unless it is not a conspiracy).
I also did not claim there was a conspiracy.
Again, I did not say you said this, I said the FET is based on this (according to the FAQ).
I did claim NASA and dozens of other agencies as well as a large populace of the earth are wrong. Nasa has shown us images of what appears to be a round earth. That does not necessarily mean it is round, nor does it necessitate that they are lying. People make mistakes.
Proof please, as i said, there is no reason to believe that they (alongst dozens of other independent agencies) are wrong.
The evidence they provide is not invalid, their interpretation of said evidence is. This is immediately obvious because it contradicts what we already know.
It isn't in contradiction with what we know any more than the FET is, ships disappear over the horizon, the suns distance, shadow angles etc.. In the same way I can say the FET is in contradiction with what we know, the FET makes the lunar eclipse as we know it impossible. There is no proof of an antimoon (people saying it exists doesn't make it true, for then the RET is true because millions of people say it is), so untill then I can name many more contradictions of the FET with the "obvious".
-
By faulty premise your scenario is flawed.
Ignoring this it is again flawed because it is useless. You ignore the fact that we are not all-knowing omniscient beings.
We don't have to be to show that 2 models are identical or not, as I showed with the pandora example it is quite simple to verify if they are or not. Ofcourse if they differ on a level beyond are understanding we wouldn't be able to tell. Then the question arises, if we can't tell there is a difference, is there a difference for us (as in, will the 2 models behave in the same manner without being the same?)?
-
I did not ask for a mathematical model of a round earth. I asked for a proof that would show that a model cannot be replicated with different inner workings.
Almost sounds like the NP-problem, yet that isn't the point, even if I did do this it is irrelevant because the RET is not the same model as the FET. One uses a round model of the earth, the other a flat model of the earth.
That does not mean they could not appear similar from space. That is the point which you seem to be missing.
It shows that if one of the inputs has a different output in a RET than in a FET, and that this output is in line with reality that the RET=/=FET,
It shows no such thing. Its premise is flawed and its logic internally inconsistent. Just because something appears one way does not mean it is that way. Do you discount this?
An excellent example would be Gaussian Surfaces. They don't actually model or approximate how reality works but they give us results as if they did.
This is why I am trying to use the above model, to show that we are talking about two models, the FET and the RET. If they are the same according to you they should be indistinguishable and the whole discussion of FET vs RET is pointless
They aren't the same. We aren't all knowing. The inputs and outputs we test for simply need to be the same.
Proof please, as i said, there is no reason to believe that they (alongst dozens of other independent agencies) are wrong.
Proof only exists in mathematics and they do not apply to reality. The evidence is clear as day for a flat earth. I suggest you read some literature on the subject before you attempt to discredit it.
It isn't in contradiction with what we know any more than the FET is, ships disappear over the horizon, the suns distance, shadow angles etc.. In the same way I can say the FET is in contradiction with what we know, the FET makes the lunar eclipse as we know it impossible. There is no proof of an antimoon (people saying it exists doesn't make it true, for then the RET is true because millions of people say it is), so untill then I can name many more contradictions of the FET with the "obvious".
Ships disappearing over the horizon is not mutually exclusive with flat earth theory. Neither are observed shadow angles or the apparent distance to the sun. Neither are eclipses. I don't personally hold there is an antimoon, and again I don't see how proof would help you. Do you know anything of flat earth theory?
-
That does not mean they could not appear similar from space. That is the point which you seem to be missing.
According to the FET I should see a disc, not a globe, yet the photos of NASA show a globe.
It shows no such thing. Its premise is flawed and its logic internally inconsistent. Just because something appears one way does not mean it is that way. Do you discount this?
An excellent example would be Gaussian Surfaces. They don't actually model or approximate how reality works but they give us results as if they did.
If the models of RET are the same as those of a FET then the appearances should be the same, even if it means they aren't this way. If they differ in any way at all then they are not the same.
They aren't the same. We aren't all knowing. The inputs and outputs we test for simply need to be the same.
"They aren't the same"=/="The inputs and outputs we test for simply need to be the same."
Proof only exists in mathematics and they do not apply to reality. The evidence is clear as day for a flat earth. I suggest you read some literature on the subject before you attempt to discredit it.
You first say proof only exist in maths, to then boldly state the "evidence is as clear as day". May I also point out that you haven't given any example for the "clear as day evidence"? The part where you suggest that I read some literature is unnecessary and does not add anything, please refrain yourself from bringing it down to that level just because I disagree with you.
Ships disappearing over the horizon is not mutually exclusive with flat earth theory.
How so?
Neither are observed shadow angles or the apparent distance to the sun. Neither are eclipses.
Explanation please, as stated before, if all it takes to make something true is someone saying it is true, then the RET as long been proven.
I don't personally hold there is an antimoon, and again I don't see how proof would help you. Do you know anything of flat earth theory?
Proof helps your statement, as they say: "everyone has opinions, they are cheap". What I would like is something a bit more substantial than:
Do you know anything of flat earth theory?
(which again does not add anything to the discussion at hand) Untill now all I have, is you saying that all my points are not mutually exclusive with the FET.
Besides this whole TL;DR, don't you think this is getting slightly OT? My initial post was about the FAQ's questionable statements about a conspiracy on which the FET is based (at least according to the FAQ).
-
This is not off topic at all. We are discussing the lack of need of a conspiracy in fet.
You seem to be misunderstanding some fundamental things here.
Proof only exists in mathematics. Evidence relates to reality. There is a difference.
You are the one making the claim that these are mutually exclusive with the concept of a flat earth. You need to explain why. There is no reason why it would be impossible for a model to explain this while also having a flat earth.
If you are curious about some of these theories I suggest exist you may wish to educate yourself. A good place to start would be to use your search function. An even better place would be to acquire some flat earth literature, much of which is linked from Tom Bishops signature. I would love to have the time to explain every flat earth theory out there to every person that comes to this forum, but unfortunately I can't. I'll go ahead and tell you many of them are trash, but others are not.
-
You seem to be misunderstanding some fundamental things here.
Proof only exists in mathematics. Evidence relates to reality. There is a difference.
I said proof, not "mathematical proof", proof and evidence are synonyms. Please before going down to the level of "educate yourself first" and similair statements take them to heart yourself.
You are the one making the claim that these are mutually exclusive with the concept of a flat earth. You need to explain why. There is no reason why it would be impossible for a model to explain this while also having a flat earth.
Well lets use my example of the ship then shall we? A ship disappearing "behind" the horizon indicates curvature, this at the very least indicates a curved earth, as in not flat. You have yet to explain to me how this would be possible on a flat earth. Also NASA has satelites orbiting earth, these satelites show a round earth, unless NASA is lying or is wrong the earth is round. There however is no reason to believe that NASA is wrong or is lying (at least none that you have shown me)
If you are curious about some of these theories I suggest exist you may wish to educate yourself. A good place to start would be to use your search function. An even better place would be to acquire some flat earth literature, much of which is linked from Tom Bishops signature. I would love to have the time to explain every flat earth theory out there to every person that comes to this forum, but unfortunately I can't. I'll go ahead and tell you many of them are trash, but others are not.
So who is to say which are trash and which are not? You? Me? Besides that I am seeing theories based on what people say not on their findings or evidence/proof.
Bold bit has remained unanswered by you since the start.
-
Well to use that one example, both Rowbotham and Bendy Light would fit the data. In some ways more so if you account for the data gathered by Rowbotham or even Daniel when he reproduced the Bedford Level. There are other theories, some of which are more valid and others which are less. I suggest you research them and judge them for yourself.
-
Well to use that one example, both Rowbotham and Bendy Light would fit the data. In some ways more so if you account for the data gathered by Rowbotham or even Daniel when he reproduced the Bedford Level. There are other theories, some of which are more valid and others which are less. I suggest you research them and judge them for yourself.
Although both interesting they don't quite anser my question. The bendy light theory for one seems to be more controversial than the FET itself, I can't find a single consistent explanation as to how it causes the "sinking ship" effect. As for the Bedford level experiment, according to them the ship shouldn't be sinking, but remain in view. The experiment showed that an object would still be visible at extreme distances that didn't seem to fit in with the RET. It was later show hower that atmospheric refraction is the cause of this effect. There was for instance a case where the experiment bedford level experiment showed the earth to be concave out of all things. The experiment is therefor only shows that the earth may seem flat or concave.
-
Well to use that one example, both Rowbotham and Bendy Light would fit the data. In some ways more so if you account for the data gathered by Rowbotham or even Daniel when he reproduced the Bedford Level. There are other theories, some of which are more valid and others which are less. I suggest you research them and judge them for yourself.
Although both interesting they don't quite anser my question. The bendy light theory for one seems to be more controversial than the FET itself, I can't find a single consistent explanation as to how it causes the "sinking ship" effect. As for the Bedford level experiment, according to them the ship shouldn't be sinking, but remain in view. The experiment showed that an object would still be visible at extreme distances that didn't seem to fit in with the RET. It was later show hower that atmospheric refraction is the cause of this effect. There was for instance a case where the experiment bedford level experiment showed the earth to be concave out of all things. The experiment is therefor only shows that the earth may seem flat or concave.
At distances that were measured in the experiment. The ship would presumably sink after this. Rowbotham explains what he feels is the mechanism for this. Do you have the evidence which shows that refraction was the cause of this effect, or does saying it just make it true?
-
Can we get back to how impossible the Conspiracy was?
-
At distances that were measured in the experiment. The ship would presumably sink after this. Rowbotham explains what he feels is the mechanism for this. Do you have the evidence which shows that refraction was the cause of this effect, or does saying it just make it true?
Refraction of light can be shown by a thing as simple as a prism. So I don't have to prove to you that light can be refracted I hope. As to how it is the cause of this effect, it is the same reason that you can see the light from the sun without actually seeing the sun in the morning. Furthermore I would like to agree with the poster above me, this is starting to go (as I said before) OT. You STILL haven't answered the following question:
NASA has satelites orbiting earth, these satelites show a round earth, unless NASA is lying or is wrong the earth is round. There however is no reason to believe that NASA is wrong or is lying (at least none that you have shown me) If there is reason for me to do this however, show me.
-
Can we get back to how impossible the Conspiracy was?
I agree, now we have ventured off topic. Apologies. The conspiracy to me is unnecessary and just shows a lack of proper interpretation of data. I'll leave it at that and leave this thread.
-
Can we get back to how impossible the Conspiracy was?
I agree, now we have ventured off topic. Apologies. The conspiracy to me is unnecessary and just shows a lack of proper interpretation of data. I'll leave it at that and leave this thread.
Fair enough, you at least argue with valid points and show facts to support your arguments. Although I might not agree with all of them it doesn't make them any less noteworthy, it is better than filling any existing holes with conspiracy.
-
Can we get back to how impossible the Conspiracy was?
I agree, now we have ventured off topic. Apologies. The conspiracy to me is unnecessary and just shows a lack of proper interpretation of data. I'll leave it at that and leave this thread.
I wholeheartedly agree; Conspiracies, IMO, are just an excuse for lack of concrete evidence. Anyone can shout "Conspiracy!", but few can back up their argument with facts, data, and conclusions.
-
Can we get back to how impossible the Conspiracy was?
I agree, now we have ventured off topic. Apologies. The conspiracy to me is unnecessary and just shows a lack of proper interpretation of data. I'll leave it at that and leave this thread.
I wholeheartedly agree; Conspiracies, IMO, are just an excuse for lack of concrete evidence. Anyone can shout "Conspiracy!", but few can back up their argument with facts, data, and conclusions.
plus it is circular logic, they say NASA evidence doesn't count because it is a conspiracy, they say that it is a conspiracy because the earth is flat, which they achieve by saying their is no evidence for a round earth. thats unfair, as it assumes that any disproof is fake
-
Can we get back to how impossible the Conspiracy was?
I agree, now we have ventured off topic. Apologies. The conspiracy to me is unnecessary and just shows a lack of proper interpretation of data. I'll leave it at that and leave this thread.
I wholeheartedly agree; Conspiracies, IMO, are just an excuse for lack of concrete evidence. Anyone can shout "Conspiracy!", but few can back up their argument with facts, data, and conclusions.
plus it is circular logic, they say NASA evidence doesn't count because it is a conspiracy, they say that it is a conspiracy because the earth is flat, which they achieve by saying their is no evidence for a round earth. thats unfair, as it assumes that any disproof is fake
Hrm. No, they say there is evidence for a flat earth -> the nasa evidence is falsified -> there must be a conspiracy
-
Can we get back to how impossible the Conspiracy was?
I agree, now we have ventured off topic. Apologies. The conspiracy to me is unnecessary and just shows a lack of proper interpretation of data. I'll leave it at that and leave this thread.
I wholeheartedly agree; Conspiracies, IMO, are just an excuse for lack of concrete evidence. Anyone can shout "Conspiracy!", but few can back up their argument with facts, data, and conclusions.
plus it is circular logic, they say NASA evidence doesn't count because it is a conspiracy, they say that it is a conspiracy because the earth is flat, which they achieve by saying their is no evidence for a round earth. thats unfair, as it assumes that any disproof is fake
Hrm. No, they say there is evidence for a flat earth -> the nasa evidence is falsified -> there must be a conspiracy
Which is a fallacy, that is arguing on the premise that NASA is conspiring, there is however no reason to believe, or proof that they are doing, or have ever done so.
-
Need more evidence
They say there is evidence for a flat earth -> the nasa evidence is falsified -> there must be a conspiracy
Their mistake is in the first part of this idea: There is no real evidence for a flat earth that does not equally support a round earth. Show me one single piece of clear observable evidence that actually indicates a flat earth.
We have lots of evidence for a round earth, evidence that has passed the test of peer review. And you should know that whoever submits his work for peer review is in for a good beating, no matter what his theory is. Scientists are all willing to rip peoples' theories into little bits. A theory that passes peer review must be a very good one, I dare anyone here to send their flat earth theories to peer review.
-
Hrm. No, they say there is evidence for a flat earth -> the nasa evidence is falsified -> there must be a conspiracy
That logic only works if the evidence for FET is infallible. It isn't.
-
Hrm. No, they say there is evidence for a flat earth -> the nasa evidence is falsified -> there must be a conspiracy
That logic only works if the evidence for FET is infallible. It isn't.
Well realistically if the evidence is more infallible than NASAs.
-
Hrm. No, they say there is evidence for a flat earth -> the nasa evidence is falsified -> there must be a conspiracy
That logic only works if the evidence for FET is infallible. It isn't.
Well realistically if the evidence is more infallible than NASAs.
If there is no conspiracy, then what makes you believe that evidence of a flat earth is more reliable than NASA's evidence of a round earth? Don't you see that the sole function of the conspiracy is to discredit any and all evidence of a round earth, especially photographic evidence from outer space?
-
Hrm. No, they say there is evidence for a flat earth -> the nasa evidence is falsified -> there must be a conspiracy
That logic only works if the evidence for FET is infallible. It isn't.
Well realistically if the evidence is more infallible than NASAs.
If there is no conspiracy, then what makes you believe that evidence of a flat earth is more reliable than NASA's evidence of a round earth? Don't you see that the sole function of the conspiracy is to discredit any and all evidence of a round earth, especially photographic evidence from outer space?
Just because they gather data and the data is accurate does not mean they are interpreting it correctly. NASA as a whole is filled with incompetence. From driving around in diapers, to causing international incidents giving away pieces of wood that are supposedly moon rocks, to not being able to even keep track of their own spendings, to any number of the host of other thigns they routinely do horribly I imagine the real question is why do you think NASA is reliable in the slightest for anything other than entertainment.
-
Yet they still manage to pull off hundreds of successful space launches every year.
-
Yet they still manage to pull off hundreds of successful space launches every year.
Hundreds? What NASA are you talking about. 2006 saw 22. 2010 has about 19 scheduled. Assuming they are all successful and not cancelled. Both most of which were satellites. If their reports are even accurate; knowing them they forgot to carry a 1 or something.
Launching is not hard. Its a shame we have such goofs attempting to do it because maybe we would have lost a few less good men and a whole lot less equipment and money.
-
Yet they still manage to pull off hundreds of successful space launches every year.
Hundreds? What NASA are you talking about. 2006 saw 22. 2010 has about 19 scheduled. Assuming they are all successful and not cancelled. Both most of which were satellites. If their reports are even accurate; knowing them they forgot to carry a 1 or something.
Launching is not hard. Its a shame we have such goofs attempting to do it because maybe we would have lost a few less good men and a whole lot less equipment and money.
Launching is not hard. Its a shame we have such goofs attempting to do it because maybe we would have lost a few less good men and a whole lot less equipment and money.
What do you base this on? Have you launched anything into orbit?
-
Yet they still manage to pull off hundreds of successful space launches every year.
Hundreds? What NASA are you talking about. 2006 saw 22. 2010 has about 19 scheduled. Assuming they are all successful and not cancelled. Both most of which were satellites. If their reports are even accurate; knowing them they forgot to carry a 1 or something.
Launching is not hard. Its a shame we have such goofs attempting to do it because maybe we would have lost a few less good men and a whole lot less equipment and money.
You sound as if you think you're more qualified than NASA engineers, physicists, engineers, etc...
...which I assure you, you're likely not. I don't see where you get off calling those at NASA 'goofs'.
And accidents happen; we lose equipment, money, and good men. Expecting NASA to be perfect is foolish and unrealistic.
-
My point is, we have rockets, and we can get to space. We have cameras and we can bring them to space to take pictures. Those pictures pretty clearly show a round planet, so why continue to think it is flat?
-
Could someone like Tom Bishop come here and please explain the feasability of the conspiracy? John has already shown that he thinks it is untrue (the conspiracy that is). As long as this question remains unanswered the FET is a bigger lie than NASA's spaceprogramm is according to FE'ers.
-
There is a thread with a (deeply flawed) study about the costs of a possible conspiracy, but there is no way it is even remotely accurate. The cost estimate is off by at least a couple orders of magnitude, and if NASA is so inept as they keep claiming, how could they keep such a huge secret?
The various space agencies have a combined budged of under 20 billion, and the bribes alone would eat up most if not all of that. Operating a functioning space agency and launching rockets into space and employing thousands of people is a huge expense.
There would be no money left to make enough of a profit to make such an expense worth it. In fact, a conspiracy would be deeply in debt.
-
There is a thread with a (deeply flawed) study about the costs of a possible conspiracy, but there is no way it is even remotely accurate. The cost estimate is off by at least a couple orders of magnitude, and if NASA is so inept as they keep claiming, how could they keep such a huge secret?
The various space agencies have a combined budged of under 20 billion, and the bribes alone would eat up most if not all of that. Operating a functioning space agency and launching rockets into space and employing thousands of people is a huge expense.
There would be no money left to make enough of a profit to make such an expense worth it. In fact, a conspiracy would be deeply in debt.
Isn't that the thread I quoted? Or is there a different one? I surely hope not T_T.
-
Oh yeah I guess that is the same thread.
-
I don't expect them to be perfect, but their record is ridiculous.
-
I don't expect them to be perfect, but their record is ridiculous.
By what metric do you base your assessment of their record?
-
I don't expect them to be perfect, but their record is ridiculous.
By what metric do you base your assessment of their record?
The metric that people that think petrified wood is a moon rock probably are incompetent (along with all their other sometimes humourous but always sad failings).
-
I don't expect them to be perfect, but their record is ridiculous.
By what metric do you base your assessment of their record?
The metric that people that think petrified wood is a moon rock probably are incompetent (along with all their other sometimes humourous but always sad failings).
So a piece of petrified wood is enough to cast doubts on the validity of a space program that has carried out hundreds of publicly viewed rocket launches and the first hand accounts of over 500 people who have traveled to space over the past 50 years or so? ???
-
I don't expect them to be perfect, but their record is ridiculous.
By what metric do you base your assessment of their record?
The metric that people that think petrified wood is a moon rock probably are incompetent (along with all their other sometimes humourous but always sad failings).
I doubt that I have the time or energy to list all their failings as they are very very very large in number.
Many of the failings though can be found here if you do a search. Often they are used as evidence for a conspiracy rather than what I feel they are - examples of failure.
And these are just the reported failings. I wouldn't be surprised if there were many many more documented and not documented at NASA. Their are horrible with record keeping though, so who knows.
-
So, even witih all that fail, you expect them to keep an international, multi-government Conspiracy airtight? You trash them and trash them, then expect that they can pull something like that together...
-
So, even witih all that fail, you expect them to keep an international, multi-government Conspiracy airtight? You trash them and trash them, then expect that they can pull something like that together...
No, I don't expect that at all. Why do you ask?
-
So, even witih all that fail, you expect them to keep an international, multi-government Conspiracy airtight? You trash them and trash them, then expect that they can pull something like that together...
No, I don't expect that at all. Why do you ask?
Wait, do you believe in the Conspiracy? If not, my apologies.
-
So, even witih all that fail, you expect them to keep an international, multi-government Conspiracy airtight? You trash them and trash them, then expect that they can pull something like that together...
No, I don't expect that at all. Why do you ask?
Wait, do you believe in the Conspiracy? If not, my apologies.
No problem, its hard to keep track of who believes what around here.
-
So, even witih all that fail, you expect them to keep an international, multi-government Conspiracy airtight? You trash them and trash them, then expect that they can pull something like that together...
No, I don't expect that at all. Why do you ask?
Wait, do you believe in the Conspiracy? If not, my apologies.
No problem, its hard to keep track of who believes what around here.
Unfortunately. So many FE'ers have their own FET...
...so, out of curiosity, how do you explain the photos from NASA?
-
So, even witih all that fail, you expect them to keep an international, multi-government Conspiracy airtight? You trash them and trash them, then expect that they can pull something like that together...
No, I don't expect that at all. Why do you ask?
Wait, do you believe in the Conspiracy? If not, my apologies.
No problem, its hard to keep track of who believes what around here.
Unfortunately. So many FE'ers have their own FET...
...so, out of curiosity, how do you explain the photos from NASA?
I feel that the Firmament alters how you see things in space by affecting light. This causes the appearance of a round earth.
-
I feel that the Firmament alters how you see things in space by affecting light. This causes the appearance of a round earth.
How very... zetetic. Am I correct in assuming that the evidence for the existence of this "firmament" is somewhere in your boxes of notebooks?
-
I feel that the Firmament alters how you see things in space by affecting light. This causes the appearance of a round earth.
How very... zetetic. Am I correct in assuming that the evidence for the existence of this "firmament" is somewhere in your boxes of notebooks?
The evidence for the existance of the firmament was known to the multitudes since at least the greeks. Einstein knew it existed as do the leading physicists.
What they call it and its properties however differ.
-
I'm not really into physics and maths but if you think that the picture is altered so that we have the illusion of a Round Earth, why can't we see all the continents? And if you think that the pictures are true, can you show me the edge of the flat earth on a Nasa picture? I have dozens of high resolution photos.
If you believe that men went to outer space, do you believe that all of them had the illusion of a round earth? or do you think that they were "convinced" to keep it a secret?
-
I'm not really into physics and maths but if you think that the picture is altered so that we have the illusion of a Round Earth, why can't we see all the continents? And if you think that the pictures are true, can you show me the edge of the flat earth on a Nasa picture? I have dozens of high resolution photos.
If you believe that men went to outer space, do you believe that all of them had the illusion of a round earth? or do you think that they were "convinced" to keep it a secret?
I wouldn't use the word illusion, but I suppose its fitting enough.
-
I wouldn't use the word illusion, but I suppose its fitting enough.
What about my other question?
Shouldn't we be seeing all the continents since they are on the same flat surface?
-
I wouldn't use the word illusion, but I suppose its fitting enough.
What about my other question?
Shouldn't we be seeing all the continents since they are on the same flat surface?
The simplest way to put it to a non-native speaker is that the fabric of space bends light
-
The simplest way to put it to a non-native speaker is that the fabric of space bends light
Ok, I thought that light bends space but I'm not familiar with any concept of physics.
So since the space bends light, the other part of the continents are not visible or seems to be curved into the shape of a globe.
I can't respond to that, but I'm sure others could.
What about the distance of the sun and the moon?
Illusion or not, I think that astornauts could have felt a 3000 miles trip and not 382 260 Kms.
-
The simplest way to put it to a non-native speaker is that the fabric of space bends light
Ok, I thought that light bends space but I'm not familiar with any concept of physics.
So since the space bends light, the other part of the continents are not visible or seems to be curved into the shape of a globe.
I can't respond to that, but I'm sure others could.
What about the distance of the sun and the moon?
Illusion or not, I think that astornauts could have felt a 3000 miles trip and not 382 260 Kms.
I also don't hold that is true.
One thing that will cause you a few issues here is that there are several different versions of flat earth theory held by different experts on the subject, much like in RE physics. It can be quite confusing and daunting to learn the differences and keep them all straight.
-
I also don't hold that is true.
One thing that will cause you a few issues here is that there are several different versions of flat earth theory held by different experts on the subject, much like in RE physics. It can be quite confusing and daunting to learn the differences and keep them all straight.
That is true, but differences between RE physics are slight compared to the non existence of a universal FE map.
Let me ask you, if you don't believe in the conspiracy theory, the photos being fake and the distance between the moon and the earth in FE theories, what makes you believe that the earth is flat?
-
So, even witih all that fail, you expect them to keep an international, multi-government Conspiracy airtight? You trash them and trash them, then expect that they can pull something like that together...
No, I don't expect that at all. Why do you ask?
Wait, do you believe in the Conspiracy? If not, my apologies.
No problem, its hard to keep track of who believes what around here.
That's why we need score cards.
-
I wouldn't use the word illusion, but I suppose its fitting enough.
What about my other question?
Shouldn't we be seeing all the continents since they are on the same flat surface?
The simplest way to put it to a non-native speaker is that the fabric of space bends light
While gravity might bend space and light, can you estimate the bending by applying an acceleration of g to lights path?
if you apply the actual mathematics, you realize that light would circumnavigate the earth in less than 1 second, therefore the light would only fall by 4.6*1^2=4.6m this is a high end estimate, in actuality, the time is closer to .1 seconds, giving a value of less than one meter. so Yao Ming should be able to see his home from America, if he were to use a powerful enough telescope.
-
While gravity might bend space and light, can you estimate the bending by applying an acceleration of g to lights path?
if you apply the actual mathematics, you realize that light would circumnavigate the earth in less than 1 second, therefore the light would only fall by 4.6*1^2=4.6m this is a high end estimate, in actuality, the time is closer to .1 seconds, giving a value of less than one meter. so Yao Ming should be able to see his home from America, if he were to use a powerful enough telescope.
I was about to start a topic about the underlined idea.
If the earth is flat, with all the powerfull telescopes we have, couldn't we be able to see the wall of ice that surrounds us?
Please don't reply saying that telescopes are junk and they're all fake metal tubes designed by the instigators of the conspiracy.