The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: mightychef on June 02, 2011, 06:46:17 AM
-
I'm interested in this. I am starting to get the sense FE theories about physics and the nature of the universe are built specifically to prove that the earth is flat. I am also getting the sense that RE theory is moreso an exercise in evaluation of evidence.
So - what evidence is there that the world is flat? Or, does it depend *entirely* on the alternative physics forces?
In other words, what LEADS YOU to believe that the world is flat? Yes, there is the giant conspiracy that the earth is round. Yes, there is the giant ice wall that you can't visit. But, those key points require faith. You can't test those things. Why have this faith? Go back a step. What makes you think this way in the first place? Where is the point in time in which you realize that RE cannot be correct?
-
I think it's time for you to read Earth not a Globe by Samuel Rowbotham. You can find the full text online, or order a copy from Amazon.com.
-
however remember that sources listed above are not the evidence.
-
Most of them claim to present that evidence.
-
Are there a few simple key points?
-
Yes. In Earth Not a Globe just look at the experiments.
-
1. Look out of your window. See how the earth is flat? The earth is flat.
2. Stand on a chair, then step off. See how the earth rushed up to meet you? The earth is flat.
3. Look at the stars. See how they move in a circle? The earth is flat.
-
1. Look out of your window. See how the earth is flat? The earth is flat.
2. Stand on a chair, then step off. See how the earth rushed up to meet you? The earth is flat.
3. Look at the stars. See how they move in a circle? The earth is flat.
Look at Crustinator. See him trollin'? We hatin'.
-
I think it's time for you to read Earth not a Globe by Samuel Rowbotham. You can find the full text online, or order a copy from Amazon.com.
I've read this 'book' and have never read such a pile of shite in all my life. it's hundreds of years old and displays an extraordinary inability to understand physics, which, is something you lot share in abundance, hence you making up physics and stuff so you understand it and can apply it to your stupid hypothesis. Anyone who takes this loons word over that of a modern scientist is either a professional idiot or a really gifted amateur.
-
I think it's time for you to read Earth not a Globe by Samuel Rowbotham. You can find the full text online, or order a copy from Amazon.com.
I've read this 'book' and have never read such a pile of shite in all my life. it's hundreds of years old and displays an extraordinary inability to understand physics, which, is something you lot share in abundance, hence you making up physics and stuff so you understand it and can apply it to your stupid hypothesis. Anyone who takes this loons word over that of a modern scientist is either a professional idiot or a really gifted amateur.
Best thing for you to do would be to make a new thread and refute each point that book makes. This allows peer review for your arguments.
-
I've read this 'book' and have never read such a pile of shite in all my life. it's hundreds of years old
I guess we can throw out Newton's Principia and Einstein's "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", as these works are also over 100 years old. Won't be long now until GR gets the boot too!
-
I think it's time for you to read Earth not a Globe by Samuel Rowbotham. You can find the full text online, or order a copy from Amazon.com.
I've read this 'book' and have never read such a pile of shite in all my life. it's hundreds of years old and displays an extraordinary inability to understand physics, which, is something you lot share in abundance, hence you making up physics and stuff so you understand it and can apply it to your stupid hypothesis. Anyone who takes this loons word over that of a modern scientist is either a professional idiot or a really gifted amateur.
Best thing for you to do would be to make a new thread and refute each point that book makes. This allows peer review for your arguments.
I'm not interested in peer review of why I disagree with a nut case and his 200 year old book, it is no more a book of science than The Beano, zetetic science holds
-
I think it's time for you to read Earth not a Globe by Samuel Rowbotham. You can find the full text online, or order a copy from Amazon.com.
I've read this 'book' and have never read such a pile of shite in all my life. it's hundreds of years old and displays an extraordinary inability to understand physics, which, is something you lot share in abundance, hence you making up physics and stuff so you understand it and can apply it to your stupid hypothesis. Anyone who takes this loons word over that of a modern scientist is either a professional idiot or a really gifted amateur.
Best thing for you to do would be to make a new thread and refute each point that book makes. This allows peer review for your arguments.
I'm not interested in peer review of why I disagree with a nut case and his 200 year old book, it is no more a book of science than The Beano, zetetic science holds
You must provide evidence that this book is nonsense, or else no one will listen to you. Peer review is extremely important.
-
what makes you think I care what you think or want you to listen to me?
-
what makes you think I care what you think or want you to listen to me?
You posted here. That makes me think you care about FET. Sorry for my unreasonable assumption. You must be trolling.
-
I'm not interested in peer review of why I disagree with a nut case and his 200 year old book, it is no more a book of science than The Beano, zetetic science holds
Sir, Zetetic Astronomy is not 200 years old. The first edition was published in 1864, and the second edition in 1881. For more information, click here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arithmetic).
-
oh well that makes all the difference then. off course works written by one disturbed man with no grasp of physics, before we could even fly or effectively use electricity I might add, should supersede the works of modern physicists.
-
oh well that makes all the difference then. off course works written by one disturbed man with no grasp of physics, before we could even fly or effectively use electricity I might add, should supersede the works of modern physicists.
Truths do not expire. Mentioning its age only makes you seem ignorant, as Wilmore and Oscar pointed out. You must provide evidence that the book is wrong. Then people might take you seriously.
-
oh well that makes all the difference then. off course works written by one disturbed man with no grasp of physics, before we could even fly or effectively use electricity I might add, should supersede the works of modern physicists.
Newton's Principia and Darwin's On the Origin of Species were both published before Zetetic Astronomy. I guess they're useless too, right?
-
it isn't the truth, it's insane rambling and inaccurate hand drawings, nothing more. and on a separate note, truth can change, eg, books written about business pre-silicon technology, books written about early silicon technology, these all change as knowledge and technology advances. I’ll take NASA’s word, and that of modern scientist over the word of a nut case in the 1800’s trying to prove the earth was flat lol
-
Truth doesn't change. Something that isn't true now was never true. For example, Newton was always wrong. It just so happened that people believed he was right for a couple of centuries. It's not as if the universe worked like that in 1699, but started working differently in 1905.
-
it isn't the truth, it's insane rambling and inaccurate hand drawings, nothing more. and on a separate note, truth can change, eg, books written about business pre-silicon technology, books written about early silicon technology, these all change as knowledge and technology advances. I’ll take NASA’s word, and that of modern scientist over the word of a nut case in the 1800’s trying to prove the earth was flat lol
Best thing for you to do would be to make a new thread and refute each point that book makes. This allows peer review for your arguments.
-
Our new friends needs no more evidence because he has read ENaG (I doubt it) and found that it is 100s of years old. How many 100s he does not say, perhaps he is waiting for the carbon dating results.
-
http://www.freewebs.com/flatearthlogic/hundredproofs.htm
100 proofs that the earth is a globe. never disproven
-
http://www.freewebs.com/flatearthlogic/hundredproofs.htm (http://www.freewebs.com/flatearthlogic/hundredproofs.htm)
100 proofs that the earth is not a globe. never disproven
*sigh* fixed.
Also, most of those "proofs" are readily disprovable.
-
http://www.freewebs.com/flatearthlogic/hundredproofs.htm (http://www.freewebs.com/flatearthlogic/hundredproofs.htm)
100 proofs that the earth is not a globe. never disproven
*sigh* fixed.
Also, most of those "proofs" are readily disprovable.
Weren't a lot of them disputed nicely on this website?
-
Every one of them were discredited here.
-
http://www.freewebs.com/flatearthlogic/hundredproofs.htm (http://www.freewebs.com/flatearthlogic/hundredproofs.htm)
100 proofs that the earth is not a globe. never disproven
*sigh* fixed.
Also, most of those "proofs" are readily disprovable.
Truth does not have an expiration date. Read ENaG.
-
http://www.freewebs.com/flatearthlogic/hundredproofs.htm (http://www.freewebs.com/flatearthlogic/hundredproofs.htm)
100 proofs that the earth is not a globe. never disproven
*sigh* fixed.
Also, most of those "proofs" are readily disprovable.
Truth does not have an expiration date. Read ENaG.
That would depend on which truth you're talking about.
-
Every one of them were discredited here.
Really? Since I've been here it gets to like #12 then it breaks down to a lot of name-calling and bickering and grandstanding and whatnot.
Of course the last attempt I saw involved Clocktower.
Berny
Still misses him
-
Every one of them were discredited here.
Really? Since I've been here it gets to like #12 then it breaks down to a lot of name-calling and bickering and grandstanding and whatnot.
Of course the last attempt I saw involved Clocktower.
Berny
Still misses him
I could swear someone got through them all, don't feel like finding it right now.
-
http://www.freewebs.com/flatearthlogic/hundredproofs.htm
100 proofs that the earth is a globe. never disproven
Are you serious?
Human beings require a surface on which to live that, in its general character, shall be LEVEL; and since the Omniscient Creator must have been perfectly acquainted with the requirements of His creatures, it follows that, being an All-wise Creator, He has met them thoroughly. This is a theological proof that the Earth is not a globe.
woah ur right
-
If the author thought he was right, wouldn't one proof enough? He must have known none of his arguments hold up, so he made 100, so people would say 'Oh, one hundred proofs. He's probably right.'
-
If the author thought he was right, wouldn't one proof enough? He must have known none of his arguments hold up, so he made 100, so people would say 'Oh, one hundred proofs. He's probably right.'
Most of it was, "GOD DID THIS THEREFORE IT IS A PROOF LOL."
-
Every one of them were discredited here.
Really? Since I've been here it gets to like #12 then it breaks down to a lot of name-calling and bickering and grandstanding and whatnot.
Of course the last attempt I saw involved Clocktower.
Berny
Still misses him
I could swear someone got through them all, don't feel like finding it right now.
Maybe we should start backwards then?
On that notion though a lot of the latter ones seem to be arguing a book of astronomy that I haven't seen.
Berny
Middle?
-
I might try demolishing the 100 proofs myself and see how I do. Give me a few minutes.
-
So if i took all you people that think the Earth is flat up into space and show you its a globe would you believe us???
-
So if i took all you people that think the Earth is flat up into space and show you its a globe would you believe us???
As many wrongs as I can count in that statement (4?) don't make a right but the answer was no all along, anyway.
-
So if i took all you people that think the Earth is flat up into space and show you its a globe would you believe us???
Once an FE'ers mind is made up, there is nothing that shows them otherwise.
-
Every one of them were discredited here.
not true
-
Every one of them were discredited here.
not true
I just checked, Clocktower got through all 100.
You're terrible.
-
Every one of them were discredited here.
not true
I just checked, Clocktower got through all 100.
You're terrible.
ClockTower mumbled something about lions living on the moon, but could not disprove one single proof. Saying something is wrong over and over again does not make it so.
-
Saying something is wrong over and over again does not make it so.
Saying that something is right over and over again doesn't make is so either. So I suppose that we are at an impasse.
-
Saying that something is right over and over again doesn't make is so either. So I suppose that we are at an impasse.
That's progress of a kind. Globularists used to say FET was not valid. Now they're saying it is just as valid as RET.
Not at all. RET has a far better funded conspiracy to support it. When FET gets just as big a conspiracy behind it, then and only then will FET be just as valid as RET.
-
Every one of them were discredited here.
not true
I just checked, Clocktower got through all 100.
You're terrible.
ClockTower mumbled something about lions living on the moon, but could not disprove one single proof. Saying something is wrong over and over again does not make it so.
Actually you twisted his words to say there were lions on the moon.
-
Every one of them were discredited here.
not true
I just checked, Clocktower got through all 100.
You're terrible.
He got through all 100, but he didn't disprove any. He said things like "this is too vague" and moved on from proof to proof.
-
Every one of them were discredited here.
not true
I just checked, Clocktower got through all 100.
You're terrible.
He got through all 100, but he didn't disprove any. He said things like "this is too vague" and moved on from proof to proof.
Incorrect. And he didn't have to disprove any of them; just show that they were invalid. Which he did.