1

Flat Earth Debate / The force pulling downwards and why FE Theory Stumbles

« on: December 28, 2016, 07:57:57 AM »

Hello,

I would like to point your direction to the force pulling you downwards, towards the earth. For a moment, i will enter myself into a FE point of view.
Experiments across the globe have been done to measure the downwards force extremely accurately, and it differs in different parts of the world. For a flat earth, this is awful! What could be causing the force? The world cannot be accelerating upwards, as the force would be the same everywhere!

Well what if i told you that the earth could be round?! "ROUND?!" you say? YES! Unbelievable!

The differences of gravity change around the world due to the density of mass under the feet of the measuring apparatus. For example, standing in mountainous regions places more earth between you and the centre of the globe, meaning higher gravity measurements. For an extremely easy method of visualising this, search "gravity map". Notice which areas are higher in their readings?

The important information here is that GRAVITY correlates with MASS. On a flat earth this would mean extremely distorted gravity direction (due to being a disk) on the outer edge of the world. This is not the case in real life, flat earth theory does not explain this, and as such round earth theories and explanations have more credit in reality.

Enjoy your day.

2

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Falling in a Flat Earth

« on: May 30, 2016, 02:56:41 PM »

The fact that anyone believes "air pressure" could create any substantial downwards force is laughable.  Air is all around you, and thus exerts a pressure on you in every direction equally.

Anyway, it does not account for objects falling within vacuums.

3

Flat Earth Debate / Re: I give up. I guess I am a Flat Earther now. So what do I do now?

« on: May 16, 2016, 06:59:02 AM »

He thinks the moon reflects light from the sun. How can it do that?

With that, you are either a troll or horrendously uneducated. I'll take the bait because i found the post amusing though.

Light bounces off the moon the same way light bounces of everything else. Look outside, the light hits the objects (plants, trees, everything) and goes into your eyes. It's not hard to understand or even prove.

The "phases" of the moon proves nothing, it could still be artificially controlled or have been put in it's orbit artificially.

The moon has had cycles for millennia, long before the letters N, A, S, and the other A had even been invented, let alone the organisation NASA.
Did the ancient Egyptians send a wave of fluorescent lights to the moon? Who knows, i mean they had some pretty advanced pyramids.

Pretty sure you're a troll, but we're on this board so i genuinely don't know for sure.

4

Flat Earth General / Re: Wait.. Do you guys believe the ISS doesn't exist, or?

« on: December 22, 2015, 02:47:41 PM »

I don't know what its speed is: I don't know its exact altitude, hard to calculate, and I don't want to dedicate ages to a comparatively minor aspect of DET.

It's not difficult to calculate at all! You get two people at two different points in its path. You measure the time between it being directly overhead for each person. Divide the distance by the time, and woohoo you got yourself a speed.

And NASA is already well known as a source of advanced technology: the notion of sci-fi propulsion system is a dishonest one. Most of today's technology is sci-fi by an old definition.

I thought NASA only made CGI technology! No known propulsion system could possibly propagate a craft of that size and shape at the speed that it travels. You think that it is more likely that an unknown propagation system flies it through atmosphere than it being in space?

5

Flat Earth General / Re: Wait.. Do you guys believe the ISS doesn't exist, or?

« on: December 22, 2015, 02:06:31 PM »

Now, rebut all of those points to prove that the ISS can fly.

I did address them. They aren't points. There's nothing to refute. they're assumptions based on the presupposition that the ISS possesses none of them. What is your evidence given all you can honestly and certainly state you know is a blurry photo of the ISS at one instant in time?

No you didn't. It is not presupposition to say that is ISS has none of these things. He makes a point that if it was in atmosphere and was being contantly projected forward using fuel, it would leave trails in the sky.

Do you believe that it is more likely that a sort of sci-fi propulsion system propagates the ISS, or that it is actually in space?

6

Flat Earth General / Re: Wait.. Do you guys believe the ISS doesn't exist, or?

« on: December 22, 2015, 01:35:14 PM »

Cmon Jrowe, don't be an idiot. I'm sure you understand how things fly and something the shape of the ISS would not fly in any atmosphere. The speed it goes at across the sky is also IMPOSSIBLE for aircraft of that shape in an atmosphere. You know this and you willfully ignore it.

Assertion.

Diversion. It may be an assertion to say that something the shape of the ISS can't go that fast through a thick atmosphere, but i don't see you explaining how it does.

To say it is not in space is just as much an assertion. One with less scientific validity and one that is based on conspiracy.

Because I'm not trying to explain how it does: I am simply saying there are possibilities. That's all DET requires. There are many ways to fly, and I haven't seen any actual attempts to explain why they wouldn't apply to the ISS.
Certainly, to say it is in space as a standalone statement is an assertion: that's not what I'm doing. The impossibility of space travel follows from DET, i simply hold to that.

The ISS, as you can see, is not aerodynamic in the slightest. It would have no lift! It would literally crash downwards on a flat earth, or break apart.
I'm saying that space travel is not impossible, as there is direct evidence to the contrary. YOU CAN SEE THE OBJECT IN SPACE.

7

Flat Earth General / Re: Wait.. Do you guys believe the ISS doesn't exist, or?

« on: December 22, 2015, 01:08:26 PM »

Cmon Jrowe, don't be an idiot. I'm sure you understand how things fly and something the shape of the ISS would not fly in any atmosphere. The speed it goes at across the sky is also IMPOSSIBLE for aircraft of that shape in an atmosphere. You know this and you willfully ignore it.

Assertion.

Diversion. It may be an assertion to say that something the shape of the ISS can't go that fast through a thick atmosphere, but i don't see you explaining how it does.

To say it is not in space is just as much an assertion. One with less scientific validity and one that is based on conspiracy.

8

Flat Earth General / Re: Wait.. Do you guys believe the ISS doesn't exist, or?

« on: December 22, 2015, 12:11:26 PM »

So how does the ISS keep flying? Where is its propulsion system? Where does it get its fuel?

I don't have the blueprints, how am I meant to know? All that's remotely feasible for me to prove is possibility.
Are you claiming it's impossible? I see plenty of ways, from in-flight refuelling, to landing stop while it's over the ocean.
There are multiple causes for a propulsion system. Why do you believe none are possible? I have no desire to list every possibility.

No, those would be facts. They have physical evidence that for all your posturing you can not show is fake.

And you, for all your posturing, refuse to show are real. Try harder.

Cmon Jrowe, don't be an idiot. I'm sure you understand how things fly and something the shape of the ISS would not fly in any atmosphere. The speed it goes at across the sky is also IMPOSSIBLE for aircraft of that shape in an atmosphere. You know this and you willfully ignore it.

9

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The logic behind the DET model

« on: December 21, 2015, 08:46:02 PM »

JRowe, you were asked on your forum why you didn't want to do youtube videos. This is why you should.
Upon looking and staring at your model, it is clear that you do actually explain the entire process he was asking for. However it is not clear in the slightest. Your figures are not particularly clear, and animations or simple images showing this exact process (of making stars with whirlpools) would make it way easier to understand.

You also said that text tends to be easier to reread and understand, but the opposite is true. A picture holds 1000 words, as they say. You could explain in text the whole of the theory of electromagnetism, but a simple diagram here and there would explain things far more easily.

Here are some things i think would greatly benefit from visual demonstration:

1) The process of dust becoming the earth
2) The detailed flows of aether within the earth (a bit like fig 1 except with both disks and the sun)
3) The process of the creation of stars, including the supposed flows of aether before formation
4) Visual representation of your supposed refraction experiment

This would probably remove 90% of the confusion from people.

Thank you for a post with some substance to it.

I am working on a rewrite of the model. Typically any youtube video would contain almost the exact same content, whether it's text or audio based. For this sort of explanation, written text outside of a video is preferred, for rereading.
What you seem to be proposing is more focus on diagrams or animations, and I can certainly see the advantages of animations in particular, but I'm limited by my own software and capabilities. Further, they can still be inserted into forum posts.
A slideshow of sorts may be possible, without smooth animation, just blocky transitions from one state to the next: though again, I'm still limited by my own capabilities. As you pointed out, the diagrams that currently exist are far from professional.

As it stands, I hope my rewritten model will alleviate some confusion.

I don't know if you've been on youtube lately, but you can re-watch videos. Let it be known that although the videos may have the same content, it may be leanred and retained better for many people. People generally all have different ways of learning.

To be  honest, any diagrams, rewrites, and animations of all sorts are welcome.

Please let me know when this rewrite is released so i can read it.

10

Flat Earth General / Wait.. Do you guys believe the ISS doesn't exist, or?

« on: December 21, 2015, 07:41:25 PM »

The international space station is undeniably there. You can see it with your own naked eye EXACTLY when and where it is noted to be making a pass.

On your flat earth models, how can you explain this technology? Conspiracy?
Can you prove your claims clearly and irrefutably?

11

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Give your top ten proofs for a globe.

« on: December 21, 2015, 12:42:02 PM »

See FEs. This is what I want from you. A RE has beaten you to the punch (again).

A proof for a globe shouldn't be an observation expected under an FE model. I would happily use most of those as an observation predicted by my model: why does it only work as evidence of RET?
Ah, right, presupposition, bias and dishonesty.

1. Objects going past the horizon disappear from the bottom up. They don't shrink because they are getting farther away, they are going under the horizon line.

Point number one disproves that the world is flat, so there you are. That disagrees with your theory.

12

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Amateur Astronomy - Equatorial Alignment

« on: December 21, 2015, 08:02:23 AM »

I tried to be reasonable. I pointed out many times where in the model is flawed but I guess he won't accept it.

You pointed out straw men and insisted Relativity wasn't true. I'm not going to accept baseless assertion from a paranoid conspiracy theorist.

Then why do you accept your theory?

budum tiss*
I'm here all week!

Someone close this thread, for god's sake, it's a troll thread from start to finish.

13

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What are your explanations for supernovae?

« on: December 20, 2015, 12:09:33 PM »

I would like to hear from all areas of FET as to how these events occur within their universe.

Nuclear fusion is the generally accepted cause for most (but not all) supernovae.

The nuclear fusion in stars is caused by huge masses affected by gravity. Gravity is not accepted in FE theories, so how can you have nuclear fusion?

Really? Because I was told it was heat and gravity.

The heat is caused by the crushing effects of gravity in masses as huge as stars.

14

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What are your explanations for supernovae?

« on: December 20, 2015, 11:16:38 AM »

I would like to hear from all areas of FET as to how these events occur within their universe.

Nuclear fusion is the generally accepted cause for most (but not all) supernovae.

The nuclear fusion in stars is caused by huge masses affected by gravity. Gravity is not accepted in FE theories, so how can you have nuclear fusion?

15

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The logic behind the DET model

« on: December 20, 2015, 08:16:54 AM »

That's what I'm asking you, I could not have possibly been more clear on what I'm asking. How hard is it to understand? There is no specific thing about how whirlpools make the stars and sun work that the question is addressing. I don't get what you can't understand when we say THE ENTIRE PROCESS.

ARE YOU FUCKING ILLITERATE?!
WHAT PART OF THE MODEL IS UNCLEAR? WHY IS IT UNCLEAR? HOW THE HELL AM I MEANT TO PROVIDE ANY KIND OF ANSWER WHEN YOU REFUSE TO CLARIFY AND CONSISTENTLY WILLFULLY IGNORE MY MEANING?
WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WTH YOU?!

JRowe, you were asked on your forum why you didn't want to do youtube videos. This is why you should.
Upon looking and staring at your model, it is clear that you do actually explain the entire process he was asking for. However it is not clear in the slightest. Your figures are not particularly clear, and animations or simple images showing this exact process (of making stars with whirlpools) would make it way easier to understand.

You also said that text tends to be easier to reread and understand, but the opposite is true. A picture holds 1000 words, as they say. You could explain in text the whole of the theory of electromagnetism, but a simple diagram here and there would explain things far more easily.

Here are some things i think would greatly benefit from visual demonstration:

1) The process of dust becoming the earth
2) The detailed flows of aether within the earth (a bit like fig 1 except with both disks and the sun)
3) The process of the creation of stars, including the supposed flows of aether before formation
4) Visual representation of your supposed refraction experiment

This would probably remove 90% of the confusion from people.

16

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What are your explanations for supernovae?

« on: December 20, 2015, 07:57:09 AM »

Your own scientists can only speculate on how they work.  Why do you expect us to know everything?

Because you spout your flat earth theory as if it is fact. If it is fact, you would have an explanation.
My own scientists have models that explain how they work and observe them working.

How does your theory explain these observed phenomena? I thought that your theory was perfect? Maybe someone can help you out.

17

Flat Earth Debate / What are your explanations for supernovae?

« on: December 20, 2015, 07:03:43 AM »

I would like to hear from all areas of FET as to how these events occur within their universe. Yes, they are observed both by specialised satellites, but are ALSO observed using ground based observatories.

Please be specific to how it works. When you inevitably use the aether to explain it, please do it in detail. 

18

Flat Earth Debate / Re: How would you measure the distance between Washington, D.C. and Beijing?

« on: December 19, 2015, 02:56:06 PM »

People are so mad and angry.  Why are you so mad and angry? 

Because, they have read your commentary to the point where you automatically induce an anger response upon showing up in their forum.

Their forum?  I am sorry, but perhaps you and these people you refer to missed the fact that this is The Flat Earth Society.

Mission: Derail thread
Mission complete.

Hey jroa, how would you quantitatively measure the distance between Washington DC and Beijing?

19

Flat Earth Debate / DET: The flows of aether 'between' the disks

« on: December 18, 2015, 08:38:37 PM »

Hi. Just wondering why the aether flows exactly how it does within the earth. I have studied the figures given in the model and can not find reasoning for the diagonal flows of aether from side to side. I understand the notion that when walking off one edge you appear on the opposite edge of the other disk, but i do not understand why.

Instead of this:

                        O
                       -|-
                        ^
[==========]->
                           <
       <<<<<<<<
    <                         
  <                         
[==========]
 v
-|-
 O

Why is it not this, for example?

                        O
                       -|-
                        ^
[==========]->
                             |
                             |
                             |
                             |
[==========]<-
                        v
                       -|-
                        O

I'm aware that in the second "drawing" the horizontal direction is not conserved, but what about position?
Assuming that you walk exactly horizontal off the right of the disk, why would you be transported in a direction perpendicular to this motion? I understand that 0 aether means 0 distance, which means you should walk an infinite distance to the right. Perhaps you would pop up on the same disk but on the left?

There isn't a detailed explanation to directly explain these diagonal flows, and that is why i ask how they come to be.  At what point do you justify the flow paths?

Please dont tell me to read the model. I have and don't understand parts of it. *wimpers*

20

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The logic behind the DET model

« on: December 17, 2015, 02:32:50 PM »

You are given the evidence, and you insist it's not good enough and I must provide something completely different

Other people have said this. I HAVE NOT SAID THIS. I talked about your vertical refraction experiment.

Which FET and DET explain, so they are evidence of nothing.

Oh right, they explain the photos by saying they are faked. How scientific.

My theory relies on aether. The conspiracy is a conclusion, not an assumption.

You even theorising that the aether exists stems from the fact you think RET is a conspiracy.

21

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The logic behind the DET model

« on: December 16, 2015, 07:57:12 PM »

Give one experiment for any theory which offered something beyond "The result fits the theory."

Your own text outlines an experiment that would directly prove or disprove DET. This is what people are asking for. I understand what you have said.

Do you have anything more than hypocrisy?

Do you have anything more than insults? I'm being fairly polite and you keep throwing insults out.

You 'offend' me when you waste my time. You lie about the model, outright ignore basically everything given in the evidence section, act patronizing, and refuse to offer anything beyond a handwave. How do you expect me to act?

That's it. I'm actually done being polite. Your theory is complete crap. You resort to pathetic insults and handwaving excuses to every single question raised by people. Instead of explaining things to people, you say "read the model" and HOPE THEY GO AWAY.
Add some mathematics, perhaps a touch of reality, a completed experiment, and then come back to me spouting your "evidence".

OH AND BY THE WAY. OCCAM'S RAZOR SUPPORTS THE THEORY WITH 1000s OF PHOTOS OF A ROUND EARTH.

YOUR WHOLE THEORY RELIES ON A CONSPIRACY.

If i handed in one of my reports set out like your.. "model", it wouldn't even be bloody graded. Write it up in a report and draw a picture or two that don't look like an 8 year old drew them. With the amount of text you have, it should only take 3 minutes to do. Maybe 3 1/2 minutes in LaTeX.

If you, one day, come to me with one piece of conclusive evidence for your theory i will listen to you wholeheartedly, politely, and co-operatively. But you won't. You'll tell me to read the model.

22

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The logic behind the DET model

« on: December 16, 2015, 12:06:44 PM »

They are experiments that fit in your model, not prove the existence of aether directly.

So is aether somehow not part of DET now?

I'm not sure what you're accusing me of saying. I'm saying that all experiments ever done do not directly prove DET, only fits it. The same way that all experiments fit into the "god did it" logic.

You actually do explain after this what the experiment is, but not particularly clearly.

Then maybe the smart thing to do would have actually been to say so rather than expecting me to read your mind.

If you look back at the conversation, you were actually conversing with another person before i came in. In the first post i made i explained this confusion clearly and directly to you. Again, i'm not certain what i have done to offend you. I actually gave you a paragraph that would make more sense.

23

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Ripping apart DEF: part one, evidence.

« on: December 16, 2015, 10:38:40 AM »

The aether exists because....
Aether moves from high concentration to low because...
It comes out of the sides of the earth because of...
Then it goes up because...
It's a whirlpool shape because of...
This explains gravity better than the existing theory because of...

1. Relativity. 2. The universal law stating as such. 3. See 2. 4. See 2. 5. Because that's the pattern that develops when forces meet. 6. Fewer assumptions.

1) Relativity does not use the aether. Even if it did, YOUR aether is not explained within it.
2) Universal LAW?? It is an assumption!
3) See 2, again!
4) How on earth does this universal law explain everything? The universal law that the aether flows? That doesn't explain anything other than it flows. It doesn't explain how it flows. You simply say it flows how it does.
5)Forces meet? That doesn't particularly explain why whirlpools form.
6) For a theory that is ALL assumption, that's a pretty bold claim.

24

Flat Earth Debate / Re: [Claim #2] Refraction occurs when the media is not homogeneous.

« on: December 15, 2015, 10:36:39 AM »

I think even with the refraction you can still use that argument for a globe earth.

He knows the earth is a globe and is slowly trying to teach these forum goers how physics works.

25

Flat Earth Debate / Re: [Claim #2] Refraction occurs when the media is not homogeneous.

« on: December 15, 2015, 09:10:25 AM »

You're correct, but FE believers aren't concerned with facts such as this.

26

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The theory of relativity and its relationship to Aether

« on: December 15, 2015, 07:39:21 AM »

Well, yes, that's how everything works. You can't define math until you know what it is you're defining. What do you think you're proving? What matters is whether the predictions are accurate.

It's not how everything works. Many areas of physics begin with experimental data, and provide relationships between variables mathematically. Theories are then built around these formulas. You don't do this.

That's all proof is. This was explicitly stated. Do you have any other kind of proof for any model beyond 'Its predictions match the results of these experiments.' You're just being a hypocrite.

You spout insults a lot, don't you? I'm not being hypocritical in the slightest.
Actually, you are contradicting yourself by saying this. You say that that's all the proof there is, but you have defined an experiment to directly prove DET! By your logic, the experiment that you want to do is totally unnecessary because of the mounds of previous evidence. But it isn't and you know it.

Keep insulting me if you wish, it doesn't make you right.

27

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The logic behind the DET model

« on: December 15, 2015, 05:15:19 AM »

So, the "Therefore, if you want experiments to justify DET," and "There is one specific experiment that may be performed to confirm the DE model," sections don't exist, I take it?

Resorting to taking your own text out of context.

Here is your first quote, without cutting off half the sentence:

Therefore, if you want experiments to justify DET, there is your answer: all of them

^They are experiments that fit in your model, not prove the existence of aether directly.

There is one specific experiment that may be performed to confirm the DE model,

You actually do explain after this what the experiment is, but not particularly clearly. There should be a clear paragraph detailing the experiment.

DET predicts that vertical refraction (that is, refraction measured from the Earth's surface to some height) will increase with altitude, due to the whirlpools, and that it will do so discontinuously. This discontinuity is the key: it is unexplainable over RET.
If you have the means to measure refraction accurate, and can see a change over several significant figures with altitude, as a result of that means, then please let me know. Simply increasing in altitude (thanks to, for example, a balloon) while measuring will allow us to see whether this change is continuous, or not, and could provide the final proof of DET.

The above is a bit jumbled, to say the least. It should clearly say:

An experiment that can be used to directly prove or disprove DET would be to measure vertical refraction over increasing altitudes. In RET, the change in refraction would be continuous, but under DET, the change would be discontinuous after a certain height. A way of doing this -for example- would be the use of a hot air balloon going directly upwards, and measuring refraction in intervals as the height increases.
If you have the means to accurately measure vertical refraction, and clearly see small changes in results, please let me know! This experiment could be used to prove the Dual Earth Theory!

28

Flat Earth General / Re: What would convince you the world was round?

« on: December 15, 2015, 04:58:07 AM »

I would be convinced that the Earth is round if it was not for all of the mountains of evidence that says it is not.

Give me a single piece of evidence that i can't refute.

29

Flat Earth General / What would convince you the world was round?

« on: December 14, 2015, 07:46:25 PM »

Hi everyone. I would love to hear what facts or proofs would cause you to realise that the world is round. How could it be proven to you? I suspect nothing will.

Lets just imagine for a moment that it IS round. Would you ever believe it?

What if you went on a civilian near-space flight and saw the curvature of the earth? What if you learnt physics and joined a rocket development team?

Also, i would like to be posed problems with the round earth model that i could refute.

30

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Ripping apart DEF: part one, evidence.

« on: December 14, 2015, 06:03:12 PM »

So why do you reject the "theory" of gravity but embrace the THEORY of relativity to prove Aether?

Gravity theory has nothing to do with Aether theory.  Relativity, on the other hand, is built around Aether theory.

Uh, relativity was built around the idea of spacetime, which is similar to Aether as far as I can tell, but they're not the same. Einstein defined spacetime and built relativity around it, not Aether.

I was going on the assumption that space-time and the aether are not synonymous , so yeah.