1

Flat Earth Debate / Re: How does the sun and moon just hover above flat earth

« on: May 24, 2018, 09:06:07 PM »

Just happened upon this thread...  I too am very curious how this theory can be explained.  The simple science that we know today tells me that they can't do this because it would violate many laws of physics that we are familiar with.  I know, I know, Flat Earthers, it all lies, right?  Just because they work all the time doesn't mean they're real...  Still the spherical earth model explains it all.  If it's a setup, its a pretty damn good one!

2

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The lands beyond Antarctica verified in historical resources

« on: May 07, 2018, 09:04:57 PM »

Well, the Admiral Byrd can was opened so here's some more info.  He claimed in his diaries that he was flying over the North Pole and control of his plane was suddenly taken over.  He looked down and there was green grassy meadows and flowers and rivers.  His plane was then taken down (controlled not crashed) into a very large hole and after landing he was met by an individual that was not "human" per se.  This individual talked to him about the inhabitants living inside of the earth and how they felt threatened because man now had the capability to destroy earth (through the use of nuclear weapons).  They chose Admiral Byrd because of his character and believed he could save them through his influence as an Admiral.  He then left and after a certain distance regained control of his plane.

Then we have Operation High-Jump where he took a large fleet of ships, planes and soldiers to Antarctica in pursuit of Nazis and very quickly returned with 2/3 of his fleet destroyed.  He had encountered a force that he could not combat with his technology and equipment.

What about those?  Are we to believe everything AB reported?  However, since it is all reported by someone other than use, is it all lies?  Was Admiral Byrd a shill paid by NASA to promote the confusion?

3

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth Theory Debunked by Short Flights (QF27 & QF28)

« on: May 07, 2018, 08:47:12 PM »

Hey Brotherhood -

Many people have not flown very much at all.  I have only taken one commercial flight in my life.  Should this reasoning then dictate that I should not believe that any other flight exists except the one I took?  Or should I win the lotto and spend the rest of my life personally taking every flight I can just to prove to myself that the earth is not flat?  It would just be for myself because no one else would believe me.  They would all be lies and FAKE evidence, right?

I guess we should be asking, "Why is it called the Flat Earth Theory?"  If there is so much proof and evidence shouldn't it just be called the Flat Earth Fact?  I've seen the videos on YouTube that claim "100,000% proof of Flat Earth!"  Of course, us believers in the scientific method realize that 100% is all you really need to prove anything.  Anything more is just over-exaggeration, unnecessary and not really possible.  How can you have more than 100% proof of anything?

4

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why can't you see Spain from the east-coast, if the earth is indeed flat?

« on: May 07, 2018, 08:18:20 PM »

So, I've still never heard a good explanation on this one... Consider the photo posted above of the moon and the sea.  Why is there a partial moon?  Or a partial sun at sunrise and sunset?  Wouldn't the FE model result in the Sun or Moon becoming increasingly smaller (or larger) and at the farthest point that we could see them just be a small dot on (or very near the horizon) and then vanish at the limit of our visibility?  Why do we see such large moons (and suns) rising (seeing fractions until the whole is visible) from the horizon and not approaching from the horizon?  The spherical model still explains this perfectly but I fail to see how this could be at all possible on a flat earth.

5

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat vs Globe Interrogation session

« on: May 02, 2018, 07:02:54 PM »

I remember hearing something back in '09 or '10 about NASA admitting that they "accidentally destroyed" the original moon landing tapes and as a result they contracted with one or more news agencies to re-acquire footage.  However, because the original cameras didn't record in the same format as broadcasting stations, the original was re-formatted which resulted in a degradation of quality.  That being said, at this point, we have no way of knowing if the moon landing was actually real or not.

There are several trains of thought on this one:
1)  "Of course we've been to the moon.  Our technology is advanced enough to do that and more."
2)  "We faked the whole thing to make it look like we beat Russia."
3)  "We did go to the moon and found some things or someones there that threatened our safety if we returned."
4)  "We did go to the moon and we have continued to go back to build bases and now have established colonies there."
5)  "We faked the whole thing because we cannot get past the Van Allen radiation belt."

Take your pick.  I'm sure there are more but this gives you an idea as to the discord in the public eye regarding the subject.

6

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Occam's Razor and the Flat Earth

« on: May 01, 2018, 09:31:23 PM »

Exactly!!

7

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat vs Globe Interrogation session

« on: May 01, 2018, 08:59:44 PM »

So, I'm going to throw something in here.  While I can certainly appreciate the diagrams and equations and long explanations, my angle relies on "common sense" which was a term scoffed in my direction lately by a flat earther.  I still have not yet heard any scientific explanation as to how the sun and the moon could possibly be "spot lights".  Also, if they are in fact balls of light somehow hovering over the surface of the earth at an approximate elevation of 3000 miles, everyone on earth should be able to see them all the time even though the observer is not directly under said light sources.  Also from the highest point on earth, with a telescope we would be able to see almost all of the earth (taking into account that some places would be hidden by other mountains or ranges, obviously).

I have routinely seen videos on Youtube that are titled stupid things like "100,000 percent proof that the world is flat!"  The title speaks for itself that FEer's do not use things like logic and common sense.  But more to the point, no actual proof has yet been provided, just suppositions, mistrust and misunderstanding of science.  That is why it is called the Flat Earth THEORY, not accepted fact.

8

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Occam's Razor and the Flat Earth

« on: May 01, 2018, 08:00:39 PM »

From the many posts I've read on this forum I would say most of not all flat earth belief is based on a blend of ignorance, a misunderstanding of the subject under discussion, false information and a basic mistrust of science. If you are looking for hard flat earth evidence that can be verified then you will be disappointed as there is none.
[/quote]

Thank you.  I know that there is none.  Unfortunately for my personality I love researching the topic because I have a friend as well as a family member that are Flat Earthers.  I want to know, in depth, all of the possible avenues of attack they might come from so I have a rebuttal for them.  Of course, maybe I am wasting my time because they will never believe any explanation that is based on science so I guess I am engaged in an exercise in futility.  Probably won't stop me though, haha!  Thanks for the support.

9

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Occam's Razor and the Flat Earth

« on: May 01, 2018, 07:50:30 PM »

1. You're arguing that Occam's razor doesn't work in all situations? So, what, Ockham was just a shill? That, or, of course it doesn't, but you're not really applying it correctly.

2. Another gap in understanding :/ (one that FEers share tho). Velocity isn't speed. Velocity is a vector, defined by speed and direction. A direction change is equivalent to (and just is a type of) acceleration.

Edit - rereading, I'm confused, because we do notice the effect of the earth accelerating upwards so quickly. We feel it and then falsely think its gravity.

3. Yeahh. Those FEers give the rest a bad name. With you on that one. I feel like one rotation per DAY should make it intuitive enough for anyone who can think.

Also welcome 

Thanks for the response.  Let me know if this makes sense...

So, if I see what appears to be water up ahead (without, of course, being aware of the effect of mirage), by trusting my senses, I would assume that there is standing water ahead of me on the highway.  However, if I do just a little bit of studying, I would certainly be able to find that light bends under certain circumstances either up away from earth or down toward earth, depending on the circumstances (temperature, humidity, etc.).  Now, it seems to me that I have applied Occam's Razor exactly how the FET crowd has.

Based only on finite observations mankind has misunderstood many things that now are easily explained by science and because our technology has advanced by leaps and bounds (thankfully), now most 2nd graders are able to understand complex facts that even the most learned "scientist" could only understand just a few hundred years ago.

But now I have a choice:  (1) either I do some research and trust that what I find out about mirages is true, based on the fact that many scientists agree and have done research and experiments that I have not done, or (2) I believe that "light cannot possibly bend" and decide to not believe that mirages are real, stating that all mirage proponents are "shills" or part of some in depth conspiracy headed by the NMLBI (National Mirage and Light Bending Institute, Haha!) which does nothing but lie and has some scheme to only make people believe that mirages are real (to what end, I'm not sure).

Seems like exactly the same application as the FEer's.

Now to the second point, thank you again for responding...

Yeah, so obviously the earth velocity is a vector, whether spinning around while moving through space, or being pushed ever upward.  Either way you have a scalar quantity (speed) becoming a vector (add direction and magnitude, ie velocity).  In both the Flat Earth Theory and the Heliocentric Model you have an earth moving in a direction with a magnitude.  In the Heliocentric model the speed is just constant while the most widely promoted FET explanation of gravity is ever accelerating, continuous increasing its speed to the point that we would, at this point in time, be many millions of times faster than the speed of light.  Of course in both scenarios the earth is not moving in relation to us but in relation to space.

I guess my point is in this whole field of theorizing, there is no "proof" that the earth is flat.  It is only stated that "It looks flat to me so it is flat".  That is not logical thinking and takes all of science as a lie.  How can we as a society, ever evolving and advancing, not believe those who have dedicated their lives to science, which is the study of what we observe and where we live?  I would think that those who have done such dedication and continually find that science is proven over and over would be rather put-out to be called liars or perhaps a shill, since it is the term most used by the FEer's.  Which is another point... Not sure that "shill" is even being used properly by most FEer's.

Shill - noun, 1.  an accomplice of a hawker, gambler, or swindler who acts as an enthusiastic customer to entice or encourage others.

Who is the Hawker, Gambler or Swindler in the Heliocentric Model?  NASA?  While I indeed believe that NASA has lied about several things, that doesn't mean that they have lied about everything.

Comment on your Edit:  While we feel the affects of being attracted to the surface we live on, what is the proof that the earth is moving up toward us, as opposed to us falling down toward it?  What happens if we jump off a 3ft ledge and "the earth comes up to meet us" and then we drop a ball?  Does the earth move up toward it, taking us along with it?  If that was the case, we would certainly feel the upward push of acceleration that happens as we speed up with the earth to meet the ball, correct?

10

Flat Earth Debate / Occam's Razor and the Flat Earth

« on: April 30, 2018, 09:43:36 PM »

So, first time poster here.  I have been looking into the Flat Earth Theory for some time now and would like to have a discussion about a few things.  Let me start by saying that I completely and totally believe that the world is a sphere (albeit oblate as science states).  However, I am still intrigued by the notion of how anyone can believe in a flat earth.  I have a couple of questions that have not been answered to my satisfaction and may not again but I can't help but ask.

1.  I am reading on wiki.tfes.org that "Occam's Razor asks us which explanation makes the least number of assumptions. The explanation which makes the least number of assumptions is the simplest explanation. Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory."  It then goes on to state several examples (ridiculous ones, in my opinion) where an individual is encouraged to use their powers of observation instead of trusting the scientific community and then determine what is more "likely".  I would like to ask then about the phenomenon of a mirage.  The basis that TFES is standing on would tell us that when we are standing on a flat road on a hot day and we see what appears to be water shimmering in the distance we should trust our powers of observation and determine that it is indeed water, even though science has completely proven the mirage effect.

2.  My second point (question) has to do with the FE explanation of gravity (or "gravity") as they like to write it...  The claim is that the flat earth is perpetually accelerating "upward" giving us the illusion of being attracted to the earth's surface.  I initially did not understand how this could be possible given that at a rate of 32 f/s squared, the earth would have reached light speed in roughly a year (starting from a dead standstill).  After doing some research I found that the FE crowd brings up Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity.  Basically their argument seems to be that since we are all travelling at the same rate of speed, we will be able to accelerate infinitely without ever reaching the speed of light (relative to our frame of reference).  My problem with this is that a sphere spinning around a sun could be explained using the same principles: since we are all moving at the same rate we would never notice.  In the Heliocentric model everything is moving at a constant rate of speed, not changing.  Just as you can get up and walk around in a 747 once it has reached cruising speed, however you can't when the jet is accelerating.

3.  One last point I'd like to bring up is regarding the claims that the FET continually bring up as sounding "so far fetched", such as: "The earth is spinning at 1,000 miles per hour?!"  Then I have seen a still picture of a tennis ball that has soaked up water and has been thrown into the air while the spinning action shows water flying off of it.  This is extremely misleading and inaccurate.  First off, even if the earth was spinning at 1,000,000 miles per hour it wouldn't matter because we're moving right along with it.  Secondly, and most important to remember, the earth doesn't spin at 1,000 rpm (revolutions per minute), not even 1 rpm but 1 revolution per day.  If you spin a water soaked tennis ball one complete revolution in a day, I would posit that no water would go flinging off of it.

   I would like to have a discussion about this and would love it if anyone could actually answer or counter these questions and points with logic and reality, not just more theory about magical forces that have no scientific basis what-so-ever.

   Thank you.