1

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Polaris and Sigma Octanis

« on: August 27, 2008, 09:58:55 PM »

That is a fancy optical illusion.

Celestial gears eliminates the need for an optical illusion.

Can you explain, or get Tom to since all you did was post his answer, why there are no observations of the retrograde motion of stars that is required for those gears?

Well, the intricacies of the actual layout and details that involve the motions of the celestial bodies are more than I'd rather think about. You'll have to wait and see if Tom has any details to explain. But in concept, it's a pretty simple thing to understand.

Celestial gears? Do you have anythng to prove that cockamaey theory?


Also that would not expalin the two stars mentioned in the original post staying in their original locations in the sky.

2

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravitational field of earth

« on: August 27, 2008, 09:57:05 PM »

Could someone please explain this to me?

Q: "If the Earth was indeed a flat disc, wouldn't the whole planet crunch up into itself and eventually transform into a ball?"

A1: If the Earth generated a gravitational field, yes, it would eventually happen, after a billion years maybe. FE assumes that the Earth does not generate a gravitational field.  What we know as 'gravity' is provided by the acceleration of the earth.

This is from the FAQ. This makes no sense. All matter (anything having mass) generates a gravitational field, even you and me. This was proved by the Cavendish experiment. I also performed this experiment in a college class.

How does the earth magically not generate a gravitational field?

The simple answer is FE is indeed wrong. Everything with mass generates a gravitational fiel directlly prportional to its mass  (mre mass = more spacial disruption = more gravity ) This is why water  droplets all form perfect spheres on Earth.

3

Flat Earth Debate / Re: A few Questions for FE supporters.

« on: August 20, 2008, 02:39:22 AM »

1. & 2. Because lend bends through the thicker parts of the atmoplane.

3. The moon is lit from the suns reflection off the atomplane onto the moon.  The shadow object causes parts of the moon to be dark.

4. Can you explain what produces gravity?

5. Because the entire astroplane is rotating above our heads.

6. Its a high altitude Stratolite.

All of these were covered in the FAQ you supposedly read.

FAQ MOAR.

SEARCH MOAR.

wardog are you FE or RE

4

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Striking another bow against FE

« on: August 20, 2008, 02:38:06 AM »

I never accepted such. The density of the sun is known outside of your FEG foolishness.

If the FE sun is made of the same materials and is at roughly the same temperature as the RE sun, should it not have the same density?

No.
If density is equal to mass divided by volume,
a 32 mile in diameter sun will have significantly less mass and volume then the Huge RE (and true) sun.
Furthermore, hypothetically speaking if by some scientific fluke  of rareness a 32 mile diamter sun could sustain nuclear fusion (which it cant) it wouldnt have enough nuclear fuel to generate as much heat as the RE sun does

also, Monhz, Im still waiting for you to give me a better source on word questions then dictionaries and thesauruses.

That would be simple. Find a different dictionary and a different thesaurus. All of a sudden their definitions are tweaked. There is no universal definition. A dictionary is not an authority on the English language, it is a catalog of it. That is why definitions change from one version to the next. It accommodates new uses of the word and remarks when certain definitions become archaic. The goal of any language is to communicate. We all are the greatest authority of the word. In this case, you are using definitions that no one else is agreeing to. You could either see how we use the word and facilitate communication, or continue to make tedious arguments over semantics. If you desire to communicate with a group of people, you must first assimilate their language.

Here, evidence is something that suggests that a certain idea could be true. Proof is something that is undeniably true. To some, undeniably true means that a sufficient amount of evidence has been accumulated. To others (such as myself and the whole field of science), nothing can be proven other than somethings own existence - and even that is debatable (see John Locke for further analysis).

We each are our own greatest authority of the language which we use. We group those of us who speak similarly into a large group called English speakers, even though there are numerous variations from person to person. We can all generally understand each other. Rather than demanding that your definition is the only correct definition (since the perfectly valid counterargument is "no it isn't"), learn other peoples use of the word so that you can communicate and understand what he is attempting to say. Hear what is being said, not what you want to hear.

Proof is indenaiable? Bullcrap. Just look at this forum. All the proof on Earth points to Earth being round but these people deny it. Furthermore in trial both the defense and the prosecution resent proof to the jury but only one side will win.

You seem to be comnfusing the word proof which is a noun with the word prove, which is a verb.
if you have enough evidence or prove, you can prove something. But evidence is proof and vice versa.

5

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Striking another bow against FE

« on: August 20, 2008, 02:35:15 AM »

Because the FE sun is smaller thus have a smaller radius thus having lower volume thus having a lower weight (in newtons) thus having lower mass which when plugged into the equation for density yeilds a smaller density then the RE sun.

That doesn't explain anything.

Yes it does!
Because if the density equation is Mass divided by volume:
meaning, the mass is smaller and the volume of a 32 mile in diamter sun is smaller.
therefore, you are going to get a Different density then the RE Sun.
The only way the densty could possibly be the same is if the size of the FE sun wa a multiple of the RE sun in such a manner where the equation would work out the same. FOR example, not real numbers but just for example if the RE suns mass was 1000 and the volume was 100
1000/100 = 10 density
bu the FE sun is smaller, and in order to work, the FE sun would have to be 100 mass 10 volume to work in the same density. But this is clearly not the case, in my example or irl.

6

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Striking another bow against FE

« on: August 20, 2008, 02:31:51 AM »

Wrong again. Evidence also requires a premise and objective:
Ie: Evidence that he committed murder. It is evidence to the murder
same thing as "proof he committed murder"
look people, the ultimate authority on english language, dictionaries and thesuarus says your wrong.
Proof and evidence are the same thing , they have the same definition as per the links posted and are sited in each others lst on the thesaurus.

Please take an English course beyond high school. The correct way to actually phrase your example would be that "there is evidence that he committed murder." This is why when cops are speaking to the media, they will say "there was evidence of a struggle." They will never say "there was proof of a struggle" because proof is a culmination of evidence. That beyond a reasonable doubt, all the evidence points to the same conclusion. That is proof.

They can be synonymous, but they are not the same thing; they are not equivalent.

And really, you're saying evidence requires an objective? Please tell me what objective a shell casing in a shooting investigation has. Sorry, but evidence doesn't have an objective, it provides the objective. All the evidence collected provides proof.

"And really, you're saying evidence requires an objective? Please tell me what objective a shell casing in a shooting investigation has. Sorry, but evidence doesn't have an objective, it provides the objective. All the evidence collected provides proof. "
It depends on what the case is linked to. In this case the objective is identifying the gun that fired the bullet, Oh and I have heard cops say proof instead of evidence.

And "I have evidence he committed murder
 and "I have proof he committed murder" are both fine in their use.
I consutled a thesaurus and dictionary, thats the end of the story. you and RoboSteve are merely arguing semantics now, and its stupid

7

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Striking another bow against FE

« on: August 19, 2008, 02:28:07 PM »

No.
If density is equal to mass divided by volume,
a 32 mile in diameter sun will have significantly less mass and volume then the Huge RE (and true) sun.

And why does this mean that the density cannot be the same?

Because the FE sun is smaller thus have a smaller radius thus having lower volume thus having a lower weight (in newtons) thus having lower mass which when plugged into the equation for density yeilds a smaller density then the RE sun.

8

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Striking another bow against FE

« on: August 19, 2008, 01:56:32 PM »

I never accepted such. The density of the sun is known outside of your FEG foolishness.

If the FE sun is made of the same materials and is at roughly the same temperature as the RE sun, should it not have the same density?

No.
If density is equal to mass divided by volume,
a 32 mile in diameter sun will have significantly less mass and volume then the Huge RE (and true) sun.
Furthermore, hypothetically speaking if by some scientific fluke  of rareness a 32 mile diamter sun could sustain nuclear fusion (which it cant) it wouldnt have enough nuclear fuel to generate as much heat as the RE sun does

also, Monhz, Im still waiting for you to give me a better source on word questions then dictionaries and thesauruses.

9

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Striking another bow against FE

« on: August 19, 2008, 12:54:41 PM »

I have evidence a man murdered his wife:

• He took out a million-dollar policy on her the day before her murder.
• He recently bought a pistol, and this pistol was used to commit the murder.
• He had an affair with a hottie.

I have proof the man did not murder his wife:

• He was giving a lecture in front of 500 people at the exact moment of the crime.

So evidence is not the same as proof.

Everyone on this forum has evidence the earth is flat: all you have to do is open your eyes, especially if you live near the beach, or in an Iowa cornfield. Your eyes will tell you the truth: the earth is flat. Now about that proof... 

Umm yes it is the same, evidence and proof are interchangeable in those sentences

I have evidence the man did not murder his wife:

• He was giving a lecture in front of 500 people at the exact moment of the crime.

is not the same sentence.

In a court of law it would have to be considered evidence, not proof - in this case the guy could be a lookalike, or twin, or some other form of deception. Proof in a legal sense refers to a case where there is sufficient evidence to convince a group of people (the jury) beyond a reasonable doubt. That is to say that claiming the guy giving the lecture was the man's twin, when there was no evidence for him having a twin, would be an unreasonable doubt - but that's not to say it is disproved. The distinction is important.

"Proof[/i] in a legal sense refers to a case where there is sufficient evidence"

BUllshit. The word proof does not refer to a specific case. Court Judges dont  refer to a given trial as
a "proof case".
Cases dont start out in juries anyway.
Grand Juries decide whether there is enough evidence, enough proof, to indict someone for the charges then it goes to trial so any case on trial already has sufficient evidence and wouldnt need to be referred to as a "proof case"
and in your example the 2 are interchangebale..sufficient evidence to prove to a jury...
sufficient proof to prove to a jury.

10

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Striking another bow against FE

« on: August 19, 2008, 12:51:03 PM »

In simple terms, the most common usage is as follows:

Proofs require a premise and an objective.

In a mathematical proof, the equations and logic process are used as evidence for the proof.
In a court, pieces of information and things collected are evidence used to prove the premise.

In short, proof is a culmination of evidence. They are separate and distinct terms.

Wrong again. Evidence also requires a premise and objective:
Ie: Evidence that he committed murder. It is evidence to the murder
same thing as "proof he committed murder"
look people, the ultimate authority on english language, dictionaries and thesuarus says your wrong.
Proof and evidence are the same thing , they have the same definition as per the links posted and are sited in each others lst on the thesaurus.

Yeah, yeah. You sound like an FEer. "Everybody else is wrong. I have my source. It doesn't matter that you provide contradictory evidence. I can provide evidence to back my claim. Even though your account can explain my evidence, I reject it as conspiracy."

It's simple. You are blinding yourself. Your arguments would be much stronger if you would concede this point. FEers have evidence the earth is flat. That is a fact. There evidence most frequently can be explained by the RE model. So if evidence is the same is proof, then we have actually proven that the earth is both flat and round simultaneously! Your misuse of the English language is causing fallacious thinking.

A source? Im using a dictionary and a thesaurus! What better source of the use of english is there!! Unless you can cite a source better thhen those then your just being stupid,
and no one has priovided any contradictory evidence, only stupid anecdotes about evidence being used to show  evidence exists etc
No one has provided ANY solid contradictory evidence.
a dictionary and a thesaurus is the authoirty on the english language, unless you are saying you know better!
when you are looking up a word in the dictionary and you see the definition, you know that is what the word means!
Are you saying now that webster and roget have some sort of conspiracy?!
Who are you to question a dictionary and a thesaurus?


and in the case given
"I have evidence the sun runs on nuclear fusion"
"I have proof the sun runs on nuclear fusion"
mean the same thing! Are they not?!

Do you know better then a thesaurus and dictionary?!
and no, the Earth could not be flat due to FE "proof"
in criminal trials, both sides have "proof" but only one side will win! are you going to argue now that since in a trial both sides have proof that a person can be both guilty and innocent?
So no, your wrong, again.

11

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sun's orbit around FE

« on: August 19, 2008, 12:32:37 PM »

TB answer:

It is all explained by the fact that the sun is caught up in a vast whirling cornucopia of multiple stellar systems orbiting a common barycenter. Also, ENaG.

ENaG..another caucamamey theory that has had no experimanetation done on it what so ever.

12

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Striking another bow against FE

« on: August 19, 2008, 12:31:30 PM »

Given the sun's known density

Ah, so now we know the density of the sun? Good to see you've accepted that my calculations are valid.

I never accepted such. The density of the sun is known outside of your FEG foolishness.

13

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Striking another bow against FE

« on: August 19, 2008, 12:22:45 PM »

In simple terms, the most common usage is as follows:

Proofs require a premise and an objective.

In a mathematical proof, the equations and logic process are used as evidence for the proof.
In a court, pieces of information and things collected are evidence used to prove the premise.

In short, proof is a culmination of evidence. They are separate and distinct terms.

Wrong again. Evidence also requires a premise and objective:
Ie: Evidence that he committed murder. It is evidence to the murder
same thing as "proof he committed murder"
look people, the ultimate authority on english language, dictionaries and thesuarus says your wrong.
Proof and evidence are the same thing , they have the same definition as per the links posted and are sited in each others lst on the thesaurus.

14

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Striking another bow against FE

« on: August 19, 2008, 12:19:58 PM »

Fixed.  You're confusing your RETs and FETs again.

You are quite right. Thank you for fixing that. I must correct yours, however. I have not been posting long enough for the word "again" to be used. This could be marked up as my first confusion  .

Actually, your first confusion was in thinking that your post would change any body's mind.   

No confusion there. You must be confused in thinking that I thought that  .

Interstellarsphere, having some cases where proof and evidence can mean the same thing does not make them invariably interchangeable. Synonyms are words that can have the same meaning, but if they meant exactly the same all the time, there would be no point in having both words. Be my guest, ask any English teacher (as you suggest). Synonyms are not always interchangeable.

In my field of study (biochemistry) as in any field of science, the first thing that incoming students must be broken of is that proof and evidence are quite distinct. They may commonly be used interchangeably, but it is fallacy to do so. You cannot prove hardly anything in science. You cannot prove that yesterday even existed, despite the overwhelming evidence that it does. For all we know, all the particles of the universe cam together precisely so that the electrons firing in our brain contain the same memories of those that shared them with us, as well as randomly creating everything that we remember doing. Remembering doing something does not prove it happened. Otherwise all those people in asylums should be released, as they truly are George Washington and Joan of Arc - after all, they remember having always had that name. No, proof and evidence are quite distinct, as all REers and FEers have agreed against you.

As a side, I find it interesting that you referred to me as an FEer. In other threads I've been referred to as an REer. Can you not tell which it is?

Monhz, I dont care what they say. When it comes to the debates on English language they can be put to rest by the dictionary and a thesaurus, and in a dictionary evidence and proof have the exact same definition and are sited as such i a thesuruas, and I gave you example sentences.
In ANy case, those example sentences would apply here as well
"I have proof the sun runs on fusion" "I have evidence the sun runs on fusion" the same thing
It doesnt matter how many of you try to dispute this, the ultimate authority on English language, the dictonary and thesaurus, say differently.

and in any case, the specific case sited with Robosteve,
"Proof the sun runs on nuclear fusion"
"evidence the sun runs on nuclear fusion"
mean the SAME THING.

15

Flat Earth Debate / Re: How does satellite T.V. work?

« on: August 19, 2008, 12:17:13 PM »

They are on top of everyone's roof. It's the same concept that truckers used to use with their CV. If there were enough truckers on the freeway, they could chain the CV range and talk to truckers across country. When you are installing a "satellite dish", it serves as both transmitter and receiver. They are just broadcasting the initial signal through the old UHF towers, and through advances in technology made the signal much stronger and sharper, using the satellites installed on our homes to transmit the signal globally. Eventually, "satellite" TV will be so well established that it will take at most 2 UHF towers to broadcast to the entire world. This whole "digital" crossover coming up is to deepen the cover-up. Supposedly, UHF stations were all analog. With the switch to digital, all the remaining UHF stations will be forced to close, allowing the "satellite" companies to take over the towers to ensure complete global coverage until the network of dishes is thorough enough. European countries already are working on a single tower. My guess is that they will keep it to one tower per country than try to do one tower for the whole globe. That way they can broadcast only the stations in the languages they want.

CV? heh. You dont even know what its called.

16

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Bedford level experiments and the EA

« on: August 19, 2008, 04:14:10 AM »

Look up GRAVITATIONAL LENSING and then try again. 

I am aware of what gravitational lensing is. I still fail to see your point.

funny thing was EAT was a theory that Robosteve pulled out of his butt like so many FE do

Same could be said for Special Relativity in 1905.

no experiment or anything has been done to prove anything

Wrong.

its just some wacko idea that in itself is incorrect

Saying that your opponent is incorrect does not automatically cause you to win your argument.

and shows RoboSteves complete lack of understanding on the topic.

Judging by your equation for calculating density, I have a better grasp of physics than you do.

Oh and relativity has had more then enough exeperimentation done to prove it. Hell, the atom bomb is  proof in itself

17

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Bedford level experiments and the EA

« on: August 19, 2008, 04:13:27 AM »

Look up GRAVITATIONAL LENSING and then try again. 

I am aware of what gravitational lensing is. I still fail to see your point.

funny thing was EAT was a theory that Robosteve pulled out of his butt like so many FE do

Same could be said for Special Relativity in 1905.

no experiment or anything has been done to prove anything

Wrong.

its just some wacko idea that in itself is incorrect

Saying that your opponent is incorrect does not automatically cause you to win your argument.

and shows RoboSteves complete lack of understanding on the topic.

Judging by your equation for calculating density, I have a better grasp of physics than you do.

wow i made an error in my equation, big deal. Thats alot more then can be said for you, who make errors of gargantuan proportion everytime you post here.
And no, you havent done any experimentation to prove your foolish EA garbage and if you have why dont you post it?

18

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Bedford level experiments and the EA

« on: August 19, 2008, 04:05:22 AM »

Why the hell are we even discussing EA as if it were real? Its a idea - a bogus one at that - That RoboSteve thought up. It has had no experimentation or measurements or any instrumentation used to confirm it, therefore it can not be quoted and advised as serious evidence

19

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Striking another bow against FE

« on: August 19, 2008, 04:03:18 AM »

I have evidence a man murdered his wife:

• He took out a million-dollar policy on her the day before her murder.
• He recently bought a pistol, and this pistol was used to commit the murder.
• He had an affair with a hottie.

I have proof the man did not murder his wife:

• He was giving a lecture in front of 500 people at the exact moment of the crime.

So evidence is not the same as proof.

Everyone on this forum has evidence the earth is flat: all you have to do is open your eyes, especially if you live near the beach, or in an Iowa cornfield. Your eyes will tell you the truth: the earth is flat. Now about that proof... 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/thesaurus?book=Thesaurus&va=proof
http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/evidence

both have the exact same definition and is given as a synonym.

20

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Striking another bow against FE

« on: August 19, 2008, 03:51:05 AM »

I have evidence a man murdered his wife:

• He took out a million-dollar policy on her the day before her murder.
• He recently bought a pistol, and this pistol was used to commit the murder.
• He had an affair with a hottie.

I have proof the man did not murder his wife:

• He was giving a lecture in front of 500 people at the exact moment of the crime.

So evidence is not the same as proof.

Everyone on this forum has evidence the earth is flat: all you have to do is open your eyes, especially if you live near the beach, or in an Iowa cornfield. Your eyes will tell you the truth: the earth is flat. Now about that proof... 

Umm yes it is the same, evidence and proof are interchangeable in those sentences
and eitherway, RoboSteve is merely trying to argue semantics after i gave a rundown on the suns source of power:NUCLEAR FUSION.

21

Flat Earth Debate / Lie lie lie

« on: August 19, 2008, 03:36:40 AM »

wow awesome

FES History:

22

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Antarctica Cup International Yacht Race

« on: August 19, 2008, 03:33:07 AM »

You'll need to personally prove that this race went as perfect as you need it to be.

Why should he?  This independent evidence will stand up on its own.  FE follows have never "personally proved" anything.  -I've never seen it on these forums. They have the Lazy Zetetics methodology to keep them in their armchairs.

Can Tom personally prove his ancient Antarctic accounts are more reliable?  I think not.

A RE victory?

and look at the EA crap that RoboSteve made up, (that doesnt even work) FE'ers site it now like it was gospel.

23

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Nuff said.

« on: August 19, 2008, 03:29:38 AM »

and fletch, no

given the FE sun is only 32 miles in diameter.

What? If an object 32 miles in diameter throws light onto an area larger than 32 miles all the light that hits that object can not be hitting it at the same angle.

again wouldnt work because then, according to the FE gif map thats been tosed around, there are some areas then where shadows would never be cast, but in real life none such exists. furthermore, the FEG descirbes the sun as  a "spotlight" a spotlight casts light rays on one specific area, the light rays all reaching said area parallel to one another, discouning what you said above.

24

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Striking another bow against FE

« on: August 19, 2008, 03:26:12 AM »

What ever the case I was implying to robosteve that the words evidence and proof are synonymous.

And you imply incorrectly.

No I dont. Ask any lawyer.
Also webster and Roget agree


"I have evidence that that man murdered his wife"
"I have proof that man murdered his wife"
Those sentences mean the same thing, and so far no one has been able to show otherwise.

25

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Striking another bow against FE

« on: August 19, 2008, 02:10:15 AM »

Interstellarsphere - there is no such thing as scientific proof in the sense that it confirms something absolutely; to use your example all that science can do is support or discredit a theory 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. Please read my post above.

What ever the case I was implying to robosteve that the words evidence and proof are synonymous.

26

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Gravitation is caused by electromagnetism

« on: August 19, 2008, 01:34:07 AM »

Newton and Einstein were both wrong. Gravity is not a fundamental force of nature, nor is gravitation caused by inertia. It is a consequence of the electromagnetic force.

The upper atmoplane has an overall positive charge, and the ground has an overall negative charge. Discharge is prevented by the high resistance of air. The atmoplane attracts electrons in your body, while the ground repels them, turning you into a dipole. Because the ground is so much closer to you than the upper layers of the atmoplane, the positively charged end feels a stronger attraction to the Earth than the negative end does to the sky, and so you feel a net downwards force of 9.8 m s^-2.

This helps to explain why going underground causes lower gravitation (some of the negative charge is above you), and also why increasing altitude is associated with a drop in g (you are further from the Earth and closer to the sky). Of course, this means that you would feel an upwards force at a high enough altitude, eventually reaching an equilibrium point in the upper atmoplane where you can float about freely, and once in space you would be pulled back down into the atmoplane (though if you travelled far enough into space to make the distance between the atmoplane and the ground negligible compared to the distance between yourself and the atmoplane, the Earth would appear to have a net charge of zero and the attraction would be negligible). The air is so thin at the equilibrium point, however, that one would need a space suit to survive there.

This phenomenon has never been measured because we have never lived outside of it, and so all our equipment is calibrated assuming a net electric field of zero.

You an idiot, RoboSteve.

27

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sunlight on a flat earth

« on: August 19, 2008, 01:09:24 AM »

I took a few more reference points and mapped this out to an anim using data from here.

Did you collect or confirm this data?

It says right there on the website that the information comes from government satellites, which as we already know, don't exist.

a FE talking about confirmation?
NONE of the FE garbage ideas have ever been collected on or confirmed. hypocrite.

28

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Nuff said.

« on: August 18, 2008, 11:51:32 PM »

watch the vid. your question is answered therein.

Maybe if you had linked to a video, I would.

I did link to  a video. The very first post in this thread is linked to a video, and fletch, no

given the FE sun is only 32 miles in diameter.

29

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Bedford level experiments and the EA

« on: August 18, 2008, 10:38:41 PM »

The Electromagnetic Accelerator Theory (EAT) has gained a lot of support from FE advocates recently because it elegantly explains horizons, sinking ships and the day/night cycle.

Even TB has thrown his support behind this theory:

This seems to be further evidence that light bends upwards. Thanks dyno.

GIVE IT UP.  You have no proof for bending light.

We can clearly wee more of the ship's hull when we increase our altitude. This is evidence that light bends upwards.

This means Rowbotham couldn't have got the results he claims he did when conducting the Bedford level experiments. If he was wrong (or lying) about that, then surely all of his "evidence" is suspect. So, If you're going to agree with the EAT then you have to give up ENaG.

Alternatively, if you reject EAT then you will need to somehow explain these observations.

funny thing was EAT was a theory that Robosteve pulled out of his butt like so many FE do , no experiment or anything has been done to prove anything its just some wacko idea that in itself is incorrect and shows RoboSteves complete lack of understanding on the topic.

30

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Satellite orbital dynamics.

« on: August 18, 2008, 10:26:04 PM »

Satellites don't exist.

The planets don't disappear over the Ice Wall and reappear at the other end.

The planets circle and sun, while the sun circles the North Pole. This results in the retrograde motion of the planets.

While the apparent location of any planet can be predicted with better than 3% error using a simple model assuming circular orbits, on the FE model nobody has been able to make an equation that predicts the apparent location of any planets with any hope of acceptable precision.

Umm no the ancients were not able to. The ancients were primarily round Earthers.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Eratosthenes+carl+sagan&emb=0&aq=f#

The whole flat Earth thing came about much laterinvented by people who felt the bible described a flat Earth when in fact it doesnt, the bible calls Earth a sphere several times)
The ancients were able to predict the positions and movements of the planets just fine under Flat Earth cosmologies.

And Satellites do exist. Our weapons, naviagation equipment use it.
As a former member of the US Navy who worked in fire control I can tell you that GPS is needed for weapons that have over the horizon targetting capability, such as the DSMAC guidance system used by the Tomahawk Land Attack Missile.
Without GPS satellites the weapons would not function. Satellites do indeed exist, Bishop.
The idea that companies would spend billions building and launching Satellites into space, or that militaries would fire spy satellites into space that aren't real, is ludicrious. Furthermore, both the ISS and Hubble Space telescopes both orbit the Earth.
So, from personal experience and from facts, you are wrong.