1

Flat Earth General / Re: Here we go again

« on: February 21, 2011, 12:17:43 PM »

Let me ask something regarding the sun and moon here. Based on FET, they move in changing circles overhead, yes?

Now, FET also states that the Earth is constantly ascending upwards, thus contributing to the effect that the majority of the scientific body, RET, attribute to gravity.

For this to be true, we must also assume that the other celestial bodies are also constantly ascending, and at the same rate. Otherwise, if the Earth were moving upwards and the sun and moon are staying at the same height, the Earth would long ago have crashed into them.

Thus, we can assume that the sun and moon are ascending upwards, and also in fluctuating circles. In other words, a spiral.

We are able to simulate this effect using small scale models, and every attempt I have seen indicates that when spirals move with fluctuating velocity, they do not return to smaller location without outside influence. This is due to inertia, which is easily proven scientific fact. What actually happens is that the spiral continues to get wider, not smaller.

Based on these facts, and looking at your theory and explanation, what force is acting on the sun and moon to cause them to move regardless of inertia back to their original positions, and why is this force not also relevant in explaining functions of the Earth?

2

Flat Earth General / Re: Why do RE believers come here?

« on: February 19, 2011, 07:08:25 AM »

He has witnessed the fact of him personally seen and verifying the evidence of a round earth but can't provide it.

Actually, it's more like I no longer consider it worth my time to present it to you guys; I've read enough signs that say "Don't Feed the Trolls" to understand that one shouldn't feed the trolls. Like I said, I usually just come here to be amused by the antics. And observing the circle-jerk of you guys claiming I simply don't HAVE any proof is very amusing.

So you don't have any evidence to support your claims?

Didn't think so. Typical noob.

More like I already know, having debated with some of you before, the pointlessness of presenting it.

You have 16 posts of which at least 8 aren't a debate. Your debates must be very fruitful if you can come to a satisfactory conclusion after less than 8 posts.

When I count in emails and private messages on the Facebook end of FES, yes, very fruitful.

3

Flat Earth General / Re: Why do RE believers come here?

« on: February 18, 2011, 07:49:04 PM »

Ignorant noobs are funny when they get angry.

Indeed. It is a sorry day when that much sarcasm is missed...

4

Flat Earth General / Re: Here we go again

« on: February 18, 2011, 07:48:07 PM »

Ok without trolls this time.
After reading many of the posts in this thread and many other threads i would like to ask a few questions.
(1) If the sun as FET says is in a stationary position above the earth could you explain how night and day work? and also why it is light in some parts of the world while dark in others, if the earth is flat then surely night would come to every country at the same time instead of dark in the uk and light in america lets say?
(2) Could the FET explain the aurora borealis or northern lights and aurora australis southern lights?
(3) Can you also explain why we have four poles. 2 being magnetic south and north pole and also 2 being geographical north and south. If the earth was flat these would not exist?
(4) Also if antartica exists which part of the flat earth does it reside as you do not have north and south with a flat disc you just have degrees?
(5) Can you explain why the millions of euros were spent on the solar heliographic observatory to monitor solar flares which cause geomagnetic storms over the magnetic poles, when these storms get strong enough countries have major power cuts this has been recorded in recent times. We know it does happen because of the southern and northern lights.
(6) When you look through a powerful telescope at the moon lets say you can easily see it is a globe?
(7) I could keep on going with questions, when man first went into space why was it announced that the earth was definitely a globe? What possible reason would the powers that be have to say that if it were not true? as we spent many years thinking thinking it was flat back in the past.

I wasn't trying to troll you myself. Just giving you a fair warning, the trolls ARE going to pick this apart without answering your questions. Good luck, hope this helps, but I strongly suspect you're in for a headache.

5

Flat Earth General / Re: Why do RE believers come here?

« on: February 18, 2011, 07:38:45 PM »

It was obvious, wasn't it? I mean, does anyone else here think I believe the Earth is flat?

6

Flat Earth General / Re: Why do RE believers come here?

« on: February 18, 2011, 06:13:15 PM »

Because you are a bunch of idiots and the poster did not really reply to my questions except to pass them off. I was waiting for a scientific discussion? So my reply was aimed at the person with the contempt it desserved.

Um... Actually, if you check my previous posts on here, I'm of those who think the Earth is round, the forum is filled with Trolls, and scientific facts and obvious proofs are always responded to here with the deflective BS and conspiracy theory responses. I was just trying to give you a heads up to what the nutjobs on here were going to reply with. I was trying to make that obvious with the whole "conspiracy more conspiracy ILLUMINATI BLAAAAAAAH!" bit. I thought I had made that obvious enough...

7

Flat Earth General / Re: Why do RE believers come here?

« on: February 18, 2011, 05:28:15 PM »

After reading many of the posts in this thread and many other threads i would like to ask a few questions.
(1) If the sun as FET says is in a stationary position above the earth could you explain how night and day work? and also why it is light in some parts of the world while dark in others, if the earth is flat then surely night would come to every country at the same time instead of dark in the uk and light in america lets say?
(2) Could the FET explain the aurora borealis or northern lights and aurora australis southern lights?
(3) Can you also explain why we have four poles. 2 being magnetic south and north pole and also 2 being geographical north and south. If the earth was flat these would not exist?
(4) Also if antartica exists which part of the flat earth does it reside as you do not have north and south with a flat disc you just have degrees?
(5) Can you explain why the millions of euros were spent on the solar heliographic observatory to monitor solar flares which cause geomagnetic storms over the magnetic poles, when these storms get strong enough countries have major power cuts this has been recorded in recent times. We know it does happen because of the southern and northern lights.
(6) When you look through a powerful telescope at the moon lets say you can easily see it is a globe?
(7) I could keep on going with questions, when man first went into space why was it announced that the earth was definitely a globe? What possible reason would the powers that be have to say that if it were not true? as we spent many years thinking thinking it was flat back in the past.

Well, for their part, and to hopefully beat the trolls here:

1: Circular motion of the sun and the moon in the are providing light in certain areas, not all.
2: The aurora borealis aren't reliant on a round Earth to exist.
3: Magnetic polarities don't rely on a round sphere to exist.
4: They claim it is a vast ice wall expanse, with its boarders bring what globes would depict as its perimeter.
5: Random money conspiracy.
6: It'd look like a globe whether the Earth was flat or round.
7: Conspiracy, conspiracy, conspiracy, more conspiracy THE ILLUMINATI WILL COME FOR YOU ALL!!!!!!!!

8

Flat Earth General / Re: Why do RE believers come here?

« on: February 18, 2011, 04:24:52 PM »

He has witnessed the fact of him personally seen and verifying the evidence of a round earth but can't provide it.

Actually, it's more like I no longer consider it worth my time to present it to you guys; I've read enough signs that say "Don't Feed the Trolls" to understand that one shouldn't feed the trolls. Like I said, I usually just come here to be amused by the antics. And observing the circle-jerk of you guys claiming I simply don't HAVE any proof is very amusing.

So you don't have any evidence to support your claims?

Didn't think so. Typical noob.

More like I already know, having debated with some of you before, the pointlessness of presenting it. If I say that I've been in space, then I'm told that I'm part of the conspiracy. If I present flight plans, geometric facts, physical studies, geographically tracked items, pictures, etc., then the trolls here call them fake, tell me my trajectories must have been off, or claim I am, again, part of the conspiracy. If I remain silent and chuckle, them some self-righteous troll takes my silence or refusal as inherent proof of a lack of proof.

Figure in all of that, and then remember that my main reason to come here is to watch obvious internet trolls pester each other, and why would I even waste my time feeding the trolls? When I already know that NO form of proof will be accepted, why would I offer any? That's not even why I'm here. I'm not here to debate the truth of a round Earth, nor point out why the Earth is easily proven to be not flat. Most of you guys already know this, the few that don't will regard it as conspiracy, and the rest of you will simply use it for trolling-fun.

Doesn't sound like much fun for me. I'd rather watch and chuckle.

9

Flat Earth General / Re: Why do RE believers come here?

« on: February 15, 2011, 09:48:19 PM »

He has witnessed the fact of him personally seen and verifying the evidence of a round earth but can't provide it.

Actually, it's more like I no longer consider it worth my time to present it to you guys; I've read enough signs that say "Don't Feed the Trolls" to understand that one shouldn't feed the trolls. Like I said, I usually just come here to be amused by the antics. And observing the circle-jerk of you guys claiming I simply don't HAVE any proof is very amusing.

10

Flat Earth General / Re: Why do RE believers come here?

« on: February 15, 2011, 11:46:58 AM »

I have personally seen and verified the evidence and witnessed the fact of it.

How have you seen and verified the evidence and witnessed the fact of it?

See what I mean? You guys are a hoot!

11

Flat Earth General / Re: Why do RE believers come here?

« on: February 15, 2011, 10:17:52 AM »

Personally, I joined because I saw some fairly obvious flaws in the theory when put to practice, and because I found it interesting that any and all direct evidence, such as photographs of the curvature of the Earth, reported distance traveled based on flight paths, and the like, are disregarded as conspiracy.

My honest belief is that, with the exception of a few conspiracy theorists, the forum is largely populated by people trolling others and getting a kick out of aggravating other faceless people. I occasionally check on here for a laugh, or to see what new "proof" one of the people claiming to believe in a flat Earth has "found," then chuckle to myself.

Personally, I don't see need to argue the fact of the Earth being a sphere any more than I need to argue the fact that I have a table in front of me; I have personally seen and verified the evidence and witnessed the fact of it. I just stop by here to see if I can stump a troll once in a while. So far, I haven't been disappointed; they always fall to saying, "Conspiracy! False facts! You can prove nothing!" with no backup to it.

Thanks, Flat Earth Society, for keeping me amused.

12

Flat Earth General / Re: Simple things that prove much on this site wrong.

« on: February 15, 2011, 10:08:11 AM »

You know, there is one point that someone brought up that does argue against the Earth being flat. I can make my point by asking two questions. Based on your map, if one traveled in a consistent circle from the tip of Africa to the tip of South America, what would the total distance traveled be? If one traveled that distance at a rate of 100 miles per hour, how long would that take?

13

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: This Theory is Amusing

« on: September 07, 2008, 01:01:41 PM »

This is actually pretty similar to a post I did a bit ago.

I understand the point that other fellow was trying to make, namely that a theoretical model can be put forth to establish his point. That it is not EXACT does not invalidate his point. The idea is that it is an approximation, and will be until someone actually goes out, from the Flat Earth Society, and makes a map of it.

That said, if you look at the map, and consider aerial navigation for this issue like we originally were, what we have here is a point of distance traveled over time traveled, basic velocity. The point that was being originally made, is that if you travel point A to point B on that map, you will have traveled a set distance, and in a set amount of time. If you complete the circuit around the circumference of that circle, you will reach your original destination.

Let us assume that these two points are very close to the outer rim of the map, say South Africa to Argentina. Travel from those two points, going around the circumference of the circle. Perhaps add Australia to the list to make it a full circle with three established points. Now let us say that you travel a bit north, or in this case, towards the theoretical center of the Flat Earth map, a location that can be agreed upon even if the map is an approximation. Chart out three new points along this circle, going around the North Pole. Let us say from Brazil to Japan to Hawaii and back to Brazil. These are both well traveled and well documented distances and times traveled for circumnavigation. For the Earth to be flat, the distance of the circumference of the second flight route would need to be less than the distance of the first. It is in fact well documented, on a near daily basis, to be greater.

Would this not show that the Earth's circumference is expanding as you go from the outermost parts of the map to the Equator, not receding as the flat map shows?

14

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Concerning navigation:

« on: September 01, 2008, 03:58:35 PM »

I again ask my question, how do you address the fact that after the circle that measures along where round Earth theorists would place the equator, the measurements of distance based on your theory increase, and the actual distances to travel when traversed at the same speed decrease?

I assume that by "after" you mean "as you travel southwards from", and I shall ask you this: have you personally measured this change in distance around a line of latitude as you move south from the Equator?

Okay, we're repeating the existential question. I see where your argument is going to. You're going to put that, unless I have measured it myself, then it is clearly false information and my supposed facts are therefore in question. If I claim to have measured it myself, then I am clearly lying to you because I am myself part of this conspiracy. This allows you unilateral denial of my entire point, because either my facts are in question, or I myself am in question.

An excellent avoidance strategy, and as transparent as the window near which I sit.

Therefore, I refuse to acknowledge it beyond this point, because it neither intelligently refutes my point, nor adequately negates my argument.

My original questions were:

First, does this not suggest to you that the distance between these landmarks, easily placed and plotted on your model, are closer together, rather the distances suggested by your map and flat Earth model, in keeping with a world model of a globe rather than one of a relatively flat circle?

Second, if you do not agree that this disproves the Earth being flat, how do you justify, without relying on statements of conspiracy or philosophical statements about the perceptions of the senses, these glaring discrepancies with your map's distances between landmarks along these easily marked and measured circles and the actual distances traveled along these circles to reach these landmarks?

If you do not intend to answer, please at least show a bit of respect for my intelligence and for your own theory by not obviously ignoring my request.

Read the FAQ nub. Also, try Tom Bishop's work of literary art, My Travel's Across A Supposedly Round Earth: How I converted to the Flat Earth Theory, and Became Enlightened.

Actually, I did refer to the FAQ. While it did address some interesting points, it unfortunately does not change simple laws of velocity and distance. Everything else on your FAQ does explain a great many things in a manner that does satisfy the theory of the world being flat, but I did not find anything in it to address the issue of approximate distances traveled over time based on the Flat Earth map concept, and the actual times and distances traveled.

Let me try to explain this better, and please understand that I am not trying to be antagonistic; my replies back to that previous poster were because I could see where his line of logic was going, and it was exactly what I was trying to avoid in this thread.

Let us assume that the Earth is flat, and that the north pole represents the center of a circle. It is possible to draw, using aerial cartography if you distrust satellites, accurate maps expanding out from that central point, going outward until you reach the the ice wall, which we are also going to assume the existence of. I should stress that this has been done many times over the centuries by cartographers, and that our maps, while flat, have been accurate to within a given allowance of error. Going from this, and using that map, it is possible to chart the distance of a given "circle of latitude" which would represent a distance from the North Pole, and would correspond with an appropriate latitude measurement from the Round Earth model.

Using basic mathematics, we are able to determine the approximate diameter, and this also the approximate length of the circle, so that we can find out how much distance one must travel along that circle's perimeter, staying always the same distance from the north pole, and reach our original point of origin. We are then able to make the actual journey and compare our distance traveled and our rate of speed to the estimate to determine the accuracy of it. It is possible to make reference points and landmarks along the circumference of that circle to make sure we have not deviated from this.

The problem is that, this would put the distance of the tip of Africa to the tip of South America as being many times the distance of the westernmost part of Europe to the easternmost part of North America. However, the actual time traveled at a consistent speed from these two points suggests that these two paths are actually the same approximate distance from each other. The equator, however, matches your map of a flat earth quite well. The logical conclusion to this, is that after the equator, the circumference of these circles is growing less, not greater, which is impossible if the world is in fact flat. It is only possible if the world is a globe, at least to everything I know about mathematics.

As I said, my questions are simply how your theory deals with this discrepancy, and if it does not, how you rationalize your theory that the Earth is flat?

If there is something in the FAQ that I have somehow missed, I would also appreciate if someone could quote it for me. On your suggestion, I tried examining it again, and unfortunately I was unable to find your reference. I have also read that book, unless I am mistaken, and while it is very interesting, it also did not address the issue that I have brought up.

I believe my observation points out a fundamental flaw in the theory of the Earth being flat, and as such I wanted to know what your takes on it were, and if there was something you could add to this that could inform me if I have missed something obvious.

15

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Concerning navigation:

« on: September 01, 2008, 06:31:48 AM »

I again ask my question, how do you address the fact that after the circle that measures along where round Earth theorists would place the equator, the measurements of distance based on your theory increase, and the actual distances to travel when traversed at the same speed decrease?

I assume that by "after" you mean "as you travel southwards from", and I shall ask you this: have you personally measured this change in distance around a line of latitude as you move south from the Equator?

Okay, we're repeating the existential question. I see where your argument is going to. You're going to put that, unless I have measured it myself, then it is clearly false information and my supposed facts are therefore in question. If I claim to have measured it myself, then I am clearly lying to you because I am myself part of this conspiracy. This allows you unilateral denial of my entire point, because either my facts are in question, or I myself am in question.

An excellent avoidance strategy, and as transparent as the window near which I sit.

Therefore, I refuse to acknowledge it beyond this point, because it neither intelligently refutes my point, nor adequately negates my argument.

My original questions were:

First, does this not suggest to you that the distance between these landmarks, easily placed and plotted on your model, are closer together, rather the distances suggested by your map and flat Earth model, in keeping with a world model of a globe rather than one of a relatively flat circle?

Second, if you do not agree that this disproves the Earth being flat, how do you justify, without relying on statements of conspiracy or philosophical statements about the perceptions of the senses, these glaring discrepancies with your map's distances between landmarks along these easily marked and measured circles and the actual distances traveled along these circles to reach these landmarks?

If you do not intend to answer, please at least show a bit of respect for my intelligence and for your own theory by not obviously ignoring my request.

16

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Concerning navigation:

« on: August 31, 2008, 09:23:13 PM »

I again ask my question, how do you address the fact that after the circle that measures along where round Earth theorists would place the equator, the measurements of distance based on your theory increase, and the actual distances to travel when traversed at the same speed decrease?

I assume that by "after" you mean "as you travel southwards from", and I shall ask you this: have you personally measured this change in distance around a line of latitude as you move south from the Equator?

I'm sorry, but having read your posts previously on different topics, I am discounting you as valid for this debate. Please respect that your input is not wanted, nor will be acknowledged as having any validity in this, and move on to a different topic. I would like to debate with someone who will not rely on existential philosophy to answer my assertions.

17

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Concerning navigation:

« on: August 31, 2008, 09:06:46 PM »

That map is only an estimate.  The true flat earth map has not yet been...well...mapped out.

Granted that this map is only an estimate, it does not change the issue that, as a given, the advocates put the North Pole as being in the center of the map, and delineate the world as expanding out from that point. That this map is an estimate does not change the fact that a map can be made, and distances determined, based on this starting premise. For the world to be structured as the flat Earth theory demands, then the distances of those circles that can be drawn on that map using a simple compass would need to continue growing in length.

I again ask my question, how do you address the fact that after the circle that measures along where round Earth theorists would place the equator, the measurements of distance based on your theory increase, and the actual distances to travel when traversed at the same speed decrease?

18

Flat Earth Q&A / Concerning navigation:

« on: August 31, 2008, 10:05:05 AM »

I've looked at your model for the shape and structure of the Earth. You set the center as the North Pole in your model, and distance expands outwards from there, based on the Earth being circular in shape. Looking at that model, if printed out on paper, one could use a simple drawing compass to make circles moving outward on that map, using the north pole as a central hub. One could then find definite landmarks along those circles, and using an aircraft, could move from landmark to landmark at a uniform rate of speed, and continue along that circle until one reaches their original point of departure.

Because we are using this model as a map, we can also say that the circles in that map are representative of a set distance. We can track that distance and determine the length of time it would take to reach each individual landmark at a given uniform rate of speed.

I will concede now that up until a certain point, the theory of the Earth being flat will hold out with this experimentation. However, after you reach the line that for those advocating a round Earth would represent the equatorial line, those measurements of distance are no longer accurate. The further those circles of measurement on the map of your model of a flat Earth go out, the more inaccurate your measurements of distance become, indicating that rather than growing as your flat model suggests, the distances are actually becoming shorter.

Again I state that this is easily proven again by charting specific landmarks within those circles on the map, using simple mathematics to determine the equivalent distances between those landmarks based on your map, and then traveling at a uniform rate of speed from landmark to landmark.

Based on this picture, set by one of your members to demonstrate the rotation of the sun and moon:



we can see that the distance from the tip of South America to the tip of Africa should be at least eight times the distance between the easternmost point of North America to the Westernmost point of Europe. If traveled at a uniform speed of 100mph, it should take eight times as long, approximately, to travel from New York City, United States of America, to Paris, France, than it should to travel from Tolhuin, Argentina, to Cape Town, South Africa.

It does not take eight times as long, however, when traveling at a uniform speed. The time of travel is approximately the same when traveled at the same speed by aircraft.

What is interesting in this observation, is that up until the equatorial line, your map for the Earth holds up almost perfectly to this simple test of distance and travel at uniform speeds, suggesting that your map is accurately portraying distance up until that point. However, past that point, your map loses all accuracy, failing to accurately determine distance or travel time between easily defined and easily tracked points and rates of speed.

Thus, I have two questions.

First, does this not suggest to you that the distance between these landmarks, easily placed and plotted on your model, are closer together, rather the distances suggested by your map and flat Earth model, in keeping with a world model of a globe rather than one of a relatively flat circle?

Second, if you do not agree that this disproves the Earth being flat, how do you justify, without relying on statements of conspiracy or philosophical statements about the perceptions of the senses, these glaring discrepancies with your map's distances between landmarks along these easily marked and measured circles and the actual distances traveled along these circles to reach these landmarks?