1

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: I challenge you to change my mind

« on: March 07, 2009, 09:12:45 AM »

None of the FE'ers want to give you answers. Seriously, get over yourself. Every day, 5 to ten people will ask the same questions you are asking. Just loom at the topics. This has all been discussed thousands of times before. Your questions are all of a very basic nature, so it's up to you to go and find the answers.

The FAQ and other pinned threads on this board have detailed mathematical explanations of FET. It's not any easier for us to explain it to you than it is for you to find the answers yourself. Stop blaming other people for your own laziness.

Then how about you give me a link. Like i said I have looked over and over the FAQs and found nothing that can come close to proving that the earth is flat. Also is this not a discussion board, does that not mean that new people will come and ask the same questions that have others have asked. If it is truly your belief that the earth is flat then you should be willing to defend that idea everyday.

2

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: I challenge you to change my mind

« on: March 06, 2009, 12:07:21 PM »

Can none of you FEer's give me an answer on this. All I've seen on this post is nonsense. This just goes to prove my point that when asked for solid proof that the earth is flat you can give none. I find it more then a bit convenente that the only person that could ever "attempt" to prove the earth was flat died 150yrs ago, did not keep very good records, and the one object that could provide just a little scientific proof that the earth was flat has been lost in the sands of time and no one knows how to make another one. I ask for proof using math and physics, what do i get, some jerk critiquing my writting style and some other guy telling me I should be focusing on my work. then some nonsense about this /b/ guy. Not one of you FEer's even attempted to answer my question. I can back up my claim with the use of physics (what limited knowledge i have) but at least I would try.

3

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: I challenge you to change my mind

« on: March 05, 2009, 01:28:30 PM »

After analysis of your writing style for spelling accuracy and grammar, it appears that you consumed approximately a fifth of vodka between starting your paragraph and ending it.

Either you write really, really slow or you drink really, really fast. I am intrigued and must ask which one it is.

No I just cant spell. Spellcheck is my friend but dont have time to use at work right now.

But you do have time to come on to a forums site dedicated to the theory of the earth being flat to ridicule its members.  Interesting....

Ok I have read the FAQs. I saw nothing in there that came close to proving your point. If I'm coming across as an ass sorry. I not tring to bad mouth any one here (except for one and he knows who he is) I would love to see you peple (FEer's) explain the math, Physics and other sciences involved. I have looked and it seems to me that you cant even agree amoung yourselves the way the earth is laid out. is the atmolayer 300 miles thick or more, is the sun only 3k miles from earth or more. For godsakes you cant even agree on a real map. So I come to you and say show me math. Math does not lie. Physics does not lie. Like I said I have an open mind but from the way I see all you do when some one presents you with evidence that the earth is round is pick and distort one thing in the whole post till it makes no sense at all. When we post pics, you say they are fake with out a shred of evidence. If we were talking about god then I would be fine with that. I have read over and over and over and over REer's proving that the world is round. I have not seen anything to support you ideas unless your talking about the book that was linked to the FAQs. So I want facts that all FEer's can agree on. Is that to much to ask for.

4

Flat Earth Debate / Re: here is a question.

« on: March 05, 2009, 12:58:18 PM »

So you don't agree that clouds stay up because they're lighter than the air below it, like a ping pong ball floats on water?

I agree with that in RET not FET. If clouds are floating above us then an object accelerating rapidly up toward them would hit them. Look at airplanes. They accelerate rapidly into the sky. the clouds dont magicly get higher as the plane get higher.

Planes do indeed hit the clouds.  Every flight I've been on has been above the clouds for at least part of the time.  I don't understand what you're trying to say?

I know they hit the clouds or more accuretly go through the clouds. What I'm trying to say is that the clouds do not magicly rise when a plane approches so why should they when the planet is coming at them far faster then a plane would.

5

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Transit of Venus

« on: March 05, 2009, 12:54:07 PM »

Now, Anyone can spend a little while watching Venus and see that it's going around the Sun. It shrinks and grows as it moves back and forth across the sun, and it undergoes phases as it moves round the Sun, letting you see which direction the sun is from it's point of view.

We'll use something well documented and observed by many to explain a problem with FE celestial mechanics. The transit of Venus of 2004. I'm sure at least a few of you observed it, and if you didn't there will be another on June the 6th, 2012. Be sure to catch that one if you can, as it will be the last for quite a while.

Now, the transit of Venus is where Venus passes in front of the Sun, meaning that we observe a small dark disc pass over the disc of the Sun. Given that the Sun in a FE model is a little thing 3,000 miles away, and Venus is this little fragment of stuff who knows where, you would expect that the transit would only be observable from a small area of he planet, where these two objects line up from an observers point of view.

Yet, the transit was observable everywhere that the Sun was observable. What's more, it was observed in much the same place on the Sun all over the planet, something that shouldn't happen in a FE model even if Venus was rolling up against the surface of the Sun.

Are there any explanations of how this works in a FE model?

I have a very simple to understand solution to this. THE EARTH IS ROUND, A GLOBE, NOT FLAT. There now wasn't that easy to understand.

6

Flat Earth Debate / Re: here is a question.

« on: March 05, 2009, 11:02:55 AM »

So you don't agree that clouds stay up because they're lighter than the air below it, like a ping pong ball floats on water?

I agree with that in RET not FET. If clouds are floating above us then an object accelerating rapidly up toward them would hit them. Look at airplanes. They accelerate rapidly into the sky. the clouds dont magicly get higher as the plane get higher.

7

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: I challenge you to change my mind

« on: March 05, 2009, 09:22:08 AM »

After analysis of your writing style for spelling accuracy and grammar, it appears that you consumed approximately a fifth of vodka between starting your paragraph and ending it.

Either you write really, really slow or you drink really, really fast. I am intrigued and must ask which one it is.

No I just cant spell. Spellcheck is my friend but dont have time to use at work right now.

8

Flat Earth Q&A / I challenge you to change my mind

« on: March 05, 2009, 09:13:11 AM »

You know I would be far more accepting that the universe was flat,square, triangle, globe, hell I would even be able that it was in the shape of a cross or the star of david. We have no proof of the universe's shape. It's to big to view. But we have proof that the earth is round. The laws of physics dictate the the earth is round. I'm not sayin that no planet can be flat. Who knows we may actually find one, one day. I have a very open mind but in the presence of overwelming evidence any "normal" person would have to bow down and say I was wrong. It's only the blindly stubbren that will continue to say all proof you furnish is a cover up and my way is correct even though I can not produce a single shred of evendice that cannot be easily explained in the RE senerio. So I ask all FE'ers convense me that the earth is indeed flat. I have an open mind. but i want proof. By your socities own addmission you have no map to prove this, you have no valid pics. All you have is the writtings of a man who was digruntaled with modern science over 150 years ago. If you wan tto convense me come to me with proof. show me the physics behind it.

(I know my spelling sucks)

9

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Flat Earth Map

« on: March 05, 2009, 08:43:24 AM »

It doesn't exists, because the earth is round.

I agree whole heartedly but I can guantee that some FE'er made a map of FE. (even though there supposed map is purely hypothetic

10

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Something doesnt add up

« on: March 05, 2009, 08:13:54 AM »

I'm looking for proof. I can accept that they think the earth is flat. But from what I've seen and read for their proof it makes no sense. By there way of thinking every planet in our solar system is flat. I can guarrentee you that if we went to IO (a moon of jupiter or saturan) that is covered in lava, the lava would have the same properties as the water here (as far as looking like it just ends.) When we went to the moon once again looking out over the horizon it appears that the it is flat. looking at any planet will give you the illision that it is flat. When asked whay there is no more proof it always will come down to the same thing "government conspirency" I seen more proof that the illumenati exist then theproof for the earth is flat.

You're missing one big point.  According to FE canon, the earth is not a planet like the other things in the solar system.  Therefore, it doesn't have to be the same as they are.

Read the FAQ.

I did read th FAQs, but the earth is still part of this universe correct? If it is then there are certian rules it has to follow. ie.. the fact that it does not have as much mass as jupiter therefore jupiter would not rotate around us but us around jupiter. So would every other planet for that matter since the sun would be small according to beliefs

In FE theory, the heavenly bodies are much smaller than in RE.  The Earth is actually much more massive than anything visibly above us.

So please explain to me how a planet that is smaller the earth could have so many moons like saturan or jupiter. This is some thing that has been proven and that you can see for yourself with a good store brought telescope. From the way you are speaking we are by far the largest object in the solar system. For us to have the type of gravintaonal pull needed to keep all our planets in our orbit we would have to be massive truely massive like the size of the RE sun. But we still run into another problem. If earth has no gravity what is forcing our solar system to revolve around us. In the RE senerio the suns gravity is what keep us from flying out into the cold depths of space. In the RE senerio the earths gravity is what keeps the moon in orbit. In th FE senerio what is causing the planets to rotate around us. I understand that the Au (I think it's called that) is forcing us up at speeds approching the speed of light. (i can understand it but I don't believe it.) There is still nothing to explain our soloar system. If our solar system is as small as you suggest then we would have some major problems as far as planets colliding.

11

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Whats wrong with this picture??

« on: March 05, 2009, 07:57:32 AM »

The following diagram will explain this strange, and for a time confounding, phenomenon.


FIG. 6.

A, represents the position of the observer, and the arrows the direction of the vessel, which, on arriving at the point B, suddenly entered the "reach" B, C, and disappeared, but which, on arriving at C, became again visible, and remained




Ok sorry the pic did not show up but it is easily abtainable from this websit since it was drawn by your founder over 150yrs ago. It shows water moving down a straight line then going down hill then back up. How is this possible. The water would simply fill up after it went down hill until it was able to travel back in a straight line. Please show me one river, creek, stream that flows down hill then up another with out filling up the ditch or has help from man. Water by nature will find the path of least resistance. I think up hill will provide much resistance to running water no matter how slight the grade

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za07.htm this is the link it's fig 6

12

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Something doesnt add up

« on: March 05, 2009, 06:46:48 AM »

I have a couple of reservations with this. Firstly it means that we need a totally new explanation for how stars shine. This is more of a problem that it sounds because spectral lines from the sun tell us its chemical composition and suggest very strongly that nuclear fusion is going on inside. So can we tell how far away the sun is without using celestial mechanics. Yes, we can, at least if you live a long way north of south. One can simply look through a telescope and look for a large solar flare and then time how long it takes for the increase in solar particles to cause a particularly bright northern lights. From this we can tell that either that particles are very highly relativistic or the sun is a very long way away. We know that that the particles although fast are not highly relativstic  so we conclude that the sun is far away.

Now the stars. Once again we are left with the mechanism by which they shine. Some stars are far hotter than the sun yet according to the FE model comparatively tiny again there is nothing in modern physics to explain how such a phenomenon would occur. Cosmic particles, the Earth is regularly bombarded by particles far higher than in the LHC up to 10¹⁸eV and above. Could this not come from nearby? Well assuming that they are not being fired at us by some particle accelerator but are being emitted isotropically then you would not want to be within a few light years of such a body. Though there is a more elegant argument relates to interactions of cosmic particles. The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) provides a source of relatively low energy photons with which cosmic particles can interact. Above about 10¹⁹eV the following interaction can occur.

proton + photon -> Delta -> neutron + pion

We see a large drop in very high energy cosmic particles reaching Earth due to this interaction. If the sources were closer than 10's of light years we would no see a significant fall in the number of particles.

I hate to admit this because I love science but can you explain this a bit more in laymans terms. I only understood about half of what you said

13

Flat Earth Debate / Re: here is a question.

« on: March 05, 2009, 05:58:02 AM »

They do, it's called rain.

So now your changing what rain is also? Rain is when a cloud becomes over satuated with water and then it releases. this is second grade science.

That's not quite how it works, but it doesn't really matter because I was making a joke, and since you didn't take issue with my answer, we can assume we both agree on its validity.

Oh no I take issue with what you said. I have an issue with the whole idea that a FE even exists.

14

Flat Earth Debate / Re: here is a question.

« on: March 04, 2009, 01:14:49 PM »

What about the clouds? They have no lift and the are free floating so the would not be held by the inertia of this planet.

They are lighter than the air around them, so they float just like a ping pong ball on water.

so basiclly they should end up on the ground rather quickly.

They do, it's called rain.

So now your changing what rain is also? Rain is when a cloud becomes over satuated with water and then it releases. this is second grade science.

15

Flat Earth Q&A / Whats wrong with this picture??

« on: March 04, 2009, 01:11:43 PM »

 

The following diagram will explain this strange, and for a time confounding, phenomenon.


FIG. 6.

A, represents the position of the observer, and the arrows the direction of the vessel, which, on arriving at the point B, suddenly entered the "reach" B, C, and disappeared, but which, on arriving at C, became again visible, and remained




Ok sorry the pic did not show up but it is easily abtainable from this websit since it was drawn by your founder over 150yrs ago. It shows water moving down a straight line then going down hill then back up. How is this possible. The water would simply fill up after it went down hill until it was able to travel back in a straight line. Please show me one river, creek, stream that flows down hill then up another with out filling up the ditch or has help from man. Water by nature will find the path of least resistance. I think up hill will provide much resistance to running water no matter how slight the grade

16

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Something doesnt add up

« on: March 04, 2009, 12:46:41 PM »

I'm looking for proof. I can accept that they think the earth is flat. But from what I've seen and read for their proof it makes no sense. By there way of thinking every planet in our solar system is flat. I can guarrentee you that if we went to IO (a moon of jupiter or saturan) that is covered in lava, the lava would have the same properties as the water here (as far as looking like it just ends.) When we went to the moon once again looking out over the horizon it appears that the it is flat. looking at any planet will give you the illision that it is flat. When asked whay there is no more proof it always will come down to the same thing "government conspirency" I seen more proof that the illumenati exist then theproof for the earth is flat.

You're missing one big point.  According to FE canon, the earth is not a planet like the other things in the solar system.  Therefore, it doesn't have to be the same as they are.

Read the FAQ.

I did read th FAQs, but the earth is still part of this universe correct? If it is then there are certian rules it has to follow. ie.. the fact that it does not have as much mass as jupiter therefore jupiter would not rotate around us but us around jupiter. So would every other planet for that matter since the sun would be small according to beliefs

17

Flat Earth Debate / Re: here is a question.

« on: March 04, 2009, 12:42:13 PM »

a bird in flight would no longer be under the influence of the momentum of the planet

Sure it would, in the form of lift.

So you mean to tell me that simple lift is not only responsible for helping a bird take off (have no problem)
but also responsible for having it maintain a tremendous upward speed (BIG PROBLEM) as well as fly thousends of miles (as some birds do) at a time.

What about the clouds? They have no lift and the are free floating so the would not be held by the inertia of this planet. so basiclly they should end up on the ground rather quickly.

18

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Something doesnt add up

« on: March 04, 2009, 12:19:57 PM »

The FE maps are hypothetical only.

How can you devote all this time to a map that is just hypothetical? At least RE'ers have ton of scientific data to back up our clam. There is not one shread of scienctific proof that I have seen that cant be explained by having a RE. This is not a relegion. You cant say just have faith. There are things that a FE just cant account for due to the laws of physics. (I wont get into them now)

I'm looking for proof. I can accept that they think the earth is flat. But from what I've seen and read for their proof it makes no sense. By there way of thinking every planet in our solar system is flat. I can guarrentee you that if we went to IO (a moon of jupiter or saturan) that is covered in lava, the lava would have the same properties as the water here (as far as looking like it just ends.) When we went to the moon once again looking out over the horizon it appears that the it is flat. looking at any planet will give you the illision that it is flat. When asked whay there is no more proof it always will come down to the same thing "government conspirency" I seen more proof that the illumenati exist then theproof for the earth is flat.
I back your clam also.  You should keep it shut though, or things will get into it.

19

Flat Earth Debate / Re: here is a question.

« on: March 04, 2009, 11:53:40 AM »

Well not being able to see England is an easy one, there's just too much atmosphere to go through to see that far, the frequency of light is just too high to penetrate that far..  Which is easily explained when you can send out a radio wave, and receive a blip from 200 miles away from another ship, but you cannot see it no matter which telescope you have.

How do you explain that a FE accelerating at a trmendous speed breaks so many laws of physics. ie.. a bird in flight would no longer be under the influence of the momentum of the planet, so this bird would start to slow down in relation to the eath and would collide with it. This can be proved somewhat with a simple test. Hang a small weight from the roof of the cab in your car with a 12in string. Accelerate fast and watch as the weight stays in place until it runs out of string then gets pulled. Also take a turn at a nice angle 20+ degrees and watch as the string stays pointed down unaffected by the cars inertia as it takes this inclined turn.

Also how is it that all the other planets in our solar system rotate around the earth. Physics dictate that the larger the mass the  stronger the gravity. There are many planets many Xs larger then earth. So if your assumption is correct then the earth not only is flat but is also the largest planet in this solar system.

20

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Something doesnt add up

« on: March 04, 2009, 08:44:29 AM »

The FE maps are hypothetical only.

How can you devote all this time to a map that is just hypothetical? At least RE'ers have ton of scientific data to back up our clam. There is not one shread of scienctific proof that I have seen that cant be explained by having a RE. This is not a relegion. You cant say just have faith. There are things that a FE just cant account for due to the laws of physics. (I wont get into them now)

21

Flat Earth Debate / here is a question.

« on: March 04, 2009, 07:59:35 AM »

First I would like it to be known that I am a firm RE'er I have read some of what was said in the book by Samuel Birley Rowbotham and it does not make sense to me. So I guess my question would have to be If the earth was truely flat the if I stand on the coast of NJ and had a powerfull enough telescope I should be able to see England. But I can not. Why is this, my teaching has taught me that it's because of the curviture of the earth.

Also while serving in the Navy I have spent much time out to sea. How can you explain knowing a ship is only 100-200 miles away from you (by using radar) but you are unable to see it with the naked eye.

I read what was said about the sun being a "spotlight" so to take the agurment away about it being dark in england I have also experianced this while in the Med sea. I was off the coast of Africa and could not see Europe. Same time zone only a few hundred miles away and we have some preety powerfull telescopes and bino's on our ships. So if you can explin this I would love to hear it.