1

Flat Earth General / Re: Why do you think the Earth is round?

« on: June 18, 2009, 12:00:54 PM »

I have several reasons for believing that the earth is round:

1.  If you fly southward for a long enough time, you will end up in the same spot that you were in before: proof that circumnavigation is   possible.
2.  Modern cosmology implies that all planets formed will be round (or close to it). We have no reason to believe that earth is anything
     other than a planet, so we reject this belief.
3.  There is a horizon: a point in which the sky and the earth appear to be perpendicular to one another. This can only occur if there is
     some curvature to the earth in the region in question. This phenomenon is known to occur all across the globe, therefore it is we
     conclude that the earth is curved everywhere.
4.  Sattelite evidence has shown that the earth is round, and several pictures even capture the earth at such an angle that its convexity
     is evident.

And there's more too.
A flat earth agrees with all of the above phenomena, as well as with every other phenomenon that has ever been observed, as well as with the laws of science that are already present, as well as all experimental data that we have. Therefore there is no reason to reject the theory that the earth is flat.

2

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why do you think the earth is flat?

« on: June 15, 2009, 11:07:30 PM »

  So you're saying that it's an illusion?  Don't let Tom Bishop hear you say that.

Hahahaha, so true

3

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Constellations?

« on: June 15, 2009, 03:45:51 PM »

I put a pen in a glass of water.
The pen appears to bend.
Has the pen actually bent? No, it's an illusion. Any evidence that doesn't rely on the highly unreliable source that are the human senses?

"It's an illusion" is neither evidence or an explanation.

It's caused by light diffraction. The light emitted from the submerged portion of the pencil propagates at a different than the exposed portion, causing it to appear "bent" when it reaches our eyes. There's the explanation. The evidence is all in Maxwell's equations. The moral of that story is that "that's what is perceived" does not evidence make.

Sorry Tom, but it seems like the closest thing to evidence that FE has is that Bedford Canal Experiment, and the ship restoration experiment. So, based on the fact that a sunken ship can be restored from underwater, you think that its necessary to change the model of the ENTIRE universe, create new laws of physics, and redefine modern cosmology? Sorry, but it just doesn't add up...

4

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Constellations?

« on: June 15, 2009, 11:24:53 AM »

Tom, you have a hypothesis, and you're trying to find evidence that it is correct. As long as you search for evidence that your hypothesis is correct, then what you're doing is pseudo-science. The round-earth model has not yet failed, so there's no reason to reject it.

5

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Constellations?

« on: June 15, 2009, 08:15:21 AM »

Flat Earth Theory does provide evidence for its articles. For example, the supposed "sinking ship" effect has been reversed by viewing it through a telescope, proving that the ship is not traveling behind a convex sea.

Please read Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham and Zetetic Cosmogony by Thomas Winship. A plethora of independent accounts and corroborating evidence are available. It has all been peer reviewed over and over again.

When you guys can show us a peer review of NASA's Apollo missions let us know.

Before I so much as Google this book, who is this guy, and why should I take his claims seriously? (I'm not asking that in a cynical, condescending way, btw. I just want to know.)

6

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Constellations?

« on: June 15, 2009, 07:54:57 AM »

The horizon can exist on a Flat Earth. The horizon defines the Vanishing Point.

I haven't seen any evidence that astronauts have gone to "outer space".

Seasons happen in FET. Please read the FAQ.

The earth is not a planet.

Circumnavigation is possible on a Flat Earth. East and West are always at a right angle to North. Traveling Eastwards takes you in a circle around the Northern Hub.

Do you see what you did there? You took all the evidence that there is for a round earth, and showed that it can also be interpreted as evidence for a flat earth. It looks to me like there's a post hoc ergo proctor hoc going on here. Let me make this simple:
You're saying that there is no evidence that the earth is round.
However, I just gave 5 facts of evidence.
You dismissed them as evidence for a round earth, and simply gave a way to fit them into your flat earth theory.

However, notice the difference between the round earth and flat earth model: the round earth model instantly fits into the
5 facts explained above. The flat earth model requires additional theories and hypotheses in order to fit into the 5 facts (i.e. the vanishing point, earth is not a planet, etc.)
Flat earth theory requires additional theories and hypotheses in order to fit into reality, therefore the burden of evidence lies with YOU.

7

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Howcome we've never seen 'The Edge'?

« on: June 15, 2009, 07:37:50 AM »

Then shop around on the forums. Or is that too difficult?

I love how people always say "Look at the other forums." when they can't think of an answer. Kind of like an "Ask your mother -> Ask your father -> ask your mother" cycle. Maybe flat earth will gain some credence when its theorists actually ANSWER perfectly reasonable questions .

8

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why do you think the earth is flat?

« on: June 15, 2009, 07:21:40 AM »

Because, if you were in second grade, and you had to make a food based model of earth, which would you choose?
A. A pizza
B. An orange

 

9

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Quick question

« on: June 15, 2009, 07:18:34 AM »

By Gauss's law, as you get closer and closer to the center, you will become lighter and lighter. If you were to reach the center, you would become weightless. Then, as you continue on from the center, your weight would increase, and eventually you would reach the other side of the earth.

Check out this site, its pretty cool:
http://www.zefrank.com/sandwich/tool.html

10

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Constellations?

« on: June 15, 2009, 07:04:58 AM »

Your "hypothetical scenario" is founded on pure fantasy and therefore cannot be considered for debate, just as the paranormal is not considered for debate. Your "hypothetical scenario" needs actual evidence to back it up before we can consider its merits. "An illusion did it" is not proper evidence. Once you have proper evidence we can discuss the matter further.

Founded upon pure fantasy, huh? No s*** shirlock. That's why its called "hypothetical". Its a simple question. Would you perceive curvature or not? Call me crazy but I don't think that you need evidence to ask a hypothetical question...

11

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Constellations?

« on: June 15, 2009, 06:58:17 AM »

Also pseudoscience is contradicting common knowledge. RE is common knowledge so dont be dumb

So anything that ever contradicts common knowedge is pseudoscience? Do you understand the implications of what you're saying? That is a massive logical fallacy, the very thing you accuse FE'ers of in your pseudoscience rants. That's nothing more than 'Argumentum ad Populum', i.e. an appeal to numbers.

In the early 90's, Einstein contradicted common knowledge by saying that light can be modeled as a particle, as well as an electromagnetic wave. However, he had the means to prove it. Making a claim that goes agains common knowledge is what we call an "extraordinary claim". And like Carl Sagan said: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." No one has presented any evidence at all for a flat earth, much less extraordinary evidence.

12

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Constellations?

« on: June 15, 2009, 06:07:39 AM »

There is plenty of evidence that the earth being flat is an illusion. Look at all the evidence that there is for a round earth. I know that you've probably heard and rejected all of this before (for one irrational reason or another), but let me just refresh your memory:

1. The existence of a horizon.
2. The fact that astronauts have gone to outer space and seen that it is spherical.
3. The existence of seasons.
4. The currently accepted theories for how planets are formed implies that it is impossible for a planet not to be round (or close to it).
5. When one goes around the entire globe, he/she will end up in the same spot.

And that's just a small sample. There's plenty more.

13

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Constellations?

« on: June 14, 2009, 09:18:09 AM »

Oh right, I know this argument. "The fairies are just too small..."

That's what we call "ad-hoc reasoning", fyi.

I think that its safe to say that observing the earth with our eyes and seeing that it looks like a plane gives NO information on its shape. From our point of view on earth, it could be a plane, it could be a geodesic sphere, heck it could be a cube. Here's the pseudo-scientific thing about flat earth arguments: you're contradicting a well-established and widely accepted scientific belief. In order to do something to that caliber, you need to give evidence that the belief that you're contradicting is FALSE, not evidence that the new one is true. Case in point: you've all been giving arguments showing that flat earth may be true, but no evidence that round earth may be false.

14

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Argument for flat earth with NO logical fallacies?

« on: June 13, 2009, 02:23:50 PM »

Thank you thank you xD

15

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Constellations?

« on: June 12, 2009, 08:44:25 AM »

You need evidence that what we're seeing is an illusion.

An assumption isn't evidence.

Its not an assumption. If there is a possibility that what you're seeing is an illusion, then there's no reason to believe that what you're seeing is real.

16

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Argument for flat earth with NO logical fallacies?

« on: June 12, 2009, 08:41:37 AM »

A fallacy is when you come up with your "perfect" equations under a belief of how God would create the universe.

A fallacy is when you can't disprove Quantum Mechanics and resort to lame statements like "God does not play dice with the universe" as your sole and only rebuttal.

Newton's equations have nothing to do with his belief in God. It is based on experimental evidence. The fact the he had a belief of how God would create the universe is completely irrelevant to anything. The fact of the matter is, Newton discovered (note my use of the word discover, not create) the laws of classical mechanics, and they have not been proven wrong (and please don't pull the "Einstein proved him wrong" card, because that's besides the point). So, I guess that my point is: no one "comes up with" scientific laws, they discover them. So it is impossible to say that the existence of any scientific law is based on any one person's belief in God.

17

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Argument for flat earth with NO logical fallacies?

« on: June 09, 2009, 10:43:25 AM »

And considering how this has now sat for two days with no response, I think that your suspicion is correct.

Really Flat-Earthers, if you want to convince people of your position, why not argue for it logically instead of attacking your opposition and picking at minor points while ignoring the major arguments?

Agreed. I'm starting to wonder how such a blatantly retarded irrational theory could have come about...

18

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Clarification on Gravity

« on: June 09, 2009, 10:36:03 AM »

As mentioned in this thread, whether you take the 'no gravitation' position or not seems to be a matter of personal preference - you can make the case for no matter on the FE gravitating, you can make the case for the FE gravitating like normal matter in addition to the universal acceleration field, or you can argue for a hybrid, where the matter on the FE disc is somehow partially shielded by the interaction with the UA. There are pros and cons to every argument, but they all at least superficially agree with RET.

answers dont exist on this forum.

Cynical noob is cynical.

But how is it a matter of personal preference? I mean, either there is a force of gravitation or there isn't. Either one that is a statement of fact, not a statement of opinion. That's like me saying that whether or not the tooth fairy exists is a matter of preference. Sure, its ok to believe in the tooth fairy. But when you give made-up, ungrounded theories and pseudo-scientific arguments, then there's a problem.

Btw, "cynical noob" is right.

19

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Constellations?

« on: June 09, 2009, 10:24:59 AM »

The stars are moving Northward and Southward over the course of the year, just like the sun.

How do you know that?

20

Flat Earth Q&A / Constellations?

« on: June 08, 2009, 08:53:51 PM »

Just a question for FE believers: if the Earth is flat, then why do we only see certain constellations at certain times during the year? If the Earth were flat, wouldn't every constellation in the sky be visible year round? Just wondering...

21

Flat Earth Debate / Re: "Falling" towards the earth

« on: June 07, 2009, 04:06:11 PM »

Well, that's perfect! That would explain everything xD
But ow do you know that all that you said above is true?

I meant to say "how", btw.

22

Flat Earth Debate / Re: "Falling" towards the earth

« on: June 07, 2009, 04:05:15 PM »

The way I understand it, the Earth, more specifically its base, is made up of a material that impedes the effects of the Dark Energy, but is itself susceptible to its accelerating force.  The biosphere we live on (in?) is a dome above this layer that does not feel the affects of the upward acceleration, so we feel the Earth rising up 'simulating' gravity.  The stars and other celestial bodies are made up of materials that follow this same principle, but most of the Earth, that which makes up the majority of the lithosphere and above is made of material that does not cause gravity (ie does not have its own gravitational pull).  As it is a consensus among FEers that most of the celestial bodies DO have a slight gravitational pull, there is likely a correlation between a material that causes gravity and absorbs the Dark Energy.  I'm not sure if this has been discussed, but if one WERE able to get to the moon in the FE model, standing on 'top' of it would likely be similar to standing on the Earth, ie the Moon itself would stop you from experiencing the 'upward' acceleration.

Well, that's perfect! That would explain everything xD
But ow do you know that all that you said above is true?

23

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Clarification on Gravity

« on: June 07, 2009, 07:59:39 AM »

Im pretty sure they call "gravity" the ficticous force, not gravitation.

Good point, my mistake. So then can someone answer me why gravitation doesn't occur on earth? Wouldn't that accelerate us towards earth in addition to the inertial force of FE's acceleration?

24

Flat Earth Debate / Re: "Falling" towards the earth

« on: June 07, 2009, 07:56:12 AM »

You should be accelerated at the same rate as the Earth, so you will appear to 'fly' parallel to the world.  This harks back to a post I started a while ago stating that space flight should be easier on a Flat Earth due to this mechanism.

I see. So let me guess, this magical "dark force" will accelerate the person who walked off the edge, as well as the Earth. This is actually significantly different than theories that I've heard from FE's. They say that the ice walls are necessary to hold all the water in
So let me get this straight, there's this "dark force" that ONLY acts on earth (because earth is the most special body in the universe, of course). It also acts on humans. But not stars, the sun, etc. (This is the part where he responds made-up with a "theory" that explains it, which is sooo scientific).

25

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: 'falling' off the edge

« on: June 07, 2009, 07:38:23 AM »

Well it's a complex situation. It is not even decisive whether or not there is an edge. I'm just brain storming here.

And I don't take too kindly your rhetoric downplaying my peers. Just because someone has a different view on something doesn't make them stupid. I am a FE'er myself.

When your view violates the laws of physics, and NONE of your arguments make any logical sense, then yes it does.

26

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Here's The Thing About Dark Energy and Gravity...

« on: June 06, 2009, 07:00:18 PM »

From the looks of this thread, here's the basic template of the FE argument:

1: RE: "If the earth is flat, then why (question A)?"
2: FE: "Because, (answer B)."
3: RE: "Why do you believe (answer B) to be true?"
4: FE: "Because, since the earth is flat, (answer B) must be true."
5. goto line 1

I always thought that it was impossible for a human to create a perfect circle...but I've been proven wrong by every FE that I've spoken to...

27

Flat Earth Debate / Re: "Falling" towards the earth

« on: June 06, 2009, 03:30:29 PM »

In our frame of reference it will, and as far as our observations are concerned that is all that matters.

So what you're saying is that if I walk off the edge of the Earth, I won't "fall", because I will no longer be in the FE frame of reference. Amirite?

28

Flat Earth Debate / Re: "Falling" towards the earth

« on: June 06, 2009, 02:32:46 PM »

This may be kind of off-topic, but it relates to the entire post. No amount of "dark energy" could possibly have been accelerating the earth at a constant velocity for this long. Like seriously gaiz, come on. You're assuming that the classical relationship of F = ma holds, but it DOESN'T. For speeds significantly smaller than the speed of light, then this is true. But if the earth has been accelerating for this long, then it is obviously going to be moving at speeds close to the speed of light. At that point, the amount of work that is being done by this "dark force" will not accelerate the earth at a constant rate.

Conclusion: special relativity disproves flat earth (big surprise there lol).

29

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Argument for flat earth with NO logical fallacies?

« on: June 06, 2009, 01:50:53 PM »

Well after several posts, I think that its safe to say that the answer to my original question is "no"...

30

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Argument for flat earth with NO logical fallacies?

« on: June 06, 2009, 01:40:02 PM »

Levee quite often quotes scripture as the basis for his FE assertions.

So what? Newton argued for this theories on a scientific basis as well as religious. Einstein kept mumbling something about how God does not play dice with the universe when speaking on quantum mechanics. Stephen Hawking has one-on-one with the Pope for scientific advice.

But its the scientific basis that made Newton's theories scientific laws, not the religious basis. Religious arguments for a theory are NOT proof of the theory. In fact, when it comes to making a reasonable argument, religious ones are pretty much useless.