1

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Firmament speculation

« on: December 12, 2012, 10:19:12 PM »

It is composed of air - largely a mixture of oxygen, nitrogen and carbon dioxide.

It doesn't come to an exact end - it definitely tapers off somewhere like 800 miles above the Earth. But most of its substance is contained within 100 miles of the planet.

Yes, it does move - it rotates with the earth, and besides this is made of air currents influenced by temperature fluctuations, etc.

It is colorless, but appears blue during the day due to the refraction of sunlight.

It does not have an inherent shape - it simply adheres to the Earth's surface.

2

Flat Earth Q&A / Cost of a fake space program

« on: December 12, 2012, 10:13:54 PM »

I was inspired to create this thread after reading this post by Tom Bishop:

I'm simply rebutting the absurd idea some people have that a fake space program would cost as much as a real one.

He is absolutely right about this.

A fake space program would cost trillions of dollars more.



That single slightly convincing frame of an imaginary planet (a favorite of FE'ers, I understand) comes from a movie that cost millions of dollars to make.

Being a graphics/VFX enthusiast, I don't buy for a second that a task force the size of the American population would be capable of the job, even if we HAD the methods and knowledge to do it (we don't).  But I will put that doubt aside for a moment -assuming we even could, countless hundreds of high res photographs, combined with countless hours of footage of our planet and other planets/celestial bodies in our solar system would be incalculably expensive to create.

3

Flat Earth General / Does it matter?

« on: September 12, 2012, 08:56:20 PM »

Something really puzzles me about the flat earth/round earth debates. I participated in them for a short time, but then immediately realized that it was useless. Nobody changes their mind. They come with their minds made up, and that's the end of the matter. I mean, has anybody here ever converted to either side?

But the real clincher is this - even if someone did change their mind, what would it accomplish? So, they come to the enlightenment that the earth is actually a sphere, or a plane - what does it change? Nothing, as far as I can tell - not practically.

And, if a FE'er says that he wants to conquer the lies, well - if the governments of our world are powerful and corrupt enough to pull off something so singularly colossal, what chance do you stand against them? And if they are indeed deceiving us, aren't they merely wasting their time, and in the end, aren't we, the deceived, the ones' with the final laughs?

While they vainly toil over endless fabrications, artistic productions and masterfully spun yarns of propaganda, if we are able to live life, what does it matter? What victory have they gained over us, and what have they gained to themselves, except wasted effort, and infamy down through the ages?

(None of this is to say that I wouldn't participate in further debate - if I did, it would be for the intellectual exercise. But I don't understand why people huff and puff and give themselves headaches - do they have any reason for it? I'm just wandering what it is everybody else hopes to accomplish.)

4

Flat Earth General / Re: earth flat

« on: February 12, 2012, 08:12:57 PM »

When I look out my window I can see a flat earth.

When I'm given a picture of a round earth from space... I didn't see that. NASA allegedly did.

First hand evidence > Second hand evidence

Yes, but once again, don't trust your eyes.

You are deceived by:

1. Perspective

2. By what makes sense to your brain

A normal human mind doesn't automatically conclude that the earth is round. Since perspective makes it seem flat, the automatic and natural assumption to make is that "the world is flat"!

But reality is never that simple and expected. It always turns out to be something odd and intriguing, but nothing you would ever guess (though it sometimes seems like we should have been able to).

I am not telling you that you have to trust the NASA images (though, they really do count for a lot). I AM telling you not to trust your eyes. You shouldn't. This is not to say that you shouldn't trust them at ALL. But when better instruments and methods can be employed which are more objective and less easily tricked than your eyes, you should give more weight to them.

In other words the refraction effect needs to adjust itself with regards to the distance the observer is looking across, otherwise the earth would not appear flat. Ridiculous.

Which implies that the Bedford level experiment has always worked every time.

However, it hasn't. (second paragraph)

(more)

I believe that these letters by Alfred Russel Wallace himself should be illuminating.

Anyways. Lets say I performed the Bedford Experiment, and I got results that seemed to indicate that the earth was flat. Guess what? I still wouldn't believe the earth was flat.

Why? Not because I am irrational and unscientific. It would rather assume that I had misinterpreted the data. This is because when you have a single experiment which contradicts practically ALL the other scientific data, you do not immediately jump to the conclusion that it is ALL the other scientific data which is false.

To do so is rash and illogical.

5

Flat Earth General / Re: earth flat

« on: February 09, 2012, 06:16:10 PM »

A picture of the Earth is not the Earth. If I see that the Earth appears to be flat, then the Earth appears to be flat. If I see a picture or a photo of a spherical object that is supposed to be the Earth, then that is all I see.

This whole discussion has literally already happened in this thread.

Fact of the matter is, things are not always what they immediately appear to be. That was my point.

It is true.

A photo can be distorted in photoshop.

What you see with your eyes is easily distorted as well. In matters of science, you shouldn't trust them anymore than you trust a photograph. The massive circumference of the earth causes it to seem flat to the observer.

6

Flat Earth General / Re: Convenient Flat Earth Experiments

« on: February 09, 2012, 06:12:49 PM »

@op

The earth's circumference is 24,901 mi. (40075 km)






What more needs to be said?

In any case, don't they flatten the ground so that it is completely level when they are doing construction work?

7

Flat Earth General / Re: earth flat

« on: February 09, 2012, 06:07:40 PM »

If you read the FAQ, pictures of a round earth can never be proof because they're all fake and *** and doctored.

Did you even read my post? Let me explain myself again:

If you [fe'ers] do not believe the earth is round because of what LOOK like pictures of a round earth, then do not tell us to believe that the earth is flat because of a horizon that LOOKS flat.

I am not SAYING that the picture IS proof of a round earth (although, what we have is extreme evidence). What I AM saying is that things are not always what they seem to be.

That picture, for example, looks like a picture of a round earth. A FE'er would say it is not.

The earth APPEARS to be flat from the ground. A RE'er would say it is not.

For further back-and-forthing on this very point, you can read onwards from my op.

8

Flat Earth General / Re: earth flat

« on: February 06, 2012, 05:20:50 PM »

But it is no more proof that the earth is flat than the fact that the earth appears flat. This is because the results of the bedford experiment can exist in a round earth.

how can they exist on a round earth if the bedford level experiment is showing zero curvature? over the required distance i may add

So, if you want to prove to your friend that the earth is flat, the bedford experiment cannot work.

Incorrect.

Here's why.

9

Flat Earth General / Re: earth flat

« on: February 05, 2012, 08:59:49 PM »

Problem with the bedford experiment is that it does not "prove" a flat earth.

Perhaps it can support a flat earth.

But it is no more proof that the earth is flat than the fact that the earth appears flat. This is because the results of the bedford experiment can exist in a round earth.

So, if you want to prove to your friend that the earth is flat, the bedford experiment cannot work.

10

Flat Earth General / Re: earth flat

« on: February 05, 2012, 07:09:47 PM »

But it remains that 35,000 feet is higher than Mt. Everest

It seems likely thatthe curvature can be detected at
elevations lower than 35; 000 ft,thus opening the door
to the possibility of seeing it from high mountains.

I don't think that either you nor I can very well argue this point either way, since this is speculation, and neither of us can go up to Mt. Everest and see.

In any case, it says that you can indeed see the curve in a plane. So that's the important thing, methinks.

11

Flat Earth General / Re: earth flat

« on: February 05, 2012, 06:53:43 PM »

Refraction is a copout.

Call it what you want, it's an explanation and it works. In other words, the bedford experiment isn't a problem for round earthers. It can be viewed as possible support for your case, but it isn't necessarily, since it's phenomena can work on a round earth.

everybody is aware of the picture provided. if that was accepted do you think this website would even exist?

No, I do not. And that is the point.

perhaps what you should be doing is explaining WHY the horizon looks flat and not curved at sea level over a (aprox) 5 mile plane.

Because, in short, the earth is huge. It's h-u-g-e.

And, the earth DOES looked curved from planes. I'm not specific about the height.

Where. I live in mexico for many years and see no curve anywhere. Where you see curve

Climb a tall mountain. Ride in a high altitude airplane. You'll see it. It won't be extremely obvious until about 60,000 feet, but you can still see it at much lower altitudes.

Close, but not quite. No mountain on Earth (including Everest) is tall enough to see the alleged curvature, and by all accounts 60,000 feet isn't when it becomes extremely visible, it's when it becomes visible at all.

Sources? I confess that I don't know about mountains, but you CAN see earth's curve from a plane.

You think i have plane in my back yard to go 60 thousand.

  No, I suppose not. But those who do can try it out.

It also provides video evidence of Naboo Starfighters at 60,000 feet.

Multiple, different and photorealistic videos uploaded by private users is hardly the same as identical videos from usually-realistic-but-sometimes-unconvincing movies which took years and many many professionals to make.

I seem to recall my sister bringing home pictures from an airplane flight that she took. I remember looking at them and thinking that the earth looked curved (and this was before I was debating any flat earthers). I might still have them somewhere.

12

Flat Earth General / Re: earth flat

« on: February 05, 2012, 06:37:43 PM »

everybody is aware of the picture provided. if that was accepted do you think this website would even exist?

No, I do not. And that is the point.

perhaps what you should be doing is explaining WHY the horizon looks flat and not curved at sea level over a (aprox) 5 mile plane.

Because, in short, the earth is huge. It's h-u-g-e.

And, the earth DOES looked curved from planes. I'm not specific about the height.

Where. I live in mexico for many years and see no curve anywhere. Where you see curve

Climb a tall mountain. Ride in a high altitude airplane. You'll see it. It won't be extremely obvious until about 60,000 feet, but you can still see it at much lower altitudes.

13

Flat Earth General / Re: earth flat

« on: February 05, 2012, 06:23:57 PM »

everybody is aware of the picture provided. if that was accepted do you think this website would even exist?

No, I do not. And that is the point.

perhaps what you should be doing is explaining WHY the horizon looks flat and not curved at sea level over a (aprox) 5 mile plane.

Because, in short, the earth is huge. It's h-u-g-e.

And, the earth DOES looked curved from planes. I'm not specific about the height.

14

Flat Earth General / Re: earth flat

« on: February 05, 2012, 05:55:38 PM »

Your 16 posts don't have anything to do with Raymondo.

Ah, fine. You have me there. Apologies for my haste.

15

Flat Earth General / Re: earth flat

« on: February 05, 2012, 05:42:20 PM »

I'm confident

Judging by your post history, I'm afraid I must disagree.

As for the Raymondo, try the Bedford Level Experiment.

That's fine. You're entitled to disagree.

And, as for the bedford level experiment, it has already been brought up.

Edit: I apologize. That clearly wasn't addressed to me.

16

Flat Earth General / Re: earth flat

« on: February 05, 2012, 05:22:30 PM »

He did not say the flatness proves anything. Seeing the flatness is the starting point.

If somebody is forced to the point of denial by an observation, then that observation must be 100% solid proof of the thing they are in denial of.

17

Flat Earth General / Re: Spreading FET, the Small Steps to a Glorious Future

« on: February 05, 2012, 05:15:12 PM »

Flat earth theory can't be taught without resorting to conspiracy and accusation. Conspiracy has no place in a school. Schools should teach facts. That NASA faked the moon landings isn't a fact. It is a conspiracy. A speculation.

18

Flat Earth General / Re: earth flat

« on: February 05, 2012, 05:10:44 PM »

The popular phrase, "it looks flat to me" used by many FE advocates stems from the employment of zeteticism in the process of making conclusions based upon inquiry and observation.  Being skeptic and finding things out for oneself through sound zetetic inquiry and observation.  There have been many experiments conducted which demonstrate the abscence of said curvature.

Equally many (and many many many more) have proved the earth's curvature, and enough people have destroyed the claims of flat earther's experiments.

You speak some gallant words about these "zetecists", but from what I can see, they aren't skeptic at all.
What they do (and this is not anger; this is the truth) is find the data which supports what they believe about the earth, and throw everything away or dismiss them with half baked speculations and accusations.

Are you familiar with the allegations of those later results?

No, but of course I didn't assume that the debate was over. Of course flat earthers disagree with the results. Otherwise there wouldn't be anymore flat earthers.

No one says that "it looks flat to me" proves anything.

Um, yes, somebody does. Hence why all this is happening.

19

Flat Earth General / Re: earth flat

« on: February 05, 2012, 05:02:24 PM »

Based upon the alleged circumference,  visible curvature should not be a problem at many vantage points.  The bedford canal experiments demonstrate the abscence of curvature quite well.  Perhaps you should review the notes yourself.  That book has changed many lives.

Yes, visible curvature is no problem at many vantage points.

And I suggest you read about that experiment. It's an old one, and has been explained without any problems.

20

Flat Earth General / Re: earth flat

« on: February 05, 2012, 04:55:40 PM »

Maybe you could even debate the flat side

I'm confident enough not to try and invalidate every single thing that flat earthers say. When they say, for example, that pictures do not prove a round earth, they are quite correct. That is sound logic, and good science.

I am only trying to show them that their own logic defeats what they say. If appearances do not prove a round earth, neither do they prove a flat one.

21

Flat Earth General / Re: earth flat

« on: February 05, 2012, 04:43:15 PM »

you dont get photoshoped vision though either

No, but the point is, appearance is not valid proof. The fact that it appears to be a picture of earth does not prove that it is one. The fact that it appears to be a picture of naboo does not prove that it is one.

And some real life examples:

-The fact that matter appears to be continuous does not mean it is continuous. It isn't. It's made of atoms and molecules.

-The fact that the sky appears to be blue does not mean that it is blue. It isn't. It's made of transparent gas which is colored blue by sun rays.

Images one posts on the internet can be manipulated. It's not the same as viewing the horizon with your eyes. Your argument is silly. 

Yes. Yes, they can. And your senses can be easily distorted by perspective.

The entire point is, things aren't always what they appear to be. There are factors at play that can trick you. Like photoshop. Or, in the case of a round earth, a very very large circumference which makes it appear flat to the observer.

You are easily insulted.

I am especially insulted when people twist what I say, and I won't stand for it. Debate is meaningless if people debate an imaginary person.

22

Flat Earth General / Re: earth flat

« on: February 05, 2012, 04:33:53 PM »

What you say I said:

It's rude of me to post in a thread on a forum I'm a member of

What I said:

It's rather rude of you to jump in and take sides without even knowing what is going on.

You are already destroying your credibility by twisting my words...

Angry noobs are so fun

...and insulting me.

I just proved Naboo is round!

Of course you did not. Because that's a fake picture. After all, like I said in my last post (which you very obviously read):

appearances can be deceiving.

Now, let me give this one last shot:

If a picture cannot prove that earth is round, since it is not really a picture of a round earth (but only looks like one), then neither can the fact that the earth looks flat prove that it is actually flat.

Appearances can be deceiving.

23

Flat Earth General / Re: earth flat

« on: February 05, 2012, 04:15:17 PM »

No, they don't say "it just LOOKS that way" when one of you posts a picture as proof. You should really lurk moar.... Or I could just tell you that pictures aren't proof, and you should read the FAQs.

No, YOU need to pay attention.

It's rather rude of you to jump in and take sides without even knowing what is going on. Allow me to share with you what has been taking place on this thread.

1:

How can I prove to brother that earth is flat because I tell him and he call me idiot.

2:

Tell him to look to the horizon and see the flatness.

So. According to this flat earther, the fact that earth appears to be flat is enough to prove that it is flat.

However, I have something that looks uncannily like a picture of a round earth. Therefore, by this flat earthers same reasoning, I must really have a picture of a round earth since it looks like one.

Now, when round earthers like I post pictures of a round earth, flat earthers tend to say that "Oh no! That isn't really a picture of a round earth. That is simply a fake picture that LOOKS like a round earth."

So then, clearly, flat earthers realize that appearances can be deceiving.

24

Flat Earth General / Re: earth flat

« on: February 05, 2012, 03:53:00 PM »

It is indeed a picture of a round earth. Your point?

My point is, it certainly looks like a picture of a round earth (it most certainly IS one). However, he, and many other FE'ers believe it is not. It just LOOKS that way, say they. So, clearly then, the argument that "it looks that way, and so it must be" cannot be honestly used by a FE'er. Which he is using in this thread, to say that the earth is flat. Since it looks that way. Which it does. But it's still round.

25

Flat Earth General / Re: earth flat

« on: February 05, 2012, 02:37:19 PM »

He is obviously in denial. Your brother can not refute your claims so he simply mocks you. Give it time and the truth will unfold to him.

Hello. Round earther here.

I wake up every day and see an earth which extends to the horizon. It looks just as flat to me as it does to you (actually, not really, since I have a lot of hills and ridges, but you get my point).

And guess what? I'm not in "denial". I can stare you in the eye, and say fifty times over that "The earth looks flat. The earth looks flat. The earth looks flat. The earth looks flat." with complete and utter confidence and security that it is, in fact, round.


You directly conflict yourself when you say that since the earth looks flat, it must therefore be flat.

Because,

If you intend to follow your logic that "it looks that way, and so it must be", then you must admit that this is a picture of a round earth.

26

Flat Earth Debate / Re: 32 mile sun - energy problem?

« on: February 04, 2012, 05:29:54 PM »

It is very close to the earth's surface, and therefore does not need to output as much energy per square inch to heat it, even being 32 miles in diameter.

The fact is, YOUR sun needs to give off a tremendous amount of energy. Enough to fuel the entire earth for the entirety of its existence.

Your sun is a neonate. So, I don't care if it's smooching the earth. The question remains: how does it manage to output this tremendous amount of energy at all, when it is 44.5 times smaller than Pluto??

If you are going to suggest that the sun receives it's energy from some mysterious source and does not, in fact, burn, then the matter is of no relevance to you. If, however, you concede that it does, I think we have a problem.

27

Flat Earth Debate / 32 mile sun - energy problem?

« on: February 04, 2012, 04:21:26 PM »

Yeah, I don't know if this has been brought up before, but I think that one of the big problems with a 32 mile sun is the fact that practically all the energy on earth (excluding some benign biochemical reactions) comes from the sun.

Everyone knows how it works. Plants grow by converting carbon dioxide into food by using energy from the sun (photosynthesis). Primary consumers eat these producers, secondary consumers eat primary consumers, and humans (tertiary consumers) consume all trophic levels. Thus, all living things live off of the sun's energy.

In addition to this, when we burn anything that is organic, or once was organic (like oil and coal) we are burning material that was once alive, and therefore the energy that we get from burning fossil fuels ultimately comes from the sun as well.

As I understand it, The earth receives...wait for it...274 million gigawatt-years of energy from the sun.

And it's thirty-two miles? Seriously? Does all this energy consumption not pose a problem to the idea that we have a positively dinky sun?

28

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Several questions

« on: February 04, 2012, 03:52:58 PM »

There are no pictures of the true ice wall (It exists beyond the lit area of the sun). There are, however, pictures of its smaller siblings lined across the ocean.

Okay, fine. There aren't any pictures of your ice wall and, from what I gather, nobody has seen it. Really, I'm wondering why. Why has such a massive thing gone unrecorded and unsighted by all the explorers of humankind's history? Especially nowadays, in the age of flight and the internet. Even if there were loons who were out to deceive us all, what about the rest of our race? So please, tell me why you think it exists. And, what exactly is that picture you posted? I know what you say it is, but what would do I know it as? So I can know exactly what it is I am looking at.

However, even over extreme distances there is zero curvature. You do not find that the least bit odd?

I wouldn't just find that odd, I would find it ludicrous. I would have to do one of two things:

a. Assume that I wrongly interpreted the data.
b. Assume a flat earth.

Clearly, you have gone with choice b. I, however, have neither gone with 'a' nor 'b'. Not because I am indecisive, but because no data has been presented to me which even forces me to choose one or the other. As it stands, I currently see nothing wrong with a round earth. By what methods, instruments, and procedures have people been able to show that there is zero noticeable curvature on the earth?

I don't understand your water experiment. What showed the experimenters that there was no curvature? Did they use an instrument, or did it seem that way to their eyes? Did they use special markers? Aerial cameras? Sensors? I need something.

And now, if I am not wearying you, I have a new question which came to my mind just now. What about satellite imagery? Is it all faked? Google earth is supposedly constructed out of satellite imagery, and it all fits perfectly with a round earth. Would that work if the world were actually flat? Or is some amazing artist behind all of it? All 510,072,000 square kilometers of it?

NASA faked the moon landing, I don't think they have a problem with continuing to spew out round earth "photos."

Oh, well, if NASA faked the moon landing, then no, I wouldn't doubt that they would keep spreading lies. But no one has convinced me that they have. I mean, I've heard all kinds of arguments in the past, but they are all blown out of the water. At least, the one's I've heard.

1. Why don't you think the Moon Landings happened?
2. How does NASA produce all these images and videos, and some smart cookie hasn't found some inconsistency to blow their cover?

29

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Several questions

« on: February 04, 2012, 03:23:52 PM »

If you manage to navigate miles of icy terrain and climb an ice wall that makes Mt. Everest look like a small hill, yes, I suppose you could.

Okay, whoa, whoa. Back up. I've never heard of this wall. What is it called? If nobody has ever been there, how do you know it exists? And, if it is really that huge, why has no one seen it or taken a picture of it? Is it that far away?

The earth is not round. That is what is wrong with a round earth.

Let me revise my question: What scientific data is violated by the idea of a round earth? You weren't born in a world of people who believe that the earth is flat. Regardless of what they believe, any sensible person here can admit that there is a general popular consensus that the earth is round. For you to go against that majority, surely there must be some good reasons why you object to the idea of a round earth? I want to hear them.

I suggest measuring the water level of a large still body of water. It will remain flat over long distances, assuming it has no swell due to tides.

But how does this suggest that the earth is flat? The whole reason people used to believe that the earth was flat was for this very reason. That the earth appears to be flat. But the idea of a spherical earth says that the earth is so massive, we don't notice its curvature, even over significant distances.

This is why the earth is depicted as round in NASA moon landing photos but not high-altitude photographs.

But maybe the photos aren't faked and the earth is really round. That's what I've always thought. Why couldn't this be the case?

as these hights were not reached during the 19th centuary it was hard to determine the true shape of the earth with the technology available at the time.

But we can now. And, as I understand it, from these heights, it does seem like the earth is round (objects visible that are invisible at ground level, that sort of thing).


Thanks to the rest of you for your resources. 

30

Flat Earth Q&A / Several questions

« on: February 03, 2012, 08:53:50 PM »

Yeah, I've got a whole bunch of questions. I mean, so much of science is tied to the premise that the earth is round. Mind you, I don't for a second think it could be flat. But help me to understand what you believe! The simple questions must be addressed before the more complex ones.

1. Can I walk off the earth? I understand that there is some theory to explain how circumnavigation works on a flat earth. Good and well, but can I  actually reach the edge? What happens if I try? Why hasn't anybody done it? There aren't any actual records of it, unless you count mythology I suppose.

2.Why doesn't the sea drain? I mean, what boundary keeps it locked onto the flat surface of the earth which keeps it from drifting into space?

3. What about all the other planets and celestial bodies, which anybody can view from telescopes? Are they flat too? They certainly don't seem flat, and we can even see them rotating. If none of them are flat, then why must we be flat?

4.What about gravity? As I understand it, Einstein's theory depends on the mass of an object to distort spacetime. Was Gravity Probe B a hoax? How does gravity work on a flat earth? Is it evenly distributed?

5.What's wrong with a round earth? I mean, why go to the trouble of defending a flat earth when there are so many reasons to believe that it is round?

6.Besides seeming flat to an observer, what indicates a flat earth? What experiments can I do to show that the earth is flat?

7.How in the WORLD is this conspiracy being kept quiet!? Even watergate got out, and it was a pretty dinky conspiracy compared to the nations fabricating a round world.


I understand if any of you can't answer all of these, since there's a lot of them. Just choose one or two if you want. I prefer quality to quantity.

EDIT: Clearly, I did not review your FAQ. Please ignore the questions that are already addressed there. I apologize.