Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Roy

Pages: [1]
I'm taking a plane ride to Florida in a few days. If I get a window seat and the sky is clear I'll post some pictures.

I was suggesting photos from altitudes higher than commercial aircraft, maybe something like this:, but while you're on your trip be sure to note the travel time. The FE model would seem to produce ridiculous travel times in locations away from the equator.

Flat Earth Q&A / Why not take your own high altitude pictures of Earth?
« on: August 24, 2013, 06:00:17 AM »
I've seen a lot of mentions of pictures showing the curvature of the Earth being faked. If you're truly passionate about this conspiracy why not easily tackle it by taking your own photos or, better yet, video? The materials needed wouldn't be too expensive; though I'd argue no price is too expensive to prove a point like this.

All you'd need is a proper balloon, GoPro, antenna, and some sort of insulated housing. High school kids do it for science fairs. They tend not to get images of an infinite Earth or any sort of ice wall.

(Also, but unrelated, is this entire site just designed to troll people? Am I just not in on the joke?)

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Where does the FET map come from?
« on: June 05, 2013, 03:48:57 PM »
Is there any source for the established distances between places that FE theorists believe to be accurate or are they all lies? I just happened to be traveling in the southern hemisphere and arrived at my destination at the predicted time based on my speed and the known distance traveled. Did I black out during the trip and cover double the distance? Who are we to believe about these distances? Surely every single measurement of the distance from Perth to Sydney (or Perth to Madagascar) isn't wrong.

Scientific consensus suggests that the Universe began as a singularity some 13.8 billion years ago that experienced rapid expansion and cooling that eventually led to the creation of the various sub atomic particles, then atoms, and eventually clouds of these particles that formed the stars which in turn synthesized other elements. Our planet, some 4.5 billion years ago, was formed through accretion around one such star.

Does FET generally believe the same thing or is there a different scientific explanation for the beginning of the Universe and formation of Earth?

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: I Have Several Questions
« on: May 21, 2013, 06:40:09 PM »
Hello, Roy!

I am happy to report that the earth is flat. Now to your questions.

1. Various books such as are linked from the Library and mentioned in different threads report that ship travel distances in the southern regions turn out to be too long, for the earth to be the sphere commonly believed. These literary sources are rather old. I don't know where to find new info. But port to port travel in the southern region is not consistent with spherical earth theory, according to that literature.

2. A study published in Lancet, in the 1840s I believe, proved that concentrated moonlight was incapable of raising a thermometer's reading. How could that be? If moonlight is reflected sunlight, surely a concentration should be able to raise a thermometer's reading.

3. Most scientists are uninvolved. Like 99% of humanity, they have no reason to base any decisions based on sphericity or flatness. Astronomy is largely an imaginary field, using calculations based on metaphysical assumptions.

4. Satellites may well go up and stay up. However, I have yet to see any evidence of circumpolar navigation, which is claimed for satellites. I also have yet to see any evidence of traffic crossing Antarctica. Traveling to the edge of it, and a ways into it, won't suffice.

5. Why bother? Because there are philosophical implications, to the nature of reality, and to the nature of thought itself.

1. So you have some admittedly old, and probably out of date seeing as how they measure ship time, books that refute the distances predicted by a round Earth. Is there anything that uses modern measuring practices? What about the fact that people live in the southern hemisphere and can tell us how long it takes to travel, say, from the east to west coast of Australia? What about when I'm flying in the Southern Hemisphere and the arrival and departure times are accurate based on flight speed and distance covered?

2. An article from the early half of the 19th century? Is there any modern science using modern methodology?

3. Astronomy is predictive though and has provided many insights into our universe. They don't use metaphysical assumptions, they use the laws of physics, empirical observation, and a rigorous scientific methodology. (I know several people in this field.)

4. If FET is so credible why hasn't any one government/company/wealthy benefactor sent someone out to examine the edge of our planet? Surely this would be the kind of major scientific endeavor that unites countries; such as the ISS of LHC. Isn't the best explanation that we know what Antarctica looks like and it's not an infinite ice wall?

5. I point to what I just said above here. What is the motivation of this vast cover-up? What do the world's power stand to gain in convincing us that the Earth is round? Is faith in FET and conspiracy more credible that the entirety of the scientific community? Wouldn't at least one prominent scientist say something to address these philosophical implications?

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: I Have Several Questions
« on: May 19, 2013, 05:06:31 PM »
Lolflatdisc, I wish there was a way to "like" comments. Well done. Hopefully we get some responses. Responses other than "1. Deceive world about space travel, gravity, and distance between points on the globe, 2. ? ? ? ?, 3. Profit".

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: I Have Several Questions
« on: May 19, 2013, 02:54:08 PM »
To the fifth point I completely understand the point of advocating things that you believe to be true, but when it comes to matters of science there has to be some substance. Science doesn't just hope at things and then endorse them. The community endorses a theory to be true but is willing to reject it for a new theory when new science supports a better explanation. This has happened with the idea of a flat earth, but for some reason proponents hold on to the theory with what I've chosen to describe as faith. I use the term faith because confidence in FET is substantiated with little scientific proof.

To the fourth, I don't call everything that I disagree with stupid and resent the implication. I called it junk science because it promotes the idea of aether and bastardizes dark energy, which hypothetically is responsible for the acceleration of the expansion of the universe, not that on Earth. Actual gravitation, and the laws and constants associated with it, provide clear and accurate predictions. As such, universal acceleration is not "nearly as credible as the theory of gravity".

To the third, I've spent a great deal of time searching this site the last few days and the conspiracies are wildly unsubstantiated and speculative. There is no hard evidence of a great cover-up and any possible motivations for the conspiracy make little to no sense to me. I would actually appreciate more information here. I'm not being close-minded, you are offering a paradigm shifting theory that the entire scientific community is supposedly covering up and I require very specific and unquestionable evidence to give this idea any sort of credence; as should any skeptic.

To the second, you said "...many endorse FET because the evidence in favor outweighs the evidence against.", but the evidence for, again, is largely refuted science. The Bedford Experiment, for example, is easily repeated and has been debunked by many. I can't call it anything other than junk science if the scientific community does the same. In fact, I have access to a large straight drainage canal and may just perform the experiment myself soon, but I suppose that would just be another "primitive experiment". FET simply does NOT have as much evidence in its favor than it does against.

And finally, to my first point, it's not "my" Mercator map because it's not a map; it is a useful projection of the earth that admittedly distorts the size of many locations near the poles. The map offered by FE theorists, however, does not admit to its flaws and suggests grossly inflated distances between locations in the southern hemisphere, distances that are easily proven false. Because I may need a search engine to find the dimensions of Australia doesn't make them any less real. If that were the case then all search engines would be entirely useless. The Earth is not too large to map because we have unless,I suppose, cartographers are also in on the hoax.

In regards to LORAN, I acknowledge that it was used, but it's not used anymore. I never asked for "FETs explanation for something that RET explains with satellites". I wanted to know how you explain how you believe GPS works because it isn't done by LORAN; this is simply a fact. I understand that LORAN does work, but GPS works better.

A picture of Antarctica that proves the Earth is round? Well I can show you a picture of Antarctica that proves it isn't a giant wall of ice that circles our entire planet. Do you have any that do?

You claim that I'm just saying "I'm right. You're wrong", but I have a legitimate reason for that. What I'm postulating is within the bounds of current knowledge while FET is based around medieval thought, conspiracy theories, and science which does not stand to much scrutiny. As such, I believe that the burden is on you to provide solid evidence for a theory that has little to no support. For FET to gain any sort of believably you have to offer something other than speculation and you have to be willing to throw out the theory if the evidence doesn't support it.

I'm a skeptic. I don't believe in most conspiracy theories because the little support that they have is typically speculative at best. I am legitimately interested in FET theory, but you have to look at it from my perspective. If I proposed that the path from your house to your mailbox were double its actual length you'd probably be a bit confused. You'd want to now why I believed this and you'd want some evidence. You could say "Let's measure it." and you'd likely be confused, like user Scintific Method, when I suggested that your measurement was inconsistent even though you live there.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: I Have Several Questions
« on: May 19, 2013, 12:30:04 PM »
Seeing as I'm not getting any sort of real or reasonable answers

Oh, I guess I didn't just give you a thorough, sincere explanation to all of your frequently asked questions. My bad.
how can you dispute distances between places in the southern hemisphere?

I'm still waiting for you to counter my explanation. You haven't said anything other than "I could do a primitive experiment to roughly calculate distances", but you haven't. And why does Australia have to be lying? Could they not simply be wrong? Humans have been wrong on a much higher scale than determining the width of a massive continent.

You didn't provide thorough answers to my "frequently asked questions". I'm new so I hoped someone would jump at the opportunity to educate me. Instead, you offered an appeal to faith to answer my fifth question, junk science for the fourth, no answer to the third, pseudo science to the second, and for my first, and probably most important question, when I provided answers to your questions you've suggested that the entire population of a country doesn't know its dimensions. How, in any possible way, does that make more sense than the Earth being round? Are we honestly supposed to believe that it's more likely that nobody knows the distance between any two points in the southern hemisphere than the possibility that we live on a round Earth?

You say "...many endorse FET because the evidence in favor outweighs the evidence against", but the evidence that you provide is at best flawed and at worst delusional. The evidence for a round Earth, a phrase I can't believe that I typed, is seemingly incontrovertible. We know the distance between any two locations with certainty. We use GPS satellites for navigation, not LORAN. We have pictures of Antarctica. Gravity you know... works! Scientific skepticism rejects pseudoscience and embraces a proper methodology; a methodology completely absent from your answers. My "primitive experiment" of using time and speed to calculate distance seems a lot more substantial than "If you believe something to be true or just, that in itself is reason enough to endorse it."

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: I Have Several Questions
« on: May 18, 2013, 02:05:46 PM »
Seeing as I'm not getting any sort of real or reasonable answers I'm forced to wonder if this is just all based on faith. Is this movement blindly motivated by religion? Otherwise, how can you dispute distances between places in the southern hemisphere?

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: I Have Several Questions
« on: May 17, 2013, 10:08:42 AM »
I feel like I did a good job of coming out of the gate strong! Still waiting for answers about the distance between points in the southern hemisphere and objects in orbit.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: I Have Several Questions
« on: May 16, 2013, 09:54:56 PM »

1. As one would expect, skepticism is an abundant trait among those that believe in a flat earth. To answer your first question simply, I am skeptical: skeptical of the established distances, skeptical of the vailidity of RE maps, etc. This may seem irrational, but first answer this. What caused you to ask this question in the first place? Did you measure the continental distances in the southern hemisphere? Do you know without a doubt the exact distance between the eastmost and westmost points in Australia? Most likely, the answer is no. Yet you still raise this question. You raise it because you were told what those distances were. That does not necessarily make it true.

My biggest problem here is that I've flown from various places in the southern hemisphere to other such locations and I know how long it took and how fast I was traveling, information from which I can obtain the distance. Secondly, I highly doubt that the nation of Australia would lie to us about the distance between its easternmost and westernmost points. Surely an Australian subscribing to your theory could test this.

I too am a skeptic so it strikes me as odd that a skeptic would say "If you believe something to be true or just, that in itself is reason enough to endorse it." That seems to fly in the face of skepticism and instead endorse faith. A skeptic doesn't say that the evidence for far outweighs the evidence against when the entire scientific community denies such a theory. Is there any hard scientific evidence and can someone explain the distance problem to me?

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: I Have Several Questions
« on: May 16, 2013, 07:19:25 PM »
Welcome.  I would first suggest that you do a bit more searching and go over the FAQ and the wiki, as all of these questions have been addressed.  If you can't find an answer or are looking for more information, myself and others are happy to help.

Let's suppose that I couldn't find answers to some of my questions on the wiki. I'm especially interested in information about the distance between locations in the southern hemisphere and objects in orbit.

Flat Earth Q&A / I Have Several Questions
« on: May 16, 2013, 05:34:35 PM »
Hey everyone! I just recently became aware that this organization existed and it left me scratching my head quite a bit. I have several questions, and hopefully you can clear some things up about your beliefs.

1. If the Earth is flat then why are the distances between locations in the southern hemisphere not much larger than they actually are? For instance, a flight from southern Chile to eastern Australia should be mush longer than it is on a spherical Earth.

2. What science is there to back up this claim? You can't just list one obscure, non-reviewed person with little to no credentials. The spherical model is endorsed by all of science and is paramount for a great deal of it.

3. What do scientists stand to gain from covering this up? Are they just doing it because it fits with their expectations? Why then, don't people new to astronomy or other branches of science speak up? Is this all just based on one huge conspiracy theory?

4. We have satellites in orbit and the ISS. You use cell phones, GPS or cable television; what sort of force, other than the gravity of our spherical Earth, allows this.

5. You like to use "empirical obsevation", but we know that the south pole isn't a giant wall of ice. I haven't been there, but you haven't been in orbit. What do you hope to get out of this? What's the endgame? Why bother with endorsing this theory?

Thanks in advance. I'm legitimately interested in your answers so I hope that this didn't come off as too antagonistic.

Pages: [1]