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 - KristaGurl

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
1
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Magnetic Field in Flat Earth Theory
« on: August 21, 2012, 01:44:24 PM »
And yet, that's two people that have accused me of supporting Flat Earth, when in fact the exact opposite is true, and you would know this, if you had bothered to read any of my other posts anywhere else on these forums.

I understand... you were playing devil's advocate, you're a RE'er... yada yada yada.

You asked a question, I answered it.  That's all that happened.

2
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Magnetic Field in Flat Earth Theory
« on: August 21, 2012, 01:11:06 PM »
If the Earth is flat, how is our magnetic field generated?

In the Round Earth model, the magnetic field is created by the motion of the Earth's molten iron outer core around the solid nickel-iron alloy inner core.

So how exactly would this be generated in a flat disc, or whatever the popular flat Earth model is? Also, how would a compass work in this model? If you travel south long enough on a spherical Earth, eventually you'd be going north. Where in a flat Earth, this wouldn't be the case.

How do you know what the core is made of?

Really?

http://www.ehow.com/how-does_4566482_we-what-earths-core-made.html

The REAL question is, how do YOU know that the magnetic fields are generated by magical little leprechauns with unicorns and wizards or whatever goofy junk you guys make up to circumstantially defend preconceived claims?  Remember, YOU are the Flat Earth guys.  It should be your jobs to promote Flat Earth theory and not debunk Round Earth theory.  If you prove Flat Earth theory, it will, in turn, disprove Round Earth theory.  So, why don't you guys ever just stay on topic and show us PROOF of the stuff you guys are saying?  I don't want you guys to disprove that the core is made of iron, I want you to PROVE that the core is made of whatever goofy garbage you say it is.

Sweet Jesus, did you not read the post I made after that one?

You asked a question, I answered it.

3
Alright, so the Soviet Union is "in on it" too.

Obvious trolls are obvious.

Why do you troll your own site though? Isn't that borderline pathetic?

It's so stupid!  These people...  What do you think the odds are that the Soviet Union and the United States... during the cold war... agreed on being a part of a conspiracy to keep people believing the earth is round when it's actually flat?  How in the bloody freak does that make ANY sense on ANY planet in ANY dimension?  lol

4
So, you have no idea of what aether is.  Good to know.

Do you have a specific problem with my description?

Yes.  You calling it a "description" for starters.  Perhaps you should start with the traditional definition of aether and go from there.  But also remember that aether goes back to the ancient Greeks and we all know how reliable they were.

Seems like you should have read the description for yourself.

Quote
analogous to the air breathed by mortals

The point of contention between my description and the actual description of aether is non-existent. You're trying to be condescending and failing at it yet again. You're getting too old for this, Markjo, you're not even good at it anymore.

Your replies just don't make any sense.  They're typical FE comments.

RE'er: If the world is flat, why does the sun disappear over the horizon?
FE'er: Well, stupid, if you would have read the FAQ or thumbed through the pages and pages of 4-year-old forum posts, you would know about the magical wolf gods that control the Aether in the graviton spectaculation.  That merges with the universal accelerator to launch space shrimp at your mom.
RE'er: Do you have any proof of any of this?
FE'er: Well, all you have to do is look at the sky!  Is it blue???  Oh, I guess to a round earther, the sky looks green because y'all are stupid faces!
RE'er: This doesn't make any sense.
FE'er: It isn't my problem that you're too much of a stupid-face to know what we're talking about, stupid stupid!  Why are you so stupid, you doo doo head??? 

5
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Magnetic Field in Flat Earth Theory
« on: August 21, 2012, 12:22:18 PM »
If the Earth is flat, how is our magnetic field generated?

In the Round Earth model, the magnetic field is created by the motion of the Earth's molten iron outer core around the solid nickel-iron alloy inner core.

So how exactly would this be generated in a flat disc, or whatever the popular flat Earth model is? Also, how would a compass work in this model? If you travel south long enough on a spherical Earth, eventually you'd be going north. Where in a flat Earth, this wouldn't be the case.

How do you know what the core is made of?

Really?

http://www.ehow.com/how-does_4566482_we-what-earths-core-made.html

The REAL question is, how do YOU know that the magnetic fields are generated by magical little leprechauns with unicorns and wizards or whatever goofy junk you guys make up to circumstantially defend preconceived claims?  Remember, YOU are the Flat Earth guys.  It should be your jobs to promote Flat Earth theory and not debunk Round Earth theory.  If you prove Flat Earth theory, it will, in turn, disprove Round Earth theory.  So, why don't you guys ever just stay on topic and show us PROOF of the stuff you guys are saying?  I don't want you guys to disprove that the core is made of iron, I want you to PROVE that the core is made of whatever goofy garbage you say it is.

6
Flat Earth Debate / Priority of Perception
« on: August 21, 2012, 12:08:49 PM »
I have a question...

In the FAQ, it says that you believe the earth is flat because it looks that way up close.  Okay, fair enough.

When I look off into the horizon at sunset or sunrise, and I see the sun straight ahead, it looks to me like I'm looking at the sun while half of it is on the other side of the Earth.

My contention is that the earth looks flat because you're so close to such a large mass, it only looks flat. 

Your contention is that when I look at the sun, my field of vision is bending upwards, so I'm actually looking at the sun above me while it appears to be ahead of me.

Let's pretend like your contention makes as much sense as mine for a second.  If they were, what makes your perception right and my perception wrong?  If the perception that the sun is in front of me is wrong, how can you conclude that the earth is flat, in the face of all the evidence otherwise, that the earth is flat because "it appears to be up close?"

7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Explanation of FE gravity requested
« on: August 21, 2012, 10:32:09 AM »
What about the unknown, unseen universal accelerator that pushes the sun, moon and other celestial objects.  This UA is every bit (if not more) mysterious than gravity.

Distinct difference. I make no claim for what pushes the earth. I can see it rise up directly, but I do not see the cause behind it. RE'ers make direct positive claims for gravity, namely that it exists as sub-atomic gravitation messenger particles or a bending of space depending on who you talk to.

Do you or do you not contend that the same mysterious force that accelerates the flat earth also accelerates the celestial objects (hence the term "universal" acceleration)?  If so, then you are invoking an invisible, magical force that has no better explanation than gravity.

...and hasn't been proven.

8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Explanation of FE gravity requested
« on: August 21, 2012, 09:07:40 AM »
Correct. We've seen viruses. That's direct evidence of their existence. We have not seen direct evidence of gravitons/bending space, therefore the germ analogy was bunk. I didn't propose that analogy. Please follow along with the thread.

You said, "We can see germs in a microscope and waves in the double-slit experiment. Not so with gravitation or bending space -- they have yet to be seen or detected. They are entirely undiscovered and mysterious in science."  Perhaps in Flat Earth Language that means something else, but I interpret that as meaning, "we can see germs but not gravity, and that is evidence that germs exist and gravity doesn't."

Quote
RET invokes a bending of space/gravitons to explain gravity.

Bending of space.  FET invokes a bending of light to explain why you see the sun straight ahead when it should never be on a Flat Earth.  Nonetheless, disproving RET doesn't prove FET.  FET isn't called "Earth Not Round Theory," it's called "Flat Earth Theory."  So, it seems that your job should be proving the Earth is FLAT.  Why do you insist on first proving the Earth is not round?  If you prove it's flat, you will inherently prove it isn't round.  So, whatever it is you mean by "bending of gravitons (whatever the hell a graviton is)," that does nothing to prove FET.

Quote
I make no claim for what moves the earth. I can only say that it moves.
That's convenient... If I cared just an iota more, I would actually search the forum for a quote where you attribute gravity (or the supposed illusion thereof) to a Universal Accelerator.

Quote
Gravity is below the earth?  ???
Okay, we'll go with that.  I mean, gravity isn't a "thing." So, it isn't anywhere.  Just like, inertia isn't a thing, but it is a force that does exist.  It isn't caused by inertiatons, and not being able to "see" microbes that cause inertia doesn't mean that inertia doesn't exist.  I guess, I was trying to make a comparison between the force that gravity and/or a UA causes.  And, in an attempt to use language that you might relate to, I eluded to it being under the earth.
 
Quote
According to QM there are.
No it doesn't.  Some quantum physicists use hypothetical gravitons to make gravity jive with the idea of QM.  But, it doesn't mean that "gravitons" are some kind of legitimate, widely accepted explanation for how gravity works.  Gravitons (imho) don't exist any more than space being filled with Ether.  Stop picking and choosing which math you're going to follow that proves your theory.

Quote
There is no evidence that gravity is the cause for the attraction seen in the heavens. There are several other phenomenons which can attract.
"The Heavens."  See what I mean, people?  There is tons and TONS of evidence that gravity is the cause for these things.  Space craft we send to "the heavens" to observe these things are VERY MUCH based on the gravitational pull of other objects.  We have it down to so much of a science that the window of opportunity to reach distant objects relies on highly percise calculations that rely on a very deep understanding of how gravity works.  The accuracy of these calculations provides SOLID proof of the validity of this understanding.  But again, even if we give you the benefit of the doubt that gravity isn't real, there is CERTAINLY no evidence that anything else is causing the way celestial bodies behave, and this in no way provides ANY evidence that the world is flat.

9
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Spooky stuff
« on: August 21, 2012, 06:37:55 AM »
Archibald has since admitted to being a troll and said he was leaving the forums for good.  He also posted some pictures of his gross mug.  It was gross.

Oh, damn.  Because, I thought that these guys didn't want people asking questions that had been asked in previous forums... so, I tried to go to an old forum full of people who don't exist anymore.

10
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What is the radius of the FE Earth model?
« on: August 21, 2012, 06:35:41 AM »
And btw... how in the bloody freak can they not know the diameter of the earth, but they can say with certainty that the moon and sun are 32 miles across.

We can see the sun and moon in their entirety.  Not so the Earth.

Not that I claim with certainty that the moon and sun are 32 miles across, but just to point out that there's no hole in the logic here.

If the sun and moon were round, you wouldn't be able to see them in their entirety, could you?

Besides... how do you determine the distance between the sun and moon?  Because... that is also incorrect.  When you use an incorrect measurement in an equation, the product of that equation is also incorrect. 

11
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Explanation of FE gravity requested
« on: August 21, 2012, 06:15:09 AM »
We can see germs in a microscope and waves in the double-slit experiment. Not so with gravitation or bending space -- they have yet to be seen or detected. They are entirely undiscovered and mysterious in science.

Let's talk about the difference here... Virus' are actual THINGS you can see in a microscope.  Gravity isn't caused by invisible particles in the air that haven't been detected, it's caused by the fact that objects attract to larger objects.  Claiming that gravity doesn't exist because you can't see it is like claiming that a universal accelerator doesn't exist because you can't see that.  As you know, you wouldn't see the force caused by the universal accelerator above the ground because the UA is BELOW the earth.  The same principle exists with gravity.  You're talking about gravity like there are magical little gravity particles in the air that pull everything downward.  No wonder you don't believe in gravity.  You should pick up a book written in the 20th or 21st century on astronomy and astrophysics, and you may properly understand how physics work

See, the laws of gravity have been proven.  Not only because things fall to earth, but because celestial bodies in space (stars, planets, moons, planetary rings, satellites, etc.) abide by the same gravitational phenomenon we experience on Earth.  Gravity not only [magically] pulls things toward earth, but it also [magically] keeps planets and comets in orbit around the sun, keeps stars in (somewhat of an) orbit in a galaxy, keeps moons in orbit around planets, and keeps satellites in orbit around the Earth.  But, I guess if you just deny the laws of physics, anything's possible.

Your earlier question, "if you jump off a chair, are you falling or is the Earth rising..." that argument is relative.  To me, it feels like I'm falling.  It kind of look like the earth is rising... yes... but, to someone who's watching me, it looks to them like I'm falling.  If we drive 100 miles per hour next to each other, would you conclude that we're stationary and the whole world is moving backwards?  Perception doesn't define reality.  So, if you think the world is rising, that doesn't mean it is.  Similarly, just becasue it FEELS like I'm falling, it doesn't mean I am.  But, when it comes to perception, when objects (parts of rockets, etc.) fall to earth, it looks to me like they're falling to earth rather than the earth rising to meet them... Just like Shumacher-Leevy 9 FELL to Jupiter rather than Jupiter RISING to meet it.  But, again... if you just deny physics and everything we know about space, I guess anything's possible.

But, let's talk about that.  Let's give you the benefit of the doubt for a second.  Let's say gravity ISN'T real.  Let's say that the earth is rising.  There is still NO proof of any universal accelerator, there is NO proof that the sun and moon are 32 miles across of whatever garbage you guys say it is, there is NO proof of any sky gears, bendy light or moon shrimp, and there is still NO proof that the earth is flat.

12
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Explanation of FE gravity requested
« on: August 21, 2012, 06:00:30 AM »
lol universal accelerator.  Is there any proof of a universal accelerator that trumps proof that... you know... the world is round?  I mean, real proof.  Not circumstantial proof.

Step off a chair. Do you see graviton particles/bending space or do you see the earth rise upwards to meet you?

you cannot discern between the two. This was talked about in another thread.

SNAP!!!!!!!!  That is awesome.

13
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What is the radius of the FE Earth model?
« on: August 20, 2012, 01:32:57 PM »
Whenever there's a 'read the FAQ' response it means that the subject is discussed in the FAQ and alludes to some sort of answer, but really there is no answer, made up or not, there is no answer on flat earth stuff for anything.  The FAQ is merely a way to make you think they have some answers.

Think about this: the flat earth model is up in the air. Antarctica=continent or ice wall? They don't know this.  Obviously if they don't know this they're not gonna know the diameter of the earth.  Tom argues that in the FAQ it's talking about the known world.  No one's been to the ice wall or whatever and no one can be sure if they were at the ice wall or antarctica.  There's no way to prove the circumference is equal to what the diameter of the "known" world would suggest.

This is the problem with trying to make fantasy work logically.  Like the stupid Twilight books.  There are all these dead ends and no way to work through it logically.  There is so much fantasy in FET to try and really nail down any answers is futile.  Read the FAQ and you'll see the sun and moon are 32 miles across.  Come on... really?

I JUST raised this EXACT point in another forum.  I can not STAND it when someone starts a post, and a moderator or a moderator wannabe Nazi tells us to look at the FAQ or that the question has been raised in another forum.  It's like, excuse me... YOU'RE the ones with the fringe belief and the pseudo-science.  WE came to YOU for answers, and we don't feel like thumbing through pages and pages and pages of 2-year-old forum posts to find answers to the questions.  I've read the FAQ, and it sucks.  It's all circumstantial claims.  As a poster, I would be MUCH more apt to offering my opinion and insight to a new post with < 20 replies as opposed to a post that was made 3 years ago with 100 replies to thumb through.

I mean, it's like, this website is, for all intents and purposes, THE repository for Flat Earth education.  What if, every time someone asked someone else a scientific question, they either said, "Look it up" or "I already answered this question in a conversation 3 years ago."  What kind of elitist.... it's like, we're here because we wanna undersatnd.  I think FET is straight goofy, but I find it interesting.  Perhaps if you ANSWER this guy's question, someone could come back and refute it.  Or, you could just tell the guy to check the vague FAQ that doesn't really provide any kind of scientific answer so that nobody can refute what your reponse would have been.

And btw... how in the bloody freak can they not know the diameter of the earth, but they can say with certainty that the moon and sun are 32 miles across.

14
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Spooky stuff
« on: August 20, 2012, 01:28:55 PM »
a flat Earth....
i thought at first that your all full of crap. but then i realized that i cant prove that it is round. but i also cant prove that its flat either. i don't know what to think!
all the research i do to find this stuff out could be fake. i don't know whats right or wrong anymore!!!

There is a very simple test to show the curvature of the earth. Watch a ship as it sails off into the distance, if the world were flat the ship would become smaller and smaller until it disappeared however, this is not the case. What actually happens is the hull of the ship appears to be engulfed by the water rising upwards eventually swallowing the mast and the sail. This proves the earth is an oblate spheroid as you can observe this at any point on the earth.

Incorrect, but common misconception.  There are numerous threads which explain why this happens.

So, why don't YOU enlighten us with your incorrect and unproven explanations on bendy light for us?  I don't understand this whole thing where... just because a topic was covered in a forum before, the question can't be raised again.  You are, for all intents and purposes, the BEST repository for this fake pseudo-science.  One would think you would bend over backwards to explain to us WHY a ship doesn't get smaller and smaller until it disappears, rather it goes over the curviture of the Earth rather than just saying, "This has already been covered..." and expect us to go through pages and pages and pages of forums to find the answers.

15
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Samuel Birley Rowbotham is bad at experiments
« on: August 20, 2012, 01:23:37 PM »
Warm air is less dense than cool air.  Humid air is more dense than dry air.  With the atmosphere, we aren't talking about cubic feet of air, we're talking about cubic miles of air.  With that large of a scale, subtle differences can have significant effects.

Also, from your link: "Water pressure, like air pressure, is a function of weight; the deeper one goes the greater the surrounding water pressure."

I'm not stupid.

http://www.ehow.com/info_7815868_air-thinner-altitude-rises.html

Humidity is more prevelant at lower levels because the moisture in the air is heavier than the air itself.  It isn't because "humid air" is heavier.

16
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Samuel Birley Rowbotham is bad at experiments
« on: August 20, 2012, 11:45:15 AM »
No, that isn't why the atmosphere gets thinner with altitude.  It's because, believe it or not, air has mass and, as we all know, things with mass are affected by gravity (or universal acceleration).  Think of the atmosphere as a swimming pool full of water.  In the same way that all of the water at the top of the pool presses down on the water at the bottom of the pool, all of the air at the top of the atmosphere presses down on the bottom of the atmosphere.  The primary difference being that air compresses a lot more than water does.  This means that the air at sea level is compressed under all of the weight of the atmosphere above it.

...

No, that's not it either.  Again, think of air as a fluid.  The more dense it is, the more it wants to sink.  This means that dense air will sink towards sea level and less dense air will rise towards the top of the dome.

No, they're different scenarios because water pressure is different than air pressure.  Water is heavier than air, so water becomes more dense as you sink into it.  Air does not do this because air is not heavier than air.  It stays (relatively) distributed, and becomes less dense with altitude because there is more sky for the same number of molecules to cover.

http://education.arm.gov/studyhall/ask/past_question.php?id=700

Oh, wait... that source is a "dot gov..." and they're a part of the conspiracy.

17
Flat Earth Debate / Re: FE Theory and the Bible
« on: August 20, 2012, 11:09:25 AM »
The heavens observed match the result. At the equator where the relative motion of the stars is divergent, no result is observed, as predicted by Mach.

This is stupid.  Do you not understand that Mach's principle does not prove at ALL that a pendulum works because the stars are pulling it on a flat earth?  Yes, Mach's principle is correct, but it does not prove that the stars would have that kind of effect on a pendulum.  Wouldn't the gravitational pull of the sun or moon override that power?  I mean, to me... if the stars are as close as FE'ers think, they would be WAY too small to have any kind of effect on a pendulum.  What you guys are doing is called misdirection.  You're trying to get us to focus on the idea of Mach's principle without proving that Mach's principle really has anything at all to do with how a pendulum works.

18
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Earth's rotation
« on: August 20, 2012, 08:42:28 AM »
The heavens observed match the result. At the equator where the relative motion of the stars is divergent, no result is observed, as predicted by Mach.

This is stupid.  Do you not understand that Mach's principle does not prove at ALL that a pendulum works because the stars are pulling it on a flat earth?  Yes, Mach's principle is correct, but it does not prove that the stars would have that kind of effect on a pendulum.  Wouldn't the gravitational pull of the sun or moon override that power?  I mean, to me... if the stars are as close as FE'ers think, they would be WAY too small to have any kind of effect on a pendulum.  What you guys are doing is called misdirection.  You're trying to get us to focus on the idea of Mach's principle without proving that Mach's principle really has anything at all to do with how a pendulum works.  Again... this is circumstantial evidence.

19
Also, isn't the general consensus among FET that "sky gears" are controlled by angels?

It is not. At least no more so than people still believing that Ra carries the sun across the sky in a barge.

What controls sky gears?  Because I think the only explanation (and I've been away from the forum for a while) I've ever heard about the origin of FE or the controller of sky gears is God and angels.

20
The Lounge / Re: Pizza Planet????
« on: August 20, 2012, 08:20:50 AM »
Banned basically forever.

Why?  What did he do?

21
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Samuel Birley Rowbotham is bad at experiments
« on: August 20, 2012, 08:16:29 AM »
As you get higher, the atmosphere becomes more thin because the higher you go, the less gravity there is.  This wouldn't happen if the earth was a flat disc on top of a "universal accelerator." 

I'm a bit tired right now, but I don't think this is right.  The atmosphere gets thinner when you go higher because there's less pressure, due to there being less atmosphere on top of it.  Gravity decreasing probably plays a small role but I don't think it's the main cause.

An earth with UA would still have an atmoplane that would get thinner with altitude.

Yeah, you're right.  As you go higher (on a Round Earth), there is more space (or atmosphere) to cover, so the molecules themselves become more spread out.

It seems to me that, if the earth was flat, this wouldn't happen.  Especially if it were enclosed in a dome... it seems the atmosphere would get THICKER as altitude rises because a dome would cause more density.

22
Flat Earth Debate / Re: A question of logic
« on: August 20, 2012, 08:04:12 AM »
I read over your post and saw three questions in that whole post; none of which had to do with logic, which is odd for a post titled, "A question of logic".  But I will give you my thoughts.

I think the questions are very logical.  Perhaps they don't seem logical to you because you're subjective... but, for instance, "why should be people trust FE logic over RE logic.." I think that's a VERY logical and VERY releveant question that (since YOU'RE the one with the fringe belief and the burden of proof) deserves an answer that doesn't include sarcasm and condescension.  I don't understand how you think his questions are NOT logical.  Then again, I'm asking this of someone who thinks that a picture of a round earth CAN'T be real, but moon shrimp totally makes sense.

Our "claims" are based on observations and other evidence that there are things in this world that are kept from the general public.  We don't just accept what we have been taught our whole lives.  We are just seeking truth for the sake of truth.

So, here's another not-so-logical question.  If your claims are based on evidence that is kept from the general public, what manner of clearance allows you to have access to this evidence, and what is it?  Because, all evidence I've heard from FE'ers is circumstancial.  The claim that the earth is flat because "it looks that way," and that pictures from space are fake, and the speculation that there is a universal accelerator and sky gears and [snicker] "moon shrimp..." this is all circumstancial evidence.  It provides a convenient explanation to support a pre-conceived conclusion.  That isn't how science works.  The way sceince works is, we gather evidence and THEN form a conclusion.  What you're doing is forming a conclusion, then denying real evidence in favor of circumstancial evidence to back that conclusion.

23
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Samuel Birley Rowbotham is bad at experiments
« on: August 11, 2012, 08:50:15 PM »
Gravity would only pull the air toward the center of the mass -- it would not impart spin.

What?  The atmosphere stays close to earth because of gravity.  The atmosphere doesn't fall to earth because it's light enough to stay up.  As you get higher, the atmosphere becomes more thin because the higher you go, the less gravity there is.  This wouldn't happen if the earth was a flat disc on top of a "universal accelerator."  Everything not attached to the magical dome would fall to earth because nothing would be keeping it up.  I mean, not every molecule has its own universal accelerator attached to it to keep it above earth, does it?

How can you tell us that completely logical physics don't make sense, and then replace it with physics that really DON'T make sense?

24
Most flat-earthers are religious people who think the Bible claims the earth is flat.

Actually, many of the FE'ers on this site are atheists or agnostics.

I've heard this... doubt it's true.  Besides... Rowbentham used his failed experiments to prove the validity in the Bible.  He actually conspired with the church to terrorize Round-Earthers as blasphemers.  Also, isn't the general consensus among FET that "sky gears" are controlled by angels?

25
The Lounge / Pizza Planet????
« on: August 11, 2012, 08:01:48 PM »
What happened to Pizza Planet???

26
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« on: November 23, 2011, 10:02:56 AM »
Oh, yes, I'm certain that's it.
So, you DO agree or DON'T agree?  Cause like... astronomers' field of study is the universe, which involves a lot of understanding and scientific discovery.  They probably don't have time to convince a fringe group of people of shit that is obvious to the rest of us.  So, "conspiracy" vs. "they just don't have the time to convince people of obvious stuff..."  I'm going with the second one. 

And yes, here I am.  I'm not convincing you of anything, and I know that.  I just think it's a rather mentally stimulating way to waste half the day.  I'm not in a world where there's a serious threat that anyone who actually matters is gonna be convinced the world is flat.  Flat Earthers aren't trying to raise my taxes, so I could care less.  But, the Junior Varisity back-yard astronomers who believe in RET and use this debate as a hobby are actually doing a pretty good job of shooting down the top minds in FET.  Perhaps the real scientists are off doing more important things because we're doing just fine by ourselves.  ...or, it's a conspiracy.

Yeah, but in your round earth diagram, you have 2 people looking at the same point.  In the flat earth diagram, you have people looking in different directions and seing the same thing.  I mean, if we both look in different directions,  won't we see different shit?
Sorry, what? You're not even remotely close to right about either of the diagrams. In the RET diagram, you have two people looking at two points and seeing different things. In the FET diagram, you have two people looking at the very same two points and seeing different things. How you managed to get this wrong is somewhat beyond me.
Then, I'm retarded.  In the RET diagram, I see 2 people looking at 1 point in the sky.  2 straight lines converging on ONE point.  In the FET diagram, I see one person looking almost straight ahead, and one person looking almost stright up, but SOMEHOW seeing the same thing.  The MET (Mickey Earth Theory) diagram makes as much sense.  And, I will continue to use Mickey Earth Theory to prove that something made up can be presented so that it makes sense to those who choose not to question it.

...by the way, the whole backbone of the FE Movement is Sam Row-your-boat-entham's theory about perspective of sight.
Incorrect.
Far be it for me to lump you in with other FE'ers, but...

Q: "Why do you believe the Earth is flat?"

A:  It looks that way up close. In our local reference frame, it appears to take a flat shape, ignoring obvious hills and valleys. In addition, Samuel Rowbotham et al. performed a variety of experiments over a period of several years that show it must be flat. They are all explained in his book, which is linked at the top of this article.

...With the exception of "et al," it sounds like Row-your-boat-entham is the Karl Marx of the FE Movement, and his journal of flawed, failed, disproven experiments and debunked conclusions are the manifesto.


Cute diagram. Yes, this is what EAT is about. Congratulations.
Do you get the irony I'm trying to display here, though?  Between line of sight and the world, one of them is curved and one of them is straight.  We can PROVE that line of sight is straight and we can PROVE the earth is curved.  Yet, you believe that line of sight is curved and the earth is straight.  Why?  Can you prove it?  "Bendy light."  Yeah, okay, can you prove it?

27
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« on: November 23, 2011, 09:36:34 AM »
I just like to hear (see) FE'ers admit that they deliberately misrepresent RET.
I personally try not to misrepresent it most of the time. When I do, it's usually as a form of mockery (and 3 out of 4 times the joke doesn't come across as a joke, unfortunately). For example, if someone asks me to explain FET without <essential FET principle goes here>, I ask them to explain RET without gravitation (which I believe to be very much essential for RET). Any other misrepresentations of mine are unintentional and should be corrected, preferably in a respectful manner.

On the other hand, there are many FE'ers and "FE'ers" who, in my opinion, misrepresent RET intentionally. Pretty much the same goes for RE'ers and FET - many are genuinely confused (It's difficult not to be!), but many are just taking the piss (see also: KristaGurl and "her" Mickey Mouse ranting. Say, isn't that breaking the troublemaking rule?)

But, the Mickey Mouse analogy is simply that... an analogy.  I'm not misrepresenting FET by comparing its idiocy to a concept that is obviously not true.  I mean, the world is obviously round.  Some say it's flat.  They back up that claim by changing math and inserting unproven variables like bendy light and sky gears.  My Mickey Earth Theory (MET) is an attempt to show that you can alter and nit-pick what science you choose to follow to back ANY conclusion.  So like, "bendy light" for instance... it's been disproven.  Now, you can say "it's a misconception" or "it's a part of a conspiracy," but you can't prove any of that.  You can say "the stars rotate because of sky gears," but you can't prove that.  You can say "we see a horizon because of bendy light," but you can't prove that.  When you tell us that there is no gravity, and that the earth is moving upwards due to some unknown, unproven, unseen "universal accelerator," but don't have the evidence to back it up, it sounds more like an excuse you use to believe whatever you want.  Quite frankly, that's fine with me.  I can't change how you interpret the shape of the Earth any more than I can change the devotion the North Korean people have for Kim Jung Il, so I'm not loosing any sleep over it.  I just find the scientific debate interesting.  I feel pretty comfortable in my position... where, I'm a part of a majority of scientists who follow simple mathematics to prove the exact thing that I believe, as opposed to being a part of the fringe group with no proof.

28
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Evolution
« on: November 22, 2011, 12:08:38 PM »
The Bedford Level Experiment.

An experiment performed with a poor understanding of the experimental conditions and a good chunk of the relevant physics.  Rowbotham's methods and results are based almost entirely upon cherry-picking the conclusion he desired and ignoring physical, mathematical and logical evidence that runs contrary to his claims.

The Bedford Level Experiment counts as an experimental observation about as much as reading EnaG counts as having met Rowbotham.

When Rowbotham first did the earliest BLE's, he determined the world was flat because you CAN see an object in its entirety.  Soon thereafter, the BLE's were redone correctly, and proved you, in fact can't see the objects in their entirety because of the horizon.  Rowbotham then came up with an explanation into human perspective based on artistic theory, which made a ham-handed excuse at saying "my experiments were wrong, but since Christian fundamentalists are giving me tons of money to prove the world is flat, here's how my experiments being wrong actually concluded the same thoery as it did before."

This is how it happened:

1. Rowbotham proved that 2+2 = 5.
2. The church thought this was awesome, because the Bible says 2+2 = 5!
3. Another guy proved that Rowbotham accidentally used a 2 and 3 instead of 2 and 2.
4. Rowbotham proved that 2+3 also = 5 because the church needed it too.
5. 150 years later, 15 people believe 2+2 = 5 because of what happens when you add 2+3.  The rest of the world... along with every iota of scientific evidence and pictures and eyewitness account, proves that 2+2=4 while 2+3=5. 

29
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Evolution
« on: November 22, 2011, 11:53:44 AM »
I agree that animals are a poor example. Perhaps another analogy will be more convincing.
Let's assume that I've only seen three chairs in my life. Each of these chairs had a common property - they had armrests.
When asked to define a chair, I would include the armrests in the definition.
Now, when shown a fourth chair, this time without armrests, I can approach this in two ways:
  • Redefine "chair" so that it no longer requires armrests to be one. This is the FE approach. When presented with a flat celestial body, we've decided that flat celestial bodies exist.
  • Refuse to redefine it, and either claim that this chair cannot possibly exist, since it contradicts the definition of a chair - this is (an exaggerated misrepresentation of) the RE approach. All celestial bodies we've seen thus far are round, so the Earth must be round too.
In other words, using all other chairs I know/all other celestial bodies we've seen to prove anything about the fourth chair/Earth is a non-sequitur.

That's completely asinine.  We've decided that (as far as we know) flat celestial bodies DON'T exist.  If they do, we've already decided... no, PROVEN that the earth is not one of them.  Why?  No, not because we speculated or took a vote and decided it was that way or because we've been lying to ourselves about how math works for over 2,000 years, but because we have pictures, measurements and first-hand witness accounts.  All of which are easily ignored when you convince yourself that the pictures and witnesses are a part of a conspiracy, and math is wrong. 

30
Flat Earth General / Re: There are no real believers.
« on: November 22, 2011, 11:48:44 AM »
Which part of that is "flat earth math"? None of these statements were derived mathematically.

You claim that a 2D object cannot be projected onto another 2D object with no distortion. This has been mathematically disproven. The only way you could possibly continue to use this argument is if you also claim that math is different for you than for us. Hence, flat math.

He did.  I can't prove it because it doesn't come up in a Search result... probably because he changed his post or soemthing, but I'm pretty sure that at one point one of Pizza Planet's posts (on the ultimate challenge post) specifically said that the flat earth map works with given geographical distances because of something called "Flat Earth Math."

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5