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 - zaudragon

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
My Own Explanation (in no way endorsed by FE):
When I advocate FE, I describe stars, the moon, and the sun all as spotlights.
Inevitably, some will point away from the Earth; this causes some stars to be “invisible”.
Since by going up in elevation, you get closer to these “invisible” stars, the apparent acceleration due to gravity is less than what others feel.
The Universal Acceleration would therefore have to be slightly more than 9.8 to compensate for the loss of acceleration caused by the presence of stars.
Note that stars below the Earth can also contribute, thus making the acceleration greater.

1.  Nitpicking.  Some word was used incorrectly, some particular value was mistated, a single bit of the argument is argueable and used to justify ignoring the rest.
Well, I mean, you can’t have a debate with a bunch of false stuff, can you? You could always restate it some other way, right? Do it in future debates.
2.  Validation.  Anything that we have not personally verified is stated as originating as coming from "The Conspiracy".  Many apologies, but there are many branches of knowledge to explore and, regrettable though it is, we do not all have the time or resources to independantly verify everything that we learn.
Not really. We state that because it comes from someone else, we should look at it skeptically, until we’ve seen undeniable proof. For example, I’ve seen the sun in the sky, so I think there is light coming from an object in the sky.

In the case of RE, we have our own evidence (such as Rowbotham, and the fact that the Earth literally *looks* flat) that states the contrary to your evidence.
3.  Alternatives.  To accept some bit of science or explanation, but give your own explanation of it, without justification, i.e. gravity.  Poor, poor gravity.  Depending on the topic and what you need, it can do SO many different things.  Explained?  Pish posh.
Well, I have yet to see a person explain gravity well enough in the RE model to convince us. And anyways, we’re not saying that gravity is wrong, but that the acceleration we feel isn’t gravity. It’s like a person in a spaceship; they feel “gravity” but it is not so.
4.  "The Truth".  You know the Earth is flat, thus things MUST be as you say.  Otherwise, the you'd be wrong, and that is obviously impossible.
Yes, logically, if you’re right about a fundamental fact, then everything should be changed to fit it. Otherwise the undeniable truth wouldn’t be true at all. Note that this is in the mind of FE’rs. To RE’rs, all these changes look foolish, but if you truly believe in something, you just have to make it fit…
5.  "The Conspiracy".  No matter how grave things look, you always have Deus Ex Machina to fall back on!  Honestly, why don't you just say a wizard did it?
Because wizards don’t exist. Or at least, I’ve never seen one…

Much mroe plausible that NASA did it.
You'd have much better luck convincing others you weren't mad if you would just, at times, maybe when it's obvious, admit your wrong.
Instead of saying we’re wrong, I think we usually come up with other explanations once one fails, to further the scientific cause
Or, don't even do that!  Just admit you don't know!
We speculate the intricacies, so that we have a complete explanation. For example, the spotlight Sun was the only way to explain sunset/rise. This arouse from speculation, and it has proved to be a good theory and a good explanation. There may be others, but what we don’t know, we speculate about until we have concrete theory to use, and change, in the future.
There can be no true discussion until you cast away the chains of absolute conviction.  Absolute conviction binds us.  We "know" we're right.  Thus, no matter what, we can't be swayed.  Evidence has no meaning.  Useful when it falls to our side, discarded when it doesn't.
Evidence has meaning. What we say is that if one thing’s right, then everything else contradicting it must be wrong. This forum is based on the framework that the Earth is Flat, much like how the Bible relies on the fact that God exists.
Accept at least the possibility of being wrong.  Then, finally, there can be true discussion.
When we’re wrong, we come up with alternate explanations, as stated before, or fix previous ones. It’s tedious, but after all, it’s furthering the scientific cause.
P.S.  It's been a while, how are things?
Not directed at me, I suppose, but the forums are getting bigger!  ;D
P.P.S.  Before the inevitable "There is no question here, how should we respond?", respond by telling me whether you feel my position are valid or not.  Do you feel that your arguments are fair, and I'm the one nitpicking?  Or why do you thing my points are wrong?
Your position is valid, but overall doesn’t make much sense… Our arguments are fair enough. Both sides nitpick, of course. Your points are wrong mostly because, essentially, this whole forum builds upon one fact: that the Earth is Flat. One might call this a thought experiment, but the thing is, it’s just as hard to prove that God isn’t real.

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Hollow Earth
« on: March 11, 2007, 06:15:45 PM »
I like the theory better when everything is on the inside (

Makes much more sense (even though it still doesn’t make as much as FE does!).

Flat Earth Debate / Re: the equivalence principle . . .
« on: March 11, 2007, 06:08:00 PM »
    I took these measurements myself . . . and you are welcome to do the same. The gravitional field is not UNIFORM! You lose, go home!

    I have a few mediocre explanations, both slightly affecting FE.
    • First, let us assume that the Earth is Flat, and that stars above are spotlights much like that of the sun and the moon.
    • Some of these stars shine on, or off the Earth, and some are therefore “invisible”.
    • These stars have their own gravitational pull, thus affecting the Acceleration.
    Earth’s Density
    • First, let us assume that the Earth is Flat, and that it has a slight gravitational pull, in addition to UA (This contradicts most FE thinkers).
    • The Earth’s density is not uniform, thus creating different gravitational pulls depending on where you are.

    Sorry for contradictions with the rest of FE if there are any (and I’m sure there are somewhere, but nothing we can’t fix…)

    Flat Earth Q&A / Round or Flat...
    « on: February 13, 2007, 09:07:56 AM »
    Quote from: "edlloyd"
    But how does the atmosphere not blow off? What would bound it to the earth?

    Then how does a star explode? die?


    Some of us believe in a quite a bit higher ice wall, that keeps the atmosphere in. Others believe that instead, the "atmosphere" is also part of the conspiracy, and that you can still breathe in space.

    FE doesn't say anything contrary to a start dying. It can jsut die the same way as other theories.

    Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Let me rephrase
    « on: January 30, 2007, 10:24:30 AM »
    Yes, it looks flat. We do claim there is an ice wall, a spotlight as the sun and the moon. But how do we know this?
    1. It can only work that way (if you have other options, by all means).
    2. It looks that way (they look the same way your RE model's do).
    3. We have witnessed them, every day.
    4. The government does it because they want money. By making a space programme, you get increased public confidence and loyalty, a stronger will and economy, and even better, everyone benefits! Private companies make a lot of money, too. (This is just some ideas, not all may be true, but these effects would generally happen).
    Quote from: "Big N"
    If there is a huge ice wall, why don't we ever see it on those pictures that flat earthers post of a flat horizon? If the sun is a spotlight, why does its shape continuously stay circular? If the moon is a spotlight, why can I see its curvature through a telescope?

    I've seen it. There's that blue stretch of light at the end.
    It stays circular because the sun never angles in any way, the spotlight just moves.
    What do you mean, curvature of the moon? I mean, I do see that it's circular, and a spotlight is too.

    Flat Earth Q&A / Re: why are stars on the horizon still visible?
    « on: January 30, 2007, 10:17:52 AM »
    Quote from: "BobDole"
    if the earth was flat, wouldn't those be the far away stars that are supposedly invisible due to haze?

    They would, except there is no haze that high in the atmosphere. The thing is, there is a ton of haze in the bottom-most layer of the atmosphere (that cause ships to disappear), and there is not much haze over that. Most of the atmosphere actually has no haze, so most of the air the star light passes through is clean.

    Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Afew questions
    « on: January 30, 2007, 10:12:32 AM »
    Adding on to dysfunction's post:

    1. Again, go see for yourself.
    2. Universal Acceleration, which dysfunction explained earlier a little wrong: we are accelerating at a constant 1g or about 9.8m/s/s.
    3. Well, the Earth has always been special, why can't it be special in one other way?
    4. Wait, doesn't it? We say that it does go all the way around.
    5. The sun "orbits" above the Earth constantly.
    6. The orbit and path of the sun fluctuates depending on what season it is; Northern Summer has the sun orbiting with a smaller radius than the Southern Summer.
    7. How many people are on the RE forums? Oh wait, they don't exist!
    8. Yes, but that is because they're ignorant of the truth.
    9. I don't think that's relevant. We don't particularly like that the Earth is Flat, it just IS.
    10. Again, the Earth wobbles slightly
    11. Clearly not good enough for us, otherwise we would be spending time there!

    Flat Earth Q&A / Didn't you guys ever use a telescope in science class?
    « on: January 30, 2007, 10:05:04 AM »
    Quote from: "Big N"
    Quote from: "UnexplainedEnigma"
    The shape of the other planets appear to be a flat disc to me through a telescope or otherwise.

    A hose pipe appears to be flat to me when I look at it far away enough...

    See, now that's just ignorance at its most blissful.

    Well, you can't tell that something is round until you get near enough to it.

    I see a hose, I look at it, and it looks flat. Therefore, I conclude that it's flat, just like how we conclude that other planets are flat. Now, when someone brings the hose over and shows it to me, I realise my error and correct myself; it's not flat. But the problem is, you RE'rs have yet to bring us over and show us conclusive evidence we can verify about how the planets are round.

    Flat Earth Q&A / Why So Pessimistic?
    « on: January 19, 2007, 11:19:44 PM »
    Quote from: "Genius Will"
    "Samuel Birley Rowbotham

    Charles K. Johnson

    William Carpenter"

    So you think that three men, who barley understood science (proof of this is there ridiculously simplistic experiments, not showing anything about the curvature of the earth) is enough justification to back a 2000 year conspiracy?

    No, we think that these men plus own experience is enough to back our conspiracy theory. No one is more trustworthy than yourself!

    Flat Earth Q&A / Red-Shift
    « on: January 19, 2007, 11:05:24 PM »
    And even if so, the stars could be going away from us, just like how an airplane can go up in the air and “defy gravity”, the stars can, at least partially, rendering it to accelerate faster.

    Technology, Science & Alt Science / Global Warming to sort itself out
    « on: January 19, 2007, 11:02:47 PM »
    All we have to do is use a few Nuclear Weapons:
    Which, although the article says will affect the temperature drastically, really wouldn’t:
    It’s only really a 1.4°C decrease in temperature if we use some Nuclear Weapons; less if we use less!

    We just need to calibrate it.

    Flat Earth Q&A / A question for FEers.
    « on: January 13, 2007, 07:37:30 PM »
    Quote from: "Hara Taiki"
    Quote from: "zaudragon's signature"
    FE is a Kritik. I like debating in favour of it. This does not mean that I am a believer.

    That means you are tossing out basic principles and laws of physics, replacing your own, to justify something completely different than what you believe. Which goes on further to prove that the theory is nothing but hokey idea's with, again, no factual findings to support it.

    Where haven't I seen that happen before...? :roll:

    I am not tossing out basic principles and laws of physics; which ones am I? What am I replacing? I am not justifying something completely different from what I believe; for all I know, Round Earth could be false (I have yet to see any real evidence on these forums). Also, it’s irrelevant whether I believe or not.

    There is plenty of evidence! Does the Earth look spherical to you?

    Flat Earth Q&A / apply your zetetic method to the idea of a conspiracy.
    « on: January 13, 2007, 07:31:16 PM »
    Quote from: "clockworkmonk"
    but that is scientific method, and I believe we were discussing zetetic method, in which, since there is no definite proof for either, both must, again, be cast aside.

    The Zetetic Method is just part of science. It’s just for picky people. I mean, if you really wanted to know whether the Earth was Round, you could just accompany a scientist to show you how it is.

    Flat Earth Q&A / apply your zetetic method to the idea of a conspiracy.
    « on: January 11, 2007, 11:16:45 AM »
    Quote from: "clockworkmonk"
    does not have to be a group.  As I have stated earlier, could be a diety.

    Deities aren’t taken into account under science. We would have to find a manifestation of one, which would basically be a group (of anything: people, dogs, air molecules, etc.)

    Flat Earth Q&A / A question for FEers.
    « on: January 11, 2007, 11:09:49 AM »
    Quote from: "astronomy101"
    so is there not experiments done in which it is proven that at certain times of day, the gravity at these points is the same but at other times of the day it is different?

    No. It just so happens that the stars rotate too, and the overall sum of gravity pulling up is always the same no matter what time it is.

    It’s pure coincidence!

    Flat Earth Q&A / the sun?
    « on: January 11, 2007, 11:08:45 AM »
    Similar question: What created the Earth?

    You should just accept that they exist and get on with it; otherwise, we would stall at whether we even exist or not.

    Flat Earth Q&A / Non-Nasa Photos Of the Curve of the Earth
    « on: January 10, 2007, 11:37:38 PM »
    Quote from: "FastEddy"
    The RE'ers have a mountain of evidence higher than Everest to back them up. The Flat Earther have a few flimsy ideas, theories and a book with experiments in them with results in them which haven't been replicated in the real world.

    I often wonder if this whole FES and the true FE believers thing is just a bunch of nerds in a basement somewhere, trying to get a rise out of people- And I surely hope there is, because the alternative is a sad, sad commentary on our education systems as a whole.

    Well, if the RE’rs did, then they should cite it. I have yet to see a comprehensive RE guide on this forum to debunk FE with real evidence. The experiments have been done by various people.

    I’m not in a basement (yes I am a nerd), I’m in a bedroom. Yes, this is all a “sad, sad commentary on our education systems as a whole”, as they never teach us why the Earth is Round. They just say it is. Not good enough!

    Quote from: "Astantia"
    Natural Communist collectives do not form from chaos.  Somebody sits down, and says, 'hey, if I grow more potatoes, and Jim grows more corn, we can trade, and still have plenty left over'
    That is how capitalisms develop.

    It’s not like Jim is buying the potatoes and hoarding everything for himself, which is mroe capitalist-like.
    Communisms and Socialisms develop from a set of people believing that the population is incable of caring for themselves (whether this is true or not) and establish a government to 'care' for the people.

    I guess so, but true Communism is where there is no government to do anything.
    The ideal of the perfectly equal state does not form from people who want equality, rather, it forms from those who want more with less work.  It comes from those who want, but do not want to create.  It comes from those who do not consider the source of wealth, nor the source of money.

    Yeah, but Communism is a co-operative effort.
    Also, how do you start with human greed and end with everyone killing each other?  Wait, how would 'nobody own anything'  at what point was personal property abandoned?

    Human greed leads to killing because people want their stuff. Personal Property is a legal idea; there is not really property. Without laws, there is no property. They would need trust to function.
    Even if it was, and we were all just a mass of blood lusting cretins, why would we suddenly realise 'oh, hey, we're blood lusting cretins, why not work together?'

    They would have to, in order to live.
    Also, why would sharing be the best way to go.  You'll notice that the only people who want to share are those that have less.  What about the people who have more?  Sharing would be stupid.

    There would be no “having” only “making”. The ones with more would be pressured to do it because others are doing the same thing (and don’t tell me that’s bad, because that’s what happens in capitalism, too), and that all his trust-partnerships will crumble if he didn’t do something good towards the people who create less.

    The Lounge / how many flat earthers does it take to screw in a lightbulb.
    « on: January 10, 2007, 11:26:30 PM »
    I said two:
    1 to represent the stupidity of the RE with a lightbulb as its shape (it’s round!)
    1 to present the counter evidence that states this must not be true, and is all a government conspiracy to make us think ligtbulbs are round.

    Flat Earth Q&A / Satelites
    « on: January 10, 2007, 11:21:15 PM »
    Quote from: "Ishiyas"
    Ohohoh really? How about you taking a telescope and pointing in that orbital position, or whichever satellite is near you? You will see it there, trust me on that one. Did someone stick them to the sky?
    And where are these huge radio towers? Hidden? Do you know just how large they would have to be?

    THIS IS MORE OF ORIGINAL THOUGHT, AND NOT FE (boy, I wish I was one of the FE major theorists so I could make things up as I went along):
    These “satellites” are fast flying objects (probably aeroplanes) sent by the government in the upper atmosphere.
    These huge radio towers, I imagine, are hidden in/on the ice wall. It’s the best place to hide them; no one can get there in the first place, either.

    Flat Earth Q&A / A question for FEers.
    « on: January 10, 2007, 11:18:23 PM »
    Quote from: "astronomy101"
    Well, I imagine the sun could pull us up or what not, but wouldn't gravity only become less then and not more?


    Why it becomes more:
    There is stuff underneath the Earth. That makes perfect sense (if you can see down off the ice wall, according to some pictures, it makes sense). These also have mass and therefore a gravitational pull. Sometimes the two sides have equal pull, or are unequal.

    I’m sorry I said the Sun had a gravitational pull: that was a mistake in my typing. Too many hours on this forum :(

    Spotlights have a gravitational pull because they exist and have mass. The FE doesn’t because it isn’t like other things.

    The only one keeping you poor is the government, and the past!

    Capitalist government + Anti-communist/socialist Past = Bourgeois + Proletariat

    Solution: Revolution. Or make the government spend so much money (like in war) that it collapses and a natural anarchist communist autonomy develops ;)

    Therefore, an idea comes to mind: “The War on Terrorism is a grand scheme of Communists/Anarchists/etc. to destroy the U.S. in order to create a New World Order.”

    What would happen in this order?
    1. Havoc and Chaos develops, everyone kills another, out of human greediness. This portion solves for almost all environmental problems as the population decreases. Also solves for overpopulation.
    2. The ones left realise that there is no use in killing, as no one owns anything. This develops into communism, as everyone decides that sharing is the best way to go.
    3. The New World Order is a happy, regulated place, where everyone is glad and shares.

    Although, I need to study Anarchist thought more before I can create a compelling theory.

    Flat Earth Q&A / Space Travel for rich FEers.
    « on: January 10, 2007, 11:10:17 PM »
    Quote from: "Agent_Fishmonger"
    Oh do NOT even go there.  If you live in America, the only one keeping you poor is yourself!  This is the land of opportunity where anyone can do anything and the possibilities are endless.  And i see Dogsplat, you live in England, so nearly the same holds true for you.

    Not true! The only one keeping you poor is the government, and the past!

    Capitalist government + Anti-communist/socialist Past = Bourgeois + Proletariat

    Solution: Revolution. Or make the government spend so much money (like in war) that it collapses and a natural anarchist communist autonomy develops ;)

    That’s a cool idea. “The War on Terrorism is a grand scheme of Communists to destroy the U.S. in order to create a New World Order.”

    Adding this to Alternate Science!

    Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Wait a tick...
    « on: January 10, 2007, 11:04:09 PM »
    Quote from: "Shinobi Mono"
    Until you go into space and see the world from a distance (the entire world) you will never be able to know for sure what shape the world is.

    Not true. Can you see the wind? No. But do you see evidence of it? Yes.
    Can we see the whole Flat Earth? No. But do we see evidence of it? Yes.
    What i really don't get is why the hell we are fighting about the shape! why aren't we fighting about the condition some people live in? no matter the shape we should be concerned about the others that we share the world with. I guess my question is such...
    Why again are we fighting about the shape when its what on it that matters?

    Anyway, we aren’t fighting because this IS the Flat Earth Society forums. We came here because we wanted to pursue a topic that was meaningful to us. You can’t make us debate over something we don’t care as much about. It’s like making a farmer a doctor, or vice versa. What’s on it IS important, but for us, this is meaningful and worth it. Even if some of us are just doing it for amusement, amusement is worthwhile.

    And aren’t the lying conspirators of the government on this planet too?

    Flat Earth Q&A / How do you explain discrepancies within Gravity/UA?
    « on: January 10, 2007, 10:58:39 PM »
    Quote from: "Kadover"
    Wouldn't stars have NOTHING to do with the gravity on earth? According to the FE model, gravity is caused because the earth is moving upwards at a constant speed of 9.80 m/s (Which in itself does not work out. Because in that case, there would be no gravity. The earth would have to be moving ever faster, in fact it have to be moving 9.80 m/seconds squared for us to actually accelerate and feel gravity) According to the model, everything else is moving at the same rate (or acceleration, whatever). It seems that the FE model has no belief in a gravitational field between two objects. If it did, then they would have to explain why the sun and moon do not crash down upon us.

    You clearly did not read the FAQ. The Earth has no gravity according to FE, you’re right. However, most other objects do. The Earth travels upward, with the rest of the universe, accelerating at 1g. We believe in gravitational fields. The sun and the moon do not crash down because it’s moving upward with the Earth; the Earth has no gravity of its own.

    Most stars have gravity; that is why when you go up in altitude, gravity lessens. The stars are also about 300 miles high (probably a little more).

    for this to work, the stars would have to be rather close

    if they were close and we were to walk around a loctation where stars were close from far enough way(say about 400 mile radius) there would be a noticable shift in the location of the stars relative to each other.

    noticing the night sky in texas is remarkably similar(I could not tell the difference) to that over greece, we can see that this is not the case.

    The stars all are spotlights, and rotate was well, like the Sun and the Moon.
    They produce the same effects as the Sun and the Moon do; you get “time zones”.
    There is no noticeable shift relative to each other because they are all on one hemispherical sky/surface.
    One thing no one mentioned: the fact that this might not make up for all of it. There are, in fact, other stars that emit spotlights away from the Earth, thus affecting gravity even more.

    Flat Earth Q&A / apply your zetetic method to the idea of a conspiracy.
    « on: January 10, 2007, 10:50:57 PM »
    Quote from: "clockworkmonk"
    Quote from: "zaudragon"
    And by the way: even if you’re right, the conspiracy still exists. I guess we’re saying that NASA is the most likely conspirator.

    what proof do you have that directly shows the existance of a conspiracy?  

    On other aspects of FET, zetetic method is used, but in regards to the conspiracy,  indirect evidence is used to show its very existance!

    I'm saying a conspiracy may not be necessary because something could fool all of NASA, but without direct proof one way or the other, nothing can be said about any of this if you rely on zetetic method.

    Quote from: "New American Oxford Dictionary"
    conspiracy |kənˈspirəsē| noun ( pl. -cies) a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful

    That “something”, I think, qualifies as a group.

    The Lounge / short introduction thread
    « on: January 10, 2007, 10:46:40 PM »
    Hi, I joined about a week ago, and posted too much in a few days.

    I’m an FE supporter on these forums, as debate practice. However, I don’t know which is right; right now, I’m leaning towards FE.

    The Lounge / FLAC file conversion
    « on: January 10, 2007, 10:45:13 PM »
    FLAC is free; there are a huge number of free convertors out there.

    I’m a Mac user, though, so I don’t know much about Windows (which I think you’re on, since most Mac FLAC programs are free).

    Flat Earth Q&A / How do you explain discrepancies within Gravity/UA?
    « on: January 10, 2007, 12:48:02 PM »
    Time to switch to the FE side!

    This is caused by certain stars being directly above a city or off to the side. Thus, the more stars there are over a certain city, the lower the gravity.

    Pages: [1] 2 3 4