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.


Topics - lindelof

Pages: [1]
1
Flat Earth Q&A / another shot
« on: August 09, 2008, 05:18:22 PM »
Well, I tried to post this before but as I wrote it up somewhat badly no one really answered my question.  So I'll try again.

Everyone here should agree on this:

(1) There is a certain amount of evidence that indicates that the Earth is flat (the stuff in Tom's sig.).
(2) There is a certain amount of evidence that indicates that the Earth is round (pictures from spaces, surveys, gravimetry, behavior of stars in the Southern Hemisphere, flight times...)

Now, there are seem to be two main views espoused on this site,

(FE) The evidence that indicates a Flat Earth is, on the whole, correct.  The evidence that points towards a Round Earth is the result of error, fraudulence or misinterpretation.
(RE) The evidence that indicates a Round Earth is, on the whole, correct.  The evidence that points towards a Flat Earth is the result of error, fraudulence or misinterpretation.

Given the above, my question to the Fe's out there is:

Starting from an agnostic stance, why should we reject the evidence that points to RE and accept the evidence that points to FE?

By "agnostic stance" I mean not assuming FE.

3
Flat Earth Q&A / more likely
« on: June 13, 2008, 11:19:54 AM »
First of all I would like to begin w/ two points on which I hope we can agree.  If you have problems w/ these points, please discuss that.  If you discuss the things a bit further in I will assume that you agree w/ these points.


(A) There are observations/evidence that, at least when taken at face value, support a Round Earth (i.e. photos from                           space).  There are observations/evidence that, at least when taken at face value, support a Flat Earth, (i.e. "Earth not a Globe")



(B) If you believe in the standard FE model, than you cannot say w/ any degree of certainty that the motivation for the Conspiracy is money.  Why?  Because to do so you have to assume that what NASA is being truthful about their finances.  As NASA is lying about everything, there is no reason to suppose that they would be truthful in this one area.  Now, financial motives are likely, but to say that NASA is doing it for the money is just speculation.

Now, I shall outline two Scenarios

(Scenario 1)  All of the evidence that seems to point to a Round Earth is the result of fraud, misinterpertation or error.  The evidence that points towards a Flat Earth is largely correct.

(Scenario 2) All of the evidence that points towards a Flat Earth is the result of fraud, misinterpertation or error.  The evidence that points towards a Round Earth is largely correct.



So, any FE's wanna give me any reasons to prefer (Scenario 1) to (Scenario 2)?  You believe (Scenario 1) so I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that you have some reasons to do so, and go out on another limb and assume that you might like that share those reasons.  I realize that's alot of limbs, but what the hell.

Remember, that you can't reasonably ascribe financial motives to NASA.

4
Flat Earth Debate / Re account of Lunar Eclipses.
« on: May 26, 2008, 05:40:41 PM »
This is a cute little confirmation of the Re account of Lunar Eclipses.

As you most likely know, Re theory says that the Red Light that you see on the Moon during an Eclipse is caused by the Sun's light filtering through the atmosphere, so that only the red part of the spectrum makes it to the moon.  This implies that atmospheric conditions on the Earth should effect Lunar Eclipses.

Well, this is exactly what happens, as you can read about in a number of places such as here

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=4381066&page=1

and here

http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn13376-lunar-eclipse-may-shed-light-on-climate-change.html

For example, in '82 a volcano called El Chichon went off in Mexico, and the following eclipse was quite dark, as you can see here



And this is a nice graph taken from one of the links



Of course, Lunar Eclipses are rather important to this debate, as they provide an easy proof that the Earth is round.

These observations imply that the Earth's shadow really does lie on the Moon in a Lunar Eclipse, and thus imply the Earth is round.

5
Or were you saying that I made a boat and thus could type?  Or that RE's could make boats & thus could be expected to type?  I am much confused.

6
Flat Earth Debate / The Final Proof that FE Theory is Correct!!
« on: May 15, 2008, 09:19:18 PM »
If the world were round, and actually were spinning through space at an extremely high speed, don't you think we would feel the effects of it?  I mean, seriously, what would that kind of constant speed do to our hair?  If you think about it, wind resistance to things in the shape of human beings is also quite great.  I think that the presence of six billion people on the planet's surface would be enough to build up sufficient air resistance to stop the earth from turning.  Since this has not happened, the earth must be flat.  It is the only empirical observation that makes sense.  Since the flat earth rotates, albeit quite slightly, this kind of complete standstill scenario that would result from having so many protruding objects (i.e. skyscrapers, mountains, etc.) on the earth's surface, inevitable in a round earth model (as I have already demonstrated) makes no sense.

Now, here is a coherent, extremely convincing argument as to why the earth is not round.  Due to gravity, dark force, and cosmic wells, if the earth were actually shaped like a sphere, we'd all slip off into nothingness.  Literally, our little traction-type shoe soles and spiked heels would never be enough to keep up from falling right off of a spherical obect into the endless void.  With gravity pulling in one direction (gravity pulling in several different directions at once makes absolutely no sense at all, scientifically.  A force cannot pull in two different directions at once, as round earthers claim it must in the north pole and the south.  After all, where would all the gravitational energy disappear to after it reached the center of the earth?  Surely such a massive amount of loose energy would have destroyed our feeble planet long ago, splitting it into a billion little pieces.) as it must, only the flat earth model makes sense.  Ergo, the world is not round.  It also follows from this keen observation that the earth cannot be a cylinder or cube, as gravity does not allow for these complicated scenarios.

Do you need any more convincing?  Because I sure don't.  8)

7
Flat Earth Debate / why the hell is my nasa thread locked?
« on: May 13, 2008, 12:58:45 PM »
?

8
Flat Earth Debate / NASA does not exist.
« on: May 13, 2008, 11:47:09 AM »
I won't believe that NASA exists until someone gives me a testimoninal or first-hand account.  And no sociological arguments, please.

9
Flat Earth Debate / gravity
« on: April 29, 2008, 12:32:41 PM »
This may have been pointed out before, but I don't feel like looking for it.

Anyway, people have been measuring variations in local gravitational fields for quite a while in a number of different ways

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-61478/gravitation#210863.hook

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravimeter

I recall hearing that the british dude who did the really good survery of india noticed that the gravitational attraction exerted by the mass of the Himalayas was easily measurable.

If you think that gravity is an attractive force produced by mass (or a warpage of space-time) than all these measurments make total sense.  If you think that gravity is caused by a flat earth accelerating continuously upwards, than they don't.

So it's pretty easy to show that gravity is not caused by the earth accelerating upwards.

10
Flat Earth Debate / geodetic surverying
« on: April 26, 2008, 02:07:44 PM »
http://w3sli.wcape.gov.za/SURVEYS/MAPPING/svyhist.htm#Geodetic

If the earth was flat, don't you think that the people who did this (as well as everyone else who has done very accurate surveys covering large areas) would have noticed?

11
Flat Earth Debate / Southern Cross
« on: April 23, 2008, 11:47:42 AM »
So, if you're in, say, Tierra Del Fuego and you look due south, you see the like the southern cross and various other stars.  If you're in like Australia or New Zealand or something and you look due south, than you see the same stars.

If you look at a flat earth map like

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=3500

that pretty clearly doesn't make sense.  In the flat earth model when you look south from Tierra Del Fuego you are looking in a totally different direction than when you look south from Australia, so you shouldn't see the same stuff in the sky.

Pages: [1]