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 - MadDogX

Pages: [1]
The Lounge / Jules Verne ATV re-entry video.
« on: September 30, 2008, 06:05:16 AM »

As has been discussed here before, observers on the southern hemisphere can see that the stars appear to rotate around a different point in the sky than those in the northern hemisphere. This fact, while consistent with a rotating globe, appears to break FET.

I would like to see a workable explanation for this that is consistent with FET.

Flat Earth Debate / Five fundamental problems with Flat Earth theory
« on: August 13, 2008, 07:41:35 AM »
I know, these kinds of threads are a dime a dozen, but please try and humor me. This thread is kind of a last ditch attempt of mine to conclusively prove that FET is fundamentally flawed, because the arguments on this forum are becoming increasingly repetitive. At the very least, each of the points raised here should cast serious doubt on FET. The first three show facts that are easily explained by RE but defy all logic of FET, while the last two points merely showcase the fallacious reasoning and argumentation of FET, which further deducts from its credibility. I would be very surprised if any FE'er can address all five issues objectively without resorting to the usual polemic, or "magical" explanations. I guess I could have spent more time going into detail about each issue, but frankly I don't intend to waste any more of my time here than necessary. Here goes:

1: Celestial movement is spherical in nature

As discussed here, the apparent movement of the stars when viewed from different places on Earth points toward Earth being round. In a nutshell, the stars appear to rotate around two fixed points, one visible from the northern and one from the southern hemisphere. The fact that the stars in the north rotate anti-clockwise and those in the south rotate clockwise while never moving relative to each other strongly indicates a spherical system rotating on an axis. The dome- or disk-shaped area of stars as proposed by FET can only support a single center of rotation, otherwise the percieved celestial sphere would experience constant distortion along the ecliptic, which is clearly not the case.

2: Planetary movements suit RE, but not FE

All known major objects in the solar system (mainly the planets) move on fully predictable paths, consistent with the generally accepted orbital mechanics of mainstream science. The positions of planets and moons can in fact be predicted decades, even centuries in advance, as shown by example on this website. The accuracy of the provided information can easily be verified without any equipment - with the naked eye on clear nights. Needless to say that astronomers have been doing this for a very long time without major problems, otherwise the movements of the planets would not be considered to be predictable.

3: Artificial satellites and space stations should not exist according to FET

NASA and other space agencies have been placing artificial objects into orbit for decades, many of which are visible from Earth. Although these objects require an occasional push in order to remain in a stable orbit (due to atmospheric drag etc.), they clearly cannot be constantly accelerating against the proposed upward acceleration of FET, as this would require incredibly large amounts of energy. As in point 2, the classical notion of gravity, although itself not fully explained, provides a perfectly adequate explanation for this without necessitating constant artificial acceleration.

4: FET is based on an opinion

The conclusion that the Earth must be flat because we percieve it to be flat is flawed. It has already been discussed on this forum that the perspective of a person standing on the surface of something as huge as the Earth is too limited to make an educated judgement of its shape. It could indeed be any shape - flat, round, irregular, a dome, a hollow sphere... there are many possibilities. The scientific approach in this case is to discard direct observations, and instead to derive the Earth's shape from other observations, such as the behaviour of objects in the sky (see points 1 to 3). The approach of FE'ers is to assume that the Earth is flat, and then reinterpret all other observations to suit that assumption, because the idea that the Earth is flat is obviously the most appealing to them.

5: FE arguments are inconsistent

A prime example here is Tom Bishop. Having been confronted with the suggestion that we may percieve a round Earth as flat due to our limited perspective, Tom refuses to believe that when he looks out of his window, he is "seeing a perpetual optical illusion". Then, in several different threads, he insists that many phenomena that contradict FET are explainable by equally perpetual optical illusions, such as extreme atmospheric refraction effects that cause light to bend upwards. In this case, Tom has commited two fallacies. First he reinterpreted the suggestion of "limited perspective" to "optical illusion" before proceeding to contradict it, which essentially constitutes a straw man argument. Secondly, while stating his refusal to believe in (alleged) optical illusions, Tom simultaneously promotes other optical illusions as fact in order to argue his case, therefore not only contradicting himself, but also proving that his arguments are entirely inconsistent. Further examples: the existence of gravity (FE'ers reject Earth gravity but promote celestial gravity), the supposed conspiracy (contradicting statements about which organisations are involved and what their motives are), the position of the continents (several different interpretations exist,  none of which provide a comprehensive solution for all issues), spotlight sun (although it is proven that the sun is spherical, FET requires it to behave like a spotlight). I'm sure there are more, but these are the ones that immediately come to mind.

Have fun.

Flat Earth Debate / Collecting and analysing the arguments for FET
« on: July 02, 2008, 01:56:51 PM »
I've decided to collect all important arguments for FET from the FAQ and organize them into a structured list. Furthermore I have proceeded to "debunk" each and every one of them. Note that this list does not constitute an Argument for RET, but merely against FET in its current form. It is of course open for debate, and I would be glad to update the list with more points if people can raise them, aswell as correct the list, when someone can find a mistake in my logic and/or prove my deductions to be wrong. Note that I have seperated each argument by adding quote tags. This is merely to keep things tidy.

PREMISE: The Earth is observed to be flat.

PROOF: None. In order to prove by observation that the Earth is flat, it would need to be seen in its entirety. The small portion of the world that any one person can see would appear to be flat in both FET and RET due to limited perspective. Therefore the observation does not provide conclusive evidence to either theory.


PREMISE: The Earth is accelerating upwards at 1g.

PROOF: None. As the proposed flat Earth has not been observed from the outside, an upward acceleration is not proven. Additionally, there is no explanation as to why the Earth should be accelerating upwards. Therefore it is just as likely that the Earth exerts a gravitational pull.


PREMISE: There is a global conspiracy covering up the flatness of the world.

PROOF: None. This assumption has not been proven and is therefore merely a theory.


PREMISE: All images of the Earth created by space agencies are fake.

PROOF: None. This claim is based on the unproven assumption that there is a global conspiracy theory. Therefore it cannot be assumed that all images are fake.


PREMISE: The sun and moon are ~3000 miles away and roughly 32 miles in diameter.

PROOF: None. Since the distance to any stellar object cannot be measured from a single point on Earth, and FET does not provide evidence to have conducted proper measurements, it must be concluded that the distance and size of the sun and moon has been arbitrarily set to fit into FET.


PREMISE: The sun is a spotlight.

PROOF: None. This hypothesis based neither on observation nor logic. It was merely constructed to conveniently fit into FET.


PREMISE: The moon glows due to light from the sun being reflected off the Earth.

PROOF: None. This cannot be proven. It is just as likely that the moon glows directly from sunlight.


PREMISE: Sustained space flight is not possible.

PROOF: None. This assumption is based on the unproven assumptions that there is upward acceleration (UA) and that the UA only affects certain objects. Additionally, it has not been independently verified.


Flat Earth Debate / Satellites and the ISS
« on: June 29, 2008, 02:42:17 PM »
I really wanted to stay away from this forum, but this topic has really piqued my interest.

Here is an issue that hit me during the course of the day:

Satellites & the ISS:

Since, under FE theory, sustained space travel is impossible, how do FE'ers explain the fact that satellites can be seen in the sky in regular orbital patterns that fit perfectly into the RE model? Furthermore it is easily possible to get orbital data of the International Space Station and thus predictably spot it in the night sky. Anyone can use this site to check when the ISS will be visible for them at any given time, anywhere on Earth. Yes, yes, that's a NASA site - but the fact remains that the data given there is accurate and that the ISS can actually be seen floating across the night sky at the given dates.

Here is a summary of the hard facts:

- The ISS definitely exists, as anyone with eyes can verify.
- Anyone with access to a telescope can see that the ISS is not a plane and, due to its shape, could never "fly" as a normal plane does.
- The ISS is constantly in the air and never "lands".
- The flight path of the ISS fits perfectly into an orbital model according to RE theory.

I would be interested in hearing an explanation for the existence of the ISS according to FE theory. Of course, you guys consider NASA to be the core of some huge conspiracy, but then that would mean that they are somehow faking the existence of the international space station. Considering the facts that we have on the ISS, this does not seem likely - and even if it were so, the effort to do this would be phenomenal. So why even "pretend" do build it in the first place? The only logical explanation at this point seems to be that the ISS is indeed orbiting a spherical Earth.

Pages: [1]