1

The Lounge / Is Papa Legba Gone?

« on: January 22, 2017, 05:44:53 PM »

Haven't been on here for a long time, not sure I'll be back regularly.  Just wanted to see if Papa Legba has been banned for good. 

2

Flat Earth Debate / Sun Peak Altitude at Equinox

« on: July 17, 2016, 06:15:08 PM »

I am located at about 38° N latitude.  On the spring and fall equinoxes, the sun's peak altitude is about 51°.  This is important, because my latitude, 38°, plus the altitude, 51°, is about 90°.  This is true for anywhere on Earth.  It makes sense for a spherical earth with poles at 90°, but this makes no sense for a flat earth. 

3

Flat Earth General / Vsauce Video on Earth's Motion

« on: June 13, 2016, 12:18:07 PM »

Excellent video by Vsauce about time, dates, and Earth's motion in general. 
I'd like to see the FE "explanations" for things it mentions like sub-solar point motion and CMB Doppler shifting. 

4

Flat Earth Q&A / Why are there two high and low tides each day, etc.?

« on: April 11, 2016, 08:53:25 AM »

We know that since the earth is round, tides are caused by the gravity gradients of the moon and sun, resulting in bulges on opposite sides of the earth.  We also know that tidal force is what caused the moon to always face the earth, similarly with many other moons in the solar system.  Furthermore, we know that this same force is responsible for the rings of gas giants, due to those planets' Roche limits where the gravity gradient is too strong and moons would be ripped apart. 

So what explanation does FE have for these effects?  Since gravity is so clearly out of the question, I trust FE has a better explanation for all of these?  If not, then why are you still treating it as valid?

5

Flat Earth Debate / What is wrong with you people?

« on: March 29, 2016, 08:11:28 PM »

Anyone who has a grain of rationality will see that Round Earth Theory is more rigorously defined and has better explanations for planetary motion, eclipses, the Coriolis effect, satellites, and every aspect of astronomy, and it doesn't require that there be an ongoing conspiracy involving hundreds of thousands of people lasting centuries.  What makes you think that your Flat Earth "Theory" could possibly be a better explanation for all the things we observe, when so much of it is obviously uneducated ad hoc bullshit?  How many excuses will you continue to make before you realize that you were wrong the whole time?  What will it take to get you to believe that the earth is in fact round? 

6

Flat Earth Debate / FE Theory Cannot Make Predictions

« on: March 18, 2016, 05:19:22 PM »

Flat Earth theory cannot make predictions or discoveries.  It can only extrapolate based on what data we already have. 
In that way, it will never be as valid as Heliocentric Theory. 

For example, let's look at Neptune.  Neptune was predicted mathematically from irregularities in the orbit of Uranus.  It was then discovered by telescope very near where it had been predicted to be. 

If the prevailing theory at the time was that the earth was flat, Neptune may never have been discovered.  The irregularities in the orbit of Uranus would have been chalked up to the way its particular stream of aether flowed. 

Since FET cannot make predictions, and would actually discourage predictions if accepted, can it even be called a theory?  At best, it can only be considered a hypothesis, and not a very good one at that. 
From Wikipedia:

According to Schick and Vaughn, researchers weighing up alternative hypotheses may take into consideration:

• Testability (compare falsifiability as discussed above)
• Parsimony (as in the application of "Occam's razor", discouraging the postulation of excessive numbers of entities)
• Scope – the apparent application of the hypothesis to multiple cases of phenomena
• Fruitfulness – the prospect that a hypothesis may explain further phenomena in the future
• Conservatism – the degree of "fit" with existing recognized knowledge-systems.

Well, does FET fit into this? 

• Testability
  Yes, but it's been proven to be false. 
• Parsimony
  Nope!  It exchanges the relative simplicity of gravity for overly complicated, poorly defined, unproven notion of aether.
• Scope
  Nope!  Besides the simple observation of the horizon appearing flat, it really doesn't even try to explain anything else. 
• Fruitfulness
  Nope!  See Neptune above. 
• Conservatism
  Mega-nope!  For it to even be considered, it would have to be proven that the Space Industry, Geodesy, Astronomy, Seismology, and the entire scientific community are entirely corrupt, and every single scientific law and theory revealed to be invalid. 

Well then.  I guess it's not even a scientific hypothesis.  So what is it?  Pseudoscience perhaps?  Really, it's just embarrassing. 

7

Flat Earth Debate / Can nobody explain satellites?

« on: March 13, 2016, 11:35:49 AM »

Do FEers have a good explanation for the motions of satellites?  Of course there's a good reason in RE, but satellites are something FE seems to avoid.  If you tried to overlay the paths of satellites onto your FE azimuthal projection, you would have a mess.  Highly elliptical orbits would be especially difficult to explain, with their peaks and troughs.  Has anyone ever tried this?  Keep in mind that you can tell the height of a satellite through parallax.