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 - Lolflatdisc

Pages: [1]
Flat Earth Debate / Physics at play
« on: August 05, 2015, 12:44:45 PM »
Hello there!

A question to the flat eart believers. Are meteorological services in the conspiracy as well?

Flat Earth Q&A / Movement
« on: July 12, 2013, 10:09:10 AM »
How does the sun move through space? As became apparent, some simple souls did not understand the question I will need to explain a tad more.

The sun is moving across the sky. I was wondering what forces act upon the sun for it to move around through the sky.

Flat Earth Debate / Kern the gnome
« on: July 11, 2013, 05:34:28 PM »
I am looking forward to a debate on this. Here is the introductionary article.

Here is the full website to the scientific research on this topic.

Here is the video that introduces the experiment:

As a side note. The experiment does not dependent specifically on having a garden gnome. Any object with the same mass will do. For the same reason they could have taken a plastic brick.

Suggestions & Concerns / suggestions
« on: May 30, 2013, 09:45:32 PM »
Update the FAQ.

The FAQ should contain more information. I opened a topic named FAQ discussion which raised some of the issues..

Furthermore it should contain some real experiments. Easy to conduct experiments with a simple methodology. That way anyone can do these. The experiments which are sometimes refered to are from a long time ago. Sailing ships are not a common sight anymore, furthermore...these experiments have been refuted and explained. These issues would have to be addressed as well, so no one is going to ask questions any longer.

Add a forum for round earth debate. Now you only have a flat earth section. In a round earth section the round earthers can organize themselves better and explain the theory. Promote some people to moderators for these sections (only).

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Guide to newcomers.
« on: May 30, 2013, 08:44:13 PM »
What was the angry part about my post? Reasons please...

If this is how you select your information, just move posts because you disagree its wonder you did not come to terms with yourself. These are just my observations. I am not calling names and my guide to newcomers was just user experience. Others wouldn't come here to ask all these silly answers which most FE defenders get annoyed by and tell them in an angry manner to lurk moar.

Flat Earth Debate / indisuptable evidence
« on: May 30, 2013, 09:05:37 AM »
Very easy to explain. No difficult calculations, easy to check.

Go to the website of Qantas
Select start city Perth, destination Johannesburg. The flight from Perth to Johannesburg takes you 11 h 20 minutes.

Go to the website of United Airlines
For London to Los Angeles. It takes you 11hr 25min. If you have a look at the flat earth map. The distance London --> Los Angeles is shorter (yellow line) than the distance from Perth to Johannesburg (red line). This would be impossible, since both flights take about the same amount of time, therefore they would need to fly almost the same distance.

If you take a round earth and you look at the distance between London --> Los Angeles it is (almost) the same as Perth --> Johannesberg. Therefore the flying time is also (almost) the same. That is what we see. There you have indisputable evidence the earth is round. Time to find a new hobby.

Flat Earth General / FAQ Discussion
« on: May 25, 2013, 08:42:56 PM »
Often do FE defenders tell us to search for answers...and don't worry Junker I will not name anyone....
We are told to have a  look at the FAQ or search for topics. I did not find a topic which refutes the FAQ point by point, so here goes.

According to Flat Earth Theory, the Earth and other planets are not really the same type of celestial body. To put it another way, which I'm sure everyone everywhere will take offense to, the Earth is different.

The big question. WHY? Why would you think the earth is different. What are the grounded reasons?
I see no answer to that.


This is the first of a trend in this video, in which Henry (the host of MinutePhysics, for those not subscribed) assumes that the Flat Earth is exactly the same as the Round Earth in every way except for shape. The sun works in a manner similar to a spotlight in Flat Earth Theory, which is why time zones exist. When the Sun isn't pointing overhead, it's nighttime.

This issue has been raised a lot. If the sun were a sunlight it would look like the following video.  On a flat earth the south will always be dark at some time of the day This totally contradicts real world observations where (depending on the seasons) either the north pole or south pole receives 24/7 light.
Flat disc

Once again, Henry is making assumptions. There are a few differing opinions about this, as Flat Earth Theory is not a unified theory. Some people doubt the existence of Coriolis as anything more than a theorized force, as the evidence for it is largely contrived. Others have various explanations for it, such as the Shadow of the Aetheric Wind theorized by myself.

No explanation as what this effect is, the Aetheric winds or anything. On the other hand there are perfect explanations of the Coriolis effect which match our observations, like this one #" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">coriolis effect (2-11)

4. Triangles

This is little more than conjecture. It is literally impossible to perform this experiment on the scale required.

Although it is hard to actually test yourself there is no reason to doubt it wouldn't work on a larger scale. If it works on a smaller scale, why wouldn't it work on a larger scale? There are other indications which show we live on a spherical earth, so the RET is not dependent on this reason.  For example the travel time below the equator do not differ from those above the equator.

Henry is assuming again. The Sun's apparent movement is caused by the Sun actually moving. As for Eratosthenes's famous experiment to measure the diameter of the Earth, that assumes a Round Earth. If we assume a Flat Earth , the same experiment gives us the distance to the Sun.

Henry is not assuming anything, but is using grounded reasons to proof his right. On the other hand...the highlighted part says it all.."If we assume a flat earth..."

"If we assume pink flying hippos....."

6. Stars Change

Another assumption. This time, he's assuming that FE geography is just a Mercator map. It's not. The Earth is a disk centered around the North Pole, which would provide the same effect.
  On a disc I have the same night sky as someone standing somewhere else. Here is a simple diagram to show you just that. Person A sees the same thing as Person B.


Again, the Earth isn't in the shape of a Mercator map. That would be silly. Magellan and many others simply made a circle around the disk of the Earth.

Only thing I can say is true. If you make a 360 degree on a disc you can end up at the same spot you started. However on a sphere any direction you go will get you back to the starting point. There are no commercial flights across the south pole, but other indications such as the different stars viewable at the night sky at different locations show you the earth is a sphere.

This is just a perspective effect. First of all, apparently large waves will obscure apparently small objects. Therefore, looking out long distances over water you will of course be unable to see land on the other side. In addition, refraction has an effect. Some flat Earthers theorize an electromagnetic acceleration which appears to bend light upward.
Do buildings qualify as small objects? Not true, since we can see the top. The base is not smaller than the top, in the contrary. The base is often wider

Eclipses are caused by the sun going behind the moon, or vice versa. It's that simple. Once again, Henry is assuming everything is exactly the same.

If the moon is going behind the sun, we wouldn't be able to see it. There wouldn't be a lunar eclipse as we know it if the sun is in front of the moon. And if the moon is below the earth we wouldn't be able to see it either, because we are said to be living only on the top.  If the moon is above us and the sun is below the earth, the sun wouldn't be able to do this either. The sun would need to be so powerful and so large to allow some of its light pass along the disc towards the moon for it to have an orange-like colour. This would be problematic since if the sun is above the earth's surface, the entire surface would be lit up. This contradicts real world observations of night/day. The sun would magically have to dim as it sets above the horizon.


Most photographic evidence actually demonstrates what we would expect to see on a disk shaped, flat Earth: a circle with little to no apparent curvature. Add in camera distortion, and that's our explanation for low Earth photos. As for photos like the famous Blue Marble, that the space agencies of the World are involved in a conspiracy is depressingly obvious if you look at the evidence.

If you do not want to believe photographic evidence, then do not use it in your arguements to proof a flat earth. However, if you only think NASA is on a conspiracy, think of all the videos out there of amateurs who have sent up weather balloons with cameras. Amateurs...
This is an easy experiment for anyone to do and not a costly one if you want to have your own proof.

Flat Earth General / Dare devils
« on: May 24, 2013, 07:27:13 PM »
Alright, just wondering. All FE defenders may respond...don't be shy...

Would you dare to admit if you were wrong?

Flat Earth Debate / NASA Jobs
« on: May 24, 2013, 05:09:39 PM »
Did you ever look at NASA's job oppertunities. Current oppertunities comprises of those with a technical background (engineer, etc). Funny that they are not looking for CGI experts and such.

Flat Earth General / Sceptic mind?
« on: May 22, 2013, 06:51:57 PM »
You were probably raised with the idea the earth was a sphere. What made you think otherwise?

Flat Earth Debate / Fascinating
« on: May 13, 2013, 07:41:27 PM »
Alright...the discussion about the flat earth and the round earth could go on in eternity. The FE defenders are convinced they live on a flat earth. They have some answers, just a very few, that could actually work, but for the rest of the theory they still have to work on it.

The RE defenders (including myself) showed fundamental issues with the FET theory, which are only answered by a spherical earth. I will not go into details about each and everything, as the topics on these issues have been opened, probably opened again, again and again.

The FE defenders were able to see (to some extent) that yes their theory still needs some work to be done, but to me some fundamental issues have to be answered first, before you could actually work on an alternative theory as replacement of the spherical earth theory. I have opened a thread about this already, so I don't want to discuss it here.

Why have I opened this topic is to give a methapor as to how I see this debate as it develops. You could go on to debate about that if you like.
I am very interested in  how FE and fellow RE defenders see the following is my opinion and notmeant as angry ranting, or any negative thing at all. It is just how I see it..

The metaphor

I would see the FET as a ship. A unseaworthy ship to be precise. The FE defenders claim their ship is seaworthy, while the RE defenders show all the holes in the ship's hull and say "Look, there is water pouring in, it is not seaworthy at all". Then the FE defenders go on and say "No...look. There are parts of the hull which are intact". And then to why their ship is so messed up  they say that the RET had more time to build theirs. Which does not make sense, because when you start off correctly, you have a working ship of your own. To stick with the metaphor, the FET is not sailing anywhere, while the RET is sailing off and as it goes along the RE finds more which could fit onto the ship. Or like exploring spaces of the ship they previously did not know it existed. - The more complex studies they are onto right now, the string theory etc - ..."Oh, so this part of the ship connects to that part of the if this connects to that, then..."

End of methapor.

Edit: typo

Flat Earth Q&A / Ocean on Flat Earth
« on: May 11, 2013, 04:57:52 PM »
Alright here is another one! If the ice walls "antarctica" the land around the earth is holding back the oceans from flowing away from the earth. What is holding the air onto the disc?

Flat Earth Q&A / Gravity vs upward motion
« on: May 11, 2013, 03:54:34 PM »
There is no downward force and all objects move up. Only a free object will move down, because we move up. As long as an object is connected to another, it will move upwards with it. Laws of Newton.

There are no sideway forces, right? So a brick wall will stay stationary if you put it on the road.
Let's pretend this line is the wall   |
There is a car traveling in one direction, towards the wall  <--.
 The car hits the wall  | <--- Do the bricks go in the opposite direction -->?  Because the car pivots it? No. Why? Because there are no forces acting upon it in the other direction. Same happens if you have an upward movement ^ and no downward movement. You could move an object so it is completely off balance, as long as it is connected to the rest of the world it will move upwards. Once you push the object away, so it floats free in the air, it can move downwards, because the earth is moving upwards.

This does not make sense and you cannot image a wooden board for example to be all the way out, with only a small part connected to another object.

____     (wooden board)
| (object attached to the world)
----------------------  (earth, constantly moving upwards)

It will fall down, and the falling down cannot occur if there is no downward force. Just like the bricks from the wall will not start flying in the opposite direction if a car hits it. The downward force we witness is gravity and not an upward motion from earth.

Flat Earth Debate / Full moon
« on: May 11, 2013, 03:34:26 PM »
Thork came with the fundamental error, that it is impossible that there could be a full moon with a round earth.

Let's write down the real-world observations first. We see a full moon. We also see the moon crescent.

Evidence provided by Thork

The same problem is there with a disc, so these images proof nothing. Instead the images of the round earth are incorrect. The size of the sun is way too small. And the sun is much further away than is shown in these images.

What happens when you put the sun in the correct size and distance? Some point behind the earth, the sun rays cross each other. So no matter whether you are behind the earth, if you are far enough away you will see the sun again. As you can see in this basic paint image

Flat Earth Debate / Center of gravity
« on: May 11, 2013, 12:06:57 PM »
Here is another problem with the FE version of what we perceive as 'gravity'. The FE theory goes on and explains that objects fall towards the earth, because the disc we live on is constantly moving upwards. If I throw a ball up it will come down, because we all move up.

To a side note here, where FE defenders tell they do not feel dizzy, because the earth is spinning, it must be false. I do not feel pushed down to earth because we move upwards, but that on a side note.

If I balance an object and I do not balance it correctly it will fall. If it is on the verge of falling it will hang downwards. Problem however is that there is no downward force according to the FE theory, only an upward force. What is pulling down on the object? The answer to me is gravity.

Flat Earth Q&A / What fundamental error does the RET have?
« on: May 11, 2013, 05:39:56 AM »
It has been more than a week now since I joined the forum to discuss about the flath earth theory. I would like to make up the balance so far about the on-going debate. The FE defenders insist the earth is flat and all evidence suggesting it is a sphere is either incomplete or is part of of a conspiracy (space agencies for example), therefore the evidence that do match real life observations are invalid.

On the other hand, the FET is incomplete and cannot agree on fundamental issues like for example what the sun is like and how it behaves.
I even showed some fundamental errors myself with the FET that, so far, has not been addressed or explained by different theories. Errors which no longer exist when using a sphere as starting point. (See my videos for example).

The debate is on-going as I said, but focusses on the details about either theory. Let me ask you this question, because it is the starting point of the whole debate.

What fundamental error did you find with the RET that does not match real life observations? I do not mean the experiment with the rope and the ship, as this has been addressed and explained by the RET already. Or let me ask the question differently. On what point(s) does the RET contradict itself? Where does the need arise to investigate a flat earth theory? I do not mean to halt anyone here. Feel free to investigate whatever you want. I am interested though, in what motivates you.

I would like only to have answers to my question, so no debate here! Keep it on-topic.

Flat Earth Debate / Which of the two videos represent the truth
« on: May 07, 2013, 07:16:37 AM »
Here are two videos I made

This one showing you what a spotlight looks like on a flat disc.
Flat disc

Does that represent real life observations?

Or does the following video represent real life observations?


Flat Earth Q&A / Explain this and I believe in a flat earth
« on: May 06, 2013, 05:52:15 PM »
The image explains the problem. Explain it to me
Direct link

Flat Earth Q&A / Questions
« on: May 06, 2013, 02:18:51 PM »

Pages: [1]