1

Flat Earth Debate / Rowbotham vs Bendy Light

« on: June 29, 2009, 08:55:36 AM »

This is a poll for FE'ers. There seems to be disagreement as to whether there is a horizon, objects can disappear behind it, Rowbotham proved the world is flat, light can bend to create the illusion of a horizon, etc. I was hoping to determine what the general consensus is. If any FE theories require another option, please explain.

2

Flat Earth Q&A / does gravitation exist?

« on: June 18, 2009, 09:19:41 AM »

I'm confused. Does gravitation exist in flat earth "theory"?

Q: "What about gravity?"

A: Dark Energy accelerates the Earth and all celestial bodies in the universe at 9.8m/s2. This is commonly known as Universal Acceleration, which produces the same effect as gravity. General relativity uses this concept to explain the equivalence between proper acceleration and gravity.

Q: "Why does gravity vary with altitude?"

A: The celestial bodies have a slight gravitational pull.

Q:  Follow-up to previous question:  "How is it that the Earth does not have a gravitational pull, but stars and the moon do?"

A:  This argument is a non-sequitur. You might as well ask, "How is it that snakes do not have legs, but dogs and cats do?" Snakes are not dogs or cats. The Earth is not a star or the moon. It doesn't follow that each must have exactly the properties of the others, and no more.

I understand that you dismiss gravitation as an explanation for falling objects, but then you use it to explain the gravity variation at different altitudes. You say there is no reason to expect earth to have gravitation because everything else does. However if you consider the definition of gravitation, then you would realize this in incorrect.

gravitation: a natural phenomenon by which objects with mass attract one another

Either the earth is not an object with mass, which would require a lot of explaining, or the pull from the celestial bodies is an entirely new force (not gravitation).

Does FET accept gravitation or not?

3

Flat Earth Debate / Bedford Level wager

« on: June 17, 2009, 07:31:21 AM »

http://books.google.com/books?id=efc3AAAAMAAJ&printsec=titlepage#PPA215,M1

To summarize, Hampden offered a wager to any scientific man that would accept that the earth is flat. Wallace accepted the wager. An experiment was conducted on the Bedford Level, which both agreed to. The experiment showed the earth was not flat. Hampden expressed himself satisfied then paid the wager. He then called Wallace a "liar" and a "swindler" in his publications, which resulted in him being sued for libel.

In an unrelated thread, Tom Bishop claims that neither party had agreed on the outcome of the experiment, and the wager wasn't paid. Are there any reliable sources which contradict the article I linked to above? Are there any FE'ers willing to make a similar wager? Unfortunately, I don't live near the Bedford Level, but I do live near Lake Michigan.

4

Flat Earth Q&A / upwards acceleration

« on: June 09, 2009, 11:40:09 AM »

I think it's agreed upon that objects over the earth's surface accelerate towards the earth relative to the earth. According to FET, this is because there is some unknown force accelerating the earth upwards, but not the objects over the earth. How did you come to the conclusion that it is the earth accelerating and not the objects above the earth?

5

Flat Earth Q&A / why do you believe?

« on: May 28, 2009, 12:20:25 PM »

What did you observe or read which was so convincing that you became so certain that the earth is flat that you make assumptions such as the existence of global conspiracies and ice walls to explain anything that contradicts FET? What would have to happen for you consider FET to be less plausible than RET? How many people must be involved in the RET conspiracy before it becomes unlikely?