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 - theearthisrounddealwithit

Pages: [1]
Flat Earth Debate / Earth upwards acceleration and skydiving/flight.
« on: August 02, 2015, 10:16:31 AM »

  According to the flat earth wiki, the earth is accelerating upward at a rate of 9.81 m/s^2.

   Now an average skydiver will freefall for approximately 65 seconds at 14000 feet. Wouldn't that duration decrease over time as the Earth is supposed to be accelerating upwards? How do airplanes get airborne fast enough for that matter?

Flat Earth Debate / The Occam's Razor argument
« on: April 07, 2015, 07:22:38 AM »
Can flat earthers and dual earthers please stop using Occam's Razor when arguing their ideas? It is not only old, it is ridiculous to use such an argument when your "theories" rely on the most intricate and long lasting conspiracy cover ups imaginable. The hundreds of thousands of photos from space are assumed to be fake. NASA is assumed to be covering up the real shape of the Earth. Satellites are assumed to not exist. All the governments throughout all the ages are "assumed" to be in on it and so on. Hardly the least amount of assumptions. In fact, the conspiracy aspect of these "theories" make them have the most amount of assumptions needed to survive. So please, stop with Occam's Razor.

Flat Earth Debate / Dual Earth theory and the equator
« on: March 25, 2015, 04:46:06 PM »
 Why does dual Earth theory take into account the equator? The equator is an imaginary line that is used to separate the hemispheres and is perpendicular to the Earth's axis of rotation. To use the equator, for the point where people teleport hemisphere to hemisphere for instance, then wouldn't it be acknowledging the nature of the equator in relation to the Earth's axis and the history behind it? If not then why would the dual Earth theory's equator be exactly at the same place as the one that is perpendicular with our globe's axis that you don't agree with? Wouldn't that be a spectacular coincidence?

Flat Earth Debate / A massive hole in dual earth theory (literally)
« on: March 25, 2015, 04:37:50 PM »

         How does this "aether" work underwater? See there is this gigantic underwater ridge called the mid-atlantic ridge. It extends from northeast Greenland far beyond the equator into the south Atlantic just West of a place called Bouvet Island. Called the Bouvet triple junction it is where 3 major tectonic plates meet. As this ridge goes south, does it teleport itself into the southern hemisphere? The ridge separates itself at a rate of 2.5 CM per year. Does this mean the separation at the point of the ridge at the equator crosses the magical aether barrier at this speed as well? Does this apply to the tectonic plates as well? Or heck how about someone crossing the equator in a submarine?

Flat Earth Debate / How does FET explain the solar terminator?
« on: March 24, 2015, 10:12:56 AM »

        If the Sun is a giant circular spotlight then how does FET explain the solar terminator? A giant lightbulb would always illuminate a circular area. The solar terminator is shown to be parallel with longitude lines at seasonal equinox and at a 23.5 degree maximum angle at the solstices. If the sun was a lightbulb hovering around, the terminator would always be curved, no matter where the sun is.  Can any flat earthers explain to me how this is possible in a clear scientific way without using aether or whatever new made up magical phenomenon you may come up with?

Flat Earth Debate / Shape of the Earth and tectonic plates.
« on: March 17, 2015, 10:14:22 AM »

     Unless flat earthers deny the existence of tectonic plates and fault lines which are continuously studied, why with the movement of the crust the Earth maintain the shape of a disc? If the Earth was flat, wouldn't it take a more random shape?

Flat Earth Debate / The photographic evidence paradox
« on: March 13, 2015, 01:34:33 PM »

         Even though I know the earth is round, it seems to me there may always be an impasse when it comes to photographic evidence. Flat earth theory needs to dismiss the photographs as fakes otherwise the whole idea falls apart. However in these forums no one has ever been able to dismiss or validate ANY of the photographs. Some may claim to be experts but really with technology the way it is today and photoshop to boot, who can really claim they are 100% certain about the validity of any given photograph? I am no expert for sure but I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a photoshopped image of space and one that is alleged as "real".

     Sticking to photographic evidence only, is it safe to say that (those on this forum, within their knowledge) round earthers must accept that maybe some (or all) photographs ARE fake and flat Earthers accept that maybe some photos ARE real?

Flat Earth Debate / Green Comet Lovejoy
« on: January 02, 2015, 03:39:47 PM »

      On January 7th, the green comet Lovejoy will be at its closest position to earth at an estimated 70.2 million KM.

     Comet, definition: a celestial object consisting of a nucleus of ice and dust and, when near the sun, a “tail” of gas and dust particles pointing away from the sun.

         Now according to the FE wiki in the Astophysics under "Universal Acceleration" it states: "In the Universal Acceleration model, all the celestial bodies including the earth are being accelerated in one uniform direction at roughly 9.81 m/s^2. The proposed method of propulsion is Dark Energy?".

  So the above statement must apply to comet Lovejoy since it is a celestial body. If so how can it be accelerating, of all things, upward if it clearly has its own velocity officially estimated at 333 miles/s?
   Even if the "conspiracy" made up the speed of the comet you cannot deny its existence unless you are blind or deny it obviously has a velocity since the trail betrays its trajectory. If it were accelerating upwards in one uniform direction, wouldn't it be stationary in the sky?

Flat Earth Debate / Why is it so difficult to reach the alleged ice rim?
« on: December 16, 2014, 05:22:52 AM »

    Local boy and hero Frédéric Dion became the first person (and fastest) to reach the South Pole alone, kite surfing his way across 2100 kilometers, 150 km/hour winds (in sub zero temperatures, -10 celsisus in his own tent) over 35 days. He carried with him 100 kilos of gear and supplies.

  Now let's use the FE model where the ice wall is not guarded (some think it is, some do not) Why is it so hard to reach the edge of the ice rim? This guy went through pretty harsh conditions on his own. With a little more technology and a crew, it should be a breeze to reach the ice rim.

By the way, he documented his journey in a daily log. He is not an actor and this was not staged in some Hollywood studio. He is a known local adventurer who takes on all kinds of crazy stuff. He is not interested in protecting any secret whatsoever.

Flat Earth Debate / The Ice Wall Guardians and the conspiracy
« on: December 09, 2014, 06:18:32 AM »
From what I've read here on this site, the Flat Earth's circumference is around 75000 miles. Now to keep it a secret, they would have to post the fabled ''Ice Wall Guardians'' around this wall at say, 1 mile intervals. Unless my math is failing that means about 74 999 outposts.

    Now let's consider the facilities themselves. They would have to be well built bunkers with watch towers. Include state of the art computer monitored security systems, lighting as well as living quarters with heat, running water food and supplies to last. Add to that snowmobiles, 4x4's and a helipad. Let's not forget these guards need to be geared up with good equipment to withstand cold temperatures and of course, weaponry (with ammo to last) to kill ON SIGHT any who venture to near to get a view of the Ice Wall and illegally report it back to another civilian. We cannot assume they would station one single lonely Guardian, they would have to give him/her some buddies, say 4 of them for a grand total of 5 per outpost. I can hear the FE's crying that to be unreasonable so let's cut it down to 2 people per outpost.

    That's 74 999 x 2= 149 998 people to pay and silence as well as ALL their relatives who know about their ''little'' secret. Each outpost would cost in the millions at least. Say we cut costs and use the cheapest materials and equipment we get a figure of 1 000 000 including upkeep, and 1 000 000$ would make these outposts look like little shacks with old Pentium PC's and wood stoves for heating.

 74999 x 1 000 000 = 74 BILLION 999 000 000 million. We haven't even started paying our heroic Guardians.

Now I can't imagine anyone wanting to be posted out in the cold middle of nowhere for chicken feed but once again, let's be conservative about it and find the craziest drones for the job at around 30000/year. 30 000x 2 =60 000 x 74 999 = 4 billion 499 940 000 every year.

  All those costs is for the Ice Wall Guardians alone. We have yet to touch on the rest of the logistics to maintain said conspiracy. Let's keep that for another day, shall we?  ;)

  This is starting to get expensive for a conspiracy that is supposed to be financially beneficial.  ;D


Flat Earth Debate / Roald Amundsen and Jon Sanders
« on: November 19, 2014, 11:44:22 AM »
I would like to know the FES take on Roald Amundsen and Jon Sanders.

Roald Amundsen led the first south pole expedition. Surely he would have seen an "ice wall" with guards checking it.

Jon Sanders circumnavigated Antarctica twice in 1981-1982. Was he bought out by NASA? Wouldn't it have been easier for the ice wall guards to dispose of him instead of spending more money on the cover up?

Flat Earth Debate / Weather satellites
« on: November 12, 2014, 12:29:13 PM »
I am pretty sure most FE's do not believe satellites orbiting the Earth exist because it would most definitely prove the Earth being an oblate spheroid. I wonder how FET explains weather satellites. If I'm in Montreal and I watch the satellite feed on the weather channel on TV and it shows thunder showers in Toronto, I can call a friend or family member and sure enough they will confirm said thunder showers. So if the image we see on the weather channel is an accurate projection of what is actually happening, does this mean that NASA and all other space agencies worldwide (+/- 75 of them) all have to draw up those fake satellite images as part of the big hoax to fool us simpletons? This would have to be done several times a day EVERY day. The ressources to maintain this would cost billions.

Looks like the financial benefit of the cover up is looking smaller and smaller.

Flat Earth Debate / Everest vs ice wall
« on: November 06, 2014, 07:54:42 AM »

   If people have climbed mount Everest and survived, why would it not be possible to climb this icewall and see the other side? Surely it does not go on forever? We have the equipment and technology to do so. In the wiki, a quote from Samuel Rowbotham:

"...How far the ice extends; how it terminates; and what exists beyond it, are questions to which no present human experience can reply. All we at present know is, that snow and hail, howling winds, and indescribable storms and hurricanes prevail; and that in every direction "human ingress is barred by unsealed escarpments of perpetual ice," extending farther than eye or telescope can penetrate, and becoming lost in gloom and darkness...."

I find this description of subzero hell a little too convenient to discourage REs from wanting visual proof and actual data of this thing. We can see multiple planets, the sun (even if we need greater magnification than for 3000 miles) and the space station using a simple telescope but we cannot see things like the ice wall? (or the end of it?)

Flat Earth Debate / The anti-moon or "shadow object"
« on: November 01, 2014, 02:37:06 PM »
Reading about this fascinating idea in the flat earth wiki I just had to address this...again, in hopes of getting some kind of answer that is not just another question, or beating around the bush.

  According to flat earth wiki, There is a "shadow object" that causes the lunar eclipse about twice a year. According to this wiki, it is around 5 to 10 miles in diameter but cannot be observed since it orbits too close to the sun. So the sun being 32 KM in size, let's go ahead and convert this antimoon's size into KM: 8-16KM that's up to HALF the size of the sun. How would it be not possible to see this thing especially if we consider

A: It is close to the sun in orbit*


B: It is between 1/4 to 1/2 the size of the sun?

*By definition, orbit implies gravity, something the FE theory doesn't agree with because we are accelerating upwards through space.
Since orbit is clearly mentionned and therefore ACCEPTED in the flat earth wiki and since gravity is an upwards acceleration, how does the FE theory explain the force attributed to orbit if it is not gravity? and what do you FE's call it?

Flat Earth Debate / Position of the stars
« on: October 29, 2014, 09:24:37 AM »
If the Earth has been accelerating upwards for all this time, wouldn't the position of the stars eventually change?

Flat Earth Debate / Where do the other planets get their light?
« on: October 29, 2014, 06:17:22 AM »
If the Sun is a light bulb that travels at 3000km above the Earth, where do the other planets get their light from? Take a telescope (anybody can do this) and look at the other planets (which are clearly spherical) and you will see that there is one side of the planet that is visible due to a light source. The only thing we do not see is their own, respective "light bulbs". Where are they? Unless of course these planets are lit by a central source of light, AKA the Sun.

Sure one may argue that it is our own Sun illuminating them but considering the magnification our telescopes must have in order to see these planets, we could determine that they are considerably far away therefore we could also determine their size. How can our 32KM wide light bulb illuminate one side of vast Jupiter? or one side of another planet in the same fashion and intensity even though the distance is completely different?

Last, with the proper equipment a photographer can snap a picture of the sun. Why do they need great magnification telescope to take a picture if it is only 3000 km away?

Flat Earth Debate / Just a couple of questions for FEs
« on: October 22, 2014, 06:42:31 AM »

      Hi. Although I may be newly registered as a user, I must say I have been coming to this site and forum for some time now. I am a believer in a round earth but people giving their perspectives on both sides is fascinating. I am also into all the different scientific points of view that are given here. Old and new, the scientific theories touch many different fields of science and it is just a fun read all around. While I may not be a scientist I am able to understand when it is explained to me. For now I have just 2 questions relating to the flat earth theory and forgive me if these questions have been touched on before as I have not read through the entire forum.

       First, some friends and myself have observed numerous times through a telescope planets such as Jupiter, Mars or Saturn as well as the moon. These objects, from my point of view anyway, are clearly spherical in shape. Putting all theories, equations or photographs that either the FEs or REs would bring forth, aside, why would the observable celestial bodies be spherical and the Earth flat?

      My second question stems from all the theories implying "covering up" the fact that the earth is flat. From the Antarctic ice wall being guarded to the alleged fake moon landing or pictures from space being a NASA hoax. The world population is roughly 7 billion people. With that many people, money and resources, the cost and effort to cover up an obvious thing of gargantuan proportion like the Earth being flat would be staggering. My question is, if all the world governments combined their efforts and put forth trillions of dollars to fool us into thinking the Earth is round for decades, why would things like high altitude balloons be available to the public? They could easily be used in order to prove the earth is flat once and for all.


Pages: [1]