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 - Mikey T.

Pages: [1]
Flat Earth Debate / Down
« on: July 12, 2019, 09:51:31 AM »
What makes things fall down?
What is down? 

Explain the reasoning logically please.

The Lounge / feel the hate
« on: May 25, 2018, 04:53:17 AM »

The fire of a hatred that may never burn out has begun

Flat Earth Debate / Just a little something to ponder
« on: May 16, 2018, 10:57:21 AM »
If the ISS is fake how can an amateur get these images.
I am on my phone so I am just giving the link to the imgur post.

The Lounge / Easily offended
« on: February 12, 2018, 10:12:37 AM »
So when did simple political jokes become a reportable offense?

I replaced my work computer Friday.  I asked the IT contractor if he was going to clear my old files on my old computer since I can't boot it up.  He said that Microsoft would clear it for me.  I told him no, I have export control documents on it, so I need to Clintonize the drive.  Apparently equating deleting data thoroughly with Secretary Clinton is offensive.  I just got out of a meeting with the HR  manager about it.  Oh she is confused about why it's offensive also. 
So my slap on the hand includes posting an apology on the internal message board and it is still under review by corporate HR "sensitivity specialists".   If I lose my job over this crap, I will have lost my last hope for humanity.

Flat Earth Debate / Aparent Solar Path
« on: February 05, 2018, 05:56:34 PM »
Just gonna leave this here.

Flat Earth Debate / The Earth is flat, Donnie Baker says so.
« on: December 16, 2017, 10:48:59 AM »
Well I guess I need to accept it then.  He actually does experiments.

The Lounge / Something different (some swear words included)
« on: August 21, 2017, 08:04:41 PM »
People who swear are more honest?  Really motherfucker?

Move over Honest fucking Abe, I got this fucking honest thing down pat. 

The Lounge / Slippery slopes
« on: August 20, 2017, 08:00:02 PM »
So, perhaps this isn't really flat Earth centric.  I could do a very general like link to some of our behaviors on this forum board, which makes me look inward at myself with a bit of trepidation.  There are some very serious things going on in my country right now that deals with bad ideas and silencing others ideas.  I am all for public arguments.  I absolutely enjoy listening to opposing opinions.  If I think they are bad I will call them out, but I do not want to silence those opposing opinions.  I know I will resort to insulting behavior, I have and I will most likely continue this, especially if I am insulted first, not always, but most of the time.  There are some that would equate insulting, or strongly worded opposition, language to physical violence.  After some introspection I do not feel I am doing the same things as I am about to discuss.
Anyway, in my country, which I share with many of you guys, there is a growing unrest.  While I see and agree with many of the reasons people are espousing to remove supposed offensive monuments, I also see and agree with many of the reasons to keep them.  I currently lean slightly towards keeping them instead of destroying them.  But if I were to publicly choose that side, I would be lumped in with the Uncle Toms and White Supremacists that everyone who disagrees with removing those "hateful" symbols are put into automatically.  I believe hiding our heritage is not the way to learn from it, but I also believe you shouldn't have to pay to upkeep something that offends you so deeply as those symbols do for many of us.  Right now is worries me that we are allowing people to justify violence for supposed moral reasons, which sounds ok until you also see that those same people are choosing what is moral and who has violated that morality.  I worry that by silencing opposition, they will be able to bully their own agenda through and if I or anyone else tries to voice any opposition to that agenda, we will be labeled and dealt with as immoral people.  I have studied history fairly well in my lifespan, and this is how people like Hitler and Stalin rise to power.  They play on people's emotions, highlight anyone who may think differently as immoral, and ride that increasing snowball of power built as they slowly remove things that are opposing their agenda calling it offensive or "evil".  When the group determining what to do to the "immoral" people is the same group that gets to determine what is "immoral" and is the same group that gets to make the narrative, then what is to stop them from becoming tyrannical.  Once you find out that you have the power to move those goalposts wherever you want, then it is only a matter of time before you are able to talk yourself into doing the same things you told yourself you were fighting against.  Fascism, tyranny... EVIL, are games of inches and small movements, a slippery slope if you will, once you start down the path of declaring what is moral and allow yourself bully those supposed immoral people out, you will find it easier and easier to just move that morality line in favor of what you want.  Damn freedoms if you aren't the one losing them right? 

Flat Earth Debate / FE without the conspiracy.
« on: June 26, 2017, 04:31:03 AM »
The discussion in another thread raised a question.  I made the claim that there are no FE models that do not require a conspiracy.
So give me a model that agrees with known tested and verified physics,  can have things like geosynchronous satellites, pictures from space, etc.
I want to see these FE models that do not require a conspiracy to survive shining an investigative light on them.
I challenge you.  Show me.  Show everyone.

Flat Earth Debate / Videos
« on: June 23, 2017, 02:36:28 PM »
I am going to post these here since my other thread got derailed.  I may add to them.

Since so many FE hoaxers love to link their videos, I thought I would do the same for some debunking videos.

Decent reasoning of background causes for why FE hoaxers exist

A new Greater Sapien video answering questions.

Talked about in the Earlier video, and a decent debunking of many claims.

CHL part 1, guys makes the debunking rather funny

CHL part 2

CHL part 3

CHL part 4

CHL part 5

CHL going over questions about the Testing Flattards series that stupid lying flattards cannot answer

part 2 of CHL embarrassing moronic flattards

some oldies but goodies

addendum to part 1

part 2

Someones rebuttal to zigzag

Same guy looks like he got a bit pissy about FE folks on youtube.

These can get long.  But he does a nice job of explaining about the horizon and how to derive the formula

Pretty good one destroying most globebuster arguments

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Anger bigotry and dishonesty
« on: June 22, 2017, 09:01:15 PM »
So my brother's wife is a Christian preacher's daughter.  I have trouble reconciling the level of hatred I see coming from her in respect to Gays, people of other races, non church goers, Muslims, Jews, and other religions.  She proclaims love for them in the same breath as saying how much she can't stand them. 
You always get the vibe that she looks down on you from a false moral high ground because her Daddy is the preacher, 2 of her brother's are preacher's, het sister is a missionary, etc.  She is judgemental all the time. 
I wish there was some way of making her understand that she is not following the teachings of Christ.  But coming from me, a heathen in her eyes because I do not devote my life to the church.  I feel that churches have become more world centered, twisting the teachings of Christ.  They are not inherently evil people, just blinded by their own pompasness over being church members to practice actual Christianity.  These are my thoughts though.
 I have been invited and I attended a few Jewish services, Islamic services, Catholic services, and once to a Morman service.  Yes I know service isnt the best word.  I tell you this to say, they all show the same thing, judgemental attitudes from the people attending.
 I always thirst for knowledge and I jump at chances like these to experience things I do not always agree with.  Yes I do bluster quite a bit on these forums, but that's for fun.  Yes i believe alternative ideas of shapes of the Earth are wrong, but I don't feel my fussing is really taken seriously and not in the same category as the feelings I get from my Sister-in-law. 
I guess my question is though, is it my failings to think the way I see church members show me that they do, am I seeing things that are not there, or is this what others experience with church also?

Flat Earth Debate / Video Proof
« on: June 10, 2017, 09:17:16 PM »
Ok, not exactly proof, but you opened the thread.
Since so many FE hoaxers love to link their videos, I thought I would do the same for some debunking videos.

Decent reasoning of background causes for why FE hoaxers exist

Talked about in the Earlier video, and a decent debunking of many claims.

CHL part 1, guys makes the debunking rather funny

CHL part 2

CHL part 3

Flat Earth Debate / Bet you can't do it either
« on: March 05, 2017, 06:26:11 AM »
Using physical observers own videos only.

Prove the Earth is motionless.

Flat Earth Debate / Convince me that the Earth is flat
« on: February 18, 2017, 02:06:31 PM »
Ok, I will make it easy.  I need a couple of things explained in a way that would convince me that I am wrong.  So no wild theories with no supporting data, I need an explanation that I can either devise a test for or perform your test.  If I have already done said tests, I will let you know and attempt to recreate it if possible just to double/triple check my previous results.
No NASA photos or talk of whether we even have a space program if possible.  I will even leave out things that I have seen a half baked attempt to explain like the Coriolis effect. 

First and probably the hardest: 
Circumpolar star paths both North and South simultaneously occurring.  I need to see something of an explanation that works for a flat Earth.  (Sorry JROWE, not DET right now.  Trying to get to flat Earth belief)

Why math showing the 1000 mph rotation only gives 1/3 of 1 percent the force of gravity in centrifugal force away from the center of the spherical Earth model.  Well, just explain why math is wrong.  Not ad hoc conspiracy talk here.

Why setting up a Satellite TV receiver dish in North America can possibly work without floating satellites.

We will hold off on those three for now, but understand if you are going to bring up things like Stratellites or celestial gears, please give me a proper explanation or at least citations to something reputable that can.  I am an engineer, so I have no big issues with you using math correctly to disprove any formula commonly used to figure these things out.  Also I spent many years as a satellite technician (TV and Internet) so I know for a fact the things don't pick up a terrestrial tower based signal and that they are line of sight types of signals.  Been there done that, got the t-shirt.  I have tested the LOS of the signal many many times and I can assure you it is coming from above.

Flat Earth Debate / Centrifugal force
« on: April 23, 2015, 05:20:26 PM »
Since these got lost in the shuffle and we are now talking about something totally different, I wanted to do some copy pasta and discuss the fact that the calculations I made match up with the purported bulge of the equator.

Ok since no one has done the math and Alpha laid it out there.

In the formula I posted above for centrifugal force, and Alpha showed earlier also I will use catboy's numbers:
So a is the centrifugal acceleration, aka the force trying to throw you off of the spinning Earth in this case.
And r is the radius of the Earth  ( 1/2 of 7,926.3352 miles then multiply by 5280 to get feet  = 20925524.928 ft)
And v is the velocity of the spin at the equator (1,037.554 mph multiply by 5280 to get ft per hour = 5478285.12 then divide by 3600 to get ft per second = 1521.746 ft per second)

This gives:
a = (1521.74 ft/s)2 / 20925524.928 ft
a = 2315692.6276 ft2/s2 / 20925524.928 ft
a = 0.1107 ft/s2

Gravity = 32.174 ft/s2
So what percent is that of gravity?
0.1107 ft/s2 /32.174 ft/s2
equals 0.00344
So 1/3 of 1 percent of the force of gravity reduced at the equator.

Amazing how math works.

Flat Earth Debate / Movie magic research
« on: April 19, 2015, 10:08:51 PM »
So we had some fun this weekend and sat down to watch several big budget, hailed as great special effects movies from the 60's, 70's and 80's. 
I recommend others to see the evolution of special effects during those decades.  Please watch things like the Last Starfighter that was CGI heavy in the 80's, or perhaps Logan's Run from the 70's when they used models.  Check out how things looked from what Hollywood could have done vs what we watched 20 years prior from NASA. 
You will have a ton of fun doing it also.  We sat down as a family and enjoyed. 
Plus, form time to time I read off some of the comments here to them, we had a good laugh there also.

Flat Earth Debate / Fundamental Forces
« on: April 07, 2015, 11:28:46 PM »
There is a lot of claiming that gravity makes assumptions because we do not know where it comes from.  There are many things that science hasn't answered as of yet, and science would be boring if it had all the answers.  The current model of the universe and its basic parts contain 4 fundamental forces.  These are called fundamental because they have been observed, mathematically proven, and based on the mathematics can predict things.  Scientist currently do not know for sure where these forces come from.  There is a problem when you start down that hole also.  I call it the Why chain syndrome.  A why chain can never be answered without presuppositions.  You can always go into why this, then why the answer of that one so on and so forth until the end of time.  It can lead to endless loops, or a never ending string of breaking down things into infinitely smaller pieces needing explanations. 
Fundamental forces are what scientists have observed but as of yet do not know what causes them.  They are currently considered the foundations of universal movements.  You can, with enough time mathematically reduce any movement or opposition to movement down to these four fundamental forces.  There has been some work on constructing a unified field theory that would further explain these forces, but gravity just doesn't fit into it.  So either, gravity is a constituent of another force, or it is something much different than what the other forces actually are.  String theory has made some work on unifying gravity with the other forces but that is still being developed, although they have some interesting mathematical proofs already, they need more evidence to test. 
Below is an overview of the four fundamental forces as they are currently understood.

The first is called the strong force.  This is the strongest of all the forces.  It has a very limited range.  It is what holds the nucleus of an atom together and basically overpowers the repulsion of charges.  So it is stronger than the electromagnetic force at a very short range (basically the diameter of a medium sized atomic nucleus).

The second is called the electromagnetic force.  This force is the second strongest force but only 1/137th the strength of the strong force.  It is what we draw upon to explain the charges of individual particles, I would add in spin but that would just get more complicated.  It's range actually infinite but obeys the inverse square law of strength dropping off over distance.  Without going into quantum particles, we could say this is the force that gives us electricity. 

The third is called the weak force and is weaker still (just barely stronger than gravity).  Ok this one is a little beyonf me, basically the range of this force is about the diameter of a proton and it has to do with changing the type of quarks inside the subatomic particles and beta radiation.  I will have to look at this a bit more to get a better understanding of it. 

the forth is called gravity.  it is the weakest force of the four.  It has infinite range and obeys the inverse square law just like EM does.  This is what causes mass to attract to other mass.  more mass concentrated into one spot means more gravitational force.  Gravity is far from being unknown.  It doesn't fit into the unified field theory and suggests that there is more mass in the universe than we have currently observed. 

These fundamental forces are at the current end of the why chain.  We do not have answers as of yet to explain why they do what they do.  We do have tons of data on them, they behave as expected mathematically and in reality.  They predict outcomes.  They make sense. 
There are no where near the assumptions made about them that people like to attach to them.  Yes some of the theories that have simplified them seem hard to understand. 
A little example on what an infinite why chain would be, and how it is used on these forums:

Why is the sky blue?

Because the atmosphere scatters sunlight and blue is scattered the most.

Why does blue get scattered the most?

Because it has a shorter wavelength and the properties of the atmosphere scatters it more.

Why does blue have a shorter wavelength?

Because the color blue comes from that shorter wavelength of the electromagnetic spectrum.

So you really do not know why blue is blue then?

No not really, it just is blue and those are its properties.

Well you don't understand blue, therefore it doesn't exist.  I think there are tiny blue butterflies that only come out during the daylight and that's the only logical answer to why the sky is blue. 

Flat Earth Debate / What is a straw man argument
« on: April 05, 2015, 11:23:29 AM »
Since Flat Earther's like to throw out the straw man accusation so much, and yes some of their opponents do use it but no where near as many times as much as they say, I wanted to get a better understanding of a straw man argument.

For a reference here is a wiki link to what a straw man argument is

Below is a debate I found on another website which actually shows a straw man argument.  Pay close attention to who uses the straw man tactics.

See if you can figure out who is using the straw man argument style

A Debate About the Shape of the Earth
Good evening, and welcome to this debate about the shape of the Earth.  We will begin with opening statements from each of the debaters.  Then each side will present its principal evidence, with that evidence followed by rebuttal from the opposition.  The debate will end with closing summaries from each side.  We now begin with the opening statements.

Spherical Supporter Flat Earth Supporter
Good evening.  I'm here this evening to make a claim with which almost every educated person agrees - that the earth is round.  I will outline the evidence that has led to this fundamental observation learned by every schoolchild.  In doing so, I will be doing what any scientist does in addressing any issue - considering all the available physical evidence to reach a conclusion supprted by that evidence.  My opponent may try to divert you from that evidence, so I encourage to observe the credo of every scientist - don't trust the person, trust the evidence.
[td ]Good evening.  I'm here this evening to point out the obvious - that the earth is flat.  My learned opponent will try to befuddle with you fancy theories and and elaborate explanations.  I will instead just dwell on what any plain citizen can see - that the world around them looks flat and has no evidence of being round.  I appreciate that many of you have been led astray by the kind of dogma my learned opponent will present, but I hope to bring you back down to earth, so to speak, to get back to the fundamental facts.

We will now hear the evidence for a round earth, any rebuttal thereof, and subsequent discussion to elaborate on those points.

The idea of a round earth was established well before the voyages of Christopher Columbus.  For example, the observation that the sails of ships remain visible to the last as sailing ships disappear over the horizon was recognized early on as evidence of a round earth.  Columbus's voyages presupposed a round earth.  More significantly, Magellan's circumnavigation of the globe proved that the earth was round, for how else could his crew have returned to their home port?
More recently, we have unquestionable evidence of the roundess of Earth.  Images of Earth from space prove that the Earth is round.  Those images were generated from orbital spacecraft, by satellites, from vessels traveling to the moon, and from the moon itself.  As these examples show, they all indisputably show a round earth.


  The evidence speaks for itself.
My learned opponent claims to value physical evidence, but the available physical evidence clearly supports my case and disproves hers.  First, I encourage any of you to step outside and look at the world around you - it looks flat.  Whether one stands in the middle of the Great Plains, or on the highest mountain, or on the deck of a ship at sea, the world looks flat.  Isn't that evidence enough to refute this claim of a round world?

If we indulge my learned opponent for a moment, consider her claim to a round world.  You and I are on the upper half of that world, and so we stand on the earth beneath our feet.  My learned opponent proposes that, on the other side of her round world, people in Australia are upside down, and must hang onto the earth by their toes.  If any of you take that seriously, let me assure you that I have spoken to people who have visited Australia, and they unanimously report that they were not up-side-down, they did not have to hang onto the earth by their toes, their blood did not rush to their heads, and in general they suffered none of the effects that would be required by my opponent's theory.

My learned opponent points to the appearance of ships at sea as evidence of a round earth, failing to acknowledge that waves and sea spray obscure the lower reaches of ships while their sails remain visible.  She points to the so-called "circumavigation" by Magellan as evidence of a round earth, but fails to acknowledge that this standard map of the flat earth allows the same voyage.

My learned opponent goes on to cite pictures allegedly taken from the moon and from vessels orbiting the earth.  I appreciate that many of you may be fond of those pictures, but you should ask yourselves - how do you know they are real?  It has long been known that the purported lunar landings were a hoax filmed on a soundstage.  That hoax was perpetrated to make America appear to have won the "Space-race" of the 1960s, but surely we can now set that fabrication aside.   More recently, NASA has similarly constructed the myth of space shuttles and a space station.  Think for a second, folks - all you ever see of those shuttles is their launch and landings in Florida and California.  Do you think it's an accident that you only see those shuttles near the motion picture studios and Disney facilities?  The whole thing has been fabricated for you, and this round earth is just a part of the hoax.

   Now, I know many of you will tell me that you've "seen" the space shuttle in space, and you've seen the round earth from space.  You've seen them on videotape.  You've also seen Captain Kirk land on alien worlds, you've seen Luke Skywalker fight the spaceships commanded by Darth Vader, and you've seen a host of other space explorers visit distant worlds and meet strange aliens.  Were those all real? No - they were videotape creations of the motion picture industry.  Do you really think the trips to the moon were any different?
To purport that billions of dollars have been spent just to mislead the public is preposterous.  Thousands of scientists wouldn't waste their careers, and the world's governments wouldn't waste their money, constructing a hoax in which lunar landings were faked, space shuttle flights were faked, and the International Space Station is faked.  It's preposterous. 
My learned opponent just cited the work of "thousands of scientists" to support the contention that the world is round.  "Round", "round", "round", she says. However, some of the scientists she venerates would disagree.  Let me read what one of them - a very conventional scientist - has to say about the shape of the Earth: "The Earth is not truly round - not a perfect spheroid - but is instead a prolate spheroid with its maximum circumference at the equator.  It can thus be modeled as an ellipsoid of revolution due to greater centripetal acceleration further from the poles".
I hope haven't lost you too much in this technical jargon, but this scientist says the world isn't round.  When my learned opponent tells you to "trust scientists", she fails to admit that there is disagreement among those scientists, and that in fact a great many of the experts in this area says the world is not round.
My opponent has taken the usual anti-scientific approach of trying to confuse us with the details.  In fact, no geophysist thinks the world is a perfect spheroid.  Technically, it is an oblate spheroid - a spheroid that deviates just slightly by being larger around the equator.  However, that's quibbling about the very fine details.  Any geophysicist will agree that the world is almost perfectly round, and certainly not flat.
You may need to help us non-specialists.  What exactly is a "prolate spheroid"?
It's a nearly-spherical form with maximum radius in the plain perpendicular to its axis of rotation.
So that the equatorial regions are further from the center than the polar regions?
So that it's kind of -well - flattened?
It's a flattened spheroid - but a spheroid, not a flat object.
There you have it, ladies and gentlemen - my learned opponent just conceded that the world is flat!

We will now hear the evidence for a flat earth, any rebuttal thereof, and subsequent discussion to elaborate on those points.

The evidence for a flat earth is self-evident. Step outside and look at the world around you - it looks flat.  Whether one stands in the middle of the Great Plains in Kansas, or on the highest mountain of the Rockies or the Alps, or on the deck of a ship on any of the oceans or seas, the world looks flat. I challenge anyone to find a place on this earth where they can stand and see evidence of anything but a flat horizon, and thus of a flat earth.

For those who are not convinced by physical evidence but instead seek a higher authority, I give you the highest authority: the word of God.  Doesn't the Bible speak of the four corners of the world, which cannot exist on a round Earth?  Doesn't the Bible describe the sky as a vault or dome over the Earth, rather than a sphere around the Earth? Didn't Daniel see "a tree of great height at the centre of the earth...reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest
bounds." That can only happen on a flat Earth.  Didn't the Devil take our Our Savior Jesus Christ
 "to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in their glory"?  That's only possible on a flat Earth, and impossible on a round Earth.

If I haven't convinced you that the concept of a round earth is disproven by the word of God, consider this: claims of a round earth deny the very possibility of the resurrection of Jesus Christ and His ascent to Heaven.  A round earth has no up and down.  The Bible clearly says that Jesus Christ rose from this world unto Heaven.  To deny the "downness" of Earth and the "upness" of Heaven is to deny the Resurrection and to deny that Jesus Christ lives.  Perhaps you can ignore  your eyes when they show you that the Earth is flat, but surely you can not ignore and deny the reality of Jesus Christ.
I am not going to argue about whether Jesus Christ lives in a undetectable ethereal paradise, because science cannot evaluate the existence of something for which there can be no evidence.  However, I will argue that you can't take the Bible seriously as a scientific and geographic document.
If you make that argument, you risk - no, you make certain - eternal damnation.  Do you not accept that the New Testament is the word of God and a record of the life of Jesus Christ on this Earth?
I'm not here to deny that there was a man named Jesus Christ.  I'm only here to say that we would be better building our understanding of the world on scientific observation than on the details of a book written about his life.
So you are empowered to reject Holy Scripture, and to deny the resurrection and ascent of Jesus Christ to Heaven? 
My learned opponent's denial of the Resurrection is only the tip of the iceberg, ladies and gentlemen.  Consider where the idea of a round earth leads us.  My leaned opponent's view of the world says that there is no up and no down - that up in America or Europe is down in Australia.  That's relativism, ladies and gentleman, with all its social implications.  No longer is there an up and a down, and no longer a right and a wrong.  If we can say that up is down, we can say that good is bad and bad is good, that life is death and death is life, that wisdom is foolishness and foolishness is wisdom, that the sacred is evil and the evil sacred.  Once you open the door to relativism, there is no closing it - it sweeps in like a flood upon you and upon all that you hold dear.
My opponent would have you deny the reality of the round earth because she says it would subvert her ideology.  I make no claims about ideology, and I think it would be silly for me to do so.  I can only point to the physical evidence we all have seen and say "what is, is".  I cannot reject the reality of a round earth because accepting that reality might change someone's mind about the gods they choose worship.
My learned opponent thinks that one can choose between gods!  And this person is reponsible for the education of our children!  If we choose to accept my learned opponent's argument, we accept a world where our children and grandchildren will learn that "up" here can be be "down" on the other side of the world, that good here can be bad there, that they can can pick and choose among God's words as they like.  It is your choice - but I caution you to think long and hard about that choice and what it will mean.

We will now hear the debaters' closing statements.

I have recounted for you the abundant scientific evidence for a round world.  You have seen the pictures of the earth from the moon, and you have seen the satellite and space-shuttle images.  Some of you have even travelled around the world and never found the edge of the world that my opponent imagines.  In short, the evidence supports a round world.

My opponent asks you to ignore this evidence.  She insists that NASA, satellite mapping agencies, weather services that operate satelites, the Soviet and Russian space efforts, the space shuttles, the International Space Station - that all these are part of a conspiracy to deceive you about the shape of the earth.  On the other hand, she asks you to trust the words of an ancient text.  I respect that text for its moral teachings, but I encourage you to rely on modern observation to understand the physical world around you.
It is sad that modern intelligent people have been led so far astray as to even consider my opponent's contentions of a round earth. I'm sure that most scientists mean well, and I have no animosity toward the person with whom I have shared the stage tonight.  However, scientists have been duped.  They love to explain something simple with a needlessly complicated theory.  In this case, they have unwittingly fallen into a conspiracy to debunk the word of God and message of Jesus, to miss-educate our children, and to subvert the values of our society.  Common-sense observation of the world around us and the word of Holy Scripture both show beyond a doubt that the world is flat.  I hope you'll join me in moving beyond the illusion - no, the delusion - of a round world and into the reality revealed by God's word and by your own eyes.  Thank you.

Debate source

Flat Earth Debate / Just some videos I like
« on: March 26, 2015, 07:44:46 PM »
Well I have a few videos that I like that I can't find any FE reasons to disprove there effects, therefore they must be faked and part of the conspiracy per FE guidelines.  LOL
Anyway this first one is an experiment on the ISS with a washcloth and water.
#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
this next one is from the ISS dealing with water again, playing with a goPro putting it in the water bubble.
#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
The last one is showing curvature of the Earth in a good way by using a camera and a distant island.
#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

Just sharing stuff, I put it in the debate forum because each video will probably be debated.

The Lounge / I bet my night at work will trump yours
« on: March 24, 2015, 08:41:06 PM »
Well, as some of you know, even though I have engineering degrees, I am not currently in the engineering field.  Well my employers decided I should be the manager over our materials movement unit.  We deal with oil and gas pipeline manufacture.  I am responsible for about 25 people when I am on nights, which include some heavy equipment operators, large volvo forklift operators, a train crew, and various ground personnel.  Well this afternoon when I made it to work, I had one heavy equipment operators decided he didn't like one of my supervisor's personal vehicle (i guess) and "accidently" dropped a 63670 lb roll of steel on the back rear of the car.  Effectively flattening that portion of the car and totalling the vehicle.  Once that lovely time was taken care of, I now had to take the place of said supervisor for the night and about 1 1/5 hour ago my locomotive crew decided not to throw the brakes on the empty rail cars they dropped off, which rolled through the gate and across the highway.  Luckily no passing cars were struck, but wouldn't you know it the cars hit a derailler maintained by the railroad company and I had 2 rail cars off of the tracks.  Now I just got back to the office, and the pipe manufacturing mill has something broken inside and we are out of room to put up their rework pipe that comes out the back door.  These are not small pipe  24 inch diameter 80 ft length.  With no room, I have had to scream at the maintenance supervisor inside the mill to figure out why they did not inform us until their inbound rack was full (roughly 40 pipe), and why they aren't working on it. 
So yeah, overall, its been a lovely night.  I hope no one can top that one because I just don't want to wish that kind of stress on anyone right now.  Nights are supposed to be my laid back time, that I can get on here and aggravate JRowe, Vauxhall, and jroa. 

Flat Earth Debate / Let's find a general FET model
« on: March 22, 2015, 07:50:34 AM »
So maybe, since there seems to be some inconsistencies across differing supporting viewpoints on the FET, let see if we can come up with a list of things supported by almost all FE supporters.
I am not sure what would be a good way to proceed but maybe we can give a list of commonalities to the various FETs and maybe get a better FET model. 
So if I were to ask if:
Satellites exist?
Gravity exists? (tricky one here, some believe gravity exists but its much weaker)
Aether properties (just the main ones that almost all support,sorry JRowe)
Distances (We may have to break this down, maybe just the equator circumference to start, we could infer some other distances off of that)
Distance above the Earth for Sun and Moon
Size of the moon and sun
Composition of the Sun and Moon

That's way more than enough for one thread.  Please hold off on debating too much of the claims until we can get a consensus.

Flat Earth Debate / Rowbotham vs trigonometry
« on: March 17, 2015, 09:50:17 AM »
Most Flat Earth supporters use Rowbotham's book as factual scientific proof's of FET.
I have seen at least one discrepancy so far and would like to discuss this.  I posted in another link a page from Rowbotham's book that described how far away the Sun was.  He said it was less than 700 miles above the Earth, but that disagrees with the trigonometry that the same people claim proved the Flat Earth with a Sun that was 2000 miles away from Earth.

The experiment that was reinterpreted to provide evidence of a flat Earth with the Sun somewhere between 2000 and 3000 miles away (depending on the time of the day) was a  trigonometric formula that fairly accurately predicted the circumference of the Spherical Earth.  FE supporters claim that you have to either assume the Sun is very large and very far away and assume the Earth is Round for the math to work, but the same could be said for the other way around.  You have to assume the Earth is flat, the Sun has to be smaller than the Earth, and it must be close to the Earth. 

This is only the first discrepancy that I wish to discuss right now.   
Why are these two measurements so different?

The Lounge / Guess the undercover shills
« on: March 10, 2015, 10:06:36 AM »
So any of us who have a brain and still argue for the Round Earth must be government shills.  We don't know each other.  I wondered if we can pick out the undercover shills in this forum.  The FEers who have such outlandish claims that it kills any remaining credibility to a FE model.
I'll start:

texasusaguy  (most obvious to me)

Name only one person each post please

Flat Earth Debate / Holes to be filled
« on: March 09, 2015, 04:40:27 PM »
Since my previous thread about aether got a little (well a whole lot with plenty of F-bombs added) off topic,(and I am not without blame for it either) lets try this a different way.
I'll pick one part of aether and lets discuss that please. 
Lets start with something easy. 
The universal acceleration portion.  So is aether a force or is it a stream of matter-like stuff that is constantly accelerating the Flat Earth model?
Let's try to stay on this first.  It may help define a property of this supposed aether for discussion. 
If it is a stream of matter-like stuff, where does it originate from and what do you think causes it?
If it is a force, what causes this force?
If it is something completely outside the realm of what we think of in the matter-energy universe, what do you think it is?
From what I understand the universe is either matter, energy or forces (with forces caused by one of the previous states).
So please let's try to stay on topic without the constant defaming remarks. 

Flat Earth Debate / Conspiracy
« on: March 09, 2015, 07:40:01 AM »
Ok lets try to work out how many people are in on this supposed Conspiracy.  I propose we list every type of group that must be in on it and then once we have a satisfactory agreement on this point we then try to estimate the number of people in those fields around the world.  I am curious if my assumption of about 1 billion people is even close.
A given is basically all NASA employees (even janitors would be in on it as they would see something while cleaning up.
So Ill start the list off with
Airline pilots
Satellite communications technicians (i.e. DirecTV, Dishnet, Hughesnet, etc.)  I've done this and it work work without a real satellite in orbit.
A large portion of the military

I listed five, there are many many more.

To begin, the current model of the Flat Earth theory relies on aether to fill too many roles. 
Aether is used to describe the matter/energy/force that accelerates the flat earth model to explain gravitational effects.
Aether is used as the matter in whirlpools that bend light in just the right ways to describe:
1. Sunsets/Sunrises
2. Moon set/rise
3. Circumpolar stars
4. Summer midnight sun in Antarctica (along the ice wall?)
5. Sinking ship effect
Aether is used by a few to replace air and air pressure
Aether is used as the reason you can't go into space due to pressure/viscosity effects stopping a rocket from getting high enough.
Aether is used to describe weather patterns
Aether is used by a few as a heat transfer medium replacing respiration in living organisms
Aether is used in a few other instances that may be more fringe for the majority of FEers

Aether is quickly used to explain anything that wouldn't work with known physics and a Flat Earth model.

I personally think it is overused to the point of becoming a magical or supernatural thing. 
These are my thoughts on the matter, feel free to include anything I missed that aether is used to describe.

Flat Earth Debate / Zero Gravity flights
« on: March 02, 2015, 07:48:06 PM »
So I was looking online at the "vomit comet" flights that simulates Zero G while Earthbound.  Sadly the Zero G only lasts like 30 seconds before they have to climb and start a new free fall to start it over again.  I was curious, how do the long videos of astronauts playing in zero g from the space stations, space shuttles and previous space flights get made if we do not go into space?  I know most of this could be faked, but floating liquid seems to be a problem.

My best guess is the maximum time a large plane could be in a free fall to simulate zero G would be around 4 to 5 minutes and you would have to impact the ground from a height much higher than  these large aircraft are shown to be able to fly. 
I would love to see if my quick estimations are close to accurate on the max time we could simulate zero G.  I will start looking into the calculations but that is my best guess so far based on the recorded and advertised times used now and the height reported that they fall.  quckly looking at the math the height they fall seems to line up with what you would expect about 2500 meters for 30 seconds.

The Lounge / Time for me to take a break from here
« on: February 27, 2015, 07:44:35 PM »
I love to debate. I love to hear others opinions.  I honestly want people to challenge my current beliefs so I reexamine them and learn more about the issues in question.  But recently I let someone hit my button when they decided to get me into a discussion about Iraq.  I left this jade my opinion and I realized a few minutes ago that my current reasons for being on this forum are not what they should be.  I am going to leave for awhile, I know I haven't been here long enough to actually get to know anyone, but the temptation to continue this argument about Iraq is too great as long as the  other person is posting in that thread.  It is inherently unhealthy for me at this point in my dealings with my feelings about my past.  I need to clear my head a bit, get back to the point where I don't have to take something to have sleep without constant nightmares.  Sorry if i am dumping alot on anyone who cares to read this. 
Thank you for the recent arguments, I look forward to actual debates in the future though.

Flat Earth Q&A / Sunset
« on: February 10, 2015, 12:04:17 AM »
So, I am a little confused, looking at the model for the flat earth the sun "wobbles" in a circular pattern and is more like a flashlight beam than a light bulb.  My question is, if the earth is flat and the sun is just illuminating certain areas of the earth to give us day and night, how does the sun disappear behind the horizon. 
First, you can't say it only looks that way because its how it is. 
Second, explain why the moon does the same thing.

Pages: [1]