1

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth Philosophy

« on: July 06, 2009, 07:28:10 PM »

NEEMAN, or Lord Wilmore.  What do your senses tell you when you see the sun set?

Wilmore, if you want. I have to confess tha in my entire life I have never seen the sun set against a flat horizon- the region I live in is on the one hand very hilly (lots of glacial drumlins), but on the other hand has almost no high vantage points. I generally see the sun move across the sky before it is eventually obscured by some feature of the landscape.

Oops, you forgot to address his question:

"What do your senses tell you when you see the sun set?"

Whether or not the horizon is jagged due to mountainous skyline features shouldn't really be important. Do you think the sun stops if set against a flat horizon... ?

2

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Debunking the Infamous "Toronto Skyline" Pics

« on: July 06, 2009, 08:36:30 AM »

You can't see 80 miles.

What is the limit of human unaided vision? I can certainly see mountains 70 miles away from where I live. They are rarely seen in the summer months due to humidity and other atmospheric conditions but they can be seen in the winter. One is just under 2000 metres in height so that helps I'm sure!

You're right; mountains are a different beast. You can see enormous mountains from distances up to 100 miles away, if I'm not mistaken (particularly if you're in a tall building; otherwise, I'd cut this distance to around 70 miles or so as you said).

However, claiming you can distinguish an entire city skyline is just.. well.. preposterous (refer to Levee's case). It doesn't even need to be debated; doing so is a waste of time. Certain physical science facts can be discussed and debated; however, most bio/pathophysiological functions and mechanisms are currently completely understood--including the function of human eyes. Retinoblastomic research, initiated through cancer incentives, has uncovered a large portion of the microvascular/neurological functions and performance metrics of the eye.

If you want proof that lights are easier to see than buildings from enormous distances, refer to yourself outside at night time: Look up. What do you see? Stars?

QED

3

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Debunking the Infamous "Toronto Skyline" Pics

« on: July 06, 2009, 08:24:43 AM »

This is such a joke, haha. I'm not sure if Levee is serious, or if he's actually convinced himself the Earth is flat.

Come on dude, it's basic neurophysiological science: the human eye can't see 80 miles. You might be able to see a light glare, but you can't see the silhouette of a city skyline; not even close. There is nothing you can post, no flickr picture you can add--that proves otherwise. It's just a complete fact that you can't see for more than about 6-10 miles from the ground.

On the other hand, if you post a picture of a skyline enhanced with a telephoto-lens, of course the Earth will appear flat! Telephotography skews vantage points and depth perception! I took 4 years of photography; I know what I'm talking about.

I also know that you math is straight up wrong. Stop posting it. It's incorrect.


-Done-


-------cut here---------

4

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Debunking the Infamous "Toronto Skyline" Pics

« on: July 06, 2009, 12:45:21 AM »

Now, more disastrous news for the round earth hypothesis.

The tallest building in Rochester measures only 135 meters:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Rochester,_New_York

View from above of Rochester: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rochester_aerial_aug_17_2007.jpg

And the actual distance to Toronto, from Rochester, is more than 80 miles, some 85 miles actually.

Given the visual obstacle of at least 660 meters, and the most likely one of 1163 meters, there is no way we could have seen the top of Commerce Court West (239 meters), UNLESS THE EARTH IS FLAT.

Explain this one 3Tesla...

Lol.

This one only needs a very basic explanation: All of your data is wrong. You can't see 80 miles. It's a physiological fact, sorry. A picture with those attributes explicitly demonstrate that they do not involve a distance of 80 miles from Toronto to Rochester.

Are you kidding?

This discussion ends right here.

5

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Debunking the Infamous "Toronto Skyline" Pics

« on: July 06, 2009, 12:39:00 AM »

Whenever you can, if you can make that trip...if not, we have the Port Credit, Etobicoke, Hamilton photos...the Rochester, NY Toronto skyline...let me apply more death blows to the catastrophic round earth hypothesis...

SANDY HOOK - CONEY ISLAND

DISTANCE 7 MILES, 11.2 KM

CURVATURE 2.4 METERS

On a round earth, we should see a rising slope, with a midpoint visual obstacle of 2.4 meters, but there is no such thing in these photos taken right on the Sandy Hook beach:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/23956233@N04/2890814609/in/photostream/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/23956233@N04/2891651706/in/photostream/

Those aren't death blows. Those are unsubstantiated bits of information supplied by a relatively anonymous internet entity known as "Levee". You don't have any impact on the Earth's roundness, sorry. Posting "tens" of pictures and third-grade geometry protocols don't exactly "death-blow" my construction of the Earth.

Sorry buddy.


 

6

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Debunking the Infamous "Toronto Skyline" Pics

« on: July 06, 2009, 12:36:07 AM »

How did you come to the conclusion the photo was taken from a beach in Rochester?

View of Toronto Skyline taken as we were coming in from Rochester NY.

It sounds as if they were somewhere between the two cities on a boat. You went through all that math and research, and you didn't even bother to read the photo's description?

I've been there; that scene is nonexistent from the beach, sorry. That picture is from a boat. Lol.

7

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth Philosophy

« on: July 06, 2009, 12:26:43 AM »

But the problem is that FE hasn't proven yet itself to be right.

Yes it has. Check out the library of literature in my signature link.

Unrelated side-note question:

Who is this joker, "Tom Bishop"? In my few days exploring this board, I've noticed that this tacky character throws in useless tidbits of crap information, in a very sporadic and haphazard manner--all over the place.

Why hasn't he been banned/castigated somehow for this?

8

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth Philosophy

« on: July 06, 2009, 12:23:14 AM »

However, the Nazi analogy is just a little out of place and strange. What are you trying to say? We actually do know who won the war. It happened. It's done. Germany lost. Why would you assume otherwise in another world? That's just turning it into a "what if" scenario, which again is what I think FET revolves around. It's not valid. And it's pointless.

It's something known as alternative history in layman terms. In logic, we call it "possible world" or "logical possibility". You can logically assume in any possible worlds, but these logically possible worlds are different from the actual world. This means what you assume is not necessarily false, even though it is contingently false. For example, it is not necessarily false or logically impossible that Germany decided not to invade the Soviet Union; it's absolutely logically possible for that to happen, even though it did not happen. Thus, A is contingently true (or false) if and only if A is true (or false) in the actual world but A is not necessarily true (or false).

It's completely valid. You can logically assume the Earth to be round or flat even if it does not correspond to the actual world; that's all there is to reason and logic without any empirical methods.

Simply put, there is no reason for me to believe in FET over RET. Let FE'ers justify their theory to me; the burden is on them--they are the newcomers in this new age.

You people came here to prove us wrong. Thus, the burden is on you.

No. I came here to evaluate the validity of the evidence. I didn't find any. I'm not here to prove something that's been proven already. I'm also not here to play with "logical possibilities". I support you in your interest in pondering logical possibilities; however, I have my own hobbies/activities/interests.

You did answer my question though, and for that I'm thankful. I haven't seen a single discussion or debate on this site that has reached a reasonable conclusion until now.

So in a nutshell: Shit happens, and that's what it is. Other shit can happen, and it's okay to think about and ponder these alternative "logical possibilities". That said, the shit that truly happens is what the truth is. In other words: The Earth is round. It's also possible that in another scenario, the Earth could be conceived as flat. However, unfortunately, that is not the actual case, but oh well, it's fun to ponder anyways, for the sake of "logic".


Cool.

Thanks.

Bye.

9

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth Philosophy

« on: July 05, 2009, 09:52:05 AM »

I favor both empiricism and rationalism. Sensory experiences alone are meaningless without interpretation by reason.

True.

We can logically assume that the Earth is round, but doing so cannot tell us anything about the actual world. For example, you can assume that the Nazis won the war in any logically possible world, but this is false in the actual world even though it is not necessarily false.

The first sentence above is acceptable. Of course we don't actually KNOW. I conceded that. However, the Nazi analogy is just a little out of place and strange. What are you trying to say? We actually do know who won the war. It happened. It's done. Germany lost. Why would you assume otherwise in another world? That's just turning it into a "what if" scenario, which again is what I think FET revolves around. It's not valid. And it's pointless.

The burden is on RE'ers to justify the validity of the evidences they provide.

No. More valid/heavily supported evidence exists in RE'ers favor. Changing that theory to FET is what should require more justification. Have you ever heard of the principal of parsimony in human/organismic genomics? It also applies to physical sciences. In general, when two possible explanations exist of equal uncertainty, it is more acceptable to take the "most parsimonious" route--meaning, essentially, that believing in a really distended, stretched, and all-in-all ridiculous theory (FET) over a more solidified theory (RET) is illogical and pointless.

We don't know the Earth is round for a fact. Obviously we haven't personally experienced. We can assume the Earth is round for the sake of logic and reason, because the evidence supporting it is far more persuasive and parsimonious than that which supports a flat Earth.

Simply put, there is no reason for me to believe in FET over RET. Let FE'ers justify their theory to me; the burden is on them--they are the newcomers in this new age.

Empiricism is not the same as "Zetetic Science". Experience, whether through direct experimentation or sharing experiences with others, is the basis of Empiricism. In fact, Empricicism (at least some of its variants) is the basis for the Scientific Method and therefore is the basis for Science.

On the other hand, "Zetetic Science" is all about not sharing experiences (more about telling you which experiments are valid and which are not, but lets leave that for later). The paranoid aspect of Zeteticism is nowhere in Empiricism. You can understand the work of others and incorporate it into your own knowledge base. Just don't accept what you do not understand.

Huh? I think I already know what "empiricism" means. Why did you feel obligated to describe its definition to me in detail? Also, no offense, but I don't care about "Zetetic Science" at all. I'm not really sure why you brought it up. Thanks for letting me know...

10

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Falling Objects

« on: July 02, 2009, 06:15:59 PM »

And yet you fail to properly explain what causes the organ displacement.

Inertia.

11

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth Philosophy

« on: July 02, 2009, 06:05:19 PM »

How can you justify that your evidences for a flat Earth are true? They're just as debatable--if not, more so--as that which pertains to RET. I'm so sick of hearing that phrase... "How can you justify"... Ask yourself and FET the same damn question.

Glad you admit it; that's the point of my argument. Neither of us can truly know the shape of the Earth.

If I'm not mistaken--correct me if I'm wrong--you're an empiricist. From an empirical viewpoint; sure, of course we don't know what the Earth truly looks like. Neither you or I have ever seen the Earth from space. That's true, I agree with you. However, given the relative dearth of information supporting a flat Earth, it seems more logical to support the spherical approach to defining Earth's dimensions. We can't KNOW, but we can logically ASSUME, to save ourselves the trouble of remaining in the dark.


On the other hand, if you're just playing the part because it's fun and interesting, I fully support that. You're right. Empirically, we CAN'T know the Earth's true dimensions.

EDIT: Astronauts can know the Earth's true shape, empirically. This bring me to my biggest problem with FET: The fact that FET denies astronauts and people who HAVE seen Earth from space as being real. That's complete bullshit. Everything else about FET is fine, except for that. You can't just outright call something fake simply because it disproves something you would like to be real.

In fact, that's probably why the "conspiracy" was conceived. It was a simple answer to the cold hard fact that some people really have empirically experienced the Earth as round. Answer to that? Call them fake. Gee, that's easy.

12

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth Philosophy

« on: July 02, 2009, 09:52:02 AM »

I've seen enough evidence (photos, video, etc) to allow me to draw a logical conclusion. That's not really relevant to this thread, though.

How can you justify that these evidences are absolutely true so that they support your conclusion?

How can you justify that your evidences for a flat Earth are true? They're just as debatable--if not, more so--as that which pertains to RET. I'm so sick of hearing that phrase... "How can you justify"... Ask yourself and FET the same damn question.

13

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: ISS in beautiful HD

« on: June 30, 2009, 11:21:54 PM »

Bummer,  I missed that (note to self, accuracy is paramount). Thank you for pointing that out and yes I have to agree with you, video evidence would appear to be acceptable.

Unless of course, any video proves the Earth is round. In which case its not acceptable.

Because the Earth is flat, duh? Wait no oops, I had a retard-moment. I've had the most hilarious time perusing this site. It seems that any evidence proving a round Earth is always shot down as "fake", "staged", or "unacceptable". Yet whenever similarly-found evidence appears in favor of FET, it goes without say.

Cool!

14

Flat Earth Debate / Re: About that "150 foot wall of ice"...

« on: June 30, 2009, 11:11:26 PM »

I agree. One possible explanation for the earnest debating that does in fact take place here (despite the fact I've only been observing this site for a couple of days):

=> I think that people like you--and anyone else who adheres to the serious topic at hand: FE vs. RE--are so methodical and vehement because you care about the intelligence of people as a whole.

You, as a member of "the whole", knowingly or unknowingly burden yourself with the task of righting the ill-informed and confused. I think this is a noble burden, but also an endless one.

There will always be morons out there who simply stick to what is just not correct, i.e. FET. There is also a subset of "the whole" that will always play the part of supporting something as ridiculous as FET, simply to either entertain themselves thoughtfully, or to "troll" on others.


So in the end, whatever YOU say will be right, as a believer/supporter of what is so blatantly true. However, unfortunately, what you say will never turn the entire "whole" population's minds toward the truth, for the two reasons I mentioned above.


Oh, and did I mention that the *TRUE* believers in FET are hopeless nutcases... Yeah.


Those are my thoughts about the "debating" that goes on here. I don't know if it makes sense; I "flow" typed. Haven't read it over, and never will.

Oh well.

15

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light

« on: June 30, 2009, 10:21:36 PM »

Chill dude.  All of that anger isn't good for you.

I'm pretty chill. I just enjoy owning people when I have the opportunity.  



Especially when said people post things like "people who believe in RE have bad grammar, and thus, are poor". Come on.

Then really impress us by owing FET without resorting to indiscriminate use of the F bomb.

But my post wouldn't have been as hurtful without use of "the F bomb".

As for owning FET: Why would I want to? That would be like beating up a 12-year-old domestic-crime victim; it's already been done, probably thousands of times, and continuing to do so has no lasting or new effect.

16

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: So How Fast Are We Moving?

« on: June 30, 2009, 10:08:07 PM »

Is a meter constant? Yes.
Is time constant? Yes.

Please justify these assumptions.

Anybody?

Funny how this plays out.

When asked the very same thing, you say (direct quote): "Common sense, dipshit"


Then you expect somebody to answer the very same question differently from your own answer? How selfish.

17

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Falling Objects

« on: June 30, 2009, 10:05:54 PM »

Nope, I'm telling you the nauseating feeling felt on an airplane is a direct result of organ displacement.



Where did I post anything about acceleration and cars? LOL?

18

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light

« on: June 30, 2009, 09:52:25 PM »

Chill dude.  All of that anger isn't good for you.

I'm pretty chill. I just enjoy owning people when I have the opportunity. 



Especially when said people post things like "people who believe in RE have bad grammar, and thus, are poor". Come on.

19

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light

« on: June 30, 2009, 08:55:11 PM »

Rowbotham proved the world is flat

Wait wait wait. Stop right there.

In doing so, he consequently proved that he was functionally & mentally retarded. Meanwhile the world remained spherical. . .

Where is this going?

You are saying that man that was a PhD and a medical doctor was retarded?

What the fuck does that mean? Aren't you the same queer that was bitching about proper grammar on some other thread--and even more ridiculously (if possible), correlating grammar with affluence?

What the fuck does: "[...]man that was a PhD" mean?

How the fuck can you "be a PhD"?

Did you try to say he had a PhD?

Even still, that's a retarded thing to say. What did he have PhD in? You don't just have "a PhD" with no fucking specificity. No, you don't get a PhD for being "cool", sorry. Good god.



On topic: Yes. Yes, I was calling him retarded. He espoused FE theory in a non-joking fashion. By definition, he was fucking hopelessly retarded. Sorry. I don't make the rules.


Oh and how about I pull the "FET stunt":
ZOMG LULZ U SED HES A MD DOCTER BUT U DIDNT SHOW PROOF SO THEREFORE UR LYING LOLOL




That is all.

20

Flat Earth Debate / Re: About that "150 foot wall of ice"...

« on: June 30, 2009, 06:35:54 PM »

So, we are left with just the Roundies again...

It sure gets lonely in the threads abandoned by the FE'ers.

No explanation from the FE side for the difference in distance and direction of turn?  Not one?

Dude, it's because virtually everyone here is a "roundy". In fact, we're all "roundies". When the "FE proponents" see that the debate has died, they leave. They don't actually care about defending something they don't truly support.

People simply play the "FE" part as a form of educational entertainment. Debating is good for you; it makes you think creatively. Some people find it easier to do behind the anonymity of a web-forum, as opposed to real life.

Hell, I've actually tried the "FE" stance a couple of times, despite the fact my account is pretty new. It's a lot more fun, however, to remain explicitly "RE" and bash on the devil's advocate-"FE" kids, as this thread has successfully done.




Now, all that said, there is still a good chance that one or two FUCKING MORONS actually believe in FE. Fear not, however: according to social Darwinism, they'll be gone within the next couple of decades (or sooner).

21

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light

« on: June 30, 2009, 05:57:25 PM »

Rowbotham proved the world is flat

Wait wait wait. Stop right there.

In doing so, he consequently proved that he was functionally & mentally retarded. Meanwhile the world remained spherical. . .

Where is this going?

22

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Measure the curvature of the earth without leaving the ground

« on: June 30, 2009, 02:54:03 PM »

Ok...Ice isn't exactly ground but you can circumvent the Conspiracy by perfomring this simple experiment yourself...

102. Practical Applications, Measuring the Curvature of the Earth - Set the laser on a tripod a short distance above the ice on a large frozen lake. Collimate and aim the beam horizontally over the ice with the aid of an accurate bubble level. Several kilometers away set up a telescope to intercept the laser beam. Because of the curvature of the earth, the height of the telescope above the ice will be greater than that of the laser. By measuring the difference in height between the laser and the telescope, the size of the earth can be calculated. If there is no ice, try it using boats on a day when the water is mirror calm.

From:  101 Laser Experiments

Seems simple enough, and could be done so as to preclude any hanky-panky from "them".  How would an FE'er explain the resultant data confirming a globular earth?

Thanks - Jer.

Q. How would an FE'r explain the result data... globular Earth... ?
A. They would say: a) Fake, no pics no pr00f. b) I don't believe your data/pics, they are fake. c) You're hired by The Conspiracy. And my favorite: d) The experiment is flawed, look up "x".

23

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Falling Objects

« on: June 30, 2009, 02:50:05 PM »

Sure.

"The weird feeling is not due to weightlessness. It's due to organ displacement."

Kthx. Bai.

And what causes the organ displacement?

Well gee, given the fact gravity doesn't exist in this flat-Earth world, I don't know.

I was kinda hoping you'd realize the paradox we've run into. Flat Earth is simply, retarded. This is just yet another reason why.

What gives rise to weight? Oh. Right.

Whoops?

24

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Falling Objects

« on: June 30, 2009, 01:10:50 PM »

It's actually a physical phenomenon; it's not merely a mental feeling of discomfort. It results from a physical organ displacement typically below the cardiothoracic region--more specifically, below the diaphragm where organs have more freedom, and thus, behave in a more entropic fashion.

Congratulations. Now, do you have anything to say which discredits my previous response?

Sure.

"The weird feeling is not due to weightlessness. It's due to organ displacement."

Kthx. Bai.

25

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Falling Objects

« on: June 30, 2009, 12:57:22 PM »

so what is a plane thats going towards Earth actually staying still?

if so explain that weird stomach feeling (scientific I know :A)

That "weird stomach feeling" is weightlessness. It feels weird because you don't expect to suddenly feel weightless for no apparent reason; it's not natural.

It's actually a physical phenomenon; it's not merely a mental feeling of discomfort. It results from a physical organ displacement typically below the cardiothoracic region--more specifically, below the diaphragm where organs have more freedom, and thus, behave in a more entropic fashion.

Bio/pathophysiology explains physical abnormalities, not abstract ideas, LOL.

26

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Falling Objects

« on: June 30, 2009, 12:46:01 PM »

so what is a plane thats going towards Earth actually staying still?

if so explain that weird stomach feeling (scientific I know :A)

You know, normally you'd be right in posing that question. HOWEVER, due to the effects of Magic and God, shit happens that wouldn't normally happen in a round Earth. The Earth is flat simply because it is. Magic + God account for how this is possible.

27

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Falling Objects

« on: June 30, 2009, 12:38:49 PM »

To Earth, obviously?

Relative to Earth, there are about as many aeroplanes moving up as there are moving down, on average.

According to what? I don't see any pictures supporting that claim, LOL.

28

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Evidence

« on: June 30, 2009, 12:37:49 PM »

List of evidence for a flat Earth (the Truth):

1. Magic.
2. Conspiracy.
3. God.
4. Money.


If you want to dispute any 4 of those pieces of evidence, provide me with pictures. Oh, what's that? God isn't real? SHOW ME A DAMN PICTURE OF HIM NOT BEING REAL.

Oh, what's that? There is no such thing as magic? SHOW ME A FUCKIN' PICTURE OF MAGIC NOT BEING REAL.


That's right. The Earth is flat. Don't believe me?


"Look it up"

29

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Falling Objects

« on: June 30, 2009, 12:26:22 PM »

OK so if everything that is affected by air resistance is moving upwards...    Are all planes also constantly moving upwards?

Relative to what?

To Earth, obviously?

HAHA I am so happy I was introduced to this forum... Some of the mosr hilarious shit I've ever read. I love humanity and all of its funny odds and ends... Spice of life, eh? Gotta have some nutcases out there to be real, I suppose. 

30

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Debunking the Infamous "Toronto Skyline" Pics

« on: June 29, 2009, 10:14:24 AM »

Levee:

Could you explain why one of these pictures shows Toronto down to the shoreline but the other doesn't.

What is different between the two pictures?

Which is right?

Thanks.

Levee:

I hope you will be able to attempt to answer my question (above) as there is such a wide discrepancy in the evidence.

The question is - why should we believe/prefer your pictures over other people's?

Thanks.

I'll assume Levee's magically eloquent voice of reason in his stead:

Question: Why should we believe/prefer your pictures over other people's pictures?
->
->
->
"Becoz my pics corroborate my claims therefore they are the best, yours are all fake and so is anyone who posts pics that don't say what I believe in, so that's why you should do your homework, you're just stupid, my pics are real and make logical sense, you can't use your pics or anyone else's unless I think they're real."

Does that answer your question? Nope, it didn't make much sense to me either. That brings me to my final point: Why are you/we arguing with individuals with such low levels of intelligence and capacity for logical debate? It's pointless. You--along with any other normal functioning human being--know how basic physics function in our universe. Consequently, you also know that the Earth cannot possibly exist as a disk... LOL.

I don't need to list the reasons why. It's a physical fact: A celestial body must exist as a shaped spherical entity in space. If a body starts out as a disk (which is possible), it will eventually be shaped into a smaller sphere-like body of smaller proportions. I will not get into the dynamics/physics of why a disk cannot remain a disk in space. I'll say this: Imagine a disk flying through space. Then imagine that disk burning to a crisp, until it reaches a stable physical state as a spherical object. Sorry guys, but from a physical standpoint, the Earth is not a disk, nor is it flat.

Moreover, any pictures espousing flatness can be disregarded as meaningless prods at intellectual development. Rather, they are merely a hindrance to progressive scientific thought.

In conclusion: This entire thread is worthless.