1
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Flat Earth moves upwards?
« on: May 02, 2010, 10:44:21 PM »Why do we observe some places to have a stronger gravitational force between the same masses, then?
You'll need to be a little more specific, there.
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.
Pages: [1]
You'll need to be a little more specific, there.
2
Flat Earth General / Re: Space flight
« on: May 02, 2010, 10:42:13 PM »
I would gladly take pictures of our flat Earth to prove FET. Do you have a spaceship I could borrow?
3
Flat Earth General / Re: Why I became a Flat Earther
« on: May 02, 2010, 10:37:29 PM »
The least you could do is NOT use outdated arguments.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Ships+appear+to+sink+as+they+recede+past+the+horizon
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Ships+appear+to+sink+as+they+recede+past+the+horizon
4
Flat Earth General / Re: Why I became a Flat Earther
« on: May 02, 2010, 10:20:40 PM »
I proved you weren't silly by correcting you when you misunderstood my post? If you'll return to that thread you'll see that I've corrected you again because you still didn't understand.
I retain hope that there are genuinely welcoming members here who don't waste their time trolling.
I retain hope that there are genuinely welcoming members here who don't waste their time trolling.
5
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Questions
« on: May 02, 2010, 10:17:28 PM »How can a 12000mi ring hold in 80000mi of Earth?When did I say it did?
Quote
Do you not understand the basics behind why Antarctica cannot be the Ice wall?I never said Antarctica as a whole was THE ice wall.
Quote
How big do you think this infinite plane is if it manages to hide itself in a circle that is only 12000mi in circumference?I do not subscribe to the infinite plane theory--but if there is an infinite plain, it would refer to Antarctica and beyond it. Nobody is trying to say that an infinite space can fit inside a finite space.
Quote
Also, on average, the surface of Antarctica is fairly flat.So?
Quote
If you are going to troll, stop posting, take notes and learn from the people who do it best - or you'll look like a dumbass.You're the one who fails at trolling. You don't even understand Flat Earth Theory itself.
6
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: New Ice Wall Question
« on: May 02, 2010, 09:54:12 PM »
I don't see any reason to believe that water would necessarily slip through the ice if it was entirely ice from the bottom up.
7
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Bendy light
« on: May 02, 2010, 09:51:03 PM »
If you can accept that glass and water can bend light, why can't you accept that our atmosphere can bend light?
8
Flat Earth General / Re: Why I became a Flat Earther
« on: May 02, 2010, 09:48:45 PM »
The irony in your post is overwhelming. Every time someone has an idea the mainstream doesn't agree with, they are labeled "crazy." Surely you didn't intend to make yourself look so silly?
9
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Questions
« on: May 02, 2010, 09:46:40 PM »
I thought it was clear I meant the "Greater" ice wall, which is very tall indeed but much farther into Antarctica. Antarctica itself is the "Lesser" ice wall which is easily scalable.
10
Flat Earth General / Re: George Scott Fallacy
« on: May 02, 2010, 09:19:34 PM »
Whether a person believes their own argument is irrelevant to how valid the argument is. A logical argument is separate from the person doing the arguing. A fallacy is a rhetorical trick to make an argument look less valid by means other than finding fault in the argument itself, which is what the "George Scott" approach does. So, I would say it's the very definition a fallacy.
11
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Questions
« on: May 02, 2010, 09:16:21 PM »How is the earth flat if we have pic's?Ever hear of Adobe Photoshop?
Quote
How come people can go around the world?I will fall back on a common analogy. The hand of my clock can go around it. But my clock isn't a sphere.
Quote
How come there is no edge?Read the FAQ. We cannot arrive at the edge, only the wall. The ice wall of Antarctica.
Quote
Sorry i am of new to english and i have used google translate.Google Translate is not the best internet translator out there. In my experience, http://www.freetranslation.com/ is better.
12
Flat Earth General / Why I became a Flat Earther
« on: May 02, 2010, 09:00:20 PM »
I used to believe everything that society told me to believe. To be honest, I was pretty much a closed-minded bigot, and I scoffed at everyone who didn't agree with me about things I accepted to be true without evidence. I had only the vaguest knowledge of the Flat Earth Society, and it seemed like just about the silliest thing in the world to me at the time.
Then eventually I found this website. I didn't know what to make of it. I joined the forum and made a post in which I asked why the members believed what they did. I ultimately didn't get much from that, but I got better results by reading the forums, the FAQs, and even some of the FE literature. I realized I'd taken a lot of things for granted; it really opened my eyes.
I realized there was no proof the world was round. I became skeptical. The NASA photos could easily have been faked. The whole concept of gravity makes little scientific sense, but we just accept it because we have never questioned it. I always had some doubts about the nature of gravity, and also special relativity which seemed too far-fetched to believe. If supposed professional scientists could overlook questions like that, who says they couldn't make other mistakes? How have they proved the world is round? In no way have they done so.
The only "proof" we have comes from organizations such as NASA that stand to make a profit off keeping the secret. They get ENORMOUS amounts of money--just to fly things into space, they say. But why bother, when they can pocket the money and save lots of expenses by making up all the stories of what they find out there.
And then there is the fact that bodies of water have been shown to have no curving--at all. I wondered about this; why did RE'ers (my fellow RE'ers back then) never address this? FET addresses the perceived flaws in its ideas; RET does not. It is simply ignored by the scientific community when it doesn't seem to fit. For the longest time I ignored this and assumed the scientists knew what they were doing. I took a lot on faith; almost religiously. I gave up on religion long ago, and eventually I realized I needed to give up my faith in mainstream science. It has only its own interest in mind; see the Global Warming nonsense.
For every perceived flaw, FET has an answer. RE'ers are just so biased by their prejudices that they feel the need to call FE'ers names instead of addressing the issues. It's a travesty--they feel threatened when they cannot back up their beliefs. This, too, I eventually realized. We need to be more open-minded. We need to question our beliefs. I have questioned RET and I have questioned FET. FET holds up. RET does not.
I'm happy to join this community of open-minded individuals.
Then eventually I found this website. I didn't know what to make of it. I joined the forum and made a post in which I asked why the members believed what they did. I ultimately didn't get much from that, but I got better results by reading the forums, the FAQs, and even some of the FE literature. I realized I'd taken a lot of things for granted; it really opened my eyes.
I realized there was no proof the world was round. I became skeptical. The NASA photos could easily have been faked. The whole concept of gravity makes little scientific sense, but we just accept it because we have never questioned it. I always had some doubts about the nature of gravity, and also special relativity which seemed too far-fetched to believe. If supposed professional scientists could overlook questions like that, who says they couldn't make other mistakes? How have they proved the world is round? In no way have they done so.
The only "proof" we have comes from organizations such as NASA that stand to make a profit off keeping the secret. They get ENORMOUS amounts of money--just to fly things into space, they say. But why bother, when they can pocket the money and save lots of expenses by making up all the stories of what they find out there.
And then there is the fact that bodies of water have been shown to have no curving--at all. I wondered about this; why did RE'ers (my fellow RE'ers back then) never address this? FET addresses the perceived flaws in its ideas; RET does not. It is simply ignored by the scientific community when it doesn't seem to fit. For the longest time I ignored this and assumed the scientists knew what they were doing. I took a lot on faith; almost religiously. I gave up on religion long ago, and eventually I realized I needed to give up my faith in mainstream science. It has only its own interest in mind; see the Global Warming nonsense.
For every perceived flaw, FET has an answer. RE'ers are just so biased by their prejudices that they feel the need to call FE'ers names instead of addressing the issues. It's a travesty--they feel threatened when they cannot back up their beliefs. This, too, I eventually realized. We need to be more open-minded. We need to question our beliefs. I have questioned RET and I have questioned FET. FET holds up. RET does not.
I'm happy to join this community of open-minded individuals.
13
Flat Earth General / How did you become an FE'er?
« on: October 18, 2009, 05:45:58 PM »
I'm not here to argue, I'm just curious how different people came to support the positions they do. What drove you to believe in a Flat Earth? Did you always believe in it? Is it based in religion for some of you? Did some of you find problems in the textbooks and the "official story" that could only be resolved by a Flat Earth? If so, what were those problems? Or did you just kind of think "Well, maybe there's more to it than we're being told, and it's worth discussing"?
Pages: [1]