1

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: End of the world

« on: October 06, 2010, 01:53:15 AM »

I don't think I'd buy it.  Who's to say it's not some alien or alternate-dimension being with the midas touch?

If you're willing to see that possibility.... to what actual lengths would Jesus have to go to prove to you that he is indeed Jesus?

A birth certificate listing both parents.

Winnar!

2

Flat Earth Q&A / Tycho Brahe and Johannes Kepler

« on: October 06, 2010, 12:07:11 AM »

What is the FET opinion of those who died long before the RET conspiracy could have been born, but who's works support the RET version of the universe with tested observations and mathematics?

Examples people:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tycho_Brahe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Kepler

Please move to Q&A if you are so inclined, I posted in the wrong area.

3

Flat Earth General / Virgin Galactic Milesone

« on: July 23, 2010, 09:22:23 PM »

http://www.virgingalactic.com/news/item/vss-enterprise-makes-its-first-crewed-flight/

Closer and closer to privatized space flight, or a greater perpetuation of the hoax. Did a forum search to see if anyone posted as I am more than a week late.

Discus

4

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Falling objects in FET

« on: March 25, 2010, 09:06:03 AM »

So... is that all I'm going to get? Perspective and frame of reference effects the magnitude of the impact? Lets just say it's from the frame of reference of someone on the planet.

5

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Falling objects in FET

« on: March 25, 2010, 01:54:51 AM »

I'm more thinking of it has a car crash, where the velocity and direction of the earth, and the velocity and direction of the object are factors in the result of the impact. Is that a sufficient frame of reference?

6

Flat Earth Q&A / Falling objects in FET

« on: March 24, 2010, 05:57:37 AM »

I gleaned from what I have read so far that terminal velocity in FET is caused primarily by the air slowing us down. Is this true?

If I drop a ball down a vacuum tube then, and the earth is traveling at nearly superluminal velocity... ka-boom?

I just want the FET version of the physics on theses two questions, not too much of a debate. This isn't the debate forum.

7

Flat Earth General / Re: Commercial Space Launch

« on: March 16, 2010, 07:41:13 PM »

Does anyone have any comments for the youtube vids I posted? Conspiracy theories about why MIT, that one HS, and Toshiba would produce that kind of evidence and take credit VS arguments against the validity of the theories?

8

Flat Earth General / Re: Is the ice wall a wall?

« on: March 14, 2010, 07:50:02 PM »

So what makes you think that the definition that you chose was the relevant one?

Well, because it's the one that matches our description of the ice wall.  Again that should be pretty obvious.

Main Entry: bar·ri·er
Pronunciation: \?ber-?-?r, ?ba-r?-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English barrere, from Anglo-French, from barre bar
Date: 14th century

1 a : something material that blocks or is intended to block passage <highway barriers> <a barrier contraceptive> b : a natural formation or structure that prevents or hinders movement or action <geographic barriers to species dissemination> <barrier beaches> <drugs that cross the placental barrier>
2 plural often capitalized : a medieval war game in which combatants fight on foot with a fence or railing between them
3 : something immaterial that impedes or separates : obstacle <behavioral barriers> <trade

I'm sorry, but which definition of barrier states that it has to be a wall?  Remember, you are the one that said that because the ice wall is a barrier, therefore it's a wall.

Well, I can see you're intentionally trying to be pedantic, and probably obtuse, too.  A barrier doesn't have to be a wall.  A barrier that stretches around the Earth and walls in the world's oceans fits the definition of a wall, though.  That's all that matters.  You can see that definition 1 clearly includes walls within its description; a wall is one type of material object that blocks passage.  That's what the ice wall does.

Nowhere in this thread do I state that a barrier must be a wall.  But a barrier that fits the definition of a wall, obviously, must be a wall.  So fine, I'll concede that the statement "It's a barrier; thus a wall" was incomplete.  The accurate thing to have said would have been "It's a barrier that performs the function of a wall; thus a wall."  I'm glad I have you around to point out these little insignificant semantic issues.

As an aside, I guess, this discussion started with you attempting to make the point that what we call the ice wall isn't really a wall.  Is this attempt at derailing that particular discussion a tacit concession that you were wrong?  

I agree with you Roundy. Ice Wall should be a title, not a name.

For example, an objectivist is a person who believe in endeavoring to objectively assess the issue. Alternatively an Objectivist is a person who believes in the government and personal philosophies of Ayn Rand. Capitalization matters.

9

Flat Earth General / Re: Commercial Space Launch

« on: March 14, 2010, 07:43:09 PM »

I recently said just this same thing in another post.  I'd be much more inclined to believe a private, not funded or affiliated with the government company, was to pull this off.

Well, what about MIT?


Random HS class?


Or the footage Toshiba shot to promote their HDTVs?


Sorry if I misunderstood to which part of my post you were referring, but I got those links since my original post and I feel the are relevant to the concept of private companies and individuals collecting evidence that supports RET. Such as through experiments like the above, or the number of heads of industry, state, and celebrities that Virgin Galactic will likely send into space in the coming years.

One could argue that MIT, the HS, and Toshiba were paid by the various space agencies to produce doctored footage, but that's a lot of risk of exposure that they would seem to not need.

One could also argue that Virgin Galactic is a stunt of the REC, but the company would HAVE to fail for them to keep their secret, and the stunt would seem to net more risk than reward.

10

Flat Earth General / Commercial Space Launch

« on: March 14, 2010, 01:26:33 AM »

Does the a launching of satellites by private companies using their own rockets in the United States since the Commercial Space Launch Act was signed by President Reagan hurt the integrity of the conspiracy theories that relate to only government agencies are in on the conspiracy? I would seem to considering the difference in the physics of these launches. And the way private companies would use them to circumvent the earths curve when it isn't an issue? They would seem to have definitive methods of proving the earth was flat, and indeed would need to believe it just to use them for their own international communication purposes. At the very least this makes the conspiracy LARGER. Perhaps too large to remain plausible.

The other fact is that since it was signed, the doors really opened up for any random rich person trying to take a cool pic of the earth from way high up might suddenly stumble on the truth. Especially since it was amended in 2004 by President Bush to be even less restricted, allowing Virgin Galactic and other smaller companies to begin to try to find ways to create privatized space tourism.

Would the success of Virgin Galactic or another space tourism company (should it occur) convince any of you FETers that the Earth was indeed round, and if not why?

11

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Disproof of flat earth theory

« on: March 12, 2010, 08:27:06 AM »

On your map we would've A) flown over Europe and much of Asia and the pilots would have to be in on the conspiracy or B) flown a northern route around everything that would've taken MUCH longer than 13 hours.

Prove it. Stop making baseless claims which are grounded in nothing more than your assumptions.

A typical plane goes 500-550 MPH.

This is an assumption.

Or, ya know, an established fact conformable by any number of sources.

Wanna play THAT game?

12

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Disproof of flat earth theory

« on: March 11, 2010, 11:34:35 PM »

Goddamn Wilmore, it is exceedingly obvious on your map that the northern route takes far more distance than the eastern or western routes.

Prove it. Stop making baseless claims which are grounded in nothing more than your assumptions.

Don't you think someone would notice that the flight too longer than a flight from Chicago to London? Curves are longer that straight lines when connecting two points.

13

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Disproof of flat earth theory

« on: March 10, 2010, 09:59:01 PM »

Why couldn't it have happened?

Something about Pearl Harbor and the War in the Pacific. Just a guess. 

"Something about". Great argument.

Look at the shape of the Pacific Theater in that projection. It is stretched out over almost half the circumference of the Earth. Time between various island hopping battles would have varied extremely from what was experienced. Of course I have no personal accounts to add, it just seems extremely historically unlikely that the US military would waste so much time going around the long way to get to Japan, and why they would care about any of those islands that on your representation are really far away from both countries.

The goal of the pacific 'island hopping' campaign was to clear the Japanese from their outlying possessions and then move in. It wasn't just to get closer to Japan. Even assuming that the Earth is round, the Midway atoll is closer to Japan than the Marshall islands or the Soloman islands, as are the Aleutians islands. The point is, they wanted to get right next to Japan, and the only safe way to do that was to clear all their outlying possessions and then take islands like Okinawa and Iwo Jima.

I was saying they would have noticed if the trip took that much longer than expected, or if the stars and north didn't remain aligned. The fact that they did a 180 degree turn on the way from the Pearl Harbor to Japan. They do measure their changes in course. Constantly. And sum them up too.

Also people would notice if Australia were bigger in than South America, or if that Africa was some now now way was bigger than South America.

Or are the cartographers in on it too?

14

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Disproof of flat earth theory

« on: March 10, 2010, 03:18:55 AM »

Your experiment only holds true for the conventional model. In the model I support, the trip would be the same around both poles:

Most importantly, in the map he has posted, the Pacific Theater of WW2 could not have happened. That means the allies and the axis conducted WW2 specifically to make us all think the world is round.

15

Flat Earth General / Re: Size of conpiracy, and it's motive.

« on: March 07, 2010, 06:18:49 PM »

The three subjects of motive, size, and flight were all brought up in my OP because they are interdependent points

For example, I have to make the point that a far larger number of countries have to be involved, before it becomes relevant that those nations have a motive to break the conspiracy, or state the motive to break it would outweigh the motive to keep within it. That's why I posted this in the debate forum in the first place.

Euclidean and non-euclidean geometrical differences cannot be debated. The combination of distances of flight between three or more locations will always be inconsistent from one model to the other, even in the extreme north it will be off by a bit, and in the south it will absolutely be drastically different. You just have to take any theoretical flat earth map and a globe model of the earth. The configuration of continents doesn't even matter. Pull out flexible measuring tape, and start comparing distances, you will find huge differences in distances no matter how clever your methods. Oh, the maps of course do have to be to scale, but getting a picture blown up or shrank down isn't hard, nor is just applying a simple coefficient post measurement.

That being said, it becomes clear that every international pilot and government with an international airport has the evidence. Little black boxes, air traffic control systems, ect. Most of which don't have space programs to profit from.

16

Flat Earth General / Re: Size of conpiracy, and it's motive.

« on: March 07, 2010, 05:54:43 PM »

I actually had browsed the Faq, but it was much larger that I thought. Though I feel it should be modified to reflect that intercontinental pilots would also learn the world was round or flat based on flight times creating an accurate map of the actual distance between continents.

That being said, the FAQ should then be expanded to cover that not just space flight capable countries need to work together on the conspiracy, but also ever country with an international air port.

17

Flat Earth General / Size of conpiracy, and it's motive.

« on: March 07, 2010, 01:23:13 AM »

Beyond debates about experiments that can be conducted by members to prove or disprove one or another theory, and the physics and theoretical physics debates that ensue, I have one more thing to debate.

Whether or not a conspiracy such as this could ever be realistically maintained, and what the motive for maintaining it is.

First lets consider the number of people and organizations that have had experiences necessary to completely eliminate the possibility of the earth being round. That's every country with intercontinental flight capability, and every international pilot on earth. There are other methods of proving the distance between places on the surface and such.

We have a lot of countries that hate one another, for reasons that vary greatly. Any one of which could produce irrefutable evidence that the entire rest of the world is lying, and therefore evil. Whichever country breaks the global conspiracy would go down in history has having liberated the minds of the entire world from some dark shadow government or other powerful group that has convinced them all to stay in line. The amount of political capital gained and loss of faith caused would put such a nation in the position to remain stable while all others suffer civil implosion.

So... why are they staying in line?

I ask that because all conspiracy's have a motive. You have some reason to hide the truth. Something you gain by hiding it, or something you lose if you don't. Even if there is a logical reason for them to stay in line, like the nations that benefit most from the conspiracy being able to nuke the dissonant nation into the stone age, what benefit to they gain by maintaining a false model that will hold back the development of technology based around the false physics and faked methods of navigation?

Is there a way in a world containing the internet, the ability to anonymously access it, and the ridiculous amount of reward from people all over the globe given to the person or organization producing irrefutable evidence of the truth to maintain this conspiracy? Is it just too large a conspiracy to be realistic?

This website alone, and the fact that it sights published works, are enough to prove that the Flat Earth movement isn't being stamped out at all costs, and that the internet could be used to transmit the evidence that proves it at last to be true. If I had the evidence I'd post it here during peak hours before I posted it anywhere else just so all of you faithful could download it and start a chain reaction or re-posting it other places until the provable truth reached the masses.

But back to part two, motive. I can't think of a way to drag this out into an informative and insightful paragraph. What is the motive for the conspiracy? This would be the fun part to debate really. Flat Earth proponents get to access the most creative parts of their mind to imagine as many different theories for motive as possible, and while those that doubted them could debate the nature of these rewards VS the benefits of exposure, nobody could really win or lose. Just kind of a fun "What if" geek out thread. But I imagine my first section will dominate the conversation. >.<

I suppose you might guess from the argument I am asking be debated, but I am on the side of the earth being round, just to be upfront and honest. Integrity and all.