1

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Proof?

« on: January 23, 2011, 03:17:39 PM »

Millions of images and films from thousands of different cameras over the course of five decades, from dozens of nations, as well as hundreds of private companies, and they all have been faked?

Not "millions", but yes.

By who

NASA.

and why?

Money.

How is there money to be made making people think the earth is a globe? I think this is the weakest argument FE folks have. The easy answer is conspiracy. But what's to gain?

2

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How do the FEers know that other planets are round?

« on: December 26, 2010, 04:14:19 PM »

I'm not satisfied with this answer that the other planets are round (spherical) but the earth is flat because it "just" is with no attempt to explain why the earth is so different from all the other celestial bodies.

3

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Ok, admitted skeptics with questions about your theory.

« on: December 26, 2010, 04:11:10 PM »

Also, Universal acceleration: I dont understand this at all. Things fall because the earth is accelerating upward? That makes no sense
to me in the context of inertia. By the logic here, anything I pick up, would stay floating infront of me.


Heres my frame of reference: Me, and the ball, open system including the pressure of the air. I hold a ball in front of me and I let go. Does the ball fall? Well lets see what forces are actually acting on it. Ok the pressure of the air is the ONLY force acting on it. Ok how does air pressure work? Well if I was underwater the ball would fall down, because the force of the water above the ball would be greater since water is a noncompressible fluid. But we're not, we're in a compressible fluid of air. Since it is compressible, there isn't a significant enough internal pressure developed due to depth. So alright the ball floats.

Wait wait did I forget something? Ah yes, the earth is accellerating upward at the speed of gravity. Wait, so am I? At the beginning of the experiment, so was the ball. Everything in the problem is travelling the same speed.

There is no downward accelerating force when inertia is included in the problem.

Ok, so the ball floats.


So, wait that doesnt work huh? But gravity doesnt exist. Then why do things fall?

I don't believe in the flat earth idea myself, but you are misunderstanding the Universal Acceleration idea.

Your ball being let go idea would have the ball float only if the earth was being moved upwards at a constant speed. However, according to the flat earth ideas the earth is being accelerated, faster and faster all the time. It's like in your car when you are pressed backwards when you start moving after being stopped, for instance, at a traffic light. So according to the flat earth folks, the earth is moving faster and faster and faster all the time (always accelerating). It is never a constant speed. Thus you have a similar effect to what we call gravity.

I don't understand why we haven't reached the speed of light yet. Some folks say we will get close, but never there, but that doesn't sound right.

4

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Hey u guys

« on: December 23, 2010, 08:17:30 AM »

You are forgetting the physics affect Earth in different ways than other planets.

Prove it.

Lurk moar.

Wait, why would physics affect the Earth in different ways than other planets? Isn't physics more or less universal? Are you suggesting that it is only a bunch of local effects?

5

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: You've got to be kidding me! (FAQ)

« on: December 23, 2010, 07:53:24 AM »

Yeah, I'm not really seeing any benefit to fooling everyone into thinking the earth is a globe if it is actually flat.

Setting aside that most facts point to a round earth.

6

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Most Important Question?

« on: December 11, 2010, 07:24:09 PM »

While I am here, I want to ask another question, this one being that given the classic Flat Earth model, if one were to fly around what is known as the South Pole spheretically, you would be making a tour around the rim of the disc, but using the accepted sphere model you would be flying in a small circle around the pole. Do you see where I am getting at here?

If someone tried this it would prove whether or not Antarctica is the rim. It would not prove the shape of the Earth, because Antarctica is not necessarily the rim. There may not even be a 'rim' to speak of.

I've stated this several time already. Just measure the distance around Antarctica. If it is 18,000km, RE theory is sound. If it 3-4 times that distance, than in lends credence to the FE folks.

7

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Challenge the Round Earth Model

« on: December 07, 2010, 12:32:32 PM »

It was my understanding from science class that refraction from the atmosphere can overcome the curve of the earth. Essentially, I was told, that when you see the sun on the surface of the horizon it has already set, but the atmospheric refraction makes it look higher than it really is.

8

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: I have a few inquiries...

« on: December 07, 2010, 11:18:36 AM »

The problems with UA are why the FEers have jumped on the Dark Energy bandwagon. Dark Energy is postulated to fuel the current expansion of the universe vs the gravity of the universe which would want to pull it back in.

9

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Burden of Proof?

« on: December 07, 2010, 11:12:40 AM »

By this, that would mean at the FES, the burden of proof lies on the RE'ers. Thank you for helping us clear this up.

Actually, we're both wrong. I realized just now that both sides hold the burden. The difference is, due to the Occam's razor argument, flat earthers hold a larger portion of the burden than the round earthers. The Flat Earth theory makes claims that are extremely distant from the Round Earth theory, which is accepted as fact by everyone else. Due to this, you need to prove that the Round Earth theory is not fact. This is where the burden of proof lies most heavily.

Arguing over Occam's razor is just as futile as arguing burden of truth. All you have to do with Occam's razor is make the opposite side sound more complex then yours.

It's not just the simpler explanation wins. The explanation still has to explain things.

10

Flat Earth Debate / Re: EnaG Experiments Critiqued One At A Time

« on: December 06, 2010, 02:41:14 PM »

The problem with the experiment is that it only looked at a distance 6 miles. This is not long enough to see any meaningful curvature of the earth. Maybe if the distance was 100+ miles it would be a useful experiment. But 6? No way.

This experiment can be dismissed on this basis alone.

11

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Just a brief question about directions

« on: November 29, 2010, 08:53:30 AM »

North is Hubwards, South is Rimwards, East is Turnwise, and West is Widdershins.

What is the meaning and etymology of "Widdershins"?

For a detailed definition and etymology please follow this link

Ah, I see. Thank you.

Although you don't usually see the usage of Widdershins by non Pagans. At least, being a Pagan I have never seen non-Pagans use this term.

12

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Evidence?

« on: November 16, 2010, 02:19:27 PM »

I am fascinated by this site.

I came to the forum about to post a thread about how people very close to me have traveled the circumference of the world and found it to be quite round... but then I read your FAQ and some of your posts and that discouraged me. You will either say I'm lying or point to some  conspiracy on my family's part or some obscure pseudo scientific semi-magical theory to explain their experience.


Anyway I decided on another approach.

Nowhere in your site and on any reference materials did I find any photographic evidence of the edge of the world and the ice wall and all.

Do you guys mean to tell me that there's so many of you and you are so convinced in what you say and have all your theories and logical arguments to support them, and in all this time not one of you actually chartered a plane or a boat and went to take some pictures and show everyone else how wrong they have been? I find this almost impossible...

Well, I support the spherical earth idea, but in regards to your photographic evidence of the edge of the world, any photo of Antarctica would work for this. What we call Antarctica, the FE folks call the ice wall.

I've said before that all one needs to do is to start at one point at the ice wall/Antarctica and then circumnavigate the entire thing and measure the distance. That right there will prove FE or RE theories. RE says the circumference should be 18,000km, while for FE theories the circumference should be many times this distance.

13

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What about the sun?

« on: November 16, 2010, 08:47:41 AM »

I did some research for you.  The book in this link does have information that addresses your issues.   

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/

Yeah, I'm pretty sure using a 6 mile stretch of canal as way too small of a distance to judge the curvature of the earth. I'm thinking his experiments were flawed from the get go and that  this caused him to make faulty conclusions.

14

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Is the Moon also flat?

« on: November 16, 2010, 08:16:05 AM »

The moon cannot be flat.   One can envision this clearly by careful study of process by which the moon system on the moon was created and is replenished.  

Likewise, careful study of certain Fortrean materials can be shown to be from the moon.  

Should we assume that once again you're making claims before you can present the evidence to support them?

The moons weather system is created by processes within the core of the moon.  Mostly radioactive decay and what not.  This is clearly why astronauts had to worry so much about radiation on the moons surface.    Another clear cause of it is due to constant bombardment from aetheric and solar winds and secondary light bombardment.

This weather system is the cause for moon phases.  Look at the moons atmospheric tail for evidence of this. 

The data concerning Fortrean materials is available.  A quick google search will yield an open minded individual enough information to come to a conclusion for yourself.

Please provide the links, just as I do, to the evidence that is enough for a skeptic, as every scientist should be, to reach your conclusion. If you just want to ramble on without presenting conclusive evidence, please don't bother. The process goes: hypothesis, experiment and evidence, then conclusion.

We've already discussed fortrean materials at length and I doubt I'll get anywhere talking any more of it with you.  As such, I addressed the statement towards any open minded individuals that may be reading it.

As far as the moons atmosphere, the best evidence is simply gazing at the moon, with proper protection.   Far from me to tell a round earther to do something unreasonable.  However, for others, another method one might choose is to look at the data concerning how much radiation protection lunar crafts need.  You could also test for existence/nonexistence of radon from the decay of the moons crust.  On the otherhand, you can see it with your eyes plain as day.  As far as bombardment from aetheric and/or solar winds, light I doubt you contest that.

So given the poor evidence that you've provided so far, there is no reason to accept your conclusions. Noted and expected.

So you hold the moon doesn't hold an atmosphere, and this atmosphere is not created by decay of the crust and solar and or aether winds + light bombardment?

I would say that since the astronauts that visited the moon didn't find any atmosphere, this would consist of proof of no atmosphere. Thus the moon would have no weather pattern at all.

15

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Is the Moon also flat?

« on: November 16, 2010, 08:14:32 AM »

The data concerning Fortrean materials is available.  A quick google search will yield an open minded individual enough information to come to a conclusion for yourself.

Can you be little more specific? Because quick google search returned only links to computer language and some Fortrean kingdom from some alternate history page.
 And am I right when I conclude that you deduced the Moons weather system from papers and not actually observing the moon through good telescope?

I think he means "Fortean" and is talking about when frogs, blood, and other weird materials fall from the sky inexplicably.

16

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Pendulum doesn't support UA theory?

« on: November 08, 2010, 02:41:00 PM »

im saying that when you have a pendulum attached to a stick on the ground, without gravity to pull it down, it would not come down, but just stay there,  becuase there is no force acting on the ball anymore right?  the upward movemnt of the stick pulls the ball in the direction of the string, and, the ball would tend to stay up right?  air also does not push it down.

Yes, except the upward continual acceleration acts like gravity. Remember that with UA, the movement is not at a constant speed, but always going faster and faster at a specific rate which matches normal numbers for gravity. The earth would move up at the same rate that gravity would say the pendulum comes down and produce identical results.

So the pendulum idea won't work. I disagree with UA because I'm thinking we should have hit the speed of light a long time ago. But in the FE universe this may not matter.

17

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Multiple points proving RE

« on: November 05, 2010, 11:19:47 AM »

you mean the winds moving to the side?

I guess it's pointless. These blind fools don't prove their point, they just disagree. I really think all the FE people on here are trolls. If someone doesn't give me a good sound reply, i'm not even going to bother.

I'm sorry.  If you've read the FAQ, and seen the map, and spent hours here lurking, and still don't understand where the edge of the Earth is in FET, I can't help you.

I understand where you trolls say the edge of the earth is. What I don't understand is any proof you have. You just have this map, and a theory based on what appears to be nothing, and you CONTINUE to ignore my call for you to give me some kind of proof.

None of which changes the fact that the whole basis of your argument against FE beliefs is a map that doesn't fit with FE beliefs.

I never claimed I can prove FE, and I'm not going to start now.

Alright as long as you say it has no proof, then I've got no beef with you . See, RE is not a theory, but proven fact. Problem solved, i'm out, bye all.

Yes, Dexi, you were using the wrong map to prove your point. On the map that FEers subscribe to the ocean currents and trade routes all work out the way your RE globular model would.

Thus your point was not well received because it wasn't showing any problem between the two models. Both the FE model and the RE model end up with the same results.

18

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Shadow Object/Anti-Moon Revealed?

« on: October 26, 2010, 08:06:12 AM »

It looks like either lens flare, or more likely dust that got caught in the picture. Dust is frequently the cause of the mysterious "ghostly" orbs that ghost hunters make a big fuss over.

19

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Issues with sun location on North-pole-centred Flat Earth model presented in FAQ

« on: October 22, 2010, 08:30:29 AM »

These problems come up when you assume that the earth is a globe.

It's not.

We shall see about that...

So wait...

Evidence is given that supports a round earth model. Given that I'm sure the program the OP used is consistently accurate, how is assuming the earth is a globe a problem?

A good theory allows you to make good predictions. If you can accurately track the positions of the sun, moon, planets, etc based on a round earth model, what does this say about the FE model? 

20

Flat Earth Q&A / Accelerating to the Speed of Light?

« on: October 20, 2010, 01:49:38 PM »

Well technically if the earth was constantly accelerating we would feel gravity. Only if it stayed at the same speed would the relative speed be zero. So, according to the FEers the earth is moving up faster and faster in ever increasing speed?

I wonder how soon we go faster than light and the whole world goes dark?

21

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why does Round Earth Navigation work on a supposedly Flat Earth

« on: October 15, 2010, 01:02:19 PM »

I have seen several threads that talk about this but there was never a clear answer. I would like Flatularists to answer this and if we get good explanations then this should probably be added to the FAQ. Also is there is there an existing map (Not the UN flag) that would allow me to navigate a flat Earth?

Well, just change this to "There is not an existing map (Not the UN flag) that allows me to navigate a flat Earth. Therefore the RE idea is debunked and not accurate."

No question, just simple facts. You are all set. Let's see this get debated now.

22

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Ockham's Razor

« on: October 05, 2010, 08:16:55 AM »

When one watches the sun move across the sky the simplest explanation is that the sun moves across the sky.

When one watches the sun sink below the horizon, the simplest explanation is that the sun sinks below the horizon.

I've never seen the sun below the horizon, thus I cannot conclude that the sun goes below it.

I have seen the sun set into the horizon, however.

While flying to Alaska from Detroit, I saw two sunsets. Going into Seattle there was a sunset. After refueling and taking off in the dark heading towards Anchorage, there was another sunset. How would this be possible under the FE theory?

I mean I could argue under the RE way of thinking that I was going faster, relatively speaking, than the rotation of the earth and thus had an opportunity to see the sun set again.

23

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gradient teaser for REs

« on: October 01, 2010, 02:40:51 PM »

Speaking of maps, couldn't you just pick a point on the "ice wall" and measure how far you go to circumnavigate it? Because looking at the FE maps the thing is freaking huge. On the RE maps it's relatively tiny. Wouldn't that settle the question?

Done, and FE lost.

Reference: 5/6 of the way around... http://archimer.ifremer.fr/search.jsp?record=11. The other 12 chapters are available from same source. Search in the English version for "The Voyage of H.M.S. Challenger 1873-1876".

wrong.

Would you elaborate?

You must be new here.

Yes I am new, but I've seen Parsec's one word answers before. Thought I'd give it a shot anyway.

24

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gradient teaser for REs

« on: October 01, 2010, 02:22:30 PM »

Speaking of maps, couldn't you just pick a point on the "ice wall" and measure how far you go to circumnavigate it? Because looking at the FE maps the thing is freaking huge. On the RE maps it's relatively tiny. Wouldn't that settle the question?

Done, and FE lost.

Reference: 5/6 of the way around... http://archimer.ifremer.fr/search.jsp?record=11. The other 12 chapters are available from same source. Search in the English version for "The Voyage of H.M.S. Challenger 1873-1876".

wrong.

Would you elaborate?

25

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gradient teaser for REs

« on: September 28, 2010, 05:00:22 PM »

FE maps (regardless of their accuracy) have shown that circumnavigation is possible on FE.

lol.. Let me guess

Lol... let me guess. You are gonna spam this thread just like every other one about coordinate systems.

It's more of a protest than a spam. And the reason is because you can't actually claim Earth is flat without actually establishing it as such. Coordinate systems are critical to that. And I am aware that FE doesn't have one, or a Map to go along with it to which reflects the real world. The fact I can successfully navigate using spherical coordinates in accordance to the real world is all I need to collapse the entire FEC(concept). So I would like FEr's to provide me with an accurate map and coordinate system equal to the same level of accuracy I can find in RE map and coordinate system in accordance to the real world.

So until FE can establish this, they don't have a base to argue with..

However, I will tone it down for sake of not flooding the forum with it. As it does seem a bit more than necessary at this point

Speaking of maps, couldn't you just pick a point on the "ice wall" and measure how far you go to circumnavigate it? Because looking at the FE maps the thing is freaking huge. On the RE maps it's relatively tiny. Wouldn't that settle the question?

26

Flat Earth Debate / Re: (James's) FE Model of the Sun is false and so demonstrated here.

« on: September 27, 2010, 04:53:05 PM »

I just used the Zetetic method to find out where the heat comes from.

I went outside, and held my hand in the sunlight and the shade. It got hot in the sunlight, but not in the shade. I also noticed that I only felt excessive heat on the upper side of my hand, and not the lower side. I touched the ground in both the sunlight and the shade, and the sunny ground was much hotter than the shaded ground.

I therefore conclude that heat comes from the sun!

You sir, are a brilliant scientist! Bravo! Bravo!