151

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Orientation of the FE

« on: March 27, 2007, 10:47:59 PM »

Trust me, it's not geography. Maybe this will help.

(Gimme a break, I drew it in MS Paint in like 2 minutes)

Anyway, do you see what I mean? The map on the right is entirely equivalent to the other as far as the placement and relations of the continents and both would conform perfectly to what all of the FE'ers are arguing for. But they clearly have entirely different geography! It's got to be one or the other, but either the sizes of the continents are immensely different or (if the sizes are the same between the two versions) the distances between them are.

With an RE model, switching the North and South poles is no big deal: if you turn a globe upside-down, it's still the same globe. But with FE, if you switch the edge of the disk with the center, you get a dramatically different object.

152

Flat Earth Debate / Re: When will you learn

« on: March 27, 2007, 10:06:29 PM »

A foolish opinion held by many is still a foolish opinion, as they say.

I would like to extend that statement a bit:

An opinion held by many is not necessarily a foolish opinion.
A foolish opinion held by few is still a foolish opinion.

See how that works? Your statement is a lot less powerful when you see all sides of the issue.

Do you FE people not believe in DNA? That's also something that most people accept for fact but that very few have actually seen first-hand. Hell, why not deny the existence of some pitifully small third-world country? "Well when I look out my window I can't see it!"

153

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Orientation of the FE

« on: March 27, 2007, 09:51:55 PM »

That makes no sense. The center of the flatness is the North Pole, not the South Pole. Ergo that is why we draw the maps that way. What don't you understand about this?

GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH
Now that that's out of my system.

Franc, my question is not "Why do we draw maps of the FE with the North Pole at the center?" My question is "Why does the FE have the North Pole at the center?" The two are completely different.

Look, Franc, it's simple logic. The labels "North" and "South" are completely arbitrary. There is no Holy Law that states "This magnetic pole shall be called 'North' and the other shall forever be called 'South'". They're just names! What if we called the North pole the "Spoon brigade" and the South pole the "Larry King Live!"? Okay, then our magnets would look stupid but all of physics and all of existence would be completely unchanged! Now, imagine if you will, that we were to change the names of the North pole to "South Pole" and South Pole to "North Pole". Still, existence would be exactly the same but the North Pole would be along the outer ring of the Earth. You see? Similarly, if you were to invert the layout of the flat Earth so that what is now the middle is instead stretched along the edge and then switched the naming of the poles, you would have a model that fits exactly with everything that all of the FE'ers are arguing for!

So, assuming that all you FE'ers are completely right in every aspect, there are two perfectly viable models of the Earth that have completely different geography from each other. That's a problem.

154

Flat Earth Debate / Re: A plea for rational argument on the boards!

« on: March 27, 2007, 09:33:57 PM »

Well I've actually PMed Franc a few times and he seems perfectly fine to me. Basically I just act really, really nice to him and, rather than blatantly refuting his statements and attacking his beliefs, I ask leading questions regarding his theories so that I can learn more about how they work and can thus ask more specific (and more powerful) questions.

I find it helps to always pose questions from the standpoint of assuming that the Earth is flat. You tend get less "Shut up, you stupid RE'er" responses. One of the best strategies in any debate is to get the other person to see the flaw in their position rather than to see the truth in your own.

155

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Air, and how it contradicts a flat earth

« on: March 27, 2007, 09:25:40 PM »

So... there is an infinite amount of oxygen to fill this infinite space?

Yes.

Then why do we observe such things as air pollution? Wouldn't it all be swept away to the infinite ends of the Earth?

Eventually, yes. Why do you ask?

So you believe in a universe of infinite matter? That's pretty interesting I suppose. Well, now that that's been decided, Earth's climate seems pretty strange to me. If the infinite plane of the Earth has an infinite amount of oxygen in its atmosphere, then why do we have global (or would that be planar?) weather at all? For example, why are we able to somewhat accurately track the progress of large storms? If all that's keeping air in our little area of the infinite plane is a couple hundred foot ice wall, wouldn't we see a whole lot more weather forms simply flying off somewhere never to be seen again? Or, similarly, wouldn't large storms simply appear out of nowhere as they're blown into the Earth area rather than forming gradually as we see them?

And another thing, the ice wall makes sense when you're talking about an accelerating disk model because the water freezes so close to the void of space. But in an infinite plane... why is it there? Is it in an infinite plane with one random warm circle somewhere on it? Does the ice wall end at some point? Are there other "planets" on this infinite plane that our mischievous government conspirators refuse to let us go see? Your flat Earth model confuses me far more than the simple disk one.


And on a completely unrelated note, I would be very interested to hear your opinion on the structure of the universe. If gravity exists and the universe is bounded by an infinite plane, does the universe extend infinitely in every other direction? What are the things we call stars and planets? How far could one tunnel into the infinite plane of the Earth?

156

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Orientation of the FE

« on: March 26, 2007, 03:16:40 PM »

* The fact that we "chose" the South Pole is not arbitrary.
BECAUSE...
* Our local area is surrounded by what we call the "South Pole."
SO...
* That's why we place it all around.

GAH! That's still arbitrary! Imagine with me, if you will, that the Earth is flat and at the center of this flatness is the South Pole. Then, by your argument:
*Our local area is surrounded by what we call the "North Pole."
*That's why we place it all around.

Your argument is completely circular! The whole point of my original post was that if took out a compass and walked either straight North or straight South, you would hit a pole no matter you started from. Thus, we are "surrounded" by BOTH poles and either orientation of these poles on a flat surface is valid.

157

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proof of FE

« on: March 26, 2007, 03:11:59 PM »

One of my life-long dreams is to create a museum that's just one long, straight corridor. The entrance would be built perfectly tangent to the Earth and it would be constructed using lasers or whatnot to ensure its straightness. Basically, you'd go in and along the walls every now and then would be a simple level (the kind with the bubble inside) so that as you walk you could see how the corridor is becoming more and more "slanted" as it gets further away from the Earth. By the end you'd be standing on a slanted surface probably a good distance off the ground and you could look back and see the straight corridor you'd just walked down.

I know that it's not really a plausible construction, but it would be so sweet to witness the curvature firsthand.

158

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Air, and how it contradicts a flat earth

« on: March 26, 2007, 03:00:38 PM »

Well anyway, back to the original question as to how air stays on the flat Earth...

Franc, even your infinite plane model does not explain the air. If the Earth is an infinite plane (and gravity exists in the infinite plane, right?) then the oxygen that makes up our atmosphere would expand infinitely in every direction in order to fill the space. However, we know that the air is attracted to the Earth by gravity and that it thins with increased altitude (this is beyond debate) to the point where we have, essentially, a vacuum. Thus we essentially have two infinite planes: one being the Earth, the other being the point at which gravity and air pressure balance and our atmosphere ends. Between these planes is sandwiched the air.

So... there is an infinite amount of oxygen to fill this infinite space? Then why do we observe such things as air pollution? Wouldn't it all be swept away to the infinite ends of the Earth?

And I still await an honest reply from a disk model FE'er.

159

Flat Earth Debate / Re: When will you learn

« on: March 26, 2007, 02:47:33 PM »

If it is stuck in your mind that the Earth is round, and nothing can change that, then leave this site. The FLAT Earth society has no use for those kind of people.

And if it is stuck in your mind that the Earth is flat, and nothing can change that, then you can leave this site.

Of course I anticipate you responding, "But I will change my opinion if you ignorant RE'ers would just provide enough evidence!" We have already provided you with far more than sufficient evidence one hundred times over, you consistently blow it off, ignore it, or demand more.

Do I need to point out the pointlessness of having a "Flat Earth Discussion" board when a majority of the FE'ers here would defend their theory to the death regardless of evidence put before them?

160

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Orientation of the FE

« on: March 26, 2007, 02:40:18 PM »

I'm afraid that I don't understand your response, Franc.

And we need more FE'ers to respond to this! I suppose it makes sense that the North pole is the center because what we think is Antarctica is really the ice wall, but wouldn't that imply that people have seen enough of the ice wall to verify that it is, in fact, the edge? Doesn't that make it kind of pointless for the international conspiracy to be guarding it so closely if we already know definitively of its existence?

161

Flat Earth Debate / Orientation of the FE

« on: March 26, 2007, 12:00:27 PM »

RAmenBrother said this as a reply to another thread, but it was such a big point that I felt like it really deserved it's own post.

On the FE model, why is the north pole at the center of the disk? Wouldn't a south pole-centric model be just as viable? This isn't completely fantastic reasoning either. Many ancient cartographers drew maps of the world that would be considered "upside down" by modern standards. Luckily with the RE model, it doesn't matter how the continents are oriented - you FE'ers, however, need to pick one. Considering that the two different orientations would result in wildly different geography, you've got a bit of a problem there.

Think about it, the labels North and South are completely redundant. Same with positive and negative when referring to magnetism. Both could be switched with absolutely no effect. The same goes with the completely redundant ordering of North before South.

162

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Unbiased FE vs RE Poll

« on: March 26, 2007, 11:31:34 AM »

Ha ha! I would rather give in to the abstract philosphical notion that nothing exists except for my thoughts rather than muddle in uncertainty or admit to a flat Earth!

163

Technology, Science & Alt Science / DOES ANYONE OTHER THAN ME EXIST!?!?

« on: March 25, 2007, 11:34:38 PM »

Please, stop making posts that pose the question in the title. Seriously, there's like 5 on the front page of this section.

Yeah, it's an interesting thought considering that all of your experiences could be just a figment of your imagination, but it is ultimately pointless.

To the question: "How do I know that anything other than me exists?"
I respond: "What the hell are you going to do about it?"

Seriously, even if by some incredible feat you found out conclusively that all of existence was just a thought in your brain, would you really live your life any differently?

164

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Round Earthers have the burden of proof.

« on: March 25, 2007, 11:11:33 PM »

FE and RE propose to explain the same facts, but RE has the added problem of explaining how the Earth got to be the size it is, and how it got flatteny-round. The size, shape and formation of the Earth are all arbitrary factors, which do not jibe with a natural formation.
Therefore, for Round Earthism to be true, Occam's Razor must be false, as well. Therefore Round Earthers have the burden of proof to show that.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. First of all, Occam's Razor states that, all things being equal, we should adopt the model with the least assumptions. Verbatim, "Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity". I assume you simply made a slip of the tongue. But even assuming so, your logic is wrong. Inventing arbitrary questions does not count as RE theory having more entities. For example the question "how the Earth got to be the size it is" can be asked with just as much validity to the FE'ers and thus falls into that "all things being equal" bit and so doesn't count. Also "flatteny-round" makes no sense whatsoever.

As an aside, Occam's Razor is not a matter of FEism or REism, it is of pure logic. To declare it false is sheer foolishness.

Back to the point, the most basic principles of RE theory have led to the development of physics that have further explained many aspects of the universe completely unrelated to the shape of the Earth. On the other hand, the most basic principles of FE theory would require throwing virtually all of commonly accepted physics out the window in favor of a bastardized version in which gravity doesn't exist and light behaves far differently than we currently think. Now consider the fact that FE theory has far more (as of yet) unexplained elements than RE theory and that a huge amount of FE theory depends upon a world-wide government conspiracy - now which theory is multiplying entities beyond necessity?

FE'ers, the burden of proof lies with you.

165

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Some Astronomy

« on: March 23, 2007, 01:34:23 PM »

Even if the stars are accelerating with us and have their own fluctuating velocities, then why do they all move in circular patterns? That would imply a non-constant acceleration. Why would the stars have a non-constant acceleration while the Earth does? Does FE theory also imply geocentricity?

166

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Air, and how it contradicts a flat earth

« on: March 22, 2007, 11:27:21 PM »

Yes, that is correct. Air does not flow off the sides because there are no sides.

Honestly. Please. STOP REPLYING. The original question was obviously directed towards the majority of FE'ers on this forum who believe that the Earth is a finite disk. You're just clogging this topic with completely irrelevant drivel. Allow the people who the questions was directed at to answer rather than steering us all off course.

167

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Something that I don't think has been discussed yet.

« on: March 22, 2007, 11:23:30 PM »

The velocity of the earth makes no difference to the light.  It's only the acceleration.

But...

Light is a wave that is not affected by the dark matter that accelerates the earth upwards.

So light is not affected by the acceleration nor the velocity of the Earth? Doesn't that mean we should not be seeing any horizon effect?

Narcberry's explanation made perfect sense up until you consider that light does not accelerate like matter does. Your explanation, TheEngineer, puts us back at square 1.

168

Flat Earth Debate / Some Astronomy

« on: March 22, 2007, 11:19:03 PM »

Why can I see certain notable constellations appear in radically different parts of the sky at different times of the year?

If the Earth is accelerating upwards, why don't any constellations disappear below the edge of the Earth and never return? If the stars are accelerating with us, why do they appear to move around?

169

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Something that I don't think has been discussed yet.

« on: March 19, 2007, 08:51:36 PM »

Wow, way to completely ignore the whole point of my post. All of you FE'ers are just focusing on those last three unanswered questions which are, by the way, not my own. They're from the very FAQ that one of your moderators wrote for the forum. So long as you guys keep blowing off legitimate questions and failing to question your own motives for your staunch FEism, no one is going to take you seriously.

And the weak responses that you made to those last three questions have serious holes in them.

Why does the hull of a ship disappear over the horizon before the mast does?
Light is a wave that is not affected by the dark matter that accelerates the earth upwards. This means that while the earth continues to accelerate up, the light stays on a straight vector. Therefore the light reflected from the hull will intersect with the sea surface before the light reflected from the mast.

If what you say is true, then something is up. Light travels at a constant velocity in a vacuum and it's velocity is only mildly affected by changing mediums. If the Earth is accelerating upward at 9.8m/s^2 (because there's no such thing as gravity, right?) and light is unaffected by this acceleration, then I suppose it makes sense that light waves would "run into" the Earth before reaching distant objects. However, since the Earth is accelerating and light is not, this would mean that the distance to the "horizon" would be constantly decreasing! Let's suppose that the Earth was created exactly when I was born. The entire disk-shaped world was created at that very moment and immediately began accelerating from an initial velocity of 0 at 9.8m/s^2. Within the 568,024,668 seconds that the Earth has existed since then, it would have taken on a velocity of about 5,566,641,746 m/s. That means that if I were to stand up and look around, the light bouncing off an object 10cm away from my eyes would hit my feet. Unfortunately for you, the Earth was not created exactly when I was born (since I'm pretty sure some of you FE'ers are older than me). So basically, light must behave incredibly differently from how we currently think it does in order for your theory to make sense. Think up a better solution.

170

Flat Earth Debate / Something that I don't think has been discussed yet.

« on: March 17, 2007, 10:56:27 PM »

Note: edited so that hopefully people would stop getting off topic

I've been reading the forums a lot and of all the debate going on, there's one thing that I have yet to see addressed. So I made this topic.

I have noticed that one big argument used by the FE people is that RE'ers have RE theory so strongly implanted into their head from biased government education that they subconsciously skew information and ignore facts in order to maintain their beliefs. I suppose that makes sense, in a way.

(This following paragraph is the whole point of this thread)
However, have the FE'ers ever considered the possibility that they themselves are so hard-set on defending themselves and debunking RE theory that they will go to any length, no matter how far-fetched or ridiculous in order to maintain their views? Far too often I see many intelligent, legitimate questions being met with such responses as, "You're lying" or "You're letting yourself be brainwashed by the government". The very nature of these forums is, supposedly, to spread knowledge of the "truth" and educate ignorant RE'ers. However, far more often the behavior I'm seeing is the internet equivalent of plugging your ears and going, "LALALALALA!" You guys want so badly for your theory to be accepted in the scientific world, yet your behavior is completely unscientific. Science isn't about choosing a viewpoint and defending it to the death, science is about collecting evidence and generating a viewpoint based upon it. You seem to be going about it completely backwards! You all decided that the Earth was flat and then you went out and started looking for evidence that backs you up -- that's not how it works.