1

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Oceans in RET

« on: April 18, 2009, 03:01:35 AM »

I wonder how fast flows over several thousand kilometres when there's a force of a thousandth of a g acting on it? Especially when you've got the Moon, air pressure and ocean currents stirring everything around.

Besides, the oceans are hardly static; what makes you think they're going to be settled in their lowest energy state?

along with underwater volcanis eruptions, landslides, earthquakes, sea trafic and storms

2

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: "Flat Earth" Facts Contradict One Another

« on: April 18, 2009, 02:59:38 AM »

THE EARTH IS ROUND.

Proof? It seems to me like your argument goes along the lines of "the Earth is round, therefore the Earth is round".

no, my argument is that the simplest explanation for many, many things is a round earth, while flat earth relies on multitudes of complex "theories" for each of them when they are easily united by one, udner a round earth

So you can't prove the Earth is round then?

you cant prove its flat

Well, I never claimed I could.  You're the ones coming here saying you can prove the Earth is round. 

maybe you never personally did, but the site in general does, dispite an amazing lack of evidence

3

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: "Flat Earth" Facts Contradict One Another

« on: April 17, 2009, 11:22:52 PM »

THE EARTH IS ROUND.

Proof? It seems to me like your argument goes along the lines of "the Earth is round, therefore the Earth is round".

no, my argument is that the simplest explanation for many, many things is a round earth, while flat earth relies on multitudes of complex "theories" for each of them when they are easily united by one, udner a round earth

So you can't prove the Earth is round then?

you cant prove its flat so shut the fuck up retard

4

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: "Flat Earth" Facts Contradict One Another

« on: April 17, 2009, 09:42:18 PM »

THE EARTH IS ROUND.

Proof? It seems to me like your argument goes along the lines of "the Earth is round, therefore the Earth is round".

no, my argument is that the simplest explanation for many, many things is a round earth, while flat earth relies on multitudes of complex "theories" for each of them when they are easily united by one, udner a round earth

5

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: "Flat Earth" Facts Contradict One Another

« on: April 17, 2009, 09:38:02 PM »

day light spread maps, the last thing you see of a ship if its highest points, the sun rise and set, to name a few, all point to the fact that the earth is round.

No they don't. The fact that RET can explain them doesn't mean the Earth is round.

the fact that the world is round forces FET'ers to make up multiple explanations for things easily explained by a single truth: THE EARTH IS ROUND.

6

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A question about daylight distribution.

« on: April 17, 2009, 09:33:48 PM »

its not even in the faq or anything. seems like it was made up on the spot. where is this fabled giant mirror?

I've mentioned it a couple of times before, though I don't know if anybody else considers it to be plausible. It's the only reasonable way I can think of for perpetual daylight in the rimward annulus to be possible. Also, it exists a few thousand kilometres above the celestial plane, rotating with a period equal to that of the Sun's orbital period.

forgive my ignorance, but what is/are the rimward annulus

7

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: "Flat Earth" Facts Contradict One Another

« on: April 17, 2009, 09:32:47 PM »

well the earth obviously isnt flat

Not obvious in the slightest.

and all observable phenomenom point to the fact its not flat aswell.

Such as?

such as everything use in other threads? day light spread maps, the last thing you see of a ship if its highest points, the sun rise and set, to name a few, all point to the fact that the earth is round. it is a simple, unified explanation for all of these yet you come up with various outlandish explanations such as bendy lights and giant mirrors

8

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A question about daylight distribution.

« on: April 17, 2009, 09:24:28 PM »

and this is the first time ive seen anyone - ever - mention a giant mirror. in no other thread have i ever seen it

Your point?

its not even in the faq or anything. seems like it was made up on the spot. where is this fabled giant mirror?

9

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: "Flat Earth" Facts Contradict One Another

« on: April 17, 2009, 09:23:44 PM »

first part: how the hell does a spotlight have a rounded edge that will produce such a curvature? you can see a slight curve in the 2nd pic fairly easily aswell, or are you blind?

All I see is a mass of cloud with a curved edge where the spotlight ends.

second: i did answer the question by recounting the theory. it answers the question fairly well...

It doesn't answer anything, it only explains one possible viewpoint.

if your point was why do i think earth is the same as other planets? what makes it any different

Well, to begin with, planets aren't flat.

well the earth obviously isnt flat, and all observable phenomenom point to the fact its not flat aswell.

10

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: "Flat Earth" Facts Contradict One Another

« on: April 17, 2009, 09:18:34 PM »

http://observers.france24.com/en/content/20090319-earth-seen-helium-balloon-30000-spanish-students

Teenagers did this test, if you look at the images it appears to be curved to me.

What you are seeing in those pictures is the rounded edge of the Sun's spotlight on the Earth.

the earth is a planet like any other rock planet (as opposed to the gas ones). it was formed by rock and dust collecting in orbit around a star and building up into a planet. the fact that earth has life is simply due to it forming with the right gasses in the atmosphere and the correct distance from the star(ive seen people make the connection between earth an special by using life. its just chance). every planet is formed in the same way. earth is a planet like any other and as such should be treated as such

We are familiar with Round Earth Theory, we do not need it explained to us. Please answer the question rather than recounting a theory.

first part: how the hell does a spotlight have a rounded edge that will produce such a curvature? you can see a slight curve in the 2nd pic fairly easily aswell, or are you blind?

second: i did answer the question by recounting the theory. it answers the question fairly well...
if your point was why do i think earth is the same as other planets? what makes it any different



what are the properties of a planet?
off the top of my head:
orbits a star
has a core, mantle etc; several layers within the planet
is large enough to support satelites (the moon, mainly)
is formed of rock, or has a rock core and a large gaseous outer "surface" (gas giants are believe to have a solid core anyway)
is sphericle (in general. not perfect due to mountains, craters, trenches etc)

11

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: "Flat Earth" Facts Contradict One Another

« on: April 17, 2009, 09:14:30 PM »

Have you ever traveled by Plane RtT?

Yes.  The terrain stretched out below me was blissfully flat.

http://observers.france24.com/en/content/20090319-earth-seen-helium-balloon-30000-spanish-students

Teenagers did this test, if you look at the images it appears to be curved to me.

Well, I've never been on a helium balloon.  But you'll forgive me for trusting my own eyes over some pictures.  Actually, I don't see any compelling instances of curvature in those pictures.  The horizon is too fuzzy to draw any definite conclusions.

every planet is formed in the same way.

This is where you lost me.  I simply don't see the Earth as a planet, and have never seen any reason to assume it's a planet.

what makes you think it isnt? it has all the properties of one (except that distorted view that its somehow a disk instead of a ball - which when you look at all proven theories and evidence is immediately disproven)
what made you go against the norm and say otherwise

12

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A question about daylight distribution.

« on: April 17, 2009, 09:12:02 PM »

and this is the first time ive seen anyone - ever - mention a giant mirror. in no other thread have i ever seen it

13

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: "Flat Earth" Facts Contradict One Another

« on: April 17, 2009, 09:08:42 PM »

while the simplest explanations for RE such as ships seeming to sink over the horizon, the sun rise/set etc are easily observable, while FE comes up with a more complicated bending light and such. the simplest explanations for manythings are in RE while much of FE relies on complicated ones

Why is bending light any more complicated than a curved Earth?

because every other planet and star in the galaxy is a ball aswell. earth is not, and should not be seen as, special

So it should be assumed to be the same?  On what do you base that ridiculous conclusion?

the earth is a planet like any other rock planet (as opposed to the gas ones). it was formed by rock and dust collecting in orbit around a star and building up into a planet. the fact that earth has life is simply due to it forming with the right gasses in the atmosphere and the correct distance from the star(ive seen people make the connection between earth an special by using life. its just chance). every planet is formed in the same way. earth is a planet like any other and as such should be treated as such

14

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: "Flat Earth" Facts Contradict One Another

« on: April 17, 2009, 09:03:26 PM »

But Robosteve that is how you figure the whole FE Theory.

No, FET can be deduced from looking at the Earth and noting that it appears flat.

while the simplest explanations for RE such as ships seeming to sink over the horizon, the sun rise/set etc are easily observable, while FE comes up with a more complicated bending light and such. the simplest explanations for manythings are in RE while much of FE relies on complicated ones

why is dark energy propelling the earth less complicated then gravity which has been proven to hold us on earth aswell as hold superclusters and solar systems together

Why is the bending of light any more complicated than invisible curvature?  Maybe you believe in an invisible man in the sky controlling all of existence too. 

15

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: "Flat Earth" Facts Contradict One Another

« on: April 17, 2009, 09:02:17 PM »

while the simplest explanations for RE such as ships seeming to sink over the horizon, the sun rise/set etc are easily observable, while FE comes up with a more complicated bending light and such. the simplest explanations for manythings are in RE while much of FE relies on complicated ones

Why is bending light any more complicated than a curved Earth?

because every other planet and star in the galaxy is a ball aswell. earth is not, and should not be seen as, special

16

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: "Flat Earth" Facts Contradict One Another

« on: April 17, 2009, 08:58:01 PM »

But Robosteve that is how you figure the whole FE Theory.

No, FET can be deduced from looking at the Earth and noting that it appears flat.

while the simplest explanations for RE such as ships seeming to sink over the horizon, the sun rise/set etc are easily observable, while FE comes up with a more complicated bending light and such. the simplest explanations for manythings are in RE while much of FE relies on complicated ones

17

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: "Flat Earth" Facts Contradict One Another

« on: April 17, 2009, 08:13:17 PM »

http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMR53T1VED_index_0_iv.html
ok, fair enough *abandoning this line of conversation to find something better to do*

Nothing in that interview is unfamiliar to me, except the concept of a Universe being like a torus.

ok then, just found it and thought it may have been relevant at the time. also my point in posting it was that they seemed to have some ideas on how to test it

18

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: "Flat Earth" Facts Contradict One Another

« on: April 17, 2009, 07:30:12 PM »

i have just always been brought up to believe that everything has limits and as such nothing can be truly infinite.
its just down to your personal belief at this point, as to wether universe is finite or infinite, because there is no experiments or observations thus far that will prove either way. which side are you on? or do you just enjoy questioning my motives

I am on neither side because it is an untestable property. It's also largely irrelevant to me what shape the Universe takes.

http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMR53T1VED_index_0_iv.html
ok, fair enough *abandoning this line of conversation to find something better to do*

19

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: "Flat Earth" Facts Contradict One Another

« on: April 17, 2009, 07:26:40 PM »

setting aside how the universe doesnt care what i think (i know it doesnt), science has been for a long time, based off people trying to prove their ideas. i dont think the universe has infinite matter, and would test that if i could. but i have no idea how to.

Usually these ideas have some basis other than "I just think that's how it is".

but if it is finite, does the universe bending back on itself seem like a rational explanation, to you personally?

Yes.

i have just always been brought up to believe that everything has limits and as such nothing can be truly infinite.
its just down to your personal belief at this point, as to wether universe is finite or infinite, because there is no experiments or observations thus far that will prove either way. which side are you on? or do you just enjoy questioning my motives

20

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: "Flat Earth" Facts Contradict One Another

« on: April 17, 2009, 07:12:03 PM »

thats just my view, yet i understand that some people feel differently.

A poor rationalisation. The Universe doesn't care what you think, it's been however it is for at least thirteen billion years.

if it is finite, though, can you think of any way for the universe to work other than bending back on itself?

No.

setting aside how the universe doesnt care what i think (i know it doesnt), science has been for a long time, based off people trying to prove their ideas. i dont think the universe has infinite matter, and would test that if i could. but i have no idea how to.

but if it is finite, does the universe bending back on itself seem like a rational explanation, to you personally?

21

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: "Flat Earth" Facts Contradict One Another

« on: April 17, 2009, 07:03:12 PM »

well its the most plausible in my eyes i also find it highly unlikely that the universe has infinite matter and as such, would have to end somewhere. but what would be at the end of the universe? a massive wall? if thats not the case, where does it go? if you keep going then in theory you would "leave" the universe and then where would you be? it seems much simpler for, in this case,that the universe is supremely massive yet bends back in itself, eliminating the need for a wall, because with finite matter goes finite space for it to be in

you got any better ideas?

Why is it unlikely that the Universe has infinite matter?

thats just my view, yet i understand that some people feel differently. if it is finite, though, can you think of any way for the universe to work other than bending back on itself?

22

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: "Flat Earth" Facts Contradict One Another

« on: April 17, 2009, 03:32:54 PM »

i think the most plausible hypothesis is that the universe reaches out for an almost incomprehensible distance, likely trillions of trillions of lightyears, and starts to bend back on itself. as such, if someone could travel forever, they would eventually end up whre they started. there is no solid, definate 'end' to the universe.
however, if that is true, in the massiveness of space there is likely to be several other systems with similar formations to this one, with planets similar to earth
(no, not a fe/re post, so dont kill me. just my thoughts)

Why is that the most plausible hypothesis? What evidence do you have indicating the shape of the Universe one way or the other?

well its the most plausible in my eyes i also find it highly unlikely that the universe has infinite matter and as such, would have to end somewhere. but what would be at the end of the universe? a massive wall? if thats not the case, where does it go? if you keep going then in theory you would "leave" the universe and then where would you be? it seems much simpler for, in this case,that the universe is supremely massive yet bends back in itself, eliminating the need for a wall, because with finite matter goes finite space for it to be in

you got any better ideas?

23

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: "Flat Earth" Facts Contradict One Another

« on: April 17, 2009, 04:35:36 AM »

If the universe is infinite, there may be infinite of matter also.
And infinite of Roundy's...Tom Bishop's..and...Robosteve's..
Oh dear...well let's hope not! 

What do you mean by "may be"? If the Universe is spatially infinite, there are an infinite number of perfect copies of the Earth, perfect copies of the solar system, perfect copies of our entire galaxy out there. Elementary probability theory.

i think the most plausible hypothesis is that the universe reaches out for an almost incomprehensible distance, likely trillions of trillions of lightyears, and starts to bend back on itself. as such, if someone could travel forever, they would eventually end up whre they started. there is no solid, definate 'end' to the universe.
however, if that is true, in the massiveness of space there is likely to be several other systems with similar formations to this one, with planets similar to earth
(no, not a fe/re post, so dont kill me. just my thoughts)

24

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: RE Picture Proof

« on: April 17, 2009, 04:31:18 AM »

Christ. You've got two things that act in the same direction, and that's sufficient to prove they're related?!

There are two angular dimensions by which the two may be separated by any arbitrary amount. Both of them are precisely coordinated to point in the same direction. You're not telling me that's not reason to believe there's some relationship between the two?

Yeah, I guess that if you run quite fast toward the wall then it's pretty obvious that wall is accelerated toward you by some Pretty Dark Energy. Because you may black out when you meet the wall. I quite don't get the evidence for dark energy part when you smash itself to the ground.

When running towards a wall, you are exerting a force to cause yourself to accelerate. There is no equivalent in the case of falling from an aeroplane.

well the parachute makes sence. but what did the freefall thing have to do with the dark energy as robosteve says, as the earth hits you at 50 m/s? thats just the person falling towards the earth terminal velocity due to gravity. anyone answer that, please?

What makes more sense, to think that some mysterious force called "gravity" is making you rush down towards the Earth, or that the Earth itself is rushing up to meet you just as you observe?

gravity, because its been proven and observed repeatedly, where as the earth rushing up to you has no real proof beyond the fact that its one of the necessary pseudosciences for FE to work which itself has no solid proof

25

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Clear Undeniable Proof

« on: April 17, 2009, 02:17:39 AM »

i assume your a troll for 2 reasons:

you are sure as hell acting like it
and 2; the an hero is something that stays pretty much isolated in the chans and ED. and most people from there are trolls aswell. and no, i wont fix every single little error ive made in this thread. you seem to be the only person who gives a shit about them, and does it make it any harder to read? no. so shut the fuck up about my tiny errors here and there

First of all,your errors do make it harder to read,and make you sound uneducated,which I assume is not the case. Also, the "an hero" meme has spread so all over the internet,not just the *chans and ED.

if it makes it harder to read, you must be fucking dyslexic or something. because noone else has ever commented on it.
oh yeah, telling me to go kill myself is such a civil thing these days, right?
now, get the fuck off the topic of my grammer and contribute to the subject at hand...

26

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Clear Undeniable Proof

« on: April 16, 2009, 07:54:54 PM »

For me to "convert" it would require RE to have well constructed arguments and evidence. Also, PiratePete, calm the fuck down,you're not cute enough to be a dick.

then convert to RE. its arguments are alot more logical than FE. there are also alot more and have been proven. go go go!

First of all, sentences start with capitol letters. Second of all, a lot is two words. Third of all, prove it.

Does my grammar really matter? You're just trying to find a way to make me looks stupid, when the way I type has little to no bearing on the main reason behind the thread, does it? Also, I type fast and can't be expected to have 100% accuracy when I type.

Trying to make you look stupid? I believe it is working. No, I don't expect perfect grammar,but at least fucking try. You might even like it. Also, I type at a respectable 60 WPM (not amazing,but decent),and still have passable grammar and punctuation. Trust me,I'm trying to help you not look like a complete fucktard,you can thank me later.

Again, you're missing the entire fucking point of this thread. My grammar is not the fucking issue here, so stop acting like it is. I type with proper grammar and punctuation when it is really required, not on forums filled with idiots and trolls. Also, 90% of the time when I type in MS word it auto corrects it for me so I don't really need to worry about it that much.

You do realize that I have no life and can do this all day, right? Seriously though,compare the two and see which one looks more intelligent.

ACTUALLY, trying to seem more intelligent by unerringly picking up minor discrepencies in my grammer that have no bearing on the original debate at hand just makes you look like an fucktard and an idiot

Speaking of an _____,you should consider becoming an hero.

that, ofcourse, was a mistake, was going to put idiot first but somehow that did not happen.  and the fact that you know of the an hero phrase just prove to me that you are a troll.
also, would you like me to fix any minor errors ive ever made, you to please you?

Yes actually, I would like you to fix simple mistakes. Also,I don't follow you're "He knows a meme so hence must be a troll" logic. Please elaborate.

First of all, sentences start with capitol letters. Second of all, a lot is two words. Third of all, prove it.

FE failed to explain these 3 observations:

1- Lunar eclipse (You don't have any evidence that such a shadow object exist, even not detectable in ANY kind of radiation)

2- Ships sinking in the horizon (Rowbotham tried to explain it with perspective's law, but he obviously didn't know how perspective works because his little schemas are completely wrong)

3- Equinox experiment (During the equinox, in RE theory, the sun should be at 90° azimuth at sunrise, and at 270° azimuth at sunset, which is what we observe. Yep, I did the experiment last March 21st at 6:45 am. But in FE theory, the sun should never be observed at 90° at sunrise and at 270° at sunset).

I hate answering like this, but lurk/search more.

i assume your a troll for 2 reasons:

you are sure as hell acting like it
and 2; the an hero is something that stays pretty much isolated in the chans and ED. and most people from there are trolls aswell. and no, i wont fix every single little error ive made in this thread. you seem to be the only person who gives a shit about them, and does it make it any harder to read? no. so shut the fuck up about my tiny errors here and there

27

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Clear Undeniable Proof

« on: April 16, 2009, 07:32:51 PM »

For me to "convert" it would require RE to have well constructed arguments and evidence. Also, PiratePete, calm the fuck down,you're not cute enough to be a dick.

then convert to RE. its arguments are alot more logical than FE. there are also alot more and have been proven. go go go!

First of all, sentences start with capitol letters. Second of all, a lot is two words. Third of all, prove it.

Does my grammar really matter? You're just trying to find a way to make me looks stupid, when the way I type has little to no bearing on the main reason behind the thread, does it? Also, I type fast and can't be expected to have 100% accuracy when I type.

Trying to make you look stupid? I believe it is working. No, I don't expect perfect grammar,but at least fucking try. You might even like it. Also, I type at a respectable 60 WPM (not amazing,but decent),and still have passable grammar and punctuation. Trust me,I'm trying to help you not look like a complete fucktard,you can thank me later.

Again, you're missing the entire fucking point of this thread. My grammar is not the fucking issue here, so stop acting like it is. I type with proper grammar and punctuation when it is really required, not on forums filled with idiots and trolls. Also, 90% of the time when I type in MS word it auto corrects it for me so I don't really need to worry about it that much.

You do realize that I have no life and can do this all day, right? Seriously though,compare the two and see which one looks more intelligent.

ACTUALLY, trying to seem more intelligent by unerringly picking up minor discrepencies in my grammer that have no bearing on the original debate at hand just makes you look like an fucktard and an idiot

Speaking of an _____,you should consider becoming an hero.

that, ofcourse, was a mistake, was going to put idiot first but somehow that did not happen.  and the fact that you know of the an hero phrase just prove to me that you are a troll.
also, would you like me to fix any minor errors ive ever made, you to please you?

28

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Clear Undeniable Proof

« on: April 16, 2009, 07:27:31 PM »

For me to "convert" it would require RE to have well constructed arguments and evidence. Also, PiratePete, calm the fuck down,you're not cute enough to be a dick.

then convert to RE. its arguments are alot more logical than FE. there are also alot more and have been proven. go go go!

First of all, sentences start with capitol letters. Second of all, a lot is two words. Third of all, prove it.

Does my grammar really matter? You're just trying to find a way to make me looks stupid, when the way I type has little to no bearing on the main reason behind the thread, does it? Also, I type fast and can't be expected to have 100% accuracy when I type.

Trying to make you look stupid? I believe it is working. No, I don't expect perfect grammar,but at least fucking try. You might even like it. Also, I type at a respectable 60 WPM (not amazing,but decent),and still have passable grammar and punctuation. Trust me,I'm trying to help you not look like a complete fucktard,you can thank me later.

Again, you're missing the entire fucking point of this thread. My grammar is not the fucking issue here, so stop acting like it is. I type with proper grammar and punctuation when it is really required, not on forums filled with idiots and trolls. Also, 90% of the time when I type in MS word it auto corrects it for me so I don't really need to worry about it that much.

You do realize that I have no life and can do this all day, right? Seriously though,compare the two and see which one looks more intelligent.

ACTUALLY, trying to seem more intelligent by unerringly picking up minor discrepencies in my grammer that have no bearing on the original debate at hand just makes you look like an fucktard and an idiot

29

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Clear Undeniable Proof

« on: April 16, 2009, 07:18:47 PM »

For me to "convert" it would require RE to have well constructed arguments and evidence. Also, PiratePete, calm the fuck down,you're not cute enough to be a dick.

then convert to RE. its arguments are alot more logical than FE. there are also alot more and have been proven. go go go!

First of all, sentences start with capitol letters. Second of all, a lot is two words. Third of all, prove it.

Does my grammar really matter? You're just trying to find a way to make me looks stupid, when the way I type has little to no bearing on the main reason behind the thread, does it? Also, I type fast and can't be expected to have 100% accuracy when I type.

Trying to make you look stupid? I believe it is working. No, I don't expect perfect grammar,but at least fucking try. You might even like it. Also, I type at a respectable 60 WPM (not amazing,but decent),and still have passable grammar and punctuation. Trust me,I'm trying to help you not look like a complete fucktard,you can thank me later.

again, your missing the entire fucking point of this thread. my grammer is not the fucking issue here so stop acting like it is. i type with proper gammer and punctuation when it is really required, not on forums filled with idiots and trolls. also, 90% of the time when i type in MS word it auto corrects it for me so i dont really need to worry about it that much

30

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Clear Undeniable Proof

« on: April 16, 2009, 06:55:46 PM »

For me to "convert" it would require RE to have well constructed arguments and evidence. Also, PiratePete, calm the fuck down,you're not cute enough to be a dick.

then convert to RE. its arguments are alot more logical than FE. there are also alot more and have been proven. go go go!

First of all, sentences start with capitol letters. Second of all, a lot is two words. Third of all, prove it.

does my grammer really matter? your just trying to find a way to make me looks stupid, when the way i type has little to no bearing on the main reason behind the thread, does it? also, i type fast and cant be expected to have 100% accuracy when i type