271

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: why do you believe?

« on: June 03, 2009, 09:59:59 AM »

Now you're just being silly.  A basketball looks round to my observation and indeed is round.  Your basketball example only supports my FE hypothesis.

Not if you actually put some thought into it. A basketball only looks round because you can see it's entire shape. If you can only see 0.012% of the basketball by looking through a microscope, similar to seeing 0.012% of the earth by looking at it from the surface, it will appear flat. Observing it through a microscope gives you a closer observation, and therefore a more reliable one according to you. There is less atmosphere to "obstruct" your view.

272

Flat Earth Debate / Re: That's what I thought

« on: June 03, 2009, 06:11:23 AM »

The only thing one observes when looking out the window is that the earth exists as a plane. Therefore the simplest explanation is that the earth exists as a plane.

The pretense is a plane earth. It will remain a plane until proven otherwise.

If there earth is a sphere with a 24,902 mile circumference, what would you expect to see out your window? How do you draw conclusions about the shape of the entire earth based on the few miles within your field of vision at any given time?

273

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: why do you believe?

« on: June 03, 2009, 05:33:17 AM »

In one case I am seeing the Earth from a distance, with who knows what distorting my view.  In the other I am seeing it first-hand with no obstructions.  I say again, why should the former inherently be a more reliable indicator than the latter?  It seems to me its faults more than make up for its alleged advantage.

Can you tell the shape of a basketball by looking at it through a microscope? Who knows what is distorting your view if you look at it from two feet away? A microscope would be a more reliable indicator of a basketball's shape, and it looks flat, therefore it must be flat.

274

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: why do you believe?

« on: June 02, 2009, 04:26:01 PM »

Well, the idea that it might be flat where I am and round where you are is ludicrous, I'm sorry to say.

And to suggest that observation far above the Earth is more reliable than right at the surface is even more ludicrous.  On what grounds should it inherently be taken for granted that a distant view is more to be trusted than an immediate one?

Try re-reading my posts. The earth in it's entirety is round. A single 3 mile section would appear flat, since it is only 0.012% of a sphere. How is seeing an entire object (or more of an object) not a more reliable indicator of an object's shape than seeing only 0.012% of the object? Once again, if you are standing on a round earth with a 24,902 mile circumference, what would you expect to see?

275

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: why do you believe?

« on: June 02, 2009, 03:32:07 PM »

Well, while I'm no world traveler to be sure, I have seen the surface of the Earth in several different disparate places and I assure you it was flat in all cases.  And I certainly don't claim that anything that "proves" the Earth is round is fabricated.  It's my opinion that the vast amount of evidence you folks bring is not Conspiracy-based at all, but rather the result of an incorrect interpretation of the data spawned from the very bias that allows the Conspiracy to continue to exist without regular folks questioning it.

You completely missed my point. You can't observe the shape of the entire earth by seeing 3 miles of it. How do you tell the difference between a flat surface, and 0.012% of a sphere? What would you expect to see if the earth is round?

276

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: why do you believe?

« on: June 02, 2009, 02:15:23 PM »

In all honesty, I don't know.  The universe is a mysterious place and I doubt we'll ever have all the answers.  I guess it would be evidence strong enough that the notion that the Earth is actually flat would be out of the question.  100% proof, I will accept nothing less.  Unless I were to see such proof what reason should I have to rebel against my senses?  They've served me well through my life, whatever awful things you might think of your own.

Thanks for confirming my assumption. You would never consider anything 100% proof the earth is round. Anything that proves the earth is round you would claim to be fabricated. Stop pretending you are open to the possibility of a round earth. Your senses cannot perceive curvature from the surface of a sphere 7,926.41 miles in diameter. It is a simple matter of geometry. Do you believe in geometry? Nobody expects you to "rebel against your senses". The earth is too large to draw any conclusion about it's shape by looking out your window. You can only see a few miles. How do you draw conclusions about the other 24,900 miles based on the few that you can see? How is that logical?

277

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: why do you believe?

« on: June 02, 2009, 12:11:15 PM »

As I've said many times here, if I'm ever presented with incontrovertible evidence that the Earth is not flat, I will change my view.  I have thus far not been presented with such sufficient evidence.  So I'll go with my senses as they rarely fail me in day-to-day life.

What would you consider "incontrovertible evidence"? Nothing? Then why do you keep saying that?

278

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Conspiracy is fail

« on: June 02, 2009, 07:10:04 AM »

If the Earth is round why hasn't someone dug to the mantle?

It is being done.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chikyu_Hakken
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8071021.stm

279

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: why do you believe?

« on: June 01, 2009, 06:51:37 PM »

Tell me, why cant I see the sun at night? Since according to your theory, the earth is flat and therefore both the moon and sun should be viewable 24/7. Also, could you explain me; How comes that during summertime, the sun wont set for 73 days in row in the northern Finland? And also explain me why the Aurora Borealis ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_borealis )appear? I have seen the Aurora Borealis in real aswell, not only through TV's or whatsoever.

Please don't hijack my thread.

280

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: why do you believe?

« on: June 01, 2009, 04:52:33 PM »

To me it seems much more logical to explain something with a phenomena (acceleration) that is not made up; even though the theory behind it may, still, just be a theory. It also perfectly explains the effect that is present, just as gravity appears to. With all the evidence I have read on this site, I believe that the earth is flat; it's not necessarily the incompetence of "gravity" which has swayed me towards becoming a FEer, it was just the first thing that made me start to doubt the consensus that the earth was round.

Acceleration isn't an alternative to gravitation. In fact acceleration can be caused by gravitation. The question is what causes our acceleration relative to earth when our feet are not on the ground? Is it because objects with mass attract each other (gravitation), or is there some mysterious force accelerating the earth (universal acceleration)? Acceleration isn't made up, but the force which causes the earth to accelerate in FET is. How is that more plausible than gravity?

It is good to be skeptical of universally accepted ideas such as a round earth, but you still have to consider all possibilities objectively. Neither theory is perfect, but you need to look at the probability for each theory to be true. The necessity of the elaborate conspiracy to make FET possible certainly gives RET the advantage. Logically, FET would need some very strong evidence to make it the more likely theory.

281

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: why do you believe?

« on: June 01, 2009, 04:35:06 PM »

Im not denying that in the slightest. I admit right here and now that its possible that light does bend and produce the sinking ship effect. But you must also admit that its possible that light doesnt bend and the earth is in fact round.

Light does bend, but it doesn't produce a shinking ship effect. A superior mirage can actually allow you to see over the horizon, and sometimes things appear to float over the horizon. We know light doesn't always travel straight. I see highway mirages all the time in the middle of summer. This is how Rowbotham's experiments probably worked at the time, and can be replicated with the correct conditions.

282

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: why do you believe?

« on: June 01, 2009, 01:22:24 PM »

Because what I feel when I don't float off the earths surface is the same feeling that I get when I accelerate in my car. Einstein himself that gravity is interchangable with acceleration.  Apart from the fact that gravity is made up to explain why we don't fall off the earth if it's round; and acceleration is real.

Of course you feel acceleration relative to the earth. That is true according to FET and RET. What is your point? The question is why do you think a universal accelerator is a more likely cause for this acceleration than gravity? The universal accelerator is made up to explain why we don't fall off the earth if it's flat.

283

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: why do you believe?

« on: June 01, 2009, 10:51:45 AM »

*yawn* any reading into my post history would reveal that I am very much not a "windower". I was just making a simple example.

Can you explain Gravity? Acceleration is a much more comprehensible and logical explanation.

I wasn't asking for a simple example, I was asking how you came to the conclusion the earth must be flat.

The reason for gravitation (curvature of spacetime) is theoretical just as the reason for universal acceleration (dark energy?) is theoretical. They both give an explanation for why objects near earth's surface "fall". How is universal acceleration the "more comprehensible and logical explanation"?

284

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: why do you believe?

« on: June 01, 2009, 08:32:08 AM »

Logic and common sense led me to believe that the Earth is flat. When you look out of the window you see that is flat. The concept of gravity makes no sense to me. It isn't even properly understood by RE science. But the idea of acceleration keeping us on the earth seems entirely more plausible. We've all experienced g-forces in a car, rollercoaster etc.

A simple understanding of geometry would help you understand why the earth looks flat. If the RET circumference is correct, you would not be able to see enough of the earth from its surface to observe its curvature. What you see out your window cannot logically lead to the conclusion that the earth is flat. Because you don't understand why gravity exists, the earth must be flat and accelerating upwards for some unknown reason, therefore the earth must be flat? You're simply substituting one unknown for another.

285

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: why do you believe?

« on: June 01, 2009, 06:27:49 AM »

You seriously haven't figured it out yet? Maybe you're asking the wrong question.

Why don't you try answering the question? I don't think you can without revealing that the basis for your belief in a flat earth is either incorrect or pure faith. I know you guys like to explain your elaborate, untested hypotheses which supports the possibility of a flat earth. However, I have yet to find any post which explains why a flat earth is most likely. My question is about probability, not possibility. I think you have been asking the wrong questions, which is why you drew your false conclusion.

286

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: why do you believe?

« on: June 01, 2009, 05:53:48 AM »

My Archimidean Point was really just how absurd the notion of a flying ball Earth seems, but I became more certain of its falsity by performing experimentation, reading carefully the associated literature and conducting other empirical observations. The fact that I started being harrassed by the Conspiracy on a number of occasions when I attempted to publicise my views confirmed my suspicions about their existence.

Why would an orbiting globe be more absurd than a constantly accelerating disc? The earth is "flying" at a constant rate relative to the sun in RET, but in FET it is accelerating at a constant rate, which means it is approaching the speed of light. Which sounds more absurd? Since every other planet we can observe is round, why would it be absurd that earth is? What experiments of yours confirmed a flat earth?

287

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: why do you believe?

« on: May 31, 2009, 08:25:10 PM »

The FAQ has a link to a free, online copy of Earth Not a Globe, which has experiments that prove the earth is flat.

Did Rowbotham do any experiments which prove the earth is flat which can be replicated consistently and don't rely on the assumption that light always travels in a straight line? I skimmed over some of it, but he loses all credibility for making that assumption. Are his experiments really the basis for your faith in FET?

Not the basis,just a part of my belief.

Then I guess you didn't answer my original question. What made you believe in the first place? What is the basis? Is it science or blind faith?

Reading the content here with an open mind.

Reading the content here with an open mind led you to the conclusion that the earth must be flat? What content exactly convinced you a flat earth was more likely than a round earth? Most content here seems to support the possibility of a flat earth and not the probability, so it should be simple to point out specifics. Was your mind as "open" when considering "round earth theory"?

288

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: why do you believe?

« on: May 31, 2009, 07:43:53 PM »

The FAQ has a link to a free, online copy of Earth Not a Globe, which has experiments that prove the earth is flat.

Did Rowbotham do any experiments which prove the earth is flat which can be replicated consistently and don't rely on the assumption that light always travels in a straight line? I skimmed over some of it, but he loses all credibility for making that assumption. Are his experiments really the basis for your faith in FET?

Not the basis,just a part of my belief.

Then I guess you didn't answer my original question. What made you believe in the first place? What is the basis? Is it science or blind faith?

289

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: why do you believe?

« on: May 31, 2009, 07:12:58 PM »

The FAQ has a link to a free, online copy of Earth Not a Globe, which has experiments that prove the earth is flat.

Did Rowbotham do any experiments which prove the earth is flat which can be replicated consistently and don't rely on the assumption that light always travels in a straight line? I skimmed over some of it, but he loses all credibility for making that assumption. Are his experiments really the basis for your faith in FET?

290

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: why do you believe?

« on: May 31, 2009, 03:08:23 PM »

I have read plenty of posts with an open mind. I haven't found anything yet except experiments which can only be replicated in specific conditions because it involves a superior mirage, and of course untested hypotheses which were developed specifically to support the possibility that the earth is flat. What experiments suggest the earth is flat besides seeing over the horizon? I am all for considering all possibilities and investigating the unlikely, but there is no reason to jump to the conclusion that the earth is flat. Even if you ignore the "conspiracy", there is no reason to make that assumption.

291

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Acceleration due to dark matter?

« on: May 29, 2009, 09:22:38 AM »

Repitition increases accuracy because of the inherent margin of error in any observation of this kind. In practice, when an object is dropped, a number of factors can produce anomalous results. However, averaging the results of several observations is likely to tend towards an accurate reading unless there is a radical problem with the method of the experiment. Aggregation of repeated observational results is a practice used in many areas of science, not just the study of gravitation.

So you agree that you have a margin of error. Now what makes you think that the difference in time of free fall would be greater than your margin of error? What is your margin of error, and what is the difference in free fall expected according to the RET? If you want to eliminate your margin of error and be able to test the very, very small change in gravity, use better instruments, and have your object free fall inside a vacuum.

292

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: why do you believe?

« on: May 29, 2009, 06:38:52 AM »

Nothing? Wasn't there a sound logical basis for FET before you accepted it as the most likely theory? Here are my theories for why you chose FET.

• delusion of grandeur: You want to believe that there is a massive and elaborate conspiracy (no matter how unlikely), but you are not fooled because you are enlightened. Basically, FET isn't much different from any other conspiracy theory.
• While you may be smart enough to understand some basic concepts of physics, you are very gullible and can be made to believe just about anything.
• You fully understand how absurd FET is, but want to see how many weak-minded visitors you can convert or win arguments with to prove your own intelligence or debating skills. Sort of like an intellectual bully.

293

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: why do you believe?

« on: May 28, 2009, 01:38:06 PM »

I have read other posts and the FAQ, and I still can't find anything that would convince me the world is flat, since all "evidence" seems to rely on other untested theories or faulty experiments. What I'm looking for is what made you guys believe in FET before you accepted all the supporting theories like the UA, ice wall, or conspiracies. The only experiments I have found which come close to hard evidence involve superior mirages and the assumption that light always travels in a straight line. So what made you a believer?

294

Flat Earth Q&A / why do you believe?

« on: May 28, 2009, 12:20:25 PM »

What did you observe or read which was so convincing that you became so certain that the earth is flat that you make assumptions such as the existence of global conspiracies and ice walls to explain anything that contradicts FET? What would have to happen for you consider FET to be less plausible than RET? How many people must be involved in the RET conspiracy before it becomes unlikely?