61
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Is there any evidence for a FE?
« on: August 15, 2011, 07:15:22 AM »Is tom the only true FEer who still posts?No.
[/quote]
Correct, Tom is a troll too, just not a very good one.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Is tom the only true FEer who still posts?No.
So Richard Branson has found a way to take $200,000 from people who have more money than sense. How many of those people, has he actually taken into space?
He has been taking refundable deposits since 2005. Millions and millions of dollars of refundable deposits. All that money as an interest free loan, at a time when the banks won't lend? What an entrepreneur!
You do.
No one comes to FES to talk to the RErs.
Lets assume all the flat earthers stop posting as they are repeatedly asked to do. Then what? The very thing that attracted all of us is gone. People leave. They wouldn't get replaced.
If I am an outsider visiting the forums, what do you think my chance of "conversion" will be? No chance.
You have provided no reason to consider that the earth might be a globe. There is no reason to consider your absurdities. I don't indulge people who believe in the existence invisible ghosts. I won't indulge you.
Earth not a globe provides theories that the earth is flat. The existence of satellites contradict these theories. So does the practice of surveying, which has the precise shape of the geodetic earth mapped out.
Feel free to quote any statement in Earth not a globe, and i will shoot it down.
EXPERIMENT 1.
A boat, with a flag-staff, the top of the flag 5 feet above the surface of the water, was directed to sail from a place called "Welche's Dam" (a well-known ferry passage), to another called "Welney Bridge." These two points are six statute miles apart. The author, with a good telescope, went into the water; and with the eye about 8 inches above the surface, observed the receding boat during the whole period required to sail to Welney Bridge. The flag and the boat were distinctly visible throughout the whole distance! There could be no mistake as to the distance passed over, as the man in charge of the boat had instructions to lift one of his oars to the top of the arch the moment he reached the bridge. The experiment commenced about three o'clock in the afternoon of a summer's day, and the sun was shining brightly and nearly behind or against the boat during the whole of its passage. Every necessary condition had been fulfilled, and the result was to the last degree definite and satisfactory. The conclusion was unavoidable that the surface of the water for a length of six miles did not to any appreciable extent decline or curvate downwards from the line of sight. But if the earth is a globe, the surface of the six miles length of water would have been 6 feet higher in the centre than at the two extremities, as shown in diagram fig. 2; but as the telescope was only 8 inches above the
FIG. 2.
water, the highest point of the surface would have been at one mile from the place of observation; and below this point the surface of the water at the end of the remaining five miles would have been 16 feet.
Let A B represent the arc of water 6 miles long, and A C the line of sight. The point of contact with the arc would be at T, a distance of one mile from the observer at A. From T to the bridge at B would be 5 miles, and the curvature from T to B would be 16 feet 8 inches. The top of the flag on the boat (which was 5 feet high) would have been 11 feet 8 inches below the horizon T, and altogether out of sight. Such a condition was not observed; but the following diagram, fig. 3, exhibits the true state of the case--A, B, the line of sight, equi-distant.
FIG. 3.
from or parallel with the surface of the water throughout the whole distance of 6 milts: From which it is concluded that the surface of standing water is not convex, but horizontal.
Brazil is to the icewall as Donald Trump is to the Tooth Fairy.
Please refrain from low content posting in the discussion forums.
Nobody has ever seen it, so it makes things a lot easier.Nobody has ever seen the Earth's curvature, either.
What do you mean "let's not have it"? What a silly notion; are you suggesting that we demolish an entire continent? Quite clearly not.
I understand the thread perfectly: asking why the Ice Wall is necessary is a ridiculous question. It is literally the equivalent of asking why Brazil is necessary. The Ice Wall is a large, donut shape continent which came into existence through a set of complex geological processes. It does not have necessity, it just exists as a matter of contingent fact.
I do not know why anyone would want to take a shower under a cascade of falling rocks but I can assure you it is very dangerous.
How many documented cases are there of anyone ever being hit by a meteor? I can assure you that the number is very small.
Reported for being in the wrong section. This should be in RM. I have had some of my far more relevant threads moved, this ranted gibberish should be put in the basement, not the "strictly moderated" debate section.
Thanks for your moderation report. I've reviewed the post in question and decided that at this time no action is needed, as the post directly addresses the topic of the thread with some new information. Keep up the good work though!
GPS and NASA are to Satanism as Protestantism and Catholicism are to Christianity - they have minor differences in dogma but underlying arise from the same faith, and they help eachother out in their endeavours.
GPS "signals" are broadcast from a continuously fuel-replenishing fleet of high-altitude, ex-cold war fighters and bombers. The 50th Space Wing, NASA's military predecessor, neglected to decommission these planes, using them instead to conduct one of the greatest hoaxes in history. Their coat of arms is a terrifying skeletal, goat-hoofed demon taking wing across a desolate sky.
However, as Protestantism to Catholicism, NASA's Satanic ventures and direction have expanded beyond original Satanic dogmas held by the 50th Space Wing. Now, as shown by NASA's new logo, which contains a chevron (one fifth of a complete pentagram) they are more focussed on being one of the Satanic Order of Five Space Agencies - NASA, POCKOCMOC, CNSA, IRNSS and JAXA, whose combined logos create a recursive pentagram, one chevron of which is itself a pentagram. This is taken to symbolise the eternal and unending nature of their deception, and to glorify their deity, Satan.
So now, the 50th Space Wing is merely one of NASA's many denominational schisms. I do not know if NASA has invented the microwave, but I would not put it past them to falsely market a supposedly new product for exorbitant cost, which in reality is no more effective than a camping stove in a cardboard box. The shoddy workmanship visible in most microwaves certainly does remind me of the mock-up space shuttle (a deception), whose outside was made out of pottery tiles and glue, and would routinely fall off at the slightest provocation (being moved, sitting still, riding on the back of a Boeing 747, deceiving public eyes).
What a hilarious question appears to have started this debate. Why would any mundane geological or geographical feature be necessary? Why is Brazil necessary? Why is the sea necessary? Why is the great barrier reef necessary? ... Why is the Ice Wall necessary? What a funny sort of question - what sort of answer could possibly be given to that question?
It all boils down to that quote, which I am guessing you 'found' because Parsifal has necroed the thread. I follow Parsifal and Tom still and have little time for people like yourself. If that is the best 'gem' you can find you obviously haven't lurked enough to bring up all the dirt on me.
Once again, to return to the OP: I agree with Tom here, when I look out my window the Earth seems flattish. It is the same wherever I go.
The "zetetics" on this forum choose to use it as a basis to discount evidence. Discounting observed evidence is a necessary part of supporting a flat earth, therefore zeteticism is seized on in the most extreme fashion so that utterly undeniable proof from third parties can be thrown out on the basis of being observed by someone else.Observed evidence?
tl:dr
I see a plane when I look out my window. I do not see a globe. If you're going to claim that our eyes are deceiving us then you are going to need to provide evidence for your absurdities.
It doesn't matter what "might" be possible. What matters is what is observed and empirical. A flat earth is observed and a round one is not.
Hey Bob, how do you know you are looking at a flat plane and not a globe? Is it because a globe would look curved and youd see the ground sloping away from you?
If you were stood on a little globe, you would see the ground curving away from you in all directions. Now imagine a bigger globe - still curving away, but at a less extreme angle. Now imagine an even bigger globe - you can still see that you are on the apex of a mound but there is only a very gentle decline to a noticeable slope. Now imagine it even bigger, then bigger still, until the curve is so gentle that it is miles and miles away before the downward slant becomes apparent, well beyond your ability to see easily, but if you looked through a telescope you could still see tall objects appear to sink as they moved along it.
I would like you to tell me how you know you are not looking at a flat plane and not a really really big globe, when as I have just shown, they look very similar apart from the globe has the telltale sinking ship effect. You cant cite Rowboatham for this, since you are claiming you are observing the flat plane yourself. What observations tell you it is a flat plane rather than a massive globe?
BTW trying to say I am incorrect in my description of the curve on globes of different sizes is disputing the mathematical fact that a smaller sphere has a greater curvature per unit distance than a larger one, so you cant get out of it that way.
Well, I read the first 2 words and then stopped. You are namecalling and that is frowned upon here.
I lurk on here often and come here just to read whatever Tom Bishop and Parsnip boy riding a bike with extremely bad graphics have to sayPot/kettle etc.
I see a plane when I look out my window. I do not see a globe. If you're going to claim that our eyes are deceiving us then you are going to need to provide evidence for your absurdities.
It doesn't matter what "might" be possible. What matters is what is observed and empirical. A flat earth is observed and a round one is not.
Of course the particles are being accelerated "upwards" at 9.8 m/s/s. This acceleration does not preclude a net velocity or net acceleration "downwards".
Subsitute the word NASA with FES in both these posts and you have a near perfect description of this site.
And who would the Flat Earthers be working for (in your model)?
The point is that alleged FE believers flood posts with chaff to bury facts that show conclusively that the world is a geoid
if the Earth (as with everything above it)is accelerating at 9.8 m/sec objects from space can never hit the Earth (even is "cast off" from planets or stars they would still accelerate upwards), otherwise Universal Acceleration would be false.
Periodicity may be the result of recurrent stellar novae. If the ejecta is directly above the observer it will, of course, be closer and more visible.
It is reported that a full moon Saturday has more hospital emergency room activity? Police departments also report more activity? People also experience various medical and mental anomalies during this time (unrelated to Saturdays)?
Some would say that it is just because of weekend reveling but if I am not mistaken there are higher levels reported on full moons.
It's here, btw...
And yet another thread has been derailed. This 'fake math' thing seems to be a really effective tactic to derail threads.