Show Posts

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.


Messages - Canadark

Pages: 1 ... 31 32 [33]
961
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How would the UA explain this?
« on: December 17, 2009, 02:50:00 PM »
Heavier objects do fall faster on earth than light ones, but it's not because of gravity. Gravitational acceleration remains constant for all objects but air resistance causes objects that are more dense to fall faster. To exemplify this drop a piece of paper and a book. The book will fall faster.

My understanding of physics doesn't go much further than this, but under the flat earth model "gravity" is caused by the upward acceleration of the Earth. The fact that time slows down when objects accelerate notwithstanding, we can imagine this system in the context of a giant floating sphere filled with air in a zero gravity environment (bear with me as I try to wrap my head around this).

If in this giant sphere somebody started spinning a water bottle that is not full, would it not continue to spin the same way as a bottle roughly the same weight that is full?

If I accelerated a surface (imagine a table, symbolizing the Earth) towards the bottles would it have any effect?

Somebody needs to explain to me how gravity works. if I'm wrong here I'm not surprised, but if I'm right the entire FET of gravity is debunked.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Water does not behave like this on planet Earth. Rain droplets are not spheres, they are shaped like, well, rain drops. The Flat Earth Theory suggests that if I accelerated a flat surface towards these water droplets they would change shape. Are we going to now hear the Flat Earthers suggest that water droplets are in on the conspiracy as well?

962
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Airlines
« on: December 17, 2009, 02:22:28 PM »

You need to show that the flight times between Australia and South America shows one distance, and that the "long way" distance around shows another distance. That's the only way to demonstrate the makeup of the Southern Hemisphere.

Once you do that we can proceed.

Flight time estimates which match actuality for travel between SA and Australia, SA and Africa, and Australia and Africa provide the same information. Moving any one of the 3 to correct a distance on one route would throw off the other 2 routes.

Those routes all fly between a common flight path.

SA - AF - AU

You need to prove the distance between SA and AU going the "long" way around.

So you're saying that the short distance between South America and Australia is the same for the flat earth and round earth models?

963
Flat Earth General / Re: Google Earth.
« on: December 17, 2009, 02:16:59 PM »
The lines can be modified.  The coordinates can't.  42 N, 60 W is the exact same location regardless of the projection.

The longitude and latitude lines can appear as squiggly lines across the map. They don't need to take any particular orientation for the coordinates to remain in tact.

There you have the solution to your FE mapping dilemma.  Take the latitude and longitude coordinates of known locations and start plotting them on your FE map.

What's a "known" location? Is a point in the middle of the pacific ocean a "known" location?

Who pinpointed that "known" location?

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the "conspiracy rebuttal".

964
Flat Earth General / Re: Conspiracy, what conspiracy?
« on: December 16, 2009, 07:01:14 PM »


LiceFarm, are you willing to say that Levee's FAQ has scientific merit? Because so help me God I will crush you like a bug if you say yes  ;).

965
Flat Earth General / Re: Google Earth.
« on: December 16, 2009, 06:56:01 PM »
If Google can get accurate satellite imagery of the continents, what would exclude them from getting the accurate positioning of the continents?

Google doesn't care about accurate positioning.

On Google Maps they have one layout and on Google Earth they have another. They're giving us two different versions of the earth.

Have they stated that they don't care about positioning?

I can't believe what I'm reading here.

966
Flat Earth General / Re: satellites
« on: December 16, 2009, 12:51:26 PM »
Tom, will you concede that Jupiter is not stationary?

I didn't say that it was. It just moves very slowly. Slowly enough that it's not terribly hard to capture with a telescope.


But this only makes sense if Jupiter is roughly the same distance away from the Earth as the ISS...

Oh I see where this is going.

967
Flat Earth General / Re: Conspiracy, what conspiracy?
« on: December 16, 2009, 12:49:08 PM »
The official FAQ lists most of the core beliefs of this society as a whole, and is considerably more plausible than levee's.

That's your opinion. So far I see a lot of discrepancies in the "official" FAQ, as shown by the variety of complaints this site recieves, but non in levees. We can only assume therefore that levees is the more acceptable version.

Also, I don't know how you can say the elephants were put in as a joke. Did you write the FAQ yourself?

The reason people don't complain about Levees FAQ is because it is utter garbage not worth discussing. People ignoring you does not mean that you are correct.

968
Flat Earth General / Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« on: December 16, 2009, 12:47:07 PM »
They think they have valid points *head explodes*

The fact that your theory is based on things that don't exist is not a valid point?

WHAAAAT? ???

969
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Airlines
« on: December 16, 2009, 12:45:26 PM »
South America is not stretched like it is on the Flat Earth model. My own personal experience says that your theory is moronic.

It might be. It might not be. Seeing at the map for FET is just an azimuthal projection, and a visualization, we cannot say for sure.

Only when you have provided hard data and testimonials will your case be made.

No, Tom, it doesn't work like that. Navigation cannot be performed on a flat map unless it is understood that it is merely a representation of a spherical globe.

Navigation works perfectly with the Round Earth projection. It is mathematically impossible to flatten a globe onto a two dimensional plane without compromising its features. Do you not understand this?

970
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Airlines
« on: December 15, 2009, 08:58:02 PM »
Ok now I am getting slightly annoyed. You do not trust basic math anymore? Flight times for recorded flights are all over and I have no urge to find them for you. What I am saying is that flight times are in line the round earth theory but not the flat earth. Short of massive temporal distortions, I have heard no reasonable theories other than conspiracy which I label as likely with that many people cognizant (all the air traffic people).

No.

You're going to have to find testimonials for the flight which goes between South America and Australia.

Then you're going to have to find testimonials for the distance going the "long" way around.

I once flew from Buenos Aires to Montevideo.

I once flew from Syracuse, NY to Newark New Jersey.

The North American trip took longer from takeoff to landing.

South America is not stretched like it is on the Flat Earth model. My own personal experience says that your theory is moronic.

Call me a liar.

971
Flat Earth General / Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« on: December 15, 2009, 06:39:29 PM »

No. He is right (sort of). Unless the sun, earth, and moon were all perfectly aligned and the earth was at a ninety degree to the plane, any shadow cast would be slightly elliptical, which is just a fancy word for an oval. Hold a frisbee and a baseball up to a lamp. : )

Actually, if the earth was flat, then the earth couldn't possibly cast its shadow on the moon.

because the earth is never between the sun and the moon in the flat earth model.

Yeah I know, I'm just trying so hard to rationalize the FE model in my head. Every time I get close my brain goes "oh but you forgot about these millions of other variables that now no longer make any sense".

It's quite simple actually. The whole concept is that the Earth is flat, an anti-moon causes lunar eclipses, a sub-moon causes the tides, there are sky mirrors that explain multiple things, and everything else should be chalked up as conspiracy or un-knowable. Pretty simple if you ask me.

But... none of those things exist! *head explodes*

972
Flat Earth General / Re: Conspiracy, what conspiracy?
« on: December 15, 2009, 06:22:30 PM »
Levee's FAQ is garbage. He claims that the Bible was written by Jesuits and the Knights of the Templar and that Noah's flood took place in 1600 AD.

I know. This claim is no more outlandish than the earth being on the backs of elephants or dinosaurs sailing the open seas.

The Earth being on the backs of elephants is a joke based on ancient Hindu mythology.  Almost no one ever gets the joke, so I think we should probably remove that, or at least edit it.  As for the dinosaurs...well, I'm not going to argue with you there.  I think that's ridiculous too.  Still, it's not an official part of FET, and is only believed by a few select members.  The official FAQ lists most of the core beliefs of this society as a whole, and is considerably more plausible than levee's.

Didn't the Iroquois believe in a giant turtle?

973
Flat Earth General / Re: satellites
« on: December 15, 2009, 06:20:52 PM »
Tom, will you concede that Jupiter is not stationary?

974
Flat Earth General / Re: Conspiracy, what conspiracy?
« on: December 15, 2009, 01:27:34 PM »
Levee's FAQ is garbage. He claims that the Bible was written by Jesuits and the Knights of the Templar and that Noah's flood took place in 1600 AD.

I know. This claim is no more outlandish than the earth being on the backs of elephants or dinosaurs sailing the open seas.

Ahh ok. Sarcasm is hard to read sometimes.

975
Flat Earth General / Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« on: December 15, 2009, 01:23:10 PM »

No. He is right (sort of). Unless the sun, earth, and moon were all perfectly aligned and the earth was at a ninety degree to the plane, any shadow cast would be slightly elliptical, which is just a fancy word for an oval. Hold a frisbee and a baseball up to a lamp. : )

Actually, if the earth was flat, then the earth couldn't possibly cast its shadow on the moon.

because the earth is never between the sun and the moon in the flat earth model.

Yeah I know, I'm just trying so hard to rationalize the FE model in my head. Every time I get close my brain goes "oh but you forgot about these millions of other variables that now no longer make any sense".

976
Flat Earth General / Re: satellites
« on: December 15, 2009, 12:41:51 PM »
We're missing the big picture here: that even if Tom was right (and that is a huge round earth-sized "if") he is arguing that NASA is part of a conspiracy on the scale of which has never been pulled off in human history.

Watergate involved a handful of some of the most brilliant minds in the world, but they couldn't keep something as simple as breaking into a hotel a secret for more than a few years, just to put things in perspective.

Tom, this is the government we're talking about. They SUCK at this kind of stuff.

Most people can agree that military doesn't have a problem with keeping military secrets, secret.

Please recall that NASA was originally part of the military, being directly funded by the DOD and existing as a branch of the Airforce.

After it broke off into its own entity, to pretend to be a "Civilian Space Program," it remained operating in a compartmentalized manner just like the military. They use the same protocols for classification as the military, for example. They classify documents either Confidential, Secret, or Top Secret, just as the miliatary does. Astronauts are all military men with Top Secret clearances.

Keeping a secret at NASA isn't too hard when everyone is in the dark about what they're being told to build or write, what it will be used for, and the bigger picture.

But we're not just talking about NASA, are we?

977
Flat Earth General / Re: satellites
« on: December 15, 2009, 12:27:01 PM »
We're missing the big picture here: that even if Tom was right (and that is a huge round earth-sized "if") he is arguing that NASA is part of a conspiracy on the scale of which has never been pulled off in human history.

Watergate involved a handful of some of the most brilliant minds in the world, but they couldn't keep something as simple as breaking into a hotel a secret for more than a few years, just to put things in perspective.

Tom, this is the government we're talking about. They SUCK at this kind of stuff.

978
Flat Earth General / Re: Conspiracy, what conspiracy?
« on: December 15, 2009, 10:01:15 AM »
So guys I heard there was this thread where FES compiled a list of commonly asked questions
but I forget the name

Oh yeah, now I remember. The FAQ.

That is only one of many "FAQ"s. I advise any newcomers to read levees FAQ first as it is more informative and resourceful.

Levee's FAQ is garbage. He claims that the Bible was written by Jesuits and the Knights of the Templar and that Noah's flood took place in 1600 AD.

979
Flat Earth General / Re: satellites
« on: December 15, 2009, 07:42:14 AM »
Quote
Tom, amateur astronomers have made substantial contributions to astronomy, including the discovery of the Shoemaker-Levey comet that crashed into Jupiter.  Why is it so unreasonable for them to point their telescopes at the ISS from time to time?

It's unreasonable because the ISS is a moving object, whereas Jupiter is nearly stationary.

Have you ever tried to see a jet airplane with a high powered telescope? It's nearly impossible. At best you can see a brief blur after fiddling forever to find it.

I think the problem isn't that you believe in the FET, it's that your perception of RET is completely wrong.

Go stand next to the highway and look at the cars driving by. Are the ones on the opposite side of the median going faster than the ones in front of you? No, they are traveling at the same speed.

Now take pictures of them. Which car was harder to get a shot of: the close one, or the one far away?

If you're zooming in on speeding cars with a high powered telescope they would be quite hard to capture.

I'm glad you responded. The difficulty in capturing these images depends on how far the objects are from the photographer. You would not use a high powered telescope to take a picture of a car, but even if you did, the cars that are further away would be easier to capture than the ones close to you.

This image exemplifies this well:



Notice how the cars that are further away come up much less blurry. The only way you can explain this according to your theory is that as the cars approach, they speed up. I'm not sure that you want to extend the round earth conspiracy to include everybody on Earth who drives a car. That's a tough sell.

980
Flat Earth General / Re: satellites
« on: December 14, 2009, 08:52:20 PM »
Quote
Tom, amateur astronomers have made substantial contributions to astronomy, including the discovery of the Shoemaker-Levey comet that crashed into Jupiter.  Why is it so unreasonable for them to point their telescopes at the ISS from time to time?

It's unreasonable because the ISS is a moving object, whereas Jupiter is nearly stationary.

Have you ever tried to see a jet airplane with a high powered telescope? It's nearly impossible. At best you can see a brief blur after fiddling forever to find it.

I think the problem isn't that you believe in the FET, it's that your perception of RET is completely wrong.

Go stand next to the highway and look at the cars driving by. Are the ones on the opposite side of the median going faster than the ones in front of you? No, they are traveling at the same speed.

Now take pictures of them. Which car was harder to get a shot of: the close one, or the one far away?

981
Flat Earth General / Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« on: December 14, 2009, 08:46:17 PM »
remember:if the earth was flat, then the earth's shadow on the moon would be elliptical, not round.

You can't tell an eliptical arc from a circular arc. They are basically one in the same.

No. He is right (sort of). Unless the sun, earth, and moon were all perfectly aligned and the earth was at a ninety degree to the plane, any shadow cast would be slightly elliptical, which is just a fancy word for an oval. Hold a frisbee and a baseball up to a lamp. : )

O -----> / --------> o

O=sun
/=flat earth at an angle
o=moon
-----> = light : D

982
Flat Earth General / Re: Contributions to Society
« on: December 14, 2009, 08:36:08 PM »
I have found that unless you click every link and read each page, it's impossible to appreciate his obvious mastery of research. Read everything first before passing judgement.

Mastery of research?

He argues that the Torah and New Testament where written by Jesuits and Templars and that the Great Flood recounted in the Book of Genesis took place in 1600 AD.

Did you honestly think that nobody would look at what he actually said after you referred to him as somebody with "mastery of research"? Shame on you.


http://www.library.manchester.ac.uk/specialcollections/collections/stjohnfragment/

983
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why does Tom not want to address this?
« on: December 14, 2009, 08:00:55 PM »
The sun is a sphere??

It doesn't look like a sphere...

If I based my theories of the universe on my perceivable surroundings I would deduce that the entire earth is covered in snow and that everybody has Canadian accents.

984
Flat Earth General / Re: Some thoughts on the scale of the conspiracy.
« on: December 14, 2009, 05:25:06 PM »
My question is this: of the thousands (perhaps millions) of modern airline pilots, astronauts, meteorologists, politicians, astronomers, Antarctic researchers, ham radio operators, satellite engineers, [added: neutrino physicists, GPS data calibrators], and people trained in celestial navigation, why have none come forward?

First of all greetings, and very well said. Also - I sure wish I would have had your teacher growing up - there need to be a lot more like him.

Anyway in answer to your question there are a few options with a few holes (I'm a Ham radio operator if that gives you a clue)...

The main thing you are not taking into account is that admittedly by anyone's standards is that there are a finite number of entities that control the vast majority of technologies. This includes Navigation, mapping, aeronautics, you name it. So in essence - other than the "amateurs" which do not count - you don't have to fool the millions - you only have to allow them to see what you 'want them to see' and they will believe it to be true. Combine that with ensuring our current belief systems are keptin tact within the school systems and you are set.

So as long as a Pilot believes what his equipment tells him, follows his flight path, and he lands back where he should - then he must have traveled that course right?

Now - do I think this is true? No. Do I think it is plausible? Highly unlikely. Do I think it is impossible? I cannot say that as I have seen things that just blow my mind... so I can't say a world-scale conspiracy is absolutely impossible.

Take care,
- Optimus

Thank you for your candor. This is an interesting idea (although I didn't consider it too long); that maybe people like airline pilots aren't in on the conspiracy but are just following orders.

But geographically, flying over a flat earth versus a round earth presents huge differences. If the theory you touched on were actually true, then any pilot who has ever had to ditch early due to mechanical issues would find him or herself in a completely different location than where the aircraft is supposed to be. Thus I find it impossible that pilots would not be in on this hypothetical conspiracy, to say nothing of the passengers and crew on board. For example, if a plane flying from Santiago de Chile to Melbourne touched down early, it would most likely be in the northern hemisphere since the shortest distance on a flat earth map takes you close to the Arctic circle. The conspiracy just got even more complex.

985
Flat Earth General / Re: Some thoughts on the scale of the conspiracy.
« on: December 14, 2009, 05:15:11 PM »

Well there is no other way that the water doesn't go pouring over the earths surface!!! If your in a boat and then you go sailing of the edge of the earth maybe then youd see. but that doesn't happen bcause something must be blocking the water. thus an ice wall of sorts seems to be the most logical. But I cannot post evidence of it bcause:

a) i cant go to the icewall
b) all artic bases are controlled by gov't
c) even if i had enough money i probbably wouldnt survive going there
d) all internet pictures of antarctica are controlled by gov't cuz the gov't controls the internet.

This attitude is precisely what I was talking about in the original post.

986
Flat Earth General / Some thoughts on the scale of the conspiracy.
« on: December 14, 2009, 08:37:06 AM »
I have been browsing this website for the past few weeks and I must say that everything presented here is fascinating. The idea that in this day and age there are people who still hold to the belief that the Earth is flat just floored me, although I suppose if one looks hard enough it is possible to find people who believe just about anything.

I remember when I was in the tenth grade I had an earth science teacher who we all called Mr. Waz. He had a sort of folksy, absent minded professor way about him, which is perhaps why he was one of the most popular teachers in the entire school. He always encouraged us to think outside the box and approach science from a position of brilliance, leaving our egos and biases aside, in order to formulate the most intelligent ideas and present them the best way we possibly could. In his room he had a map of the world hanging on the wall that was "flipped upside down". When one student protested, he challenged her to prove that north is "up", which she of course could not do.

I remember one day in particular he stood in front of the class and confidently proclaimed that Niagra Falls does not exist. We were then split into groups and told to come up with a rebuttal that could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it does in fact exist. As we presented our ideas, we were suddenly overwhelmed by the difficulty of our task. Most students provided personal anecdotes about their experiences in Niagra Falls, which he said he refused to believe. One wise student printed a picture of Niagra Falls, which Mr Waz excused as being a photoshopped image. Others told him that he would need to go there himself and see it, which he refused to do on the grounds that it would be too difficult and expensive (sound familiar yet?). By the end of class, our efforts had been thoroughly frustrated and the point he was making was well established. Nothing can be proven to be true to individuals who close their minds to the reality of their surroundings, which begs the question "how do you prove to a person who is dead-set on believing the Earth is flat that it is actually round?"

Many, if not all of the challenges to FET on this website end up going in one of two directions: either the challengers begin to lose patience and start insulting the FE theorists for their unsubstantiated responses, or the FE theorists dismiss all evidence pointing to a round Earth as being part of a massive global conspiracy.

My point is simple. Even if you took Tom Bishop into a space ship and flew around the world, showing him Antarctica, the moon, and the stars in the heavens, he would find some reason to discredit the evidence presented before him (i.e. "we are clearly in a lab somewhere and this window shows nothing more than a computer projection"). To the flat earthers, conspiracies have no limit.

Now, I am not scientist, nor do I have any degree in a science field. I am, however, an undergraduate student of political science and history, so I am more interested in the societal implications of alternative ideas (lies). The flat earth model relies on an absurd amount of conspiring to discredit the dissenters, when little account is given to the fact that a conspiracy on the scale that these people are talking about would be impossible.

My question is this: of the thousands (perhaps millions) of modern airline pilots, astronauts, meteorologists, politicians, astronomers, Antarctic researchers, ham radio operators, satellite engineers, [added: neutrino physicists, GPS data calibrators], and people trained in celestial navigation, why have none come forward?

987
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Beam Neutrinos
« on: December 13, 2009, 10:18:24 PM »
So, I got another conspiracy rebuttal. I must admit I enjoy when I get these because it indicates that the poster has no coherent argument against my claims. Please feel free to continue setting up a card house of Conspiracy, and I will continue to let the Neutrinobeast's wind blow it down.

I'm no scientist, but I think I get the gist of what you're saying. You shoot laser thingies into the ground that can pass through anything without bending and they come out at a higher angle several hundred kilometers away. Makes enough sense to me. I don't know why anybody would need a diagram to understand it.

The only possible argument that the Flat Earthers can produce is that you are lying. How can any sane person rationalize the sheer magnitude of this "conspiracy"?

988
Flat Earth General / Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« on: December 13, 2009, 10:04:41 PM »
But their science is derived off of what their math tells them.

What mathematical equations did they use to determine that flies spontaneously generated from rotting meat and that frogs and newts spontaneously generated from mud?

There is no decisive scientific evidence to disprove spontaneous generation. Any evidence you provide to the contrary is easily disprovable, unless of course it is not, in which case I will have no choice but to conclude that it is part of a massive global conspiracy to mislead the public.

Now if only we had more money to fund research...

Pages: 1 ... 31 32 [33]