61

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why can't FEr's agree on fundamental parts of their theory?

« on: September 11, 2011, 01:34:37 PM »

Irrelevant, it didn't change the results of the experiment.

62

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why can't FEr's agree on fundamental parts of their theory?

« on: September 11, 2011, 01:26:44 PM »

The Cavendish experiment was flawed. This is explained in the thread below using a banana as an example. It is 4 pages of thread but its quite an enjoyable read. You will see why I am not happy with the Cavendish experiment.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=45198.msg1116088#msg1116088

And this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schiehallion_experiment

63

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why can't FEr's agree on fundamental parts of their theory?

« on: September 11, 2011, 01:17:20 PM »

Was the Cavendish experiment fake?

It demonstrates gravitation in some objects. It does not prove gravity as a universal property of matter.

Are you saying we should try and measure attraction between every single object in the universe, just to validate gravitation?

64

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why can't FEr's agree on fundamental parts of their theory?

« on: September 11, 2011, 01:09:40 PM »

Was the Cavendish experiment fake?

65

Flat Earth General / Re: Space debris

« on: September 11, 2011, 01:05:43 PM »

Thork never has gotten the concept of composite photos.

Well, that's how you make a flat earth look like a round one of course.

66

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why can't FEr's agree on fundamental parts of their theory?

« on: September 11, 2011, 01:04:35 PM »

No, what they measured was UA. They just called it gravity and have no explanation as to how it works.

I had no idea UA makes objects other than the earth move!

67

Flat Earth General / Re: Space debris

« on: September 11, 2011, 12:56:18 PM »

Thork never has gotten the concept of composite photos.

68

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why can't FEr's agree on fundamental parts of their theory?

« on: September 11, 2011, 12:53:11 PM »

Like RET we have a differing views on the mechanics of the universe. We cannot agree on UA or the atmolayer. You cannot agree on Higgs Bosom or magic.

As I said before, the whole Higgs Boson thing isn't fundamental. A fundamental of RET is that gravitation exists and it affects all things, including the Earth. This gravitation caused the Earth to become a sphere. The exact mechanism of gravity is irrelevant to this discussion, gravity has been observed and tested.

Higgs Boson is fundamental. Without it, gravity could be caused by magic, or God, or the power of thought. Gravity is merely a concept with no proof at all at present. The fact that Higgs (your best guess) failed, should have sent reverberations around the RET scientific community because at some point along the way, someone has got it wrong.

Just because the hypothesis was wrong doesn't mean gravity doesn't exist. Gravity has been measured and is accepted by all scientists as fact. They will revise the theory so it makes more sense. Notice how this is your only argument against RET.

69

Flat Earth General / Re: Engineers in on conspiracy too?

« on: September 11, 2011, 12:48:09 PM »

Truth is derived from the Zetetic process and contributes to the basis of FET.  Emperical evidence and truth support FET.  Denying FET leads people to be veritaphobic.

The scientific method by definition can not provide a truth.  RET is based on a much less than perfect process.  Truth does not exist within RET.

Of course is it easy for you to say FET has tons of evidence and RET has none. I have never seen you provide actual evidence. Never.

70

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why can't FEr's agree on fundamental parts of their theory?

« on: September 11, 2011, 10:45:35 AM »

Like RErs we have agreed on the shape of the earth. We unanimously conclude it to be flat.

True.

Like RET we have a differing views on the mechanics of the universe. We cannot agree on UA or the atmolayer. You cannot agree on Higgs Bosom or magic.

As I said before, the whole Higgs Boson thing isn't fundamental. A fundamental of RET is that gravitation exists and it affects all things, including the Earth. This gravitation caused the Earth to become a sphere. The exact mechanism of gravity is irrelevant to this discussion, gravity has been observed and tested.

The difference is RET has all the power, money and resources to solve these problems, and we do not. The only obstacle to RET is having the wrong starting point, and a group of rich and powerful individuals who are hell-bent on keeping it that way.

So shouldn't the Flattists work together instead of disagreeing on almost every aspect of FET?

You will find most FErs to be reasonable.

James, Tom, John, etc, would never consider changing their ideas about the Earth. They create wild explanations when all evidence is stacked against them, instead of actually considering that their opponents may be right. This is not reasonable.

71

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why can't FEr's agree on fundamental parts of their theory?

« on: September 11, 2011, 10:15:14 AM »

Wouldn't at least some reasonable people have "converted" by now?

I must conclude that you are unreasonable.

So nobody except for the FEr's are reasonable? Nice. And way to avoid my point.

72

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why can't FEr's agree on fundamental parts of their theory?

« on: September 11, 2011, 10:10:38 AM »

The very fact many of you have stopped arguing and fall in line with stupefied acceptance is troubling. Its FE's diversity of ideas that ensures it will have all the answers first and why we are light years ahead of you in simple matters such as the shape of the earth.

You are too funny Thork. "Diversity of ideas" at the fundamental level of a theory isn't good. It shows there is no logical or obvious way to explain the shortcomings of FET, so everybody comes up with their own unsupported idea. Also, if you are light-years (lol) ahead of us, how come only a small handful of people believe in your crackpot theory? Wouldn't at least some reasonable people have "converted" by now? The number of believers will shrink and shrink and soon none will even consider this theory.

73

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why can't FEr's agree on fundamental parts of their theory?

« on: September 11, 2011, 09:57:24 AM »

Do you see REr's arguing over which continent goes where? Do you see us debating if the moon orbits the Earth? Have you ever seen a scientist question if the Earth spins? No, you haven't. Your examples of Einstein, Newton, Hawking, etc. are irrelevant. They are not arguing if gravitation causes us to be attracted to the Earth.

74

Flat Earth General / Re: Anyone seen this video?

« on: September 11, 2011, 07:52:00 AM »

iPhones have fish-eye lenses?

75

Flat Earth Debate / Why can't FEr's agree on fundamental parts of their theory?

« on: September 11, 2011, 07:48:18 AM »

What causes eclipses?
A. Antimoon
B. Weather patterns on the moon
C. Luna (moonshrimp) migration

How was the Earth formed?
A. God
B. Uni-directional big bang
C. Other

Which is the proper map?
A. The one in the FAQ
B. The one Tom Bishop proposed (I can't find the thread)

How do you explain fossils without continental drift?
A. Intelligent dinosaurs
B. Swimming dinosaurs

What causes moonlight?
A. Luna
B. The sun
C. Other

Does bendy light exist?
A. Yes
B. No

How far away is the sun and moon?
A. 3000 miles
B. Other

Is the earth a disc or infinite plane?
A. Yes
B. No

Does gravitation (not gravity) exist?
A. Only with the stars
B. No

What keeps the atmosphere in?
A. Atmolayer
B. UA
C. Icewall

How do you explain pictures from weather balloons and such?
A. Distortion of the atmosphere
B. Fish-eye lenses
C. You are looking down at a circle


I think you will find at least one member on the upper fora that agrees with any of the answers I have provided.Why can't you guys agree on anything?


note: Correct me if I'm mistaken about any of the explanations.

76

Flat Earth General / Re: What faith is this?

« on: September 10, 2011, 06:19:37 AM »

The Sun Has No Heat.

What Makes You Say That?

77

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Spambot Alert Thread!

« on: September 10, 2011, 06:03:04 AM »

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=46001

78

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Spambot Alert Thread!

« on: September 10, 2011, 06:01:12 AM »

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=46002

79

Flat Earth General / Re: Anyone seen this video?

« on: September 09, 2011, 06:07:09 PM »

iPhones have fish-eye lenses?

80

Flat Earth General / Re: Some questions to the FE's

« on: September 09, 2011, 01:33:08 PM »

in other words you guys prove nothing..

81

Flat Earth General / Re: Anyone seen this video?

« on: September 09, 2011, 12:47:41 PM »

It's a fish-eye or wide-angle lens.

How do you know this?

Look at the other part of his response. It is quite true.

iPhones have fish-eye lenses?

82

Flat Earth General / Re: Anyone seen this video?

« on: September 09, 2011, 12:42:56 PM »

It's a fish-eye or wide-angle lens.

How do you know this?

83

Flat Earth General / Re: Anyone seen this video?

« on: September 09, 2011, 12:34:14 PM »

Do all FE'ers think that all videos/pictures of earth are fake?

Depends. They will probably blame this one on distortion.

84

Flat Earth General / Re: Some questions to the FE's

« on: September 09, 2011, 12:28:56 PM »

the FAQ doesnt asnwer all my threads...precisely #6 and #11

and its ok, this thread is just ruining your cult, i would reply either

Ruining us lol?

You do realize that this thread is rather insignificant as we get about 20 of them exactly like this one a week, right?

then answer them........i told you i cant read FAQ im allergic to BS

That's not a legitimate excuse for not reading something that everyone is strongly encouraged to read.

85

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Hijacking threads.

« on: September 07, 2011, 02:34:33 PM »

Mods, was Agnostic banned or something? Or is he just inactive?

86

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Centripetal Acceleration and Weight

« on: September 07, 2011, 01:21:20 PM »

I'm sure you don't.

So I take it you don't know what you were talking about?

87

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Centripetal Acceleration and Weight

« on: September 07, 2011, 01:12:11 PM »

How do you know that the constant variation of local g is just enough to be explained away by globularism?

I'm not sure I understand your question, especially the "explained away" part.

88

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Centripetal Acceleration and Weight

« on: September 07, 2011, 01:05:48 PM »

I have never measured the mass of a star.

So how do you know that the stars produce just enough gravitational pull to appear to support RET? Not very zetetic of you.

89

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Centripetal Acceleration and Weight

« on: September 07, 2011, 12:55:27 PM »

  Even if we allow that the gravitational affect of the stars is spread out and averaged over the surface of the earth, this would still not affect tops of mountains measurably less than ground at sea level.  The stars are just too far away.

Stars are only a few thousand miles away. Your adherence to the myth that the stars are (if you forgive the term) "astronomically" far away is fatally affecting your argument.

Jeez, Ski, how much mass do these stars have?

90

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: some questions

« on: September 07, 2011, 12:41:10 PM »

You see, Flat Earth Theory is a fairly new idea

Uh... not really.

It'd be like going to the NIH and asking for grant money to study homeopathy.

Correct, homeopathy is just a silly idea as FET, expect that homeopathy has more evidence, or at least thinking, behind it.