31

Flat Earth General / Re: Logic behind the conspiracy

« on: August 22, 2013, 08:17:55 AM »

Hiding the shape of the earth or the workings of it all can be down to worshipping the sun god or such stuff like that, possibly.

Please expand on this. As far as I can tell the idea that the earth is a special case in the vast cosmos, that the Earth is the center of the universe and that everything we observe literally revolves around it would be incredibly strong ammunition for any religious organisation.

32

Flat Earth General / Re: Logic behind the conspiracy

« on: August 22, 2013, 06:47:34 AM »

The conspiracy at root is illogical. It depends on keeping the masses in the dark for base greed. It becomes increasingly clear that the truth will one day be known.

What would have been gained by hiding the shape of the Earth before space flight?

33

Flat Earth General / Re: Edgar Mitchell - 6th man on the moon.

« on: August 22, 2013, 06:14:15 AM »

Just for the record. There are many things I accept as legitimate in life. The ones I totally disregard are space exploits, so anyone involved in them "directly", to me are part of the fabrication, knowingly.

I can only speculate on wars and such...but you are correct. I do have a huge mistrust of the mainstream spin doctors. And to think, I used to just take everything as gospel truth. What changed me?

Did you stop taking your medication? 

34

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Gravity in Application

« on: August 21, 2013, 09:14:11 AM »

Good luck with this. As usual there's no unity in the FE community over this issue, it's one of their great defense mechanisms.

You have people who outright deny fluctuation in g exist but are unwilling to test this. Others who accept it but blame celestial gravity, some who think it's air pressure and I'm sure there are others.

35

Flat Earth General / Re: Panic In The Streets As Govt Admits World Is Flat

« on: August 20, 2013, 03:07:27 AM »

when the true shape of the Earth is revealed, I think a shift towards enlightenment will happen. Zetetism will be the main belief.

I hope not as scientific advancement will stop at that point.

36

Flat Earth General / Re: Logic behind the conspiracy

« on: August 15, 2013, 03:10:49 PM »

... nothing rotates in a vacuum and a vacuum allows nothing through it. Not light, not anything.
That alone discounts a round earth in space.

If vacuum worked the way you say it does, and the earth was a dome full of air, it would explode and we all die.

No, because obviously frozen hydrogen is unbreakable. And doesn't sublimate into the vacuum.

Don't you know that in the world of Sceptimatic if you think hard enough about a problem then what ever you think of suddenly becomes the truth and all naysayers merely haven't thought as hard as you.

37

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Star Exposure.

« on: August 15, 2013, 03:08:29 PM »

Nice to see you here again Scepti   

Yes, a telescope should be used instead of guessing or assuming.  So next time you see one of those stars moving East to West Alex, please check it through your telescope.  You might be surprised how many planes fly higher than you think.

Thanks.

That's right. A lot of people who believe they know, don;t actually check stuff out when it pertains to what they think are stars.
I mean, we all make assumptions but round earthers simply make them as well and yet somehow it equates to better proof. Hmmm.

I'm drowning in the hypocrisy of you making this statement scepti.

38

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How does weight work on a FE?

« on: August 15, 2013, 03:05:36 PM »

Sir, I issue you a challenge or demand a retraction.
...
Find for me anything anywhere that pinpoints the time when they changed the definition of a troy ounce so that

These days, as you pointed out Ævan, the Troy ounce is defined in terms of grams, a unit of mass:

because quite frankly I've had enough of you all making things up and prancing about the upper fora as though your delusions are fact.

But of course!

Since the implementation of the international yard and pound agreement of 1959, a grain has been defined as exactly 64.79891 milligrams (mg); hence one troy ounce is 31.1034768 grams (g) (exact by definition)...

One Troy ounce being 480 grains, and the agreement having been signed by the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa on the 1st of July that year.

Still, your source did say

One troy ounce is equal to 31.1034768 grams.

I think everyone else has done a pretty good job of pointing out the difference between weight and mass, and how the two terms are often used interchangeably, even though they do not mean the same thing.

What? The 1959 agreement was to standardise

The international yard and pound are two units of measurement that were the subject of a treaty between six nations signed on 1 July 1959. The six nations were the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. The treaty defined the yard as exactly 0.9144 meter and the pound as exactly 0.45359237 kilogram.[1]

This is just matching metric to imperial. It is not, as you so disingenuously suggest, changing the dimensions of the units from a force (weight) to a quantity of matter (mass).

At no point was a troy ounce changed in terms of units. The demand for a retraction still stands.

Given that w=m*g and you say that a troy ounce is a measurement of weight then how much mass does 5 troy ounces have?

39

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How does weight work on a FE?

« on: August 14, 2013, 03:13:15 AM »

Ævan you seem incapable of understanding the difference between weight and mass.

I know you're familiar with the following equation w=m*g

When you weigh something you're measuring the force it is exerting on a scale, most force scales convert this into the objects mass without showing the working out. Your bathroom scales should really say "you weigh/are exerting a force of 735.5N and therefore have a mass of 75kg" but they skip the first bit and just give you your mass.

40

Flat Earth Debate / Re: My opinion on FE

« on: August 13, 2013, 04:17:49 PM »

Tom, you're doing an excellent job of ignoring my measurement of Mt. Adams.

On the contrary, you're doing a bangup job of ignoring the true nature of perspective as related by Dr. Rowbotham and a slew of others.

Rowbotham observed that stuff disappears behind the horizon at a rate consistent with a globe, he was unable to reconcile this with his flat world view and so made up his own personal perspective to account for this.

41

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The suns pool of light on a FE

« on: August 13, 2013, 02:45:53 PM »

Sunrise was earlier and sunset was later. Nothing in the way.

Can you remember what calculator you used?

42

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Longitude Lines

« on: August 12, 2013, 03:57:03 PM »

I don't see any evidence in those links that this man did not simply travel the requisite distance along Antarctica and declare that he had 'circumnavigated Antarctica'.

How do we know that these race organizers didn't put the finishing line on a route a distance of Antarctica's alleged diameter, without verifying that the ships were truly circumnavigating the coast?

So a few more people to add to the conspiracy then?

43

Flat Earth Debate / Re: My opinion on FE

« on: August 12, 2013, 03:25:14 PM »

Tom, you're doing an excellent job of ignoring my measurement of Mt. Adams. Also, I like all the pictures Rowbotham provides as evidence. The diagrams he does provide simply agree with a round Earth. What? The bridge to a lighthouse seems to vanish underwater, as if it were hidden by a hill of ocean? Obviously signs of some unknown, complicated perspective instead of, you know, the bridge being hidden by a hill of ocean.

Is that the walkway to a lighthouse in Ireland, I had a look at that on google maps. I think he describes it as a straight wall but it's not straight, it has a bit of a dog leg.

44

Flat Earth Debate / Re: My opinion on FE

« on: August 12, 2013, 02:38:05 PM »

No matter how many holes you discover in the RE theory, no matter how believable you make FE theory, without evidence it will not make a difference.

There is evidence right there outside of your window. It's the globalists who are trying to wave away observable phenomena as the result of an "illusion."

What illusion? I see things approach and disappear beyond the horizon at a rate consistent with a globe and so do you but you've had to make up special perspective rules to square this with your world view.

45

Flat Earth General / Re: What is Known About the Conspiracy?

« on: August 12, 2013, 07:19:15 AM »

it can't possibly be profitable given the money needed.

Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

If were just talking about NASA, they've had their funding cut for the last several years which would definitely lessen the amount of money available for payoffs. But on a worldwide scale, to pay off everyone off would indeed be astronomically high. Do you have any proof that they are turning a profit on this conspiracy? From a rational and logical standpoint, it seems kinda weird that these incredibly smart people running the conspiracy don't simply tell everyone the 'truth' that the world is flat and then make more of a profit by not spending billions of dollars building fake rockets, doing fake research, and generally bleeding money out to keep a fundamental truth about the world from coming out.

As we explain in the FAQ, we don't believe that the conspiracy knows that the earth is flat and is specifically covering up that fact.    They think that the earth is round like most people do, and have discovered that they can turn a profit by only pretending to explore space.

What about the conspiracy before NASA and all the other space agencies?

46

Flat Earth Debate / Re: My opinion on FE

« on: August 12, 2013, 07:15:38 AM »

Hi Lockray,

If you're looking for experiments, I would suggest browsing the "Library" section on this website:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47&Itemid=62

Scroll down to the section labelled Universal Zetetic Society, Samuel "Parallax" Rowbotham and other 19th Century Writings.  That's where the most "scientific" stuff is.

What eventually turned me into a FE'er is the fact that the horizon is always horizontal and level with the eye, no matter how high off the ground you get.  That, and the fact that railroads, tunnels and canals are always built with absolutely no compensation made for curvature.  Poking holes in the RE theories is part of spreading the message, but as I see it, simple observations such as these are the core of the FE argument.

I've heard the 'eye-level' argument a lot, and I have to wonder what it means. Because I'm a bit of a pilot (nothing big--just little planes) and when I'm up at 10,000 feet and level my nose to the artificial horizon (gyrocsopically stabilized) the real horizon is always lower than the nose of the airplane.

Perhaps it only looks eye-level because you're eyes are drawn to it no matter how high you are? But who'm I kidding? There's a really easy experiment that can be done with this.

Climb a mountain. Bring a spirit level. Level the ... er, the level, and look across it. Is the horizon at or below it? Take pictures!

In this thread I took a cool pic, the water on the opposite shore was definitely at eye level.


http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,57166.msg1435123.html#msg1435123

Also at at the ocean, while standing on the beach the horizon is at eye level. Also from the 22nd floor of my condo the horizon is at eye level.

Did you have a spirit level with you to make sure you were looking perfectly horizontally?

47

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Scientific proof that Star Wars would crush Star Trek in any war

« on: August 09, 2013, 05:19:34 AM »

I don't know if this has been mentioned but the focus above seems to be on Jedi moving large things, blowing up star ships etc but surely they could do far more damage on a smaller scale. Stopping someones heart or blowing up a star ship by breaking the anti-mater regulators in the engine.

The Force most likely has some proximity restrictions.

From what I've seen of Star Wars and it's extended universe the force has whatever limitations are required by the story. I've never understood why Jedi can't fly or at the least levitate an object that they're on (like a chair), a bit like the way Magneto flies in Xmen.

Like the way Qui Gonn and Obi Wan force-dash out the way of the droidekas on the trade federation ship but then Obi Wan DOESN'T use it for some reason to rush through the force-fields (Never understod why they even existed) in the Naboo power plant when fighting Maul. he also stands there impotently, instead of throwing around debris or trying to trip Maul up using the force.

Indeed, why wasn't he trying to choke Maul, or giving him a force wedgie.

48

Flat Earth General / Re: What is Known About the Conspiracy?

« on: August 09, 2013, 05:09:59 AM »

All I know about the conspiracy is that it is essential for FET, it must be huge and must also have some of the best psychoanalysts ever as everyone who is picked to take part apparently stays silent.

49

Flat Earth General / Re: Organizing Positive Evidence

« on: August 09, 2013, 05:02:19 AM »

My argument for FET is rather simple. All of the evidence points to a flat Earth. Therefore the Earth is most likely flat.

In your view what is the strongest piece of evidence?

50

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Scientific proof that Star Wars would crush Star Trek in any war

« on: August 09, 2013, 03:54:13 AM »

I don't know if this has been mentioned but the focus above seems to be on Jedi moving large things, blowing up star ships etc but surely they could do far more damage on a smaller scale. Stopping someones heart or blowing up a star ship by breaking the anti-mater regulators in the engine.

The Force most likely has some proximity restrictions.

From what I've seen of Star Wars and it's extended universe the force has whatever limitations are required by the story. I've never understood why Jedi can't fly or at the least levitate an object that they're on (like a chair), a bit like the way Magneto flies in Xmen.

51

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Scientific proof that Star Wars would crush Star Trek in any war

« on: August 08, 2013, 08:51:35 AM »

I don't know if this has been mentioned but the focus above seems to be on Jedi moving large things, blowing up star ships etc but surely they could do far more damage on a smaller scale. Stopping someones heart or blowing up a star ship by breaking the anti-mater regulators in the engine.

Sure.  The latter option would require some good intelligence on the ship they were attacking, but that could work.

I assume the force will guide them

52

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Scientific proof that Star Wars would crush Star Trek in any war

« on: August 08, 2013, 07:49:10 AM »

I don't know if this has been mentioned but the focus above seems to be on Jedi moving large things, blowing up star ships etc but surely they could do far more damage on a smaller scale. Stopping someones heart or blowing up a star ship by breaking the anti-mater regulators in the engine.

53

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Scientific proof that Star Wars would crush Star Trek in any war

« on: August 08, 2013, 06:54:26 AM »

I was partially talking to Alex about the whole Jedi genocide thing.  We don't how that happened, because I am ignoring how Episode III depicted it.

Yeah, sorry, I forgot myself. But the asteroid field thing is a good point. Why didn't Vader just push those rocks out of the way?

Wasn't he scratching his balls in that meditation pod thing?

54

Flat Earth General / Re: Ok, So This is what I want to know

« on: August 08, 2013, 05:34:45 AM »

Out of interest how many people who swear to have been into space will it take to reach a tipping point where the combined testimonies form a believable whole?

55

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: FE Logic?

« on: August 08, 2013, 02:52:37 AM »

Tom is this a fair assessment of your view?

"As things move away from you they appear to get closer and eventually disappear behind the horizon at a rate which is consistent with a globe, your view though is that the Earth is flat therefore something else must be happening, you blame this on perspective."

If not why not?

56

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: meteors?

« on: August 06, 2013, 02:04:16 PM »

Parsifal what's your answer to for the OP question?

57

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: meteors?

« on: August 06, 2013, 08:41:51 AM »

I saw one idea where the thought was that meteors etc are chunks of the earth that have been torn off by the UA. The flow of the UA then takes the rock up past the Earth and then into the Lee created by the Earth where they fall to the ground.

Not saying this is the generally accepted FE view but I liked that it created an essentially closed system so the Earth wouldn't gain or lose any mass.

OK. That makes sense except for one thing. Why do these chunks of rock move up faster then the earth?

Dunno, you'd need to talk to a Flat Earther who believes in the idea, I just mentioned it because I found it an elegant if somewhat flawed solution when I saw it.

58

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: meteors?

« on: August 06, 2013, 06:36:52 AM »

I saw one idea where the thought was that meteors etc are chunks of the earth that have been torn off by the UA. The flow of the UA then takes the rock up past the Earth and then into the Lee created by the Earth where they fall to the ground.

Not saying this is the generally accepted FE view but I liked that it created an essentially closed system so the Earth wouldn't gain or lose any mass.

59

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The suns pool of light on a FE

« on: August 06, 2013, 05:12:58 AM »

If you can find some independent reports from people who do not post on this forum, that would be a start.

Tom, you obviously read both question and yet for some strange reason were only willing to answer the first of them. Is there any particular reason why you're unwilling to let us know if the calculators are accurate for your location?

No, they aren't.

I had a think about the example you give and I realised that you didn't actually use a sunrise/sunset calculator yourself, you trusted someone else (the newspaper) to use it and give you a prediction. Did the newspaper give a variety of times for different location covered by it's circulation or was it just an approximate time?

If the actual sunrise time was 40 minutes later than predicted and the sunset time was 40 minutes later than predicted then the amount of time the sun was visible, the point of the thread, would be consistent with the predictions.

60

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: FE Logic?

« on: August 05, 2013, 01:56:59 PM »

It does seem that every time a good point is made by an REer the FEers ignore it or derail the thread.

I've tried that before, too. Almost ironically, it was derailed, though since that happened after it was considered a 'rant', I guess that makes a kind of sense.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59326.msg1520019.html#msg1520019

You did get a bit ranty

Back to the original point though, your point is valid and has been brought up before but they don't see the contradiction in these 2 positions.
1: The earth looks flat at a local level therefore it is flat.
2: the sun looks like it's going below the horizon therefore it's a complex arrangement of perspective, atmospheric opacity and maybe bendy light.

Most Flat Earthers hold 1 thing sacrosanct and that is "The Earth is Flat" everything else has to fit in with this view. It's one of the reasons why there are so many "Theories" flying around the site. I also think the multiple theories is a kind of smoke screen as they can always refer to another that might answer your question.