121

Flat Earth Q&A / The Ice Wall? What makes you think it's made of ice?

« on: April 14, 2006, 01:27:03 AM »

Well, on the issue of gravity, recall that I reject the FE Rapid Upward Motion theory in favour of one stating that gravity exists, but is caused by external sources. This is, of course, not to say that said sources cannot exist within objects, simply that it's not the objects themselves creating it, and thus it won't necessarily be found in all objects (for those who don't know, as I've seen this idea contested in previous threads, mainstream RE belief does indeed assert that all objects have gravity).

1) How do you decide which portions of the Bible are to be taken as historical accounts, and which are to be taken as parable (if any fall in to the latter category)?
2) Do you also consider other mythical (as described by mainstream science) accounts of cosmology, creation, or prehistory to be equally valid?

I. It's hard to tell, really. I certainly don't take it entirely literally as an historical text, and it has little value to me as a religious one. However, it can be very difficult at times to determine what is and is not real from it's passages. I'm not one to discount an idea simply because no one else has ever seen the phenomenon described or anything close to it, though at the same time I won't automatically belief in said passages either. Either way, I don't take it all as having come from the god they say it did.

II. I consider all pagan traditional accounts of the gods to be indeed valid, as well as the Sybilline Books. (Unfortunately the latter are no longer available to us in their original form due to Christian persecution; they were burned. Another set of documents was written many years later, which the author named the "Sybilline Books," but these are obvious forgeries and not to be taken seriously. They "predict" events that had happened centuries before, and contain obviously Christian-influenced content. It likely contains some original text, but it's impossible to tell what's genuine and what isn't. The only true knowledge we have of the actual Books today is contained in historical documents describing events predicted (beforehand) and influenced by them.)

Might I return those questions to you? I don't know what your faith is, if you have one, or what your view thereof is prescisely.

Thinking about some comments on faiths I've made thus far that some people with traditional Christian views on religion (non-Christians included) may think hypocritical, perhaps I should begin a topic refuting some mainstream ideas about paganism. Most people think of all religions as they view Christianity, and for classical paganism, they really couldn't be farther from the truth. Would such a thing be appropriate for this forum?

As for the new topic, I'm in the process of posting there now, though it may not be done until tomorrow afternoon due to time constraint and the amount I need to write (I'm arguing for three of four ideas presented, when properly combined.)


--Chal

122

Flat Earth Q&A / The Ice Wall? What makes you think it's made of ice?

« on: April 13, 2006, 09:02:28 PM »

well that certainly was long ^^;

Thank you! I try.

Seriously, though, it seems that in debates wherein the primary debaters use quote-and-answer techniques for posting, posts can only get longer.

as a note ends of the earth could be referring to the known world at the time. for there really was an "end" to the earth back then as much was left undiscovered and assumed to be nothingness beyond.

Well, that depends on the context in which you view the Bible. It's writers claim to have been blessed by the Holy Spirit, and it's followers claim it to be written by God through the people to whom he'd given the Spirit. Therefore, if you believe the premise, it cannot be wrong and these people did, indeed, see the edge of the Earth.

That said, Erasmus' points about the Bible did serve to change my position on that passage, so I must agree with you, adding that they were wrong about where the edge of the Earth was. Or assume that it was indeed the entire Earth and that purple dragons created the Americas later...

...

...

I think I'll stick with "I agree." :wink:


--Chal

123

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Ice Wall

« on: April 13, 2006, 08:23:15 PM »

...if somebody two thousand years from now found a copy of 1984 (with the front and back cover and title page etc. destroyed) I would hope they would not take it for historical fact.  Ditto for any books by Dr. Seuss.

Considering the way things have been going for the past 60 years, I almost hope they take Dr. Seuss literally as an historical text; it'd likely be the only thing they'd have to make this period worthy of more than the utmost of ridicule in any reasonable historical text. :?

Certainly as a person who endeavors to understand history -- an unquestionably virtuous pursuit -- you agree that understanding context is essential.

Of course, but it's often taken to ridiculous degrees. More often than I'd like to, I see books by historians ridiculing their predecessors, on things they didn't deserve in the least to be ridiculed, by attempting to distort the context argument for the seemingly sole purpose of sounding more intelligent on a given subject than said predecessor.

So, while context is important, it's very easy to manipulate with proper wording, so one must be very careful when attempting to put something into the proper context, making sure it indeed is the proper context.

Only if you assume that the more FE-sympathetic portions of the Bible need to be taken in a literal historical context do you find that the Bible is an argument for FEism.

Quite correct, but that same argument could be used for nearly any point in the Bible if you don't believe it, and to those who do, such arguments mean nothing.

Though, regardless of whatever argument is used for or against it, I can make a very strong case for the original writer of that passage having believed in a flat Earth, and likely that it had corners in the case of the earlier passage (the Mesopotamian model, in that case).

...a *great* deal of understanding of a culture, and of culture in general, which as knowledge is probably almost as treasured by you as facts are.

Indeed, and in many cases moreso.

Case in point: you don't know that this was an account, though your wording implies the assumption.  I have argued elsewhere that the Bible has passages which could not have been accounts of events, but were added for literary or theological value (cf. the Garden of Gethsemene).

That's a blanket argument that many non-Christians use against any part of the Bible they please, at any time they please, and for any reason they please. Regardless of it's truth (and I'm not saying it's necessarily always wrong), it will be used and abused, and it becomes very difficult to tell whether it's being used to attempt to defend one's own position, or is actually a reasonable observation of the book.

It is likely then that you are unaware of a certain debate that has raged constantly in science: that of determining what sorts of theories are good, and what are bad.  The ancients ... believed theory A was better than theory B only case that A explained more than B per unit complexity, [while explaining the same phenomenon]. ...

Since Popper, however, scientists agree that theories are better that make more falsifiable predictions, assuming that the theories in question have not been refuted.

(Brackets mine.)

Actually, I do know of this debate, and perhaps this is where we part ways when it comes to determining what constitutes good science. I've always subscribed to the former idea. When it comes to science, history, and many other things, I find many post-Greco-Roman ideas to be entirely absurd.

FE, as described by Charles Johnson, is not justifiable under Popperian metric

Well, I don't subscribe to either of those belief systems (the Popperian system of science or FE as Johnson described it), but I suppose that if one takes one or the other seriously, there could be a whole new debate on that alone, which I'd rather get into elsewhere if at all (for one thing, this post is already too long, and it appears to be not even half done yet).

That being said, I should reiterate that several scientific tests have been proposed on these fora that would refute the FE, and can be performed will tools available to the common man.

I've heard of these, however they've been "proven" by being tested under the inherent assumption that the Earth is round, and working under that assumption. Take away that assumption, and replace it with one stating the Earth is flat, then do the tests, and many of them don't work. So, does this mean that the Earth isn't flat, or that the tests don't actually work due to their dependency on the assumption of the Earth being round?

It seems that, at this point, the matter becomes entirely one of personal belief.

This implies that there is somebody who understands FE science to a much greater degree than you

There are the previous FES leaders (all dead now), among a few others, who can explain FE theory and how it works with various phenomena far, far better than I, I'm sure.

...assuming that the stars revolve around the Earth's central axis, as the sun does, please explain why they appear to revolve in a different direction depending on which hemidisc I am in. Pictures would be invaluable here: more for you than for me.

Pictures of...?

Could you clarify this suggestion?  Which line is a given star close to? One perpendicular to the plane of the Earth and intersecting the Earth at a fixed point?

I was suggesting that there are nontangible lines (similar to the equator)  hich stars more or less follow exactly (they each have their own, of course).

How do you account for optical illusions (of the purely physiological sort), mirages, hallucinations, and the like?

Simple. Let's assume a man sees an oasis in the desert that isn't actually there. The man does see an oasis, and any scientist who says otherwise is wrong. Why that man sees it or whether or not it's actually there are other matters entirely.

What if it were, "I saw a flying unicorn[?]"

I would kindly ask said scientist to disprove this man's vision in full and beyond all doubt.

What if the person were blind?

I would, equally kindly, ask the scientist to prove beyond any doubt whatsoever that said person didn't have an oracular vision (in which, being a Roman pagan, I do indeed believe).

I think I do not take historical accounts as sceptically as you think I do, when the accounts are

1)  Coherent
2)  Internally consistent
3)  Externally consistent
4)  Intended as historical accounts

I am will to be flexible -- to different degrees -- on all of these requirements.  The relevent passages in the Bible, however, fail on points 3 and 4.

Perhaps, but they do have that annoying little premise of being directly from God, so you'll have people saying that they don't need to follow those rules because God > Consistency (though, in my opinion, a single, all-powerful, all-knowing God's consistency is a prerequisite for his existence).

Do you have a particular gripe about mainstream science[/scientists]?

(Brackets mine. It makes the following easier to word.)

Other than that I've essentially accused a large portion of them of conspiring against us? Well, in a word, yes. Their definition of good science, the arrogance of many of them in believing that science can do/solve anything, not to mention the arrogant attitude of many of their representatives (I rarely see a representative of the scientific community in the media whom I don't take for an arrogant ass after hearing what he has to say and how he says it), on top of their apparent vendetta against any idea that is to be taken on faith, is a bit of a turn off, I must admit.

However, that's not why I believe them to be the conspirers. It simply makes far more sense than (often-warring) governments conspiring together. Assume for a moment the position that you believe the Earth is flat, and that you believe the governments to be innocent. You're now faced with the dilemma of "Well, someone is conspiring to indoctrinate the world with RE dogma, so who could it be?" Who else than the scientists? They're the ones who write the science texts, make the machinery, actually go out and conduct the experiments (regardless of who's paying for it), and report findings to be shown to the world. On top of that, the governments can be duped by the scientists far more easily than the scientists can be kept quiet by the government. I hope that explains the conspiracy a bit more, and didn't simply come out as a badly-formed paragraph.

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but I sense that your impression of the academic community is that there are Twelve Invisible Masters who have final say on the publication of all results, along with the power to modify any findings before publication.  Furthermore, there is (I believe, in your view) a hierarchy of priestlike individuals shuttling dogma from the Twelve down to the lowly acolytes working in labs, and they frequently save the Twelve the trouble of punishing heretics in the ranks by doing it themselves.

Well, I never thought of it quite that way, but something like that.

People are for the most part quite rational and when presented with evidence refuting the ideas -- after an agonizing struggle to save their brainchild -- concede the loss.

It's unfortunate that FE is treated with such ridicule that we'll never get the chance to challenge them to that degree under the old system and find out.

These posts seem to be getting longer and longer. I'll try to abridge my next one a bit.


--Chal

124

Flat Earth Q&A / What about timezones on a flat earth?

« on: April 12, 2006, 11:35:56 AM »

Exactly as Cheesejoff stated. Time zones exist so that it's 12:00 at the time the sun is approximately directly overhead. The only thing that could ever prevent time zones from working is that the sun be directly over everywhere at the same time, which, incidentally, we don't believe.


--Chal

125

Flat Earth Q&A / Horizon

« on: April 11, 2006, 06:00:19 PM »

If I grab a powerful telescope and look in the precise direction of Mount Everest on a perfectly clear day, why can't I see it?

There is an atmosphere in your way that has this nasty little habit of distorting things on the horizon. Also, there's a much heavier particle density closer to the ground than higher up, which further explains your inability to see incredibly far horizontally, but vertically, you can see just fine.

Also, as said by the previous poster, there are no perfectly clear days.


--Chal

126

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Ice Wall

« on: April 11, 2006, 05:43:33 PM »

This is something we ought to clear up right away.  I don't think that the Bible is a valid source of evidence, especially not evidence to be taken literally.

Well, do understand my position: I am an history major, and thus I think like an historian, not a scientist. It's part of what I do, and love doing, to take what people of old have said and trying to make sense out of them. This very heavily involves coming up with theories, and these theories can be very difficult to ever prove for facts, but are thereafter taken as such (with a sort of "trust but verify" attitude). Some historians like to be incredibly skeptical of past accounts until they've "proven" it, or at least have sufficient evidence. Others, in who's camp I put myself (though I'm not an historian yet), don't take these people for morons until they have sufficient proof against them, especially if they only have one account of an event. I don't consider myself smarter than these people were as a matter of course, and I certainly don't know more about their world than they did, so the best one can do is trust these accounts, checking out the ones we can, and putting the others into the perspective created by the evidence we have and the beliefs about them and the world that we hold, either fitting them in, altering something for them, or throwing them out.

In the case of the Bible, we really have no other accounts of these specific "four corners of the Earth" statements because no one else was there, or if someone was, they didn't write anything. While I don't take the book literally by any means (as it's a religious text of a faith I'm not partial to), I do take these peoples' accounts from the view of an historian using the method described above. And, believing the world to be flat, I do not discount flat-Earth ideas. Of course, not believing Earth to be quadrilateral, I must either A: Discount the idea entirely, or B: Assume it was possibly quadrilateral at one time. Even if I were to discount it, of course, I'd still create a theory or two for B, so don't necessarily assume I believe every last hypothetical situation I offer (unless I say I do, of course).

That being said, in the middle ages, commoners would sometimes be drawn and quartered as punishment for treason; their arms and legs would be cut off, and these appendages sent to the "four corners of the kingdom".  Nobody believed that the kingdom was a quadrilateral.

Aye, but now we're speaking in English. Let's grab the word in the original language, shall we?

...the word "kanaph" can mean compass points rather than corners.

I'm not relying too heavily on any statement that claims the Earth to be a quadrilateral anyway, as I think it a circle, but you've got to do better than that. The compass didn't exist in the Judeo-Christian world at the time of the Bible's writing. The earlist known compass was invented in China, somewhere between 200BC and 200AD, but the Europeans didn't get them for over another thousand years. One could argue that by "compass points" they simply mean "in all directions," of course, in which case it becomes believable. Regardless, a better word than "compass" could be used unless you do specifically mean the navigational device known as a "compass," in which case your argument is invalid due to the device's nonexistance at the time.

Furthermore, FE theory does not claim that the Earth is a quadrilateral, nor, I believe, did the author of the Biblical phrase "four corners of the Earth".  It is commonly assumed that this refers merely to places mutually far from one another, often in the four cardinal directions.

That's how we use it now. I'd like to see how they meant it then, in their language, before I can be sure of that. The translation, of course, also must be checked out. Still, however, I don't consider that statement a necessary part of my argument.

People have, indeed, reported loss of compass effectiveness when they believed themselves to near the "poles." Both of them.

I'm aware of this.  And how far were these people from the relevant magnetic poles when the loss of compass effectiveness was discovered?

Reasonably close to directly on them, as I recall. Just go to the centre of the Earth to see that. But remember our belief of the ice wall opposed to RE's Antarctica. (Some FEers hold that it's simply a huge wall, an idea with which I disagree (go south, and you see more than a wall), so I will be using my version of the ice wall.) If you unfold the RE globe to make the FE map, you'd unfold it at the "South Pole" point on said globe (Note:This may not make a perfect FE map. I'm not an expert on mapmaking. But either way, it doesn't affect this argument.). In other words, now we have this compass disruption deep in the ice wall around the entirety of the Earth's edge. It would make sense, at least to me, to assume that this disruption has a wider area than the RE model allows, but that's beside the point either way.

The burden is on you to provide a complete explanation of these phenomena.  In the absence of a complete phenomenon, a partial one will do temporarily.  Thus far, FE has utterly failed to provide any explanation.

Well, I am not and don't claim to be a physicist or astronomer, so this may be difficult. The FE belief is, of course, that the sun orbits the centre of the Earth on the equator. I don't think there's anything special about the equator, it's just there because that's what the sun rotates above, so that leaves the centre of the Earth. I would assume it has some unique magnetic properties (even if only on the basis of compass disruption), and that there may be other magnetic forces active from various angles, keeping it in place. Again, I'm unable to explain any of these phenomena in their entirety for lack of being any sort of physicist or astronomer.

I do realize that inability to explain a phenomenon creates a weakness in my positon, however, if you put an REer with my level of training in physics and astronomy in your place, and I debated him, he'd be in no better position to explain his RE physics than I am in explaining my own. It is in debate, as proven in a court of law, that a position may be believed or disbelieved based solely on the skill of the debaters, regardless of any factual nature, and I do know that I'm not as skilled in debate or some of the fields that would be required to answer such a question as I could be. So I must, for now, at least, abstain from giving a full answer for lack of proper ability, and assert that, on the bases provided, this hasn't weakened my position, at least any more or less than it would weaken the RE position under the same circumstances, as my temporary defence.

However, the mere presence of southern celestial constellations is not the only observable phenomenon.  A camera oriented towards the south celestial pole and left on long exposure, or a video of the southern sky, will both reveal that constellations circle a point in the clockwise direction.  In the northern hemisphere, the same effect is observable -- except that the constellations are different, and the rotation of the sky is in the counterclockwise direction. ... FE offers no explanation as to why this observation is possible on a flat Earth; feel free to offer your own.

The best I can offer for now is that the same phenomenon that governs the sun's movement governs that of the stars. Of course there would be stars only visible in one particular hemisphere, as, in FE, they rotate closer to the Earth than RE would have us believe, and they likely rotate directly over, or at least staying very close to, a single line (one for each star, that is). Other than that, I must refer you again to my previous paragraph to explain my inability to answer this for the time being.

...{I} want to be clear on what you believe passes for evidence.

I do take historical accounts seriously, often more seriously than so-called "scientific explanations." If someone sees something, and a scientist subsequently tells him that no, he didn't, because no such thing exists, who was right? Of course, the person that saw it.

...I fear we may soon reach an impasse if we cannot come to an agreement about what consitutes good science.

Hm, perhaps. I do take historical accounts far more seriously than you, I can tell, and you take mainstream science far more seriously than I.

Try to understand the position of mainstream RE scientists.

I didn't want to quote that entire post, so simply consider the above to represent said post in it's entirety.

You do present an interesting insight, and yes, I've no doubt that a great many of these scientists actually are like this. But you must remember that at least some of these people are, as I've asserted before, part of the conspiracy. Now, I'm not one to go asserting that everything I disagree with is a conspiracy, hence why I shun the standard FE government conspiracy theory (it's just too big), and don't blame everything I can't explain on the one I've asserted exists. However, that a select group of mainstream scientists are running a conspiracy, keeping the governments, people, and many of their fellow scientists duped, is more believable than all the governments (including warring ones) being in on it, and it also has at least one motive; that is, the desire to be kept on top (if they accepted FE, either they'd lose the respect of the masses or the pro-FE scientists from before this acceptance took place would become the "top scientists in the world"). If there are others, we're unaware of them (if we knew, it'd be all too easy to break the conspiracy). Conspiracies involving a few people in a large mainstream group aren't too uncommon, though I must say the effect of this one can be much more widely seen, as they've duped far more people than their own subscribers and a few outsiders.

Hm, it appears this reply is far from complete, but as I'm out of time for the moment, I'll present it as-is and see what happens.


--Chal

127

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Global Warming Flawed

« on: April 10, 2006, 08:55:36 PM »

First of all, you shouldn't be using the word 'light'. Light usually refers to the visible spectrum of radiation and has relatively little to do with heat when compared with infrared radiation.

Most will know what I mean by that term. The few not capable of figuring it out probably shouldn't be here debating anything.

128

Flat Earth Q&A / The Ice Wall? What makes you think it's made of ice?

« on: April 10, 2006, 08:04:33 PM »

All very good arguments. This is going to take a while to respond to, and I don't have the time right away. This is simply so you don't think I'm ignoring the reply.

Oh, and I'm sorry if you thought I was targetting you specifically with my RE scientists statement. I was referring to mainstream RE scientists in general, not to mention less-informed REers (though I hadn't stated the latter. Sorry for the mix-up.


--Chal

129

Flat Earth Information Repository / Ass-u-me

« on: April 10, 2006, 03:18:53 PM »

This site claimed to be real. That is the only reason I brought it up. ("Real" being defined as the writers of the site believing their own content.) I also had not taken the time to read the site in it's entirety. I had only scanned it for about 5 minutes at the time, and thus far it looked somewhat-promising.

Pointing something out calmly and without intent to deride is not a flame. Making assumptions fueled by your own desire to attack FEers (already proven by your incessant flaming elsewhere), presented in a very rude manner, however, is.


--Chal

130

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A few answers...

« on: April 10, 2006, 11:12:56 AM »

Thanks for that Chaltier

No problem. ^^

And, looking back at those, it seems I missed one:

Q: "What about time zones?"

A: Times zones exist so that everyone's clock will be at 12:00 around the time the sun is approximately directly overhead. All that's required for time zones is that the sun not be directly above everywhere at the same time, which we don't believe.

131

Flat Earth Q&A / New Believer on Board

« on: April 10, 2006, 10:49:11 AM »

Well, you're sort of right about one thing: I did have a gullible mind. Why do you think I used to be an REer?


--Chal

132

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Ice Wall

« on: April 10, 2006, 02:48:37 AM »

What Python sketch was that?

Holy Grail

"...and that, my lord, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped!"

"Why, that's fascinating...!"

...do you agree that the ice wall in FE theory is merely a hypothetical entity; if nobody has been to the edge of the wall and seen that it is indeed the rim of the world, and returned to tell the tale, then we have no direct evidence that it is, in fact, a wall of ice that circles the rim of the world and keeps the oceans in?

Actually, people have seen the edge of the Earth. It was reported in the Bible that someone saw the "four corners of the Earth." This leads me to believe that the Earth was, at one time, not only flat, but a (heavily deranged (explained shortly)) square (or rectangle), as well, and that there was a point from which one could see all the way across it.

The most reasonable explanation for what he saw then and the way things are now is that the Earth changed a bit over time. Most likely the sides were already heavily curved, and they simply lost the four "corners" at one point as the sides moved slightly. Of course, for that matter, technically, it could still have four corners, with very heavily outwardly-curved sides.

Before people start mentioning my faith when they attempt to attack my using the Bible, I never said these people didn't see what the Bible says they did, I just said that many of the miraculous occurences were likely not done by the forces the Bible claims them to have been done by (ie, God or an agent thereof). That's not to say they didn't happen, weren't supernatural, or that these people are in any way wrong about what they saw or recorded.

That being said, why exactly do you believe that being on the ice wall upsets compasses?

People have, indeed, reported loss of compass effectiveness when they believed themselves to near the "poles." Both of them. As an FEer, of course, I don't believe in poles, but that doesn't mean that I discount their observances. I take them to mean that, when deep in the ice wall or near the centre of the Earth, compasses begin to go haywire. Regardless of RE or FE orientation, this point is indisputable. Replace "Ice Wall" with "South Pole," and "Centre of the Earth" with "North Pole," and I should have full RE agreement on this point. I never said these places REers speak of don't exist, and that phenomena that happen there aren't real, I just said that they're not precisely what REers say they are.

Furthermore, do you realize that there are other methods of navigation than the compass?  It is not argued by FE proponents that GPS works, merely the means by which it works.  One could navigate across Antarctica using GPS.  Aside from GPS, pilots in airplanes could navigate by dead-reckoning, using airspeed and gyroscopes to find their way.

I have an answer, but putting it into words is proving a difficult task. I'll get back to you on this one ASAP.

Lastly, celestial navigation -- whose effectiveness is also, as far as I know, not disputed by FE theory -- can be used to find the south pole.  In fact, I'm fairly certain that there exist images, long-exposure images, and videos of the southern celestial hemisphere -- constellations not visible from the northern hemisphere -- taken from the south pole.

That's because constellations not visible anywhere else can be seen from the ice wall. Remember, in FE, the stars are not nearly as far from Earth as RE indicates. This is similar to the phenomenon that governs day and night.

B: Why would we want to,

Presumably for the same reason you are here on this forum: a desire to know and share the truth about the nature of the universe.

True. I suppose I was speaking from the view and on behalf of the average person, who likely wouldn't care either way (unless, as I said, they wished, for whatever reason, to jump off the edge).

This is called "begging the question": your argument for the nonexistence of the south pole is, essentially, that the south pole does not exist.  Therefore any evidence that it does exist must be in some way fake.  Drop the assumption that your answer is the correct one, and suddenly you have no particularly compelling reason to believe that the evidence is fake.

Similarly, present any FE idea to an RE scientist and they'll immediately attempt to reconcile it with RE in the manner described above.

In summation, why do you believe that these claims are true?  What evidence do you have?

See above.

I must say, Erasmus, I'm enjoying debating you already. It's always nice to see intelligent, non-flamers on the RE side.


--Chal

133

Flat Earth Q&A / A few answers...

« on: April 10, 2006, 02:23:58 AM »

I saw some unanswered questions in the FAQ, and some that I disagree with. So, I can't say that I speak for all FEers on these, but here goes:

Q: "Why do the all the world Governments say the Earth is round?"

A: They have been duped by the mainstream "scientists."


Which leads us into a new, certainly-to-be-asked question...


Q: "Why do the almost all the scientists say the Earth is round?"

A: It's a conspiracy.


Q: "What is the motive behind this conspiracy?"

A: The exact motive is unknown. If we knew, we'd do something about it. However, it likely involves the personal loss if they admitted their mistake. Remember, if any scientist accepted that the Earth was flat, he'd be seen as some sort of looney and no longer be believed or respected by the masses due to extensive RE indoctrination.


Q: "Why are other celestial bodies round but not the Earth?"

A: Let me put it this way: Have you ever personally *seen* these "celestial bodies" in three dimensions? I think not; when you look at them, even with a telescope, they're entirely two-dimensional. Also, who said Earth was similar to these other "celestial bodies...?"


Q: "What about satellites? How do they orbit the Earth?"

A: They don't. The best they could possibly do is go in a circular pattern around the centre of the Earth, which, I suppose, they could do, and this could create a sort of "orbit" effect.


Q: "If the Earth was indeed a flat disc, wouldn't the whole planet crunch up into itself and eventually transform into a ball?"

A: Perhaps I'm not speaking for all FEers on this one, but I believe the Earth generates a gravitational pull, but this only pulls things downward, not inward. (ie, a gravitational pull generating from a flat plane somewhere within the Earth, most likely at the bottom, pulling us all toward it.) I do not believe in the rapid upward motion theory, but, in the end, it would cause the same effect. (Erasmus mentioned the sun with regards to the Rapid Upward Motion theory. Remember that the whole reason behind that theory is the non-existence of gravity. Therefore, I would presume the sun has none, either.)

Q: "How does global warming affect the ice wall?"

A: Global Warming doesn't happen. It and it's counter-theory (Global Cooling) are effects that cancel each other out. Remember, these "greenhouse gasse" can reflect heat back out into space as well as keep it on Earth. Yes, there are recorded rises in temperature, but the only records we have go back, at most, around 150 years. This is very likely an occurence that happens every [x>150] years, that's happened before (perhaps many times), and that the Earth has thus survived before. (Also an RE theory, for the record.) There's no worry there.

Q: "If the world was really flat, what would happen if you jump off the disc's edge?"

A: You would fall off the edge of the Earth, and into space. You'd probably get caught in the ether somewhere, since there's no force pulling or pushing on you out there.


Q: "Why doesn't water run off the Earth?"

A: There is a vast ice wall (some know it as "Antarctica") that keeps the water where it is. This also explains why you can find a vast plane of ice when you travel south (North being toward the centre of the Earth).


Q: "How do volcanic eruptions happen?"

A: The Earth is thick enough to have a core of molten lava. Once there's too much of it in too confined a space, it finds it's way out, just like the water will come out of a full bottle if you squeeze it too hard (granted, this makes the space smaller, rather than increasing the contents, but the effect is the same).


Q: "When travelling in a straight direction, you will always reach the same point on the globe from where you started. How can this happen if the world is flat?"

A: You need to have evidence for this to be true. Also, define "straight." Remember, the northern point on the compass is, under most circumstances (unless near the centre or deep in the ice wall), pointing toward the centre of the Earth. Therefore, if you follow your compass due east or due west, ending up at the same point you started from, you've just gone around the world in a circle.


--Chal

134

Flat Earth Information Repository / Genuine Flat Earth Site?

« on: April 10, 2006, 02:06:34 AM »

It would appear all you're capable of doing is throwing around unfounded insults. Sorry, but I'm not interested in throwing insults back and forth with you, so would you kindly add something constructive to your posts in the future?


--Chal

135

Flat Earth Information Repository / Genuine Flat Earth Site?

« on: April 09, 2006, 10:42:31 PM »

It's also amusing that you're such a fool that all you can do is throw insults around, and never actually say anything meaningful.

I only asked because they claimed to be real, and I hate to make assumptions without a second opinion.


--Chal

136

The Lounge / Reclassification

« on: April 09, 2006, 12:41:51 PM »

...oxymoron...like...Microsoft Works...

Still as true as the day it was thought up, though.


--Chal

137

Flat Earth Information Repository / Re: Genuine Flat Earth Site?

« on: April 09, 2006, 12:33:21 PM »

Pleeeeeze....Even the site I mentioned on the FAQ thread, which everyone agrees to be a hoax, looks more sincere than the above site :?

Well, by genuine, I mean "Do these people believe what they're saying?," as opposed to "Does everything sound entirely plausible?" It's hard to tell sometimes... (For example, the one at alaska.net seemed real enough until I read the part about how they were spreading FE ideas, and the "legal" portion of the site (though it was certainly amusing).)


--Chal

138

Flat Earth Q&A / There's no way to tell.

« on: April 09, 2006, 04:29:40 AM »

Let me put it this way: If anyone's ever been out so far that they died due to suffocation, implosion, or what have you, they wouldn't be here to tell us about it, now, would they? Just because we can't explain something doesn't mean it harms our position, so long as we can state (intelligently and resonably) why we do not know it. Asking us that is like our asking you to prove or disprove the existance of aliens.

Next question, please.


--Chal

139

Flat Earth Q&A / "Round Earth Theory" or "Spherical Earth Theo

« on: April 09, 2006, 04:23:04 AM »

Hmm... Well, "round" might be correct for the theory; it all depends on the definition of the word used by the one who started the idea, at the time he used it, in his region's specific dialogue, and, more specifically, the regional dialogue for his social class. The translation into English is also an important factor; What did those two words (the translated from and the translated to) mean at the time of translation, what dictionary did the translator use (either in translating the word or in his original training), did he have a regional dialect that may have affected the word usage, etc?

But, either way, the traditional word is round. Therefore, I'll call it the "Round Earth Theory."


--Chal

140

Flat Earth Q&A / The Ice Wall? What makes you think it's made of ice?

« on: April 09, 2006, 04:01:53 AM »

Of course, it may also be shaped like a banana, but there's really no need to give anyone unnecessary ideas for a new website.

Hah! Hadn't seen that one before Cheese posted it; got almost as good a laugh out of that as when I'd heard it on Monty Python.  It makes about as much sense as the RE theory, but eh, it's fun to think about.

--Chal

141

Flat Earth Information Repository / Genuine Flat Earth Site?

« on: April 09, 2006, 03:57:55 AM »

I found a website here that claims to be genuine, if my fellow believers are interested. If anyone knows it to be a hoax, or, for that matter, knows it, for a fact, to be genuine, let us know.

http://www.geocities.com/terracoeli7/index.html


--Chal

142

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Ice Wall

« on: April 09, 2006, 03:17:36 AM »

http://www.southpolestation.com/

http://www.southpolestation.com/links.html

*shrugs*

That people may have bases on some areas of the ice wall, believing themselves to be at some sort of "pole," is a definite possibility. Anyone who asserts to be on any sort of pole, or asserts to have been to the exact point thereof, is speaking of the point at which the original glory hound shoved a flag into the snow. Honestly, I don't see how these people can assert such lunacy as there being a "pole," but then again, they're mainstream "scientists," so they're not trustworthy to begin with.

Perhaps they actually believe that nonsense, because of the fact that there was a flag shoved in there at one point in time, and that point was claimed to be the "South Pole." Now everyone who sees it believes they've found a "pole." Of course, in reality, the closest thing this planet has to a pole is it's centre point, (the REers' "North Pole"), which guides compasses to it as "North."

Oh, and by the way, if that's the closest thing you have to a rebuttal, bring it on.


--Chal

143

Flat Earth Q&A / Ice Wall

« on: April 08, 2006, 11:47:26 PM »

I apologize if this has already been stated, but I haven't the time to read through VII pages of peoples' idiotic ranting in order to see one or two intelligently written posts.

Anyhow, it is, indeed, made of ice (and snow), and we know this because people have been there. It's what most of you REers know as "Antarctica," and is quite vast. The reason no one's ever found the edge of the Earth is that the ice wall is vast and upsets compass directions (which usually always point to the centre of the Earth as "North") in such a way that it would be near-impossible to continue in the same direction long enough to find the edge of the Earth. Even then, let's say someone found it, now they have to somehow get back to shore, find their transportation back to the mainland, and tell us about it. And even then, it would do none of us any good as A: We'd almost certainly never be able to find it again, and B: Why would we want to, if it's only practical use is as a way for us to fall off the Earth and never be able to come back again? Perhaps if someone was feeling suicial, wanted to jump off the edge of the Earth, and was convicted enough to actually go and do it, it'd be useful, but other than that, really...

And before all the "Oo, oo, he said "Antarctica!" I have him now!" posts come out, let me refute both possible forms of attack on this idea: First, I never said Antarctica exists as you REers know it; I only said that you know it as that because people have been to the ice wall and have named it "Antarctica," calling it a continent and believing it to be the "South Pole" because they believed in a round Earth. Actually, it's neither, but, to the extent of what they had been taught, it was, indeed, the "South Pole." Second, no, sorry, no one's ever placed a flag at the south pole. Some fellow wanted to go find the pole, and, being unable to do so, shoved a flag into the ice wall and called it a "pole" so he would be revered as the first person to find the pole (which doesn't exist). Oh, and before the REers start shouting "Yet another conspiracy?!," no, there's only one of those. One man who wants fame and glory does not constitute a conspiracy.


--Chal

144

Flat Earth Q&A / Global Warming Flawed

« on: April 08, 2006, 11:07:44 PM »

Well, you must remember that our causing "Global Warming" is a flawed idea to begin with. Regardless of how many light-reflecting gasses are put into the atmosphere, those gasses will reflect light no matter which side of the gasses the light is on. In other words, while these gasses may indeed keep light that's already in in, it will also reflect light back out, not allowing it to get in in the first place.

"Global Cooling" has been a countertheory to Global Warming for quite a while now. They argue that yes, there are rises in temperatures, but they would've happened anyway due to climatic changes over a long (geographically) period of time (certainly longer than we have records to predict with), and that these gasses are actually slowing this process down.

Either way, I believe neither. I believe that these two effects cancel each other out. Any warming effects seen are either a regular occurence that happens every [x>150] years, or it's simply the wrath of the Gods. (Or God, if you prefer, but I'm pagan.)

As for the religion side commentary, thank you Knight. I'm not a Christian, but I do consider them allies in this type of argument. While the Bible was, indeed, written by men, it is said to be divinely influenced. Either way, these people certainly saw some fantastic things happen, and wrote them down. Do I believe it's all true? I don't know, but I don't think it was exactly as the Bible says, as I'm not a Christian. That said, they certainly have more to their credit than atheists. For one thing, at least when they go to convert others to their faith, they're kind and use actual arguments, whereas atheistic "arguments" generally include the very foolishness you've been spouting, are quite without tact or decency, and often show a surprising lack of literacy.

Oh, and by the way, you think religion is a government conspiracy? Aren't you an REer? Oh, how interesting; an REer who just gave up any possible base from which to argue against an RE conspiracy. Thank you, friend!


--Chal

P.S. I'm not asserting any sort of government conspiracy in my last paragraph. I believe that the governments have also been duped (more on this in a thread designed for it). Either way, my paragraph's point stands.

145

Flat Earth Q&A / New Believer on Board

« on: April 08, 2006, 09:54:10 PM »

Hello!

It appears that posting "Hello!" threads isn't commonplace here, but since I'll never feel right being active on on a forum until I post one, here it is. So... Hi! I suppose a long introduction isn't necessary, but I suppose I should point out that I'm a believer in the Flat Earth theory (though for far different reasons than most FEers) and will be defending it. I used to be an REer and believed the propaganda, but then I heard that people still believed in a flat Earth, decided to find out why (after the customary "What a bunch of looneys!" wore off), heard the facts, and converted shortly thereafter. Anywho, see you all on the boards.


Cheers!

--Chal