New member with open mind

I am a 50 y.o. engineer who has learned to be skeptical of the mainstream information like evolution, heliocentric theory, moon landing.

So I have an open mind on the flat earth theory.

I am re-posting some of the questions another gentleman posted because I didn't see an answer for any of the questions.  A few questions are my own.

1. Do you believe that other planets are round?  If so why?

2. What happens when you reach the edge of a flat earth? Do you fall off?

3. What is at the bottom of a flat earth?

4. Is the flat earth out in space? What holds the flat earth up?

5. The sun is explained as having a spot light effect in the flat earth theory to explain night and day.  If the sun is an orb that shines 360 degrees how is this possible?  Or is the sun not an orb in the flat earth theory.

6. How wide is the flat earth? And how far up would you have to go to see the whole flat earth from above?

My understanding is that the story that Christians believed in a flat earth until Columbus’ time, and for some time thereafter, began as part of a fictional story that was elevated to historical fact by late 19th-century Darwinists who used it primarily as a means to ridicule Christians.   Christian theologians, almost without exception, likewise accepted the fact that the earth is a sphere.   Basically Christians never believed in the flat earth.

There's an FAq that explains most of that.

I am a 50 y.o. engineer who has learned to be skeptical of the mainstream information like evolution, heliocentric theory, moon landing.

Do you mind if I ask you why you are "skeptical" of these things?

1. Do you believe that other planets are round?  If so why?

If I recall correctly, Flat Earthers believe other planets are round and Earth is flat because Earth is somehow different from other planets.

2. What happens when you reach the edge of a flat earth? Do you fall off?

FErs believe that Earth is surrounded by an Ice Wall. They also believe that the wall is guarded by some government's troops or no one's actually been there and returned.

3. What is at the bottom of a flat earth?

Magma, kept attached to the planet via Universal Acceleration (UA)

4. Is the flat earth out in space? What holds the flat earth up?

I suppose Flat Earthers believe in space, though they do not believe in space travel. They believe Earth is held up by Universal Acceleration.

5. The sun is explained as having a spot light effect in the flat earth theory to explain night and day.  If the sun is an orb that shines 360 degrees how is this possible?  Or is the sun not an orb in the flat earth theory.

As far as I know the Sun is still spherical in FET. However it just acts like a spotlight and doesn't shine in 360 degrees

6. How wide is the flat earth? And how far up would you have to go to see the whole flat earth from above?

The former would probably have you convert the distance around Earth from that of a sphere to that of a cylinder. The latter can't be known because space travel would have to be possible, which it isn't in FET

Quote from: tradosaurus on April 04, 2015, 07:38:07 AM

1. Do you believe that other planets are round?  If so why?

If I recall correctly, Flat Earthers believe other planets are round and Earth is flat because Earth is somehow different from other planets.

Yhe correct answer her is: earth is not a planet.

Quote from: The Ellimist on April 04, 2015, 09:22:03 AM

Quote from: tradosaurus on April 04, 2015, 07:38:07 AM

1. Do you believe that other planets are round?  If so why?

If I recall correctly, Flat Earthers believe other planets are round and Earth is flat because Earth is somehow different from other planets.

Yhe correct answer her is: earth is not a planet.

So do FE's believe in the geocentric universe?

Quote from: tradosaurus on April 04, 2015, 07:38:07 AM

I am a 50 y.o. engineer who has learned to be skeptical of the mainstream information like evolution, heliocentric theory, moon landing.

Do you mind if I ask you why you are "skeptical" of these things?

Evolution, as presented today, is a religion because it takes faith to believe in something with no observational evidence.  It is scientifically impossible.

Moon landing was faked, IMO, because humans couldn't survive the trip through the thermosphere or the Van Allen radiation belts.  Also 1960's technology couldn't produce the ability to launch a large tin can to the moon and back.

The heliocentric theory is not biblical and goes hand in hand with evolution and the big-bang theory.  a simple observational experiment proves the sun is either not 865,000 miles in diameter or 93,000,000 miles from the earth.

Moon landing was faked, IMO, because humans couldn't survive the trip through the thermosphere or the Van Allen radiation belts.  Also 1960's technology couldn't produce the ability to launch a large tin can to the moon and back.

Tell me, exactly what component of the Apollo programme was beyond the technology of the 1960s? Was it the propulsion system, based on the rockets used by Hitler in WWII? Was it the orbital mechanics, using principles worked out by Newton hundreds of years earlier? What bit of the mission was incapable of being done by late 60's technology? Where's your evidence that humans couldn't survive the trip?

Quote from: FalseProphet on April 04, 2015, 09:42:04 AM

Quote from: The Ellimist on April 04, 2015, 09:22:03 AM

Quote from: tradosaurus on April 04, 2015, 07:38:07 AM

1. Do you believe that other planets are round?  If so why?

If I recall correctly, Flat Earthers believe other planets are round and Earth is flat because Earth is somehow different from other planets.

Yhe correct answer her is: earth is not a planet.

So do FE's believe in the geocentric universe?

Sure. Except the ones who believe in the Butterfly model. They are a tiny minority.

And sorry for the typos.

Quote from: tradosaurus on April 04, 2015, 10:37:22 AM

Moon landing was faked, IMO, because humans couldn't survive the trip through the thermosphere or the Van Allen radiation belts.  Also 1960's technology couldn't produce the ability to launch a large tin can to the moon and back.

Tell me, exactly what component of the Apollo programme was beyond the technology of the 1960s? Was it the propulsion system, based on the rockets used by Hitler in WWII? Was it the orbital mechanics, using principles worked out by Newton hundreds of years earlier? What bit of the mission was incapable of being done by late 60's technology? Where's your evidence that humans couldn't survive the trip?

In 1998, when the space shuttle flew to its highest altitude ever, three hundred sixty-five miles, one third higher than they normally flew, they were asked to descend to a lower altitude by mission control due to lethal space radiation they encountered by approaching too close to the “Van Allen Radiation Belts”, which don’t even begin until one thousand miles altitude (and continue for an additional twenty-five thousand miles). 

We don't have the technology now so we obviously didn't have the technology in 1960's to safely travel through the Van Allen radiation belts.

Beam me up Scotty!

The Apollo 11 press conference featured the 3 astro-nots who were grinning from ear to ear with the greatest feat of mankind, landing on the moon.  They were pumped and full of enthusiasm because they were awesome!

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

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on April 04, 2015, 10:47:25 AM

Quote from: tradosaurus on April 04, 2015, 10:37:22 AM

Moon landing was faked, IMO, because humans couldn't survive the trip through the thermosphere or the Van Allen radiation belts.  Also 1960's technology couldn't produce the ability to launch a large tin can to the moon and back.

Tell me, exactly what component of the Apollo programme was beyond the technology of the 1960s? Was it the propulsion system, based on the rockets used by Hitler in WWII? Was it the orbital mechanics, using principles worked out by Newton hundreds of years earlier? What bit of the mission was incapable of being done by late 60's technology? Where's your evidence that humans couldn't survive the trip?

In 1998, when the space shuttle flew to its highest altitude ever, three hundred sixty-five miles, one third higher than they normally flew, they were asked to descend to a lower altitude by mission control due to lethal space radiation they encountered by approaching too close to the “Van Allen Radiation Belts”, which don’t even begin until one thousand miles altitude (and continue for an additional twenty-five thousand miles). 

We don't have the technology now so we obviously didn't have the technology in 1960's to safely travel through the Van Allen radiation belts.

The space shuttle is not an Apollo capsule, so for a start you're not comparing like with like. Secondly, there's a difference between passing through a radiation belt and orbiting within one. Thirdly, the word "lethal" was added by you, not mission control. Fourthly, your claim that because the shuttle was asked to stay away from the belts it was because we don't have the technology to travel through them safely is a non sequitur. You clearly understand nothing about space flight or radiation either.

I am a 50 y.o. engineer who has learned to be skeptical of the mainstream information like evolution, heliocentric theory, moon landing.

So I have an open mind on the flat earth theory.

I am re-posting some of the questions another gentleman posted because I didn't see an answer for any of the questions.  A few questions are my own.

1. Do you believe that other planets are round?  If so why?

2. What happens when you reach the edge of a flat earth? Do you fall off?

3. What is at the bottom of a flat earth?

4. Is the flat earth out in space? What holds the flat earth up?

5. The sun is explained as having a spot light effect in the flat earth theory to explain night and day.  If the sun is an orb that shines 360 degrees how is this possible?  Or is the sun not an orb in the flat earth theory.

6. How wide is the flat earth? And how far up would you have to go to see the whole flat earth from above?

My understanding is that the story that Christians believed in a flat earth until Columbus’ time, and for some time thereafter, began as part of a fictional story that was elevated to historical fact by late 19th-century Darwinists who used it primarily as a means to ridicule Christians.   Christian theologians, almost without exception, likewise accepted the fact that the earth is a sphere.   Basically Christians never believed in the flat earth.

Hi ,
I am 51 year old and broke out of the round earth model way of thinking. There is much evidence that the Apollo missions were faked. Keep lurking, and it is probably a good idea to ask one question at a time in a particular thread. RE programming is pushed upon us from birth onward, but once you see some of the cracksin RE theory you may be able to see the truth. Good luck.

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

An interesting interview with a gentleman who worked at Rocketdyne from 1956 to 1963, where Saturn V rocket engines were built.

1) No hole or depression made by the jets while the looney module was landing.
2) Very little noise from the jet engines while Neil Armstrong was talking on a microphone.
3) Clear communication with 1960's technology from the astro-nots on the moon to NASA. 

Beam me up Scotty!

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

An interesting interview with a gentleman who worked at Rocketdyne from 1956 to 1963, where Saturn V rocket engines were built.

1) No hole or depression made by the jets while the looney module was landing.
2) Very little noise from the jet engines while Neil Armstrong was talking on a microphone.
3) Clear communication with 1960's technology from the astro-nots on the moon to NASA. 

Beam me up Scotty!

Sorry, not going to believe a video with such obvious editing done to it.  At around 34 seconds in, very obvious.

Evolution, as presented today, is a religion because it takes faith to believe in something with no observational evidence.  It is scientifically impossible.

This line of reasoning would then invalidate all criminal trials in which there is no witness.....

Observational evidence is not required at all. Evolution is backed by evidence from many different disciplines. Morphological study was the first tentative steps, but this has then been independently backed by DNA study, radiometric dating, tectonics, virology. Evolution is backed by enormous amounts of evidence.

Moon landing was faked, IMO, because humans couldn't survive the trip through the thermosphere or the Van Allen radiation belts.  Also 1960's technology couldn't produce the ability to launch a large tin can to the moon and back.

What about the thermosphere and the Van Allen belts precludes human space travel. Looking for actual evidence and science here and not hand waving.

What about 1960's technology was lacking? Germany was launching sub-orbital rockets in the 40's.

The heliocentric theory is not biblical and goes hand in hand with evolution and the big-bang theory.  a simple observational experiment proves the sun is either not 865,000 miles in diameter or 93,000,000 miles from the earth.

Which observational experiment would that be?

What about the thermosphere and the Van Allen belts precludes human space travel. Looking for actual evidence and science here and not hand waving.

What about 1960's technology was lacking? Germany was launching sub-orbital rockets in the 40's.

Alan Bean, Apollo 12 astro-not,  was interviewed a few years back and said that battery packs were used to keep the lunar module cooled and heated.   Do you believe this was possible?  What size of battery would be used to keep the astro-nots cooled while walking around in 250 F temperatures?  Could we do this with today's technology?

Quote from: Mainframes on April 05, 2015, 03:48:31 AM

What about the thermosphere and the Van Allen belts precludes human space travel. Looking for actual evidence and science here and not hand waving.

What about 1960's technology was lacking? Germany was launching sub-orbital rockets in the 40's.

Alan Bean, <gratuitous snarky remark>,  was interviewed a few years back and said that battery packs were used to keep the lunar module cooled and heated.   Do you believe this was possible?  What size of battery would be used to keep the astro-nots cooled while walking around in 250 F temperatures?  Could we do this with today's technology?

Strawman. Why do you think they were walking around in 250° F temperature? What is this 250° the temperature of?

Could we accomplish an Apollo-like lunar mission with today's technology? Sure. Would we? Unlikely; it's hugely expensive and still dangerous. There isn't enough justification for the effort absent cold-war-era "space race" pressures.

Quote from: The Ellimist on April 04, 2015, 09:22:03 AM

Quote from: tradosaurus on April 04, 2015, 07:38:07 AM

I am a 50 y.o. engineer who has learned to be skeptical of the mainstream information like evolution, heliocentric theory, moon landing.

Do you mind if I ask you why you are "skeptical" of these things?

Evolution, as presented today, is a religion because it takes faith to believe in something with no observational evidence.  It is scientifically impossible.

Moon landing was faked, IMO, because humans couldn't survive the trip through the thermosphere or the Van Allen radiation belts.  Also 1960's technology couldn't produce the ability to launch a large tin can to the moon and back.

The heliocentric theory is not biblical and goes hand in hand with evolution and the big-bang theory.  a simple observational experiment proves the sun is either not 865,000 miles in diameter or 93,000,000 miles from the earth.

1. Evolution has observational evidence, so it is not a religion.

2. a. The Van Allen belts are not a problem, neither is the thermosphere.
    b. How do you know this? Your incredulity is not evidence.

3. It does not matter if the heliocentric theory is not biblical or not. Observational evidence tells us it is correct, and if the Bible disagrees, the Bible is incorrect or metaphorical. The Bible is not a science book. Also, heliocentric theory, evolution, and the Big Bang theory do not go "hand in hand." Evolution could be true in a geocentric solar system, The Earth could revolve around the Sun and still be created by God in 7 days, and the universe could have existed forever and evolution and heliocentrism would still be true. The 3 things do not depend on each other to be true because they deal with 3 different subjects: Biology, astronomy/astrophysics, and cosmology.

Quote from: The Ellimist on April 04, 2015, 09:22:03 AM

Quote from: tradosaurus on April 04, 2015, 07:38:07 AM

I am a 50 y.o. engineer who has learned to be skeptical of the mainstream information like evolution, heliocentric theory, moon landing.

Do you mind if I ask you why you are "skeptical" of these things?

Evolution, as presented today, is a religion because it takes faith to believe in something with no observational evidence.  It is scientifically impossible.

Moon landing was faked, IMO, because humans couldn't survive the trip through the thermosphere or the Van Allen radiation belts.  Also 1960's technology couldn't produce the ability to launch a large tin can to the moon and back.

The heliocentric theory is not biblical and goes hand in hand with evolution and the big-bang theory.  a simple observational experiment proves the sun is either not 865,000 miles in diameter or 93,000,000 miles from the earth.

Observe and measure from 4 places at the same time.

1. Evolution has observational evidence, so it is not a religion.

2. a. The Van Allen belts are not a problem, neither is the thermosphere.
    b. How do you know this? Your incredulity is not evidence.

3. It does not matter if the heliocentric theory is not biblical or not. Observational evidence tells us it is correct, and if the Bible disagrees, the Bible is incorrect or metaphorical. The Bible is not a science book. Also, heliocentric theory, evolution, and the Big Bang theory do not go "hand in hand." Evolution could be true in a geocentric solar system, The Earth could revolve around the Sun and still be created by God in 7 days, and the universe could have existed forever and evolution and heliocentrism would still be true. The 3 things do not depend on each other to be true because they deal with 3 different subjects: Biology, astronomy/astrophysics, and cosmology.

1.  Ignoring micro-evolution (within a single population) which isn't evolution at all, tell me what has been observed to support evolution?  Where is the half fish/half bird?  Why aren't apes evolving into humans today?  Remember the claim is that changes in kind (fish to a bird for example) happened over millions and millions of years.

2.  In 2012 NASA launched two satellites to explore the Van Allen radiation belts to determine how dangerous it really is.  Why?  If there were over 5 moon missions that passed safely through the belts does NASA need more information?

3.  Well when I look up at the sky I see the sun move. 

Quote from: The Ellimist on April 05, 2015, 11:01:48 AM

1. Evolution has observational evidence, so it is not a religion.

2. a. The Van Allen belts are not a problem, neither is the thermosphere.
    b. How do you know this? Your incredulity is not evidence.

3. It does not matter if the heliocentric theory is not biblical or not. Observational evidence tells us it is correct, and if the Bible disagrees, the Bible is incorrect or metaphorical. The Bible is not a science book. Also, heliocentric theory, evolution, and the Big Bang theory do not go "hand in hand." Evolution could be true in a geocentric solar system, The Earth could revolve around the Sun and still be created by God in 7 days, and the universe could have existed forever and evolution and heliocentrism would still be true. The 3 things do not depend on each other to be true because they deal with 3 different subjects: Biology, astronomy/astrophysics, and cosmology.

1.  Ignoring micro-evolution (within a single population) which isn't evolution at all, tell me what has been observed to support evolution?  Where is the half fish/half bird?  Why aren't apes evolving into humans today?  Remember the claim is that changes in kind (fish to a bird for example) happened over millions and millions of years.

2.  In 2012 NASA launched two satellites to explore the Van Allen radiation belts to determine how dangerous it really is.  Why?  If there were over 5 moon missions that passed safely through the belts does NASA need more information?

3.  Well when I look up at the sky I see the sun move.

1.a. See Paleontology.
1.b. Birds evolved from dinosaurs, not fish.
1.c. Humans didn't evolve from apes; they both evolved from a common ancestor.

2.a. To find out more about the Van Allen radiation belts. It's not like we know everything about them.
2.b.i. There were nine of them; why don't you bother to look up some facts and details if you're going to question something?
2.b.ii. Modern electronics and sensors are vastly more capable than what was being designed and built 50 years ago but at a cost of being more easily affected by radiation. It's not like we know everything about the VA belts and their effects on equipment.

3. How do you know it's the Sun moving and not you?

"3. How do you know it's the Sun moving and not you?"

Ever been on Merry-Go-Round ? How do you know it's the light on the hot dog stand moving and not you ?

Take a look at the links in my forum signature, they destroy FET yet the flat earthers have skulls too thick for ligic to penetrate.

Also, this video proves that the Moon landing couldn't have been faked:
#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

And evolution can be observed all the time, it's why bugs get imune to pesticides after they are used for a while, it's why you resemble your parents and yet are still unique, it's why genetic diseases are a thing, it's why selective breeding works[nb]Fun fact: corn became what it is today because of humans selectively breeding it.[/nb], and it has even been observed in nature.

You say you have an open mind, and if you really do you will consider what I have said.

Why would say, chimpanzees be evolving into humans now?
We are not more evolved than they are, we are both modern species that shared an ancestor.

Quote from: The Ellimist on April 05, 2015, 11:01:48 AM

1. Evolution has observational evidence, so it is not a religion.

2. a. The Van Allen belts are not a problem, neither is the thermosphere.
    b. How do you know this? Your incredulity is not evidence.

3. It does not matter if the heliocentric theory is not biblical or not. Observational evidence tells us it is correct, and if the Bible disagrees, the Bible is incorrect or metaphorical. The Bible is not a science book. Also, heliocentric theory, evolution, and the Big Bang theory do not go "hand in hand." Evolution could be true in a geocentric solar system, The Earth could revolve around the Sun and still be created by God in 7 days, and the universe could have existed forever and evolution and heliocentrism would still be true. The 3 things do not depend on each other to be true because they deal with 3 different subjects: Biology, astronomy/astrophysics, and cosmology.

1.  Ignoring micro-evolution (within a single population) which isn't evolution at all, tell me what has been observed to support evolution?  Where is the half fish/half bird?  Why aren't apes evolving into humans today?  Remember the claim is that changes in kind (fish to a bird for example) happened over millions and millions of years.

2.  In 2012 NASA launched two satellites to explore the Van Allen radiation belts to determine how dangerous it really is.  Why?  If there were over 5 moon missions that passed safely through the belts does NASA need more information?

3.  Well when I look up at the sky I see the sun move.

1. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/100201_speciation
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html#part5
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/12/18/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/
http://nondiscovery.wordpress.com/2008/08/05/speciation-more-evidence-ignored-by-intelligent-design/
http://www.darwinwasright.org/observations_speciation.html
http://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BIO48/23.Cases.HTML

2. Like Alpha said, to find out more about them.

3. And when you go up into space you see that the sun isn't moving, the Earth is.

I am a 50 y.o. engineer who has learned to be skeptical of the mainstream information like evolution, heliocentric theory, moon landing.
So I have an open mind on the flat earth theory.

The three things you've cited are not termed "mainstream" information.  Collectively they're what we call science.  And if you refute any of the three, then you're not a very competent engineer, or, as I suspect, not even an engineer.  We have another whack-job on these forums who self-describes himself an "engineer" (username Heiwa) as an obvious appeal to authority.  He too makes ludicrous claims about space and space travel despite not having any qualifications as an astrophysicist.

You claim to have "an open mind" on the flat earth notion—BTW it's definitely not a "theory".  A scientific theory "is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation."

And, judging by the tone of your subsequent posts, it's more than obvious an open mind is something that you definitely don't possess.  You even mock the astronauts by repeatedly calling them "astro-nots" and the Apollo vehicle as the "looney module".  You also repeatedly question established technology as being improbable, and imply that NASA is a fraudulent organisation.  This is more indicative of a closed mind.

Your abject ignorance of the Van Allen belts and their effects on lunar modules or astronauts warrants no response.

Please read this post.  No more warnings for some of you after this.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63254.msg1677717#msg1677717

I am a 50 y.o. engineer

Question: what kind of engineer are you and does it involve washing machines?