THE BIG QUESTION

Ahh, It has been awhile since I have been here but my questions were never answered so I will just ask the massive question which pokes a massive finger hole through this cookie-dough theory. Actually, I am suprised no one else brought this up unless their posts were deleted...

If the governments wanted to establish that the world was round, and they built a massive spotlight to act as the sun:

Then: how a spotlight can generate the massive radiation like visible light, infrared, radio, etc. across the span of large continents continuously day after day. It would need a power source of, well a small star! Stellar fusion is the source of such power. I can only imagine the wattage on that bulb. 

This leads me to the discussion, if man installed the sun in the sky, (ignoring the fact that it is depicted in ancient drawings) where did man come from? Man eats plants, plants photosynthesize from the sun. If there was no sun, man would never have the chance to trick the rest of mankind with a conspiracy that makes no sense for no apparent benefit.

This, along with my other concerns, are posted on the rivalry site http://roundearth.informe.com/
Come defend your views so we don't put the wrong words in your mouths?

Err....They don't believe man made the sun dude.

...so now it's a naturally occurring spotlight? 

That denies basically all the scientific principles we know. That in itself is an immense flaw in the theory. Then again, it is against all scientific evidence to begin with as far as a power source, (unknown) that can push the whole planet and everything on it straight up accelerating at 9.8 m/s/s.

I've been here for weeks an I still don't know. Different people say different things.

... Magneto.

Magneto is the best theory yet proposed.

...so now it's a naturally occurring spotlight? 

That denies basically all the scientific principles we know. That in itself is an immense flaw in the theory. Then again, it is against all scientific evidence to begin with as far as a power source, (unknown) that can push the whole planet and everything on it straight up accelerating at 9.8 m/s/s.

Just because you cannot explain it doesnt mean it is false. For example, just because man is unsure whether we were created or evolved from dust doesnt mean we dont exist.

And magneto is a mutant born in the 30's. How could he be in control if he was born LONG AFTER man has known about a flat earth?

Just because he wasn't born at the dawn of time doesn't mean wasn't there

Quote from: L0gic on March 19, 2007, 04:17:06 PM

...so now it's a naturally occurring spotlight? 

That denies basically all the scientific principles we know. That in itself is an immense flaw in the theory. Then again, it is against all scientific evidence to begin with as far as a power source, (unknown) that can push the whole planet and everything on it straight up accelerating at 9.8 m/s/s.

Just because you cannot explain it doesnt mean it is false. For example, just because man is unsure whether we were created or evolved from dust doesnt mean we dont exist.

And magneto is a mutant born in the 30's. How could he be in control if he was born LONG AFTER man has known about a flat earth?

No, I suppose it doesn't mean it's false. It's just nearly infinitely improbable. Of all the possibilities of reality, one not following any known laws of science, nor has any bases beyond imagination of possibilities, isn't worth mentioning. There is an unlimited number of theories that don't make sense or follow logic.

For instance, the sun is really a glowing beach ball that the flat earth revolves around it and the illusion of gravity is created by buckets of sour cream.

The fact that anything exists seems improbable to me. But facts are facts.

And yes, all our theories are supported by science. We would concede our points if there were science showing otherwise.

And magneto would have to be there at the beginning of time.

The fact that anything exists seems improbable to me. But facts are facts.

The fact that anything exists? umm... what? What I was saying is that any theory disregarding science and logic that was completely imagined by someone is just as likely as the next delusion.

And yes, all our theories are supported by science. We would concede our points if there were science showing otherwise.

I have yet to see how these theories are supported by science. So far, everything explained on a FE was a secondary explanation to what we witness on a RE. As attempts are made to defend against this evidence, and explain how they "might" work on a FE, no evidence applies to a FE and not a RE. In which case, if the government did such a perfect job covering this up, how do all of you know the truth? Speculation. This leads me back to my original point: Speculation and imagination lead to theories that are highly improbable. As long as ways are found to explain evidence or discredit it, you are looking only to manipulate it to arrive at the predetermined conclusion of "flatness".

And magneto would have to be there at the beginning of time.

Not worth it.

Perhaps I should simplify things:

We believe unaltered science proves our theory. Show a contradiction.

That exactly what I said you did. Using evidence on a RE and applying to a FE. If all evidence for a FE is "shared" by a RE, no contradiction will ever be found. What I want is evidence that doesn't apply to a RE that does apply to a FE.

Living on Round Earth provides effects that are then applied to a Flat Earth. I am not looking for unaltered science, but science that is applied directly to FE.

That exactly what I said you did. Using evidence on a RE and applying to a FE. If all evidence for a FE is "shared" by a RE, no contradiction will ever be found. What I want is evidence that doesn't apply to a RE that does apply to a FE.

Living on Round Earth provides effects that are then applied to a Flat Earth. I am not looking for unaltered science, but science that is applied directly to FE.

May I direct your search to the search?

For those that think it is false, provide a contradiction.

Not having a contradiction proves nothing. For instance, you believe the Earth is flat yet there is not a simple contradiction to RE.

Besides, there is no contradiction that buckets of sour cream are the source of gravity. 

Not having a contradiction proves nothing. For instance, you believe the Earth is flat yet there is not a simple contradiction to RE.

Besides, there is no contradiction that buckets of sour cream are the source of gravity. 

Global warming is a contradiction to RE theory. Let me explain:
Global Warming is based on the idea of carbon dioxide trapping the heat from the sun on the earth. Under a RE view, the same objects that are responsible for blocking the light would keep more light/heat from entering the earth than it would to trap it. In effect it would cause global cooling.
However, if we step back into reality and accept the FE reality we can see that carbon dioxide will only trap the heat that comes from below. This is consistant with FE theory that heat comes from below and cold comes from above.

I have provided my evidence against your theory, It is your turn to provide evidence against the reality that affects us all but only few accept.

i think it snowed this year....in some places it has never snowed before...i know a part of china got 3 meters of snow at one time...thats not very common..global warming...doesn't mean what it say..(that sounds wierd).

It is heating the polar ice caps...but is also having other affecting in other places of the world...not the whole world is warming up.

It is heating the polar ice caps...but is also having other affecting in other places of the world...not the whole world is warming up.

All effects stem from a 'global warming'. Without the warming, all other symptoms dissappear.

Quote from: L0gic on March 19, 2007, 06:38:30 PM

Not having a contradiction proves nothing. For instance, you believe the Earth is flat yet there is not a simple contradiction to RE.

Besides, there is no contradiction that buckets of sour cream are the source of gravity. 

Global warming is a contradiction to RE theory. Let me explain:
Global Warming is based on the idea of carbon dioxide trapping the heat from the sun on the earth. Under a RE view, the same objects that are responsible for blocking the light would keep more light/heat from entering the earth than it would to trap it. In effect it would cause global cooling.
However, if we step back into reality and accept the FE reality we can see that carbon dioxide will only trap the heat that comes from below. This is consistant with FE theory that heat comes from below and cold comes from above.

I have provided my evidence against your theory, It is your turn to provide evidence against the reality that affects us all but only few accept.

"The same objects"? How does RE theory state that radiation is reflected? How does carbon dioxide block it? Excuse me for saying that this answer isn't clear to someone like me who is naive by being brainwashed. 

However, my evidence was what started this topic. The sun emitting radiation as a spotlight? RE theory has evidence for it like "conservation of energy". Wink Wink. In FE, the energy powering the sun, moon, and acceleration of the whole planet is much to massive to ignore.

By the way, I hope to continue this conversation tomorrow. I am available starting around 7:30 pm. 

By the way, I hope to continue this conversation tomorrow. I am available starting around 7:30 pm. 

I doubt I will be able to continue this with you for some time...

However in simplest form: The basic fact of global warming is based on the idea that carbon dioxide acts as a wall that blocks heat. In RE the heat comes from the sun, meaning the co2 would keep the light/heat out making it cooler rather than warmer. In FE heat comes from below and the co2 will trap it in earths atmosphere making it warmer. This means that global warming is only consistant with itself in a FE situation.

My point is not that these are claims of RE or FE, but of scientists about global warming. But they are only consistant with FE.

...so now it's a naturally occurring spotlight? 

That denies basically all the scientific principles we know. That in itself is an immense flaw in the theory. Then again, it is against all scientific evidence to begin with as far as a power source, (unknown) that can push the whole planet and everything on it straight up accelerating at 9.8 m/s/s.

It doesn't deny them all, that's just silly. 

Where is the infinite energy source holding you to the RE?  How can gravity continuously exert a force and never deplete some source of energy? 

If you follow the Theory of Spacetime...
(Gravity is not a force. This is almost certain, regardless of whether or not the Theory of Spacetime is true.)

Mass warps the universe by space and time. Imagine the universe like a giant cloth, pulled taught. Throw a ball in the middle of the cloth, and it makes a dent. If you roll a smaller ball near it, that smaller ball will curve towards the larger one, if mass also corresponds to size, that is. This is an example of how gravity works. It requires no energy.

If you follow the Theory of Spacetime...
(Gravity is not a force. This is almost certain, regardless of whether or not the Theory of Spacetime is true.)

Mass warps the universe by space and time. Imagine the universe like a giant cloth, pulled taught. Throw a ball in the middle of the cloth, and it makes a dent. If you roll a smaller ball near it, that smaller ball will curve towards the larger one, if mass also corresponds to size, that is. This is an example of how gravity works. It requires no energy.

That example requires an already existing acceleration. 

If you follow the Theory of Spacetime...
(Gravity is not a force. This is almost certain, regardless of whether or not the Theory of Spacetime is true.)

Mass warps the universe by space and time. Imagine the universe like a giant cloth, pulled taught. Throw a ball in the middle of the cloth, and it makes a dent. If you roll a smaller ball near it, that smaller ball will curve towards the larger one, if mass also corresponds to size, that is. This is an example of how gravity works. It requires no energy.

How does space know how much to distort, based on mass and distance from the object?  There must be some sort of mediating particle.

Quote from: Skyburn on March 19, 2007, 09:07:34 PM

If you follow the Theory of Spacetime...
(Gravity is not a force. This is almost certain, regardless of whether or not the Theory of Spacetime is true.)

Mass warps the universe by space and time. Imagine the universe like a giant cloth, pulled taught. Throw a ball in the middle of the cloth, and it makes a dent. If you roll a smaller ball near it, that smaller ball will curve towards the larger one, if mass also corresponds to size, that is. This is an example of how gravity works. It requires no energy.

That example requires an already existing acceleration. 

The initial acceleration and resultant movement of the larger object can be explained as part of planetary formation. The energy that caused the little comet’s acceleration is not required to be explained in this scenario, we presume it moves for the same reason that any other comet does. You do know there are things like comets don’t you?

Quote from: Skyburn on March 19, 2007, 09:07:34 PM

If you follow the Theory of Spacetime...
(Gravity is not a force. This is almost certain, regardless of whether or not the Theory of Spacetime is true.)

Mass warps the universe by space and time. Imagine the universe like a giant cloth, pulled taught. Throw a ball in the middle of the cloth, and it makes a dent. If you roll a smaller ball near it, that smaller ball will curve towards the larger one, if mass also corresponds to size, that is. This is an example of how gravity works. It requires no energy.

How does space know how much to distort, based on mass and distance from the object?  There must be some sort of mediating particle.

How does a piston ‘know’ its supposed to go up and down?- An lifeless object can’t know - anything!

Does a magnet work in vacuum? What mediating particles cause magnets to attract or repel each other? is it so far fetched to your mind that gravity can work by a similar field effect that negates a requirement for direct or sequential physical contact? 

Maybe some FE’r can answer this. Is the flat earth “theory” falsifiable?
Tell me how can anyone present you with evidence of a round earth when you consider any such evidence as faked. It is the same attitude I have observed from the Fe’rs here reminds me of the ‘Answers in Genesis’ statement of faith (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp).  “No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.”
The FE one just reads: All apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field that points to a round earth is faked. Please note I’m not saying all FE’rs are bible literalists, I’m just pointing to a similarity in the way flawed beliefs are maintained.

Please can anyone tell me if flat earth “theory” is falsifiable?

I didn't say initial, I said already existing, as in the acceleration holding the objects on the sheet.  He is using gravity as an analogy to describe gravity.

And yes, the FE model is easily falsifiable.  Many of you are not very good at it, though...

I didn't say initial, I said already existing, as in the acceleration holding the objects on the sheet.  He is using gravity as an analogy to describe gravity.

And yes, the FE model is easily falsifiable.  Many of you are not very good at it, though...

You must understand its impossible to set up a demonstration of the mechanics of gravity -on earth- without gravity playing a part in the demonstration. In short everything that has mass has its own gravity field this is a observed and measured fact, on earth the overriding gravitational field is earth’s as it has the greatest mass, thus we find that demonstrating that two balls (as in the example mentioned) would not be possible as the earths gravitational field is many millions of times greater than those that the balls have towards each other. Skyburns’ demonstration succeeds in demonstrating the effects of gravity because the behaviour observed when conducting this experiment is similar to what is observed between celestial bodies. It does not however explain gravity, it can’t, gravity is a massive and far reaching concept, you need to study it to understand it. Understanding will not be through some miracle. The effects between massive objects are over massive distances are easily observed if you study our solar system. Problem is fe’rs somehow think super advances technology has been placed inside all telescopes so they don’t even think about performing such a simple (and definitive) test of their belief as taking up astrology as a night time hobby. 

How pray tell is if falsifiable? To quote myself from another post "as far as I have seen on this site no video or photographical evidence can be used because it has all somehow been edited thus negating all high altitude and satellite evidence. No exploration/mapping of Antarctica or the surrounding region can be trusted because all explorers, sailors and pilots are either lying or have fallen for a optical or magnetically created illusion. No astronaut can be trusted because they have all been bribed by a massive conspiracy that no one knows about but must exist because otherwise the earth would have no reason to be flat. The only plus part of being a FE’r is that you can “know” there must be an undetectable but existing conspiracy that in some constant yet undeterminable way makes it worth while for this conspiracy to be carried for centuries, how smart they must feel to “know” all this without any supporting facts. "

What evidence would convince you that the earth is round?

How does a piston ‘know’ its supposed to go up and down?

Because it is connected to a connecting rod.

Does a magnet work in vacuum? What mediating particles cause magnets to attract or repel each other?

Virtual photons.

I wouldn't say it's impossible to set up a demonstration of gravity without the use of gravity.  It's never been done to my knowledge, but it's not impossible. 

Problem is fe’rs somehow think super advances technology has been placed inside all telescopes so they don’t even think about performing such a simple (and definitive) test of their belief as taking up astrology as a night time hobby.

I think you've been deceived by too many trolls.  It's hard to realize the difference between trolls and FE believers because your own reverent disbelief in the Flat Earth makes you think every person that contradicts your beliefs constitutes a FE believer. 

There are plenty of ways to falsify the FE model.  All of them involve understanding the criteria for a belief in the flat Earth first.  Understanding this criteria takes a lot of thinking about what it is you are reading . . . and also it takes a lot of reading.  Or, it might just take a certain level of intelligence (though I haven not put together any numbers on that).