A Few Questions.

Hey everyone, I'm relatively new here, and haven't posted in a while.. there has been some questions in my head that I'd like to know how the flat earth society will answer to, so, please answer these;

1- why the hell would NASA lie to us all this time? are they gaining money? or what? There should be a particular reason why to lie about the flat earth, just like any other lie.

2- this question is probably one of the most debated ones but, where's the edge? if it's flat, and has a sort of dome, there HAS to be something out of there, and don't come up to me with Antarctic ice walls bs. That makes completely no sense(unless you can prove it to me)

3- what's underneath it? Is there lava? then why doesn't lava fall down or just leaves earth's underneath, this makes no sense too.

4- Stars, galaxies and other things... are you going to call them fake too? or as some of you theorize they are made of cardboard and made for humans to see at night? umm, no you aren't fooling me, I have seen mars and Venus with my bare eyes with a telescope, I have seen the transit of mercury, and saw a comet. Are all of those some fake things NASA makes on a huge OLED 4K TV covering the atmosphere? or some set ups in the sky?

5- weather and temperature.. supposedly, on the northern hemisphere when it's winter its summer on the south... why is it like that? Do you guys have a specific proof material to prove the earth has some kind of huge heater on the south and a air conditioning on the north? No that makes no sense too, explain that please.

6-who would care if the earth is flat or not, like does it affect you or your life?

Anyways thanks for reading and hopefully you have some good answers, who knows maybe ill be a flat earther too?

1. They don't lie about the flat earth, they lie about space travel. This began in the cold war for political gain, but now maintaining the lie has financial benefits.
2. Under DET, the edge is at the equator, and we can cross it easily as space is not as you're used to thinking of it. (It is well explained in the model, I just don't feel like going into it here, my sig has a link in).
3. There is a heat source below us, though it is a solid ball, not lava. lava is just superheated rock.
4. Stars and planets are ultimately just metal heated white-hot by friction. All that sets planets apart is their location, nearer the Sun.
5. That just comes down to what angle the Sun's shining at. Sometimes it's more focused on the North, sometimes more on the South.
6. You tell me, you're the one who felt the need to come to a forum and object to the idea. Personally I'm concerned with science and truth.

1) sweet sweet space money
2) there is no edge
3) probably just rocks
4) nope
5) read the FAQ
6) the shape of the earth gave me the flu

1. They don't lie about the flat earth, they lie about space travel. This began in the cold war for political gain, but now maintaining the lie has financial benefits.
2. Under DET, the edge is at the equator, and we can cross it easily as space is not as you're used to thinking of it. (It is well explained in the model, I just don't feel like going into it here, my sig has a link in).
3. There is a heat source below us, though it is a solid ball, not lava. lava is just superheated rock.
4. Stars and planets are ultimately just metal heated white-hot by friction. All that sets planets apart is their location, nearer the Sun.
5. That just comes down to what angle the Sun's shining at. Sometimes it's more focused on the North, sometimes more on the South.
6. You tell me, you're the one who felt the need to come to a forum and object to the idea. Personally I'm concerned with science and truth.

2 - It isn't actually explained all that well. Just assumptions about how magic space works.
Your link seems to be you acting like your model makes sense and insulting/ridiculing those who dare question you.
4 - Friction from what? If it is friction, why aren't they slowing down and why do they seem to be travelling so slowly?
Why do planets being nearer the sun make them behave so differently?
5 - How does it shine more on the north or south? How does it change angle?
6 - Bullshit. You don't give a damn about science or truth. If you did you wouldn't be lying so much and blatantly misrepresenting reality.

Bullshit. You don't give a damn about science or truth. If you did you wouldn't be lying so much and blatantly misrepresenting reality.

That's not a solid rebuttal. It's a nasty personal attack. Please refrain from low-content shitposting in the upper fora and remain on topic.

Quote from: JackBlack on February 03, 2017, 07:48:24 PM

Bullshit. You don't give a damn about science or truth. If you did you wouldn't be lying so much and blatantly misrepresenting reality.

That's not a solid rebuttal. It's a nasty personal attack. Please refrain from low-content shitposting in the upper fora and remain on topic.

I can see that you have never tried to have any sort of debate with JRoweSkeptic.

Quote from: JackBlack on February 03, 2017, 07:48:24 PM

Bullshit. You don't give a damn about science or truth. If you did you wouldn't be lying so much and blatantly misrepresenting reality.

That's not a solid rebuttal. It's a nasty personal attack. Please refrain from low-content shitposting in the upper fora and remain on topic.

It's based upon prior experience with them, and partially justified in the post.
How about you look at everything else said rather than just focusing on a tiny portion?

How about you follow your own advice and remain on topic rather than bitching about how someone else addressed a point?

How about instead of posting shit you give an example of what would constitute a solid rebuttal for that point?
She claimed she cares about science and truth, should I have brought up specific examples to demonstrate that isn't the case so you can then go off at me for derailing the thread?

Very interesting, I'm quite convinced but I'm still not quite sure about stars and night objects, and the temperature thingy..

Plus, wouldn't I be able to see Everest from Japan or western china? Like it's really tall and if the earth is flat we would be able to see it..


Also, when a ship goes over to the horizon you can see it looks like it's going down or disappearing, but in reality if you came closer to it you could see it, doesn't that really explain the curvature

Very interesting, I'm quite convinced but I'm still not quite sure about stars and night objects, and the temperature thingy..

Plus, wouldn't I be able to see Everest from Japan or western china? Like it's really tall and if the earth is flat we would be able to see it..


Also, when a ship goes over to the horizon you can see it looks like it's going down or disappearing, but in reality if you came closer to it you could see it, doesn't that really explain the curvature

They try to get away with that using magic perspective which somehow perfectly cancels out the alleged curvature when needed.

Very interesting, I'm quite convinced but I'm still not quite sure about stars and night objects, and the temperature thingy..

Plus, wouldn't I be able to see Everest from Japan or western china? Like it's really tall and if the earth is flat we would be able to see it..


Also, when a ship goes over to the horizon you can see it looks like it's going down or disappearing, but in reality if you came closer to it you could see it, doesn't that really explain the curvature

Please no. I hate to see good people lost to indoctrination, but you, you're a NASA student? I hope you're joking when you say you are quite convinced. Flat earth theory is based off of something people believed in before we discovered roughly 1/3 of the world for fear of being called a heretic. In fact, it IS that something. Think. You are certainly smart, just think. Is our earth flat? Do you really believe it is flat? Despite the many things you have said, and the extremely poor rebuttals by the flat earthers. The earth is round. At this point they are trying to hang on to any bit of advantage they can get, because they know they are fighting a loosing debate. It has been disproved so many times, the only reason they have a shred a self proclaimed truth is because part of their theory is that everything that disagrees with them is wrong and a lie. What that? Science? Doesn't agree with flat earth theory, must be a lie by the government. It's quite convenient, if you think about it.

Very interesting, I'm quite convinced but I'm still not quite sure about stars and night objects, and the temperature thingy..

Plus, wouldn't I be able to see Everest from Japan or western china? Like it's really tall and if the earth is flat we would be able to see it..

Also, when a ship goes over to the horizon you can see it looks like it's going down or disappearing, but in reality if you came closer to it you could see it, doesn't that really explain the curvature

  You can't fool me, Uncle Joe!  We know that you're here undecover to track down any reactionaries,
and after a successful over night trial under the Lubyanka before shipping them off to do volunteer work in the mines at Krasnoyarsk.
  All these innocent looking Flat Earth questions are just to put us off the scent! 

I do apologise if I have you confused with someone else, but you're a dead ringer for my old Uncle Joe.

2 - It isn't actually explained all that well. Just assumptions about how magic space works.
Your link seems to be you acting like your model makes sense and insulting/ridiculing those who dare question you.
4 - Friction from what? If it is friction, why aren't they slowing down and why do they seem to be travelling so slowly?
Why do planets being nearer the sun make them behave so differently?
5 - How does it shine more on the north or south? How does it change angle?
6 - Bullshit. You don't give a damn about science or truth. If you did you wouldn't be lying so much and blatantly misrepresenting reality.

Don't make claims about a model you don't understand. There is no insulting or ridiculing in my link, unlike your post, merely asking you to actually learn the model before you make claims about it. This is evidently something you have failed to do. There are a total of two assumptions made, to begin with, in order to explain the model. The evidence for those assumptions is given in the section rather aptly titled evidence.
There is no magic, just a model you have refused to learn. As I said, I did not feel like going into the details, precisely because of users like you unable to engage in any logical discussion and instead defaulting to mockery with no substance. You know where to go if you want to make an honest argument, but until then I'll wait.

Don't make claims about a model you don't understand. There is no insulting or ridiculing in my link, unlike your post, merely asking you to actually learn the model before you make claims about it. This is evidently something you have failed to do. There are a total of two assumptions made, to begin with, in order to explain the model. The evidence for those assumptions is given in the section rather aptly titled evidence.
There is no magic, just a model you have refused to learn. As I said, I did not feel like going into the details, precisely because of users like you unable to engage in any logical discussion and instead defaulting to mockery with no substance. You know where to go if you want to make an honest argument, but until then I'll wait.

I do understand it.
Don't assume that people don't understand just because they don't accept it.

There is plenty of insulting and ridiculing on your pathetic forums.
No. There are plenty of assumptions made, not just 2.
There is no evidence for those assumptions.
There isn't even a section titled evidence. Or did you mean a section of a post?

Yes, you don't like going into the details precisely because of users like me. Users that will see through your bullshit and point out why it is wrong. People that will engage in a logical discussion rather than just accepting whatever garbage is spouted.

Your forum has effectively no users, and like I said, it just seems to be you posting your idea and insulting/ridiculing those that don't accept it.
I also have no interest in going to a forum which is clearly controlled by you so you would be free to get rid of any posts that refute you or possibly edit them.

Your board also appears to be quite slow.

If you want to defend your model with honest arguments rather than baseless assertions, you know where you can, right here.

I do understand it.
Don't assume that people don't understand just because they don't accept it.

There is plenty of insulting and ridiculing on your pathetic forums.
No. There are plenty of assumptions made, not just 2.
There is no evidence for those assumptions.
There isn't even a section titled evidence. Or did you mean a section of a post?

Yes, you don't like going into the details precisely because of users like me. Users that will see through your bullshit and point out why it is wrong. People that will engage in a logical discussion rather than just accepting whatever garbage is spouted.

Your forum has effectively no users, and like I said, it just seems to be you posting your idea and insulting/ridiculing those that don't accept it.
I also have no interest in going to a forum which is clearly controlled by you so you would be free to get rid of any posts that refute you or possibly edit them.

Your board also appears to be quite slow.

If you want to defend your model with honest arguments rather than baseless assertions, you know where you can, right here.

There is no mocking going on, I think I got a little snippy in a total of one thread with one user who constantly mocked and ignored, and that's about it. Are you going to justify your claim at any stage? I post with a considerably more measured tone than you're using right now. I simply choose to have my model all in one place, in a location guest-users of this site can post, or where people can post anonymously if they choose. If you want to go into it, then go right ahead, but you will be called out on it when you make thoroughly substance-free posts as you have just done.
I am saying you do nto understand it because of what you post. You are outright lying. There is most certainly a section called evidence.
http://dualearththeory.proboards.com/post/7/thread
What are such blatant lies meant to achieve?

There is no mocking going on, I think I got a little snippy in a total of one thread with one user who constantly mocked and ignored, and that's about it. Are you going to justify your claim at any stage? I post with a considerably more measured tone than you're using right now. I simply choose to have my model all in one place, in a location guest-users of this site can post, or where people can post anonymously if they choose. If you want to go into it, then go right ahead, but you will be called out on it when you make thoroughly substance-free posts as you have just done.
I am saying you do nto understand it because of what you post. You are outright lying. There is most certainly a section called evidence.
http://dualearththeory.proboards.com/post/7/thread
What are such blatant lies meant to achieve?

Are you planning on justifying your claims at any stage?
And before you say it, a link to your crappy forums isn't justifying it.
I have no intention on posting on a board which you control due to your prior dishonesty. To put it simply, I don't trust you.

Yes, my posts may be considered substance free, but no more so than yours. So far all you have done is made a bunch of baseless claims and insulted me.

See, you saying I don't understand is just insulting me and mocking me.
I am not outright lying.
I wouldn't call a post a section. Especially when that isn't even what is linked to in your sig.
And of course, your evidence section contains lies as well.
Perspective does not make things disappear from the bottom up. It simply makes things appear smaller. So it could be a hill, or it could be because Earth is round. As water typically doesn't make hills as high as a large boat, chances are, Earth is round.

Evidence is not merely something in line with what the theory states. Evidence is something which indicates the proposed model is true rather than the null hypothesis.
That last part is key.
If something is merely consistent with your model due to massive error, it is not evidence for your model.
What you need is for the error to be low enough so you can distinguish between your model and the null hypothesis, and then if it supports your model rather than the null hypothesis, it is evidence for your model (but it may also be for other models).
Your question to clarify that is also dishonest.
You don't ask if there is anything which is considered evidence that doesn't fit this definition. A more important question is if there is anything which fits this definition which isn't considered evidence.
With your approach, you could for example say that even integers are numbers with no fractional component. There is not a single even number that doesn't fit that. But that doesn't make it the definition of an even number.

With your definition, a book (not what is in the book, just the book itself) is evidence because that is consistent with your model.

Your evidence section also goes into a whole bunch of crap, like the above, rather than providing any actual evidence.

If you are making assumptions, they typically don't have evidence for them, as they are assumptions.

You also misrepresent what assumptions are.
The theory of gravity is an attempt to explain it which is based upon assumptions.
However gravity itself is based upon evidence. We have evidence that masses attract one another with a force proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the distance between them squared.
That isn't an assumption, it is an observation.

jordannv2: Defender of Round Earth.

We didn't called for football game to rounders so nobody need a defender here. Go defend yourself, defend your family, defend your money. Round earth doesn't need to be defended. It can defend itself if is true. If it need someone is to be defended, this is an evidence about why it is wrong.

jordannv2: Defender of Round Earth.

We didn't called for football game to rounders so nobody need a defender here. Go defend yourself, defend your family, defend your money. Round earth doesn't need to be defended. It can defend itself if is true. If it need someone is to be defended, this is an evidence about why it is wrong.

No. All it takes for bullshit to triumph is for intelligent people to say nothing.

Yes, it doesn't need defending to be true, and no amount of defence will ever make FE true.
However, it does need defending to get other people to realise the truth.

Quote from: jordannv2 on February 04, 2017, 02:55:30 AM

Very interesting, I'm quite convinced but I'm still not quite sure about stars and night objects, and the temperature thingy..

Plus, wouldn't I be able to see Everest from Japan or western china? Like it's really tall and if the earth is flat we would be able to see it..


Also, when a ship goes over to the horizon you can see it looks like it's going down or disappearing, but in reality if you came closer to it you could see it, doesn't that really explain the curvature

Please no. I hate to see good people lost to indoctrination, but you, you're a NASA student? I hope you're joking when you say you are quite convinced. Flat earth theory is based off of something people believed in before we discovered roughly 1/3 of the world for fear of being called a heretic. In fact, it IS that something. Think. You are certainly smart, just think. Is our earth flat? Do you really believe it is flat? Despite the many things you have said, and the extremely poor rebuttals by the flat earthers. The earth is round. At this point they are trying to hang on to any bit of advantage they can get, because they know they are fighting a loosing debate. It has been disproved so many times, the only reason they have a shred a self proclaimed truth is because part of their theory is that everything that disagrees with them is wrong and a lie. What that? Science? Doesn't agree with flat earth theory, must be a lie by the government. It's quite convenient, if you think about it.

Honestly don't know what is more cringe worthy, the dripping sarcasm and arrogance in his post or you jumping on him because you took it seriously.



Good on you mate.

Quote from: Astronut33 on February 04, 2017, 10:42:41 PM

Quote from: jordannv2 on February 04, 2017, 02:55:30 AM

Very interesting, I'm quite convinced but I'm still not quite sure about stars and night objects, and the temperature thingy..

Plus, wouldn't I be able to see Everest from Japan or western china? Like it's really tall and if the earth is flat we would be able to see it..


Also, when a ship goes over to the horizon you can see it looks like it's going down or disappearing, but in reality if you came closer to it you could see it, doesn't that really explain the curvature

Please no. I hate to see good people lost to indoctrination, but you, you're a NASA student? I hope you're joking when you say you are quite convinced. Flat earth theory is based off of something people believed in before we discovered roughly 1/3 of the world for fear of being called a heretic. In fact, it IS that something. Think. You are certainly smart, just think. Is our earth flat? Do you really believe it is flat? Despite the many things you have said, and the extremely poor rebuttals by the flat earthers. The earth is round. At this point they are trying to hang on to any bit of advantage they can get, because they know they are fighting a loosing debate. It has been disproved so many times, the only reason they have a shred a self proclaimed truth is because part of their theory is that everything that disagrees with them is wrong and a lie. What that? Science? Doesn't agree with flat earth theory, must be a lie by the government. It's quite convenient, if you think about it.

Honestly don't know what is more cringe worthy, the dripping sarcasm and arrogance in his post or you jumping on him because you took it seriously.



Good on you mate.

It gets worse.  Astronut is 14.

So far has demonstrated the surprisingly common ability to be kind of infuriating even when you technically agree with everything he's saying.

I was probably that way at 14 too though

Honestly don't know what is more cringe worthy, the dripping sarcasm and arrogance in his post or you jumping on him because you took it seriously.

It can be difficult to tell sarcasm in posts, especially when what is said is also "legitimately" promoted by these crazy people, or similar to such.

Quote from: disputeone on February 09, 2017, 04:26:00 AM

Honestly don't know what is more cringe worthy, the dripping sarcasm and arrogance in his post or you jumping on him because you took it seriously.

It can be difficult to tell sarcasm in posts, especially when what is said is also "legitimately" promoted by these crazy people, or similar to such.

It's easy to tell when someone has an inferiority complex that they are trying to take out on the F.E.S. tho, just saiyan.

You're actually very bright from what I've seen, just a bit of a dick, I don't see why you are here acting like some holy guardian of the heliocentric globe.



Pro tip. Calling people crazy is not going to get them to listen to anything you have to say. You have to accept that you are only here out of some sick sense of self satisfaction.

What does it matter if someone believes something different than you do? How does it hurt anyone if people have different opinions? What is so harmful about discussing earth shape possibilities?

I find it fascinating and I've learned so many things here that I probably wouldn't have anywhere else.

Quote from: JackBlack on February 10, 2017, 02:06:43 AM

Quote from: disputeone on February 09, 2017, 04:26:00 AM

Honestly don't know what is more cringe worthy, the dripping sarcasm and arrogance in his post or you jumping on him because you took it seriously.

It can be difficult to tell sarcasm in posts, especially when what is said is also "legitimately" promoted by these crazy people, or similar to such.

It's easy to tell when someone has an inferiority complex that they are trying to take out on the F.E.S. tho, just saiyan.

You're actually very bright from what I've seen, just a bit of a dick, I don't see why you are here acting like some holy guardian of the heliocentric globe.



Pro tip. Calling people crazy is not going to get them to listen to anything you have to say. You have to accept that you are only here out of some sick sense of self satisfaction.

What does it matter if someone believes something different than you do? How does it hurt anyone if people have different opinions? What is so harmful about discussing earth shape possibilities?

I find it fascinating and I've learned so many things here that I probably wouldn't have anywhere else.

Because I care about the truth, and because of what they do to try and back up their claims by basically claiming so much crap is just a massive conspiracy.

You guys never mentionned gravity but you are concerned about science and truth? Are you serious?

- If the earth was not round but instead a flat disk, with the weight,density and thickness, living in the middle could feel completely normal. But, as you move towards the edge, gravity on a flat earth would slightly skew, pushing at a greater and greater angle back toward the centre. Anything as massive as the earth, shaped like a flat disk, would, under it's own gravity, naturally collapse into a ball... It's 2017.. Come on.. As for Nasa lying about space travel, i don't know what to say.. But the earth is flat thing is just ignorance.

You guys never mentionned gravity but you are concerned about science and truth? Are you serious?

- If the earth was not round but instead a flat disk, with the weight,density and thickness, living in the middle could feel completely normal. But, as you move towards the edge, gravity on a flat earth would slightly skew, pushing at a greater and greater angle back toward the centre. Anything as massive as the earth, shaped like a flat disk, would, under it's own gravity, naturally collapse into a ball... It's 2017.. Come on.. As for Nasa lying about space travel, i don't know what to say.. But the earth is flat thing is just ignorance.

in their model gravity doesn't exist or in another model its an infinite plane with gravity

You guys never mentionned gravity but you are concerned about science and truth? Are you serious?

- If the earth was not round but instead a flat disk, with the weight,density and thickness, living in the middle could feel completely normal. But, as you move towards the edge, gravity on a flat earth would slightly skew, pushing at a greater and greater angle back toward the centre. Anything as massive as the earth, shaped like a flat disk, would, under it's own gravity, naturally collapse into a ball... It's 2017.. Come on.. As for Nasa lying about space travel, i don't know what to say.. But the earth is flat thing is just ignorance.

FET discards a lot of science, typically including gravity.

The one model which does still have gravity is that of an infinite flat plane, where it produces a field akin to an infinite flat plate which is charged.
The other models either leave that unexplained, or have something else to replace it like (selective) universal acceleration or aether.
I am yet to hear of an alternative that actually works though.