Regarding the fundations of the conspiracy.

First off, I want to say that I've read the FAQ several times, that I'm 14 and that english is not my native language.

Ok so,  everyone tells us the eart is round. Then you guys think it is flat. Why? Because you believe what the bible says.

Say the earth was flat. What I've read in the FAQ is that the governements of the world all say that it is round, and why? To make money out of it.

I've also read this thread

So, the governements make money becaus ethey say the earth is round, while it isn't. How can they possible make money out of it? Explain that to me.

This post did not quite end up the way I wanted it to be, but I will say more depending on what comments you give.

1.  Alright, thanks for the intro.
2.  The theory of a flat earth began with the Bible.  From there, Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham conducted experiments that showed the earth flat.  These experiments are listed in the book Earth: Not a Globe and you can reconstruct them yourself as evidence.
3.  Yes, to make money.
4.  Ok.
5.  It is quite simple, the government takes billions of tax dollars every year and gives them to NASA.  NASA has projects like the ISS (which costs 1.1 billion for 2007 I think) which aren't possible to exist on a FE.  So, where does this money go?  It isn't sure, but it is most definitely a conspiracy as lies are being told.

5.  It is quite simple, the government takes billions of tax dollars every year and gives them to NASA.  NASA has projects like the ISS (which costs 1.1 billion for 2007 I think) which aren't possible to exist on a FE.  So, where does this money go?  It isn't sure, but it is most definitely a conspiracy as lies are being told.

what lies are being told ? why isn't it possible on Flat Earth, and why would they have started the   conspiracy? What lay on the roots of it? "Let's say the earth is round and make alot of money out of it, because we won't be getting that money when we say the earth is flat". How could they have known that they were going to receive a lot of money for so called "researches" on a globe, while it's a cillinder?

Oh boy, on to the explaining...

The lies being told are that the earth is round (from a FE'ers standpoint).  Maintained spaceflight is not possible on a FE because the earth is accelerating upwards.  If an object above the earth is not accelerating with the earth, than it will crash into it. The only way to maintain spaceflight is to accelerate upwards at a rate of 9.8m/s^2, and that requires too much fuel for a maintained position in space.  I'm not sure what you are saying here.  The conspiracy was thought to have been created during the space race.  The USA and USSR noticed the shape of the earth, and realized how much potential money they could make if they faked projects that could happen on a RE.

I ment that how could they know they could ever make alot of money of those experiments that could happen on a RE, which cannot happen on FE. And if it requires too much fuel, how could they have noticed the earth was flat ?

Because they knew of the potential space exploration funds, whereas on a FE there would be none.  They went up, and realized they couldn't stay up, and came back down.

but ok, so the earth is flat. Yet they let tourist go on a space trip sometimes. Ok, you've got an explanation for that, they're in some kind of simulator. But why would they let toutists in a simulator, that's only creating more risks, not ?

It is in one way, but in another it is taking away from the risk of a conspiracy.  People can easily be fooled, and that is taken advantage of.  And when these people are fooled, it also takes away the thoughts of there being a conspiracy, because there are regular people 'going to space'.

It is in one way, but in another it is taking away from the risk of a conspiracy.  People can easily be fooled, and that is taken advantage of.  And when these people are fooled, it also takes away the thoughts of there being a conspiracy, because there are regular people 'going to space'.

and when they visit the space station, how do they simulate the 'no gravity' ?

and when they visit the space station, how do they simulate the 'no gravity' ?

They don't.  It doesn't exist.

2.  The theory of a flat earth began with the Bible.  From there, Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham conducted experiments that showed the earth flat.  These experiments are listed in the book Earth: Not a Globe and you can reconstruct them yourself as evidence.

This is simply not true. Greek scholars such as Thales and Anaximander formulated Flat Earth hypotheses centuries before the canonization of the Bible, and in fact the Bible's FE inferences are fairly ambiguous (what's more, who seriously considers the Bible a legitimate basis for scientific study?).

The ancient egyptians held a Flat Earth Concensus, as well as many other ancient societies.

I'm also fairly sure Rowbotham didn't hold a doctorate.

I'm also fairly sure Rowbotham didn't hold a doctorate.

Sites from Google said he had a Dr. on the front.  Anyway, Rowbotham obtained the idea of a flat earth from the Bible didn't he?  That's kind of what I meant.

Sites from Google said he had a Dr. on the front.  Anyway, Rowbotham obtained the idea of a flat earth from the Bible didn't he?  That's kind of what I meant.

Rowbotham, like the vast majority of Victorian Brits, was a Christian, but this is incidental. His theories draw on evidence from many historical sources, and are "obtained" from rigorous (though in some respects incorrect) scientific study.

Rowbotham, like the vast majority of Victorian Brits, was a Christian, but this is incidental. His theories draw on evidence from many historical sources, and are "obtained" from rigorous (though in some respects incorrect) scientific study.

Well thanks for the correction then, I'll be sure to include it in my next copy/paste.

Quote from: Ruben on May 28, 2007, 01:50:55 AM

and when they visit the space station, how do they simulate the 'no gravity' ?

They don't.  It doesn't exist.

GRiffER! Thanks for admitting again that the Earth is round.

Quote from: Mr. Ireland on May 28, 2007, 03:37:25 PM

Sites from Google said he had a Dr. on the front.  Anyway, Rowbotham obtained the idea of a flat earth from the Bible didn't he?  That's kind of what I meant.

Rowbotham, like the vast majority of Victorian Brits, was a Christian, but this is incidental. His theories draw on evidence from many historical sources, and are "obtained" from rigorous (though in some respects incorrect) scientific study.

That's quite a misstatement! Rigorous and incorrect are not compatible in describing the same study. If it's incorrect then it's not rigorous.

GRiffER! Thanks for admitting again that the Earth is round.

Crap, I forget what that stands for...  I'm always happy to spread the truth.

Quote from: Mr. Ireland on May 28, 2007, 05:35:50 AM

Quote from: Ruben on May 28, 2007, 01:50:55 AM

and when they visit the space station, how do they simulate the 'no gravity' ?

They don't.  It doesn't exist.

GRiffER! Thanks for admitting again that the Earth is round.

how does that admit the Earth is round?

Quote from: Gulliver on May 28, 2007, 04:12:22 PM

GRiffER! Thanks for admitting again that the Earth is round.

Crap, I forget what that stands for...  I'm always happy to spread the truth.

We have evidence to support General Relativity if and only if we accept that the Earth is Round. If you say you accept GR (say gravity doesn't exist) then you accept RE.

But Engy Baby says gravity don;t exist and argues GR in favour of FE

]We have evidence to support General Relativity if and only if we accept that the Earth is Round. If you say you accept GR (say gravity doesn't exist) then you accept RE.

It's absurd to assume that Einstein was either completely correct or completely incorrect. Elements of his theories can hold water even if others don't.

That's quite a misstatement! Rigorous and incorrect are not compatible in describing the same study. If it's incorrect then it's not rigorous.

It was rigorous in the sense that his experiments were robust and carefully and accurately performed. It was incorrect in that some of the assumptions and hypothesises he made based on the results of his experimentation were wrong. I don't see the contradiction here.

It's absurd to assume that Einstein was either completely correct or completely incorrect. Elements of his theories can hold water even if others don't.

Well thats true. Its absurd to think that one person was completely right with all his theories. We all have to make mistakes,.

Quote from: Gulliver on May 28, 2007, 04:24:54 PM

]We have evidence to support General Relativity if and only if we accept that the Earth is Round. If you say you accept GR (say gravity doesn't exist) then you accept RE.

It's absurd to assume that Einstein was either completely correct or completely incorrect. Elements of his theories can hold water even if others don't.

Quote

That's quite a misstatement! Rigorous and incorrect are not compatible in describing the same study. If it's incorrect then it's not rigorous.

It was rigorous in the sense that his experiments were robust and carefully and accurately performed. It was incorrect in that some of the assumptions and hypothesises he made based on the results of his experimentation were wrong. I don't see the contradiction here.

Buzz! That's not right. His theory has absolutely no validation with RE. Days again I've challenged you to answer the reason you believe in GR. I've not heard a single piece of evidence. You don't get to pick and choose. If you don't believe in RE than you don't have any evidence that GR is better than Newton's theory. Since Newton's theory is simpler, FEers are FORCED to go with Newton's theory. There's no wiggle room.

You're abusing the word "rigorous". From Websters.com: "3 : scrupulously accurate : PRECISE". Anything incorrect is not precise.

If you don't believe in RE than you don't have any evidence that GR is better than Newton's theory.

The part of GR which I accept as legit is the idea that "gravity" is indistinguishable from acceleration. This doesn't require any evidence, it's self-evident. The acceleration of the Earth is comparable to the alleged action of this made-up force.

Since Newton's theory is simpler, FEers are FORCED to go with Newton's theory. There's no wiggle room.

That's preposterous. Simpler does not equal correct.

You're abusing the word "rigorous". From Websters.com: "3 : scrupulously accurate : PRECISE". Anything incorrect is not precise.

My bad. "Exhaustive" or "comprehensive" might have been a better phrasing - my point was that he really did a lot of testing and that the bulk of it lacked major flaws.

Quote from: Gulliver on May 28, 2007, 04:58:45 PM

If you don't believe in RE than you don't have any evidence that GR is better than Newton's theory.

The part of GR which I accept as legit is the idea that "gravity" is indistinguishable from acceleration. This doesn't require any evidence, it's self-evident. The acceleration of the Earth is comparable to the alleged action of this made-up force.

Quote from: Gulliver on May 28, 2007, 04:58:45 PM

Since Newton's theory is simpler, FEers are FORCED to go with Newton's theory. There's no wiggle room.

That's preposterous. Simpler does not equal correct.

Quote from: Gulliver on May 28, 2007, 04:58:45 PM

You're abusing the word "rigorous". From Websters.com: "3 : scrupulously accurate : PRECISE". Anything incorrect is not precise.

My bad. "Exhaustive" or "comprehensive" might have been a better phrasing - my point was that he really did a lot of testing and that the bulk of it lacked major flaws.

Evidence for that self-evident claim? Or are you making things up again. (I'll expect a lot of experimental proof since it's so evident. But don't forget no experiments that rely on RE!)

BUZZ! Simpler with the same predictive value always is better. Don't ask any respectable scientist to accept a much more complex theory that does absolutely not provide even one iota of additional value over a simple one. Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

I concur with your re-phrasing. Thank you.

Evidence for that self-evident claim?

Objects on Earth visibly act in a way compliant with both acceleration (of the universal variety) and the theory of gravity. The two theories are hence indistinguishable.

Simpler with the same predictive value always is better. Don't ask any respectable scientist to accept a much more complex theory that does absolutely not provide even one iota of additional value over a simple one.

Well the theory of Universal Acceleration is far simpler than the theory of gravity (One big object pushing another vs. a magical attractive force present everywhere in the universe which is caused by an invisible, unobservable particle called the Graviton, respectively), and they both have the same predictive outcome. What's stopping you accepting UA as "better"?

Quote from: Gulliver on May 28, 2007, 05:31:40 PM

Evidence for that self-evident claim?

Objects on Earth visibly act in a way compliant with both acceleration (of the universal variety) and the theory of gravity. The two theories are hence indistinguishable.

Quote from: Gulliver on May 28, 2007, 05:31:40 PM

Simpler with the same predictive value always is better. Don't ask any respectable scientist to accept a much more complex theory that does absolutely not provide even one iota of additional value over a simple one.

Well the theory of Universal Acceleration is far simpler than the theory of gravity (One big object pushing another vs. a magical attractive force present everywhere in the universe which is caused by an invisible, unobservable particle called the Graviton, respectively), and they both have the same predictive outcome. What's stopping you accepting UA as "better"?

UA fails to explain the path of the Sun, Moon, near-earth crossing asteroids, and man-made satellites. Gravity does. UA requires the Moon to even when it's not shining, as when it's new, to still remain above the accelerating FE. Gravity predicts its distance accurately. Evidence please that the graviton is unobservable vice yet unobserved? Evidence please that the theories have the same predictive outcomes.

UA fails to explain the path of the Sun, Moon

They're not affected by the Universal Accelerator because they DON'T TOUCH IT. They are likely suspended by the photoelectric effect, as previously mentioned.

man-made satellites.

The simple answer is that they're not in space. Satellite signals are broadcasted by "pseudolites".

UA requires the Moon to even when it's not shining, as when it's new, to still remain above the accelerating FE.

Hmm? I don't follow. The syntax of this sentence is really hard to grasp. Requires the moon to what? When it's new? When it's not shining? What now?

Evidence please that the graviton is unobservable vice yet unobserved?

The evidence IS the lack of evidence. Round Earthers can present NO evidence for the existence of the graviton. Science doesn't work on the basis of "prove that my imaginary invisible unseen particle DOESN'T exist".

Evidence please that the theories have the same predictive outcomes.

They're indistinguishable. There is no way they could have DIFFERENT predictive outcomes, since an upward acceleration of 9.8m/s^2 is logically the same on Earth's surface as gravity applied with Earth's alleged gravitational constant.

Quote from: Gulliver on May 28, 2007, 06:17:44 PM

UA fails to explain the path of the Sun, Moon

They're not affected by the Universal Accelerator because they DON'T TOUCH IT. They are likely suspended by the photoelectric effect, as previously mentioned.

Quote from: Gulliver on May 28, 2007, 06:17:44 PM

man-made satellites.

The simple answer is that they're not in space. Satellite signals are broadcasted by "pseudolites".

Quote from: Gulliver on May 28, 2007, 06:17:44 PM

UA requires the Moon to even when it's not shining, as when it's new, to still remain above the accelerating FE.

Hmm? I don't follow. The syntax of this sentence is really hard to grasp. Requires the moon to what? When it's new? When it's not shining? What now?

Quote from: Gulliver on May 28, 2007, 06:17:44 PM

Evidence please that the graviton is unobservable vice yet unobserved?

The evidence IS the lack of evidence. Round Earthers can present NO evidence for the existence of the graviton. Science doesn't work on the basis of "prove that my imaginary invisible unseen particle DOESN'T exist".

Quote from: Gulliver on May 28, 2007, 06:17:44 PM

Evidence please that the theories have the same predictive outcomes.

They're indistinguishable. There is no way they could have DIFFERENT predictive outcomes, since an upward acceleration of 9.8m/s^2 is logically the same on Earth's surface as gravity applied with Earth's alleged gravitational constant.

It's clear that you're not paying attention or just evading the points.

No, it's not the photoelectric effect. That's the wrong term. To top that off, radiation pressure fails to explain how the Moon doesn't fall to Earth during its "new moon" phase. Next, you still haven't explained the path they take in the sky which requires acceleration on a yearly basis.

No, they are in space. By use of parallax, two observers can calculate the height of any Iridium flash to prove that point. Maybe you should try to gather evidence to support your wild statements. RE not only predicts the path in the sky for any observer but also when flashes will occur for every flash for any position of the RE. Can your theory predict any of these?

Just read behind the dependent phrases to see "to still remain above the accelerating FE." I appear to have to reduce the complexity of  my use of the English language just to satisfy your laziness. You still have to explain how a "new moon" stays above the Earth. Oh, and again, it's radiation pressure, not the photoelectric effect.

You evade the question again. Explain the reason you use the term "unobservable" vice "not yet observed". Science never assumes the negative as you claim it does. It remains neutral until it has clear evidence. If we know that we should have seen the graviton in the experiments to date within a reasonable margin of error, then we'd say "unobservable."

Actually, the evidence that they are the same is based on complex observations that presupposed a RE. Einstein made an assumption that they were the same. He went on to describe how we could verify by observation that they were the same. Now if we accept FE, we find that the observations tell us that they are not the same. FE mean GR is wrong. Just consider the precession of perihelion of Mercury. We've measured it accurately. But if the size of the Sun is as FE says it is, then GR has been proven false. So again I say GRiffER!

Quote from: Ruben on May 28, 2007, 01:50:55 AM

and when they visit the space station, how do they simulate the 'no gravity' ?

They don't.  It doesn't exist.

care to explain ?