If someone can really, really answer these...

Ok some questions:

The FAQ states that earth generates no gravity, and it also states that the movement of the "flat earth" generates tide movements.  How is it that water is affected by "seasaw" movements of the earth, (thus water is affected by gravity) if earth does not create gravitiational fields?
All atoms "curve space", aka they have gravitational fields.  Something as massive as the earth must create gravity.  This has been proven using atomic models.  (and please don't say that the experiments are false, because you could say that for everything you don't believe.  "Oh, they're just faked...")

Also, if the sun and moon are only like a couple thousand miles away, and the stars are a bit further away and they don't move, why doesn't the earth crash into them if the earth is traveling at 9 meters/sec upward.  Are you suggesting that everything in the known universe is traveling at exactly 9 m/s on an upward path?

Lastly, I have taken multiple plane rides, up at around 34000 feet, and I can clearly, clearly see a distinct curvature in the earth.  Explain that phenomenon.

Ok some questions:

The FAQ states that earth generates no gravity, and it also states that the movement of the "flat earth" generates tide movements. How is it that water is affected by "seasaw" movements of the earth, (thus water is affected by gravity) if earth does not create gravitiational fields?
All atoms "curve space", aka they have gravitational fields. Something as massive as the earth must create gravity. This has been proven using atomic models. (and please don't say that the experiments are false, because you could say that for everything you don't believe. "Oh, they're just faked...")

The earth "catches up" to the water, just like everything else....

Also, if the sun and moon are only like a couple thousand miles away, and the stars are a bit further away and they don't move, why doesn't the earth crash into them if the earth is traveling at 9 meters/sec upward. Are you suggesting that everything in the known universe is traveling at exactly 9 m/s on an upward path?

So it seems like that is what they (FE's) are claiming....

Lastly, I have taken multiple plane rides, up at around 34000 feet, and I can clearly, clearly see a distinct curvature in the earth. Explain that phenomenon.

Perhaps it is a conspiracy that all the airlines have of putting some kind of special reflector in the windows to make the earth look curved....

The FAQ states that earth generates no gravity, and it also states that the movement of the "flat earth" generates tide movements.  How is it that water is affected by "seasaw" movements of the earth, (thus water is affected by gravity) if earth does not create gravitiational fields?

If the Earth is flat and accelerating in a direction other than one perpendicular to the plane in which it lies, then all objects will experience a force perpendicular to the direction of travel; in particular, it will point in the direction towards which the Earth is "tilted" with respect to its acceleration.

Imagine laying a wedge on its side on a flat surface, like a table.  That is, when you look down on the table, you see a right triangle.

Place a ball adjacent to the hypoteneuse of the wedge.  The hypoteneuse takes the place of the surface of an allegedly flat Earth; the ball takes the place of the water.

If you place the ball carefully and then don't touch anything, the ball will remain where it is.  However, if you now apply a force perpendicular to one of the legs of the triangle, the ball will roll "off" the wedge.  Water would flow along an accelerating flat Earth in much the same way and for much the same reason.

All atoms "curve space", aka they have gravitational fields.

Certainly it's convenient to assume, as Newton did, that all objects generate a gravitational field.  However, there are many, many objects that haven't been checked -- far more than those that have -- so we don't really know for sure.  

Are you suggesting that everything in the known universe is traveling at exactly 9 m/s on an upward path?

FEers do suggest that, yes.  The cosmological model of Zetetic Astronomy in fact places the celestial objects on a dome supported over a flat Earth.

Lastly, I have taken multiple plane rides, up at around 34000 feet, and I can clearly, clearly see a distinct curvature in the earth.  Explain that phenomenon.

You're just seeing a curve.  Not every curve you see is a curved surface; moreover, not every curved surface is a sphere.

The distance you can see on the ground is limited -- on a flat Earth or round -- by a variety of factors.  Naturally, the locus of farthest points visible to you will be a circle, if your visibility is isotopic.

Since I have answered these questions truthfully, do you now believe that the Earth is flat?  If not, then I must kindly request that you change the name of your thread to something less cliche.

-Erasmus

Ah yes, I totally did not take into account the curved window optics which are installed on the planes, and the "fake" GPS systems, evil pilots, etc...

Also, panama canal...um, how does that work?

And don't forget the "apparent illusions" when ships appear from top down, and disappear from bottom up...

And lets not forget that all telescopes are manipulated by the government, and that satellites aren't real (Guess what, you can see them at night if you know what you're looking for - and no, they are not "high flying" planes)

Erasmus, one question for you, if what I am seeing from a plane is in fact a curve, as I said, than doesn't that "flat out" disprove the flat earth model that you suggest.  I agree that it doesnt prove that earth is a sphere, only that it is in fact not completely flat.
(Note, I saw this "phenomenon" multiple times - over the US, Asia, etc.)

Also, panama canal...um, how does that work?

And don't forget the "apparent illusions" when ships appear from top down, and disappear from bottom up...

And lets not forget that all telescopes are manipulated by the government, and that satellites aren't real (Guess what, you can see them at night if you know what you're looking for - and no, they are not "high flying" planes)

I declare that it is underhanded and dishonent to sneak new questions in a thread that says, "I'll believe if you can answer these questions."

-Erasmus

No offense meant, I just do not "truthfully" believe your responses.

Of course you didn't; you simply aren't open to any beliefs other than your own. What is the point of asking questions if you aren't willing to truly consider any answer you are given?

I am thinking about the responses, don't worry.  I just fail to believe any responses that sort of ambiguously mention that "we haven't checked that all things produce gravity."

Mass = Curving of spacetime = Gravity.  And I might be wrong on this, but I think that the earth has mass, lots of it in fact.

"Man, all those physics classes in high school and college were total crap, huh, I mean, jeez, who do these teachers think they're fooling!  And that Einstein fellow, completely mad I says."

Also, can someone explain to me how the sun and moon move over a flat earth?  All I read on the topic is "its an optical illusion."  Um...I need a real explanation, not some lame BS in order to dance around the question.

I am thinking about the responses, don't worry.  I just fail to believe any responses that sort of ambiguously mention that "we haven't checked that all things produce gravity."

How was my mention ambiguous?

I'm pretty sure that it's a basic principle that all things that have mass generate a gravitational field.  What does it mean for something to be a basic principle?  It means it's an assumption which seems so self-evident to us that we don't see any need to demonstrate it, so we'd like to use it as a premise when deducing other observables.

Turns out none of my responses was untruthful.  I merely stated what would be the case if the world were flat, or I stated what was actually going on when you made such-and-such an observation.

To recap, you asked three questions, contingent on whose truthful answers we have your promise to believe that the Earth is flat.

1) If the Earth does not generate a gravitational field, how is it that a "seesawing" motion of the Earth affects water?

2) Are you (the Flat Earth Society) suggesting that everything in the known universe is accelerating upwards at 1g? [NB: you said, "travelling upwards at 9 m/s", but it's pretty clear that you meant "accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s^2"... since you seem to know so much about physics, and have read the FAQ].

3) Explain the phenomenon of seeing a curved horizon from great heights.

I answered all of your questions truthfully (feel free to disagree formally).  Since you obviously have not suddenly started believing the Earth to be flat, I can only conclude that your words are not to be trusted.

-Erasmus

Umm...ok, that's cool.  Lets take what I said, and turn it around to try and make me look stupid because you are having a hard time trying to genuinely answer my questions.  Don't get me wrong, your answers are quite entertaining, or at least...interesting.

I guess I will have a hard time sleeping at night now that I know that there are still people on this (round) earth who truly believe in this convoluted, unsupported, illogical theory

I mean, anyone can deny anything they want, and the notion of "one big conspiracy encompassing all world governments" and "all science is false...at least the parts that prove me wrong" sure does make explaning things seem a lot easier, no?

Umm...ok, that's cool.  Lets take what I said, and turn it around to try and make me look stupid because you are having a hard time trying to genuinely answer my questions.  Don't get me wrong, your answers are quite entertaining, or at least...interesting.

Don't get me wrong.  I genuinely answered your questions within the relevant scope.  You weren't asking for decisive answers about the way things really are; you were just looking to poke holes in a theory, right?  Well, you failed to poke the holes you wanted, that's all.  Don't feel bad.

I guess I will have a hard time sleeping at night now that I know that there are still people on this (round) earth who truly believe in this convoluted, unsupported, illogical theory

Sorry about that.

-Erasmus

Haha, well now.  Lets all get along children.

This is why I love mathematics, no argument of reality. 2+2=4, The square root of 49 is 7, and a (euclidean, I mean) triangle's angles will always add up to 180 degrees. Ahh the beauty of it.

Science, however, doesn't have the privilege of this. You actually have to somewhat trust that after seeing it happen enough times over and over again, its a fact. No one can prove beyond a doubt something is real because we can't test it an infinite number of times.

Like Different Stokes said:
"what might be right for you, may not be right for some.."

This is why I love mathematics, no argument of reality. 2+2=4, The square root of 49 is 7, and a (euclidean, I mean) triangle's angles will always add up to 180 degrees. Ahh the beauty of it.

Science, however, doesn't have the privilege of this. You actually have to somewhat trust that after seeing it happen enough times over and over again, its a fact. No one can prove beyond a doubt something is real because we can't test it an infinite number of times.

Like Different Stokes said:
"what might be right for you, may not be right for some.."

quantum theory also says that you can't accurately know both the position and velocity of a particle at the same time. but this is only on a small scale. on a larger scale you can be confident and use classical laws of relativity and the like because all the uncertanties average out.

Correction: we THINK they average out. If someone has only ridden in a car 3 times in their life, and all 3 times, the drivers (three different drivers) ran over Shitzus, well... Don't you think hte person would begin to believe there was a correlation there. Problem of induction, you know. No matter how many times you see something happen, you can't garuntee the percieved causes will always create the assumed effects.

Correction: we THINK they average out. If someone has only ridden in a car 3 times in their life, and all 3 times, the drivers (three different drivers) ran over Shitzus, well... Don't you think hte person would begin to believe there was a correlation there. Problem of induction, you know. No matter how many times you see something happen, you can't garuntee the percieved causes will always create the assumed effects.

First: I'm not sure if "average out" is the correct description of what happens to quantum uncertainty on everyday scales, so I'll call it "going away".

Second: You can predict, from quantum theory, that the uncertainties will "go away" on everyday scales.  Then yes, you face the problem of induction while testing this prediction, but whatever.  Point is, it's not simply an empirical observation.

-Erasmus

I know the Earth is round. Firstly, it is obvious. Evveryone gets taught that from a very early age. And secondly, I am a Nasa astronaut. I did a mission to Mir and I saw it myself.

I know the Earth is round. Firstly, it is obvious. Evveryone gets taught that from a very early age. And secondly, I am a Nasa astronaut. I did a mission to Mir and I saw it myself.

Unfortunately not everyone has been in space or met an astronaut. Some people here would just say you're lying. I myself won't, as I believe the Earth is round and I have met an astronaut myself, but the Flat-Earth theory relies on NASA faking the space missions or at least doctoring the photos.

Oh, and if you're interested, here's a thread where we're trying to prove the existence of satelites:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1794

Since you're an astronaut you could be a big help to us.

Alright people...

Explain the coriolis force phenomenon using flat earth theory.

Explain why everything else in the observable universe is round, and yet the earth is not for some strange reason.

Explain why flying from New York to France takes one hour longer going one way than the other way.

You know what, don't bother. Anybody can just make up stuff to conform with their own theory. That's how religion works.

As for induction bashing, here's some induction for you:

When I look under a microscope at a human's skin, I see cells. I check 5 or 6 humans, still see cells. Therefore, all humans must be composed of cells.

Go ahead and refute that. You can do the same thing with many different phenomena, and know that you are right. Moreover, what makes a scientific theory truly stand is the ability to repeat experiments and get the same results.

Uhm, actually, if you want forces to be generated via acceleration, you need relativistic accelerations.  So, Earth would have to accelerate, and we would have to not be.  So, if you throw a rock up into the air, your hypothesis states that the rock either loses the acceleration it had, or that it never had it, that the earth would have to have a propulsion system completely underneith it.  Meaning that there is matter being ejected off the bottom of the earth, with increasing speed, since the law of conservation of momentum states that in order to increase something's momentum one way, another object has to push off it the other way.  This matter would of course need a supply of itself, and an energy supply that could increase in potentency constantly.  And, actually, relativisticly to the ejected matter from this propulsion system, since it's going backwards, we would be going at increasingly closer to light speed, meaning that this matter would increase in mass even more, due to the formula for mass expansion, which I think is M = Mo/(1-(v^2/c^2), so... umm, it's increasing to a double square function.  It would also mean, that this incredibly strong force pushing on the bottom of the earth would have to *not* break it apart, somehow.  The mass being ejected from the bottom of the earth also has to be gravity-less, since eventually the mass from the fuel would start hitting us with a ginormous gravity field if it emitted one, since its mass is being increased relativistically, I think, I'm no whiz at relativity.

haha, sorry dude, I tried.