round vs. flat II: the recknoning

Megatron was found frozen in the ice wall.  Proof that the earth is flat.

I accept your enthusiastic input, however Megatron actually crash-landed in the Arctic long before humans were technologically advanced as you are today.

He crashed through the icy surface due to his outer temperature from atmospheric entry and was frozen as freezing partially liquified water entered into all of his systems, cooling and refreezing him in place as it went.

As far as an Ice Wall which you refer to. There are many glaciers and ice formations on this planet that are taller than even many of your buildings.

I would also point out that if you refer to the flat earth ice wall, then it would have been impossible for anyone to have found Megatron since no human can get to it, or at least far enough into it according to the theories at hand. Again I reiterate that your planet is a sphere like all others in your solar system and others.

Be well.

Optimus

after my brief time here, and beyond that via lurking, and reading the faq, i've noticed some real problems with fe that people like bishop pretend don't exist. i know other people have done this too, and for re'ers it won't be much of a lesson. but this is different. first, it's my own (slightly) unique observations. second, it's table rather than faq style. third, i think it is a decent concentration of fe problems.

where possible (in most cases), i've used actual quotes and paraphrases from fe'ers. when you look at it this way, how could anyone possibly believe the fe model? it boggles the mind.

any particularly outrageous fe explanation came from actual quotes; i can't make this shit up. my own interpretations of fe theory are very conservative and unremarkable.

phenomenon	round earth	flat earth
sun	an ordinary star powered by fusion; earth and other planets orbit in a non-geocentric universe	a sphere or a disk, either way a "spotlight", 32 miles diameter, orbiting a common barycenter with moon; power for light unknown; mechanism keeping it aloft above surface of earth unknown
sunrise/set	earth rotation makes it visibly rise from and set below horizon without changing size, just as observed	sun shrinks into distance until it disappears, or some other undefined optical illusion; furthermore shrinking into distance is not consistent with observation
solar eclipse	moon passes in front of sun as predicted in advance by well-established orbital mechanics; only happens during new moon	undefined mystery object moves in front of sun; could happen during any moon phase; cannot be predicted by fe celestial mechanics
lunar eclipse	earth aligns between moon and sun as predicted in advance by orbital mechanics; only happens during full moon	undefined mystery object moves in front of moon; could happen during any moon phase; cannot be predicted by fe celestial mechanics
shape of earth	spherical, slightly oblate due to rotation, finite mass and gravity	variously flat or slightly curved; infinite plane or finite disk; finite mass, infinite mass, or massless; fe cannot agree on even the most basic, fundamental properties - even within the range of zero to infinity
shape of sun/moon/planets	spherical	can't agree on spherical or flat
other stars	similar to sun, of varying size and mass, scattered throughout the milky way in various non-random densities	tiny motes of chemical energy the size of dust grains, floating in a layer above the earth, all rotating a common barycenter in perfectly circular orbits, violating laws of physics as all motes at all radii from center make one orbit every 24 hours
other galaxies	similar to the galaxy in which we reside, the milky way; scattered throughout the known universe; formations of stars, gas, and dust; having various sizes, shapes, and aggregate masses; complies with observational evidence	tiny swirling light shows, floating in a layer above the earth, all rotating a common barycenter in perfectly circular orbits along with the dust motes of stars, violating laws of physics as all swirling light shows at all radii from center make one orbit every 24 hours
formation of earth and solar system	condensed out of gas and dust, orbits and rotations preserving original overall angular momentum	unknown, maybe god
sinking ship effect	through high magnification, the tops of sails of sailboats appear below surface of even calm water (e.g. toronto pics); due to curvature of earth, partially compensated for by terrestrial refraction	trick of perspective because the sails are white and ships are dark and disappear against water, even though actual modern sailboats are mostly white and stand out against dark sea more than white sails against a light sky
clouds lit by sun from bottom at sunset	at sunset the clouds are angled slightly away from sun due to curvature of earth, furthermore crystal-clear evidence that the sun gets "below" the level of clouds as it sets	unexplained
satellites visible to naked eye crossing the sky at certain times on clear moonless nights	there are man-made satellites in orbiting around the earth; they reflect light from the sun when it is well below observer's horizon, during a range of time between dark, and before the satellites fall behind earth's shadow; usually dim (depending on satellite) but easily visible in motion against background stars with the naked eye	satellites don't exist (contrary to easy naked-eye observation), or they are pseudolites (by current definition ground-based), or the stratellite, requireing sheer conjecture and blind, evidence-free acceptance of conspiracy theory, as the stratellite manufactururer publicly states they are not yet operationaland there is only conjecture to the contrary; either way, the mechanism for which flying psuedolites / stratellites are lit from below is undefined
north celestial pole, every object beyond solar system completes one orbit in one day	an easy-to understand artifact of earth's orbit; requires nothing extra to explain, and no magical physics that every object in the observable universe must obey	a star cluster of tiny chemical dust motes; every one of millions of objects having a perfectly circular orbit in gross defiance of odds; violation of known orbital physics, farthest star completes orbit as fast as nearest, even though nothing else in observable universe behaves this way
south celestial pole	same as north, but in southern hemisphere; like the north, it's relative location in the sky is the same, at any time, any month, any place in southern hemisphere	like north, also star cluster of tiny chemical motes; location in sky unknown or undefined; different places in sky according to time of night and/or month and/or location
why do we see the same face of the moon	like every major moon in our solar system (and mercury with the sun), our moon is tidally locked with its orbited planet; like the other moons, "locked" is a slight misnomer as there is a slight wobble throughout the course of a lunar month	unexplained; bishop once tried to pass off an animated gif showing lunar libration (month-long wobble) as "this is what it looks like when it passes overhead" (in one night); explained with lies
moon phases	unlit side of the moon as we see (the shadow) from 360 degrees, one night at a time, throughout the moon's orbit of earth	moon is either self-luminous, or lit from the reflection of the sun off of various places of earth; while somehow not changing "phase" over the course of a night; all fe explanations rely on relative positions which in their model change over the course of 24 hours, not 28 days, thus unable to explain moon phase changes consistent from all locations on earth, that take a 28.x day cycle to complete
moon stays the same size as it crosses the sky	basic orbital mechanics predicts this	unexplained
rotation of hurricanes depending on hemisphere	corilois effect as result of a rotating round earth	unexplained or undefined celestial eddies influence
things experimentally weigh less high on mountains	slightly smaller effect of gravitational attraction farther from the majority of earth's mass	chemical dust motes in sky pull in other direction
shape and size of earth determined regularly by global earthquake monitoring stations, and man-made seismic experiment	delays in and directions of primary readings, as well as secondary reflections and refractions, are consistent with a round earth	undefined
nasa photos	hundreds of thousands, if no millions of photos from hundreds of missions, with not a single one demonstrating something other than a consistent picture of round earth orbital mechanics	every single one was faked, including those published in the '60s which were computer-generated or altered (presumably with "vacuum tube photoshop")
strange wanderings of planets over weeks, months, and years	round-earth orbital mechanics, of which earth is part of, worked this out hundreds of years ago, and with highly predictable precision decades ago	unexplained
seasons	easily explained with the tilt of earths axis and it's effect as the earth orbits the sun	spiraling in and back out of sun and moon around a common barycenter, via unexplained physics
tides	gravitational effect readily predictable based on location of sun and moon relative to earth, and earth's rotation	sloshing of the earth back and forth; unpredictable
midnight sun in antactic circle	same explanation as perpetual night/day in antarctic - tilt of earth's axis relative to position in orbit	doesn't exist; all photos and accounts are lies or optical illusions

God is greater than science.

(Was going to reduce text size; oh well.)

Quote from: cpt_bthimes on October 31, 2007, 01:16:20 PM

after my brief time here, and beyond that via lurking, and reading the faq, i've noticed some real problems with fe that people like bishop pretend don't exist. i know other people have done this too, and for re'ers it won't be much of a lesson. but this is different. first, it's my own (slightly) unique observations. second, it's table rather than faq style. third, i think it is a decent concentration of fe problems.

where possible (in most cases), i've used actual quotes and paraphrases from fe'ers. when you look at it this way, how could anyone possibly believe the fe model? it boggles the mind.

any particularly outrageous fe explanation came from actual quotes; i can't make this shit up. my own interpretations of fe theory are very conservative and unremarkable.

God is greater than science.

Oh yes, putting a strike-through on each point for the RE TOTALLY means it isn't relevant anymore.  Why didn't the rest of the FE'ers think of that?!  They could have won this argument long ago and convinced us all how stupid we've been!






 

Oh yes, putting a strike-through on each point for the RE TOTALLY means it isn't relevant anymore.  Why didn't the rest of the FE'ers think of that?!  They could have won this argument long ago and convinced us all how stupid we've been!

NO U

Ok, I have to say that I believe in God and attend church regularaly. I also help with our young Royal Rangers group and other church activities related to bible study.

I find no conflict in my religious studies (Baptist in case someone needs to know) that conflicts with a Spherical earth created by God as opposed to a flat one Or vica versa for that matter, but I find no need to (forgive the term) crucify someone for their opinion and simply blame God for their own.

I don't think God intended for his name to be used as a defense for flat earth specifically.
Creation perhaps, specifically flat earth? I think you're pushing it a bit. Nowhere in the scripture does it mandate that God created a *flat* earth in 7 days, and it was ordained that all things would live in a *flat* system devised by Him.

NOR does it say the inverse, point is... you shouldn't use God in your arguments if God never mandated it. That's all. As much as it might upset whomever, it's just as blasphemous.

Since no one has bothered to respond to my other posts on circumnavigation, I am going to also assume that the round earth 'theory' holds out. I find that the Round Earth fits perfectly fine with God's teachings. Especially if you take into account the bright star that the wise men walked towards that shone brightly in the sky for all those nights. If they saw the star and walked a straight line and 'followed their nose' - they'd have never made it - walking off on a tangent from their destination... Since the Earth was curved with its sky around it and they were able to walk straight - truly straight - as in along a line of latitude so to speak - everything worked out ok!

If you look at it from a completely scientific point of view, then it also fits perfectly well.

Thanks,
John

What makes you think the Bible has anything to do with our theory? 

What makes you think the Bible has anything to do with our theory? 

Are you being serious? In case you are... here are just the most recent examples, the latter being much more rude and crude than I edited. Apologies for not editing the name for sake of quotation.

Even if you personally don't believe in the Bible or God, which is your decision, I am simply stating that there are those that imply as such (God prooves flat earth or vica versa) and shouldn't. Case (or multiple cases) in point.

God is greater than science.

Ok, but did he leave you instructions on the earth's configuration?

... We FE'ers can prove the earth is flat with god. so there...

Nice. I'm sure God loves being associated with this comment. Especially the part I edited out.

From the names alone you should come to the conclusion that they are trolls.

Ok, but did he leave you instructions on the earth's configuration?

Actually he did. See: The Bible.

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm

From the names alone you should come to the conclusion that they are trolls.

Or the fact that they had three posts between them...

lol trolls...

That was such a classic list that  he made at the top. I wish it would fit in my sig.

Quoted to get an answer. (actually to smear in FE'ers faces)

after my brief time here, and beyond that via lurking, and reading the faq, i've noticed some real problems with fe that people like bishop pretend don't exist. i know other people have done this too, and for re'ers it won't be much of a lesson. but this is different. first, it's my own (slightly) unique observations. second, it's table rather than faq style. third, i think it is a decent concentration of fe problems.

where possible (in most cases), i've used actual quotes and paraphrases from fe'ers. when you look at it this way, how could anyone possibly believe the fe model? it boggles the mind.

any particularly outrageous fe explanation came from actual quotes; i can't make this shit up. my own interpretations of fe theory are very conservative and unremarkable.

phenomenon	round earth	flat earth
sun	an ordinary star powered by fusion; earth and other planets orbit in a non-geocentric universe	a sphere or a disk, either way a "spotlight", 32 miles diameter, orbiting a common barycenter with moon; power for light unknown; mechanism keeping it aloft above surface of earth unknown
sunrise/set	earth rotation makes it visibly rise from and set below horizon without changing size, just as observed	sun shrinks into distance until it disappears, or some other undefined optical illusion; furthermore shrinking into distance is not consistent with observation
solar eclipse	moon passes in front of sun as predicted in advance by well-established orbital mechanics; only happens during new moon	undefined mystery object moves in front of sun; could happen during any moon phase; cannot be predicted by fe celestial mechanics
lunar eclipse	earth aligns between moon and sun as predicted in advance by orbital mechanics; only happens during full moon	undefined mystery object moves in front of moon; could happen during any moon phase; cannot be predicted by fe celestial mechanics
shape of earth	spherical, slightly oblate due to rotation, finite mass and gravity	variously flat or slightly curved; infinite plane or finite disk; finite mass, infinite mass, or massless; fe cannot agree on even the most basic, fundamental properties - even within the range of zero to infinity
shape of sun/moon/planets	spherical	can't agree on spherical or flat
other stars	similar to sun, of varying size and mass, scattered throughout the milky way in various non-random densities	tiny motes of chemical energy the size of dust grains, floating in a layer above the earth, all rotating a common barycenter in perfectly circular orbits, violating laws of physics as all motes at all radii from center make one orbit every 24 hours
other galaxies	similar to the galaxy in which we reside, the milky way; scattered throughout the known universe; formations of stars, gas, and dust; having various sizes, shapes, and aggregate masses; complies with observational evidence	tiny swirling light shows, floating in a layer above the earth, all rotating a common barycenter in perfectly circular orbits along with the dust motes of stars, violating laws of physics as all swirling light shows at all radii from center make one orbit every 24 hours
formation of earth and solar system	condensed out of gas and dust, orbits and rotations preserving original overall angular momentum	unknown, maybe god
sinking ship effect	through high magnification, the tops of sails of sailboats appear below surface of even calm water (e.g. toronto pics); due to curvature of earth, partially compensated for by terrestrial refraction	trick of perspective because the sails are white and ships are dark and disappear against water, even though actual modern sailboats are mostly white and stand out against dark sea more than white sails against a light sky
clouds lit by sun from bottom at sunset	at sunset the clouds are angled slightly away from sun due to curvature of earth, furthermore crystal-clear evidence that the sun gets "below" the level of clouds as it sets	unexplained
satellites visible to naked eye crossing the sky at certain times on clear moonless nights	there are man-made satellites in orbiting around the earth; they reflect light from the sun when it is well below observer's horizon, during a range of time between dark, and before the satellites fall behind earth's shadow; usually dim (depending on satellite) but easily visible in motion against background stars with the naked eye	satellites don't exist (contrary to easy naked-eye observation), or they are pseudolites (by current definition ground-based), or the stratellite, requireing sheer conjecture and blind, evidence-free acceptance of conspiracy theory, as the stratellite manufactururer publicly states they are not yet operationaland there is only conjecture to the contrary; either way, the mechanism for which flying psuedolites / stratellites are lit from below is undefined
north celestial pole, every object beyond solar system completes one orbit in one day	an easy-to understand artifact of earth's orbit; requires nothing extra to explain, and no magical physics that every object in the observable universe must obey	a star cluster of tiny chemical dust motes; every one of millions of objects having a perfectly circular orbit in gross defiance of odds; violation of known orbital physics[/red], farthest star completes orbit as fast as nearest, even though nothing else in observable universe behaves this way[/red]
south celestial pole	same as north, but in southern hemisphere; like the north, it's relative location in the sky is the same, at any time, any month, any place in southern hemisphere	like north, also star cluster of tiny chemical motes; location in sky unknown or undefined; different places in sky according to time of night and/or month and/or location
why do we see the same face of the moon	like every major moon in our solar system (and mercury with the sun), our moon is tidally locked with its orbited planet; like the other moons, "locked" is a slight misnomer as there is a slight wobble throughout the course of a lunar month	unexplained; bishop once tried to pass off an animated gif showing lunar libration (month-long wobble) as "this is what it looks like when it passes overhead" (in one night); explained with lies
moon phases	unlit side of the moon as we see (the shadow) from 360 degrees, one night at a time, throughout the moon's orbit of earth	moon is either self-luminous, or lit from the reflection of the sun off of various places of earth; while somehow not changing "phase" over the course of a night; all fe explanations rely on relative positions which in their model change over the course of 24 hours, not 28 days, thus unable to explain moon phase changes consistent from all locations on earth, that take a 28.x day cycle to complete
moon stays the same size as it crosses the sky	basic orbital mechanics predicts this	unexplained
rotation of hurricanes depending on hemisphere	corilois effect as result of a rotating round earth	unexplained or undefined celestial eddies influence
things experimentally weigh less high on mountains	slightly smaller effect of gravitational attraction farther from the majority of earth's mass	chemical dust motes in sky pull in other direction
shape and size of earth determined regularly by global earthquake monitoring stations, and man-made seismic experiment	delays in and directions of primary readings, as well as secondary reflections and refractions, are consistent with a round earth	undefined
nasa photos	hundreds of thousands, if no millions of photos from hundreds of missions, with not a single one demonstrating something other than a consistent picture of round earth orbital mechanics	every single one was faked, including those published in the '60s which were computer-generated or altered (presumably with "vacuum tube photoshop")
strange wanderings of planets over weeks, months, and years	round-earth orbital mechanics, of which earth is part of, worked this out hundreds of years ago, and with highly predictable precision decades ago	unexplained
seasons	easily explained with the tilt of earths axis and it's effect as the earth orbits the sun	spiraling in and back out of sun and moon around a common barycenter, via unexplained physics
tides	gravitational effect readily predictable based on location of sun and moon relative to earth, and earth's rotation	sloshing of the earth back and forth; unpredictable
midnight sun in antactic circle	same explanation as perpetual night/day in antarctic - tilt of earth's axis relative to position in orbit	doesn't exist; all photos and accounts are lies or optical illusions

Very good, Yiak! let me add just one: the coriolus effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_effect

FErs claim that the effect would NOT be reversed south of the equator. in fact, they say it doesn't EXIST because earth is NOT rotating at all!

since ANYONE could perform simple experiments using a container of liquid with a hole in the bottom, this is a particularly absurd claim!

since ANYONE could perform simple experiments using a container of liquid with a hole in the bottom, this is a particularly absurd claim!

No, they couldn't.

FErs claim that the effect would NOT be reversed south of the equator.

Where?

Yeah, I don't think anybody ever claimed that.

Wow, Im so glad I registered here.  This forum has got to be the funniest thing ever.  Tom Bishop, what a character.  The first post in the thread says all there is to say about the issue.  The earth is a sphere, get over it.

Maybe Ill go to the giant "ice sheets" for my holiday next year.  Ill take photos as well.  Though of cause they will be fake, just like those beautiful NASA photographs posted earlier in the thread ;-)

Tom Bishop himself said that in a thread a couple of days ago.

he then deleted the entire thread rather than admit his error!

Maybe Ill go to the giant "ice sheets" for my holiday next year.  Ill take photos as well.  Though of cause they will be fake, just like those beautiful NASA photographs posted earlier in the thread ;-)

Since when does the FET claim that ice shelves don't exist?

Quote from: Azagaroth on November 07, 2007, 04:22:40 PM

Maybe Ill go to the giant "ice sheets" for my holiday next year.  Ill take photos as well.  Though of cause they will be fake, just like those beautiful NASA photographs posted earlier in the thread ;-)

Since when does the FET claim that ice shelves don't exist?

Its called sarcasm.

Ah, I guess I'll just break out my text intonation detector. (<-- sarcasm)

That and, mockery does not bode well for people's view of you. Especially when it's so blatantly wrong. But I doubt you care, what, with all your bias and preconceived notions.

Quote from: eric bloedow on November 07, 2007, 01:15:47 PM

since ANYONE could perform simple experiments using a container of liquid with a hole in the bottom, this is a particularly absurd claim!

No, they couldn't.

Actually they could perform it, but it would probably yield a null result.

However, one could perform an experiment with a large pendulum, repeated above and below the equator.  That would support a rotating earth hypothesis.

Engineer, what is your analysis of this result?

Quote from: TheEngineer on November 07, 2007, 02:33:34 PM

Quote from: eric bloedow on November 07, 2007, 01:15:47 PM

since ANYONE could perform simple experiments using a container of liquid with a hole in the bottom, this is a particularly absurd claim!

No, they couldn't.

Actually they could perform it, but it would probably yield a null result.

However, one could perform an experiment with a large pendulum, repeated above and below the equator.  That would support a rotating earth hypothesis.

Engineer, what is your analysis of this result?

refraction obviously. Snell's law...

Time for some maths...
Earth = round
FET = wrong

Engineer, what is your analysis of this result?

The earth rotates.

Oh oh oh! so the earth is not only accelerating upwards, but its rotating now too? well this is new..

Quote from: Moon squirter on November 08, 2007, 01:20:55 AM

Engineer, what is your analysis of this result?

The earth rotates.

Given that the swinging pendulum rotates spontaneously in opposite ways above any below the equator, would this test prove the earth is round?  If not, why not?

The answer is that all pendulums are actually made by the Conspiracy, and thus programmed to give out false results.

Quote from: TheEngineer on November 08, 2007, 06:47:06 AM

Quote from: Moon squirter on November 08, 2007, 01:20:55 AM

Engineer, what is your analysis of this result?

The earth rotates.

Given that the swinging pendulum rotates spontaneously in opposite ways above any below the equator, would this test prove the earth is round?  If not, why not?

theEnginner,

Would be interested in an answer.

MS