Challenge the Round Earth Model

  • 90 Replies
  • 60775 Views
Re: Challenge the Round Earth Model
« Reply #30 on: November 18, 2007, 04:28:07 PM »
so your number of 45 is wrong?
Dumbshoe

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15487
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Challenge the Round Earth Model
« Reply #31 on: November 18, 2007, 04:29:10 PM »
My number?  I don't ever remember giving a number, especially not 45.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

?

eric bloedow

Re: Challenge the Round Earth Model
« Reply #32 on: November 18, 2007, 04:29:25 PM »
oh no, the conspiracy would have to include every single pilot who has flown near antarctica, every single astronaut, the captain and navigator of every ship that sails anywhere near antarctica, etc.

Re: Challenge the Round Earth Model
« Reply #33 on: November 18, 2007, 04:30:26 PM »
My number?  I don't ever remember giving a number, especially not 45.

maybe i have misunderstood...i know you did not write the FAQ, but 45 is the number it states for people who are in on the conspiracy...

no wonder people are confused, the FAQ is contradicted every day
Dumbshoe

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5176
Re: Challenge the Round Earth Model
« Reply #34 on: November 18, 2007, 04:32:21 PM »
oh no, the conspiracy would have to include every single pilot who has flown near antarctica, every single astronaut, the captain and navigator of every ship that sails anywhere near antarctica, etc.
Why? The conspiracy guards don't work part-time.

Re: Challenge the Round Earth Model
« Reply #35 on: November 18, 2007, 04:33:18 PM »
oh no, the conspiracy would have to include every single pilot who has flown near antarctica, every single astronaut, the captain and navigator of every ship that sails anywhere near antarctica, etc.
Why? The conspiracy guards don't work part-time.

so what, the guards just kill all the aforementioned pilots and navigators? or do they reprogram their memories?
Dumbshoe

Re: Challenge the Round Earth Model
« Reply #36 on: November 18, 2007, 04:33:57 PM »
oh no, the conspiracy would have to include every single pilot who has flown near antarctica, every single astronaut, the captain and navigator of every ship that sails anywhere near antarctica, etc.
Don't forget everyone currently working for, and previously working for, NASA!

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5176
Re: Challenge the Round Earth Model
« Reply #37 on: November 18, 2007, 04:35:03 PM »
no wonder people are confused, the FAQ is contradicted every day

That's what you RE'ers think.

?

eric bloedow

Re: Challenge the Round Earth Model
« Reply #38 on: November 18, 2007, 04:35:13 PM »
look at the first page of the thread, "universal accleration 101". it specifically says the "accellerator" is a SOLID object that PHYSICALLY PUSHES the earth.

so something TOTALLY different would have to push the sun and moon at EXACTLY the same rate...
and ANOTHER something different would have to act on them to make them go around in circles(day and night)...
and the other planets (which you can SEE are round in any telescope) would be left behind...

and don't just say "dark energy" and nothing else, give us something plausible!

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27205
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Challenge the Round Earth Model
« Reply #39 on: November 18, 2007, 04:36:34 PM »
That's Dogplatter's model.  I don't think it's accepted by every FEer here.

I much prefer the dark energy model myself.

Re: Challenge the Round Earth Model
« Reply #40 on: November 18, 2007, 04:36:53 PM »
look at the first page of the thread, "universal accleration 101". it specifically says the "accellerator" is a SOLID object that PHYSICALLY PUSHES the earth.

so something TOTALLY different would have to push the sun and moon at EXACTLY the same rate...
and ANOTHER something different would have to act on them to make them go around in circles(day and night)...
and the other planets (which you can SEE are round in any telescope) would be left behind...

and don't just say "dark energy" and nothing else, give us something plausible!

i have given up on using the FAQ or other such threads to try and prove my arguments...all the FE's just have their own idea of what is going on
Dumbshoe

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5176
Re: Challenge the Round Earth Model
« Reply #41 on: November 18, 2007, 04:39:40 PM »
oh no, the conspiracy would have to include every single pilot who has flown near antarctica, every single astronaut, the captain and navigator of every ship that sails anywhere near antarctica, etc.
Why? The conspiracy guards don't work part-time.

so what, the guards just kill all the aforementioned pilots and navigators?
So, what's the point of repeating what I was saying?

or do they reprogram their memories?
Who knows.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15487
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Challenge the Round Earth Model
« Reply #42 on: November 18, 2007, 04:46:26 PM »
look at the first page of the thread, "universal accleration 101". it specifically says the "accellerator" is a SOLID object that PHYSICALLY PUSHES the earth.
Right, now how many times have I said that is Dogplatter's model?  The model in the FAQ is the Dark Energy/DEF model.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

?

eric bloedow

Re: Challenge the Round Earth Model
« Reply #43 on: November 18, 2007, 04:47:07 PM »
that's my point: very few FErs can agree on anything, they can't even agree on a consistent model.

but ALL RErs agree on EVERYTHING abour the RE model! why? because it fits the FACTS in a simple, consistent fashion, without unknowns like "shadow object".

maybe you've heard of occam's razor?

Occam's razor is not equivalent to the idea that "perfection is simplicity". Albert Einstein probably had this in mind when he wrote in 1933 that "The supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience" often paraphrased as "Theories should be as simple as possible, but no simpler." It often happens that the best explanation is much more complicated than the simplest possible explanation because its postulations amount to less of an improbability. Thus the popular rephrasing of the razor - that "the simplest explanation is the best one" - fails to capture the gist of the reason behind it, in that it conflates a rigorous notion of simplicity and ease of human comprehension. The two are obviously correlated, but hardly equivalent.

the FE model has many more "elements" than the RE model.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 16631
Re: Challenge the Round Earth Model
« Reply #44 on: November 18, 2007, 04:53:41 PM »
who told the first grade teachers about it? their first grade teachers? surely if we follow this line back SOMEBODY of scientific nature would have told people that the earth is in fact round....

That would be Aristotle and his rhetoric nonsense. Aristotle is the person who started the myth of the globe earth theory on purely aesthetic reasoning.

Quote
I'll start you off, how is the fact that the "midnight sun" is completely logical in the RE model, yet you still haven't come up with a real explanation for it in your FE model?

The Midnight sun is an OBSERVATION I asked for an experiment, remember?

The Midnight Sun in the FE model is caused by a high concentration of ice crystals in the upper polar strata which creates a reflection of the sun. The Midnight Sun appears very different than the normal sun due to this imperfect reflection.

See: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=16765.msg284451#msg284451

What experimental evidence is there showing that the starry glare of the Midnight sun is actually the sun and not a reflection?

Quote
Build your own rocket ship, blast yourself into space, and take a look at the earth.
Actually if you're still alive in the mere future, NASA will do it for you. http://www.space.com/spacetourism/

So you're asking me to travel to the edge of space for a few minutes and make an OBSERVATION? If I took a space tourism flight I would, of course, see a curved horizon for the few minutes I spend at the edge of space. The Flat Earth appears curved from the edge of space.  Flat Earth Theory holds that there is elliptical curvature from the edge of space, one hundred miles in altitude. Any photograph showing a curved elliptical horizon from very high altitudes poses no affront to FE.

Example: http://www.natrium42.com/halo/flight2/

Curvature results from the fact that on a flat earth we are looking down at a flat circle. And a circle is always curved in two dimensions. The Antarctic coast and other distant continents of the earth are still tens of thousands of miles away horizontally from the observer at an altitude of 100 miles (edge of space), and thus beyond the resolution of the human eye and merged with the line of the horizon, indiscernible and faded with the thickness of the atmosphere. This is why the view is limited to the immediate vicinity below the observer, and why the land fades into a blueish fog as it recedes.

We can confirm that we are looking down at the circle of the earth by noting that shots from amateur high altitude balloons show an elliptical horizon. If the earth were a globe, curving downwards in three dimensions, all curvature seen in photographs would appear as an arc of a circle. However, curvature does not appear as an arc of a circle. The Earth is elliptical in Russian, Chinese, and amateur space photographs. A striking indication of a Flat Earth.

The only pictures which show the horizon as an arc of a circle are NASA's Apollo shots. The Apollo missions did not occur.

« Last Edit: November 18, 2007, 05:30:38 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 16631
Re: Challenge the Round Earth Model
« Reply #45 on: November 18, 2007, 04:56:40 PM »
So again, there is ZERO experimental evidence for the Round Earth model. The earth is round based on a series of observations and nothing more. There is not even one controlled experiment which proves that the earth is a sphere. It's all observation, hypothesis, and interpretation.

An observation is not an experiment. What experiments do you have showing that the earth is a sphere?

« Last Edit: November 18, 2007, 04:58:38 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15487
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Challenge the Round Earth Model
« Reply #46 on: November 18, 2007, 04:57:43 PM »
but ALL RErs agree on EVERYTHING abour the RE model!
Quantum Mechanics, General Relativity, Modified Newtonian Dynamics.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 16631
Re: Challenge the Round Earth Model
« Reply #47 on: November 18, 2007, 05:08:42 PM »
Quote
but ALL RErs agree on EVERYTHING abour the RE model! why? because it fits the FACTS in a simple, consistent fashion, without unknowns like "shadow object".

Nope. Wrong again. There is no Grand Unified Theory. Therefore REers do not agree about everything. In fact, they agree on very little.

REers cannot even tell us whether or not time exists.

Quote
maybe you've heard of occam's razor?

Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory.

What's the simpler explanation; that man has successfully designed and built multi-trillion dollar rocket technologies from scratch to send massive payloads into space, and that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis, win the Space Race, and constantly wow the nation by landing a man on the moon and sending robotic rovers to mars; or that it's all just a Conspiracy?

What's the simpler explanation; that when I look out my window and see a Flat Earth that my eyes are deceiving me and that I am actually looking at the enormous sphere of the earth spinning through space at tens of thousands of miles an hour, whirling in perpetual epicycles around the universe; or that my eyes are not playing tricks on me and that the earth is exactly as it appears?
« Last Edit: November 18, 2007, 05:29:25 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Challenge the Round Earth Model
« Reply #48 on: November 18, 2007, 05:57:39 PM »
Quote
Nope. Wrong again. There is no Grand Unified Theory. Therefore REers do not agree about everything. In fact, they agree on very little.

REers cannot even tell us whether or not time exists.

Is that the only thing you can show us, that we cannot agree upon?
And how does "TIME" have anything to do with the earth being round?

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15487
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Challenge the Round Earth Model
« Reply #49 on: November 18, 2007, 05:59:38 PM »
Quantum Mechanics, General Relativity, Modified Newtonian Dynamics.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

Re: Challenge the Round Earth Model
« Reply #50 on: November 18, 2007, 06:09:46 PM »
Quantum Mechanics, General Relativity, Modified Newtonian Dynamics.

IMO it's a waste of life learning about all that stuff. I'd rather just take my pictures of the earth that NASA showed me and accept it, then spending a lifetime trying to fight an endless battle.

When Tom finally perfects his flat earth theory...what next? lol.
You're just wasting time(wait...i don't even know if it exists anymore :o )

Why question why a flower opens up, when you can instead sit back and enjoy its beauty?

Re: Challenge the Round Earth Model
« Reply #51 on: November 18, 2007, 06:13:57 PM »
Quote
but ALL RErs agree on EVERYTHING abour the RE model! why? because it fits the FACTS in a simple, consistent fashion, without unknowns like "shadow object".

Nope. Wrong again. There is no Grand Unified Theory. Therefore REers do not agree about everything. In fact, they agree on very little.

Modern Science cannot even tell us whether or not time exists.

Please explain how the debate over the existence of time would equates to a disagreement about the spherical characteristics of the earth.

Quote
maybe you've heard of occam's razor?

Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory.

What's the simpler explanation; that man has successfully designed and built multi-trillion dollar rocket technologies from scratch to send massive payloads into space, and that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis, win the Space Race, and constantly wow the nation by landing a man on the moon and sending robotic rovers to mars; or that it's all just a Conspiracy?

Occam's Razor simply states that all things being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be the correct one. Put another way one should not make more assumptions than the minimum required. I'm sorry but your application of this simple logical principal is flawed.

Which scenario is the simplest (least assumptions). Assuming Occam's razor can in any way be used as evidence for any hypothesis...

1) The earth is a sphere, it spinning on its axis with a tilt of 23.5 degrees.
one "assumption" that when applied with mathematics explains the observed characteristics of the sun, the moon, stars, day/night cycle, lunar cycle (including lunar and solar eclipse). And how the planets when observed from earth appear to "loop" over their own paths in an otherwise impossible manner.

2) The earth is flat.
Must assume:
a) The sun moves in a circular orbit around an undefined center of gravitation.
b) That the radius of that orbit changes to cause seasons (and in doing so speeds up/slows down to maintain 24 hour days)
c) Either the planets really do follow a "looping" orbital path. Or somehow like with RE only appear to (RE explains how).
d) Must assume Universal acceleration of the earth upwards while still relying on gravitation to explain how at high altitude acceleration towards the earths surface is reduced. (also apparently earth has no mass to cause its own gravitation...)
e) some unknown secondary object casting a shadow on the moon and passing in front of the sun to explain eclipse phenomenon.
f) there are separate sets of stars over various regions of the earth surface to explain observable star patterns.

The largest assumption of them all would have to be that all photos from space ( and many from earth such as rotary star movements) are faked and that the entire concept of a spherical earth and ALL related science ( physics, astronomy, seismology, cosmology, etc.) are part of a global conspiracy spanning hundreds of years to make the earth "appear" to be a sphere.

So which view makes the least assumptions again?
« Last Edit: November 18, 2007, 06:25:15 PM by sypher001 »
"There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable."
-Douglas Addams

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27205
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Challenge the Round Earth Model
« Reply #52 on: November 18, 2007, 06:15:49 PM »
I hate it when TomB brings up Occam's Razor.  My opinion is that since it's a fallacy to base any conclusion on a philosophical concept it has no place on these forums.

Re: Challenge the Round Earth Model
« Reply #53 on: November 18, 2007, 06:25:32 PM »
Quote
maybe you've heard of occam's razor?

Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory.

What's the simpler explanation; that man has successfully designed and built multi-trillion dollar rocket technologies from scratch to send massive payloads into space, and that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis, win the Space Race, and constantly wow the nation by landing a man on the moon and sending robotic rovers to mars; or that it's all just a Conspiracy?

Quote
Occam's Razor simply states that all things being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be the correct one. Put another way one should not make more assumptions than the minimum required. I'm sorry but your application of this simple logical principal is flawed.

Which scenario is the simplest (least assumptions). Assuming Occam's razor can in any way be used as evidence for any hypothesis...

1) The earth is a sphere, it spinning on its axis with a tilt of 23.5 degrees.
one "assumption" that when applied with mathematics explains the observed characteristics of the sun, the moon, stars, day/night cycle, lunar cycle (including lunar and solar eclipse). And how the planets when observed from earth appear to "loop" over their own paths in an otherwise impossible manner.

2) The earth is flat.
Must assume:
a) The sun moves in a circular orbit around an undefined center of gravitation.
b) That the radius of that orbit changes to cause seasons (and in doing so speeds up/slows down to maintain 24 hour days)
c) Either the planets really do follow a "looping" orbital path. Or somehow like with RE only appear to (RE explains how).
d) Must assume Universal acceleration of the earth upwards while still relying on gravitation to explain how at high altitude acceleration towards the earths surface is reduced. (also apparently earth has no mass to cause its own gravitation...)
e) some unknown secondary object casting a shadow on the moon and passing in front of the sun to explain eclipse phenomenon.
f) there are separate sets of stars over various regions of the earth surface to explain observable star patterns.

The largest assumption of them all would have to be that all photos from space ( and many from earth such as rotary star movements) are faked and that the entire concept of a spherical earth and ALL related science ( physics, astronomy, seismology, cosmology, etc.) are part of a global conspiracy spanning hundreds of years to make the earth "appear" to be a sphere.

So which view makes the least assumptions again?

This my friend, is the most sense anyone has ever made(that I have seen so far) on these forums.

Quote
What's the simpler explanation; that man has successfully designed and built multi-trillion dollar rocket technologies from scratch to send massive payloads into space, and that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis, win the Space Race, and constantly wow the nation by landing a man on the moon and sending robotic rovers to mars; or that it's all just a Conspiracy?

How can you apply this context when you can infact go to Cape Canaveral and watch first-hand a rocket shot into space?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTAs7yGzsps
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=appMDzLeT_Q&feature=related
Second one is just cool to watch.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2007, 06:37:21 PM by Roundearther4life »

?

eric bloedow

Re: Challenge the Round Earth Model
« Reply #54 on: November 18, 2007, 06:30:55 PM »
yes, there are a few scientists who think that time could be reversed and everything would still make sense. i also remebber reading a science article giving examples of things that would NOT make sense if time was reversed.

example: black holes swallow anything. but if you reversed time, they could spit out anything, like...lawyers!

some scientists believe that something made of "antimatter" would go backwards in time.
they also don't agree whether "tachyons" or "neutrinos" exist.

but they ALL agree that the space shuttle really does fly into space and send back LIVE tv pictures!


i said this before:FE ASSUMES that the earth is TOTALLY different from mercury, venus, mars, jupiter, saturn, uranus, neptune and pluto, AND that Luna (earth's moon) moves in a TOTALLY different fashion from phobos and deimos (moons of mars), europa, io, callisto, etc. (moons of jupiter), and ALL other objects that ANYONE can watch with a small telescope.

oh, yeah...the UA explanation assumes thay EVERYTHING in the ENTIRE UNIVERSE is accellerating in the EXACT same direction, which just HAPPENS to match the north pole of earth, and at the EXACT same rate!

RE says: gravity. period.
so which explanation of why things don't fly of the earth makes fewer assumptions, and has fewer "we don't know, but it MUST be true JUST because WE say it's true" "answers"?

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5176
Re: Challenge the Round Earth Model
« Reply #55 on: November 18, 2007, 06:39:22 PM »
yes, there are a few scientists who think that time could be reversed and everything would still make sense. i also remebber reading a science article giving examples of things that would NOT make sense if time was reversed.

example: black holes swallow anything. but if you reversed time, they could spit out anything, like...lawyers!
Obviously... Imagine time as a video player. Rewind it and watch what happens.

some scientists believe that something made of "antimatter" would go backwards in time.
they also don't agree whether "tachyons" or "neutrinos" exist.
What about them?

but they ALL agree that the space shuttle really does fly into space and send back LIVE tv pictures!
...And?

i said this before:FE ASSUMES that the earth is TOTALLY different from mercury, venus, mars, jupiter, saturn, uranus, neptune and pluto, AND that Luna (earth's moon) moves in a TOTALLY different fashion from phobos and deimos (moons of mars), europa, io, callisto, etc. (moons of jupiter), and ALL other objects that ANYONE can watch with a small telescope.
That's because our Earth is special.


oh, yeah...the UA explanation assumes thay EVERYTHING in the ENTIRE UNIVERSE is accellerating in the EXACT same direction, which just HAPPENS to match the north pole of earth, and at the EXACT same rate!
Hence, vectors.

RE says: gravity. period.
RE says: Curvature of space-time. Period.

so which explanation of why things don't fly of the earth makes fewer assumptions, and has fewer "we don't know, but it MUST be true JUST because WE say it's true" "answers"?
Uh?

Re: Challenge the Round Earth Model
« Reply #56 on: November 18, 2007, 06:48:11 PM »
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=appMDzLeT_Q&feature=related
Second one is just cool to watch.

Wow, bet buddy with the half melted custom rims on his incinerated car wishes he stayed home that day lol.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2007, 06:55:42 PM by sypher001 »
"There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable."
-Douglas Addams

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15487
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Challenge the Round Earth Model
« Reply #57 on: November 18, 2007, 06:53:09 PM »
RE says: gravity. period.
so which explanation of why things don't fly of the earth makes fewer assumptions, and has fewer "we don't know, but it MUST be true JUST because WE say it's true" "answers"?
How does 'gravity' work?  You must know that, right?  After all, you claim that it is not true just because you  say it is true. 


And Antimatter would go backwards in time?  WTF?


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

Re: Challenge the Round Earth Model
« Reply #58 on: November 18, 2007, 06:56:55 PM »
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=appMDzLeT_Q&feature=related
Second one is just cool to watch.

Wow, bet buddy with the half melted custom rims on his incinerated car wishes he stayed home that day lol.
Lol, I just hope he has "rocket-exploded and fucked up my car" insurance to cover the damages.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 16631
Re: Challenge the Round Earth Model
« Reply #59 on: November 18, 2007, 07:03:23 PM »
Quote
So which view makes the least assumptions again?

Flat Earth Theory makes the least number of assumptions and here's why:

Round Earth Theory requires us to believe that the government possesses super technologies and is able to explore the cosmos. We're required to believe that there exists technologies beyond our comprehension which allows the government to access space. We're required to believe that the government is entirely honest about this, despite never going through any sort of peer review.

Round Earth Theory requires us to believe that we are spinning at over a thousand miles per hour; faster than the speed of sound. All of this spinning is occurring without our knowledge.

Round Earth Theory requires us to believe in a completely hypothetical force called gravity which permeates all of existence. No one seems to know the mechanism for Gravity which causes bodies to accelerate into each other. The mechanism is completely unknown and undiscovered.

Round Earth Theory requires us to blindly believe that the shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse comes from the earth as opposed to any other celestial body which intersects the light between the moon and sun. There is no evidence for the earth being the originator of the shadow. We're just expected to blindly believe!

Round Earth Theory requires us to believe that the stars are lightyears away and that universe is filled with planets and teeming with alien life. Astronomers are so sure of this that they scan the cosmos intently, searching for alien signals.

In direct opposition, Flat Earth Theory only requires us to believe what our direct senses tell us. The earth is exactly as it appears: a plane. The stars are really just lights a few thousand miles away, which is easily demonstrated through astronomical parallax on a plane surface. The sun is not astronomically large, but a small sphere which hugs the surface of the earth. The shadow on the moon is just a shadow which could come from any celestial body. The earth is the only known material world, quite different from tiny swirling cosmos above our heads.

In addition Flat Earth Theory requires us only to believe in things we have verified for our own selves. Instead of following media hype like a dog to the whistle FEers seek to learn the prime and universal truths for their own selves.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2007, 07:09:03 PM by Tom Bishop »