Something doesnt add up

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 05, 2009, 07:59:46 AM

Well when you manage to gather the flight logs necessary to disprove every possible FE map configuration please send me a PM so we can continue our discussion.

I've experienced spherical earth first hand and so have millions of people on this planet. You dont need to go into space to experience round earth, you just have to have to be well travelled.

Quote from: fenterb on February 05, 2009, 08:57:12 AM

I've experienced spherical earth first hand and so have millions of people on this planet. You dont need to go into space to experience round earth, you just have to have to be well travelled.

obviously these people are not well travelled as they are all basement dwellers (at their moms house)

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 05, 2009, 09:03:21 AM

Quote

Is it worth me actually doing the work to get this data?

Yes it is. When you guys actually have some data to present please let us know so we can look at it.

Here's a quick example of some of this data plucked off the internet.  

England to Australia: 24 hours
Australia to South America: 17 hours

http://www.blurtit.com/q496939.html
http://www.convertunits.com/time/from/brisbane,+australia/to/south+america

Now before you question the integrity of this data I should point out that you could go to any airline or any website and the figures will be similar.  These are just examples but they are consistent with the truth.  

This example alone concludes that Australia cannot be the other side of a disk to South America.  
If you were to place South America on another place on a disc compared to Australia I could prove it wrong with another flight time.  We could keep doing this until you had to concede the flat earth theory is false.

The truth is the flight times from country to country ONLY correlate when you have a ROUND earth.  

Quote from: zork on February 24, 2009, 11:42:12 AM

Ok, I'm wrong. You can use search but seems that you are incapable of interpreting results. Sad again.

I did interpret the results. The results were interpreted as your side having no data.

Quote from: zork on February 24, 2009, 11:38:53 AM

I see, you are not capable of using search feature in this forum, sad.

I searched for data and all I could find was posts of me asking you guys for data and you guys providing none.

On this point: anybody who has flown in a jet over the ocean in a window seat knows that when you look at the horizon it is round-shaped.

Having my self been on a concord, which is at 45,000 feet, I have just seen that the Earth is indeed round. And no, I am not part of this "conspiracy", learn to let go...........

Quote

Is it worth me actually doing the work to get this data?

Yes it is. When you guys actually have some data to present please let us know so we can look at it.

If that's not a curve I don't know what is.  They even have a straight line drawn on that picture in the link I give.

Honestly, i went into this thread with an open mind. Im trying to think of what i could compare it to... its like comparing if george washington existed to if the flying spaghetti monster ever existed.

The FE maps are hypothetical only.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 05, 2009, 05:50:46 AM

The FE maps are hypothetical only.

How can you devote all this time to a map that is just hypothetical? At least RE'ers have ton of scientific data to back up our clam. There is not one shread of scienctific proof that I have seen that cant be explained by having a RE. This is not a relegion. You cant say just have faith. There are things that a FE just cant account for due to the laws of physics. (I wont get into them now)

Quote from: jmotley on March 04, 2009, 08:44:29 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 05, 2009, 05:50:46 AM

The FE maps are hypothetical only.

How can you devote all this time to a map that is just hypothetical? At least RE'ers have ton of scientific data to back up our clam. There is not one shread of scienctific proof that I have seen that cant be explained by having a RE. This is not a relegion. You cant say just have faith. There are things that a FE just cant account for due to the laws of physics. (I wont get into them now)

I'm looking for proof. I can accept that they think the earth is flat. But from what I've seen and read for their proof it makes no sense. By there way of thinking every planet in our solar system is flat. I can guarrentee you that if we went to IO (a moon of jupiter or saturan) that is covered in lava, the lava would have the same properties as the water here (as far as looking like it just ends.) When we went to the moon once again looking out over the horizon it appears that the it is flat. looking at any planet will give you the illision that it is flat. When asked whay there is no more proof it always will come down to the same thing "government conspirency" I seen more proof that the illumenati exist then theproof for the earth is flat.
I back your clam also.  You should keep it shut though, or things will get into it.

I'm looking for proof. I can accept that they think the earth is flat. But from what I've seen and read for their proof it makes no sense. By there way of thinking every planet in our solar system is flat. I can guarrentee you that if we went to IO (a moon of jupiter or saturan) that is covered in lava, the lava would have the same properties as the water here (as far as looking like it just ends.) When we went to the moon once again looking out over the horizon it appears that the it is flat. looking at any planet will give you the illision that it is flat. When asked whay there is no more proof it always will come down to the same thing "government conspirency" I seen more proof that the illumenati exist then theproof for the earth is flat.

Quote from: jmotley on March 04, 2009, 12:19:57 PM

I'm looking for proof. I can accept that they think the earth is flat. But from what I've seen and read for their proof it makes no sense. By there way of thinking every planet in our solar system is flat. I can guarrentee you that if we went to IO (a moon of jupiter or saturan) that is covered in lava, the lava would have the same properties as the water here (as far as looking like it just ends.) When we went to the moon once again looking out over the horizon it appears that the it is flat. looking at any planet will give you the illision that it is flat. When asked whay there is no more proof it always will come down to the same thing "government conspirency" I seen more proof that the illumenati exist then theproof for the earth is flat.

You're missing one big point.  According to FE canon, the earth is not a planet like the other things in the solar system.  Therefore, it doesn't have to be the same as they are.

Read the FAQ.

Quote from: Ravenwood240 on March 04, 2009, 12:28:33 PM

Quote from: jmotley on March 04, 2009, 12:19:57 PM

I'm looking for proof. I can accept that they think the earth is flat. But from what I've seen and read for their proof it makes no sense. By there way of thinking every planet in our solar system is flat. I can guarrentee you that if we went to IO (a moon of jupiter or saturan) that is covered in lava, the lava would have the same properties as the water here (as far as looking like it just ends.) When we went to the moon once again looking out over the horizon it appears that the it is flat. looking at any planet will give you the illision that it is flat. When asked whay there is no more proof it always will come down to the same thing "government conspirency" I seen more proof that the illumenati exist then theproof for the earth is flat.

You're missing one big point.  According to FE canon, the earth is not a planet like the other things in the solar system.  Therefore, it doesn't have to be the same as they are.

Read the FAQ.

I did read th FAQs, but the earth is still part of this universe correct? If it is then there are certian rules it has to follow. ie.. the fact that it does not have as much mass as jupiter therefore jupiter would not rotate around us but us around jupiter. So would every other planet for that matter since the sun would be small according to beliefs

I have a couple of reservations with this. Firstly it means that we need a totally new explanation for how stars shine. This is more of a problem that it sounds because spectral lines from the sun tell us its chemical composition and suggest very strongly that nuclear fusion is going on inside. So can we tell how far away the sun is without using celestial mechanics. Yes, we can, at least if you live a long way north of south. One can simply look through a telescope and look for a large solar flare and then time how long it takes for the increase in solar particles to cause a particularly bright northern lights. From this we can tell that either that particles are very highly relativistic or the sun is a very long way away. We know that that the particles although fast are not highly relativstic  so we conclude that the sun is far away.

Now the stars. Once again we are left with the mechanism by which they shine. Some stars are far hotter than the sun yet according to the FE model comparatively tiny again there is nothing in modern physics to explain how such a phenomenon would occur. Cosmic particles, the Earth is regularly bombarded by particles far higher than in the LHC up to 10¹⁸eV and above. Could this not come from nearby? Well assuming that they are not being fired at us by some particle accelerator but are being emitted isotropically then you would not want to be within a few light years of such a body. Though there is a more elegant argument relates to interactions of cosmic particles. The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) provides a source of relatively low energy photons with which cosmic particles can interact. Above about 10¹⁹eV the following interaction can occur.

proton + photon -> Delta -> neutron + pion

We see a large drop in very high energy cosmic particles reaching Earth due to this interaction. If the sources were closer than 10's of light years we would no see a significant fall in the number of particles.

Quote from: jmotley on March 04, 2009, 12:46:41 PM

Quote from: Ravenwood240 on March 04, 2009, 12:28:33 PM

Quote from: jmotley on March 04, 2009, 12:19:57 PM

I'm looking for proof. I can accept that they think the earth is flat. But from what I've seen and read for their proof it makes no sense. By there way of thinking every planet in our solar system is flat. I can guarrentee you that if we went to IO (a moon of jupiter or saturan) that is covered in lava, the lava would have the same properties as the water here (as far as looking like it just ends.) When we went to the moon once again looking out over the horizon it appears that the it is flat. looking at any planet will give you the illision that it is flat. When asked whay there is no more proof it always will come down to the same thing "government conspirency" I seen more proof that the illumenati exist then theproof for the earth is flat.

You're missing one big point.  According to FE canon, the earth is not a planet like the other things in the solar system.  Therefore, it doesn't have to be the same as they are.

Read the FAQ.

I did read th FAQs, but the earth is still part of this universe correct? If it is then there are certian rules it has to follow. ie.. the fact that it does not have as much mass as jupiter therefore jupiter would not rotate around us but us around jupiter. So would every other planet for that matter since the sun would be small according to beliefs

In FE theory, the heavenly bodies are much smaller than in RE.  The Earth is actually much more massive than anything visibly above us.

I dont even know why i bother because Tom is just going to come up with some cock and bull "no data" way out anyway but...

I dont understand why you (Tom) dont have sufficient data to do simple geographical equations based on flight times to prove an arch in the earths surface.  The RE'rs have posted sites, explained reasoning, have done equations, basically done all the work they can do and them some.  They have even posted IN DETAIL there reasoning and mathematical basis for their theories, yet you still need data?  I feel that if they were to take you into space and orbit the earth, all you would do is blindfold yourself and say "i see nothing that disproves my point".  I deem that Tom should be removed from all intellectual criteria from this point on, he has no scientific reasoning of why the data is insufficient nor does he specify what more he wants, simply "more"... "more" what?  Flight times?  Equations?  Explanations?   Perhaps if you explained what KIND of data you want we would be able to provide this "data" for you because you simply choose not to look for it yourself.  As it has been stated in this thread before, Tom continually asks for proof that the earth is round and we oblige, yet when we ask for data that the earth is flat (and simple geographical equations or a valid time/travel ratio would suffice) you simply say "no funding".  I dont see where funding is needed to do mathematical equations (such as the RE'rs have done) to at least give us a valid scientifically reasoning for why it may perhaps be flat.  In short all i see when i read this thread (in its entirety) is as follows;

FE'rs:  The earth is flat
RE'rs:  Here are mathematical equations that prove the earth is round, i would like to discuss this and see what mathematical equations you have to prove your point.
FE'rs:  That equation isnt sufficient enough
RE'rs:  I beg to differ, it involves the travel/time ratio due to curvature of the earth, please tell me what you would like more.
FE'rs:  More data.
Re'rs:  What kind.
FE'rs:  More, this is insufficient.

Needless to say, being a new member, it makes me think that the RET is more inclined to be true due to proof that they have provided and the lack of data the FET has provided. 

I dont even know why i bother because Tom is just going to come up with some cock and bull "no data" way out anyway but...

I dont understand why you (Tom) dont have sufficient data to do simple geographical equations based on flight times to prove an arch in the earths surface.  The RE'rs have posted sites, explained reasoning, have done equations, basically done all the work they can do and them some.  They have even posted IN DETAIL there reasoning and mathematical basis for their theories, yet you still need data?  I feel that if they were to take you into space and orbit the earth, all you would do is blindfold yourself and say "i see nothing that disproves my point".  I deem that Tom should be removed from all intellectual criteria from this point on, he has no scientific reasoning of why the data is insufficient nor does he specify what more he wants, simply "more"... "more" what?  Flight times?  Equations?  Explanations?   Perhaps if you explained what KIND of data you want we would be able to provide this "data" for you because you simply choose not to look for it yourself.  As it has been stated in this thread before, Tom continually asks for proof that the earth is round and we oblige, yet when we ask for data that the earth is flat (and simple geographical equations or a valid time/travel ratio would suffice) you simply say "no funding".  I dont see where funding is needed to do mathematical equations (such as the RE'rs have done) to at least give us a valid scientifically reasoning for why it may perhaps be flat.  In short all i see when i read this thread (in its entirety) is as follows;

FE'rs:  The earth is flat
RE'rs:  Here are mathematical equations that prove the earth is round, i would like to discuss this and see what mathematical equations you have to prove your point.
FE'rs:  That equation isnt sufficient enough
RE'rs:  I beg to differ, it involves the travel/time ratio due to curvature of the earth, please tell me what you would like more.
FE'rs:  More data.
Re'rs:  What kind.
FE'rs:  More, this is insufficient.

Needless to say, being a new member, it makes me think that the RET is more inclined to be true due to proof that they have provided and the lack of data the FET has provided. 

You are assuming, of course, that flights take the optimum route and are not sent on a wild goose chase by the conspiracy-controlled GPS system?

Civilian GPS isn't yet a reality - all the satellites are still controlled by the US military.  The European system isn't yet operational, although once it is it would be much harder to argue that that is under the sway of the conspiracy.

Other methods pilots use to determine the correct flight path and location are prone to large errors, which is why they all use GPS.

You are assuming, of course, that flights take the optimum route and are not sent on a wild goose chase by the conspiracy-controlled GPS system?