CALLING ALL ROUND EARTHERS

Well, there aren't any ACTUAL flat-earthers, in the sense that they actually believe it. The whole point of this sort of thing is to act as a sort of "thought-experiment", examining how a flat-earth model might work, and to illustrate the way we (all humans) accept things without even thinking about it.

So yes, no one actually believes the words is flat....but it's fun to argue from that point of view. It's a good way of learning.

So, what you're saying is...FES is part of the conspiracy!!!  Well played, NASA. Well played.

People who do not know proper punctuation and spelling are less educated, and hence make less money.

People who believe in FET use logical fallacies like butter on bread.

Judging from this website, the people with the worst spelling and grammar and RE'ers. People who do not know proper punctuation and spelling are less educated, and hence make less money.

Most of the RE'ers you get are also more than likely from the parts of the internet that require less grammar, and more lolz (4chan, and newgrounds for example). Those people also tend to stay on here for shorter periods of time.

Then there are the more educated people that actually take the time to read every single thread on here, including the faq, before posting their arguments. Those people also tend to linger around on here for longer periods of time than those who are less educated in grammar and their native English language.

Just my observation.

I'm in school earning my masters degree, not that it matters much. And unless you can provide some sort of statistics among members here, I won't accept grammatical error as a reason to call someone less educated. EVEN when YOU make grammatical errors.

And it is likely that many RE'ers and some trolling (fake) FE'ers come from places like 4chan, which is unfortunate when they are inevitably used (like now) against us genuine RE members. the only other forum I post at is a music forum.

I am just going to clarify this for all the noobs. There are some people who seriously believe in FE, while some people argue it to see it's viability, or just for fun. However, all RE'ers are trolls.

Don't dismiss all us RE'ers as trolls Waste, although I'll admit, there are many are.  I myself am genuinely interested in the theory and the believers motivations.  Call it professional curiosity - I'm studying for a degree in Geology.

EDIT:  Sorry for quoting you again...  Just noticed how many times that has been brought up!

Quote from: Waste of Mind on June 11, 2009, 09:22:48 PM

I am just going to clarify this for all the noobs. There are some people who seriously believe in FE, while some people argue it to see it's viability, or just for fun. However, all RE'ers are trolls.

Don't dismiss all us RE'ers as trolls Waste, although I'll admit, there are many are.  I myself am genuinely interested in the theory and the believers motivations.  Call it professional curiosity - I'm studying for a degree in Geology.

EDIT:  Sorry for quoting you again...  Just noticed how many times that has been brought up!

I'm sorry, but no one is actually dumb enough to believe in RE. THey are all trolls.

Quote from: Joeval on June 12, 2009, 03:37:04 PM

Quote from: Waste of Mind on June 11, 2009, 09:22:48 PM

I am just going to clarify this for all the noobs. There are some people who seriously believe in FE, while some people argue it to see it's viability, or just for fun. However, all RE'ers are trolls.

Don't dismiss all us RE'ers as trolls Waste, although I'll admit, there are many are.  I myself am genuinely interested in the theory and the believers motivations.  Call it professional curiosity - I'm studying for a degree in Geology.

EDIT:  Sorry for quoting you again...  Just noticed how many times that has been brought up!

I'm sorry, but no one is actually dumb enough to believe in RE. THey are all trolls.

Albert Ainstein, Isaac Newton, Galileu Galilei, Stephen Hawking, etc etc etc... all dumb people whose work have proved RE theories.

I'm sure you are much more smart than they all together.

Albert Ainstein

That may be true, but Albert Einstein's work has helped prove FET.

Quote from: lexotan on June 12, 2009, 09:25:47 PM

Albert Ainstein

That may be true, but Albert Einstein's work has helped prove FET.

how could possibily Albert Einstein's work prove FET? please elaborate.

Quote from: Waste of Mind on June 12, 2009, 09:28:01 PM

Quote from: lexotan on June 12, 2009, 09:25:47 PM

Albert Ainstein

That may be true, but Albert Einstein's work has helped prove FET.

how could possibily Albert Einstein's work prove FET? please elaborate.

Special relativity and his theory that "gravity and acceleration would be indistinguishable", and the equivalence principle.

Quote from: lexotan on June 12, 2009, 09:33:20 PM

Quote from: Waste of Mind on June 12, 2009, 09:28:01 PM

Quote from: lexotan on June 12, 2009, 09:25:47 PM

Albert Ainstein

That may be true, but Albert Einstein's work has helped prove FET.

how could possibily Albert Einstein's work prove FET? please elaborate.

Special relativity and his theory that "gravity and acceleration would be indistinguishable", and the equivalence principle.

Special relativity is a incomplete theory.

I quote wikipedia

The theory is termed "special" because it applies the principle of relativity only to frames in uniform relative motion.[7] Einstein developed general relativity to apply the principle more generally, that is, to any frame so as to handle general coordinate transformations, and that theory includes the effects of gravity. From the theory of general relativity it follows that special relativity will still apply locally (i.e. to the first order) to observers moving on arbitrary trajectories[8], and hence to any relativistic situation where gravity is not a significant factor.

Funny, you not considering the general relativity  as prove. Becouse the general relativity  is in fact the complete  relativity theory.

In the special relativity, there's no acceleration in the equation. But we all now that in the universe nothing is constant(and Einstein knew that too), and that's why the special relativity is not considered complete.

That's why he later on elaborated the general relativity.

     I doubt that anyone who believes that having a higher level of education means a bigger paycheck has ever tried living on a teacher's salary.
    Also, why don't these rich and educated FE'ers always claim they are too poor to test any of their theories?

Quote from: Rjinswand on June 11, 2009, 09:26:11 PM

Quote from: Waste of Mind on June 11, 2009, 09:22:48 PM

I am just going to clarify this for all the noobs. There are some people who seriously believe in FE, while some people argue it to see it's viability, or just for fun. However, all RE'ers are trolls.

ALL of us?

Even if we're only posting valid points that attack a bogus theory?

I'd like to know which of my posts could be considered "trolling"

There is such thing as intellectual trolling.

that my friend is trolling FE style. owned

Quote from: lexotan on June 12, 2009, 09:33:20 PM

Quote from: Waste of Mind on June 12, 2009, 09:28:01 PM

Quote from: lexotan on June 12, 2009, 09:25:47 PM

Albert Ainstein

That may be true, but Albert Einstein's work has helped prove FET.

how could possibily Albert Einstein's work prove FET? please elaborate.

Special relativity and his theory that "gravity and acceleration would be indistinguishable", and the equivalence principle.

Actually, that's General Relativity.  Special Relativity has to do with the speed of light and time dilation.  And, as you well know, the equivalence principle only holds in a homogeneous gravitational field.  FE'ers have acknowledged that the FE's gravitational field is not homogeneous because of the gravitational influence of the various heavenly bodies and sub-heavenly bodies).

What's even funnier, is how they proved the general relativity.

According to general relativity, mass "warps" space-time to create gravitational fields and therefore bend light as a result. This theory was confirmed in 1919 during a solar eclipse, when Arthur Eddington observed the light from stars passing close to the sun was slightly bent, so that stars appeared slightly out of position.

In 1919 Arthur Stanley Eddington took a photography from a solar eclipse that proved Einstein's general relativity theory.

But how a photo could do that?

Differently from FErs,  REers do accept photos as evidence.

Here's the photo.  http://pic.srv5.wapedia.mobi/thumb/c88014408/en/max/720/900/1919_eclipse_negative.jpg?format=jpg,png,gif
explanation of the photo here http://denisdutton.com/eddington_experiment.jpg

Apparently the sun is so freaking massive, that its "gravity field" slightly bend light toward  itself. And this situation is totally impossible in the FET.

Why is impossible?
Please allow me to explain.

If this actually happened in the FET, the earth would have been destroyed by the sun's gravity  along time ago. You know, the sun  has a "gravitational field" so strong(predicted by Einstein) that it's actually  capable of bend light (proved), and it is only 3000 miles away from the earth (according to the FET).  In this situation, where the sun is so close to the earth, it's impossible for our tiny "flat" planet to suport the sun's gravitational field, we would literally be vaporized by it.

ps: light do not bend itself, only a  mass "warps" space-time, aka  gravitational field, can bend light.

     I doubt that anyone who believes that having a higher level of education means a bigger paycheck has ever tried living on a teacher's salary.
    Also, why don't these rich and educated FE'ers always claim they are too poor to test any of their theories?

A teacher with a six year degree can make over $60,000. It's not as much as careers with same education requirements, but teachers also work 5 days a week, and get a large break in summer. Back on topic, are you saying that higher education does not giver higher paying jobs?

Back on topic, are you saying that higher education does not giver higher paying jobs?

A higher education gives you the potential for a higher paying job.  Since there are fewer of those higher paying jobs, the competition for those jobs can be quite intense, especially in this economy.  Plus the fact that higher learning does not automatically translate into marketable job skills. 

What's even funnier, is how they proved the general relativity.

Quote

According to general relativity, mass "warps" space-time to create gravitational fields and therefore bend light as a result. This theory was confirmed in 1919 during a solar eclipse, when Arthur Eddington observed the light from stars passing close to the sun was slightly bent, so that stars appeared slightly out of position.

In 1919 Arthur Stanley Eddington took a photography from a solar eclipse that proved Einstein's general relativity theory.

But how a photo could do that?

Differently from FErs,  REers do accept photos as evidence.

Here's the photo.  http://pic.srv5.wapedia.mobi/thumb/c88014408/en/max/720/900/1919_eclipse_negative.jpg?format=jpg,png,gif
explanation of the photo here http://denisdutton.com/eddington_experiment.jpg

Apparently the sun is so freaking massive, that its "gravity field" slightly bend light toward  itself. And this situation is totally impossible in the FET.

Why is impossible?
Please allow me to explain.

If this actually happened in the FET, the earth would have been destroyed by the sun's gravity  along time ago. You know, the sun  has a "gravitational field" so strong(predicted by Einstein) that it's actually  capable of bend light (proved), and it is only 3000 miles away from the earth (according to the FET).  In this situation, where the sun is so close to the earth, it's impossible for our tiny "flat" planet to suport the sun's gravitational field, we would literally be vaporized by it.

ps: light do not bend itself, only a  mass "warps" space-time, aka  gravitational field, can bend light.

Saying that the theory of relativity proves FET is is the same as insulting Einstein. I think everytime a FEer says that the relativity proves FET, Einstein squirms in his grave.

My post pretty much shows why the relativity do not prove FET in any possible way.

Alright well I didn't read the whole thread since I'm just WAY too tired right now, but for the original post's sake: I believe in the ROUND EARTH model.

one would believe that all RE'ers are trolls since the FE'ers are the original trolls, trolling all RE'ers with all this "conspiracy" talk.

but if you truly believe the FET and honestly think that all RE'ers are trolling you and are retarded; then why make a forum website so they can logically debunk the FET

Quote from: Kain2112 on June 11, 2009, 08:51:39 PM

Quote from: Rjinswand on June 11, 2009, 08:49:06 PM

Quote from: Kain2112 on June 11, 2009, 08:42:21 PM

Quote from: Rjinswand on June 11, 2009, 08:41:12 PM

Well, there aren't any ACTUAL flat-earthers, in the sense that they actually believe it. The whole point of this sort of thing is to act as a sort of "thought-experiment", examining how a flat-earth model might work, and to illustrate the way we (all humans) accept things without even thinking about it.

So yes, no one actually believes the words is flat....but it's fun to argue from that point of view. It's a good way of learning.

How I wish this were true. Unfortunatly there are actually people on here who believe in the FET.

Urgh....do you really think so? I hope not, because that would just be....weird. I know that that the founders of the movement probably believed it, but...meh. There's no excuse nowadays

Plus, I can give two irrefutable points that - even though they don't prove a round earth - certainly disprove the flat earth model. I've brought both of these points up on these forums, and no one's addressed them. They're also not on the FAQ. I figured if people really believed this nonsense, they would have found a way to respond to my points, instead of just ignoring them.

Yeah, get used to being ignored when you bring up a valid point to which the FEers have no answer. Btw, what were these two points?

R
Well that's what I figured. If you were genuinely certain of your theory, you'd respond to any flaws in it, wouldn't you?

Anyway, the two points I had were:

1. The Southern Cross. As a person who lives in the Southern Hemisphere, and has spent time in Australia, New Zealand, AND Brazil, I'm well aware that you can see the Southern Cross above the South Pole at all times. On the standard flat earth model, this is impossible, because that would mean the same set of stars is in every direction at once (since there is no south pole)

2. Antarctica "days". I've also been lucky enough to spend time in Antarctica, as part of a documentary film crew....and for anyone who's been there (thousands, all in on the conspiracy - lol), its a pretty well known fact that you get continuous sunshine for months at a time, followed by a swing toward months of continuous darkness (because for one half of the year the south ole is tilted toward the sun, the other half tilted away). I'd be interested to see how a six month day fits into the flat earth model. No one's addressed it (that I've seen yet)

Great points rjinswand!

Read my sig.

LMAO right.

Quote from: Waste of Mind on June 13, 2009, 08:56:55 AM

A teacher with a six year degree can make over $60,000. It's not as much as careers with same education requirements, but teachers also work 5 days a week, and get a large break in summer. Back on topic, are you saying that higher education does not giver higher paying jobs?

Back on topic, I want to see your evidence of your claim that REers have less education than FEers and that they earn less.

Post your payslip here.

How would my payslip prove anything? I have already given evidence for my claim.

Quote from: KillaBee on June 13, 2009, 10:41:27 AM

Quote from: Waste of Mind on June 13, 2009, 08:56:55 AM

A teacher with a six year degree can make over $60,000. It's not as much as careers with same education requirements, but teachers also work 5 days a week, and get a large break in summer. Back on topic, are you saying that higher education does not giver higher paying jobs?

Back on topic, I want to see your evidence of your claim that REers have less education than FEers and that they earn less.

Post your payslip here.

How would my payslip prove anything? I have already given evidence for my claim.

evidence for your claim that RE'ers have less education than FE'ers? I haven't seen any.

Quote from: Waste of Mind on June 13, 2009, 04:16:43 PM

Quote from: KillaBee on June 13, 2009, 10:41:27 AM

Quote from: Waste of Mind on June 13, 2009, 08:56:55 AM

A teacher with a six year degree can make over $60,000. It's not as much as careers with same education requirements, but teachers also work 5 days a week, and get a large break in summer. Back on topic, are you saying that higher education does not giver higher paying jobs?

Back on topic, I want to see your evidence of your claim that REers have less education than FEers and that they earn less.

Post your payslip here.

How would my payslip prove anything? I have already given evidence for my claim.

evidence for your claim that RE'ers have less education than FE'ers? I haven't seen any.

In general, RE'ers have worse grammar. This is a telltale sign of less education.

 

Quote from: heyethan on June 13, 2009, 06:45:55 PM

Quote from: Waste of Mind on June 13, 2009, 04:16:43 PM

Quote from: KillaBee on June 13, 2009, 10:41:27 AM

Quote from: Waste of Mind on June 13, 2009, 08:56:55 AM

A teacher with a six year degree can make over $60,000. It's not as much as careers with same education requirements, but teachers also work 5 days a week, and get a large break in summer. Back on topic, are you saying that higher education does not giver higher paying jobs?

Back on topic, I want to see your evidence of your claim that REers have less education than FEers and that they earn less.

Post your payslip here.

How would my payslip prove anything? I have already given evidence for my claim.

evidence for your claim that RE'ers have less education than FE'ers? I haven't seen any.

In general, RE'ers have worse grammar. This is a telltale sign of less education.

But it does not necessarily mean they are less educated. Thats like saying a black person is a criminal because black people have a higher arrest rate. It simply doesn't work like that. There are smart people with bad grammar, as well as people with good grammar/spelling that tend to not use them on the internet.

Quote from: heyethan on June 13, 2009, 06:45:55 PM

Quote from: Waste of Mind on June 13, 2009, 04:16:43 PM

Quote from: KillaBee on June 13, 2009, 10:41:27 AM

Quote from: Waste of Mind on June 13, 2009, 08:56:55 AM

A teacher with a six year degree can make over $60,000. It's not as much as careers with same education requirements, but teachers also work 5 days a week, and get a large break in summer. Back on topic, are you saying that higher education does not giver higher paying jobs?

Back on topic, I want to see your evidence of your claim that REers have less education than FEers and that they earn less.

Post your payslip here.

How would my payslip prove anything? I have already given evidence for my claim.

evidence for your claim that RE'ers have less education than FE'ers? I haven't seen any.

In general, RE'ers have worse grammar. This is a telltale sign of less education.

Bad example. Not all choose to use proper grammar while writing in forums. Many uses slangs (not sure if that is the correct english word for it though) and/or sociological internet adapted words.
So you can't be sure that their grammar is bad, just by watching them type here.
Your claim is too weak.
You're the weakest link.
Good bye!

I'm sorry, if you are smart, you have good grammar. You can try and argue otherwise, but then you are retarded. Retarded people are not smart. People who are smart do not use internet slang, because they can see that internet slang is devaluing our language, and our society as a whole.