Conspiracy Theorists

Conspiracy Theorism is the extreme of skepticism. Where real skepticism is withholding belief in the abscence of sufficient evidence, CT is withholding belief in the face of a mountain of it. They all must create alternative versions of reality whether it's history or science or both: YECs use Kinds and Flood Geology as alternatives to geology and biology and FETists use UA and FET Dark Energy an alternative to cosmology and physics. They reduce complex science and history into oversimplistic arguments: such as 9/11Truthers pointing out the melting point of steel or holocaust deniers pointing out the lack of vents in Gas chambers or FETists pointing out that the earth looks flat from groundview. Conspiracy Theorists explain their extreme minority status among the experts as part of the conspiracy. Finally, CTs dont contribute anything scientifically because they aredenialism and nothing more, certainly not alternatives. Genuine scientific alternatives don't act like conspiracy theories and neither do their proponents. Remember that conjecture != evidence. "They coulda done it" doesnt count, the burden of proof is on YOU to prove they did it. If you want to claim any scientific credibility whatsoever, start acting like a science!!!

Please read Earth Not a Globe for the science and evidence behind the FET

Please read Earth Not a Globe for the science and evidence behind the FET

Rowbotham's Bedford Level experiment isn't even widely accepted among FE'ers.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30099.0;viewResults
The experiment cannot be reproduced consistently with the same results. Your "science" and "evidence" is flawed.

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on July 03, 2009, 09:32:56 PM

Please read Earth Not a Globe for the science and evidence behind the FET

Rowbotham's Bedford Level experiment isn't even widely accepted among FE'ers.

Because that poll was all Flat earthers voting on it. Also, we don't rely on that as our only reference.

Please read Earth Not a Globe for the science and evidence behind the FET

I'm reading Earth Not a Globe at the moment. I have found an error and no-one is disputing that it is an error.

Don't you find that strange?

Quote from: cdenley on July 07, 2009, 08:55:57 AM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on July 03, 2009, 09:32:56 PM

Please read Earth Not a Globe for the science and evidence behind the FET

Rowbotham's Bedford Level experiment isn't even widely accepted among FE'ers.

Because that poll was all Flat earthers voting on it. Also, we don't rely on that as our only reference.

Then please tell me what scientific evidence you have to support your flat earth hypothesis besides Bedford Level experiments.

The conspiracy pulls everything together to form a complete Flat Earth Theory. Without a huge satanic government conspiracy, it would seem that FET is proven false.

Quote from: cdenley on July 07, 2009, 08:55:57 AM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on July 03, 2009, 09:32:56 PM

Please read Earth Not a Globe for the science and evidence behind the FET

Rowbotham's Bedford Level experiment isn't even widely accepted among FE'ers.

Because that poll was all Flat earthers voting on it. Also, we don't rely on that as our only reference.

Rowbotham has been shown (in countless threads) to be inconclusive at best. Rowbotham did not fully grasp the majority of what he was testing and IMHO fabricated results to fit his ideas. ENaG is not a good source for FE people to stand on, and falls flat on its face in almost every way possible. Fe believers should agree to abandon Rrowbotham and stop bringin it up. it only hurts your case.

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on July 07, 2009, 09:43:41 AM

Quote from: cdenley on July 07, 2009, 08:55:57 AM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on July 03, 2009, 09:32:56 PM

Please read Earth Not a Globe for the science and evidence behind the FET

Rowbotham's Bedford Level experiment isn't even widely accepted among FE'ers.

Because that poll was all Flat earthers voting on it. Also, we don't rely on that as our only reference.

Then please tell me what scientific evidence you have to support your flat earth hypotheses besides Bedford Level experiments.

I'm currently observing celestial objects with a telescope I recently have purchased at home. Once I have tracked objects for awhile and get a zhumell or celestron eyepiece adapter for astrophotography, I'll put up the data of objects I've observed.

I'm currently observing celestial objects with a telescope I recently have purchased at home. Once I have tracked objects for awhile and get a zhumell or celestron eyepiece adapter for astrophotography, I'll put up the data of objects I've observed.

I will take that response to mean that you don't know of any other scientific evidence to support the flat earth hypothesis. I doubt you are going to find any inconsistencies with the RET model of celestial bodies, let alone prove the earth is flat.

If there is evidence for conspiracy (as there is in the case of the earth) then how is that withholding belief? Isn't it the REers who refuse to believe the evidence that we put before them?

If there is evidence for conspiracy (as there is in the case of the earth) then how is that withholding belief? Isn't it the REers who refuse to believe the evidence that we put before them?

Any "evidence" for the conspiracy that I have seen is a joke. You guys can't even agree when the conspiracy started. It is all pure conjecture.

Quote from: SoundReason on July 07, 2009, 01:59:06 PM

If there is evidence for conspiracy (as there is in the case of the earth) then how is that withholding belief? Isn't it the REers who refuse to believe the evidence that we put before them?

Any "evidence" for the conspiracy that I have seen is a joke. You guys can't even agree when the conspiracy started. It is all pure conjecture.

Its simpel the conspiracy began when people first started "believing" that the earth was round. I am of the opinion that this originated in the elite members of medieval christianity.

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on July 07, 2009, 01:31:06 PM

I'm currently observing celestial objects with a telescope I recently have purchased at home. Once I have tracked objects for awhile and get a zhumell or celestron eyepiece adapter for astrophotography, I'll put up the data of objects I've observed.

I will take that response to mean that you don't know of any other scientific evidence to support the flat earth hypothesis. I doubt you are going to find any inconsistencies with the RET model of celestial bodies, let alone prove the earth is flat.

The UA makes more sense to me than a magical force that keeps beings on earth. However, that is my opinion and I cannot recall any indisputable RE   science that caused me to think that the earth must be round. Scientific evidence is actually similar in FE to RE. It's the interpretation and perspectives that bring about a difference in beliefs.
I'm not studying the sky because I want to find an inconsistentancy with the RET, it's because I want to add untampered results and pictures of the celestial bodies to the community. I believe good shots of the moon and planets (and deep space objects-weather permitting) could help us analyze the universe outside of the earth and perhaps it could provide insight leading to improved explanations of the flat world we live in.

The UA makes more sense to me than a magical force that keeps beings on earth.

How is the UA any less magical than gravity/gravitation?

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on July 07, 2009, 02:24:52 PM

The UA makes more sense to me than a magical force that keeps beings on earth.

How is the UA any less magical than gravity/gravitation?

An acceleration can occur by a known physical process. Plenty of things can cause acceleration.

"Gravitons" and "Bending space-time" requires an entirely new unknown and undiscovered branch of science.

Quote from: markjo on July 07, 2009, 02:35:28 PM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on July 07, 2009, 02:24:52 PM

The UA makes more sense to me than a magical force that keeps beings on earth.

How is the UA any less magical than gravity/gravitation?

An acceleration can occur by a known physical process. Plenty of things can cause acceleration.

"Gravitons" and "Bending space-time" requires an entirely new unknown and undiscovered branch of science.

By what known physical process does the UA have infinite energy to constantly accelerate the entire earth?

By what known physical process does the UA have infinite energy to constantly accelerate the entire earth?

Who said anything about infinite energy?

Quote from: cdenley on July 07, 2009, 06:09:43 PM

By what known physical process does the UA have infinite energy to constantly accelerate the entire earth?

Who said anything about infinite energy?

Doesn't every known physical process (besides gravitation) for accelerating objects require some form of energy? I'm sure you don't believe the acceleration happens with magic.

Doesn't every known physical process (besides gravitation) for accelerating objects require some form of energy?

Sure, but why does the energy source need to be infinite rather than finite?

I've always held that someday the earth will stop accelerating and all life will come to an end.

Quote from: cdenley on July 07, 2009, 07:12:14 PM

Doesn't every known physical process (besides gravitation) for accelerating objects require some form of energy?

Sure, but why does the energy source need to be infinite rather than finite?

Someday the earth may stop accelerating and all life will come to an end.

Fair enough, but considering how long the earth has been accelerating according the FET, and how large the earth is, that still must be an extraordinary amount of energy. So, now that we can agree on that detail, can you actually answer the question? Through what know physical process is the earth accelerated?

Through what know physical process is the earth accelerated?

I wouldn't know. I've never been to the underside of the earth to check it out.

Quote

Through what know physical process is the earth accelerated?

I wouldn't know. I've never been to the underside of the earth to check it out.

It must be magic, since there is no scientific explanation.

It must be magic, since there is no scientific explanation.

If you want to know what's pushing the earth you'll have to go down and see for yourself.

Quote from: cdenley on July 07, 2009, 07:48:27 PM

It must be magic, since there is no scientific explanation.

If you want to know what's pushing the earth you'll have to go down and see for yourself.

That is impossible because the earth is round, and there is no such thing as magic.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 07, 2009, 07:54:05 PM

Quote from: cdenley on July 07, 2009, 07:48:27 PM

It must be magic, since there is no scientific explanation.

If you want to know what's pushing the earth you'll have to go down and see for yourself.

That is impossible because the earth is round, and there is no such thing as magic.

Your argument has now degraded to gibberish, you are permabanned.....

Gravity=magic
Accelerating upwards because of some unknown force=not magic

Riiiiiiiight

It's doesn't matter what is pushing the earth because the earth can accelerate through a known physical process. Plenty of things cause acceleration.

In order for "gravity" to work a whole new branch of science needs to be created.

That's why a accelerating earth is a valid idea and gravitons/bending space are invalid ideas. One idea (acceleration) has a clear physical pretense which we can see all around us, while the other (gravitons/bending space) is complete fiction which no one has ever detected or observed.

I'm currently observing celestial objects with a telescope I recently have purchased at home. Once I have tracked objects for awhile and get a zhumell or celestron eyepiece adapter for astrophotography, I'll put up the data of objects I've observed.

Can I suggest that when you have the necessary equipment you point it all at one of the celestial poles and take some timed exposure photos of star trails. We would be interested in seeing not only your photographs but also your reasoning behind their pattern.

It's doesn't matter what is pushing the earth because the earth can accelerate through a known physical process. Plenty of things cause acceleration.

In order for "gravity" to work a whole new branch of science needs to be created.

That's why a accelerating earth is a valid idea and gravitons/bending space are invalid ideas. One idea (acceleration) has a clear physical pretense which we can see all around us, while the other (gravitons/bending space) is complete fiction which no one has ever detected or observed.

What physical process? For the UA, could you care to give some examples of things that could cause the acceleration?