please explain the FE theory to me

i really want to know

The earth is flat.  What else is there to know?

i mean the evidence and physics of the theory. how could the earth not be round and why would the goverment cover it up? (its amazing how fast people reply)

i mean the evidence and physics of the theory. how could the earth not be round and why would the goverment cover it up? (its amazing how fast people reply)

You might try reading the bible for one thing.

i mean the evidence the people have scientifically come up with aside from anctient writings from pre RE society

i mean the evidence the people have scientifically come up with aside from anctient writings from pre RE society

This entire forum exists to attempt to answer your question. Try reading every word of it, for a start.

please comment i am open to every idea you have to offer

RTFM

(or should that be RTFF?)

Quote from: gomby12 on December 22, 2009, 07:50:34 PM

i mean the evidence the people have scientifically come up with aside from anctient writings from pre RE society

This entire forum exists to attempt to answer your question. Try reading every word of it, for a start.

I can't find a single piece of evidence, reasonable explanation or images on this entire forum, the only things I can find are people claiming companies, such as google, and the government are hiding the fact that the Earth is flat. There are several reasons why the Earth isn't flat, number one, why the hell would anyone go through all the trouble of pretending that they sent satellites and probes out into space, and why would they fake the images? What benefit would they receive from doing that? Number two, how is it that people can go on trips all around the world and still not fall of the edge of the Earth??? Finally, the Earth is made up of layers: the crust, mantle, outer core and inner core. If the earth were flat, wouldn't the liquid part of the Earth float away from it, or do you believe the Earth is a rectangular prism with crust on each of the six sides?

Please, for goodness sakes, do not answer my question with the highly unlikely theory that the government is covering everything up, I'm sick of hearing that rubbish. Please give me a straight answer with evidence.

Please give me a straight answer with evidence.

The earth is flat. Read Earth Not a Globe.

What if I knew of a book that proved the earth is round? What makes my different than your book? This is becoming religious as you believe your book is right. Not know, believe. Thus I believe that your posts should be in the religious forums.

What if I knew of a book that proved the earth is round? What makes my different than your book?

Truth.

So you are saying my book is true?

But what makes your book true? It has been proven false many times. This is sounding like a religious debate. We are debating science, not religion. Please leave your beliefs at the door. I accept that most fe theories are plausible though unlikely. Do you do the same to re? If not, then you cannot call yourself a scientist.

But what makes your book true?

Peer review.

It has been proven false many times.

Actually, it hasn't. In fact, since Earth Not a Globe, the earth has been proven flat many times over.

This is sounding like a religious debate. We are debating science, not religion. Please leave your beliefs at the door. I accept that most fe theories are plausible though unlikely. Do you do the same to re? If not, then you cannot call yourself a scientist.

RET is not possible because the earth is flat.

Quote

But what makes your book true?

Peer review.

Quote

It has been proven false many times.

Actually, it hasn't. In fact, since Earth Not a Globe, the earth has been proven flat many times.

Quote

This is sounding like a religious debate. We are debating science, not religion. Please leave your beliefs at the door. I accept that most fe theories are plausible though unlikely. Do you do the same to re? If not, then you cannot call yourself a scientist.

RET is not possible because the earth is flat.

1. So is mine. But with far more peers.

2. Proven round far more times.

3. Please check your beliefs at the door.

1. So is mine. But with far more peers.

Actually, you didn't provide a book.

2. Proven round far more times.

Wrong.

3. Please check your beliefs at the door.

Why? What's the problem with believing in truth?

I am being hypothetical here with the book. I promise you if you want an actual book I will find it. I am talking about say a geology textbook or something to that effect that has like 5000 different proofs of the earth being round from evidence and theory.


And your second point is so blatantly wrong. Your faq even says the masses believe that the earth is round because it was proven so many times (each time wrong according to you). Also if you are saying FE has been proven more times than RE, I will pray for your sanity (not even religious).


Nothing is 100% truth. Also this is science so everything can be wrong so you can't (shouldn't if you are a real scientist) believe in it. Sorry.

I am being hypothetical here with the book. I promise you if you want an actual book I will find it. I am talking about say a geology textbook or something to that effect that has like 5000 different proofs of the earth being round from evidence and theory.

Doesn't exist.

And your second point is so blatantly wrong. Your faq even says the masses believe that the earth is round because it was proven so many times.

It doesn't say that.

Also if you are saying FE has been proven more times than RE, I will pray for your sanity (not even religious).

It has.

Nothing is 100% truth. Also this is science so everything can be wrong so you can't (shouldn't if you are a real scientist) believe in it. Sorry.

Peer review tells us which model is correct. The correct model is the Flat Earth model.

You do realize that in many fields of science, many of the theories would not work without RE? How does FE prove Coriolis effect?

And if you seriously believe that flat earth has been proven more than round earth, give me evidence. It should be very easy give me numbers of peer reviewed articles that support/confirm flat earth and then give me the number of round earth. Sounds easy if you are right.

I will be working on finding a book that proves Round Earth.

Peer review tells us which model is correct.

Not if the peer reviewer is biased.  For example, the theory of sustained space flight has been peer reviewed by over a dozen different countries, but you claim bias in the form of a massive conspiracy. 

Same could be true of FE peer reviews. That doesn't get us anywhere. Bishop still hasn't gotten back to me with the numbers of FE vs. RE. I think it is exceedingly obvious which one is true but if he wants to confirm go for it.

Same could be true of FE peer reviews. That doesn't get us anywhere. Bishop still hasn't gotten back to me with the numbers of FE vs. RE. I think it is exceedingly obvious which one is true but if he wants to confirm go for it.

so the number of adherents to a belief equals TRUTH?! WRONG! more bad RE logic! don't worry bishop I have recently purchased a copy of Earth Not A Globe (still waiting for it to arrive though). i do believe that reading another opinion is important unlike ubaboga. uga, i advise you to seriously investigate FE science to have your eyes opened very wide.

One these are just fringe science theories. These are theories created to support another theory. You would be laughed out of any respectable scientific community. However, these theories are plausible and feasible (except coriolis effect and a good map that explain airline times). If you can get the FE theory to explain all the phenomena as RE then they are both as good as each other. If you get FE theory to explain more than RE (don't really know what isn't explained by RE), then I will accept FE. Until then, RE is the better theory.

Two maybe you need to learn reading comprehension. I was talking about the bias inherent in the studies on either side from the previous poster, markjo. Who says that FE can't be part of a conspiracy?


All I am asking is for Bishop to confirm his statement there are more peer reviewed articles supporting FE than RE. I am waiting as this should be very easy using a service like scopus if you have access.

All I am asking is for Bishop to confirm his statement there are more peer reviewed articles supporting FE than RE. I am waiting as this should be very easy using a service like scopus if you have access.

Check my Flat Earth Literature link in my signature. There are about 60 published books full of peer reviews.

Whereas the number of books providing evidence for Round Earth theory stands at a stunning zero.

I only see 20. And do you honestly believe that no one has tried to prove round earth theory? I was asking for peer reviewed articles, not books. I want it from science, nature, etc. Not 150 year old books with inconclusive trials by people who can't understand physics. And try looking harder on scopus. If you have university contacts, surely you can access it.

I only see 20. And do you honestly believe that no one has tried to prove round earth theory?

Well whenever we ask you guys for evidence all you give us are Aristotle's ancient old ramblings.

Quote

I only see 20. And do you honestly believe that no one has tried to prove round earth theory?

Well whenever we ask you guys for evidence all you give us are Aristotle's ancient old ramblings.

Tom, I refer you to the branch of earth science known as geodesy (the study of the form of the earth).
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&safe=off&q=geodesy&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wp

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 27, 2009, 09:33:21 PM

Quote

I only see 20. And do you honestly believe that no one has tried to prove round earth theory?

Well whenever we ask you guys for evidence all you give us are Aristotle's ancient old ramblings.

Tom, I refer you to the branch of earth science known as geodesy (the study of the form of the earth).
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&safe=off&q=geodesy&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wp

Yes, I'm aware of what geographers have to say on matters of terrestrial curvature.

http://improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume9/v9i3/kansas.html

Quote from: markjo on December 27, 2009, 09:54:57 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 27, 2009, 09:33:21 PM

Quote

I only see 20. And do you honestly believe that no one has tried to prove round earth theory?

Well whenever we ask you guys for evidence all you give us are Aristotle's ancient old ramblings.

Tom, I refer you to the branch of earth science known as geodesy (the study of the form of the earth).
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&safe=off&q=geodesy&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wp

Yes, I'm aware of what geographers have to say on matters of terrestrial curvature.

http://improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume9/v9i3/kansas.html

Geodesy is not the same as geography.

Bishop you are the one who always brings up aristotle. I like how you always deflect and can't seem to find any RE peer reviewed articles. Give me both FE and RE from science or nature or other big name journals. Those are reputable.