space flight for the public.

first time poster and im no expert on the FET or antyhing but i have done some reading and alot of good points are made for both sides of the theory flat and round, but apparantly richard branson is making space flight available for the general public, if all goes well that means that your theories will be busted ? if the general public and you yourself can fly just above the atmosphere of the earth you and anybody else will able to see the curviture of the eath as described and shown from other verious space craft that leave the earths atmosphere, so what i am asking is when he brings out virgin galatic that im pretty sure he will, and when everbody can see the earths curviture and even yourself if you can muster up the fair amount of money required, will you guys accept the curviture of the earth or proceed to carrying on trying to disprove evrything that is put forth? and dont try and say  hes trying to pull of effects of trickory, because if it was he would have bought it out by now and would be making millions of it. any thoughts? will you once every member of public has the oppertunity to see the earth curve accept it?

When it actually happens there might be something to talk about. However, everything we've read about Branson's ideas indicates that these flights won't actually prove anything.

You could drag all their asses to the moon, point to the Earth and say "See, it's round." and they'd still come up with some bullshit excuse.  They expect a mountain of evidence for a round earth, dismiss that entire mountain by coming up with crazy explanations, and take their crazy explanations as fact without any evidence whatsoever.

Seeing as NASA regularly struggles to get astronauts into space without blowing them up, I'd say Branson's efforts are still a long way off. Even if it was to happen tomorrow, I'd imagine it quite conceivable that a Round Earth could be faked and with that in mind, I see no reason for the FE'rs to consider their theory "busted".

as i said before my good sir, if he was tryin to create the illusion he would have done it by now, but the fact is its taking a long time because its a lengthy and extreamly hard procedure to create aircraft to travel into outerspace for such a cheap amount, and he isnt nasa is he? they are using htousands of gallons of rocket fuel for a mission into space for a duration of time, where branson is just putting sombody ontop of the tip of the atmosohere for 4mins at a time, which is enough to see the earth is round, my suggestion, all you people who believe in FE save up ur pocket money and put the highest ranking member whoever it may be in this forums up there... then he will come back down and be a changed man, and then all this nonsence can be put to rest, he will master it in time, hes just tryin to find a cheaper way of doing so, hes not willing to spend millions of his own money putting people into space, he only cares about making money thats why hes different from the likes of nasa. but half of you are sooo stubbern that even if you did go on the trip you would come down and try and dismiss what you had seen, and say it was some sort of illusion or fucking mirror? you guys are deluded, you think gravity doesnt exist>? that where kept on the flat eartch due to it rapidly moving upwards? wouldent a object this size ever tilt? cuasing us all to slid of? its just rediculous and i cant wait untill he brings this space flight out so this website can be shut down.

as i said before my good sir, if he was tryin to create the illusion he would have done it by now, but the fact is its taking a long time because its a lengthy and extreamly hard procedure to create aircraft to travel into outerspace for such a cheap amount, and he isnt nasa is he? they are using htousands of gallons of rocket fuel for a mission into space for a duration of time, where branson is just putting sombody ontop of the tip of the atmosohere for 4mins at a time, which is enough to see the earth is round, my suggestion, all you people who believe in FE save up ur pocket money and put the highest ranking member whoever it may be in this forums up there... then he will come back down and be a changed man, and then all this nonsence can be put to rest, he will master it in time, hes just tryin to find a cheaper way of doing so, hes not willing to spend millions of his own money putting people into space, he only cares about making money thats why hes different from the likes of nasa. but half of you are sooo stubbern that even if you did go on the trip you would come down and try and dismiss what you had seen, and say it was some sort of illusion or fucking mirror? you guys are deluded, you think gravity doesnt exist>? that where kept on the flat eartch due to it rapidly moving upwards? wouldent a object this size ever tilt? cuasing us all to slid of? its just rediculous and i cant wait untill he brings this space flight out so this website can be shut down.

Just so you know pal, I'm not an advocate of FET. I was simply pointing out that your idea wouldn't necessarily disprove FET to those who believe in it. I'm a Round Earther but you don't really make any real points here. Why would he have done it by now? The Conspiracy (if they exist) are obviously a very clever and wealthy organisation. Assuming The Conspiracy exists, is it not a possibility that they could have Branson batting for their side?

When trying to disprove FET to FE'rs, try not to make it a personal assault on them. It's never going to change their opinions and it makes you look foolish. Helps if you learn to spell too.

Besides the "bendy light" theory makes it null and void. Temporary space flight is possible on a flat earth, and bendy light means that even if the world is flat it would look round.

Lurk more.

i can spell fine but i choose not to waste my time going over my recent argument/discussion and spell checking the whole shit for what it is, and yes you are right whatever evidence it put forth they will never accept it, they just keep coming up with bulllshit excuses to void any theory proving that the earth is round, which may i add is a substantial amount more, and ass to the lurker comment, look at your picture matey? maybe you need to go lurk around irl more and get of you computer? i would hate to be you (H).

but i choose not to waste my time going over my recent argument/discussion and spell checking the whole shit for what it is

Then go away

i can spell fine but i choose not to waste my time going over my recent argument/discussion and spell checking the whole shit for what it is, and yes you are right whatever evidence it put forth they will never accept it, they just keep coming up with bulllshit excuses to void any theory proving that the earth is round, which may i add is a substantial amount more, and ass to the lurker comment, look at your picture matey? maybe you need to go lurk around irl more and get of you computer? i would hate to be you (H).

Dude, where do you get off personally attacking people? If you'd lurk moar you'd have seen why FE'rs believe the Earth to be flat. You can't just swan into a forum and demand it's members answer your old news questions. If you have any particular point you'd like to make about why you think FET is "bullshit" and it isn't already in FAQ, then make it. Otherwise, piss off and quit with the abuse.

You can't just swan into a forum and demand it's members answer your old news questions.

Obviously he can because he did.  There's a huge difference between "can't" and "shouldn't".

Besides the "bendy light" theory makes it null and void. Temporary space flight is possible on a flat earth, and bendy light means that even if the world is flat it would look round.

Lurk more.

O rly now? If light bends that much at less than 1000km up (where the space ship would be), then why aren't there massive anomalies when say looking the sun or even planes.

Nice try.

Besides the "bendy light" theory makes it null and void. Temporary space flight is possible on a flat earth, and bendy light means that even if the world is flat it would look round.

Lurk more.

Why would bendy light do that?

Point: Bendy light only works when they want it to.


ED: beaten.

They have made the argument before that the reason the earth looks round is because of bendy light. That's why at high altitudes you can't see the rest of the earth. Despite that RE have very clearly shown that it is infeasible it still is a statement they use. They also deny that it has been dis-proven.

They have made the argument before that the reason the earth looks round is because of bendy light. That's why at high altitudes you can't see the rest of the earth. Despite that RE have very clearly shown that it is infeasible it still is a statement they use. They also deny that it has been dis-proven.

If bendy light makes the earth look round, then how can they know that it's really flat?

Quote from: Drdevice on March 05, 2010, 12:39:39 AM

They have made the argument before that the reason the earth looks round is because of bendy light. That's why at high altitudes you can't see the rest of the earth. Despite that RE have very clearly shown that it is infeasible it still is a statement they use. They also deny that it has been dis-proven.

If bendy light makes the earth look round, then how can they know that it's really flat?

The fact remains that if this is the case, they're not acheiving spaceflight in the way they claim, so we know they're lying about something.

They have made the argument before that the reason the earth looks round is because of bendy light. That's why at high altitudes you can't see the rest of the earth. Despite that RE have very clearly shown that it is infeasible it still is a statement they use. They also deny that it has been dis-proven.

The non-displacement of stars as they near the horizon is the definitive disproof of bendy light. Nobody has been able to reconcile this with bendy light theory.
Therefore we should consider bendy light officially disproved until somebody does.

The non-displacement of stars as they near the horizon is the definitive disproof of bendy light. Nobody has been able to reconcile this with bendy light theory.
Therefore we should consider bendy light officially disproved until somebody does.

Actually, I did reconcile it. Your response was to claim that my model is inconsistent.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on March 06, 2010, 05:29:57 PM

The non-displacement of stars as they near the horizon is the definitive disproof of bendy light. Nobody has been able to reconcile this with bendy light theory.
Therefore we should consider bendy light officially disproved until somebody does.

Actually, I did reconcile it. Your response was to claim that my model is inconsistent.

You did not reconcile it. You did not describe a model fully. You left out various components. I merely stated that your reason for leaving bits out was so that you could continually adjust parts of it to counter individual criticisms.
Provide a full description of your model, including diagrams of the actual position of the stars, moon and sun, your crazy "sky mirror", the distances of these various objects from the earth, a description of the paths of movement of these celestial objects (ideally in diagram form) and then when you have done this and we are all clear exactly what model you are working from, then we humans can engage in proper debate with you.