Hi

Hi I'm Bob from Holland.

I had time to think lately (vacation) and I came to realise that all the explanations of space and planets don't seem right. By luck I found this site a few days ago. I read the forums alot and I noticed that RE'ers don't make sense and keep bashing on their 'oh so proven' theories. I don't really believe them.

But the FE aren't really convincing either; if there are good questions being asked, FE just say 'it's been answered many times, search the forums'. I've been searching the forums, but all the posts I find from FE'ers that include (as an example) "horizon; answer; explanation and/or theory", are the ones that tell you to look somewhere else for an answer. I only found a serious discussion about gravity. Now it seems all the threads are being locked, so I can't ask questions there.


I don't know what to believe Can someone please explain the basics of FE? In short please, I don't want to be as confused as with RE.
The hypothetical stories about FE that I read so far make some sense but they lack solid facts.

Enlighten me please

I had time to think lately (vacation) and I came to realise that all the explanations of space and planets don't seem right.

which things dont seem right?

RE'ers don't make sense and keep bashing on their 'oh so proven' theories.

because the most blatant proof there is - space travel - is called a conspiracy, and is therefore an unmentionable dogma. any other good science threads just get locked.

so everyone just gets really frustrated and starts spamming.

which things dont seem right?

Mainly the Unified theories. I recently saw a show about String Theory (M theory), well let's just say that it's too farfetched.

because the most blatant proof there is - space travel - is called a conspiracy, and is therefore an unmentionable dogma. any other good science threads just get locked.

so everyone just gets really frustrated and starts spamming.

How do you know it's a conspiracy? Do you know people who were part of it? It seems fake to me too, but I can't find anything to disprove it. They got all the stuff I could think of covered.

Mainly the Unified theories. I recently saw a show about String Theory (M theory), well let's just say that it's too farfetched.

well, same here too really. but what does that have to do with the shape of the earth? thats relevant to particle physics, nothing else..

How do you know it's a conspiracy? Do you know people who were part of it? It seems fake to me too, but I can't find anything to disprove it. They got all the stuff I could think of covered.

given the people i know and all that, i should be part of this conspiracy by now. and surely every single astronomer, seismologist, geologist, aerospace engineer, sattellite communications engineer etc. etc. should be part of the conspiracy? they say sattelites do not exist and so all communications is done by huge secret towers. there must be millions of people who are part of the conspiracy.

they havent got it "covered", they just say it is part of the conspiracy. once they say it is, you cannot do anything about it because they refust to reason with it or talk about it further. you cannot disprove the conspiracy because any evidence you come up with gets branded by them as part of the conspiracy.

but what does that have to do with the shape of the earth? thats relevant to particle physics, nothing else..

Well they explain how particles work and interact. And they say that that is the basics of all of nature, "from apples and trees, to the furthest galaxies" as they say. But still it sounds like a big science fiction story.

given the people i know and all that, i should be part of this conspiracy by now. and surely every single astronomer, seismologist, geologist, aerospace engineer, sattellite communications engineer etc. etc. should be part of the conspiracy? they say sattelites do not exist and so all communications is done by huge secret towers. there must be millions of people who are part of the conspiracy.

they havent got it "covered", they just say it is part of the conspiracy. once they say it is, you cannot do anything about it because they refust to reason with it or talk about it further. you cannot disprove the conspiracy because any evidence you come up with gets branded by them as part of the conspiracy.

Who is running the conspiracy then? He must be damn clever because their stories barely have flaws. And why would he/they make us believe the earth is round?

Well they explain how particles work and interact. And they say that that is the basics of all of nature, "from apples and trees, to the furthest galaxies" as they say. But still it sounds like a big science fiction story.

yeah, just publicity to get funding for it. string theory etc. is purely mathematical, it has no testability yet.
standard newtoniam nechanics can get a sattellite into orbit or get a probe to other planets. its all you need.

Who is running the conspiracy then? He must be damn clever because their stories barely have flaws. And why would he/they make us believe the earth is round?

look in the FAQ. they dont know either!

Ok I read the FAQ, but it doesn't contain questiones that need proof. It only has questions that ask "explain this or that". Those questions are mostly approached hypothetically. The only questions that would be of any use are under the "unanswered questions". Why are they not answered?

All except for these:

Q: "What is the circumference and diameter of the Earth?"

A: "Circumference: 78225 miles, Diameter: 24,900 miles

Q: "What about the stars, sun and moon and other planets? Are they flat too? What are they made of?"

A: The sun and moon, each 32 miles in diameter, circle Earth at a height of 3000 miles at its equator, located midway between the North Pole and the ice wall. Each functions as a "spotlight," with the sun radiating "hot light," the moon "cold light." As they are spotlights, they only give light out over a certain are which explains why some parts of the Earth are dark when others are light. Their apparent rising and setting are caused by optical illusions.

In the "accelerating upwards" model, the stars, sun and moon are also accelerating upwards.

The stars are about as far as San Francisco is from Boston. (3100 miles)

How did you get those numbers? Have there been tests? link?
I also read there have been tests that showed the earth HAS to be flat. How? Also, how do you explain it is not round?

A few questions that I haven't seen being asked:
How come you fall off the earth if you go too far south when there is a 150ft wall?

How did the world come into existance?


I've seen the map of earth (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1264&start=16), how come I see stars underneath the earth?

I know of a way to prove the shape of the earth.

You need 4 emitters and 2 sensors.


Place 4 emitters on the equator and the 2 sensors on the north pole, above eachother. Like this.



In which the red dots are obviously the emitters and the yellow dots the sensors.

Now. If you send out a strong signal (whatever the type of signal) out of the 4 emitters, you can recieve them with the sensors.

If the earth is flat, the sensors should pick up the signal at the same time, meaning that the emitters are positioned in the length of the right corner with the 2 sensors. Like this.




If the earth is round, the lower sensor should pick up the signal a little earlier than the higher sensor. Like this.



By measuring the difference in time and the distance between the sensors and emitters, you can calculate the angle that the signal comes from.



Only this would prove the shape of the earth. I think you will agree.
Has this been done? results?

PS: I'm trying to make perfect sense here. Please do that also.

Why wasn't that crud deleted?

No, but me, and Everyone else on this forum (including FEers) appear to have more intelligence than you.

Who are you talking to? please use quotes.

Why is no one answering my obvious questions?


Do you actually have a working model of the earth? Can you predict and prove observations and natural phenomenon by applying the basic workings of this theory? It seems not.

You keep comparing FE and RE as \'both are theories and can\'t explain everything, therefore they are equal\'. This isn\'t true, RE is not a theory, it\'s a working model of time, space matter. You must have something to counter the model to set it in the light of \'wrong\' or \'faked\'.

You are following a mental path of thought that is based by an assumption, \"the earth is flat\". You assume it is true without a shred of proof. You assume it is true, and therefore try to explain everything in a way that it fits the first statement. Then you believe in your own made ideas \'because it has to be so\'. All without a shred of proof. It is a common way of thought that disputes common sense and logic. At the extreme level, they even take it on with science. It is so easy to understand. If you would just realize that you are being proved wrong, and be happy that you are being shown the thruth. But no, you are simple minded and too ignorant to think rationally.

EDIT: There is some kind of bug occuring that causes a backslash to appear in front of some punctuation signals. Even by editing them they do not disappear.

thats a good plan (not that theres any point in doing it, if you do they will claim it is a conspiracy)

Only this would prove the shape of the earth. I think you will agree.
Has this been done? results?

PS: I'm trying to make perfect sense here. Please do that also.

Well feel free to do it. We're not the ones who need verification about the Earth's shape - we know it's flat.

Brick: Your plan for determining the shape of the Earth is good, but expensive. Can you think of an experiment that would work on a scale small enough for an individual to try with little expense?

99% chance of you ignoring my perfect round-earth indicating results because you will think I lied about my results or that the government manipulated my measuring devices.

I want one of YOU to do it because that will be the only evidence that you will trust.

By the way, I read that in your bible there are results of a variaty of tests that indicated that the earth HAS to be flat. If you would please explain what has been tested and especially how, along with actual test results, I (and all RE believers) would be very delighted to know.

As soon as I get my British Flat Earth Society Chapter up and running, we'll re-enact some of Rowbotham's classic experiments. Most of the require several participants.

Explain those experiments please. Also explain why it will indicate the earth has to be flat. In other words, explain how they are full proof.

Explain those experiments please. Also explain why it will indicate the earth has to be flat. In other words, explain how they are full proof.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/index.htm

I'm not going to explain them here verbatim, what a waste of time. Just read them in their original format at the link I provided.

Quote

Explain those experiments please. Also explain why it will indicate the earth has to be flat. In other words, explain how they are full proof.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/index.htm

I\'m not going to explain them here verbatim, what a waste of time. Just read them in their original format at the link I provided.

I have looked through all the experiments and I must conclude that it has no evidence other that faith in the observer (and/or writer).
Those experiments globally (pun intended) follow these guidelines.
-a proposal of an experiment which would indicate a rounding of earth or absense thereof.
-explanation of what you would see if the earth was flat, and an illustration to help you visualize the situation.
-explanation of what you would see if the earth was round, and an illustration to help you visualize the situation.
-explanation of what the observer saw.
-conclusion that the earth is flat.

The weakpoint in this is that the observer (and/or writer) could easily lie about what he saw. Very easily. Because the rest of the explained experiment contain truth, it is easily accepted that the word of the observer is to be trusted as well. That is the mistake here. There is no proof that he had seen what he described. A single photo would prove his observation and punch the RE model right in the face.

Therefore I am GREATLY looking forward to your recreations of those experiments. Be sure to take photos, and please, make sure you got a friend with a filmcamera at your face when you see your results. I cant wait to see it.

The weakpoint in this is that the observer (and/or writer) could easily lie about what he saw. Very easily. Because the rest of the explained experiment contain truth, it is easily accepted that the word of the observer is to be trusted as well. That is the mistake here. There is no proof that he had seen what he described. A single photo would prove his observation and punch the RE model right in the face.

Therefore I am GREATLY looking forward to your recreations of those experiments. Be sure to take photos, and please, make sure you got a friend with a filmcamera at your face when you see your results. I cant wait to see it.

I will but I need a UK team first.

How would you react if the tests indicated a a round earth instead of a flat one?

I know of a way to prove the shape of the earth.

Sounds good.  Go for it.

Only this would prove the shape of the earth. I think you will agree.

I disagree that only this will prove the shape of the Earth.

Has this been done?

Maybe.

results?

Unknown.

See? He answered my questions and we are in no way a step further in a discussion.

He was hedging- providing noncomittal replies to questions that could be answered.

How do you scramble an egg?


Very carefully.

See? He answered my questions and we are in no way a step further in a discussion.

You seem to put so much creedence in our ability to answer your myriad irrelevant questions.  Why?  I answered your questions to the degree that they are answerable by me.  I peronsally know of no occassions on which your experiment was performed; since that does not imply that it was not performed, my only answer can be, "Maybe."  Given that it's entirely possible that it was performed, it's possible that there were results, but I don't know that, so my answer was "Unknown."

I'm sorry but did you have some other questions that I missed that are actually interesting?  "Has this experiment been performed" hardly seems like something whose answers are necessary to move the discussion forward.  I agreed that this experiment would go a long way to demonstrating the shape of the Earth, provided some basic assumptions are cleared up.  What more do you want?

I was obviously implying a general statement rather than assessing that specific post.

You seem to put so much creedence in our ability to answer your myriad irrelevant questions.

Isn't the issue at hand the shape of the earth, and wouldn't the answers be what would resolve the issue? The questions ARE relevant, now start trying to answer.

Isn't the issue at hand the shape of the earth, and wouldn't the answers be what would resolve the issue? The questions ARE relevant, now start trying to answer.

I thought the issue at hand was whether or not anybody had performed this particular experiment.

So apparently, nobody has performed this experiment.
Now, to digress, we return to our former issue of trying to determine the actual shape of the Earth.