The Lie Theory

Quote from: markjo on May 12, 2010, 03:52:07 PM

It would?  Care to show how?

With the Sun moving directly over the Equator during an equinox, its illumination of the Earth's surface will be symmetrical. This allows it to illuminate every part of the surface for exactly twelve hours as it passes over it.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 12, 2010, 07:14:10 PM

I'm sorry sir, but no.
the effect still happens lrn2 atomic clocks. Their error of margin is less then the time dilation.

I'm aware of the claim you're making. What I want is the proof.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 12, 2010, 07:14:10 PM

And as for measured values of g, are you saying that it is always the same?

I'm not saying anything. I'm simply asking for the proof you said you had.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 12, 2010, 07:14:10 PM

And the midnight sun, I would like to see evidence of sky mirrors sir.

That makes two of us.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 12, 2010, 07:14:10 PM

and wouldn't we notice by now if the sun's behavior didn't fit the generally accepted theories of the earth?
I mean, its simple pick any two points on the earth's circumference, and I guarantee you that at on point in the summer,
there will be light for both, If not, an hero will be made.

I have no idea what you're even trying to say here, but I get the feeling I'm not missing out on a great deal by it.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 12, 2010, 07:14:10 PM

In the end, all four of my arguments hold, call your local college to find out why. Better yet, why don't you pick one theory of mine and figure out why its wrong and why it proves FET and RET as wrong. But you can't, because you are wrong and you know it deep down inside. You have failed your own challenge against a random highshooler, u clearly rn't ready to battle the internets.

I shouldn't have to prove you wrong, you should be able to prove yourself right. Your hypotheses aren't automatically correct just because you say they are.

I'm trying to show you damning proof, and you are keeping your eyes shut.
ON your map, Antarctica is on the circumference. during its summer solstice, all of it is illuminated.
how can this fit within FET? And I proved you wrong, but to add insult to injury, you tried to prove me wrong and failed.

To understand my rhetoric read the rules of the internet.

I'm trying to show you damning proof, and you are keeping your eyes shut.

No, you've just linked to websites that agree with you. That doesn't constitute proof; as I said, if that's your standard of proof, I claim the FAQ as proof of FET.

ON your map, Antarctica is on the circumference. during its summer solstice, all of it is illuminated.
how can this fit within FET? And I proved you wrong, but to add insult to injury, you tried to prove me wrong and failed.

You haven't proven that Antarctica is fully illuminated at the December solstice.

To understand my rhetoric read the rules of the internet.

It's not your rhetoric that makes understanding difficult, it's your lack of understanding of English grammar structure.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 12, 2010, 07:54:42 PM

I'm trying to show you damning proof, and you are keeping your eyes shut.

No, you've just linked to websites that agree with you. That doesn't constitute proof; as I said, if that's your standard of proof, I claim the FAQ as proof of FET.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 12, 2010, 07:54:42 PM

ON your map, Antarctica is on the circumference. during its summer solstice, all of it is illuminated.
how can this fit within FET? And I proved you wrong, but to add insult to injury, you tried to prove me wrong and failed.

You haven't proven that Antarctica is fully illuminated at the December solstice.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 12, 2010, 07:54:42 PM

To understand my rhetoric read the rules of the internet.

It's not your rhetoric that makes understanding difficult, it's your lack of understanding of English grammar structure.

I gave you proof, prove that its not, sources that benifit me that give reasons why i'm right that use science.
And do I have to prove something that every person who is aware of the 23.5 degree tilt should know?
We are on the internet sir.

Step 1: tell them to prove something.
Step 2: tell them their proof is invalid
Step 3: repeat until they give up

I gave you proof, prove that its not, sources that benifit me that give reasons why i'm right that use science.

None of them gave any reasons for why you are right, they simply stated it to be so without any further justification. This is all very well if you're just trying to find out what the accepted theories are, but it doesn't actually prove anything. They also don't use science because science is a method of investigation based on observation, and none of the sources you provided had any relation to the scientific method, which should include analyses of the validity and reliability of the observations used. They just stated conclusions as if they were fact.

And do I have to prove something that every person who is aware of the 23.5 degree tilt should know?

Ah, now you've hit upon a feature unique to RET. If you can prove that the Earth has an axis of rotation, and that this axial tilt is what causes the seasons, rather than the Sun moving around above it, you will have satisfied the proof that I asked for.

Quote from: markjo on May 12, 2010, 03:52:07 PM

It would?  Care to show how?

With the Sun moving directly over the Equator during an equinox, its illumination of the Earth's surface will be symmetrical. This allows it to illuminate every part of the surface for exactly twelve hours as it passes over it.

And how would you be able to observe the sun rising almost exactly due east and set almost exactly due west from your home in Australia?  Actually, according to this map, which way is east from your home in Australia? 

And how would you be able to observe the sun rising almost exactly due east and set almost exactly due west from your home in Australia?  Actually, according to this map, which way is east from your home in Australia?  

East is around the line of latitude which encircles Antarctica. The Sun (one of three Suns in total) which is over South America gives off light to the west, which bends laterally through the radiomagnetic field generated by the interaction of the Earth's magnetic field with the EA to appear in the east from Australia.

Now,i am not master of geography,but does australia look a bit TOO big? i mean besides the obvious distortion.

Now,i am not master of geography,but does australia look a bit TOO big? i mean besides the obvious distortion.

You're asking the guy who thinks Australia does not exist. And thanks to Parsifal for his last post, I needed a good laugh.

Now,i am not master of geography,but does australia look a bit TOO big? i mean besides the obvious distortion.

Please provide evidence of Australia's true size.

Quote from: Sliver on April 29, 2010, 05:24:29 AM

Hm, Pongo is the only FE'er trying to say my "Lie Theory" is wrong.  I figured John Davis and James would have been all over this.  Especially James, since he seems to be the one who makes up the most outrageous BS.

They didn't argue with you because you don't have any substance in your post.  If you had posted an intellectual argument with some weight behind it, they would have been over over this thread.  However, all you did was say, "Flat Earth is false because you all are lying and make it all up."  It's not a very compelling argument.

From the FAQ:
"Q: "If you're not sure about the motive, why do you say there is a conspiracy?"

A: Well it's quite simple really; if the Earth is in fact flat, then the space agencies must be lying when they say it isn't."

Well by gosh that's similar.

Quote from: markjo on May 12, 2010, 08:32:26 PM

And how would you be able to observe the sun rising almost exactly due east and set almost exactly due west from your home in Australia?  Actually, according to this map, which way is east from your home in Australia?  

East is around the line of latitude which encircles Antarctica. The Sun (one of three Suns in total) which is over South America gives off light to the west, which bends laterally through the radiomagnetic field generated by the interaction of the Earth's magnetic field with the EA to appear in the east from Australia.

Light is not affected by either radio or magnetic fields, so why would it be affected by a radiomagnetic field?

Light is not affected by either radio or magnetic fields, so why would it be affected by a radiomagnetic field?

A radiomagnetic field is to the EA what a magnetic field is to an electric one. "Radiomagnetic" was the best I could come up with, as "electromagneticmagnetic" doesn't sound very pretty.

Quote from: Pongo on April 29, 2010, 05:41:42 AM

Quote from: Sliver on April 29, 2010, 05:24:29 AM

Hm, Pongo is the only FE'er trying to say my "Lie Theory" is wrong.  I figured John Davis and James would have been all over this.  Especially James, since he seems to be the one who makes up the most outrageous BS.

They didn't argue with you because you don't have any substance in your post.  If you had posted an intellectual argument with some weight behind it, they would have been over over this thread.  However, all you did was say, "Flat Earth is false because you all are lying and make it all up."  It's not a very compelling argument.

From the FAQ:
"Q: "If you're not sure about the motive, why do you say there is a conspiracy?"

A: Well it's quite simple really; if the Earth is in fact flat, then the space agencies must be lying when they say it isn't."

Well by gosh that's similar.

Hi, welcome to the Flat Earth Society.  I hope your stay here is lengthy and educational.  To matters at hand, I did not write the FAQ, nor do I agree with every aspect of it.  You should not draw similarities to two arguments by two different authors who do not necessarily agree.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 12, 2010, 08:14:37 PM

I gave you proof, prove that its not, sources that benifit me that give reasons why i'm right that use science.

None of them gave any reasons for why you are right, they simply stated it to be so without any further justification. This is all very well if you're just trying to find out what the accepted theories are, but it doesn't actually prove anything. They also don't use science because science is a method of investigation based on observation, and none of the sources you provided had any relation to the scientific method, which should include analyses of the validity and reliability of the observations used. They just stated conclusions as if they were fact.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 12, 2010, 08:14:37 PM

And do I have to prove something that every person who is aware of the 23.5 degree tilt should know?

Ah, now you've hit upon a feature unique to RET. If you can prove that the Earth has an axis of rotation, and that this axial tilt is what causes the seasons, rather than the Sun moving around above it, you will have satisfied the proof that I asked for.

The features are unique, and I gave you proof, as for the 23.5 thing, I couldn't prove that to you without out space pics or a pendulum, both of which have been protested by FES

Quote from: The Question1 on May 12, 2010, 08:39:15 PM

Now,i am not master of geography,but does australia look a bit TOO big? i mean besides the obvious distortion.

Please provide evidence of Australia's true size.

Or you could have just googled a map and seen it is no where near the size of Africa.
Or use google earth.

Quote from: Parsifal on May 12, 2010, 08:44:29 PM

Quote from: The Question1 on May 12, 2010, 08:39:15 PM

Now,i am not master of geography,but does australia look a bit TOO big? i mean besides the obvious distortion.

Please provide evidence of Australia's true size.

Or you could have just googled a map and seen it is no where near the size of Africa.
Or use google earth.

But you can't trust Google because they are a member of the conspiracy.

The features are unique, and I gave you proof

As I have already repeated ad nauseum and you choose to ignore, no they are not unique to RET because there are FE explanations for them, and no you did not provide proof, only websites that agreed with you.

as for the 23.5 thing, I couldn't prove that to you without out space pics or a pendulum, both of which have been protested by FES

Fair enough.

My challenge is still open to anyone.

It is incredible how the FE theorists are infatuated by any map that shows all of Earth in one flat surface. If you look at this map carefully, you will see that in Australia you would need a special compass, with the line from North to South not at right angles with the line from East to West.

It would be very easy to find out that Earth is flat by looking at a compass for use in Australia, which would look like this:



Notice how North and South are up and down, but East and West are not right and left? How much easier would it be to uncover the conspiracy?

Quote from: markjo on May 12, 2010, 09:20:04 PM

Light is not affected by either radio or magnetic fields, so why would it be affected by a radiomagnetic field?

A radiomagnetic field is to the EA what a magnetic field is to an electric one. "Radiomagnetic" was the best I could come up with, as "electromagneticmagnetic" doesn't sound very pretty.

When you have some evidence that this "radiomagnetic" field affects light as you claim it does, don't forget me when you accept your Nobel Prize.  Until then, I'll just take this latest bit of nonsense as an admission that you have no plausible explanation for the observed phenomenon of the sun rising almost exactly due east and setting almost exactly due west on the days of the equinox almost anywhere on the earth being possible on Wilmore's (or any other) FE map.

As I have already repeated ad nauseum and you choose to ignore, no they are not unique to RET because there are FE explanations for them

When you can give evidence that these alternates actually exist outside your head and provide quantifiable scientific data and experiments, we may take you seriously.


I could explain that people are different colours because some invisible person ran around and painted each race.
This has just as much evidence as any FE explanation of the Earth - that all you have is the results, from which you create a reason why, without evidence or experiments.


Try again.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 13, 2010, 07:00:26 AM

The features are unique, and I gave you proof

As I have already repeated ad nauseum and you choose to ignore, no they are not unique to RET because there are FE explanations for them, and no you did not provide proof, only websites that agreed with you.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 13, 2010, 07:00:26 AM

as for the 23.5 thing, I couldn't prove that to you without out space pics or a pendulum, both of which have been protested by FES

Fair enough.

My challenge is still open to anyone.

Obviously we have reached an impasse on the matter, I'll argue these points on a thread in which I can organize my thoughts in a manner in which you can understand

When you have some evidence that this "radiomagnetic" field affects light as you claim it does, don't forget me when you accept your Nobel Prize.  Until then, I'll just take this latest bit of nonsense as an admission that you have no plausible explanation for the observed phenomenon of the sun rising almost exactly due east and setting almost exactly due west on the days of the equinox almost anywhere on the earth being possible on Wilmore's (or any other) FE map.

You had only asked for an explanation, not evidence to support it.

When you can give evidence that these alternates actually exist outside your head and provide quantifiable scientific data and experiments, we may take you seriously.

I feel exactly the same way about the RE explanations.

Quote from: Sliver on April 26, 2010, 07:54:56 PM

Now, how do I know that it's the FES that's lying and not the members of the "conspiracy"?  The FES has no evidence that can prove any of the lies they claim are fact.

Please choose one feature unique to RET and prove that it is true. Any one you wish. I challenge you.

The sun rises at a declination of 90 degrees and sets at a declination of 270 degrees during the Equinox in every part of Earth except close to the poles. Whats more, the sun rises at the same declination in every location of Earth except close to where the sunlight lasts almost all day or almost none of the day, any day of the year.

This has been explained, verified, repeated. And then explained, verified, and repeated some more. Unless you are going to play with the philosophical meaning of "prove" and "true", your challenge has been taken and you have lost even before you made the challenge.

The sun rises at a declination of 90 degrees and sets at a declination of 270 degrees during the Equinox in every part of Earth except close to the poles. Whats more, the sun rises at the same declination in every location of Earth except close to where the sunlight lasts almost all day or almost none of the day, any day of the year.

Please provide some evidence for this.

becouse ALL THIS is a lie  right i mean it works just too well no gimmicks just relatively simple math

becouse ALL THIS is a lie  right i mean it works just too well no gimmicks just relatively simple math

Please provide your data in a freely documented format, so as not to exclude people who do not agree to the Adobe Flash Player EULA from accessing it.

Quote from: Space Tourist on May 14, 2010, 12:49:57 AM

becouse ALL THIS is a lie  right i mean it works just too well no gimmicks just relatively simple math

Please provide your data in a freely documented format, so as not to exclude people who do not agree to the Adobe Flash Player EULA from accessing it.

np down load Google chrome and set you tube to HTML5 mode
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Google+Chrome&l=1
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Youtube+HTML5
also works the latest ver of MSIE

np down load Google chrome and set you tube to HTML5 mode
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Google+Chrome&l=1
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Youtube+HTML5
also works the latest ver of MSIE

The trouble is, I don't agree to the Google Chrome or MSIE EULAs, either.

id bet money your on a windows or mac box IE is part of windows like it or not if its installed you said yes to it
and every ones UELA is the same Apple MS Google Mozilla
but it works with safari and opera as well