The flat Earth theory isn't remotely possible.

Okay, since my post is going to be moderated within a few minutes considering I don't follow the same beliefs as the majority of you, I'm not going to waste time typing too much.  What I want to say, though, is that the very idea of the Earth actually riding on the backs of elephants and a turtle through the cosmos is not only unimaginably absurd, but laughably irrational. Ever heard of the Foucault pendulum? Man has been in space and people fly AND sail around the world every day, yet you all continue to dismiss all existing proof that disproves your theory as fake lies. Gravity? Oh. Gravity obviously contradicts your ideas, so that means it MUST be fake.

Thank you.

Well, as it turns out none of us believe that the Earth rides on the back of animals. You're right though, in that many of us don't believe in gravity either.

This is a good starting point http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/index.htm it's the most canonical Flat Earth text, Earth Not a Globe. I welcome you to read it so that you may become well informed with regard to our beliefs.

I also recommend checking out the FAQ, and having a look at some of the discussions in the Flat Earth Believers section, to give you a better flavour of Flat Earth Theory today.

Post within the rules, and nothing will happen to your posts. Break the rules, and your posts will be deleted and you may be banned. I therefore suggest going to the 'Announcements' section and reading the Site Rules.

Okay, since my post is going to be moderated within a few minutes considering I don't follow the same beliefs as the majority of you, I'm not going to waste time typing too much.  What I want to say, though, is that the very idea of the Earth actually riding on the backs of elephants and a turtle through the cosmos is not only unimaginably absurd, but laughably irrational. Ever heard of the Foucault pendulum? Man has been in space and people fly AND sail around the world every day, yet you all continue to dismiss all existing proof that disproves your theory as fake lies. Gravity? Oh. Gravity obviously contradicts your ideas, so that means it MUST be fake.

Thank you.

Yeah Anon, this is pretty much true. so the RE'ers here mostly try to disprove FET with physics, while proving the Spherical Earth with other experiments and inconsistencies with FET

does the FE society believe the sun/moon and planets arn't round either?

does the FE society believe the sun/moon and planets arn't round either?

Depends on who you ask.

Of the 2 (or 3) people who may actually believe this stuff on the forum, it's divided.  Some say both the sun and moon are disks.  Some say they're spotlights.  In the end, they both agree that they orbit above the earth using a complex series of movements that are hand crafted and not the result of any known physics.

Also, the moon is self illuminated.  Possibly bio-luminescence. 

does the FE society believe the sun/moon and planets arn't round either?

There are different views. Broadly, I'd say that the most widely accepted/supported position is that they are spherical, but the idea that they may be flat discs is gaining more and more support.

Of the 2 (or 3) people who may actually believe this stuff on the forum

Please, there more than "2 or 3" of us. Yes, the number of actual believers is small, but I'd say it's somewhere between 8 and 14.

does the FE society believe the sun/moon and planets arn't round either?

The standard model argues that natural satellites, planets, and stars are more or less round.

Buuut, you can see Jupiter's moons orbiting with the most basic telescope, they wouldn't orbit a flat disc,  nor would anything that far away have an inclination to face earth at all times for the illusion to hold.

So if Jupiter is round, and it has moons, and earth has a moon, we are flat?

Quote from: Ranko on May 17, 2010, 07:45:13 PM

does the FE society believe the sun/moon and planets arn't round either?

The standard model argues that natural satellites, planets, and stars are more or less round.

The FAQ doesn't make this very clear.

Quote from: Ranko on May 17, 2010, 07:45:13 PM

does the FE society believe the sun/moon and planets arn't round either?

The standard model argues that natural satellites, planets, and stars are more or less round.

that said, all FE'ers, refute the Earth to be made of the same substance as the heavenly bodies,
which the laws of gravity predict to be round. gravity isn't in the standard model.

Buuut, you can see Jupiter's moons orbiting with the most basic telescope, they wouldn't orbit a flat disc,  nor would anything that far away have an inclination to face earth at all times for the illusion to hold.

So if Jupiter is round, and it has moons, and earth has a moon, we are flat?

Yep.
The general idea is that the Earth is special and doesn't conform to the same laws of physics as the rest of the universe.  If it did, they'd have to conclude the Earth was round.

Buuut, you can see Jupiter's moons orbiting with the most basic telescope, they wouldn't orbit a flat disc,  nor would anything that far away have an inclination to face earth at all times for the illusion to hold.

So if Jupiter is round, and it has moons, and earth has a moon, we are flat?

I have a brain, my dog has a brain, I can play an intelligent game of chess... so by your logic my dog can too?

Quote from: Ranko on May 17, 2010, 07:51:06 PM

Buuut, you can see Jupiter's moons orbiting with the most basic telescope, they wouldn't orbit a flat disc,  nor would anything that far away have an inclination to face earth at all times for the illusion to hold.

So if Jupiter is round, and it has moons, and earth has a moon, we are flat?

I have a brain, my dog has a brain, I can play an intelligent game of chess... so by your logic my dog can too?

Function is not the same as composition.

A piece of metal can be used as a hammer, something to write on, or a dangerous weapon.  Just because their function is different doesn't mean it isn't made of the same things with the same properties.

All we need to do is say that the Earth is made of the same things (atoms) as Jupiter and we can conclude that the same things that govern the Atoms on Earth govern the atoms on Jupiter.

Quote from: Ranko on May 17, 2010, 07:51:06 PM

Buuut, you can see Jupiter's moons orbiting with the most basic telescope, they wouldn't orbit a flat disc,  nor would anything that far away have an inclination to face earth at all times for the illusion to hold.

So if Jupiter is round, and it has moons, and earth has a moon, we are flat?

I have a brain, my dog has a brain, I can play an intelligent game of chess... so by your logic my dog can too?

Your point is non-sequitor, specifically a false reductio ad absurdam.
because a dog brain=/=human brain.
however,
iron=iron
carbon=carbon
mass=mass
mass has gravity

the power of the brain is related to structure, not the fact that it has neurons, which is certainly true of your dog and you.
however the roundness of a planet is due to what its made of.

Quote from: Ranko on May 17, 2010, 07:51:06 PM

Buuut, you can see Jupiter's moons orbiting with the most basic telescope, they wouldn't orbit a flat disc,  nor would anything that far away have an inclination to face earth at all times for the illusion to hold.

So if Jupiter is round, and it has moons, and earth has a moon, we are flat?

I have a brain, my dog has a brain, I can play an intelligent game of chess... so by your logic my dog can too?

My dog can play chess, www.mydogcanplaychessosociety.org is my reference

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 17, 2010, 08:04:28 PM

Quote from: Ranko on May 17, 2010, 07:51:06 PM

Buuut, you can see Jupiter's moons orbiting with the most basic telescope, they wouldn't orbit a flat disc,  nor would anything that far away have an inclination to face earth at all times for the illusion to hold.

So if Jupiter is round, and it has moons, and earth has a moon, we are flat?

I have a brain, my dog has a brain, I can play an intelligent game of chess... so by your logic my dog can too?

Function is not the same as composition.

A piece of metal can be used as a hammer, something to write on, or a dangerous weapon.  Just because their function is different doesn't mean it isn't made of the same things with the same properties.

All we need to do is say that the Earth is made of the same things (atoms) as Jupiter and we can conclude that the same things that govern the Atoms on Earth govern the atoms on Jupiter.

That's not what he was saying, though, so what's the relevance?  

And obviously if Jupiter and Earth are both composed of atoms (not proven, by the way), they are governed by the same laws.  Conditions at the time of their formation could have altered their shapes.  I've always thought the Earth's direct contact with the Universal Accelerator could be the reason somehow that the Earth came out flat.  Or, it could be its size itself.  The flat Earth is much larger than anything else in the known universe so it would be naive to assume that it would form in the same way.

Quote from: Lorddave on May 17, 2010, 08:07:46 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 17, 2010, 08:04:28 PM

Quote from: Ranko on May 17, 2010, 07:51:06 PM

Buuut, you can see Jupiter's moons orbiting with the most basic telescope, they wouldn't orbit a flat disc,  nor would anything that far away have an inclination to face earth at all times for the illusion to hold.

So if Jupiter is round, and it has moons, and earth has a moon, we are flat?

I have a brain, my dog has a brain, I can play an intelligent game of chess... so by your logic my dog can too?

Function is not the same as composition.

A piece of metal can be used as a hammer, something to write on, or a dangerous weapon.  Just because their function is different doesn't mean it isn't made of the same things with the same properties.

All we need to do is say that the Earth is made of the same things (atoms) as Jupiter and we can conclude that the same things that govern the Atoms on Earth govern the atoms on Jupiter.

That's not what he was saying, though, so what's the relevance?  

And obviously if Jupiter and Earth are both composed of atoms (not proven, by the way), they are governed by the same laws.  Conditions at the time of their formation could have altered their shapes.  I've always thought the Earth's direct contact with the Universal Accelerator could be the reason somehow that the Earth came out flat.  Or, it could be its size itself.  The flat Earth is much larger than anything else in the known universe so it would be naive to assume that it would form in the same way.

well considering that Jupiter is shown to have mass, and NASA did unmanned missions to it...
no it wouldn't, and you have just assumed many things that are much more unverifiable, if not already falsified, than something elementary is planets are mad of similar things. Kepler would like to have a word with you

1. you take Newton's law of gravitation
2. apply it to a bunch of particles
3.plug it into softwarez
4.
5.PROOF

Your point is non-sequitor, specifically a false reductio ad absurdam.
because a dog brain=/=human brain.
however,
iron=iron
carbon=carbon
mass=mass
mass has gravity

But Jupiter =/= Earth.  My analogy is a valid one.

the power of the brain is related to structure, not the fact that it has neurons, which is certainly true of your dog and you.
however the roundness of a planet is due to what its made of.

In FE, the Earth is not a planet.  And asteroids are made of the same things as planets, right?  Why aren't they round?

well considering that Jupiter is shown to have mass, and NASA did unmanned missions to it...

If you believe that sort of thing.

no it wouldn't, and you have just assumed many things that are much more unverifiable, if not already falsified, than something elementary is planets are mad of similar things. Kepler would like to have a word with you

So the formation of the Earth is now dictated by what we're able to observe about it?  Seems controversial, but I suppose it's pretty quantum of you.

1. you take Newton's law of gravitation
2. apply it to a bunch of particles
3.plug it into softwarez
4.
5.PROOF

Huh? 

In FE, the Earth is not a planet.  And asteroids are made of the same things as planets, right?  Why aren't they round?

Because asteroids lack a sufficiently strong gravitational field to cause them to be round.  But you already knew that, didn't you?

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 17, 2010, 08:24:04 PM

In FE, the Earth is not a planet.  And asteroids are made of the same things as planets, right?  Why aren't they round?

Because asteroids lack a sufficiently strong gravitational field to cause them to be round.  But you already knew that, didn't you?

Ah, so the above proposition is completely wrong, and a celestial body's shape is dictated by more than simply what it's composed of, then?

Ok, well I don't know how to refute an argument that makes so many allegations I could regard as rubbish, so new angle,  you mention this UA, which I hasn't read because I don't believe it's true at all, but I presume its a counter-point to gravity, assuming we're travelling up or something.

How then do you explain the fact that astronomers actively tracked a meteor roughly the size of earth crashing into Jupiter, noting it was pulled in by the evil 'gravity',  and expect that those same laws don't apply on earth

How do you explain tides, the gravity function of another body?

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 17, 2010, 08:09:16 PM

Your point is non-sequitor, specifically a false reductio ad absurdam.
because a dog brain=/=human brain.
however,
iron=iron
carbon=carbon
mass=mass
mass has gravity

But Jupiter =/= Earth.  My analogy is a valid one.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 17, 2010, 08:09:16 PM

the power of the brain is related to structure, not the fact that it has neurons, which is certainly true of your dog and you.
however the roundness of a planet is due to what its made of.

In FE, the Earth is not a planet.  And asteroids are made of the same things as planets, right?  Why aren't they round?

asteroids=/=planet=satellite
Planet:mass large enough that gravity collapses itself into a sphere like object


In an illogical way yes it is valid.
unfortunately it is a false reductio ad absurdam. just because we can assume the composition of juipiter,
doesn't mean we can assume the ability of a dogs brain to equal human brain.


On a logical level, the brains ability is based on structure, not the inclusion of neurons. therefore the premise of dog's having a brain doesn't yield the ability to play chess.
The property of bodies to become a planet, however is based on inclusion of matter and size. therefore the fact that earth is made of matter like Jupiter, and is really big, bigger than venus (another planet), we can conclude Earth to be infact a planet.

On a scientific level, we have found that dogs cannot play chess, but people can.
And we have found Earth and Juipiter to be planets, and composed of matter

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 17, 2010, 08:23:27 PM

well considering that Jupiter is shown to have mass, and NASA did unmanned missions to it...

If you believe that sort of thing.

Quote

no it wouldn't, and you have just assumed many things that are much more unverifiable, if not already falsified, than something elementary is planets are mad of similar things. Kepler would like to have a word with you

So the formation of the Earth is now dictated by what we're able to observe about it?  Seems controversial, but I suppose it's pretty quantum of you.

Quote

1. you take Newton's law of gravitation
2. apply it to a bunch of particles
3.plug it into softwarez
4.
5.PROOF

Huh? 

Yeah I do. and you know the conspiracy as an argument is tautology aka circular reasoning.

The Earth is flat.
NASA claims the Earth to be round.
NASA must have conspired, because of statement one.
The Earth is therefore flat, and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

I'm sorry that it is controversial in this forum to create a theory from observation.

And with that list, it was proof the viability of planet theory.

In FE, the Earth is not a planet.  And asteroids are made of the same things as planets, right?  Why aren't they round?

asteroids=/=planet=satellite

Planet:mass large enough that gravity collapses itself into a sphere like object

RE just gets stranger and stranger.  So stars and the moon in RET are planets too?

In an illogical way yes it is valid.
unfortunately it is a false reductio ad absurdam. just because we can assume the composition of juipiter,

It's perfectly valid, you just don't want to admit you're wrong (or can't grasp it).  We can't assume the composition of Jupiter, and even if we could, we can't assume anything about the state of things surrounding its formation.  The same can be said for the Earth.  Keep randomly tossing fallacies out while acting like an authority, though.  It's cute.

Quote from: markjo on May 17, 2010, 08:29:27 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 17, 2010, 08:24:04 PM

In FE, the Earth is not a planet.  And asteroids are made of the same things as planets, right?  Why aren't they round?

Because asteroids lack a sufficiently strong gravitational field to cause them to be round.  But you already knew that, didn't you?

Ah, so the above proposition is completely wrong, and a celestial body's shape is dictated by more than simply what it's composed of, then?

Of course.  A sufficiently massive quantity of any matter will generate a gravitational field strong enough to cause it form a spherical shape.  The real question should be (as the IAU puts it), does the FE have sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it should assume a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_planet#IAU_definition

This is just too damned entertaining. I completely see why DAs do it now.

Still haven't explained tides, or why their movements are linked to the movement of the moon, how can this work without gravity?