Here we go again

Ok without trolls this time.
After reading many of the posts in this thread and many other threads i would like to ask a few questions.
(1) If the sun as FET says is in a stationary position above the earth could you explain how night and day work? and also why it is light in some parts of the world while dark in others, if the earth is flat then surely night would come to every country at the same time instead of dark in the uk and light in america lets say?
(2) Could the FET explain the aurora borealis or northern lights and aurora australis southern lights?
(3) Can you also explain why we have four poles. 2 being magnetic south and north pole and also 2 being geographical north and south. If the earth was flat these would not exist?
(4) Also if antartica exists which part of the flat earth does it reside as you do not have north and south with a flat disc you just have degrees?
(5) Can you explain why the millions of euros were spent on the solar heliographic observatory to monitor solar flares which cause geomagnetic storms over the magnetic poles, when these storms get strong enough countries have major power cuts this has been recorded in recent times. We know it does happen because of the southern and northern lights.
(6) When you look through a powerful telescope at the moon lets say you can easily see it is a globe?
(7) I could keep on going with questions, when man first went into space why was it announced that the earth was definitely a globe? What possible reason would the powers that be have to say that if it were not true? as we spent many years thinking thinking it was flat back in the past.

After reading many of the posts in this thread

Um, your the OP and I'm the first reply.  Are you somehow psychic?

Ok, if you want a better answer, "here we go again" is the best title you could've put.  Those questions have been answered numerous times before so, if like you claim, you have read the replies in this post but "many others", you would well have a better idea than just putting forth old questions.

If the sun as FET says is in a stationary position above the earth

Where did you read this?

Ok without trolls this time.

But you're posting?

   Here we go again.

the faq should help with most of your questions even if the explanation is perfect it gives you a good idea what the belief in FET is about

You clearly can't lurk for shit. Before you act all pompous in here, how about you actually figure out what you are talking about first. You just look extremely retarded in your ignorance.

Ok without trolls this time.
After reading many of the posts in this thread and many other threads i would like to ask a few questions.
(1) If the sun as FET says is in a stationary position above the earth could you explain how night and day work? and also why it is light in some parts of the world while dark in others, if the earth is flat then surely night would come to every country at the same time instead of dark in the uk and light in america lets say?

No, the Sun acts as a spotlight, and only illuminates a section of the Earth as it points its way around in a circular motion.

Read the FAQ

(2) Could the FET explain the aurora borealis or northern lights and aurora australis southern lights?

What about them?

(3) Can you also explain why we have four poles. 2 being magnetic south and north pole and also 2 being geographical north and south. If the earth was flat these would not exist?

This is quite simple. The center of the Earth is magnetic North and Geographical North. The rim of the Earth is Magnetic South and the is no singular geographical south.

Read the FAQ

(4) Also if antartica exists which part of the flat earth does it reside as you do not have north and south with a flat disc you just have degrees?

Oh I get it now, you did not lurk, at all. Did you?

Read the FAQ

(5) Can you explain why the millions of euros were spent on the solar heliographic observatory to monitor solar flares which cause geomagnetic storms over the magnetic poles, when these storms get strong enough countries have major power cuts this has been recorded in recent times. We know it does happen because of the southern and northern lights.

What needs to be explained?

(6) When you look through a powerful telescope at the moon lets say you can easily see it is a globe?

Ok, lets say. Now what?

(7) I could keep on going with questions, when man first went into space why was it announced that the earth was definitely a globe? What possible reason would the powers that be have to say that if it were not true? as we spent many years thinking thinking it was flat back in the past.

Holy Shit.

Read the FAQ

Ok without trolls this time.
After reading many of the posts in this thread and many other threads i would like to ask a few questions.
(1) If the sun as FET says is in a stationary position above the earth could you explain how night and day work? and also why it is light in some parts of the world while dark in others, if the earth is flat then surely night would come to every country at the same time instead of dark in the uk and light in america lets say?
(2) Could the FET explain the aurora borealis or northern lights and aurora australis southern lights?
(3) Can you also explain why we have four poles. 2 being magnetic south and north pole and also 2 being geographical north and south. If the earth was flat these would not exist?
(4) Also if antartica exists which part of the flat earth does it reside as you do not have north and south with a flat disc you just have degrees?
(5) Can you explain why the millions of euros were spent on the solar heliographic observatory to monitor solar flares which cause geomagnetic storms over the magnetic poles, when these storms get strong enough countries have major power cuts this has been recorded in recent times. We know it does happen because of the southern and northern lights.
(6) When you look through a powerful telescope at the moon lets say you can easily see it is a globe?
(7) I could keep on going with questions, when man first went into space why was it announced that the earth was definitely a globe? What possible reason would the powers that be have to say that if it were not true? as we spent many years thinking thinking it was flat back in the past.

I wasn't trying to troll you myself. Just giving you a fair warning, the trolls ARE going to pick this apart without answering your questions. Good luck, hope this helps, but I strongly suspect you're in for a headache.

Quote from: mabelobe on February 18, 2011, 06:20:38 PM

After reading many of the posts in this thread

Um, your the OP and I'm the first reply.  Are you somehow psychic?

I lol'd far more than I should have.

The sun acts as a spotlight while it illuminates a section of the earth as it points it'self round in a circular motion. If this is true english gentleman whats the sun attached too that makes it spin? don't tell me i know a ball socket hahaha queue the disco lights

"This is quite simple. The center of the Earth is magnetic North and Geographical North. The rim of the Earth is Magnetic South and the is no singular geographical south".
Prove it i'm waiting for you to convince me oh you cannot because your logic is obviously flawed so we have the aurora in the east west north and south would like to see some aurora pictures from lets say Japan. 

Where are you getting the idea that anybody is claiming aurorae in Japan? Before making an argument, you need to understand what it is exactly that you're arguing against. Then you should probably go ahead and learn how to construct an argument, if you really want to get ambitious.

The sun acts as a spotlight while it illuminates a section of the earth as it points it'self round in a circular motion. If this is true english gentleman whats the sun attached too that makes it spin? don't tell me i know a ball socket hahaha queue the disco lights

Attached to?  What sort of strange universe do you live in where the planets are held up by strings?

don't ask me ask english gentleman he was the one who stated that, or should i say thats how i interpreted it. The strange universe that i live in as you put it, has  a globe called earth in it. How about yourself!

Quote from: mabelobe on February 19, 2011, 07:55:01 PM

The sun acts as a spotlight while it illuminates a section of the earth as it points it'self round in a circular motion. If this is true english gentleman whats the sun attached too that makes it spin? don't tell me i know a ball socket hahaha queue the disco lights

Attached to?  What sort of strange universe do you live in where the planets are held up by strings?

Maybe he meant Celestial Gears - so they would be attached to  -  Cogs?

Berny
Thinks this conversation has run its course.

The sun acts as a spotlight while it illuminates a section of the earth as it points it'self round in a circular motion. If this is true english gentleman whats the sun attached too that makes it spin? don't tell me i know a ball socket hahaha queue the disco lights

Why should it need anything attached to it to make it swivel? 

Quote from: mabelobe on February 19, 2011, 07:55:01 PM

The sun acts as a spotlight while it illuminates a section of the earth as it points it'self round in a circular motion. If this is true english gentleman whats the sun attached too that makes it spin? don't tell me i know a ball socket hahaha queue the disco lights

Why should it need anything attached to it to make it swivel? 

Inertia.  Unless there is some force acting upon the sun, it'll just sit there.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on February 20, 2011, 08:04:11 AM

Quote from: mabelobe on February 19, 2011, 07:55:01 PM

The sun acts as a spotlight while it illuminates a section of the earth as it points it'self round in a circular motion. If this is true english gentleman whats the sun attached too that makes it spin? don't tell me i know a ball socket hahaha queue the disco lights

Why should it need anything attached to it to make it swivel? 

Inertia.  Unless there is some force acting upon the sun, it'll just sit there.

Or continue travelling its geodesic. 

Quote from: markjo on February 20, 2011, 08:17:11 AM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on February 20, 2011, 08:04:11 AM

Quote from: mabelobe on February 19, 2011, 07:55:01 PM

The sun acts as a spotlight while it illuminates a section of the earth as it points it'self round in a circular motion. If this is true english gentleman whats the sun attached too that makes it spin? don't tell me i know a ball socket hahaha queue the disco lights

Why should it need anything attached to it to make it swivel? 

Inertia.  Unless there is some force acting upon the sun, it'll just sit there.

Or continue travelling its geodesic. 

Which would still require forces to keep the sun suspended above the FE, moving in a circular path above the FE and expanding and contracting the radius of its orbit above the FE.  That would be at least 3 forces required to explain the motions of the FE sun when the RE sun only requires gravity and the tilt of the earth's axis to explain the same phenomena.  I hate to invoke Occam's Razor, but...

Quote from: John Davis on February 20, 2011, 08:26:04 AM

Quote from: markjo on February 20, 2011, 08:17:11 AM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on February 20, 2011, 08:04:11 AM

Quote from: mabelobe on February 19, 2011, 07:55:01 PM

The sun acts as a spotlight while it illuminates a section of the earth as it points it'self round in a circular motion. If this is true english gentleman whats the sun attached too that makes it spin? don't tell me i know a ball socket hahaha queue the disco lights

Why should it need anything attached to it to make it swivel? 

Inertia.  Unless there is some force acting upon the sun, it'll just sit there.

Or continue travelling its geodesic. 

Which would still require forces to keep the sun suspended above the FE, moving in a circular path above the FE and expanding and contracting the radius of its orbit above the FE.  That would be at least 3 forces required to explain the motions of the FE sun when the RE sun only requires gravity and the tilt of the earth's axis to explain the same phenomena.  I hate to invoke Occam's Razor, but...

Which means you would have to explain Gravity, you would have to explain why the Earth is tilited as opposed to not, and you would have to explain why the Earth is spinning.

I hate to invoke Occam's Razor, but....

Which means you would have to explain Gravity, you would have to explain why the Earth is tilited as opposed to not, and you would have to explain why the Earth is spinning.

I hate to invoke Occam's Razor, but....

But, it's still only one force that RET would need to explain (gravity) as opposed to however many more forces FET requires.

Ok without trolls this time.

Dude, we're all trolls. Maybe not some of the mods, but we're trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls trolling retards who think the Earth is flat, to quote Encyclopedia Dramatica. (sorry I'm late)

Quote from: mabelobe on February 18, 2011, 06:20:38 PM

Ok without trolls this time.

Dude, we're all trolls. Maybe not some of the mods, but we're trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls trolling retards who think the Earth is flat, to quote Encyclopedia Dramatica. (sorry I'm late)

Speak for yourself.

Invoking Occam's Razor is tricky business, if you ask me, since it is usually misinterpreted. The ever-vigilant Wikipedia informs us that, strictly speaking, it is a "principle that suggests we should tend towards simpler theories until we can trade some simplicity for increased explanatory power. Contrary to the popular summary, the simplest available theory is sometimes a less accurate explanation."

As FET currently stands, I do not see much evidence of "increased explanatory power" over RET. This in itself proves nothing, except that invoking it lightly seems arbitrary.

I'm still of an opinion that Occam's Razor favors the Flat Earth model.

From the FEWiki on Occam's Razor:

Occam's Razor asks us which explanation makes the least number of assumptions. The explanation which makes the least number of assumptions is the simplest explanation. Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory. Several examples exist below.

What's the simplest explanation; that my experience of existing upon a plane wherever I go and whatever I do is a massive illusion, that my eyes are constantly deceiving me and that I am actually looking at the enormous sphere of the earth spinning through space at tens of thousands of miles an hour, whirling in perpetual epicycles around the universe; or is the simplest explanation that my eyes are not playing tricks on me and that the earth is exactly as it appears?

What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter straight up at 7 miles per second, and that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis, explore the cosmos, and constantly wow the nation by landing a man on the moon and sending robots to mars; or is the simplest explanation that they really can't do all of that stuff?

When I walk off the edge of a chair and go into free fall while observing the surface of the earth carefully the earth appears to accelerate up towards me. What's the simplest explanation; that there exists hypothetical undiscovered Graviton puller particles emanating from the earth which allows them to accelerate my body towards the surface through unexplained quantum effects; or is the simplest explanation that this mysterious highly theoretical mechanism does not exist and the earth has just accelerated upwards towards me exactly as I've observed?

What's the simplest explanation; that when I look up and see the sun slowly move across the sky over the course of the day, that the globe earth is spinning at over a thousand miles per hour - faster than the speed of sound at the equator - despite me being unable able to feel this centripetal acceleration, or is the simplest explanation that the sun itself is just moving across the sky exactly as I have observed?

What's the simplest explanation; that the sun, moon, and stars are enormous bodies of unimaginable mass, size, and distances which represent frontiers to a vast and infinite unknowable universe teeming with alien worlds, galactic civilizations, black holes, novas and nebulae, and phenomena only conceivable in science fiction; or is the simplest explanation that the universe isn't so large or unknown and when we look up at the stars we are just looking at small points of light exactly they appear to be?

Yes, you have a lot of opinions that are false.

Yes, you have a lot of opinions that are false.

Why don't you try keeping your mouth shut next time yo want to say something.

Tom, I am certainly not arguing against the fact that FET usually offers a simpler explanation, I'm saying that the simplest explanation is not always correct, according to the Razor, and this seems to be supported by FET's lack of robust explanations for various phenomena. It seems arrogant to presume the form or behavior of anything in the cosmos either way without collecting a lot of verifiable data.

Tom, I am certainly not arguing against the fact that FET usually offers a simpler explanation, I'm saying that the simplest explanation is not always correct

Occam's Razor doesn't say that the simplest explanation is always correct. The simplest explanation is the most likely to be correct.