So, this is my first time here....

  • 59 Replies
  • 6713 Views
So, this is my first time here....
« on: October 26, 2011, 02:24:09 AM »
And I have to say that the Flat-Earth hypothesis seems rather.... far-fetched.

Very few pieces of concrete evidence support. And I've read the FAQ... all of the "evidence" there seems rather contrived. I'm sorry, but the evidence for a round earth is so overwhelmingly more profuse, succinct, and comprehensive what you've got going here.

There are a few points I'd bring up. And for the purposes of this post, second-person "you" is referring to a supporter of the flat-earth hypothesis:

-You maintain that the earth is a flat disk. What is the thickness of this disk? What is on the reverse side of this disk? What forces hold the disk in this shape? People who know the know the earth is round can tell you the Earth's radius, it's core composition, and that the force of gravity means that the most stable shape for all celestial objects is a sphere.

-You say that day and night is caused by the sun circling above the disk that is the earth, and that seasons are caused by the regular expanding and contracting of its path. We know that day and night on all other planets are caused by rotation of a spherical body. In a flat earth model, you would have to explain what forces keeps the sun rotating indefinitely, what forces cause the radius of the sun's path to oscillate regularly, why the sun does not fall to earth, and why the sun with its own gravitational field which keeps all other planets in the solar system has no effect on the Earth

-Which brings me to my next point. You reject gravity on earth, instead opting for an explanation that surmises that the Earth is constantly accelerating linearly at rate equal to that of the acceleration of gravity. Besides sounding redundant, can anyone here tell me now what the velocity of the Earth is now? This would mean that if any decently-sized object were to strike the earth's surface from space, the energy from the collision would be enough to completely annihilate the Earth as we know it. This has not been the case. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteorite_impact#Modern_impact_events

-The South Pole. It's already been visited multiple times. The entire Antarctic continent has been surveyed, and the South pole lies on it. In the Flat Earth hypothesis, the South Pole would have to be everywhere along the edge of the earth. This is not true. As indicated by instruments, there is only one location on the earth that is the farthest point from the North Pole. Flags have been planted on it.

-The sun and the moon. Oh boy. Nowhere does your hypothesis encounter more serious flaws. In the FAQ, you address the issue of lunar eclipses by introducing into existence a whole new celestial body called the "antimoon". Firstly, what evidence do you have that enables you to do this, except out of convenience? Why does this antimoon not have an effect on tides? Can you tell me its properties, of which the very least its size and composition? But that's not what I'm interested in. I want to raise the issue of solar eclipses. At what distances do you place the sun and moon from the earth? For solar eclipses to occur, the moon would have to be closer to the earth than the sun. However, in the Flat Earth model, this prevents us from ever seeing more than a half-moon at most. The model I believe in allows solar eclipses and full moons with ease. Furthermore, you say that the sun is a "spotlight" that only shines on certain areas at a time, which creates day and night. This means that at a certain angle when viewed from the earth, light no longer radiates from the sun. Basically, the sun has blinders in your model. If this is the case, however, how can the moon be illuminated at all during the night? The angle projection from the sun to the moon would certainly have to be greater than the that from the sun to the surface of the earth where it is night.

-The stars. Following the Flat Earth hypothesis, all stars and constellations should be visible from any point on the globe during all seasons. This is not the case. On a certain point on the earth, some constellations can only be viewed during certain seasons, and others not at all regardless of season. You will never be to see the Southern Cross from Washington D.C., but you can see Canis Major during the summer. In contrast, the Southern Cross is always visible from any point in the southern hemisphere. The round earth model explains both seasonal variation and celestial visibility by virtue of the earth's axial tilt.

-A lot of your rejection of traditional senses of direction seems to be based on your notion of a compasses fallibility. You forget that early navigators could use both the stars and their compasses to inform you of their direction. But this brings me to my next point, which is....

-The earth's magnetic field. Both the locations of the magnetic north pole and the magnetic south pole can be located. A compass will confirm this. You cannot walk a distance from the south pole (as in walking the circumference in the Flat-Earth model), and still have your compass report neutral.

-Not to mention that heat would dissipate extremely rapidly from a flat earth, stopping all geothermal activity which causes plate tectonics, and the magnetic field to exist at all. Mars has already lost its magnetic field, but Venus has a small one, but only due to lack of convection...

-Oh who am I kidding. Your model of the earth doesn't even allow for the processes that would normally produce a magnetic field to take place. Unless your notion of "flat earth" is more akin to a cube, or a rectangular prism with considerable thickness, which would have by this time stabilized into a sphere anyway, even without the assistance of gravity.

-After perusing through your website, I can only conclude that you guys deliberately lack scientific integrity with your methods, hypotheses, and explanations to support a flat earth model. You assume a priori that your hypothesis is correct (I quote: "if the Earth is in fact flat, then the space agencies must be lying when they say it isn't") , supported by very little evidence, and then craft wildly creative and convenient "theories" around it to explain the huge contradictions that it causes, which in turn are also supported by very little evidence because you failed to use the scientific method. You reject barrow-loads of empirical data which evidences the contrary on the basis of the belief that it's all from some huge conspiracy theory. You arrogantly reject research presented from the most widely respected academic institutions, because you believe you somehow know better than everyone there. You attempt to rewrite over 5 centuries of scientific progress which has used the scientific method and is so far consistent with everything we know. In any scientific field, a little skepticism is healthy, but your efforts here exceed the threshold of absurdity, and borders on the paranoid. There's a reason why everyone thinks this site is a joke, and it's not because the conspiracy has installed propaganda machines on everyone's hard drive. Isolating oneself from the community prevents healthy circulation of ideas and only breeds irrationality. Visit your local space center. Or an observatory. Organize your own Antarctic expedition if you must (I'm going to tell you a secret: there are no guards stationed there. What, you think the Antarctic Treaty is fake too?) Build your own telescope if you don't trust the government; that's what Galileo did. Something that might open your eyes to the world, please...

?

Thork

Re: So, this is my first time here....
« Reply #1 on: October 26, 2011, 02:43:48 AM »
I don't know how we can stop people doing what you have just done. I appreciate that took you some time to write, and that's great, its nice when people make an effort. But you have asked a dozen questions, each one of them much longer than the question. In short, it will take hours for anyone to answer all this.

Most importantly, the FAQ is a starting point. In fact most of it is rubbish and not what the people here believe. We are trying to get a new one written, but the administration of this site is ... well there isn't any.

I am about to go swimming so there is no way I could answer all this. I doubt anyone else will either. Pick your favourite. The thing you think most ridiculous and implausible and make this thread about that. Then when its done, move on to the next thing.

My thoughts on list threads.

Re: So, this is my first time here....
« Reply #2 on: October 26, 2011, 03:46:53 AM »
I appreciate that you answered so quickly. At least you're dedicated. And I do see your point, and since there are already ongoing debates about several of the things I mentioned, I'll narrow it down to two. My "favorites", if you will:

1. Sun and moon. How can there be times, on a flat earth, where the earth is not illuminated, but the moon is, and in phases too? And, how can we observe, on a flat earth, solar eclipses if we can also observe full moons?

2. Stars. Why are constellations such as the Southern Cross never visible in the far north, but always visible in the far south? And why does our ability to see certain constellations depend on the season? (again, from the perspective of a flat earth)

Re: So, this is my first time here....
« Reply #3 on: October 26, 2011, 09:04:11 AM »
-After perusing through your website, I can only conclude that you guys deliberately lack scientific integrity with your methods, hypotheses, and explanations to support a flat earth model. You assume a priori that your hypothesis is correct (I quote: "if the Earth is in fact flat, then the space agencies must be lying when they say it isn't") , supported by very little evidence, and then craft wildly creative and convenient "theories" around it to explain the huge contradictions that it causes, which in turn are also supported by very little evidence because you failed to use the scientific method. You reject barrow-loads of empirical data which evidences the contrary on the basis of the belief that it's all from some huge conspiracy theory. You arrogantly reject research presented from the most widely respected academic institutions, because you believe you somehow know better than everyone there. You attempt to rewrite over 5 centuries of scientific progress which has used the scientific method and is so far consistent with everything we know.

This pretty much sums up exactly how I feel after learning about the flat earth society. I have never seen so much stubbornness in my life.

Re: So, this is my first time here....
« Reply #4 on: October 26, 2011, 05:54:05 PM »
-Oh who am I kidding. Your model of the earth doesn't even allow for the processes that would normally produce a magnetic field to take place. Unless your notion of "flat earth" is more akin to a cube, or a rectangular prism with considerable thickness, which would have by this time stabilized into a sphere anyway, even without the assistance of gravity.
A very well put post and I agree with pretty much the entire thing. Unfortunately it will inevitably get derailed or you'll be called an angry noob and told to read the FAQ.
Wondering about the piece I quoted; what are the processes that make the magnetic field as I'm not actually aware of them.
Secondly, why would a cube/rectangular prism stabilize into a sphere in the absence of gravity?

Re: So, this is my first time here....
« Reply #5 on: October 26, 2011, 08:35:04 PM »
-Oh who am I kidding. Your model of the earth doesn't even allow for the processes that would normally produce a magnetic field to take place. Unless your notion of "flat earth" is more akin to a cube, or a rectangular prism with considerable thickness, which would have by this time stabilized into a sphere anyway, even without the assistance of gravity.
A very well put post and I agree with pretty much the entire thing. Unfortunately it will inevitably get derailed or you'll be called an angry noob and told to read the FAQ.
Wondering about the piece I quoted; what are the processes that make the magnetic field as I'm not actually aware of them.
Secondly, why would a cube/rectangular prism stabilize into a sphere in the absence of gravity?

Here's hoping it's not... I actually want people to address, or at least acknowledge, the points I'm making... >_>

Here's a link on the magnetic field. Wikipedia's come a long way: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetism#Physical_origin

Besides gravity, there's erosion and geological activity, but most have their roots in the 2nd law of thermo. If all states exist in equilibrium with each other in a closed system, there is tendency for matter to adopt a spheroid shape. It also explains why water droplets are spheres, balloons are round, and swarms of bees tend to look more like spheres than cubes.
« Last Edit: October 26, 2011, 08:51:13 PM by frivolity »

Re: So, this is my first time here....
« Reply #6 on: October 27, 2011, 08:58:06 PM »
1. Sun and moon. How can there be times, on a flat earth, where the earth is not illuminated, but the moon is, and in phases too? And, how can we observe, on a flat earth, solar eclipses if we can also observe full moons?

2. Stars. Why are constellations such as the Southern Cross never visible in the far north, but always visible in the far south? And why does our ability to see certain constellations depend on the season? (again, from the perspective of a flat earth)

No takers from the Flat-Earthers I see. Shall I count this as one or two victories for the Round Earth model then?

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: So, this is my first time here....
« Reply #7 on: October 27, 2011, 09:43:07 PM »
1. Sun and moon. How can there be times, on a flat earth, where the earth is not illuminated, but the moon is, and in phases too? And, how can we observe, on a flat earth, solar eclipses if we can also observe full moons?

2. Stars. Why are constellations such as the Southern Cross never visible in the far north, but always visible in the far south? And why does our ability to see certain constellations depend on the season? (again, from the perspective of a flat earth)

No takers from the Flat-Earthers I see. Shall I count this as one or two victories for the Round Earth model then?

I'll give it a stab.  Correct me if I make inaccuracies, FE'ers.

1.  The moon does not reflect sun light.  Bio-luminescent lunar shrimp live on the moon and they all turn on and off their lights at the proper time in order for us to get the moon phases.

2.  The stars are much closer on a flat earth than they are on a round one.  You can not see the southern cross from the northern hemidisk because the stars are simply too far away.  The same goes for Polaris when viewed from the south. 

Re: So, this is my first time here....
« Reply #8 on: October 27, 2011, 11:24:08 PM »
I'll give it a stab.  Correct me if I make inaccuracies, FE'ers.

1.  The moon does not reflect sun light.  Bio-luminescent lunar shrimp live on the moon and they all turn on and off their lights at the proper time in order for us to get the moon phases.

2.  The stars are much closer on a flat earth than they are on a round one.  You can not see the southern cross from the northern hemidisk because the stars are simply too far away.  The same goes for Polaris when viewed from the south.

Do these stars move in a circle above the disc, like the sun, in order to explain their motion through the sky? If so, how do the FE's explain the fact that there are stars in the southern hemisphere that never set. If the stars moved in a circle, the would spend some of the time on the opposite side of the disk to me (in Australia) so that South America could see them. This means that I should see them set like I would the sun, but I don't.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: So, this is my first time here....
« Reply #9 on: October 27, 2011, 11:36:59 PM »
Don't get me started on Australia.  It has been proven zetetically over and over that Australia does not exist.  If it did, it would fit perfectly on to a flat map, which it does not.  And people who say that they have been to this fantasy land are obviously lying or have been hypnotized into believing their trip to be true by the NASA ninjas.  Take your pick.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16691
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: So, this is my first time here....
« Reply #10 on: October 28, 2011, 07:43:26 AM »
1.  The moon is self luminescent, by bioluminescent bacteria.  The weather system on the moon causes the phases you talk of.
2.  Our view of the night sky depends on how light is bent by the greater and lesser aetheric cycles.
Quantum Ab Hoc

Re: So, this is my first time here....
« Reply #11 on: October 28, 2011, 08:44:22 AM »
1. There's no life form on the Moon, therefore no luminescent bacteria.
2. Absolute gibberish for me. Got something understandable?
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: So, this is my first time here....
« Reply #12 on: October 28, 2011, 08:50:57 AM »
John Davis, would you please share with us the logic that you used to determine that the moon has bacteria and a weather system?

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16691
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: So, this is my first time here....
« Reply #13 on: October 28, 2011, 09:09:13 AM »
We have physical evidence that the moon indeed has life.  Periodically it even falls to earth due to aetheric currents.  The weather system can be seen with the naked eye.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16691
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: So, this is my first time here....
« Reply #14 on: October 28, 2011, 09:11:12 AM »
2. Absolute gibberish for me. Got something understandable?
Light is bent based off the cyclical nature of non or semi-particulate aether which runs in roughly two cycles which cycle around one year and one day.  Depending on your rimdistance, altitude, etc (the angle you are looking through these eddies) you see a different part of the universe.
Quantum Ab Hoc

Re: So, this is my first time here....
« Reply #15 on: October 28, 2011, 09:12:59 AM »
I haven't seen any evidence of aether.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16691
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: So, this is my first time here....
« Reply #16 on: October 28, 2011, 09:22:06 AM »
I haven't seen any evidence of aether.
Aether is just another name for space.  Do you not believe space exists?
Quantum Ab Hoc

Re: So, this is my first time here....
« Reply #17 on: October 28, 2011, 09:30:31 AM »
Space is far too vague. It can be a lot of things, but what could it be to distort light?
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16691
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: So, this is my first time here....
« Reply #18 on: October 28, 2011, 09:33:56 AM »
Space is far too vague. It can be a lot of things, but what could it be to distort light?
Well, apparently space itself distorts light in RE.
Quantum Ab Hoc

Re: So, this is my first time here....
« Reply #19 on: October 28, 2011, 10:07:13 AM »
It's called gravity lenses, not bendy light, and the distorsion is nowhere as important as it is with bendy light.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16691
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: So, this is my first time here....
« Reply #20 on: October 28, 2011, 10:36:29 AM »
It's called gravity lenses, not bendy light, and the distorsion is nowhere as important as it is with bendy light.
Important?  In what sense?   Also, we aren't talking about bendy light.  And yes, I'm familiar with gravity lenses, but the phenomenon is much more widespread than that.

Quantum Ab Hoc

Re: So, this is my first time here....
« Reply #21 on: October 28, 2011, 10:38:11 AM »
I thought that most of FE theory was based on bendy light.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16691
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: So, this is my first time here....
« Reply #22 on: October 28, 2011, 10:39:29 AM »
I thought that most of FE theory was based on bendy light.
Nope.

edit: In fact, bendy light is rather new, specific to these forums, and invented by a REer.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2011, 11:00:35 AM by John Davis »
Quantum Ab Hoc

Re: So, this is my first time here....
« Reply #23 on: October 28, 2011, 11:02:58 AM »
I thought it was an explaination for sunrises and sunsets, for instance.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

Re: So, this is my first time here....
« Reply #24 on: October 28, 2011, 11:09:30 AM »
We have physical evidence that the moon indeed has life1.  Periodically it even falls to earth2 due to aetheric currents3.  The weather system can be seen with the naked eye4.
There are four bold statements in that post, none of which seem to have any basis in reality. Would you mind posting evidence/links about these?

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16691
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: So, this is my first time here....
« Reply #25 on: October 28, 2011, 11:15:41 AM »
We have physical evidence that the moon indeed has life1.  Periodically it even falls to earth2 due to aetheric currents3.  The weather system can be seen with the naked eye4.
There are four bold statements in that post, none of which seem to have any basis in reality. Would you mind posting evidence/links about these?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=search
http://www.usno.navy.mil/USNO/astronomical-applications/images_aa/Moon_phases.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_rain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_rain_in_Kerala
Research: Manna
Quantum Ab Hoc

Re: So, this is my first time here....
« Reply #26 on: October 28, 2011, 11:45:09 AM »
Hardly anything plausible in there.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16691
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: So, this is my first time here....
« Reply #27 on: October 28, 2011, 12:14:40 PM »
Hardly anything plausible in there.
Is that how you so stoutly believe in a round earth?  By ignoring all evidence to the contrary?

If you would like several cited examples of moon matter falling from the sky simply read the works of Charles Forte.
Quantum Ab Hoc

Re: So, this is my first time here....
« Reply #28 on: October 28, 2011, 12:30:43 PM »
1.  The moon is self luminescent, by bioluminescent bacteria.  The weather system on the moon causes the phases you talk of.
2.  Our view of the night sky depends on how light is bent by the greater and lesser aetheric cycles.

1. If the moon was illuminated by bacteria, we would not always see the same plateau and valley formations. Bacteria is mobile, especially if there is a weather system on the moon.
-Which there isn't. No weather system can block light in such an organized and total fashion.

2. If light was bent by aether currents, then we would see positions of stars shift relative to each other. This does not happen; instead, our entire point of reference shifts. Bendy light also does not sufficiently explain why some constellations are always visible north of the equator, but never in the south, and vice/versa. No amount of light bending can make that statement true on a flat earth

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16691
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: So, this is my first time here....
« Reply #29 on: October 28, 2011, 01:59:55 PM »
1.  The moon is self luminescent, by bioluminescent bacteria.  The weather system on the moon causes the phases you talk of.
2.  Our view of the night sky depends on how light is bent by the greater and lesser aetheric cycles.

1. If the moon was illuminated by bacteria, we would not always see the same plateau and valley formations. Bacteria is mobile, especially if there is a weather system on the moon.
-Which there isn't. No weather system can block light in such an organized and total fashion.
The atmosphere on the moon is extremely light.  This coupled with the predictable  forces that act on the moon make this very realistic.  Who would have thought the universe acts in an organized fashion? :/  Also total?  What do you mean?
Quote
2. If light was bent by aether currents, then we would see positions of stars shift relative to each other. This does not happen; instead, our entire point of reference shifts. Bendy light also does not sufficiently explain why some constellations are always visible north of the equator, but never in the south, and vice/versa. No amount of light bending can make that statement true on a flat earth
We aren't talking about bendy light. 

And of course an amount of "light bending" or rather, the path of the light being altered, can make it true on a flat earth.
Quantum Ab Hoc