I am a Round Earther

Dear FE Community. After spending that last several days intensely studying FET, I regret to inform you that I have chosen to reject it in favor of round earth.

My main problems with FET are as follows:

1. Dark Energy Model - This model is highly theoretical and unbelievably complicated.
2. The antimoon - this mysterious celestial body only appears during a lunar eclipse and is otherwise untraceable. Nobody has ever found the antimoon. even with a telescope when it is not during a lunar eclipse.
3. Satellites.  FET claims that satellites simply do not exist, and that GPS technologies rely on towers, etc.  As a student studying electrical engineering, I'm going to have to call that one out.  Beside the fact that you can see satellites in the sky with a telescope if you really wanted to.
4. Your maps seem to be photoshopped round-earther maps.

I guess what it comes down to is that I believe Flat Earthers just like trolling Round Earthers in order to prove that FET is neither provable nor unprovable.  If FET was really all that important to you, you would try to prove FET instead of disproving round earth fact.  All it takes is some homemade space craft to show that the earth is indeed a sphere. Small scale experiments on lakes and such to prove the earth is flat don't cut it.  But, I commend you for your excellent trolling abilities and your excellent denialist abilities.  At least you are not holocaust deniers and for that I give you my respect.

Happy trolling!

And might I ask what kind of homemade space crafts RE ers have been flying into space in?

As a student of electrical engineering, you should find more problems with the idea of hunks of metal flying around a massive ball, rather than less.

See ya later

1. Dark Energy Model - This model is highly theoretical and unbelievably complicated.

Very few FE'rs believe this model.

2. The antimoon - this mysterious celestial body only appears during a lunar eclipse and is otherwise untraceable. Nobody has ever found the antimoon. even with a telescope when it is not during a lunar eclipse.

So, something that has never been proven can not be true, like gravity?

By the way, not all FE'rs believe in the antimoon.

3. Satellites.  FET claims that satellites simply do not exist, and that GPS technologies rely on towers, etc.  As a student studying electrical engineering, I'm going to have to call that one out.  Beside the fact that you can see satellites in the sky with a telescope if you really wanted to.

Once again, not all FE'rs claim that satellites do not exist.

However, clearly you are an expert on satellites since you are an engineering student.

What year are you in your studies?

4. Your maps seem to be photoshopped round-earther maps.

I am sorry that our quality is not up to your standards. 

I guess what it comes down to is that I believe Flat Earthers just like trolling Round Earthers in order to prove that FET is neither provable nor unprovable.  If FET was really all that important to you, you would try to prove FET instead of disproving round earth fact. 

You took all that time out of your studies to register an account and post on this forum just to tell us that?  Who is trolling whom, now?

All it takes is some homemade space craft to show that the earth is indeed a sphere. Small scale experiments on lakes and such to prove the earth is flat don't cut it.  But, I commend you for your excellent trolling abilities and your excellent denialist abilities.  At least you are not holocaust deniers and for that I give you my respect.

Good thing you are studying engineering and not comedy.  There is an Angry Rants section at the bottom of the main forum page.  I invite you to use it before you leave.

As a student of electrical engineering, you should find more problems with the idea of hunks of metal flying around a massive ball, rather than less.

Why?

As a student of electrical engineering, you should find more problems with the idea of hunks of metal flying around a massive ball, rather than less.

  Why should the question of earth orbit bother an electrical engineer? 

Very few FE'rs believe this model.
...
By the way, not all FE'rs believe in the antimoon.
...
Once again, not all FE'rs claim that satellites do not exist.

However, clearly you are an expert on satellites since you are an engineering student.

What year are you in your studies?
...

That's my other problem with FET: Nobody can agree on anything. You have no standardized beliefs. Some believe in the Ice Wall, some don't, some believe in the anti-moon, some don't, some believe in satellites, some don't, some believe in the dark energy model, some don't.  You have no official or standardized "theory," just a loosely knit internet community that denies a round earth.

I have a bachelor's degree in EE, working on a Master's. As an engineering student, I worked on enough digital systems to know that if your system is based on something that doesn't exist, it won't work.  GPS technology relies heavily on a constellation of about 27 satellites orbiting the earth. Some FE believers claim that there are no satellites, but you don't understand: the system itself requires picking up the clock signal of 3 different satellites in the constellation in order to triangulate your location. Having towers won't cut if you are in the middle of the desert or ocean. But, as far as FE believers are concerned, computers and other electronic systems might as well be magic.

And might I ask what kind of homemade space crafts RE ers have been flying into space in?

Weather balloon + iphone," class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> amature rockets, it can all be built by you if you cared enough. I'm not saying you have to go up in space, I'm sure your digital camera is sufficient.

As a student of electrical engineering, you should find more problems with the idea of hunks of metal flying around a massive ball, rather than less.

Maybe you should take a physics class sometime. You're saying that you have a problem with big chunks of metal orbiting a massive ball, but not huge chunks of rock millions of times bigger than a satellite orbiting mars, jupiter, or saturn? You can use a pair of binoculars to see the moons of Jupiter orbiting a ball even bigger than the earth.

edit: fixed a sentence fragment

Maybe you should take a physics class sometime. You're saying that you have a problem with big chunks of metal orbiting a massive ball, but not huge chunks of rock millions of times bigger than a satellite orbiting mars, jupiter, or saturn? You can use a pair of binoculars to see the moons of Jupiter orbiting a ball even bigger than the earth.

edit: fixed a sentence fragment

There is no reason to believe any celestial object is spherical. No matter how you look at them, they appear to be discs. Furthermore, their "moons" appear as nothing more than bright dots, which are probably the objects illuminating the surface of the discs in much the same way as the sun illuminates the disc of the Earth. There is also no reason to believe Jupiter is larger than the Earth.

Quote from: naysayer on June 01, 2012, 12:21:23 PM

Maybe you should take a physics class sometime. You're saying that you have a problem with big chunks of metal orbiting a massive ball, but not huge chunks of rock millions of times bigger than a satellite orbiting mars, jupiter, or saturn? You can use a pair of binoculars to see the moons of Jupiter orbiting a ball even bigger than the earth.

edit: fixed a sentence fragment

There is no reason to believe any celestial object is spherical. No matter how you look at them, they appear to be discs. Furthermore, their "moons" appear as nothing more than bright dots, which are probably the objects illuminating the surface of the discs in much the same way as the sun illuminates the disc of the Earth. There is also no reason to believe Jupiter is larger than the Earth.

You know what, you might be right! I never thought of that before. Now I'm starting to question if there is a third dimension at all.  I mean, how do you know if *anything* is spherical unless you can touch it? I've seen pictures of golf balls but I've never touched one. I'm starting to think they must be just white discs because that's what they look like, and there is no conclusive proof that they are spheres.

Also, you bring up another good point. How can you tell how big something is if it's far away? I mean airplanes in the sky look like toys I could hold (or smaller!). How do I know airplanes don't shrink to the size of toys when they get really high?? Help, you've just shattered everything I've ever known and loved about the universe!

irush pretends that he beleives in fet dont be offended by him, he is just saying things to wind you up he always backs the most radical aspects of fet

irush pretends that he beleives in fet dont be offended by him, he is just saying things to wind you up he always backs the most radical aspects of fet

And the George Scott fallacy raises its ugly head again.

whatever that means...  i proved a long time ago that he is just a devils advocate, he's not called the archpretender for nothing

whatever that means...  i proved a long time ago that he is just a devils advocate, he's not called the archpretender for nothing

Squevil that means that you are accusing Irushwithscvs of not being true to what he claims to believe. claiming that he is saying that X instance is real when he in fact knows X instance is not real.

If he were to say that Earth does not have mass or energy, when if fact Earth does have mass and energy he is committing George Scott Fallacy.

If I got that completely wrong Saddam let me know, but that is what I think the George Scott Fallacy is.

Quote from: squevil on June 01, 2012, 09:58:56 PM

whatever that means...  i proved a long time ago that he is just a devils advocate, he's not called the archpretender for nothing

Squevil that means that you are accusing Irushwithscvs of not being true to what he claims to believe. claiming that he is saying that X instance is real when he in fact knows X instance is not real.

If he were to say that Earth does not have mass or energy, when if fact Earth does have mass and energy he is committing George Scott Fallacy.

If I got that completely wrong Saddam let me know, but that is what I think the George Scott Fallacy is.

Incorrect.  Squevil would be committing the George Scott fallacy if he was to say, "Irush is wrong because he does not believe the Earth is flat, he only pretends to believe it".  It occurs when a debater claims that the other debater does not really believe what he is saying, instead of debating the actual topic.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=George_Scott_Fallacy

Ah ok, thank you Jroa I guess I did not fully understand. I thought it ment the poster is saying something he knows the be false. In the case of my example everyone knows that Earth has mass and energy or els Earth would not exist...


Sorry, that is probably way off topic. Any way I agree Jroa thank you for further clarifying.

This is what you said.

If he were to say that Earth does not have mass or energy, when if fact Earth does have mass and energy he is committing George Scott Fallacy.

You did not say whether or not he believes that the Earth has mass and energy.  That is the key difference between what you and I said.

You:  He said something, even though it is wrong.  In this case, he is mistaken.

Me:  He said something, even though he knows it is wrong.  In this case, he is lying and/or trolling.

There is a bid difference.

The George Scott Fallacy simply establishes that a person's beliefs are irrelevant to the validity of their argument. (i.e. atheist arguing that God exists)

This is what you said.

Quote from: BoatswainsMate on June 01, 2012, 10:28:00 PM

If he were to say that Earth does not have mass or energy, when if fact Earth does have mass and energy he is committing George Scott Fallacy.

You did not say whether or not he believes that the Earth has mass and energy.  That is the key difference between what you and I said.

You:  He said something, even though it is wrong.  In this case, he is mistaken.

Me:  He said something, even though he knows it is wrong.  In this case, he is lying and/or trolling.

There is a bid difference.

I get it, once again thank you for your clarification.

irush pretends that he beleives in fet dont be offended by him, he is just saying things to wind you up he always backs the most radical aspects of fet

Yeah I know.  I'm pretty sure all FE believers do.  But that's the beauty of this site: It's where trolls and can troll trolls!

Quote from: squevil on June 01, 2012, 08:28:55 PM

irush pretends that he beleives in fet dont be offended by him, he is just saying things to wind you up he always backs the most radical aspects of fet

Yeah I know.  I'm pretty sure all FE believers do.  But that's the beauty of this site: It's where trolls and can troll trolls!

These off topic accusations are frankly, disgusting. Please take your tittle-tattle to the lower fora. No one wants to see you licking your wounds up here.

Quote from: naysayer on June 02, 2012, 03:48:59 AM

Quote from: squevil on June 01, 2012, 08:28:55 PM

irush pretends that he beleives in fet dont be offended by him, he is just saying things to wind you up he always backs the most radical aspects of fet

Yeah I know.  I'm pretty sure all FE believers do.  But that's the beauty of this site: It's where trolls and can troll trolls!

These off topic accusations are frankly, disgusting. Please take your tittle-tattle to the lower fora. No one wants to see you licking your wounds up here.

Now don't get me wrong, you are a pretty good troll.   Frankly, though, I think irush might be slightly better since he doesn't allow himself to get caught up in his own logical errors like you did in the silver bullet thread.  He's sort of post-one-thing-then-run-and-watch-the-fireworks kind of guy, from what I've seen. I'm also a pretty good troll too, since I'm able to elicit such good responses from this community. I won't be as good a troll as you, irush or Tom Bishop, though, (to name a few) until I get an avatar of a smiling old man or some equally provoking picture. I'm working on it, though.

Now don't get me wrong, you are a pretty good troll.

You're lucky I'm not a moderator else you'd be on the end of some bam time.

Frankly, though, I think irush might be slightly better since he doesn't allow himself to get caught up in his own logical errors like you did in the silver bullet thread.

You claimed people could see Crux from Argentina and Australia at the exact same time. When challenged you just kept changing the subject and drivelling on about silver bullets. I got bored and left you flapping around in your own excrement.

He's sort of post-one-thing-then-run-and-watch-the-fireworks kind of guy, from what I've seen. I'm also a pretty good troll too, since I'm able to elicit such good responses from this community.

Do you know what lurking moar is? You'll find we humour even the most ignorant in the hope we might find an individual or two and share the truth with them. We are just nice like that. If you aren't going to be open minded you may as well leave. Its a waste of everyone's time.

I won't be as good a troll as you, irush or Tom Bishop, though, (to name a few) until I get an avatar of a smiling old man or some equally provoking picture. I'm working on it, though.

Tom Bishop's avatar is of himself. My avatar is of Dick van Dyke, for reasons I don't really want to go into. Branding some of the site's most senior flat earth contributors as trolls is not likely to gain you much leverage and shows that it only took 16 posts before you ran out of arguments and had to resort to mud-slinging. You were one of the easy ones. Next.

I just ignore iwanttobelieve.  Why can't everybody else do that as well?  It's not like it has ever contributed anything even remotely worthwhile to the discussion.

We need to warn noobs that iwanttobelieve is essentially a joke.

Well congrats on recognizing Tom as a troll and still being the biggest sucker for his bullshit I've ever seen on this site.

Yes, I think Tom is a troll.

Thork, it looks like even the moderators are guilty of calling some of the "senior members" trolls.  Let your arguments speak for themselves if they are genuine and don't get so bent out of shape.

Quote from: naysayer on June 02, 2012, 06:15:16 AM

Now don't get me wrong, you are a pretty good troll.

You're lucky I'm not a moderator else you'd be on the end of some bam time.

Quote from: naysayer on June 02, 2012, 06:15:16 AM

Frankly, though, I think irush might be slightly better since he doesn't allow himself to get caught up in his own logical errors like you did in the silver bullet thread.

You claimed people could see Crux from Argentina and Australia at the exact same time. When challenged you just kept changing the subject and drivelling on about silver bullets. I got bored and left you flapping around in your own excrement.

Even if a moderator did ban me, what's to stop me from making an alt account? An IP ban? Please, I could just start up my web server and my ISP would assign me a new one due to increased traffic. Ban my ISP? Well, then you'd be banning about half of Germany.

You got bored? I clearly showed that you can see Crux from Argentina and Australia at the exact same time. Or did you miss my last post on page 1 of the silver bullet thread? The only reason you stopped responding was because I so thoroughly debunked all of your possible explanations that you could do nothing else but grace the thread with silence.  My logic cut so deep that I had you writing in all caps at one point.

Trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls...

From a purely objective stance, I find it hard to believe that Tom is a troll. He's dedicated countless hours to the Wiki. Look at the recent changes in it. He's the most active contributor by miles. FE'ers known to be genuine such as Wilmore and John have a tiny fraction of the edits he has. Even I, senior editor and genuine believer, pale by comparison. I refuse to believe that a troll would be so dedicated as to do so much work for so little personal gain.

Quote from: Thork on June 02, 2012, 06:28:15 AM

Quote from: naysayer on June 02, 2012, 06:15:16 AM

Now don't get me wrong, you are a pretty good troll.

You're lucky I'm not a moderator else you'd be on the end of some bam time.

Quote from: naysayer on June 02, 2012, 06:15:16 AM

Frankly, though, I think irush might be slightly better since he doesn't allow himself to get caught up in his own logical errors like you did in the silver bullet thread.

You claimed people could see Crux from Argentina and Australia at the exact same time. When challenged you just kept changing the subject and drivelling on about silver bullets. I got bored and left you flapping around in your own excrement.

Even if a moderator did ban me, what's to stop me from making an alt account? An IP ban? Please, I could just start up my web server and my ISP would assign me a new one due to increased traffic. Ban my ISP? Well, then you'd be banning about half of Germany.

You got bored? I clearly showed that you can see Crux from Argentina and Australia at the exact same time. Or did you miss my last post on page 1 of the silver bullet thread? The only reason you stopped responding was because I so thoroughly debunked all of your possible explanations that you could do nothing else but grace the thread with silence.  My logic cut so deep that I had you writing in all caps at one point.

If you're that obsessed with arguing with us, I suppose you're right. However, perhaps you may be slightly overreacting?

And Thork: hypocrite. If I still had the power and banned him, you'd have whined about it for hours in S&C.

Tausumi, why did you get de-modded?

Tausumi, why did you get de-modded?

Because Wilmore told me when he modded me that I should be a highly active moderator, which I took to mean that I should moderate actively but actually meant that I should be an active member who is also a moderator. I then made some bad decisions because of that misunderstanding, so they demodded me. Would have been nice if they'd given me some kind of warning first, but whatever.