There's a lack of consistency in Flat Earth theories at all

Ignoring your  mischaracterization of answers given a moment, isn't admitting that one doesn't know the answers, in fact, the opposite of claiming to know exactly how the universe functions?   

Ignoring your  mischaracterization of answers given a moment, isn't admitting that one doesn't know the answers, in fact, the opposite of claiming to know exactly how the universe functions?   

No, because in a Flat Earth presentation, the unknown aspects are deemed to be irrelevant rather than crucial. Two imaginary quotes from fictional members of both camps, to illustrate the point:
A globularist scientist might say, "We do not understand why the rotation rates of galaxies do not match observations. We have hypothesised dark matter to account for this, because it would explain the observations, but we do not know its properties and cannot be certain it exists until we have discovered some independent evidence of it and how it ties in with what we already know in physics, which is important to do before building any more theories on it."

A Flat Earth promoter might say "We do not understand the mechanism by which the sun appears to drop behind the horizon. We have hypothesised a perspective theory which would explain it, although it has many problems and conflicts with what is currently known in physics. But we aren't concerned about that. Just accept that it's true and don't ask questions. We don't know the answers and are not seeking them, but if you ask Tom, he'll make up some more fake physics to explain the first hypothesis. His explanation will be patently wrong, and also conflict with known laws of nature. But that doesn't bother us in the slightest."

Bang up job of completely missing the analogous parallel; bonus points for your complete mischaracterization of the opposing point of view 

Bang up job of completely missing the analogous parallel; bonus points for your complete mischaracterization of the opposing point of view 

Can you clarify, please?

Flat Earth Society does not have only one theory about the shape of Earth, there are many theories instead. And none of them is totally consistent, it have several versions, each user may have his own version of it, with individual and/or inedited statements. This all makes this proposal confuse.

I have a question: Are there any books/publications that can explain with more consistency these theories?

I might ask the same question of RE'ers. Is the Earth hollow, or solid?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_Earth#17th_and_18th_century

Is it concave, or convex?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_Earth#Concave_hollow_Earths

Is it expanding in size, or static?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_Earth_theory


RET is no more monolithic than FET is.

RET is no more monolithic than FET is.

Perhaps not, but RET scientific community has reached a consensus while FET community has not.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on December 29, 2012, 09:19:57 PM

RET is no more monolithic than FET is.

Perhaps not, but RET scientific community has reached a consensus while FET community has not.

I'm fairly certain that the consensus among FE'ers is that the Earth is flat...

Flat Earth Society does not have only one theory about the shape of Earth, there are many theories instead. And none of them is totally consistent, it have several versions, each user may have his own version of it, with individual and/or inedited statements. This all makes this proposal confuse.

I have a question: Are there any books/publications that can explain with more consistency these theories?

All other FE "theories" (UA acceleration/infinite earth) have been shown, again and again, to be false and inconsistent.

No clear explanation of gravity, no FE map, incorrect figures for the Sun's diameter and the Earth-Sun distance, "celestial gears", stratellites and much more.

With the alternative flat earth theory all problems are solved: a correct FE map, modern proofs pertaining to the diameter of the Sun/Earth-Sun distance (ISS solar transit videos, Antarctica solar eclipse photographs), the best proof that the surface of the Earth is actually flat (the Tunguska explosion seen all the way from London), a perfect explanation of terrestrial and planetary/stellar gravities - and yet the official FAQ does not mention a word about this.

There is no need to resort to Earth is not a Globe anymore (a most valuable historical reference), we now have at our disposal modern, extraordinary proofs which explain each and every detail of the FE theory.

Therefore the statement that there are "competing flat earth theories" is not true: all other FE theories have failed miserably, and have been shown to be utterly false; no RE has ever been able to prove that any of the details of the alternative flat earth theory are not true.

Without the alternative FE theory, there would no way to answer to threads such as the Ring Laser Gyroscope paradox, or the Beam Neutrinos discussed here some weeks earlier.

Quote from: EduardoVS-BR on December 26, 2012, 03:50:04 AM

Flat Earth Society does not have only one theory about the shape of Earth, there are many theories instead. And none of them is totally consistent, it have several versions, each user may have his own version of it, with individual and/or inedited statements. This all makes this proposal confuse.

I have a question: Are there any books/publications that can explain with more consistency these theories?

All other FE "theories" (UA acceleration/infinite earth) have been shown, again and again, to be false and inconsistent.

No clear explanation of gravity, no FE map, incorrect figures for the Sun's diameter and the Earth-Sun distance, "celestial gears", stratellites and much more.

With the alternative flat earth theory all problems are solved: a correct FE map, modern proofs pertaining to the diameter of the Sun/Earth-Sun distance (ISS solar transit videos, Antarctica solar eclipse photographs), the best proof that the surface of the Earth is actually flat (the Tunguska explosion seen all the way from London), a perfect explanation of terrestrial and planetary/stellar gravities - and yet the official FAQ does not mention a word about this.

There is no need to resort to Earth is not a Globe anymore (a most valuable historical reference), we now have at our disposal modern, extraordinary proofs which explain each and every detail of the FE theory.

Therefore the statement that there are "competing flat earth theories" is not true: all other FE theories have failed miserably, and have been shown to be utterly false; no RE has ever been able to prove that any of the details of the alternative flat earth theory are not true.

Without the alternative FE theory, there would no way to answer to threads such as the Ring Laser Gyroscope paradox, or the Beam Neutrinos discussed here some weeks earlier.

Do show us this map, Sandokhan/Levee.

Hi i am interested in science and i have some questions what do you bolive happens if you get to the end of this flat earth ? and if you bolive it an infernet plain what do you say to people who go forward and end up in the same spot (around the world) also do you bolive in gravitons strong nuclear force week nuclear force and electromatic force ?

sorry for spelling I'm dyslexic

Hi i am interested in science and i have some questions what do you bolive happens if you get to the end of this flat earth ? and if you bolive it an infernet plain what do you say to people who go forward and end up in the same spot (around the world) also do you bolive in gravitons strong nuclear force week nuclear force and electromatic force ?

sorry for spelling I'm dyslexic

Dyslexia doesn't result in inability to use the caps key.

Hi i am interested in science and i have some questions what do you bolive happens if you get to the end of this flat earth ? and if you bolive it an infernet plain what do you say to people who go forward and end up in the same spot (around the world) also do you bolive in gravitons strong nuclear force week nuclear force and electromatic force ?

sorry for spelling I'm dyslexic

Hello. Welcome to the society! While I'll be happy to answer your questions, would you mind making your own thread about it? We don't like hijacking threads 

In addition, many of your questions can be answered by our FAQ (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=FAQ). It's unfinished, but it can give you an idea of the basics of our theories.

Quote from: 12345678910 on January 05, 2013, 09:38:03 AM

Hi i am interested in science and i have some questions what do you bolive happens if you get to the end of this flat earth ? and if you bolive it an infernet plain what do you say to people who go forward and end up in the same spot (around the world) also do you bolive in gravitons strong nuclear force week nuclear force and electromatic force ?

sorry for spelling I'm dyslexic

Dyslexia doesn't result in inability to use the caps key.

And what exactly results in your inability to either post politely or not at all? Please do not memberate, thanks.

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on January 05, 2013, 10:09:55 AM

Quote from: 12345678910 on January 05, 2013, 09:38:03 AM

Hi i am interested in science and i have some questions what do you bolive happens if you get to the end of this flat earth ? and if you bolive it an infernet plain what do you say to people who go forward and end up in the same spot (around the world) also do you bolive in gravitons strong nuclear force week nuclear force and electromatic force ?

sorry for spelling I'm dyslexic

Dyslexia doesn't result in inability to use the caps key.

And what exactly results in your inability to either post politely or not at all? Please do not memberate, thanks.

I'm not sure what you mean by memberating in this context. I have made many polite posts, perhaps take a moment to scan the forum and appreciate them, then answer my PM to you. I don't consider my (correct) statement about dyslexia to be impolite. I doubt you have a higher threshold for tolerance of that practice than I do.

There is no rule against minor spelling mistakes here at the Flat Earth Society Forum. Not everyone here speaks English as a native language, and even those who do may not be fortunate enough to have the same command of it as you do. All we ask is that posts are comprehensible, as this post clearly is.


I won't pretend that I don't prefer proper grammar/spelling, but sticks & stones; any harm at my end is purely self-generated. So I ask you again, please don't memberate.

There is no rule against minor spelling mistakes here at the Flat Earth Society Forum. Not everyone here speaks English as a native language, and even those who do may not be fortunate enough to have the same command of it as you do. All we ask is that posts are comprehensible, as this post clearly is.


I won't pretend that I don't prefer proper grammar/spelling, but sticks & stones; any harm at my end is purely self-generated. So I ask you again, please don't memberate.

I respect this position.  Its the same when I take offense to a joke.  I must remember that my own sensitivity is to blame, not the content of the joke.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on January 10, 2013, 07:11:12 PM

There is no rule against minor spelling mistakes here at the Flat Earth Society Forum. Not everyone here speaks English as a native language, and even those who do may not be fortunate enough to have the same command of it as you do. All we ask is that posts are comprehensible, as this post clearly is.


I won't pretend that I don't prefer proper grammar/spelling, but sticks & stones; any harm at my end is purely self-generated. So I ask you again, please don't memberate.

I respect this position.  Its the same when I take offense to a joke.  I must remember that my own sensitivity is to blame, not the content of the joke.

Well that's great, Orbis, because it means I have a license to make crude jokes with you as the butt of them and no matter how much you don't like it, they're not really offensive except in your mind, right?

Let's keep this on-topic, okay?

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on January 10, 2013, 07:22:33 PM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on January 10, 2013, 07:11:12 PM

There is no rule against minor spelling mistakes here at the Flat Earth Society Forum. Not everyone here speaks English as a native language, and even those who do may not be fortunate enough to have the same command of it as you do. All we ask is that posts are comprehensible, as this post clearly is.


I won't pretend that I don't prefer proper grammar/spelling, but sticks & stones; any harm at my end is purely self-generated. So I ask you again, please don't memberate.

I respect this position.  Its the same when I take offense to a joke.  I must remember that my own sensitivity is to blame, not the content of the joke.

Well that's great, Orbis, because it means I have a license to make crude jokes with you as the butt of them and no matter how much you don't like it, they're not really offensive except in your mind, right?

Come at me bro.  Do you even lift?

I think that Flat earth theories are pretty consistant.  They all center around a flat earth.  Just becuase there is a lack of consistancy among flat earth believers does not mean that there is an inconcistency within the theories proposed by those believers.