You actually believe the earth is flat?

You don't ACTUALLY believe it do you?

I do not believe the Earth is flat.

You don't ACTUALLY believe it do you?

I do Believe the earth is flat.

Quote from: Akriloth on January 10, 2013, 06:14:49 PM

You don't ACTUALLY believe it do you?

I do Believe the earth is flat.

 And why do you believe this? 

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on January 10, 2013, 06:33:14 PM

Quote from: Akriloth on January 10, 2013, 06:14:49 PM

You don't ACTUALLY believe it do you?

I do Believe the earth is flat.

 And why do you believe this?

Well when I evaluated the evidence that both sides presented, i found the evidence for the flat earth more compelling. 

Quote from: Akriloth on January 10, 2013, 06:35:52 PM

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on January 10, 2013, 06:33:14 PM

Quote from: Akriloth on January 10, 2013, 06:14:49 PM

You don't ACTUALLY believe it do you?

I do Believe the earth is flat.

 And why do you believe this?

Well when I evaluated the evidence that both sides presented, i found the evidence for the flat earth more compelling.

Many, many people agree with this.

What about the images of the Earth from space?  What about those going up into space and actually seeing a round earth?

What about the images of the Earth from space?  What about those going up into space and actually seeing a round earth?

Well I like many, but not all, FE'ers believe in a space travel conspiracy.  There are many threads on the subject already, but I would be happy to provide more details upon request.

Yes, the earth is flat.

Yes, the earth is flat.

Everyone else has posted that they indeed believe the Earth is flat (some even explaining why they believe this), while you simply post this like it's a fact. Care to read the OP again?

You don't ACTUALLY believe it do you?

I do believe the earth is flat.  As for why, when I opened my mind and my eyes to the possibility, the answer became clear.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 10, 2013, 06:47:19 PM

Yes, the earth is flat.

Everyone else has posted that they indeed believe the Earth is flat (some even explaining why they believe this), while you simply post this like it's a fact. Care to read the OP again?

Does the verb matter that much to you in context? Clearly if someone believes that the Earth is flat, they will say that it is flat. If you want a deeper debate about beliefs, start a new thread.


On-topic, yes, I actually believe that the Earth is flat.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 10, 2013, 06:47:19 PM

Yes, the earth is flat.

Everyone else has posted that they indeed believe the Earth is flat (some even explaining why they believe this), while you simply post this like it's a fact. Care to read the OP again?

All facts are beliefs.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 10, 2013, 06:47:19 PM

Yes, the earth is flat.

Everyone else has posted that they indeed believe the Earth is flat (some even explaining why they believe this), while you simply post this like it's a fact. Care to read the OP again?

But it is a fact.

I really, honestly thought this was a debating forum for a hypothetical flat earth and that the people who claim to believe that the earth is flat don't actually really believe it is. I'm beginning to wonder if they really do seriously believe that the earth is flat.

I mean really?

Anyway, I have yet to see one equation or scientific experiment posted which proves the earth could possibly be flat. And NO the Bedford Level Experiment is a load of rubbish - who here has gone and done it again to reproduce the result? Who trusts ONE person who took a PHOTOGRAPH? It's a very very simple experiment to do, but no one will do it or post their results because it proves a round earth without doubt.

The Bedford Level Experiment is one experiment (among very many) which prove a round earth. There is also countless maths to prove a round earth.

So to continue: I don't think the earth is flat.

No-one here is going to present scientific evidence, because we don't believe in the scientific method. Our dispute with modern globularist science begins with its methodology, not just its conclusions.

No-one here is going to present scientific evidence, because we don't believe in the scientific method. Our dispute with modern globularist science begins with its methodology, not just its conclusions.

what are your objections to the scientific method?

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on January 11, 2013, 08:05:31 PM

No-one here is going to present scientific evidence, because we don't believe in the scientific method. Our dispute with modern globularist science begins with its methodology, not just its conclusions.

what are your objections to the scientific method?

Essentially that it unintentionally promotes bias in experiments and results. When you make a hypothesis, you consciously or subconsciously want it to be correct. Wilmore and most other FE'ers prefer zeteticism because it does not do so. Personally I'm a member of the scientific community and am therefore rather biased towards the scientific method.

I really, honestly thought this was a debating forum for a hypothetical flat earth and that the people who claim to believe that the earth is flat don't actually really believe it is. I'm beginning to wonder if they really do seriously believe that the earth is flat.

I mean really?

Anyway, I have yet to see one equation or scientific experiment posted which proves the earth could possibly be flat. And NO the Bedford Level Experiment is a load of rubbish - who here has gone and done it again to reproduce the result? Who trusts ONE person who took a PHOTOGRAPH? It's a very very simple experiment to do, but no one will do it or post their results because it proves a round earth without doubt.

The Bedford Level Experiment is one experiment (among very many) which prove a round earth. There is also countless maths to prove a round earth.

So to continue: I don't think the earth is flat.

Bedford proves a flat Earth, actually. I really can't see an argument otherwise beyond the A.R. Wallace scandal, and we've demonstrated over and over again that Wallace cheated. In fact, a court of law ruled as such.

More evidence can be found here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Experimental_Evidence

I'm not sure how you believe that an equation can prove the Earth to be round or flat, but Wilmore has a bunch demonstrating that his infinite plane model works. There are also Einsteinian equations regarding the Earth never reaching the speed of light no matter how long it accelerates for. I do not remember where they are, though.

And feel free to post about experiments which have proven the Earth to be round. Their lack of existence, at least so far as I cn find, is one of the several reasons I believe the Earth to be flat.

what are your objections to the scientific method?

Essentially that it unintentionally promotes bias in experiments and results. When you make a hypothesis, you consciously or subconsciously want it to be correct. Wilmore and most other FE'ers prefer zeteticism because it does not do so. Personally I'm a member of the scientific community and am therefore rather biased towards the scientific method.
[/quote]

the scientific method certainly limits hypotheses to those that it can be applied to, for sure. this is typically its asserted flaw with respect to theological arguments, among other things.

lots of information in this place, and lots of alternative ways of thinking.

thanks

Quote from: Wolf on January 11, 2013, 02:40:21 AM

I really, honestly thought this was a debating forum for a hypothetical flat earth and that the people who claim to believe that the earth is flat don't actually really believe it is. I'm beginning to wonder if they really do seriously believe that the earth is flat.

I mean really?

Anyway, I have yet to see one equation or scientific experiment posted which proves the earth could possibly be flat. And NO the Bedford Level Experiment is a load of rubbish - who here has gone and done it again to reproduce the result? Who trusts ONE person who took a PHOTOGRAPH? It's a very very simple experiment to do, but no one will do it or post their results because it proves a round earth without doubt.

The Bedford Level Experiment is one experiment (among very many) which prove a round earth. There is also countless maths to prove a round earth.

So to continue: I don't think the earth is flat.

Bedford proves a flat Earth, actually. I really can't see an argument otherwise beyond the A.R. Wallace scandal, and we've demonstrated over and over again that Wallace cheated. In fact, a court of law ruled as such.

More evidence can be found here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Experimental_Evidence

I'm not sure how you believe that an equation can prove the Earth to be round or flat, but Wilmore has a bunch demonstrating that his infinite plane model works. There are also Einsteinian equations regarding the Earth never reaching the speed of light no matter how long it accelerates for. I do not remember where they are, though.

And feel free to post about experiments which have proven the Earth to be round. Their lack of existence, at least so far as I cn find, is one of the several reasons I believe the Earth to be flat.

It is amazing that Einstein's work, especially Special Relativity, is quoted so regularly on these boards, considering Michelson–Morley experiments are also quoted, usually in an attempt to explain the laughable "bendy light" theory. The two ideas are completely and wholly incompatible.

The "Einsteinian" equation you're referring to does indicate that, if the earth was constantly accelerating, would never reach light speed. However, this is because time would tend to zero.

Quote from: Tausami on January 12, 2013, 09:55:04 AM

Quote from: Wolf on January 11, 2013, 02:40:21 AM

I really, honestly thought this was a debating forum for a hypothetical flat earth and that the people who claim to believe that the earth is flat don't actually really believe it is. I'm beginning to wonder if they really do seriously believe that the earth is flat.

I mean really?

Anyway, I have yet to see one equation or scientific experiment posted which proves the earth could possibly be flat. And NO the Bedford Level Experiment is a load of rubbish - who here has gone and done it again to reproduce the result? Who trusts ONE person who took a PHOTOGRAPH? It's a very very simple experiment to do, but no one will do it or post their results because it proves a round earth without doubt.

The Bedford Level Experiment is one experiment (among very many) which prove a round earth. There is also countless maths to prove a round earth.

So to continue: I don't think the earth is flat.

Bedford proves a flat Earth, actually. I really can't see an argument otherwise beyond the A.R. Wallace scandal, and we've demonstrated over and over again that Wallace cheated. In fact, a court of law ruled as such.

More evidence can be found here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Experimental_Evidence

I'm not sure how you believe that an equation can prove the Earth to be round or flat, but Wilmore has a bunch demonstrating that his infinite plane model works. There are also Einsteinian equations regarding the Earth never reaching the speed of light no matter how long it accelerates for. I do not remember where they are, though.

And feel free to post about experiments which have proven the Earth to be round. Their lack of existence, at least so far as I cn find, is one of the several reasons I believe the Earth to be flat.

It is amazing that Einstein's work, especially Special Relativity, is quoted so regularly on these boards, considering Michelson–Morley experiments are also quoted, usually in an attempt to explain the laughable "bendy light" theory. The two ideas are completely and wholly incompatible.

The "Einsteinian" equation you're referring to does indicate that, if the earth was constantly accelerating, would never reach light speed. However, this is because time would tend to zero.

Incorrect. Please don't pretend you know what you're talking about. You clearly haven't seen the equations nor know which ones I am referring to. Also, is that really all you got out of that post?

Quote from: rorius on January 12, 2013, 11:06:30 AM

Quote from: Tausami on January 12, 2013, 09:55:04 AM

Quote from: Wolf on January 11, 2013, 02:40:21 AM

I really, honestly thought this was a debating forum for a hypothetical flat earth and that the people who claim to believe that the earth is flat don't actually really believe it is. I'm beginning to wonder if they really do seriously believe that the earth is flat.

I mean really?

Anyway, I have yet to see one equation or scientific experiment posted which proves the earth could possibly be flat. And NO the Bedford Level Experiment is a load of rubbish - who here has gone and done it again to reproduce the result? Who trusts ONE person who took a PHOTOGRAPH? It's a very very simple experiment to do, but no one will do it or post their results because it proves a round earth without doubt.

The Bedford Level Experiment is one experiment (among very many) which prove a round earth. There is also countless maths to prove a round earth.

So to continue: I don't think the earth is flat.

Bedford proves a flat Earth, actually. I really can't see an argument otherwise beyond the A.R. Wallace scandal, and we've demonstrated over and over again that Wallace cheated. In fact, a court of law ruled as such.

More evidence can be found here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Experimental_Evidence

I'm not sure how you believe that an equation can prove the Earth to be round or flat, but Wilmore has a bunch demonstrating that his infinite plane model works. There are also Einsteinian equations regarding the Earth never reaching the speed of light no matter how long it accelerates for. I do not remember where they are, though.

And feel free to post about experiments which have proven the Earth to be round. Their lack of existence, at least so far as I cn find, is one of the several reasons I believe the Earth to be flat.

It is amazing that Einstein's work, especially Special Relativity, is quoted so regularly on these boards, considering Michelson–Morley experiments are also quoted, usually in an attempt to explain the laughable "bendy light" theory. The two ideas are completely and wholly incompatible.

The "Einsteinian" equation you're referring to does indicate that, if the earth was constantly accelerating, would never reach light speed. However, this is because time would tend to zero.

Incorrect. Please don't pretend you know what you're talking about. You clearly haven't seen the equations nor know which ones I am referring to. Also, is that really all you got out of that post?

What exactly is incorrect? Where is this equation then? I assume it is the explanation from the FAQ's, which while excellently copied from the first page (well, page 37) of a physics textbook, doesn't include any problems associated with near-light velocity.

Quote from: Tausami on January 12, 2013, 11:26:52 AM

Quote from: rorius on January 12, 2013, 11:06:30 AM

Quote from: Tausami on January 12, 2013, 09:55:04 AM

Quote from: Wolf on January 11, 2013, 02:40:21 AM

I really, honestly thought this was a debating forum for a hypothetical flat earth and that the people who claim to believe that the earth is flat don't actually really believe it is. I'm beginning to wonder if they really do seriously believe that the earth is flat.

I mean really?

Anyway, I have yet to see one equation or scientific experiment posted which proves the earth could possibly be flat. And NO the Bedford Level Experiment is a load of rubbish - who here has gone and done it again to reproduce the result? Who trusts ONE person who took a PHOTOGRAPH? It's a very very simple experiment to do, but no one will do it or post their results because it proves a round earth without doubt.

The Bedford Level Experiment is one experiment (among very many) which prove a round earth. There is also countless maths to prove a round earth.

So to continue: I don't think the earth is flat.

Bedford proves a flat Earth, actually. I really can't see an argument otherwise beyond the A.R. Wallace scandal, and we've demonstrated over and over again that Wallace cheated. In fact, a court of law ruled as such.

More evidence can be found here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Experimental_Evidence

I'm not sure how you believe that an equation can prove the Earth to be round or flat, but Wilmore has a bunch demonstrating that his infinite plane model works. There are also Einsteinian equations regarding the Earth never reaching the speed of light no matter how long it accelerates for. I do not remember where they are, though.

And feel free to post about experiments which have proven the Earth to be round. Their lack of existence, at least so far as I cn find, is one of the several reasons I believe the Earth to be flat.

It is amazing that Einstein's work, especially Special Relativity, is quoted so regularly on these boards, considering Michelson–Morley experiments are also quoted, usually in an attempt to explain the laughable "bendy light" theory. The two ideas are completely and wholly incompatible.

The "Einsteinian" equation you're referring to does indicate that, if the earth was constantly accelerating, would never reach light speed. However, this is because time would tend to zero.

Incorrect. Please don't pretend you know what you're talking about. You clearly haven't seen the equations nor know which ones I am referring to. Also, is that really all you got out of that post?

What exactly is incorrect? Where is this equation then? I assume it is the explanation from the FAQ's, which while excellently copied from the first page (well, page 37) of a physics textbook, doesn't include any problems associated with near-light velocity.

The FAQ is wrong about most things. We're replacing it on Monday. Try the Wiki: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Universal_Acceleration#Accelerating_to_the_Speed_of_Light

It's not a great article, and I've made a mental note to improve it, but the equation is correct. I don't know the principles behind relativity and am not the one who first explained this as an FE'er. However, while I believe you're correct about time dilation it would not affect us as it is affecting everything which is accelerating equally.

But this provides a host of problems- even if the immediate observable world didn't change from our perspective.

The most obvious would be anything in space without the exact same speed, direction and acceleration of earth, which happens to be in our path, smacking into us. Surely if you believe in any bodies other than our world in space, this would have to happen sooner or later. And considering grains of dust could have considerable energy at such high speeds, it is likely an asteroid would destroy the world.

Another problem could be a blue-shift effect of any radiation entering the the world from space- although since FET assumes the stars are 3000 miles or so above us and move at the same velocity as us, that wouldn't be a problem. But it would in near-light speed with a conventional model.

But this provides a host of problems- even if the immediate observable world didn't change from our perspective.

The most obvious would be anything in space without the exact same speed, direction and acceleration of earth, which happens to be in our path, smacking into us. Surely if you believe in any bodies other than our world in space, this would have to happen sooner or later. And considering grains of dust could have considerable energy at such high speeds, it is likely an asteroid would destroy the world.

Another problem could be a blue-shift effect of any radiation entering the the world from space- although since FET assumes the stars are 3000 miles or so above us and move at the same velocity as us, that wouldn't be a problem. But it would in near-light speed with a conventional model.

There's a fairly large whirlpool of aether directly above the Earth. It would protect us from dust or other particles should they be there. Asteroids and whatnot are moving along with the Earth, so they are unaffected.

A photograph can not 'imagine' nor lie!

This whole FER (Flat Earth Rubbish) has just become ridiculous. I've read so many posts and they are just circular arguments which contradict each other. I cannot believe people here who believe that the earth is flat actually base so much on a photograph but if a photograph does not conform to what they believe then they say it's shopped.

For mathematical equations, just draw some scale drawings and do some simple trigonometry. Here's a scientific experiment: measure a weight at the base of a tall mountain and measure that weight at the top of that mountain. Gravity 101. There isn't anything complex about this stuff - something school children do. If you think the Bedford Lvel experiment is scientific and that it proves a flat earth, then go read up a bit about radar. Oh wait. Radar is controlled by those we don't speak of.

There is just too much evidence from ground-level which proves a round earth. Insecure and hopeless fellas like Tom Bishop never could write a scientific paper which could get recognized by the community, so he had to come up with something to put his name onto.

I have established beyond reasonable doubt that the sky is blue and thus the earth is round.

If you think the Bedford Lvel experiment is scientific and that it proves a flat earth, then go read up a bit about radar. Oh wait. Radar is controlled by those we don't speak of.

Do you mean like over the horizon radar which can see over the curvature of the earth as if it weren't even there?

Quote

A photograph can not 'imagine' nor lie!

This whole FER (Flat Earth Rubbish) has just become ridiculous. I've read so many posts and they are just circular arguments which contradict each other. I cannot believe people here who believe that the earth is flat actually base so much on a photograph but if a photograph does not conform to what they believe then they say it's shopped.

For mathematical equations, just draw some scale drawings and do some simple trigonometry. Here's a scientific experiment: measure a weight at the base of a tall mountain and measure that weight at the top of that mountain. Gravity 101. There isn't anything complex about this stuff - something school children do. If you think the Bedford Lvel experiment is scientific and that it proves a flat earth, then go read up a bit about radar. Oh wait. Radar is controlled by those we don't speak of.

There is just too much evidence from ground-level which proves a round earth. Insecure and hopeless fellas like Tom Bishop never could write a scientific paper which could get recognized by the community, so he had to come up with something to put his name onto.

I have established beyond reasonable doubt that the sky is blue and thus the earth is round.

1) That means nothing, I'm afraid. All Flat Earth Theories account for vertical changes in gravitation.
2) I'll let Tom handle that
3) RE'ers love to refer to their mountains of evidence, but never seem to be able to actually come up with any.