Government Manipulation

It has come to my attention that your perception of the concept of a round-earth as a global government conspiracy is simply a cliché that appears to lack any logic or viable explanation whatsoever. Firstly, the word "governance" applies to a very broad spectrum and can be defined as the political direction and control exercised over members of a society. So when you claim it as a "government conspiracy" what section of what type of government(s) are you referring to exactly? People are removed and appointed from/to governments all the time, sometimes by force, sometimes by community preference. It COMPLETELY defies ALL logic for every single individual of every single government of the world, past or present, to keep this "conspiracy" a secret. Also, it's sad to say, but the world does not operate in a collaborative manner to ensure this "conspiracy" remains a secret. Global governments don't just "appear" disorganised to quash scepticism, this is ludicrous as governments don't ever remain the same, again defying logic.
Any "answers" you have for these flaws in your system are tailored to remove the doubt but severely lack any solid or even minor evidence. "NASA is part of the consipracy." How convenient! "NASA spent their money on developing advanced computers instead of space travel." How convenient! GPS systems mislead pilots and/or pilots are part of the conspiracy. How convenient! [btw... my father is a pilot so don't try and dump that s*** on me]. See what I mean? When someone provides false information, witholds or distorts relevant information, uses paralogisms on a mass basis - this is MANIPULATION, manipulation on your part. When enough simpletons succumb to manipulation, voila - we have groups like the Flat Earth Society. All respected theories that coincide with a round earth have substantial scientific backing and conform to the basic laws of physics (which, if you also claim to be a conspiracy, is just going to envelope you further into your growing pile of pretentious BS).

dont forget its possible the conspiracy is so old the original peoples who KNEW the conspiracy was a conspiracy have long since pasted away and in todays world there is nobody that needs to protect the conspiracy because everybody truely does believe there is no conspiracy.

you are obviously one of these people.  so much so that you sem to be bitter about us even suggesting the earth is different to whats generally accepted.

dont forget its possible the conspiracy is so old the original peoples who KNEW the conspiracy was a conspiracy have long since pasted away and in todays world there is nobody that needs to protect the conspiracy because everybody truely does believe there is no conspiracy.

you are obviously one of these people.  so much so that you sem to be bitter about us even suggesting the earth is different to whats generally accepted.

With that mentality you could claim anything a conspiracy just by questioning the credentials of something you don't have half the knowledge about. In fact, your first paragraph offers nothing more to the reader than your obvious paranoia. Your whole concept of a government conspiracy is just rediculous, no matter how old you may think it is, you would be a lunatic to think that with the constant establishment of new governments, new political structures, new countries, new political personell somehow this "conspiracy" remained protected.
The only reason my attitude is bitter is because the modus operandi of you society defies logic, is plagued with conjectures, has NO convincing evidence whatsoever and thrives upon manipulation of the less intelligent.

Nearly 100% of the earth's population has believed for THOUSANDS of years that the earth is round. This must then imply that any conspiracy that upholds that belief has also been around for thousands of years.

So let me paint a picture...

Back in the 1770's the American colonists were desperate for their freedom. They planned, prepared, fought, died, and eventually prevailed to gain independence from England. But during all this struggle and conflict, they decided to continue to go along with the government conspiracy that England was surely a part of. Seems odd.

Then, a similar episode took place with every other country who sought independence from its mother land. Yet they all agreed to continue in the conspiracy. Seems odd.

Iraq and Iran are bitter, murderous enemies, but they agree to participate in the conspiracy. Seems odd.

North and South Korea barely speak to one another but...

Not just odd, but downright asinine.

Surely if there has been a conspiracy existing for thousands of years that has convinced us that the world is round when it's flat we can't believe anything we are told.

Wouldn't you agree that if the world is flat that would mean it's possible that everything else we're told but don't see with our own eyes is also false?

dont forget its possible the conspiracy is so old the original peoples who KNEW the conspiracy was a conspiracy have long since pasted away and in todays world there is nobody that needs to protect the conspiracy because everybody truely does believe there is no conspiracy

If that statment is true, then there is equally no one left to support the conspiracy, thus, the NASA would not be involved in it, thus the pictures are not faked.

everything else we're told but don't see with our own eyes is also false?

I never saw my heart and lungs....I'm in trouble.  

But I don't think FE thoery is actually an atempt to manipulate the less intelligent. I think it's just a side effect. FE is something you'd use to explai nthe world to a 6 year old. So it will tend to attrac tsimple minds.

Actually, FE is anything but simple -- RE is much simpler and elegant to explain.

Actually, FE is anything but simple -- RE is much simpler and elegant to explain.

Ok, explain gravity, it's so simple.

http://www.Skeptical%Listener.justgotowned.com

in FE, the focre we call 'gravity' is explained by the earth accelerating upwards. Now, thats not a complete explanation, but its accualy more complete than the Round earth one wich is basicly 'it is becasue it is'

http://www.Skeptical%Listener.justgotowned.com

In FE, the focre we call 'gravity' is explained by the earth accelerating upwards. Now, thats not a complete explanation, but its accualy more complete than the Round earth one wich is basicly 'it is becasue it is'

Actually, gravity is not a matter of"it is because it is' (like the conspiracy, or what causes the earth to "accelerate upwards") I'm sure you know that, as gravity as been explain many times here.

The intensity of the gravitational force between ANY 2 bodies can be found
with the simple equation of the mass of the first body multiplied by the mass of the 2nd body, you then multiply that by G, which is the gravitationnal constant. As far as we know, that constant is the same everywhere in the universe ( as opposed to the FE model where matter, for example ice, behaves differently depending on what you need it to do)
all that is left to do then is to divide that by the square of the distance between the bodies. Quite logical.

And if you're wondering, G is equal to 0.0000000667. The mass is usually measured in grams and the distance in centimeters (metric system makes everything simpler)

You can use that equation t ocalculate the gravitationnal force between 2 bodies in space or an object on earth and the earth's core. Strangely, even though there is suposedly no gravitationnal field, you will get the right answer EVERY time. The 2 objects will behave according to the result you observed.

So as you can see, this is very different from explanations like , "it's a conspiracy" or anserwing a question with a link to a forum discussion.

I'm not sure where you took the "it is because it is" thing from.

See, there you go again trying to sound smart.  The question was 'what is the cause of gravity (it's mechanism)' not 'how do things interact in the presence of a gravitational field'.

Quote

dont forget its possible the conspiracy is so old the original peoples who KNEW the conspiracy was a conspiracy have long since pasted away and in todays world there is nobody that needs to protect the conspiracy because everybody truely does believe there is no conspiracy

If that statment is true, then there is equally no one left to support the conspiracy, thus, the NASA would not be involved in it, thus the pictures are not faked.

touche.

perhaps theres a small secret society not directly connected with governments but still have sway in key places to be able to effectively keep the conspiracy alive without actually letting on to those they work through that the conspiracy is the earth is flat.  if i were paid great sums of money to do sneaky things i wouldnt be concerned with what was being hidden.  off the top of my head, one possible group that performs this function could be the Exclusive Bretheren.

The question was 'what is the cause of gravity (it's mechanism)'

A question like that follows the same line of track as fundamental questions such as, "Why do we exist?" Nobody can answer that...
He gave you an explanation of gravity and how it conforms to the processes we witness within the boundaries of the Earth and other external influences. The scenario of an "accelerating earth" on the other hand is far more superficial, and unlike that of a gravitational field, is severely devoid of credible evidence.

touche.

perhaps theres a small secret society not directly connected with governments but still have sway in key places to be able to effectively keep the conspiracy alive without actually letting on to those they work through that the conspiracy is the earth is flat.  if i were paid great sums of money to do sneaky things i wouldnt be concerned with what was being hidden.  off the top of my head, one possible group that performs this function could be the Exclusive Bretheren.

Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps... Personally, I would imagine you to be one of the most frustrating individuals with which to hold a conversation. We negated how it would be physically impossible for governments of the world to conspire in protecting this secret of a flat earth. Now that we highlight inconsistencies to FE theory, you go on to pose utterly obscure theories about a small secret society. Clearly, you are just pulling things out of your a$$ without ever applying logic or reasoned thinking. You can't even hold a firm comprehension of how a FE may operate!

After reading numerous posts on this forum (and many in this particular thread), I've come to the conclusion that most FE'ers are terrible debators. For example, if you read this thread from beginning till end (something that people like TheEngineer don't do) you notice a lot of critique towards the FE theory, often backed up by arguments, followed by different responses such as "Read the FAQ", "That's already been answered", "You have no evidence", or "Prove it". When RE'ers bring evidence (of course it's often limited since Einstein's or Newton's calculations are not known by heart by everyone and, even if posted here, they would hardly be understood by most) and in turn ask for evidence behind the FE theory, they are told "This is the FE forum. RE'ers are the ones who have to prove to us that the earth is round". At this point, debate is not even constructive anymore - it's pure stubborness since all RE proof is cast aside for no apparent reason.

In this thread for example, someone said that the RE theory is much simpler and elegant than the FE theory. That is true. Why? Because there are no RE statements to which the answers are "We don't know", and because it's supported by not just calculations, but also visual proof (which you call fake for no reason).

In the RE theory everything can be answered, even if not all RE'ers actually know the answers down to the last mathematical equation. When someone replied saying "The RE theory is simpler? Oh yeah? Then explain gravity!", someone explained gravity in rather general terms - a good explanation nonetheless. Our friend TheEngineer came and said that "That's not the point, you're just acting smart". He also believes that gravity=acceleration and (obviously) vice-versa. What strength does his reply have when 1) he is not in line with mathematics and physics? and 2) he obviously doesn't read anything above the last post?

It would be great if a master debator, supporting the FE theory, could come onto this forum and answer all RE questions down to the last "Why?" without saying "We don't know that yet". That hasn't happened until now. If the so-called FE'ers are just here to debate, then maybe they should find better arguments. If they actually believe that the earth is flat, then I'm really curious as to why, since it's so much more plausible (given current evidence) that the earth is round.

Interesting point but clearly in most of the topics the FEers aren't playing the game because they've debated that point a bazillion times before.  Occasionally an interesting and new topic will come up and you'll see a different level of debating.  Or check out some of the non FE/RE topics and you'll see that most of the FEers actually debate very well.

I don't think that saying "It's in the FAQ" means that it's been debated a billion times; for example a lot or people asked why governments would be part of this conspiracy that's been hiding the "truth" about the earth's shape for so long. "Why would governments do that especially since at some point everyone did believe that the earth was flat?" - they ask. The FAQ says "We don't know". Well, if you don't know that, then the model doesn't really stand, does it, especially since another model (and not just any model, but one that's backed up by visual evidence as well as popular belief) explains everything?

At this point of time, the RE model leaves no unanswered questions. It's very difficult to make everybody on earth believe something different from what's been generally accepted for generations (for example, making them believe that the earth is round when for ages and ages they've known it was flat). The round earth theory prevailed precisely because it answered all questions without leaving traces of "I don't know"s, because it was backed up by mathematics later on, and because space missions finally brought proof of the earth's shape.

So, again, why believe in a flat earth?

Also, I was obviously saying that FE'ers are poor debators on this particular issue, not non-FE/RE topics.

At no point did I say that 'saying "it's in the FAQ" means that it's been debated a billion times'.

The fact is that the reason behind the conspiracy has been debated a bazillion times.  Not only that but REers seem incapable of grasping how big a conspiracy it is so they keep asking that question.  If you could understand how big it is you'd see that if we accept the conspiracy to be true (for the sake of the arguement) then it is clear that they are much more powerful to ever let us get close to knowing the real reasons behind it.

Your point about the RE model leaving no unanswered questions is both false and irrelevent.  What causes gravity?  Gravity is crucial to RE theory yet is there a reason behind it?  Even if that were the case, why would that make it the right theory?  Newtonian physics has much less "I don't know"s in it than Relativity - yet relativity is still accepted as a more likely physics model.

beast,

"At no point did I say that 'saying "it's in the FAQ" means that it's been debated a billion times" - maybe you didn't say it, but it is precisely what happens most of the times anyway. Please read others posts and observe for yourself. Also try to focus on the important facts, not semantics. You are missing the main points of the discussion.

In response to your post,

Why would RE'ers believe that the conspiracy exists since there is no proof for it? For that matter, why do you believe that this conspiracy exists rather than believing that it doesn't (are you simply guessing?)? Furthermore, I don't want to accept the conspiracy to be true for the sake of the argument - that is ridiculous; I will accept it if there is proof for it. Can you explain why you accept it?

The RE model leaves no questions unanswered. It is relevant in the context of our debate - something you do not seem to grasp since you state that this point is irrelevant. The context was that while the RE theory has no "I don't know"s in it, the FE theory does, making it weak.

What causes gravity? Gravity or Gravitation is a property of all objects with mass that causes them to attract each other. It is based on an axiom stating that gravity is the reason for the very existence of the earth, the sun, and other celestial bodies; without it, matter would not have coalesced into these bodies and life as we know it would not exist. This is an axiom because it is simply based on observations rather than numbers. However, these observations are strong proof since they can be checked by visualizing celestial bodies (from other stars to entire galaxies) with the use of a strong telescope and seeing how their movement is consistent with estimations based on gravity.

Lastly, modern physics describes gravitation using the general theory of relativity, but the much simpler Newton's law of universal gravitation provides an excellent approximation in many cases. With regards to gravity, what changes with the theory of relativity is that gravitation is seen as a form of acceleration rather than a force. However, both the theory of relativity, as well as Newtonian physics are very different from the FE theory in that they have answers rather than "I don't know"s backing them up. I don't believe you do.

What causes gravity? Gravity or Gravitation is a property of all objects with mass that causes them to attract each other. It is based on an axiom stating that gravity is the reason for the very existence of the earth, the sun, and other celestial bodies; without it, matter would not have coalesced into these bodies and life as we know it would not exist. This is an axiom because it is simply based on observations rather than numbers. However, these observations are strong proof since they can be checked by visualizing celestial bodies (from other stars to entire galaxies) with the use of a strong telescope and seeing how their movement is consistent with estimations based on gravity.

Lastly, modern physics describes gravitation using the general theory of relativity, but the much simpler Newton's law of universal gravitation provides an excellent approximation in many cases. With regards to gravity, what changes with the theory of relativity is that gravitation is seen as a form of acceleration rather than a force. However, both the theory of relativity, as well as Newtonian physics are very different from the FE theory in that they have answers rather than "I don't know"s backing them up. I don't believe you do.

I'm sorry but can you explain what part of that answers the question "what causes gravity?"  What I learnt when I studided physics in college was that neither relativity nor Newtonian physics can explain gravity at all.  Quantum physics and string theory both have speculative theories as to the cause but neither is anywhere near close to having a definite answer.  Are you saying that you're right and my physics teachers and text books are wrong?

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

Note in the wikipedia how it gives absolutely no causes for gravity.  Don't you think if people knew what caused it, it would get a mention?  Obviously non existence of evidence is not proof of non existence, but if you actually can explain what causes the existence of gravity I am sure that there are plenty of physics proffessors who would like to hear.

edit: please note that I'm not saying that gravity doesn't exist, I'm just saying that in the context of round Earth theory gravity, which is crucial to round Earth theory, cannot be explained.  Explained as in a reason why it exists.  If you had any idea what you're talking about you would know this.

Ok... I've done this before but I will do it again - that is, break down my argument into many explanations so that you understand the point:

I stated "What causes gravity? Gravity or Gravitation is a property of all objects with mass that causes them to attract each other. It is based on an axiom stating that gravity is the reason for the very existence of the earth, the sun, and other celestial bodies; without it, matter would not have coalesced into these bodies and life as we know it would not exist. This is an axiom because it is simply based on observations rather than numbers. However, these observations are strong proof since they can be checked by visualizing celestial bodies (from other stars to entire galaxies) with the use of a strong telescope and seeing how their movement is consistent with estimations based on gravity."

If you read closely, you will see that I called the existence of gravity an axiom. An axiom is a statement that does not have mathematical proof backing it up; however, it IS based on observations. Axioms are usually valid when they apply to all cases (I am not sure if it's 100% or 99,99999...% of cases, since statistically speaking 100% is considered impossible). Therefore what you should understand is that the existence of gravity is an axiom because its cause is unknown. We don't know what happened before the Big Bang to explain why the universe is the way it is and why gravity exists; nor does the RE theory try to answer why it exists; it's built upon it. However, it is built upon it for a reason: we do make observations and notice that "gravity" exists, even though we might not know the cause. Therefore the RE theory is based on a few axioms (one of which is the existence of gravity) that are backed up by observations.

The FE theory does NOT have axioms based on observations backing it up. Why do you believe in it?

Lastly, I never said that wikipedia gave a reason for gravity. That's why it's an axiom.


I would also like an answer to the following:
"Why would RE'ers believe that the conspiracy exists since there is no proof for it? For that matter, why do you believe that this conspiracy exists rather than believing that it doesn't (are you simply guessing?)? Furthermore, I don't want to accept the conspiracy to be true for the sake of the argument - that is ridiculous; I will accept it if there is proof for it. Can you explain why you accept it?"

Try not to leave out important questions.

I'm sorry the question is "What causes gravity?"  You started off with that question and then wrote a long two paragraphs that had nothing to do with what causes gravity.  You still haven't made any attempt.  I'm not asking "What is gravity?" or "What does gravity do?"  I'm asking "what makes gravity happen?"  You pretended to answer the question but in reality you didn't at all.  The reason you didn't at all is either because you don't know what you're talking about or you didn't understand what "what causes gravity?" means.

I will answer your question when you either answer mine or admit that you're wrong and that there is no scientifically accepted answer to the question of "what causes gravity?"

edit: and when I say wrong - I mean wrong about attempting to answer the question when I said that it was an "I don't know" of RE theory.  Is the cause of gravity an "I don't know" of RE theory?  Either concede that point or shows us that you do know.

At this point of time, the RE model leaves no unanswered questions.

Quoted for emphesis.

beast,

First off, your "quote for emphasis" bears no weight since I've already stated that the RE theory does not try to explain what causes gravity, but rather it is based upon it (as an axiom).

I think you have a hard time understanding what I'm saying and therefore you say that I don't answer your question. Try to be a little bit answer-oriented are make an effort to think thoroughly, it would make this debate worth it. At the moment you are simply making a circular statement and I am trying to make you understand what I mean.

I told you in my last post that the RE model does not give the reason as to why gravity exists. Rather, it is BASED on the existence of gravity, which in turn is "scientifically accepted" through observations. Observations are made with the use of a telescope, through simulations, and space missions (and other practices probably) and they confirm that gravity, the cause of which is unknown (like you wish to hear and I never denied), exists. Please read the definition of an axiom and understand (this you should've been taught in middle school) that mathematics, physics, astronomy and science in general are BASED on axioms and that axioms are based on observations. The RE theory is also based on axioms, one of which is the existance of gravity. Give me axioms behind the FE theory (and remember that axioms are based on observations). I really don't see what you don't understand here.

Unfortunately I cannot "admit that I am wrong", because I am not. If you do not wish to answer my questions, fine by me, but it's extra evidence for your acceptance of the FE model based on nothing else but stubborness (this I posted about FE'ers in general in my initial post in this thread; initially I thought you had a little bit more to say). Furthermore, answers to my questions would help me learn more about this so-called FE theory; I don't sense that you are trying to help me understand why you believe in it. Statements such as "I will answer your question when you either answer mine [...]" are very childish. However, I do understand why you don't wish to answer my questions - probably for fear that you would look less intelligent.

Please stop making a circular statement; if you were participating in a debate contest right now, you would be disqualified for dismissing a valid point through repetition of your initial argument (so far you did this 2 times).

For the time being I wish you a fair evening.

I'm sorry that's ridiculous.

Firstly round Earth theory is not based on gravity at all.  Gravity is an explanation of why things behave the way they do in round Earth theory.  The theory that the Earth is round hundreds of years older than Newtons theory of gravity.

Sources:

"Since the time of the Greek philosopher Aristotle in the 4th century BC, there have been many attempts to understand and explain gravity....

In 1687, English mathematician Sir Isaac Newton published the famous Principia, which hypothesizes the inverse-square law of universal gravitation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity


"The first person known to have advocated a spherical shape of the Earth is Pythagoras (6th century BC)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth

So your statement

I told you in my last post that the RE model does not give the reason as to why gravity exists. Rather, it is BASED on the existence of gravity

Is clearly false.

Instead gravity is a part of round Earth theory - a crucial part.


Clearly there is a very important link between round Earth theory and gravity.  Without gravity it would be impossible to explain why the Earth is round.  Now you said that

At this point of time, the RE model leaves no unanswered questions.

but surely the arguement goes very simply.  

What shape is the Earth?
Round.

Why is it round?
Because of gravity.

What causes gravity?
I don't know.

That question is clearly linked to round Earth theory because it explains why the Earth is round.  If we can't explain what causes gravity then we can only explain why the Earth is round to a certain degree - we cannot explain it completely.


So just to be clear.

You are wrong about your statement that round Earth theory is based on gravity.

You are wrong about your statement that round Earth theory has no unanswerable questions.

It's all very well to say that if this were a debating contest I would be disqualified but you chose to respond to me questioning the point you made that round Earth theory has no unanswerable questions.  In any event this is not a competative debate and I haven't made any comments that are false while you have made two.

Also you smell because you don't wash.

This is ridiculous.

Quote

So your statement Quote:
I told you in my last post that the RE model does not give the reason as to why gravity exists. Rather, it is BASED on the existence of gravity

Is clearly false.

Instead gravity is a part of round Earth theory - a crucial part.

His statment does not say that Gravity is not part of RE theory, he only said that there is no explanation for it because it's an axiom. Where on the sentence you quoted does it say that it is not?

You cannot expect everything to be explained infinitely. Asking what causes gravity is like asking what causes atoms to exist or what causes matter to exist in the universe instead of it simply being empty.

If you take the same attitude towards FE, things are even worse.

Why is the earth flat?
...It stops there.

What would anyone gain from a huge conspiracy?

..it stops there.
What Causes the existence of the ice wall?

Still nothing.

If you look for the cause of everything, you will eventually hit a wall when you reach the fundamentals. If you keep trying beyond that, you'll just go mad. What's beyond the subatomic? What's beyond that?, Then what's beyond that?

If you have a problem with this limit, then there's no reason for you to accept FE theory since it has even less to offer you. Fe can't even explain how the planet was formed, let alone make predictions that can be verified by observing other celestial bodies.

also:

Also you smell because you don't wash.

bibicul has been nothing but patient and polite with you. And you just insult him for no reason. Then you'll turn around and coplain thet RE are poor debaters. You know very well that you can't answer his questions because they are valid and cannot be accounted for by FE theory.

Ha, ha, ha, I find it very funny when disturbed people such as the beast get angry and say gibberish like "Also you smell because you don't wash" as though that's going to anger me. Mate, it just makes you look stupid when you get angry that you have no argument. It's better to just accept that you were wrong and move on with your life.

beast, your lack of intellect is obvious from the fact that you do not understand the simple mathematical concept of logical implication ('if A then B' or 'A => B'). Gravity is 'A'. The RE is 'B'. Now think 'A => B' or "Gravity => RE', or in other words 'given the fact that gravity exists, the earth is round'. Or how about "Gravity causes the earth to be round". Or "Because of gravity, the earth is round". Does that make any sense to you?

You asked me to explain the existence of gravity using the RE model, so basically B => A. That is illogical. The 'reason' for gravity is NOT the fact that the earth is round, but vice-versa: the earth is round because of gravity.

As the name suggests, the RE theory proves that the earth is round, not why gravity exists. However for the RE model to be strong, it needed to be based on strong axioms (gravity being one of them) and for the axiom to be strong, people made observations to prove that 'it stands'. Therefore they observed other galaxies, stars and planets and realized that their movement was consistent with gravity - in other words they said, "Even though we don't know WHY gravity exists, we know that it DOES exist BASED ON how objects behave in the universe". Then they said (to simplify things for you), "Now that we've agreed that gravity exists, let's BUILD the RE theory BAESD on this axiom called gravity (axiom because we don't have mathematical proof, but we have strong observations)". After the RE theory was built, it was able to answer why the earth was round; it doesn't explain why gravity exists. I believe that if a theory proved why gravity existed it would PROBABLY be called the "Gravitational Theory", or "GT".

Your question "Why does gravity exists?" has nothing to do with the fact that the RE theory is strong, nor does it prove that the RE theory still leaves unanswered questions. In fact, your question is entirely out of context.

However, the FE theory lacks an axiom to be based on. It's just an assumption. The fact that you believe in assumptions rather than observations shows that you are a very weak-minded person.

We negated how it would be physically impossible for governments of the world to conspire in protecting this secret of a flat earth. Now that we highlight inconsistencies to FE theory, you go on to pose utterly obscure theories about a small secret society. Clearly, you are just pulling things out of your a$$ without ever applying logic or reasoned thinking.

did you even look up the exlusive bretheren?  they literally cut themselves off from ordinary western society.  they spend hours every week in locked up compounds where nobody knows what they're really doing.  they run their own businesses and have recently been pouring thousands or millions of dollars in donations to certain political parties in various countries.  the liberal party of australia, who is currently in power and has recieved thousands of dollars worth of support directly and indirectly from the Exclusive Brethren blocked a bill to investigate what it is exactly that the brethren do and what they teach their children(who are also cut off from general society).  members of the society that leave are cut off, have their children and wives and all their belongings taken off them and if they talk they are even refused ANY access to their children.  reason enough to keep a secret?

this is far from an obscure theory.  societies like this exist, it could be any one of them, consider the masons?

Ha, ha, ha, I find it very funny when disturbed people such as the beast get angry and say gibberish like "Also you smell because you don't wash" as though that's going to anger me. Mate, it just makes you look stupid when you get angry that you have no argument. It's better to just accept that you were wrong and move on with your life.

Dude.  Joke.  Don't know if you have a sense of humour.  Probably not.

beast, your lack of intellect is obvious from the fact that you do not understand the simple mathematical concept of logical implication ('if A then B' or 'A => B'). Gravity is 'A'. The RE is 'B'. Now think 'A => B' or "Gravity => RE', or in other words 'given the fact that gravity exists, the earth is round'. Or how about "Gravity causes the earth to be round". Or "Because of gravity, the earth is round". Does that make any sense to you?

I understand the point.  It just doesn't prove your statements correct.

I told you in my last post that the RE model does not give the reason as to why gravity exists. Rather, it is BASED on the existence of gravity

Is this statement correct depsite the fact that RE theory predates Newtonian gravity by over 2000 years?

At this point of time, the RE model leaves no unanswered questions.

Is this statement correct despite the fact that the RE model doesn't actually explain why it the Earth is round?  What kinds of questions are you talking about when you say it "leaves no unanswered questions?"  Surely asking "why is the Earth round?" is a question the model leaves.

i put my view forward on this matter a while ago although maybe not explained very well:

...basically u all know how the model of gravity works (assuming this is accurate) then all mass exerts a force of attraction upon other objects. basically using common sense you can figure out that the formation of matter where the maximum force can be exerted is a sphere-like shape, and as such the matter will form this shape given enough time, and whether it is massive enough.

think about it...if two sides are attracting each other, they will move closer, and closer until an equilibrium is reached where no one side can move closer to its opposite without overcoming the gravitational force of another side of the object (hence a sphere where supposedly the radius from the centre is constant).

i'm not sure if this has already been brought up...and stay away from my grammatical errors, and bad explanations beast    :cry:  :wink: