WHY is the earth flat?

I wonder if any FE-ers have a theory as to why the earth is flat?  I'm not talking about evidence for or against the idea of it being flat: I mean, how did it come to be flat?  What were the initial conditions in the formation of the universe, and of our solar system, such that the newly formed earth became flat and not spherical, like the rest of the planets?

(Assuming, I suppose, you believe the rest of the planets exist, or are spherical; and that the earth hasn't always existed; and so on).

There are plenty of discussions as to why the Earth is flat.  I'd like to suggest you take some time and read through the trove of information contained here.

Sounds a bit too much like hard work, mate.

Sounds a bit too much like hard work, mate.

Finding the truth has never been easy, friend.

I suppose you could just accept that the earth is round, because it is round.  That would be pretty easy.  But seriously, can you direct me to some of the threads about theories as to why the earth is flat?

Quote from: jonnyopinion on September 06, 2013, 09:19:34 PM

Sounds a bit too much like hard work, mate.

Finding the truth has never been easy, friend.

Yes, Im also interested in this.  Iv spent alot of time going through old threads and came across a few but those were about creation theories and usually got bogged down quickly with religious arguments.  A link or two to threads that you thought were informative would be greatly appreciated, Junker.

Welcome to the forum. I am relatively new here too but let me give you my impression. There is no a theory, but there are many theories and they keep changing all the time.

I wonder if any FE-ers have a theory as to why the earth is flat?  I'm not talking about evidence for or against the idea of it being flat: I mean, how did it come to be flat?  What were the initial conditions in the formation of the universe, and of our solar system, such that the newly formed earth became flat and not spherical, like the rest of the planets?

(Assuming, I suppose, you believe the rest of the planets exist, or are spherical; and that the earth hasn't always existed; and so on).

Welcome to FES. I have answered this many times but I would gladly answer this for you. I am currently working on this thoery but it still needs some improvement: You see, I believe the Earth is the very base of the universe, created from cooling after the Big Bang, and the Universe is being expanded from our point. Since that Earth is the base and that everything is being expanded from the point of the Earth, the Earth itself is being pulled magnetically by its four corners (I believe that Earth is a bipolar disc enclosed by four corners, if you find the beleif rediculous, just think of it being pulled as a disc. I believe the four corners are blocked out by the sun as seen in photos from space), and it is because of this that gravity (yes, im an FE and I believe in gravity) does not have the Earth's mass crush itself into a sphere like the planets (Earth is not by IAU definition in this case, a planet)

Thanks for your answer.  Why do you believe any of these things?

Thanks for your answer.  Why do you believe any of these things?

Because things like gravity have been proven by science, and can be fit into Flat Earth Thoery

I wonder if any FE-ers have a theory as to why the earth is flat?  I'm not talking about evidence for or against the idea of it being flat: I mean, how did it come to be flat?  What were the initial conditions in the formation of the universe, and of our solar system, such that the newly formed earth became flat and not spherical, like the rest of the planets?

(Assuming, I suppose, you believe the rest of the planets exist, or are spherical; and that the earth hasn't always existed; and so on).

REers make claims of knowledge about that time of Earth's development where you would think they must have been sitting at a table, drinking tea, and watching formation occuring in front of their eyes.  What we do know is that the Earth is flat and that it is special. 

Yes, one can speculate about how formation occurred and it's no harm/no foul and even time well spent...until definitive claims of roundness are brought up. That's when the conversation turns to folly.   

Quote from: jonnyopinion on September 06, 2013, 09:13:50 PM

I wonder if any FE-ers have a theory as to why the earth is flat?  I'm not talking about evidence for or against the idea of it being flat: I mean, how did it come to be flat?  What were the initial conditions in the formation of the universe, and of our solar system, such that the newly formed earth became flat and not spherical, like the rest of the planets?

(Assuming, I suppose, you believe the rest of the planets exist, or are spherical; and that the earth hasn't always existed; and so on).

Welcome to FES. I have answered this many times but I would gladly answer this for you. I am currently working on this thoery but it still needs some improvement: You see, I believe the Earth is the very base of the universe, created from cooling after the Big Bang, and the Universe is being expanded from our point. Since that Earth is the base and that everything is being expanded from the point of the Earth, the Earth itself is being pulled magnetically by its four corners (I believe that Earth is a bipolar disc enclosed by four corners, if you find the beleif rediculous, just think of it being pulled as a disc. I believe the four corners are blocked out by the sun as seen in photos from space), and it is because of this that gravity (yes, im an FE and I believe in gravity) does not have the Earth's mass crush itself into a sphere like the planets (Earth is not by IAU definition in this case, a planet)

I love this, man.  It's so bloody mental.
But where really is the evidence for any of this?

What we do know is that the Earth is flat and that it is special. 

How do we know this?

evidence tips the scales that it is planar, and as Zetetics we must accept this.

How do we know this?

Please read the FAQ for a basic grasp on FET, then ask any additional questions in the Q&A forum.

evidence tips the scales that it is planar, and as Zetetics we must accept this.

I thought Zetetism was the idea of gathering all data yourself and not relying on other's evidence.

Quote from: iwanttobelieve on September 12, 2013, 09:19:25 AM

evidence tips the scales that it is planar, and as Zetetics we must accept this.

I thought Zetetism was the idea of gathering all data yourself and not relying on other's evidence.

Who said that? Certainly not Samuel Birley Rowbotham.

Who said that? Certainly not Samuel Birley Rowbotham.

Well this is what he said at the beginning of ENAG

Let the method of simple inquiry--the "Zetetic" process be exclusively adopted--experiments tried and facts collected--not such only as corroborate an already existing state of mind, but of every kind and form bearing on the subject, before a conclusion is drawn, or a conviction affirmed.

But the deeper you go into his book, experiments or facts were not firsthand account anymore.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 12, 2013, 12:15:37 PM

Who said that? Certainly not Samuel Birley Rowbotham.

Well this is what he said at the beginning of ENAG

Quote

Let the method of simple inquiry--the "Zetetic" process be exclusively adopted--experiments tried and facts collected--not such only as corroborate an already existing state of mind, but of every kind and form bearing on the subject, before a conclusion is drawn, or a conviction affirmed.

But the deeper you go into his book, experiments or facts were not firsthand account anymore.

Where does this quote say that you have to collect all data yourself?

Quote from: justlurkingnothingmore on September 12, 2013, 11:50:21 AM

Quote from: iwanttobelieve on September 12, 2013, 09:19:25 AM

evidence tips the scales that it is planar, and as Zetetics we must accept this.

I thought Zetetism was the idea of gathering all data yourself and not relying on other's evidence.

Who said that? Certainly not Samuel Birley Rowbotham.

But how can you trust the data if you don't collect it yourself?

But how can you trust the data if you don't collect it yourself?

Who said that you couldn't trust data you haven't collected yourself? Rowbotham presents a lot of data he didn't collect himself in his work, from hundreds of sources. The philosophy of Zeteticism has nothing to do with "you have to see it to believe it" or "don't trust in others" or any of that.

Quote from: markjo on September 12, 2013, 05:24:00 PM

But how can you trust the data if you don't collect it yourself?

Who said that you couldn't trust data you haven't collected yourself? Rowbotham presents a lot of data he didn't collect himself in his work, from hundreds of sources. The philosophy of Zeteticism has nothing to do with "you have to see it to believe it" or "don't trust in others" or any of that.

Then why don't you trust any data provided by RE'ers?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 12, 2013, 05:35:36 PM

Quote from: markjo on September 12, 2013, 05:24:00 PM

But how can you trust the data if you don't collect it yourself?

Who said that you couldn't trust data you haven't collected yourself? Rowbotham presents a lot of data he didn't collect himself in his work, from hundreds of sources. The philosophy of Zeteticism has nothing to do with "you have to see it to believe it" or "don't trust in others" or any of that.

Then why don't you trust any data provided by RE'ers?

I do trust the vast majority of data. I just don't trust known liars.

Quote from: markjo on September 12, 2013, 05:44:48 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 12, 2013, 05:35:36 PM

Quote from: markjo on September 12, 2013, 05:24:00 PM

But how can you trust the data if you don't collect it yourself?

Who said that you couldn't trust data you haven't collected yourself? Rowbotham presents a lot of data he didn't collect himself in his work, from hundreds of sources. The philosophy of Zeteticism has nothing to do with "you have to see it to believe it" or "don't trust in others" or any of that.

Then why don't you trust any data provided by RE'ers?

I do trust the vast majority of data. I just don't trust proven frauds.

What about the data that conflicts with FET?  You know, data like maps.

What about the data that conflicts with FET?

Such as?

Quote from: markjo on September 12, 2013, 05:50:26 PM

What about the data that conflicts with FET?

Such as?

How about maps based on RE distances and geometry?

Quote from: markjo on September 12, 2013, 05:44:48 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 12, 2013, 05:35:36 PM

Quote from: markjo on September 12, 2013, 05:24:00 PM

But how can you trust the data if you don't collect it yourself?

Who said that you couldn't trust data you haven't collected yourself? Rowbotham presents a lot of data he didn't collect himself in his work, from hundreds of sources. The philosophy of Zeteticism has nothing to do with "you have to see it to believe it" or "don't trust in others" or any of that.

Then why don't you trust any data provided by RE'ers?

I do trust the vast majority of data. I just don't trust known liars.

It's called cherry picking. How do you decide which information is to trust and which is not?

How about maps based on RE distances and geometry?

I don't doubt the distances seen in established routes. But I do doubt that all points on a map have been measured between all other points on the map.

Quote from: markjo on September 12, 2013, 09:31:52 PM

How about maps based on RE distances and geometry?

I don't doubt the distances seen in established routes. But I do doubt that all points on a map have been measured between all other points on the map.

Can you please give some examples of suspicious distances, other two points in the middle of an ocean ?
Do you trust on the Vendee Globe overall distance ?

Why is the earth flat?

Why does love make you feel all happy at first?

Why is ice cream tasty?

Why is it fun to drive too fast?

Some things just are.