ask me any question about the Round Earth Theory, I will answer without evasion

Why was the moon rock that Buzz Lightyear and Lance Armstrong handed out to foreign dignitaries fake?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html

Why was the moon rock that Buzz Lightyear and Lance Armstrong handed out to foreign dignitaries fake?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html

If you had been chosen to go up against Dr. Rowbotham (Author of Earth Not a Globe) in a debate style discussion and had to chose the topic based on your confidence of outcome, would you chose the discipline of astronomy or geology as having the stronger backing of RET evidence?

Quote from: gotham on October 05, 2013, 06:23:14 PM

If you had been chosen to go up against Dr. Rowbotham (Author of Earth Not a Globe) in a debate style discussion and had to chose the topic based on your confidence of outcome, would you chose the discipline of astronomy or geology as having the stronger backing of RET evidence?

Either, because the findings of both are equally as verifiable and falsifiable - one can't have a stronger backing of evidence than the other because they are both purely the understanding and explanation of the results of tested hypotheses.

I think this is the disconnect that exists for some of you FE-rs (and i'm not entirely convinced that this isn't just an exercise in dedicated trolling) is that the only reason we believe what we believe is because of the evidence that exists, whereas some of you seem to think that it's more appropriate to believe something and then try and work out why it might be true. we are not precious about the fact that the Earth is round, if it transpired that it was actually shaped like a duck I wouldn't feel embarrassed because we only believe what we believe because it is the most reasonable answer currently available - it's not a point of principle, it's just the most reasonable explanation I've heard so far. You can't decide what is and isn't real a propos of nothing, what is real just is and believing it or not is not going to change that.

Your topic has a good start and good potential for continued serious debate and we will have to watch it to see if it does become a trollfest. It almost got moved to FEG right away because FED should be for discussions of FET.  Because you are requesting debate and the OP is not a question, let us see how the debates go before relocation is needed.

Quote from: jtlondon83 on October 05, 2013, 06:40:39 PM

Quote from: gotham on October 05, 2013, 06:23:14 PM

If you had been chosen to go up against Dr. Rowbotham (Author of Earth Not a Globe) in a debate style discussion and had to chose the topic based on your confidence of outcome, would you chose the discipline of astronomy or geology as having the stronger backing of RET evidence?

Either, because the findings of both are equally as verifiable and falsifiable - one can't have a stronger backing of evidence than the other because they are both purely the understanding and explanation of the results of tested hypotheses.

I think this is the disconnect that exists for some of you FE-rs (and i'm not entirely convinced that this isn't just an exercise in dedicated trolling) is that the only reason we believe what we believe is because of the evidence that exists, whereas some of you seem to think that it's more appropriate to believe something and then try and work out why it might be true. we are not precious about the fact that the Earth is round, if it transpired that it was actually shaped like a duck I wouldn't feel embarrassed because we only believe what we believe because it is the most reasonable answer currently available - it's not a point of principle, it's just the most reasonable explanation I've heard so far. You can't decide what is and isn't real a propos of nothing, what is real just is and believing it or not is not going to change that.

It would be more reasonable to conclude that either astronomy or geology would have stronger evidence from the RET perspective.  One or the other would have to be considered as having a longer and more developed line of reasoning/evidence because more would have been written about it. Saying it is tie does not serve RET well.       

Why was the moon rock that Buzz Lightyear and Lance Armstrong handed out to foreign dignitaries fake?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html

The Rijksmuseum, more noted as a repository for 17th century Dutch paintings, announced last month it had had its plum-sized "moon" rock tested, only to discover it was a piece of petrified wood, possibly from Arizona. The museum said it inherited the rock from the estate of a former prime minister.

The real Dutch moon rocks are in a natural history museum. But the misidentification raised questions about how well countries have safeguarded their presents from Washington.

[...]

In fact, the Netherlands is one of the few countries where the location of both the Apollo 11 and Apollo 17 gift rocks is known. Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand are others — though none has rocks from both missions on permanent public display and some have been kept in storage for decades.

The Amsterdam case appears to be not fraud but the result of poor vetting by the Rijksmuseum.

Spokeswoman Xandra van Gelder said the museum checked with NASA after receiving the rock in 1992 from the estate of the late Prime Minister Willem Drees. NASA told the museum, without seeing it, that it was "possible" it was a moon rock.

But it weighed a whopping 89 grams (3.1 ounces). In addition, its gold-colored cardboard plaque does not describe it as a moon rock.

The U.S. ambassador gave Drees the rock during an Oct. 9, 1969 visit by the Apollo 11 astronauts to the Netherlands. Drees's grandson, also named Willem, told the AP his grandfather had been out of office for more than a decade and was nearly deaf and blind in 1969, though his mind was still sharp.

"My guess is that he did not hear well what was said," said the grandson. "He may have formed his own idea about what it was."

The family never thought to question the story before donating the rock, to which it had not attached great importance or monetary value.

Although I am an REer, I don't emphasis my presence here on proving that the earth is round. I am more into getting FEers to defend how the earth can be flat by providing them known facts which could not happen if the earth were flat. I am interested to see FEers do the other way around to REers.

The "rock" had originally been been vetted through a phone call to Nasa, she added.

US officials said they had no explanation for the Dutch discovery.

It is commonly believed that man will fly directly from the earth to the moon, but to do this, we would require a vehicle of such gigantic proportions that it would prove an economic impossibility. It would have to develop sufficient speed to penetrate the atmosphere and overcome the earth’s gravity and, having traveled all the way to the moon, it must still have enough fuel to land safely and make the return trip to earth. Furthermore, in order to give the expedition a margin of safety, we would not use one ship alone, but a minimum of three … each rocket ship would be taller than New York’s Empire State Building [almost ¼ mile high] and weigh about ten times the tonnage of the Queen Mary, or some 800,000 tons.

USA today? Yes, they are absolutely not a biased source. 

Quote from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8226075.stm

The "rock" had originally been been vetted through a phone call to Nasa, she added.

US officials said they had no explanation for the Dutch discovery.

It's fascinating - they're as dissembling when asking questions as when answering them!

That was written 15 years before the moon landing - what does it prove other than his thinking moved on over that time period


I'll leave you with a very odd quote

Quote from: Wernher von Braun, the father of the Apollo space program, writing in Conquest of the Moon

It is commonly believed that man will fly directly from the earth to the moon, but to do this, we would require a vehicle of such gigantic proportions that it would prove an economic impossibility. It would have to develop sufficient speed to penetrate the atmosphere and overcome the earth’s gravity and, having traveled all the way to the moon, it must still have enough fuel to land safely and make the return trip to earth. Furthermore, in order to give the expedition a margin of safety, we would not use one ship alone, but a minimum of three … each rocket ship would be taller than New York’s Empire State Building [almost ¼ mile high] and weigh about ten times the tonnage of the Queen Mary, or some 800,000 tons.

USA today? Yes, they are absolutely not a biased source. 

The "rock" had originally been been vetted through a phone call to Nasa, she added.

US officials said they had no explanation for the Dutch discovery.

I'll leave you with a very odd quote

Quote from: Wernher von Braun, the father of the Apollo space program, writing in Conquest of the Moon

It is commonly believed that man will fly directly from the earth to the moon, but to do this, we would require a vehicle of such gigantic proportions that it would prove an economic impossibility. It would have to develop sufficient speed to penetrate the atmosphere and overcome the earth’s gravity and, having traveled all the way to the moon, it must still have enough fuel to land safely and make the return trip to earth. Furthermore, in order to give the expedition a margin of safety, we would not use one ship alone, but a minimum of three … each rocket ship would be taller than New York’s Empire State Building [almost ¼ mile high] and weigh about ten times the tonnage of the Queen Mary, or some 800,000 tons.

This offer still stands by the way - I'm surprised you're not eager to tear this ludicrous Round Earth 'Theory' to shreds..

Quote from: jtlondon83 on October 06, 2013, 02:11:31 PM

This offer still stands by the way - I'm surprised you're not eager to tear this ludicrous Round Earth 'Theory' to shreds..

Uh,okay, I'll bite. Why is the gravitational force (which causes a RE) so much weaker than the other fundamental forces? Why does it only become comparable at the Planck scale?

Quote from: SeekerOfTruth on October 11, 2013, 10:42:36 PM

Quote from: jtlondon83 on October 06, 2013, 02:11:31 PM

This offer still stands by the way - I'm surprised you're not eager to tear this ludicrous Round Earth 'Theory' to shreds..

Uh,okay, I'll bite. Why is the gravitational force (which causes a RE) so much weaker than the other fundamental forces? Why does it only become comparable at the Planck scale?

THATS A GOOD ONE LOL.

I honestly haven't a clue, good luck op.

Quote from: Almostaphysicsmajor on October 11, 2013, 10:53:45 PM

Quote from: SeekerOfTruth on October 11, 2013, 10:42:36 PM

Quote from: jtlondon83 on October 06, 2013, 02:11:31 PM

This offer still stands by the way - I'm surprised you're not eager to tear this ludicrous Round Earth 'Theory' to shreds..

Uh,okay, I'll bite. Why is the gravitational force (which causes a RE) so much weaker than the other fundamental forces? Why does it only become comparable at the Planck scale?

THATS A GOOD ONE LOL.

I honestly haven't a clue, good luck op.

Haha, yeah, it was kind of cruel. I really just wanted to see how he/she answers with respect to current knowledge/ideas about it.

Why is the gravitational force (which causes a RE) so much weaker than the other fundamental forces?

Quote from: SeekerOfTruth on October 11, 2013, 10:42:36 PM

Why is the gravitational force (which causes a RE) so much weaker than the other fundamental forces?

As an REer, I'd like to try to answer on behalf of OP who is currently nowhere to be seen.

Frankly, I don't think I can give a scientific answer to your very tricky question apart from that's the way this universe works, that matters attract each other following a certain law of nature. Now let's imagine a hypothetical universe where the strength of the gravitational force and the strength of the electromagnetic force have been swapped.

In that universe, the gravitational force would have been 10³⁶ times stronger than the electromagnetic force. All matters would have probably just collapsed into black holes not long or even straight after the beginning. And even if somehow planets and stars could still have been formed, life would have been very difficult to flourish with that kind of gravity. But even if life could have been created, it would have been instantly destroyed by solar winds as there wouldn't have been an electromagnetic field strong enough to act as a shield.

So since the laws of nature in our universe is the way it is then life becomes what it is now. And here we are in front of our computers debating in TFES

That's called fine-tuned universe. Dicke claimed that certain forces in physics, such as gravity and electromagnetism, must be perfectly fine-tuned for life to exist anywhere in the Universe. Hawking also said "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life".