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

  • 77 Replies
  • 9106 Views
This is to provide a contrast to the evasiory responses I receive from the Flat Earth collective.

Any question, direct answer.

*

Thork

  • 1687
  • Please do not touch or disturb me.
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

*

Thork

  • 1687
  • Please do not touch or disturb me.
Hello?


He went off-line. Where's my direct answer? This feels very much like evasion to me.  >:(

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Another REer puffs out his chest and then quietly slinks away when his challenge is answered.  A decisive victory for FE.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

Adolf Hipster

I could always improvise for him.

The government probably didn't want to give actual moon rock samples away to other countries.
On the more extreme possibility that the government faked the moon landing, that to is a possibility why they didn't give out real moon rock.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
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

Hardly a question about RE theory is it?
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

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

Is this a question about the Earth being round?

The giving of 'fake moon rock' does not preclude the fact that they also have real moon rock. When a doctor gives you a placebo does that mean that he doesn't have any antibotics?

*

gotham

  • Planar Moderator
  • 3329
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?

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.

*

gotham

  • Planar Moderator
  • 3329
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.

*

gotham

  • Planar Moderator
  • 3329
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.         

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.

Put it wherever you want although the proof for a Round Earth obviously implies the disproof of a Flat Earth and hence they are inextricably linked.

This is meant to be an object lesson - ask me a question and I will give you a direct answer. I will probably then fully evidence the inability of people such as jroa to provide the same in support of their ideas by pointing to the countless examples that exist on this forum.

However, no-one has asked me a question about the evidence of a Round Earth so far - it seems there's an ability to obfuscate even when you're given the initiative..

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.       

Neither have 'stronger evidence' - each is just the classification of a area of study which only exists because there is evidence for it, it didn't start with someone thinking up the science of Astronomy and then trying to find things to fit into it but rather the study exists because of the belief that there is sufficient content to merit it and has eventually been formalised as Astronomy. One may be more developed as a field, I don't know, but both are equally as true, and so relevant to the discussion, as the other.

That said, neither are really that relevant to this conversation - it's a question of Physics, backed up by Astronomy and is really nothing to do with Geology. I'd love to hear what 'unique' take you lot have on Geology though..

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

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2009-09-14-moon-rock_N.htm
Quote
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.
Also, the people on your websites are specifically framing their claims, not to learn the truth of the matter, but because they want to "debunk" Apollo Hoax claims --

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.
I think, therefore I am

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.

I would be too, but there doesn't appear to be any uptake..

*

Thork

  • 1687
  • Please do not touch or disturb me.
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.


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.

What does flying to the moon have anything to do with the shape of the earth Ævan?
I think, therefore I am

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.  ::)

Why is USA today untrustworthy?

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.

Exactly. The rock was vetted by a phone call and not a geologist. 

Quote
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.

It's not odd at all.  He was arguing against the idea of flying directly from the earth to the moon in a single launch vehicle. 
Also, the people on your websites are specifically framing their claims, not to learn the truth of the matter, but because they want to "debunk" Apollo Hoax claims --

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

*

Junker

  • 3784
Please do not bump threads that are a day old and have recent posts.  If someone thinks it is interesting enough, he or she will post.

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?

?

Almostaphysicsmajor

  • 66
  • I'm a scientist! Sort of...
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.
~Id rather live painfully than die painlessly~

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. 

?

Almostaphysicsmajor

  • 66
  • I'm a scientist! Sort of...
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.

I could have an explanation perhaps with my theory of gravity  :-B but that would be thread jacking. Come on OP!
~Id rather live painfully than die painlessly~

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 :)
I think, therefore I am

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 :)

Your answer is actually quite similar to what is called the "anthropic principle." In physics, this means that the Universe is way it is because if it was not, we would not be here to ask. Now it sounds super hokey and unscientific, but don't misunderstand it. It is not a theory, it is a principle to guide the construction of theories, and there are strong and weak versions of the principle.

As for my question: physics must be able describe how gravity unifies with the electroweak and strong forces. Then it will be able to explain the symmetry breaking that resulted in gravity's super weak strength. They typically try to address this unification in the context of String theories or SUSY (super-symmetric extensions of the standard model). They have been unsuccessful so far.

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".
I think, therefore I am

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
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".

No no, seeker is right. What you were describing is the anthropic principle. It's actually the common rebuttal against the fine-tuned universe argument.

"we must be prepared to take account of the fact that our location in the universe is necessarily privileged to the extent of being compatible with our existence as observers." - Carter on the weak anthropic principle

"the Universe (and hence the fundamental parameters on which it depends) must be such as to admit the creation of observers within it at some stage. To paraphrase Descartes, cogito ergo mundus talis est. (I think, therefore the world is such [as it is])" -Descartes on the strong anthropic principle.

Basically it's like this. Fine tuning is an illusion. There are plenty of locations in the universe where the conditions are hostile to life but if we had evolved there then we wouldn't have survived to be existing as observers in the present. Since we are here, observing, then it means that HERE is a location where the porridge isn't too hot or too cold, it's just right. Where ever the location of those "goldilocks" conditions, someone enjoys them and you just happen to be one of them.