REs Please Explain

Quote from: Sculelos on February 04, 2014, 02:06:24 PM

I've never seen Earth appear visually as a sphere from Space in videos unless it was virtual simulations. The miles number is uncertain as it's hard to say but I seen some of the Apollo footage where they claimed to be out 100,000 miles in space and you could still see blue Atmosphere still on the Horizon.

The value you remember probably was 100,000 ft. Yes, at that altitude the curvature is completely obvious.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Throwing out the conspiracy garbage out of this video there are some good facts presented that they were 100,000-200,000 miles high during this video and that it was not a cardboard cutout like this lady mistakenly assumes and the Van Allen Radiation belt is only active at certain years as the Universe itself goes through weather phases during 1969-1976 it was probably in Universal Winter basically.

Basically what is happening is the black outline is the window of the space-craft and the blue is the Earth. there is no black space around the Earth because the Universe is the Earth, it's actually pretty simple really.

Quote from: reofcourse on February 04, 2014, 02:21:07 PM

Quote from: Sculelos on February 04, 2014, 02:06:24 PM

I've never seen Earth appear visually as a sphere from Space in videos unless it was virtual simulations. The miles number is uncertain as it's hard to say but I seen some of the Apollo footage where they claimed to be out 100,000 miles in space and you could still see blue Atmosphere still on the Horizon.

The value you remember probably was 100,000 ft. Yes, at that altitude the curvature is completely obvious.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Throwing out the conspiracy garbage out of this video there are some good facts presented that they were 100,000-200,000 miles high during this video and that it was not a cardboard cutout like this lady mistakenly assumes and the Van Allen Radiation belt is only active at certain years as the Universe itself goes through weather phases during 1969-1976 it was probably in Universal Winter basically.

Basically what is happening is the black outline is the window of the space-craft and the blue is the Earth. there is no black space around the Earth because the Universe is the Earth, it's actually pretty simple really.

you are just flat out making stuff up again aren't you? #" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">A Not So Funny Thing Happened To The Earth fully debunking the window theory in less than 60 seconds

Basically what is happening is the black outline is the window of the space-craft and the blue is the Earth. there is no black space around the Earth because the Universe is the Earth, it's actually pretty simple really.

You don't half spout some drivel.  I'm increasingly convinced you are just trolling.

I've never seen Earth appear visually as a sphere from Space in videos unless it was virtual simulations. The miles number is uncertain as it's hard to say but I seen some of the Apollo footage where they claimed to be out 100,000 miles in space and you could still see blue Atmosphere still on the Horizon.

I personally believe that they were correct however I do also think that their window shenanigans fakery was also real. So even though they were 100,000 miles high they faked a view of the Earth but they still landed on the Moon a few days later.

here you go. You're welcome. #" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">A Not So Funny Thing Happened To The Earth

its been days now, was it something i said?

Quote from: ausGeoff on February 03, 2014, 06:46:38 AM

And lastly; why is it that billions of people worldwide agree totally with the current description of our spherical planet, and yet only a few hundred people propose some sort of flat earth?
 
Is it easier to fool 6,000,000,000 people, or 600 people?

Apparently 6,000,000,000.  Or, it could be that most people don't give it a second thought because it's not important in their daily lives.  It certainly doesn't help when they're taught things about the Earth at an age when they are too young to fully understand and ask questions.  Same thing goes with religion.  It's unfair to influence a child about Jesus, God, etc., based on your beliefs.  Telling them what you think is fine but expecting them to believe the same is wrong.  They need to find the answer on their own.  It's their life.   I didn't know WHAT I believed as far as religion until I was many years past elementary school.  And just so happens, something interested me in questioning HOW I knew what the shape of the Earth was.  Funny how, most of it was based on what other's told me.  Much like religion, superstition and fairy tales, I discovered that adults had been not so honest with me.  Either that, or they were somewhat delusional.  LOL  So I started with a clean slate and began to re-learn what I thought I already knew.

So, when a child or an adult asks me what shape the Earth is, my answer is, I do not know.   It is much, much bigger than we are as humans.  What I do know is what I experience here on Earth and in an airplane in our atmosphere.  And that is, the Earth is flat.  THAT, I know is true.

Self contradiction does not help your case.

He said his experience is that the earth is flat, and that he does not know what shape the earth actually is. I do not see a contradiction. 

The number of FEers will advance into millions and billions in numbers once FET is taught in schools and people are reaquainted with Earth shape normalcy. Educators should take note of this reality.

For now, REers spend their indoor time re-upping their RET instead of observing the outdoors and getting properly educated with FET studies.

Once they do get outdoors, out of the lab they should also experience for themselves the same truth FEers have experienced.   

The number of FEers will advance into millions and billions in numbers once FET is taught in schools and people are reaquainted with Earth shape normalcy. Educators should take note of this reality.

For now, REers spend their indoor time re-upping their RET instead of observing the outdoors and getting properly educated with FET studies.

Once they do get outdoors, out of the lab they should also experience for themselves the same truth FEers have experienced.

Religion is losing followers, I don't see another fake concept gaining millions of followers. Humanity tends to advance.

you are just flat out making stuff up again aren't you? #" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">A Not So Funny Thing Happened To The Earth fully debunking the window theory in less than 60 seconds

Thanks for that, I was scratching my head about that because I seen the clouds on Earth flowing and I knew it couldn't have been a cardboard cutout. Actually I compared the Earth from NASA's first Earth shot and compared it to my squashed Inverted Earth map and it aligns perfectly. I think we are seeing the clouds double over because we are seeing water vapors from below land and above land separate into two helix sphere halves. Of course sometimes I just make stuff up because I'm suffering from Psychosis and Strong Delusions but I have tested 190 on an IQ test with some minor cheating (aka memorizing the questions) however you can't cheat your way to 190 because a lot of it is timed Arithmetic and the order is usually randomized. To be fair I took the test 3 times scoring 140 the first time, 160 the second time and 190 the third time. However I'm pretty sure I couldn't cheat to a 190 unless I was pretty damn smart in the first place. Anyways the Image aligns perfectly with Inverted Earth theory with the Cosmos spinning inside Earth but it pretty easily debunks Globe Earth theory as well as Flat Disk theory 

FET studies.

What are these exactly?  "Look out of the window"?

Gonna be a short lesson.   Especially if the school is on the coast and they can see ships sinking over the horizon.

I suppose the next few months will be teaching how a vast asinine conspiracy manufacturers all the evidence that the earth is a globe.  They can learn about how GPS uses vast arrays of invisible bouys and masts and how satellite dishes really point at invisible transceivers (even when pointing directly over the ocean).  Or how the ISS is really a military plane with a magical fuel supply and the ability to look like a, err, space station...Or how NASA empoyes thousands of CGI artists to fake all the video and photographic images....yeah, I suppose they could squeeze something out of that...

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on February 03, 2014, 08:04:18 AM

So, when a child or an adult asks me what shape the Earth is, my answer is, I do not know.   It is much, much bigger than we are as humans.  What I do know is what I experience here on Earth and in an airplane in our atmosphere.  And that is, the Earth is flat.  THAT, I know is true.

Self contradiction does not help your case.

No contradiction.  You just aren't comprehending.  What I experience the Earth to be from my tiny perspective is not necessarily the same as what the Earth is in it's entirety.

The number of FEers will advance into millions and billions in numbers once FET is taught in schools and people are reaquainted with Earth shape normalcy. Educators should take note of this reality.

Why would educators teach FET in schools when there is no mathematically consistent FE model to teach? 

However I'm pretty sure I couldn't cheat to a 190 unless I was pretty damn smart in the first place. Anyways the Image aligns perfectly with Inverted Earth theory with the Cosmos spinning inside Earth but it pretty easily debunks Globe Earth theory as well as Flat Disk theory 

https://scontent-a-sea.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t1/1907361_577300355687347_1574741813_n.jpg

If you were that smart, then how did you get an orbital video of an 8,000 mile sphere from a couple hundred miles high confused with what a view of an 8,000 mile sphere from 100,000 miles would look?

Also regarding your images, you've taken images of Earth, the moon, a layout of the continents distorted and rotated, and a low res video shot of Earth, and overlayed them. That doesn't really debunk anything.

The number of FEers will advance into millions and billions in numbers once FET is taught in schools and people are reacquainted with Earth shape normalcy. Educators should take note of this reality.

This will never happen.  If the flat earthers only number a few hundred now—after the theory was first propounded in the bible 2,000 years ago—it ain't ever gonna happen.  You're confused or ill-educated about geophysics if you accept the flat earth theory as "normal", and also considering it a "reality" which should be taught in schools.

For now, REers spend their indoor time re-upping their RET instead of observing the outdoors and getting properly educated with FET studies.

I have no idea why researching science "outdoors" should be inherently better than researching science "indoors".  Can you please clarify this?

Once they do get outdoors, out of the lab they should also experience for themselves the same truth FEers have experienced.

The vast majority of scientific advancements have begun their lives in research laboratories, and not on park benches or at the beach.  True science requires complex apparatus, meticulous analysis, and systematic recording and evaluation under controlled, replicable conditions.


I've actually not seen under what controlled conditions flat earthers carry out their research, or what specialised equipment they utilise to do so.  Nor have I seen any replicable data from different flat earth researchers.

—Why not?
 
 

Quote from: gotham on February 06, 2014, 07:40:51 PM

The number of FEers will advance into millions and billions in numbers once FET is taught in schools and people are reaquainted with Earth shape normalcy. Educators should take note of this reality.

Why would educators teach FET in schools when there is no mathematically consistent FE model to teach? 

Quote from: gotham on February 06, 2014, 07:40:51 PM

The number of FEers will advance into millions and billions in numbers once FET is taught in schools and people are reacquainted with Earth shape normalcy. Educators should take note of this reality.

This will never happen.  If the flat earthers only number a few hundred now—after the theory was first propounded in the bible 2,000 years ago—it ain't ever gonna happen.  You're confused or ill-educated about geophysics if you accept the flat earth theory as "normal", and also considering it a "reality" which should be taught in schools.

Quote

For now, REers spend their indoor time re-upping their RET instead of observing the outdoors and getting properly educated with FET studies.

I have no idea why researching science "outdoors" should be inherently better than researching science "indoors".  Can you please clarify this?

Quote

Once they do get outdoors, out of the lab they should also experience for themselves the same truth FEers have experienced.

The vast majority of scientific advancements have begun their lives in research laboratories, and not on park benches or at the beach.  True science requires complex apparatus, meticulous analysis, and systematic recording and evaluation under controlled, replicable conditions.


I've actually not seen under what controlled conditions flat earthers carry out their research, or what specialised equipment they utilise to do so.  Nor have I seen any replicable data from different flat earth researchers.

—Why not?

The day will come when educators realize math and science are not disciplines that best describe the "real world." 

Memorizing and being tested on both of them to achieve needed grades serves the societal purpose of advancing forward in a manner demanded by school systems. Don't let that serve as the final say to reality.  You will fail if that is your belief. 

The day will come when educators realize math and science are not disciplines that best describe the "real world."

Realizing which discipline would best describe the "real world" would depend greatly on what you plan on doing in the "real world", don't you think?

Quote from: gotham on February 10, 2014, 06:17:27 PM

The day will come when educators realize math and science are not disciplines that best describe the "real world."

Realizing which discipline would best describe the "real world" would depend greatly on what you plan on doing in the "real world", don't you think?

A description of what is real is best served by a discipline capable of originating evidence based on non-theoretical data. The real world has tangible properties math and science can only replicate in a theoretical form.

If the goal of the plan is to provide theoretical solutions instead of facts, then your plan is in place.   

A description of what is real is best served by a discipline capable of originating evidence based on non-theoretical data. The real world has tangible properties math and science can only replicate in a theoretical form.

  Are you saying that math and science can not be applied to non-theoretical data, such as surveying?

Quote from: markjo on February 10, 2014, 06:27:33 PM

Quote from: gotham on February 10, 2014, 06:17:27 PM

The day will come when educators realize math and science are not disciplines that best describe the "real world."

Realizing which discipline would best describe the "real world" would depend greatly on what you plan on doing in the "real world", don't you think?

A description of what is real is best served by a discipline capable of originating evidence based on non-theoretical data. The real world has tangible properties math and science can only replicate in a theoretical form.

If the goal of the plan is to provide theoretical solutions instead of facts, then your plan is in place.

Sounds like you are afraid of knowing the truth.

Quote from: gotham on February 10, 2014, 06:44:49 PM

A description of what is real is best served by a discipline capable of originating evidence based on non-theoretical data. The real world has tangible properties math and science can only replicate in a theoretical form.

  Are you saying that math and science can not be applied to non-theoretical data, such as surveying?

Or building bridges, motorcars, skyscrapers, computers, the internet, vaccines, life support machines and widescreen tvs.....and so on and so on.

As usual, it's not clear what gotham is getting at...

Quote from: gotham on February 10, 2014, 06:17:27 PM

The day will come when educators realize math and science are not disciplines that best describe the "real world."

Realizing which discipline would best describe the "real world" would depend greatly on what you plan on doing in the "real world", don't you think?

Well I'd say if ever you have a number of items then maths is gonna be a pretty good bet.

The day will come when educators realize math and science are not disciplines that best describe the "real world." 

Memorizing and being tested on both of them to achieve needed grades serves the societal purpose of advancing forward in a manner demanded by school systems. Don't let that serve as the final say to reality.  You will fail if that is your belief.

I'd be guessing that if educators haven't yet discounted applied maths and physical science as describing the "real" world in 2,000 years, then it ain't never gonna happen.

"Memorising" and "testing" students on maths and science has nothing to do at all with the already-qualified scientists working in the field.  We—all of us—need to remember at least the basic principles and practices of maths and science if we're to study the world in real time and in real space.  The science kids learn at high school is only one of the very first stepping stones to becoming a researcher, so I disagree that it's only to satisfy the school systems.

An research scientists certainly don't give a damn about the social implications of their work—other than that it's supportive of, or advantageous to, our society.

We look at a mountain, and trigonometry tells us how high it is without climbing it;  we cross a river, and hydraulics tells us its flow rate without using a bucket; we cook a pizza, and thermodynamics tells us at what temperature without burning our hand.

Science and maths are inextricably tied in with the real world.  Using your "real world" assessment for each of my examples could yield answers along the lines of "pretty high", "fast flowing", and "really hot".  Which are more accurate?  My answers or yours?
 

A description of what is real is best served by a discipline capable of originating evidence based on non-theoretical data. The real world has tangible properties math and science can only replicate in a theoretical form.

I have to disagree.  If I want to measure the height of a camellia bush in my garden, it's pointless to say something like "it's 27 carrots high".

On the other hand, if I tell you it's 2.5m high, you know precisely how high it is—without ever being in my garden or having to interpret my answer.  That's maths describing the "real" world.
 

Quote from: gotham on February 10, 2014, 06:44:49 PM

A description of what is real is best served by a discipline capable of originating evidence based on non-theoretical data. The real world has tangible properties math and science can only replicate in a theoretical form.

I have to disagree.  If I want to measure the height of a camellia bush in my garden, it's pointless to say something like "it's 27 carrots high".

On the other hand, if I tell you it's 2.5m high, you know precisely how high it is—without ever being in my garden or having to interpret my answer.  That's maths describing the "real" world.

If Mr Einstein had measured his camellia bush in carrots, you would be measuring your bush in carrots. If Dr Rowbotham had measured his camellia bush in meters, you would still be measuring your bush in carrots.

Quote from: ausGeoff on February 12, 2014, 04:43:29 AM

Quote from: gotham on February 10, 2014, 06:44:49 PM

A description of what is real is best served by a discipline capable of originating evidence based on non-theoretical data. The real world has tangible properties math and science can only replicate in a theoretical form.

I have to disagree.  If I want to measure the height of a camellia bush in my garden, it's pointless to say something like "it's 27 carrots high".

On the other hand, if I tell you it's 2.5m high, you know precisely how high it is—without ever being in my garden or having to interpret my answer.  That's maths describing the "real" world.

If Mr Einstein had measured his camellia bush in carrots, you would be measuring your bush in carrots. If Dr Rowbotham had measured his camellia bush in meters, you would still be measuring your bush in carrots.

Then it's a good thing that Dr. Einstein was smart enough to measure his camellia bush in meters instead of carrots.

Oh yes, I am quite familiar with that site.  Lots of good info.  It would do the REs (SEs ((Spherical Earthers)) as I call them) some good to read all the topics there. 

I understand now why it doesn't matter which direction the Earth's tilt faces.  But I just think it's nonsense that a sphere can be spinning around and moving through the vacuum of space and yet have a gas atmosphere that stays in tact with Earth.  Have we EVER seen that in a lab?  Not that I'm aware of.  On top of that most gasses are invisible.  I really do think the Earth and planets like Jupiter have transparent crystal or ice outer shells.  It's the only logical explanation.

No no.. the earth has cling wrap surrounding it.. it's the only logical explanation.. plus it keeps the freshness locked in!

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on February 02, 2014, 08:31:27 AM

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on February 01, 2014, 11:21:10 AM

A ball spinning with a colored gas, inside a vacuum will do just fine.

Good, we live on one.

We don't have the capability to create all sorts of things in labs, that doesn't mean they don't exist.  Nobody has ever created Australia in a lab - that's no reason to doubt it's existence.

Once again Jimmy, you are missing the point.  You can't use the Earth as an example when that is the very thing in question.  You people need to face it, you have no proof other than your make believe videos and photos of the Earth from the ISS and moon.

I can certainly prove it's not flat:

http://eqseis.geosc.psu.edu/~cammon/HTML/Classes/IntroQuakes/Notes/waves_and_interior.html

Pretty much.  Isn't that what scientists claim?

No they don't...

But keep going, your ignorance seems to know no bounds at all. You're keeping me very  entertained. Mrs Alfa156melb and I are having a good chuckle at your expense.

If Mr Einstein had measured his camellia bush in carrots, you would be measuring your bush in carrots. If Dr Rowbotham had measured his camellia bush in meters, you would still be measuring your bush in carrots.

It's a pretty nebulous piece of "evidence" for any claims to be supported by whatever Mr Rowbotham did or didn't do or say.  He was only a snake-oil salesman after all, and in no way imaginable could he be described as a scientist (or even a Dr).

It's possibly time that the FEs refrained from including this quack's name in every second thread on this forum.  Any belief in his idiotic ideas is self-defeating to the flat earth cause, as modern science has more than soundly debunked each and every one of his ideas.

The only reason any of his theories enjoyed any currency was due to the fact that 150 years ago, contemporary science was in its infancy, and the general population had virtually zero knowledge of the physical sciences—such as physics, astronomy, geophysics, optical theory etc.

And just like used-car salesmen today, Rowbotham was smart enough to cash in on that ignorance way back when.