The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Tintagel on February 01, 2014, 01:41:05 AM

Title: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Tintagel on February 01, 2014, 01:41:05 AM
We needed another one of these threads, and the upper fora need more FET focused content.  Ask, and I shall endeavor to enlighten.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Lemon on February 01, 2014, 10:49:42 AM
When did you first question the shape of the Earth, and for what particular reason, if any?
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Tintagel on February 01, 2014, 12:22:01 PM
When did you first question the shape of the Earth, and for what particular reason, if any?

I suppose we all do, early in life, but the time that counts, it was actually when I found the old Flat Earth Society website.  Like most noobs, at first I laughed.  I didn't make an account or post on the site.  Rather I lurked anonymously for nearly two years, reading the arguments, browsing the wiki.  My amusement quickly turned to fascination.  I couldn't learn enough about this stuff.

I believe it was a post by Pongo on the old site that caused my lightbulb moment.  I don't remember exactly what it was about, but the gist of his point was "But how do you know?  How do you really know?".  This was also around the time that I Want To Believe had only just joined, so I got to see another person slowly opening to the idea.

At that point, I opened my mind to the idea and really started to question the things that before I had taken for granted.  I'd already familiarized myself with the models, so most of my initial questions already had plausible answers.  The more I thought about it, once I allowed myself to really consider it, the more reasonable it became.  I started doodling sketches of light's curvature, and the more I observed the world around me the more it all made sense.  I made an account, posted an introduction that expressed my fascination, and from there it was really just a matter of weeks before I was truly a convert.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Socker on February 01, 2014, 06:51:16 PM
How many upper level people would need to be aware of the Conspiracy over the years,  and how is that not too many people to keep a secret?
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Tintagel on February 01, 2014, 06:54:04 PM
How many upper level people would need to be aware of the Conspiracy over the years,  and how is that not too many people to keep a secret?
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, so I can't answer that exactly.  I'm of the opinion that the majority of people doing the actual work aren't part of the conspiracy; they're just mistaken.  However, at the levels we're talking about, if someone needed to keep a secret, I have no doubt that said secrecy could be easily enforced.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on February 01, 2014, 11:48:28 PM
You believe the Earth to be an Infinite Plane, correct? Do you have any speculation as to what might lie beyond Antarctica? Another curious question: How is it no one's gone to find out?
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Tintagel on February 02, 2014, 01:38:08 AM
You believe the Earth to be an Infinite Plane, correct? Do you have any speculation as to what might lie beyond Antarctica? Another curious question: How is it no one's gone to find out?
I suspect that it might be, but I can't explain why.  Strange that something finite should be harder to grasp than something infinite, but there it is. 

As for speculation as to what lies beyond antarctica, it's anyone's guess.  I have my theories as to the nature of the planar earth, and to be honest I'm making an effort to stay out of the realm of the theoretical for a while, but since you asked, I'll answer.

One possible scenario, among many (to be taken with a grain of salt):  It's long been an argument from round earth thinkers that there is spatial distortion in the southern hemiplane of our flat earth map.  I've asked myself, "Well, what if they're right, and there literally are spatial distortions?"  This was a thought experiment I put together, in which the spatial dimensions themselves decompress as we get closer to the southern polar rim.  In this case, it may be physically impossible to venture too far out into the antarctic plane as the spatial dimensions get increasingly distorted.  Expeditions "across" antarctica that have happened in the past can easily be mapped as a simple journey around the rim, and it seems like something forces these expeditions to turn around and begin heading north again.  Spatial distortion could account for this behavior, and in regards to the infinite plane, as spatial relationships get may get stretched out ever more, increasing exponentially the farther out you go beyond the pole, infinity (paradoxically) may not be very far.

But - that's all purely hypothetical, not to mention rather esoteric, and isn't good for much but rhetoric.  As I mentioned before, I'm making an effort not to dwell in the theoretical overmuch, and to focus on the zetetic disciplines that led me to belief in a flat earth to begin with.  These ideas are fun to think about, but that's about it for me.  All I know for sure is that I don't know what's out there.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on February 02, 2014, 01:49:41 AM
So that kind of answers my next question, why hasn't anyone gone to find out? Anyone who tried would be pushed back North. So why is the Earth an infinite plane, rather than a round disc or a flat square? & what leads you to believe in the Infinite Plane model?
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Tintagel on February 02, 2014, 03:42:15 AM
So that kind of answers my next question, why hasn't anyone gone to find out? Anyone who tried would be pushed back North. So why is the Earth an infinite plane, rather than a round disc or a flat square? & what leads you to believe in the Infinite Plane model?
Nothing, other than it just makes more sense to me.  I could always be wrong, but I can't shake the idea that there isn't a "Truman Show" style edge to our home, otherwise someone would have at least glimpsed it.  The earth, therefore, must be either infinite, or extend farther than any human has even gone (and returned, anyway).
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on February 02, 2014, 04:42:54 AM
I see your point. Now, what can you tell me about Antarctica?
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Tintagel on February 02, 2014, 04:49:58 AM
I see your point. Now, what can you tell me about Antarctica?
Very little with any authority, as I've never been there.  I gather it's cold, and inhospitable. 
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Socker on February 02, 2014, 05:10:25 AM
What in your opinion is the weakest part of FET, if anything? It could be anything that might be explained better with RET. (Coriolis Effect,  sunsets,  satellites,  etc.)
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 02, 2014, 06:07:12 AM
Do you have any thoughts on what John Davis has been saying back on the old site since his most recent hiatus?  I know that's a really broad question, and I should probably post some specific links to help give you an idea of what to respond to, but off the top of your head, is there anything he's said that's resonated with you?  Or at least anything that you could understand?
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Tintagel on February 02, 2014, 02:21:11 PM
What in your opinion is the weakest part of FET, if anything? It could be anything that might be explained better with RET. (Coriolis Effect,  sunsets,  satellites,  etc.)
I'm not sure there's anything that is explained "better" with RET - they're just explained differently, necessarily because the perceived shape of the earth is different.  The weakest part of FET is the fact that its adherents are too few (and now split to even fewer) to really pursue the kind of experimental verifications that I know we could with a more unified membership, or even just a little intellectual curiosity on the part of RET folks.  The key to a strong FET is a strong FES, and while this one's already better defined and organized than the old one, we still have a long way to go to establish our own legitimacy and draw a following.  Still, things are happening, and that's good to see.

Do you have any thoughts on what John Davis has been saying back on the old site since his most recent hiatus?  I know that's a really broad question, and I should probably post some specific links to help give you an idea of what to respond to, but off the top of your head, is there anything he's said that's resonated with you?  Or at least anything that you could understand?

Yeah, you'll have to point out specifics.  I'm only peripherally aware of the other site lately.  I did give it a glance, but didn't immediately see what you were talking about. 
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on February 02, 2014, 02:46:07 PM
I've seen John Davis' name pop up a few times lately. Who is he, & why is he relevant? What experiment or activity could conclusively prove the Earth to be flat & resolve some or all of the outstanding questions as to whether its a disc, an infinite plane, etc?
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Tintagel on February 02, 2014, 02:57:17 PM
I've seen John Davis' name pop up a few times lately. Who is he, & why is he relevant? What experiment or activity could conclusively prove the Earth to be flat & resolve some or all of the outstanding questions as to whether its a disc, an infinite plane, etc?
Disc with indeterminate radius seems most likely, though the only way to really test this would involve knowing where the edge, if one exists, is.  John Davis is a theorist who used to be quite active on the other site, and claimed to be writing a book on his new, all-encompassing version of FET.  As far as I know nothing ever came of it.  His model uses the strange map that renders antarctica as a distinct continent while wrapping the lines of latitude bizarrely around the disc.

Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Rama Set on February 02, 2014, 07:27:35 PM
His ideas of simultaneity about contradictory models seemed to be prevalent in recent times as well.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on February 02, 2014, 07:30:58 PM
I assume, Tintagel, the map to which you refer is the so-called bi-polar map? Rama Set, what do you mean exactly? Please elucidate.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Rama Set on February 02, 2014, 07:35:30 PM
John Davis would often say that two models can exist simultaneously until there was a paradox created between them. For example: a FE could be based on a south polar projection and a northern polar projection, both being simultaneously true except where they conflicted. It always struck me as some metaphysical tap-dancing to make this a valid world view, but I did enjoy his appeal to the fluidity of human perception. Let me know how little sense I made.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on February 02, 2014, 07:37:29 PM
Wow! You made sense in terms of reporting his idea, but the idea makes no sense!
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Rama Set on February 02, 2014, 07:42:24 PM
It kind of does. John Davis basically claims that the perception is analogous to quantum superpositions. Reality can exist in any metaphysical state imaginable until our perception requires it to manifest according to one or more compatible models. I say one or more, because many details of our everyday life are entirely with both RE and FE theories. So John Davis would say, it's both Round and Flat.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on February 02, 2014, 07:50:23 PM
Well, that's fine in a metaphysical, non-literal kind of way, but its not very helpful in the real world.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Tintagel on February 03, 2014, 04:07:20 AM
It kind of does. John Davis basically claims that the perception is analogous to quantum superpositions. Reality can exist in any metaphysical state imaginable until our perception requires it to manifest according to one or more compatible models. I say one or more, because many details of our everyday life are entirely with both RE and FE theories. So John Davis would say, it's both Round and Flat.
Well, that's fine in a metaphysical, non-literal kind of way, but its not very helpful in the real world.
Yes indeed.  I thought that my ideas were a little too entrenched in the theoretical.  Much like my spatial-distortion south, it's an interesting thought experiment, but completely unhelpful in terms of zetetic science.  I'll have to look up some of these ideas.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 06, 2014, 09:48:29 AM
Who is your favorite figure in Flat Earth history and why?
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Tintagel on February 06, 2014, 02:26:00 PM
Who is your favorite figure in Flat Earth history and why?

Lady Blount, the first female pioneer of Flat Earth Theory.  There are those who may say that her gender makes a silly reason to regard her above Rowbotham as a role model, because gender doesn't matter.  Well... it did in 1901!  She also was the first to experimentally verify Rowbotham's findings from the Bedford experiment, and founded the first incarnation of our own society. 
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Hoppy on February 06, 2014, 03:52:58 PM
Who is your favorite figure in Flat Earth history and why?
Bishop, because he knows.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Socker on February 09, 2014, 06:49:19 PM
What's your opinion on the phases of the moon? Do you believe in the bioluminescent migrating shrimp or some other theory?
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: rooster on February 09, 2014, 07:46:11 PM
In your opinion, how does the core of the Earth work in an infinite flat Earth model? Plate tectonics fitting together across a round earth makes sense because we know they fit together like a puzzle with each other, how does that work with FET? And seismology? How can an earthquake in Japan lead to a tsunami in the Americas? Or how do you explain that we can use seismic waves to map the interior of a round Earth?

As you can tell, I've always been much more interested in the geology of a FE model than the astronomy of it. 
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Tintagel on February 09, 2014, 08:43:49 PM
What's your opinion on the phases of the moon? Do you believe in the bioluminescent migrating shrimp or some other theory?

I believe that the moon's phases are a combination of effects.  I believe that the moon is self-luminescent, and that the luminescence is  triggered, at least in part, by sunlight.  The result is that the bright parts of the moon are the portions where sunlight is most intense, but the light we see is not reflected light from the sun, if that makes sense.  I also think that the relative altitudes of the sun and moon change with time, which is why the sun's light sometimes falls on the part of the moon we can't see.  I should probably expand this into a working model with diagrams eventually.

In your opinion, how does the core of the Earth work in an infinite flat plane model? Plate tectonics fitting together across a round earth makes sense because we know they fit together like a puzzle with each other, how does that work with FET? And seismology? How can an earthquake in Japan lead to a tsunami in the Americas? Or how do you explain that we can use seismic waves to map the interior of a round Earth?

As you can tell, I've always been much more interested in the geology of a FE model than the astronomy of it. 

This is actually a really interesting question.  On a spherical earth with tectonic motion, subduction is necessary.  That is, in some places like the Mid-Atlantic ridge, spreading occurs, and in places like the trench off the western coast of South America, subduction occurs and the old land slides under itself, and the whole process is in perpetual repetition.  However, when one looks at one of many graphical representations of the relative ages of the earth at the sea floor, there isn't any evidence of subduction.

(http://www.arcscience.com/content/contentImages/Geophysical/AgeOfSeaFloor.jpg)

In this image (and many others like it), red represents "younger" land, and blue the oldest.  In these images, I see evidence that the continents are older than everything else, and the only thing happening as far as tectonics is expansion.  On a spherical earth, unless the sphere itself is growing, this can't happen.  In an infinite plane, it's not entirely out of the question to think that the plane is ever-expanding, particularly when one notes that the overwhelming majority of this expansion appears in the southern hemidisc.  Cover the lower half of this image with a hand, then the upper, and compare the amount of area that is red.  Also, near the center of the disc (the north pole) the continents are still largely crunched together.  Farther south near the ice rim, land masses are greatly fractured and spread widely apart.

Now, of course, this isn't my data so I take it with a grain of salt, but given that simply doing an image search for "sea floor age" (that's how I got this one) returns many, many different images all showing the same relative ages, then I consider them worth a little more salt.  It isn't evidence in the empirical sense, but it's  certainly compelling.  I think geologists simply assume that subduction must happen because an earth that is a fixed sphere demands it, but it's not happening.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: markjo on February 09, 2014, 09:24:59 PM
What's your opinion on the phases of the moon? Do you believe in the bioluminescent migrating shrimp or some other theory?

I believe that the moon's phases are a combination of effects.  I believe that the moon is self-luminescent, and that the luminescence is  triggered, at least in part, by sunlight.  The result is that the bright parts of the moon are the portions where sunlight is most intense, but the light we see is not reflected light from the sun, if that makes sense.
No, it doesn't make sense (to me,at least).  Why do you think that lunar self-luminescence triggered by sunlight is a better explanation than the moon reflecting sunlight?  How would someone tell the difference?
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Tintagel on February 09, 2014, 10:22:46 PM
What's your opinion on the phases of the moon? Do you believe in the bioluminescent migrating shrimp or some other theory?

I believe that the moon's phases are a combination of effects.  I believe that the moon is self-luminescent, and that the luminescence is  triggered, at least in part, by sunlight.  The result is that the bright parts of the moon are the portions where sunlight is most intense, but the light we see is not reflected light from the sun, if that makes sense.
No, it doesn't make sense (to me,at least).  Why do you think that lunar self-luminescence triggered by sunlight is a better explanation than the moon reflecting sunlight?  How would someone tell the difference?

In short, I don't think the moon is as reflective as RET says.  If it were, then the light from the sun bouncing up from the earth would make even the darker sections brighter than they appear.  I will concede that sunlight has an effect on the moon's luminescence, and my own observations support this, but I still believe there's an element of self-luminescence at play, or it just wouldn't be as bright as it is.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: rooster on February 09, 2014, 10:32:19 PM
This is actually a really interesting question.  On a spherical earth with tectonic motion, subduction is necessary.  That is, in some places like the Mid-Atlantic ridge, spreading occurs, and in places like the trench off the western coast of South America, subduction occurs and the old land slides under itself, and the whole process is in perpetual repetition.  However, when one looks at one of many graphical representations of the relative ages of the earth at the sea floor, there isn't any evidence of subduction.

(http://www.arcscience.com/content/contentImages/Geophysical/AgeOfSeaFloor.jpg)

In this image (and many others like it), red represents "younger" land, and blue the oldest.  In these images, I see evidence that the continents are older than everything else, and the only thing happening as far as tectonics is expansion.  On a spherical earth, unless the sphere itself is growing, this can't happen.  In an infinite plane, it's not entirely out of the question to think that the plane is ever-expanding, particularly when one notes that the overwhelming majority of this expansion appears in the southern hemidisc.  Cover the lower half of this image with a hand, then the upper, and compare the amount of area that is red.  Also, near the center of the disc (the north pole) the continents are still largely crunched together.  Farther south near the ice rim, land masses are greatly fractured and spread widely apart.

Now, of course, this isn't my data so I take it with a grain of salt, but given that simply doing an image search for "sea floor age" (that's how I got this one) returns many, many different images all showing the same relative ages, then I consider them worth a little more salt.  It isn't evidence in the empirical sense, but it's  certainly compelling.  I think geologists simply assume that subduction must happen because an earth that is a fixed sphere demands it, but it's not happening.
Actually, this is proof that subduction is happening. As the plates slide underneath each other at the trenches in a process called flux-melting, magma is created and forms volcano arcs that run parallel to the subduction trenches (unless you can explain other reasons for the formation of magma/volcanoes running parallel to trenches according to Flat Earth Theory).

If you look at the map you posted, it clearly shows the oldest part of the crust is the farthest away from the known magma eruptions along the sea-floor (such as the Mid-Atlantic Ridge) as the crust is spread out along the diverging plates which then sink underneath the continental plates.

(http://i61.tinypic.com/335bjih.gif)

Now because continental crust is thicker and less dense than oceanic crust, it is the oceanic that sinks below the continental forcing the movement of the continents, not the growth of them.  On the continental crust where the plates converge they'll form mountains rather than sinking below one another. And as this kind of movement continues, the continents will all be pushed back together as the crust continuously replaces itself rather than expanding.

(http://i58.tinypic.com/9pnh1g.jpg)


And you skipped my question of how we can map the interior of the round Earth with seismic waves.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: markjo on February 09, 2014, 10:39:17 PM
In short, I don't think the moon is as reflective as RET says.
How reflective do you think RET says the moon should be? 

Quote
If it were, then the light from the sun bouncing up from the earth would make even the darker sections brighter than they appear. 
Funny, that's just my thought on self-luminescence.  It seems that self-luminescence should mean few, if any, shadows in craters near the lunar terminator.

Quote
I will concede that sunlight has an effect on the moon's luminescence, and my own observations support this, but I still believe there's an element of self-luminescence at play, or it just wouldn't be as bright as it is.
I'm confused.  Do you think that moon is brighter or darker than RET says it should be?
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Tintagel on February 09, 2014, 10:50:30 PM
In short, I don't think the moon is as reflective as RET says.
How reflective do you think RET says the moon should be? 

Quote
If it were, then the light from the sun bouncing up from the earth would make even the darker sections brighter than they appear. 
Funny, that's just my thought on self-luminescence.  It seems that self-luminescence should mean few, if any, shadows in craters near the lunar terminator.

Quote
I will concede that sunlight has an effect on the moon's luminescence, and my own observations support this, but I still believe there's an element of self-luminescence at play, or it just wouldn't be as bright as it is.
I'm confused.  Do you think that moon is brighter or darker than RET says it should be?

I'm aware there are shadows near the terminator, I've seen them.  This is why I think direct sunlight plays a role.  I think the moon is brighter than it 'should' be.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Socker on February 09, 2014, 10:52:43 PM
What's your opinion on the phases of the moon? Do you believe in the bioluminescent migrating shrimp or some other theory?

I believe that the moon's phases are a combination of effects.  I believe that the moon is self-luminescent, and that the luminescence is  triggered, at least in part, by sunlight.  The result is that the bright parts of the moon are the portions where sunlight is most intense, but the light we see is not reflected light from the sun, if that makes sense.  I also think that the relative altitudes of the sun and moon change with time, which is why the sun's light sometimes falls on the part of the moon we can't see.  I should probably expand this into a working model with diagrams eventually.


I'm sorry,  but this seems to be a poor explanation.  How is that idea superior or even equal to the idea of reflective light? How would the sun shining on the moon make sections that are not receiving light glow? I would believe in moon shrimp before I believe in this.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Tintagel on February 09, 2014, 10:55:43 PM
Actually, this is proof that subduction is happening. As the plates slide underneath each other at the trenches in a process called flux-melting, magma is created and forms volcano arcs that run parallel to the subduction trenches (unless you can explain other reasons for the formation of magma/volcanoes running parallel to trenches according to Flat Earth Theory).

If you look at the map you posted, it clearly shows the oldest part of the crust is the farthest away from the known magma eruptions along the sea-floor (such as the Mid-Atlantic Ridge) as the crust is spread out along the diverging plates which then sink underneath the continental plates.

I see the oldest part of the earth being the areas near the continents.  I don't see any direct evidence of subduction.  There's simply an idea that it "must" be happening to keep the earth from growing.  I think we made it up to account for the fact that the spherical model of earth doesn't grow.

And you skipped my question of how we can map the interior of the round Earth with seismic waves.

I presume you're referring to the idea that certain seismic waves pass through a liquid core while others don't?  I don't know a great deal about this process or how it's done, but I'd be happy to look into it and get back with you.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Tintagel on February 09, 2014, 10:57:23 PM
What's your opinion on the phases of the moon? Do you believe in the bioluminescent migrating shrimp or some other theory?

I believe that the moon's phases are a combination of effects.  I believe that the moon is self-luminescent, and that the luminescence is  triggered, at least in part, by sunlight.  The result is that the bright parts of the moon are the portions where sunlight is most intense, but the light we see is not reflected light from the sun, if that makes sense.  I also think that the relative altitudes of the sun and moon change with time, which is why the sun's light sometimes falls on the part of the moon we can't see.  I should probably expand this into a working model with diagrams eventually.


I'm sorry,  but this seems to be a poor explanation.  How is that idea superior or even equal to the idea of reflective light? How would the sun shining on the moon make sections that are not receiving light glow? I would believe in moon shrimp before I believe in this.

In the past I was of the opinion that the light from the moon was reflective, but then I considered, doesn't sunlight eventually bounce back to it from earth?  Why is it *ever* dark.  I think there must be something more happening that just reflection of the sun's light.  Perhaps the surface of the moon flouresces when struck by certain wavelengths of EM radiation.  I can't be certain, I'm just judging according to what I can see.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: rooster on February 10, 2014, 12:01:09 AM
Actually, this is proof that subduction is happening. As the plates slide underneath each other at the trenches in a process called flux-melting, magma is created and forms volcano arcs that run parallel to the subduction trenches (unless you can explain other reasons for the formation of magma/volcanoes running parallel to trenches according to Flat Earth Theory).

If you look at the map you posted, it clearly shows the oldest part of the crust is the farthest away from the known magma eruptions along the sea-floor (such as the Mid-Atlantic Ridge) as the crust is spread out along the diverging plates which then sink underneath the continental plates.

I see the oldest part of the earth being the areas near the continents.  I don't see any direct evidence of subduction.  There's simply an idea that it "must" be happening to keep the earth from growing.  I think we made it up to account for the fact that the spherical model of earth doesn't grow.

So your answer comes solely from an image of the oldest oceanic crust being next to the continental crust and nothing else. No research into volcanic formation or anything. Gotcha.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Tintagel on February 10, 2014, 02:25:53 AM
Actually, this is proof that subduction is happening. As the plates slide underneath each other at the trenches in a process called flux-melting, magma is created and forms volcano arcs that run parallel to the subduction trenches (unless you can explain other reasons for the formation of magma/volcanoes running parallel to trenches according to Flat Earth Theory).

If you look at the map you posted, it clearly shows the oldest part of the crust is the farthest away from the known magma eruptions along the sea-floor (such as the Mid-Atlantic Ridge) as the crust is spread out along the diverging plates which then sink underneath the continental plates.

I see the oldest part of the earth being the areas near the continents.  I don't see any direct evidence of subduction.  There's simply an idea that it "must" be happening to keep the earth from growing.  I think we made it up to account for the fact that the spherical model of earth doesn't grow.

So your answer comes solely from an image of the oldest oceanic crust being next to the continental crust and nothing else. No research into volcanic formation or anything. Gotcha.

Hot-spot volcanism works as well on an expanding plane as on a spherical earth with spreading and subduction.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: rooster on February 10, 2014, 02:50:42 AM
Actually, this is proof that subduction is happening. As the plates slide underneath each other at the trenches in a process called flux-melting, magma is created and forms volcano arcs that run parallel to the subduction trenches (unless you can explain other reasons for the formation of magma/volcanoes running parallel to trenches according to Flat Earth Theory).

If you look at the map you posted, it clearly shows the oldest part of the crust is the farthest away from the known magma eruptions along the sea-floor (such as the Mid-Atlantic Ridge) as the crust is spread out along the diverging plates which then sink underneath the continental plates.

I see the oldest part of the earth being the areas near the continents.  I don't see any direct evidence of subduction.  There's simply an idea that it "must" be happening to keep the earth from growing.  I think we made it up to account for the fact that the spherical model of earth doesn't grow.

So your answer comes solely from an image of the oldest oceanic crust being next to the continental crust and nothing else. No research into volcanic formation or anything. Gotcha.

Hot-spot volcanism works as well on an expanding plane as on a spherical earth with spreading and subduction.
Hot spot volcanoes don't account for ridges or volcano arcs parallel to trenches.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: HHunter on March 08, 2014, 12:52:42 PM
Do flat earthers believe in atmospheric refraction?
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Thork on March 08, 2014, 01:05:50 PM
Some do. I am from the school of thought that suggests it is the firmament that causes the fraction. That's why the earth still looks flat to us, but celestial bodies and stars suffer from the effects.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: HHunter on March 08, 2014, 06:33:14 PM
Given that, can you please describe how Doppler radar functions on a flat plane?

(http://apps.startribune.com/blogs/user_images/HawaiiDoppler.jpg)
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Thork on March 08, 2014, 07:33:36 PM
Extremely well. Radar travels in straight lines.

Maybe you would like to elaborate on the problem you have with it? Are you suggesting the high altitude weather aircraft that generate these images would be outside of the firmament?
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: HHunter on March 08, 2014, 07:48:01 PM
The radar you will typically see is ground-based, from a tower such as this:
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3392/3505491757_b40d58ccb9_b.jpg)

Given this, if the earth were planar and there were no refraction, then the radar beam would overshoot most object in the long-range, since the radar beam would have to be directed upwards to reflect from the clouds.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Tintagel on March 08, 2014, 07:49:23 PM
Extremely well. Radar travels in straight lines.

Maybe you would like to elaborate on the problem you have with it? Are you suggesting the high altitude weather aircraft that generate these images would be outside of the firmament?

Does it?  Historically I've been a bendy-lighter, but lately I've been entertaining new ideas about the way light travels.   
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: HHunter on March 08, 2014, 08:02:00 PM
Here's a drawing that'll help demonstrate the issue:

(http://imageshack.us/a/img585/2238/63v9.jpg)

And srry about the size, idk how to make it smaller.
(I've taken the liberty to make it smaller for you. Hope you don't mind! You can do that yourself by adding width=(pixels) or height=(pixels) to the [img] tag. ~pizaaplanet)
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Thork on March 09, 2014, 12:24:01 AM
Oh, I see. But I just told you, earth has a firmament. No problem bouncing sky waves off of that. Its a solid crystalline structure, which frankly makes a lot more sense than bouncing waves off of thin air.

(http://i58.tinypic.com/2s0k8bo.png)
Excuse the crudity of the diagram. The sun, moon etc should be outside of the firmament.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: HHunter on March 09, 2014, 01:11:45 AM
Parden me, are you saying that the electromagnetic waves go straight in the atmosphere, until they hit the dome? Let me put this into better perspective. You can detect how far away that a storm is with radar by measuring the times at which the light returns to the radar tower. If a storm is 20 miles away, then the radar will receive the light that bounced off the particles in the storm would take the amount of time for light to travel 40 miles. If they had bounced off the dome, then bounced off the storm farther away, then it would take much longer for the microwaves (that's the kind of light that is used) to return the tower, and the storms on the radar image would be grossly misplaced. Also, the beam becomes more diluted (the energy spreads out) over large distances, and by the time it reached the dome then got back, it would no longer be useful data.

Also, let me show how the radar beam would look on a flat plane:

(http://www.srh.weather.gov/jetstream/doppler/images/baserefl.jpg)

I hope this helps.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: jroa on March 09, 2014, 02:52:35 AM
Parden me, are you saying that the electromagnetic waves go straight in the atmosphere, until they hit the dome? Let me put this into better perspective. You can detect how far away that a storm is with radar by measuring the times at which the light returns to the radar tower. If a storm is 20 miles away, then the radar will receive the light that bounced off the particles in the storm would take the amount of time for light to travel 40 miles. If they had bounced off the dome, then bounced off the storm farther away, then it would take much longer for the microwaves (that's the kind of light that is used) to return the tower, and the storms on the radar image would be grossly misplaced. Also, the beam becomes more diluted (the energy spreads out) over large distances, and by the time it reached the dome then got back, it would no longer be useful data.

Also, let me show how the radar beam would look on a flat plane:

(http://www.srh.weather.gov/jetstream/doppler/images/baserefl.jpg)

I hope this helps.

HHunter, in your previous drawing you showed the radar cone bending downwards.  Now, you are showing it bending upwards.  This makes it a bit hard to answer your question.  Could you please clarify?
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: HHunter on March 09, 2014, 03:12:31 AM
Parden me, are you saying that the electromagnetic waves go straight in the atmosphere, until they hit the dome? Let me put this into better perspective. You can detect how far away that a storm is with radar by measuring the times at which the light returns to the radar tower. If a storm is 20 miles away, then the radar will receive the light that bounced off the particles in the storm would take the amount of time for light to travel 40 miles. If they had bounced off the dome, then bounced off the storm farther away, then it would take much longer for the microwaves (that's the kind of light that is used) to return the tower, and the storms on the radar image would be grossly misplaced. Also, the beam becomes more diluted (the energy spreads out) over large distances, and by the time it reached the dome then got back, it would no longer be useful data.

Also, let me show how the radar beam would look on a flat plane:

(http://www.srh.weather.gov/jetstream/doppler/images/baserefl.jpg)

I hope this helps.

HHunter, in your previous drawing you showed the radar cone bending downwards.  Now, you are showing it bending upwards.  This makes it a bit hard to answer your question.  Could you please clarify?

The second image is showing a flat surface, and takes into account curvature of the earth and refraction. In most cases, the curvature of the earth bends more than refraction bends the light, so if viewed on a flat plane, it would appear to bend up. In the first drawing, curvature of the earth is included, and so is refraction. However, you can see that over distance is gets farther away from the ground. If you put it into a flat perspective, it would appear to bend upwards. However, different atmospheric conditions can make is so that the refraction bends light more than the curvature bends, which is when it hits the ground. The problem is, if curvature isn't taken into account, the light will bend into the ground due to refraction, as demonstrated in the second drawing of the image.

Basically, the new image (the nice looking one) is what it would look like from a flat perspective, when atmospheric conditions are normal. I apologize for the confusion, I hope this clears it up a bit.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 09, 2014, 03:27:43 AM
This phenomenon, together with many others, is why many flat Earth theorists believe that light bends upwards. I'm interested to see Thork's explanation in his model, however.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Tintagel on March 09, 2014, 03:41:19 AM
This phenomenon, together with many others, is why many flat Earth theorists believe that light bends upwards. I'm interested to see Thork's explanation in his model, however.

Ayup.  Looks consistent with EA-accelerated light to me.  Neat!  Thanks for your contribution, HHunter.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: HHunter on March 09, 2014, 03:51:01 AM
This phenomenon, together with many others, is why many flat Earth theorists believe that light bends upwards. I'm interested to see Thork's explanation in his model, however.

(http://www.srh.weather.gov/jetstream/doppler/images/duct_refraction.jpg)

Let me note that there are some situation where it would bend downwards on a flat earth, like above, specifically when there abnormal atmospheric conditions, which results in higher-than-normal density in the atmosphere. It can create some whacky stuff on radar.

On a round earth, this would be characterized by refraction causing the light to curve more than the curvature of the earth.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 09, 2014, 07:41:56 AM
This phenomenon, together with many others, is why many flat Earth theorists believe that light bends upwards. I'm interested to see Thork's explanation in his model, however.

(http://www.srh.weather.gov/jetstream/doppler/images/duct_refraction.jpg)

Let me note that there are some situation where it would bend downwards on a flat earth, like above, specifically when there abnormal atmospheric conditions, which results in higher-than-normal density in the atmosphere. It can create some whacky stuff on radar.

On a round earth, this would be characterized by refraction causing the light to curve more than the curvature of the earth.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Thork on March 09, 2014, 12:49:47 PM
This phenomenon, together with many others, is why many flat Earth theorists believe that light bends upwards. I'm interested to see Thork's explanation in his model, however.
Let me ask you something. If a radar wave bends upwards, strikes an object and bounces off ... how do you get the return? Am I supposed to believe it then bends back the exact same way it came? Throw a curve ball at a wall and see if it comes back to you along the same path.
(http://www.srh.weather.gov/jetstream/doppler/images/baserefl.jpg)

You have a problem.
(http://content.answcdn.com/main/content/img/oxford/Oxford_Sports/0199210896.angle-of-incidence.1.jpg)
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: HHunter on March 09, 2014, 04:08:04 PM
This phenomenon, together with many others, is why many flat Earth theorists believe that light bends upwards. I'm interested to see Thork's explanation in his model, however.

(http://www.srh.weather.gov/jetstream/doppler/images/duct_refraction.jpg)

Let me note that there are some situation where it would bend downwards on a flat earth, like above, specifically when there abnormal atmospheric conditions, which results in higher-than-normal density in the atmosphere. It can create some whacky stuff on radar.

On a round earth, this would be characterized by refraction causing the light to curve more than the curvature of the earth.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.
I'm trying to say that light can also appear to bend downwards, if viewed from a flat perspective

This phenomenon, together with many others, is why many flat Earth theorists believe that light bends upwards. I'm interested to see Thork's explanation in his model, however.
Let me ask you something. If a radar wave bends upwards, strikes an object and bounces off ... how do you get the return? Am I supposed to believe it then bends back the exact same way it came? Throw a curve ball at a wall and see if it comes back to you along the same path.
(http://www.srh.weather.gov/jetstream/doppler/images/baserefl.jpg)

You have a problem.
(http://content.answcdn.com/main/content/img/oxford/Oxford_Sports/0199210896.angle-of-incidence.1.jpg)
When light strikes an object, it will reflect in all directions. It's as if you shined a flashlight at an angled wall, some of the light will come directly back to you. And if the light from the radar reflects at the same exact angle (which some of it will when striking an object) then it will undergo the same levels of refraction that it had when moving towards the object, bringing it to the same place.

(http://forecast.weather.gov/jetstream/doppler/images/radarops.gif)
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Thork on March 09, 2014, 04:15:38 PM
Clouds aren't hard.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: HHunter on March 09, 2014, 04:19:39 PM
Clouds aren't hard.
They have water particles which reflect light.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Thork on March 09, 2014, 04:26:36 PM
water refracts light. It doesn't reflect it.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: HHunter on March 09, 2014, 04:41:17 PM
(http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/outreach/education/science/glitter/img/glitter01.jpg)

(http://www.seafriends.org.nz/phgraph/phdwg09.gif)

How would one see his reflection in water if water does not reflect?
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Thork on March 09, 2014, 06:38:48 PM
I don't see the reflected light scattering and going back the way it came.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: HHunter on March 09, 2014, 07:13:23 PM
(http://imageshack.us/a/img838/2146/7sqx.jpg)

(http://imageshack.us/a/img577/8439/4qzh.jpg)

(http://imageshack.us/a/img835/7339/fa6h.jpg)
Demonstration showing light scattering in different directions. The pictures are taken from different angles.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Rama Set on March 09, 2014, 10:32:25 PM
How can a commercial airliner travel from Auckland to Santiago, a distance predicted to be 14,772 miles using Thork's method of distance calculation on a FE (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1235.msg20047#new), in approximately 12.25hrs?
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Thork on March 09, 2014, 11:10:57 PM
How can a commercial airliner travel from Auckland to Santiago, a distance predicted to be 14,772 miles using Thork's method of distance calculation on a FE (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1235.msg20047#new), in approximately 12.25hrs?
Please find me a non-stop flight from Auckland to Santiago as an example so I can check the flight time.

I don't see anything under 29 hours.
http://www.expedia.co.uk/Flight-Search-All?action=FlightSearchAll@searchFlights&origref=www.expedia.co.uk%2FFlight-Search-All&inpFlightRouteType=2&inpDepartureLocations=Auckland%2C+New+Zealand+%28AKL-Auckland+Intl.%29&inpArrivalLocations=Santiago%2C+Chile+%28SCL-Arturo+Merino+Benitez%29&inpDepartureDates=10%2F03%2F2014&inpArrivalDates=23%2F03%2F2014&inpAdultCounts=1&inpChildCounts=0&inpChildAges=-1&inpChildAges=-1&inpChildAges=-1&inpChildAges=-1&inpChildAges=-1&inpInfants=2&inpFlightAirlinePreference=&inpFlightClass=3

[/thread]
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Rama Set on March 09, 2014, 11:54:45 PM
How can a commercial airliner travel from Auckland to Santiago, a distance predicted to be 14,772 miles using Thork's method of distance calculation on a FE (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1235.msg20047#new), in approximately 12.25hrs?
Please find me a non-stop flight from Auckland to Santiago as an example so I can check the flight time.

I don't see anything under 29 hours.
http://www.expedia.co.uk/Flight-Search-All?action=FlightSearchAll@searchFlights&origref=www.expedia.co.uk%2FFlight-Search-All&inpFlightRouteType=2&inpDepartureLocations=Auckland%2C+New+Zealand+%28AKL-Auckland+Intl.%29&inpArrivalLocations=Santiago%2C+Chile+%28SCL-Arturo+Merino+Benitez%29&inpDepartureDates=10%2F03%2F2014&inpArrivalDates=23%2F03%2F2014&inpAdultCounts=1&inpChildCounts=0&inpChildAges=-1&inpChildAges=-1&inpChildAges=-1&inpChildAges=-1&inpChildAges=-1&inpInfants=2&inpFlightAirlinePreference=&inpFlightClass=3

[/thread]

LAN airlines flight LA 321 does Auckland to Santiago in 11.5hrs

https://www.expedia.co.nz/m/flights#departure?maxOfferCount=1500&lccAndMerchantFareCheckoutAllowed=TRUE&numberOfAdultTravelers=1&tripType=roundtrip&departureDate=2014-03-12&lang=3081&needUTF8Decode=true&DestName=SCL&returnDate=2014-03-22&ToTime=362&FromTime=362&arrivalAirport=SCL&NumChild=0&departureAirport=AKL&NumSenior=0
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Thork on March 10, 2014, 12:13:00 AM
14,700 km in 11.5 hours is 792 mph.

You've the Jetstream in your favour.
(http://flysafe.raa.asn.au/metimages/jet_stream_29AUG09.jpg)

Often 250 mph
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/jet+stream

792-250=542mph. About the cruising speed of a 777. Flat earth comes up trumps again. :D

Alas, its bedtime. Night all.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Rama Set on March 10, 2014, 12:15:07 AM
14,700 km in 11.5 hours is 792 mph.

You've the Jetstream in your favour.
(http://flysafe.raa.asn.au/metimages/jet_stream_29AUG09.jpg)

Often 250 mph
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/jet+stream

792-250=542mph. About the cruising speed of a 777. Flat earth comes up trumps again. :D


How can a commercial airliner travel from Auckland to Santiago, a distance predicted to be 14,772 miles using Thork's method of distance calculation on a FE (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1235.msg20047#new), in approximately 12.25hrs?

Sorry I said it was miles.  You have not won yet.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Thork on March 10, 2014, 12:15:39 AM
Then you calculated incorrectly.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Rama Set on March 10, 2014, 12:22:29 AM
Nope:

Auckland is at 37S 175E (rounding to the nearest degree)
Santiago is 33S 71W

That leaves 114 degrees between them.  The auckland side is 7620 nautical miles, the sanitago side is 7380 nautical miles leaving... 12,600 nautical miles between them.

http://ostermiller.org/calc/triangle.html

Which is actually 14,500 miles.

 https://www.google.ca/search?q=nautical+miles+to+kms&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb&gfe_rd=cr&ei=gQUdU8_OKoLM8gfwsYGQDQ
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: HHunter on March 10, 2014, 10:55:37 PM
I don't see the reflected light scattering and going back the way it came.
Please explain how weather radar functions accurately if the principle through which it functions does not work?
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Rama Set on March 12, 2014, 10:09:12 PM
Nope:

Auckland is at 37S 175E (rounding to the nearest degree)
Santiago is 33S 71W

That leaves 114 degrees between them.  The auckland side is 7620 nautical miles, the sanitago side is 7380 nautical miles leaving... 12,600 nautical miles between them.

http://ostermiller.org/calc/triangle.html

Which is actually 14,500 miles.

 https://www.google.ca/search?q=nautical+miles+to+kms&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb&gfe_rd=cr&ei=gQUdU8_OKoLM8gfwsYGQDQ

Now that it has been established that my calculation was not in error, can anyone offer a plausible answer to how a commercial flight can fly from Auckland to Santiago in 11.5hrs?
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Rama Set on March 16, 2014, 11:13:26 PM
Does Thork or anyone else have an answer to offer to my question or can I conclude that the method of calculating distances still needs some work?
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: jroa on March 18, 2014, 07:04:41 AM
I have not measured these distances, so I can not say for sure if you are correct.  Have you?
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Rama Set on March 18, 2014, 11:07:21 AM
I know this is your default position but perhaps you should direct this at Thork?  I was just following his FE measuring system.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: rooster on March 18, 2014, 01:24:33 PM
What happened to Tintagel?
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Tintagel on March 20, 2014, 02:04:44 PM
What happened to Tintagel?

Tintagel is in tech for a show which opens this weekend and free time has vanished.  I'll be back next week, but I do still read.  I just don't have a great deal of time to respond.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on March 28, 2014, 12:55:00 AM
Ok, I've got a question. In N. America, shortwave from 3.2 MHz to 8 MHz works best @ night in Spring & Summer, w/ 9 MHz to 22 MHz working better during the day. The reverse is true in the Fall & Winter. On a RE, this is explained by the tilt of the Earth on its axis & its rotation. How do FEers explain this?
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: inquisitive on March 28, 2014, 01:06:24 PM
I have not measured these distances, so I can not say for sure if you are correct.  Have you?
So what have you done, other than to quote a 130 year old book, which may be fiction and not fact?
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: jroa on March 28, 2014, 08:26:03 PM
Ok, I've got a question. In N. America, shortwave from 3.2 MHz to 8 MHz works best @ night in Spring & Summer, w/ 9 MHz to 22 MHz working better during the day. The reverse is true in the Fall & Winter. On a RE, this is explained by the tilt of the Earth on its axis & its rotation. How do FEers explain this?

What are you talking about?  Ionospheric bounce?  Please clarify yourself. 
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on March 29, 2014, 02:17:03 PM
To be honest, I'm not certain. All I know is what I said above. I think so, yes.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Nonbeliever on April 14, 2014, 03:23:22 AM
Alright, some questions-

If the Earth is flat, how can ships disappear over the horizon?

If the Earth is flat, how is orbiting it possible?

If the Earth is flat, why has no one found the edges?

If the Earth is flat, why are we told it is round?

If the Earth is flat, what in the heck does the Universe look like?
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Ghost of V on April 14, 2014, 05:17:41 PM
Alright, some questions-

If the Earth is flat, how can ships disappear over the horizon?

If the Earth is flat, how is orbiting it possible?

If the Earth is flat, why has no one found the edges?

If the Earth is flat, why are we told it is round?

If the Earth is flat, what in the heck does the Universe look like?

Most of your questions have been answered numerous times. Your first question specifically has been answered in "Zetetic Astronomy" by Mr. Rowbotham himself... Here's a link. (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm)

Also:
Why are we told it's round? Conspiracy. It benefits the government to control certain information. After all, the control of information is power. The government wants to make us believe their fantasy sciences for their own personal gain.

What does the universe look like? Pretty much how you'd think it looks. Just because the Earth is flat doesn't mean every other object in space is flat as well, this is a common RE'er mistake.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: jroa on April 14, 2014, 05:59:21 PM
Alright, some questions-

If the Earth is flat, how can ships disappear over the horizon?



Bendy light.

If the Earth is flat, how is orbiting it possible?

It is not.

If the Earth is flat, why has no one found the edges?

They probably have and are hiding that from us. 

If the Earth is flat, why are we told it is round?

Conspiracy.


If the Earth is flat, what in the heck does the Universe look like?

It looks like little lights in the sky. 
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Nonbeliever on April 15, 2014, 01:52:11 AM

Why are we told it's round? Conspiracy. It benefits the government to control certain information. After all, the control of information is power. The government wants to make us believe their fantasy sciences for their own personal gain.


How convenient. So what's the motive?

Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 15, 2014, 04:29:28 AM
We're told that the earth is round because that's what mainstream science believes to be true.  Exactly why mainstream science believes that to be true is a different question, and would probably merit its own thread.  However, if you're referring to the agencies that have supposedly explored space and confirmed RET, the answer is that they're simply faking most of what they do.  They spend some of their funding on window dressing to make it seem like they're doing their jobs, and then embezzle the rest of it and keep it as profit.  The "evidence" they give us in the form of photographs and videos is no doubt digitally created, based on what they imagine the earth and space look like in accordance with RET.  They most likely haven't even discovered that the earth is flat.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Nonbeliever on April 15, 2014, 04:37:00 AM
  They most likely haven't even discovered that the earth is flat.

Wonder why...

So, how does the slashing of NASA's budget fit into all this?  Also, some reasoning beyond "What they say is impossible, therefore lies, therefore they cannot disprove me, therefore I am correct, therefore what they say is impossible." would be appreciated.

Humor me.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 15, 2014, 05:02:25 AM
So, how does the slashing of NASA's budget fit into all this?
Simple:

Among other things, the United States are respected as one of the world's leading countries (if not simply the leading country) in science and technology, as well as the ideology they so actively promote. The ideology bit is already plunging like crazy, what with recent (and not-so-recent) news of the USA ignoring human rights or basic diplomatic protocol. Especially now, they are in a position where they cannot stop easily; although it's worth noting that they've been trying, by continuously cutting NASA's budget. Eventually, the space craze will just quietly die off. They don't want to risk exposure. They simply have to do so to avoid blowing their cover while quietly closing down the whole business.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Nonbeliever on April 15, 2014, 05:14:44 AM
So, how does the slashing of NASA's budget fit into all this?
Simple:

Among other things, the United States are respected as one of the world's leading countries (if not simply the leading country) in science and technology, as well as the ideology they so actively promote. The ideology bit is already plunging like crazy, what with recent (and not-so-recent) news of the USA ignoring human rights or basic diplomatic protocol. Especially now, they are in a position where they cannot stop easily; although it's worth noting that they've been trying, by continuously cutting NASA's budget. Eventually, the space craze will just quietly die off. They don't want to risk exposure. They simply have to do so to avoid blowing their cover while quietly closing down the whole business.

Still not seeing it. Are you saying all that taxpayer money is no longer safe to take? Why?
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 15, 2014, 05:18:45 AM
Still not seeing it. Are you saying all that taxpayer money is no longer safe to take? Why?
Of course not. This isn't about Joe the gas station employee - nobody cares what the ordinary person thinks or wants. This is about international relations and the fear of being marginalised.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Nonbeliever on April 15, 2014, 05:59:33 AM
Of course not. This isn't about Joe the gas station employee - nobody cares what the ordinary person thinks or wants. This is about international relations and the fear of being marginalised.

And so their response to the threat of being pushed aside by a new world power is to make it easier for that to happen?
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Ghost of V on April 15, 2014, 06:30:39 AM

Why are we told it's round? Conspiracy. It benefits the government to control certain information. After all, the control of information is power. The government wants to make us believe their fantasy sciences for their own personal gain.


How convenient. So what's the motive?

I already told you the motive: personal gain.

Also, when I say "The Government", I'm assuming you live in the US and associate that word with the US government, because they're practical the only one now anyways. For the sake of this conversation, let's just call them NWO from now on, ok?
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 15, 2014, 06:39:33 AM
And so their response to the threat of being pushed aside by a new world power is to make it easier for that to happen?
Almost right. It's just the opposite of what you said.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Nonbeliever on April 15, 2014, 12:28:06 PM
I already told you the motive: personal gain.

Also, when I say "The Government", I'm assuming you live in the US and associate that word with the US government, because they're practical the only one now anyways. For the sake of this conversation, let's just call them NWO from now on, ok?

See, this is where you don't make any sense. How does lying about the shape of the world give any benefit?
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: pilot172 on April 15, 2014, 12:53:31 PM
yeah whats the point of telling us the earth is round...think about it all the united nations members behind closed doors a big screen projects the first order of the meeting, tell everybody the earth is round. Can you see how silly that looks like seriously theres no gain to the earth being round or flat one makes more sense to what we know about how technology works the other has things like aether and celestial gears which sound pretty cool but require a much larger amount of faith then flat earth
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 15, 2014, 01:17:20 PM
They're not lying about the shape of the earth per se, they're lying about space travel and exploration.  They depict the earth as round because that's what they think it is, same as mainstream science.

Also, some reasoning beyond "What they say is impossible, therefore lies, therefore they cannot disprove me, therefore I am correct, therefore what they say is impossible." would be appreciated.

Nobody said that.  It's true that the main reason to suspect a conspiracy is indeed their depiction of the impossible, but it's not any kind of self-proving circular argument.  There are independent reasons for us to believe that the earth is flat.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Rama Set on April 15, 2014, 01:38:37 PM
They're not lying about the shape of the earth per se, they're lying about space travel and exploration.  They depict the earth as round because that's what they think it is, same as mainstream science.

Also, some reasoning beyond "What they say is impossible, therefore lies, therefore they cannot disprove me, therefore I am correct, therefore what they say is impossible." would be appreciated.

Nobody said that.  It's true that the main reason to suspect a conspiracy is indeed their depiction of the impossible, but it's not any kind of self-proving circular argument.  There are independent reasons for us to believe that the earth is flat.

The issue with this being that "space travel is impossible" is a false premise because that has never been shown to be true or likely to be true.  This society merely finds it incredulous, which is much different than impossible.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: AlParsons_ChristianComedy on April 15, 2014, 08:04:17 PM

Why are we told it's round? Conspiracy. It benefits the government to control certain information. After all, the control of information is power. The government wants to make us believe their fantasy sciences for their own personal gain.


How convenient. So what's the motive?

I already told you the motive: personal gain.

Also, when I say "The Government", I'm assuming you live in the US and associate that word with the US government, because they're practical the only one now anyways. For the sake of this conversation, let's just call them NWO from now on, ok?

And lets not forget that the Bible NOT ONLY supports a flat earth but predicts the coming of an NWO in Revelation.

Isaiah 11:12 "And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth."
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Tintagel on April 16, 2014, 12:41:22 AM

Why are we told it's round? Conspiracy. It benefits the government to control certain information. After all, the control of information is power. The government wants to make us believe their fantasy sciences for their own personal gain.


How convenient. So what's the motive?

I already told you the motive: personal gain.

Also, when I say "The Government", I'm assuming you live in the US and associate that word with the US government, because they're practical the only one now anyways. For the sake of this conversation, let's just call them NWO from now on, ok?

And lets not forget that the Bible NOT ONLY supports a flat earth but predicts the coming of an NWO in Revelation.

Isaiah 11:12 "And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth."

There's no need to bring the Bible into an otherwise rational discussion, I think.  The Bible supports a flat earth supported by pillars, with sheol beneath, columns of mountains above, and a physical firmament (unless you're one of those who believes the firmament shattered in the Genesis deluge.  And that the Genesis deluge actually happened), and that's not what I believe at all.  Observations don't support that flat earth model, and a physical firmament is (in my opinion) silly.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: pilot172 on April 16, 2014, 11:19:41 AM
if the government doesn't want anyone thinking the earth is flat why is this page still up...if they have the ability to silence every single astronomer from speaking out and all te high altitude pilots and stuff how is this site still up
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on April 16, 2014, 01:49:20 PM
Goodness, that is a question. The govt can fool the whole world into believing the world is round, but can't shut down a website? Right!
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: AlParsons_ChristianComedy on April 16, 2014, 01:54:11 PM
Goodness, that is a question. The govt can fool the whole world into believing the world is round, but can't shut down a website? Right!

If people started taking us seriously they'd shut us down.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Tintagel on April 16, 2014, 02:47:18 PM
if the government doesn't want anyone thinking the earth is flat why is this page still up...if they have the ability to silence every single astronomer from speaking out and all te high altitude pilots and stuff how is this site still up
You are still entirely misinformed about the nature of the (alleged) conspiracy.  We don't claim the government lies about the shape of the earth.  I used mostly monosyllabic words that time, so perhaps you'll get it.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Rama Set on April 16, 2014, 03:41:30 PM
if the government doesn't want anyone thinking the earth is flat why is this page still up...if they have the ability to silence every single astronomer from speaking out and all te high altitude pilots and stuff how is this site still up
You are still entirely misinformed about the nature of the (alleged) conspiracy.  We don't claim the government lies about the shape of the earth.  I used mostly monosyllabic words that time, so perhaps you'll get it.

If the evidence for a FE is as compelling as you guys claim then it is not a bad inference to think that someone is covering up the shape of the Earth. 
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 16, 2014, 05:21:53 PM
if the government doesn't want anyone thinking the earth is flat why is this page still up...if they have the ability to silence every single astronomer from speaking out and all te high altitude pilots and stuff how is this site still up
Because if they started openly attacking us, there is a very real risk that it would give us more prominence, rather than less. By now, governments generally understand that banning a thing doesn't eliminate said thing. See also: the prohibition.

Besides, it's not that easy to just take a page down. Look at the UK's pathetic attempts at blocking The Pirate Bay (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17894176). Surprise, it's still up and very easily accessible.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Ghost of V on April 16, 2014, 06:05:36 PM
if the government doesn't want anyone thinking the earth is flat why is this page still up...if they have the ability to silence every single astronomer from speaking out and all te high altitude pilots and stuff how is this site still up

Like many have said before me... they don't shut down websites like ours because if they silence us they leave themselves open to being exposed.

(http://i.imgur.com/cpsBsOH.jpg)
Seeing this would just help to prove our claims and promote martyrdom and skepticism.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: pilot172 on April 24, 2014, 12:19:30 PM
why would they leave that couldn't they just make it say error site not found because I seriously doubt a conspiracy as large as the one your insinuating exists would really care about proper legal processes
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Tau on April 24, 2014, 05:00:34 PM
why would they leave that couldn't they just make it say error site not found because I seriously doubt a conspiracy as large as the one you're insinuating exists would really care about proper legal processes

Right, because that wouldn't be suspicious or anything. It's not like we're causing much harm in our present state.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: pilot172 on April 24, 2014, 10:15:01 PM
why would they leave that couldn't they just make it say error site not found because I seriously doubt a conspiracy as large as the one you're insinuating exists would really care about proper legal processes

Right, because that wouldn't be suspicious or anything. It's not like we're causing much harm in our present state.
cheers for the fix but seriously if they can silence every astronomer and pilot do you think thatd it be hard to silence you, they could just pack you all off to Maralinga or something nobody would know what happened remember this is a very very well equipped conspiracy apparantly
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Ghost of V on April 25, 2014, 06:07:32 AM
They don't silence astronomers. They are the astronomers. They release all sorts of false information, none of it is real. Most silenced "flat earth" scientists are actually part of the conspiracy, they pull double bluffs like that all the time. Once you've accepted this it becomes much easier to spot conspiracy involvement all around you.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: pilot172 on April 25, 2014, 10:53:49 AM
They don't silence astronomers. They are the astronomers. They release all sorts of false information, none of it is real. Most silenced "flat earth" scientists are actually part of the conspiracy, they pull double bluffs like that all the time. Once you've accepted this it becomes much easier to spot conspiracy involvement all around you.
so how do we know its false, so far nobody else has the level of evidence round earth has, yes im talking about the thousands upon thousands of photos hundreds of satellites and astronauts have taken, plus the thousands of space launches that have been achieved
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Ghost of V on April 25, 2014, 04:51:39 PM
im talking about the thousands upon thousands of photos

Fake.


hundreds of satellites and astronauts

Fake.

plus the thousands of space launches that have been achieved

Fake.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Rama Set on April 25, 2014, 04:54:14 PM
im talking about the thousands upon thousands of photos

Fake.


hundreds of satellites and astronauts

Fake.

plus the thousands of space launches that have been achieved

Fake.

How compelling.  I'm convinced.  There is literally no problem with just asserting everything is fake.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Ghost of V on April 25, 2014, 04:58:44 PM
How compelling.  I'm convinced.  There is literally no problem with just asserting everything is fake.

There isn't when I've explained in previous posts as to why everything is faked. I'm not going to explain it again.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Rama Set on April 25, 2014, 05:39:00 PM
How compelling.  I'm convinced.  There is literally no problem with just asserting everything is fake.

There isn't when I've explained in previous posts as to why everything is faked. I'm not going to explain it again.

None of that has any particular bearing on reality though. It is just your pet feelings on the topic.   Of course it becomes easier to confirm your bias once you have decided it is the truth.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Ghost of V on April 25, 2014, 05:42:03 PM
How compelling.  I'm convinced.  There is literally no problem with just asserting everything is fake.

There isn't when I've explained in previous posts as to why everything is faked. I'm not going to explain it again.

None of that has any particular bearing on reality though. It is just your pet feelings on the topic.   Of course it becomes easier to confirm your bias once you have decided it is the truth.

You just do not want to believe. You are sleeping.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Rama Set on April 25, 2014, 05:47:09 PM
How compelling.  I'm convinced.  There is literally no problem with just asserting everything is fake.

There isn't when I've explained in previous posts as to why everything is faked. I'm not going to explain it again.

None of that has any particular bearing on reality though. It is just your pet feelings on the topic.   Of course it becomes easier to confirm your bias once you have decided it is the truth.

You just do not want to believe. You are sleeping.

I would like to believe your idea actually.  However, you do need to provide evidence.  I hope you agree it is pretty unbelievable on its face.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Ghost of V on April 25, 2014, 05:53:54 PM
I hope you agree it is pretty unbelievable on its face.

I don't. How can I substantiate something when all the evidence has been covered up by the NWO? I think the burden of proof rests with you. Proof that I'm wrong, of course.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Rama Set on April 25, 2014, 05:57:52 PM
I hope you agree it is pretty unbelievable on its face.

I don't. How can I substantiate something when all the evidence has been covered up by the NWO? I think the burden of proof rests with you. Proof that I'm wrong, of course.


Incorrect.  You made the claim, you have to prove it.  Besides, how can you possibly know that -all- the evidence is covered up?  Statistically that sounds impossible.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Tau on April 26, 2014, 01:31:56 AM
why would they leave that couldn't they just make it say error site not found because I seriously doubt a conspiracy as large as the one you're insinuating exists would really care about proper legal processes

Right, because that wouldn't be suspicious or anything. It's not like we're causing much harm in our present state.
cheers for the fix but seriously if they can silence every astronomer and pilot do you think thatd it be hard to silence you, they could just pack you all off to Maralinga or something nobody would know what happened remember this is a very very well equipped conspiracy apparantly

Yeah, sorry about the grammar correction. A writer friend was sitting next to me when I made that post and made me do it.

How compelling.  I'm convinced.  There is literally no problem with just asserting everything is fake.

There isn't when I've explained in previous posts as to why everything is faked. I'm not going to explain it again.

None of that has any particular bearing on reality though. It is just your pet feelings on the topic.   Of course it becomes easier to confirm your bias once you have decided it is the truth.

You just do not want to believe. You are sleeping.

I would like to believe your idea actually.  However, you do need to provide evidence.  I hope you agree it is pretty unbelievable on its face.

Well, there's a plenary of evidence that the Earth is flat. Given that to be a fact (which of course can be argued, but let's not go there here), then something fishy is clearly going on with the space agencies of the world. The flatness of the Earth is evidence of the conspiracy.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Ghost of V on April 26, 2014, 01:47:08 AM
The flatness of the Earth is evidence of the conspiracy.

Exactly. What other proof do you need??
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 26, 2014, 08:13:48 AM
The flatness of the Earth is evidence of the conspiracy.

Exactly. What other proof do you need??
To play devil's advocate for a moment: the flatness of the Earth could be evidence of there being a conspiracy, but it's not conclusive. There could be other factors. Perhaps some external phenomenon (can't say I could name one right now, but hypothetically) causes legitimate widespread confusion.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Gulliver on May 01, 2014, 02:41:07 PM
We needed another one of these threads, and the upper fora need more FET focused content.  Ask, and I shall endeavor to enlighten.
For each FE Model, please tell me what does Jupiter orbit? (I think that in all models it revolves around an imaginary point above the NP.)

For each FE model, please then tell me what Venus orbits. (I think that in all models it revolves around the Sun in the plane up and down (relative to the FE surface).)

Then check the Wiki and its claim that the retrograde motion is explained by each planet (All planets are seen to go retrograde about once every 360 days) orbiting the Sun in a plane parallel to the FE surface, ignoring the FE's terrain.

Thanks.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: BillyBob on May 01, 2014, 06:34:52 PM
Jupiter and Venus orbit the flat earth.  Haven't you been reading? 
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Gulliver on May 01, 2014, 07:05:07 PM
Jupiter and Venus orbit the flat earth.  Haven't you been reading?

Does reading the Wiki's Cosmos's Planet's Page count?

Quote from: FET Wiki
Solar System

Q. What does the Solar System look like in FET?
A. In FET the planets are revolving around the sun, while the sun itself revolves around the Northern Hub.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: BillyBob on May 01, 2014, 11:55:46 PM
How does that nullify anything I said?  In fact, that is even more retarded that what I said. 
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Gulliver on May 02, 2014, 03:53:21 AM
How does that nullify anything I said?  In fact, that is even more retarded that what I said.
I assume that you typed "that" for "than" in error.

Why do you think that I was trying to nullify what you said? I was just answering your question, demonstrating that I had been reading.

Now you want to declare that what you said was retarded. Okay then. I appreciate your candor.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Nonbeliever on May 23, 2014, 11:13:21 PM

Nobody said that.  It's true that the main reason to suspect a conspiracy is indeed their depiction of the impossible, but it's not any kind of self-proving circular argument.  There are independent reasons for us to believe that the earth is flat.

Therefore any evidence which implies the contrary must be a lie, correct?
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Nonbeliever on May 24, 2014, 12:24:41 AM

Well, there's a plenary of evidence that the Earth is flat. Given that to be a fact (which of course can be argued, but let's not go there here), then something fishy is clearly going on with the space agencies of the world. The flatness of the Earth is evidence of the conspiracy.

I think I might go there anyways.

Perhaps your evidence is simply wrong. If you can't prove what conflicts with your ideas to be false, you can't prove that your ideas are, as a matter of fact, true.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Ghost of V on May 24, 2014, 12:28:09 AM
Perhaps your evidence is simply wrong. If you can't prove what conflicts with your ideas to be false, you can't prove that your ideas are, as a matter of fact, true.

Take it up with the FAQs. (http://wiki.tfes.org/FAQ)
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Nonbeliever on May 24, 2014, 01:46:54 AM
Take it up with the FAQs. (http://wiki.tfes.org/FAQ)

Not very convincing stuff. Even if we assume the data to be accurate, it looks to me as if no one is taking into account that the RE model does NOT depict a perfect sphere. That of course is going to throw off calculations.

Then again, you can hardly blame them; 1904 was a long time ago.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Ghost of V on May 24, 2014, 04:54:04 PM
Take it up with the FAQs. (http://wiki.tfes.org/FAQ)

Not very convincing stuff. Even if we assume the data to be accurate, it looks to me as if no one is taking into account that the RE model does NOT depict a perfect sphere. That of course is going to throw off calculations.

Then again, you can hardly blame them; 1904 was a long time ago.

Irrelevant. RE model is not FE model, there would be no need for this forum if so.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Nonbeliever on May 24, 2014, 07:43:06 PM
Quote from: Vauxhall

Irrelevant. RE model is not FE model, there would be no need for this forum if so.

Alright, so, again assuming accuracy, you have evidence that parts of the world fit your model. While that might support your position, it doesn't prove anything. Those same results can fit the RE model as well. I'm starting to get the idea that being a FEr is more of a personal choice of worldview than anything else.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Pleaseexplain on May 28, 2014, 09:38:40 PM
As a student of physics and maths, I found this website and was just wondering how you could ignore the vast weight of scientific evidence? This is kind of like the MMR and autism link.... Which has been subsequently destroyed by a vast number of trials. But lets talk "real".

So as a "Flat earther". You must surely claim that physics and maths are wrong (Planetary motion, Keplers laws, Newtons laws, to name a few). And then you must also believe that all man made satellites... are fake. All satellite based technology is a fraud? Also all observations from high altitudes are somehow flawed. Okay, so going along those lines, I thought how could I look outside and see if this society is onto something. Another fraud would be round the world travel I suppose, no flying or sailing around the world. Gravity is also a myth in your view, as a flat earth would not have a correct gravitational field. I think the explanation of gravity is that the flat earth moves upwards at 9.8ms^-1 or something along those lines. (Which makes no sense as velocity is not the same as acceleration- which is caused by a force- yep gravity)

Right, well I'll start with the moon, a fairly common sight in the night sky. You can get a stopwatch and figure out how long it takes for the moon to orbit the earth quite easily. In fact, it's 27.32 days, a month. This is the period of the moon (T). Handy that. The distance (Or radius r) of the moon to the earth is about 3.84x10^8 metres. The ancient greeks had calculated this and so can you (http://io9.com/5688939/how-to-measure-the-distance-from-the-earth-to-the-moon) or (http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/gkastr1.html). That is an experiment that you yourself can do, so no trickery here. Using this data, you can calculate the speed (v) of the moon in its orbit where v=2 x pi x r divided by T. Now centripetal acceleration comes into play, as for the moon to orbit the earth it must have a constant acceleration towards the earth. If there was no centripetal acceleration, say goodbye to the moon as it's just going to fly off in a straight line. But... what causes that acceleration? A force. Newtons laws of motion remain one of the greatest mathematical works in history. They have been proven time and time again, so lets not argue over that. The force between the earth and moon can be calculated quite simply with some light maths. So how can you then claim there is no such thing as gravitational attraction? One of the four fundamental forces in our universe yet you claim it is a lie. I understand why you have to say this, because if gravity is real, your idea of the sun orbiting the earth will look quite silly. A mass that is ridiculously larger than the earth orbiting us? No, that is not how it works, the large mass has smaller masses orbiting it. Wait... That almost sounds like the moon orbiting the earth.

Now. I am trying to avoid being rude with this post, as then you won't take this as seriously. But the thing is... You can do the maths yourself! Just look up at the stars and planets in the night sky. Buy yourself a telescope and watch how Jupiter and its many moons travels in the night sky. Take notes on where it is every night and calculate the distance of Jupiter from the sun if you really need the confirmation. Oh that's a good point, Jupiter has moons orbiting it, but the earth is the centre of the universe for flat earthers. Just try and claim that Isaac Newton was wrong, because there is so much evidence that you would drown in the numbers. And then explain some other points, fusion for one. How is the sun still burning if fusion is not a thing. Do you think the atomic structure is wrong? Explain how nuclear reactors use fission if the sun is 300 miles or something away.

Final note, the flat earth society claims these bold ideas and uses maps to "prove" they are right. Okay, so use your hypothesis (And yes, it is a hypothesis) to answer some fairly simple questions. 1. Why is redshift/atomic spectra wrong (From looking at other galaxies and stars etc). 2 Gravity (The whole force). 3 Star formation....Without gravity. 4 Fairly simple things like a boat disappearing from view. 5 What the heck is that ice wall you talk about, the one nobody has ever seen

-Alex
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Ghost of V on May 28, 2014, 10:28:34 PM
-Alex

I will try to help you, but please ask one question at a time.

What is your first question?
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on May 29, 2014, 02:38:25 AM
Alex, greetings, & welcome to the weird & wacky. I can already see you're likely British, Australian, or NZ, & in the sciences or maths (correct me if I'm wrong). I'm English, living in the USA, Jewish, & in History. My particular study is Middle Ages & Renaissance England. I've recently moved beyond that to write a dissertation on Christopher Columbus. Introductions being done for my part, I'll give you some, shall we say, both scholarly & friendly advice about FEers. 1st, NEVER expect a straight answer to any ?. If they can't defend their 'theory', they will blame 'the conspiracy' or other such silliness. Their 1st dodge will be what Vaux just tried. 'Ask 1 ? @ a time.' He could easily have answered each ? in the order you gave them. I'm a REer, & NOT a scientist, so I can't begin to answer your ?s, but I can probably critique an FE answer for logic's sake. I look forward to following this thread.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: juner on May 29, 2014, 04:50:43 PM
I think the explanation of gravity is that the flat earth moves upwards at 9.8ms^-1 or something along those lines. (Which makes no sense as velocity is not the same as acceleration- which is caused by a force- yep gravity)

Under the UA theory, the Earth is not moving at a constant velocity, it is accelerating at ~9.8m/s^2 which would have the same effect as gravity.  No one said it was moving at a constant velocity.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Gulliver on May 29, 2014, 10:04:48 PM
I think the explanation of gravity is that the flat earth moves upwards at 9.8ms^-1 or something along those lines. (Which makes no sense as velocity is not the same as acceleration- which is caused by a force- yep gravity)

Under the UA theory, the Earth is not moving at a constant velocity, it is accelerating at ~9.8m/s^2 which would have the same effect as gravity.  No one said it was moving at a constant velocity.
That, of course, is incorrect. On a RE, gravity has a detectable and expected radial nature. Einstein's EP applies only to a point, not a surface.
Quote from: http://aether.lbl.gov/www/science/equiv.html
At every spacetime point in an arbitrary gravitational field, it is possible to chose a locally inertial coordinate system such that, within a sufficiently small region of the point in question, the laws of nature take the same form as in unaccelerated Cartesian coordinate systems
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: jroa on May 29, 2014, 10:32:30 PM
I think the explanation of gravity is that the flat earth moves upwards at 9.8ms^-1 or something along those lines. (Which makes no sense as velocity is not the same as acceleration- which is caused by a force- yep gravity)

Under the UA theory, the Earth is not moving at a constant velocity, it is accelerating at ~9.8m/s^2 which would have the same effect as gravity.  No one said it was moving at a constant velocity.
That, of course, is incorrect. On a RE, gravity has a detectable and expected radial nature. Einstein's EP applies only to a point, not a surface.
Quote from: http://aether.lbl.gov/www/science/equiv.html
At every spacetime point in an arbitrary gravitational field, it is possible to chose a locally inertial coordinate system such that, within a sufficiently small region of the point in question, the laws of nature take the same form as in unaccelerated Cartesian coordinate systems

Kind of funny that you go to a website about Aether to try to teach us FE'ers about gravity.  Ironic maybe? 
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Gulliver on May 29, 2014, 11:08:57 PM
I think the explanation of gravity is that the flat earth moves upwards at 9.8ms^-1 or something along those lines. (Which makes no sense as velocity is not the same as acceleration- which is caused by a force- yep gravity)

Under the UA theory, the Earth is not moving at a constant velocity, it is accelerating at ~9.8m/s^2 which would have the same effect as gravity.  No one said it was moving at a constant velocity.
That, of course, is incorrect. On a RE, gravity has a detectable and expected radial nature. Einstein's EP applies only to a point, not a surface.
Quote from: http://aether.lbl.gov/www/science/equiv.html
At every spacetime point in an arbitrary gravitational field, it is possible to chose a locally inertial coordinate system such that, within a sufficiently small region of the point in question, the laws of nature take the same form as in unaccelerated Cartesian coordinate systems

Kind of funny that you go to a website about Aether to try to teach us FE'ers about gravity.  Ironic maybe?
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: juner on May 29, 2014, 11:17:18 PM
Einstein's EP applies only to a point, not a surface.

Incorrect.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Shmeggley on May 29, 2014, 11:33:15 PM
I think the explanation of gravity is that the flat earth moves upwards at 9.8ms^-1 or something along those lines. (Which makes no sense as velocity is not the same as acceleration- which is caused by a force- yep gravity)

Under the UA theory, the Earth is not moving at a constant velocity, it is accelerating at ~9.8m/s^2 which would have the same effect as gravity.  No one said it was moving at a constant velocity.
That, of course, is incorrect. On a RE, gravity has a detectable and expected radial nature. Einstein's EP applies only to a point, not a surface.
Quote from: http://aether.lbl.gov/www/science/equiv.html
At every spacetime point in an arbitrary gravitational field, it is possible to chose a locally inertial coordinate system such that, within a sufficiently small region of the point in question, the laws of nature take the same form as in unaccelerated Cartesian coordinate systems

Kind of funny that you go to a website about Aether to try to teach us FE'ers about gravity.  Ironic maybe?

Pretty funny how an FE'er will declare a website to be "about" a word that occurs nowhere on the site except in the URL.  ;D
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Shmeggley on May 29, 2014, 11:36:13 PM
We needed another one of these threads, and the upper fora need more FET focused content.  Ask, and I shall endeavor to enlighten.

A long standing question I have that's never been answered sufficiently:

How does FET explain how stars appear to circle around a central point in the sky, in opposite directions depending whether you are North or South of the equator?
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Gulliver on May 30, 2014, 12:03:36 AM
We needed another one of these threads, and the upper fora need more FET focused content.  Ask, and I shall endeavor to enlighten.

A long standing question I have that's never been answered sufficiently:

How does FET explain how stars appear to circle around a central point in the sky, in opposite directions depending whether you are North or South of the equator?
With respect for the question and effort in posing it, I offer the following replacement.

In both the "mono-pole" and "bi-pole" models of FET, please explain how every observer, not on either pole, simultaneously see the celestial objects, in general, rotate as though on a sphere with an axis co-linear with the RE axis; that is, in shorter circles from the Celestial Equator toward the both poles and around the nearer pole. The basic period of this rotation is 24 hours. The apparent motion of each object is at a constant speed, east to west.

To add evidence here are several links: http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap071208.html
http://sguisard.astrosurf.com/Pagim/From_pole_to_pole.html
http://www.allthesky.com/various/trails24.html
http://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/ua/StarMotion.html

New attributed, reproducible evidence published today: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/06/19/time_lapse_planetary_panorama_by_vincent_brady.html
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Shmeggley on May 30, 2014, 12:16:58 AM
We needed another one of these threads, and the upper fora need more FET focused content.  Ask, and I shall endeavor to enlighten.

A long standing question I have that's never been answered sufficiently:

How does FET explain how stars appear to circle around a central point in the sky, in opposite directions depending whether you are North or South of the equator?
With respect for the question and effort in posing it, I offer the following replacement.

In both the "mono-pole" and "bi-pole" models of FET, please explain how every observer, not on either pole, simultaneously see the celestial objects, in general, rotate as though on a sphere with an axis co-linear with the RE axis; that is, in shorter circles from the Celestial Equator toward the both poles and around the nearer pole. The basic period of this rotation is 24 hours. The apparent motion of each object is at a constant speed, east to west.

That's what I meant to say. :P
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Ghost of V on May 30, 2014, 06:43:13 PM
Welcome, Shmeggley. I see you've found another site to spout your round Earth propaganda.

How is that working out for you?
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Shmeggley on May 30, 2014, 07:57:17 PM
Welcome, Shmeggley. I see you've found another site to spout your round Earth propaganda.

How is that working out for you?

Thanks, and I see you're spouting the same nonsense here as over there. ;)

It's kind of dead here right now in the upper fora so far as I can tell, but I haven't been here long. I kind of missed the whole schism event, as I took a break from FES for several months, right around the time the split started I guess.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: googleotomy on June 12, 2014, 07:42:01 PM
The problem that Shmeggley, myself and the entire rest of the world is how in the world people in this day and age  can people say that they believe in a so-called "flat earth" ???

And reject science when the existence of this very website is based on the latest in science. ???

And it's not Round Earth "Propaganda" but simple truths and evidence that Shemeggley is presenting. And that you really know it but will just deny it  ???

Or is this just another website for debate by just a bunch of actors doing it just for the purpose of debate  ???

Questions:

1.How does this website view Samuel Birley Rowbotham and his works ?

2.How does this website view the "recovering the sinking passing over the horizon " idea ?
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: googleotomy on June 12, 2014, 08:00:59 PM
Goodness, that is a question. The govt can fool the whole world into believing the world is round, but can't shut down a website? Right!

If people started taking us seriously they'd shut us down.

Not to worry . I don't know of any people who would take you seriously.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: googleotomy on June 12, 2014, 08:13:20 PM
Alex, greetings, & welcome to the weird & wacky. I can already see you're likely British, Australian, or NZ, & in the sciences or maths (correct me if I'm wrong). I'm English, living in the USA, Jewish, & in History. My particular study is Middle Ages & Renaissance England. I've recently moved beyond that to write a dissertation on Christopher Columbus. Introductions being done for my part, I'll give you some, shall we say, both scholarly & friendly advice about FEers. 1st, NEVER expect a straight answer to any ?. If they can't defend their 'theory', they will blame 'the conspiracy' or other such silliness. Their 1st dodge will be what Vaux just tried. 'Ask 1 ? @ a time.' He could easily have answered each ? in the order you gave them. I'm a REer, & NOT a scientist, so I can't begin to answer your ?s, but I can probably critique an FE answer for logic's sake. I look forward to following this thread.

I just discovered this "new flat earth society website" and I can't detect any difference from the "old" one. ??? ::)
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 12, 2014, 08:34:46 PM
I just discovered this "new flat earth society website" and I can't detect any difference from the "old" one. ??? ::)
Hopefully I can be of assistance here. We offer:
Now, we do not consider ourselves to be anything other than the Flat Earth Society, so our mentality is pretty much identical between the sites (i.e. the Earth is still flat). Our strength compared to the old site is technical competency and more active management.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: googleotomy on June 12, 2014, 10:17:39 PM
Thanks very much, pizzaplanet.

I certainly hope that  this "new" website will not sink to the depths of the "old" website with all the insults and vulgarity from both sides.

1. Does this Flat Earth Society have an accurate Flat Earth Map of the entire world without the obvious inaccurancies of distances and shapes  of the map that the other Flat Earth Society is showing ?

 (Which is in reality, just a copy of a North Polar, Unipolar or Equal Azimuth Projection of a globe.)
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 12, 2014, 11:01:21 PM
I certainly hope that  this "new" website will not sink to the depths of the "old" website with all the insults and vulgarity from both sides.
Well, you're doing a "great" job at trying to prevent that.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: googleotomy on June 12, 2014, 11:48:25 PM
Cheers and best wishes  :D   There are still several unanswered questions.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: googleotomy on June 12, 2014, 11:54:06 PM
im talking about the thousands upon thousands of photos

Fake.


hundreds of satellites and astronauts

Fake.

plus the thousands of space launches that have been achieved

Fake.

The usual FE response. Ho Hum. ::)
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Yamato on July 03, 2014, 10:43:05 PM
We needed another one of these threads, and the upper fora need more FET focused content.  Ask, and I shall endeavor to enlighten.

A long standing question I have that's never been answered sufficiently:

How does FET explain how stars appear to circle around a central point in the sky, in opposite directions depending whether you are North or South of the equator?
With respect for the question and effort in posing it, I offer the following replacement.

In both the "mono-pole" and "bi-pole" models of FET, please explain how every observer, not on either pole, simultaneously see the celestial objects, in general, rotate as though on a sphere with an axis co-linear with the RE axis; that is, in shorter circles from the Celestial Equator toward the both poles and around the nearer pole. The basic period of this rotation is 24 hours. The apparent motion of each object is at a constant speed, east to west.

To add evidence here are several links: http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap071208.html
http://sguisard.astrosurf.com/Pagim/From_pole_to_pole.html
http://www.allthesky.com/various/trails24.html
http://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/ua/StarMotion.html

New attributed, reproducible evidence published today: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/06/19/time_lapse_planetary_panorama_by_vincent_brady.html


There is no needed for any kind of complex theory or even checking NASA's website to note an important fact: if the Earth were a flat surface, everyone in the earth would see the exact same stars and constellations, but the fact is that people that is below/beyond the equator sees a completely different firmament than those above the equator.

I can ensure this is true since I was in both Earth hemispheres, and the stars are different, not only the distribution, but also the stars themselves.
This can only happen if the earth is a spheroid object OR in the case of a flat Earth, if I can travel to the opposite face of the surface, which, according to your non-proven theories, is physically impossible.

So, please, explain how this contradiction can happen in your flat earth model.

Thanks.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Gulliver on July 03, 2014, 11:56:56 PM
...if the Earth were a flat surface, everyone in the earth would see the exact same stars and constellations...
Sorry, but no.

FET also includes (the incredible) shortening of distances to the stars, etc. Consider that you can't see the same clouds right now that I can, and I think you'll see how they manage to make a bit a sense.

I hope that helps.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Yamato on July 04, 2014, 09:12:48 AM
...if the Earth were a flat surface, everyone in the earth would see the exact same stars and constellations...
Sorry, but no.

FET also includes (the incredible) shortening of distances to the stars, etc. Consider that you can't see the same clouds right now that I can, and I think you'll see how they manage to make a bit a sense.

I hope that helps.

Sorry, but yes.

If the earth is a plane, I would be able to see polaris with a telescope from anywhere in the surface, the same as I would be able to see the clouds in New York from Berlin with a telescope, excluding the obstruction of buildings and mountains, as well as the atmospheric distortion.

But from South Africa, I can't see polaris or any othe star in the northern hemisphere, according to my observations or anyone else's observations.

If the flat earth model proposed is a semi-spheroid over a flat ocean, then you are not talking about a flat earth, but rather a semi-round earth. In this case, all your model from its foundations loses its validity since you are applying plane theories and maths to a curved surface.

Also, given your argument that the distance to the stars noticeabely change, I must ask what method is used in the flat earth model to measure the distance to each star.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Gulliver on July 04, 2014, 11:53:45 AM
Sorry, but yes.

If the earth is a plane, I would be able to see polaris with a telescope from anywhere in the surface, the same as I would be able to see the clouds in New York from Berlin with a telescope, excluding the obstruction of buildings and mountains, as well as the atmospheric distortion.
FEers use both of those reasons to explain the limited view of the stars.
Quote
But from South Africa, I can't see polaris or any othe star in the northern hemisphere, according to my observations or anyone else's observations.
Many northern stars are visible from SA at 30o S.
Quote

If the flat earth model proposed is a semi-spheroid over a flat ocean, then you are not talking about a flat earth, but rather a semi-round earth. In this case, all your model from its foundations loses its validity since you are applying plane theories and maths to a curved surface.

Also, given your argument that the distance to the stars noticeabely change, I must ask what method is used in the flat earth model to measure the distance to each star.
It's not my argument,  but, yes, FEers do manage to post (and re-post) wildly inaccurate measurements of the distance to object in the sky. Please see my thread in Flat Earth General critiquing EnaG for an example of Rowbotham's botched attempt to measure the distance to the Sun.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Yamato on July 04, 2014, 01:08:24 PM
Sorry, but yes.

If the earth is a plane, I would be able to see polaris with a telescope from anywhere in the surface, the same as I would be able to see the clouds in New York from Berlin with a telescope, excluding the obstruction of buildings and mountains, as well as the atmospheric distortion.
FEers use both of those reasons to explain the limited view of the stars.
[/quote]

With "obstruction of buildings and mountains" i was talking about "the obeserver being just next to a mountain or building", and with "atmospheric distortion" i was talking about "polluted areas or areas with poor seeing".

In either case, if the earth was flat, observing from the Everest would let us see all stars from the firmament.

Many northern stars are visible from SA at 30o S.

You can't see Polaris from Australia.
Of course you can see some constellations that are far away from the rotation axis, but not the closest ones.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: geckothegeek on July 18, 2014, 02:09:02 AM
Sorry, but yes.

If the earth is a plane, I would be able to see polaris with a telescope from anywhere in the surface, the same as I would be able to see the clouds in New York from Berlin with a telescope, excluding the obstruction of buildings and mountains, as well as the atmospheric distortion.
FEers use both of those reasons to explain the limited view of the stars.
Quote
But from South Africa, I can't see polaris or any othe star in the northern hemisphere, according to my observations or anyone else's observations.
Many northern stars are visible from SA at 30o S.
Quote

If the flat earth model proposed is a semi-spheroid over a flat ocean, then you are not talking about a flat earth, but rather a semi-round earth. In this case, all your model from its foundations loses its validity since you are applying plane theories and maths to a curved surface.

Also, given your argument that the distance to the stars noticeabely change, I must ask what method is used in the flat earth model to measure the distance to each star.
It's not my argument,  but, yes, FEers do manage to post (and re-post) wildly inaccurate measurements of the distance to object in the sky. Please see my thread in Flat Earth General critiquing EnaG for an example of Rowbotham's botched attempt to measure the distance to the Sun.

Also see my thread about "Ham Radio Measurements Of The Distance From The Earth To The Moon."
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: chicken soup on August 17, 2014, 01:57:15 PM
Hi- sooo... I'm new here. When I first came across this website I laughed, but this was quickly replaced with intrigue.
You guys have quite a compelling argument, and a model of physics that- well- actually kinda makes some sense. I still don't quite buy into it,
but I have found myself increasingly questioning all my pre-conceived notions on reality.
I'm now quite familiar with how you guys explain earthy phenomena, and how you believe the government is concealing the 'truth'
I just have a few questions- like, how do you explain this: http://earthsky.org/space/how-to-spot-the-international-space-station ?
I know that flat-earthers don't believe in the space program, nor in prolonged un-powered orbits because- well- you don't believe there
is anything TO orbit. But you can actually directly observe the ISS from your own backyard. Get the timing right, and you can even observe
shuttles docking with it. Using a powerful camera lens, you can clearly observe it's structure and confirm it really is man-made. Type "ISS
from earth" into google images to see what I mean.
Can a flat-earther offer their perspective on this? I'm not mocking, I am genuinely intrigued with the idea presented by this site.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Yaakov ben Avraham on August 17, 2014, 07:23:41 PM
Its a legitimate question. I am a Round Earther myself. I too began my visits to this site intrigued. I still am, in a way. But I think you will find that your intrigue, like mine, will gradually fade the more you realise the heights of illogic that are allowed to occur here.But I shan't let spoil it for you. I shall let you see it for yourself.

However, to be perfectly fair to Flat Earthers, as a student of the Bible and other holy texts, many of them, although not intended as science books in the first place, do assume a Flat Earth worldview. The Bible certainly does. The Qur'an does. I am exploring ancient Greek myth now, and it would appear that they did originally, although by the time of Aristotle, that was no longer the case. Most educated persons by about 400 BCE had determined that the Earth was a sphere, although they were still wrong insofar as they thought it was the center of the universe, and the Sun revolved around it, rather than the Sun being the center of our Solar System, with the Earth revolving around it. Of course, we have since learned that the Solar System itself is only one of many, and is NOT the center of the universe itself.

But I digress. The point I am reaching here is that you will be intrigued until such time as you ask more questions, and continue to get more and more bizarre answers, and you begin to realise you are getting the runaround. Then you will know that the FES doesn't have a compelling argument, they just know how to argue, but not logically. They are slick with words, but once you pin them logically, you've got them. I'll continue to observe this thread, and point that out to you. Good luck.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: siackness64 on August 23, 2014, 07:49:49 PM
Hello, so I'm new to the site and was doing some research and found that many Flat Earthers believe that the "North Pole" is actually located in the center of the planet.  If this is true, how come it has a lower temperature and filled with ice compared to other bodies of land with water on the same plane?
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Thork on August 24, 2014, 02:14:19 PM
Because the sun revolves around the centre of the disk along the equatorial regions. The centre and the rim (north and south poles) are therefore furthest from the sun and of course the coldest.

(http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f287/PraiseOfFolly/Flat%20Earth%20Society/fe-seasons.png)
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: siackness64 on August 25, 2014, 04:25:44 AM
so how does the sun revolve around the other planets in our solar system?
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Ghost of V on August 25, 2014, 04:44:56 AM
so how does the sun revolve around the other planets in our solar system?

It doesn't.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Thork on August 25, 2014, 09:04:03 AM
so how does the sun revolve around the other planets in our solar system?

It doesn't.
If you aren't able to provide a source, it probably means you are getting the answer wrong.

The planets revolve around the sun, albeit in pretty patterns as the sun revolves around the earth.

(http://wiki.tfes.org/images/f/f7/Retrograde2.jpg)
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Gulliver on August 25, 2014, 11:16:11 AM
so how does the sun revolve around the other planets in our solar system?

It doesn't.
If you aren't able to provide a source, it probably means you are getting the answer wrong.

The planets revolve around the sun, albeit in pretty patterns as the sun revolves around the earth.

(http://wiki.tfes.org/images/f/f7/Retrograde2.jpg)
Please tell us when we can observe any planet north or south of the Sun's "orbit" about the Northern Hub as you claim happens every time a planet completes as orbit of the Sun.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Thork on August 25, 2014, 11:36:30 AM
You can observe this any time you like. As long as its dark. And not cloudy. And you have a good telescope. Check a star chart for where to point your peepers.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Gulliver on August 25, 2014, 04:33:26 PM
You can observe this any time you like. As long as its dark. And not cloudy. And you have a good telescope. Check a star chart for where to point your peepers.
Obviously false. Why would one need a good telescope? How would one observe, for example, Mercury during a transit since it's not dark then? How far north does Jupiter go of the Sun's orbit? How often does Jupiter orbit the Sun? How often does it go retrograde? Please provide the data, to Zetetic method standards, that allow you to make this claim, "beyond the reach of contradiction"?
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Thork on August 25, 2014, 06:44:58 PM
You can observe this any time you like. As long as its dark. And not cloudy. And you have a good telescope. Check a star chart for where to point your peepers.
Obviously false. Why would one need a good telescope? How would one observe, for example, Mercury during a transit since it's not dark then?
With a telescope and a light filter. Why are you being contrarian? Observing something in the sky isn't any different whatever shape the earth is.

How far north does Jupiter go of the Sun's orbit? How often does Jupiter orbit the Sun? How often does it go retrograde? Please provide the data, to Zetetic method standards, that allow you to make this claim, "beyond the reach of contradiction"?
Read ENaG. I haven't time to individually pander to your endless silly questions.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: markjo on August 25, 2014, 07:10:40 PM
How far north does Jupiter go of the Sun's orbit? How often does Jupiter orbit the Sun? How often does it go retrograde? Please provide the data, to Zetetic method standards, that allow you to make this claim, "beyond the reach of contradiction"?
Read ENaG. I haven't time to individually pander to your endless silly questions.
As near as I can tell, ENaG does not describe the motions of the planets relative to the sun.  In fact, I haven't seen where ENaG mentions planets at all.  Perhaps you could point out which chapter we should be looking at.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Thork on August 25, 2014, 08:09:02 PM
Meh. Read Ptolemy then.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: markjo on August 25, 2014, 08:21:40 PM
Why?  Ptolemy was an RE'er.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Thork on August 25, 2014, 08:55:07 PM
Geocentrist.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Ghost of V on August 26, 2014, 02:27:31 AM
The Sun doesn't revolve around the Earth. The Sun floats above the Earth. This is basic FE theory. Where are you getting your information and how the hell does your FE model work if the Sun revolves around the Earth disc??
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: markjo on August 26, 2014, 03:38:10 AM
Geocentrist.
Yes, Ptolemy was a round earth geocentrist.  Glad that we can finally agree on something.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Thork on August 26, 2014, 08:47:18 AM
The Sun doesn't revolve around the Earth. The Sun floats above the Earth. This is basic FE theory. Where are you getting your information and how the hell does your FE model work if the Sun revolves around the Earth disc??

Indeed. I think I have some 20,000 posts between the two sites. I am also pretty sure I have explained how the pattern is the same at least 50 times. search Ptolemy on either site. I have given far more information than I care to regurgitate for you again now.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: markjo on August 26, 2014, 01:13:00 PM
How many times did you adequately explain how Ptolemy's round earth geocentric model could possibly work on a flat earth?
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Thork on August 26, 2014, 01:16:25 PM
How many times did you adequately explain how Ptolemy's round earth geocentric model could possibly work on a flat earth?
Many, Markjo. Many, many, many times. In fact, your perpetual squealing can be seen in most of those threads.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: markjo on August 26, 2014, 01:24:19 PM
How many times did you adequately explain how Ptolemy's round earth geocentric model could possibly work on a flat earth?
Many, Markjo. Many, many, many times. In fact, your perpetual squealing can be seen in most of those threads.
You're exaggerating, Thork.  According to the other site's search, you mention Ptolemy 7 times.  I'm looking through them right now and so far haven't seen any explanation of how a round earth geocentric model works on a FE, which technically isn't geocentric.  Remember that in a geocentric model, the heavens revolve around the earth while in FET, the heavens orbit above the earth.  This is not a trivial distinction.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Gulliver on August 26, 2014, 03:40:09 PM
How many times did you adequately explain how Ptolemy's round earth geocentric model could possibly work on a flat earth?
Many, Markjo. Many, many, many times. In fact, your perpetual squealing can be seen in most of those threads.
So why haven't you taken the time to document how Ptolemy's round earth geocentric model could possibly work within FET in the FE Wiki? You aren't just trolling, are you?
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Ghost of V on August 26, 2014, 05:03:03 PM
This is not a trivial distinction.

Exactly. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

I would love to read your explanation on how Ptolemy's RE model works with FE theory, because it sounds ludicrous.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: markjo on August 26, 2014, 07:48:05 PM
How many times did you adequately explain how Ptolemy's round earth geocentric model could possibly work on a flat earth?
Many, Markjo. Many, many, many times. In fact, your perpetual squealing can be seen in most of those threads.
Yes, and it was pointed out that the Ptolomeic model requires that the earth and solar system be on the same plane.  In FET, the solar system is 3000 miles or so above the flat earth.  A 3000 mile height difference can hardly be considered the same plane, can it?
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Gulliver on August 26, 2014, 09:07:11 PM
How many times did you adequately explain how Ptolemy's round earth geocentric model could possibly work on a flat earth?
Many, Markjo. Many, many, many times. In fact, your perpetual squealing can be seen in most of those threads.
Yes, and it was pointed out that the Ptolomeic model requires that the earth and solar system be on the same plane.  In FET, the solar system is 3000 miles or so above the flat earth.  A 3000 mile height difference can hardly be considered the same plane, can it?
Add to that: Ptolomy's model had Jupiter orbiting the Earth, not--as Thork now claims--the Sun. How much can one troll get wrong, and just in one thread?
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Caesar Augustus on August 27, 2014, 04:23:09 AM
Hello guys, I'll ask you a few questions about your theory.

1. Why do you claim that the Earth is flat? What would be the point for the governments and entities such as NASA to hide something like that?

2. If the Earth is flat, why are we able to go from USA to Japan in a perfect straight line without crossing Europe or any kind of land?

3. Why there's daylight in Spain while at the same hour in Japan is night-time?

4. What's in the other side of the flat Earth?

5. Would we just fall into the space if we reached the border of the Earth?

6. Are all the other planets and stars (Moon and Sun included) flat?; If the answer is YES, explain why we can see with regular telescopes that all the planets are flat.

7. How can you explain that if we take an airplane that flies on a very high height we are able to see the curvature of the Earth?

Thank you for your time.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 27, 2014, 04:41:34 AM
http://faq.tfes.org/
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Ghost of V on August 27, 2014, 04:59:23 AM
Caesar, you probably need to make your own thread about each question because there is a plethora of information pertaining to each topic.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Roadie on October 02, 2014, 09:31:28 PM
I recently ran across a flat earther. To that end, I was curious if he is representative of your beliefs or just making up shtuff and using FE as an excuse.  To that end, and out of curiosity, I have been looking around and trying to get a handle on the FE beliefs, theories, proofs, etc. I wasn't sure whether to refer him to a physicist or a psychiatrist. Anyway, to the questions.

Do any of you own a telescope?

If so, why is it that the sun, planets, moon, moons of other planets, etc, are all spherical but for some reason the earth is flat?

If the earth is flat and you go up in a balloon (to prevent airplane window distortions and the like) with a pair of binoculars, why you are not able to see, lets say, the Burj Khalifa in Dubai. Likewise from such a height of 2700 feet, shouldn't you be able to see the terminator between light and dark?

I see there is some question as to if satellites exist. I wonder if you all are aware that some satellites can be seen orbiting the earth. Some have been orbiting for over 50 years. Sunlight reflections can be seen with the naked eye and more details with a telescope.
http://www.n2yo.com/satellite/?s=694

Once again, given that some of the satellites are above the sun and the sun is a spotlight, how are they reflecting light?

How are these explained?

Thanks.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Tau on October 04, 2014, 09:00:09 PM
I recently ran across a flat earther. To that end, I was curious if he is representative of your beliefs or just making up shtuff and using FE as an excuse.  To that end, and out of curiosity, I have been looking around and trying to get a handle on the FE beliefs, theories, proofs, etc. I wasn't sure whether to refer him to a physicist or a psychiatrist. Anyway, to the questions.

Do any of you own a telescope?

If so, why is it that the sun, planets, moon, moons of other planets, etc, are all spherical but for some reason the earth is flat?

If the earth is flat and you go up in a balloon (to prevent airplane window distortions and the like) with a pair of binoculars, why you are not able to see, lets say, the Burj Khalifa in Dubai. Likewise from such a height of 2700 feet, shouldn't you be able to see the terminator between light and dark?

I see there is some question as to if satellites exist. I wonder if you all are aware that some satellites can be seen orbiting the earth. Some have been orbiting for over 50 years. Sunlight reflections can be seen with the naked eye and more details with a telescope.
http://www.n2yo.com/satellite/?s=694

Once again, given that some of the satellites are above the sun and the sun is a spotlight, how are they reflecting light?

How are these explained?

Thanks.

This would probably be better off as its own thread. People are less likely to respond to a long, multi-faceted post in an old thread than they are to respond to a new thread. Not that it really matters. Anyway.

I don't own a telescope myself, but I do have access to an observatory. Which is awesome. Space is amazing.

The rest of your questions are answered in the FAQ, which is linked in my signature. If you still have questions after reading that I'd be happy to answer them.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: siackness64 on November 21, 2014, 07:42:28 PM
Hello, I am new to the site and have a question.  If the earth is flat how do you explain airplanes.  The fly "around" the world.  Is this just a conspiracy to you?
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Ghost of V on November 21, 2014, 07:49:15 PM
Hello, I am new to the site and have a question.  If the earth is flat how do you explain airplanes.  The fly "around" the world.  Is this just a conspiracy to you?

Is there something preventing airplanes from flying? I don't understand your question.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Tintagel on November 21, 2014, 08:38:23 PM
Hello, I am new to the site and have a question.  If the earth is flat how do you explain airplanes.  The fly "around" the world.  Is this just a conspiracy to you?

The path of circumnavigation is a circle.  This is true on a spherical earth, or a flat one.  A brief, cursory search of the site would have answered this question, but welcome nonetheless.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: siackness64 on November 21, 2014, 08:50:55 PM
yes, but this would mean the plane would have to fly in a circle.  The world is round and they fly in straight lines
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: jroa on November 21, 2014, 08:57:59 PM
On a round Earth, do planes not fly in a circle when they go east or west? 
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Ghost of V on November 21, 2014, 08:58:12 PM
yes, but this would mean the plane would have to fly in a circle.  The world is round and they fly in straight lines

It is not possible to travel in a perfectly straight line without a navigational aid. No pilot is ever flying in a straight line.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: siackness64 on November 21, 2014, 09:12:48 PM
way to dodge the question with symatics.  You know what i mean.  Pilots would have to fly in a circle and would definatly know if the earth was flat or not.  What happends when they reach the edge of the "flat earth"
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: jroa on November 21, 2014, 09:23:30 PM
Are you saying that pilots, when flying east or west, do not fly in a circle? 
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Ghost of V on November 21, 2014, 09:26:56 PM


way to dodge the question with symatics.  You know what i mean.  Pilots would have to fly in a circle and would definatly know if the earth was flat or not.  What happends when they reach the edge of the "flat earth"


East and West are always at right angles to North. Traveling east will take you in a circle around the north pole. This is true on a flat Earth and a round one. Traveling to the edge would require constant adjustments in direction, and this is almost never required with normal commercial flights. There are few (if any) flights going to the north pole.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Tintagel on November 22, 2014, 12:02:46 AM
yes, but this would mean the plane would have to fly in a circle.  The world is round and they fly in straight lines
1. Get a globe.  I assume you've seen one, since you believe that's what the earth is shaped like.
2. Trace the path a plane would take around the globe.
3. What shape did you just trace?  Hint: it's a circle.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: siackness64 on November 22, 2014, 12:25:39 AM
well there ARE navigational tools for airplanes.  Also, dont you think that human curiosity would have led at least one person to travel to the edge to see what was beyond?  Are you telling me these people have been silenced?
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Tintagel on November 22, 2014, 12:33:33 AM
well there ARE navigational tools for airplanes.  Also, dont you think that human curiosity would have led at least one person to travel to the edge to see what was beyond?  Are you telling me these people have been silenced?

Navigational tools for airplanes follow magnetic field lines.  These are the same on a flat earth as they would be on a spherical one, and the lines of longitide spread like spokes from the North Pole.  As for the edge, no, I'm not telling you anyone has been silenced, nothing so sinister.  As far as we know, no one has seen an edge.  I'm not certain that one exists, but others insist there must be one.  Jury's still out, as they say.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Ghost of V on November 22, 2014, 12:41:45 AM
On the other hand, I will tell you that people have been silenced. Many people.

The Earth is large. There are many people spread across this great disc. It is ridiculous to assume that no one has seen the edge. I'm sure there are photos out there of the great beyond, but they have probably been censored.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: markjo on November 22, 2014, 02:33:05 AM
Are you saying that pilots, when flying east or west, do not fly in a circle?
Are you saying that pilots only ever fly east or west?

yes, but this would mean the plane would have to fly in a circle.  The world is round and they fly in straight lines
1. Get a globe.  I assume you've seen one, since you believe that's what the earth is shaped like.
2. Trace the path a plane would take around the globe.
3. What shape did you just trace?  Hint: it's a circle.
Yes, it's called a great circle.  What shape do you suppose that same route be on a flat earth?
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Ghost of V on November 22, 2014, 03:33:58 AM
markjo, you can travel to any location on Earth going some variation of east or west.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Rama Set on November 22, 2014, 01:35:04 PM
markjo, you can travel to any location on Earth going some variation of east or west.

What is a variation of east or west?
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: markjo on November 22, 2014, 04:46:17 PM
markjo, you can travel to any location on Earth going some variation of east or west.
Yes, and the route would be a variation of a circle.  But we aren't talking about variations, are we?
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: siackness64 on November 22, 2014, 07:33:24 PM
i posted a question here earlier in the year and in the responce was a picture of the flat earth with the arctic in the middle followed by the continents followed by the ant-arctic.  If this was how the earth was made, the fastest point from one place to the other is a straight line, so wouldnt it be fastest to travel from one side of the world to the other by flying over the arctic in the middle?  Pilots would definatly fly by this route and confirm that the earth is flat. Wouldnt they?
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Ghost of V on November 22, 2014, 07:42:13 PM
i posted a question here earlier in the year and in the responce was a picture of the flat earth with the arctic in the middle followed by the continents followed by the ant-arctic.  If this was how the earth was made, the fastest point from one place to the other is a straight line, so wouldnt it be fastest to travel from one side of the world to the other by flying over the arctic in the middle?  Pilots would definatly fly by this route and confirm that the earth is flat. Wouldnt they?

Weather conditions in the Arctic prevent safe travel by plane. No sane pilot is going to take that route.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Gulliver on November 22, 2014, 10:01:36 PM
i posted a question here earlier in the year and in the responce was a picture of the flat earth with the arctic in the middle followed by the continents followed by the ant-arctic.  If this was how the earth was made, the fastest point from one place to the other is a straight line, so wouldnt it be fastest to travel from one side of the world to the other by flying over the arctic in the middle?  Pilots would definatly fly by this route and confirm that the earth is flat. Wouldnt they?

Weather conditions in the Arctic prevent safe travel by plane. No sane pilot is going to take that route.
To the contrary: http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/records-1/first-circumnavigation-via-both-poles-surface/ (http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/records-1/first-circumnavigation-via-both-poles-surface/)
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Ghost of V on November 22, 2014, 10:25:40 PM
i posted a question here earlier in the year and in the responce was a picture of the flat earth with the arctic in the middle followed by the continents followed by the ant-arctic.  If this was how the earth was made, the fastest point from one place to the other is a straight line, so wouldnt it be fastest to travel from one side of the world to the other by flying over the arctic in the middle?  Pilots would definatly fly by this route and confirm that the earth is flat. Wouldnt they?

Weather conditions in the Arctic prevent safe travel by plane. No sane pilot is going to take that route.
To the contrary: http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/records-1/first-circumnavigation-via-both-poles-surface/ (http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/records-1/first-circumnavigation-via-both-poles-surface/)

And I'm sure conditions were optimal on those flights, if they even happened.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Gulliver on November 22, 2014, 10:51:49 PM
i posted a question here earlier in the year and in the responce was a picture of the flat earth with the arctic in the middle followed by the continents followed by the ant-arctic.  If this was how the earth was made, the fastest point from one place to the other is a straight line, so wouldnt it be fastest to travel from one side of the world to the other by flying over the arctic in the middle?  Pilots would definatly fly by this route and confirm that the earth is flat. Wouldnt they?

Weather conditions in the Arctic prevent safe travel by plane. No sane pilot is going to take that route.
To the contrary: http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/records-1/first-circumnavigation-via-both-poles-surface/ (http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/records-1/first-circumnavigation-via-both-poles-surface/)

And I'm sure conditions were optimal on those flights, if they even happened.
Do tell us what verifiable, objective qualifications you have that would give anyone cause to trust your judgment of the safety of a flight, the sanity of pilot, or the credibility of Guinness World Records. Thanks.

Surely you're not claiming that there is no true Scotsman (no sane pilot), are you?
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 23, 2014, 09:42:49 AM
Surely you're not claiming that there is no true Scotsman (no sane pilot), are you?
Please familiarise yourself with the no true Scotsman fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman). The way you formulated your question, you're accusing yourself of having committed the fallacy. It does appear like you're trying to suggest that Vauxhall is saying that no true Scotsman (no sane pilot) would ever perform this flight.

Using words you don't understand doesn't make you look smarter, G. You should know this by now.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Gulliver on November 23, 2014, 09:48:10 AM
Surely you're not claiming that there is no true Scotsman (no sane pilot), are you?
Please familiarise yourself with the no true Scotsman fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman). The way you formulated your question, you're accusing yourself of having committed the fallacy. It does appear like you're trying to suggest that Vauxhall is saying that no true Scotsman (no sane pilot) would ever perform this flight.

Using words you don't understand doesn't make you look smarter, G. You should know this by now.
Okay, do tell me how my formulation accuses me of making of the fallacy. Thanks.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 23, 2014, 10:35:55 AM
Okay, do tell me how my formulation accuses me of making of the fallacy. Thanks.
Nah. If you want to educate yourself, you will. I gave you all the sources you need. I'm far too busy to deal with your poorly-executed trolls. You're welcome.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Gulliver on November 23, 2014, 11:15:17 AM
Okay, do tell me how my formulation accuses me of making of the fallacy. Thanks.
Nah. If you want to educate yourself, you will. I gave you all the sources you need. I'm far too busy to deal with your poorly-executed trolls. You're welcome.
I didn't think you would. We'll just consider your claim withdrawn.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 23, 2014, 04:14:26 PM
For the record, my claim is explicitly stated as not withdrawn. All the sources necessary have been provided.

Out of curiosity, who is this "we" you're referring to?
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: inquisitive on December 06, 2014, 01:44:55 PM
well there ARE navigational tools for airplanes.  Also, dont you think that human curiosity would have led at least one person to travel to the edge to see what was beyond?  Are you telling me these people have been silenced?

Navigational tools for airplanes follow magnetic field lines.  These are the same on a flat earth as they would be on a spherical one, and the lines of longitide spread like spokes from the North Pole.  As for the edge, no, I'm not telling you anyone has been silenced, nothing so sinister.  As far as we know, no one has seen an edge.  I'm not certain that one exists, but others insist there must be one.  Jury's still out, as they say.
They now use GPS, satellite based.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Ghost of V on December 06, 2014, 05:50:44 PM
They now use GPS, satellite based.

GPS is not satellite based. It is based on sonar technology. Similar to mapping the oceans. Sonar travels through the air, bounces off weather balloons fixed with reflectors, then hits the geography below to map the land. There might be one or two stratellites involved. It's really that simple.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Gulliver on December 07, 2014, 02:34:40 AM
They now use GPS, satellite based.

GPS is not satellite based. It is based on sonar technology. Similar to mapping the oceans. Sonar travels through the air, bounces off weather balloons fixed with reflectors, then hits the geography below to map the land. There might be one or two stratellites involved. It's really that simple.
Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim? Maybe a device in your phone that receives SONAR waves from these balloons?
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Ghost of V on December 07, 2014, 02:54:23 AM
They now use GPS, satellite based.

GPS is not satellite based. It is based on sonar technology. Similar to mapping the oceans. Sonar travels through the air, bounces off weather balloons fixed with reflectors, then hits the geography below to map the land. There might be one or two stratellites involved. It's really that simple.
Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim? Maybe a device in your phone that receives SONAR waves from these balloons?


My phone does not receive sonar waves, Gulliver. It receives a cellular transmission of information that was gathered with sonar technology. Are you familiar with how a cell tower works? Or phones for that matter?
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Gulliver on December 07, 2014, 02:57:05 AM
They now use GPS, satellite based.

GPS is not satellite based. It is based on sonar technology. Similar to mapping the oceans. Sonar travels through the air, bounces off weather balloons fixed with reflectors, then hits the geography below to map the land. There might be one or two stratellites involved. It's really that simple.
Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim? Maybe a device in your phone that receives SONAR waves from these balloons?


My phone does not receive sonar waves, Gulliver. It receives a cellular transmission of information that was gathered with sonar technology. Are you familiar with how a cell tower works? Or phones for that matter?
You're probably right in that your phone does not receive SONAR waves. You're wrong though in claiming that GPS is SONAR-based. I renew my challenge for evidence to support your outlandish claim.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Ghost of V on December 07, 2014, 03:26:48 AM
They now use GPS, satellite based.

GPS is not satellite based. It is based on sonar technology. Similar to mapping the oceans. Sonar travels through the air, bounces off weather balloons fixed with reflectors, then hits the geography below to map the land. There might be one or two stratellites involved. It's really that simple.
Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim? Maybe a device in your phone that receives SONAR waves from these balloons?


My phone does not receive sonar waves, Gulliver. It receives a cellular transmission of information that was gathered with sonar technology. Are you familiar with how a cell tower works? Or phones for that matter?
You're probably right in that your phone does not receive SONAR waves. You're wrong though in claiming that GPS is SONAR-based. I renew my challenge for evidence to support your outlandish claim.


Am I?

Sonar could easily map the Earth, even in a round Earth model. It makes far more sense than floating trash cans delivering data in space that are somehow unaffected by universal acceleration.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Gulliver on December 07, 2014, 04:06:23 AM
They now use GPS, satellite based.

GPS is not satellite based. It is based on sonar technology. Similar to mapping the oceans. Sonar travels through the air, bounces off weather balloons fixed with reflectors, then hits the geography below to map the land. There might be one or two stratellites involved. It's really that simple.
Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim? Maybe a device in your phone that receives SONAR waves from these balloons?


My phone does not receive sonar waves, Gulliver. It receives a cellular transmission of information that was gathered with sonar technology. Are you familiar with how a cell tower works? Or phones for that matter?
You're probably right in that your phone does not receive SONAR waves. You're wrong though in claiming that GPS is SONAR-based. I renew my challenge for evidence to support your outlandish claim.


Am I?

Sonar could easily map the Earth, even in a round Earth model. It makes far more sense than floating trash cans delivering data in space that are somehow unaffected by universal acceleration.
You really should review the purpose of GPS. It's not an earth mapping endeavor.

Quote from: http://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/mysteries/global.html
The Global Positioning System (GPS) is a space-based satellite navigation system that provides location and time information in all weather conditions, anywhere on or near the Earth where there is an unobstructed line of sight to four or more GPS satellites
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: feynman on December 21, 2014, 11:28:04 PM
well,subduction is proved... First of all, seismology has permit to compare the velocity of seismic waves into the globe and we can report some anomalies : this is the seismic tomography (a cold material is seen beneath the volcanoes). Secondly, the sea level is slightly higher (about 1 meter) near the continents, (i don't know the world in English for that but in French well call it "bombement avant fosse"). It's totally prove subduction
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Roger1998 on January 20, 2015, 12:37:36 AM
If space travel is truly a conspiracy theory, and the world is actually flat, would space travel be possible on a flat world?
If so, how has is not happened yet?
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Roger1998 on January 20, 2015, 07:04:04 AM
How can you prove that space travel is a conspiracy?
How can you truly prove that the earth is flat.
I hope I get a response...
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 20, 2015, 03:29:09 PM
If space travel is truly a conspiracy theory, and the world is actually flat, would space travel be possible on a flat world?
If so, how has is not happened yet?

Space travel is not possible. The government needs it to be possible, which is why they've created a conspiracy to convince people that it is.

How can you prove that space travel is a conspiracy?
How can you truly prove that the earth is flat.
I hope I get a response...

There is a Conspiracy page in the Wiki here: http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: LuggerSailor on January 20, 2015, 11:47:05 PM
They now use GPS, satellite based.

GPS is not satellite based. It is based on sonar technology. Similar to mapping the oceans. Sonar travels through the air, bounces off weather balloons fixed with reflectors, then hits the geography below to map the land. There might be one or two stratellites involved. It's really that simple.
Got any evidence to back up these claims? How about some photographs of your weather balloons fitted with reflectors or your stratellites?
If it is "really that simple" then show us.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Ghost of V on January 20, 2015, 11:50:18 PM
Got any evidence to back up these claims? How about some photographs of your weather balloons fitted with reflectors or your stratellites?
If it is "really that simple" then show us.

(http://i.imgur.com/tag53hC.jpg)
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Rama Set on January 21, 2015, 02:29:30 PM
They now use GPS, satellite based.

GPS is not satellite based. It is based on sonar technology. Similar to mapping the oceans. Sonar travels through the air, bounces off weather balloons fixed with reflectors, then hits the geography below to map the land. There might be one or two stratellites involved. It's really that simple.

You might want to rethink your troll theory to make it more viable.  For example, once, the sound waves reflect off the geography you refer to, how is that data then collected, interpreted and imaged?
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: markjo on January 21, 2015, 05:54:33 PM
They now use GPS, satellite based.

GPS is not satellite based. It is based on sonar technology. Similar to mapping the oceans. Sonar travels through the air, bounces off weather balloons fixed with reflectors, then hits the geography below to map the land. There might be one or two stratellites involved. It's really that simple.

You might want to rethink your troll theory to make it more viable.  For example, once, the sound waves reflect off the geography you refer to, how is that data then collected, interpreted and imaged?

A better question might be, why does he think that GPS is a mapping system?
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Ghost of V on January 21, 2015, 06:46:06 PM
They now use GPS, satellite based.

GPS is not satellite based. It is based on sonar technology. Similar to mapping the oceans. Sonar travels through the air, bounces off weather balloons fixed with reflectors, then hits the geography below to map the land. There might be one or two stratellites involved. It's really that simple.

You might want to rethink your troll theory to make it more viable.  For example, once, the sound waves reflect off the geography you refer to, how is that data then collected, interpreted and imaged?

The data is sent back to the balloons. The data is then processed and sent to ground receivers via the internet.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Rama Set on January 21, 2015, 06:46:44 PM
A better question might be, why does he think that GPS is a mapping system?

troll theory
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Rama Set on January 21, 2015, 06:49:14 PM
They now use GPS, satellite based.

GPS is not satellite based. It is based on sonar technology. Similar to mapping the oceans. Sonar travels through the air, bounces off weather balloons fixed with reflectors, then hits the geography below to map the land. There might be one or two stratellites involved. It's really that simple.

You might want to rethink your troll theory to make it more viable.  For example, once, the sound waves reflect off the geography you refer to, how is that data then collected, interpreted and imaged?

The data is sent back to the balloons. The data is then processed and sent to ground receivers via the internet.
A diagram of this would be fascinating.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Ghost of V on January 21, 2015, 06:55:14 PM
A diagram of this would be fascinating.

Do you have a better theory that doesn't involve satellites?


I will work on the diagram.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Rama Set on January 21, 2015, 07:44:45 PM
A diagram of this would be fascinating.

Do you have a better theory that doesn't involve satellites?


I will work on the diagram.

Obviously not.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: LuggerSailor on January 24, 2015, 10:53:46 AM
Got any evidence to back up these claims? How about some photographs of your weather balloons fitted with reflectors or your stratellites?
If it is "really that simple" then show us.

(http://i.imgur.com/tag53hC.jpg)
You do realize that Sonar uses sound waves but your picture depicts a weather balloon carrying a Radar reflector.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Ghost of V on January 24, 2015, 11:35:55 PM
You do realize that Sonar uses sound waves but your picture depicts a weather balloon carrying a Radar reflector.

It may look like a radar reflector, but it is actually a hybrid of both a radar and sonar device. Both methods are used in gathering and creating data.
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Gulliver on January 25, 2015, 02:49:30 AM
You do realize that Sonar uses sound waves but your picture depicts a weather balloon carrying a Radar reflector.

It may look like a radar reflector, but it is actually a hybrid of both a radar and sonar device. Both methods are used in gathering and creating data.
Given your history of not providing citations and believing that you need only say something to be credible, I hesitate asking, but do: Citations please. How did you determine that it;s a sonar device? What microphone could possibly hear sound reflected off such a device? Where is that diagram you committed to? Can you reproduce such data gathering and creating? Where is your data?
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: Roger1998 on February 05, 2015, 12:02:21 AM
You do realize that Sonar uses sound waves but your picture depicts a weather balloon carrying a Radar reflector.

It may look like a radar reflector, but it is actually a hybrid of both a radar and sonar device. Both methods are used in gathering and creating data.
Given your history of not providing citations and believing that you need only say something to be credible, I hesitate asking, but do: Citations please. How did you determine that it;s a sonar device? What microphone could possibly hear sound reflected off such a device? Where is that diagram you committed to? Can you reproduce such data gathering and creating? Where is your data?
Sounds awesome, do it now,
Title: Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
Post by: midatlantis on May 06, 2015, 09:53:01 PM
You do realize that Sonar uses sound waves but your picture depicts a weather balloon carrying a Radar reflector.

It may look like a radar reflector, but it is actually a hybrid of both a radar and sonar device. Both methods are used in gathering and creating data.
Given your history of not providing citations and believing that you need only say something to be credible, I hesitate asking, but do: Citations please. How did you determine that it;s a sonar device? What microphone could possibly hear sound reflected off such a device? Where is that diagram you committed to? Can you reproduce such data gathering and creating? Where is your data?

I'm eager to see what work Vauxhall has accomplished to this end in the last three months. Was it put into another thread? A search for "sonar" yields nothing more recent than this discussion. Thanks!