41

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Seasons. How do they work on flat earth?

« on: November 20, 2017, 05:05:10 PM »

By what mechanism does the sun shift its orbit? How does it speed up and slow down to account for the dramatically different orbital sizes?

Therein lies the great mcguffin

42

Flat Earth Theory / Re: New here. How do you explain this?

« on: November 20, 2017, 04:56:54 PM »

Given the level of fraud the FE faithful suggest, there is a great opportunity for them here. There are "whistle blower" laws [...]

What an awesome opportunity [...]

What an awesome opportunity to get murdered in cold blood, as previous whistleblowers have. Please, I know you're trying to be generous, but you can take all the glory on that one.

Unlike Wikipedia proper, your wiki lacks a significant amount of references. Reading that page is a pain. The whole thing reads like a conspiracy manifesto. Doing further research on Thomas Baron, it would appear he wasn't attempting to claim NASA is fake, instead he was trying to show congress that the majority of accidents that happened to the early Apollo program could have been avoided if they were more safety-oriented. The train accident was deemed a freak accident, even with a civilian witness. Your article infers too much, and references little.

43

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Proof?

« on: November 20, 2017, 02:16:04 PM »

Did you try this page: Experimental Evidence

On there, it lists a few things plus links to other websites with info.

A lot of the "proof" FE will give is simply empirical evidence of "Earth looks flat from my perspective, therefore it must be flat." Any further evidence as to the actual physics, shape, or map of the "Plane Earth" comes up wanting.

Good luck on your quest though.

44

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Proof?

« on: November 20, 2017, 01:03:40 PM »

To prevent repetitive postings: Search the forum, and refer to the WIKI

45

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Seasons. How do they work on flat earth?

« on: November 20, 2017, 12:59:28 PM »

Refer to the WIKI

46

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I am doing a report on The Flat Earth Movement. I have few opinionated questions

« on: November 20, 2017, 12:37:17 AM »

1 and 2 deal with perspective of sorts.

3) depending on if you use the bipolar map, the circumnavigation lines up the same (albeit confusingly)

4) Cell towers are limited in range, not because of the curvature of earth, but limitations in radio-wave broadcasting.

Is there a reason number 5 has strike-through? The answer to that is simply Universal Acceleration is identical to the effect of gravity.

Also, Columbus believed in a pear-shaped earth not a flat or oblate spheroid.

I'm sure you'll get further detailed answers in a short while.

47

Flat Earth Theory / Re: New here. How do you explain this?

« on: November 19, 2017, 09:17:08 PM »

In all truth, NASA only receives about 0.5% of the federal budget. While that is still a large amount, the VA gets roughly 1.2% of the budget. The DoD gets roughly 13% of the budget.

Not to mention some of the things that came from NASA research.

Burden of proof has yet to be established that they just "pocket" billions of dollars. Thus, it remains a conspiracy theory that holds little merit.

48

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is and isn't proof

« on: November 19, 2017, 08:28:35 PM »

Just curious Tom, how do you empirically prove the Earth continues beyond the horizon?

49

Flat Earth Community / Re: Online Interview- The Subject of Flat Earth in the Class Room

« on: November 19, 2017, 07:00:06 PM »

Personally I just like slashing up demons and this site has dozens of them.

Scary: "There are a few people who spend 8 hours a day 7 days a week who are probably paid by some form of govt / agency."

I buy this, slash-boink-kick, this is J-Man.....

J-Man, you appear to be the embodiment of Poe's Law, and hinder all forms of constructive discussions.

50

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Satellites

« on: November 19, 2017, 06:55:41 PM »

Nothing is in orbit ever.  If you can barely see a commercial airliner at 35,000 feet in the air the balloons would be unnoticeable from our point of view on the ground without a form of scoped magnification.

Like a telescope, maybe?  Good thing there are lots of people with telescopes capturing the ISS when it transits in front of the moon.


And other people (well, probably the SAME people) doing the same thing during solar transits.

You know what nobody ever sees?  Balloons!

I couldn't stop laughing at these two pics. I'm telling you, drink enough kool-aid, snort enough chemtrails and you will believe this stuff. 1/2 of society is borderline tarded. I've been to walmart.

Do you have anything constructive to say, or do you insist on flooding all these posts with your nonsensical postings?

51

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Satellites

« on: November 19, 2017, 06:23:20 PM »

https://www.space.com/38766-jpss1-weather-satellite-launch-success.html
A polar-orbiting satellite with data transmission. First of 4. Data should help with more accurate weather predictions. Actual data to be processed by NOAA.

52

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: To make this place more civilised for Round Earthers

« on: November 19, 2017, 05:44:14 PM »

I could understand why you'd want to avoid having an RET forum section.

However, I think it would DRASTICALLY cut down on the number of repeats of the same argument if there was a place where the most common criticisms of FET could be "stickied" so that newbies who think they've just discovered a new disproof of FET could be directed towards.

So perhaps a "COMMON CRITICISMS" section?

I don't know who would decide which criticisms are worthy of being stickied...but I'm sure some mechanism could be devised.  This would actually help both sides of the debate.

Or they could update the FAQ with questions that are frequently answered in the forum. That way, a simpler response would be to reference the FAQ/Wiki (both of which should be updated)

53

Flat Earth Theory / Occam's Razor

« on: November 19, 2017, 02:51:41 PM »

According to the wiki, the Flat Earth theory is favoured by Occam's Razor. The bullet points it makes shows that the page was written with bias (duh!).

I present the counter presentation, allowing all to formulate their own conclusion from the information. My data set shall have the same burden of proof as the wiki.

Regarding gravity: which assumes less: The "plane earth" is accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s/s by an unknown, unending force; or a "round earth" constrained by a hypothetical construct that seems to apply to observed celestial objects?

Regarding the space hoax: which assumes less: NASA is a government body that, working with *all* government bodies, has perpetuated a space hoax; or NASA, as well as other space organizations, through extensive trial-and-error, has managed to launch terrestrial objects into space.

Regarding Solar movement: which assumes less: A Sun, 31-miles across, 3000 miles high, is traveling on a predetermined path by an unknown force, held in the sky by an equally unknown force; or the earth rotates at a given speed, causing a miniscule observer on the surface to witness a "setting/rising" sun.

Regarding space: which assumes less: all the celestial bodies are stationary, or are set to travel a predetermined path, by an unknown force, being held in the sky by an equally unknown force; or there is a whole universe of celestial bodies operating under similar laws of physics.

54

Flat Earth Theory / Re: In the bipolar map - what is around the edge?

« on: November 15, 2017, 12:19:04 AM »

I think the problem of the sun jumping back to the other side is a simple one, have two suns at opposite sides and one switches off and sneaks back as the other one switches on and continues.

Roger

I was thinking of this model a little bit ago, but it doesn't work with either the infinite plane, nor the UA model. That leaves the finite plane, which contradicts gravity.

55

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: so - I don't understand pictures of people parachuting . . .

« on: November 14, 2017, 09:05:23 PM »

Hello friend. Remember That the earth is not completely flat like this ______ but rather is curved up a little bit and so you can this small discrepancy from these heights.

Um... what? Where is the info on this "flat but convex" theory?

56

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat earth view of longitude - no round earth distractions please.

« on: November 14, 2017, 08:45:58 PM »

The celestial bodies operate in patterns in the Flat Earth model. The latitude lines upon the earth are also a pattern. It is possible to figure out the output of one pattern by correlating it with another.

Can you draw that pattern out on a piece of (flat) paper and conclude a flat earth map from that pattern that also lines up with other data like flight paths and such?

57

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The sun ?

« on: November 14, 2017, 08:40:22 PM »

I want a FE to explain why the north pole, if at the center, is so cold as well as the south pole edge

In that model, it is equidistant from the equator, where the sun travels, so it is relatively the same conditions, just in a "smaller" area.

58

Flat Earth Theory / Re: In the bipolar map - what is around the edge?

« on: November 14, 2017, 08:17:04 PM »

When the sun travels along the equator (the straight line going left to right) does it then do a pac-man move and just jump to the other side of the map?

59

Flat Earth Theory / Re: In the bipolar map - what is around the edge?

« on: November 14, 2017, 07:01:59 PM »

Presumably water beyond the sun's light would naturally freeze, but the matter is TBD.

How would one go about reaching this frozen water?

60

Flat Earth Theory / Re: An experiment I want every single one of you to explain

« on: November 14, 2017, 05:06:50 PM »

In which case, I should be able to see it 24 hours a day, or at least, it would stay above the horizon but get dimmer. 

Here you go:

Increasing your altitude changes your perspective lines and allows you to see more distant lands. It will take a further amount of land to reach the Vanishing Point.

This is why it would take longer for the sun to set while you are at higher altitudes, and why the sun can be restored by rapidly increasing your altitude immediately after sunset.

Technically the explanation for why the sun sets at higher altitudes is also "waves," and whatnot. The perspective lines meet at the horizon and are perfect, but the surface of the earth is not perfect. Any slight increase  in height near the Vanishing Point will allow something to disappear further behind it, much like a dime can obscure an elephant.

I won't be around any longer. I assure you that you can do some simple searches to find answers to your queries.

Tom Bishop with the mic drop. lol

Tom, before you depart, can you maybe post a diagram of perspectives at different heights for future reference?