1

Flat Earth Community / Re: How would you promote the society if we were funded?

« on: October 13, 2016, 08:45:23 PM »

Here are two ideas.

(1) I am more familiar with sailing in and out of San Diego, so I am just using it as an example.
You could disprove the curvature of the earth by hiring a boat or taking a cruise boat and taking pictures at one mile intervals showing that no matter how far you sail out to sea you can always see down to shore line at Point Loma instead of each mile showing that you would gradually be seeing only the peak of Point Loma. I would suggest using infra-red film with the proper filter to eliminate any problems with haze and/or atmospherics. I have played around with this and know that it works and I am just an amateur photographer. If you could disprove the curvature of the earth this would be a giant step for The Flat Earth Society. Of course there is the  old problem of denial of the results if they should prove the curvature of the earth to be true. This shouldn't cost more than a few hundred dollars.

(2) You could just drop any pretense of the earth being flat if you were really honest. The Flat Earth Society could just be a website to present ideas about "If the earth was truly flat, let us hear your ideas of how things would have to be." Sort of a website for fictional stories. You might even attract more visitors to the website this way.

Just an afterthought. How about a project to disprove the measurements of the distance from the earth to the moon by those ham radio operators and astronomical observatories ?

How would 1 work? Round or flat you would always get the same result, whatever you view vanishes. I haven't seen anyone post actual evidence that zooming in reveals objects past the horizon. Legitimate question Btw

2

Flat Earth Community / Re: Merely mistaken

« on: October 13, 2016, 08:42:59 PM »

None of us truly knows. Anyone on this forum who claims they know the absolute truth is a damn dirty liar and delusional as well. Unless you are God you personally will never with 100% certainty know.

  No one can argue that because literally Zero people here have seen the full earth with their own eyes. This entire thread is a moot point and also just bait for people to be trolled.

I don't know about the 100% certainty, but I  believe anyone with a reasonable knowledge of geography plus a reasonable amount of some experience knows that the earth is a globe to a  reasonable amount of certainty. 
And I believe that anyone knows that earth is not some flat disc to a reasonable  amount of certainty.
I also believe that most people believe that this website is just another "spoof website" to a reasonable amount of certainty.

Here is another question for The Flat Earth Society.
On the flat earth, how is the distance to the horizon calculated ?

I have never seen the Eiffel Tower with my own eyes. But I have seen it in pictures in movies and photographs. Does that mean that I don't know it exists to a 100% certainty ?

Technically yes? But to argue on that is redundant hairsplitting. I was just making a pointless point.

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Falling upward?

« on: October 13, 2016, 04:54:03 PM »

Also if everything of substance is only on Earth then what exactly is pushing against us to keep us on the ground? Better yet how can just a downward force equal at all points keep objects of such varying masses equally stuck to Earth? If it was that, then shouldn't everything react completely different under the same force?

No. Earth's gravity makes all objects fall towards the center at approx 9.8m/s^2. Gravitational pull differs with altitude. That is, distance from the center of the Earth. That's why objects weigh less on top of mount everest than at sea level.

Yep that's the gist of it...It was directed at FE'ers though with all assumption of the shape being a disk. It was a hypothetical.

4

Flat Earth Community / Re: How would you promote the society if we were funded?

« on: October 13, 2016, 02:41:21 AM »

Certainly wouldn't do something so foolish as to spend $10,000+ on proving right a theory that no one will believe anyway. Seems better to write a book/novel, make a real documentary about it with actual consistent FE'ers and not the loons you find on the forums.

  A magazine maybe? Probably pay to have a corrected lensed camera, several most likely, be attached to the outside of a SpaceX or NASA rocket but more likely SpaceX.

 Start a FlatCon. I could go on and on.

5

Flat Earth Community / Re: Interview

« on: October 13, 2016, 02:36:15 AM »

I'm up for it if you get around to me. Not 'exactly' a FE'er but not..not one either. Should make for a decent bit of conversation.

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Please explain Earth's shadow on the moon.

« on: October 13, 2016, 02:33:16 AM »

I say that until there is one single unifying theory of the FE then anything said about it is bunk because it just contradicts the next FE'er and so on making any and all discussion on the topic an infinite loop of misinformation and insults.

7

Flat Earth Community / Re: Merely mistaken

« on: October 13, 2016, 02:27:12 AM »

None of us truly knows. Anyone on this forum who claims they know the absolute truth is a damn dirty liar and delusional as well. Unless you are God you personally will never with 100% certainty know.

  No one can argue that because literally Zero people here have seen the full earth with their own eyes. This entire thread is a moot point and also just bait for people to be trolled.

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Falling upward?

« on: October 13, 2016, 01:51:36 AM »

Also if everything of substance is only on Earth then what exactly is pushing against us to keep us on the ground? Better yet how can just a downward force equal at all points keep objects of such varying masses equally stuck to Earth? If it was that, then shouldn't everything react completely different under the same force?

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon question

« on: October 12, 2016, 12:57:30 PM »

Hello

(excuse my bad english, I am french) I want to explore the theorie of flat earth. I have question about moon. When I see the flat earth model, moon would show differents faces in same time on earth (full for some people, half for other...) How can you explain that please ?

If their are some people who talk french I am interest by mailing about flat earth.

Thank you / Merci !

Sorry no French  but in my eyes, if the earth were flat and the moon was just circling above then it would be impossible to not see the back of it.

10

Flat Earth Media / Re: All of my working will be here

« on: October 12, 2016, 04:34:55 AM »

Saving this space for future reply. Dear God I wish I had the words right now...

11

Flat Earth Media / Re: What's on the underside of the Earth?

« on: October 12, 2016, 04:32:57 AM »

That was legitimately one of the best things I have ever read. Seriously.

12

Flat Earth Community / Re: Merely mistaken

« on: October 12, 2016, 04:17:58 AM »

Believing what I believe doesn't change the way everything works. Let me just point out that unless you are off the Earth and looking down on it yourself, you will never know what it actually is. Its just not possible. We are too small.

13

Flat Earth Theory / Re: No Stars

« on: October 12, 2016, 04:13:45 AM »

Quick answer: The dense atmosphere of earth means little to no exposure time because the light is being reflected through the gasses.

 In space where there is very little gas in any given area, the camera must focus longer to get the same amount of light entering it. If there was a thick medium for the light to travel through it would be easier and would take far less time.
 
 The fact that we can see stars through the atmosphere of earth is simple to explain: Earth has been getting billions of years of light exposure.

Sorry, but no. The presence of an atmosphere does not make a camera focus faster. Less atmosphere means MORE light from the stars reaches the camera, not less. The real explanation has been given several times on this thread. It has to do with brightness of the stars relative to the thing you are photographing.

Seriously I just repeated what Phil Plait said. That's a bit worrisome to be honest.

Source? I suspect you just misunderstood him. In general, this part is technically true: "camera must focus longer to get the same amount of light entering it". However, that is because there is more AMBIENT light, not more star light. If you want to look at the stars, ambient light is bad.

Compare stargazing in a big city to out in the woods. Thicker atmosphere (smog) + more ambient light = fewer stars.

Will be hard to give you the exact source right now. I'm on my phone, Matthew took out the power in the area. It was on a Crash Course Astronomy episode I believe. I'll source it as soon as I can if you still want it by then.

  Yes I probably did misunderstand him. I tend to research far too much at once so things get crossed.

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: It shouldn't be that hard to settle whether the earth is round.

« on: October 12, 2016, 04:10:42 AM »

If it was flat then clouds would go on at basically the same level forever.
  The fact is that the further away a cloud is from you, you will see tops recede downward. Instead of just going on and on level forever

 

15

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I can debunk everything with round earth just ask

« on: October 12, 2016, 03:56:36 AM »

Round earth is based on science, science is the way to fool people and to fool human beings

  Says the one using the science of the internet to voice their opinion and get people to believe what they say. Using science to say it. Alright.

16

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is the motive for concealing the "true" shape of the earth?

« on: October 12, 2016, 03:53:42 AM »

Its legitimately the gist of what you will learn by asking that question.

17

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does the moon show the same face everywhere?

« on: October 12, 2016, 03:52:47 AM »

There is no flat answer.hyuk hyuk

Also if the Earth was flat and the moon was flying above it...then someone would certainly have seen the back of it by now..

18

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is the motive for concealing the "true" shape of the earth?

« on: October 12, 2016, 03:41:36 AM »

Something Something Satan Reasons.

19

Flat Earth Theory / Re: No Stars

« on: October 12, 2016, 03:40:21 AM »

Quick answer: The dense atmosphere of earth means little to no exposure time because the light is being reflected through the gasses.

 In space where there is very little gas in any given area, the camera must focus longer to get the same amount of light entering it. If there was a thick medium for the light to travel through it would be easier and would take far less time.
 
 The fact that we can see stars through the atmosphere of earth is simple to explain: Earth has been getting billions of years of light exposure.

Sorry, but no. The presence of an atmosphere does not make a camera focus faster. Less atmosphere means MORE light from the stars reaches the camera, not less. The real explanation has been given several times on this thread. It has to do with brightness of the stars relative to the thing you are photographing.

Seriously I just repeated what Phil Plait said. That's a bit worrisome to be honest.

20

Flat Earth Theory / Falling upward?

« on: October 12, 2016, 03:35:54 AM »

  Simple thought. What exactly is 'Falling' here? The disk earth with the ice ring around it? The infinite plane? Is the firmament also falling?

  Also why doesn't the air and such just flow over the edge and into the nothingness? Surely if there's force keeping us on the Earth because we are falling then anything not on the surface should be pushed outward toward the edge correct?