The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: BillyBob on January 17, 2014, 01:02:10 AM
-
prove me wrong.
-
Certainly. I suggest you read the FAQ, linked in my signature. We have quite a bit of indisputable experimental evidence, including the Bedford Level Experiment, which I highly suggest learning about
-
You people could look at pictures of the earth on the internet. We have seen it. Don't be so dumb.
-
You people could look at pictures of the earth on the internet. We have seen it. Don't be so dumb.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7f/Tatooine.jpg/300px-Tatooine.jpg)
This is a picture of Tatooine from the internet. It is not a real place, and yet photos of it are plentiful. Don't be naive.
-
You people could look at pictures of the earth on the internet. We have seen it. Don't be so dumb.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7f/Tatooine.jpg/300px-Tatooine.jpg)
This is a picture of Tatooine from the internet. It is not a real place, and yet photos of it are plentiful. Don't be naive.
That isn't a photograph of Tatooine, it's a computer generated rendering of Tatooine. No one is claiming that any planets outside of our solar system have been imaged in that level of detail, so please refrain from straw man arguments.
-
It also looks fake. Please try again.
-
It also looks fake. Please try again.
The point stands that photographs are not empirical evidence. I'm afraid it is you who is going to have to try again.
-
The point stands that photographs are not empirical evidence.
Then why are they used as evidence in criminal trials all the time? Also, are you suggesting that only empirical evidence is valid evidence?
-
You people could look at pictures of the earth on the internet. We have seen it. Don't be so dumb.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7f/Tatooine.jpg/300px-Tatooine.jpg)
This is a picture of Tatooine from the internet. It is not a real place, and yet photos of it are plentiful. Don't be naive.
That isn't a photograph of Tatooine, it's a computer generated rendering of Tatooine. No one is claiming that any planets outside of our solar system have been imaged in that level of detail, so please refrain from straw man arguments.
Why did you follow us all here from theflatearthsociety.org?
-
He makes a valid point. It is obviously fake, as it was never meant to be a realistic portrait of a planet.
-
The point stands that photographs are not empirical evidence.
Then why are they used as evidence in criminal trials all the time? Also, are you suggesting that only empirical evidence is valid evidence?
By definition, zeteticism relies upon empiral evidence, meaning evidence which is directly observed. I'm not a lawyer and would prefer not to comment on the judicial system.
-
markjo has a point. Every picture is rejected unless it shows that the earth is flat. This seems to be the modus operandi of the flat earth freaks.
-
By definition, zeteticism relies upon empiral evidence, meaning evidence which is directly observed.
Who's definition of zeteticism are you referring to?
-
markjo has a point. Every picture is rejected unless it shows that the earth is flat. This seems to be the modus operandi of the flat earth freaks.
My modus operandi is to learn by experiencing, by observing, and by doing. If I were to ask you what you know about the earth and the cosmos - and let's be clear, I mean what you yourself actually know to be true, and not what you have been taught, or read, or otherwise chosen to believe - you'd find that the answer is surprisingly little.
To paraphrase something a fellow member said a few years ago: Simply accepting a fact as someone else has given it to you is amazingly naive, and shows a disappointing lack of curiosity.
We're all taught to believe the earth is round, and most of us accept this as fact, because we're all too lazy to figure out if it's actually true or not.
Here at the Flat Earth Society, we're interested in the pursuit of actual knowledge. Ours is a much more noble cause than that of the Wikipedia historian, or Youtube cosmologist who seem to enjoy debating us so.
-
I am building a computer. So, now I need to start from the beginning and I can't build upon other peoples research? This is retarded.
-
I am building a computer. So, now I need to start from the beginning and I can't build upon other peoples research? This is retarded.
Your lack of sensitivity to the mentally handicapped is noted, and speaks volumes about your character.
You can certainly take other peoples' research into account, I always do, but in your rather illogical analogous example of building a computer, there isn't any guarantee at all that your experience with any individual part is going to be the same as the researcher's. In the end, direct experience is all you have that gives you actual knowledge.
-
Then, why did you imply that I must do all of the research on my own? Why can I not just use the information that is available?
-
Then, why did you imply that I must do all of the research on my own? Why can I not just use the information that is available?
Well, aside from the fact that you seem to have reading comprehension difficulties, as stated before - you CAN, but with the knowledge that said research may or may not be accurate. What you choose is up to you, but your experience may be entirely different.
-
I don't need to do research in order to build an electrical circuit. Why? Because people have been making electrical circuits for hundreds of years, and I can learn from them, unlike you zetetics.
-
I don't need to do research in order to build an electrical circuit. Why? Because people have been making electrical circuits for hundreds of years, and I can learn from them, unlike you zetetics.
No, a Zetetic will build the circuit and go "Oh, that works, nice". A Zetetic won't say "Other people claim to have walked on the moon so it must be true".
-
I learn from my predecessors. Zetetics seem to just ignore all logic and reason. You tell me the earth is flat and then tell me to do experiments, when millions of experiments have been done already.
-
Make a thread about such an experiment and we will shoot it to bits.
-
Shoot anything I say to bits. The fact is that you people are in denial. What can you shoot to bits about anything I say? Nothing, that is what.
-
Pick an experiment. Put your money where your mouth is.
-
What about civilians going into space? What is your lame excuse for that?
-
What, like the secretary at work or the milkman? Are these civilians regular people that you can ask about it, or media creations no more civilian than Neil Armstrong?
One of my specialities is Space Tourism, and its fraudulent aspects, but that really is a thread of its own.
-
Civilians have been to space, you nut.
-
No, delegates from marketing companies and government stooges have claimed to have gone into space. I could claim to be ten feet tall. But you wouldn't then rush off telling everyone you spoke to a guy who was ten feet tall on the internet.
You need to be a little more selective about the things you are told. Otherwise you just end up being gullible.
-
I don't need to do research in order to build an electrical circuit. Why? Because people have been making electrical circuits for hundreds of years, and I can learn from them, unlike you zetetics.
So when you talk to people who have been building planets, then you can apply that analogy. I am sure planet-builders have a wealth of experience on the makeup and shape of what they build.
-
Mark Shuttleworth, the creator of Ubuntu.
-
Mark Shuttleworth, the creator of Ubuntu.
Who happened to have a long conversation with Nelson Mandela, the leader of a large country which several years later established its own arm of NASA, while he was in "space"
Also, the creator of Ubuntu is hardly your average joe. Try again.
-
Are you claiming that Shuttleworth did not go into space? He spent a lot of money in order to be tricked into thinking so.
-
Are you claiming that Shuttleworth did not go into space? He spent a lot of money in order to be tricked into thinking so.
Or, alternatively, was paid of lot of money (or paid in other things, or even simply blackmailed) to claim he had gone into space.
-
Are you saying he was raped or forced into prostitution?
-
Are you saying he was raped or forced into prostitution?
??? Where did you get that from?
-
You claim that he was forced to say he went to space, or that he was tricked. Do you have any proof? ???
-
You claim that he was forced to say he went to space, or that he was tricked. Do you have any proof? ???
It's a simple process of deduction. He claims to have gone into space. One cannot actually go into space. Therefore, he is lying. Why is he lying? Well, he had a long phone call with a prominent world leader who was associated with the NASA conspiracy. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that he was in some way influenced by the conspiracy. Perhaps they threatened his family. Perhaps they offered him money. Perhaps they knew about what he did that time in Thailand. We can only speculate.
-
That computers work is evidence of the functionality of electrical circuits, so no, you don't need to research circuitry. However, there is no such evidence that proves that the earth is round. It is an assumption.
-
Shuttleworth is very rich. I wonder what the incentive is for him to lie.
-
You claim that he was forced to say he went to space, or that he was tricked. Do you have any proof? ???
It's a simple process of deduction. He claims to have gone into space. One cannot actually go into space. Therefore, he is lying. Why is he lying? Well, he had a long phone call with a prominent world leader who was associated with the NASA conspiracy. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that he was in some way influenced by the conspiracy. Perhaps they threatened his family. Perhaps they offered him money. Perhaps they knew about what he did that time in Thailand. We can only speculate.
Bad premises in here. There is evidence you can go in to space. If a premises is false so is the conclusion.
-
You claim that he was forced to say he went to space, or that he was tricked. Do you have any proof? ???
It's a simple process of deduction. He claims to have gone into space. One cannot actually go into space. Therefore, he is lying. Why is he lying? Well, he had a long phone call with a prominent world leader who was associated with the NASA conspiracy. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that he was in some way influenced by the conspiracy. Perhaps they threatened his family. Perhaps they offered him money. Perhaps they knew about what he did that time in Thailand. We can only speculate.
Bad premises in here. There is evidence you can go in to space. If a premises is false so is the conclusion.
Petitio principii. You're saying that people who claim to go into space must be telling the truth because people claim to go into space, and those people must be telling the truth because people claim to go into space?
Evidence shows that the Earth is flat. If the Earth is flat, spaceflight must be impossible. Ispo facto, spaceflight is impossible and supposed astronauts are simply lying.
Shuttleworth is very rich. I wonder what the incentive is for him to lie.
He has a family and the conspiracy has guns. It is also possible that he committed some crime or scandalous action and that the conspiracy used it to put pressure on him. Maybe they even threatened to destroy his company. Rich and important men are the easiest to manipulate.
-
You can argue that pictures are not real, but even without them RET has more evidence than wild speculation, which is all this thread can come up with regards to FET. Does anyone have any actual evidence that this Ubuntu guy was influenced by NASA, other than the fact that he had a conversation with them? Anyone can wildly speculate. I think he was called by NASA because they were looking to upgrade the OS of the International Space Station. It was already upgraded from Windows to Linux, surely the next logical step would be Ubuntu? That is how you guys take a tiny piece of evidence, and twist it so it matches your theory.
-
Evidence shows that the Earth is flat.
What evidence?
This? (from a Bedford level experiment, signed off as correct by a FE representative)
(http://darwin-online.org.uk/converted/Ancillary/1905_Wallace_A237/1905_Wallace_A237.2_fig400.jpg)
Hmm, no...
Perhaps this one? (also from a Bedford level experiment, also signed off as correct by a FE representative)
(http://darwin-online.org.uk/converted/Ancillary/1905_Wallace_A237/1905_Wallace_A237.2_fig401.jpg)
No, not that one either...
I know!
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/58/Sunset_2007-1.jpg/320px-Sunset_2007-1.jpg)
No, that's no good either...
Solar eclipses? Lunar eclipses? Flights from YSSY to KLAX? Midnight sun at the Amundsen-Scott station (for 6 months)? Cyclones and hurricanes? Tides? Coriolis corrections for artillery? The ISS (visible with a good telescope)?
No wonder so few people take the FEH seriously...
-
You claim that he was forced to say he went to space, or that he was tricked. Do you have any proof? ???
It's a simple process of deduction. He claims to have gone into space. One cannot actually go into space. Therefore, he is lying. Why is he lying? Well, he had a long phone call with a prominent world leader who was associated with the NASA conspiracy. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that he was in some way influenced by the conspiracy. Perhaps they threatened his family. Perhaps they offered him money. Perhaps they knew about what he did that time in Thailand. We can only speculate.
Bad premises in here. There is evidence you can go in to space. If a premises is false so is the conclusion.
Petitio principii. You're saying that people who claim to go into space must be telling the truth because people claim to go into space, and those people must be telling the truth because people claim to go into space?
No that is not what I am saying. I have previously mentioned independent methods of confirming space travel. However, you are just asserting space travel is impossible with no evidence.
Evidence shows that the Earth is flat. If the Earth is flat, spaceflight must be impossible. Ispo facto, spaceflight is impossible and supposed astronauts are simply lying.
You clarified a bad argument with a bad argument. The Earth being flat does not automatically preclude space flight being possible so your conclusion does not follow.
-
You claim that he was forced to say he went to space, or that he was tricked. Do you have any proof? ???
It's a simple process of deduction. He claims to have gone into space. One cannot actually go into space. Therefore, he is lying. Why is he lying? Well, he had a long phone call with a prominent world leader who was associated with the NASA conspiracy. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that he was in some way influenced by the conspiracy. Perhaps they threatened his family. Perhaps they offered him money. Perhaps they knew about what he did that time in Thailand. We can only speculate.
Bad premises in here. There is evidence you can go in to space. If a premises is false so is the conclusion.
Petitio principii. You're saying that people who claim to go into space must be telling the truth because people claim to go into space, and those people must be telling the truth because people claim to go into space?
No that is not what I am saying. I have previously mentioned independent methods of confirming space travel. However, you are just asserting space travel is impossible with no evidence.
Evidence shows that the Earth is flat. If the Earth is flat, spaceflight must be impossible. Ispo facto, spaceflight is impossible and supposed astronauts are simply lying.
You clarified a bad argument with a bad argument. The Earth being flat does not automatically preclude space flight being possible so your conclusion does not follow.
Nor is the implication that it is established that the Earth is flat. That certainly isn't the case unless you deny everything and only consider the weak evidence offered by FE.
-
Shuttleworth is very rich. I wonder what the incentive is for him to lie.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenStack
"In July 2010 Rackspace Hosting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rackspace) and NASA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA) jointly launched an open-source cloud-software initiative known as OpenStack. The OpenStack project intended to help organizations offer cloud-computing services running on standard hardware. The community's first official release, code-named Austin, appeared four months later, with plans to release regular updates of the software every few months. The early code came from NASA's Nebula (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebula_%28computing_platform%29) platform as well as from Rackspace's Cloud Files platform (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rackspace_Cloud#Cloud_Files). In 2011, developers of the Ubuntu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_%28operating_system%29) Linux distribution decided to adopt OpenStack,[13] with an unsupported technology preview of Bexar for Ubuntu 11.04 "Natty Narwhal". [14] Ubuntu's sponsor Canonical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_Ltd.) then introduced full support for OpenStack clouds, starting with OpenStack's Cactus release."
Don't you find it odd that Ubuntu would suddenly support something NASA has developed so quickly after it's creation?
It is also a widely known fact that NASA uses a lot of Linux systems.
Now, Mr. Shuttleworth's (even that sounds suspicious) entire wealth is based on Ubuntu's success. Right now Ubuntu is just another distro that's bloated. But what do you think the following news line would do...
"NASA sends men to the moon with Ubuntu!"
By supporting OpenStack, a NASA creation, NASA has a very easy to accept motivation for switching all of their systems from Red Hat to Ubuntu.
Plus...
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/08/why-ubuntus-creator-still-invests-his-fortune-in-an-unprofitable-company/
"OpenStack, an open source project, was developed by Rackspace and NASA, not Canonical. But OpenStack was built on Ubuntu, making it the software's default operating system."
Oh and..
"Yet "six or seven of the world's biggest telcos currently have Ubuntu OpenStack clouds in operation," Shuttleworth said. Some of them "are on firm commercial terms," and others are "finalizing the terms of an engagement." Even better, these are the same types of companies that could partner with Ubuntu to bring mobile phones to market. "
The man has been pouring money into his company like water because it's not self sufficient. But now here comes NASA and suddenly he's got his OS in high profile telephone companies which in turn gives him leverage for his Ubuntu phone (which the software is finished and can be deployed on a variety of phones).
So you ask what moviation he would have? How about saving his company?
-
Mark Shuttleworth was a millionaire many years before Ubuntu was even a computer term. He paid to go to space many years before Ubuntu was even on the drawing board.
-
Mark Shuttleworth was a millionaire many years before Ubuntu was even a computer term. He paid to go to space many years before Ubuntu was even on the drawing board.
So you're saying that he was bribed with a company and idea? Maybe even future partnerships? How interesting...
-
So far, I have just a few difficulties w/ FET. 1. There is no supported map of the Earth. Both mono- & bi-polar maps present problems. 2. No one can explain how the 'Conspiracy' was maintained before spaceflight. 3. No one can tell me why anyone would want to start such a conspiracy in the 1st place! 4. The 'science' of FET seems fuzzy @ best. I'm by no means a mathematician or a scientist, but it seems that FET has to resort to a lot of excessive round-aboutism, if you will. 5. An example of this is: what is the Ice Wall? There are several answers offered, none definitive. 6. Who guarded said Wall before NASA existed, & why? So, those questions are just for starters. Any thoughts, from both sides?
-
So far, I have just a few difficulties w/ FET. 1. There is no supported map of the Earth. Both mono- & bi-polar maps present problems. 2. No one can explain how the 'Conspiracy' was maintained before spaceflight. 3. No one can tell me why anyone would want to start such a conspiracy in the 1st place! 4. The 'science' of FET seems fuzzy @ best. I'm by no means a mathematician or a scientist, but it seems that FET has to resort to a lot of excessive round-aboutism, if you will. 5. An example of this is: what is the Ice Wall? There are several answers offered, none definitive. 6. Who guarded said Wall before NASA existed, & why? So, those questions are just for starters. Any thoughts, from both sides?
I'm not an expert on the conspiracy at all, so I can't help much there.
If we seem round-about or vague, it's because FET is based, largely, on empirical evidence, meaning only that which we can directly observe and measure. Many of us, myself included, have a hypothesis or two about observable phenomena (Dark Energy, Aether, UA, etc) which venture into the territory of speculation, some more than others, but that's one major reason why there isn't a singular accepted model or map - zeteticism is about ignoring what you're taught or told and focusing on what you know.
Re: the ice wall - this is something of a hypothetical construct. Though several accounts of the southern hemidisc do support its existence, some of us say that a wall of ice exists but isn't the proper-noun "Ice Wall." In the monopole model it is theoretically necessary to hold in the oceans and, in some cases, the atmolayer as well.
I know that the idea of armed guards at the ice wall exists on the wiki, but I personally find this idea a little ridiculous. I personally believe the ice wall may exist, but is farther out than we have explored beyond the southern polar ring. I support the monopole model but concede that our monopole map has spatial issues in the southern hemidisc and isn't perfect. The earth, in my opinion, may be an infinite plane, but that's just because it makes more sense to me.
Ultimately, we all decide independently what makes sense for each of us, hence the many models.
-
Wouldn't the water have to be held in either way, on either map? & why haven't people tried to go check out what is beyond the map of the Earth wherein humans do dwell, if the Earth is an infinite plane? Or have such attempts been forbidden by the Conspiracy? Not trying to be a dick. I'm honestly curious.
-
So far, I have just a few difficulties w/ FET. 1. There is no supported map of the Earth. Both mono- & bi-polar maps present problems.
All we can present are proposals. We lack the necessary funds for verification.
2. No one can explain how the 'Conspiracy' was maintained before spaceflight.
There was no conspiracy before spaceflight. They were simply mistaken. They are still mistaken. (http://wiki.tfes.org/Motive_of_the_Conspiracy)
3. No one can tell me why anyone would want to start such a conspiracy in the 1st place!
See the link above for a motive.
4. The 'science' of FET seems fuzzy @ best. I'm by no means a mathematician or a scientist, but it seems that FET has to resort to a lot of excessive round-aboutism, if you will.
Please be specific.
5. An example of this is: what is the Ice Wall? There are several answers offered, none definitive.
In the Mono-polar model the Ice Wall is a 150 foot wall of ice which surrounds the Antarctic coast: http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Ice_Wall
6. Who guarded said Wall before NASA existed, & why? So, those questions are just for starters. Any thoughts, from both sides?
Who said the wall was guarded?
-
Tom, just to address point 1, an intrepid person or persons, sometime in the last 25,000 yrs of history of the Homo sapiens model has to have been 1. A FEer, & 2. Curious enough to go exploring the world enough to map it accurately. Money is beside the point. To address the last point, I don't know about you, but many FEers believe NASA guards the Ice Wall. As for the motive of the Conspiracy, I'm on my phone, which makes the wiki hard to get to, let alone read. Perhaps you could explain.
-
I don't know about you, but many FEers believe NASA guards the Ice Wall.
Nobody believes that. Nobody ever believed that. I really don't know where that idea came from. It was in the old FAQ, but I don't think anyone ever supported it.
Tom, just to address point 1, an intrepid person or persons, sometime in the last 25,000 yrs of history of the Homo sapiens model has to have been 1. A FEer, & 2. Curious enough to go exploring the world enough to map it accurately. Money is beside the point.
Evidently not.
As for the motive of the Conspiracy, I'm on my phone, which makes the wiki hard to get to, let alone read. Perhaps you could explain.
It essentially comes down to Cold War fears. The Russians and the Americans were so panicked in racing to space that when they couldn't quite get there, they started faking it. They faked it a bit too well and now they're stuck with their lie.
-
But what would start the race in the 1st place? Surely when they discovered it wasn't possible, one side or other would hasten to make the other side look stupid. & how do you keep such a vast conspiracy going for 64 yrs? The US can't even snoop on its own citizens' phone records w/o Edward Snowden making them look like asses. Surely, a conspiracy like you're suggesting over so many yrs would be VASTLY more complex & hard to maintain. & throw in the fact that in addition to the US & Russia, China, Japan, & Europe have Space Agencies... All it would take is 1 (ONE) Edward Snowden in 64 yrs from any of those 5 places to blow the conspiracy wide open! Keeping that secret for 64 yrs would be well nigh impossible, no?
-
So far, I have just a few difficulties w/ FET. 1. There is no supported map of the Earth. Both mono- & bi-polar maps present problems.
All we can present are proposals. We lack the necessary funds for verification.
Proposal? Is that another word for speculation or hypothesis? Doesn't sound very Zetetic to me.
-
You claim that he was forced to say he went to space, or that he was tricked. Do you have any proof? ???
It's a simple process of deduction. He claims to have gone into space. One cannot actually go into space. Therefore, he is lying. Why is he lying? Well, he had a long phone call with a prominent world leader who was associated with the NASA conspiracy. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that he was in some way influenced by the conspiracy. Perhaps they threatened his family. Perhaps they offered him money. Perhaps they knew about what he did that time in Thailand. We can only speculate.
What you just did there is a fatal flaw in logic deduction. Although you call it simple, you do not seem to grasp its mechanics. When you made the statement "One cannot actually go into space" you assumed that he is lying. This immediately invalidates your logic. Although your conclusion might be correct, this is not a proof. Unless you have empirical evidence that it is not possible to go into space, your "logic" is void.
-
You claim that he was forced to say he went to space, or that he was tricked. Do you have any proof? ???
It's a simple process of deduction. He claims to have gone into space. One cannot actually go into space. Therefore, he is lying. Why is he lying? Well, he had a long phone call with a prominent world leader who was associated with the NASA conspiracy. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that he was in some way influenced by the conspiracy. Perhaps they threatened his family. Perhaps they offered him money. Perhaps they knew about what he did that time in Thailand. We can only speculate.
What you just did there is a fatal flaw in logic deduction. Although you call it simple, you do not seem to grasp its mechanics. When you made the statement "One cannot actually go into space" you assumed that he is lying. This immediately invalidates your logic. Although your conclusion might be correct, this is not a proof. Unless you have empirical evidence that it is not possible to go into space, your "logic" is void.
Well, yes. The laws of physics as defined by Flat Earth Theory state that space travel is impossible. As experimental evidence clearly points toward Flat Earth Theory, there must be an alternative explanation for supposed space travel. Occam's Razor suggests that they're simply lying.
-
You claim that he was forced to say he went to space, or that he was tricked. Do you have any proof? ???
It's a simple process of deduction. He claims to have gone into space. One cannot actually go into space. Therefore, he is lying. Why is he lying? Well, he had a long phone call with a prominent world leader who was associated with the NASA conspiracy. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that he was in some way influenced by the conspiracy. Perhaps they threatened his family. Perhaps they offered him money. Perhaps they knew about what he did that time in Thailand. We can only speculate.
What you just did there is a fatal flaw in logic deduction. Although you call it simple, you do not seem to grasp its mechanics. When you made the statement "One cannot actually go into space" you assumed that he is lying. This immediately invalidates your logic. Although your conclusion might be correct, this is not a proof. Unless you have empirical evidence that it is not possible to go into space, your "logic" is void.
Well, yes. The laws of physics as defined by Flat Earth Theory state that space travel is impossible. As experimental evidence clearly points toward Flat Earth Theory, there must be an alternative explanation for supposed space travel. Occam's Razor suggests that they're simply lying.
And yet you still miss the point. The very fact that you say that space travel is impossible assumes that the FET is true. Therefore, you cannot use this argument.
-
You claim that he was forced to say he went to space, or that he was tricked. Do you have any proof? ???
It's a simple process of deduction. He claims to have gone into space. One cannot actually go into space. Therefore, he is lying. Why is he lying? Well, he had a long phone call with a prominent world leader who was associated with the NASA conspiracy. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that he was in some way influenced by the conspiracy. Perhaps they threatened his family. Perhaps they offered him money. Perhaps they knew about what he did that time in Thailand. We can only speculate.
What you just did there is a fatal flaw in logic deduction. Although you call it simple, you do not seem to grasp its mechanics. When you made the statement "One cannot actually go into space" you assumed that he is lying. This immediately invalidates your logic. Although your conclusion might be correct, this is not a proof. Unless you have empirical evidence that it is not possible to go into space, your "logic" is void.
Well, yes. The laws of physics as defined by Flat Earth Theory state that space travel is impossible. As experimental evidence clearly points toward Flat Earth Theory, there must be an alternative explanation for supposed space travel. Occam's Razor suggests that they're simply lying.
What law of physics claims that space travel is impossible?
-
You claim that he was forced to say he went to space, or that he was tricked. Do you have any proof? ???
It's a simple process of deduction. He claims to have gone into space. One cannot actually go into space. Therefore, he is lying. Why is he lying? Well, he had a long phone call with a prominent world leader who was associated with the NASA conspiracy. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that he was in some way influenced by the conspiracy. Perhaps they threatened his family. Perhaps they offered him money. Perhaps they knew about what he did that time in Thailand. We can only speculate.
What you just did there is a fatal flaw in logic deduction. Although you call it simple, you do not seem to grasp its mechanics. When you made the statement "One cannot actually go into space" you assumed that he is lying. This immediately invalidates your logic. Although your conclusion might be correct, this is not a proof. Unless you have empirical evidence that it is not possible to go into space, your "logic" is void.
Well, yes. The laws of physics as defined by Flat Earth Theory state that space travel is impossible. As experimental evidence clearly points toward Flat Earth Theory, there must be an alternative explanation for supposed space travel. Occam's Razor suggests that they're simply lying.
And yet you still miss the point. The very fact that you say that space travel is impossible assumes that the FET is true. Therefore, you cannot use this argument.
No, you are missing the point. A starting premise of my argument is indeed that the Earth is flat. This is because this premise has been previously proven. We don't need to reinvent the wheel here.
Besides, we're discussing Flat Earth Theory. If you'd prefer, we can use the modifier "assuming the Earth is flat, this phenomenon is explainable because" in front of every sentence. However, this would be a massive waste of everyone's time.
-
You claim that he was forced to say he went to space, or that he was tricked. Do you have any proof? ???
It's a simple process of deduction. He claims to have gone into space. One cannot actually go into space. Therefore, he is lying. Why is he lying? Well, he had a long phone call with a prominent world leader who was associated with the NASA conspiracy. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that he was in some way influenced by the conspiracy. Perhaps they threatened his family. Perhaps they offered him money. Perhaps they knew about what he did that time in Thailand. We can only speculate.
What you just did there is a fatal flaw in logic deduction. Although you call it simple, you do not seem to grasp its mechanics. When you made the statement "One cannot actually go into space" you assumed that he is lying. This immediately invalidates your logic. Although your conclusion might be correct, this is not a proof. Unless you have empirical evidence that it is not possible to go into space, your "logic" is void.
Well, yes. The laws of physics as defined by Flat Earth Theory state that space travel is impossible. As experimental evidence clearly points toward Flat Earth Theory, there must be an alternative explanation for supposed space travel. Occam's Razor suggests that they're simply lying.
And yet you still miss the point. The very fact that you say that space travel is impossible assumes that the FET is true. Therefore, you cannot use this argument.
No, you are missing the point. A starting premise of my argument is indeed that the Earth is flat. This is because this premise has been previously proven. We don't need to reinvent the wheel here.
Besides, we're discussing Flat Earth Theory. If you'd prefer, we can use the modifier "assuming the Earth is flat, this phenomenon is explainable because" in front of every sentence. However, this would be a massive waste of everyone's time.
You are correct. IF we assume that the Earth is flat, THEN we can make certain statements. This is a standard conditional statement. If you look at the original comment that started this discussion, then you will see that BillyBob wants PROOF. Instead of proving anything to him, you asserted "One cannot actually go into space." You have no right to this assertion because BillyBob assumes that FET is false (or at least that is how I understood it).
I would also like to see the proof of why the Earth is flat. It would be interesting to look at.
Instead of taking his question seriously, you instead brushed it aside. I would have expected better from you.
Also if space travel is impossible, what are all these satelites I see through my telescope? :P
-
You claim that he was forced to say he went to space, or that he was tricked. Do you have any proof? ???
It's a simple process of deduction. He claims to have gone into space. One cannot actually go into space. Therefore, he is lying. Why is he lying? Well, he had a long phone call with a prominent world leader who was associated with the NASA conspiracy. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that he was in some way influenced by the conspiracy. Perhaps they threatened his family. Perhaps they offered him money. Perhaps they knew about what he did that time in Thailand. We can only speculate.
What you just did there is a fatal flaw in logic deduction. Although you call it simple, you do not seem to grasp its mechanics. When you made the statement "One cannot actually go into space" you assumed that he is lying. This immediately invalidates your logic. Although your conclusion might be correct, this is not a proof. Unless you have empirical evidence that it is not possible to go into space, your "logic" is void.
Well, yes. The laws of physics as defined by Flat Earth Theory state that space travel is impossible. As experimental evidence clearly points toward Flat Earth Theory, there must be an alternative explanation for supposed space travel. Occam's Razor suggests that they're simply lying.
And yet you still miss the point. The very fact that you say that space travel is impossible assumes that the FET is true. Therefore, you cannot use this argument.
No, you are missing the point. A starting premise of my argument is indeed that the Earth is flat. This is because this premise has been previously proven. We don't need to reinvent the wheel here.
Besides, we're discussing Flat Earth Theory. If you'd prefer, we can use the modifier "assuming the Earth is flat, this phenomenon is explainable because" in front of every sentence. However, this would be a massive waste of everyone's time.
You are correct. IF we assume that the Earth is flat, THEN we can make certain statements. This is a standard conditional statement. If you look at the original comment that started this discussion, then you will see that BillyBob wants PROOF. Instead of proving anything to him, you asserted "One cannot actually go into space." You have no right to this assertion because BillyBob assumes that FET is false (or at least that is how I understood it).
I would also like to see the proof of why the Earth is flat. It would be interesting to look at.
Instead of taking his question seriously, you instead brushed it aside. I would have expected better from you.
Also if space travel is impossible, what are all these satelites I see through my telescope? :P
Experimental evidence for a flat earth is discussed at length in the Wiki, and in Earth Not a Globe. I've never seen any compelling evidence for a spherical earth.
As asserted in the "Satellites" thread, satellites / stratellites are not strictly prohibited by flat earth theory. Moreover, I very seriously doubt that you're using a telescope to look at "all these satellites." Even round earth folks don't look at satellites because they "move too fast" or "are too far / small to see".
The more likely case is, of course, that with a few exceptions which are visible to the naked eye, they simply aren't there.
-
You claim that he was forced to say he went to space, or that he was tricked. Do you have any proof? ???
It's a simple process of deduction. He claims to have gone into space. One cannot actually go into space. Therefore, he is lying. Why is he lying? Well, he had a long phone call with a prominent world leader who was associated with the NASA conspiracy. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that he was in some way influenced by the conspiracy. Perhaps they threatened his family. Perhaps they offered him money. Perhaps they knew about what he did that time in Thailand. We can only speculate.
What you just did there is a fatal flaw in logic deduction. Although you call it simple, you do not seem to grasp its mechanics. When you made the statement "One cannot actually go into space" you assumed that he is lying. This immediately invalidates your logic. Although your conclusion might be correct, this is not a proof. Unless you have empirical evidence that it is not possible to go into space, your "logic" is void.
Well, yes. The laws of physics as defined by Flat Earth Theory state that space travel is impossible. As experimental evidence clearly points toward Flat Earth Theory, there must be an alternative explanation for supposed space travel. Occam's Razor suggests that they're simply lying.
And yet you still miss the point. The very fact that you say that space travel is impossible assumes that the FET is true. Therefore, you cannot use this argument.
No, you are missing the point. A starting premise of my argument is indeed that the Earth is flat. This is because this premise has been previously proven. We don't need to reinvent the wheel here.
Besides, we're discussing Flat Earth Theory. If you'd prefer, we can use the modifier "assuming the Earth is flat, this phenomenon is explainable because" in front of every sentence. However, this would be a massive waste of everyone's time.
You are correct. IF we assume that the Earth is flat, THEN we can make certain statements. This is a standard conditional statement. If you look at the original comment that started this discussion, then you will see that BillyBob wants PROOF. Instead of proving anything to him, you asserted "One cannot actually go into space." You have no right to this assertion because BillyBob assumes that FET is false (or at least that is how I understood it).
I would also like to see the proof of why the Earth is flat. It would be interesting to look at.
Instead of taking his question seriously, you instead brushed it aside. I would have expected better from you.
Also if space travel is impossible, what are all these satelites I see through my telescope? :P
Experimental evidence for a flat earth is discussed at length in the Wiki, and in Earth Not a Globe. I've never seen any compelling evidence for a spherical earth.
As asserted in the "Satellites" thread, satellites / stratellites are not strictly prohibited by flat earth theory. Moreover, I very seriously doubt that you're using a telescope to look at "all these satellites." Even round earth folks don't look at satellites because they "move too fast" or "are too far / small to see".
The more likely case is, of course, that with a few exceptions which are visible to the naked eye, they simply aren't there.
Thank you for giving me some place to start on my quest to understand FET. Don't misinterpret my comments to you as aggression. I was just frustrated that many comments on this site are made either without empirical evidence or with logical falacies.
About satellites: why is it that if satellites are allowed, space travel is not? As my proof: there are many "average Joes" that have seen a satellite (Sputnik comes to mind).
-
As Tint said, FET does not expressly forbid satellites or, more likely, stratellites: high atmosphere contraptions similar to weather balloons.
-
How does the "average Joe" see a ball no bigger than a toaster several miles through the atmosphere?
I think you're the one making statements without proof. And impossible ones at that.
-
Well, yes. The laws of physics as defined by Flat Earth Theory state that space travel is impossible. As experimental evidence clearly points toward Flat Earth Theory, there must be an alternative explanation for supposed space travel. Occam's Razor suggests that they're simply lying.
Which laws of physics state that space travel is impossible.
How does the "average Joe" see a ball no bigger than a toaster several miles through the atmosphere?
I think you're the one making statements without proof. And impossible ones at that.
Who has claimed a satellite is the size of a toaster? This feels like a straw man.
-
Well, yes. The laws of physics as defined by Flat Earth Theory state that space travel is impossible. As experimental evidence clearly points toward Flat Earth Theory, there must be an alternative explanation for supposed space travel. Occam's Razor suggests that they're simply lying.
Which laws of physics state that space travel is impossible.
How does the "average Joe" see a ball no bigger than a toaster several miles through the atmosphere?
I think you're the one making statements without proof. And impossible ones at that.
Who has claimed a satellite is the size of a toaster? This feels like a straw man.
Logic up there claimed that the average Joe saw sputnik, which is only 28inches in diameter.
-
Well, yes. The laws of physics as defined by Flat Earth Theory state that space travel is impossible. As experimental evidence clearly points toward Flat Earth Theory, there must be an alternative explanation for supposed space travel. Occam's Razor suggests that they're simply lying.
Which laws of physics state that space travel is impossible.
Universal Acceleration
-
Well, yes. The laws of physics as defined by Flat Earth Theory state that space travel is impossible. As experimental evidence clearly points toward Flat Earth Theory, there must be an alternative explanation for supposed space travel. Occam's Razor suggests that they're simply lying.
Which laws of physics state that space travel is impossible.
Universal Acceleration
What about this law prevents someone from achieving escape velocity? Also, is there a formalized law for universal acceleration? Could I see it?
-
Universal Acceleration
I'm not sure that's a law so much as a hypothesis, and it doesn't necessarily negate space travel anyway, after all it's not a theory consistent with an external static frame of reference.
-
How does the "average Joe" see a ball no bigger than a toaster several miles through the atmosphere?
With lots of contrast. I have seen traffic lights several miles away at night on long stretches of straight road.
Logic up there claimed that the average Joe saw sputnik, which is only 28inches in diameter.
28" is awfully big for a toaster.
-
Satellites can also be the size of a school bus.
-
Satellites can also be the size of a school bus.
Or the size of a football field.
-
Satellites can also be the size of a school bus.
Or the size of a football field.
The object in question is Sputnik, and it was neither.
-
How does the "average Joe" see a ball no bigger than a toaster several miles through the atmosphere?
With lots of contrast. I have seen traffic lights several miles away at night on long stretches of straight road.
Are you comparing a bright light in the dark to a solid metal sphere in orbit?
Logic up there claimed that the average Joe saw sputnik, which is only 28inches in diameter.
28" is awfully big for a toaster.
It was 22.8". Or smaller than a beach ball.
Point is, its too small to see with the naked eye from that distance. During the day, the sky would wash it out anyway. And at night, it has no light source to shine onto Earth.
-
Satellites can also be the size of a school bus.
Or the size of a football field.
The object in question is Sputnik, and it was neither.
Sputnik was one instance that came to the poster's, but that surely does not preclude other instances does it?
EDIT: Sputnik, at its apogee of 939kms, would have an angular diameter of 0.054 arc seconds to the naked eye. The star Deneb has an angular diameter of 0.0024 arc seconds and is visible to the naked eye. Of course Deneb is much brighter, but Sputnik as a polished metal sphere would reflect a decent amount of the sun's light. Couple that with the use of binoculars, or a telescope and I think you could see Sputnik in orbit.
-
Satellites can also be the size of a school bus.
Or the size of a football field.
The object in question is Sputnik, and it was neither.
Sputnik was one instance that came to the poster's, but that surely does not preclude other instances does it?
Of course not. Some satellites / stratellites exist and can be easily seen. We've already said this.
-
Satellites can also be the size of a school bus.
Or the size of a football field.
The object in question is Sputnik, and it was neither.
Sputnik was one instance that came to the poster's, but that surely does not preclude other instances does it?
Of course not. Some satellites / stratellites exist and can be easily seen. We've already said this.
Then why are we even talking about Sputnik? The more relevant point of contention would be the reported altitudes of satellites no?
-
Satellites can also be the size of a school bus.
Or the size of a football field.
The object in question is Sputnik, and it was neither.
Sputnik was one instance that came to the poster's, but that surely does not preclude other instances does it?
Of course not. Some satellites / stratellites exist and can be easily seen. We've already said this.
Then why are we even talking about Sputnik? The more relevant point of contention would be the reported altitudes of satellites no?
Indeed. I maintain that they cannot orbit at the reported altitudes. I don't leap immediately to 'conspiracy' to explain this; I rather consider the possibility that the measurements are simply wrong.
-
Well, yes. The laws of physics as defined by Flat Earth Theory state that space travel is impossible. As experimental evidence clearly points toward Flat Earth Theory, there must be an alternative explanation for supposed space travel. Occam's Razor suggests that they're simply lying.
Which laws of physics state that space travel is impossible.
How does the "average Joe" see a ball no bigger than a toaster several miles through the atmosphere?
I think you're the one making statements without proof. And impossible ones at that.
Who has claimed a satellite is the size of a toaster? This feels like a straw man.
I think they are claiming they are about the size of a toaster oven, not a toaster.