Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - acacius

Pages: [1]
1
Flat Earth Theory / Re: On the Zetetic Method
« on: August 22, 2014, 02:39:11 AM »
Standing in my back yard, it would seem that the earth is flat- it looks flat, it feels flat- so according to the zetetic method, it must be flat. However, when I see a ship sink down over the horizon at the beach, it would seem the earth is round, or at the least curved- it looks curved, it feels curved, so according to the zetitic method, it must be curved. I know that flat earthers have explanations for how the sinking-ship is merely an illusion due to light-bending and/or fog/chem-trails obscuring the ships, but isn't proposing theories without direct evidence rather un-zetetic? Why do we accept the zetetic method when it suggests the earth is flat, but not when it suggests the earth is round? The same goes with the moon: flat-earth theorists propose the existence of an 'anti-moon', a transparent object that, when in front of the moon, absorbs it's light- but isn't proposing the existence of something without and direct evidence also un-zetetic?

Welcome! not all of us are Zetetics; I am religious and I believe the Bible teaches flat earth and this is supported by empirical observations. That is why I am interested in showing it with empiricism. Regarding the ISS, some time ago I was told of the ISS passing over my area on a certain night, and on that night a star-shaped object quickly moved eastward across the sky. It could be anything, really; I don't think it's proof of the ISS up there. I think it's a hoax.

Try reading the book Terra Firma by David W Scott. I really liked it. (you can skip the biblical references)

LINK: https://archive.org/details/cu31924031764594

I had a good laugh at "100 Proofs the Earth Is Not a Globe" by William Carpenter = http://lclane2.net/hundreda.html

2
Flat Earth Theory / Locations on a bi-polar flat earth
« on: May 10, 2014, 09:52:59 PM »
This question is for Tom Bishop or other bi-polar believers: do you agree with the second map of the earth in this Wiki page: http://wiki.tfes.org/Layout_of_the_Continents ?

If so, then how can a flight from Sydney to LA be only 13 hours according to expedia.com? The bipolar model is interesting but this is a stumbling block.

3
Flat Earth Theory / Re: OK, got one. Straight lines
« on: April 07, 2014, 11:45:17 AM »
Sorry to interject, but was Rowbotham wrong when he said that if the earth is a globe 25,000 miles in circumference, a person should be able to see curvature with the naked eye at ground level?

4
Flat Earth Community / Latitudinal lines south of equator
« on: March 13, 2014, 10:58:53 PM »
I was reading Rowbotham's book where he said there had been no measurement of latitude distance south of the equator in his time. If the latitude lengths increase in the southern seas, this is sure empirical proof of a flat world. Do you guys have any more information?? Thanks

5
Hey I found two claims of crossing Antarctica. One in the 1950s: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Trans-Antarctic_Expedition

One in 1979-1982: http://www.transglobe-expedition.org/page/the-expedition

How can you prove them wrong?

6
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Has anyone ever flown a plane across Antarctica?
« on: February 23, 2014, 08:11:18 PM »
Or maybe I'm missing something.
You are missing a whole lot. First of all, you don't seem to understand what "east" and "west" mean in FET. You also seem to think that airlines will necessarily take the shortest route between two points, even though this is almost universally untrue.
I think I understand: West is a clockwise circuit around the central pole and East is counter-clockwise. Is that right?

7
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Has anyone ever flown a plane across Antarctica?
« on: February 23, 2014, 05:48:32 PM »
Quote
That flight isn't a problem at all. As you can see, they only pass over a bit of Antarctica. They are far from the pole.

But on the flat earth, South America and Australia are on opposite ends of the earth. According to the third picture, it should be a short trip because of the short distance. Perhaps I should take a flight from South America to Australia and see how long it takes! If it's a short time, doesn't it prove the earth to be a globe? Or maybe I'm missing something.

8
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Has anyone ever flown a plane across Antarctica?
« on: February 23, 2014, 04:53:37 PM »
A second way is to measure the distance traveled by a plane from Mexico to Japan, heading WEST. If the distance is greater than the distance EAST from Mexico to Japan, then it supports the flat earth.
No, it doesn't. In either case, the proportion would be the same.
You are right, the distance from Mexico to Japan does look the same on a flat earth, whether the route goes East or West. On the flat earth map I noticed that the shortest path (starting at Mexico) between the countries is to fly northwest right past the North Pole. But (excuse my ignorance) I don't know if that's possible with real aircraft because I'm not an aviator (or an air traffic guy).

About the South Pole, I found this on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_route

Look at the third picture to the right. How is that route possible on a flat earth?

Also I find this comment from Wikipedia interesting: "As it happens, airlines don't fly nonstop between many city-pairs having a great circle route over Antarctica. Direct flights between South Africa and New Zealand would overfly Antarctica, but no airline has scheduled such flights."

9
Flat Earth Theory / Has anyone ever flown a plane across Antarctica?
« on: February 23, 2014, 12:32:09 AM »
Hey I'm kinda new here. Why are there so few threads? To me there seems to be two ways to prove the earth is round: if a plane can fly across Antarctica, then it supports the round earth.

A second way is to measure the distance traveled by a plane from Mexico to Japan, heading WEST. If the distance is greater than the distance EAST from Mexico to Japan, then it supports the flat earth. Have these things been documented ??? I don't know. Just some thoughts!

Pages: [1]