21

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Meteor showers

« on: November 19, 2017, 08:05:07 AM »

In fairness, condensation doesn’t have to be water.  It can be any gas the condenses back to a liquid. 

However, I’m curious as to Gary’s explanation on how a gas condensing to a liquid on the underside of a flat earth an cause streaks of light in the night sky ?  Come on Gary, show us your well hidden genius side !

22

Flat Earth Theory / All the evidence ?

« on: November 19, 2017, 08:00:09 AM »

If the aim of the FES is scientific advancement, would it be correct to assume that they should consider all observations and experimental results before drawing a conclusion ?

Please allow the flat earth believers to answer this at first. I don’t want them to get distracted

23

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

« on: November 19, 2017, 05:41:56 AM »

Sunset happens ! At last, something we agree on.  So, you’ve gone from sunset is caused by waves and whatnot, to it radiates in all directions (contrary to your Wiki) but you still can’t see it all the time despite it being well above the horizon all the time, according to basic trigonometry (or are you smarter than Pythagoras?) to sunset just happens, which proves the earth is flat.

There are so many holes and inconsistencies in your arguments, I don’t really know where to start.  So how about this.  On a round earth sunset is easily explained as you rotate from the lit side to the shadow side.  This is my proof that the world is round and spinning. 

According to you, the sun is following a circular track roughly 6000 miles in diameter.  Its 3000 miles high.  It radiates in all directions so I can still see it at its further point, albeit a bit dimmer than during the ‘day’.  It’s 26 degrees above the horizon, using basic trigonometry.  This is its furthest point and lowest declination.

This is my disproof that the sun can set on a flat earth.  Remember, I’m using your ‘facts’ and basic trig which traces its origins back to ancient Egypt.  I don’t want to get distracted into the validity of trigonometry as its fundamental in modern maths.  Here’s a history, just to avoid you using this as a distraction https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_trigonometry

So, demonstrate how the sun can set on a flat earth.  No referring me back to your other literature.  I want it in your words.

24

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

« on: November 19, 2017, 02:58:44 AM »

I don't see why we should have to disprove perspective rules which were never proven to occur.

You’ve got that backwards.  You don’t need to DISPROVE anything; you need to PROVE that perspective does what is required to make the sun appear to drop to the horizon, then get cut in half by the horizon, then get cut down to just the top sliver and finally go away.  Nobody on the RE side thinks that perspective is magic.

The sunset is emperically observed to occur. It is on the party claiming that the sun would operate on a special kind of continuous math to demonstrate that claim.

There is nothing special about continuous maths. That is the normal type of mathematics. If you think the sunset is an effect of some unusual noncontinuos math, then the burden of proof is on you.

Likewise, perspective changes size and speed, but never changes something from being  above to below. If you think it does, then it’s up to you to prove something that is out of the norm.

You can’t (with any credibility) say the sunset is due to perspective and refer to ancient scriptures which are clearly wrong and then not follow up with a proper explanation.

25

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Speed of light

« on: November 18, 2017, 12:53:23 PM »

Yes, I’ve asked that before. Unsurprisingly, I didn’t get an answer.

You've missed my point.  Your Wiki quotes Einstein's theories of relativity and special relativity as the reason why the earth does not exceed the speed of light under the UA theory.  However, these theories are intertwined with Einstein's theories about gravity.  You can't have one without the other.  Therefore, either Einstein is correct, and gravity exists, or Einstein is wrong and there is no gravity, but then the speed of light is no longer a constant.  And we know from observations that the speed of light is a constant.

I'd be interested to hear a clear explanation.

More to the point, you Wiki quotes Einstein's theory of relativity as the explanation for why UA doesn't exceed the speed of light.  However, Einstein's theories explain gravity as a distortion space/time.  This only work with a spherical earth, and explains why the earth is spherical, why the atmosphere doesn't get sucked into space, why the water doesn't fall off the south pole, etc.  Why are you 'cherry picking' the parts of his theories that suit you, but are ignoring the parts you don't like.

Junker and I are referencing Einstein's Equivelence Principle.

26

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How can the sun be a spot light?

« on: November 18, 2017, 08:14:36 AM »

Indeed. I'll try and get ROUND to seeing if I can come up with a simpler concept.....Sure it's around sphere somewhere.....

That’s funny !  Worth risking a low content warning from Junkers !

27

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Does the moon also cast a "flashlight" beam?

« on: November 18, 2017, 04:06:13 AM »

Where does it say that the sun's light is a "flashlight" beam?

Quote from your Wiki

As an analogy for the enlarging of the sun at sunset, lets imagine that we are in a dark room with a flashlight. We shine the light upon the wall, creating a distinct circle of light.

The sun shines light in all directions.

Oops, Tom hasn’t been paying attention in class 

28

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What are stars?

« on: November 18, 2017, 03:40:15 AM »

Can someone please explain what stars are?

It is unknown what the stars are. That is not empirically demonstrable.

Wrong I’m afraid Tom.  We can observe the light coming from the stars and measure the spectral absorption lines.  From this empirical observation we can deduce that the stars are largely hydrogen and helium.  Furthermore, there is no significant oxygen present, so we know they are not burning in the conventional sense, but they are very bright.  Therefore there is some other reaction going on. 

Of course, Tom will say I have no proof of this.  I will reply that there are dozens of independent sources, and Tom will reply that they are all part of the conspiracy. 

29

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Satellites

« on: November 18, 2017, 03:22:14 AM »

The balloons are never in orbit - they are floating at 80,000 to 120,000 feet in the air.  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.  The balloons when observed during daytime look like a shiny silver dollar.

Please cite the source for the technical details listed here.

And photographic evidence of these balloons looking like shiny silver dollars

30

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Meteor showers

« on: November 18, 2017, 03:17:59 AM »

My explanation is simple. The orbit of the cloud of rocks is well known to astronomers, as is the orbit of the earth.  As these are both known quantities, it’s easy for an astronomer to calculate when we will pass through the cloud. 

If it’s condensation on the underside of the firmament, please explain to me just what that is, how it causes the effect of shooting stars, and how it can be predicted so accurately by astronomers. 

Oh, and none of your, isn’t it obvious answers as that just demonstrates you have no idea what you’re talking about.

31

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

« on: November 18, 2017, 03:08:41 AM »

Earth Not Globe uses perspective as an explanation for sunsets.  If perspective isn’t proved, then it’s not a valid explanation.

You say perspective is the explanation for sunsets.  The sun sets below the horizon, therefore, your version of perspective has things swapping positions. 

32

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

« on: November 18, 2017, 02:35:21 AM »

You however are claiming something changes in the fundamental way something works at long distances, with no supporting evidence.

I'm not claiming that something changes perspective. Perspective was never really proven to operate on continuous trigonometry rules in the first place. I'm questioning the fundamental claims for how perspective works, and which there is no real evidence for.

Two points.  If there’s no real evidence for how perspective works, then it’s not a valid proof of a flat earth.
Secondly, common sense says that if you have an infinitely long railway track, the tracks will appear to get closer together, to the point where they appear to touch.  However, they will never appear to cross over.  This can be proved mathematically, but I can’t be bothered as you can easily find the proof with Google, or common sense.

To expand on that, the sleepers appear to get closer and closer together as you get further and further away. We can see this for ourselves, so we don’t need any more evidence.  Now, if we imagine a train running down the track, it gets smaller as it gets farther away.  The rate of ‘shrinkage’ slows as it gets further away (think back, the sleepers appear to get closer together) but as the tracks never actually touch, to train never gets to the vanishing point.  The tracks never appear to cross over.  This also explains why objects far away seem to travel slower than ones close up.

This is your proof that perspective is well understood, whether you understand it or not.  Like I said, Google the maths, or use common sense.  Mind, you think all waves are bigger than heads, so I should stick to google!

As an aside, this explanation works on a flat earth. 

33

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

« on: November 18, 2017, 12:12:38 AM »

That’s not the key point Tom. The key point is that the top of the lamp post is always above the bottom of it. Or do you disagree ?

34

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How can the sun cast light in a circle when it covers half the earth?

« on: November 17, 2017, 04:00:40 PM »

Equally to the point, how can the sun cast a circle of light when it radiates in all directions ?

35

Flat Earth Theory / Meteor showers

« on: November 17, 2017, 03:52:07 PM »

I’ve kinda lost track on the current FE theory of space. However, what’s the explanation for meteor showers ?

https://www.space.com/23296-leonid-meteor-shower.html?utm_content=buffer183cc&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook

36

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

« on: November 17, 2017, 02:10:27 PM »

exactly, and no matter how many pillars there are, the top of the pillar will always be above the bottom.  I can't imagine even a flat earth believer would argue that point.
However, according to the flat earth books, the sun suddenly appears below the horizon, which is the same as saying the pillars suddenly appear upside down.

37

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

« on: November 17, 2017, 01:23:21 PM »

A great experiment and explanation Jocelyn.  I'd love to hear the flat earth response, but sadly they seem to be vanishing these days.  Tom is sadly outgunned with his "waves and whatnot," and let's not forget Gary is still popping up now and again, but he makes Tom's posts seem meaningful.

38

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Chemtrails

« on: November 17, 2017, 10:05:22 AM »

QUOTE:
I find the whole thing of chemtrails quite frightening.
END QUOTE:

So do I,

Many Flat Earthers are involved with exposing that particular conspiracy,
There are also other methods they use to posion us, investigate Monsanto.
That's not to mention what they are putting in the water.

That's no great surprise.  People who believe in one conspiracy tend to believe in lots of them.  Out of curiosity, how many here also believe that vaccines are bad, 911 was an inside job, Princess Diana was murdered, etc.

39

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Proposed Changes

« on: November 17, 2017, 07:52:16 AM »

If you don't mind an opinion from an interloper.  I offer this opinion as I run a scale modelling forum which is larger than this forum and has been running longer, so have some considerable experience in forum management.
Your forum is too small to be worried about councils, and who moderates what, and who votes on what, and whatnot. I assume that there is an individual who owns (and pays for) the domain, and originally set up the forum.  This person has the forum's best interests at heart.  Let them designate an Administrator to manage the forum.  Have a group of global moderators who assist the admin.  Changes are discussed in private, public opinion sought when necessary.  The moderators will change as people come and go.  Most moderators seem to be enthusiastic for a couple of years or so before drifting away.  Strip away the complexity and make the management smaller, more efficient and autonomous. 

I've typed that as if telling you how to run your forum.  It's not meant that way, but merely some suggestions as to how you could improve.  I'm happy to discuss it with your management team if they like (but not interested in becoming part of it to be honest).

40

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

« on: November 17, 2017, 07:22:49 AM »

To be frank, I don’t think too many round earthers come here to be welcomed, and expect to be challenged. We know we’re not going to change your minds, and even if we did, you probably won’t admit it in public.