1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE sources

« on: February 24, 2016, 07:26:04 PM »

A lot of people like David Thork quote Samuel Rowbotham, an example of one of those people who dont do experiments or dont test what they speculate

I responded to you on the edge of earth thread about your outright hypocrisy in regards to sources.

But honestly man, what are you doing here? You claim to be so convinced, your username an obvious tell, that the earth is round... But then you're on a flat earth theory forum. Apparently there is some reasonable doubt in your mind of the oblate spheroid, or whatever they call it, or you wouldn't be here. But instead of doing the research or looking up the supporting info, you bombard everyone with challenges to disprove RE models... Seems to me you desperately want someone to do the hard work and critical thinking for you. Should I start challenging you to prove the earth is round, and then nitpick your sources or experiences the whole time? Because that would be just as fair.

I think you're right, I am wasting my time here. I have no doubt that the earth is round, I just came here in the beginning of this mont after I heard about BOB and I wanted to see for myself if this stupidity could possibly be real, and to my disappointment it was. I thought that I might be able to try and convince some people, but all you do is refute evidence with speculation and conspiracy. Thank you for making me realize, I guess the truth really is on here, but not in the form of a flat earth. Have fun wallowing in your retarded ignorance, I'm out.

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: what about the edge of earth ?

« on: February 24, 2016, 07:21:48 PM »

But let me get this straight, you trust in Cavendish experiment, that first measured gravity, correct? Because if you reject that because it happened around the 1800's, then I hate to break it to you, but the whole theory of gravity takes a huge blow. You can't have it both ways, to trust in antiquity and select recent history and reject others.

Ok, first of all, I reject what Rowbotham said simply because he had absolutely no evidence to back his claims, just like there is no evidence that the earth is flat, what they provide is an explanation, because evidence comes from accurate scientific experiments. The only mention of experiments for flat earth here that I saw was the Bishop experiment, which had something to do with water at sea level or something.

Or if you'd prefer to, please list all this sophisticated equipment that you keep referencing, like the name of the devices, how they work, their margins of error, the date of their invention. Because I'm getting a little tired of you referencing highly sophisticated equipment of which I'm sure you haven't the slightest idea of a single device off the top of your head.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/Grace/#.Vs4AQpMrL64 GRACE satellite, a piece of equipment deployed by NASA to study climate change and gravity forces around parts of the world, also studying the lack of gravity over hudson bay in Canada as I mentioned in another thread. https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/main/index.html The hubble space telescope, active since 1990 and has taken countless pictures of distant objects and a few pictures of earth as well and helped us advance greatly in our study of the cosmos. Voyager 1, a space probe that was launched in 1977 to explore the solar system and reach beyond it with the ultimate goal of making contact with extra terrestrial life someday, and it has recently left the solar system and is now in interstellar space. There you go, if that was what you wanted, although I have no idea why I'm wasting my time naming them because you and every FEer on this thread will just disregard this as a conspiracy of governments and that it is all a hoax, when you have no real evidence to support those claims.

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon gravity

« on: February 24, 2016, 06:47:07 PM »

what is the dark moon?

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE sources

« on: February 24, 2016, 06:46:17 PM »

A lot of people like David Thork quote Samuel Rowbotham, an example of one of those people who dont do experiments or dont test what they speculate

5

Flat Earth Theory / FE sources

« on: February 24, 2016, 12:22:02 PM »

I have asked this in a previous thread but I did not receive much of an answer. Why is it that instead of trying to find modern findings and experiments to try to explain the earth is flat, you get quotes from "scientists" that lived in the 1800s. How does this make sense? They had no evidence to back their beliefs, they just speculated and did not do anything to prove it, so why is it that you take what they say to be true?

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon gravity

« on: February 24, 2016, 11:34:27 AM »

Dont try to reply when you have no evidence to prove your claims. We have evidence because we have sent men to the moon and we have sent various probes there too, which have taken measurements and seen that it has less gravity. Newton didn't write physics papers to attack the church, in fact he was a religious man himself, and you cant prove that he was an illuminati fanatic, those are just speculations because you think that RE is a sham supported by government, but you still have no evidence to prove it.

Assuming both are accelerating, neither has any gravity.

Then how come the earth has gravitational force? If they are both accelerating at the same rate, then they should both have the same gravitational force, but that isnt true. How do you explain that?

7

Flat Earth Theory / Moon gravity

« on: February 24, 2016, 01:53:44 AM »

If the moon is directly above us, then that means its is accelerating at the same rate as the earth right? If so, then how come it has much less gravity than the earth. If it were moving at the same speed, shouldn't the gravitational force of the moon be equal to 1g?

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: gravity

« on: February 24, 2016, 01:51:57 AM »

Have you ever taken a pair of binoculars and looked at the ISS? Or are you just sure that you can because you heard you can? Regardless of whether you can or can not see something in the sky with binoculars, the point is, I can almost guarantee you didn't try to do it.

That is irrelevant wether I have tried it or not, but in another thread you can see pictures someone took of the ISS through binoculars. But it is beside the point.

The similarities between the Church in the Dark Ages and the authoritative institutions in our time are striking. They both attempt to control the flow of knowledge, through censorship and indoctrination, and the goal in this is still ultimately power and maintaining it.

Institutions and organizations like NASA and the ESA are not concerned with power and they are most certainly not controlling the flow of knowledge with anything. If you mean to say that what they do is refute false evidence and claims then that is just looking out for the well being of the general population. When you spread false information like this, you are being harmful, believe what you want, but what this place is doing is more like indoctrination the what these "authoritative institutions" are doing.

"Science" as you keep referencing isn't an actual thing... it is a method to examine phenomena. Nothing more nothing less-- it doesn't "prove" anything, as everything is subject to future findings. Now don't forget that many of the scientists of the dark ages were actually employed by the church. Just as there are many that are employed by NASA, NOAA, ESA, etc today. I am not denying "science" as you put, but I don't just read space.com or watch Cosmos and take what they say for Gospel... can't you see that's just as absurd as the peasants gobbling up everything their Priest told them in the past?

Science comes from a latin root, if I am not mistaken, which means to know. Science is the quest to find out the mysteries of the natural world, so yes it is a thing, and it most certainly does prove everything. Science tells us why the moon has less gravity than earth, science tells us what nutrients are in the apple you ate this morning, etc. saying it doesn't prove anything is just ignorant (sorry), but science evolves in time and we become smarter and are able to discover new things and disprove old theories. As for those TV shows, that's why we have the internet. With the internet you can cross reference information from different reputable sources, and trust me, if one of the greatest physicists in the world is telling you something is true, and giving you backed up evidence gathered from whatever instrument, then he is probably right in what he is saying, and you are probably wrong in thinking he is lying.

I am not here to convince you one way or the other, of anything, but to accuse me of spreading ignorance because I'm looking at concepts long thought "disproven" by "modern" science with an open yet critical mind, is insulting to me.

I'm sorry for that, I was generalizing and I didn't mean to insult you.

Ignorance is king because no one likes to think for themselves anymore. Apathy is crown prince because even when clearly shown evidence contrary to a popular belief it is ignored because it's much more convenient to trust those in power to actually give you the truth.

Ignorance is king because people choose to think too much for themselves and refuse to believe anything that they find too strange to exist. Apathy is not crown prince because I can guarantee to you, that if you show a child how amazing space is and how awesome studying it can , he will remain interested in it for the rest of his life, I know that happened to me. While you are correct that it is more convenient to trust those in power, that is not the case with round earth concept. The people they trust famous scientists on their affirmations, like Einstein, with his E=mc² equation. They trust those people, who have PhDs in their field of study, rather than politicians who majored in politics. Those famous scientists wield almost no power. What little power they do wield as a whole is mere influence over what is a decreasing population of people who understand them and what they have to say. They wield no power compared to what governments wield, and governments aren't the ones telling you the earth is flat or round, its the world renowned scientists.

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: gravity

« on: February 23, 2016, 08:30:12 PM »

The method is still the same. Except we claim to use "satellites" now instead of land based instruments, which really seems like a waste of energy and money.

If you're putting satellites in quotations because you think they are fake, then you are wrong, because if you go outside on a clear night with a pair of binoculars, you can see the ISS moving around the sky every 90 minutes. If we can build that in space, then we can definitely put satellites with various different types of equipment

As advanced as you think we've become in 2000 years, I'm just trying to let you take into perspective how germ theory didn't come around until the 19th century.

Thats because they had no way to detect and find bacteria and viruses until someone could develop a microscope powerful enough to see them. By the way, aa ancient greek scientist, whose name I cant remember (sorry), had proposed the idea that illnesses could be caused by tiny little things, bacteria, but he had no way to prove it, and people ridiculed him, because it was like saying ants can kill elephants.

There was a massive period of human existence where the Catholic Church controlled every bit of knowledge and education available, that happened in those 2000 years. What it appears to me, is that "Science" is basically trying to take the place of the Church, in keeping people in the dark as much as possible.

During that period, the church controlled the knowledge because it wanted power, and the first thing you do to keep power is to not let your people read, and they were pretty good at that. Science is the opposite of what the church was doing, bringing us into the light by being able to prove things that most poeple used faith to explain. Denying science is just ignorant.

With black holes, dark matter, etc its all slight of hand. NASA tells us that hey gravity works after all, we have a satellite 1 million miles from Earth, but it is nothing more than a display of authority. "They" take the "knowledge" and horde it while giving us this dog and pony show.

And like everyone on this forum who says that it is all fake, you have no evidence to support it, while there is evidence that we've detected of black holes through gravitational lensing, and dark matter is still a theory, one which fills in the gaps that physicists couldn't explain, that's why people generally accept it as true, but the existence of it has not yet been confirmed as far as I'm aware.

So you might think we've truly advanced, but have we really? It is human nature to feel that we are at a pinnacle when we could be anywhere along the hill, for all we know. There is still so much more to learn about life itself, Mankind's true origins, but instead we waste our time measuring space, with ancient techniques mangled into abomination with abstract mathematics.

While you're right that it is human nature to think like that, the scientists and engineers that work on this realize that we have not even come close to being as intelligent about the universe as we can be, that's why we have new technology coming out every year, because they know they can do better and they try to do it.

As long as we trust people supposedly smarter than us, wiser than us to do the thinking for us human consciousness will never evolve, instead we are stuck in this modern day version of the dark ages where ignorance is king.

Ignorance is king simply because of people like you, who choose to ignore the science presented to them and go on believing things that are mere speculations. That, or they simply do not understand what they hear because it is too complex for them, and instead of trying to understand it, they ignore it and think it's bad because there's big words that they dont know what they mean, which is what you see with those idiots who choose not to vaccinate their kids.

Also, when you post a link with information, my advice would be to get that information from a reputable source, like from a college, or a respected organization, even if the info is correct, so as to minimize chance of someone trying to refute what you say by stating that your source is not reliable.

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: gravity

« on: February 22, 2016, 11:15:39 PM »

They both were off by some margin of error, but they were both surprisingly accurate for that time. We have made incredible improvements in technology in that field of science in the next 2000 years, like satellites that can measure the earth's circumference, etc.

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: gravity

« on: February 22, 2016, 08:31:28 PM »

Again, I dont think that you understand how old and inaccurate their equipment was. Archimedes was born in 287 BC and died in 212 BC, over 2000 years ago! The equipment he had on hand compared to the equipment we have today would be like trying to zoom in on the moon with a magnifying glass, rather than using the Hubble space telescope to do it. The fact that we praise him for getting such an accurate estimate for his time does not mean that we praise him because we like him, but because we see how intelligent he was by being able to calculate the earths circumference with such accuracy.

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: what about the edge of earth ?

« on: February 22, 2016, 08:25:45 PM »

Are you saying this ironically? Because I am pretty sure the "Gods" of RET that are constantly parroted were way before Rowbotham's time...

I dont understand what you are trying to say. I was not being ironic. This man had no proof to support his claims, he did it merely out of speculation based on what he saw outside his window, and any experiments he may have conducted had a high chance of using uncalibrated equipment, or tools that were just not accurate because you know.... it was the 1800's. These days we have highly sophisticated equipment and the mathematical proof that can prove the earth is round. I wont dive into that, but I still dont understand what you meant by "the "Gods" of RET that are constantly parroted were way before Rowbotham's time..."

13

Flat Earth Theory / Re: RE gravity vs FE acceleration

« on: February 22, 2016, 08:21:04 PM »

I do not understand what you are trying to say. You said that we can find evidence for what you observe directly, but we have observed this phenomenon! We've measured it using highly sophisticated equipment and we've proved that the area around hudson bay has less average gravity than the rest of the earth. None of you have provided any verifiable claims or evidence to counter this, because it clearly does not fit with the FE model, but as I explained in the first post, it does fit with the RE model

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: what about the edge of earth ?

« on: February 21, 2016, 01:49:48 PM »

Why is it that you people use quotes from some guy that lived in the 1800's, as if he's some sort of god to you? It makes no sense why you would use mere speculations from this man instead of experimental proof that we can provide these day to try and prove your theory

15

Flat Earth Theory / Re: gravity

« on: February 21, 2016, 01:46:58 PM »

old Archimedes popping up again!

The same Archimedes who miscalculated the RET circumference of the earth by thousands of miles? Is that who you are really using to defend your stance?

I don't think that you realize how old and primitive the equipment they were using to measure it was, and how they using the sun and some math to calculate it, not to mention they surprising amount of variables they had to deal with. For a calculation in Archimedes' time, it was very accurate.

16

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Did I do something wrong?

« on: February 17, 2016, 11:25:33 AM »

What big cities were you expecting to see in Tennessee?

Did he say anything about big cities in his post?

17

Flat Earth Theory / Re: RE gravity vs FE acceleration

« on: February 17, 2016, 11:23:03 AM »

Most likely inconsistencies in measurements, or improperly calibrated equipment.

No, the lack of gravity has been confirmed by scientists and satellite data. Do you have an answer or not?

You did look up "the Wiki"?

see http://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration#Tidal_Effects
Tidal Effects
In the FE universe, gravitation (not gravity) exists in other celestial bodies. The gravitational pull of the stars, for example, causes observable tidal effects on Earth.
Q: Why does gravity vary with altitude?
A: The moon and stars have a slight gravitational pull.

Any the wiser? Since this is the Q&A we can hardly debate it.

The lack of gravity is at ground level, and that is not really an answer, since they have no data to support it, it is merely a speculation. Besides, if gravity doesnt exist, what causes the gravitational pull of the stars to be so strong that they can affect us from hundreds of light years away.

18

Flat Earth Theory / Re: gravity

« on: February 15, 2016, 07:41:18 PM »

Please look up the Equivalence Principle, it should answer any questions you might have of this nature.  It was Einstein who said that the effect of gravity was equivalent to that of a constant acceleration, not us.

Yes, I have looked up the Equivalence Principle in the Wiki and elsewhere and maintain that it cannot be legitimately applied to the whole earth.

Irrelevant.

You say it's irrelevant, but if the gravitational field across the earth is not constant then, with or without the EP, UA cannot ne used to replace gravity, unless you have justifiable reasons for those deviations. Just remember that I was describing only the most obvious "g" variations - there are many more to consider.

Yes, a few facts are quite irrelevant to the Flat Earth! You see the earth looks flat, then change everything else to suit!
Things like: perspective, massive refraction, impossible magnification in the atmosphere, etc, etc!
Then declare any photos and other evidence that goes against the  Flat Earth as fake or lies!

It was irrelevant to the OP's question, which had nothing at all to do with variations in g over the surface of the Earth.  I wasn't defending Flat Earth Theory with my response, I was merely answering his question.  If you have something irrelevant to that question that you think is worthy of debate you should probably take it to the proper board.

While It was irrelevant to my original question, he was not discussing it at that time, rather discussing something with Junker. From what I can gather (from experience) some FEers seem to lead someone off topic, and come in saying that it is irrelevant to the original question, which is something Junker does a lot with me, instead of answering the questions asked.

19

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Origin of modern day FET

« on: February 15, 2016, 07:32:17 PM »

what scientific evidence has supported a flat earth? What are the names of the scientists or universities that have conducted these studies? You need to name these things if you're going to refute an argument by saying that one's assumption is false

20

Flat Earth Theory / Origin of modern day FET

« on: February 15, 2016, 01:48:25 PM »

I'm just curious, why is it that you believe that the earth is flat, when there is not much evidence to support this hypothesis? Some of you say that it is what you see that you believe, but you don't see far enough to have proof. Where did this belief come from, despite all of the concrete mathematical evidence against it?