1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rowbotham right, Voliva wrong

« on: April 27, 2015, 07:26:19 PM »

markjo has a point. one minute of arch could be many different distances depending on the distance and speed of the object in question. if i am understanding this correctly.

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: experimental evidence. does it exist?

« on: April 27, 2015, 07:13:14 PM »

So you want us to accept Einstein's Ether, but you can't accept Gravity? Okay. Logic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

who said anything about accepting Einstein's aether? just because he was a genius doesn't mean he is infallibly right.

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Reasons for believing the Earth is round

« on: April 19, 2015, 09:42:10 AM »

http://wiki.tfes.org/Occam%27s_Razor

Occam's Razor asks us which explanation makes the least number of assumptions. The explanation which makes the least number of assumptions is the simplest explanation. Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory. Several examples exist below.

What's the simplest explanation; that my experience of existing upon a plane wherever I go and whatever I do is a massive illusion, that my eyes are constantly deceiving me and that I am actually looking at the enormous sphere of the earth spinning through space at tens of thousands of miles an hour, whirling in perpetual epicycles around the universe; or is the simplest explanation that my eyes are not playing tricks on me and that the earth is exactly as it appears?

What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter straight up at 7 miles per second, and that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis, explore the solar system, and constantly wow the nation by landing a man on the moon and sending robots to mars; or is the simplest explanation that they really can't do all of that stuff?

When I walk off the edge of a three foot drop off and go into free fall while observing the surface of the earth carefully the earth appears to accelerate up towards me. What's the simplest explanation; that there exists hypothetical undiscovered Graviton particles emanating from the earth which accelerates my body towards the surface through unexplained quantum effects; or is the simplest explanation that this mysterious highly theoretical mechanism does not exist and the earth has just accelerated upwards towards me exactly as I've observed?

What's the simplest explanation; that when I look up and see the sun slowly move across the sky over the course of the day, that the globe earth is spinning at over a thousand miles per hour - faster than the speed of sound at the equator - despite me being unable able to feel this centripetal acceleration, or is the simplest explanation that the sun itself is just moving across the sky exactly as I have observed?

What's the simplest explanation; that the sun, moon, and stars are enormous bodies of unimaginable mass, size, and distances which represent frontiers to a vast and infinite unknowable universe teeming with alien worlds, black holes, quasars and nebulae, and phenomena only conceivable in science fiction; or is the simplest explanation that the universe isn't so large or unknown and when we look up at the stars we are just looking at small points of light in the sky exactly they appear to be?

i'm sorry, but in order for the earth to be flat i have to assume that what i observe about the earth is a massive illusion and that not just NASA but every single nation on this planet is part of a conspiracy to hide this fact. I also have to assume that some mystical force is pushing the earth upward instead of the earth's mass pulling me down and that the sun's path and apparent lack of size change is the result of an illusion created by aether. I also have to assume that there are invisible clockwork gears that guild the path of the planets. occum's razor is not on FET's side.

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: experimental evidence. does it exist?

« on: April 19, 2015, 09:29:43 AM »

"Common sense is what tells us the earth is flat." -- Albert Einstein

an obscure quote that may or may not be an actual quote is not evidence that the earth is flat. I really don't see why you posted this.

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: experimental evidence. does it exist?

« on: April 13, 2015, 07:49:12 PM »

sorry. the nature of curving water depends on the gravity in that area and how much mass is there. that later part about the Egyptians finding a flat area is not relevant.

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: experimental evidence. does it exist?

« on: April 13, 2015, 07:35:13 PM »

i was under the impression that there were FE scientists that have conducted experiments that show that the earth is round. if this is not one of them than i fail to see why it was brought up.

If I were to throw links and books at you, would you even believe them? Would you know how trustworthy it was? Why take something from other's when it is better to see for yourself?

If you want to know, it is based on the Bedford Level Experiment, which I did myself because some people claimed it showed the earth was round and some flat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment

thanks, I'm looking into the Bedford_level_experiment now, but accord to my search results there are varying results. without knowing the methodology that differed between results i cannot say what made the difference. I wish i owned a Theodolite so i could test this myself. if you ever get the chance you should video tape the experiment, or take detailed notes of your methodology.

it's not that i wouldn't believe whatever you say, it's that i think the most likely explanation for why people believe in FE is because of both the lack of proper understanding on the subject and incorrect methodology. Me doing this gives me the opportunity to remain objective about a subject in which bias most certainly exists. It's completely conceivable that i will reach a point where i can't continue due to lack of professional knowledge on the subject.

if i did anything wrong let me know. seriously.

It's the first portion of your post, that's where you did something wrong. You can't assume the Earth is a sphere then work backwards from that. That's not science.

true, but i have no idea what the earths actual shape is at that location. I was assuming that the math Irushwithscvs was doing made that same assumption. if Irushwithscvs didn't do that then i would be willing to redo the math if they provide the information i lack. i imagine the actual shape of the earth wouldn't help much anyway since the Egyptians likely scouted for a flat area to start construction, but i may be wrong on that.

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: experimental evidence. does it exist?

« on: April 13, 2015, 07:13:41 PM »

I think you underestimate how big the pyramids are. Regardless, I did the math, why don't you? No need for conjecture at this point.

sure. I am, of course, assuming the earth is a perfect sphere and not oblate with varying bumps.

because a^2 +b^2 = c^2 with a being the 755.9 ft span of the pyramid in question(Giza) and b being the radius of the earth spanning 20,925,524.9 feet.

a^2 = 57384.1 feet
b^2 = 437,877,592,340,520.01 feet

a^2+b^2= c^2 = 437877592397904.11 feet

c= the square root of 437877592397904.11= 20925524.90137
c-a= the drop due to the curvature of the earth = 0.00137 feet.

this equates to .418 mm in drop. The smallest items visible to the naked eye are between .1-.3mm in size, so the ability to notice a .4mm drop across 755.9 feet is close to impossible to notice without a tool. this distance would not affect the construction of a building.

if i did anything wrong let me know. seriously.

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: experimental evidence. does it exist?

« on: April 13, 2015, 05:54:18 PM »

have you done this? it'd be a good idea not to assume the earth is a perfect sphere because according to RE it isn't. Even the water isn't completely round.

It is a simple experiment and if you're interested in evidence then I don't see why acquiring some for yourself would be out of the question. It can theoretically be done on any size body of water, since any amount of water on a planet should show some modicum of curvature, no matter how big or small the body is and regardless of whether it is a perfect sphere or not.

As an additional fun fact many archaeologists theorized that the Egyptians used water to aid in their building of the pyramids, as water allowed for a perfect level surface for them to measure against. This wouldn't be possible on a spheroid of any nature.

Unfortunately i don't have the ability to test this. My current living status won't allow for it not just because of lack of money but because of lack of time.(i'm in college right now.) I would love to do it sometime in the future, though.

i was under the impression that there were FE scientists that have conducted experiments that show that the earth is round. if this is not one of them than i fail to see why it was brought up.

as for the Egyptians clever use of water: can you see single celled organisms without a microscope? I think you underestimate how big the earth is under RE theory. any curvature on this scale wouldn't be visible to the naked eye and would be too small to matter in the construction of buildings.

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Justify this

« on: April 13, 2015, 05:07:13 PM »

Well, it's theorized that the moon is the end result of a terrific impact during the earth's early history, so it's no wonder that moon rocks share many of the same characteristics of earth rocks.

Including petrified wood?

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/offbeat/2009-08-27-moon-rock-museum_N.htm

i'm sorry but to quote the article: "It was on show in 2006 and a space expert informed the museum it was unlikely NASA would have given away any moon rocks three months after Apollo returned to Earth."

as in: NASA was like, "we don't remember giving you a rock." and they were like: "holy crap! you are right. its fake!"

why would NASA intentionally reveal a fake moon rock if it was part of a conspiracy?

Edit: i see the assumption i made now. still though, it was found out due to a tip off that it was unlikely that nasa gave any rocks away at the time it was received.

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Beyond the Ice Wall

« on: April 13, 2015, 04:11:14 PM »

So you need to use special pleading AND ignorance to deal with just one of the pieces of VOE the disproves FET. How sad. I particularly like your resorting to "aethic" flow, something never measured yet you claim produces the same effect as a RE. No one is going to take that seriously.

I "resort" to aetheric flow just as other physicists "resort" to hypothetical particles and substances when their expectations do not match observations.  Fermi guessed that neutrons had to exist in the nuclei of atoms to explain how they worked.  Pauli "resorted" to saying Neutrinos must exist because they explained observed results.  At the time, the scientific community said these ideas had no basis in reality.  They were "pleading."  Of course, years later, neutrons and neutrinos were detected.  Aether explains much of what we experience here on the flat earth, so if we are pleading when we discuss those effects, it is only in the sense that Fermi and Pauli were.

we have directly observed these particles. when neutrino's  interact in water they make blue light. this is seen in the glow of a nuclear power plant as it is surrounded by water. light can't come from nowhere.


here's a question... if gravity doesn't exist... why does our atmosphere stay with us and not just fly off beyond the wall?

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: experimental evidence. does it exist?

« on: April 13, 2015, 03:55:21 PM »

Shine a laser across 3km of water and measure the curvature of the water's surface (the distance of the water from the laser at specific intervals).

have you done this? it'd be a good idea not to assume the earth is a perfect sphere because according to RE it isn't. Even the water isn't completely round.

This has been gone over many times.  Einstein's entire career was intended to prove the Earth is flat.  All of his work points that way.  The excitement to so radically challenge the conventions of science is the impetus that drove him out of that stuffy patent office and into the realm of academia.  Throughout his work from beginning to end it's clear that he was trying to prove the Earth is flat.  He always came just a step short of actually saying so because he realized that no matter how succinctly he proved his premiss, it would never be enough for the globularists who were so fanatically devoted to their beliefs.  But it's all there.  I want you to do something for me, markjo.  I want you to reread Einstein's entire body of work with the idea in mind that he was trying to prove the Earth is flat.  Go ahead and tell me it doesn't force you to look at his life's work in a new light.

the mind has a tricky way of making evidence fit a pre-existing viewpoint. perhaps it would be better for you to list some examples that we can discuss.

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: experimental evidence. does it exist?

« on: April 10, 2015, 09:48:56 PM »

Einstein proved the Earth is flat.  Case closed.

How does mass warping space-time prove that the earth is flat? 

i mean seriously, nothing?

What part of "Case closed" do you not understand? 
[/quote

I understand it perfectly, it's just that if you close it now without giving any experimental evidence the only thing to conclude is that RET is the only option.

13

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The rotation of stars in FET

« on: April 10, 2015, 09:46:46 PM »

Can you post this on a separate thread, it's not relevant to what I asked.

fuck off then. Waste my fucking time.

it's just that now we are not just expected to assume aether exists, we are also now expected to assume celestial gears exist. That model that is used will not predict the movement of the planets over the long run. I propose that you try for yourself to predict the movement of planets using that model. and even if it can predict the movement of the planets as well as einsteins theory of relativity than we are still left with the assumption that the gears exist.

Also, try taking a trip north to see the arora sometime. it really does exist. just make sure you visit when and where it's actually happening. there are aurora forcast websites.

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: experimental evidence. does it exist?

« on: April 10, 2015, 08:47:28 PM »

i mean seriously, nothing?

15

Flat Earth Theory / Re: experimental evidence. does it exist?

« on: April 10, 2015, 08:10:05 PM »

Einstein proved the Earth is flat.  Case closed.

i'm sorry but that statement needs more of an explanation. for example, i could say Steven hawking proved that the earth is a sphere. Are you inclined to believe me? i don't think so. as far as i know, Einstein did not advocate for a flat earth and i doubt it ever crossed his mind to do so.

so i ask again. where is the evidence? i mean can't you just throw me a link or something so we can at least get the ball rolling on this topic?

16

Flat Earth Theory / Re: experimental evidence. does it exist?

« on: April 10, 2015, 07:34:17 PM »

I want to draw this thread back to what was originally asked.

Is there any evidence that downward acceleration on the Earth is due to the Earth accelerating upwards rather than gravity pulling things down?

i second this motion.

17

Flat Earth Theory / Re: experimental evidence. does it exist?

« on: April 10, 2015, 06:01:16 PM »

I am sorry, but are you saying that theories are not open to interpretation?

i would say not. theories are the result of logical deduction. philosophy isn't really a part of it.

18

Flat Earth Theory / Re: experimental evidence. does it exist?

« on: April 10, 2015, 05:12:05 PM »

i should probably be more specific. i am open to the idea of aether if there is an observable phenomenon that supports it. right now there is none, snd this is why the idea has been shot down multiple times in different theories.

19

Flat Earth Theory / Re: experimental evidence. does it exist?

« on: April 10, 2015, 05:09:51 PM »

it was Einstein who first realised this.

The same Einstein who supported aether? In which you don't accept?

Maybe you shouldn't reference Einstein when you obviously don't agree with his theories?

he came up with many different theories. i'm pretty sure he moved on when the theories were dis-proven. besides, his aether theory still contained gravity. i'm open to the idea of aether, just not as a substitute for gravity.

20

Flat Earth Theory / experimental evidence. does it exist?

« on: April 10, 2015, 04:38:01 PM »

to pull from the wiki "The phenomenon we observe everyday when falling is currently substantiated in modern physics by what is called "The Equivalence Principle".

This principle in physics states that in a relative frame of reference, it is not possible to locally discern whether the frame is accelerating upwards, or if the object inside the frame is affected by gravity. "

The wiki states this, but then how on earth(=3) can FE proponents say that Universal Acceleration exists if by very nature we cannot discern whether it's gravity or Acceleration? am i to believe that FE theory proponents never performed any experiments to see if gravity exists? it is very possible to see gravitational effects of objects smaller than the earth.

are there any experiments at all that have been completed by FE proponents?