181

Flat Earth Theory / Re: TFES is not interested in debating the shape of the earth

« on: February 06, 2016, 03:02:03 AM »

Here is what's currently accepted by the science community with regards to the shape of the earth.



I find the flat earth model more plausible.

I can not personally attest to the measurments of the land masses because I have never measured an entire continent.

Nor have I ever calibrated my own measuring device to see if it is "accurate".

Which brings me to this point. When measuring the earth, what devices and  calibrations should we be using?

Are planes really traveling the speed that they suggest? Are cars really travelling the speed that they suggest?

What exactly is a mile? Have you taken a tape measure and accurately measured a mile out on the earth surface?

Does the clock in a car act exactly the same as the clock in a plane?

Are you purposely using misinformation to further your belief or are you doing so out of ignorance?

The image you chose is a representation of gravity.  It is not "what's currently accepted by the science community with regards to the shape of the earth."

182

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why No Standard Flat Earth map?

« on: February 06, 2016, 02:52:09 AM »

More importantly, FE supporters conveniently ignore the fact that RE supporters improve and update their maps as more information and knowledge becomes available.

Oh, sweetheart, we don't ignore it. We laugh in your faces because of it.

The conversation at hand is about a 300 year old RE map that has been updated through time and is no longer considered to be valid and you offer up photos across a 40 year time frame as some sort of evidence?

Why don't you show evidence of how the FE map has changed, as knowledge is gained, from its first incarnation to now?  Are the angels still standing at the four corners of the world or has it definitively been proven that they don't actually exist?

183

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why No Standard Flat Earth map?

« on: February 02, 2016, 05:12:58 AM »

Before 1900 most of the earth's coastlines were accurately mapped, ie the lat-long of enough locations was determined to enable accurate maps to be drawn of the continents. In addition to this surveyors accurately mapped the interiors of many countries.

You put too much faith in map mapers and explorers. It is conveniently forgotten that for over 300 years RE maps depicted California as an island off the coast of the United States, despite being one of the most important frontiers and discoveries in the world at that time.

More importantly, FE supporters conveniently ignore the fact that RE supporters improve and update their maps as more information and knowledge becomes available.

I have no idea how large the population of FE supporters is but are they not a large enough group that, through a collective, could generate the funds necessary to mount an expedition which would ultimately prove their theory to be correct?  FE supporters want everyone to believe their theory based only on the information in their own, purpose generated, wiki yet they don't care enough about their theory to actually try to prove it to be correct.

Why is this the case?

184

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why No Standard Flat Earth map?

« on: January 30, 2016, 01:18:59 PM »

One might equally ask, why not one standard view of the round earth?



At least we aren't being dishonest about not being sure. We aren't just making photoshop earths and passing them off as photographs.

So you're trying to conflate a standard view of a changeable system with a standard map that is readily accepted by virtually all countries around the world?

185

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I made a Triangle (Not Literally)

« on: January 30, 2016, 01:16:56 PM »

What is there to disprove? You posed a hypothesis. If the Earth is round, your hypothesis will be correct.

Go ahead. Perform your experiment.

It has been done, but on a smaller scale, but the logic is the same on the earth (If perfectly round).
I propose to you (Flat Earthers) to disprove it.  Explain why I couldn't scale it up and/or explain why my experiment was false or what ever your idea may be.

You do realize that if this is done on a small scale, you can not make a triangle, whether the Earth is round or flat, right?  If you don't believe me, go to a park, walk 100 meters, turn 90 degrees, etc.  and you will not have made a triangle.

In reality, this is just a thought experiment.  If the Earth is round, then this is what you would expect to happen.  This does not mean that it has ever happened.  Yes, you can do it on a beach ball or something, but who cares?  It has never been performed on the Earth.  Frankly, I don't see what this has to do with the Earth, or why you think we are so ignorant about geometry that we would try to mathematically or otherwise try to disprove this.

Do you understand the concept of scaling an experiment?

Say the size of a large sphere is 20,000 units and it spins at 1,000 units per hour.

To scale that experiment down, let's say 1/10 scale, the smaller (scale) sphere would be 2,000 units and the spin would be 100 units per hour.

From the original post the distance traveled would also scale down proportionately to 1,000 units.

This is the way scale works.  All parameters are treated to the same scale factor.  Your example above is not equivalent to scale modeling.

186

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why No Standard Flat Earth map?

« on: January 30, 2016, 04:02:26 AM »

This is related to the ice wall, circumference around the ice wall and lines/degrees of latitude.

I have not seen that FE proponents disagree with the measurement of one degree of latitude being 60 nautical miles or that there are 180 degrees of latitude in general.

With this information the radius of the FE model, from the north pole to the ice wall, would be 10,800 nautical miles.

From this the circumference can be found using a mathematical equation that I believe FE proponents accept, circumference is equal to Pi multiplied by the diameter.

The above measurements allows for a diameter of 21,600 nautical miles which allows for a circumference of 67,858 nautical miles.

This would be a very easy proof for FE proponents, as well as allowing them to accurately map the coast of the ice wall, yet this has never been attempted.

Neither has been attempted because the idea of a FE exists only as that, an idea.  Once the idea is put to verifiable and repeatable tests it falls flat.

187

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Some what I think are simple questions to answer.

« on: January 30, 2016, 03:40:58 AM »

I did and after reading your reply went back to check and did not see any answers.

Try reading harder.  I have faith in you!  And try the wiki too.  There's bound to be something about Eratosthenes' crackpot observation in there somewhere.

How, exactly, does one read harder?  Is that the same as reading between the lines?  Is that the same as reading something and then dismissing it in whole or in part and inserting what you believe or want to believe is true?

As to pointing to your FAQ or Wiki, you do understand that this is nothing more than circular logic don't you?  Why can you not point people to peer reviewed, repeatable and repeated experiments and theories instead?

You believe in a FE for your reasons and that is perfectly acceptable.  Do you believe all FE ideas equally or do you dismiss some as less valid or not valid at all?  If you dismiss all other FE ideas and maintain your chosen version of belief to be the correct one how did you come to that version of truth?

Please do explain this from a personal perspective as the FAQ's and Wiki are very general (and offer support for so many versions of FE truth) so referencing back to them does no good in supporting your personal belief.

188

Flat Earth Theory / Re: A question for all round earthers

« on: January 16, 2016, 08:12:42 AM »

Lets pretend that you've just woken up from a coma and have absolutely no idea where you are or what's happening.  You wake from a coma and are gradually nursed back to health by someone who happens to believe in flat earth.  So while you relearn most things about the world and life and what you do and do not have to do, the one thing you are taught differently is that the earth is flat and stationary.  Would you disbelieve it?

Why pretend?

If you want that kind of blind indoctrination go live in North Korea.

189

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why do you believe the Earth is Flat ?

« on: January 09, 2016, 05:06:58 AM »

On what do you base your belief that the Earth is Flat ?

I'm so green to the FET - me and my gf just uncovering some of this info a few days ago. The more I look into this (watch documentaries, youtube vids, and read on the net) the more I'm starting to believe the earth is indeed flat.

I don't know enough to elaborately debate anything (yet), but I am now hooked into an investigation - I look at the sun and moon in an entirely new way.

So far the biggest reason I believe the earth may be flat is the lack of any photo that has not been photoshopped proving curvature. There is not a single photo not taken with a fish eye lens that shows curvature. Nothing... This is alarming to me.

Secondly - all the mathematical "theory" involving the heavenly bodies in "outer space" are just that - theories. All these formulas with big numbers just look nonsensical, and even listening to some "round earther" trying to calculate the physical locations of objects supposedly millions of miles away based on a formula that is based off a "theory" just seems assinine to me.  It's lunchtime - I will add more later

Seems to me that you would be well served to look into how theory is defined for different uses.

You dismiss all of the theory that supports a round Earth but, as you have admitted, you support the flat Earth theory.  What, in your mind, makes the flat Earth theory any more valid than the theories that support a round Earth?  Is it simply because you don't know how to use the math behind the theories that support a round Earth?

190

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Pros and Cons for a flat Earth

« on: January 05, 2016, 11:47:00 AM »

Believe me, if I had the budget I would be only too happy to perform your little experiment.  I don't (and frankly I'm not convinced it would necessarily prove anything anyway as regards the shape of the Earth).  Fortunately, I really don't need to to see that the Earth is flat.  I see that the Earth is flat by looking out my window.

So your zetetic method of looking out the window, necessarily limited in scope, and making assumptions about the wider world is valid and flawless yet the scientific method is invalid and flawed.

How did you come to this conclusion if you're not even proceeding by the zetetic method to begin with?

Also I'm not asking you to perform or fund my little experiment.  I'm asking why the FES doesn't perform or fund such an experiment.  If the theory is correct they have absolutely nothing to lose from the endeavor and everything to gain.  It seems only logical, if the theory is correct, that the society would be chomping at the bit to take on this experiment.

191

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Pros and Cons for a flat Earth

« on: January 05, 2016, 04:03:18 AM »

If science can't be relied upon as an arbiter of truth by what means do you come to the conclusion of a flat Earth and by what means do you support your conclusions?

Our approach is zetetic rather than scientific.

Zetetic - Proceeding by inquiry; investigating.

Is this not what science does?

It is certainly what science purports to do, but its methods of doing so are flawed.

How are the zetetic methods of the FES not flawed?

I've seen numerous iterations of "I don't see a curve, so the Earth is flat.".

Where are the reports and observations of the zetetic study of the ice wall and what lies beyond?

This would be a very easy proof.

One degree of latitude is 60 nautical miles.

180 degrees of latitude in total.

A radius of 10,800 nautical miles from 90 degrees north to 90 degrees south.

The circumference of the flat Earth, at the ice wall, would be approximately 67,000 nautical miles (depending on variances of the ice wall coast line).

A group of zetetists (for lack of a better word, correct word?) and a group of scientists, using mutually agreed upon methods of measurement, board a ship (crewed equally with flat Earth and round Earth proponents) and set sail for the ice wall.  Once they arrive at the ice wall turn east or west and measure the time it takes to make one complete circuit around the ice wall as well as measuring the distance around the same.

If this measurement is done and the circumference is proved to be approximately 67,000 nautical mile the FES would provide the best proof of their theory.  If the measurement does not prove to be anywhere close to 67,000 nautical miles the FES theory begins to fall apart.

This is the core of inquiry and investigation.  Why has this endeavor never been undertaken?

192

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Pros and Cons for a flat Earth

« on: January 04, 2016, 12:20:24 PM »

If science can't be relied upon as an arbiter of truth by what means do you come to the conclusion of a flat Earth and by what means do you support your conclusions?

Our approach is zetetic rather than scientific.

Zetetic - Proceeding by inquiry; investigating.

Is this not what science does?

193

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why do you believe the Earth is Flat ?

« on: January 04, 2016, 11:59:53 AM »

I looked out my window and it was flat.

Wow, that proves everything!

This is a simplistic statement that covers the essence of flat-earth theory for many.  The earth is flat because that's how we see it.  People say it's a sphere, but that's counter-intuitive and notoriously difficult to demonstrate.  It makes more sense that it's flat and we aren't swayed, as of yet, with evidence to the contrary.

Air is invisible yet you can still breathe.  You can also, at times, feel air move past you.

By your logic air doesn't exist since you can't see it yet you are still breathing and you can still feel air move past you.

How does the same logic prove a flat Earth yet doesn't account for the air you breath?

194

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Pros and Cons for a flat Earth

« on: January 04, 2016, 08:00:56 AM »

We don't know anything. The matter-wave controversy in atomic theory is but one controversy of many.

Science cannot be relied on as an arbiter of truth. There are so many questions, so many inconsistencies, one is left to fend for themselves in a sea of uncertainty. The Flat Earth Theory is our interpretation of physical phenomena, and we have gathered supporting evidence to demonstrate it.

If science can't be relied upon as an arbiter of truth by what means do you come to the conclusion of a flat Earth and by what means do you support your conclusions?

195

Flat Earth Theory / Re: EVIDENCE

« on: January 04, 2016, 06:19:55 AM »

Hi everyone, please tell me if I'm wrong on this point:

the only 'real' evidence that the Earth is a ball comes from NASA, and other affiliated space/meteorological agencies.

In order to prove that the Earth is a ball, is there any non-agency, non-government funded scientific or exploratory research that can, without any doubt, SHOW the spherical Earth. I think that in order to weigh up the evidence we need more than just what NASA and the like have to say.

Any thoughts?

I think that you must have not really spent much time looking.

Almost all well educated people have known that the Earth is round for at least 2000 years probably more.
The only people who thought otherwise where more influenced by religion than science.

So you think that Russia and China (who do not have particularly close relations with us -particularly 40 years ago) as well as the other 40 or more nations which have some space activity are all in cahoots in this plot?

The idea of a spherical earth came from Ancient Greece.  They believed the earth must be a perfect sphere, because they were keen on the idea of perfect geometries.  They believed that all of the celestial bodies must be perfect spheres, and therefore Earth must be as well.  They were wrong, but the idea caught on.  The reason almost all "well educated people" believe anything of the sort is because it's the most popular idea at the time.

How do you know the earth is round?  I'm not asking what you've been taught, or what you've read.  How do you, yourself know?

You don't.

How do you know the Earth is flat?  I'm not asking what you've been taught, or what you've read.  How do you, yourself know?

You don't.

196

Flat Earth Theory / Re: EVIDENCE

« on: January 04, 2016, 06:04:55 AM »

Satellites have  never been discounted by flat earth theorists,  and it's easy to prove they are where they say they are.  GPS systems are a good example,  The American, European and Russian GPS systems all rely on the earth being a globe. 

Satellite TV  transmitter locations can be easily triangulated,  and guess what they are all in geostationary orbits over the equator.

Weather satellites transmit real time weather data that can be received and decoded by anybody.   

Game over.  The evidence cannot be refuted.

Hi, Rayzor, I've just posted a question on the thread about Himawari-8. In brief: ......can anyone link to photographs and/or videos of actual satellites in space, doing their thing? Answer in the thread if possible, many thanks.

Considering that the FES disregards all photographic evidence, except that which fosters their own beliefs, why are you demanding evidence that you will only disregard?

You believe that you have won something here but you haven't.  There is equipment available that can take a photo, from Earth, of satellites doing their thing in space.  The problem resides in the reason you would use to discount such a picture, perspective.  To allow for a photo with enough resolution to clearly and definitively identify a satellite as opposed to being a little blinking light requires the loss of perspective.

In the same vein as your demand, provide physical proof (i.e. the location) of the cosmic ray devices that purportedly hold the satellites and clouds up.

197

Flat Earth Theory / Re: EVIDENCE

« on: January 04, 2016, 05:30:11 AM »

Hi and thanks for the replies. However, what I'm asking for is: does anyone know of any person or body that has conducted such exhaustive and extensive inquiry to conclusively prove that the earth is a ball or indeed, and more importantly, that the earth is flat? I don't believe it is wise to simply accept what NASA and other official bodies have to say, as lying about one thing (moon-landings) means that nothing else can be considered true. Universities are also out of the question as their bias and funding source go hand-in-hand. Surely, I think, with all the numbers of people that have an interest in the FE concept surely someone or group with a scientific bent has decided to do the science properly? If the FE is to be made 'official' in the world then it's no use speculating and surmising and arguing on this forum and YouTube, real science has to take place. Has it, is it?

Why has the FES not funded studies to provide the answer to the question you are asking?

Seems to me that would be an endeavor that the Society would readily undertake since it would undoubtedly support their facts.

198

Flat Earth Theory / Re: EVIDENCE

« on: January 04, 2016, 05:26:52 AM »

They really don't have much if space research is discounted.

Just as the FES has everything because science is discounted?