1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Theories is all we have

« on: April 12, 2018, 06:35:01 PM »

we have a much better theory when it comes to flat or round debates, we have more facts, more knowledge of how the Earth actually works.

Can you explain how flat earth THEORY has more facts and knowledge of how the earth works?

JUST OPEN YOUR EYES AND LOOK AT THE EARTH ON THE INSIDE, IT'S LIKE SOMEONE SHOVING YOU INSIDE OF A BOX, AND THEN YOU WAKE UP AND REALIZE YOU'RE IN A BOX. IT'S NOT THAT HARD TO REALIZE AND UNDERSTAND YOU'RE IN A FLAT CIRCLE.

Look at the Earth on the inside? I don't think going in a cave will help determine the shape of the earth. Can you please answer the original question.

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Theories is all we have

« on: April 10, 2018, 06:17:49 PM »

we have a much better theory when it comes to flat or round debates, we have more facts, more knowledge of how the Earth actually works.

Can you explain how flat earth THEORY has more facts and knowledge of how the earth works?

3

Flat Earth Theory / Why?

« on: March 14, 2018, 02:58:07 PM »

So the one question that i have not seen awnsered is WHY.

Why is it definitive the earth is flat  (if pictures, videos, large corporations (e.g. NASA, Space X, etc), and  people  (e.g. Elon Musk etc) dont count for a round earth they can't work for a flat one eather)

Why would the world keep it a secret  (I know this has come up before but if money was the primary factor it would be easier to say the earth is flat and save yourself the cost of keeping it secret. You could horde a lot more money that way.)

And Why is the scientific method discounted for proving things if some of its major parts are experimenting and recording the OBSERVATIONS of that experiment and then explaining how you achieved that for other people to test and make sure it works elsewhere.

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is the Earth not round

« on: February 26, 2018, 07:29:28 PM »

So from my observations the original question was completely avoided and instead people choose to focus on whether or not the earth orbits the sun

5

Flat Earth Theory / Why is the Earth not round

« on: February 22, 2018, 04:54:49 PM »

I have noticed that while this site will work immensely hard to prove the possibility of a flat earth there seams to be a lack on how a round earth is not possible. So I am asking any and all members of the Flat Earth Society to tell me how a Round Earth Does NOT Work.

Fore those on the side of a Round Earth Please wait for The Flat Earth Society to respond before posting your own theories.

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Doing some Reasearch

« on: February 20, 2018, 07:21:48 PM »

I was hoping someone could point me to some more  recent articles on it the newest ones i can see in ther library are from 2001 and are about a person more than the earth.

7

Flat Earth Theory / Doing some Reasearch

« on: February 20, 2018, 04:52:45 PM »

I was wondering if anyone could point me towards some modern flat earth texts so i can try to get a bit of an understanding.

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: On the sinking ship effect

« on: February 17, 2018, 01:34:38 AM »

I recently talked to a sailor who had spent 18 years working on ships during that time he became very good at spoting ships on the horizon when I explaind the flat earth perspective on how ships diminish in size he told me "No matter how much you magnify the ship it will be blocked out by the curviture of the earth."

It is called atmospheric magnification / refraction. The moisture above the water acts as a lens. As the object on the water recedes it will begin to "sink" from the bottom up. This is elementary science that a sailor will not get from "spotting ships" and not knowing a thing about atmospheric magnification / refraction. For you to cite that reference really is ludicrous. You eyes are lenses. The atmosphere is another lens you are looking through. That's two lenses to view an actual object.

The video aptly explains this phenomena quite well and nothing more needs to be said about such simplicity.

Well I contacted the "Simple sailor" NOT only did he know what Atmospheric Magnification/Refraction was(which by the way he learnt what it was during his time on ships) he also explaind that what you are referring to is NOT in fact atmospheric Magnification/Refraction but in fact Thermal Inversion due to the fact it is over water it is reflected on the water as well as naturaly being a phenomenon that acts at short range only .

 In terms of your video it dose not explain anything thought the guy has some good video splicing skills maybe link the source videos next time.

Also I looked up Atmospheric Magnification/Refraction and Guess what it works on a ROUND EARTH AS WELL hear is a site i found this information on https://aty.sdsu.edu/explain/atmos_refr/magnification.html

The only ludicrous thing here is that YOU assumed someone's level of education by there career.

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: House of Cards

« on: February 15, 2018, 04:56:47 PM »

So I just did some google searches and found some sites that talk about the ancient Greeks and circles. Hear they are:

https://nrich.maths.org/2561 , http://www.storyofmathematics.com/greek.html , https://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/world-full-circles-180954529/

10

Flat Earth Theory / On the sinking ship effect

« on: February 09, 2018, 03:21:04 AM »

I recently talked to a sailor who had spent 18 years working on ships during that time he became very good at spoting ships on the horizon when I explaind the flat earth perspective on how ships diminish in size he told me "No matter how much you magnify the ship it will be blocked out by the curviture of the earth."

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why Skepticism Supports A Round Earth.

« on: February 01, 2018, 10:15:54 PM »

I find that it is more likely for someone to be skeptic of something which does not give a coherent awnser (FET) compaired to something with one coherent awnser (RET)

Well, that's your opinion. Who are we to tell you otherwise? Personally, I consider the opposite to be the case (some coherent RE'ers exist, but the vast majority say things like "if the Earth is flat then what do compasses point to?" or "Explain how it can be night in the southern hemisphere but, day in the northern hemisphere"), so I draw the opposite conclusion.

So in your opinion or that of any FE'er what counts as coherent?

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why Skepticism Supports A Round Earth.

« on: February 01, 2018, 07:17:52 PM »

I genuinely would like a flat earth perspective awnser to my previous post

13

Flat Earth Theory / Why Skepticism Supports A Round Earth.

« on: January 29, 2018, 04:48:13 PM »

I find that it is more likely for someone to be skeptic of something which does not give a coherent awnser (FET) compaired to something with one coherent awnser (RET)

I know the big responce to this will be "but round earth theory doesn't provide acquit proof" the common responce to that is "you dismiss any proof provided as false, inaccurate, or part of a conspiracy."

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Burden of Proof

« on: January 20, 2018, 11:26:32 PM »

I have walked around outside for a while now and i can onestly say that it does not look flat it lumps and bumps.

So how is looking at the earth evidence?

15

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Burden of Proof

« on: January 20, 2018, 04:04:22 PM »

With that example on ghosts while yes in that scenario it is instinctively put on the one who says ghosts don't exist when the person claiming the exist provides evidence the person claiming they don't then would naturally respond with there own evidence thus both sides provide evidence.

16

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Burden of Proof

« on: January 19, 2018, 10:50:58 PM »

Thank you both for your  insight on this subject i was simply confused by how there wiki presented who should or should not be providing more evidence this clears it up

Again thanks

17

Flat Earth Theory / The Burden of Proof

« on: January 19, 2018, 09:02:17 PM »

So I was reading Through the wiki and came across the Burden of Proof section the one example I found confusing is:

If two people are having a debate, should the burden of proof rest on the shoulders of the person who make the most complicated claim, or should the burden of proof rest on the shoulders of the person who makes the simplest and easily observable claim?

I find in an debate both sides have to provide evidence or you are not actually having a debate.