[hjk321]

Hello all,

I've been reading through the wiki and FAQ and I must say, it is fairly interesting. However I do have a few questions about this (rather well-presented) theory:

1. Are other planets/moons flat as well? If so, how do orbits work? If not, what makes earth so special?

2. What is the general TFES consensus on the Hubble photographs of other galaxies taken by what is claimed to be an satellite orbiting earth?

3. What lies beyond Antarctica (or do we really not know)? Where exactly is the Amundsen-Scott Base (located exactly on the supposed "south pole") on the map?

4. Is the flat plane of earth infinitely expanding? Would it be possible to "fall off" earth? Where would we fall to?

5. How does a GPS actually work?

I genuinely look forward to any insight I can get on this matter. Thanks.

Regards,
hjk321

[Wintershot]

I think a better question for these maniacs would be to ask: When we look through telescopes and view other planets and celestial bodies, they, too, all appear to be perfectly round. Is the suggestion, then, that these discs are all perfectly aligned with the Earth, facing directly towards us?

[Curious Squirrel]

1. The planets in our solar system are round. Earth is not a planet, so it's not round. There are many reasons Earth is special, including being the center of known intelligent observation of the universe.
2. Not sure there is one for sure. Some definitely think the photos of other places are real, but just don't come from a space based device. Others lump them all in with the rest of the images coming from space based devices (fake)
3. For those still using the unipolar map, nobody knows. The bipolar map has Antarctica as a second continent, and thus can fit the base. What is around the edges is still unknown however.
4. That is one possible theory. As for falling off, it is unknown both if it's possible and where you would end up (other than below the Earth.)
5. Various answers have been proposed, from balloon carried satellites, to troposcatter relays. Note these are the same methods proposed for Satellite TV.

I think a better question for these maniacs would be to ask: When we look through telescopes and view other planets and celestial bodies, they, too, all appear to be perfectly round. Is the suggestion, then, that these discs are all perfectly aligned with the Earth, facing directly towards us?

They are sphere's, not flat like the Earth. The Earth is not a planet, and as such doesn't follow the same rules. If you have 5 objects in a room, and four of them are chairs, should we just assume the 5th is a chair as well and not a table?

[Wintershot]

Right, so we are the only non-sphere around. If that is the case then how do these spheres form and function? Given the fact that gravity does not function as previous thought, according to the FES. Their formation should have been impossible.
I would also be interested to find out, if we are accelerating upwards at a constant speed, why does it appear that our relative position to our neighbours does not change, nor has it changed since we first noted our position in the stars?

If you have 5 objects in a room, and four of them are chairs, should we just assume the 5th is a chair as well and not a table?

This is a very poor argument. If something looks the same, acts in the same manner and fits, from our observations of other "planets", into the known physics and behaviours of the Universe, then the assumption that it is a planet seems reasonable. A table does not look like a chair.

[Curious Squirrel]

Right, so we are the only non-sphere around. If that is the case then how do these spheres form and function? Given the fact that gravity does not function as previous thought, according to the FES. Their formation should have been impossible.
I would also be interested to find out, if we are accelerating upwards at a constant speed, why does it appear that our relative position to our neighbours does not change, nor has it changed since we first noted our position in the stars?

For the first bit, I'm not sure. We DO have 'celestial gravitation' which is essentially only celestial objects have gravity (there is a claim of difference here, but I've never been able to get to the bottom of it personally, sorry) or of course under the infinite Earth model there's not problem as gravity still exists as normal.
The primary hypotheses I'm aware of in this instance, is that either everything is moving along with us, or we've already approached so close to the speed of light, nothing is really moving in relation to us anymore due to time dilation. The first is the more popular one from my understanding however. Note that this doesn't require a dome, although some DO state this is why everything is moving together.

[Wintershot]

Right, so we are the only non-sphere around. If that is the case then how do these spheres form and function? Given the fact that gravity does not function as previous thought, according to the FES. Their formation should have been impossible.
I would also be interested to find out, if we are accelerating upwards at a constant speed, why does it appear that our relative position to our neighbours does not change, nor has it changed since we first noted our position in the stars?

For the first bit, I'm not sure. We DO have 'celestial gravitation' which is essentially only celestial objects have gravity (there is a claim of difference here, but I've never been able to get to the bottom of it personally, sorry) or of course under the infinite Earth model there's not problem as gravity still exists as normal.
The primary hypotheses I'm aware of in this instance, is that either everything is moving along with us, or we've already approached so close to the speed of light, nothing is really moving in relation to us anymore due to time dilation. The first is the more popular one from my understanding however. Note that this doesn't require a dome, although some DO state this is why everything is moving together.

The entire Universe is moving in perfect synchronicity with the Earth? Come on.

The problem with every proposal of the FES is that it is all unprovable, so it is based on faith and cherry-picked science.

The fact that the Earth is a sphere is provable and has been proven, the only argument against it is that because everyone who believes it to be a lie has not been to space to observe it, or does not have the scientific training/understanding to calculate it.

Do you argue with other scientific theories because you, personally, are unable to verify them? Do you really believe that there is a global conspiracy encompassing governments, universities, corporations, scientific bodies, basically everyone and everything who could prove it, either way, is lying? You think people who go into professions where the shape of the Earth could be proven is indoctrinated as soon as they qualify?

You could prove it. Get a weather balloon and strap a GoPro and GPS tracker to it. Of course, if you did find that the Earth was a sphere, as soon as you said it was so, the FES would call you a liar and part of the conspiracy. See the problem?

[Curious Squirrel]

Right, so we are the only non-sphere around. If that is the case then how do these spheres form and function? Given the fact that gravity does not function as previous thought, according to the FES. Their formation should have been impossible.
I would also be interested to find out, if we are accelerating upwards at a constant speed, why does it appear that our relative position to our neighbours does not change, nor has it changed since we first noted our position in the stars?

For the first bit, I'm not sure. We DO have 'celestial gravitation' which is essentially only celestial objects have gravity (there is a claim of difference here, but I've never been able to get to the bottom of it personally, sorry) or of course under the infinite Earth model there's not problem as gravity still exists as normal.
The primary hypotheses I'm aware of in this instance, is that either everything is moving along with us, or we've already approached so close to the speed of light, nothing is really moving in relation to us anymore due to time dilation. The first is the more popular one from my understanding however. Note that this doesn't require a dome, although some DO state this is why everything is moving together.

The entire Universe is moving in perfect synchronicity with the Earth? Come on.

The problem with every proposal of the FES is that it is all unprovable, so it is based on faith and cherry-picked science.

The fact that the Earth is a sphere is provable and has been proven, the only argument against it is that because everyone who believes it to be a lie has not been to space to observe it, or does not have the scientific training/understanding to calculate it.

Do you argue with other scientific theories because you, personally, are unable to verify them? Do you really believe that there is a global conspiracy encompassing governments, universities, corporations, scientific bodies, basically everyone and everything who could prove it, either way, is lying? You think people who go into professions where the shape of the Earth could be proven is indoctrinated as soon as they qualify?

You could prove it. Get a weather balloon and strap a GoPro and GPS tracker to it. Of course, if you did find that the Earth was a sphere, as soon as you said it was so, the FES would call you a liar and part of the conspiracy. See the problem?

Sorry, not a FE believer, but interestingly their wiki says basically exactly what you have just stated right here. But we're straying a bit far from the original question, which I've answered about as well as I understand it.

Also for the GoPro and balloon, most get called 'bad' because of barrel distortion and/or wide angle lenses.

[Wintershot]

Sorry, not a FE believer

Well, that's annoying.

I read the thread in your signature link. Very amusing.

[Tom Haws]

Sorry, not a FE believer

Well, that's annoying.

I read the thread in your signature link. Very amusing.

Airtight, I would say. Wow!