1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Car in Space

« on: February 08, 2018, 07:00:38 PM »

I do not yet have an opinion strong enough to bring to the table. That's why I haven't brought one. Unlike some of the more zealous individuals here, I don't make snap decisions about things like this.

Hahahahahahaha
Things like what? Whether space travel is legitimate or not? If you watched the many videos or were actually there than you've seen it. Also there are now photographs of the lunar landings from satellites.

Whether the earth is a globe or flat is not a debate anymore, it hasn't been for quite a while. This is more like a few people arguing that 2+2 equals 538. When it clearly doesn't and there is absolutely no evidence to suggest it does. Every single explanation I've seen on here and other places like YouTube is very flawed, with most not even understanding basic science.

Do you realize transporting things into space is how SpaceX makes money? Do you think other companies are paying them to pretend to launch their satellites into space? Do you understand how ridiculous of an argument that is?

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: If the Earth were really round...

« on: April 21, 2017, 06:11:16 PM »

...then why would it be so hard to convince us?

Despite your claims to have a wealth of strong evidence for Round Earth Theory, there are still thousands of Flat Earthers, all around the world! Including some very ingenious and deliberate thinkers. If it were truly clear that the Earth wasn't flat, do you not think we'd accept it?

Pretty sure I actually was on topic haha.
The flat earth theory is no different than people who believe the earth is only 6000 years old or that climate change isn't real. There are a surprisingly large amount of people that believe both of those as well. It doesn't matter the amount of evidence or research they are shown, some people will just believe whatever they want.

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: If the Earth were really round...

« on: April 21, 2017, 03:55:19 PM »

Just as an example, I checked this forum for the threads under "Flat Earth Debate" where this thread is located. On the first 2 pages of thread, 80-90% of the most recent comments on the various threads were by round earth proponents. Where are all of the flat earthers willing to debate or discuss?

The flat earth proponents here have simply grown tired of having the same debates over and over again. It seems each round of noobs that come by are more entitled with each iteration. Roundies make demands that they can rarely fulfill themselves, so over the years, regulars get tired of it.

Flat earthers simply have no factual information of a flat earth.

I would suggest reading the wiki, FAQ, and doing some searching on the forum. Aside from that, your post is completely irrelevant and off topic. I am not sure what it will take to get you to follow very simple rules, but it seems that you refuse. Have a couple week vacation to review the rules.

I agree with Poseidon, Gecko's comment definitely was relevant. Certainly more relevant than your comments Junker...
There is no scientific evidence that supports a flat earth. The only thing you guys have going for you are the conspiracy theorists that think everything is a lie. No matter how much evidence and proof there is for a globe, it's still all some huge hoax. There isn't even a logical reason to hide the shape of the world...

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Conspiracy theories and Occam's Razor

« on: April 06, 2017, 02:57:20 PM »

One of the primary concepts behind the Flat Earth theory is Occam's Razor

Yes.

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

Very in depth answer... hahaha.
"Occam's Razor asks us which explanation makes the least number of assumptions."
Literally everything you say about a flat earth is an assumption because there is no actual evidence...

Don't expect much from these people, they do after all think the earth is flat.

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Private Space Companies

« on: February 22, 2017, 05:23:04 PM »

There are two types of space companies. I will describe them briefly

Private Companies who work with NASA

Lockheed Martin, Grumman Aerospace, Computer Sciences Corporation, et. all... These companies are basically Temp Agencies who send people to NASA bases (maybe off-base in some situations) to do work under the supervision of NASA managers. The workers get a check from their Temp Agency, but receive their working instructions and marching orders from NASA. There are actually very few NASA employees. The only people who really work for NASA are the upper level managers and the security personnel. Everything else is temped/contracted out. There is generally no such thing as a NASA engineer or a NASA scientist.

This is what was Eisenhower and his administration meant by proposing NASA as a "civilian space agency".

Private Companies who do not work with NASA

These companies are basically throwing their money away for something that is not achievable. Maybe they can get to "space" for a small about of time, but certainly not into earth orbit, as it does not exist.

You do realize there are many more countries than the US with space programs right?

Ad hominem, that's a new one.

You may want to learn what an ad hominem is (and how it's different from just any personal attack) before you use it as a "gotcha!" way out of a debate. It's really ineffective and it damages your credibility.

As totallackey rightly suggested: think before you post.

Do you have an opinion on the actual topic?

There's a federal hiring freeze, dummy. And even if there wasn't, I doubt NASA advertises on jobsgalore.com, as auspicious as that site is. I do know that they hire plenty of engineers and scientists (yes, they have their own) through university student internships/co-ops.

Actually jobsgalore is an aggregation site which shows job postings from hundreds of job boards and classifieds sites. We can see the many contacting jobs available for Goddard alone. Goddard is hiring contractors as its programmers and engineers.

If only all those thousands of engineers, scientists, and their financial backers were as smart as you!

We don't have private space vacations or space hotels as of yet, despite constant promises since the 1960's. They don't seem to be smart enough.

It takes technology longer to catch up than it does for someone to come up with a great idea. Look at Avatar, he started making that before Pocahontas and wanted better graphics, that was just a movie. We're talking about vacationing in space, it's going to take some time. There already have been people that went for a space vacation, though it cost millions of dollars. It's pretty tough to design a safe reusable rocket, space shuttles are designed for a single mission. They're pretty much building an airplane that can make it to outer space.

By the way NASA released thousands of photos from the moon mission, but I guess you guys will just say those are all fake too...

6

Flat Earth Theory / Private Space Companies

« on: February 20, 2017, 05:23:29 PM »

http://fortune.com/2017/02/20/space-startups-travel-satellites/

http://www.nola.com/science/index.ssf/2017/02/spacex_launches_from_historic.html

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2906247/flights-from-the-uk-to-space-will-be-available-by-2020-under-government-plans/

http://www.virgingalactic.com/

http://www.hongkiat.com/blog/non-governmental-spaceflight/

http://www.space-settlement-institute.org/private-space-companies.html


So, what do you suppose these companies are spending millions on if there is no such thing as space travel?

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why can't I see the sun?

« on: February 17, 2017, 08:45:25 PM »

You only don't know what those blinking lights in the sky are unless you think all astrologists in the world are apart of some dumb conspiracy...

Why would there be a conspiracy of glorified fortune tellers?

Sorry, meant astronomer.

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why can't I see the sun?

« on: February 17, 2017, 08:18:07 PM »

If you go by the definition: the vault or arch of the sky, then yes everything outside of our atmosphere is outside of the firmament.

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why can't I see the sun?

« on: February 17, 2017, 06:13:47 PM »

In the Christian religion the firmament is heaven.

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Huh?

« on: February 17, 2017, 06:04:10 PM »

Are you a REr or a FEr? I can't tell by that post

Only interested in Truth. Either way you look at it the Sun is really far away.

Because it's far away

The other stars are further away but we can clearly see them. It's almost like somethings blocking our view of it haha...

Well FE theory, as far as I know, doesn't consider the Sun a star. Besides knowing that there are blinking lights in the sky, we really don't know what, or how far away, stars are.

Could very well be an atmospheric phenomenon.

One interesting theory I've seen is that the magnetic north pole behaves like a mirror ball and scatters the light from the sun onto our ionosphere. From the perspective of the observer, in their relative position, the rotation of our Stars is intrinsically linked to the perceived rotation of our Sun. That is true on FE and RE.

They have no evidence to say the Sun is not a star, you can't just say you know what I don't think 2+2=4 I'm gonna say it's 6 now, sorry that's not how science/math works. You only don't know what those blinking lights in the sky are unless you think all astrologists in the world are apart of some dumb conspiracy...

From the perspective of the observer, in their relative position, the rotation of our Stars is intrinsically linked to the perceived rotation of our Sun. That is true on FE and RE.

Yes, "the rotation of our Stars is intrinsically linked to the perceived rotation of our Sun", but just why is it that:
          the stars appear to rotate once in 23 hours, 56 minutes, 4.0916 seconds (or 23.9344699 hours, called a sidereal day) but
          the sun appear to rotate, on average, once in 24 hours (called a solar day). So a sidereal day is 0.9972696 mean solar days.

And those numbers are connected is a "strange way".
A year is 365.2422 days and 365.2422/(365.2422 + 1) = 0.9972696, which just "happens" to be the sidereal day as a fraction of a mean solar day.

Now on the globe, this is not a coincidence, there is a perfectly good reason for it,
but what is the reason for this apparent coincidence on the Flat Earth? Why is there this relationship between the period of rotation of the sun and the stars over out head?

What are called stars and the Sun and the Moon occupy different parts of the firmament.

Isn't that heaven? So, no nothing we can physically see or travel to would be part of the firmament.

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why can't I see the sun?

« on: February 15, 2017, 11:30:36 PM »

Because it's far away

The other stars are further away but we can clearly see them. It's almost like somethings blocking our view of it haha...

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Foucault Pendulum

« on: February 15, 2017, 08:00:26 PM »

A couple more things how would seasons, sun rise/set, 24 hour light/dark at the poles etc. work on the bi-polar map?
It would have to be completely different than what the wiki says, since that's a completely different map. I suppose you could use the same "spotlight" idea, which is completely ridiculous to begin with for the actual night/day, but that doesn't explain where the sun would be rising and setting. You also have the same size problem, the Sun doesn't change sizes throughout the day.
How could you possibly have a duration of 24 hour day/night at the poles without the Sun orbiting the poles? On that map it can't orbit either pole because when the Sun would be on the other side the rest of the world will be in darkness. At least the other map works with the north pole in that regard, but not the south pole.
For the seasons I can't think of any explanation other than the Sun moves its orbit from north to south, but then during certain times the orbit would be directly over the poles, among many other problems with that. I really don't see how seasons could work at all with that map. Also what is the mechanism that would cause the Suns orbit to change so drastically for either map?

13

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Foucault Pendulum

« on: February 15, 2017, 05:56:58 PM »

To make Tom Bishop's more plausible you must realise that his flat earth is the "bi-polar model" with the celestial objects rotating in opposite directions about each pole,
as in Re: Coriolis effect in FET « Reply #2 on: January 16, 2015, 06:45:38 AM ».

So Tom thinks the stars act like two gears rotating against eachother right above the equator? If that were true I guess that would explain the different direction of rotation and speed.
How big and far away does he think the stars are? Do they believe the same thing about the stars as they do the Sun and Moon?
He also tried to use those pictures of stars at the equator to disprove a round earth, which is completely false. There should be no curve of the stars at the equator just like there is no rotation of a pendulum at the equator. The further you go North or South than the stars should curve more and more in opposite directions until it completes a complete rotation just like the pendulum (making a full rotation in 24 hours at the poles). So, we have two things doing the exact same thing along with others such as hurricanes. One maybe about 30 feet from the ground and one light years from the earth, but yeah it makes complete since that stars light years away are causing a pendulum to rotate while they perfectly rotate around our planet to separate their direction over our equator instead of the earth itself just spinning...
Tom, I still would like an explanation on how that would not effect buildings over time. 

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Foucault Pendulum

« on: February 15, 2017, 02:54:20 AM »

http://wiki.tfes.org/Foucault_Pendulum

Mach's Principle explains that if the earth was still and all the stars went around the Earth then the gravitational pull of the stars would pull the pendulum. As Mach said "The universe is not twice given, with an earth at rest and an earth in motion; but only once, with its relative motions alone determinable. It is accordingly, not permitted us to say how things would be if the earth did not rotate."

Amir D. Aczel, Pendulum: Léon Foucault and the triumph of science

If that were so then the pendulum wouldn't rotate in different directions in the two hemispheres. Wouldn't the speed be the same on the entire earth? Or maybe it's like a CD, the middle rotates the quickest and the outer edge the slowest. That doesn't happen either, a flat earth would have the South Pole as the edge, but it rotates the same speed as the North Pole, and there is no rotation on the equator. On a flat disc that makes no since, but it makes perfect since for a spinning sphere.
Wouldn't large objects on the ground be effected by this gravity from the stars as well? Like buildings slowly being twisted...

Your wiki also states:
Summarily, the line of the pendula must be 25 meters in length to get the minimum effect, and so by necessity, Leon Focault's original experiments between latitudes were conducted outside hung from a tree exposed to the elements. Dr. Rowbotham finds that the variations of the pendula are caused entirely by the contraction and expansion of its line due to temperature variations upon the earth's surface in relation to the nearness of the Sun. These variations match up perfectly with the official published results of Focault's experiments.

Too bad a current pendulum used for scientific research is in a controlled environment. The temperature and pressure are controlled, so the only difference is the location (latitude).

15

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Foucault Pendulum

« on: February 14, 2017, 03:42:28 PM »

So, how would Focault's Pendulum be possible on a flat stationary Earth?

16

Flat Earth Theory / Foucault Pendulum

« on: February 13, 2017, 06:54:12 PM »

I'm surprised I haven't seen any posts on this topic, especially since it is something you can do yourself if you have a high enough ceiling.
One pendulum proves the earth is spinning, multiple pendulums at different latitudes prove the earth is a spinning globe.
Yes, I am aware of the Allais Effect. If you look up gravitational variations during a total solar eclipse you will find some interesting information, that may account for the allais effect. Also it appears that some solar eclipse experiments may have controlled temperature but not pressure, while others accounted for both; which could explain why the allais effect is not observed with all pendulums. Or maybe not all of the locations that were tested observed a full solar eclipse, I didn't see anything mentioning if it was a total or partial eclipse on most of the experiments. From what I saw it's still not completely understood as of yet, and definitely doesn't "debunk" the information we get from the pendulum.

17

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The CIA

« on: February 10, 2017, 05:52:06 PM »

The CIA would be creating competing conspiracy theories to distract from something like the truth about the JFK shooting. They probably wouldn't have an interest in creating theories outside of their scope, such as "Richard Branson is really Satan".

You would need to show how the shape of the earth falls under the scope of the CIA.

The CIA didn't originally create the flat earth conspiracy, what I am suggesting is that they brought it back to draw attention away from other conspiracies. As well as to make people believe that conspiracies are illogical so they don't buy into any other conspiracy.

So who are the people arguing in favor of Flat Earth Theory? CIA spies?

If the conspiracy within a conspiracy is true then yes, haha. There are articles suggesting agents posted or may even created forums dedicated to the flat earth much like this one to spread the "theory". I would not think they are still posting, because their mission is complete. A decent amount of people have bought into it and defend it, so there is no need for them to anymore.

How could a theory be defended and bought into if there is nothing to defend and buy into?

People will believe whatever they want to believe, even if there is no actual evidence. Look at all of the different religions, or what is going on in the world right now and in the past. It doesn't take many to manipulate the masses.

18

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The CIA

« on: February 09, 2017, 08:41:19 PM »

The CIA would be creating competing conspiracy theories to distract from something like the truth about the JFK shooting. They probably wouldn't have an interest in creating theories outside of their scope, such as "Richard Branson is really Satan".

You would need to show how the shape of the earth falls under the scope of the CIA.

The CIA didn't originally create the flat earth conspiracy, what I am suggesting is that they brought it back to draw attention away from other conspiracies. As well as to make people believe that conspiracies are illogical so they don't buy into any other conspiracy.

So who are the people arguing in favor of Flat Earth Theory? CIA spies?

If the conspiracy within a conspiracy is true then yes, haha. There are articles suggesting agents posted or may even created forums dedicated to the flat earth much like this one to spread the "theory". I would not think they are still posting, because their mission is complete. A decent amount of people have bought into it and defend it, so there is no need for them to anymore.

19

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The CIA

« on: February 09, 2017, 07:58:37 PM »

The CIA would be creating competing conspiracy theories to distract from something like the truth about the JFK shooting. They probably wouldn't have an interest in creating theories outside of their scope, such as "Richard Branson is really Satan".

You would need to show how the shape of the earth falls under the scope of the CIA.

The CIA didn't originally create the flat earth conspiracy, what I am suggesting is that they brought it back to draw attention away from other conspiracies. As well as to make people believe that conspiracies are illogical so they don't buy into any other conspiracy.

20

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The CIA

« on: February 09, 2017, 07:49:41 PM »

If they wanted you to think that then there would be actual "leaked" documents.
The only evidence I've seen are videos of ex CIA agents talking about it, but there are also plenty of videos of them talking about aliens and 9/11, etc. so it's not very hard evidence, also no way to tell if they are who they say they are.
The reason I posted it is because of the timing and it actually makes since. There is a clear motive, on the other hand hiding that the earth is flat there is no motive. Not to mention all of the evidence and actual proof that the earth is not flat. Why did the movement begin to get so popular a few years after 2001? There may be some truth to the 9/11 conspiracies, I definitely don't think Bush had anything to do with it, but possibly the FBI or CIA you never know. Or maybe its a completely different conspiracy they are trying to cover up, but the timing would suggest the 9/11 attacks. The timing of the flat earth movement and how big it got in a short amount of time even though there is absolutely no scientific evidence for it is very suspicious, really makes you wonder.