121

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Inquiries about Flat Earth theory of the firmament.

« on: November 03, 2020, 09:30:28 AM »

That was a great response, I appreciate the info.  The only point I'd make is that some flat earthers like me believe the firmament is below the sun and moon and thus helps explain A lot of phenomena in certain FE models like 24/7 light in certain places as the sun's rays literally wrap around the dome...  or just the general appearance of the sun, moon, and stars as there image is distorted 😼

Hi,

Regarding your belief in the ozone layer of the atmosphere being the firmament, do you believe that man has flown, or rocketed, or ballooned past this ozone firmament? (the ozone layer is 9 to 18 miles above the Earth's surface)

Or, do you believe that man cannot pass the ozone firmament?

Thank you.

122

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Inquiries about Flat Earth theory of the firmament.

« on: November 02, 2020, 05:48:54 PM »

I personally the firmament is the same thing as what's talked about in the RE community.  It's a later of dense atmosphere above the earth.

Hi,

I don't believe RE community talks about or believes in a layer of dense atmosphere above the Earth.

RE community believes that the higher one goes in altitude, the less dense the atmosphere becomes.

For the FE firmament theory, is FE belief then the opposite of this?
....i.e. the higher one goes in altitude, the MORE dense the atmosphere becomes until there is a really dense layer?

Thank you.

I believe it's the Ozone layer im talking about.   Its the layer in the atmosphere with the most Ozone as you go up.

But, the ozone layer is not "dense."

So, how would something not dense create a firmament structure?

Also, above the ozone layer is still more atmosphere. So, an ozone layer as a firmament would not really be a "true" firmament with a boundary layer.

Is an ozone firmament the mainstream FE belief in terms of what the firmament is made of, or, is it just one potential theory out of many? As mentioned earlier, there are some TFES members that have stated the firmament as a glass dome.

123

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Inquiries about Flat Earth theory of the firmament.

« on: November 02, 2020, 07:36:21 AM »

I personally the firmament is the same thing as what's talked about in the RE community.  It's a later of dense atmosphere above the earth.

Hi,

I don't believe RE community talks about or believes in a layer of dense atmosphere above the Earth.

RE community believes that the higher one goes in altitude, the less dense the atmosphere becomes.

For the FE firmament theory, is FE belief then the opposite of this?
....i.e. the higher one goes in altitude, the MORE dense the atmosphere becomes until there is a really dense layer?

Thank you.

124

Flat Earth Theory / Inquiries about Flat Earth theory of the firmament.

« on: November 02, 2020, 12:21:26 AM »

Hi,

Just some curious inquiries and questions about the theory of a Firmement. Hopefully this can also drive some spirated debate.

• Is the belief of a Firmement a mainstream belief within TFES, a kind of 50/50 split belief within TFES, or a fringe belief within TFES? I have come across comments from some FE believers that are skeptical on the notion of a  firmement so was just curious.

• For those TFES members that do subscribe to the belief in a Firmament, what are the specifics behind its composition, material properties, and thickness. I have seen one FE'er describe the material as a glass dome, but not sure if that's the generally accepted belief.

• How thick would such a Firmamemt need to be?

• Or, is the material of some type of exotic material that man has yet to discover? It would have to withstand the harsh elements of the atmosphere while staying crystal clear all the time. If it was glass, it would be very heavy.

• How is the firmament dome connected to the flat Earth plane? Also, does the Firmament continue to the back side of the Flat Earth?

• Have Firmaments been observed on other celestial bodies?

Thank you.

125

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why? To What End???

« on: October 01, 2020, 09:06:04 AM »

@GoldCashew

"Regarding your statement that belief of any kind is completely unwelcome in knowledge/fact, especially scientific... would this apply to someone whom believes in a space travel conspiracy? This would also be faith and not knowledge/science, correct?"

That is a good, and tricky question.  The recognition of the space travel conspiracy (hoaxing of "space" writ large) is evidence based, but still somewhat interpretive. It may be arguable that based on the available evidence that it is still more of a speculation than a "fact" - however with no positive evidence / proof of the possible existence of such a place as "space" (a violation of many natural laws) or space travel I would be equally justified in making the identical argument.

The presumptive, and mandated, perspective that space and space travel are real do not have adequate evidence that is even as compelling as the fraudulent footage that can trivially demonstrate the hoax. Factor in the scientific evidence that "space" cannot exist in the reality we have studied without violating many natural laws and I'd say the certainty on this "proto-fact" is very high.

Aren't you're statements that the recognition of the space travel conspiracy is evidence based, that space travel do not have adequate evidence, and that as per one of your previous posts astronsuts are actors... examples of confirmation bias or being biased towards a direction that supports a specific belief, i.e. flat earth?

If, as you say, belief of any kind is unwelcome, than what direct scientific evidence do you have that all of the supposed pictures taken from space by astronauts or satellites are fake, what exactly do you make of the ISS orbiting Earth that can be seen with telescopes, what do you make of 20+ minutes of weightlessness videos aboard the ISS without cutaway shots, what do you make of the over 130 Space Shuttle launches, what do you make of the regularly launched SpaceX rockets to space to launch satellites, etc?  If your answer is something like go look at these youtube videos or those pictures are obviously fake... than that's not really direct evidence. It would seem more like a set of your own opinions (to support a belief and the belief in a conspiracy) vs. direct knowledge or fact.

So, I am just trying to challenge you that if belief of any kind is unwelcome, than that would mean your belief that space travel is a conspiracy and your belief that round earth is a conspiracy (without any direct scientific evidence) is unwelcome.

Are these things "tricky questions", as you say above, because believing in a set of (conspiracy) beliefs is in direct contradiction to your statement that believing without any direct scientific evidence is unwelcome?

126

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why? To What End???

« on: September 27, 2020, 07:28:43 AM »

Tom and the lads nailed it in the faq/wiki, you should really give it a read. https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy

Also thinking that brothel pimping "slick willy" car salesman on his way to pedophile island was the most powerful person in the world is profoundly naive. Modern american presidents are profoundly poor compared to the owners, whom they can see some of - having reached closer proximity to the glass ceiling.  That's why the clinton foundation commits so many crimes, and obama does so many advertisements/tv spots - they need money.  If you think that is power, that makes me sad.

Also, I feel compelled to clarify - belief of any kind is completely unwelcome in knowledge/fact, especially scientific.  If you BELIEVE the earth is any particular shape then you have faith, not knowledge/science.

Hi,

Regarding your statement that belief of any kind is completely unwelcome in knowledge/fact, especially scientific... would this apply to someone whom believes in a space travel conspiracy? This would also be faith and not knowledge/science, correct?

Thanks.

127

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: NASA claims Flat and Fake Apollo Missions

« on: September 11, 2020, 01:53:39 AM »

Now Miss Cyndi explains to us that in a conversation with a VERY SMART engineer who worked in the secretive skunk works division, on the Nighthawk F117, he told her the Earth was FLAT. She mentions she worked a black project so maybe they were lunch buddies or beer drinkers?

So for peeps to say she brought nothing burger, they are not using a noggin as usual.

What do you make of the many youtube videos that exist where people (i.e. Astronauts) confess that the Earth is round because they have been to space and/or the moon and are thus able to confirm as round? To copy what you said in your first post.... He he we know the truth.

How do you discern whom to believe without applying any confirmation bias?

128

Flat Earth Theory / Sunday, August 2: flat Earth opportunity to test the space travel conspiracy

« on: July 29, 2020, 08:53:40 PM »

Hi,

This Sunday, Astronauts Bob and Doug are scheduled to return to our globe Earth from space travel on the ISS, thus ending the Demo 2 phase from NASA and Space X.

Was wondering if there are any planned observational / telemetry type experiments from TFES / FE'ers whom believe that space travel is a conspiracy, in order to stress test this belief which is on the WIKI.

For example, Bob and Doug are to enter the Earth's atmosphere at over 15,000 miles per hour, which is over 20 times mach speed. If space travel is a hoax, then what hypothesis and theories could explain a man made capsule being able to appear in the sky and travelling at over 20 times mach speed?

Also, if Bob and Doug never went to space, where would they have been over the past few months, if not on our Earth? Would they have been kept in some type of secret location on the ground, secretly launched in a capsule on Sunday and then performed the hoax of re-entry?

Also, are there any Flat Earthers that are body language experts that plan to watch Bob and Doug's post entry press interview to see if they are lying?

Thanks.

129

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How does FET explain comets?

« on: July 23, 2020, 07:29:48 PM »

Haley's Comet appears every 76 years or so.

So, with FE theory, what or where is the comet hanging around and doing for those 75 years that it doesn't traverse our sky? Is it circling the back side of the flat Earth disk and then for some reason after 76 years it reappears again to where we can see it above our flat disk side? How does FE explain this behavior whereas with RE it is simply due to Haley's Comet orbiting trajectory around our Solar System.

130

Flat Earth Theory / The Infinite FE plane model and EA

« on: June 20, 2020, 09:19:44 PM »

I understand that there are alternate models of the FE plane, one of them being that the FE is infinite or perhaps extends to another series of outer Antarctic ice walls.

In an infinite FE plane model or one that reflects multiple outer Antarctic ring layers, as sunrays from our Sun likely would not be able to reach these outer areas do to the theory of EA light bending, do FE'ers believe these areas to be without life and perhaps a temperature gradient as cold as space. For these areas that would have never seen sunlight due to EA light bending, would these be uninhabitable dead zones? Are there FE images or models of what this might look like?

Also, would the moon also not be visible from these outermost areas due to the EA theory of bendy light?

Thanks.

131

Flat Earth Community / Re: If you could who would it be.

« on: June 17, 2020, 10:42:41 PM »

I would send up the crazy Flat Earther (shown on youtube) that had the meltdown at Starbucks with a supposed NASA employee and got kicked out.

If Mad Mike were still alive, I would also send him up. He gave it a go with his steam-powered rocket and had more balls than anyone; to do what he did. Yes, call him crazy but he had passion and conviction.

132

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Does the Sun Speed Up in Winter?

« on: June 16, 2020, 12:22:43 AM »

Hi everyone!
I've not been here in a long time, but I had a thought recently, and I'd never heard it discussed before, and a quick search didn't bring it up either. I wondered whether anybody here has anything to input.

I'll state up front that I believe the Earth to be a globe. But I'm here in good faith, in the spirit of robust discussion that lots of people here value.

So let's start with the premise that the Earth is flat. The sun, a few thousand miles above the surface, moves in good approximations of circles centred around the north pole. They aren't perfect circles but more like a spiral, with the sun moving closer to the north pole in summer and closer to the outer edge in winter (I live in the northern hemisphere so I when I say summer and winter I mean northern hemisphere summer and winter. I also don't know what other terminology to use than "hemisphere".)

Now, whether it's summer or winter, a full day and night cycle still lasts for 24 hours. But because the sun during winter travels over a much longer distance in the same period of time than it does during summer, it must be travelling much faster. But we don't see this happening, down here on the surface.
If, from a given northern latitude, you observe the sun move across the sky during northern solstice, and then observe it again from the equal southern latitude during southern solstice, the sun will appear to be moving across the sky at the same speed, though on a flat Earth we would expect it to be moving 1.7 times faster*, which would be quite noticeable with even casual observations.

So, what gives? Does anyone know of any FE models that can account for this? Has this topic been covered before? Apologies if so.

Thanks, all!
Best wishes
Don

*at least, given the measurements I got off Google Earth: 7400km straight down a meridian from the north pole to the Tropic of Cancer, giving a circumference for the Tropic of Cancer of 46,500km (all measurements rounded to the nearest hundred), then another 12,600km straight down a meridian from tropic to tropic, giving a circumference of 79,200 for the Tropic of Capricorn, roughly 1.7 times as long.

There is a gentleman on youtube that goes by "Professor Dave Explains" whom often has videos to debunk the flat Earth belief.

He kind of comes across as snarky and so it can be annoying, but if you strip that away, his questions and challenges to FE community are solid.

He did also point out that the Sun would have to speed up (or slow down) at different seasons in the flat Earth model, to maintain the 24 hours per day.

133

Flat Earth Community / Re: Did Rowbotham use Conspiracy Theories?

« on: June 05, 2020, 09:52:55 PM »

Whilst it's certainly true that governments lie, it's not true that everything they say is a lie and I don't think you believe it is.
You selectively choose to disbelieve NASA because it suits your wider world view.

I think that you and many other RE here would be the people in the second panel of the illustration I posted with their hands down.

So it is actually you, who selectively chooses to believe NASA, because your love for space fancy overrides its source. The blind belief in NASA appears to be more based on emotions and love of space and sci-fi than anything. Any other branch of the federal government or military is more readily distrusted in what they are doing or claiming to be capable of.

Your distrust that extends to anything government related, like NASA, is predictable and a common reason why Flat Earthers fall into the rabbit hole of believing that NASA lies and that there is a space travel conspiracy. Flat Earthers will say that RE'ers have been indoctrinated to believe the earth as round; coincidentally, FE'ers are equally indoctrinated with the whole space travel conspiracy claim.

While FE theory prides itself on getting to a position of "knowing" from observation and experimentaion, the space travel conspiracy is a claim that is not predicated on any direct observation, testing, or proof to get to a position of knowing.

The beauty and elegance of a conspiracy theory is that one can make a set of ridiculous assertions and claims without ever having to make an effort to try and prove.

When independent firms like Elon Musks's SpaceX launch crew into space, one can sense a kind of jealousy or dispise from FE community, because so much excitement and news goes against what FE'ers wish would go away. Elon Musk is perhaps eccentric and confident in his assertions and opinions, but he is an innovator, a visionary, a game changer, and very successful at that.

134

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Occams razor according to Flat Earth

« on: June 04, 2020, 11:56:24 PM »

When I look out of my window and observe a vast expanse of land or ocean waters, it looks like its continuously flat. That would be the simplest explanation.

Great. I am glad that we agree that FE is the simplest explanation to this.

You didn't include the rest of my quote. You snipped only the first half but omitted the second half, which was the point I was trying to make.

135

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Occams razor according to Flat Earth

« on: June 04, 2020, 10:46:51 PM »

How is seeing a flat earth not the simplest explanation for its flatness?

Your response of "could be an illusion...." says nothing about what is and is not the simplest explanation. In fact, you are adding more complexities to justify your position.

When you see the color brown, the simplest explanation might be that you are looking at one monochromatic color; brown. But. Brown is actually a combination of colors which you don't see (yellow, red, black).

When you look at a straight piece of oak wood, it looks like a flat straight piece of oak. But, when looking at the surface with magnification, you see all kinds of pores on the wood that you otherwise cannot observe with your naked eye.

Humans don't generally have the capacity to hear the high pitched sound of a dog whistle. The simplest explanation would be that because we don't hear it, that it must not exist. However, we know this is not the case.

When I look out of my window and observe a vast expanse of land or ocean waters, it looks like its continuously flat. That would be the simplest explanation. But, it isn't; the shape of the Earth is a round globe; observers such as astronauts have seen curvature from space, with some from the Apollo missions having taken pictures of the entire globe Earth.

136

Flat Earth Community / Re: Did Rowbotham use Conspiracy Theories?

« on: June 01, 2020, 11:07:34 PM »

ENAG was written back in the mid-19th century.  Conspiracy theories are more of a 20th century thing. Especially since the 1950s when the space race started to gather pace.  Space travel is not exactly compatible with flat Earth beliefs so it is not surprising that flat Earth believers regard anything related to space travel as some sort of conspiracy against them. And that of course includes the many, many, many photos of the Earth taken from space and from a wide variety of sources which show that it is unquestionably very round.

Rowbothams book on the other hand is simply the product of someone who had a rather vivid imagination and very fixed ideas about the shape of the Earth. Flat Earthers like it because it falls in line with their beliefs. The descriptions of his 'experiments' are very detailed and suggest he was actually quite a competent observer. Unfortunately his figures don't add up because they were made using his false belief that the Earth is flat. 

You might now interpret Rowbotham as a kind of conspiracy theorist of his time in that he probably wanted to try and make everyone else believe what he believed. I don't think the word conspiracy was at the forefront of his mind when he wrote the book though.

It had been established that the Earth is round long before Rowbothams time but there will always be a small faction of people who decide not to accept that view. Those people have their own reasons and motivations for taking that different view. Usually the motivation has a political, anti-authoritarian or religious origin and this is the basis of modern conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theories are also born out of aspects of life where is it difficult to prove the truth one way or another.  That was certainly true of flat Earth until the space age when images of the Earth from space became common. Any real evidence which becomes available and which directly shows that a conspiracy theory is wrong will be treated with a predictable level of scepticism by those who support the conspiracy theory. One thing which you will absolutely never experience is a conspiracy theorist openly admit they are wrong.  It is actually pretty hard to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Earth is round simply from direct observation at ground level.  And that of course is what keeps the flat Earth conspiracy going. The best evidence that shows the earth is round is not at ground level but rather up in the sky. Conspiracy theories such as flat Earth is actually a good thing I think because to make an effective counter argument you have to make sure you have absolutely got your facts right. And that can involve a little bit of research if your knowledge is not 100% up to date.

Usually you will find that flat Earth believers are also in denial about the Moon landings as well plus various other related conspiracies. Anything that seems too give the rest of us the impression that they know or think they know something that everyone else doesn't.

I think the reasons why some folks also fall into conspiracy theory rabbit holes, like Flat Earth theory, is that it offers them a kind of therapy. Therapy in that it maybe gives them purpose, meaning, and belonging. I believe that some of the FE's on this site deep down don't really believe the Earth is flat but feel purpose and meaning in being part of a unique group think. Perhaps they like being part of a small knit group community that is an underdog. Or perhaps they feel empowerment by the attention that comes with believing in something so non-mainstream. Mark Sargeant is someone whom I think falls into this category. Per Behind the Curve, you can almost tell he's just looking for conspiracy(s) to believe in. Perhaps Rowbotham fell into the same category.

There are also those whom have been impacted by significant life events. And so grabbing onto a conspiracy theory or a non-mainstream belief like Flat Earth serves as a kind of outlet or a way to deal with things.

Anyways, looking forwards to receiving the book and reading it.

137

Science & Alternative Science / Re: I work at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Ask me anything

« on: June 01, 2020, 01:56:31 PM »

Thank you for your thoughts and feedback.

Some final questions:

1) How do Physicists / Astro-Physicists measure the distance of the Earth to the Moon and the Earth to the Sun?

2) And how are the diameters of each body measured? I believe the Moon is about 239k miles away, while the Sun is 94 million miles away.

3) And, to what degree of accuracy are these distance and diameter measurements?

4) With Flat Earth theory, the Moon and Sun are described as being only a few thousand miles away from Earth, with each body being only 30 or so miles in diameter and moving in a circle above the Flat Earth. What additional evidence, other than measurements, might make these FE suggestions not accurate or not correct / or perhaps correct and accurate?

Thank you.

• We usually have it as readily made constants, but it's the same way we measure the distance to any other celestial object - by parallax. When observed from two different angles, objects that are closer to you shift faster than objects farther from you. You can draw two similar isosceles triangles this way, each of which shares a point. So, by observing something like a solar eclipse at two different points, and knowing the distance between those points, as well as the radius of the Earth, you'd be able to tell how far you were from the body, as well as the diameter of the body. The Apollo missions also put reflectors on the Moon that we shine lasers on to measure the distance.
• See above for close-by bodies. For other stars, we can measure the diameters through interferometry, since the light coming from that star comes in at different points in its wave function, we can find the diameter by looking at the interference pattern.
• Since I'm not an astronomer, I won't be able to say for certain. However, for the Moon at least, given how accurate lasers and clocks are today, I'd estimate we'd have at least centimeter accuracy for the distance to the Moon.
• I'd like to hear how nuclear fusion can occur in a star that small, and how it all stays together, for one. Almost all stars are at least the size of Jupiter, not including neutron stars. I'd also like to know how exactly half the Earth could be illuminated when light (and all electromagnetic radiation) radiates out in sphere. I'm also not sure what forces are acting on them to move in this manner, since if they're rotating around the center of Flat Earth you'd also need a radial acceleration.

Thanks and appreciate your thoughts and reply's.

138

Science & Alternative Science / Re: I work at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Ask me anything

« on: June 01, 2020, 02:03:50 AM »

Thank you for your thoughts and feedback.

Some final questions:

1) How do Physicists / Astro-Physicists measure the distance of the Earth to the Moon and the Earth to the Sun?

2) And how are the diameters of each body measured? I believe the Moon is about 239k miles away, while the Sun is 94 million miles away.

3) And, to what degree of accuracy are these distance and diameter measurements?

4) With Flat Earth theory, the Moon and Sun are described as being only a few thousand miles away from Earth, with each body being only 30 or so miles in diameter and moving in a circle above the Flat Earth. What additional evidence, other than measurements, might make these FE suggestions not accurate or not correct / or perhaps correct and accurate?

Thank you.

139

Science & Alternative Science / Re: I work at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Ask me anything

« on: May 31, 2020, 11:56:54 PM »

As per the title, I'm an employee of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, where I work on the Mars 2020 rover. I'm required to add that anything I say does not necessarily reflect the views of NASA or JPL, and are fully my own.

That said, I'm not a believer in flat earth, but I'm trying to understand what your arguments are. As my expertise is in space systems, I'll be able to expound on any physics or astronomy-based arguments for a flat earth. Would anyone here be willing to share some of their explanations or theories regarding a flat earth?

Hi. I am a Round Earther with some quick inquiries.

If you click on the "Wiki" link in this site, followed by the sub-link called "General Physics" and then finally the next sub-link towards the bottom called "Sunrise and Sunset", Flat Earth theory attempts to explain using a theory called EA (Electromagnetic Acceleration).

There has been a lot of spirated debate and push-back from Round Earthers (including myself) about the plausibility of EA and so would be interesting to get a Physicists / Astro-Physicists take on this overall theory, which talks about light bending.

I am a Mechanical Engineer by trade but not as astute on the finer points of Astro-Physics.

Thank you.

140

Technology & Information / Re: T minus 5 minutes to launch

« on: May 31, 2020, 04:06:42 PM »

There is also an 18 - 20 minute continuous feed shot of ISS Commander Chris Cassidy doing the docking procedures. The shot shows his weightlessness throughout the entire 18-20 minutes as he does various body spinning, body superman, body tumbling procedures as he maneuver's to do various tasks. Either he is in space and we are seeing weightlessness or he is riding one heck of a vomit comet for a constant 20 minute period which wouldn't be able to produce weightlessness for such long periods.

Also watching continuous long feeds of astronauts Bob and Doug doing procedures, with weightlessness.

They are about to open the hatch.