9181

Earth Not a Globe Workshop / Re: School Outreach Project

« on: February 17, 2015, 07:19:36 PM »

I like this. Yaakov, I think they might bite. Teachers like to say that they're teaching their students to think critically. Even looking at it from an obstinate globularist's perspective, I think they'd love to teach a controversy like this one. Their students will be offended by the idea that the Earth is flat and will have to think critically and work together to 'disprove' the notion (presumably to their teacher's satisfaction, rather than to ours).

In fact, I've seen conspiracy theories in the past that this entire society is a clever ploy to get kids to think critically. It's not true, obviously, but I think it could have some merit.

All this being said, I'm not sure this is a thread which belongs in the workshop. Shouldn't this be in the ZC board? I could be completely wrong about this, I haven't even had internet access most of the time for the last few months, but I was of the impression that this board was for discussion of ENaG and nothing else.

My idea was to have kids write to us, which we would answer and use as content for the Earth Not a Globe book.

9182

Earth Not a Globe Workshop / Re: School Outreach Project

« on: February 13, 2015, 11:31:18 PM »

The intention was to get them to write in to us, but the PDF handout is a good idea. Maybe we can include some common exercises the teacher can go over to encourage critical thinking. Teachers like exercises. We can encourage teachers to split their students into small teams of Flat Earthers Vs. Round Earthers. The Flat Earthers have to come up with an argument in favor of a Flat Earth and the Round Earthers have to shoot it down, and vice versa. It will challenge students to research the matter and think for themselves.

9183

Earth Not a Globe Workshop / School Outreach Project

« on: February 11, 2015, 10:36:11 PM »

Occasionally teachers will use the Flat Earth Society to show an example of scientific fallacy, or the unprovability of theories, sometimes playing the part of a Flat Earther and challenging the class to prove him or her wrong.

What if we reached out to classrooms and offered to answer their questions directly? Children would write in and we would take the time to respond to then with detailed answers. It would really get them thinking of ways to beat us. The teacher can use it as an opportunity to have discussions about earth science, astronomy, the scientific method, historical figures, or simply a fun "write to the Flat Earth Society and ask them a question/prove them wrong" exercise. I'm sure at least one teacher out there would be interested in something like that. The answers we write can be put into the Earth Not a Globe book and an announcement can be made on the front page.

9184

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Flat earth messiah has appeared?

« on: February 09, 2015, 03:35:08 PM »

After looking again at Eric, Eric does seem to be the better researcher in terms of sheer material. Matthew Boylan seems to be the better interviewee.

We should attempt to court them both, The arguments they use are good, but can be refined. A few of the arguments Eric uses are things we've discussed before, are fallacious and don't work. Much of it is good, however. Some things were discussed that even I haven't seen. We can use more people like him.

9185

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Flat earth messiah has appeared?

« on: February 09, 2015, 07:33:54 AM »

Here's another good Matthew Boylan video:

9186

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Flat earth messiah has appeared?

« on: February 09, 2015, 01:11:41 AM »

Are you thinking of Eric Dupay or Matthew Boylan? Several of those interviews are of Matthew Boylan. I thought this was who you were talking about:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQt9vq3sdtQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBYNfkZyGFU&t=4m20s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nk-i1k-eRcE&t=31m30s

I couldn't find any interviews with Eric.

9187

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Flat earth messiah has appeared?

« on: February 09, 2015, 12:52:14 AM »

His Flat Earth and NASA stuff is pretty decent. I don't like his Reptilian references. He seems to be trying to mesh together different conspiracy theories to create a motive. I would like to speak to him and ask why he believes this. Perhaps he has not considered more coherent ideas like NASA is simply mistaken, and that the conspiracy is only to fake space travel, not the shape of the earth.

Nonetheless, he does seem to have a lot of energy. I wouldn't mind it if we were to officiate him into the society and allow him to represent the Flat Earth Society in interviews, even if we can't convince him to think twice about his reptilian stuff.

9188

Earth Not a Globe Workshop / Re: Lets agree on a chapter format

« on: February 09, 2015, 12:27:30 AM »

I don't see anything wrong with my infographic. I think the explanation in the image is very coherent.

If you don't want to contribute, then don't contribute. I just explained a convenient way for us to contribute to the book without sacrificing time. I'm not going to be dedicating any more time than I already do. The book will be completed over time. Once the forums reunify we will have a lot of people asking questions, presenting challenges, and give us more incentive to debate. When that happens we should ensure that the time we spend answering a question is not wasted or forgotten into the forum abyss by also putting that answer into the book.

9189

Earth Not a Globe Workshop / Re: Lets agree on a chapter format

« on: February 08, 2015, 11:54:03 PM »

How many hours have we spent answering questions? A whole lot more than 50 to 60 hours.

FE'ers are going to spend significant time here over the next year typing up answers to questions. The Flat Earther usually comes in and explains the current theory and then the RE'ers ask questions about it. That covers the "Theory" and "Q&A" sections. We take those posts and copy paste it into the book. A little extra effort will be needed to create the background section, but I believe it is necessary to create some context to things like who Pythagoras was, and what Galileo discovered.

A book can be compiled just going through the posts on the other site alone. We actually already have a lot of the content. We have thousands of posts to sort through.

What I would like to do is slightly alter my debating style so that I answer in the form of a paragraph or two which I intend to copy-paste into a book. That will kill two birds with one stone for me. I would be debating, which I would be doing anyway, and I will be contributing to the book. No extra time is invested.

9190

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Flat earth messiah has appeared?

« on: February 08, 2015, 11:25:08 PM »

He seems to be "sceptimatic" on the .org forum.

9191

Earth Not a Globe Workshop / Re: Lets agree on a chapter format

« on: February 08, 2015, 10:16:45 PM »

Theory: The next section in the chapter should deal with the current theory.

What if there are multiple competing theories?

Write about the theory you support and we can go through later and categorize the models in the Table of Contents appropriately.

9192

Flat Earth Community / Re: What is there under a flat earth

« on: February 08, 2015, 10:00:25 PM »

isn't very helpful.

What are you having trouble understanding? The infographic I posted of what is known about the earth's underside was more accurate of an answer than your comment about lakes of fire and Morlocks.

9193

Flat Earth Community / Re: What is there under a flat earth

« on: February 08, 2015, 09:30:18 PM »

Apparently my image did not attach properly. My apologies. I don't know too much about computers. Here is the picture which shows what is known about the underside of the earth:

9194

Earth Not a Globe Workshop / Lets agree on a chapter format

« on: February 08, 2015, 09:22:16 PM »

This is a repost from another thread, posted here for consideration. Ideally this book should be split into four volumes, each containing chapters within the subject-matter:

Volume I: Introduction

This section should be an introduction to FET, a history of RET, and discuss Zetetic vs. Theoretic

Volume II: Terra Firma

This volume and the chapters within it deals with phenomena within the atmosphere of the earth.

Volume III: The Cosmos

This volume and the chapter within it deals with phenomena outside the atmosphere of the earth.

Volume IV: The Conspiracy

This volume and the chapters within it deals specifically with the Conspiracy.

Each chapter within a volume should have the following sections:

Background: This section provides a background on the topic. It should be assumed that the reader knows nothing about earth science and needs to be brought up to speed on what the RET theory states before launching into FET.

Theory: The next section in the chapter should deal with the current theory.

Q&A: After the theory is explained in each chapter, questions and challenges should be asked (perhaps provided by RE'ers on this forum). Under the chapter for the sun, for example, once its place is described and defined in FET under the theory section we can list a series of italicized questions such as "Why doesn't the sun change size over the course of the day?" and "What causes its movement?" We can then list the questions in the glossary for people to reference.

Footnotes: A list of references for resources used in the chapter. They should be marked with superscript ^{1, 2, 3}, or otherwise in brackets [1] if superscript formatting is not available.

9195

Flat Earth Community / Re: What is there under a flat earth

« on: February 08, 2015, 05:12:04 PM »

Here is a picture for what is known about the underside of the earth:

9196

Flat Earth Community / Re: Does the FES offer a myth/religious perspective about how the world began?

« on: February 08, 2015, 02:39:20 AM »

Rowbotham does not base his belief on bible passages. The bible is only mentioned in the last chapter, more of a comment that any religious man should return to his roots because it is taught there too that the earth is flat.

9197

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Proposal to create the Earth Not a Globe Forum

« on: February 05, 2015, 05:17:43 AM »

Pizza was kind enough to create the forum for us. It is now open for posting.

9198

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Justify this

« on: January 30, 2015, 08:26:21 PM »

Well, it's theorized that the moon is the end result of a terrific impact during the earth's early history, so it's no wonder that moon rocks share many of the same characteristics of earth rocks.

Including petrified wood?

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/offbeat/2009-08-27-moon-rock-museum_N.htm

9199

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is a flat earth circular?

« on: January 27, 2015, 02:57:26 AM »

What are you talking about?  What surveyors?  This is a map projection.

If it were purely a map projection, it should look like the classic FE map with a circular Antarctica.

9200

Flat Earth Theory / Re: "The Round Earth Conspiracy"

« on: January 26, 2015, 04:00:14 AM »

So when they talk about elevation angles what do you think they are talking about?

You will need to quote something specific. I find very few references to elevations or angles in your links.

What is implied by sending a radio signal up in to the sky and receiving it again on the ground?

You tell me. The antennas which broadcast AM and Ham frequencies that can go over the horizon usually look like this:

Have you yet contacted the HAM radio operator on the other site for his Zetetic evidence? 

Why would I go to the other forum to have someone Google for things that don't exist when I have you right here on this forum to do that?

The point of my post was that there is quite clearly a mountain of refereeed scientific papers available at the click of a mouse that you have not gone through and not an allegation of the practice not matching the theory to be found... Except from you... And you have not researched the topic. You seem to think that because there is no evident paper with the abstract, "Using Super Precise Methods^TM, it can be shown that Radiowaves bounce off of the ionosphere because of the field created by free electrons." that none of these papers say anything substantial about the topics.

Your patronizing tone is completely undone by the fact that you are simply denying the hundreds of thousands of examples that completely agree with theory because it is inconvenient to your worldview but you will accept the shaky reasoning and lack of experimentation by Rowbotham because it is convenient to your world view. You who has cited links to travel advertising as scientific evidence. Epistemologically you are less sophisticated than most grade schoolers.

So shame away. It means nothing coming from you. You are just funny.

What hundreds of thousands of examples? You have not shown us one, nor have you explained why it favors your model.