1
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Line
« on: April 02, 2021, 07:03:36 PM »
This is going to be the greatest global reveal of FE. Thank you MBS.
Do you think anyone will pay attention?
Do you think anyone will pay attention?
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
As to repeating a discussion that has already been had, surley this is the point?No. If your question is one covered by the FAQ, then what you should do is read the FAQ. Otherwise, people searching for the answer may not be able to find the needle in the haystack of repeated questions.Isn't it possible to revive some old discussions with new ideas?If you have new ideas, by all means, post them. Your question was not one of those.
Interesting, so I recently joined both, not sure which one I should be on. How would you describe the views as diverging?I'm afraid I can't answer these questions fairly. Two major points of contention that immediately come to mind are gravity (upward-accelerating Earth vs "objects simply fall, it is their natural property"), and whether or not there is an end to the Earth ("unknown" vs. "no, it goes on forever").
That quote has everything to do with it. Since you can't prove that NASA is exploring the solar system it's basically a trust issue.
Ron Paul's argument is that the government is already a disreputable conspiracy which lies through its teeth. We could characterize RE space travel as a claim based on the words of liars who work against the people's interests. RE is massively based on accepting the words of known liars as fact and accepting authority.
That's great and all, but has nothing to do with what I'm saying. All I'm saying is that FE is heavily dependent on a Space Conspiracy. FE, conspiracy exists = Dismiss all evidence from space travel/exploration. FE, if conspiracy does not exist, all evidence from space travel/exploration definitively shows a Globe earth.
No where have I said the space conspiracy exists or not. Bottomline, you, FE, absolutely can't trust NASA or any of the space agencies/companies around the world right out of the gate. And absolutely have to have the Space Conspiracy. I don't know how many other ways of stating it.
I guess a question would be, contrary to my thinking, do you think FE can not believe in a Space Conspiracy?
Nope. It's a terminology issue. What you call belief in a conspiracy I call a skepticism of the words of liars.
A belief in a "conspiracy" and "conspiracy theorist" implies that the government is otherwise good and honest, except for a wayward theory that they are lying about something.
If the government is a group of liars who are prolifically dishonest, then the matter more of basic skepticism against those who lie to us. We don't call the Jews who distrusted Nazi Germany "conspiracy theorists" because we know that Nazi Germany lied a lot and did a lot of bad things against their people's interests.
Who calls the Jews who distrusted Nazi Germany conspiracy theorists? No one.
So, you are stuck with proving that the government should be trusted by default if you want to prove your perception of the matter.
I have no idea what you are talking about. I guess maybe you should change the wiki from "There is a Space Travel Conspiracy" to something like, There is Space Travel skepticism if you're hung up on me using the terminology that you yourself use.
I'm not even remotely arguing whether there is a space conspiracy or not. I'm simply asking you the question, do you think FE can not believe in a Space Conspiracy?
QuoteWell that's great. But when you're confronted with a massive problem with one model and a completely coherent other model, wouldn't a good scientist conclude that maybe the coherent one was the more credible?
Not if you observed massive problems with the first model. RET has so many other observal problems that simply outweigh the supposed problem of the coriolis effect if FET.
What are the massive problems with RET?
Well that's great. But when you're confronted with a massive problem with one model and a completely coherent other model, wouldn't a good scientist conclude that maybe the coherent one was the more credible?
Well...ok. So historic data shows you that the wind blows anti clockwise around low pressure systems in the northern hemisphere, and clockwise in the Southern Hemisphere. Which is exactly what you’d expect if the earth was round and rotating. And all you have to offer is some vague statement about the sun, with no explanation of the exact mechanism at work, or why the direction reverses at the equator. Aren’t you just a tiny bit doubtful? Doesn’t looking at the animated synoptic chart, with all the wind arrows dutifully following the weather systems exactly as Buys Ballot predicts, make you a little bit curious as to whether your flat model might be a little off the mark?
As an aside, you seem to be using the end quote code in both your quote statements, which is why they aren’t working. Lose the / in the first one and you’ll be good to go.
Your claim of exaggerartion already takes the starting point of GE being "correct". This is the fundamental problem underlying much of the FE/GE debates. GE take the assumption that their model is correct and use unobserved data to back their argument. FE start from bottom up, they observe, measure, and then draw conclusions. Instead of saying the land massess in the FE model are exaggerated, why not say that land massess in the GE model are understated?
Because the land masses have been surveyed countless times, and their sizes have been known for a long time. The area of Australia according to RET is 7,656,127 square kilometers. Does FET have a counter offer? When I drove from Perth to Darwin, and Cairns to Melbourne, all advertised distances were spot on.
Regardless of your view on the shape of the earth, any study of isobars and wind reveals a clear relationship, and this relationship reverses at the equator - so something is clearly going on at the equator. What then, on a flat earth, is the significance of the equator, and why do weather systems rotate in opposite directions on different sides of it?