The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: MeGusta on February 28, 2018, 09:11:58 AM
-
Why is the southern jet stream so similar to the northern one, speed and shapes?
There are many space agencies in the world. Do they all lie?
Why does Antarctica get twenty-four hours of sunlight during December if the earth is flat?
If the earth is flat then why would the Australians and South Africans get an entirely different set of stars in their night sky like they do in a round Earth, and which can be demonstrated to be the case simply by flying there? Looking at the model of the world which you folks present would indicate that every star in the night sky would be in line of sight to nearly everyone on Earth, no matter where they stand.
-
Why is the southern jet stream so similar to the northern one, speed and shapes?
There are many space agencies in the world. Do they all lie?
Why does Antarctica get twenty-four hours of sunlight during December if the earth is flat?
If the earth is flat then why would the Australians and South Africans get an entirely different set of stars in their night sky like they do in a round Earth, and which can be demonstrated to be the case simply by flying there? Looking at the model of the world which you folks present would indicate that every star in the night sky would be in line of sight to nearly everyone on Earth, no matter where they stand.
There are a range of possible answers, but they fundamentally resolve to "the Flat Earth works exactly as if the Earth were a globe, according to principles we don't yet understand." Sun stays the same size and moves below the horizon? Illusion. Satellites visible with the naked eye? Fakes.
The principle of the flat Earth is that it's to be considered a fact, and that all the phenomena which seem to disprove it can all be explained by otherwise unknown laws of nature that are conjectured just in order to shoehorn the facts into the theory.
-
Okay, I can tell that you are a flatearther...
So basically MeGusta asked a bunch of really good questions and your answer was basically just: "it can all be explained by otherwise unknown laws of nature." Well how to you believe it if all the evidence is 'unknown'. There IS evidence, but you say 'it can be explained by unknown laws', but if it is unknown, then how do you know they even exist. From what I've seen about this whole thing, it's all just a bunch of unknowns hiding behind petty arguments that hase no evidence supporting it.
Secondly, you said this is a theory. Well, a theory is defined as "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world,"
Key words there: WELL-SUBSTANTIATED.
In my opinion, 'unknown laws' can not support a theory, an idea, or even if this whole thing was just a joke, it's a VERY badly supported one. At least TRY to support it instead of blatantly saying it is unknown.
PLEASE do something better with your time, like even just sitting on the sidewalk would be a better than this, because sidewalks are ACTUALLY exist.
-
Okay, I can tell that you are a flatearther...
So basically MeGusta asked a bunch of really good questions and your answer was basically just: "it can all be explained by otherwise unknown laws of nature." Well how to you believe it if all the evidence is 'unknown'. There IS evidence, but you say 'it can be explained by unknown laws', but if it is unknown, then how do you know they even exist. From what I've seen about this whole thing, it's all just a bunch of unknowns hiding behind petty arguments that hase no evidence supporting it.
Secondly, you said this is a theory. Well, a theory is defined as "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world,"
Key words there: WELL-SUBSTANTIATED.
In my opinion, 'unknown laws' can not support a theory, an idea, or even if this whole thing was just a joke, it's a VERY badly supported one. At least TRY to support it instead of blatantly saying it is unknown.
PLEASE do something better with your time, like even just sitting on the sidewalk would be a better than this, because sidewalks are ACTUALLY exist.
Westprog is definitely not a flat earthier..........
He was (i guess) using a healthy dose of sarcasm, along with explaining what the FEers will no doubt say.
The wiki tries (miserably) to explain most of the questions answered, but fails to completely answer them.
Most of the unanswered questions are answered by “not enough is known to give an answer at this time”or “unexplained”
Stick around, and you will hear those experessions often.....
-
And how can there be timezones, and one side of the world being day and the other night? On a flat earth that would be impossible.
-
The principle of the flat Earth is that it's to be considered a fact, and that all the phenomena which seem to disprove it can all be explained by otherwise unknown laws of nature that are conjectured just in order to shoehorn the facts into the theory.
I remember reading something about how before the heliocentric model was finally accepted there were many attempts to make a geocentric model work and match observations of the planets but none were found to work. This feels similar.
Clearly sunset can't happen on a flat earth, you'd have a clear line of sight to the sun at all times from many places. So they make up a new model of perspective which doesn't actually match observations but fixes the problem.
But then you have the problem of if the sun is getting further away then clearly it should get smaller, but it doesn't. So then they make up atmospheric magnification which just happens to exactly magnify the sun the right amount as it gets smaller to keep it looking the same size. How convenient.
Gravity can't exist in the way it does in reality so UA is made up to account for that.
Eclipses can't happen in the way we understand them to so of course there's a "shadow object" which has never been observed but must be there to explain it.
And so on, there are a load of other examples.
It's sticking plaster upon sticking plaster to try and make a coherent model which sort of explains things.
And everything else like GPS and space travel and satellite TV - well, that's all faked somehow.
This is feeling more like a religion than a serious society. The flat earth is the undeniable truth, everything else has to be twisted around that.
-
Guys! Have you ever been in a plane? You can clearly see the curvature of the earth. Unless you guys change your hypothesis by saying that its a" 'flat curved earth', then your whole argument is completely disproved.
Just. Please. Go. Into. A. Plane. And. Look. Out. The. Window. And. See. Your. Argument. Falling. Apart. At. The. Seams.
Next..why hasn't anyone just walked to the edge of the earth? Why aren't there any pictures? Of course your going to say: the government stopped it! But what are they trying to hide?! Answer: Nothing other than Antarctica.
Also, during the Cold War, the USSR and the USA were trying to see who could get to the moon and back. It was the great space race. But how can there we a race in space with out space existing? Those two countries were enemies. If the USSR wanted to shame the US government in front of it's people, the could have easily gone to the 'edge of the world' and taken a quick little photo and disproved the US's feats in space. Boom. The whole US government would be called a fake.
So why didn't they? Here's an answer: because space exists and a flat earth doesn't.
Also AllAroundTheWorld says that GPS's are fakes. Well I have one that was made in Africa. That little country could EASILY threaten the US government that it will reveal all of it's secrets about the flat earth (which doesn't exist by the way) and get a bunch of money. Why haven't they done it? Same reasons as the Russians: a round earth exists and a flat earth doesn't.
Please just common sense and realize that the earth isn't a disk floating around in - whatever you think it is 'floating around' in - and go get some REAL EVIDENCE!
-
MeGusta,
Why is the southern jet stream so similar to the northern one, speed and shapes?
How does this debunk a flat earth?
There are many space agencies in the world. Do they all lie?
Yes. Space agencies are used as a cover to embezzle tax money.
Why does Antarctica get twenty-four hours of sunlight during December if the earth is flat?
Can you verify this? Have you actually gone to Antarctica and observed this? Or are you simply accepting what is told to you?
If the earth is flat then why would the Australians and South Africans get an entirely different set of stars in their night sky like they do in a round Earth, and which can be demonstrated to be the case simply by flying there?
The "stars" are much closer to us. So, the distances that they can be seen is limited. If a plane flies above los Angeles, California, it won't be seen from Sacramento, California because of the plane's close proximity to the earth.
Looking at the model of the world which you folks present would indicate that every star in the night sky would be in line of sight to nearly everyone on Earth, no matter where they stand.
No. The stars aren't as far away from us as is claimed by round earthers.
-
Why does Antarctica get twenty-four hours of sunlight during December if the earth is flat?
Can you verify this? Have you actually gone to Antarctica and observed this? Or are you simply accepting what is told to you?
Can you verify that it hasn't happened? We have video of it occurring. Are you going to go to Antarctica to prove this is wrong or are you simply going to continue denying facts without any evidence?
-
MeGusta,
Why is the southern jet stream so similar to the northern one, speed and shapes?
How does this debunk a flat earth?
There are many space agencies in the world. Do they all lie?
Yes. Space agencies are used as a cover to embezzle tax money.
Why does Antarctica get twenty-four hours of sunlight during December if the earth is flat?
Can you verify this? Have you actually gone to Antarctica and observed this? Or are you simply accepting what is told to you?
If the earth is flat then why would the Australians and South Africans get an entirely different set of stars in their night sky like they do in a round Earth, and which can be demonstrated to be the case simply by flying there?
The "stars" are much closer to us. So, the distances that they can be seen is limited. If a plane flies above los Angeles, California, it won't be seen from Sacramento, California because of the plane's close proximity to the earth.
Looking at the model of the world which you folks present would indicate that every star in the night sky would be in line of sight to nearly everyone on Earth, no matter where they stand.
No. The stars aren't as far away from us as is claimed by round earthers.
Do you believe in electricity?
Do you actually think electrons exist?
Do you think you have a brain inside your head that conrols all your functions?
Do you belive your mobilephone works as youve been told?
You have never seen any of the above, so how do you know they exist?
That kind of readoning, youve never seen it so how do you know its real, is the kind of reasoning used by those stuck for anything else to say, its a clasic flat earth fall back. There are many things we accept based on 3rd hand authority, there are many things you accept on 3rd hand authority. The only difference is anything that may conflict with your beliefs, you then trot out that very lame argument. The funny thing is you claim to be a free thinker while use of that lame flat earth argument is proof you are not.
How do you know the distance to the stars? Have you measured it? If not then you cannot claim to know. In fact using your line of readoning you should s5op making cclaims @bout thongs you have no actual 1st h@nd knowledge or experience of.
Have you been to Antartica?
How do you know all the 30 plus space agencies are all involved in fraud?
How do you know the jet stream exists have you flown that high @nd experienced it?
-
MeGusta,
Why is the southern jet stream so similar to the northern one, speed and shapes?
How does this debunk a flat earth?
There are many space agencies in the world. Do they all lie?
Yes. Space agencies are used as a cover to embezzle tax money.
Why does Antarctica get twenty-four hours of sunlight during December if the earth is flat?
Can you verify this? Have you actually gone to Antarctica and observed this? Or are you simply accepting what is told to you?
This has been known since the time of James Cook. See my reply here:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9331.msg145880#msg145880
People were throwing around arguments about how Cook never saw the midnight sun, or how the Belgian expedition never saw the midnight sun, and I've found first-hand quotes from both of them that they did witness the midnight sun.
At this point it is you who needs to determine that they were mistaken or lying.
If the earth is flat then why would the Australians and South Africans get an entirely different set of stars in their night sky like they do in a round Earth, and which can be demonstrated to be the case simply by flying there?
The "stars" are much closer to us. So, the distances that they can be seen is limited. If a plane flies above los Angeles, California, it won't be seen from Sacramento, California because of the plane's close proximity to the earth.
So why do the same stars appear to all the people in the southern tips of South America and Africa, and in Australia? They are different stars than we see in the north, but they are the same across all the southern continents.
Looking at the model of the world which you folks present would indicate that every star in the night sky would be in line of sight to nearly everyone on Earth, no matter where they stand.
No. The stars aren't as far away from us as is claimed by round earthers.
Great! So how do the people in the south see identical stars to each other, just as the people in the north see (a different set) of identical stars across northern continents?
-
Also Pickel, how do you know space agencies just embezzle money, outside of space travel being impossble?
Can you provide an account of them doing so?
Can you link to someone who can?
It's almost like this impossibly convoluted network of conspiricy and secrets and fraud which would involve impossible costs in money* and human and animal life for nothing**, is far less plausible than just going to space.
*By the end of Apollo in 1972, the U.S. had spent about $25 billion on the program, Siddiqi said — well over $100 billion in today's dollars.
https://www.space.com/11336-space-race-united-states-soviets-spaceflight-50years.html (https://www.space.com/11336-space-race-united-states-soviets-spaceflight-50years.html)
**https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight-related_accidents_and_incidents (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight-related_accidents_and_incidents)
-
I don't care whose side you're on, but show respect. This is scientific discussion and debate, not petty name-calling.
-
Hey Flat Earthers,
I have seen zero evidence proving the existence of the flat earth. All you guys say to OUR evidence is that the government has lied about it. But do YOU have any evidence that they lied? I have only seen a argument, with no foundation. How can we disprove anything if there is nothing to disprove other than an idea that has 'unknown laws' (that little phrase is why I started this whole argument anyway).
The fact is that YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE. A scientific debate is one where "there is a major stack of evidence for each position"*. We (those against flat earth) have major stacks of evidence, while you guys have little to none.
GIVE ME SOMETHING EVEN SLIGHTLY PLAUSIBLE TO DISPROVE PLEASE.
* https://www.theguardian.com/science/lost-worlds/2012/dec/04/dinosaurs-fossils
-
MeGusta,
There are many space agencies in the world. Do they all lie?
Yes. Space agencies are used as a cover to embezzle tax money.
Do you have any proof of this?
The stars aren't as far away from us as is claimed by round earthers.
How far away do you claim they are, and what measurements have you made to support this?
-
I don't care whose side you're on, but show respect. This is scientific discussion and debate, not petty name-calling.
Science long since departed. If you only believe what you experience, even that falls down and we are left with Rene Descartes Evil Demon hypothesis or in more modern philosophy the simulation hypothesis (mentioned earlier by someone I believe). There really isnt anything solid to build on. Even the evil demon hypothesis that brought forth what was supposed to be the only thing that one can "guarantee" "I think therefore I am" collapses when one considers "who is the I, in "I think""
-
I know, but we still should try to be civilized.
-
I know, but we still should try to be civilized.
A civilization dwelling on a flat earth.......I like the idea of that...........someone should patent it.
-
Ha! Good one!
-
Guys! Have you ever been in a plane? You can clearly see the curvature of the earth. Unless you guys change your hypothesis by saying that its a" 'flat curved earth', then your whole argument is completely disproved.
Just. Please. Go. Into. A. Plane. And. Look. Out. The. Window. And. See. Your. Argument. Falling. Apart. At. The. Seams.
Next..why hasn't anyone just walked to the edge of the earth? Why aren't there any pictures? Of course your going to say: the government stopped it! But what are they trying to hide?! Answer: Nothing other than Antarctica.
Also, during the Cold War, the USSR and the USA were trying to see who could get to the moon and back. It was the great space race. But how can there we a race in space with out space existing? Those two countries were enemies. If the USSR wanted to shame the US government in front of it's people, the could have easily gone to the 'edge of the world' and taken a quick little photo and disproved the US's feats in space. Boom. The whole US government would be called a fake.
So why didn't they? Here's an answer: because space exists and a flat earth doesn't.
Also AllAroundTheWorld says that GPS's are fakes. Well I have one that was made in Africa. That little country could EASILY threaten the US government that it will reveal all of it's secrets about the flat earth (which doesn't exist by the way) and get a bunch of money. Why haven't they done it? Same reasons as the Russians: a round earth exists and a flat earth doesn't.
Please just common sense and realize that the earth isn't a disk floating around in - whatever you think it is 'floating around' in - and go get some REAL EVIDENCE!
I would point you to the fact that Nixon, on camera; "rang" the astronauts on the moon. And yet I can't get a signal in my shed? Yeah definetly makes sense... On a serious note though; what does makes sense is that is Government lied to us in one respect - then they would happily do it again in that same field. Shall I continue; oh sheeped one?
-
I would point you to the fact that Nixon, on camera; "rang" the astronauts on the moon. And yet I can't get a signal in my shed? Yeah definetly makes sense... On a serious note though; what does makes sense is that is Government lied to us in one respect - then they would happily do it again in that same field. Shall I continue; oh sheeped one?
Well yeah, but that's a poor example. The towers that give you your cell phone connection is an entirely different technology to what they used to talk to the astronauts. It was hardly even a phone call. More like a 2-way radio.
On July 20, 1969, President Nixon spoke with crew members Neil Armstrong and Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin via telephone-radio transmission.
https://www.archives.gov/presidential-libraries/events/centennials/nixon/exhibit/nixon-online-exhibit-calls.html (https://www.archives.gov/presidential-libraries/events/centennials/nixon/exhibit/nixon-online-exhibit-calls.html)
-
Hello Concerned Citizen, apparently we share the same views, the only difference is that I am the one concerned about you. Yes, it does make sense that the astronauts would get a better signal then you in your shed. First of all, the astronauts are closer to the satellites and satellites can pick up signals, so of course they will get a better signal than someone on earth who has obstructions slightly preventing that signal to reach them (Example: you in your shed). Another piece of evidence: Mt. Everest has 4G Wifi on top because of all the satellites that are closer to them then us closer to earth.
Also, tell me one thing: what does the government benefit from lying to us that the earth is actually on a little Frisbee floating through space?
My evidence from your quotes at the end of you statement, I can tell that you are a Christian. Try this verse and see if you still believe in a flat earth: Isaiah 40:22: “(God) sits above the circle of the earth.”
Time to make your choice Mr. Concerned Citizen, one religion of the other, flat earth or the bible.
And to answer your last line, I would like you to continue. It would humor me to continue tearing down your petty arguments of fantasy. And what's a sheeped one? Was that an attempt at a diss? If so, keep trying and maybe you'll make me laugh a little less than usual.
I'll waiting for a response...
-
Hello Concerned Citizen, apparently we share the same views, the only difference is that I am the one concerned about you. Yes, it does make sense that the astronauts would get a better signal then you in your shed. First of all, the astronauts are closer to the satellites and satellites can pick up signals, so of course they will get a better signal than someone on earth who has obstructions slightly preventing that signal to reach them (Example: you in your shed). Another piece of evidence: Mt. Everest has 4G Wifi on top because of all the satellites that are closer to them then us closer to earth.
Also, tell me one thing: what does the government benefit from lying to us that the earth is actually on a little Frisbee floating through space?
My evidence from your quotes at the end of you statement, I can tell that you are a Christian. Try this verse and see if you still believe in a flat earth: Isaiah 40:22: “(God) sits above the circle of the earth.”
Time to make your choice Mr. Concerned Citizen, one religion of the other, flat earth or the bible.
And to answer your last line, I would like you to continue. It would humor me to continue tearing down your petty arguments of fantasy. And what's a sheeped one? Was that an attempt at a diss? If so, keep trying and maybe you'll make me laugh a little less than usual.
I'll waiting for a response...
Now hold on just a minute. You need to make sure you understand things before you go throwing around statements that are completely wrong like this.
- First, a person on the moon is further away from any earth satellite than any person anywhere on earth, so the notion of astronauts being "closer" to satellites would be misplaced.
- Second, during the Apollo program, satellites were not used for communications between the earth and the astronauts. Ground stations around the world were used. Space-based communications (satellites) were not launched for NASA's use to communicate/track manned missions until 1983, a decade after the last moon landing.
- Finally, Wireless coverage at Mt. Everest comes from base stations on the ground, not satellites: http://www.businessinsider.com/4g-coverage-on-mount-everest-2013-7
Before ranting like this in the future, please do some quick googling and wikipedia perusing to make sure you have a basic understanding of the systems under discussion. Easy mistakes like this lead to flat earthers pointing out your shortcomings and then ignoring anything you might have to say that's correct, or ignoring other people in the thread who have the facts straight.
-
I would point you to the fact that Nixon, on camera; "rang" the astronauts on the moon. And yet I can't get a signal in my shed?
Invalid comparison. I presume you're talking about getting a mobile phone signal from your chosen network provider, in which case you're comparing a custom-designed, one-to-one communications link (Apollo), with a generic, multi-user, cell-based system.
The Apollo system used, by comparison, massive sending and receiving antennae on Earth. Big dishes, many metres across. You don't. Even the aerials used on the lunar module were far, far bigger than that in your phone.
-
Hello douglips,
Apparently my argument wasn't completely foolproof, but some of my more watchful friends, like the faithful Tumeni, can easily disprove your disagreement against my argument. Also, Wikipedia is an EXTREMELY unreliable source, so (much like you said about my argument) I can use your own quote against you: "Easy mistakes like this (for you, citing Wikipedia) lead to flat earthers (or Real Earthers, as I will now call it) pointing out your shortcomings and then ignoring anything you might have to say that's correct,"
So now that you have cited a COMPLETELY unreliable source, why should I trust the things you said earlier? How do I know that you didn't go to Wikipedia, type down the information you want to use, and then cite that.
This little discussion was a perfect example of the problem with this whole debate. It goes like this:
1. Someone asks a legitimate question to flat earthers.
2. A flat earther tries to answer this question, but has no evidence and a very weak answer
3. Someone disproves the flat earther completely and makes their own accurate argument
4. The flat eather disses the second person and then tries to disprove their argument, without providing any evidence
5. And the cycle goes on with evidence spewing out of the Real Earth side, and a drop or two coming out of the Flat Earth side
Why can't we have a judge and a jury to finally say once and for all who's right and who is horribly wrong? Can someone please organize this debate?
-
Hello douglips,
Apparently my argument wasn't completely foolproof, but some of my more watchful friends, like the faithful Tumeni, can easily disprove your disagreement against my argument. Also, Wikipedia is an EXTREMELY unreliable source, so (much like you said about my argument) I can use your own quote against you: "Easy mistakes like this (for you, citing Wikipedia) lead to flat earthers (or Real Earthers, as I will now call it) pointing out your shortcomings and then ignoring anything you might have to say that's correct,"
So now that you have cited a COMPLETELY unreliable source, why should I trust the things you said earlier? How do I know that you didn't go to Wikipedia, type down the information you want to use, and then cite that.
This little discussion was a perfect example of the problem with this whole debate. It goes like this:
1. Someone asks a legitimate question to flat earthers.
2. A flat earther tries to answer this question, but has no evidence and a very weak answer
3. Someone disproves the flat earther completely and makes their own accurate argument
4. The flat eather disses the second person and then tries to disprove their argument, without providing any evidence
5. And the cycle goes on with evidence spewing out of the Real Earth side, and a drop or two coming out of the Flat Earth side
Why can't we have a judge and a jury to finally say once and for all who's right and who is horribly wrong? Can someone please organize this debate?
If I had the power, I would do so. This forum is full of screaming children though, so it's a little hard to find anyone who actually makes sense. Really, it would have to be one of the admins for it to be a fair debate. But then the judge would have to be unbiased, and the jury, and everyone else other than the two people debating, because becoming biased leads to an unfair trail (Trust me, I know, my Grandpa went to jail for something he didn't do). The debate, inevitably would be impossible. It's hard to divide something so black and white without the proper knowledge.
-
Hello douglips,
Apparently my argument wasn't completely foolproof, but some of my more watchful friends, like the faithful Tumeni, can easily disprove your disagreement against my argument. Also, Wikipedia is an EXTREMELY unreliable source, so (much like you said about my argument) I can use your own quote against you: "Easy mistakes like this (for you, citing Wikipedia) lead to flat earthers (or Real Earthers, as I will now call it) pointing out your shortcomings and then ignoring anything you might have to say that's correct,"
I didn't cite wikipedia, nor did I say you should cite wikipedia. I said you should PERUSE it. The most useful feature of wikipedia is that it links you to more reputable sources.
Certainly, for someone claiming satellite communications for lunar astronauts, wikipedia will do you more good than harm.
So now that you have cited a COMPLETELY unreliable source, why should I trust the things you said earlier? How do I know that you didn't go to Wikipedia, type down the information you want to use, and then cite that.
This little discussion was a perfect example of the problem with this whole debate. It goes like this:
1. Someone asks a legitimate question to flat earthers.
2. A flat earther tries to answer this question, but has no evidence and a very weak answer
3. Someone disproves the flat earther completely and makes their own accurate argument
4. The flat eather disses the second person and then tries to disprove their argument, without providing any evidence
5. And the cycle goes on with evidence spewing out of the Real Earth side, and a drop or two coming out of the Flat Earth side
Why can't we have a judge and a jury to finally say once and for all who's right and who is horribly wrong? Can someone please organize this debate?
I hear you. I hope you'll realize that I was trying to be a small part of that jury by telling you to shape up your arguments.
Some of the discussions on here are quite enlightening, I have discovered many things I didn't know about from conversations on this board. I hope you will stick around and enjoy the discussions as well.
-
Thank you dounglips,
I hear your argument and, for one of the first times, agree with you. I will try to whip my arguments back into shape. While you may regret this in the future (because I might grow as a debater and shred some of your arguments), it is very nice of you to help me now.
It was nice debating with you and I hope to see your comments in later discussions.